beyondtheguard

On Myth

2008-08-01T14:02:39Z

    Lately I've watched two films that spoke directly or indirectly about the power of myth. El Labertino del Fauno (or Pan's Labyrinth) was a movie I recently watched again. The other was a simple Batman cartoon called Batman Gotham Knight. I'm in the process of watching both The Devil's Backbone and The Spirit of the Beehive as they both comment on the nature of our internal worlds.
    The Batman, which I've recently posted about, has always been described as "Legend" or "Myth" in any medium he's been portrayed in. Yet, they've done something with this movie that was quite beautiful. It began with four children telling their story of an encounter with The Batman, each was a different interpretation with its own genuine candor. One was a shadow, another a cyborg. The rest of the movie was various interpretations of the character by several well-known anime artists. What emerged was a kaleidoscope of Batman. To the average denizen of Gotham, Batman would be much like Bigfoot or Sasquatch; few have seen him, and the people who have achieved that impossible glimpse ring insane.
    El Labertino del Fauno, which I shall refer the film as instead of Pan's Labyrinth as Pan does not appear in the film, is something of an intellectual film. Upon first viewing one may be disappointed at the dissembled nature of the film. It lends itself to be purely a fantastical piece, yet this is mostly the studios exercise in equivocation. It is set in post Spanish Civil War Spain. It surrounds a little girl named Ofelia, who has been moved to rural spain to live with her mother and her new husband, a Captain of Franco's army. Ofelia, with no friends, and a mother who is pregnant, dislikes her new life, and especially dislikes her step-father Captain Vidal. She, at first glance, finds the clues to an imaginary world. It isn't until much later in the film that you recognize that the myths, the fantasies, the entire world she has been subject to has been in her head. It is a sort of hyperreality; the unreal is more real, than the real. If you pay close attention you can notice the literary technique of trinity alive in the film as well (three keys, three tasks etc.) as well as commensurate layouts of environment (the table in the captains hall, is almost identical to the table in the Pale Man's hall). Its a comment on how we use fantasy, an general escapism in times of tribulation.
   I've always been a fan of myth, of monsters, of legend. They are not simply entertainment as most would think. They emerged organically as we evolved. One can imagine monsters or creatures originating as an explanation for something unexplainable to Man in the past, in the same way Gods and Goddesses emerged. As society evolved, so did Monsters and Creatures. Comic books emerged out of the same necessity. Do we have a need for superheros? Or do we simply need something to model or inspire?

On Masochism, Pt. I

2008-07-31T14:16:18Z

Sexual variation, commonly referred to as deviant/abnormal sexual behaviour, fetishes, paraphillias, etc., has been an interest of mine for a very long time, both as an academic and as a sexual being. I believe I will begin to elaborate on a series of ideas concerning various "deviant" sexual orientations. I still like to refer to them as being deviant, only because of the exotic nature that word illicits. Both Sadism and Masochism are very broad and general terms, dating back to Marque de Sade (sadism) and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (masochism) - Venus in Furs is a beautiful book. Most of Sade's work is cited widely, but Sacher-Masoch's work is only cursory in its use among most, with the exception of literary scholars.
Masochism, like most umbrella terms, is broad and means something different to everyone. Its meaning is abstruse, only in that understanding it comes from a very phenomenological level. Most who practice do not know the etiological moment, or origins of their desires, but they can tell you approximately when their earliest memory of the arousal began. Masochism is not something one can circumscribe. Quite literally it is the desire for pain; the arousal from pain. Conversely, Sadism is, literally, the desire to give pain. Neither of of these definitions are commensurate with what actually falls under those terms. The desire to give or receive humiliation, degradation, pain, "forced" against one's will; these are breaking down the idea a little further. The key idea among people or partners who participate in them is a "play" or "theater"; it is rare that one truly gives up their entire will to another, or completely controls another. It is generally done in trusting relationships, or in groups, where the trust is both diffused, and concentrated. It becomes a sort of hyperreality. Outside of specific contexts, outside of trust , deference and situational control, S&M play becomes something else entirely: violence and rape. That is the primary misconception; that there is a true and real hierarchy to these situations. Subconciously, proponents and participants are fully aware that they have consented, and may withdrawal at any given moment. There is of course, the conundrum, in that hierarchy no doubt helped cause the desire in the first place.
In terms of the where society positions bdsm (of which I will comment on the s and m aspect for now); it is seen as deviant, it is seen as wrong. In legal terms it is against the law to harm another, but also to consent to be harmed. You might think its considered a disorder in terms of the DSM, yet it is only considered so when the participant practices their desires against another's will, or is markedly distressed. All sexual behaviour is playing with power. Unless you consider the feminist nonsense of "the sexual process" where the orgasm is unimportant, and that everybody is equal and nice and living in egalitarian harmony: foolhardy, desultory, pseudo-political horse-shit. Sex is about one persons (not gender) submission to another. SM play is about breaking free of the biological imperative and seeing sex as something that breathes life into oneself. SM play is about taking the biological functionality of the body, and using the negative for positive. I particularly am critical of feminist cursory understanding of the process, and urge them to take off their horse-blinders (which invokes a very hilarious image to me) and see the world as a whole, not through menstrual-blood-colored glasses. They posit that its promoting patriarchy and the submission of women. I urge them to just type in "female domination" into google and see just how many women have taken it upon themselves to realize their power...realize their position, and get break the bonds of gender and "patriarchy".
To conclude, for now, masochism can be interpretted in numerous ways. No theory positing its pathological nature has ever been confirmed. I will not attempt to conciliate any opponents. I will simply attempt to elaborate and show you the diversity of sexuality, and raise a welcoming hand so that you may get off your pedestal

The Un-Dark Knight

2008-07-29T12:39:54Z

So, I finally got around to seeing The Dark Knight having purposely waited sometime so I might see it in peace. I have been awaiting the criticism of the movie from fellow film connoisseurs, yet mostly positive feedback is being heard.

The film is, on many levels, unconventional. The portrayal of philanthropy, heroism, anarchy, psychopathy and extreme nihilism with bits and pieces of morality.

    Bruce Wayne/Batman, I've always felt was the greatest tragic character ever written. Hamlet is pish-posh and though troubled and angered and motivated for revenge, he does so with alacrity. It is based on indecision; a biblical sin. MacBeth or Othello, reductionist ideas of human character flaws. Batman, at first glance is reductionist; a comment on duality, heroism, etc. Yet he is hardly so.
    Batman is motivated by the guilt; he feels responsible for his parents death, and from that guilt and lack of structure, takes flight (literally) to the world around him and submerges himself into the underbelly of our social structure; the lower caste system, crime, poverty, murder, which ironically people like him have embellished. So he takes action to ameliorate this pain; using "fear against those who pray on the fearful" - in fact using his OWN fear to do so. Using ones own major weakness to weaken your antagonist(s) is part of his flaw; he will never get over the fear.. He refuses to use a gun; "the gun" is that which caused him to be The Batman in the first place. He has one rule; (which has gone into gray areas in his tenure in the DC universe); you do not kill. He chooses to do this; a form of philanthropy; using what he has (wealth, intelligence, skills in combat) to help those that do not have these. He becomes an abstract; a summary; he becomes fear. Batman is not a duality like many believe. There is Bruce Wayne, the alias, who is the public face, then there is "The" Batman - the abstract; the idea; it is not tangible. It is a character outside of normal control. Then, there is the "self" of Bruce Wayne, which is never truly defined, but I shall simply call it "Batman" - it is who Batman/Bruce Wayne believes he is. Its the identity; a trinity of sorts; Bruce Wayne/The Batman/Batman - an Id, Superego and Ego all differentially manifested. In terms of Jungian archetypes, he is "The shadow" - repressed fear manifested almost literally.
    The Joker; (Bob Kane always refered to his characters as "THE" Batman, or "THE" Catwoman; it suggest Jungian archetypes) - anyway; The Joker is brilliantly written and portrayed in the film. Through his many manifestations over the years we've got a glimpse as to what he was like; a criminal mastermind, motivated (at least in the comics) by nothing "Some men just want to watch the world burn" - The Joker is, like Batman, a summary character; a manifestation of disarray, of chaos, of disorder. Some say he lacks human qualities, which is untrue. The Joker is human; pushed and pulled by the clusterfuck of life until nothing is left. He is a psychopath; fear is not felt within him; he has nothing to lose: the natural antagonist to Batman. Being the natural antagonist; The Joker and The Batman are almost the same, save for something. That is the importance of villains in literature and particularly for The Batman: each villain reveals a different character flaw to be seen in Batman. The Joker is, one would assume, a sadist and a masochist of the grandest type; how he got like this (which has been a failed comedian whose wife was killed) is unimportant to most, but very important to me. I felt myself siding with The Joker in the movie, and felt sorry for him because I know that pain, that feeling of being lost. This is an individual, a manifestation of the "Loki"/Trickster archetype, who is so brilliant, and observant, he sees past the false structure around him. He has nothing to lose, nothing to gain, he finds life so ABSURD that he laughs in its face.
The Joker character itself has been split in two and manifested in two different characters; On the one hand, the lack of morality, the lack of order is characterized by Two-face. On the other, the sheer silliness and brilliance, is manifested by The Riddler. Others (The Catwoman being being a symbol of the seduction of evil, The Penguin being dangers of the aristocracy and the tolerance that is needed for evil, Deadshot a manifestation of "The Gun", Mr. Freeze a comment on emotion, Poison Ivy, a comment both on environmental issues, but also on the oppression of women) - all of these characters simply create one more facit of The Batman persona
The Two-Face (a manifestation of duality/Janus) is a man who once stood for justice, righteousness; Harvey Dent was "The White Knight" of Gotham; much like Batman his parents (or just his mother, I can't recall) was taken away from him. He chose to approach it in a different way than The Batman; he did so in an "ethical" manner and became a district attorney. In the comics, he was scarred by a mob boss, in the movie it is something different entirely. How is not important, its simply the fact that it happens. With this, he becomes chance. He lacks an internal moral barometer so he turns to the coin. Two-sided, fair, given to chance and chance alone. In his mind this would lead to a perfect world. He is a man who lacks a super-ego (like The Batman) and relies on something else to make his choices for him; afterall the choices he made led him to be a horribly scarred individual
   The Batman is simply one step away from insanity. One step away from being like the rest of them. He is the "Dark" knight in the sense that he delineates black and white (much like the Super-ego); "that is good, that is bad" - while the public looks at him with ambivalence "Is he good, or is he bad" - what makes him a beautiful character for me is his choice to do this. "Its what you do that defines you" - he is doing what is necessary. He is the Darkness, but the light. He fights crime, but is crime himself. The Batman is immortal, legend, but Bruce Wayne/Batman is mortal. He does what is needed, even though the public says its not. He is venerated and hated. But what separates him from the clutches of dualism is the mediating force; the super-ego, The Batman. The Batman, the legend, the idea, is in the hands of the public. What the social structure needs him to be, he will be; He is The Batman.

An Iconoclastic Ode to the Redneck Embessy

2008-07-03T12:21:27Z

So, its not really an ode, as my ability to write anything but technical and long tiraded monologues has diminished. I will not attempt to be unbiased, nice, politically correct or any of these meandering pseudo-social policies.

    I detest --sorry-- down right HATE, when large groups of car enthusiasts (my euphemism for those ingrained in bumble-fuckery )get together in parking lots to put on some pathetic spectacle (not in situationist terms, but in "fucking stupid" terms). Now, I know that getting together with groups of people with a common interest is what we do, its how we "belong". I get together with my friends to discuss the trivial, the surreal, and eating pork chops out of dirty diapers. Yet, I still feel a sense of loathing towards these fools. Do I think I am better than they? Nay. But there is something about them.
    Perhaps its the hyper-masculinity they exude. The act of standing around looking at the car engine may be reminiscent of days of yore; male bonding around a newly made fire, discussing the brontosaurus burger they are about to feast upon. Yet I doubt the neanderthalian conversations were about "the horsepower of that rock" or "miles to the gallon your velociraptor got". Further still, is the tendency for these "men" to park the cars on an angle, like doing so will increase its value, its prestige, and perhaps, just maybe, mask the fact that this charade is oozing with Freudian metaphors. These sacks of flesh get together at a specific time, specific day, and when the show is over, they try to one-up each of their peers by seeing who can make the most noise. Yes, a display of your impromptu motility impresses me.
    I could go on for hours about the abstruse world of redneck ambassadors, but what would be the point? They don't read. They only turn on their computer to inform other qualified miscreants of the quintessential "party" one must attend and to post pictures of the previous gathering so that others may look upon them with piety, as they slowly numb themselves until all they see is black. No dreams, no imaginative musings of beauty, simply black. They awake sickly, dehydrated and placated in expensive and detailed hovels. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance thy name is "man"

On the lack of Simplicity

2008-07-02T13:19:44Z

        I often feel left out of the language duels of my closest peers. Yet, I do not feel sad, or lonely in this state, for I have simply chose to not go the route they have gone. I think of "the road less traveled by" by Frost. It is simple, elegant, yet trite. It is dripping with banality. How foolish to think that there was a road less traveled by. Everything has been done, has been done many times and will continue to be repeated. I read the work of my friends, and think "oh how nice they have found something worth mulling over; worth painting there eyes with false serenity; worth analyzing until all the beauty, all the life, even the lack of meaning, has been extracted with the "syringe of the verbose". As Dave relayed a story to me last week, "post-modernists handle language with rubber gloves". What a fantastic statement. Such imagery, such grace, how true! It lacks the long-winded, exhaustive metaphors used by post-modernists, and yet can be easily understood by anybody. Normally I would say "the average person could understand it"; yet to some, that statement implies that there is an average, that there is something below and above to succumb to or rise toward; a perfect example of how one would handle language with kid-gloves instead of allowing oneself to be soaked with meaning, to not treat it as an aesthetic to be stripped away layer by layer until all is left is a uninteresting mess on the ground beneath us.
   I have often thought about the state of "truth", does not claiming to know the truth, and claiming to know the lack of truth, mean the same thing? Does it not imply that one person believes in some kind of superiority in either knowing that something exists or knowing something does not exist? I have been pressed with this idea many times in my atheistic ramblings. How can "I" know that god exists or does not exist. It seems as though some have issues with the label of "atheist" that I have pinned to myself in the past, like one of those "Hello my name is.." stickers. In fact, I don't know. I consider myself an A-theist. I don't know of any existence or non-existence to anything other than pseudo-solipsistic identity. I am "A-theist" or A-dogmatic. I do not believe the all-knowing authority put forth by any religion or spiritual sect. I see it as forced capitulation. One, under the conditions set forth by this authority, must surrender everything that does not fit within the rules and roles set down as "the truth". One must conform. One must interact with the arbitrary until the arbitrary becomes sacred.
      I wonder about conformity. Conformity seems to be indirectly linked to every ideology from dogmatic law, to some anarachist ideas. I had a beautiful thought this morning. Duane, the resident egoist-anarchist, once told me that he "hated being in a group of people who agreed with him"; which led me to some interesting flashforwards. What if, by happenstance, the population of the world agreed with him and became like Duane. Not in the "put him on a pedestal and worship his ideas" kind-of-way, but became untangled from their webs, free to move about. Would he (you, if you are reading this Duane) become uncomfortable? Would you don a business suit or black shirt and white collar and become that which does not agree with the conforming masses? Would you be at peace? Or would you lose your mind and delve further into a positive nihilism. I rather like that phrase. It seems contradictory, yet in my mind it isn't. A world where nothing matters, but its happy thought.
    As often, I find some comfort in physics. Not in the sense that it is science, and there are hackeyed answers, but in the behaviour of particles. I am fascinated by light, being both a particle and a wave. Yet something that has always been close to my heart is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. It states (crudely) that it is impossible to know the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time. Applied to ones life; you can know where you are at the present moment, but not how much potential you have to go in a particular direction or, conversely, you cannot know your present location, if you are still moving forward toward whatever end. It is a weak metaphor, but I enjoy it. Alternately, it can sort-of be applied to existential thought. One cannot know what happens after death, with the knowledge that one is living. Crude, perhaps, but to me it is testament to my present peace.
   So then, how does one go forward into this void? How does one deal with attrocities of life, the impossibilities of knowing the truth, the lack of meaning; how does one get up everyday to do a mindless job at an arbitrary politically correct, unoffensive setting, where everybody is shielding from the "truth" and the "lack of truth" until they are walking around like sentient-meat, where every word spoken goes in one ear and out the other to make a tea-kettle whistling sound?? How do you douse yourself in water during this clusterfuck conflagration that we call life? How do you deal with it in the end?
Simple: you die.

Its time to get back to the fight.

2008-06-24T15:42:18Z

    Yesterday was an incredibly sad day for me. George Carlin, my childhood and still present idol and hero died at the age of 71. When I got the message, I cried. I don't cry at anything, for anybody or anything. It made me feel human. I never quite understood his impact on me until he left. An interesting side effect to spending my entire day re-reading and re-listening to his words was that of intense frustration and renewed zest for that which I gave up fighting for long ago.
    Many of those out there would not consider him a "great socio-political hero" because he was a comedian. Some have commented on his bitterness, his ranting and his general curmudgeon-like demeanor of the last 20 years or so. This saddens me, that we are still fighting against the same fucking foolishness as 50 years ago. I'm sure my fellow scholars and friends will have their own take and view on him. Some will downplay the influence on him, some will reinterpret him in a bombastic manner, some will simply not care. To me, he was brilliant. He pointed out the truth. The truth that we all seek, we all know, but we all try to change and ignore. We try to say there is not "truth"; only subjective manifestations that resemble a "truth". There are truths, they just aren't satisfying to our thirst for meaning. He didn't need a specific ideology to follow. He didn't need academics, pseudo-philosophers, or any of that trite that ends up meaning less and less to me as time goes by. He didn't point out anything to live for, just enlightened the absurdities of how we live. He was, in a way, deconstructing the process of life.
   So, now with the knowledge that he is gone, I've regained some of my zest for life and my reinvigorated my refusal to accept things as they are. What a pathetic world we live in. I've been complacent for far too long. I've been falsely content and I've reawakened. I don't care if you join me or not. I don't care what ideology you subscribe to, who you read, who you listen to, or what you eat. None of that matters. Its time to make some fucking changes.

A Moment of Screaming for Mr. Carlin

2008-06-23T11:52:57Z

    I woke up this morning to the news of George Carlin dieing. To the very few people who read this, they know of my fondness for Carlin. To me, he was my hero. When I was very young, I started to have a crisis of faith. I can remember the exact moment when I began to question the existence of the higher power we have dubbed "god". After losing sleep and spending long days wondering what my purpose was on earth, I accidently stumbled upon George Carlin one night with my father. My immediate reaction was "Holy shit its Mr. Conductor!" to which my father replied "What the fuck are you talking about? Thats George Carlin!" Thus began the trek of Carlin.
The very first diatribe I was privy to was his deconstruction of Religion. The absurdity of it, its false claims, its hypocrisy. For a young boy whose faith was already teeter-tottering, it quickly shifted the balancing and made me laugh while I slammed hard into the ground of reality. I had reached, as he called it, "the age of reason". I quickly became a fan and an avid listener/reader. It wasn't until Dave discovered George Carlin that it began to change my life. To this day, I believe the ramblings of Mr. Carlin are what cemented the friendship I have with Dave, something I will alway cherish. He will most likely not admit or accept it, but Dave's love-affair with language was surely influenced (if it wasn't an etiological moment) by Carlin's work. I can remember him standing by our lockers in grade 9 reciting the "tickets to the rain event" joke.
   So for the last 10 years, I have listened, watched, read and saw him live. I wrote a final psychology exam in 15 minutes to see him in Saint John. I paid close to $120 a ticket for that show, and I'm glad I did; it was the last time he was in Canada. Most of my friends grew out of the phase (partially or fully) while I remained an avid fan. Some still make fun of me and call him my "Lord and Saviour"; neither is true.
   Mr. Carlin was a fork in the road for me. At the start of high school, when adolescents are trying to adjust themselves to fit into peer groups, become popular, dress nicely, go to parties, and go through that pathetic awkward stage, I realized the banality of it all. The foolishness that is society. It was like tossing the rose-colored glasses, and realizing the world was much more "beautiful" without them. Throughout high school I was a bitter old man. I had substituted an original identity for that of an old comedian and I'm glad I did. Duane recently posted that "the last thing I want to be is a psychologist"; well the last thing I want to be is normal. I don't want to be one of those people who move back home after they've graduated and never evolve. I want to offend people. I want to cause people to question their motives, their environment, their government and the very foundations that society is built on. I want to stop this incessant need to please others, to be "nice" to people. Mankind has never revolted, evolved, advanced or otherwise by being nice or politically "correct". It was always by walking up to the status quo, an shitting in their eyes.
May George Carlin live on in my memory, while his body decomposes, his bowels empty and his body eventually explode from the pressure of his coffin.
A moment of screaming for Mr. Carlin: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

" A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor.  . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.   . . . . .   Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
      Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.
      Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor."

Society is going to hell in a Handedness Basket

2008-06-18T11:47:07Z

    A Grad student friend and I were discussing the plethora of cognitive psychological studies that deal with handedness and the correlations to the negative. I always feel conflicted reading these studies as I normally shun those that try to put certain people in certain boxes. Yet, I found these fascinating. The first is quite controversial and deals with the 2-4 digits on homosexual men. Supposedly, there is a very strong correlation with homosexuality and having longer-than-average fingers. Hormonally, these findings agree with much of theoretical biology. Letting these ideas mull in my mind, I thought: the arguments of the causes of homosexuality are detrimental no matter what position you take. There have been two schools of thought, genetics and free will. Many say that being gay comes from being genetically disposed, other say it is a choice. Regardless of the position one takes there are problems. If one agrees with the genetics argument, it posits the idea that homosexuality is something that can be fixed. With the free will "its a choice" argument, it lends itself quite well to fundamentalists arguing for the sanctity of marriage/church/state/family/apple pie etc.
   Another handedness (cross-sectional) study predicted that being left handed was equated with being gay (in males) having certain illnesses and just generally having a shorter lifespan.
   I have become conflicted. I recognize that the scientific method is but a reflection of the limits of our abilities. It is a paradigm, in which rules (that we observed) have formed a framework for the entire understanding of the universe as we know it. So I wonder, is the scientific method a blockade to thought, or is the "scientific" method being used improperly. Ask any statistician: they start with a hypothesis, test it, find out (most of the time) its incorrect, and then search the dataset for anything interesting. If all of that fails, "gender differences" is the universal emergency plan for non-findings.
   I like to think the community of cohesive thought is moving toward a paradigm shift. One that is less restricted, less (or more) empirical, but most importantly a more fluent and open line of communication between "disciplines".

Then again, none of this matters, does it? There is no meaning other than that which we decide is meaningful. Academics (defined in the GRE master word list as "not practical or directly useful.") is an entire system, based on individually searching for a Holy Grail. There is no actual grail; we are living in it.

"A woman goes into a bar and asks for a "double entendre". So the bartender gave her one"

Beyond the Guard

2008-06-17T12:46:05Z

Good morning fellow fickle fools,
This will be short. In fact I was going to simply write "this will be short" and post it, but I decided against it.

"Beyond the Guard" as a title was, at first, a random title I thought of just to start this journal. I was attempting to write "Beyond the Guardian" which seemed more organic to my own needs, but a play on words to my own long-running username "Guardian Devil". However, as I let in bounce around my pinball machine, I grew to see its application. Everything, everyone, has a guard. We have our own "Guard", a public "Guard". To paraphrase a great song (and foolish biblical passage) "To everything there is a guard"

I see my participation (or non-participation) in society as looking beyond the guards. One's vision of the "guard" can differ from others, as one's internal guards.

For the most part, I will refrain from using pre-existing terminology, derriddean, foucaltian, freudian/lacanian, or otherwise. My ideas will be organic, personal and an exercise in creativity.

A horse and a duck walk into a bar. The horse looks at the bartender, stamps his feet, neighs and whinnies "I'd like a beer please"; the bartender passes him the beer
The bartender looks at the duck perplexed and says "uhh quack?"
The horse looks at the bartender and says "Oh sorry, he's German"