Citizens Rebelling Against Stupid Societies
In this country, we like to protest. From politics to high prices to popular entertainment- you name it, we'll protest it. But gone are the days of marching in the streets with protest songs and handmade banners. No, today's righteously enraged have chosen a different tool to make their views known. Organizations with "clever" acronyms. And their numbers are legion.
In response to the ever-increasing number of truly stupid people protesting truly stupid things, I decided to fight fire with fire. Thus was born Citizens Rebelling Against Stupid Societies, or C.R.A.S.S. Our mission? To seek out the ridiculously sensitive and overly organized and expose them for attention whores they are.
The following are the first three C.R.A.S.S. targets, which originally appeared in email form to loyal members of the C.R.A.S.S. army. Future rants will appear here as the need arises. And remember... C.R.A.S.S. kicks ass, baby. C.R.A.S.S. kicks ass.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CRASS TAKES ON ALBINO FREAKS
January 7, 2005- The head of the newly formed Citizens Rebelling Against Stupid Societies (CRASS) condemned the statement made by the National Organization of Albinism and Hyperpigmentation (NOAH) that the portrayal of albinos in the best-selling novel The DaVinci Code represented an attack on the albino community. In a statement released to the press, CRASS president Joopiter wrote:
"NOAH's claim that the character of Silas is an unfair portrayal of albinos is completely ridiculous. Silas is a murderer. He is a pyschopath. He is a religious whackjob. And he just happens to be an albino. Nowhere in the book is it claimed that his less desirable traits are a result of his albinism."
Joopiter also denounced NOAH's attempts to influence the film version of the book and hinted at a possible CRASS counter-protest should the filmmakers capitulate to NOAH's demands.
"CRASS recognizes the need to respect everyone, despite their differences, but NOAH's attempts to alter Mr. Brown's story sounds more like whining than a legitimate complaint. Perhaps the members of NOAH need to collectively grow some thicker, freakishly white skin. Besides, there are more pressing concerns regarding the movie version of The DaVinci Code. I
mean, Tom Hanks? Did the filmmakers even read the book?"
C.U.D.D.L.E. THIS, YOU FREAKS!
April 5, 2005 - It's been fairly quiet on the Stupid Society front, what with the 24 hour TerriWatch (although you could argue that the Republicans themselves are a Stupid Society) and then PopeTV.
Quiet, that is, until now. From CNN:
Cousins' marriage highlights relationship controversy
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- It began as the kind of childhood crush that often becomes family lore
shared at reunions years later.
Eventually, first cousins Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanore Amrhein realized they had a deeper love and wanted to wed. It couldn't happen in their home state of Pennsylvania, though, or 23 other states that prohibit first cousins from marrying each other.
Instead, they tied the knot in Maryland last month.
"This is a decision me and my husband have made on our own. We never thought of it being publicized," said Eleanor Andrews, 37. "We didn't want the publicity. We wanted the rights like anybody had the rights."
Their nuptials highlight a relationship that often draws scorn, yet advocates say is equally misunderstood. Such marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and are legal in Europe and Canada.
In the United States, 26 states and the District of Columbia allow first cousins to wed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, five have requirements aimed at preventing reproduction and one state requires genetic
counseling.
Robin Bennett, associate director of the medical genetics clinic at the University of Washington, said that laws prohibiting cousins from marrying are "a form of genetic discrimination."
Bennett led a 2002 study on risks of genetic problems in children born in such marriages. The study found that children born to couples who are first or second cousins have a lower risk for birth defects than commonly perceived.
On average, an unrelated couple has an approximately 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease.
Close cousins face an additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, according to the study, funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
Christie Smith, 40, founded Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws through Education, in 2002 to overturn laws banning such marriages. So far, the group hasn't found much success.
"People don't like what they don't understand," said Smith, who fell in love with her husband after seeing him at a family reunion.
-----------
First of all, unless you are seeking endangered species protection for a Care Bear, naming your organization C.U.D.D.L.E. is begging for an ass kicking.
Second, FAMILY REUNIONS ARE NOT DATING SHOWS! I don't care if the risk of birth defects is lower than orginally thought. It's not a matter of people not liking what they don't understand. It's more of an understanding in the general populace that you are supposed to spread the genes around.
Third, if you need further evidence why this is wrong just take a look at the British Royal Family (excluding William, who was obviously fathered by someone else entirely).
NOT A FAAN
Monster-in-Law' Drives Allergy Advocates Nuts
Tue, May 10, 2005, 11:05 AM PT
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com)- The creative team behind New Line's Friday (May 13) release "Monster-in-Law" think that food-based allergies are a viable source of humor. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) begs to differ.
FAAN is charging "Monster-in-Law" with sending a careless message to viewers in a scene that finds Jane Fonda's character attempting to off her future daughter-in-law (Jennifer Lopez) by sneaking nuts into her food. In an outraged statement, FAAN worries that the "Monster-in-Law" hilarity will inspire copycat food spiking and will give viewers the impression that watching people get puffy is funny, rather than dangerous stuff.
"Better examples need to be set," charges Anne Munoz-Furlong, FAAN's founder. "I doubt New Line Cinema would permit a scene where a diabetic would be given an overdose of insulin. We are seeing more Hollywood movies and shows portraying food allergies in an unsafe and very uneducated light. Just recently the movie 'Hitch' and an episode of 'The Simpsons' poked fun at individuals with food allergies. In real life, food allergies are no laughing matter."
According to FAAN, roughly 11 million Americans suffer from some form of food-based allergies and between 150 and 200 people each year die from food allergies they never knew they had.
Although "Monster-in-Law" is ostensibly a comedy, FAAN is just the latest advocacy group to express an
absence of amusement. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals protested the film's April 29
premiere because of Lopez's love of fur and the use of fur in her Sweetface fashion collection.
--------
As a food allergy sufferer myself who lives in fear of milk products, I too am offended by this patent disregard of the plight of food allergy sufferers everywhere. Except that, you know, I'm not. I guess springtime just brings out the nutcases. Pun intended.
Personally, I think the greater offense to mankind is that out of all the hundreds of scripts she's been offered over the past 15 years, Jane Fonda chose to make her grand comeback starring opposite J-Lo. Pop culture armageddon is upon us, my friends. Take cover.
In response to the ever-increasing number of truly stupid people protesting truly stupid things, I decided to fight fire with fire. Thus was born Citizens Rebelling Against Stupid Societies, or C.R.A.S.S. Our mission? To seek out the ridiculously sensitive and overly organized and expose them for attention whores they are.
The following are the first three C.R.A.S.S. targets, which originally appeared in email form to loyal members of the C.R.A.S.S. army. Future rants will appear here as the need arises. And remember... C.R.A.S.S. kicks ass, baby. C.R.A.S.S. kicks ass.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CRASS TAKES ON ALBINO FREAKS
January 7, 2005- The head of the newly formed Citizens Rebelling Against Stupid Societies (CRASS) condemned the statement made by the National Organization of Albinism and Hyperpigmentation (NOAH) that the portrayal of albinos in the best-selling novel The DaVinci Code represented an attack on the albino community. In a statement released to the press, CRASS president Joopiter wrote:
"NOAH's claim that the character of Silas is an unfair portrayal of albinos is completely ridiculous. Silas is a murderer. He is a pyschopath. He is a religious whackjob. And he just happens to be an albino. Nowhere in the book is it claimed that his less desirable traits are a result of his albinism."
Joopiter also denounced NOAH's attempts to influence the film version of the book and hinted at a possible CRASS counter-protest should the filmmakers capitulate to NOAH's demands.
"CRASS recognizes the need to respect everyone, despite their differences, but NOAH's attempts to alter Mr. Brown's story sounds more like whining than a legitimate complaint. Perhaps the members of NOAH need to collectively grow some thicker, freakishly white skin. Besides, there are more pressing concerns regarding the movie version of The DaVinci Code. I
mean, Tom Hanks? Did the filmmakers even read the book?"
C.U.D.D.L.E. THIS, YOU FREAKS!
April 5, 2005 - It's been fairly quiet on the Stupid Society front, what with the 24 hour TerriWatch (although you could argue that the Republicans themselves are a Stupid Society) and then PopeTV.
Quiet, that is, until now. From CNN:
Cousins' marriage highlights relationship controversy
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- It began as the kind of childhood crush that often becomes family lore
shared at reunions years later.
Eventually, first cousins Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanore Amrhein realized they had a deeper love and wanted to wed. It couldn't happen in their home state of Pennsylvania, though, or 23 other states that prohibit first cousins from marrying each other.
Instead, they tied the knot in Maryland last month.
"This is a decision me and my husband have made on our own. We never thought of it being publicized," said Eleanor Andrews, 37. "We didn't want the publicity. We wanted the rights like anybody had the rights."
Their nuptials highlight a relationship that often draws scorn, yet advocates say is equally misunderstood. Such marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and are legal in Europe and Canada.
In the United States, 26 states and the District of Columbia allow first cousins to wed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, five have requirements aimed at preventing reproduction and one state requires genetic
counseling.
Robin Bennett, associate director of the medical genetics clinic at the University of Washington, said that laws prohibiting cousins from marrying are "a form of genetic discrimination."
Bennett led a 2002 study on risks of genetic problems in children born in such marriages. The study found that children born to couples who are first or second cousins have a lower risk for birth defects than commonly perceived.
On average, an unrelated couple has an approximately 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease.
Close cousins face an additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, according to the study, funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
Christie Smith, 40, founded Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws through Education, in 2002 to overturn laws banning such marriages. So far, the group hasn't found much success.
"People don't like what they don't understand," said Smith, who fell in love with her husband after seeing him at a family reunion.
-----------
First of all, unless you are seeking endangered species protection for a Care Bear, naming your organization C.U.D.D.L.E. is begging for an ass kicking.
Second, FAMILY REUNIONS ARE NOT DATING SHOWS! I don't care if the risk of birth defects is lower than orginally thought. It's not a matter of people not liking what they don't understand. It's more of an understanding in the general populace that you are supposed to spread the genes around.
Third, if you need further evidence why this is wrong just take a look at the British Royal Family (excluding William, who was obviously fathered by someone else entirely).
NOT A FAAN
Monster-in-Law' Drives Allergy Advocates Nuts
Tue, May 10, 2005, 11:05 AM PT
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com)- The creative team behind New Line's Friday (May 13) release "Monster-in-Law" think that food-based allergies are a viable source of humor. The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) begs to differ.
FAAN is charging "Monster-in-Law" with sending a careless message to viewers in a scene that finds Jane Fonda's character attempting to off her future daughter-in-law (Jennifer Lopez) by sneaking nuts into her food. In an outraged statement, FAAN worries that the "Monster-in-Law" hilarity will inspire copycat food spiking and will give viewers the impression that watching people get puffy is funny, rather than dangerous stuff.
"Better examples need to be set," charges Anne Munoz-Furlong, FAAN's founder. "I doubt New Line Cinema would permit a scene where a diabetic would be given an overdose of insulin. We are seeing more Hollywood movies and shows portraying food allergies in an unsafe and very uneducated light. Just recently the movie 'Hitch' and an episode of 'The Simpsons' poked fun at individuals with food allergies. In real life, food allergies are no laughing matter."
According to FAAN, roughly 11 million Americans suffer from some form of food-based allergies and between 150 and 200 people each year die from food allergies they never knew they had.
Although "Monster-in-Law" is ostensibly a comedy, FAAN is just the latest advocacy group to express an
absence of amusement. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals protested the film's April 29
premiere because of Lopez's love of fur and the use of fur in her Sweetface fashion collection.
--------
As a food allergy sufferer myself who lives in fear of milk products, I too am offended by this patent disregard of the plight of food allergy sufferers everywhere. Except that, you know, I'm not. I guess springtime just brings out the nutcases. Pun intended.
Personally, I think the greater offense to mankind is that out of all the hundreds of scripts she's been offered over the past 15 years, Jane Fonda chose to make her grand comeback starring opposite J-Lo. Pop culture armageddon is upon us, my friends. Take cover.
posted by joopiter at 5/18/2005 12:29:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home