Friday, September 30, 2011

This Week's Poll

Hello all,

In case you haven't noticed yet, I have just changed the poll on this blog. We used last week's data to come up with ideas for our point-counterpoint-debate. This week's poll is part of the research I'm doing into my weekly 'special' article on 6/10/11.

If you're curious as to what, specifically, it will be about - then just be patient. You'll find out. Besides, I think it should be fairly obvious, based on the material I have placed in the poll.

And of course, in the meantime, you can look forward to my weekly news update on Monday.

Until then - helping you help me - this has been,

Y. S. Rice

Point/Counterpoint 1: Gay Marriage

Hey readers. Caowin here. I know you guys totally think I'm way awesomer than that Yair guy. And, I mean, who could blame you. I'm smarter, funnier, and probably get a lot more of the ladies. However, since this is a joint blog, I have to occasionally pretend to take his words to heart. No homo.

For example, he has recently told me that some of my material is a bit offensive. To this, I replied, "Of course it was. That's why I wrote that apology." He explained to me that, while my apology may have had good intentions ("but probably didn't"), it did very little to actually apologize for anything.

"But I have an idea," he told me. "Why don't you write whatever you want [like I wasn't going to anyway] and I'll just write an opposing view underneath? We can make it a segment, and call it 'Point/Counterpoint'. You know, so people hate us less."

And that's what we're doing. In this new weekly joint article I will make my point - namely that gay marriage is kind of homo - and Mr. Rice will attempt (and probably fail) to refute the awesome sauce that is my argument.



I hate the gays
The reason why
Is cuz they're gay
Or sometimes bi
I hate those gays
Whose creepy eyes
Want other guys
But lesbians are okay cuz that's hot.

-Jester Antonio Caowinhim, Award-Winning Slam Poet

You guys might know me as the loveably xenophobic writer, but you might not know that I'm also a poet. In fact, the Jester Antonio Caowinhim who wrote that poem is the same one that writes these amazing articles!

What that poem talks about is an underlying fear in western society - namely, of men that want other men. These people are commonly known as "gays," although I prefer to call them "Fabulous-Americans."

These Fabulous-Americans have recently formed a Rainbow Army, bent on conquering america. They have recently repealed Don't Ask-Don't Tell, more commonly known as "Military Men Live with Each Other - NO HOMO," and are turning our country into a land of rainbow-colored glitter. Now, it's not that I hate lands of rainbow-colored glitter... In fact, I fully support French nationhood. However, I would cry if such a fate ever befelll the USA.

And yet, gay marriage is quickly becoming a possibility. Six states have already passed it, and the issue is on everyone's mind. "Are these homos as bad as we all think?" people ask themselves. "Why SHOULDN'T gays get married?" But we cannot succumb to the wishes of homos, if only because that would sound pretty gay.

First of all, we must consider that there is no precedent in Western society for gay marriage. Even the Greeks, the most homo society in human history, had no gay marriage. The Greek model for a homosexual society proves that homos can be plenty happy unmarried.

In fact, I would even argue they are HAPPIER without it. Men, as virtually everyone knows, hates marriage. This is because marriage is like prison - you are forced to board with one person who you might not even like and lose your liberty to do what you want when you want. In fact, marriage is worse - you never hear of a prisoner getting mad because their roommate buttfucked someone else in the shower. If you care about Fabulous-Americans at all, you cannot allow them to ruin their lives by getting married.

And what about the children? While some have argued that being adopted by gays - or being "gaydopted," as scholars call it - doesn't make children become gay, it certainly doesn't help. I mean, small children love bright colors and glitter, right? But straight fathers usually beat this out of them.

But imagine a child raised by Fabulous-Americans - his love for bright colors and glitter wouldn't be beaten out of him because his Fabulous American parents would ALSO LIKE BRIGHT COLORS AND GLITTER. Accept it - gay parents don't have the viciousness to beat their children for expressing themselves.

But most importantly, we must consider one of the most valuable resources America has - gay jokes. That shit is fucking hilarious! I mean, Americans have terrible test scores, are dependent on their ideological enemy for their cheap goods, and suck overall. But we always had our hilarious "You're a homo!" jokes to make us look cool. If we pass gay marriage, being disrespectful to homos seems mean.

Gay marriage is bad. Not just for the society in denigrates, nor the Fabulous-Americans it punishes, nor the children it corrupts, but for America as a member of a globalized world.


Y. S. Rice's Counterpoint:

Hello again, dear readers, and please allow me to be the second to welcome you to the first Public Unintellectuals point-counterpoint debate. My colleague has probably already told you his misguided side of the issue at hand - not to mention an almost definite joke implying that I am homosexual myself - so let me reassure you that although I am not in any way gay, I shall almost certainly be standing up for the exact opposite of everything that he has said.I think that the first and most significant argument in favour of gay marriage is this:

It was hard to narrow it down to one celebrity marriage.
It was also hard to narrow it down to one witty caption.

Yes, that is Britney Spears and What's-His-Name (I genuinely do not care). They got married in, quite literally, some year in a perfectly heterosexual wedding. So how does this show approval of gay marriage? I would normally make a comment such as 'But, if we allow the mentally handicapped to wed, then why not perfectly intelligent homosexuals?' however, I have a deeply serious point to make here. That is, if we allow the mentally handicapped to wed ON THE WORLD STAGE OF GOSSIP AND TELEVISION, then GET DIVORCED ON THE WORLD STAGE OF GOSSIP AND TELEVISION, then why can't some inconspicuous gay couple make their relationship more legitimate? Straight people have a terrible track record when it comes to marriage (Henry VIII, I'm looking at you). Indeed, there is the oft-quoted (but I would like to believe, exaggerated) statistic that 50% of marriages end in divorce. Think of some rich guy or gal you know; how many times have they been married? I'm willing to bet that most of you answered that with 'more than once'. So, if straight men and women are allowed to make terrible, stupid, life-affecting and life-wasting decisions, then why should the gays be saved from it? Just because they like people with the same equipment? I say that if we straights are allowed to be totally immoral, then why can't gays be moral? After all, marriage is a pretty damn moral act. Certainly better than 'living in sin', as the religious objectors might say.

"But wait! MY Bible says that men must not lie with other men", I hear you call. Unlike Caowin, I shall not at this point tear apart your guide to life; I have a deep respect religion. I would, however, like to also point out that the Bible says a lot of things that we no longer stand by. I'm talking about subtle things here.

Not this guy, in other words.

The Bible gives us dominion over all creatures, for example, and yet we now consider killing cute pandas a sin. It also says that we should not be envious, but have you really never, ever, even once, wished that you had something that your buddy had? Also, suicide is a sin (since only God has the right to take life), so that means that everyone you have ever known and loved who has killed themselves is now burning in Hell. Even Ernest Hemingway. Does that thought disturb you? Homophobia disturbs some people too. I'm a theist, and believer in religion, by the way.

Finally, and most importantly, there is our own image to consider. As some of you may recall from my earlier posts, I am a tri-national citizen and have spent years living on opposite sides of the planet. That means that I have had many, many, opportunities to witness first-hand what non-Americans think of Americans. If you're curious what that might be, I'll give you a hint: it begins with "They are all", and ends with "bigoted morons".

I have genuinely no idea how they came to that conclusion.
God bless these United States of America.

There are a great number of reasons for this; our foreign policy, our xenophobic views of other countries, our foreign policy, our history of (and continued in some areas) racism, our foreign policy, our vapid consumerism, our foreign policy, etc. So it's not like we can totally cure our bad P.R. overnight, but we can do something. Let's see... Where are civil unions allowed? Everywhere in the E.U. Where are they disallowed? Extreme-right-wing near-dictatorships in the Middle-East and Africa. Could that be something worth considering? No, no, that's silly.

Hang on!

Yes, that might just be it! Eureka! Forwards thinking countries are doing it. And do you know why? Because we've been through all of this before. Many, many times. And it's never gone down well in the end. Xenophobia is as old as cave-paintings. Now, before you return to your scrawling on the interior walls of your abode with those shiny new Crayolas, just consider that point for a moment: you are acting like a caveman (or woman) every time you are being racist/sexist/homophobic. Come on, America! Let's move out of the 321st century BCE today, and into the 320th at least. I really want to be able to travel without being justifiably hated by the rest of the world.

What's more - when our politicians are done debating whether gays should be allowed to marry, maybe they can move onto more... you know, political, issues.

politicsplural of pol·i·tics (Noun)

1. The activities associated with the governance of a country or area.
2. The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries.
Last I checked, gay marriage has literally nothing to do with a "Country or area", or even the "relations between countries" - that is, unless said countries are both the same sex and are getting married to each other. No, seriously. There are so many more issues that politicians should be focussing on instead: taxes, the conflicts in the Middle-East, and our status as an imperial power. You know what these things have in common? They are not moral issues (which should be settled on a personal level); they are cold, hard, political things (which are meant to be handled by the State).

Remember: legalising gay marriage doesn't mean that you have to get married to someone of the same gender too. It means choice. While you're considering just what 'democracy' means*, give a good hard listen to Our Country, by John Mellencamp. Listen and think. Think and rock that country sound.

Bringing down world fascism as always, this has been,

Y. S. Rice

*It means choice, dude.


Definition of 'politics' is from Google and

Wikipedia is linked for information regarding racism.

Youtube provides that awesome song of patriotism in a dream USA.

All pictures, as usual, link to their derivative pages. Please do feel free to click on them, since we're effectively stealing their bandwidth with those pics.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Caowin's Apology about Rape

Beloved readers (no homo), you know that I'm not one to pull my punches. I'm more of a "Hey, look, it's your face! POW!" kind of guy. But there comes a time in every man's life, where he has to pretend that he knows he was wrong, in order to not look like a complete asshole.

Now, real fans of The Public Unintellectuals (I think we have at least 3) know that I published an editorial on rape. (If you haven't read it, look here.) What they might not know is that, not only am I bold enough to make fun of what is widely considered not good, I am actually so bold that I told the world about my amazing blogpost by commenting on other blogposts.

For example, I found a very interesting article on this woman that was raped in Nigeria. While it made its point very well, I found it one-sided, so I told them so and provided them a link to my editorial, as "the other side of the story."

Now, I wasn't expecting to get a lot of attention for this comment, since the website was a Nigerian one, and there's only like 4 people in Nigeria with internet access. However, one woman, named "Nadael" (what a silly Nigerian name) who said:

"Jester, are you normal? I skim-read your blog - talk about one-sided drivel! You call that an editorial?! And you have the unmitigated gall to put it (i.e. your crap) on par with the above article, detailing a real life event?!'re clearly missing a humanity 'button' coz according to the bullshit you published on the internet...[bla bla bla]...there is nothing intellectual about exposing your depraved thoughts on the internet for all to see."

I thanked her for skim-reading my blog, told her that it wasn't supposed to be both sides, but rather an editorial defending a side most are afraid to defend, and explained that I wasn't really going for intellectual, hence Public UNintellectual.

She then told me, in many words, that 1) Rape is not consented to, 2) Rape is about power, and that 3) Defending rape was something sane people do not do, and that the only debate we should have about it is what the proper punishment for it should be.

Now, these arguments are used so often, so they appear strong, but they are, in actuality, very weak. However, they are treated as untouchable. So, like all those other untouchable things rapists deal with, I ripped this one apart.

I never said the girl consents. However, just because something is not consented to by all parties does not mean it’s wrong. For example, you would probably agree with the punishment of rapists against their consent. I’m not equating the two, but it is logically untenable to say consent is a necessary condition of a morally right action. The “rape is about power” argument is untenable too, since normal sex is all about the wielding of power too.

Furthermore, your insistence that only one side of an argument should be presented is scary. Debate hurts no one; it simply presents ideas so they can be evaluated on a critical level. Sane human beings aren’t necessarily those who agree with your moral compass – they are those who have the ability to reason, the ability to evaluate ideas and decide which is the strongest. Even if you don’t have this reasoning power yourself, do not insult me because I do have it."

But the girl hasn't posted back, so I'm assuming that I raped her arguments so violently that she died. So yeah, I apologize about that.

This conversation can be found at - feel free to comment, for or against me.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Caowin's Editorial on the American Jobs Act

Even though he's a cumbucket, I have to thank my cowriter, Y. S. Rice, for giving me the idea to use pictures. Maybe he's not as homosexual as his freaky Saturday nights would suggest.


Something that really annoys me, as a public unintellectual as well as an American (which pretty much means the same thing), is stupid political gimmicks. I mean, I'm fine with super-cool, awesome political gimmicks, like dressing up as a Founding Father:

Real Americans dress up in ridiculous costumes

or displaying vaguely racist images of Barack Obama:

It's offensive - because it's TRUE!

But when politicians like Barack Hussein Obama bin Laden start choosing style over substance in a way that is less than completely awesome, a part of me dies inside. For example, quite recently, Barack Obama announced a new plan of his to get America going, called "The American Jobs Act."

First of all, I'd like to criticize that name. I mean, who are those American jobs going to? I'll give you a hint: his name is Juan and your wife is cheating on you for him.

At least, he looks like a Juan.

But his actual ideas are much more sinister than that. First, a major part of his plan includes tax cuts: for small businesses that hire Americans, tax cuts if those Americans are veterans or unemployed, tax cuts for families - there's tax cuts for everyone!

Did Barack Obama hire this chick as an advisor?
Makes sense - she is the Progressive lady.

Now, you might notice that all this talk of "tax cuts" reminds you of a slightly straighter political party - namely the Republicans. That's because Barack Obama has plagiarized most of this bill from ideas that were originally proposed by conservatives.

It shouldn't really come as a surprise to anybody. Two of Barack Obama's biggest achievements so far, healthcare reform and cap and trade, have already been based on Republican ideas. But if Barack Obama keeps on copying other people's ideas, he's totally going to cramp the Republican's style.

"No, Obama! I want to propose tax cuts!"

In addition to this gimmick, he also played the math card when discussing his plan to tax the superwealthy. He plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire for income earned over one million dollars. He said this would fix the deficit. "It's not class warfare," he said, "it's math."

Now, I know what you're thinking. "He's going to try to get support for something by calling it math?" But look at it this way - if he calls something math, no one is going to try criticize it because everyone hates thinking about math.

But perhaps the worst gimmick is how he makes his obviously socialist plan (because, I mean, it's Barack O-fucking-bama) by cloaking it with things that most people believe. I mean, the idea of offering tax cuts for hiring people seems like it would work, and virtually all Republicans agree with it. And most people would agree the rich should probably pay their fair share.

If we have leaders that appeal to people's actual opinions, we will start moving down a slippery slope. I mean, we need our politicians to offer us the opportunity to dress up and be racist (see above.) If politicians start getting votes by having good ideas that people agree with, what will the world come to?

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Caowin's Editorial on Islam

At first glance, Islam seems like a pretty badass religion. I mean, I've always wanted to drive an airplane, and I can't think of a cooler way to die than blowing up in an explosion. From Muhammad's side job as a warlord to the insistence of Muslims on fighting a jihad to this day, it seems like this is the perfect religion for anyone who's sick of all the kindness and compassion exhibited by other modern religions.

However, before we begin converting by the hundreds, we should probably ask ourselves, "What is Islam?" Although I think what most people mean with this question is, "What's wrong with Islam?" I don't imagine anyone actually cares about the spiritual life of some sand-colored weirdo who thinks it's cool to hang out in the desert and put your hair in a towel.

Bus seriously, Islam. What is it? Does it involve magical genies that grant wishes and help get poor people laid, like the movie Aladdin suggests? Is the threat of the Dagger of Time a concern Muslims have grown accustomed to, or does it strike them with just as much fear now as it did when Prince of Persia first came out? What is the theological understanding of mummies?

First, we must address Islam's founder, an infamous Mr. Muhammad. From what you have probably heard, he was a powerful warlord, which is a pretty badass occupation for a holy man. However, at this time in history, virtually anyone with any sort of power was a warlord. To give him credit for being a warlord would be like giving Sarah Palin credit for knowing how to read, at least in theory.

What's more, Muhammad rose to power by mediating disputes between Medina's tribes. Rather than just punching people he didn't like in the face, like a warlord should, he decided to instead help them settle their differences with words and come together as a community. That makes Muhammad as badass as a summer camp counselor.

I suppose Islam would still have some claim to being the toughest, manliest religion out there, as long as they got over the "let's hug each other" aspects and moved on to straighter ways of thinking. The main thing that might give us hope is that awesome jihad thing they have going on.

Unfortunately, that's even more disappointing than Muhammad's warlord career. You see, whilejihad has been interpreted as "holy war" or "an excuse to blow shit up," the word actually has a much less awesome meaning. It actually refers to striving towards good rather than evil, which included the fight to preserve the Islamic state, sure, but nowadays refers to a more personal battle.

Fucking pansies.

Of course, the truth about Islam's lameness is hard to reconcile with the very badass Muslims out there. However, it seems as though terrorists in all places are blowing stuff up. Irish freaks have been doing it for years. Tree huggers do it too. Even the Japanese have been known to dabble in terrorism. But you don't see people arguing that Irishness, or environmental friendliness, or even whatever the hell Japanese people care about (squid porn?) is inherently explosive and awesome.

Therefore, I say we stop giving all the credit for Al-Qaeda's clearly badass behavior to Islam. Obviously, the behavior of the plane-hijacking human bombs is the exception, not the rule. If anything, we should be honoring Al-Qaeda for turning something as peaceful as a religion founded to stop pointless fighting into something a real man could be proud to call his own. That has to be their greatest accomplishment yet.

Macademia Nuts - Some Thoughts on the English Language

   Hello again, and welcome to the third post in our "Let's write lots of blog posts so we look busy in our first week" weeklong blog campaign. This is what I would call a 'special' post (as opposed to a weekly series), not only because it won't become a weekly series, but also because it aims to bury my colleague's one tragically offensive post below a pile of intellectual bile that I spit out.


   Yes, this is a blog post entirely comprised of blagging - blagging endlessly to cover up an inconvenient truth that is not related to the environment. Well, not yet, anyway. This act is also known as '', or for those of you who don't mind the occasional swear word, 'bullshitting'. I don't know why it is only a bull's feces that symbolises lying and deceit, for I find all varieties of defecation to be equally pungeant. In fact, I find bulls to be a generally rare sight in developed countries these days, and (by the transitive property of biological functions) so is their dung.

   However, this strange and completely random topic actually leads quite nicely into my main subject today: Macademia Nuts. No, wait, I mean language; specifically, the English language. Any of you who don't speak English as a first language - or don't speak English at all (hey, Google translate's gotten pretty good these days) - will know that it is a very complicated language. Heck, even those of you who do speak English as a first language will probably know what I mean. The most common complaint regarding its difficulty to learn is the number of irregular verbs and annoying homophones: I haven't runned today, and whoever writed that terribly inaccurate clause nose nothing of hour language.

   This having been the topic of my studies for the past few years, and this post being my pushy way of presenting my opinions to the unsuspecting world, I do have a different theory. Yes, irregulars are tricky, but they aren't exclusive to English. Look no further than Spanish's 'Ser', which follows almost none of the rules for verb conjugation.


I won't bore you with the details, but suffice
it to say that 'Ser' is one mad hombre.

Not only that, but against all common sense rules, 'agua' is somehow a masculine noun! It's insane! Or, is it? (It's not). The fact is that all languages the world over - even German - have irregularities within their construction. Esperanto and Basic English don't*, but that's because they are constructed languages - constructed not all that perfectly by mental cases. Quite simply, all natural things tend towards chaos, even in language. Do I know why? I could spout some nonsense about how the rough and tumble ways of nature that form such beauty as the Grand Canyon would be impossible without this entropy, but the fact is that I simply think that first grade spelling teachers hate us. All over the goddamned world.

   But wait - what is that you're saying? If all languages have irregularities, then why is my gardener always complaining about her low salary in some foreign-sounding language instead of good ol' American like I do? Well, sidestepping the issue of critical period theory because I don't really feel like putting up with the dead baby jokes that Kevin would bring to the table, there is still my theory.


No, that's not my theory. Not until I have a time machine, at any rate.

My theory on English complexity (and I use the word 'my' only because I've never read of anybody else citing this as the main reason - not because I wish to be sued.) is that there are so very, very, many synonyms. Not only are there 271 words in our mother tongue that mean 'good' (and only 149 that mean bad. Come on, man! Keep up), but each and every one of those has a subtly different context and meaning. You would call your dog "Good" to mean that he was a fine (there's one synonym already) specimen of his species. But when was the last time you heard someone praising their canine companion for being 'ace', 'gnarly', or 'stupendous'? They all mean the same thing, technically.

   No, it has to be "Good dog". Has to be.


Or else.

   The reason that this is such an issue, is that we never even think about it ourselves when we speak. This was something that changed a lot when I was hanging out exclusively with Frenchmen in Prague. There were only Frenchmen in Prague. In-between drinking and partying, I was generally conversing with these fine folks, and lemme tell you - it wasn't that easy. They spoke fine English by all accounts; they could say just about anything that they needed to get across. However there were snags when I was speaking, which if you haven't yet guessed, was down to my use of words such as "Conversing" instead of 'speaking' and "snags" instead of 'issues' (or would 'problems' be the more universal word?) I quite often had to whip out my mental thesarus and try a few different words to get my message across adequately.

   Adequately!? Adequately? I meant 'understandably'. Do you see how difficult it is? To you, my many foreign acquaintances, I apologise humbly for my very complex way of speaking sometimes.

   Now then... All of this brings me to one final point. English is weird to me! There are oft-cited examples: 'a driveway is where you park; a parkway is where you drive', 'being economical is good; being cheap is bad', et al. but one thing recently struck me quite deeply.
"Macademia nuts."
No, this is not the confession of some strange phobia and/or phillia. It is a common foodstuff that just happened to get me thinking... 'Mac' is a common prefix to (pseudo)Scottish names, and 'academia' is just a fancy way of saying 'education', right? Add to that the general understanding that an 'academia nut' is one who is nuts (crazy, zealous, in love) about academia.

   So the thought I wish to leave you, dear reader, with today is this: why is it that in this crazy world, when I am speaking so clearly of my Scottish intellectual chums, that people think I'm talking about hard, woody, globose seed carriers?


Two examples of hard, woody, globose seed carriers.

  Keeping you, as always, cushioned within the impenetrable grey fog of information,

Y. S. Rice

*They do.

Most of the information, particularly on the scientific description of macademia nuts comes from this relatively unknown site:

Synonym statistics are from:

And, as always, the pictures link to their sources. Browse at your own discretion, for I have no idea how cool or otherwise these sites may be.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Caowin's Editorial on Rape

Hey, I'm Jester Antonio Caowinhim, but you can call me Caowin. Or Professor Awesome. Or that guy that totally blows Yair, my cowriter, out of the water. Actually, I'd prefer that last one.

Let's do that again. Hey, I'm that guy that totally blows Yair, my cowriter, out of the water. You see, while he thinks that things that happen in the world are important, I don't think at all. That's what it means to be a public unintellectual.

Anyway, this is not the place to discuss how much Yair sucks. That will be dealt with in future editorials, like "Caowin's Editorial on Britain," "Caowin's Editorial on Homosexuality," and "Caowin's Editorial on Names that Start with Y."


It's a story as old as time itself. Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Girl says no. Boy has sex with her anyway. What's more, she was an aspiring actress, and he a filmmaker, so their love seemed inevitable. However, instead of being cherished as a part of a beautiful love story, Madhur Bhandarkur was sent to court for raping Preeni Jain.

Yes, there are laws against rape. But, like St. Augustine said, "An unjust law is no law at all. I mean, even medieval Christian philosophers need some loving every now and then, and women don't judge a man by the size of their wisdom, if you know what I mean."

Now, I know rape is a sensitive subject, so in the spirit of my rapist brethren, I will take something really sensitive and thrust myself into it until there is blood.

Ancient men often stole the freedom of women by forcing them into marriage, much like women do to men in modern times. This was due to the fact that the other way of getting girls, showing off your new car to them, was not an option for many of our ancestors. In fact, rape was so prevalent in Ancient Greece that their language, which has like 50 different words for love, doesn't have a separate one for when the receiver wasn't willing.

In addition to being integral in day-to-day romancing, rape has also been important in war. During a battle, the invader would rape the invaded city's women, just to get the point of complete domination across. The Vikings even believed that rape ensured their victory - a ritual with a questionable premise, sure, but you didn't really hear the Vikings complaining.

In addition to being a part of Western society's legacy, rape is also heart-healthy. Scientists have discovered that having sex is actually a great workout - just one more reason they shouldn't have become scientists.

Think about how the forcible aspect of rape might contribute to this. Normal sex works out your hips, mostly. However, the act of pinning a woman down while you're thrusting turns a core muscle exercise into a full-body workout.

Furthermore, rape also works out the receiver. I'm pretty sure that their heartbeat goes up at least a bit, although no one has done a study to confirm or deny this. I don't see why not. Seems like a pretty obvious idea to me.

However, despite these obvious benefits, the rights of rapists have recently taken a turn for the worst. Rather than being something you can brag about, rape has become something that smelly feminist lesbos can call oppression. Some people are even calling it a "crisis," something rapists everywhere should be offended by.

Indeed, it as though people forget that some of the greatest men of all time, like the legendary hero Gilgamesh, Christopher Columbus, Strauss Kahn (creator of the IMF) and everyone who wears their hat with a jaunty tilt, are rapists.

Luckily, while they've taken away the glory of rape, they still haven't removed the necessary tools to accomplish it. So go out, and promote rape wherever you can! That girl who lives across from you looks cute. If you won't, I will.

Welcome All; Top of the News: 19/9/2011

Hello there, reader.

Is that a good way to start a blog entry? A bit too personal? Not personal enough? I don't know - this is my first post. I just hope that we can work things through, and maybe - just maybe - I can write for you without fear of rotten vegetables. If we try our best at this relationship, I'm sure you'll find plenty of reasons to not hate me. For one, I aren't a gypsy.

Yes, that last bit is what I told my last girlfriend when she dumped me.

That got your attention, huh? Well, let me be the first to welcome you all to the blog of 'The Public Unintellectuals'. This is the first in a series of posts that I have logically opted to call 'Top of the News'. If you, like me have a Google Mail account, and also like me, have spent many countless minutes waiting for that all important email from your boss/soon-to-be-boss/lover/ex-lover/et al. then you know what I'm talking about... Yes, when one has no mail, Google prompts us thusly:

"No new mail! There's always Google News if you're looking for something to read."

Gee, thanks! Just what I always needed when I'm anxiously awaiting an important message; some depressing news about cancer's incurability and omnipresence, or babies dying in explosions of genocide all over Africa. However, for you humble reader, I am willing to brave these depressing subjects - and many more. The idea, as you shall see, is that every week I will check Google News for the top story they want to tell me, and then I shall discuss the matter at hand with all of you - taking of course, my personal spin on it. And yes, by 'discuss' I do mean ignore any of you who would agree with Caowin. Additionally yes; that does include you yourself Caowin.


Where was I? Ah yes, discussing the Romany people. For those of you who don't know, these are the folks that people refer to by many derogatory names - 'Gypsies', 'Pikeys', and 'Orcs'. Yeah, I don't actually know anyone who calls these proud people 'Orcs', but I'm sure that such people exist, particularly in the Middle Earth community from whence the people of this Essex community must hale. This week's 'Top of the News' is in response to a piece from The Guardian UK News section about the recent eviction of 'Travellers' from the Dale Farm. Hopefully, this one will be more exciting than your run-of-the-mill eviction, and involve at least two pitched battles between the forces of ultimate good and evil - though reports are yet to confirm or deny this possible outcome.

Fingers crossed, eh?

Now first thing's first, all, I'm going to level with you. I don't know the whole of this issue, and I probably won't do so on most of these 'Top of the News' articles, but I am familiar with the situation. Heck, anyone who has spent some time in the UK knows what I mean. We Britons don't like these vagrant folk, do we? I use only the word 'we' with some considerable shame, because the two figures I most associate with gypsy-hating are:

Do people who make jokes about Nazis still go to Hell?
Ahhhh... Oops.

Would you eat any cookie that this man offered you?
Didn't think so.

Both of these gentlemen have hilarious mustaches, but only one of them is in fact hilarious. And no, I am not referring to the one that is Adolf Hitler. Hot Fuzz is a great action/comedy/anti-xenophobia/Gloucestershire film.

Yes, I know... Given an infinite time frame and infinite morons on the internet, the accusation that one's enemy is a Nazi is inevitable in any forum of discussion on the World Wide Web. I, however, don't have infinite time, nor do I have infinite stupidity, so I am just going to start there as a preemptive strike. Buuuut... Let's get this issue personal too - after all they can't really be Nazis, can they?
"I am disappointed it [eviction day] has arrived, but I am very clear in my conscience that we are doing the right thing because it is a breach of criminal law."
So, you're just following orders then, are you, Mr. Tony Ball? That name already sounds suspiciously fascist (in a closeted homosexual/American Beauty sort of way). But maybe this was just a slip of his tongue. What else did he say?
"Tony Ball said Basildon ... could "absolutely not" accommodate the 52 families that will be forced to leave Dale Farm."
That's nice, Mr. Ball, and I'm sure the families will really appreciate it. But why worry about this, when you can just "keep on moving them until they find a proper site".

Like a crematorium? Or a mass grave?

But this is not just some sort of National-Socialist-bashing post inspired by my current time spent in Germany. Au contraire, this is an England-bashing post written from the safety of Germany. It's not your racism/classism either - it's the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that you're as bad as the Americans you so love to bash. They hate Mexicans, you hate 'Poles' (which is your cutesy way of saying 'anyone who comes from further east than Denmark'). In America, we want to build a wall and kick them out; in the UK you just want to keep moving them on, hoping they become somebody else's problem instead of yours.

Please, will you learn (pretty please) that England sucks about as hard as the U.S.? Yeah, you make better chocolate and T.V., but you also don't know anything about hamburgers. Okay, we elected Bush twice, but you elected Tony Blair twice, put up with his un-elected successor for a couple years, and now have a joint government that NOBODY voted for. Actually, that sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me. A Nazi dictatorship? Perhaps.

"Yes, yes... It will all make perfect sense soon.
That's what the re-education camps are for."

I sure hope you all don't think I'm some sort of liberal Devil or something. It's not that I have any particular dislike for the right wing, or any sort of affinity for either socialists or having people living in caravans in my back yard - all I really want is a little equality. Equality between the people-who-want-to-live-where-we-don't and ourselves in England, and equality between those people-who-want-to-do-the-jobs-that-no-one-else-does and the U.S. public, and most importantly between England and the U.S.

After all, we're not so different, are we? We all enjoy a bit of George Orwell in our spare time. We just don't all take it as handy political advice.

You really aren't.

If you've been affected by any of the themes discussed today, then the odds are that you're either a conservative (in which case you'll be about to sue me regardless), or you're living in a caravan without (most likely without wifi), please leave a comment, and we can discuss over virtual biscuits and tea.

What's that? That last statement was slightly offensive towards the very people that I've been defending in this article (the Gypsies, for those of you who lost track)? I know. Isn't moral ambiguity amazing? I don't know whether the Romany are in the right, and I don't know if the 'Fed's' laws are fair, but I do know that both groups are rich resources of comedy - especially when they interact.

Keeping you, as always, cushioned within the impenetrable grey fog of news,

Y. S. Rice


Article discussed above:

Pictures are hot-linked and lead to the websites from which they derive. No, I can't really say whether the sites themselves are any good, interesting, or relevant to this article. Why don't you find out for yourselves?