Advice For the Wicked
While bilking school children out of their lunch money on the playground using an all-anal deck of playing cards that I like to procure especially for my Three Card Monte scheme, I realized that I hadn’t started my column. Now, making my rent is important, but it’s insignificant to the beatings Jon Schwartz deals out when I’m late with my assignment. So I turned my attentions towards you, my fine readers.
It’s not that I don’t have enough time in a month to do write my column. Nor is it that I’m too caught up in my domestic duties to reach out with my prose: I get plenty of help from the nameless foreign girl who sees to keeping my home clean while I fish for adjectives in a pitcher of Bloody Marys. She doesn’t speak any language I know, but we have an unspoken agreement that as long as whites are white and my Vikings jerseys are kept sorted numerically, I just might have trouble locating that phone number for that government agency that whisks away foreign trouble-makers.
In the stead of a first-run piece of original writings, I’m simply rehashing some questions posed to me for my advice column at thebigwu.com. The queries range from the Supreme Court to misplaced bongs to milfing, so be sure to read them all!
Q: Dear Padre,
I read in the paper that the government wants to make the Ten Commandments a legal document. Is this true? What if you’re not a Christian? I’m confused, whose side is God on?
A: Troubled Son-
The current rash of court cases hinging upon the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings jumped into the national spotlight when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore disobeyed a federal ruling insisting upon the removal of a five-ton monument of the Biblical passage. Rather than honor the higher court’s ruling, Moore kept the monument, but lost his job.
Vowing to fight, Moore has been the poster boy for Christian groups posing legal challenges to the 1980 Supreme Court ruling against the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. Currently, there are more than thirty pending cases in courts around the country. Two of the cases, one from Kentucky and another in Texas will be heard by the Supreme Court in February, with a ruling to be released in June 2005.
Now, I love the great states of Kentucky and Texas; I look forward to traveling through them several times a year. The Appellation Mountains are beautiful and Texas has great food, not to mention the folks in both places are real swell. But lets face it: Nobody mentions "Dueling Banjos" and the Harvard Law Review in the same breath. And in a surprising ruling in Texas, a homeless man, Thomas Van Orden lost his bid to have a six-foot chiseled marble display of the ten commandments removed from the State Capitol lawn, where it has stood since being donated by the Fraternal Brothers of the Eagles in 1961. Great. This is as if my inebriated uncle Walt erected a 10,000 lb. eyesore and the only one that wants it taken down is the guy who talks to the squirrels and craps in my alley.
I have to wonder how these display’s Christian supporters would feel if somebody plopped a replica of the Wailing Wall or a Meccan prayer tower in the town square. Something tells me that it wouldn’t receive too much of that Southern hospitality, no-suh.
(Quick Southern joke: What’s the last thing a redneck says before he dies? Hey, y’all! Watch this!)
Back to the point, which is what they’re both missing: Why would anyone want to soil the sublime perfection of God with the putrid, foul, retarded ineptness of government? You don’t mix your dirty underwear with your silk jimmies, and you don’t undermine the undebatebly simple rule that church and state are separate, fucking period.
As for the factions of Jesus-wheezing creeps that consider themselves patriots, ready and willing to torch the Middle East, it’s ironic that they can’t see the root of Muslim nation’s problems is too much God in their government. Why anyone in the free world would advocate more of the same defies explanation. If nothing else, everybody should learn to accept this political premise: GOD IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE!
Drive safe, be nice to your Mother, and drink your milk!
What would you recommend I do if my friend’s parent took away my bong? I mean, if this were just some pipe I’d let it go, but this was some nice glass. I need some major help on this one, I’ve thought of just asking for it, but then I’d get screwed, and there’s no need for that because she doesn’t know whose it is yet.
A: Troubled Son-
The first thing I would do is use proper punctuation when asking someone for advice. Nothing says, "I’m in deep shit and I’m ready to take care of it, damn the consequences!" like actually using the "shift" key to capitalize the beginning of the sentence and the apostrophe key to state possession and/or mark the difference between third person possessive case and plural forms.
Even though I’m the last guy who should get on your case, I hate correcting someone else’s grammar. And furthermore, I took no pleasure in adjusting the incongruities contained within your prose. It’s just not my fort (no, not forte; that indicates female advantage) to act as your English teacher.
Why am I being such a picky bitch about your grammar that I had to correct before constructing a reply? Because you need to present yourself as a mature, grown person who didn’t screw-up by leaving such a sensitive piece of equipment out for anyone to find. Oh no, this social faux pas was only committed when the general welfare of the party at hand became endangered because "________" (fill in the blank, and make it good. Don’t forget to smile when you say it.)
And trust me my son, nobody is going to give you any benefit of any doubt if won’t dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s.
Drive safe, drink your milk, and be nice to your mother-
Q: Dear Padre, I’ve got a problem. You see, my economics textbook has this question in it about the Cookie Monster (from Sesame Street) and how much value he gets from eating cookies. The problem is that the book seems to say that the Cookie Monster is fully satisfied with only 6 cookies, but anyone that knows their Sesame Street knows that Cookie Monster eats cookies like 6 at a time. He’s not satisfied until he’s gotten like 24 cookies. I’m confused. Can you help me?
A: Troubled Son- I understand your consternation.
While the initial Cookie Monstered Estimate (number of cookies consumed) is far below the Projected Cookie Consumption (the apparent number of cookies he shoves in his mouth), the Cookie Monster Satisfaction Index (number of cookies it takes to appease his urge) appears to dip far below investor predictions. Thus, panic is stirred within the international investment community’s perception of the cookie’s value.
Unlike most marketplace factors, the problem hasn’t grown its roots within the parameters of supply and demand. We all know that Cookie Monster’s demand is endless, and seemingly his supply is too. (I mean, he always wants the cookies, and someone off camera is always there to give him some.) Thus the X-factor is the third essential ingredient of free-market economics, the "Invisible Hand" that regulates a product’s relative worth within an economic system.
Since an invisible hand keeps handing Cookie Monster all the Chips A-Hoy’s he wants (effectively negating scarcity), the value of said cookies is $0. However, your text didn’t even mention the most important factor within this most perplexing equation: The Cookie Monster doesn’t have a throat and can’t consume the product in question. Thus his endless demand for an equally endless supply of cookies is irrelevant since he can’t ever be satisfied. In other words, the all-important invisible hand that brings equilibrium to all things economic has been disaffected beyond significance.
My only advice is that you bring your professor before your school’s board of regents for inquiry on grounds of teaching communism. Who else but a commie mush-head would propose that sound economic theory could be based on an infinite supply of goods that essentially can’t be consumed?
Drive safe, drink your milk, and be nice to your mother-
Q: I was watching the Super Bowl, and thankfully decided not to skip the halftime show as I usually do. All of a sudden Janet
Jackson’s boob exposed itself, which at first I thought was extremely great. Then I got to thinking: is it unnatural for one like myself to be attracted to one nearly twice my age?
Is there some sort of Freudian malfunction in the sexual part of my brain? Am I "different" from my peers? Also, the stunt gave me a reason to almost "like" a douche-bag that passes for a musical artist today, and that being Justin Timberlake. Yes, the repulsive music he has his honchos make for him is still obviously terrible, but the man showed the whole nation, and others, Janet Jackson’s boob. Again, is it unnatural for me to think he may be only half a douche-bag now? Surely his pathetic music will never reach quality, but does he now have guts? I need your guidance, O All-Knowing Padre!
A: Troubled Son-
First off, there is nothing "wrong" with wanting an older woman. Especially when that older woman is Janet Jackson. For the record, the desire, however fleeting, to be with an older woman only qualifies as Freudian" if it’s your Mom. Since you didn’t sign your email as the "Perverted Son of Janet Jackson", I think you’re in the clear.
As for whether you’re different than your peers, it’s only a matter of how hot your friend’s moms are vs. how hot you think your own mother is…
Okay, I’m fucking with you- as long as you’re not hot after your own ma. You don’t, right? I mean really, you wouldn’t- would you? Silly for me asking, I mean how could I come to the conclusion that you want to murder your father and copulate with you own mother by reading in between the lines of your email? There’s nothing in there to suggest that you could carry out such a sick scheme… except you brought it up… but that’s what you meant, was it? Yuck! Christ get some help!
As for the Justin Timberlake issue, you can like whomever you want, but please, for the love of god, keep your mother out of this!
Drive safe, drink your milk, and don’t fantasize about your mother-
Q: So I was hanging out with a friend and our pretty ladies one night when my friend decided it would be fun to snap a photo of his groin area with a digital camera. Although disgusted, I decided it would be fun to also take a picture of my ‘area’ as well. So I placed the camera into my shorts and snapped away! The result was a beautiful shot of my peter, up close and personal. The four of us laughed hysterically. Am I troubled? Do YOU, Padre, find this behavior disturbing?
A: Very Troubled Son-
I’m conflicted. By the crude tone and the scant use of the English vernacular that permeates your prose, I suspect that not only do I know your true identity, but possess knowledge of the horrific incident of which you speak. Since this is forum is a confessional, I’ll abide by the code of anonymity that comes with my position. However, Mr. X (as I’ll call you), don’t imagine for a minute that GOD doesn’t know what you’re up to.
I can’t decided what’s more disturbing: The fact that you would freely spend your time associating with degenerate hoodlums who extract their jollies by photographing their pathetic genitalia, or joining their ranks as a first-class pervert. I haven’t even begun to sympathize with the innocent victims you exposed with your twisted baseness. You may callously address them as "pretty ladies", but I call them "spoiled flowers". Jesus wept! Although you claim they "laughed hysterically" at your heinous shenanigans, I can only share the shame of this social torture you inflicted upon them. In all my years as a moral compass, I’ve never felt such a need to scrub my eyes with soap as to rid myself of the filth your "confession" has wrought upon me. Shame on you!
That aside Mr. X, I’ll forward your copies of the pictures from my camera to your email account. The photo of your gents we dubbed "The Gizzard" is still a winner…
Drive safe, be nice to your mother,
Folks, summer may be gone, but there’s no reason why you can’t retain that sunny disposition in spite of the change in seasons. All you need the right attitude and a blender. I should also credit this recipe with being the greatest liquid thesaurus next to Old Style beer. Ladies and gents, I present to you:
Padre Pienbique’s Booze Smoothies
In a blender, add
1 dozen strawberries
2 cups orange juice
2 handfuls of ice
2 cups rum
Blend on high for thirty seconds, serve in pint glasses. Store in the freezer until your glass is empty, then blend and serve some more until you’ve finished your breakfast.
This month’s Old Style Zealot is former Big Wu guitarist/singer/songwriter Jason Fladager. He came over to check out some of the footage featuring him on "Break of Day-> Texas Fireball" from our upcoming DVD filmed at the Big Wu Family Reunion in 2003 (To be released this New Years Eve). Always comical, Jason told me a woeful tale of what happens to drunk people that can’t find the bathroom in the midnight dark…
Cheers and amen!