I'm having a tea party !

I'm having a tea party.

Want to come ?

Be warned:

1. I'm a little confused.

2. I'm armed.

3 .I'm with stupid

4. I don't feel well. I should go to the doctor.

oops I can't.

5. Because they fired me and then rehired me part time even though i work triple full time and now I don't have health insurance.

6 .Plus ,I'm Furious because I haven't gotten laid since 1981.

7. Because I'm Fat.

8. Because I only eat things like this .

Don't you see how it's all interconnected?

Lube Yourself Up for the Revolution!

Comrade X announces the official beer of the Revolution (you thought this was going to be about vaginal beads, didn't you? Pervert!), Proletariat Red. In coming posts, official wines and liquors of all sorts will be announced as Comrade X diligently works his way through every liquor-dispensing outlet in his particular part of the United States of Bourgeois Oppression. In accordance with this, Comrade X will also be posting his favorite songs and ballads to accompany the coming Revolution, to inspire and encourage in the dark days ahead when imbecilic bourgeois heads will be smashed with the Hammers of Justice and/or decapitated with the Sickles of Righteousness. Rise up!

The first in this series, the Ballad of the Oppressed Proletarian Barmaid (Nota Bene: those Revolutionaries born after 1980 may find this period piece hard to appreciate -- those born in previous decades will know exactly what I'm talkin' about, oh yeah!).

Comrade X Demystifies Online Dating

Comrade X is baffled by all the people out there who constantly complain that they "don't understand this online dating thing." Like it's rocket science! How can anyone NOT understand how the online dating thing works? You shop for people you like the look of, you send them an email, you make a plan, badda bing badda boom, you go out with someone you don't like and that's that. What's so confusing? Well, luckily for you, Comrade X is here to allay your confusion and to tell you exactly how to read these internet dating sites.

Okay, this is just a basic course, so we'll only cover the basics. More detailed information might be forthcoming depending on reader demand. Anyway: every online site breaks down into three basic categories for which you have to provide information. Oh, and just so there's no confusion as to why Comrade X is writing about this, this topic has to do with capitalism for the following reasons: on these sites we turn ourselves into products and compete for shelf space with other products of essentially the same type, hoping to attract consumers with our flashier advertising. We define ourselves by giving ourselves a set value, a worth, and offer "deals" to attract buyers. And since we turn ourselves into products, all these sites can thus be understood in the language of the bourgeoisie and their agents, the marketing people. So, the three basic areas of information you need to pay attention to are these:

1. "Details": This is the area in which you include the "ingredients" of your product, i.e., you.

2. "About Me": This is the advertising language being used to sell the product (you).

3. "What I'm Looking For/Why You Should Write Me": These are essentially customer reviews which you fabricate in order to get someone interested in your product (you) on the grounds that OTHER people (you) have been interested in this product (you).

Okay, now you know what these categories are for. You are ready to fill out your profile. BUT: you should also know the types of people on these sites, and what THEY are REALLY looking for.

Women (three types):

1. I'm under 30 and a child and looking to stroke my ego by having guys write me while never feeling the need to actually return any emails.

2. I'm over 30 and divorced and trying to get back at my ex-husband/ex-boyfriend and need to turn YOU into him so I can abuse him through you.

3. I'm any age and am completely unwilling or unable to take care of myself and so need you to do it for me.

Now, the strategies they use to lure you (three types, which can be used by any of the three listed types above):

1. Aggressive: their profile consists of lists of things they DON'T like in men.

2. Self-sufficient: their profile consists of all the ways they are happy without men/a relationship, and intimate that they don't really need men/a relationship to be happy, anyway (which stance of course their presence on the site belies).

3. A detailed list of ALL the things they are looking for, down to the last detail (in which case they should really just write a novel starring themselves and their fictional man, and substitute that for a relationship, because they will NEVER find anyone to fit their unrealistic and too-exclusive description, since people are people and you can't look for a checklist but have to evaluate what you find).

What they want (corresponding to the three types):

1. No one.

2. A disposable doormat.

3. Money.

What to expect in terms of appearance of the corresponding three types on first date:

1. Hypergroomed.

2. Overgroomed.

3. Pathetically groomed.

What to expect from them (corresponding to the three types):

1. No response, or an insulting one.

2. One date and a "Let's be friends" email which is followed up by silence and avoidance.

3. Sex. Once. Then they move in with you.



Men (three types):

1. I'm a misogynist and I don't care.

2. I'm a misogynist pretending to be a sensitive guy .

3. I'm just horny.

Strategies (corresponding to the three types):

1. My profile describes why I'm great and actually too good for any one woman.

2. My profile tells you all the things I think you want to hear.

3. My profile tells you why I'm so great AND tells you things I think you want to hear, but in a much more boorish manner than the first two types (nota bene: these profiles often feature long-shot pictures of the writer posing in front of his Camaro).

What they want (corresponding to the three types):

1. Someone 20-30 years younger than they are.

2. Someone 10-20 years younger than they are.

3. Anyone at all (as long as they put out).

What to expect in terms of appearance of the three types on first date:

1. Hypergroomed.

2. Clean socks with Birkenstocks.

3. Fuggedaboudit!


What to expect from them (corresponding to the three types):

1. The Thousand-Yard Stare (they're always looking at other women while with you).

2. Deep meaningful gazing into your eyes while not listening to what you're saying.

3. Sends emails saying things like, "So, you wanna hook up?"


Bumperstickers or other adornments you will surely see on their cars (corresponding to the three types):

1. McCain/Palin '08

2. "Even fat girls need love." (Put there to prove sensitivity.)

3. Playboy silhouette mud flaps on their truck.



This should provide you with the basics of what to expect in the online dating environment. Do not fool yourself, however: capitalism has ruined dating just as it has ruined everything else. People suck and they do not seem to be afraid to prove that at every opportunity -- in fact, they seem to be happy to do so!

IBS takes a stand on teen pregnancy

We here at Irritable Blog Syndrome have decided to put our politics on the the line and actually take a stand -- a stand on pregnancy. IBS is against teen pregnancy. In fact, we're against ALL pregnancy, for we believe that it is a really, really bad idea to bring children into this world until AFTER the Revolution, until AFTER capitalism has been destroyed (by us, of course -- but give it time: we're doing all we can!). But, if you are one of those women or men who feel the need to have a child, we suggest the Fetus Cookie Cutter, pictured above. You can crank out as many "children" as you like, name them, make them in various flavors, and turn your "child" into a taste sensation! You can eat your children like some figure from a really, really horrible Greek tragedy and actually enjoy it, too! Mmm, chocolaty goodness! Now you can eat your young like certain resource-concerned animals do, and get back to nature! Entertain your friends! Let THEM eat your "babies," too! Fun for the whole family -- or rather, lack thereof. Only $9.99! Act now and get absolutely free the Ex-Husband Castrated Penis Cookie Cutter and the Anorexic Amoral Teen Daughter Baby-In-A-Dumpster Cookie Cutter! Don't delay, act today! Operators are standing by. Really. I kid you not.

Christian "Scientists" are INSANE!

Comrade X rarely reads the paper, as it depresses and enrages him, but with this new health care carrot being dangled before us, Comrade X became interested in what minor changes to the existing structure our self-congratulatory "leaders" had recently enacted. Well, in reading about this (which is not what this post is about), Comrade X came across a curious article in The New York Times (3/24/10, if you care to look it up, though I will be giving you the choice bits here, so it shouldn't be necessary for the hard-working and pressed-for-time proletarian to do so) about Christian Science (that Christian sect who rejects modern medicine), which did two things: it reminded Comrade X that those people are still out there, and it depicted a new level to the insanity and depravity they espouse as a doctrine. To wit:

1. "In recent years, the church has been lobbying to convince lawmakers that its approach is an alternative way of tending to the sick, and that its costs should be covered by insurance companies and included in health care legislation." Okay, first of all, praying is not an alternative way of tending to the sick -- it's a way of AVOIDING tending to the sick, which, strictly speaking, could be seen as an alternative, I'll grant them that. BUT: including the "costs" in insurance coverage? How much does it cost to stand around a sick person and PRAY? Where's the cost? Do you have to buy special clothes to do this? No. Do you have to take time off work to do this and you should be compensated for that? No. You can pray AT work, silently, in your head, all day long if you like. Does prayer only work if you are in the vicinity of those you're praying for? These people seem to think so (let it be noted that Comrade X in no way believes in "the power of prayer," but is merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in what these people are trying to present as a logical argument). And include it in health care legislation? How, exactly? You can do this praying thing now, if you want -- you need a law specifically stating that you can act like a moron? OH OH OH: AND they have LOBBYISTS! FUCKING HELL! Who is LISTENING to these people? Can we impeach them for gross idiocy and holding a medieval worldview (it should be noted that this is an insult to medieval medicine, of course, as they at least TRIED to do something for sick people back then)?

2. "The church trains and registers its practitioners to help patients with their prayers." WHAT?! They have put a veneer of professionalism on this most backward and idiotic of ideas by actually LICENSING idiots to help other idiots hope for the best with their illnesses? Because, you know, not just ANYBODY can say, "Dude, just pray to get better and you will. Believe me!" And what could this training consist of?
"So, Jedediah, if you have a man with black boils all over his body and a fever of 120 degrees, and his extremities have just exploded, how would you help him with his prayers to return to health?"
"Well, suh, I guess I'd jes' tell thet ol' boy to go ahead an pray like hell, cause God surely will hear him if he hollers loud enough."
"No, no, no, Jedediah, you must do this as a PROFESSIONAL! You need to find the RIGHT prayer and tell the sufferer to put his hands just so, and say the prayer."
"Even if'n his hands is exPLOded?"
"Yes, Jedediah, even then. Can you think of the prayer you would use?"
"Uhh ... ummm ... thet one about how he hopes he gets better?"
"Yes, my boy, YES! That's the one! Come forward and receive your certification!"

3. "His credentials as a practitioner consist of a friendly Midwestern manner and a certainty that sickness is the manifestation of a conflict between 'correct' and 'incorrect' thinking. He does not believe in germs or the existence of illness, which they consider a dreamlike state." Oh, okay, now I get it -- there actually ARE criteria for being a licensed church prayer practitioner. You have to be a hick and a fucking moron. I get it. You also have to deny the existence of any and all facts related to human health and biology and hold completely crazy ideas about the definition of sickness.
"You are not sick, my friend, you're just in a dreamlike state."
"Really? Cause it hurts like a motherfucker."
"No, no, that's not real pain. You're just engaging in incorrect thinking, and the 'pain' you think you feel is merely a manifestation -- psychic, of course, not physical -- of the conflict between your incorrect idea that you're 'sick' and the correct idea that you're not sick."
"Oh, so if I just think correctly about this, I'll be fine?"
"Yep, that's right."
"Golly gosh geewillikers, thanks, Mr. Magoo! I was such an idiot about this! Duh! I thought I was actually in pain! Can you believe it?"
"Well, we all make mistakes, Timmy, don't feel bad about it. Now you just go right ahead and start thinking yourself into correctness."

4. "They would not discuss the care of children or let a reporter witness a treatment session. And neither practitioner was willing to discuss the new flexibility [under which the "church" now claims it will not ostracize its members for seeking medical care] described by Mr. Davis [the hick of the preceding paragraph]." OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE THEY'RE LYING ABOUT THIS AND JUST WANT TO ERASE THE STIGMA THEIR MANIAC LUNACY HAS BROUGHT UPON THEM! "Hey, Lester, c'mere -- how we gonna keep all them reporters and lawyers and cops and FBI agents and social workers and other Christians and such outta our bizniss?" "Well ... we could jes' lie!"

5. "In Christian Science [...] sickness and suffering are misunderstandings -- or [...] 'a mistaken belief' in the 'power of ill health.'" WHAT?!

6. "One of the practitioners [...] said a patient who came to him with a lump under his arm was experiencing 'a manifestation of fear, not a lump.' The other practitioner [...] said that if a patient had a bleeding gash in his his arm, 'I would try to calm this person, and help him overcome the fear.' Such a patient is suffering anxiety over the illusion that something has injured his 'true self,' when the gash has only happened to his 'material self' [.]" How many logical fallacies can you locate in the previous quoted material?
"Hey, Rufus, I got a lump under my arm the size of a baseball."
"No you don't."
"Yeah, I do, lookee here, it's right there!"
"Naw, that ain't no lump."
"It ain't?"
"Oh, hell no! It's just a manifestation of fear."
"Really?"
"Sure! Now just go on home and stop thinkin' about it."
"You sure I ain't manifestin' fear BECAUSE I got a lump under my arm?"
"Naw, it's t'other way 'round!"
"Well, okay. Thanks, Rufus."
"Anytime, George."
Now, as to this other "practitioner," what the fuck? She won't even offer the poor guy a BAND-AID? Just tells him to ignore his BLEEDING GASH and stay calm because his "true self" is fine, fuck his material self, it doesn't matter. So you bleed out, so what? And please don't get any of that on the carpet. (It is interesting to note that eventually, when this does become part of insurance coverage, given the insanity and complete idiocy of our "lawmakers," malpractice laws surrounding this will consist of practitioners being sued for actually trying to stop bleeding, extract huge pieces of metal from people's heads, etc.)

7. And last but not least: they have the unmitigated gall to CHARGE for these "treatments"! "The treatment does not cost much. Patients pay $25 to $50 per consultation, whether for a five-minute phone conversation, an e-mail exchange or a face-to-face visit." Now, they seem to be onto something here: if I could charge someone $50 to send an email telling him not to worry about his cancer, that it's just incorrect thinking and that he should just say "Please God cure my cancer" every thirty minutes until he eventually dies from it, well, I'd be tempted to take that job, too. Wouldn't you? Oh, wait, no we wouldn't, because we have MORALS.


Oy. And one last thing: "'Given the complete lack of scientific evidence of the efficacy of prayer in treating any illness or disorder in children,' [American Academy of Pediatrics] officials wrote Senate leaders in October, 'mandating coverage for these services runs counter to the principles of evidence-based medicine.'" Now, does this scare you as much as it scares me, that Senate leaders (LEADERS, mind you) had to be TOLD this?

Oy and double oy.

Hey, Do you want to play game now ?

"Okay, here...I help.

One of these things is not like the other things.

One of these things , it doesn't belong.

Can you guess which thing is not like the other thing before I finish my sooooong?!!!"

Did you try with all your might ? Did you guess right ?

LIQUIBEADS! Huh?

PLEASE , can we all be dead before ANYONE on earth inserts a moisture bead up their bagina ?

Dear lord, please let there be a recall... forever.

Hey, moron! Turn your truck around NOW!

Not only are we subject to the constant demand to buy, O My Comrades, but we are also treated like IMBECILES by the governing bodies who regulate EVERY ASPECT of our behavior. This is not in any way The Land of the Free, Comrades, as I'm sure you're well aware. And in most cases, the action taken by the bourgeoisie to control us is impersonal (they're not even there in person to keep us down -- they just put up a sign!) and unmonitored (we're supposed to police OURSELVES, in their interest, by obeying their demands, written, as I said, on signs, signs they post EVERYWHERE and which WE pay for and which usually SERVE NO PURPOSE AT ALL other than to remind us of their power and our helplessness, to instill fear, and to TREAT US LIKE RETARDED CHILDREN!). Take, for instance, this sign, recently noticed by Comrade X as he was visiting his accountant to file his taxes (taxes which will then be used to buy more signs like this one, no doubt):

1. Okay, who the fuck would WANT to park in that strip of dirt by the freeway off-ramp ANYWAY? Why do they feel the need to tell people NOT to do that? And even if they DID want to park there, what harm would it be to do so? IT'S A STRIP OF DIRT! No one lives there, no one has a business there, no one walks there, no one drives there, obviously no one PARKS there, so WHO CARES?

2. Even if for some reason I had an overwhelming desire to park there instead of the parking area which is on the closer side of the sign, HOW WOULD I GET IN THERE? There are, as you can see, blockades to keep cars out (there is another just to the left that didn't make it into the picture)! In fact, the SIGN ITSELF acts as such a blockade! To park in there, I'd have to run over the sign (or have a car two feet wide)! Did they feel that the blockades weren't enough? That people would, in their fervor and delirium and utter insanity, smash through them to park on that strip of land? "Fuck the guv'ment, Martha, I'se parkin' muh truck on thet there dirt and ain't no one kin stop me! This's a duh-MOK-ricy, goddammit!"

3. The blockades THEMSELVES have "No Parking" signs on them! Do they think we're all giants and can't possibly see anything that's only two feet off the ground? Do we never look down? Do we forget to correct for the curvature of the planet and always keep our heads tilted slightly upward? Were the signs not BIG enough? Are we all purblind?

4. If I did want to park there, all I'd have to do is drive over the curb of the freeway off-ramp and onto the dirt. Why are there no blockades or signs on THAT side of the dirt strip?

5. Subject to tow? Even if I did manage to get my car in there, possibly using the just-mentioned method of approach from the non-blockaded side, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET A TOW TRUCK in there to tow me away? Is this even a real threat? Does the tow truck have to stay in constant motion to avoid actually parking and being itself subject to tow? I don't see anywhere on the sign where it says "Except for tow trucks." So how does THAT work? AND AND AND: what if I just DRIVE through there, or drive in there and just spin around in circles? Is THAT legal (and speaking of legality, where is the city ordinance reference you normally see on signs that says that it actually IS illegal to park in there? Or don't they even bother to put those references on signs anymore, thinking us thoroughly cowed)? And who is going to tow me if I do park there? On whose authority?)? As long as I don't actually park, am I okay?

Ah, Comrades, we are all fools adrift in a sea of signs, a sea of commands, unable to do anything but comply with the thousand thousand demands made of us every day, the myriad constraints on our actions.

Are we going to take this?