The Clash: Analytical study

The Clash is one my favorite bands. They have been for years. Anyone familiar with their work will know their songs contain a strong political message, but does every song? The answer will shock and awe you. Answer the following:

What is the song "Rock the Casbah" about?

It's just about some guys rocking out, right? You could not be more wrong. The Clash in their infinite wisdom knew that combating "radical Islam," "islamofascism," or whatever you want to call it was going to be the fight of our time. Lucky for us they told us how to beat it, too. They purposefully sing the song in a "hard to understand manner" to make you pay attention. Look at the lyrics.

The song clearly states that to defeat radical Islam, we need to "Rock the Casbah." The Clash tell us:

By order of the prophet
We ban that boogie sound
Degenerate the faithful
With that crazy casbah sound

They cannot resists the power of Rock, and the populace will turn on the King. People cannot resist the will to rock, even his own military will rebel, and rock themselves:

The king called up his jet fighters
He said you better earn your pay
Drop your bombs between the minarets
Down the casbah way

As soon as the shareef was
Chauffeured outta there
The jet pilots tuned to
The cockpit radio blare

As soon as the shareef was
Outta their hair
The jet pilots wailed

It could not be more clear. Only the power of Rock can bring about an end to the represive regimes in the Middle East.

Movin' on up

At www.timindy.com/blogtool I have finally cracked into the upper-half in the points standings. Check it:

Point totals:
MuncherW = 5,145
RK = 3,941
Grandma Sharon = 3,550
Steve C. = 2,500
Janice&Dave = 1,900
Scantabulous = 1,900
Randy = 1650
Karen K = 1200
Great G&G Bergkamp = 1,000
kjbcrev = 975
Michael = 850
G & G Richmond = 800
Mary = 725
Harry = 500
Pastor John = 500
"Counterproductive" = 500
Brando = 500
JoshB = 200
Jenny = 200
CaroleW = 200
Liz and Jay = 100
Curt and Sara = 100

I finally left the basement, and I am not turning back. It will be tough to catch up with Muncher and RK, but I got 400 points today, compared to Munchers 0. So if current trends continue...

TSA regulations

Yesterdays blog seemed to controversial for most of you, that's OK. Today we will blow that one away!

I went to the store to buy some supplies and noticed there seems to be a much larger selection of travel-sized toiletries. You can now buy little containers of everything. Pretty convenient, no?


Then I thought about the TSA rule; your carry-on toiletry items have to be three ounces or less. This is a pointless rule, and stupid too. But who really benefits from the rule? Do we? No, but the toiletry-industrial-complex does. Proctor & Gamble, Gillette, Crest, Ivory, Old Spice, I could go on forever. Let me elaborate on the plot so fiendishly clever in its intricacies.


I bought 2 sticks of deodorant (same brand). The prices are listed below:

4 oz container $2.74 ($0.69 / oz)
0.5 oz container $0.97 ($1.94 / oz)

Notice the price difference! The greedy soap companies, who never had enough wanted more profit, and saw their opportunity. First, they arranged for all toiletries to be banned from carry on bags. The plan is pure genius! Travelers would have to buy all new supplies when they reached their destination, then throw them away before they came back! Pure genius no? Some people may have started to check their bags, so they decided to institute a 3-oz policy, and sell these travel-sized items at inflated profit (281% more from my example above)!


This also works to their advantage. The increased plastic and transport of these little containers generates waste. This increases CO2, which of course causes global warming, making us sweat more, which means we buy more deodorant and soap, giving them more profit!

Wake up, sheeple.

Watson

By now I am sure all of you have heard of Dr. Watson's "crazy" comments. This should come as no surprise to anyone who follows him. He has been discretely advocating eugenics or "new eugenics" (whatever that is) for years. He was recently suspended, here is the story:

The suspension comes as the renowned geneticist was roundly denounced from London to Washington as a racist for telling the Times of London that he's inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."

While he hopes all people are equal, Watson also told the paper, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

Unbelievable! He issued an apology, which is an actual apology, and says the following:

I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson, 79, said in a statement to The Associated Press.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Good for him, I wonder if it is genuine (i think not, going by his past). But here is an interesting line in the story:

Rumpled and proudly politically incorrect, Watson has sparked headlines in the past, saying people of color have greater sex drives and that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests determined it was destined to be homosexual.

This is a very interesting issue. It is my belief that homosexuality is influenced by genetics (how much is debatable), and if (when) they discover the "gay gene" (or sets of genes), this is something that can be selected for (like in Gattaca). This question is more for pro-choice people: is what he said about homosexuality controversial? It seems to me that this is in-line with the pro-choice view. From NOWs website:

NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.

I know NOW may not be "main-stream," but most pro-choice people do not want to limit abortion at all. So, NOW should be against legislation prohibiting abortion based on sexual orientation (based on their current stance). We may not have to worry about this issue yet, but in the future we will. Abortion is uncivilized, and if pro-choicers want to start judging women for their personal reproductive choices or limiting it in some way (for whatever reasons), they now share something in common with pro-lifers. And that may not be a bad thing.