God is on our side! No, not that God. The other God....

As I've mentioned elsewhere in the blog, I was raised in a conservative Christian home but am no longer religious. In fact, these days I'm pretty much a confirmed atheist, truth be told. Because of how I was raised (and not despite of it), however, I really have no problem with public expressions of religion. I'm not one of those "athesists on a mission" who feel that since they don't believe in God nobody else should either. Want to put a Nativity scene on the town common? Go for it. A moment of prayer? It's all good. As long as it makes you happy and doesn't require me to pretend I'm something I'm not, then I have no problem with it.

Having said that, however, I will admit to being extremely concerned with how things are going in the good old U.S. of A. with regard to religion, especially since the tragic events of 9/11. Suddenly, it's not only a matter of having the freedom to express one's religion, but now it's almost a prerequisite for being a "Good American" that you not only express strong religious beliefs but Christian beliefs at that. Every political candidate, regardless of what he os she really believes, seems obligated now to mention at least once in every speech how their religious views have shaped their opinion, and quoting from the Bible is once again in vogue. Not only that, but "God Bless America" has essentially turned into our de facto national anthem and is sung at every public event including football games and NASCAR races [as an aside, does anybody else see the hypocricy of singing "God Bless America" and having somebody give a prayer at the opening of events held on a Sunday? Do people think God is really going to bless America if they can't even keep one of his basic 10 Commandments?]

One problem with all of this, of course, is the marginalization of people who either don't believe in God at all or else believe in a "different" God from the majority, whether it be the God of Islam, the God of Judaism, or what have you. After all, the terrorists who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th did so in the name of God, didn't they? They were promised their spot in heaven with their 70 virgins for striking a blow against the evil infidels. It's almost funny how the terrorists were branded as "religious fanatics" because they attacked in the name of God, and then we turned right around and attacked Afghanistan and Iraq sure in the knowledge that God was on our side instead.

I'm proud to be an American, but sometimes you just have to shake your head and wonder....

Whoever defines the terms wins!

Whoever defines the terms wins!

I try not to get involved in the debate over abortion rights for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is simply the fact that I am a man and therefore get the distinct impression that nobody really cares what I think. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't voice an opinion on the subject without being assigned an ulterior motive by women on the opposite side of the argument. If I say I support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to be able to "force" a woman I impregnate to have an abortion, thereby relieving myself of responsibility. If I say I don't support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to keep women powerless and force them to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. See what I mean? Either way, as a guy I'm not entitled to an opinion on the subject.

One thing I do have a strong opinion about, however, is the way that both sides of the issue often try to win the argument by creative selection of terminology instead of actually trying to support their argument with pesky things like facts and statistics.

Those who support a woman's right to have an abortion like to call themselves "pro-choice," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-choice". The problem with this, however, is that many people who are against abortion rights do believe that a woman has the right to choose when it comes to things other than abortion, including such basic rights as choosing where to live, whom to marry, where to work, whether to vote, what to wear, etc. In addition, even so-called "pro-choice" proponents don't all think a woman should have the right to choose to do anything she wants (rob a bank, drink & drive, take illegal drugs, etc.) But calling the opposition "anti-choice" instead of, say, "anti-abortion" is a way to preempt any argument.

Similarly, people who do not support a woman's right to abortion like to call themselves "pro-life," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-life" or "pro-death". This, however, totally ignores the fact that the life in question is still inside the body of the woman and that whether or not to have an abortion involves a intensely personal decision about one's own body. Most pro-lifers don't think that all life is equally valuable (many support the death penalty, eat meat, wear fur, and do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of disease and starvation in the world), while many people who support abortion rights do, in fact, care a great deal about life in general when it doesn't conflict with a woman's right to have control over her own body. But calling the opposition "anti-life" instead of, say, "pro-abortion rights" is a way to preempt any argument.

How about we just say that people either support or don't support a woman's right to have an abortion and then discuss the actual merits of each side of the issue? Nah, that would never work. Then people would actually be forced to think about their positions and possibly even acknowledge that the other's side's position has some merit as well. And where would the fun in that be?

I'm loosing my mind! That's right, I'm going to set it free to run around for awhile....

OK, here's one of my pet peeves.... I'm not the world's best speller by any means, although I usually know when a word looks wrong and have the sense to look it up in a dictionary. And if I'm not the official king of typos thanks to my fat fingers, at least I'm a member of the royal family. Sometimes my fingers just get typing faster than my brain can keep up, or vice versa, and I make stupid mistakes like putting "it's" instead of "its" or "they're" instead of "their" even though I know better.

These are always isolated incidents, though, and I never make the same mistake twice in a row. What I can't understand, though, are people who consistently use "loose" instead of "lose". And by consistently I mean every time they write it, often multiple times in a single paragraph. We're not talking about confusion over punctuation here (I'll admit that the whole "its/it's" thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense); we're talking about two completely different words, folks!

Look, the word "lose" means to be unable to find, to fail to retain possession of, or to fail to win. You can lose a game, lose your marbles, or lose your mind. "Loose," however, means to untie or to set free. The only way you can "loose" a game is if the game in question is a deer you were planning to kill and you decided to let it go instead. I have no idea how people can confuse these two words, and I'm constantly dismayed when I see it happen.

And, while I'm at it, can people please stop justifying the use of the phrase "I could care less" instead of the correct "I couldn't care less" on grounds that the the speaker is "just being ironic"? It's not irony, people! Irony would be if the person actually knew what the correct phrase was and conciously chose to mangle it for humorous effect. Like, for example, when I say, "We'll just have to burn that bridge behind us" instead of "We'll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it." I mean, come on -- "I could care less" isn't even funny! Why on earth would people say that in an attempt to be funny if it isn't, in fact, even remotely humorous? The whole point of "I couldn't care less" is to indicate that you care so little about something that you couldn't possibly care any less about it (in other words, that you don't care at all). What is "I could care less" supposed to mean? That you do, in fact care to some degree? What's the point? Where's the humor?

No, no, I'm afraid the answer is very simple. People are idiots. OK, so maybe not everybody. And maybe there are, in fact, a few die-hard irons (hey -- if a burglar commits burglary and a robber commits robbery, that means that someone who commits irony is an iron, right?) out there who purposely mangle the phrase in an attempt to be witty, but I'm convinced down to the very core of my being that the vast majority of people who say "I could care less" do so because they honestly, truly believe that what their saying actually makes sense instead of just being total nonsensical gibberish.

Ok, just one more thing, and then I'm done ranting for today, I promise. Will anybody who thinks that the word "nonplus" means something akin to "unaffected" or "not surprised in the least bit" please do the English speaking world a favor and look it up in a dictionary? As Inigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride, "That word you keep using -- I do not think it means what you think it means...."

The origins of surreality

A lot of people have asked me over the years where my rather odd sense of humor comes from (this is usually followed up with, "What are you smoking?" and "Can I have some?", but I digress....)

It would be easy to blame it all on my father, since I did inherit his love of corny jokes and silly songs, as painful as it may be for me to admit. In fact, whenever friends meet my father for the first time it's usually only a matter of minutes (sometimes much less) before they exclaim, "Ah, so that's where Barry get's his sense of humor from!"

In general, though, this isn't the sense of humor that is displayed in my artwork. For that, you're going to have to blame three main sources. First up is Monty Python, specifically Monty Python's Flying Circus. As a young child I used to catch reruns on the local PBS station and, although I didn't quite get all the jokes at the time, I really fell in love with the bizarre situations that were typically portrayed in a totally straight-faced sort of way. Deadpan humor at it's finest, no doubt about it. Whether it was flying sheep, hedgehogs the size of buildings, or just a giant foot descending from the sky, it all just found a happy home within the nooks and crannies of my brain.

Next would be Douglas Adams, specifically his "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series. Mr. Adams, who died way before his time was a genius when it comes to writing dialogue (something which you wouldn't know from watching the recent Hollywood adaptation, but that's about par for the course for Hollywood). Again, though, it was the way he portrayed his characters coping in completely surreal situations as if it were just another day at the office that really tickled my funny bone.

Finally, I have to give a lot of credit (or blame, if you prefer) to Gary Larson and his "Far Side" cartoons. He was (and probably still is, although I don't think he's actually published anything in years) a master of the one panel comic strip. It's amazing how much humor he is able to cram into a small amount of space. And, once again, he's a master at putting normal people into extraordinarily bizarre situations, and the humor comes from the fact that he shows how people (and cows, don't foget the cows) would really react in those situations.

So, that's it. Mystery solved. And no, I'm not smoking anything, although I'd certainly give you some if I were. And yes, that is me squashed under that fly swatter....

Impeach the Shrub (or why you don't need to be a Liberal to realize we've elected a shrub to be the most powerful man on the planet)

All right, I've never really considered myself to be much of a "Liberal". I had a very strong Christian upbringing and, even though I'm no longer particularly religious, I still think that the moral sense that was instilled in me is valid and makes a lot of sense in today's world. Whether or not there really is a God (and whether or not God is how we like to describe him), some things are just absolute, like the need to treat each other with the same respect we expect for ourselves.

Having said that, though, it just boggles my mind that we have elected The Shrub to the highest office in the land; not once, but twice! Remember that old saying -- "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"? Well, shame on all of us!

I have lots of friends and family members who voted for The Shrub (both times!) and who still support him. The arguments are basically one or both of the following:

• The Shrub is a Republican, and therefore somehow stands for all the things that are "right" in the world, such as family, and opposes all things that are "wrong" in the world, such a abortion, gay marriage, etc.


• Even if The Shrub is a lousy president, he was still a better choice than his opponents (who were, as everybody knows, ineffectual, weak-kneed, personality-devoid "flip-floppers").

The first argument is a complete load of crap as far as I'm concerned, since one's party affiliation really has little to do with how one actually acts as president (I won't even get into the whole idea of who determines what is "wrong" and "right" in the world). The second argument is barely plausible, until you realize just how gullible people really have to be in order to believe all the trash that was slung at The Shrub's opponents. Besides, the old "Better the Devil You Know" argument wears a little thin after enough atrocities have been committed -- eventually, you have to come to the realization that pretty much anybody would do a better job.

Having said all that, I still wouldn't be first in line to call for The Shrub's impeachment if it weren't for having to sit through all those years of watching the Republicans desparately try to evict Clinton from office under one pretense after another. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think President Clinton was the world's best role model, it was wrong of him to cheat on his wife and have "sexual relations with that woman" while in office. It was especially wrong for him to lie about it under oath. However, at the end of the day, nobody died as a result and the country as a whole didn't suffer.

The Shrub, on the other hand (whether directly or through his various mouthpieces) lied to Congress and the American people on matters of grave national importance. His lies provided justification for invading another country and many thousands of American citizens have been killed or injured as a result. Are the Iraqi people better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein's regime? I honestly don't have a clue. Maybe they are, or maybe they will be someday if we "stay the course" for another 10 years or so. Even if that's the case, though, it doesn't change the fact that the only justification for invading Iraq in the first place was because they absolutely, positively had weapons of mass destruction and were poised to use them at any moment. Not because Saddam was an evil dictator who needed to be deposed. Not because the Iraqi people deserved to have democracy. Not because fighting terrorism in Iraq will somehow prevent the spread of terrorism elsewhere. No, we were lied to about why we had to invade to Iraq, pure and simple, and nothing that has come after that changes that fact. And for that reason, if nothing else, it's well past time to impeach The Shrub.

Of course, if you're looking for other reasons to impeach The Shrub, there's always the illegal warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, the whole Hurricane Katrina fiasco, etc., etc., etc. ....

In which the intrepid author dives into the blogger pool head-first....

Wow, my very first post! I am just giddy with excitement here, folks. No, really! Would I lie to you? I've been on the Web for what seems like a dinosaur's lifetime (I created my very first homepage back in 1995 -- holy crap, that was the previous century. No, wait -- it was the previous millennium! Arrrrggggh, I'm suddenly feeling old and decrepit. Must... find... energy... to... continue...)

Sorry, where was I? Oh yeah, it feels like I've been on the Web forever, but this is my first attempt at creating a blog. Of course, in a sense I was "blogging" before there even was such a thing (as exhibit A, allow me to present my rambling excuse for an autobiography that I originally posted on my homepage in 1995 and have sporadically updated ever since).

I tend to bounce around from one hobby/interest to the next, and my web presence has reflected that. Before the Internet was anything more than a gleam in Al Gore's eye, I spent a lot of time taking Amazing Nature Photographs (including the shot of lightning and rainbow taken near Burley, Idaho, shown on the left there).

Then, of course, there was the [eventually] world famous Barry's Temple of Godzilla (which explains why I've used the nickname "Godzillatemple" throughout the Web). I don't update the site much anymore, but it's still alive and kicking and I'm happy to leave it up as a semi-permanent "museum" to all things Godzilla. At the height of my involvement with the site, however, I actually wrote and published on-line two complete fan fiction novels that are still available at the site if you're interested.

Next came my fascination with Antique Pocket Watches. For quite a number of years I bought and sold watches, primarily on eBay (although I really only sold watches in order to pay for new ones). In fact, I got so excited about collecting pocket watches that I ended up writing my very own New Collector's Guide to Pocket Watches (now in its third edition). I pretty much stopped buying new watches when I got married a few years ago, mostly because the wife and I are trying hard to save money for a larger house purchase sometime in the next few years, but fortunately I've been able to hold on to most of my collection.

And then, a couple of years ago, I discovered the joy of photomanipulation (a.k.a. "Photoshopping"), which basically means trying to create surreal, photorealistic images that simultaneously look 100% real and 100% impossible. Many of my best efforts have been posted at Worth1000.com (the self-described "top creative competition and photoshop contest site on the web"), where I've won a bunch of awards. As with all my previous hobbies, this allows me to express myself creatively and also share my creations with the rest of the world.

Finally (at least for now), I've discovered the joy of on-line self-publishing, selling t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, etc., all festooned and adorned with my various nature photographs, surreal Photoshop creations, witty saying and pretty much everything else that has leaked out of this old brain of mine over the years:



So, anyway, that's basically who I am (in a very small nutshell at least). Feel free to click on any of the links on this page to find out more about me, check out my Barry's World on-line store, or just check back here periodically to see what's new in my life.

Thanks for reading!