The Audio Stylings of Chris Levens
"I'm a Gangster"

•

I'd just like to give props to everyone out there who deserves 'em. That includes you. Yes, you.

Little do you realize it, but you are very special and in my opinion, under appreciated. So I thought a little recognition was in order. You, my friend, are the best. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. Don't be shy. Enjoy the spotlight. Enjoy it,
because
it will

soon

be
over.
 9:36 AM   •  4 satisfied customers!!  

•

Comments on Rush, by Johnny T.

Rush Limbaugh is off the air because he is in rehab for abusing opiates. His explanation: he got hooked while taking pain medication for his back (I think it was his back; it was some sort of medical thing). This, according to all the right-wing extreemists on talk radio, is an acceptable explanation. It is very different than the shaddy fellows who intentionally go out looking for a fix. Rush is a victum.

I want to cast some doubt on the big distinction between Rush's opiate addiction and the common junkie. I only have one close friend who ever became a true junkie. It started much the same way Rush's problem did: he broke his arm and got perscription opiates for the pain. Once the perscription ran out he went looking for something similar. Ended up finding some methadone on the street. But the methadone only lasted until he found heroin. After a few months his life consisted of a daily trip to the local government sponserd methadone clinic where he got his $15 dose. Then he followed that with a $40-60 a day maintainance of heroin. Maintainance --he wasn't getting real messed up, he was just keeping himself from the sickening withdrawl he would go through when he tried to kick it.

So now, a quick chemistry lesson: methadone, heroin, morphine, and a whole host of perscription pain killes are all opiate deriviatives. My history may be shaky, but originally opium was used as a pain killer but people started getting addicted so they derived morphine which was suposed to help opium addicts kick the habit. The result was morphine addiction. Then Heroin was derived from opium to help morphine addicts kick the habbit which resulted in heroin addiction. Then Methadone was the next derivitive which is now the official herroin addiction cure and you can find little government sponsered clinics where you can get your daily dose of the stuff. I took my friend there several times. If you are unable to kick heroin within a year or so you get on lifetime maintainance of methadone. So in these clinics you see business people in suits come in on their lunch break and get their little cup then go back to work. There are a lot of people on permanent maintainance and they lead normal, productive lives. Methadone is a drug and is quite strong, according to my friend. But let me get to my point.

How different is my friend from Rush Limbaugh? They both got started on opiate derivatives in a similar fashion. They both needed to maintain themselves for a long period of time so as to avaid withdrawls. Yet, yet, the wacko-right-wing-radio hosts insist that there is a world of difference. Rush, they say, was a victum. A victum! This pisses me off. The whole Rush complaint of the Left-wing, bleeding heart wackos is that they eliminate personal responsiblity and claim that people are victims of their circumstances. Now that Rush is caught they want to pull the victim card and eliminate his personal responsibility for his actions. My friend they would cruicfy as a horrible person, unfit to live a regular life and would be put behind bars. But Rush is a victim. His 11,000 opiates they found on him would put anyone else behind bars for intent to distribute, since the amount is far beyond a personal, recreational cache.

The defense of Rush completely discredits all right-wingers who come to his aid. They have exposed their own bias, their own inability to crtique themselves, their own allegience to their political party at the expense of fairness. Yet no one flinches. Had Grey Davis, Nancy Pelosi, or Howard Dean bean caught with 11,000 opiates they would hang them, they would not let them be victims.

I'm not saying people are or aren't victims. That isn't my point. Rush may be. My point is the double standard, the hypocracy, the bias, the infection caused by one's own personal interest.

Nor am I saying Rush should be behind bars. In fact, I'm glad he isn't. Maybe this incident will lighten the Right's hardline stance on drugs. I mean, Rush was doing something like 30 pills a day for years, which is quite a lot, yet he was sharp as a tack, was very successful, didn't become a bum on the street, stayed on top of his game. Maybe this will contradict some of the anti-drug propaganda we have been fed for so long.
 9:05 AM   •  5 satisfied customers!!  

•

Why are casinos illegal? I don't get it.


 9:56 AM   •  10 satisfied customers!!  

•

I take back what I said. That which is being taken back is this: Now whatever gripe you have about American freedom, you have to admit that it is cool when the governemnt supplies us with literature that advocates things the government opposes.

Here is the reason for the taking back: I went to my local library to pick up a classic, standard text on Postmodern/poststructuralist Marxism byFredric Jameson and I couldn't find it. What a piece of poo! This is a Library?!? This is the wherehouse of anti-american literature!?! I'm so disapointed. Now I'm going to have to go and buy the book in order to learn my postmodern Marxism -- which, you should know, is quite different than the modernist marxism of Marx himself.
 6:25 AM   •  4 satisfied customers!!  

•

Happy endings are one of the big brain washings.

The only people who will have a happy ending are those that will escape death. Otherwise, everyone ends horribly.
 3:00 PM   •  5 satisfied customers!!  

•

Phrase Philosophy, or, A Few Thoughts on Rhetoric, by Johnny T.

In order for a phrase to be catchy it should be ambigous, equivical, easily interpreted in different ways. This helps gain popularity via misunderstanding. Misunderstanding can gain approval. If different people can look at a phrase and interpret it to mean something they enjoy, then they will approve of the phrase. If the phrase is specific and clear then misunderstanding is less likely. This means opponents will disapprove of your phrase and thus it loses popularity. Clarity draws battle lines; ambiguity blurs lines and allows for more ideological diversity, thus increasing the odds of popularity.

Clarification note: popularity is not here to mean an individual's popularity. Rather, it refers to the popularity of the slogan or phrase.

Comment on Clarification note: In clarifying myself I have acted contrary to my own Phrase Philosophy and erased some ambiguity and thus possibly limited its potential popularity. But that's, OK. And gosh darn it, people like me.

Expansion on the "Phrase Philosophy" due to observation made while commenting on the Clarification note: This philosophy of phrases can also be applied to different linguistic vehicles. So when writing a mission statement, a few thoughts on something, etc, etc, you can gain support by being ambigous. Now you know that by being purposefully ambigous you are being sneaky, manipulative and less than honest. But this is why it is considered Rhetoric, the art of convincing. Convincing doesn't have anything to do with truth or accuratness, just gaining popular support.
 9:02 AM   •  6 satisfied customers!!  

•

Why is it that those that oppose Globalization are the same people that want the US to aide other countries? It seems like they should go hand in hand. Also, the same people that oppose Globalization support govenmental regulations of the US economy. These too seem like they should go hand in hand. Globalization is the attempt to regulate international trade. Bassically, it is taking the Democratic platform for the US economy and extending it to the whole world. Now why would a typical liberal fellow vote for Ralph Nader or Al Gore and not support Globalization? I don't get it.

As a free market guy, I don't think Globalization is the best thing either. But I think my reasons are different than the rioters in Seattle.

So let me ask you this: Is the liberal temperment changing from a socialistic to a capitalistic/ free market paradigm?
 10:10 AM   •  3 satisfied customers!!  

•

Without any further ado (?), here is my little pumkin.
Gwendolyn was born a bouncing baby girl on October 9th. Everything went smooth.
 10:10 AM   •  10 satisfied customers!!  

•

Dear Yoplait,

You disapoint me. I am a big fan of your yogurt but you are scorning me. Your T.V. advertisments market towards a female audience between the ages of 25-40. I am a male, mid-to-late 20s. I eat your yogurt too. Why are we left out of your target consumer pool? Why can't you show a big burly lumber jack in black and red flannel eating Yoplait in the forests of Canada or something? I'm starting to think that I am weird for being a male muncher of Yoplait. Please don't disenfranchise the white male protestants like myself.

Sincerly,

Johnny T.
 9:21 AM   •  4 satisfied customers!!  

•

Take America Back! What!?!

Back to what, the Indians? Oh, not that far back. Oh, OK. Well, should we give everything West of the Mississippi back to the French, Florida back to Spain, New York back to the Netherlands? Oh, not that far back, I see. Just back to what? Back to after the last purchase of Alaska and Hawaii but before Carter. Oh, OK.

You know what, change the freakin' slogan, it is so misleading. Make it read, "Take America back a few decades." This captures your intention a little better.
 9:12 AM   •  9 satisfied customers!!  

•

That's right, a large, thick black man is what I would look like if I could choose my appearance. Large and thick, not fat; you know, 6'2'' - 6'3'' around 250-260 mostly muscle but with a little padding for the colder months. Yes, this has got to be the coolest way a human can look. Also, I would want a big, deep voice to go with it, the kind that can sound sexy and romantic and that laughs large and barrel-like.

Unfortunatly, I didn't get to choose. Oh well.
 9:31 AM   •  10 satisfied customers!!  

•

Emotions are the result of calculations, fast calculation, calculations that are not always fully aparent even to the emoter. Example: fear, the result of a snarlling big-dog running at you, the effect of a quick calculation that equals pain due to the sum of big bite and rear end. You don't have to sit there and think through these calculations with a slide rule, they just happen. Your brain is constantly being programed via numerous sources (media, thoughts, experiences, authorities) to respond in certain ways in certain circumstances. Emotion is part of the equation. Sometimes it is the force that causes you to act, in the dog-example, it causes you to run and squeel like a school girl. Othertimes, it is a reward for good behaviour (pride, satisfaction, glee) or a punishment for bad behaviour (guilt, remorse, regret, self-pity, gas). It can be otherthings too. All in all, emotions don't happen irrespective of calculations, they happen due to calculations.

This may bother those who enjoyed the idea that their heart was on a higher plane than their minds/brains. Sorry to spoil the fun --it isn't. Brain and heart are too interwoven to opperate independant of one another.
 4:24 PM   •  3 satisfied customers!!  

•

Why protect the small retailer? I really don't get it. If a large corporate retailer can offer better quality, better service at a better price, than only a fool wouldn't shop there. Why protect a small retailer if they don't exceed the large reatialers in any of these three categories? Now, if the small guy had better quality, prices or service, than they wouldn't need protecting, the market would reward them with more business.

The thing is, people think small retailers are more personal or have more character. Whatever! I really don't get that. In fact, I think it is just a bunch of beef bologna. The inpersonal nature of large retailers is another plus for their business model, as far as I'm concerned.
 11:18 AM   •  9 satisfied customers!!  

•

What would you rather have: an army of bear-men or an army of tiger-men?
 2:23 PM   •  7 satisfied customers!!  

•

In an attempt to make good on my last poor post I will give you something of substance.

Ear aches: the bane of childhood.
 1:26 PM   •  6 satisfied customers!!  

•

Alright, I'm not.
But I should be.
 1:19 PM   •  1 satisfied customer!  

•

I'm the #1 Google hit for:
Space probe lands on Martian's botanical garden, intergalactic mayhem ensues.

Go ahead, try it and see if I'm lying.
 1:18 PM   •  2 satisfied customers!!  

•

Peanut butter and organic fruit spread, my breakfast, still not sure about it.

Would you be offended if I called you an internet goon?

Well, you shouldn't. You are. The fact that you even know what a blog is proves that you are an internet goon.

Just because your an internet goon doesn't mean your not, a . . . ah, . .something positive.(!?) It just means, well, that you are an internet goon. I am too. And look how cool I am!

Dang. Now I'm all depressed now.
I think I'm going to go surfing, and then skatebording, and then snowbording, and then hop in my tricked out fast-and-furious hot rod, and then . . . . . ah crap. Who am I fooling. We all know I am going to go get an ice cream sandwhich and watch a free rental movie from the library. But then, that can be cool, can't it?
 3:18 PM   •  8 satisfied customers!!  

•

Yes!The Libertarians are trying to take over New Hampshire through peaceful political means. They are asking 20,000 Libertairians to move to NH so that they can start to take over the local state government and start reducing the size of the government, increace personal freedoms, limit regulations and have a plain old good time. I am almost tempted to go. Unfortunatly So Cal is a little warmer than NH and I don't really like the snow. But I do hear that NH has some mean maple syrup. Well, we'll see.

Yours Truly,
Johnny T.
 10:04 AM   •  8 satisfied customers!!  

•

And why is the Church scared of Postmodernism? Is it becasue the church is so entrenched in Modernism that it can't wiggle its way out? Since when is Modernism an essential of the Christian faith? In a way, postmodernism is a breath of fresh air. In a way, not all the way.

Take the whole idea of evolution, for an example. Christians have spent 100 years trying to defeat Evolution, which is a very Modernist notion, on the basis of Modernist principles. Then Postmodernism busts down the door and the footing which Evolution once stood has been leveled. The Postmodernist no longer thinks of science as the be-all-end-all of truth. Now the Church looks silly trying to argue about Evolution on scientific and philisophical grounds that are stained by the exagerated reliability of science and reason that Modernism was so proud of. Why can't the Church just give up trying to impress the World in worldly ways? The beauty of the Church is its unworldly nature. Only a fool would become a Christian because the Church plays the World's game better than the World does. The Church's power is its citizenship in a better creation that cannot be corupted and will not be destroyed.


 9:46 AM   •  6 satisfied customers!!