Bullshattuck

Further Proof that Barack is a Mac & Hillary is a PC

FACT: Apple just debuted a new commercial over the weekend for the iPod, featuring the song "Shut Up and Let Me Go."

FACT: Barack Obama continues to distance himself from the comments Reverend Jeremiah Wright made over the weekend.

Coincidence?

Announcing the Launch of Utah's Brand New #1 News Source

Dear friends, family, visitors to Bullshattuck, and whomever doesn't fit in that category (like my acupuncturist):

If you live in Utah, you know that your news choices consist of Something Tribune, and Deseret Something. Don't you deserve more? Should there not be more, and better, choices for news? Why can't there exist a news source which just so happens to be written by a team of 10 humor writers, a.k.a. respectable journalists? And what exactly is this project that Ryan's been working on these past few months? As some of you know:

*I almost got a job writing for The Onion. But didn't.
*I almost got a job writing for the Associated Press. But didn't.
*I almost had a publisher give me the green light for my book. But didn't.

What do I do when life hands me "no" and "we're not interested?" Simple - I make lemonade. Rejection makes me kind of thirsty.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to announce the launch of my newest lemonade... The Regal Seagull: Utah's Brand New #1 News Source. You're welcome.

A team of 10 humor writers, a.k.a. respectable journalists, plumb the depths of the Utah news world in order to bring you the news that actually matters. Consider the following stories, which appear in our first issue:

*"Idaho can't find identity, petitions federal government to become 'North Utah'"
*"Las Vegas loses title of 'Sin City' to West Jordan"
*"Utah to build giant fence to end illegal bird migration"
*"Guy in Ogden disappointed he never auditioned for Everwood"
*...and other hard hitting news stories

Do you think these important stories would ever appear in the Salt Lake Tribune or the Deseret Whatever It's Called? Absolutely not. They may have clout and self-respect, but we have determination and moxie.

So go ahead, visit The Regal Seagull. Link to The Regal Seagull. Tell people about The Regal Seagull. Become part of the 60 million Utah residents who have learned to trust The Regal Seagull for all their newsy needs.

Someone needs to plumb the Utah news world. Let The Regal Seagull be your news plumber.

Thank you, friends and family. And my acupuncturist.

regally seagully yours,
RYAN SHATTUCK

Voting for America's Next Top Drinking Buddy

(This column was published in the
April 21st, 2008 issue of the The Daily Utah Chronicle)

---

There once was a man from Nantucket,

Lost everything in the stock market.

It wasn't a joke,

That he soon was broke,

And became rather aggravated with the way in which the hosts of last week's presidential debate, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, instead of asking questions relating to the economy and other issues that affect Americans, focused on such banal issues as the wearing of a flag pin.

That poor guy from Nantucket. He can't ever seem to catch a break. Plus, his limericks kind of suck.

A lot of conversation has been generated by last Wednesday's debate between Senators Clinton and Obama, which was sponsored by ABC News. The debate's hosts, Gibson and Stephanopoulos, were lambasted by many people and organizations, such as other media outlets and much of the political blogosphere. Everyone -- including And Their Dog and And Their Mom -- apparently had something critical to say about the hosts for their decision to employ petty and inconsequential questions.

Is there anyone, aside from a certain Chronicle columnist, who actually still cares about the anti-American comments of Obama's former reverend? Are Clinton's claims of having survived sniper fire in Bosnia good for much else, aside from the occasional late-night talk show host joke? Does anyone, aside from Charlie Gibson, even care that Obama sometimes doesn't wear a flag pin? Do any of these issues fundamentally affect the lives of average Americans, aside from inspiring more than their share of hand-wringing?

Perhaps I'm concerned about the Iraq War because I have children serving in Iraq -- but my vote for America's next Commander-in-Chief hinges on whether the candidate will wear a plastic pin. I may have lost my job due to the declining economy -- but my vote for America's next Commander-in-Chief hinges on whether the candidate will wear a plastic pin. I may now have to pay over $1,000 to fill my semi-trailer in order to deliver my load of food to America's grocery stores -- but my vote for America's next Commander-in-Chief hinges on whether the candidate will wear a plastic pin.

Would Barack Obama Wear a Plastic Pin? Some people ask themselves "WWJD," and then they decide. I ask myself "WBOWAPP," and then I vote.

Gibson and Stephanopulos aren't the only ones to offend the American public by asking asinine questions of candidates for the most powerful job position in the world. President George Bush was famously voted as the candidate with whom most Americans would like to share a beer. President Bill Clinton was once asked if he preferred boxers or briefs. Even President Grover Cleveland was voted as the president most likely to leave his friends dirty MySpace comments. While questions such as these help round out candidates and presidents as "average" people, should they take center stage in a debate hosted by ABC News? I expect Comedy Central to entertain me by asking candidates ridiculous question on issues that don't matter -- I expect ABC News to inform me by asking candidates questions on issues that do.

There's no question that a certain level of likability must be present in our presidential candidates in order for them to win an election. Nevertheless, I don't value likability in my presidential candidates as much as I value competency. In a job interview, most people generally aren't asked about their personality, their likes and dislikes and whether they would be fun to get a beer with as much as they're asked about their applicable skills and what they would bring to the company. Some recent news stories, however, would have us believe that we're not voting for America's Next Top Leader of the Free World as much as we're voting for America's Next Top Drinking Buddy.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I like to assume that the American public is smarter than the media would have us believe. Fluff stories of Hillary Clinton having a shot of whiskey, Barack Obama not being a good bowler or John McCain forgetting where he left his car keys will not bring back jobs or end the Iraq War. Constantly hearing of Reverend Wright's anti-American comments and Clinton's dumb lie regarding a sniper-infested Bosnia doesn't affect our day-to-day lives. What does Obama intend on doing for the millions of Americans without healthcare? Will Clinton pull the troops out of Iraq? Does McCain have a plan for the sagging economy?

Sorry, Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos and other media journalists, but these are the stories I care about. I'm not interested in the scandals you shove down my throat.

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Just ask the unemployed man from Nantucket.

The Anatomy of a Flip Flop

(This column was published in the
April 17th, 2008 issue of the The Daily Utah Chronicle)

---

I used to think Robin Williams was one of the best actors Hollywood had to offer. Now I find him to be more obnoxious than a room full of 3-year-olds. I used to pretend to date women in high school. Now I write for a number of gay, political publications. I used to consider myself a highly religious person. Now I consider myself to be a secular humanist, with a side order of laziness. I used to think that parachute pants were cool. Now I wouldn't be caught dead wearing them, even if I pushed from a plane and wearing them was the only way to save my life.

Everyone changes his or her mind throughout life. We change our minds regarding culinary tastes, fashion and politics. Non-Christians become Christians, Republicans become Democrats and vegetarians vote for Dennis Kucinich.

Yesterday the celebrity diet of choice was the Atkins Diet. Today many celebrities are on an effective diet called drunkorexia. Yesterday everyone was taking glamour shots. Today we simply use Photoshop. Yesterday we loved Mariah Carey so much that we launched her to No. 1 on the Billboard music charts. Today we love Carey so much that we…launch her to No. 1 on the Billboard music charts (clearly some things never change, such as Stonehenge or the public's fascination with Carey).

Nevertheless, the evolution of people and their tastes, beliefs and experiences alters nearly all aspects of demographics and the human race. We don't fault anyone for having an opinion different from that which they had 10, five or even one year ago. Unless that person is a politician.

The majority of politicians are manipulative and calculating, an opinion with which few people would disagree. However, what is sometimes forgotten is the fact that some politicians are actual people with genuine, evolving opinions.

The average person who has altered his or her opinion on, for example, abortion over a span of 10 years, is simply considered to have altered that opinion on abortion over a span of 10 years. A politician who has altered his or her opinion on any given subject over a span of 10 years is assumed to be an unscrupulous, Machiavellian flip-flopper.

Never mind that the politician changes his or her opinion because his or her actual personal belief has changed-it's assumed he or she is simply doing it for political reasons.

For the record, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and strongly disliked Mitt Romney in 2008. Although I believe that some of the accusations against both men, labeling them both as "flip-floppers," were justified, I also believe that not every accusation was grounded in truth.

After having served in the Vietnam War, isn't it possible that Kerry's opinions on the war would have evolved? Although Romney was pro-choice earlier in his political career, isn't it possible that his opinion would have evolved over the span of a decade? Many people-including myself-accused Romney of having changed his opinion for political reasons. Is this fair? Haven't I also changed my beliefs on a number of topics over the years?

Giving a speech on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s death, presidential candidate John McCain admitted to having made a mistake in 1983 when he voted in Congress against a federal holiday honoring King. Despite the two-and-a-half decades that have passed since McCain's vote and his apologies in a number of speeches to several different groups, some still hold his feet to the fire for his offensive, but dumb, decision.

Are we too cynical to believe that a person might have changed an opinion in a span of time longer than the time in which society has had the Internet-or Haley Joel Osment?

To play the part of devil's advocate, we must recognize that the timing and sincerity of any given politician plays a large role in believing the evolution of the politician's opinion. I give someone such as Romney the benefit of the doubt for altering his opinion on abortion over a span of 10 years. Conversely, I doubt his sincerity when this alteration in opinion occurs during a presidential election.

In the current presidential election, politicians want us to believe them, and we want to believe politicians. However, they must understand that our belief in their evolution of opinions depends completely on their timing and sincerity. We want to believe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and JohnMcCain-provided their opinions are sincere and the timing isn't political.

The exception, of course, is if any one of them try to convince us that parachute pants are making a comeback. I won't believe that for a second.

Fake Memoirists Exposed

(This column was published in the
April 15th, 2008 issue of the The Daily Utah Chronicle)

---

It came to pass that the Lord Almighty, Oprah, invited the evil prophet James Frey to Her talk show in 2006. Oprah saw that the wickedness of James Frey was great upon the land, for he had led the people astray with his tales of deceit and drug addictions. Oprah, the Alpha and the Omega, smote James Frey with a mighty curse in front of Her studio audience, saying unto him, "Thou shalt not lie to thy Lord and Oprah."

The moral of the story: Those who lie to Oprah will be turned to pillars of salt.

Two years ago, author James Frey became the center of a literary controversy when it was revealed that portions of his memoir, A Million Little Pieces, had been fabricated. A public castigation by talk-show host Oprah -- who had previously chosen the memoir for her book club -- led to an escalation of media criticism.

Many were surprised and dismayed that a modern author, in this era of global interconnectivity and hyper check-and-balances, would lie about his manufactured memories.

Thanks to the Internet, mistakes and inaccuracies -- whether intentional or not -- are proven almost immediately. Presidential candidates are pounced upon for untrue claims of Bosnian sniper fire, some bloggers are vehemently attacked for presenting their Lindsay Lohan opinion as Lindsay Lohan fact and columnists are reprimanded for asking hypothetical questions such as, "Is it possible to melt down Jocelyn Wildenstein's face to butter my toast?"

Surely a writer, recognizing that fake memoirs and works of plagiarism are discovered as quickly as Wynonna Judd at a nude beach, would do everything in his or her power to avoid any attempts at intentional deception. There can't possibly be writers and journalists who believe that such deceitfulness is possible. Unless of course, the writer is:

Misha Defonseca, a Belgian author whose 1997 memoir, Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years, in which she documented such events as walking for thousands of miles and living with wolves, was proven to be a fraud in February of this year.

Former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, who resigned in 2003 after being found to have plagiarized several stories regarding Jessica Lynch.

Kaavya Viswanathan, the Indian-American Harvard student who was found to be a plagiarist after it was discovered that entire sections of her debut novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, had been lifted from other authors.

William Swanson, the CEO of Raytheon, who in 2006 admitted to plagiarizing his well-known management booklet Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management.

Margaret B. Jones, whose recent memoir, Love and Consequences: A Memoir of Hope and Survival, about her childhood growing up in South-Central Los Angeles among gangs and drugs, was later disproved by Jones' own sister.

The Daily Utah Chronicle columnist Ryan Shattuck, who in 2008 plagiarized this entire list from Wikipedia.

Do these writers doubt the power of the internet? Although some fraudulent stories and books slowly come to light, others appear almost instantly.

Tim Goeglein had been a former special assistant to President Bush and had written a guest column for his hometown paper, the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, for several years. His career came to an abrupt end when a journalist discovered Feb. 28 that Goeglein had plagiarized a story for the paper. He resigned only 24 hours later, after more than 20 of his stories had been discovered to have been copied from other writers.

It's rather disappointing that some writers and journalists allow their desire for money and success to overshadow their respect for the craft of writing.

It was revealed just this week that Thomas Kohnstamm, a travel writer for the Lonely Planet series, had plagiarized a travel book on Columbia because of the simple fact that he had never actually visited Columbia. Although most writers would leap at the opportunity to write about a trip to a foreign country -- barring Iraq or Arkansas -- Kohnstamm felt he was justified by taking the information for his book from a Columbian intern he had been dating at the time.

What is one to conclude from this recent surge in memoir concocting and plagiarism employing? It might be discouraging to learn of what appears to be increasing numbers of fake memoirs and plagiarized news stories, prompting some to wonder how the public is to tell the difference between what is real and what is invented. Nevertheless, I find it encouraging that these accounts continue to appear in the news, as it proves that publishers and editors are becoming increasingly critical -- something from which readers greatly benefit. As a recent story on fake memoirs by Slate.com writer Ben Yagoda puts it, "Memoir fabulists getting caught means the system is working."

As some writers continue to invent stories and steal from others, we'll have to rely increasingly more on editors and publishers to discern the truth -- and hope they aren't deceived themselves.

Unfortunately, we can't say the same about Oprah. Praised be Her name.

Saving to Stimulate the Economy

(This column was published in the
April 11th, 2008 issue of the The Daily Utah Chronicle)

---

What do the following three items have in common?

A piggy bank made of granite and filled with a tinier piggy bank made of porcelain and filled with pennies and broken promises.

A copy of Jimmy Buffett's single 'Margaritaville,' autographed by Jesse Ventura for some reason.

A dictionary with a hollowed-out center, so that one may hide trinkets such as tiny porcelain piggy banks and well-worn DVDs of "Snakes on a Plane."

The answer? They can all be purchased with my economic stimulus check!

Two months ago, the House and the Senate, in a rare move of relative bipartisanship -- a level of cooperation that hasn't been witnessed since the World Trade Center attacks of 2001 or the Janet Jackson nipple attack of 2004 -- passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 in an attempt to bolster the U.S. economy.

Thanks to this stimulus package, tax-paying Americans (Wesley Snipes and Al Capone, you can skip this part) will receive anywhere from $300 to $1,200, depending on such variables as income status, number of children and children's income status.

Although it's doubtful whether this economic stimulus check will do much to stave off the recession in which we already find ourselves, the checks are intended to serve just one purpose. To be saved in a college fund? To pay off credit card bills? To be invested in Ashley Dupré's five-diamond musical career? What exactly do the House and the Senate prefer that we do with our stimulus checks?

Spend the money!

Spend the money!

Spend the money!

It doesn't take a financial expert like Jim Cramer (can I get an amen, Bear Stearns stockholders!) to understand that money invested in the economy gets a lot more mileage than money invested underneath one's mattress.

Most Americans are more than willing to support their country by spending money, even if it means they have to make such painful sacrifices as buying iPods or new cell phones.

Nevertheless, the new stimulus checks beg the question: How many of us will actually invest our stimulus checks in savings? This also begs the question: What percent of Americans actually have any type of savings in the first place? Further more, this also begs the question: Why are questions always begging, and why can't these lazy questions just get a job?

Because my savings account -- which consists of $Less Than Five Bucks.00 -- plants me firmly in the same demographic as the majority of America, I can't help but wonder: Why are such small numbers of us investing in savings? Considering that 78.5 percent of the U.S. is Christian, it might be argued that more Americans believe in a Rapture or a Second Coming than they believe in saving for a rainy day.

What would Jesus do? According to national trends, even omnipotent beings would rather spend than save.

Why are such small numbers of Americans putting more money into a savings account than into a cash register? Saving money might not be as sexy as a vacation, a new car or a $4,300 prostitute, but in a financial crisis a person shouldn't expect to find comfort in a vacation, a new car or a $4,300 prostitute (unless of course, the prostitute has a heart of gold).

Has our want-it-now-need-it-now society driven us to such a point that we've become so financially irresponsible that any small financial hiccup is likely to give us financial cancer? Do too many of us believe that it doesn't matter how we live and spend today, because the sun will come out tomorrow?

If I learned anything from that red-haired orphan, it's that one doesn't need to worry for one's future, for "Daddy" Warbucks will fix everything in the end.

OK, bad example.

Although it might seem pointless to ask questions in retrospect -- What if the South had won the Civil War? What if John F. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? What if Keith Richards could remember any part of the '8os? -- it nevertheless can provide us with a historical reference point from which we might base our future decisions.

Would larger percentages of savings from yesterday have played any part in the financial crisis of today? Hopefully we've learned by now that although recessions might be unavoidable, any sort of savings can at least soften the blow.

I'm clearly not a financial expert. The extent of my financial advice consists of "Don't spell your name wrong on your own checks." Regardless, common sense dictates that saving more and spending less, while painful, will be beneficial in the long run. I haven't decided yet how I'll use my stimulus check, but I'm definitely going to use it on something responsible.

Like a copy of Margaritaville. And only if it's signed by Jesse Ventura.

Now THAT'S Hard Hitting News

Bullshattuck Chooses Katie Couric's New Successor

I like Katie Couric. Really. Some find her saccharine personality to occasionally (i.e. always) border on the annoying. I on the other hand find her to be charming and delightful, while simultaeously plucky and determined. She's a scrappy orphan in manolos. She's a Norma Rae, but with better legs. She's a never-give-up Hillary Clinton, except with emotions.

It probably broke the hearts of more than just a few people (most of whom are either two, three, or seven times my age) to learn of rumors that Katie, who was America's #1 morning host and is currently America's #3 evening host, may be replaced on the CBS Evening News after this year's presidential election. Replace Katie? What will she do? How will she survive?

Who cares. Let's discuss her potential successors!

The following list, it should be pointed out, is pure speculation. In other words, 100% fact.

POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE CBS EVENING NEWS' SOON-TO-BE-EMPTY ANCHOR CHAIR
(Sponsored by Pfizer: "Yep, we're still making craploads of money, don't worry")

*Condoleeza Rice: It's like getting a man and a woman for the price of one.

*Rosie O'Donnell: As everyone knows, the seventh time hosting a television show is the charm.

*Amy Winehouse: How fun would it be if the evening news was a drinking game? You take a shot every time the anchor herself appears to be drunk!

*Terry Gross: Only because no one actually knows what she looks like.

*Laura Bush: The evening news is already boring enough as it is, so Laura Bush will feel right at home.

*Britney Spears: Let's be honest - you would pay money to hear her stumble her way through the word "Fallujah." Or to see if she even shows up.

*Ann Coulter: Because 'tranny' is 'the new black.' What's that I'm told - Ann Coulter isn't a transexual? I have to be honest, I sometimes confuse "post-op transexuals" with "men in drag."

*Margaret Thatcher: But could anyone stand to even watch her host the news? Sorry, I was told that jokes about 'Margaret Thatcher being ugly' are still funny. I think I've been lied to.

*Heather Mills: Let me just state for the record that she loves the evening news, and is not just marrying it for its money.

*Nancy Pelosi: All the anchor has to do is just sit there and talk, without having to take any type of real action? In that case, she's ready for the job.

*Nancy Grace: The only caveat is that her contract states that she be allowed to discuss at least one celebrity's death per broadcast.

*Miley Cyrus: After conquering music, television, and live concerts, anchoring the evening seems like the next logical step. That is, if you can find a ticket anywhere.

*Arianna Huffington: Sure, you won't understand a single damn word she says, but at least you'll agree with her.

*Angelina Jolie: She's beautiful, she's rich, she donates time and money to countless charities, and now she hosts the evening news. Why? Because you needed another excuse to hate yourself.

*Tyra Banks: You know, the evening news is depressing enough as it is. Let's learn more about the actual news anchor.

The Blame Game

(This boring column was published in the
April 8th, 2008 issue of the The Daily Utah Chronicle)

---

I like to blame other people -- but that's not my fault.

Blaming other people is one of my favorite pastimes. For example, I am only 5-foot-9 -- I blame my parents. I am not that wealthy -- I blame the economy. I am not that intelligent -- I blame the U. I'm not a good writer -- I blame The Daily Utah Chronicle. I have a slow computer -- I blame Apple Inc. I suffer from prosopagnosia -- I blame people with ugly faces.

I like to blame other people, and other people like to blame me. Everyone likes to blame everyone else, and, in doing so, the world continues to quirkily gyrate along its crooked axis. Blaming others is as American as apple pie, baseball, rock 'n' roll music and not voting. We are a nation full of blamers -- and we hope someone else will take the fall.

A recent CBS News/The New York Times poll showed that 81 percent of respondents said they believe "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." When asked how the country compares to how it was five years ago, 75 percent felt that America is "worse off."

It was pointed out in the survey, which was released on The New York Times' website, that "Americans are more dissatisfied with the country's direction than at any time since (the poll's inception) in the early 1990s." It is worthwhile to note that the 81 percent of dissatisfied respondents cuts across all demographics -- male, female, black, white, Republican and Democrat.

The results, although depressing, are not terribly shocking. At the very least, this poll made me think about how blame is assigned and the reasons why people feel dissatisfied. How many of us have been frustrated with the Iraq War for more than half a decade? Who among us has been affected by the sluggish economy? Lives have been lost, jobs have been lost, and homes have been lost. It's enough to make one hide under the covers, weep while watching the news and attempt to find solace in a large bag of Cheetos -- or at least until one's home is foreclosed.

2008 began in such a dismal state of disrepair that until February of this year, people couldn't even drown their sorrows by watching good television because of the writers' strike. Society's a mess, the economy's in shambles and our foreign policy is a wreck. Thus we are justified in yelling to no one in particular, "Heads will roll! A price must be paid! Someone must be blamed!"

I propose we start by blaming ourselves.

Everybody knows somebody who enjoys playing the victim. A friend who doesn't receive a promotion at work and thus blames the economy. A family member who isn't accepted into college, prompting the family member to cite racism. A co-worker who tirelessly reminds everyone else of how difficult life was while surviving the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, the Darfur Conflict, the Bosnian ethnic cleansing and the Salem Witch Trials -- all of which he or she claims to have experienced. Do we know people who speak this way? Or worse -- are we these people?

I should clarify by stating that legitimate problems deserve legitimate attention. Racism, sexism and homophobia still exist in our world. Single mothers, the homeless, the mentally disabled and war veterans still need our help. Those with cancer, AIDS and other potentially fatal diseases still deserve our empathy.

But are there some of us -- whose troubles pale in comparison with those of others -- who still blame everyone from the government to our family for our problems? How many of us are competent and capable and yet demand a handout delivered on a doily?

On a scale from one to 10, with one being the systematic slaughter of thousands of innocent people and 10 being the systematic slaughter of millions of innocent people, the tragedy of my life most likely falls somewhere between a box of rainbows and a gift basket of marshmallows.

I confess that I've blamed others for my own personal problems in the past, something of which I'm not proud. Like other people in society, I've gone through depression. I've been unemployed. I've gone for periods of time where I didn't communicate with my family, and I've been known to dabble in ostracism, alienation and loneliness. Nevertheless, I realize that my trivial problems do not compare to the mammoth-sized problems of others, and I consciously try to avoid blaming others for my own transgressions.

The 81 percent of Americans who believe that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track" have many legitimate reasons to believe this. I do believe, however, that although we cannot control every aspect of society, the government and the economy, we can certainly take more ownership over our lives. We have the freedom to choose our lives, our happiness and our attitudes. And even if that's not true, we can at least choose whether we want a tall, grande, venti or super-sized portion of tragedy.

And for those who might not agree, don't blame me -- it's not my fault.

It's My Birthday and I'll Be Pissy If I Want To, Redux

(This essay was written last year around my birthday. I think the theory in reposting this essay once again, is that I'll be able to convince myself that perhaps I'm still stuck somewhere in 2007 or even 2005. I am totally fine with not progressing in life, as long as it means I get to stay 21 years old forever.)

---

I’m becoming a Jehovah’s Witness.

Sure, becoming a Jehovah’s Witness may require door-to-door proselytism, denial of blood transfusions, a subscription to The Watchtower, accepting a patriarchal family structure, avoiding gambling, homosexuality, abortion and patriotism, and believing that the “last days” began in 1914

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in birthdays or holidays. And that is a religion I can get behind.

Yesterday was my birthday. I hate birthdays. I hate holidays. I hate any day that requires an adherence to traditions that either half the time don’t make sense, or the other half of the time require – REQUIRE – that one spends the day with friends and/or family. Don’t get me wrong – I certainly love my friends and family. I just don’t like the pressure that obligates me to spend time with my friends and family. Or the pressure I feel every year to come up with a Halloween costume. Or to pretend that I enjoy being single on Valentines Day. Or to figure out whom I’m supposed to kiss on New Years Eve. Or to buy Christmas presents for everyone I know. Or to sacrifice my vegetarianism for Thanksgiving. Or to prove that I’m feeling patriotic on Independence Day. Or to convince everyone that I’m really not Jewish on Yom Kippur.

Birthdays are especially annoying. Not only is there additional pressure to have ‘plans,’ but you are required to inform everyone of these plans. What are you doing for your birthday? What do you want for your birthday? With whom are you going to spend your birthday? How old are you going to be on your birthday? Do you know who else was born on your birthday? Is Gore Vidal aware that there are more people in Cincinnati than the number of times he’s celebrated his birthday?

But just barely.

Why do we treat birthdays as if they are a bigger deal than Columbus discovering America, or Rush Limbaugh discovering OxyContin? The whole idea of ‘celebrating’ the accomplishment of one’s birth is an unusual concept. Every year we celebrate the day in which we were born, as if it required any effort on our part. When I think of the many things I’ve accomplished in my life, I remember that I’ve discovered the cure for breast cancer (well), I’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for my coverage of the Iraq War (not quite), I’ve been nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice (perhaps a stretch), and I’ve graduated from college (now that’s a flat out lie). Despite the many amazing things an individual accomplishes – or pretends to accomplish – during one’s lifetime, the only thing we personally celebrate annually is the act of being born. What’s even more unusual is the fact that we celebrate an event that we don’t even remember. The only thing I remember about my birth is a dark tunnel, some yelling, and wondering if Xanadu would ever become a trilogy, if Reganomics was a Greek delicacy, and why over 80% of top high scores in Pac-Man belong to people whose initials are ‘AAA.’

If you consider how naturally inquisitive most children are, just imagine the questions I had while passing through the birth canal.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with those who celebrate their birthday. What I do have a problem with however is those who feel it is justified – and even appropriate – for a 16 year old girl to spend anywhere from $40,000 to $300,000 on a birthday party. This extravagance is the idea behind the hit MTV reality show, My Super Sweet Sixteen, in which children who experience such incredible life challenges as acne and having to wait 3 days for $3,000 Jimmy Choo shoes to be shipped from New York, are rewarded for the difficult task of, well, being alive.

Thank you Dr. Jonas Salk for developing the first polio vaccine and essentially saving the lives of millions of people. Here’s your, um, brief mention in my history book.

Thank you Katie of Memphis, Tennessee for being born and allowing me to watch your birthday party on My Super Sweet Sixteen. Here’s your $125,000 Hummer.

Oh 16-year-old Katie, don’t get up from the couch. We’ll bring the Hummer to you.

Everyone has a right to celebrate their birthday in almost any way they wish, but it is the obligation of such celebrations that I find frustrating. Aside from my expected Bar Mitzvah when I was a 13-year-old Jewish boy, and then my expected Quinceanera a few years later when I was a 15-year-old Mexican girl, I have very few expectations for my birthday. If I, like many other similar people, require and expect very little for our birthdays, shouldn’t that desire be respected? If some people demand a party and a cake and presents and a hummer and fake-respect for their birthday, then by the same token shouldn’t I be able to demand that I not have a party and not have a cake and not have presents and not have a hummer and maybe real respect for something I’ve actually accomplished that doesn’t involve climbing out of the orifice of another person at the age of 4 minutes old?

When it comes to the topic of birthdays, people generally fall into one of two categories. One, those people who need any reason for a celebration, consequently turning a birthday into the most unnecessary over-the-top, ghastly, event possible. Or two, those who lie to themselves and attempt to cover the fact that they’ve turned 26 years old, by complaining about something as benign and universal as ‘birthdays.’

I hope the Jehovah’s Witnesses accept members who lie to themselves. If so, that is a religion I can get behind.