Leave Funny People To Be Funny

I am pretty tolerant of most people. There are only a handful of characteristics that really annoy me. Among them are the obvious, racists, homophobes, or any type of bigot that acts like another human being is below them. Then you have the pessimists, that have a drab view on everything, that bugs the hell out of me. There is one other characteristic though that just just pisses me off to no end. If you follow my blog you are probably aware I complain about people who act like their morals are right and try to enforce them through law. In a way its been the topic of almost everyone of my posts. I cant stand that people think that if they don’t approve of something, then its is immoral and should be banned. The topic of my blog today is one of the worse cases of this. It is censorship, specifically the censorship of entertainers and comedians.

Before you continue this blog, I would like you to watch a video that perfectly capture my feelings about censorship. In the video is Patrice O’Neal, a comedian who unfortunately passed away from a stroke about a year ago. He explains his beef with censorship to a women who takes the jokes people make way to seriously.


“Funny people should be left to be funny” – Patrice O’Neal

Opie and Anthony had a segment on their popular radio show where a

homeless man called in and basically said he would like to rape ex White House cabinet member Condoleezza Rice. I didn’t find the segment funny personally  but many people did and supported Opie and Anthony, including Patrice in this interview on Fox News. This happened around the same time Don Imus was fired for his “nappy headed hoes” comment toward the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. Opie and Anthony ended up being suspended from XM Radio. In the video the women debating Patrice about whether Opie and Anthony should be fired just kept making the same comments, that seemed to me to be scripted, while Patrice was speaking from the heart. She said that women are disrespected in the media, and that all these jokes encourage violence towards women. She also calls out Patrice about a specific joke he made during a HBO Special he had called “The Angry Pirate”. When he tells the joke, you can hear the people in the back round of the new set start laughing, which Patrice very humorously points out. He makes great points throughtout the interview, about how the people complaining aren’t in the business of funny, they don’t watch or listen to these shows or comedy specials, and all the information they get about these “offensive jokes” is secondhand. people hear someone repeat a joke from a comedic show, then they complain about, then some public figure, like to women in the interview, comes out and complains about it to the media trying to get someone punished. No one who is offended by these jokes actually watches the shows. They know full well going into Patrice O’Neals show that he makes a lot of jokes of that nature. If that is something you don’t find funny, the answer is simple, don’t watch it. Opie and Anthony are on Sirius XM, you have to pay for the service to get their show. They are along the lines of Howard Stern, who had to move to Sirius XM because of all the censorship problems. No one listens to their show unless they intended to. Why do these people think that because they are offended, everyone is offended. Whether something is offensive or not is purely objective. You cant ban everything that is considered offensive because then there would be nothing in the media. I could just say I am offended by people being offended, does that mean Al Sharpton shouldn’t be allowed on TV.

Who are these people to tell me what I can and can not find funny. For a more recent example, lets look at something Anthony Jeselnik, one of the most popular comedians right now, said after the Boston Bombings.

Jeselnik Bombing Tweet

A lot of people were offended by this joke, so much so Comedy Central, who employs Jeselnik, forced him to delete the tweet. But in today’s day of age nothing can be deleted and it spread through the Internet like wild fire. People were calling for his job, and just trashing him completely  Thankfully he wasn’t fired, nor should he have been. He is a comedian, and a comedian known for pushing boundaries. If you follow him on twitter, or watch his show, you should be ready to hear some pretty profane things.  If that makes you uncomfortable, than you shouldn’t watch him. I personally defended him on twitter, and because of that, I received this very hypocritical comment in reply to my defense.

Not up to you or anyone to decide the validity of someone’s offense. RT @DylanFMackinnon I dont think people should be offended by jokes.

This surprised me, he says I cant tell someone how to feel, yet he was looking down on the people who said they found it funny. So I cant tell people they are over reacting and shouldn’t be offended, but you can tell me whether something is funny or not. He also went on to talk about trigger words, and how people don’t have a choice about whether to be offended. Once again, its well known that Jeselnik makes a lot of jokes about sensitive issues like rape, disasters like the Boston Bombing, and other issues like that. Of you are someone who tends to be sensitive, just don’t follow him. No one is forcing you to watch him, you can block him on twitter if you have to, why be offended? It justs comes back again to the fact that the word offensive is objective. We cant meet everyone’s needs. Why do people think that because they don’t like something, that it should be banned. Its an issue that just baffles me. I do not like the show Honey Boo Boo, I think it is just so uncreative and I cant see why anyone could be entertained by it. You wont see me calling for it to be canceled though. People like it for some reason, and though I hate it, I am fine with it being a show. I will just chose to avoid the show.

To add on to that, lets talk about grieving  Everyone grieves in different ways. Some cry, some turn to work, and some people make jokes. I make jokes to grieve. It helps me relax, and it keeps my mood up. If you want to cry and be sad for a few days, I understand. The Boston Bombings were a horrible thing, worth grieving over. But You cant tell me how to grieve. I don’t want a tragedy to define my mood, making jokes and staying positive is how I chose to deal with things. I don’t expect you to deal with it the same way, but you damn well better not tell me I am wrong for doing it because it is really none of your business one way or another how I deal with it.
I am a little all over the place here, but lets get now to the issue of censorship itself. Censorship, in most cases, is carried out by the FCC, a government agency. They set the rules on what can, and can not be said on the air. As an on the air personality at a College radio Station, I am aware on how strict they are on public radio. My question about this though, are jokes not freedom of speech? The FCC is by nature an unconstitutional organization. Their job is to set decency standards for the media, that’s a direct violation of Freedom of Speech. In fact the courts agree with me. Two years ago a Second Circuit Court ruled that the indecency laws set out by the FCC are in violation of the first amendment. Unfortunatly, this was later overturned by the Supreme Court. How can an goverment agency control freedom of speech, while there is an ammendment that guarentees freedom of speech will not be infringed. I am sorry, did the founding fathers say that freedom of speech, as long as no one is offended. NO! If you are offended, THEN DONT WATCH OR LISTEN TO THE SHOW.
I also want to touch on a point from earlier. The women said that jokes about women demean women and it encourages negative behavior towards women. Let me just say this, if someone takes a joke seriously like this women implies, then that person is most likely already sick in the head. This falls under the same category as violent video games, where people think that if someone is exposed to something, they start to change in correlation to whatever they are watching. Just like with the violent video games, studies into whether sexist jokes lead to real sexism were inconclusive. The disparity in the results of the tests implies that the people who seem to have become sexist after hearing sexist jokes, were already sexist.
Another problem I have with this argument is that it is so hypocritical. The women who made it went on and on about how comedians are promoting sexism through their jokes, but the she starts calling Patrice names. What? She starts calling him out, does she not realize that she is doing to him what she claims what he is doing to her? In fact worse, because she wasn’t joking, and he was. She actually said he is a fool, which tells people that he is stupid and should be ignored. I just don’t get it. So no one can say anything about women, but if they want to say some thing about another group of people that’s okay. Some people just don’t realize how bias they can be. And that’s the point about censorship. Everything can be construed as offensive. I dont see this lady defending fat people when people make fat jokes. Isn’t that in the same category as the jokes about women. What would happen if a Women made a similar statement about men? Would that be an issue? I doubt it.
Once again another example of how peoples personal morals are ingrained within society, whether we like it or not.
Rest in Piece Patrice O’Neal.

The Fast Food Bandit’s

Fast Food

Fast Food (Photo credit: SteFou!)

There is only one good reason to levy a tax, and that’s to raise money. A tax used for any other reason is corruption, and shouldn’t be allowed.Taxes are used for social engineering though, they use taxes to persuade people to get married, but houses, and to discourage people from smoking, and drinking. While smoking and drinking are indeed damaging things people shouldn’t do excessively, its not the government’s job to tell us what we can, and can not put into our body. Tax laws aren’t the topic of this blog entry, I will get to the problems I have with the american tax system later. My topic tonight is fast food. There has been an outcry from certain people to tax fast food and soda heavily to deter people from using i. Along with that people want to limit the sizes of sodas that can be sold at convenience stores. As usual, this is a another case of people trying to force their ideals onto someone else

Besides the whole problem with the government using taxes to force people to bend to their will, which is corruption at its finest, there are also many other issues I have with taxing fast food.

In america, we don’t like to take blame, if something goes wrong, it is some big corporations fault. Gun violence is high, lets blame the gun industry. There is a obesity problem, clearly its the food industries fault. It cant be our fault, the people buying the food and putting in out mouth. Many people say that the fast food industry uses extra things to make their food addictive so people keep coming back. That’s just a fancy way of them saying, people keep eating fast food because it tastes good. Yes the fast food uses extra things, like salt and grease, to make their food taste better. That is kind of the point of a restaurant, to make good food. People want to punish the fast food industry with taxes, fines, and restricting laws because they are too good at making food. Here is some advice, if you don’t like food, don’t eat the damn food. Take some responsibility for once in your life. No one is forcing you to eat this food, so you can stop at anytime. Blaming others for our problems has become an American pastime. It can never be our fault, we are all victims of the big bad corporations and we have no choice. I bet most people don’t even know that there is a low fat, healthy section on fast food menus. people don’t order from it though, because they don’t taste as good as the normal menu. The sooner we take responsibility for ourselves, and stop selfishly waiting for the government to step in and help us with every little problem we have, problems like this will continue to pop up.

What is even worse, is that this crusade against fast food isn’t even led by the people who live the unhealthy lifestyles. Its led by people who pretend to be experts that say fast food is horrible and families shouldn’t eat it. Who the hell do they think they are? Nothing pisses me off more than people who think they know what is best for other people. If I am hungry, and I am short on time and need to get fast food, then I have every right to do that. Last time I checked I am responsible for my own body. I make decisions for myself. I know it is unhealthy for me, and with that knowledge I try not to eat it to often. But as a college student on a minimum wage budget, I don’t always have options. Again. it comes back to taking responsibility for ourselves.

This all comes back to the fact that the Government shouldn’t have a say about what we do, as long as what we do doesn’t hurt anyone. People like to throw facts out about how bad fast food is, and to be fair, most of the stats are true. I am not going to lie to you, fast food is very unhealthy. Its fatty, full of sodium, and though isn’t solely to blame, does have a part in the modern day obesity problem. Everyone knows how bad fast food is for you, its not like McDonald’s is lying to us and saying their food is healthy, well at least they aren’t anymore. That is not the problem though. The problem is that it shouldn’t be the governments job to make sure we eat right. It shouldn’t be the Government’s job to make sure we take care of ourselves at all. What is next, is the government going to give tax breaks for people who exercise? Where in the constitution does it say its the governments job to nurture it’s people and make sure they are doing the right thing? Oh yeah, it doesn’t say that any where. It isn’t the government’s job to watch out for our health. Stay out of our business  and do your actual job. I dont see you attacking Wall Street when they instruct people to make bad investments, something that actually can hurt others, but people eat too many cheeseburgers and you step in? What a load of crap.

Violence In Video Games

In light of all the school shootings over the past few years people have been attempting to find an explanation. The first thing people often point to is violent video games. People think that violence in video games raise the aggression level in kids. This theory seems reasonable, video games now a days certainly take the violence and gore to a different level. Unfortunately for these people, this theory fails when put to the test. 

According to the above charts there would seem to be no apparent link to video games, and gun related murders. Its no coincidence that the country with the highest murder gun rate, is the country with the most people with access to guns, an issue I will address in a latter blog. Though for now , I just don’t see enough evidence to support the claim that violent video games lead to violent behavior. Not to say the above charts prove otherwise. The chart could be explained in so many different ways. The study done to make this chart has so many different variables, its hard to explain why the plot line is the way it is. Maybe it is because these countries don’t have access to guns. Maybe the time period just captures the natural down slope every trend takes. Or maybe, just maybe, its because the people who are playing video games, for the most part, are smart enough to separate reality from fiction. I play video games all the time, as do must people my age. I am not overly aggressive. Now there is an exception to every rule, but for the most part people my age are just as non aggressive as me. Sure, there are people in my generation who are overly aggressive. There are people from every generation that are overly aggressive. Some people are just angry,and there is nothing you can do about it.

The sheer amount of school shootings there has been is an issue. There is clearly something wrong, and there has to be something done to fix it. Video games aren’t the issue though. People look at the kids from Columbine, the kid from Virginia tech, and the Sandy Hook shooter, and they say there is one common correlation, they all played video games. There is so many things wrong with this statement I don’t even know where to begin. For one, I bet if you were to search their houses, you would also find a toaster in all of them, a bed, books, and a TV  Simply saying someone owns something isn’t enough proof to say it it is a reason why they do what they do. Almost every kid plays video games. Yet none of them shoot up their schools. Chances are, these kids were just sick in the head. They weren’t normal people, they had issues.  Crazy people will always be crazy, if one thing doesn’t set them off, something else will. We cant keep trying to find easy answers to why there is violence. Its really easy to blame video games, its much harder to say we have a epidemic on our hands and we are breeding sociopaths and narcissists. This generation has more health problems than any generation before. They have more and worse allergies, 1 in 12 kids has asthma, cases of Autism, down syndrome, and aspergers are through the roof. This generation is one big health crisis. Video Games certainly aren’t causing that. They are just another scapegoat because people don’t want to deal with a real and present crisis. I cant explain why this generation is getting sicker, both mentally and physically. Maybe if we spent more time researching that, instead of researching if violent video games lead to real violence over and over again. Take a look at all the government studies that have been done in this link. Twenty Five different studies, all with different results. After reading over all 25 of them, its safe to say, there is no obvious correlation with aggression and violent video games. The rule of the scientific Methods states  for a hypothesis to be considered true, it must be repeatable. When the results are different every time, something is wrong with the hypothesis. The study show that some kids become for aggressive, while others don’t. Its a case by case basis, and chances are the kids who became more aggression, already had a anger problem.

Video games are just the latest scapegoat for why there are problems in society. In the 50’s, rock and roll music was what was going to ruin teens. People like Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley were the devil in disguise, pun intended. They were trying to corrupt the youth, and make them rebel. The teens of that time had different ideals than their parents, and just like with what we are doing with video games now, instead of finding a real issue, parent used a scapegoat. Turns out the real issue was actually quite simple. This was the first time the idea of teen even existed. Before the 50’s there was no such thing as a teen, by that age they were just workers trying to help their family make a living. After child labor was outlawed, and the economy was stabilized, kids didn’t have to work for their family, they could do whatever they wanted to do. They were working for money to spend on themselves now, not to put food on the table. It had nothing to do with the music, they just wanted to be free. Some good came out of this though. James Dean was able to star as “A Rebel without a Cause ” in what has to be the most over dramatic movie trailer and scene I have have seen. Looking back on this movie, its easy to see how ridiculous this movie, and the whole controversy of the teen rebellion was.  Buddy Holly and Elvis weren’t evil, they weren’t corrupting the youth, teens just naturally don’t want to agree with their parents. They didn’t know that at the time, and it was a huge issue. Just as big of an issue as violent video games are now. Are we blaming the wrong thing again? Society certainly has a bad track record of being right when it comes to issues like this.

America has to wake up and find a real reason why things like Sandy Hook are happening, because as the evidence shows, violent video games aren’t a viable reason why. There simply isn’t any evidence supporting it, and if we continue to just use them as a scapegoat, we may miss the real reason. I for one vote for that these kids were just sociopaths to begin with and we missed it, and didn’t give them the proper help they needed.


Just like in my last post, I do not personally use call girls. Though I see now reason why prostitution should be illegal. The argument against it has two main sides.

Religious activists say it is immoral and the government should ban immoral things. These are the same people fighting against gay marriage. There is one man problem with this argument, its that thing called the Bill of Rights, mainly the first amendment.

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”

See our founding fathers wanted religion to be completely separate from the state. Meaning they can not hinder, or aid religions  That means no matter what your holy book says about prostitution, it can have no impact on the laws the government puts in place. So the whole immoral argument against prostitution holds no ground. We aren’t all religious  and you cant stop people from doing something just because you think it is immoral. The government should not be in the business of telling us what is and is not moral. Laws should protect people, and just like drugs, prostitution is a victim-less crime. Rape is a crime, Arson is a crime, these things are a direct assault on another person. Prostitution is not, provided it is in a safe environment, nobody is hurt in an act of prostitution. As for all you religious activists. Who are you to tell people what they can and can not do? If you want to say its wrong during mass, and call people sinners, that’s fine. But you cant actually try to punish people, by law, for committing a sin. This isn’t the stone age where you could stone people you broke the word of God. Shut your mouth and just be comforted by the fact if you are right, all us sinners will go to hell.

The other argument comes from feminists. Feminists are split on this issue. Some support prostitution, saying women have a right to use their body the way they want to, which I agree with. The other half of feminists are anti prostitution, and they have a few reasons why they think prostitution should be illegal. One they say prostitution is degrading to women. This argument doesn’t make sense, at least not in America. Women aren’t forced into prostitution, many choose to become one voluntarily. If a women makes a choice, under her own power to be something, then you can not tell her not to do that. Its the same thing as what religions try to do, they try to force their ideals, their morals, onto other people. If a women wants to use HER BODY to do something, not a single person in the world as the right to tell her otherwise. If she wants to have sex with others as a means to make a living, that should be her right. If two, consenting adults want to have sex for money, and it brings no harm to anyone else, how is that a crime?  Just because you think its degrading to women doesn’t mean she has to think the same. The arrogance in that thought is on another level, and probably hurts the feminist movement.

The other problem feminists have with prostitution is that it is dangerous, and many call girls are abused and raped. This is true, prostitutes get assaulted  robbed, and even raped every day and they cant go to the cops because they will be arrested for prostitution if they tell anyone. Read that last part again, they cant go to the cops because what they do for a living is illegal. Therein lies the problem, anything you do that’s illegal is going to be dangerous. Scumbags know this, they know these women cant go the the police out of fear of being arrested. If prostitution was legal, and done in a controlled space, the issue is solved.

In certain parts of Nevada, prostitution is already legal. Man can go to cat houses  and have sex with women for a price. It is in a controlled environment. Checks are done to make sure the men, and the women, do not have any STD’s. There is a gate around the building to protect the call girls. The job is just as safe as working at a Wal-Mart, even safer because Wal-Mart’s don’t have gates and metal detectors. Girls are going to turn to prostitution whether its illegal or not, so why not legalize and at least make it safe for them. Its the right thing to do.  Everything that is illegal has always been dangerous. When alcohol was banned, buying and selling alcohol was as dangerous as selling sex is now. Now that it is legal, no one ever gets hot for selling beer anymore. Its the nature of something that is banned to be dangerous. By prohibiting something, it allows an illegal market to be formed, and this brings the real scumbags out. Pimps abuse their workforce. Steal their money, beat them, and often rape them. If prostitution was legal, and controlled, pimp’s wouldn’t exist, and the women would be in no greater danger of being assaulted then what she normally is.

One last thing. I put no stats on this article because the stats used are often complete bullshit. Both sides throw out general stats about rape. People on the pro prostitution side show stats about how rape has slowly gone down in Nevada and Amsterdam since prostitution is legalized. The problem is the other side has stats to the contrary. Causation is NOT correlation. These stats could be explained by any number of reasons.

Oh yeah, and just like with drugs, America wastes Billions of dollars arresting and jailing prostitutes and the men who use them. Again, using taxpayer money fighting a victim-less crime because Americans like to force their morals onto other people. It makes me sick.

The War On Drugs

Let me start this out by saying I don’t do drugs, I have no interest in doing drugs. With that said, it is none of our business if other people want to do drugs. Whether their drug is alcohol,  weed, or even the heavier stuff, the fact remains they made a choice to do them, and the we can not tell them how to live their private life. When the only victim of the crime is the person committing the crime, it isn’t a crime. That’s would be like saying eating too much is a crime.

According to the federal database on crime, in 2011, over 20% of the people in jail were there for either drug possession or drug distribution.

Percentage of State and Federal Prisoners
Offense 1974 1986 1997 2000 2008 2010
Violent 52.5% 64.2% 46.4% 47.2% 47.3% 47.7%
Property 33.3% 22.9% 14% 19.1% 17.0% 16.7%
Drug 10.4% 8.8% 26.9% 25.3% 22.4% 21.7%
Public-order 1.9% 3.3% 8.9% 7.8% 11.9% 13.4%
Other/unspecified 2.0% 0.9% 3.7% 0.4% 1.2% 0.6%

1/5 of the prison population are in there for a victim-less crime. There were over 2 million people in total incarcerated in 2011.  1/5 of 2 million  is 400 thousand. According to this chart it costs on average about $47,000 to jail each prisoner. So if you do the math, that means America spent over $18 BILLION on non violent, victim-less crimes. Seems like a waste to me. Prisons shouldn’t be used for social engineering. You cant use it to change people, and scare them out of using drugs. Despite the threat of jail time over 15 Million still smoke weed. Now some of those people smoke weed for medical reasons, but a lot of them smoke for recreation. Clearly people aren’t threatened by the idea of going to jail.

Not only is criminalizing drug use a waste of money, but in the case of weed, it also fails to utilize a great medical breakthrough. Weed has amazing medical qualities. It soothes pain and nausea, and has less side effects then common over the counter and prescription pain killers. It has worked wonders for people going through chemotherapy. Why would we outlaw possibly the best, and cleanest, painkiller there is. Not only is it natural, making it actually better for you then chemical pain killers. Yet the government outlaws it. Why? Is it that they are worried legalizing it would hurt the  pharmaceutical business? Maybe. Is it because the government is obsessed with Christian Values, which says these drugs are wrong? Sounds likely. What ever the reason is, its certainly a bunch of bullshit. Our government would rather waste the police force’s time, spend billions and taxpayers money, and infringe on our freedoms than simply just legalize drugs and not worry about it. I guarantee if drugs were legalized, crime would go down, How many gangs kill each other over drugs? How many drugs are smuggled across the border, leading to various other crimes. When you outlaw something, you build a black market for it. it happened with alcohol in the 1920’s, and its happening now with drugs. Take the power out of real criminals hands and legalize drugs. Cripple the black market, while saving billions of dollars. Sounds like a plan to me.

First Post

After witnessing all the bullshit that goes on in society, I decided to put up a blog breaking it all down. Bullshit like the war on drugs, censorship, AA and the 12 step program, the war on porn, prostitution laws, among other things. I personally don’t drink, do drugs, or sleep with ladies of the night, but if someone else wants to, its none of my damn business and they should be entitled to do so. I will mainly be talking about unconstitutional laws will talk about censorship, social issues, and other controversial topics. If anything I say in any of my blogs offends, I really don’t care. Being offended by every little thing is idiotic, and it often hurts whatever cause you are fighting for.