The Gremlin's Wings

As I was traveling on the train the other day, I saw someone reading a book about morals. The title of the book escapes me at the moment, but I clearly remember the sub-title of the book: “How to live a moral life in an immoral world”. I can not find the book by a Google search by this string, unfortunately, but that is not the important bit. What is important is this: while I do appreciate a good read every once in a while, this one just seemed to get me chuckling inside, the more I think about it.

Now I know you are probably wondering what I am talking about at this particular point in time.

Truth be told, they inherently are. Most moral codes are instilled in us while we are still young and impressionable. By the time we are teenagers, we have this set of ethics and morals that is harder to change and usually forms the core of our beliefs. Morals, ethics and beliefs are are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to discern where one ends and another begins. Is it the moral thing to chop someone’s hand off if they steal from you? Not in Western culture, but it is a practice that still persists to this day in some parts of the world.

Is your own sense of morality horrified at this?

What is surprising is that mine is not necessarily. They stick to their guns of what they believe in. A belief is what we base our own personal moral codes behind. Again with the Godwin’s Law, Hitler believed the Germans were the Master Race, and all others should be eliminated. He had the moral that he protected Germans at all costs. Then again, Hitler was a crazy man. Beliefs help us shape morals, and are an integral part of the process of creating our morals.

So why did I find this book funny?

I swear, I am not this guy.

Well, it all comes down to why the person would need that book.

I understand self-confidence issues; I have about ten billion of them. However, what I was laughing at was… if someone does not stand up for what they perceive as a moral wrong, what good is it for them to read about other people’s morals? I can sit here and tell you what my morals are. Do I expect you to take them all as your own? No. Most self-help books – and this was the way this book was coming off to me as – promise something of a how to for dealing with life challenges. Personally, I think they are all a joke.

Is it morally right for them to publish these books?

Then again, I guess it may be. Maybe I am wrong in this. Maybe what these books do is inspire people to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe. I do not know. hey, maybe I can get in and write one, see where it would take me. “How to Not Get Ridiculed In My Blog”. Has a nice ring to it, no?

Apparently, that book title was already taken.

But truth be told, this title also got me thinking about something. Something very dark. Something that makes me question things, to see if I have strong beliefs, good morals supporting them.

What would you give up your morals for?

Would you give up your morals if the alternative was to starve to death?

Would you give up your morals if your child’s life (or for the people who do not have kids, the life of the person you care deepest about) was threatened?

Would you give up your morals for large amounts of money?

There are people I know who would not do this whatsoever. There are others that I know would. Some may say that the morals of the people in the military are quite high – at least, the good ones that defend their country – but I submit that some may have turned over their own morals for enlistment. We are taught from a young age to not hit or fight with others, and yet soldiers all they do is fight for our freedom by killing those that would take it away from us. I respect that in them, and I respect that their moral code is changed significantly from what mine is. But still, they gave up some of their own morals to protect our ability to set our own.

I think I will leave this one here, because I want you to feel out the answer to this question yourself. I invite anyone who read this to comment below about what they thought about what they would give up their own morals for. Would it take desperation, a noble cause, love to give it up?

Think about your answer before you say that you would not.

It may come as some shock to you that I was never a born leader. Wait a second… there are people who may read this whom have worked with me in the past. In that case, then you would not be shocked at all. And neither would my parents, my friends, ex-girlfriends… okay, so it might not be a shock to many. But still!

When I am put in a position of leadership, by whatever freakish circumstance there is, I will admit that I am probably not the best choice for the position. I am moody, sometimes getting really irrational, sometimes confrontational, sometimes just wanting to run away… and the list goes on. There has only ever been one position that I was leading in that I have ever even been remotely good at, and even then I am not too sure of it.

One of the things I have learned in my few years out there is that in order to be a leader, you have to do some things differently than what you used to do. It works a lot like customer service, really: no one wants to know what the sales associate’s attitude is towards certain people; they want a sale. Anything less than this, they do not make the sale. Sales associate does not sell something, they get let go. The funny thing is that the same principle is true of leaders, whether it is business leaders (with the exception of Donald Trump), politicians, or something small, like leadership of a gaming guild or a gaming community.

Is his comb-over the source of his dark power? Or his wallet? ...I think the former.

The Internet is a good example of a place where this is present. Generally, if someone is a friendly and courteous leader, they will have people follow them willingly. Some can see why a position of leadership is a position of power. In the case of the Internet, though, the position is usually granted to you by a few people. I, for example, can say things here and I have the power of writing this down because I know that, somewhere, someone will actually read this. According to some, this is a power. I think it is just that I might have something interesting to say and someone may want to read it. Whether they do or not is up to them. That is the way of the Internet.

However, some people who do have people elevating them to a position of power have to remember what comes with great power. This guy by the name of Peter Parker might have some idea, he got told it by his Uncle Ben who died tragically.

With great power comes great responsibility.

It is true, but really it is any type of power has responsibility for usage of said power. It is the moral thing to do.

Take, for example, the situation with al Qaeda. The leaders of the organization were given power by people who believed them, and then they took that power and twisted it into something destructive. Hitler did it too (and yeah, I just used Godwin’s Law), by shaping it up for the Germans being the master race and leading an attack on sovereign nations just because they could.

If you want less violent examples… let us examine the story of the douche bag Perez Hilton. Actually, let us not do that, because that makes me want to break a standard of decorum I decided upon for this space a while ago: I am not going to swear on here. Let us just say, it is already thoroughly covered and move on.

This is an accurate representation of a douche bag.

My original point was that people do listen to the leader of a group, and of all those above examples, the group does listen to those people. Osama still has followers, the leader of the Third Reich used his power to kill dissenters, and Perez has traffic to his site that I would love to see on mine (well, okay, maybe not the people per se because I do not want Valley Girls all over my comments, but you get my point). All leaders do have people that will listen to the leader, and they give them that power.

The question is… what does a leader do with that power? Do they take it and try to do good things with it? Or do they do evil with it?

Obviously I am not saying that we will get the next Hitler off of the Internet. We probably already have that at 4chan.org’s boards. What I am saying is that there is different things that a leader can do. Here’s what a good leader does:

• Stays neutral in debates and moderates the discussion
• Lets others vent their frustrations
• Acknowledges that there may be good points within negative feedback directed towards them
• Listens to and publicly respects the opinions of those they do not personally like
• Acting academically in discussions
• Be understanding of others’ emotions and different volatile relationships

Here is what a bad leader would do:

• Slanders someone who does not have power to further their own point
• Does not listen to the advice of others
• Publicly humiliates those directing negative feedback towards them
• Acting emotionally in discussions*
• Ignore the feelings of others

I do recognize that when I have had a chance to do some leadership, I have done the stuff in both the good and the bad columns. I am no saint when it comes to this, and neither is anyone else.

Not an accurate representation of me. I got a haircut and found my shoes.

I only acknowledge that the good leaders also acknowledge the things that would make them bad leaders, and they try to minimize that impact in their role. I guess you can summarize everything I am trying to say as: try to be good. That’s really all I want to get across.

Now, back to my other writing goals, and less blasphemy for me.

*This one can be taken both ways, really. On the one hand, how you feel about a topic does come into play when defining your own moral code, but on the other hand reacting to others’ points with raw emotions is a bad thing. It is a balance that should be reflected in a leader’s everyday life, and one of the defining characteristics of a good leader versus a bad leader. H-uh. I may have to analyze later.

All right, there has been something on my mind for the last long while. It has nagged at me, especially since I moved back to the city and saw this every day, I feel like a dam that is going to burst if I do not vent this frustration with this particular trend anywhere. The fact of the matter is:

I hate skinny jeans on men.

Yes, this is a fashion trend. Gah!

Just posting that picture up there has made me feel sick to my stomach.

Skinny leg, low-cut jeans on men is a fashion trend that I cannot follow in good conscience, and there is some damning evidence for it as well. First off, I’ve seen this one around for most of the 2000′s (I always get confused in what to call this decade – the 2000′s? The Zeros? The Naughties?), and the first place I saw it? Women. I can admit, a woman in one of these jeans doesn’t look too bad. Maybe they look a little more fragile in these ones, more like a stiff breeze could break their legs, and I think it may encourage the anorexic/bulimic look, but if you have the body for it and it works for your fashion sense, go for it. There is some women that genuinely can rock out this look.

Note I only say some women.

Some fashion designer, in whatever infinite wisdom they use (insert very sarcastic eye-rolling motions here), decided that this look would be perfect for males. And voila. A trend is born.

Problem is… it looks ass-ugly.

I have no problems with some things being unisex. The hooded sweatshirt, for example, is a good example. I think females look good in one – granted, they look even better when wearing mine after a night of… okay, let us not go there – and it is an acceptable thing. Guys’ ties is something that some people are using as a fashion trend on females – a hint, it only looked good on Avril Lavigne for about two years and she stopped wearing it too. Some of the long hairstyles that made it over from females to males I can stand, as well.

Definitely not this one, Justin. Glad you cut it, or else you would be getting a subscription to Ass Pirate Monthly.

But these jeans that is the focus of this post… just… NO!

Unisex is great, but when I hear stories about men interchanging their pants with their girlfriend and wearing their girlfriend’s pants… that is just stepping over a line. (Yes, I have heard that one, from a male who was proud of this fact. Scared me to no end.)  It almost seems that society is trying to castrate men – first the mustache falls out of favor, then male manicures, and now this?!? – and leave us with effeminate males. If I was a conspiracy nut, I would say that a group of hardcore feminists are in control of the fashion world and trying to strike back at males for centuries of oppression, and it was a subtle way of striking fear into those that are male, and proud to be male. I am not, so I will just say it is disturbing.

Why am I speaking up now? Actually, I have told this to the face of several men, whom have just shrugged it off. The one that I mentioned earlier that swapped pants from his girlfriend told me that she thought it was hot. To be fair, I knew both of them, and I always thought they were both semi-freaks of nature as-is. Is this anti-masculinity as a trend, or is that the little paranoid voice in my head that feels that it is perfectly logical to buy a shack in the middle of the woods, three rifles, enough ammo to declare World War 3 and foodstuffs to last a nuclear holocaust talking and saying that?

Yeah, but does it have a good 'Net connection?

Of course, it could just be that fashion is inherently stupid. I mean, have you ever actually watched any of the reality shows where they are competing to be fashion designers? I would not want any of them on a remote desert island with me, and they would be the first ones sacrificed for food if that were the case – a fashionable roast, anyone? – so I tend to agree with that. So really, we are trusting trending to come from these people?

I guess I will just have to live with the fact that men want to be emasculated. The more we buy these clothes, the more plentiful they become in the Gaps, the Old Navys, the Off The Walls, or wherever people buy clothing. I am just wondering when it will be fashionable for men to wear skirts and dress like 80′s hookers… and not be in drag. Maybe never. Maybe in ten years. Maybe we will all look like extras from the Rocky Horror Picture Show in five years. Who really knows?

All I know? I am not going to be doing the Time Warp again. Even if it is just a jump to the left… and then a step to the right.

When I got this blog I never thought I would have to have sequels to my own posts, but apparently I do, especially when I make somewhat erroneous statements that should be corrected, and then within themselves analyzed and explained.

Now, quoting myself:

Actually, that last one has always confused me. WAS there a new bible that specifically forbade two people from expressing their love for each other by getting married? I am not a Christian, true, but I have problems believing that an all-mighty God that is forgiving and loves everyone suddenly hates people that openly admit attraction for the same sex. Did Jesus all of a sudden hate little Billy because he found out he liked looking at Tommy instead of Jill? I just… I do not get it. As far as I know, there is nothing specifically in any part of the Bible that says a marriage is only in between a man and a woman. Marriages had been going on for years before the New Testament was written; it’s only natural the Bible includes at least one marriage ceremony.

After some humbling I got from certain people whom I hold in high esteem, I decided to take some of my own advice and investigate for myself into the parts where marriage in between two people of the same sex is talked about in the Bible, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. I read Genesis and Exodus completely, and used Wikipedia as a guide to skip to the parts where the rest of this topic were brought up. This is my results.

What is odd is that people today kind of gloss over the fact that same-sex marriage is not brought up in the Bible whatsoever. I am serious on that. Nowhere does it say, “Two men can not get married” or “Two women can not get married”. Actually, when reading over all the parts that people quote for evidence against same-sex marriage, only one part of the Bible actually mentions same-sex intercourse in between women (and I will come to that later). Most of it has to do with male homosexuality and sexual relations specifically.

As you can probably guess, the word “sodomy” is directly derived from the city of Sodom. The passage that directly relates to same-sex relationships in general is Genesis 19:4-9. I will quote from the New Jerusalem Bible, because it was easiest to find online:

4 They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception.

5 Calling out to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.’

6 Lot came out to them at the door and, having shut the door behind him,

7 said, ‘Please, brothers, do not be wicked.

8 Look, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to these men since they are now under the protection of my roof.’

9 But they retorted, ‘Stand back! This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge. Now we shall treat you worse than them.’ Then they forced Lot back and moved forward to break down the door.

Now, to put it in plain speak, basically these two angels came down posing as people to see if the people of Sodom were bad. They met Lot, who was a good man and gave them shelter and food. That night, a bunch of townsfolk found out about what the two people were doing there and basically preemptive strike them by having sex with them. The rabble, being mostly men, were about to rape the two traveling men. Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd wanted retribution on the two travelers and wouldn’t settle for anything else.

What’s odd about this section is that the New Jeruslaem Bible specifically states “have intercourse with”, but other bibles actually say “meet” (for example, the New American Standard Bible says this). See, one of the things I brought up in the first part was how the original Bibles were written in Aramaic and Hebrew, and direct translations are sometimes not possible. Indeed, even looking at the English language, “intercourse” does not specifically have a sexual meaning. Dictionary.com refers to intercourse as “dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.” while still retaining the sexual connotation of the word in a later definition. In Hebrew, it is even more confusing. The word “yada” is used in this passage, which directly translates to “relations” in a non-sexual manner, though it is used as innuendo to sex in other parts of the Bible. It is the key to the very sexual connotation of this entire passage of the Bible, and there’s a question as to its accuracy. What was that gang trying to do to those two? Were they going to gang-rape the travelers, or were they going to simply beat them? A trick of language is really all that stands in between us and the intent of the original writing – note I do not say author.

I realize that the Old Testament is more used by the Jewish religion than Christianity, but all of Christianity is based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. What really boggles me is the next part of the examination of the books, which comes from the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus basically is the closest thing you can ever have in the Bible to a book of direct rules. It is where Moses gets the laws he must pass down to the Isrealites, mostly about procedures for worship and stuff like that. 18:22 is what we’re interested in, though, and is the most commonly cited evidence against same-sex coupling in the Bible, and for good reason. It reads:

You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.

Again, translation issues with the last little bit there, as well as the intercourse bit. I checked a few different versions of the Bible, and this one is pretty clear-cut as a sexual connotation, though, especially considering Leviticus 18 is going over what is classed as incest before this little gem pops up. So according to the Old Testament, sex in between two men is wrong.

All right then, so we have our clear-cut proof, but why am I still hanging on this point? Because of Leviticus 20:13, that is why.

The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yes, this is a quote that I am going to use against people whom are arguing with Leviticus 18:22. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First off, if someone is using the Old Testament as a rule reference in Christianity, it stands to say that entire book becomes fair game, right? Second, it very clearly states that the punishment for sex in between two men is death for both parties; if someone believes so strongly in Leviticus 18:22, why are they not doing the duties directed to them by God Himself and putting every gay man to death that they can find as directed by Leviticus 20:13? Third, why is Isreal not following this law? Isreal was set up as a Jewish state with religion making the backbone of the Isreali way of life. The Hebrew Bible – the Old Testament – is the books they follow. Yet, Isreal’s LGBT rights rival that of anywhere in the world, according to Wikipedia. Gay couples can not get married on Isreali soil – this is really the only spread of religion that affects gay couple’s rights – but out of country marriages are recognized.

I am skipping over Ruth 1:14, the Books of Kings “male prostitute” references, and the Books of Samuel story about David and Jonathan, because they are really weak references. Ruth 1:14 is way open to interpretation, as is the David and Jonathan story, and the Books of Kings “male prostitutes” were part of rituals of other religions that were expelled because they were not needed for rituals for God – a morally ambiguous thing since the female prostitutes were kept. Also, I am skipping these so I can get to the New Testament.

I will admit, I was used to the script and voice of the Old Testament when I switched gears over to the New Testament, and I found myself confused when I started to read over the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. The language was different, definitely. The Apostle Paul was a good writer, and the book is written much like an open letter to the people of Rome. Not a bad way of putting things, I think.

Romans 1:26-27 has apparently the most condemning view of homosexuality, and I can see why:

²⁶ That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

²⁷ why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

Yes, this is the mention of female homosexuality that I was mentioning earlier. However, I learned long ago that context is everything, so I read back a bit in this chapter and I discovered that this was apparently punishment for idolatry, the First Commandment. Oh yes, I just pulled out the Ten Commandments on you. The entire structure of Chapter 1 of Romans is starting off with introducing Paul as the servant of Jesus and referred to as an apostle, and he is telling the Romans about how proud he is that the Romans believe that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. He apologizes for not coming earlier to the Romans to talk with them because he was held up with responsibilities to the Greeks and barbarians, and then expresses his joy at preaching to the Romans. He believes that God is great and for everyone that believes, and that people who do not honour God and acknowledge Him will be abandoned to “unacceptable thoughts and behaviors”.

In context, the standard Christian behavior of today now seems a little clearer, and makes me understand those that are gay in the Christian communities and what they must go through. According to this, people whom have sinned are being punished by giving them homosexual desires. Specifically in this passage is mentioned idolatry, which is putting something else above God whom is supposed to be the highest on the totem pole (now there is a mixed metaphor if I could ever think of one). So a Christian man or woman who is an upstanding member of the community and is the first person to further the word of God and Jesus, feels the desire for someone of the same sex… and this is punishment for breaking the First Commandment? Is it just me, or does this sound like entrapment?

It seems that Paul was the only one that brought up homosexuality in the New Testament, referring to it in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as well:

⁹ Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake — the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,

¹⁰ thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians again is set up like an open letter; probably better to say that this is the recorded text of a verbal sermon given in the church at Corinth. This particular passage, though, suffers from translation problems as well; “sodomites” in the New Jerusalem Bible is actually derived from the greek word arsenokoitēs in the original untranslated version. This is a word whose origin can only be guessed at – and is many times within the different translations of the Bible – and only appears here and in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It actually can translate out to “abusers of themselves with mankind” as it does in the King James Version of the Bible, or “those who practice pederasty” as it does in other versions.

It is odd that Paul does not say that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God; Jesus himself said that fornication defiles a man (Matthew 15:19-20 and Mark 7:20-23) and it would be logical to assume that fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God as Paul said would happen to the sodomites as well. To be honest, it sounded like Paul was homophobic. Why would Paul be the only one to bring up homosexual practices when it was not even brought up by Jesus himself? And why did no one else bring it up? I seriously doubt that only one of the twelve apostles would come across homosexual behavior; after all, pederasty was kind of big in both Greece and Rome.

With how much emphasis has been put on the words pointed out here, I wish there was more on this. I wish the meaning was clearer in what they were trying to say, because there needs to be a way of grokking this better than what we have today. While the Bible is direct in some places, where it is direct has me asking questions, and then other parts combined with that confuse me and make me want to know why. I am not a theology scholar, nor do I pretend to be. I am just a guy seeking answers to questions in my own mind.

Paul also had one other good point that I would like to point out while I am here. It is something I caught from Romans 1:21-22:

²¹ …they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.

²² While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid…

If you talk to some people, they will tell you that I have, in the past, been a victim of this. In fact, we all can be at times when we do not see the other side or try to understand why someone is arguing so passionately for or against. This applies to people who believe and people that do not believe as well, which is where I disagree with Paul the Apostle on this subject. Whether it is faith, politics, economics, or any topic in the world, we are all victims of this, and the better we are at recognizing it, the better off the world will be.

I like Twitter.

I like Facebook.

Hell, I like the concept of social networking sites in general, with the exception of MySpace. They are a great way to keep up with the people in your life that you did not really know and do not really see that much, but you can find out where they are now because once upon a time, you used to be friends, or closer, or for those that move away for work and can not visit as often. Some people use it for nefarious purposes, like the one person whom was on the Gap helpdesk line that would search Facebook for names of women whom he thought sounded attractive on the phone. (Yes, that actually happened. No, I am not kidding. Word of advice: make sure your pictures and profiles are set to Friends Only.)

Facebook is a great tool, and so is Twitter. Twitter is an interesting concept: use 140 characters or less to describe whatever you want. It has powered a lot of movement, a lot of press lately, and most journalists who would bash this little slice of web that I call my own would say that Twitter is killing serious journalism – then again, they also say that about blogging, and yet they mostly still have jobs. Tweets generally contain information from the mundane to the groundbreaking, from the general useless spam to the valued updates, from the misinformation to the accurate verified truth.

I consider myself a casual blogger. I am not serious enough with it to start advertising and pull in money, nor start up any type of big writing project, I just write when it strikes my fancy. I write fiction for myself, fiction with friends as part of a few writing groups I’m a part of, simulation role-playing writing (yeah, those that can call me a nerd can do so now), the odd but occasional short story for here, poems, you name it. One thing I’ve noticed, though, ever since I started using Twitter…

I do not want to write anymore.

Years ago, I used to be able to write a five page short story without batting an eyelash. I used to have Word documents on my computer full of stories that were novels, poems, short stories, creations, drafts… I have also written a few blogs before – this is in fact my fourth attempt at keeping a regular blog: two on Internet forums, one on a separate blogging system that shut down. But try as I might, now that Twitter has got me seeing people like Brent Spiner writing stories through his Twitter page, or Ryan Sohmer’s epic-ness using his words on Twitter… it is becoming harder and harder now.

If I could do something like this for the rest of my life – maybe even be a columnist for a local newspaper or something – I can honestly say I would be happy. But I think I now know why journalists do not like Twitter that much, because I may be experiencing a little bit of it: I am losing that little bit of me, the little kid inside of me whom just has all these words floating around inside his head for some reason in a story that makes sense to him and he wants to share it.

Why carefully research a subject when a mass of people will just post us hearsay anyway?

Why write an eloquent article about something close to the heart when an A-list celebrity writes about the dream they had last night on their Blackberry and has 2.3 million followers? (FYI, the most any one of the people I follow has for followers is the aforementioned Brent Spiner, who has 1.1 million. Next in line is Jeph Jacques, writer/artist of Questionable Content with under 30000 followers.)

Why write an in-depth analysis of the swine flu pandemic with truthful facts when people will just go and listen to whatever tweets are trending at the moment?

I see their frustration, and I do sympathize with it.

What’s worse is that Facebook is trying to be like Twitter. This new “put an @ in front of a name and there’ll be a link to their name” thing, I swear, I’ve seen it used in status updates from my friends list… exactly three times. Nice update, Facebook, even being a direct rip-off of Twitter – though, on the flip side, it is probably because they’re trying to win over Twitter users and that is one way of doing it. MySpace even announced a syncing service with Twitter, so you can update status messages from Twitter and vice versa. There’s a long-standing application on Facebook that will do something similar.

The question I have is: Has modern writing devolved into anything that can fit into 140 characters or less? 160?

I would like to think not. I also would like to think that everywhere where this blog gets doled out to, people read it and they have their opinions, and they take something from it and they want to comment about it or how I am wrong and my haircut really hides the Devil horns, they do so. So far, that has proven to be false, so maybe I am wrong. I can admit that.

I really hope, though, that people use status updates on social networking sites responsibly. Facebook, I expect it to be about personal stuff, true, and to a certain extent, I would expect Twitter to as well. Just please do not kill that which I love in the process: the art of the written word.

I would like to eventually get married.

Is this a surprise that I declare this? Probably not, but maybe it is for those that may be uninformed about me. I’m not exactly the most sociable person around, true, but I think that there’s a Mrs. Gremlin out there for me. Some people spend all their lives searching for that special someone, and they may find them. I prefer to look at the positive side that I can find my Mrs. Gremlin, and I still have many years ahead of me, more than what I leave behind. At least, I hope I do. Have I found her already? Yeah.

You know, marriage is a true oddity. It is about the commitment of two people to each other, how they will love each other for all time, etc. Marriage and weddings is a religious ceremony repeated across many faiths; even for the non-religious and the atheists it can be a big production, though. It is one thing that most people across the globe can say that they have in common, that weddings are prevalent in societies. The ceremonies may look different, but the process is almost the same if you look at all of them. The general gist is people joining their lives together. Most of the time, I would assume this is because of another force: love.

I can’t go through a post on marriage without talking about love, and explain a few of my views on this particular subject. Whether you believe love is a wonderful thing that links people together, or a biological reactionary to the human need to procreate, it is essentially present in our lives. It is a passion for something that cannot be easily denied or forgotten, and leaves an incredible impression on our psyche, one that I would dare say would be something that shapes us the most in our lives. We associate most of our relationships through our passion we have for others and ourselves, and the direction we go in life can be heavily influenced by the aforementioned passion we can show for things. To borrow a quote from a Hugh Grant movie:

Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion’s starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often, it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there – fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know, none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge – they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion… love actually is all around.

(TANGENT: Love Actually was an impressive movie that openly discussed love in an entertaining fashion. I would recommend it… but if you are a male, grab a woman before renting it. Definite chick flick, but it’s not as obnoxious as others. Also, rent it in the month before Christmas for maximum effect, preferably within a week or two. You’ll see why.)

Note my use of “passion” instead of “love”? Passion, rather than just being a purely physical thing trashy romance novels try to portray, is actually a general term that should be behind love… and hate, really. Nick Scipio said it best: “The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference.” The same passion you use for love can easily translate to hate, but the lack of passion, the lack of any intense feelings, or indifference, is at the polar opposite of the emotional spectrum. This explains propaganda so well, as the entire point of it is to erase all indifference and set the subject in a passion that is controlled in a way that is favorable to the presenter. Case in point: any political smear ad campaign ever done.

Now that I have gone off and talked about love, the point I was trying to make was that love is part and parcel for a marriage to work. An expression of two people (leaving out polygamists, sorry) to the commitment of lifelong love and partnership is getting married, and who am I to stand in the way of two people expressing that? I ask myself that in this subject, and I cannot really say that I am justified in any way to stand in the way of this, unless I believe that the couple, on a case-by-case basis, does not love each other. Yes, I take that part of wedding ceremonies seriously; you do not?

A few years back, there was a similar debate to this in the United States of America about certain people marrying other certain people. It was against God’s nature, perverse, unholy… you name it, there was an argument against it. What am I referring to? A man of dark skin marrying a woman of white skin… or was it white man, black woman? I know one was frowned upon, even illegal for a long time, within the States. Some places it is still frowned upon and discriminated against, but that is because the people that do are brought up that way and do not know any better. (They are still wrong, though, in my opinion.) Is it illegal anymore? No.

So if the same arguments are being used today for same-sex marriages, did the Bible change?

Did someone find a new scripture?

Did Pope Benedict (whom I always associate with eggs) suddenly come up with a new Bible that specifically says that weddings between people of different skin color is OK, as long as they’re not the same sex?

Actually, that last one has always confused me. WAS there a new bible that specifically forbade two people from expressing their love for each other by getting married? I am not a Christian, true, but I have problems believing that an all-mighty God that is forgiving and loves everyone suddenly hates people that openly admit attraction for the same sex. Did Jesus all of a sudden hate little Billy because he found out he liked looking at Tommy instead of Jill? I just… I do not get it. As far as I know, there is nothing specifically in any part of the Bible that says a marriage is only in between a man and a woman. Marriages had been going on for years before the New Testament was written; it’s only natural the Bible includes at least one marriage ceremony.

(Also, I would like to point out that the Bible as read today has been edited at least once a century. Oh, right, and it’s been translated from Latin. Languages change over 2000 years. Perhaps not Latin, but English does, definitely. Just saying that people reading and translating could have made errors; the Bible may be the word of God, according to Christians, but the Bible was not written in your language first, it was written in Latin or Aramaic. Some impact may be lost in translation, and other via just humans over the years that admittedly sin and seek forgiveness for their sins; nobody is perfect, after all. Whoa, heavy tangent… but I have a strong idea that you may want to question things before trusting them fully.)

The passion I see in fighting marriages in between same-sex partners, I acknowledge. Obviously, there is some passion in this subject, though I do not understand it – how is marriage cheapened by two people whom do not believe in the same thing as you but love each other getting married? – and I do not personally agree.

So everyone out there, can we agree on dropping any modifiers from the word “marriage”? According to common law, marriage has no modifier anywhere else, why should those of the same sex that are marrying be called something different so that “your” term is not cheapened? Ownership of a concept and a word that has been around for thousands of years and predates the Old and New Testaments, practiced around the world just seems to be stupid to me. If a church does not want to perform the marriage, fine. Making others not perform it? Seems like a case of “I’m imposing my morals on others, believe in what I believe in or DIE!” to me. I thought that sentiment was waning, but apparently I was wrong.

Live and let live. You will live longer.

I’ve seen a few articles around the Internet, and people going off and saying that people should pull out of Afghanistan, and I feel the need to comment on this. Why? Well, you’re on my site, right? I believe what is said here needs to be said, and needs to be said now, before someone does something stupid.

Out of all the military actions that have happened over the past few years, in my mind there has been only three I have ever supported:

• Operation Desert Storm – the first tango in Iraq was completely warranted, for many years beforehand and should have been done earlier, right after Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and then threatened to do the same to Isreal.
• The campaign against Yugoslavia – Genocide of ethnic Albanians? Yeah… no.
• Afghanistan

Why Afghanistan? Well, there’s any number of reasons that I could list; the most popular ones are routinely listed by world leaders. “Al Qaeda could still be there! The Taliban is evil!” And so forth. I, however, differ from this opinion, and I would like to go through in a few details why there should be troops in Afghanistan.

Before I do so, a small history lesson.

Back in the 80′s, when the Soviet Union was still in power, Afghanistan did some stuff that really pissed off the Soviets and they decided to do a full-scale invasion of the relatively poor country. Their campaign lasted a while, but thanks to the efforts of some very familiar names working together, the Soviets were ground to a halt and their campaign ultimately failed. Those names? Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, and the US government, whom supplied them with weaponry and technical training in how to fight in guerilla warfare tactics, successfully using the same strategy that defeated the US in Vietnam in the 70′s.

Afghanistan has never been a real “country” in the modern definition of the word. Rather, it was a rather loose association of tribes that fought as often as they were at peace with each other. But because world leaders said it was a country, bam, it was a country.

Sometime later, the Taliban came along, overthrew what little government was there, and began making the population follow an fundamentalist Islam teaching that basically turned back the clock on social progress in that country by about fifty years. I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty, because people have different customs and different views on religion than I do. I’m not here to dictate religious views to others on this planet, just express my opinion.

Anyway, they offered bin Laden protection, blah blah blah, WTC bombing in 2003, Clinton firing cruise missiles into the mountains, yadda yadda, 9/11 and the “war on terror”…  most of this stuff you know. Anyway, history lesson over with.

Now, we’re eight years into whatever we are doing in Afghanistan. Have we won? Sort of.

Unlike previous wars that have been fought in the area, the US and their allies did something smart that saved allied lives: they bombed the crap out of main Taliban fortifications, then let the local insurgents do the grunt work of clearing the area. Now, note I say “save allied lives” instead of “saved lives”, because the losses amongst these people are impossible to account for. Anyway, relatively quickly, the main Taliban forces were crippled, and they abandoned the government and fled for hiding, and really, this is when the conventional war stops and the guerrilla warfare starts.

Oh, look, remember that training I mentioned earlier by the US? It’s now coming back to bite them on the ass.

It is technically still a war – damn you dictionary definitions of war – but guerrilla warfare is not fought and won with conventional troops and tactics, which is something the military has forgotten. They have become reliant on technology too much to “save lives” and “reduce cost” that they forgot what type of warfare they are fighting against.

Ask any survivor of Vietnam, and they will tell you what it’s like.

Anyway, I got kind of sidetracked here. Let’s go over why I support the continued presence of troops in Afghanistan. No, the primary reason is not because my leaders tell me to, or any of the main reasons they list. Here it is:

• Opiate farming

One of the ways that the Taliban, al Qaeda and other groups have been raising money for the past few years is the illegal opiate trade. It is ironic that they wish to end Western regimes while being financed by a farm crop that they primarily sell to the Western world, albeit illegally. Yes, great way to vow to destroy your own customer base.

Opiates are used to create heroin and morphine, among other things. In my opinion, this production should be stopped, or, even better, controlled by the Afghani government (once it actually gets off its ass and controls the place) to supply the worldwide medical field with less expensive morphine and methadone than what’s available now. Hey, look, an economic base for the new government! What a twist!

• Humanitarian

I am a very firm believer in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I believe that everyone should be granted to the same access to food and shelter that Americans, Canadians, and other countries’ citizens enjoy on a daily basis. Even those in Afghanistan should get it… if they want help from us in establishing this, that is. If they want to do it themselves, I’m OK with that. But the Afghani people deserve the right to choose how they get their basic necessities – food, water and shelter from the elements.

• Prove the propaganda wrong

Too often has the rest of the world shown the Afghani people that anyone there is in it for themselves and confirming the propaganda that they’ve heard for most of their lives: “any foreigners are evil and only wish to destroy you”. Americans and their allies are cast as devils in this play. The George W. Bush administration did nothing to help in dispelling this – in my personal point of view, he hurt the American image abroad more than any other President, including Nixon and Reagan – and right now, it should be the goal of the allied troops to not just fight the insurgency, but to also prove their rhetoric wrong.

• Get Afghanistan their own functioning government

This might sound weird, but democracy might not be right for these people in this area. Democracy in any Islamic country is a joke – as evidenced by the Iranian elections this year – and really depends deeply on religious leaders advocating for the politicians. The Taliban ruled these people for years since the Soviet Union fell, and gave everyone a strict Islamic law. Change, unfortunately, does not happen overnight, and needs to be gradual.

Unfortunately, one of those other gradual changes also means that the government has to be left alone to find out what works best for the Afghani people. Western influence kinda doesn’t help that, but I understand in this case.

• A return on investment

Speaking strictly on a business standpoint, which I am known to do every once in a while, what kind of returns have the Americans, Canadians, British, or any other force in Afghanistan received by being there? Has it stopped further terrorist actions? No. Should it? Probably not.

The returns I’m talking about are more people-based. Have the people of Afghanistan started rebuilding their infrastructure? Can they start sustaining themselves? Can this happen without their own security forces?

• Freedom

The price of freedom is not measured in dollars, but it is measured in the vigilance of men and women whom chose to defend that right for others. No amount of technology or equipment can replace that simple fact. The peacekeeping troops there aren’t guarding just our freedom, but the freedom of the Afghani people as well, whom deserve a shot at it, just as much as we do. To take away those troops is to remove their freedom again, as the Taliban will return and then we’ll have the entire situation start all over again.

(While we’re on the subject of peacekeeping, a shout out to the father of modern peacekeeping.)

I think I’ve gone on long enough. The point is, we really shouldn’t be there just to hunt for someone whom has the unnatural ability to slip away better than Cobra Commander, or for a group of religious extremists that harbored him. They will battle against conventional forces, using the resources they have: their people. Instead of hitting them directly, hit their resources: their people. You don’t do that with tanks, you do that with words and peaceful actions.

It’s the one resource that’s not as fancy as modern warfare, but it helps a lot more.

I spend probably an unhealthy amount of time online.

This revelation comes as no shock to anyone who knows me at all, as even at work I would not engage too many people in conversation and just write and read a lot on the computer. I barely know what a book is anymore – though I will definitely NOT complain if/when the Kindle actually becomes available in the “frozen wastelands” that we call Canada. I don’t even have cable TV, which is a very unusual pattern for anyone in North America. You get different reactions from different people, where some refer to it as “makes sense” or “kind of cool” to treating me like a diseased leper because I do not watch any TV, which I think highlights one of the reasons why I am glad to not be drawn to a TV. I may get into this subject deeper down the road, but for now… I have a different thing on my mind.

Since I spend so much time online, I tend to see a lot of different names that people choose to represent themselves (unless you’re looking at 4chan’s boards, where everyone’s Anonymous), and I can see a lot of different things about people. The same is true in the gaming world, really. There’s a lot that will just use their own given name – really says that they are a casual Internet user, maybe even a first-time user. Nothing wrong with that at all, I like people who are like that. Then you have people that seemingly have random text strings as user names, but 99% of the time it makes sense to the user as sort of an inside joke with themselves or their friends. You also have nicknames that they are given in real life, by others around them. Some people use ones that refer to their birth year, or a celebrity. And then there are others that relay hobbies of the person behind them. Some even create whole new personae – they are named Bob, but they go by John online.

Then there’s those that just come randomly, and that is where mine comes from.

My online name over the last little while has been “Flying Gremlin”. People shorten that to FG, Gremmy, idiot, sarcastic bastard… you know, the good stuff. One of the questions I get asked a lot is where the name came from. Rather than explain it each and every time, I will just write it here, then link anyone to this explanation.

About a decade ago, I started on the Internet. I was still in high school, and my parents got cable internet. Of course, this was before wireless internet, and the Internet only ended up being in one room of the house – my mother’s office. So I was stuck with a computer – a pretty good computer for the time, actually – that was a standalone box. I would be able to get online every once in a while at school, but because my mother worked at home a lot, and when she wasn’t at home I wasn’t allowed to go in there and use the computer because I had my own, I was without it.

The one class I had at school that allowed me to use the Internet a lot, I actually finished the coursework about two months early, and I found myself sitting in front of a computer for 77 minutes a day with nothing to do BUT to surf the Internet. A friend of mine had introduced me to a game called Dominion that I just found out is still running – way to go Ross! I played Round 4-11, I believe is when I left. I had been playing this off-and-on when I could, but then with my accounting class in high school so far ahead, I could play this a little more regularly. Once I realized that it only took about 15 minutes to finish that part… I got bored some more, until I realized that Grand Theft Auto 2 was on the teacher’s computer, and I learned how to beat the first level in under an hour – didn’t really help that he had a program on those computers to wipe the computer’s hard disks clean every night and restore them to what they were when I entered the room, else I would have beat the game.

Once that became boring, I started to go back to the Internet and back onto Dominion, where I noted they had a delightful message board. Ooooooooh, people to talk to that I didn’t know. I registered there with the name “OneBadMonday”, because I had been having a bad Monday at that point, and I didn’t have anything better to put down as my name. I started to talk, and then slowly became part of the community. Even after that class ended and I moved on, I tried to keep up as best as I could. Life got in the way o f me participating in the forums for a bit, but I came back and said a few things. People even noticed my absence and stuff, which was nice – to be honest, I don’t get that a lot in life – and I continued on.

Now, with the name “OneBadMonday”, a couple of people were reading it as “OneBadMonkey”. I see now what that was about, and now it seems slightly silly to say, but I used to hate it when people would just shorten my name to monkey. Could have something to do with the fact that throughout my entire school life, I was made fun of for my last name, or just called by my last name instead of just by my given name. It depressed me a lot when I was younger; I guess you could say that I was emo about it before emo was created. So I went looking for a new nickname.

Unfortunately, as with all creative processes in my brain, I hit up against writer’s block.

I was stuck! I couldn’t think of any different names for myself, no matter how I tried. I wanted something that wouldn’t talk about my name at all – I’m still really paranoid about my real name getting out and identity theft, coupled with the fact that I hated how people, when they find out my last name, just refer to me by my last name – and I wanted something unique. I spent a good week debating on names, when finally, I just picked something at random.

I was watching TV when there was this Midas commercial that came on and it just got stuck in my head. Unfortunately, I can’t find anyone who thought to save it – YouTube, you have failed in your duties! – but I can at least describe it. It was one of this guy telling about a new service – I think it was a car inspection or something – and then he went in to a story where there was this one person’s car had this one problem that stuck out in his mind. Camera cuts away, and the guy’s poking his head out of the hood of a car and he just simply says: “Flying gremlin.” The people in the car stick their head out the window and are confused, but then, sure enough, a CG flying gremlin pokes his head out of the hood and starts flying around and knocking things over, and he is subdued by the mechanic hitting him over the head with a wrench. Then it cuts back to the original guy staring at the camera and he just says, “Well, actually it was just a stuck hose, but you get the idea.” For some reason, that particular ad stuck with me… and still does, since I just described it in its entirety.

UPDATE: Thank you to the guy in the Klingon armor: http://adland.tv/commercials/midas-flying-gremlin-2002-030-usa

Anyway, I had my new nickname just because of a random TV ad that no one saw but myself, because I ask people, and others are still confused when I tell them about it. It’s an odd coincidence that I got my Internet name off of a TV commercial, but I right now have not had cable TV for a year and a half. I got myself a new name, then introduced myself as Flying Gremlin over on the Dominion boards. I didn’t get made fun of unless I wanted them to make fun of me, which is what I wanted.

I don’t exactly know what “Flying Gremlin” makes me look like to anyone else, but in hindsight, I guess it does make sense. If I were to list my favorite video games of all time, I realize that there’s a significant amount of flight games listed in there, or games involving flight vehicles – I also happen to prefer sneaking in on people who don’t expect it and blow stuff up. I’ve always wanted to fly a plane, but never really had the money to do more than buy a plane ticket once a decade. Maybe a Cessna is in my future someday, but for now not so much.

For now, though… my name is Adam. Online, I am known as Flying Gremlin or just plain FG. Call me one of those online, and I’ll respond.

Outside of the Internet… getting called a Flying Gremlin is just weird. Just call me Adam. Please.

I don’t know if anyone who reads this has been following everything that’s been happening, but let me bring you up to speed:

• President Obama wants to change the health care system
• People are protesting in dramatic fashions

Wow. I just summed up the entire American system in two lines. Well, I’m outta here.

Just kidding.

Anyway, Obama wants to bring in this big health care reform for the United States. Some of the numbers are pretty staggering. Let me put up his weekly address because I know Canadians probably haven’t seen this video:

I’m going to comment on this video momentarily. I am not going to get into it right now, but I’m going to provide some resources first.

A couple of other resources I was able to find were:

• A report on health care insurance premiums
• A Wikipedia article on the difference in between Canada’s system and the US system

There’s a lot of rhetoric out there. While looking, I couldn’t find too much raw data compared to people yelling at one side and then the other side yelling back. Twitter’s trending topic of #obamacare is a source of consistent hilarity for me, because as I read down the list, the Republican’s “alternatives” are either keeping the status quo or part of the Democrat’s plan. The real question, I guess, is:

Is the system broken in the first place?

I know at least one person from America that will disagree with me. Her life was saved by experimental drugs that were only available in the United States, and given to er as part of a plan to keep her liver alive. Canada’s health care system doesn’t even have access to that drug yet – out of curiosity, I checked – and is far away from Health Canada acceptance. In one case, I’d say it was a good system. But is it right for everyone?

Is a universal system good for everyone? No, of course not. However, I’d prefer to listen in a rational voice and ask people whom have been through the health care system if they think their health care system is all right.

The way I see the health care systems of both Canada and the United States is kind of like the difference in between Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks (I’m going with Dunkin’ Donuts because most Americans have not discovered what a Tim Horton’s is, so if you’re Canadian, sub out the Dunkin’ with Timmy’s). In a Dunkin’ Donuts, if you want coffee and donuts, that’s the big-ticket items. Sure, there’s other beverages there, and if you want them, they are there, but the focus is on the staple product. With a Starbucks, the focus isn’t on coffee, its about options. Do you want a grande double-whipped no-fat macchiato, or the triple shot no-whip latte with white chocolate sprinkles? As soon as you walk in, you’re presented with 150 different ways that you can receive your a coffee that’s served to everyone. Then there’s different roasts, different flavors, different toppings, different blends… the list goes on and on and on. As a non-coffee drinker, I can’t say whether the choice and options are a good thing or not, but I hear those that can afford to have it every day enjoy it.

America is a lot like the Starbucks in my example when it comes to health care. You have choice of what coverage you have. But, like much of the world, the fine print is where the problem lies. In each plan, do you or your insurance company decide on which doctors you go to? Do they require you to get a second opinion for certain procedures? What happens when your insurance company ends your coverage plan? Is your choice a flavor that takes away the fact that you’re just drinking coffee in the first place?

Am I trying to make a point? Meh… probably. My brain is working in subtle ways today that I find to be… odd. What I would like people to do is come up with their own opinions based upon facts and not other people’s distortions of the facts. President Obama did have a point when he said that critics will try to distract you from anything to do with this subject because people who make money in the status quo want it to stay that way. Who knew that taking the people that didn’t have insurance and giving them a way to buy affordable insurance without forcing those already on insurance to quit theirs is being taken as: “You must take this plan or you go to jail.”

H-uh.

Obama’s statements about how long it’s been debated in the US is a very odd sentiment. Sixty years to try to come up with this. Wow. I guess the differences are only starting to show now, but the problem is really with propaganda. How does one get their message across when there’s ninety different messages being broadcast louder, with twice the emotion?

Is his plan good? I really couldn’t tell you. It has good points, but I’m not an expert. I would just be pointing out my opinion.

Is Canada’s system good? I would have to rate it as an A-. It’s pretty good, but there’s places it can improve as well. The only times I’ve needed hospitals, I’ve come out in better condition than I left in. I’ve had an MRI, three emergency room visits, several doctor’s clinic visits, and twice when my kids were born. (It wasn’t me getting admitted, so they get separate listings.) Ambulance response and billing for services are two big things I have a problem with… but my trifles with that are probably nowhere near an American’s.

The one thing I’d like to ask any American that yells about Obama taking away their health care, or their right to choose… all I ask is that you take a moment and look at the facts yourself. Create an informed opinion before either praising or criticizing the plan. Actually do some research. Please.

It is all I ask, and your life could depend on it.

You know, I had this great post lined up to speak about today. I was going to talk about humanity’s stagnation over the past ten years, and how we as a culture (the “Western World”) are headed into the vast abyss of thoughtlessness and uncreative culture. I had something so clearly written in my head… and now it’s missing. I’ll probably return on this subject at a later time, but for now…

Something happened in the meantime that got me thinking on a completely different track. I’m sort of flying by the seat of my pants on this one, but for all that do know me… it’s something that I do quite often, with mixed results – usually good ones, but that may be just tooting my own horn.

Anyway…

A friend of mine approached me recently and told me her dog died. No, not just died… poisoned. Someone fed her dog a wood stain, killed it, then proceeded to taunt her and her family via phone calls – including a twelve year old and a seven year old – that the dog was dead and not coming back, laughing at their reactions, and repeating this process. Yes, they were familiar with the person that did it… but my God.

Humanity is made up of people on all sides of the cruelty spectrum, from the people who wouldn’t harm a fly to the people who would commit genocide without batting an eyelash. We all coexist within a strange little world, where we interact with each other in a way where we can hurt others by doing some of the cruelest acts that can be imagined, if our minds are put to that test. I’m not citing any facts there, this is just my opinion on it, from human observation and just what I have seen. A good way to tell how cruel a person is is to figure out how cruel they are to those that are more vulnerable than they are.

I know, I am not perfect. I get mad, I lash out. It’s just something that I do, and I regret it instantly when I do. But still, it pales in comparison to those that would murder for entertainment value, or to those that would mistreat small animals so that they can feel a sense of power or control. I understand why they do psychologically… but I don’t agree with it.

I’d do more on this subject, but I think it’d better be left for when I am concentrating properly. For now… I’ll just let my outrage at these people stew as I plan a very nasty and vile way of dealing with the people who did this.