If this “one entry a week” keeps up, I can change my title from “blogger” to “syndicated columnist”. Hah.
Now that I’m done cracking myself up, I’ve got to figure out a way to type out what’s on my mind even though my fingers are freezing. My little black dog can’t decide which side of the door he wants to be on. I’ve jumped up about 14 times in the last five minutes to close it. Why am I allowing myself to be controlled by 12 pounds of unruly insanity?
This is a week where I’ve got nine blog topics and no way to write them out so they’ve stayed in my brain and kind of merged into one sort of strange being. The blog entry they’ve become in my head is sort of like a Dr. Moreau combicreature that makes an eerie sort of grotesque sense even as it frightens you with its twisted limbs and honeycombed eyes.
The first thing I must get out there on record before I explode is to say that candy canes are the most pointless relic of the Christmas holiday. I’ve literally received thousands of these in my lifetime; I’ve only ever eaten about three. They taste gross. Even the “new” flavours from Spangler like Wild Cherry and Root Beer are just nasty. When you suck on the ends for too long they become lethally pointy. If you make it to the hook part there’s no way to keep eating without getting your hands all sticky with peppermint slobber. Why do we put up with these nasty things? Can’t they be banned?
I’ve seen several people try to bring about a renaissance of the Candy Cane. There’s this story going around about how many ways they represent Jesus and how the original candy cane is some lengthily symbolic message for salvation. The idea being that we’re supposed to give candy canes as a form of witness. Because you just know that most people think “Jesus” and not “nasty-flavoured bent barber’s pole” when they get their 63rd candy cane of the season. Yeah. Right.
Speaking of candy*, I was just over at Tiny Cat Pants and saw that Aunt B. has a troll who calls itself Candy. Said troll was going on and on about Christ hating gay people (insert the other f word here) and talking about how we’re all going to hell for wondering why on earth Belmont appears to be firing homosexual people.
Here’s the thing. As a libertarian I think every business should be able to hire whomever it chooses. You don’t want to hire a gay person or black person or a woman? Fine. It’s your problem. Just don’t come crying to me when you can’t succeed in the modern world because you haven’t got the brainpower and you don’t fit in with your customer base. Oh, and don’t ask for any public funds either. Because if you won’t value half the public enough to let them work for you, don’t expect them to pay for you either. Therein lies the rub. As long as Belmont is receiving public funds I think they’ve got to realise they’ve made a deal with society in general and can’t carry on like the Baptist Boys’ Club they aren’t supposed to be anymore. Speaking of which, what’s with this eating the cake thing? I thought when they dissociated from the Southern Baptist Convention it was because they wanted to be more open to ‘diversity’. So now they’ve got their land and independence and are STILL being anti-gay? That’s as pointless as a candycane. But nice work if you can get it.