It's a hard knock life for us.

I'm going to talk about the subject matter of this article[gasping in anger]. It's from a local magazine in Spokane, 'Fucking' Worshington. Hold on, I'm going to grab some more coffee before this shit....

Oh! Am I fucking pissed. I just shuddered in anger over how absolutely stupid these people are.

[Before I go on, I'm going to tell you(as seen on Dr. Phil yesterday afternoon): It's not being negative if it's reality.] I have to manually type this because my voice recognition software doesn't pick up all of my expletives.

"Establishment, Establishment, you always know what's best." - Stewie.

The woman leading this protest is whoring herself out there for a "Senior Project". What a crock of shit! LOL!!! And it's all for money! So I initially find it hard to find anything she has to say as being relevant, at all. That's not the only reason why. 

I also find it to be very... Well, basically, this chick, and these other morons aren't the same kind of people as you. You may crave their respect and commrodery but these are the same people who're going to slash YOUR budget as soon as their job calls for it. They're a completely different animal. You'd better realize that these are the exact same Hitler-Monsters that the show Undercover Boss looks to fire. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE ENEMY. 

She's doing this as a senior project, and rallied up all these students, and exclaimed she'd let it grow out of control - seeing as how there's no limit. "Well, man, it's about the Gov. not cutting all our.." All who's budget!? Mine? No. I could never afford to go to that school in the first place. Financial aid doesn't cover the entire tuition anyway. You mean, I'd have to get a job AND go to school!? OH, WEEE-UHT!

I've seen this shit going on, all over the news: 

"TUITION CO$TS RISING!!!" "WHAT ARE OUR CHILDREN GOING TO DO?" 

Well, here's the thing. 

First off: We've got to make some cuts, somewhere. And what do they always say? "OH, WELL, DON'T CUT EDUCATION!" How about cutting some of those avant-garde art programs? Or how about the music programs? All it's doing is preparing those students for a fun & exciting career in the fast-food industry. Then, they'll all be having kids, which according to recent projections, costs, on average, around $12,000 per year. And if you don't think that's relative, you're smoking something. How many artists or musicians do you know that live above the poverty level? What, like 3? And they also have a day-job? 

Anyway, my gripe's not with that but with these people having a problem with "the cuts". It's going to be taken from somewhere. AND THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, who, the other week when the whole collaborative union bargining bullshit was going on, were talking about budget cuts! So, they talk their shit, and they got what they wanted. And now they're not wanting to deal with the consequences... Because it happened to them. So, I guess school CAN teach you one thing. And it's the reality of it. I don't care about a bunch of rich kids(Oh, and they are. They just conceal it well.) bitching about tuition when I know people who can't even afford a community college. DOES ANYBODY SEE THIS???????

Furthermore, the reason everybody is going to college now is because they're not working. COLLEGE is their fallback plan. And the real truth to this all:

Sometimes college isn't the best solution.

If you're paying for school yourself or getting student loans, you should have a job. If you have outstanding student loans, you need to get those paid down. You should not get into college if you don't have a job. Absurd right? Wrong.

The amount of debt that someone accrues during their finishing of a degree is about the same they would make working as a waiter at a restaurant. Why does that matter? Because, say somebody went to school for their Bachlor's Degree. They entered the workforce for a year. And, during that year, found they weren't able to obtain the position that they intended to, so they settled for a job waiting tables. Then they decide to go back to school to get their Master's. And what's that going to cost for the degree alone, just for the additional time to get their Master's Degree? $120,000? And it's going to take what, three years to obtain it? Now in that three years they could have significantly reduced their debt-to-income ratio by paying down their student loans by making a substantial contribution to that - earning $20,000 per year, as a waiter. 

Instead they went back to school, without a job, and accrued an even higher amount of debt, only to find themselves unable to secure a position for what they had initially intended. Now the only thing that they can do is take that job as a waiter and pay down that student loan debt as much as possible. Would you like to know why? 

It's because student loans are the most important debt that you have. It's above any and all credit card debts, car payments, etc. The reason is, because they will get that money. They will take it out of your Social Security. They can garnish your checks, and they can take your house - and they will. So these loan companies are more than happy to do a payment deferment, because they WILL get their money. And they'll get interest in the meantime.

The summary is: Some people can't afford to go to college. And if they can't, they shouldn't.

So get a job you 30 year old @#%&*! babies! Contribute to something, other than yourself, for once. Oh, I'm sorry. I forget, the world revolves around you Sir(or Ma'am).

Other than that, the article was good - except the thing about legalizing drugs to save education. Absurdity at it's finest. Just because it's "cannabis" also known as pot, herb, slurbs, weed, etc., doesn't mean it should be legal. It's a drug. You smoke a bunch of weed, and drive around on the highways - see what happens to you. They're gonna use you for fertilizer to grow "herbs". And these dispenseries!? Wow, legal Marijuana huh? Do they have pharmacudical distribution licenses? My brother had to go to school for a couple years to be able to dispense medicine through a pharmacy. Why on EARTH wouldn't this be a controlled substance, such as the handling of narcotics? What the fuck gives anybody the right to have it "free-ranged"?

http://www.inlander.com/spokane/article-16596-hard-knocks.html

Katy Perry got kicked off Sesame Street for this video.

Katy Perry got kicked off Sesame Street for this video.

Katy Perry got kicked off Sesame Street for this video. Yes, Katy Perry has tits. So what? I guess those sex monsters running the show just couldn't contain themselves any longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHROHJlU_Ng

Inglourious Basterds(The Movie)

Wow, I don't know why I actually just looked at imdb, and searched google to find some underlying message about this movie that I seem to have missed. To think for one second that you(and about half of America) would have some profound insight into the ingeniousness of this film which distinguishes you from I, is completely absurd. My capabilities of understanding film are obviously that of a child. I in no way, shape, or form, shall be deemed a personal opinion for I have not come as far as you and the rest of the likers of this film in my own development. As far as categorization goes I'm that which descends from pure madness ceased to see the blindness of Lady Justice. Inconsequently, there is a place reserved in Hell for Steven Colbert, Darby Crash, people who make anime, and most certainly you! So to you and people like you Sir, I must undoubtedly stand firm on my beliefs, stick my tongue out... and blow - while firmly holding one thumb up and one thumb down as a beckon for the everlasting demise to which you most certainly will endure. I feel to leave this message without properly stating the pros and cons of this film in my opinion, would only exacerbate the sticky situation, or Mexican standoff(if you will), we have found ourselves in.

Inglourious Basterds

The title is a discussion in itself. The misspelling of the title is derived from Jean-Michel Basquiat - a Neo-expressionism artist and the American pronunciation of the word bastards. It was inspired by the 1978 film Inglorious Bastards.

On a cerebral level it is definitely amazing without a doubt. It is quite amazing to see how a director can actually get worse throughout his career - and continue to do so with financial success and critical praise. This is a typical Quentin Tarentino Film, which to me means that it is told in his style of storytelling aka mixed up chapters that assemble at the end like a puzzle. This style of storytelling is fine in itself, but puzzling, is the expended rate of which this director has come to rely upon it...it is at best, exhausting. If you are to use the very same format time and again, then you had better come up with something very original and exciting. Given, this is a point of view from the WWII era seldom seen in mainstream cinema for which kudos will not be given due to the fact of...well where do we start? According to wikipedia.org there are at least 707 films about WWII, and this list does not include documentaries or holocaust specific films. Among these films is Casablanca, Schindler's List, and the Pianist. But never before has it been told like this! A slogan that I've heard many times before. However, and I would be lying if I didn't say this, the film is entertaining. I can still appreciate his "chapters". Gone, is the fast-paced, self conflicting dialogue that Quentin Tarentino is known for. Gone are the conclusionary statements that offer profound insight to the internal conflict of characters.

The plot of this film tells the story of two plots: Lieutenant Aldo Raine, who leeds a group of Jewish-American soldiers in a plot to kill Nazi political leaders, and Emmanuelle Mimieux who escaped to Paris after her family's murder. It is in effect, entertaining to see how the lives of these characters intertwine and come together for resolution at the end of the film. The fictional story of The Basterds is told through an expended poor attempt of humor from the likes of no other than Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt is by far one of the best actors of our time. How can this be you ask? The ranking of actors does not lie solely upon technical ability or the portrayal of emotion but on the talent of entertaining([scoffing]a relatively new concept for mainstream America). Throughout all of Brad Pitt's film's I find myself thinking, "This is Brad Pitt", where as other popular actors of our generation, such as the young Jack Nicholson clone: Leonardo DiCaprio - are so involved in their roles, that one could almost believe they are actually watching a documentary, and the characters are in fact, real. This is not the case with Inglourious Basterds, nor was it mean't to be. The story contains many holes. The perspective of this film is an original concept to my immediate knowledge. There are of course historical inaccuracies, but who cares? You just paid your hard earned money to watch the new Quentin Tarentino Flick! 

The film is entertaining at best. The cinematography was superb. Nation's Pride(the film within the film) is reminiscent of 1930's Hell's Angels meets Saving Private Ryan and was directed by Eli Roth and is a testament to the quintessential emotional portrayal of actors - which I feel we have in a sense lost the dramatic feel of, due to the big Hollywood(or Bollywood) Blockbuster type films. I felt that the ending was good, giving me a sense of empowerment from modern-American Naziism. I also thought that the story could have been better given the past capabilities of the writer/director and circumstances. 

The bottom line? Any film lover owes it to them self to watch the new Quentin Tarentino Film. But given the theater rates these days? I'm glad I waited for it to come out on DVD. One thumb up and one thumb down, the latter signifying the place this film will rest in the annals of cinematic history.

Should you have to pass a drug test to receive Welfare?

Should you have to pass a drug test to receive Welfare?


You know what? I don't like this one actually because welfare affects and helps more than just the person who may be using drugs. 


Someone responded with: "No its more like if u have to get drug tested when ur workin your ass off. Then so should the people sittin their lazy ass home collecting welfare who are THE ONES probably spending the governments money on drugs rather than what is is meant for...(this is not in the case of everyone tho)" 


If that's not the case for everyone then wouldn't this be pointless? Would it matter if the money went towards gummy bears vs. drugs? Public "misuse" of funds will always exist. 


We should just become a communist regime and distribute jobs, and funds accordingly. Then we wouldn't have this problem. ;) Lol


And what I mean by that is perhaps they should have a welfare reform? Assign housing, food(Wic checks for example), transportation, etc. Then there will be no room for public misuse of government distributed funds. Only problem is: What if you have a problem with something? I'm just saying something like this isn't so black and white. It opens a Pandora's box and a plethora of problems/options. My concern is about their children. How safe can they already be if they are in an unsafe environment and we strip public funds from their parents/guardians? Thailand for example. Or any country that doesn't have a welfare option. What happens with those children? I'm just sayin'.


And I'm just curious as to who's paying for these drug tests? There's around 50 MILLION Americans on some form of state assistance as of 2009[according to the internet]. Administering drug tests would have to be done many times over the course of someone's benefits. Also, even your basic 4-panel dip tests do not detect all drugs. So are we going to single out users of meth, marijuana, opiates, etc. and ignore use of synthetic such as Methadone, or Darvocet? Barbiturates? The 10-panel tests are more expensive and still do not test for all substances. The only responsible course of action would be to use lab tests. So actually, that's a great idea because it can create more American jobs we can tax to pay for this whole process! Only problem I foresee is: Are we going to include alcohol in this too? It's legal but can be abused. Should we incorporate acceptable amounts of use? And what if they fail a drug test? Is there a certain amount of time they have to wait before reapplying? 6 month period perhaps? Over the course of which they are ordered to complete a government funded chemical dependency course? What if it was an isolated incident and they don't meet the WA. State criteria for being chemically dependent? Then do they get their check or what? Has anybody reading this ever sparked up a joint at a party before? Or at some point in their life consumed one alcoholic beverage?


And let me be very clear. I'm not trying to single out any one person's beliefs. And I respect the opinion of others. If you were to take custody from them or cut their funding then who is going to pay for their needs or their children's? Where do they turn for money? Family, friends, etc. Foster care and adoption is a lengthy process. You thought the housing market collapse was bad? A single thing like this that sounds good on paper could have devastating effects and cause an economic collapse. Is everybody ready to take on the responsibility of the needs of these people?




Here's a quote from my friend Mikey:
"drug tests for welfare? What!? what are we supposed do with our money.... buy shoes?"