Happy Easter

It's been brought to my attention (by someone who knows me quite well) that perhaps my "tone" has been a bit off this past week. And I'll admit that I have a lot on my plate right now and maybe that's apt to make me a little cranky. I'm really not sure. But I'm going to go with a lighter load today. You know, being as how it's Easter and all. So in the best, non-cranky tone that I can muster up, I'd like to wish all of you reading this a happy Easter.

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus, You Don't Shoot Santa!

Now, listen. I understand that one could get a little upset about the overcommercialization of Christmas. For cryin' out loud, there are displays out right after Halloween if the stores wait that long. I get it. And I can also get why one would want to be against the whole corporate greed thing when it comes to Christmas. I totally understand. But if you're going to take your own little stand there, Clem, what say you actually do remember the reason for the season and you not be a jerk about it, alright?

Dateline: Nipomo, California. Sub-dateline: That's by San Luis Obispo, kind of in the middle of the state. It's where a guy named Ron Lake lives. Ron decided that he had had enough of the commercialization of Christmas and he wanted to reclaim it for Jesus. Rather, he wanted Jesus to reclaim it for himself. Sort of. Anyway, that's why he decided it would be a good idea to build a Christmas display showing Jesus shooting and killing Santa Claus dead. Wait. What now?

Correct. You know, I've read the Bible. I don't recall Jesus packing firearms at any point in the whole thing. Not once. Jesus was more of a moderate than he was a gun-toting radical, wasn't he? Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. Anyway, back to Nipomo.

It seems that this Ron Lake fellow has just had it with the capitalistic side of Christmas and so he decided to strike back by doing something that would only torment small children and disturb many adults who happened across his protest. According to the fine folks over there at KOMO News, Ron's display has "Santa is shown dead on the ground with X's over his eyes." OK. Check!

"Standing over Santa and staring down the barrel of his shotgun is Jesus." OK. Check! Um, wait. Check? Why does Santa look like Charles Manson? This is starting to get weird.

"And the dead, limp body of Rudolph is strewn over the back of a pickup truck." Annnnnddd check! (But wait! What the heck did Rudolph do?! He's like the messenger! You don't shoot the messenger! Nor do you impale leaf-less branches from a maple tree in his noggin, but I digress.)

Ron claims that "Christmas isn't about Santa; it's about Jesus. It's an expression of my repressed creativity." Repressed creativity? Look, I understand the point he's trying to make. I really do. But I also understand what kind of person would use the term "repressed creativity" in order to attempt to justify their "display". That person is known as a "jackass".

And besides, isn't that statement a little bit contradictory? Which one is it, sir? Is it about Jesus or is it about your creativity? What's that? Oh, I see! It's really about neither one and it's just about you wanting to have a little fun and make a little scene and see how many of the townsfolk you can get all riled up? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?! Wait. Oh, that's right. He didn't say that. I said that! Well, for cryin' out loud, someone had to say it!

Yeah, the people around there are not happy with Mr. Lake's holiday ornamentation. It's not just because it's not cool. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. But where his house is located is right across the street from a school bus stop. That means that plenty of children, some of whom likely still believe in Santa Claus (a practice of which I am a huge proponent of), are going to be a little bit confused when they see jolly old St. Nick not looking all so jolly there on the ground with the Son of God standing over him, toting a Remington.

Apparently, people in town have been quite upset by this whole thing. Some have even asked the Sheriff to do something about it. (Do something about what, exactly? The First Amendment to the Constitution?) The Sheriff has said that there is nothing that they can do because of the free speech thing and because of the private property thing. I get all of that and I don't have a problem with it. But you're talking about little kids at Christmas time who are going to be affected by this. I don't know how many and I don't know if the number should make a difference, but I know that if Mr. Lake is going to stand over there and preach that it's all about Jesus, then he should take the damn thing down.

Since the Sheriff can't do anything about it, "Area residents say they may start a petition to fight the display." Um, a petition? A petition to do what exactly? Do these folks realize when Christmas is? It's in a week. And who, pray tell, will they be petitioning? Mrs. Claus? God? I'm so confused.

I don't have a problem with someone exercising their rights to free speech. That's what makes this country so incredibly awesome. But I have a problem with people taking their right to free speech and imposing their beliefs on others in a way that is completely unproductive. Does Mr. Lake really think that his being a jackass and claiming that he's some Jesus loving repressed artist is going to make people in town say, "Oh! Well...since you put it that way." Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen.

And really, the right to free speech and someone exercising their right to free speech isn't even the issue here and Mr. Lake knows it. He's just doing it to be a bitter old man, is all. I'm not saying that it's not a little amusing. It is. But he just doesn't seem like the type of guy who is doing something in the name of Jesus, you know? That's the part that irritates me. Here's my thing: If you're going to be a jackass, as least admit it. Don't try to pretend you're not a jackass. I'll have a lot more respect for you if you'll just admit it, rather than trying to blame Jesus for something, you know?

Mr. Lake says, "You can tell your kids and make it as though there is a Santa Claus and let them believe all that, but you can't explain this thing? I don't get it." Sir, you don't have to "get it". You don't have to understand why believing in Santa Claus is a good thing. You don't have to. I swear. It's OK that you're so damn bitter and (likely) alone that you want everyone to be just as bitter as you are. That's fine. But don't drag people into your self imposed hatred of everything.

He continued his blather with "Not that Jesus is a killer with a shotgun, but come on. There's a little bit of humor here, a little bit of tragedy here." Um, Jesus wasn't a killer with a shotgun OR without! I'm not recalling Jesus killing anyone, let alone Santa Claus. There is a tragedy and it's in the form of someone with a Jesus killing Santa display across from a bus stop. There's a bit of humor, but I'm going to guess that the children are going to fail to see it.

You know, Charlie Brown was against the commercialization of Christmas. Did he give Jesus Christ a shotgun and have him gun down Santa Claus? No, he picked up a piece of crap tree and all of his friends decorated it after they all realized the true meaning of Christmas. Then they sang. NO guns. NO Jesus. Certainly NO dead Santa Claus.

It's Christmas time. Jesus didn't have a shotgun and Jesus didn't act like a jackass. If you want to make sure that people remember that Christmas is more about Jesus than Santa, don't give Jesus a gun and don't be a jackass. It's pretty simple. There are many, many ways to get your point across, but Jesus, don't shoot Santa! (I couldn't resist. That pun was just dyin' to come out!)

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not An Egg

It's been a while since we've had God or Jesus show up on a grilled cheese sandwich or in the back of someone's pickup truck. Not literally, of course. I'm referring to those folks that pour their Cheerios into their bowl in the morning and they go to take that first bite and look down to see those toasty O's looking like the Son of God. Next thing you know, the local TV stations are involved and people are getting ready to bid on the damn thing on eBay. So since there hasn't been a Jesus-in-an-object sighting lately, it's only fitting that there would be one around holiday time. After all, it's Jesus's birthday that's coming up. Perhaps he'd like to stop by and drop some hints for what he's like, you know?

Actually, this time it wasn't Jesus that showed up either. No, this time, some cuckoo birds from Texas claim that one of their chickens (yes, their chickens!) laid an egg (yes, an egg!) that had a cross on it (yes, a cross!). Now, listen, it might be a cross. That's hard to deny. But I'm not so certain about the whole "egg" part. Behold!

See what I mean? That IS a cross, but I don't know if that IS an egg. Here's the story according to CBS-2 in Chicago: It seems that in the town of Burleson, Texas (that's about 13 miles south of Fort Worth, in case you give a crap) a one Tracy and a one Pam Norrell have a small farm with some chickens. Every day, they do what people that own chickens do. That's right. The people go out and steal the chickens unborn children right out from under their arse so that they can make themselves some grub. Doesn't sound so tasty and delicious when I put it that way, now does it?

But one day, the Norrell's claim that one of their chickens laid an egg with a cross on it. According to those CBS-2 folks, "...this egg isn't smooth and a very noticeable cross is indented on the top." And according to those Norrell folks, this egg "...was laid 'straight from heaven' and is a message of encouragement that comes at the right time." What now?

You'd think that the folks that actually owned the chickens would know that the egg didn't come "straight from heaven" but rather, straight from the chicken's butt. They're not amateurs; why would they think that? And what sort of encouragement is it to have a deformed looking egg like that? I'm not so sure that it's very encouraging at all! Hey, your chickens are are going start laying funky looking eggs! Feel encouraged? No? Think about it some more and get back to me. Maybe then?

Pam Norrell claims that "This time of the year, we get so taken up with the presents and money and we forget about the reason. I think He (God) was just telling us he is the reason for the season." Eggs? Eggs are the reason for the season? I don't think so. Now if that chicken was laying fully wrapped presents? Well, that would be something! THAT would be the reason for the season! Gift giving! And what a gift that would be? (Think that chicken has a Playstation3 up there? That's what I'm hoping for this year!)

I'm not buying this one. First of all, that's not looking like any egg I've ever seen before. It barely looks like an egg at all. Secondly, that cross is just a little too well defined. I don't know a lot about the formation of an eggshell inside of a chicken, but I think I know enough to know that this is highly unlikely. Now, I realize that you might be thinking that the news people who went over there and did a little filming of this story for the news might have been able to tell if it was a real egg or not. I don't think that they would have because they keep referring to the cross on the egg as being 'indented'. The cross does not appear to be 'indented', it appears to be raised or embossed or not indented. Thus, I don't know if they'd know their arse from a hole in the ground, so I'm certainly not leaving this egg identifying business up to them either.

The lady seems very nice. Not very sensible and not the dangerous kind of crazy, but crazy none the less. She calls herself a farmer, yet she appears to have slightly purple hair. I've known farmers. I've never known any purple haired farmers, though. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm just saying. But nice or not, purple hair or not, egg or not, it wasn't sent from God. It was sent from that chicken IF it's an egg AT ALL (which I doubt that it is). But hey, if it comforts her to think that God is sending her messages from inside of a chicken's butt, good for her. Everyone needs comfort. And if she can find some sucker on eBay to pay a few grand for a fake God-send egg with a cross not indented on it, more power to her. The video of the news story is below. You can take a gander at that and decide what you think (but if you think it's an egg, I'm telling you, it's not).

Sphere: Related Content

Sweet Mother of God - A Window?

You know, sometimes things just happen. There isn't necessarily a reason for why something happened the way that it did, but you can almost always figure out how something happened. And sometimes there isn't a "why", there's just the "how". That doesn't seem to be good enough for some folks. And by "some folks" I mean the people who insist upon seeing the image of Christ or the Virgin Mary in everything. And by "everything" I mean the whole gamut, ranging from a moth to a Cheeto to a kitchen sink. Wait. A Cheeto? That scrumptious, unnaturally orange, crunchy, food snack item? THAT Cheeto? Uh-huh. That Cheeto. Behold! Cheese-us!

Oh, good Lord. (No pun intended.) Look, I don't know if that Cheeto really looks like Jesus or not. I know that it isn't Jesus. That I am certain. Now, would I eat a Cheeto that looked like Jesus? How hungry am I? WHAT?! They're very tasty! No sense in throwing away perfectly good food. Er, cheese food product things. But I digress. The point is that even if you see something that looks like something in something that isn't that thing, it still doesn't make that thing something. Are you with me? Perhaps you'll catch up when I explain that the window in which the image of the Virgin Mary was spotted over seven months ago has been removed from the building it was in and has now been placed in a secret location. Dun-dun-duuuuunnnnnnn! Behold!

Huh. It would seem that around 11 a.m. on September 30, 2008, that image of the Virgin Mary appeared on a window and was spotted by a patient at the Mercy Medical Center in Boston. How on earth anyone was able to figure out that it looked like the Virgin Mary is beyond me. Unless she was wearing a name tag, I'd miss it! The hospital had been planning on replacing the window (which had been there since the 1970s with no apparitions of the Mother of Christ having been seen) but, according to a one Mark Fulco, quoted in the Boston Globe, "Obviously, we didn't change the window out when we heard." When you heard? That it was a little dirty? What?

Mind you, that was back in October, 2008, that he said that. The Mr. Fulco said then that "We figure the best thing to do right now is just leave it in place, until it can be fully evaluated and we can get advice from the Diocese of Springfield." Well, I guess that couldn't hurt. Really. Can it? Wait a minute! What am I saying? It's a window! It has smudge! I don't think that the Diocese needs to be called in for the purpose of assessing cleanliness.

And really, I don't know why a consultation would have been in order in the first place, being as how Mr. Fulco also said that "Glass specialists have told hospital officials that water seeped between the panes of the double-paned glass and the "minerals reacted and caused some type of acidic reaction that appears to have etched the glass." There you have it! Case closed! Not so fast.

Mr. Fulco went on to say, "What is unusual is the image that appears to have been etched." What? You just said! The special glass people just said the minerals reacted and the acidic reaction etched the glass! Why is that "unusual"? It's not like there isn't an explanation! What's the deal?

The answer to that question is as of yet still, yes still, still unanswered because according to the Boston Herald , the "...hospital is still trying to figure out what to do with" the window! So far, "The hospital, a Catholic institution, removed the window and are storing it in a secret location." A secret location? Out of fear of what? A squeegee? Don't know. But the hospital is apparently "...waiting for a report from experts they would not identify to determine if the window is worthy of veneration." All right, all right. That's enough!

That "they would not identify?" Why not? Is there some underground racket of virginal window imagery assessment that the general public is best not to be aware of? Judging from this, you'd think so! But wait! Here's the best part: "Engineering experts said the image was caused after a failed rubber seal allowed mineral deposits between panes of glass. But hospital officials have said that doesn’t explain why the deposits combined to resemble the Virgin Mary." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you serious?

What hospital is this? Mercy Medical Center? Note to self: If ever in Boston and feeling unwell, avoid Mercy Medical Center at all costs, as it seems to be run by a bunch of wingnuts.

So they leave the window there for seven months before removing it via some underground railroad for slightly smeared window panes or something similar, all the while continuing to want an explanation as to why it looks like the Virgin Mary. The answer to your question is simple: It just does!

Randomness is just what it says it is. Random. Sometimes random stuff will produce something that can resemble something else. Other times, random stuff will produce something that doesn't resemble squat. Why? Because it's random, that is correct! It's not supposed to look like anything, it just so happened that it kind of, sort of, maybe (and that's stretching it, from what I can tell) looks like something. It wasn't on purpose that it looks like that! It wasn't supposed to look like anything!

Perhaps the hospital folk over there might want to consider some of the many, many other objects in or on which an apparition has been seen. If so, hopefully they'll take note that there wasn't any reason for why those objects looked the way that they did. They just did!

Here's Jesus on a moth! (Yes! A moth!)

The Virgin Mary on a window in Clearwater, FL!

Jesus on a light pole (allegedly)!
The Virgin Mary on a griddle! Comin' right up!

And my personal favorite, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich!

Do you really think that there is a "reason" for why all of these things look the way that they do? There better not be.

Sphere: Related Content

Apple So Holier Than Thou

You know who should go into the cryptic code business? Apple. Trying to figure out what is OK to have in their App Store and what is not OK to have in their App Store is confusingly ambiguous at best. Sure, I can completely understand why some apps have not been allowed in the App Store., but other apps I'm just no so sure about.

The Baby Shaker app is one that I can understand where the rejection comes from. I have no problem with Apple rejecting a game where the object is to vigorously shake your phone until the baby on the screen stops crying and red Xs appear over its eyes. (But as I think about it, I'm not sure why I have a problem with it. Is it because of the implication of killing the baby a la Shaken Baby Syndrome? Perhaps. But if I was going to get all philosophical about it, I'd have to figure out why that is any worse than the Halo series where there is killing all over the place with no implication whatsoever...it's just killing! Is it the baby that makes it wrong? I'm not sure. But I think that it falls under the explanation that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart gave in 1964 for the definition of what is pornography when he said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . .but I know it when I see it." I think it might be that. I can't explain what would be placed in the category of "wrong" or "unacceptable", but I'll know it when I see it. And Shaken Baby Game goes in the 'Wrong' pile and 'Halo3' does not.)

So while it's understandable to me why the Baby Shaker was not allowed, it's not so understandable to me why some other apps were not allowed. Apps like the updated Tweetie 1.3, which Apple turned away because of the "offensive language" that appears when you search the Twitter Trends. So it's not even the app itself that Apple didn't like, it was the "offensive language" on another site that wasn't OK with Apple, an explanation that I find incredibly odd. Does Apple have search engine apps that search the Internet? I can imagine that there are sites that the search engine apps could find that are riddled with obscenities. fword.com, for example. (I just made that up. Don't type it in your browser bar. I said DON'T TYPE! STOP TYPING! ::: sigh ::: All right. Fine. Just come back and finish reading when you're done. Please?) But you see my point, right?

So I'm a little confused by the latest odd rejection (I'm sure that there are more than I am blissfully unaware of), that of the "Me So Holy" app developed by a one Benjamin Kahle. The premise is simple. Upload a photo of your face or anyone else's face, choose from a small variety of religious themed individuals sans face (ie, Jesus (the child of God, not the gardener), a nun), give your face to the religiously themed individual and voila! You're Jesus! Behold!

No! No! NO!! Not that Jesus! Son of God! SON OF GOD!! Let's try it again. You're Jesus! Behold!

That's better. Where was I? Oh, yeah, so this was rejected. Before I tell you why it was rejected, let me just tell you that this app is very similar to another app, The Animalizer from the same developer. With The Animalizer, you upload a picture of your face, choose a non-religious themed animal from a virtual barnyard of 25, put your picture where the face of the animal is missing and voila! You're an animal! Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! You know what I meant! Behold!
When did things get taken so literally around here? What if I said I wanted a hot chick?

All right. Annnnnny-wayyyyyy, where was I? Oh, right. So it's OK to put your face on an animal, but it's not OK to put your face on Jesus. Yes, that sounds funny, but that's the way it is. And while one could assume that Apple, which seems to think that it is God a lot of the time, it's basing it's rejection on what it bases all of the rejections on, that being Section 3.3.12 in the iPhone agreement. (I knew that was it!) This section, also known as the 'we're going to use this section to justify doing whatever we want due to the ambiguous language we used to craft this document', reads:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."


I believe the key word there is 'reasonable'. Actually, upon further review and nit picking, I believe the key words there are "may be found". There are a lot of things that 'may be found' to be anything. I "may be found" to be a complete nutjob. I also "may be found" to be a super genius. Monkeys "may be found" to fly out of my arse. Then again, I "may be found" to have made up all of that stuff about the monkeys and my arse. The point is that a lot of things can happen. As long as something isn't forbidden by the laws of nature or physics/science, it can happen. Fortunately, there's a little thing called 'probability' that tends to regulate whether or not we should be prepared for a multitude of things that 'can' happen. Turns out that a lot of things that 'can' happen, don't.

If Apple interpreted the word 'reasonable' to actually mean 'reasonable', then they would understand that the Me So Holy app is not sacrilegious in any way, shape or form and it does not carry the intent of offending anyone on any level of any sort of religious grounds. And I'm talking real offended. Not fake offended (or "fakefended", a term that can often be used in a story which contains fake controversy, or "fakeroversy"). What's so offensive about making your face into a nun? I'll bet that nuns wouldn't be offended. Heck, there'd be more nuns! They'd love that!

But really, if you're going by their rationale, the app itself doesn't contain the content that I'm guessing could be found offensive. That is, someone else trying to portray that they're Jesus (or Jesus-like)

You know what this app is? It's nothing more than Photoshop. In fact, it's considerably less than Photoshop. Are there Photoshop-ish apps for the iPhone? I'll bet there are. How The Animalizer can be OK, but Me So Holy isn't OK is beyond me. Is it because the animals can't speak up for themselves to say that they're offended? If that's the case, then you have to remember that the animals, while voiceless themselves, do have PETA and those PETA folks are crazed. I'd rather take my chances with upsetting religious folks than I would with upsetting a bunch of PETAphiles.

The title 'Me So Holy' reminds me of the 2 Live Crew song 'Me So Horny'. Perhaps that is why Apple is all in a wad about this one. I don't really know, but let's just remember that one of the best selling apps of all time at the App Store is the iFart app. Synthesized flatulence is good, making yourself appear to be Jesus or a nun is bad. Go figure. Perhaps they were just peeved that including Steve Jobs as one of the religious icons was missing from the app and they couldn't add on their tag line "There's an app for that." Get over yourselves, Apple.

Sphere: Related Content