Absurdity of the Week! Death threats!

Why has threatening to viciously eliminate your fellow human’s existence become so common?!


Apparently, you can’t write anything online anymore without somebody breaking out the maximum-eternal-insult.

Do you like Chris Kyle? Death threat.

Do you hate Chris Kyle? Death threat.

Are you ambiguous on Chris Kyle? Death threat.

Do you like cheese? Death threat.

Do you hate cute kitties? Death threat.

Are you ambiguous on the teachings of Musashi? Death threat.

Well, if you ask my Guests (and I sure did!) this is wholly inefficient. Why should we limit this newfound malicious behavior just to the electronic environment? Let’s branch out. Spread the love! Using my Guests’ brutal methods.

Accordingly, we offer the following example scenarios for how you must now conduct yourself face-to-face. Thank you for your cooperation. We truly desire to keep liquidation to an absolute minimum.


They Say: We can’t give you that day off.

You Say: I’ll slice your throat open.


They Say: I loved Fifty Shades of Grey.

You Say: I’m going to strangle you with a discarded rolled-newspaper.


They Say: I’m sorry but that transaction does not appear in our records.

You Say: I look forward to watching your wife and children cry at your funeral.


They Say: I stopped you for speeding.

You Say: You’ll make a beautiful bleached skeleton.


They Say: Your kid’s a genius.

You Say: I wonder if anybody will miss you when you die by my hand.


They Say: I forgot to get that report done.

You Say: Have you briefly considered the prospect of holding your own detached liver.


They Say: We’re sorry but that item is out of stock.

You Say: It’s likely you’ll burn very quickly given how much kerosene I plan on using.


Why not?! Everybody keeps saying social media encourages people to do/say things in the virtual world that they’d never do/say in the physical world. Let’s put that theory to the test!

bloody candlestick

definition of abuse

Obama’s giving a speech tonight, which apparently he wrote in 2011.  The Republicans will respond, with a speech they wrote in 2011.  30M people are expected to watch.  I have no idea why.  Why would anybody subject themselves to such abuse?  It’s like deliberately bashing your head into a brick wall until the goo comes out.  These idiots, they’re so useless.  We have zero leadership from any of them.  One side is holding America down while the other side hits us in the head with a brick.  And they’re both giggling.  Then they rotate and the other dude takes turns swinging the brick.  Eventually we’ll discover there isn’t any goo left to come out.

brick wall

It’s either all okay, or none of it is

I’ve been rather disturbed at the number of professional publications and folks on this blog site who have stated something along the lines of “I am not Charlie”. Their general idea is that they do not support the violence but state they don’t support offensive behavior and so choose not to republish Charlie Hebdo images.

Freedom of speech is an all in proposition. It’s either all okay, or none of it is. The New York Times or people on this blog site may not desire to offend or believe that Charlie Hebdo is in bad taste, but I suspect they have no desire to live in a world where ultimately anything they publish can be called into question over whether it’s offensive or not.

The New York Times will not publish a cartoon of Mohammed because it’s considered offensive. Does that mean they also won’t publish a picture of a gay man because some people find that offensive? What about a picture of former President Bush or President Obama? Lots of people find that offensive or in poor taste. Whatever you write you’ll eventually get to a situation where what you put on paper is offensive to somebody.

So when you draw a red line and say “I’m not going to publish this because I find it offensive” you are accepting the premise that there are limits on free speech. And then “free speech” is replaced by “proper speech”.

When you accept that speech must have limits, there’s no limit to how much folks can limit speech. Governments, corporations, religion, cultural bullies, etc are all interested in limiting free speech because it suits their interests. When we the people self-regulate, self-censor, we are placing barriers on the greatest tool the individual has to fight power & money and maintain our liberty.

You may personally find Charlie Hebdo offensive. Or you may find that folks like me are infringing upon your liberty by mandating you publish things you find offensive.

But make no mistake, I’m not saying you must publish anything. You’re a free person too. Make your own decision. Republish or not, it’s your call.

You can say you find Charlie Hebdo offensive and refuse to republish the images. Or you can say you support freedom of speech. But you cannot do both. You have to make a choice. Sorry. You may find this inaccurate or unfair, but life’s a cruel nightmare. If you don’t stand up for freedom, even if at times it requires you to do things you find offensive, then be prepared to see your liberty progressively eroded by the forces of darkness (whoever they might be).

To alter wise words somebody else once said:

You might not be interested in offending men like this, but I assure you, they are interested in offending you.

hates freedom

This is not just about Charlie Hebdo or Mohammed or religion. This man represents a force that wants to take your freedom. There are many like him across all aspects of our Earth. We have to fight back, wherever and whoever they are.

It’s either all okay, or none of it is. Make your choice. I’ve made mine. I hope you’ll join me in choosing liberty first. Even if by doing so, you are guaranteed to offend somebody. Even if that somebody, is yourself.