Fan Mail

In response to "What?"  

Caitlin said...
"The monkey project had these insect zappers that looked just like badminton racquet's, but emit an electric shock when you swing them and make contact with something. After a few drinks, naturally, we hit each other with them. Feels really weird if you hit your tongue. If those blue bug zapper lanterns are anything like those, the shock is fairly forceful but does not give you any burns."

Wow.  I feel like I already responded to this at some point, but I can't remember where.  Regardless, this response was so out there it begged repeating.   

Mike said...
"I never sleep."

I didn't know how to respond to this when the comment was originally posted, and I still don't.  I hope it wasn't meant to be as depressing as it seems.  Mike, if you're out there, try counting sheep.   

James said...
"After reading this I thought I'd be able to find a video with someone touching one of the large blue outdoor bug zappers. After a solid 30 minutes... nothing.  I thought for sure there'd be some idiot who's tried this.  Seamus, this could be good for the blog. Film yourself touching one of these things. It'll be the first on the information super highway."

This sounds pretty involved, James.  I do like the idea of being the first to put something on the internet.  With Lemon Party and Two Girls One Cup already out there in cyberspace, I was running out of good ideas.       

In response to a video of some surfer speaking gibberish, 

Maryn said...
"So pitted."

Maryn must be at least reasonably accustomed to dealing with people who talk like this, as she lives in Southern California.  Maryn, can you please define "pitted" for us?  Is it something akin to getting "barrelled"?  

In response to "Prop 8" Anonymous said...
"Did you ever think about the reasons there are additional rights given to married heterosexual couples over unmarried couples? One, to make sure our society continues to bare children so the human race can continue to survive. Two, the concept of marriage was and is designed for heterosexual couples to give society the best change of continued survival allowing for married couple breaks in cost since the cost of raising a child is astronomical.

Allotting these benefits to gay couples would not help continue the proper growth of society and the breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded.

While there should be some type of benefit for being in a gay couple, why do you feel the exact marriage rights should be given to gay couples? Marriage, as defined, in our laws is between a man and women, so should we change the definition of marriage?

Why should the benefits designed to create the best society possible be given to those who would not use them for the purpose in which they were created for? Please advise.

Note: In no way am I against gay's. I would simply like to hear your thoughts."

I got a surprising amount of push back for this posting, both surprise and confusion as to my motivation for attending, and for the ideas I defended.  While I had planned to respond, the subsequent comment firestorm took on a life of its own, making a response from me unnecessary.  I think most of what I would have said is captured adequately by Caitlin's indignant rage.  

Ryan said...
"Who are you and what did you do w/ my friend from college..."

I hate to think that I try to paint myself as some sort of activist.  Make no mistake, the bulk of my "activism" is either done from an armchair or in a crowded bar during animated conversations woven under the influence of alcohol and hyperbole.   Make no mistake Ryan, I've done at least some growing up since college.  While still sophomoric in many facets of my adult life, I do take pride in the fact that my social views are more advanced than anyone who looks to conventional "wisdom" and/or the Bible for guidance.     

Anonymous said...
"You think without tax incentives heterosexual couples would cease procreating? If I've read your 'theory' correctly, I think you might be crazy."

I believe this one was lobbed in the direction of Anonymous comment #1.   It's dead on, and only the tip of the silliness iceberg Anonymous #1 has crashed into head on.   

Caitlin said...
"Wow. Anonymous’ argument makes absolutely no sense, as Anonymous #2 has already pointed out. In most cases I would ignore something this nonsensical, but I am tired and cranky and cannot let this go. So, just so I don’t lose you, Anonymous, I’ll break your argument down piece by piece…

'Did you ever think about the reasons there are additional rights given to married heterosexual couples over unmarried couples? One, to make sure our society continues to bare children so the human race can continue to survive.'

What?!? People hardly require the incentive of marriage in order to procreate. How do we have any living species at all? Because of SEX. Not marriage. Cats don’t get married. Spiders don’t get married. Monkeys don’t get married. But miraculously, their numbers still thrive! The notion that gay marriage would somehow be detrimental to the human population is preposterous. (Too bad, really, since overpopulation is one of the world’s most pressing issues and it would be ecologically responsible to cut down on the baby making.)

'Two, the concept of marriage was and is designed for heterosexual couples to give society the best change of continued survival allowing for married couple breaks in cost since the cost of raising a child is astronomical.'

Yes, the cost of raising a child is astronomical. So what about gay couples with children? Yes, that’s right. Gay couples have children also.

'Allotting these benefits to gay couples would not help continue the proper growth of society and the breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded.'

The breaks allotted for child rearing couples would be deluded?? You mean, made obsolete? Your word choice is confusing here. I’m not sure what exactly you think would happen to those breaks for couples with children if gay couples could get married. The legal marriage of a same-sex couple will not affect the reproductive strategies or tax breaks of heterosexual couples in any way. It is completely unclear why you seem to think it would.

'While there should be some type of benefit for being in a gay couple, why do you feel the exact marriage rights should be given to gay couples? Marriage, as defined, in our laws is between a man and women, so should we change the definition of marriage?'

Should we change the definition of marriage in our laws? YES. It is exhausting that people use this argument, as if our laws are innately perfect, unchangeable, and have never been altered in the past. Have no laws ever been deemed unjust and then changed? Following your logic here, we’d still have slaves and women would still lack suffrage rights. Way to be.

'Why should the benefits designed to create the best society possible be given to those who would not use them for the purpose in which they were created for? Please advise.'

Well, seeing as you were completely illogical in your reasoning of why the institution of marriage was created in the first place, this also makes no sense. Gay couples would not use marriage “for the purpose it was created for?” Do you mean, to have children? We already covered that…marriage does not allow for the creation of children. There would still be plenty of kids running around without the institution of marriage. And, as we’ve also covered, gay couples have children also - through adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, heterosexual intercourse (gasp!), etc. If marriage is intended for procreation as you say, then infertile heterosexual couples and those who do not desire any kids should be banned from getting married also. Again, way to be.

'Note: In no way am I against gay's. I would simply like to hear your thoughts.'

Ok, so maybe you don’t hate gay people. You just don’t believe they deserve the same rights as other people.

We are all entitled to our opinions. And, we are all afforded the right to express them in forums such as this. It would benefit the intellectual standard of a dialogue like this one, though, if people’s opinions followed any logic whatsoever."

Here, here!

Anonymous said...
"Your animal comment is rubbish. No other animal void the elephant requires constant attention to their young for longer then 4 years before they can survive on their own.

Don't use the 'our society is advance so much we don't need old definitions to apply to age-old customs" card. Marriage was constructed to help best raise human young. Animals don't always needed a mother and father to raise their young. So my point, is dead on in regards the point of marriage as a definition.

Let me ask you this, why do same sex couples want to have marriage rights?  What is their main reason for wanting to wed?

Love? Maybe. Social status so other know you are committed? Possibly. Monetary advantages it brings? Bingo!

PS No I don't think they deserve the same set of marriage rights as defined by the current law. I do think they deserve laws as defined for same sex couples so they won't have to continue this dance around the age-old definition of marriage. Let the old definition stand as is and construct new rights much like common law marriages, but with great rights equal to the current marriage law. This way, no one can argue that marriage law is currently structured for heterosexual beings and therefore homosexual beings have no right to it. No one can strip them of rights if they have their own definition of it. Fair enough?"

1.  Unwise to argue with Caitlin about animal behavior.  2.  Paragraph two doesn't make any sense to me.   3.  The gay community's motivation for seeking equality is almost entirely irrelevant.  If there isn't equality, then something has to be changed.  It's that simple.   4.  Caitlin adequately addresses the ridiculousness of your post script. 

Ed Feldheim said...
"Definitely a wise and honorable tradition that marriage is.

By 'age-old' are you referring the tradition of arranged marriages, the right of prima noctus enacted by kings on the bride's first night with her husband, or are you referring to the highly revered tradition that has a 50% failure rate currently?

Think what you want of all of this, but don't act like marriage is this wonderful, amazing bliss that is never to be tampered with out of fear of spoiling its purity.

Get over yourself and be inclusive, we don't have time for this shit, there are more pressing needs that will affect all of us, gay, straight, bigot, whatever..."  

What's could be more pressing?  The integrity of America's favorite pastime, Jessica Simpson's weight problems, a new season of American Idol?  Or maybe a war, a floundering economy, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, and the environment?      

Caitlin said...
"'Your animal comment is rubbish. No other animal void the elephant requires constant attention to their young for longer then 4 years before they can survive on their own. '

The animal comment had nothing to do with child rearing; it was about reproducing – in response to your assertion that marriage promotes it. Can you read? (Not to mention, you are wrong again about no animals needing constant attention for more than 4 years for survival. Read up on your nonhuman primates).

'Don't use the "our society is advance so much we don't need old definitions to apply to age-old customs" card. Marriage was constructed to help best raise human young. Animals don't always needed a mother and father to raise their young. So my point, is dead on in regards the point of marriage as a definition.'

Marriage was absolutely NOT constructed to best raise human young. Marriage was constructed as a means of staking ownership over a woman. Marriage was a way for fathers to sell their financially burdensome daughters to another man, and for that other man to ensure he could make as many babies as possible to be raised under his roof. Marriage allowed women to be property. They had no rights. As you can see, the legal implications of marriage have evolved considerably over time. Changing marriage laws now to be more just would be no different from how it has been changed in the past to foster greater equality.

And again, you are wrong about animals. Many species require bi-parental care, from countless fish species to multiple New World primates. The benefits of two parents are obvious, both from an evolutionary perspective and a modern sociological perspective. You keep ignoring the point that gay couples have children also, and that two mothers or two fathers has in NO WAY proven to be inferior to a mother and a father. Do you need me to cite the many psychological and sociological studies that show this?

'Let me ask you this, why do same sex couples want to have marriage rights? What is their main reason for wanting to wed? Love? Maybe. Social status so other know you are committed? Possibly. Monetary advantages it brings? Bingo!'

You omit one BIG reason. People want marriage laws changed to include gay couples for the sake of EQUALITY. Same-sex couples have the same wants, hopes, goals, and intentions as heterosexual couples. They love each other, are committed, want to raise children, and could use the financial benefits as well. Nothing is different about a same-sex couple that justifies legal inequity.

'PS No I don't think they deserve the same set of marriage rights as defined by the current law. I do think they deserve laws as defined for same sex couples so they wont have to continue this dance around the age-old definition of marriage. Let the old definition stand as is and construct new rights much like common law marriages, but with great rights equal to the current marriage law. This way, no one can argue that marriage law is currently structured for heterosexual beings and therefore homosexual beings have no right to it. No one can strip them of rights if they have their own definition of it. Fair enough?'

Let’s give gay people a separate law? A separate word that means the same thing as marriage? Separate…but equal? Is that what you are saying? Remember 'separate but equal' from 5th grade history class? Would you like gay people to have their own drinking fountains as well?

This is a civil rights issue. It is about equality for all citizens of the good old U. S. of A. ‘Separate but equal’ is NOT acceptable and hopefully, sooner rather than later, we will move away from archaic, discriminatory marriage laws and closer to equality."

Caitlin stole all my thunder on this topic.  

Cheech said...

"Jesus Christ."

Cheech's two cents are billowing with apathy, a common side effect of excessive cannabis consumption.  


Mike Lee, a true conservative if ever there was one, said...
"As a true conservative, I don't care about Gay Marriage. What you want to do in your free time is your business.  My question is where in the constitution does it give this right to citizens - it doesn't. If this is right people deserve have the senate pass a bill allowing this - or pass a bill specifically giving the rights to states - don't use the ACLU to forward an agenda. Barrack Obama 'Mr Hope, Mr Change,' Has specified that he believes this is a states right issue. As prop 8 proves - gay marriage is wildly unpopular. One of the most liberal states in the Union voted against it. By Obama Saying this is states right issue and not moving towards a constitutional amendment - to allow gay marriage - he has essentially sealed the fate of this issue for the near term. (The only reason this is allowed in MA, & CT is due to the courts - not a single state has voted for it.  Again the left pushes its agenda through the court as opposed to the legislature.) As for the moral side of this issue - any one of any type of Christian Values can clearly see this is against the teachings of the their religion - however the government of the united states should not be taking a stance on our personal sex lives (outside of pedophilia, bestiality, & rape) There is something to be said for sanctity of Marriage - and the argument of 'It takes a family,' vs. 'It takes a village.' Our current divorce rate does not marginalize something that has existed for centuries. However, this debate is not the heart the of the gay marriage issue we see today, the heart of the issue is legal rights afforded to married couples within our system. From a personal standpoint, I don't think People like Jon Mackin should be forfeited valuable rights because he likes hot dogs more than clams.  

At no point in our country's history has it been our policy/mission to be an exclusionary society - why start now?

Barack Obama has the power to change this, but this issue is political liability - he - like the rest of the left, will let the ACLU do the work."

I have only a few problems with your argument.  You say you don't care about gay marriage, but then you write at considerable length about it, ultimately espousing a decidedly progressive stance.  

The christian dogma thing is silly.  If everything endorsed by the bible were incorporated into public policy, it'd still be the middle ages.  Many religious institutions will come around. Eventually, they'll have to in order to survive.

When you defended the institution of marriage as a pro-social, civilization sustaining instrument, you seem to do so without acknowledging, much like Anonymous #1, that a gay couple can raise children as well.      

And lastly, this country was very much exclusionary when it was founded.  Have you lived your entire life inside O'Reilly's No Spin Zone?  The men who were largely responsible for the exclusions were able to manipulate the masses with the help of inclusive mantras.  While these mantras laid the groundwork for true progress, its true intentions weren't as noble as you apparently think they were.   

In response to "I'll Bail You Out"  Mike Lee said...

To compare what is going on to that of what Karl Marx had envisioned is laughable.

It will cost the government more money not to act.

We have entered a situation that we have never seen before - a slowing economy - a historic housing crash - leverage beyond anything we have ever seen - global markets more intertwined than previously thought possible - all coming to a crash simultaneously.

Ask yourself if our government has tools to stem the bleeding of this once in history crisis what is the responsible thing to do?

In terms of AIG, if the US government can barrow at 3% and lend at 12%, why shouldn't they do it?

I made a Karl Marx comparison for effect, Mike.  Apparently I was successful, though you seem to have misinterpreted.  You have to see the irony in the barons of big business heading to Washington DC, hat in hand, looking for handouts.  No?      

In response to "Just a Few Concept Cars" Mike Lee said...
"You're a jerk. Be nice to the Tool in your office.

There are no 'cool kids' in the office Seamus. Just a bunch of tools at work, and middle aged women who only become attractive after you work with them for over a year."

When was I mean?  No need to worry, Mike.  The office tool was fired.  He's probably on his third Midori Sour right now.   

"Middle aged women who only become attractive after you work with them for over a year"?  Is this a real phenomenon?  By "you work with them for over a year" did you mean "seventeen beers and a few shots"?

Anonymous said...
"I'm relieved that mikeleeisawesome.com doesn't exist."

Au contraire my little anonymous friend, it does exist.  You just got the domain name wrong.   

In response to "I'm Sorry Randy"  

Randy Parker said...
"I appreciate the sincere effort that you have put forth by apologizing to me in the subject title of your post, but I feel that you are clearly missing the obvious or simply acting out of spite. Either way, please get back to venting, sarcasm included."

This guy was really demanding.  It's a shame he left us.  

Randy Parker also said...
"Although the first video is pretty remarkable. I am sure you could replicate that daunting task with your big head, but yours would look like the leaning tower or Pisa."

This is when I realized "Randy Parker" was an alias for someone I know.    

Seamus said...
"Randy, I'm not spiteful. I mean, I am spiteful, just not towards you. If anything I'm appreciative of your desire to read my babble. The posting of video footage is flagrantly lazy. How do you know about my huge dome?"

See.  

Randy Parker said...
"I am fan of your pointless banter, story telling and fairy tales all in all. A bit deterred by the fact of your laziness, although videos can be priceless.

btw, your head takes up half of the bathtub in your photo. I mean it is bigger than the pillow."

BS.  You really couldn't tell how enormous my head is from my old profile picture.  I'm calling your bluff "Randy".    

In response to "Tryptophan and Relaxation" 

Anonymous said...
"I was totally the same way.  Like OMG."

I don't get it.  Do I come across like a  high school cheerleader?

Randy Parker said...
"Really? I feel dumber now for having watched that. at least show Latarian getting in trouble for stealing fried chicken. or men getting hit with balls or kids falling of their tricycle's. I don't know what that was? Did she really have a t-shirt on of the schmuck from American Idol? Really? Stupid. Girl needs to get a grip.  Ok, let me help you out for your next post - A simple would you rather?  Would you rather bang Oprah or Martha Stewart?"

Oh yeah! I had posted and subsequently removed a clip of some high school girls freaking out to the results of an episode of "American Idol".  It was sad, frustrating, sad, depressing, funny, sad , and really sad all at the same time.  My biggest fan and harshest critic;  Randy Parker. 

Your "who would you rather?" isn't even a contest.  Martha Stewart's a relatively attractive older woman while Oprah's a relatively fat as hell pig with a god complex.  Obviously, I'm going for Oprah!  

In response to "A Grand Undertaking"
Mackin said...
"I am so upset that your list of albums has four that I told you about, gave you the album and or gave you your first listen too and yet, I am not mentioned in your influence list. Let's see the next time I share music with you!

No need to post this comment, just giving you shit for not giving credit where credit is due.

Great call on the Kevin Drew album."

I've since responded to Mackin in person.  There was no credit due.  This is why none was given.  
Randy Parker said...
"Who posts a comment as Anonymous, but then closes their crap comment with their name? Is this kid a retard?

Mackin, you should try using a disclaimer next time you suggest/share music with someone, so next time you will get credit on their Blog.

As for BigHead, getting better, i mean no video posts, but we waited more than a week for a list? C'Mon."

Baiting Mackin into an argument for no reason?  Add this to the ever growing body of evidence in support of my theory that Mr. Parker isn't who he says he is.  This guy not only knows me,  he knows Mackin.  I'd even go out on a limb to say he must have gone to Fairfield University.  I'll give a reward of $23.43 straight cash, a mint, and some pocket lint for the true identity of "Randy Parker".  

Mackin said...
"Good one 'Randy Parker'? Who has a name like that? What did the other parents in the trailer park name their kids?  I will have you know that I have been pushing hard to get an honorable mention on this blog. I send this guy a bunch of crap, so of which has/should have been on, there I want some notoriety!  You may say what you want, but I know deep down Seamus knows he blew it.

Question for you 'Randy'. Why is it that you said, '...we waited a week for this list'...?"

Snap!  Shit just got personal!  Mackin, please confirm your intentions behind your closing question.  You lost me at "Why".

Randy Parker said...
"Mackin Anonymous, do you know how to proof read?"

Ironic for someone to call someone out for not proofreading while neglecting to note that 'proofread' is one word.  Simple mistake that would go unmentioned under any other circumstances.  

Christopher Cronin said...
"I've officially, and solely, nominated and awarded tv on the radio and their new album, the band 'I'd most like to like but unfortunately don't' award.  Game, set, match.

Sent this in an email, but check out thisrecording's top twenty too:
http://thisrecording.com/2008/12/02/in-which-we-count-down-our-top-twenty-albums-of-the-year/

A lot of it is 'I live in Brooklyn and therefore these bands are cool, or conversely, these bands are cool because I live in Brooklyn' but there are also some gems..."

I disagree with you, Cro (obviously- I wrote a rave review of TV on the Radio's live performance and latest album), but I can see where you're coming from.  Also, I'm glad I decided to write this blog because I somehow lost that email and had forgotten you had also provided the link here.       

In response to "Chronicles of Nardia"

Mike Lee said...
"OC - if you want good workouts go to crossfit.com - they are uber intense and you get an awesome cardio workout as well as building muscle."

Here again, glad I did this.  I'm looking for some sort of consistency for my workout regimen.  Perhaps crossfit.com is the answer I've been looking for.  

Randy Parker said...
"You and Oprah hitting 200lbs."

What is it with you and Oprah?  How old are you anyway?  Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that Oprah's well over 300 lbs.  I'm insulted you mentioned our physiques in the same sentence.  I'm a bit husky.  Oprah's a mess.

In response to "Worth Your Time"
Randy Parker said...
"You Suck, I am out."

Godspeed, Randy.  Godspeed.

In response to "Hilarious"
Christopher Cronin said...

"Sweet find on 'The Rat' video.  

Randy Parker's my hero."

I know, right?  That performance from Juan's Basement provided me with the impetus to get their new album.  It's pretty good.  Spotty as usual, but there's some really good stuff on it.      

Anonymous said...
"'You may have seen this in action movies and there is a reason...it works.'"

The guy from these clips where he uses his infant children as props is hilarious.  Gavin McInnes is his name.  He actually co-created Vice Magazine.  (Check out their "DOs and DON'Ts".)   

In response to a bunch of clips I posted January 26th
Eric said...
"The clip of the Giants' fan is unbelievable. I always suspect that online videos are fake, but there isn't an actor in the world who could've faked that episode.

My first reaction was to respond by talking shit about Giants' fans, but it really has nothing to do with that.  That guy is just completely unstable."

Agreed.  As a Giants' fan, if I thought that clip said something bad about Giants' fans, like for instance that we're all fat cry babies, I most likely wouldn't have posted it.  

Mackin said...
"So this is what your blog has come too? You post videos from other sites? I am disappointed in you.

Giants fan video: First, why is that tub of lard hanging with hot girls. And two why is the guy allowing himself to be taped while crying about football and getting worked by hot chicks?"

1. Apparently.  2. I think you know the answer to this one.  3a.  I don't know.  3b.  I don't know.  I just don't know.  I've never seen anything like it.  

Anonymous said...
"Mackin sucks."

Come on.  If you're going to be rude, at least leave your name.  

In response to "Animal Collective"
TheCreeman said...
"I am INTO this album"

I still can't get over this album.  Animal Collective is now atop the list of bands I really need to see live.  

In response to "Super Diarrhea"
Cait said...
"Sad that the CareerBuilder commercial made me immediately think of you."

Question: What's sadder, the way I wrote about it myself after having seen it?

"8:58- This Career Builder commercial about knowing when it's time to get a new job.... I display all of the symptoms (screaming in my car in the morning, crying, fantasizing about punching small animals, wishing I was somewhere else, being ostracized by co-workers, et al.) Except I don't sit next to a hairy guy in a speedo who cuts his toenails at his desk. That'd send me over the top. The other stuff though, it's all there."

The fact that my sister immediately thought of me when she saw it?  Or that my fiance also thought of me immediately when she saw it?  

Ed Feldheim said...
"Yo, you need to give a 24 hour blog a try. just write for 24 straight."

Because it would be an incredible feat of human perseverence and focus?  Because you think I might have something interesting to say?  Or because you think it'd be funny to recommend I do something that would take a lot of time and energy for no good reason?  Tread lightly with your answers, Ed.  I'm fragile.

Ryan said...
"Agreed on the 24 hour thing. That was good though."

Agreed?  See above questions as they apply to you too.

Ryan said...
"http://bosscocked.com/"

I hate Bruce Springstein.

In response to "I'll Have Whatever He's Having"
Anonymous said...
"That kid is way to young to comprehend just how good he feels.  Ha ha."

True.  The reception of this clip has been all over the board.  Some people don't find it funny; can't believe someone would "exploit" their child like this, etc.  Some people think it's the funniest thing they've ever seen.  Me?  A little bit of both.  Mostly the latter though.  

Poodik said...
"Bulldog, poodik here. Got this link a while back and check in time to time mostly to stay up on pretentious flute-laden music that clean-shaven people know nothing of. You cast a wide net, and I've enjoyed a few of your recommendations. Give a listen to this compilation album, seems up your alley: http://www.darkwasthenight.com/. The guys who produced the album - The National - are great too but I'm sure you knew that way before I did you dirty hipster. Take care buddy."

Good to hear from you, Poodik.  Poodik started calling me 'Bulldog' after having discovered me in a parking lot by myself trying to pick a fight with the Fairfield men's swim team.  Not one of my prouder moments.  I'm pretty sure I started calling him 'Poodik' because it was lude, crude, rude and therefore funny.   Back in college, that was all I needed.  I'll definitely check out this compilation album.  I'll have you know I've never heard The National.  I've heard OF The National, but never any of their stuff. I'll have to check them out.