Calla's Seventy-Forth Post

Now this is another important idea. It is about BDSM and animal welfare (and probably also animal rights since this is Calla typing.) Tabby made up the idea and I am not trying to take credit. This is just a post about it in case anyone wants to help because we don't really have the means to implement this, but you might no someone who does. Or maybe you work for PETA and want to add a campaign of this. Tabby says he doesn't want it to be a campaign and he wants it to be a whole nonprofit organization. But honestly, I have no desire to really start my own nonprofit, and I don't think Tabby will ever be motivated enough to try. SO, therefore, it follows, that if PETA wants to steal the idea only for a campaign, well, if that's the case, I say go for it. It is highly creative.

SOOOOO. Here is what it is called. It is called Consensual Cages. The concept is that only those who want to be in cages, such as submissives or masochists or what not, should be in them. We do not shove piggies, and chickies, and calve-ies in cages! So, the deal is as follows (there are two ideas to follow): The one is a basic outreach/activism/leafleting thingy. You gotta get a cage and put hot people in bondage in those cages. You do this in crowded public places to get people's attention. Then you just hand out lit explaining how evil factory farming is. It is really quite simple and straight forward. And it sounds like something PETA would do.

Oh and also, Lit. wouldn't be limited to farm animals. This is a good idea to promote adopting companion animals because kitties and puppies shouldn't live their lives in cages and also puppy mill mommies live their miserable little precious lives like dairy cow mommies. :( :( :( OH THE WORLD IS EVIL EVIL EEEEVIIIIL I SAY!

The other idea is for a black-tie and/or Gala event. It is like a regular fancy-shmancy party except you have all these submissives serving everyone all night. They have like trays strapped to their mouths and maybe on their backs and stuff. They have to crawl around on all fours all nights serving people. You can also have people serving as physical human coat racks for when people come in. So because of that, you might wanna maybe do it in winter or fall. You can also have people in cages as decorations. There could be other more sexual things too as long as you read the laws in whatever state you are in about sex and what not. Obviously there would be no physical sexual intercourse. However, there could conceivably be floggings if someone messes up a drink order or whatever. Use your imagination. This is a good idea. Tabby is smart.

Consensual Cages. You heard it here first and don't you forget it!

Love,
Calla and the Kitties (who are happy they do not live in cages!!)

Calla's Sixty-Second Post

Do you know what H2O is? No, I am not talking about water. I am talking about this Australian TV show I saw the other day (being yesterday) that is so funny, I laughed like a ghost band! OK, the show itself isn't funny. The concept is hilarious, and thus the theme song is funny like a ghost band. SO, these three teenagers turn into mermaids anytime they get wet! HAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't GET IT. I don't get it AT ALL!!!! They are already made of 70% water, and what? they don't sweat or cry or even BREATHE on themselves. NO SENSE. It is so funny. This is what wikipedia said, and we all know wikipedia has quite a way with words (trying to be all serious about non-serious subjects so that I just crack the frak up!) Ok, this is what it said, "The show's premise revolves around three teenage girls facing everyday teen problems with an added twist: they're mermaids with powers over water." HAHAHAHA. Can you believe that? Oh, too great for words! Really, too too great.

The bad news, the show is filmed at SEA WORLD! EWWWW. Now, here's the thing with sea world. . . I've been an animal lover my whole entire life. So, when I was little I loved to go to the zoo and to Sea World (the one that used to be in Cleveland, which was right near where I used to live.) This is because I did not realize how evil Sea World is. They train animals, we all know that entails beatings and starvation. The animals live in areas too small to engage in their natural, God-given behaviors (ie: use sonar in the case of dolphins). They live in CHLORINE, which is horrendous for their health. Well, also, I'm not sure the Australian Sea World is connected to the U.S. chain, but nonetheless, it is a marine park with abused animals. This is sad to me. It hurts my heart a bit (as all animal abuse does.) I'm kind of a bad person, in that, I feel pretty vindicated (I don't know if that's the right word. I don't think it makes sense. I guess I feel vindication on the animal's behalf. ? .) any time a trainer of a wild animal (ie: someone who abuses God's creation at a circus or a marine park) gets attacked, mauled, or even killed. I'm not kidding. I'm a bad person. I think, "well, you shouldn't've been fucking around with wild animals asshole!" Firstly, it was just a mean thing to do. Secondly, it was just a dumb thing to do. Even house cats can rip holes in your flesh if(when) they want to. Why do you think a lion, whom you are pissing off by shoving a metal rod done his throat, won't one day snap and do the same!? And, probably, you deserved it, because you shoved a metal rod done an innocent animal's throat.

K, so that was the animal rant of the day. Today, for the animals, I wrote Trader Joe's about offering more vegan options. Probably that won't actually do anything. But I also resent the e-mail to the humane certified people because the one I sent yesterday got sent back to me because I typed the e-mail address wrong. So, that mighta been good. Perhaps I will make these people think more about these issues. And if they already consider them strongly, I will be better informed when I am recommending the products which are certified humane to other people.

So, know what else I want to mention? Short Bus. Man, I am one harsh movie critic. What is with all these so-called sex positive messages that turn out to be NOT sex positive!? Just a question. So, Short Bus was a'ight. It was not nearly as good as Hedwig (and how could it be if it wasn't a musical, right?), but it didn't completely suck upon first viewing. Some of the characters were quirky in a non-annoying way, their lives interwove in a believable fashion, all of the actors were good at acting, the ending wasn't so corny, though it was predictable, that you wanted to puke or anything horrible like that. So, it wasn't bad. It was just another hum-drum movie that I probably wouldn't watch ever again, but it didn't bother me on any level. It was only upon further contemplation that the movie got to me.

So, John Cameron Mitchel (if that's at all how you spell any of his names) started off wanting to make a sex-positive movie with real sex. That was seriously the goal. Something about how all the real sex in movies coming out of Europe represents something bad, and sex is something good. His movie, however, wasn't about sex. It was about human connection. And sex was used as a metaphor. So, he is still not positing a positive message about sex, rather he is positing a positive message about human connection. Additionally, in this world, where sex is equivalent to connection, there is no place for the asexual individual. I think I have talked about asexuality before on this blog in regards to the Kinsey Institute adding a 7 to Kinsey's 0-6 scale. (This is dumb. There should be two scales one for homo-hetero and one for a-hyper, if you are a 0 on the a-hyper one, you don't need to fit on the homo-hetero scale. However, people who are like a 1 [mostly asexual] still deserve another number.) Anyway, I think my point is about marginalizing a whole group of people who are currently misunderstood. I am not myself asexual, but I cannot STAND how people don't acknowledge that asexuality exists! In the world of Short Bus, they cannot exist, for if they did, they would have no way of connecting to other people.

Next: what is with the story of the woman not being able to cum!? This has been done so many other times. And it has been done WELL. (see: coming soon. Haha. It's brilliant) So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the story. But John Cameron Mitchel, as a gay male, does not know how to pull this one off. Additionally, to make the entire movie hinge on this one fact, which I admit is an important one in the life of the character, to the point where the FINAL moment is of her cumming, and then only show it for a split second! Like show the gasp and the "about to scream" and then cut to New York City's lights coming back on (Yeah, apparently her orgasm was so great it fixed the blackout) is just cheap. It is still as though, though this is the most important part of the film, the climax if you will (pun attended, hahaha!), you still cannot show it in all it's glory even though we've seen multiple males ejaculate. ANNOYING. Also, to equate it with the power coming back on makes it something special, as opposed to something a woman has every right to experience everyday the same way a man does.

And maybe I am reading too much into the woman cumming thing. And I think perhaps I don't even understand completely what I didn't like about it, but there was something that didn't sit right. If you are a womanist, a feminist, a sex-positive individual, a woman's rights activist, whatever, and you have seen this movie, perhaps you can share your opinion with me.

The other thing I didn't like was how it was such a male dominated cast. This is to be expected of a white, liberal, gay, male I suppose. (If you need me to explain that statement, chances are you wouldn't understand what I mean even after the explanation.) But it still bothered me. I am one of those annoying people who is always keeping score. (i.e.: whose name was shown first in the credits when the male and female lead had the exact same amount of screen time and shared equally in the role of protagonist?) I can't help it. I feel like the majority of people in this country like to assume and pretend that sexism is over, that women have equal rights, and equal treatment. This is not the case. And it is DEFINITELY not the case that women have equal representation in government jobs or high-end corporate positions. Forgive me for wanting to see them represented equally in Indy-Flicks.

Also, what is with the whole idea that this movie is not supposed to turn you on because it is not porn!? Now, it didn't really turn me on, that's most likely because I am probably only a 1 or 2 on the whole asexual to hypersexual scale that I invented. But, I can't see how it is not supposed to turn other people on. There is mad sex right in your face. And why is John Cameron Mitchel all opposed to porn in the first place!? You can't objectify all of these people's bodies for "art" and then say it's a crime against humanity that people are objectifying their bodies for the sake of sex and sex alone. (I did a whole post on this once. Go find it if you care.) If this was designed to be sex-positive, he should be happy to be showing sex for the sake of sex. (That should be a new movement, right? Sex for Sex's sake like Art for Art's sake, only we must be on a closer guard against venereal disease in this new movement I am proposing.) Am I wrong? Should he be showing sex for art's sake instead? Is that sex positive, or just art positive?

So, other than that, it WAS your run-of-the-mill Indy-Flick. Some "deep" movie with grand symbolic gestures that actually seem kind up shallow and useless when one puts on his/her analytical reasoning hat. Except it has real sex; this is how it is different. So, if you can't stomach that for one reason or another, don't see it. Otherwise, probably still don't see it 'cause you could spend that hour and a half or whatever watching actually meaningful things like Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, My So-Called Life, or Wonderfalls. (Yes, these are all TV shows, not movies. But it stands that they are all better than most movies.)

OK.

That's all for now. I still don't have new kitty pictures, so I think I'll put up this bat picture from Halloween. See, 'cause I told you all about this bat, but I don't think I ever pasted up an image. And if I already have, forgive me for the re-run.




Love, Calla and her kitties.

Calla's Fifty-Third Post pt. 3

I'm mad they're not dead. I hope his wife divorces him, but he can't figure out why because he has no memory of the ugly chick. OH, even ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is better than this. They do the "erasing my loved one" thing so much more effectively.


So, NOTHING happened in this film. . . great. What is this stupid song? It sounds like Coldplay. Probably it is. OH, I'm so so sorry you don't exist annoying girl. The desert isn't so bad anyway, right?

They ALL have boring sex. That girl needs to move on. The empathy virus probably WAS affecting his judgement. . .I don't need to stare at your lonely face for 10 minutes. He wants to have boring sex with his wife. . .and he doesn't miss you and you have no reason to miss him. . . What, you were looking for him in your dreams for 19 or 20 years or something!? Since you were like 6!? THAT'S dumb. This movie is pointless. The credits are running. . . and that movie sucked. It was as bad as that movie Roz made us watch one time where the dying woman cheats on her husband and refuses to tell him she's dying.

So, here's a list.
Bladerunner= does the atmosphere and mood better
1984 = does the surveillance better
Eternal Sunshine = does the memory erase of loved ones better
Being John Malkovich = does the mind control way better (that movie made me want to puke it was so effective. I can never watch it again.)
1984 = does the mind control better in the same way this movie was trying to do it.
Gattaca = does the genetic stuff better.

This movie did nothing good. NEVER WATCH IT. It will be the biggest waste of your time. You mi'swell watch some good movies.

Calla's Fifty-Third Post pt. 2

The movie is still on. . . it's still awful. Why can't they just use birth control to avoid all these code 46s? They can grow fingers, but they don't have a full-proof pill yet? How come the city of her dreams is more like a real city? This movie is inconsistent? Isn't everyone in the city rich and everyone poor "outside"? How come everyone in this city looks poor? OOOH lets shower together and have more boring sex. . . I'm so happy I just abandoned my son on a whim. EEEWWW are they gonna have more boring sex? I can stomach a lot of things, I can't stomach this relationship. Are there still established GENDER ROLES. Bullshit. This movie is dumb, "sing for me in your tone deaf voice so I can find your inadequancies attractive. . . " Why is the ugly girl crying. I hate this movie. There's still 15 minutes. Nothing has happened. I don't understand why this movie exists. It got a 52% or something on rotten tomoatoes. The "top critics" gave it a 30 something. . . KNOW WHAT. Blade Runner got 100% of the top critics. . . Yeah, Blade Runner is the shit and this movie is dumb . . .

So wait, she's getting tied up. . . So suddenly they're into bondage because it's the only way they CAN screw (even though they prefer to be boring) since her body has a virus which has an aversion to him. . . HER BODY DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE AN AVERSION. . . she looks like she's about to cum. So what, he rapes her body but not her mind as she mouths the words "I love you" into the camera!?

I gotta give it props for showing her naked though. . . normally movies get NC-17s in the U.S. for innocent things like that. Like "Coming Soon" was supposed to be an NC-17 because, though the humor is less crude than American Pie, it's about teenage girls wanting to cum instead of about teenage boys wanting to cum. ..

OH NO! MIND CONTROL. I'm sure I can think of things that do mind control better. . . like, for example, 1984. This movie sucks at almost everything.

Oh, they're not in the city. . . I missed that.

Also, Tabby pointed out that they are, for some reason, having people make the cover instead of machines, which he thinks is illogical given the technology they have. I think it might make sense. Maybe the government is more socialist than our own. I would love if our government employed people to do things machines could do.

OOOH, I hope they die in that crash. I hate them both.

Calla's Fifty-Third Post

There are actual things I need to write about in here. . . and I forget what they are. . . But I really quickly need to complain about Code 46. This movie is stupid stupid stupid. I'm 32 minutes into it. That's 1/3rd through. And nothing is interesting. The tone and style is like Blade Runner, but not as well done. The concept is like Gataca (how was it spelled? Ethan Hawke was in it when I was 11. I saw it in the movie theaters and really liked it. . . but I was 11, so maybe it's bad) combined with 1984. But much more boring than both of them. Well, the main girl isn't even cute. And I just watched them have such unrealistic sex. It was stupid. It wasn't unrealistic like too crazy, I mean they weren't movie in a way where you're like "how could he even be in her!?" . . . It was unrealistic like TOO DULL. No one has sex like that. And it's like Blade Runner before the good director cut version because there's cheesy voice overs. I am required to watch it for a class. Whatever high-concept idea I am supposed to be exploring about surveillance or government control or unrealistic future beliefs that the sun is bad for you (ALL THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE VITAMIN D DEFICIENCIES AND DIE!), I could be doing without this movie. . . and more enjoyably. Now I'm 41 minutes into it and OH NO, this man didn't report the counterfeit cover so now this guy died. . . Oh the guilt. Oh the confusion. What is right? What is wrong? What is ethical? OH NOW THE OVERKILL METAPHORS "Did I leave you a clue like Hanzel and Gretal?. . . "

This is dumb. Does he have to go find this chick? STUPID. . . This movie is boring, unoriginal, slowmoving, poorly scripted (you shouldn't need this many sucky voiceovers to make a movie), lame, and it TRIES WAY TOO HARD to be both artsy and intellectual. . . and it fails at both.

Why is this so Bladerunner. . . Oh no I'm like in love with this girl that is supposed to be the thing against which I am fighting. . . blah, blah, blah,

GET OVER YOURSELF.

That is my advice to this movie.

NO YOU DID NOT FALL IN LOVE WITH HER. . . YOU WERE ON A FRAKKIN EMPATHY VIRUS!!

Calla's Fourty-Seventh Post

This is just really quick to put forward a complaint. This has been bothering me since 10th grade, which may have been the time I realized this was even a twisted concept. What is this debate between the emotional and rational minds? By even having the debate you are already assuming the superiority of rationality, because you are having the debate with your rational mind. Therefore, the conversation is impossible.

Furthermore, why is there an assumption that our rational reasoning is the "real" us and we are always working to control our thoughts or something. Well, see what brought this up was this guy on the Colbert Report a few seconds ago. He wrote some book about decision making and said we are all sitting on top of an elephant (representing emotion) and it's hard to control that elephant. Now, the metaphor implied that "we" are rational. Bullshit. I don't know how brains work, and I don't claim to know how they work (duh), but I'm pretty sure my emotions and my reason both come from my brain. So, if I am my brain (which I am not sure that I am. Is the soul in the brain? Does the soul impact our earthly beings? Or are all souls created equal and our minds create the individuality?) Anyway, for the sake of science-talk, I'm pretty sure I am my brain. My brain, I am told is the only reason I can think, feel, act, etc. So I'm pretty sure my brain is what makes me. . or something. So that would include the emotional and the rational sides. So you see, I don't get this argument.

And in 10th grade, I forget my teacher's name. She was old and looked like Ursula the seawitch in the Disney cartoon of The Little Mermaid. Well, I don't remember why. We musta read something or other because it was an English class, and she made us discuss rationality vs. emotionality or something. And in that debate I could not help but feel completely at a loss about how a debate is even possible without given creed to reasons supremacy. And it isn't. So someone needs to explain this to me because that guy, who didn't know how to take a joke or interact successfully with Colbert, just reminded me of this weirdness.

There are other things to discuss. . . but I don't remember exactly what they are. Except now I remember one. . . and then when I was typing that I remembered the other! YAY!

So one of the others is this whole scale of 0-6 the Kinsey people made. Well, the institute later added a 7 for asexuality. This is dumb and a half. If there are varying degrees of hetero/homosexuality why wouldn't it stand that there are also varying degrees of asexuality? There, I'm sure is a spectrum from 100% asexuality to hypersexuality (nymphomania). Now, I understand the good intention. If we make TWO scales, that means everyone is judged on two scales, and people who are asexual simply don't fall on the other scale. Well, I'm not a sex researcher or, for that matter, a person who knows anything about science. But, I'm not even sure that would be true. People who are not at all interested in sex may still find bodies attractive to varying degrees, so they still might fall on the other scale. If not, and I'm not sure which way it is, but if asexual people are not attracted to other people at all, then it would stand to reason that if on the asexual scale of 0 to 6 you were on the extreme of the asexual side, you would simply be exempt from the other scale. Someone needs to write the Kinsey institute a letter. Maybe I will. I would be willing to bet if a whole group of asexual people read this post some would say they aren't attracted to people and others would say they were attracted to people, but had no interest in any sexual act. So, that hypothetical would prove my case. There is definitely a scale.

The other thing is about the catnip mouse! Well, as soon as I finished that post staring our mousey friend I removed the catnip and stuffed him up with cottenballs and put him with our friends upstairs. So, then I just had loose catnip that I would give the kitties every now and again, but there was no catnip toy with which to play. TODAY I FOUND VEGETABLES. From the same company that made Pintac (that's his name) I found a pack of 3 catnip toys stuffed with organic-grown-in-the-U.S.A. catnip. Know what they are? I shall tell you. They are a carrot, a chili pepper and a miniature eggplant. (Cause a life size eggplant would not work with the other two vegetables.) So, now my kitties have vegetables! haha! It is so funny because they are carnivores. (I know, it is sad, but it is a fact of life. My kitties eat dead chickens.) So, it is funny to see the carnivores trying to eat vegetables! I love vegetables.

Mama is sitting on the couch with me because she likes the blanket I am using. . . and one would think she is so small that she shan't take up too much space. WRONG. She is intentionally cramping my legs I think. (Maybe not.)

Love, Calla and her kitties.

P.S. Guess what's happening tomorrow? Gaeta is totally going down!!


My kitties went to jail!? or something!?

Calla's Fortieth Post

Wow, is that really how you spell 40th? It looks a little dumb. It should probably be more like fourtieth.

May I ask you a question? This is the question: How come everyone is so stupid!? Tabby's dad put on that show "are you smarter than a 5th grader?" and the answer, seems to be, yes. But then you think about how smart and educated are not exactly the same thing. It is not fair to say I am smarter than a fifth grader because I am 22. So, I might know more than them. But that doesn't make me smarter automatically. I bet when I was in 5th grade I was smarter than most people who knew a lot more than I did. OK, but that's beyond the point. The point is that most of the people on this show are just dumb. I'll admit I didn't know what organ produced insulin (the pancreas, by the way, in case you also didn't know.), but these people don't know really simple things like which vitamin is absorbic acid. Now, if you've ever read the ingredient list to anything you know that. So, it makes me wonder whether or not these people ever went grocery shopping in their lives. Like seriously, a lot of it seems to be knowledge people have to acquire in their daily lives if they plan on functioning in society. But, people don't know that "own" is the root word of disown, and that McKenzie is a proper noun. . . not a preposition. "In" is a preposition. It is just kind of confusing to me that these people exist.

Ok, second example of stupidity is CNN. I told you before they make me brain dead or something. But seriously, I was listening to it today while I cleaned, and they had "some of the smartest economists in the world" or whatever on the show being all like, "We have a trade deficit. We import too much oil from the middle east and too many goods from China." Uh. . . no shit Sherlock. I, who have taken exactly one economics class in my entire life, and this wasn't even a real economics class, it was about urban economies, could've told you we import too much! Oh wait. . . I DID tell you that. STOP BUYING ALL YOUR SHIT FROM CHINA AND LEARN TO RIDE A BIKE DOWN THE STREET.

Furthermore, these people on CNN (not the economists necessarily, just everyone at the news station probably) had never heard the terms NIMBY or "green collar jobs." And they had this other stupid chick on who was all, "We can't have big government telling our cities what to do. If they want more urban sprawl it is their prerogative." Right, and it is also my prerogative NOT TO DROWN when global warming causes the ocean to flood the island on which I live. So no, they aren't allowed to continue urban sprawl stupid bitch. I don't get it.

Also, people hate kitties and puppies. That is my conclusion. The humane society is trying to raise money to spay and neuter animals, and I tried to get all these people on facebook to help. But nope, they all want to get bit by a stray animal and die of rabies. Whatever, I guess that's their right. (http://photocontest.humanesociety.org/contest.html?page=viewIndex&contestId=1&clearSearch=1&paging=0 type in "Baby Kitty" and "Mama Kitty" on the search button.) Seriously, though, five dollars. They can't give five dollars to prevent the birth, and then death of, millions of unwanted lovey-faces.

Ok, so what else is happening in the world? CHRIS IS TEN TODAY! WOO-HOO PARTY. Except I can't party with him because I don't live near him. This is sad sad news. I have been babysitting children for a decade now that means! Someone hire me to watch your children. I need money.

Um, also what is happening is I don't understand the logic of lots of people. OK, so there is always like nude artwork or whatever. Alright, I have no problem with it. And a few people do, but as long as the piece doesn't look sexualized, most people will think of it as art. They won't throw some hissy fit about obscenity and objectification of the female body. (Let's face it, most of it is women.) Um, did I miss something here? Isn't the female body being objectified for the sake of art? Yes. Yes it is. Try to argue otherwise and you'll probably sound dumb. . . but you can try. So what? Now it's ok to objectify oneself for art but not for sex? 'Cause, face it, these same people who will like nude figures in art will be all up in arms if you show them some soft-core porn where the woman has a bra and panties on but is posed all sexual and her nipples are hard. I'm not kidding. Show these people real porn and they'll be all, "stop objectifying women!" "This is smut!" "Women's rights" "blah blah blah." Objectification is objectification. And if no one is coerced into this "objectification" I don't care if they are nude so men and women can look at them and go "hmmm. . . I love the way the light bends across the breasts here." Or so men and women can look at them and go "Wow, that's hot. I'm gonna masturbate now." Your body is being used for something apart from your mind to pleasure other people in either of the situations. And they are the exact same thing. I really want someone to argue with me. If you hate them both, ok, fine. If you like them both, ok, fine. If you are against porn but ok with nude art, you're stupid.

It's the same thing with manual labor even. If you need to make money, and you are strong, you are going to go be a mover or a construction worker or something. Your mind is not involved in this in any real way. You want money, you use your body. So, if someone who is hot, not necessarily strong, needs money, why can't s/he pose nude for someone? It's the same concept. It's just that everyone's afraid of sex. We live in such a sex-negative country. I don't understand why. There is nothing wrong with talking about sex. (In fact, there's something right in talking about it. Talking is the only way people can become informed. Information leads to well thought out decisions. Well thought out decisions are just better than decisions which are not thought out.) There is nothing wrong with nudity. Everyone has a body.

Probably it's Paul's fault. Why that man got to write half of the bible is beyond me. The man is asexual. And some people are asexual. That's fine. But don't expect everyone else to be. Just like if you don't like the taste of chocolate. . . well, many people, myself among them, are gonna disagree with you. Chocolate just tastes good. (hmmm. . . . dark dark chocolate. . . ) So, Paul, with his asexuality, somehow convinced us all that bodies are bad and disgusting. If bodies are nasty, how come Christ had one?

Then this leads us to the whole Christ never had sex. . . and if you're Catholic to some weird "neither did Mary" argument. First off, why wouldn't Mary have sex? If Jewish people were commanded to procreate, uh, I think Mary and Joseph would've had sex. And about Christ. So what if he didn't have sex. Maybe he was asexual. Maybe he was gay and couldn't because then he would be unclean according to Jewish custom. Maybe he knew he would die at age 33 and be unable to provide for a family. Maybe he was just too dang busy performing miracles and being God and what not. The fact that Christ didn't have sex is really no evidence that it's a bad thing.

I love tangents. OK, so what else is dumb about the world? Karl Barth. Well, I don't really know. Tabby knows. I guess there's all these people that don't understand the analogy of being. I will tell you what it is though. I maybe will paint it and scan it in here one day, and I will maybe not. But, picture this. There is a picture and it is pure purple in the center and pure red at the edges. The in-between is fading from purple to red. Get it? (If not, just re-read that until you do.) Now, here is the color code

red = grace/God
blue = nature/the world

So, that is the analogy of being as I understand it. I said so to Tabby and he said "yeah! You get it! That's a perfect description." But then we modified it a little like an hour later to say there are some spots that are redder than the purple around them.

Jesus is impossible to put in the picture because He would be fully blue and fully red. . . NOT PURPLE. Just fully blue and fully red simultaneously. This is why Christianity is like nuts.

I would just also like to say that I am bad at interpreting the world in a standard way. I don't have expectations that most people have. This causes me to not understand a lot of jokes and to often become confused by "human nature." So, I have two examples of what I mean. The first one is a commercial. And there are these cowboys talking all manly about what a tough winter it is and how so-and-so lost half his herd. Then they zoom out and they're both eating these pancakes with candies and syrups all over. And they say "hey hun" (to the waitress they say this. The waitress in the commercial.) They say, "hey hun, can I get some more. . . " And I forget what they say but it has something to do with giggles and happiness and what not. And Tabby laughed. And I said "I don't get it." And he informed me that I don't get things because I never have expectations. He explained the joke to me. These were "manly men" eating breakfast and we zoomed out and they were eating like "girly" foods. So, turns out the commercial was for Denny's. And I guess the point was that if you want "real" breakfast you have to abuse pigs and chickens. How on EARTH, would I be expected to have that expectation? I don't think anyone should abuse animals.

So, I started thinking about what he said about how I don't have expectations and I thought of a really humorous example. It was a PETA shirt and it said "woof, woof, woof" all over it. And in the bottom corner was a pig saying woof. I didn't get it. Christin was the one who had to explain that one to me. She said we were supposed to expect a dog. . . but INSTEAD there's this pig. . . So, it's being all like "we need to think of pigs the same way we think of dogs." I guess the problem is I ALREADY think of pigs that way. (CUTE GIANT LOVEFACES!!)

I think this lack of expectations helps me to appreciate scary-go-round. Most people don't get it. But I get it perfectly. It is always so funny. John Allison is bad at regular expectations too. He just must be. (BUT OH MAN IS HE AMAZING AT GHOST BANDS!!!!!)

I think that is all I have to say for now. I start school again tomorrow. That makes me want to puke. Yucka-yuck-yuck.

Love,
Calla and furry friends.