Friday, July 04, 2003
(10:56 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Some theological stuff
Tonight I was having a discussion with the Fairweathers on virtually every topic I could think of, and during this conversation, I came up with an explanation for why homosexuality has become such an "issue" for me of late. I think that I am fully capable of living up to the most rigorous teachings of the Catholic Church, at least most of the time. I could follow every rule, assent to every dogma, and basically conform in every way necessary -- and the Catholic Church is in many ways the "hardest" church, so I take this to mean that I feel confident I could live according to the strictures of any given community. If I one day found I was called to be a priest, I wouldn't especially enjoy living a celibate life, but I think that I am capable of doing it. I might be overestimating my abilities, but that's how I feel right now.
Yet while I am very demanding on myself, I tend to be more forgiving of others. For instance, there are some people who through no fault of their own will simply never be able to live according to the teachings of any given church. There are some people who simply should not have more kids, and I think those people should be able to use birth control. There are some people who cannot behave responsibly in ministry positions without the benefits of married life. And then there is the ultimate case, the people who really don't fit in anywhere -- those who will never be able to live a normal, married family life and who will thus never be able to properly "renounce" it in favor of a celibate life. This is how I see homosexuals in our society, especially in church circles. They do not fit into any church's predetermined categories, and so the Catholic Church, for example, has declared them unfit for ministry (ignoring the plain fact that many of them excel in ministry).
Since these people have no set place for them, their sin -- in contradistinction to divorce, accumulation of excessive wealth, usury, gossiping, backbiting, hatred, malice, prejudice, favoritism, and a million other things the Bible is clearly "against" -- is the one non-negotiable, absolute, unquestionable sin. Homosexuality is not something that just goes away, however, so these people are effectively cut off from church life, in most cases. In church circles, and in many other social circles, acknowledging and affirming homosexuals is worse than pointless: it is an excessive move that gives the community no particular benefit and that threatens to pull the community itself apart in its very excess.
I believe that it was the work of Jesus Christ to reach out to precisely those kinds of people, those with no place, those whose communities can find no way to authorize their existence. Jesus hung out specifically with tax collectors, those traitors to the Jewish cause who were working for the enemy, and prostitutes, those loose women who disturbed every family structure and social role. And so, no matter what "the Bible says" about homosexuality, no matter what anachronistic reading allows us to dismiss the claims of homosexuals today, I think that the work of Jesus Christ, here, today, is to reach out to homosexuals. That is not his only work in the world today -- there is much work to be done for social justice, economic equality, refugees, migrant workers, the homeless -- but it is a distinctly Christian work.
The refusal of churches to do this work represents, to me, the insistence that in order to be a part of the church, in order to be "saved," one must finally conform to a particular social template. Even if that template is supposed to be grounded in scripture, affirmed and designed by God, and obviously beneficial in every way, to claim that Jesus lived and died so that we could finally fit into the right social template is to affirm that we are saved through our own works -- that is, to deny Christ.
| | Main Page
(10:46 AM) | Michael Schaefer:
All About MikeI'm the third member of this fun-loving collective. My apologies for taking so long to get involved. First, a short introduction. I was born on November 14, 1978 on the small Carribbean island of Martinique to a German father and a West Indian mother. Though my parents were loving, thoughtful, and kind, they were also crazy, my father having lost much of his sizable family fortune attempting to bring onion cultivation to the Carribbean, while my mother never fully recovered from the September 1979 cancellation of the hit tv series "All in the Family". Such titanic disappointments took quite a toll; father began drinking heavily, while my mother threw all of her meager energies into writing incoherent letters to U.S. network executives. At the center of all this silliness was me, a delicate, thoughtful child with a love of Moliere and the Dutch game shows we could receive from the nearby island of St. Maarten. Wonderful though they were, however, neither Moliere's biting wit nor ancient reruns of "Marius de Vries' Uur van Frivoliteit" could provide sufficient diversion from the lunacy that reigned in our household. Soon enough I was drawn to what would become my greatest love, taekwondo, an energetic Korean martial art that provided a much-needed outlet for my emotions, as well as a means of fending off the large flightless birds that plagued what was left of our onion fields. In time I became quite skilled, though my schoolwork suffered, and my father took to calling me the pejorative nickname, Koreanischenmartialkunstenangebrachtefreudegesicht, an epithet that still burns to this day. By the end of high school conditions had grown intolerable, and i made my way to the United States, where I continued my training, also managing to become a fairly competent cook along the way. I currently make my home in Boston, Massachusetts, supported by the sizable inheritance I received following the death of my childless uncle Rudiger. While I sincerely hope to make a useful contribution to this blog, I make no promises, and must apologize in advance for what will surely be frequent meditations on Dutch pop culture.
| | Main Page
(4:19 AM) | Robb Schuneman:
Moxy Fruvous
So, lately I've been quite fond of this little Canadian band by the name of Moxy Fruvous.
They have one particular little ditty entitled, "The Gulf War Song" on the end of their Bargainville CD. Strangely enough, it's a song about the Gulf War, yet I think it is far more applicable to the state of things today.
Anyway, it's made me think.
It ends with the question,
"History seems to agree..that I would fight you for me, that us would fight them for we..is that how it always will be?"
I don't really have any answer for that question...because it certainly seems hopelessly plausible that mankind will never be able to stop seeing everything as a zero sum game..
anyway, I thought I'd just post the lyrics, which I find quite good, for everyone else. Here they are.
The Gulf War Song
We got a call to write a song about the war in the Gulf
But we shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings
So we tried, then gave up, 'cause there was no such song
But the trying was very revealing
What makes a person so poisonous righteous
That they'd think less of anyone who just disagreed?
She's just a pacifist, he's just a patriot
If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?
Fighters for liberty, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don't tell me I can't fight, 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me
So we read and we watched all the specially selected news
And we learned so much more 'bout the good guys
Won't you stand by the flag? Was the question unasked
Won't you join in and fight with the allies?
What could we say...we're only 25 years old?
With 25 sweet summers, and hot fires in the cold
This kind of life makes that violence unthinkable
We'd like to play hockey, have kids and grow old
Fighters for Texaco, fighters for power
Fighters for longer turns in the shower
Don't tell me I can't fight 'cause I'll punch out your lights
And history seems to agree that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we
He's just a peacenik and she's just a warhawk
That's where the beach was, that's where the sea
What could we say...we're only 25 years old?
And history seems to agree
that I would fight you for me
That us would fight them for we
Is that how it always will be?
Suddenly I wish no one could see the time of this post,
-Robb
| | Main Page
Thursday, July 03, 2003
(10:42 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Rush Limbaugh Hates America
During my long trip to Michigan, I listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio; it's become a new tradition for me on long trips. While I was listening, I noticed that he employed the cliche argument that those who love America should not criticize "America" and that while he respects their right to do so, he thinks they should be more grateful to live in a country that allows them to criticize (and show their gratitude for this right by not exercising it).
Interestingly, however, he spent a great deal of time on his show criticizing our nation's public schools. I'd like to say to him, Rush, I understand your right to express whatever opinions you want to express, but damn it, the American public school system is the way we Americans have chosen to educate our children. We send our children to American public schools every day of the school year so that they can be educated as free Americans, and I personally don't appreciate your need to denigrate this great American system. Didn't you benefit from public schools, Rush? Don't you realize that public schools are the way that we maintain all our opportunities and freedoms for the next generation? If you hate America so much that you feel the need to criticize one of our biggest and most important institutions and try to tear it down at every turn, then you can get the hell out!
Strangely, that argument doesn't sound quite right, does it? That's because it makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to claim that a good American will not be critical of any other particular point of American policy (i.e., wars, police issues, tax systems, etc., etc.). Rush is more than willing to be deeply critical of virtually every institution in American life, such as public schools or entitlement programs, and he is more than willing to be dismissive of a huge number of the members of our governing elites whom he classes under the heading of "liberal." Weird thing, though: they're Americans, too! If you're allowed to attack the half of the population that generally votes Democrat; if you're allowed to attack the core institutions of our nation (i.e., public schools, judicial review, the New Deal); if you're allowed to claim that our society is rotten to the core due to the evil influence of "liberals", then where the hell is this "America" that you claim to be so supportive of? Oh, I know: it's his narrow political program. People who support "liberal" policies or who worry about what some "UN bureaucrat" thinks of US military actions are anti-American and only interested in their own political gain, while people who support his narrow political program are simply supporting "America" as such.
The thing is, I can't even piece together what he wants to happen. He claims to hate entitlement programs, but he apparently has to support Bush's new farce of a Medicare drug benefit. He claims to hate criticism of our nation, but he consistently acts as though our nation is heading straight for the trash heap. I think that ultimately, for him, supporting "America" means agreeing with Rush Limbaugh at every point -- even when he doesn't agree with himself.
I promise I'll stop picking on the conservative "easy targets" for a while, for the two people who are reading (including Robb). Incidentally, Rush's hijacking of the term "America" is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about below with the "empty signifier," for those who are curious about such matters.
| | Main Page
(8:57 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
My New-Found Support for the Iraq War
First, I'd like to thank my dear friend Robb for his wonderful posts. If that's a taste of what's to come, I feel silly for jerking awake in a cold sweat last night, panicked at the thought of the horrifying mistake I had made by inviting Robb to join my blog. Now we just need to get Mike Schaefer to actually sign up and post something.
My good friend and former colleague Andrew Sullivan has finally convinced me to support the Iraq war after months of abdicating my responsibility as an American. His reasoning is impeccable, and I will quote his post in its entirety here:
"BRING THEM ON": No, I don't think it's merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.
It's amazing to me how many reasons there are for this war! I've delighted in all of them, and I am very pleased to see yet another one come out of the woodwork now, just when I thought they might have run out of plausible excuses reasons. The point of the war in Iraq, among other things, lodged among the many variegated "levels" of reasons, is to put our soldiers out there as easy targets for terrorists! Soldiers are hired specifically to die for their country, so there's no real injustice in putting them halfway around the world to die in a conflict that doesn't make any sense to most of them. In addition, since terrorists are notoriously lazy and unmotivated, they will likely leave the American mainland and all our allies alone due to the "sitting ducks" stationed in Iraq.
Since this idea is ridiculous and morally repugnant, it's no wonder that no one ever mentioned it as a possibility in the lead-up to the war. Well, maybe the irrelevant liberals did: they seemed to think that an American presense in Iraq would provide a huge rallying point for terrorist recruitment. Now that it turns out they were apparently right, the Bush apologists are more than happy to turn this into a positive good. "Yes, we're encouraging people to become terrorists -- so we can kill them!"
It's sad: he's the smartest conservative out there, but he's still such an easy target.
| | Main Page
(4:36 AM) | Robb Schuneman:
The Wanting Seed
A while back, when reading John Howard Yoder's For the Nations a thought occured to me.
Mankind as a whole is in love with the ascension towards perfection, yet at the same time we hate perfection itself. This is obvious in the fact that the process of begetting perfection drives men to attempt things well beyond their measure, even to the point of giving their life. Yet, perfection itself brings jealousy, mockery, and apprehension. Man is never content with something that he can't improve upon, even if there is no improvement to be made. Instead he tears the thing to the ground and begins anew in some other direction. It was from this thought that I began to see this applied in man's constant attempts to perfect God before giving up and tearing him down.
Shortly thereafter I read the novel The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess.
This book brilliantly and playfully made clear the way in which mankind is constantly going through the Augustinian-Pelagian cycle. That is, under the Pelagian phase, a government believes man is perfectable, that perfection can be achieved by his own efforts, and that the journey towards perfection is a long straight road, because man at his core wants to be perfect, he wants to be good, thus there is no real need for coercion or sanctions to force them to co-operate. This carries on until Disappointment destroys the dream. When the governors find men are not as good as they thought they were, they are horrified. It becomes necessary to try to force citizens into goodness to save the dream. Laws are reasserted, and a system of enforcement is put in place. Disappointment leads to irrationality, which leads to panic..which leads to brutality, beatings-up, secret police, torture. This is the Interphase.
The Interphase cannot last forever though, as the governors become shocked at their own excesses. They find that they have been thinking in heretical terms - the sinfulness of man rather than his inherent goodness. They relax their restriction, and the result is chaos, but by this time disappointment cannot sink any deeper. The orthodox view becomes that man is a sinful creature from whom no good at all may be expected. But again, it eventually appears that human social behaviour is rather better than any Augustinian pessimist has a right to expect, and so a sort of optimism begins to emerge. And so Pelagianism is reinstated, and we come right full circle back into the Pelphase. (I paraphrased this explanation of the cycle from Burgess.)
Much like with God, man constantly strives to perfect his society, until he reaches a point where the disappointment becomes too much, and thus decides that society must be perfectly evil, until the progression towards perfection reaches it's uttermost hilt and must be torn down yet again, over and over.
Yet, it wasn't until just the past two days when I reread C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet that it hit me that this striving and constant tearing down affects us on more than just our relationship to God, or our relationship as a society on the whole, but in our daily lives.
The "god" of the alien race in the book confronts a man named Weston who has come to take over the planet in the name of mankind near the end of the book. He notes that the man is not motivated by gain for his self, but for the gain of man in general. Yet, notes the alien, to live on other worlds, "man" would have to look quite unlike Weston. Thus, it cannot be the body of man that Weston loves. And it cannot be man's ability to reason, for if so, on encountering these aliens with similar if not superior reasoning abilities, he would also love them. Weston replies that it is his own race that he cares for. And yet, the alien points out, he was perfectly willing to kill a certain man they had captured and brought with them to sacrifice to the aliens..so Weston cannot truly be said to love any one of his race. What Weston truly loves is not the completed creature of "man", but the very seed of mankind..his future and what he will produce. It is this one law, the law of love of kindred, which mankind holds above all rest, which he is willing to break all other laws for.
This same rule applies to man in all of his relationships. Whatever we consider our "kindred"..our country, our gender, our political party, our race, our sexual preferences..whichever of these we associate ourselves closely with, we are willing to break all other laws in the name of that association. Yet, it isn't the perfection of this law that we love..for the majority of Patriotic Americans still hold a hatred for the majority of Americans, and many Republicans would like to punch other republicans in the throat, etc. It is instead this idea of the process of perfection inherent in what we associate ourselves as that we are willing to kill all others for. When one says he loves the "white man" and is willing to break all laws for the advancement of the caucasian race, he doesn't care for the actual white person, but rather the idea of working towards the perfection of an ideal. In the same way love of countryman is not for any individual person of that country, but for the potential ideal of The Perfect Countryman. The examples are endless, and I'm sure you yourselves can better articulate them, but the point remains..man is fearful of any state except working towards perfection, be it accepting a less than perfect condition, or actually achieving perfection.
I think it is this very fear that brings so much hate into the world. We fear the dying out of the chance for perfecting whatever association we hold most dear. All of us can see that it will never happen, that perfection can't be attained, and yet none of us can endure this thought. With this fear comes murder and rebellion, constantly flying from the chronic imperfection and death which will overtake us all in the end. If only mankind could see to give up the striving for perfection, and accept perfection, or non-perfection, there would be peace.
Yet, to anyone embroiled within this constant cycle, this all sounds like defeatist trash. Everyone can see that the fight for perfection is useless, and yet they still would side with the one who would fight and jump and struggle with every breath to live..one who would continue the action, instead of giving up and accepting peace.
I promise to be shorter from now on,
-Robb
| | Main Page
(2:55 AM) | Robb Schuneman:
By Way Of Introduction
Hello.
My name is Robb Schuneman, although most of you probably remember me best as Cha-Chi from TV's Happy Days. Currently I guess I've been invited to be a part of the latest hip-hopping fad on the world wide web: The Blog. Not just any blog mind you, but the blog of the esteemed and universally revered Adam Kotsko. This excites me to no end.
Of course, I am far from as learned, well-read, or verbose in the English Language as Adam K. (I don't even know if that is a proper usage nor spelling for the word "verbose") but it is my sincerest and deepest hope that I can do my small part to give you all something to peruse whilst waiting for his latest ponderings. Besides, I have always been a big fan of "group work," as it means I get to slack off while the designated smart one does all the work.
Adam missed a few details in his introduction, so here's the skinny:
- I am 22, male, and attend THE University of Central Oklahoma, better know as You Cock (UCOK) to some.
- It's not drugs I traffick, but rather gigantic jars of bees. They are the latest weapon in the war again illegal music downloads. I am a soldier in this war with 5 stars and battle scars all over my well trodden buttocks. Some call me criminal, some call me hero, all I know is I like the giddy feeling I get from the awkward spelling of the word "bees." If that's heroism, God bless Noah Webster.
Other then that every word Adam spoke was true blue, just like Madonna, but with less raw sex appeal.
That's really all for now, I'll probably give other tidbits about my life as I go along because I like to make up for my vapid lack of "smarts" with inane stories about my childhood and daily life. But, I wanted to get a short "how do" out of the way, even if I'm not currently in the mood for introductions, just because I had something else to post, yet this felt somehow necessary as a precursor.
okay,
-Robb
| | Main Page
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
(9:45 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Becoming a group blog
Henceforward, The Weblog will be a group blog. My first two members are Michael Schaefer and Robb Schunemann, who are certain to provide timely, witty, and insightful comments on the issues that concern us all. I have officially given them free reign to post on all topics, even those not included in the list of extreme left-wing ideology, theology, philosophy, psychoanalysis, nanotechnology, constitutional law, sodomy, and the Smashing Pumpkins. I will allow them both to do their own self-introductions, but just for a preview:
- Mike Schaefer is one of the foremost martial artists of our time, and he has one several international cooking competitions.
- Robb Schunemann is a world-renowned drug trafficker whose collection of stolen art is unparalleled. He completed his PhD in classical and lesbian studies at Oxford University, writing a ground-breaking dissertation on the poetry of Sappho as it relates to the music of the Indigo Girls.
Let the group blogging begin.
| | Main Page
(8:32 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
"Free Market Solutions"
I am coming to think that "free market" is an empty signifier, in the sense given in Laclau and Mouffe's Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Everyone seems to be able to agree that the term "free market" sounds good (i.e., something "free" is automatically good, and a "market" is where you get stuff, which is generally good), but many who are opposed to corporatism, fascism, and the Bush Administration feel as though they need to oppose the "free market" with "socialist" systems. Sadly, however, the empty signifier of "socialism" is filled in with negative content in the US, and anyone advocating socialism is fighting a losing battle (usual response: "Hitler and Stalin were Socialists and they killed a lot of people!").
My proposal is that people begin hijacking the term "free market." One example is the much-contested issue of labor unions, which are usually defined as intrinsically anti-"free market." However, why not define the activities of unions, who use their economic power in order to obtain the fairest possible wages and working conditions, as precisely the "free market" at work? After all, if everyone follows their selfish ambitions for adequate food, shelter, and medical attention, that's supposed to be the "genius of capitalism"; why, then, is it supposedly anti-"free market" for unions to follow their own ambitions? If "free market" principles are to be followed simply because they are the right principles, then the supposed negative economic effects of unions should not be a problem in this scenario -- they are part and parcel of "free market" solutions to societal problems, and thus giving unions the appropriate amount of power is just the right thing to do.
The key to this strategy is that the term "free market" was always-already hijacked by the upper classes, who hide behind the principle in the hopes of obfuscating their own self-interested motives -- "The economy made me do it!" I think a similar "free market" argument might be made in favor of a strong government providing basic services such as a social safety net, health care, and national television service. I know it sounds backwards and everything, but I think it's possible. Empty concepts like "freedom" (or even "free market") have a lot of explosive potential, even when they've been emptied of all meaningful content in a particular situation.
| | Main Page
(2:01 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Abuse of the word "Anti-Semitism" watch
In a post by the inestimable Andrew Sullivan, he notes the anti-Semitism of a British professor who turned down an Israeli job applicant with the following statement: "I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another lab if you look around." I assume the person in question here is Jewish, but I'm not sure every action taken against a Jew, even actions based on a Jew's military service in Israel, is anti-Semitic. The professor makes a generalization about the behavior of the Israeli military, supported by ample evidence, and he decides that he would rather not work with someone who had engaged in that kind of behavior. (Since serving in the army is public behavior, this seems to be different from refusing to hire someone who has slept with someone of the same gender.) Whether the professor in question was right or wrong in this specific case, it seems more than slightly ridiculous to proclaim his behavior anti-Semitic -- unless, of course, you're on a one-man mission to take down all non-conservative institutions, such as most of academia, through proclaiming them irrelevant, morally blind, anti-Semitic, anti-American, or whatever insulting epithet comes to mind. That is to say, if your goal is to prostitute yourself as a right-wing hack, then calling that professor an anti-Semite is absolutely the right thing to do, and I congratulate Mr. Sullivan on his courage in standing by his convictions.
| | Main Page
(1:51 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
Mission Statement
It is now time, and past time, for a Mission Statement for this blog. Inspired by Tom Tomorrow's musings on the topic, I would like to declare that I have no desire to be a link clearinghouse for the following reasons:
- Atrios and Cursor already do a fine job of that. (I hope and pray that Atrios will note that I have linked to his page and give me a plug, so that someone will actually read my blog. I enjoy reading and rereading my own writing, but it feels empty if no one else looks at it.)
- That would require me to form opinions based on "actual information." I prefer to make authoritative-sounding proclamations based on my own ideological biases, most of which are based more on personal annoyance than anything else. I'm sure this is what, for instance, Andrew Sullivan usually does, but in order to maintain his overpowering web readership and his unquestioned leadership in all matters pertaining to weblogs, he has to give a token gesture toward having looked through "actual information." Aside from this mission statement, there will be no token gestures on this site!
I propose, therefore, the following mission statement:
The Weblog will give me one more venue in which I can write short pieces on a variety of topics, including but not limited to extreme leftist ideology, theology, philosophy, psychoanalysis, literature, nanotechnology, constitutional law, sodomy, and the Smashing Pumpkins.
As a sub-mission statement, I propose the following:
Hopefully someone will stumble upon my weblog and be drawn to read my other stuff, on which I have spent a lot of time.
Thanks.
| | Main Page
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
(9:11 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
The reason that I got this new domain name is because my ISP switched from AT&T to Comcast. My computer geekhood has been in decline lately, so I lazily decided to download Comcast's "transition wizard" to change over all the necessary e-mail settings. They vaguely threatened that if I did not download that "transition wizard," I would not be able to take advantage of e-mail forwarding from my old address, but I now realize that that is almost certainly a lie.When I started the supposed "wizard," I noticed a striking lack of options. "Press okay to change your e-mail settings." "Press okay to change your homepage." Sadly, however, they did not have an option to "Press okay to change your Internet Explorer title bar." I bailed out after the e-mail changes took effect, but the damage was done -- in order to use the Internet, I had to use "Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Comcast Broadband Internet." Hey, guess what: Internet Explorer was on my computer long before Comcast so graciously "provided" it for me. In fact, I think that the phlegm I coughed up this morning had a more significant role in "providing" Internet Explorer to me than did Comcast Broadband Internet. I was angry; when I couldn't immediately find a way to change it, I wanted to switch to Linux, just to keep my computer from being so patronizing. I did find the way to change it, and now Internet Explorer is "provided by Your Mom." It makes just as little sense.
Here is why this made me so angry, aside from the fact that I was not in control of the situation: there is no good reason for Comcast to do that. There is no reason why Comcast has to force its idiotic homepage onto me or claim to "provide" Internet Explorer to me. I am paying my bill; I am already a customer; I should be allowed to live free of their stupid ads for a while. This is simply part of a larger societal trend, however, of companies insisting on colonizing our very souls. If I did not have the courage to edit my registry, then every time I went on the Internet, for any purpose, I would have had to read the name "Comcast Broadband Internet." Every time I checked my e-mail, I would have had to read the name "Comcast Broadband Internet."
Aside from pissing me off, it wouldn't likely have much of a conscious effect, but I would be subliminally given the message, day in and day out, that I owe Comcast something. I don't. I paid my money. Now stop trying to get inside my damn head.
| | Main Page