Punch a sleeping person in the face and then quickly hide underneath the bed before they realize what's happened.
Participate in the local Scandinavian parade, dressed as Dracula.
Bodypress a restaurant's bar.
Become an awning washer.
Bodypress a moving cyclist.
Get a tattoo that no one will ever find.
Horseshoe a bear.
Grow a ponytail out of my neck.
Slap a bowl of soup.
Bellyflop into a pool filled with cold mayo.
Get into a public brawl with a clown.
Paint my car with glow-in-the-dark paint.
Fart loudly and a lot in a cafe.
Clone a dinosaur only to publicly decapitate it with a battleaxe.
Run for port commissioner.
Be Jewish.
Eat Runts on an empty stomach until I puke.
Order a cupcake, only to monkey slap it, then order another.
Invent electrified food.
Be tazed.
Be stung by a bee.
Become a local character. It's a toss-up between dressing like the Monopoly Man and trying to buy wares with Monopoly Money and being racist in a 1920s sort of way, or wearing all blue and riding a bike around while zipping cookies at people.
Ride a motorcycle engulfed in flames off a roof into the local farmer's market.
Be a spit-take therapist.
Participate in the local Gong Show. We would be dressed like Muppets and do a peppy sing and dance routine to the Muppet Show's theme, curse each other for missing our steps, and then slowly degenerate into a violent brawl.
Own a fainting goat, and rig a motion sensitive foghorn by its food bowl.
Domesticate a fox.
Stay awake until I am literally insane. Can you literally be insane? I might not know words.
Rig a device that makes it look like my crotch is bleeding profusely and stroll around town.
Be a rich old man.
Get pec implants in my back.
Thieve dogs.
Take a bath in a tub filled with pho.
Change my middle name to "Danger" and see what the consequences are.
Blow an airhorn in an orgasming woman's face and see what happens.
Weave a wig of live snacks and wear it to church.
Wear a children's sized Spiderman costume for Halloween.
Tag taggers.
Become a professional baseball player and have my intro music be the audio from a slaughterhouse.
Have arms twice their normal length.
Vomit out a personal item of a friend's in the middle of dinner with them.
Ride a bicycle two stories tall around town.
Shave a bear. WOAH.
Destroy Chai.
Throw animal blood on vegans.
Fill my coat closet with balloons and be nonplussed when a friend tries to hang their coat in it.
Hang out at a friend’s house, use their bathroom and pee on EVERYTHING, and then be confused when they later discover what I've done and confront me about it.
Start a fantasy metal band called The Fainting Goats that collapses the instant we play a song.
Reshoot Crossroads (1986), sans costumes and sets.
Stick my head in a taffy machine.
Become a lugubrious alcoholic clown.
Fill a squirt gun with Aqua Velva and terrorize people.
After a long, drawn-out confrontation, be forcibly removed by cops from a short belltower.
Ride a Barbie Power Wheels in traffic.
Perform a flying punch on Adam Gherke during his traffic report.
Hit on extremely old women with graduating levels of forwardness.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
"HOW TO DATE"
By Egan Rhys Napewood
Professional Sensualist
By Egan Rhys Napewood
Professional Sensualist
Greetings, my eager lovebugs. I hope everyone’s bodies are brimming with pleasure from the teachings of my last column, Butterfly Kisses: Let’s Get Real About This. No need for thanks, students…but if you must, get thineself to a powder room mirror. Disrobe from the waist up, and while staring heavy-lidded into your own reflection, gently, gently stroke your arm hairs. To know you are giving yourself such a pleasure-gift is enough thanks for me.
Remember my Golden Rule, lovers: When it comes to delight, do not sip, but gulp! Quaff heavily for the decanter of bliss, and let is spill messily onto your tunic. Our bodies were built to experience, children (please note the comma), so LET them.
This week’s delectation lesson is on the intricate mating dance known as courtship; or, to put it more contemporarily for my younger students: we will be learning The Fornication Club’s secret handshake. This lesson will be a series of columns, each educating you in the proper way to conduct each stage of romancing.
Now, I shall try to speak to the optimal dance steps for both sexes, but as a man with decades of practice in my man’s body, it is unavoidable that my expertise lies within a man’s body. Ladies, please do forgive any gentle stumbles I make on your behalf, though I am confident that my extensive experience with the fairest sex, beginning at the nubile age of twenty-six, has given me an uncanny knowledge of the female experience.
Stage 1: Seduction
One of the most difficult tricks in love is simply catching your soon-to-be lover’s eye and planting a seed of desire in it. While many randy bucks frequent particular rutting grounds to wave their urine-soaked antlers under the spasming nostrils of a receptive doe, with the proper skills one can find love anywhere one chooses to rut.
The first step, of course, is finding your pleasure muse. The dewy, flaxen-haired barista in the Fallout Boy t-shirt? Perhaps the sandaled young man with the aggressively unkempt sideburns? There is no incorrect choice here, students. Let your loin aura be your divining rod.
Once you have located the jack to your flat, the axel to your wheel, take the time to observe them as you would an animal. Are they skittish like a grazing kudu; confident like a full-grown chimpanzee; or perhaps just eerily slow-moving, like a de-treed sloth? Each animal requires a different approach. For instance, you do not simply walk up to a full-grown chimpanzee you don’t know. Trust me, friend, you do not. His…his teeth. They were everywhere. My god.
Ahem. As I was saying. Be very careful in how you approach. Your body language speaks louder than a yogini using a defective jade egg. Men: Do not believe all this modern talk of women wanting a sensitive man with feelings. That’s horse shit. Women want machismo to ooze from every sweaty pore of a man. If you don’t ooze naturally, I would recommend a few things:
1. Sit quietly at a table by yourself lighting matches and putting them out with your fingers. Look disinterested in everything, as if at any second you might grow bored and break a chair over a fellow’s head just to amuse yourself.
2. If there is a spare napkin and writing utensil around, doodle pictures of naked women.
3. Brazenly make-out with an easy barfly. Girls love what they can’t have.
Women: Though you might think men prefer a demure woman, men actually prefer battle. Look at that bearded screaming guy and his wife from the Nobel Prize-winning movie 300. They are both warriors of love, locked in ferocious combat, like in that one hot slow-motion scene. That is what men want. Here are some tips for you to throw a bit of seductive melee into your conquest:
1. Brazenly make-out with an easy barfly. If your future lover is interested, he will become bored with putting out matches and break a chair over Ernie’s face (you can buy Ernie a scotch later).
2. Put on a seductive, yet argumentative dance for your man. Men love to dance, and they love a challenge. He will almost assuredly accept your challenge to a dance-off, and if there is anything certain in this world it is that man/woman dance-offs almost always lead to a passionate relationship.
3. Engage him in a shoving match.
There we have it, my receptive vessels. You should now have the knowledge and skills to seduce the mate of your choice wherever you may be. My next column will cover the subsequent stage of seduction, Stage 2: What I Am Proposing Is Making Love. Till next time, my children!
Sensually Yours,
Egan Rhys Napewood
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Common Sense in Politics?
In Common Sense— often hailed as prodding America toward the path to independence—Thomas Paine wrote that "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." While Paine was writing in regards to British monarchy, have his words since become applicable to the government which replaced it?
The most recent census records show that while Caucasians are 69% of the US population, they are represented by 86% of the combined House and Senate. Inversely, all minorities in the United States are underrepresented by 30% on average of their national population.
While statistics may show a misrepresentation of ethnicity within the government, the truest gap in representation is in socioeconomic class. The United States government is failing its citizens in its most fundamental purpose: representation of its citizenry.
Few Americans question the idea of democracy—but that's not the same as questioning if the American government is democratic. When an elite cabal of people establish themselves as a ruling class, leaving little to no room for the common civic-minded citizen in government—are we really any better off than we were as colonists under a monarchy?
Every citizen of this country believes blindly in its leadership, while little by little they are stripped of class mobility and basic freedoms. In order for us to understand what we are losing, it's time to reacquaint ourselves with the term democracy.
de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
[Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL démocratia < Gk démokratía popular government, equiv. to démo- DEMO- + -kratia -CRACY]
The first definition causes me the most pause—particularly the use of the term “free.” Any electoral system is going to be organized for the benefit of the government hosting it, that is given—but at what point do you consider yourself no longer free, but coerced?
Is being given a limited number of choices being free to choose? Granted, structure is necessary for elections in order to facilitate the process, but when is it no longer structure but guidance? If you are asked to choose between death by firing squad or death by lethal injection, do you believe you've been given free choice to do as you please?
As you can see, the term democracy is fairly abstract. If you prefer the second definition, then yes—the United States is a democracy because, by self-definition, the United States is a democracy. The cause and effect in this suggestion is a bit to lenient for me. If we simply are because we say so, we could continue to call ourselves a democracy while we move ever closer to federal socialism, federal despotism, or some other hybridized type of government.
Some would argue, with merit, that we have already begun making these steps. As long as the representational electoral system is in place, regardless of the choices we're given or how we limit those who may offer themselves as candidates, we claim to remain a democracy—altering the definition by proxy.
The question ultimately comes down to choice. The choices we are given to vote upon, by and large, originate within the government. There do exist “citizen sponsored ballot initiatives,” but those are applicable only within state and local government—and very much the exception, rather than the rule. The death blow to citizen sponsored ballot initiatives is that their power is effectively limited by the federal government's supercedence of state law.
In order to re-empower the masses in their self-governance, I'd like to tentatively suggest a change within the American government from a “representational” democracy to a new form of allotted democracy: wherein citizens are chosen at random to participate in local government. Individuals with proven proclivity and aptitude would then be entered into the pool of candidates for popular election into higher government offices.
A lot of people are going to have issue with this idea. At the onset, it sounds ridiculous. I'm aware of that. However, if you step back and examine the idea on its merits, you'll find that there truly are justifiable advantages to this type of government.
In simplest terms, I would like to see a government run by lottery—much like Jury Duty. Turning “public service” into an actual public service would allow for a true representation of all different groups within the country. This would allow for the immediate implementation of policies and procedures that are commonly wished for, but legislated against—for corporate interest reasons.
This policy could start with local assemblies by open lottery, and as the level of government got higher, requiring more experience, would be open only to those who had previously served – with good public and peer reviews.
While it would take a lot of fine-tuning to create a workable system based on these principles, the outcome would be the effective elimination of the age-old adage “anyone who wants to be in government probably shouldn't [due to personal interest].” This new government system would be important in re-establishing the true nature of our democracy, ensuring the true and accurate representation of its citizenry.
I can see the argument now: “Average people do not have the knowledge or skill-set to run a successful government.” This attitude is created and enforced by the layers of built-in redundancy in the current bureaucratic system. These complications are not only unnecessary, but costly to the American public. Their only purpose is the enforcement of a continued “politician class,” which requires specialized training and political connections.
By enacting an allotted democracy, we could change the entire state of public affairs—simplifying government, streamlining bureaucracy—allowing the common person to not only have an actual voice in politics, but also a true understanding of the application of their taxes.
It may seem a bit sensational to some—but to me, it’s common sense.
The most recent census records show that while Caucasians are 69% of the US population, they are represented by 86% of the combined House and Senate. Inversely, all minorities in the United States are underrepresented by 30% on average of their national population.
While statistics may show a misrepresentation of ethnicity within the government, the truest gap in representation is in socioeconomic class. The United States government is failing its citizens in its most fundamental purpose: representation of its citizenry.
Few Americans question the idea of democracy—but that's not the same as questioning if the American government is democratic. When an elite cabal of people establish themselves as a ruling class, leaving little to no room for the common civic-minded citizen in government—are we really any better off than we were as colonists under a monarchy?
Every citizen of this country believes blindly in its leadership, while little by little they are stripped of class mobility and basic freedoms. In order for us to understand what we are losing, it's time to reacquaint ourselves with the term democracy.
de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
[Origin: 1525–35; < MF démocratie < LL démocratia < Gk démokratía popular government, equiv. to démo- DEMO- + -kratia -CRACY]
The first definition causes me the most pause—particularly the use of the term “free.” Any electoral system is going to be organized for the benefit of the government hosting it, that is given—but at what point do you consider yourself no longer free, but coerced?
Is being given a limited number of choices being free to choose? Granted, structure is necessary for elections in order to facilitate the process, but when is it no longer structure but guidance? If you are asked to choose between death by firing squad or death by lethal injection, do you believe you've been given free choice to do as you please?
As you can see, the term democracy is fairly abstract. If you prefer the second definition, then yes—the United States is a democracy because, by self-definition, the United States is a democracy. The cause and effect in this suggestion is a bit to lenient for me. If we simply are because we say so, we could continue to call ourselves a democracy while we move ever closer to federal socialism, federal despotism, or some other hybridized type of government.
Some would argue, with merit, that we have already begun making these steps. As long as the representational electoral system is in place, regardless of the choices we're given or how we limit those who may offer themselves as candidates, we claim to remain a democracy—altering the definition by proxy.
The question ultimately comes down to choice. The choices we are given to vote upon, by and large, originate within the government. There do exist “citizen sponsored ballot initiatives,” but those are applicable only within state and local government—and very much the exception, rather than the rule. The death blow to citizen sponsored ballot initiatives is that their power is effectively limited by the federal government's supercedence of state law.
In order to re-empower the masses in their self-governance, I'd like to tentatively suggest a change within the American government from a “representational” democracy to a new form of allotted democracy: wherein citizens are chosen at random to participate in local government. Individuals with proven proclivity and aptitude would then be entered into the pool of candidates for popular election into higher government offices.
A lot of people are going to have issue with this idea. At the onset, it sounds ridiculous. I'm aware of that. However, if you step back and examine the idea on its merits, you'll find that there truly are justifiable advantages to this type of government.
In simplest terms, I would like to see a government run by lottery—much like Jury Duty. Turning “public service” into an actual public service would allow for a true representation of all different groups within the country. This would allow for the immediate implementation of policies and procedures that are commonly wished for, but legislated against—for corporate interest reasons.
This policy could start with local assemblies by open lottery, and as the level of government got higher, requiring more experience, would be open only to those who had previously served – with good public and peer reviews.
While it would take a lot of fine-tuning to create a workable system based on these principles, the outcome would be the effective elimination of the age-old adage “anyone who wants to be in government probably shouldn't [due to personal interest].” This new government system would be important in re-establishing the true nature of our democracy, ensuring the true and accurate representation of its citizenry.
I can see the argument now: “Average people do not have the knowledge or skill-set to run a successful government.” This attitude is created and enforced by the layers of built-in redundancy in the current bureaucratic system. These complications are not only unnecessary, but costly to the American public. Their only purpose is the enforcement of a continued “politician class,” which requires specialized training and political connections.
By enacting an allotted democracy, we could change the entire state of public affairs—simplifying government, streamlining bureaucracy—allowing the common person to not only have an actual voice in politics, but also a true understanding of the application of their taxes.
It may seem a bit sensational to some—but to me, it’s common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
