It's Driving Me Nuts: On Pirates, Pirates, and the Forsaken Faithless

Several years back, thanks mostly to Johnny Depp as Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Keith Richards as Johnny Depp as Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow as Captain Teague, the western world fell in love with pirates. If you don't believe me, then you haven't seen anyone in a Halloween costume since 2003. It was as if any traces of centuries-long pirate hatred were undone in two-and-a-half hours of cinematic majesty.

But lately, our feelings about pirates have taken the proverbial one-eighty (back to where they lay mid-18th century). Precipitated by the recent events surrounding the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, there's definitely an anti-pirate sentiment in the air. Piracy is definitely the new terrorism, which was the new domestic drug crime. And for those keeping track of scaremongering at large, avian flu is the new SARS, which was the the new AIDS for a while (Wes).

Among those feeling the downturn in the economy of pirate political capital: intellectual pirates. Some of founders of the torrent site thePirateBay.org were recently sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay over $3 million for facilitating breach of copyright law.

I can't imagine they'd be mad at me for stealing this picture of their logo. I mean, if there's anyone who could let that slide....

Where do I think they went wrong? As much as I hate to say it, it might have been in the name. Why call yourself 'pirates' when the recording industry is attacking you for being 'pirates'? In all honesty, though, I think this was one of the best attempts at reappropriation since the n-word. They took a good shot at it, but they learned the hard way that they couldn't ride that Disneyland pirate magic forever.

In a similar vein, there has been a recent play by those loveless baby-eaters, the atheists, to redefine their image with a new title. Taking a page from the gay book, those with a purely naturalistic worldview apparently want to be known as "brights". To questions about this proposal, Darwin lookalike Daniel Dennett responds thusly:

"There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim."

Seeing as how atheists rank below homosexuals (and Muslims, and Hispanics, and 'recent immigrants' of all kinds) on the scale of popular distrust, it makes sense that they might want to revamp their image. I see several problems here, but my main issue is with the contention that there was some "highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word 'gay'". I don't know about you, but I feel (and I think the aforementioned Wes' biggest celebrity crush, Hilary Duff, would agree) like that "hijacking" did more to change the word "gay" than elevate anything homosexual. As I recall, the first definition of "gay" I ever learned was "homosexual", which, because I was six years old and subscribed more to the elementary school hive-mind approach than reasonable, critical thought, was definitely something bad (even if I had close to no idea what it was). Sure they hijacked it, but it didn't take too long for that ship to run aground.

And if public opinion of godless heathens doesn't find an upswing sometime soon, I almost feel like "bright" will be the ironic and disparaging adjective of the future. I say "almost" because a prerequisite for this phenomenon would be the brights movement gaining some momentum, which it won't. Partly because of the fact that, even as 'brights', they sure seem to have a problem spotting their own false pretenses.

From, of all places, "The Medical Device R&D Handbook".

"Vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language have so long passed for mysteries of science; and hard and misapplied words, with little or no meaning, have, by prescription, such a right to be mistaken for deep learning and height of speculation, that it will not be easy to persuade either those who speak or those who hear them, that they are but the covers of ignorance, and hindrance of true knowledge."
- John Locke, English: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)

Cut-rate journalism and lots of pictures - it's like USA Today

Hopefully to offset the distinct lack of updating I've put into What Chu Talking About, I present GAFFI's foray into arguably real reporting. It's more the kind of news that falls into your lap and hopefully comes as no surprise to sensible people, but I'm counting it anyway. As I'm prone to do, I will present it as an informal and unprofessional narrative:

So I was on facebook the other day, my mind pacing around the idea of deleting all of my 'friends' over the age of 26, when I found the following sidebar of advertisements (everyone knows the ads over there are some of the most pertinent you'll find):

If you aren't the type of person who is deterred by pictures in which no one's hands match the skin tone of their faces, you might've thought you found the secret U.S. grant jackpot. I was interested in getting my free grants as soon as possible, so I went down the list. For some craaazy reason, I took a screen shot of each website, just in case they weren't still live by the time I got around to writing this post. The top link took me to Mike's Money Matters, a great blog run by Mike Donahue, in which he outlines how he "when from being broke to completely paying off [his] debt in 30 days" by filling out online forms that qualified him for a "free $12,000 Financial Aid Check from the US Government":

I was a little confused as to why the big check on the front page was addressed to a "Jeffrey Donahue" instead of Mike (and why that part of the check was blurred out when I checked back a couple days later), but I trusted Mike:

I figured he was just such a mensch that he was writing this PSA on behalf of his younger brother or something. But just to be sure I was getting the best advice possible, it was on to link number two, where I found Dustin's Dollars:

It was a different blog with different colors, but the text was word-for-word from Mike's blog! Clearly, this Dustin Mathis wanted a piece of the wealth-spreading, good-feeling pie, but he couldn't do any better than ripping off poor Mike Donahue. He even used the same picture of Mike's brother's check (though I wondered how he was able to make it into a wider shot--I immediately gave this Dustin a couple of points for his photoshop wizardry). Clearly dismayed by this pathetic attempt to ride on Mike's golden coattails, I tried my luck with link number three, Kevin Gets Grants:

And instantly I was sent into a tailspin of incredulity. The picture said Mike, but the words said Kevin!

All the copy was the same as in the previous blogs, so I assumed it was just a ripoff even more pathetic than Dustin's--but upon closer inspection, I found some incredible evidence. Looking to the big picture of the check, I noticed that it was not only the wider-view version, but that it was actually made payable to Kevin Hoeffer! This blog had it all--the words, the big check picture, the right name on the check--and it all became clear in an instant: Kevin Hoeffer was the real mastermind, and Mike Donahue was just some sorry sap who couldn't even spell his own name right. Content with my own findings, I decided right away to send Kevin my $1.99 (for shipping and handling) to see if I qualified for my own shady looking check. I'm confident that any day now I'll receive all the tools I need to start getting my free money.

Afterword:
Like any well-researched report, this one took a great deal of time to complete. I recently checked back to these blogs, and I was astounded to find that both Dustin's Dollars and the original Kevin Gets Grants no longer existed! And even my attempts to get back to Mike's Money Matters were met with a stern "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." The site was still live, however, so I ventured to the home page to see what Mike was up to these days.

Likely spurred by the inevitability of this scathing report, Mike apparently gave up his shenanigans and got into some legitimate blogging. I was pleased to see he was actually trying his hand at some good, old-fashioned hard work. I was oh-so tempted to start making $7,000 per month from home, but I already sent my $1.99 to Kevin for the grants package (which you don't have to pay back or even do any work for, so I think I got the better deal).

And honestly, I don't even want to try and rationalize this.

Follow your dreams

It's that magical time of year once again, when high school seniors across the country rush home from school and check their mailboxes for those extra large envelopes of success. Many, however, find the dreaded small envelopes of failure and disappointment. Some of those poor souls who got rejected from their #1's may be beyond my help, but for those juniors and younger I have a patented system that can guarantee that you'll get accepted into your dream school when it comes your turn to play the ol' admission game.

The key to getting into your first-choice college is simple: don't choose a first-choice college until after you get accepted. It's what I did, and it worked out wonderfully. Just apply to some schools that sound good or that people tell you to, then once you get accepted, go and visit. There's no disappointment, and no wasted time or money. If only everyone could frame things like I do, I think the world would be a lot more satisfied (for better or for worse).