2009, I have a feeling it's going to be a pretty good year. '08 I started to get my shit together, lost a bunch of weight, started going back to school, did a whole lot better with the ladies. Speakin' of which I've got one of those on the hook right now. Shes a bit young and a total workaholic so our relationship has kinda become a defacto booty call. Not that I'm going to complain, there's no better way to start the day than to have a beautiful woman walk into your room and curl up with you, which soon leads to things I'm not going to talk about here. Ok so thats not really the best way to wake up, the best is when she's already in your arms. But theres this great pimp quality when a girl will come over at 6am for a quickie, its her day off but I still had to be at work at 8:30. I don't know about you but that puts me in a great mood, and I am not normally a morning person but nothing was going to piss me off this morning. Not even when I walk out the door only to realize theres 5 inches of snow on the ground, oh well, throw on some boots grab the shovel fuck a winter coat, clear off the car, a few e-brake slides, fall on my ass in the work parking lot, who cares? I'm laughin all the while. Oh and I get out of work at 11! and I got paid today. paid and laid, thats a good day.
So anyway, I'm highly optimistic about the coming year. Both for me personally for the previously stated reasons, and because of the 'Bama. I'm hoping its going to be, maybe not a good year for the world, but a turning point. He's not going to save the world, but the world will change on on the 20th.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas
Uh yeah it's christmas, I'm sittin here watching a christmas story while the family takes naps. Hope you're having a good day doin' whatever you're doin'
Peace
Peace
Monday, December 22, 2008
Death From The Skies!
So I picked up my buddy (ok so I like his stuff, he probably hasn't ever read mine but thats ok) Phil's book this weekend for my cousin for christmas. I love giving books cause the recipient can't tell that I read it before giving it too them. Bwahaha!
Book Report Time
Death from the Skies!
by Phil Plait
So obviously I sat down read all but the last half a chapter in basically two sittings. I read a bit on Saturday and almost the whole rest of the book on Sunday. It was funny because I also bought a nice copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and in reading Death from the Skies! I couldn't help but notice a little bit of Adams in there. At one point I think it was in the discussion of Gamma Ray Emissions it called them "the biggest bang since the big one" or something to that effect. Basically the book is exactly what I expected, full of interesting info presented in a way that makes you just want to keep reading. I think it's plenty easy enough to read for anyone with at least a very basic understanding of the universe. But then in the middle of reading this I realized a problem, possibly a big one, but its not with the book. The cousin I bought this for is about to finish his PhD in Physics, he might find the book way to simple for his tastes. Again this isn't an insult towards the book, I really liked it, but I have no idea exactly where my cousins interests lie with astronomy and so he may enjoy it or he might find it too sophomoric.
I suppose I should tell you what the book is about. It's basically a list of ways the universe can and in some cases will, destroy the world as we know it. Some are obvious like the meteor smashing into the earth, others are inevitable but not for a very long time like when the sun goes all red giant on us, or ultimately the slow agonizing death of the universe itself. Then there are others that are so crazy they need to be mentioned but are extremely unlikely to happen such as falling into a passing black hole, blasted by a nearby supernova or getting vaporized by Gamma Rays. The book talks about how these events would unfold, then how we can maybe prevent them and ultimately what the chances are that it will happen. All with the humor and accuracy that is the reason I like Phil's writing. Basically I found the book really entertaining if a little depressing. It's pretty hard to look at the current view of how the universe is going to end up and not feel pretty bad about it. I really hope its wrong, I hope there is a big squeeze and it all starts over again, or something. I just don't see how there can be a finite beginning to it all but no end, I just think that time is either infinite or its not, but it can't be infinite in only one direction. It does touch on the multi-verse idea but only passingly because that far out on the edge of knowledge were really just don't know enough yet. Oh my only other quibble with the book is it does get repetitive at times, especially if you read the whole thing at once, because a common way for the universe to kill us is by stripping the earth of a large portion of its Ozone layer. Gamma rays have essentially the same effect wither their coming from crazy magnetic disturbances from the sun, a GRE or a supernova. But this is mostly just a problem of theres only so many ways to say it and their all true in each of these cases even though the cases are very different. I'm a pretty brutal judge so when thats my only fault in the book itself its quite a compliment.
So yes I can enthusiastically endorse this book for anyone who thinks sci-fi disaster movies are lame and want to see what real disaster looks like. Of course most of these wouldn't make for a good movie because no amount of heroism is going to save you from a gamma ray or a black hole. Enough intelligence and forethought might save you from an asteroid or even from the sun going red giant but that doesn't make for a good disaster movie. Anyway its a good fun book and I think its entertaining enough for even someone knowledgeable in the field (I hope) but easy enough for a high school kid that doesn't hate science.
Nice job Phil!
Book Report Time
Death from the Skies!
by Phil Plait
So obviously I sat down read all but the last half a chapter in basically two sittings. I read a bit on Saturday and almost the whole rest of the book on Sunday. It was funny because I also bought a nice copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and in reading Death from the Skies! I couldn't help but notice a little bit of Adams in there. At one point I think it was in the discussion of Gamma Ray Emissions it called them "the biggest bang since the big one" or something to that effect. Basically the book is exactly what I expected, full of interesting info presented in a way that makes you just want to keep reading. I think it's plenty easy enough to read for anyone with at least a very basic understanding of the universe. But then in the middle of reading this I realized a problem, possibly a big one, but its not with the book. The cousin I bought this for is about to finish his PhD in Physics, he might find the book way to simple for his tastes. Again this isn't an insult towards the book, I really liked it, but I have no idea exactly where my cousins interests lie with astronomy and so he may enjoy it or he might find it too sophomoric.
I suppose I should tell you what the book is about. It's basically a list of ways the universe can and in some cases will, destroy the world as we know it. Some are obvious like the meteor smashing into the earth, others are inevitable but not for a very long time like when the sun goes all red giant on us, or ultimately the slow agonizing death of the universe itself. Then there are others that are so crazy they need to be mentioned but are extremely unlikely to happen such as falling into a passing black hole, blasted by a nearby supernova or getting vaporized by Gamma Rays. The book talks about how these events would unfold, then how we can maybe prevent them and ultimately what the chances are that it will happen. All with the humor and accuracy that is the reason I like Phil's writing. Basically I found the book really entertaining if a little depressing. It's pretty hard to look at the current view of how the universe is going to end up and not feel pretty bad about it. I really hope its wrong, I hope there is a big squeeze and it all starts over again, or something. I just don't see how there can be a finite beginning to it all but no end, I just think that time is either infinite or its not, but it can't be infinite in only one direction. It does touch on the multi-verse idea but only passingly because that far out on the edge of knowledge were really just don't know enough yet. Oh my only other quibble with the book is it does get repetitive at times, especially if you read the whole thing at once, because a common way for the universe to kill us is by stripping the earth of a large portion of its Ozone layer. Gamma rays have essentially the same effect wither their coming from crazy magnetic disturbances from the sun, a GRE or a supernova. But this is mostly just a problem of theres only so many ways to say it and their all true in each of these cases even though the cases are very different. I'm a pretty brutal judge so when thats my only fault in the book itself its quite a compliment.
So yes I can enthusiastically endorse this book for anyone who thinks sci-fi disaster movies are lame and want to see what real disaster looks like. Of course most of these wouldn't make for a good movie because no amount of heroism is going to save you from a gamma ray or a black hole. Enough intelligence and forethought might save you from an asteroid or even from the sun going red giant but that doesn't make for a good disaster movie. Anyway its a good fun book and I think its entertaining enough for even someone knowledgeable in the field (I hope) but easy enough for a high school kid that doesn't hate science.
Nice job Phil!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Zeitgeist v. Zeitgeist Exposed
I just sorta kinda watched the New Zeitgeist movie, Zeitgeist Addendum. Now just outta curiosity I'm watching some stuff trying to refute the movie. It starts by saying that the movie uses the same sources repeatedly, oooh noes! It's blasting the fact that they went after the fish allegory being for the age of pisces and said that fish were an important food source so of course they'll get mentioned a lot. No argument there. Next they take on the fact that theres many many other "gods" with very similar stories to jesus. They claim that this idea must have come from this one book and that book is discredited, um... strawman. I bet theres other sources besides that shitty book for the many other ancient gods. Plus they already talked about the sources, is that book a source or not? Eh. I didn't watch the whole thing, there was a bunch of bible passages and thats about when I tuned out. Wasn't too impressed. The first Zeitgeist impressed me, I didn't immediately think that it was all true, but it made me really curious and want to look into it further. Unfortunately the records from two thousand years ago can be a little spotty, so I guess we won't really know for sure till we die. So I'm not in any big rush to find out.
Addendum
The folks who made Zeitgeist are at it again, this time it's called Addendum. I've just started watching it, actually I'm mostly just listening it.
Part One
Right now it's just bashing on our entire economic system.
Hmm... look into the Jerome Daly case. It sounds like a really interesting case.
I really can't wait for my economics class next semester. These folks really don't hold back, they just said that our entire system constitutes economic slavery. Oh nice quote from John Adams, "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Oh this is fitting because it was just talking about how our current system makes it literally impossible for our society to get out of debt because money is only created by debt, and debt has to be repaid with interest but there is simple not enough money in the system to pay for the debt and the interest.
Part Two.
Economic Hitmen, by Perkins. I read the guys book, its good but I know where this is going. Oh and that book, which was good, was "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."
Part three... maybe... I'm missing a bit of this.
Woah. They just claimed that Al Qeada is totally fictional and the name comes from a computer program that had something to do with the Mujahideen.
I'm mostly just listening to this movie and it keeps going quiet and I know its giving interesting stats, and I'm missing them. Oh well its interesting and at some point I gotta watch this properly.
Part One
Right now it's just bashing on our entire economic system.
Hmm... look into the Jerome Daly case. It sounds like a really interesting case.
I really can't wait for my economics class next semester. These folks really don't hold back, they just said that our entire system constitutes economic slavery. Oh nice quote from John Adams, "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." Oh this is fitting because it was just talking about how our current system makes it literally impossible for our society to get out of debt because money is only created by debt, and debt has to be repaid with interest but there is simple not enough money in the system to pay for the debt and the interest.
Part Two.
Economic Hitmen, by Perkins. I read the guys book, its good but I know where this is going. Oh and that book, which was good, was "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."
Part three... maybe... I'm missing a bit of this.
Woah. They just claimed that Al Qeada is totally fictional and the name comes from a computer program that had something to do with the Mujahideen.
I'm mostly just listening to this movie and it keeps going quiet and I know its giving interesting stats, and I'm missing them. Oh well its interesting and at some point I gotta watch this properly.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
not cool
shit I didn't know I was going to have to listen to this crap when I go to the inauguration.
Emo No Mo
I'm just an idiot when it comes to the ladies, as we all know. Oh well. No point getting all bent outta shape about it. No time to worry about that, I've got finals and it looks like I'm going to head to DC for the inauguration. I'm taking the one from my study group that I've mentioned being interested in. Whats weird about that is that after she said she wanted to go she mentioned being back together with her ex. That should probably tell me something about her interest level in me. I'm not too worried about her BF, she doesn't seem to think all that highly of him. But that is a little weird right? I'm going out with both the girls from my study group tomorrow night after our last final. Or in my case final then office christmas party then out with the ladies. I'll be curious to see if she brings the BF along. I've also realized that I haven't spent that much time with her and I really hope she doesn't annoy the fuck out of me. We have way way more fun studying than can possibly be normal but a big part of that is the two girls just laugh their asses off over anything which gets me laughing too. Guess I'll know a little more after Thursday. Ugh off to another final, this time history.
Peace!
Peace!
Grease Fires
Again I'm very late in getting to the news.
Personally I think an occasional riot is a sign of a healthy democracy, it's not that there aren't better ways to solve our grievances, but if the problem is with the government then often the normal channels cannot be used to fix them. When all other options have been exhausted sometimes a riot is the only thing left, other times, like the ones in Greece are reactions to a very specific incident but are always caused by underlying problems. The LA riots weren't about Rodney King, that was simply the last straw that broke the camels back. These riots in Greece were about Alexander Grigoropoulos, his death was simply one injustice more than the people could deal with.
Heres some pretty amazing pictures from those riots.
Personally I think an occasional riot is a sign of a healthy democracy, it's not that there aren't better ways to solve our grievances, but if the problem is with the government then often the normal channels cannot be used to fix them. When all other options have been exhausted sometimes a riot is the only thing left, other times, like the ones in Greece are reactions to a very specific incident but are always caused by underlying problems. The LA riots weren't about Rodney King, that was simply the last straw that broke the camels back. These riots in Greece were about Alexander Grigoropoulos, his death was simply one injustice more than the people could deal with.
Heres some pretty amazing pictures from those riots.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Secrets / Family / Rant
I've just read a bunch of stuff at Post Secret and I cant help but think of one for myself. Guess its not really a secret but here goes.
I wonder if my friends know how depressed I am?
But I'm sure they know the reason.
I wonder if my family even knows the reason.
Sorry "D" I'm feelin' a little emo today. It'll pass.
It's not just rejection that gets me down, its the fact that I never even get a fucking chance. Ok the one thats driving me insane at the moment is stupid because I knew it was nothing, that it could never be anything and I still let myself get attached and subsequently hurt. I'm just desperately sick of being single and it's tearing me up inside. I know that without self confidence I'm never going to get anywhere with women, this makes total sense, but what if I really don't like myself because I don't know who the fuck I am? I think of the advice of looking at the persons family before getting into a long term relationship, I think of how great my own family is, but of how I wonder what they would think of anyone I brought to meet them (they would probably love anyone I brought to meet them), then I wonder when they'll get to meet me. My family is awesome they really are, but for me they are the most judgmental people in my life. I'm never comfortable around them because I always feel the need to put up a front. I try to engage them in my life and they look at me like I'm crazy. I was the manager for my friends band for a few years and I didn't really expect them to show but my fucking sister had the audacity to not only blow me off, but to blow me off by going to a bar a block away. After being genuinely pissed at her for that stunt she finally showed up for one a bit later on, late, and didn't even see the band. Which wasn't the point, I didn't expect any of them to like the band, I just wanted them to be a part of my life. Because they have no idea who I am. My sister recently wrote part of a book about No Child Left Behind. I tried to ask her about it, she gave pathetic little answers and had no interest in talking about it with me. Then she has to tell me about all the shit I need to do to fix my life, the part about getting insurance for the car she gave me is fine, but as far as always telling me what to do with my life, go fuck yourself, maybe if you had any idea who I am you'd have the right to talk but you don't so go fuck yourself. The worst part is that she gives good advice and knows how much I'm capable of, but she always says it in a manner that just makes me want to defy her, she makes me want to go in the completely wrong direction just to prove that I can.
Damn I'm a simple bastard. I was getting pissed as I wrote parts of that. Then the lovely lady in the office next door, the one I've got a thing for who really is gorgeous and sweet and funny and has very similar interest but doesn't seem the least bit interested in me and I'm going to accept that, came over to talk to me about our new intern, who by the way is also really cute, but shes a freshmen, meaning awfully young. Anyway the main guy at work is a little bit of a creep, which suits me fine as theres usually cute women here, is currently having a little talk with the intern concerning her affect. It's her first day and all she needs to do is observe, shut the fuck up dude! So she's probably going to be...
Ok now I actually talked to them and I hope I put her at ease a bit. Anyway the simple bastard comment is to the fact that a beautiful woman talking to me is pretty much all it took to make me, maybe not happy, but considerably happier. I don't know anymore. I've got to finalize things with the girl from study group that I'm not interested in. I'm pretty sure we are on the same page, er maybe not. I was just warned that I need to talk to her.
Shit I gotta go.
I wonder if my friends know how depressed I am?
But I'm sure they know the reason.
I wonder if my family even knows the reason.
Sorry "D" I'm feelin' a little emo today. It'll pass.
It's not just rejection that gets me down, its the fact that I never even get a fucking chance. Ok the one thats driving me insane at the moment is stupid because I knew it was nothing, that it could never be anything and I still let myself get attached and subsequently hurt. I'm just desperately sick of being single and it's tearing me up inside. I know that without self confidence I'm never going to get anywhere with women, this makes total sense, but what if I really don't like myself because I don't know who the fuck I am? I think of the advice of looking at the persons family before getting into a long term relationship, I think of how great my own family is, but of how I wonder what they would think of anyone I brought to meet them (they would probably love anyone I brought to meet them), then I wonder when they'll get to meet me. My family is awesome they really are, but for me they are the most judgmental people in my life. I'm never comfortable around them because I always feel the need to put up a front. I try to engage them in my life and they look at me like I'm crazy. I was the manager for my friends band for a few years and I didn't really expect them to show but my fucking sister had the audacity to not only blow me off, but to blow me off by going to a bar a block away. After being genuinely pissed at her for that stunt she finally showed up for one a bit later on, late, and didn't even see the band. Which wasn't the point, I didn't expect any of them to like the band, I just wanted them to be a part of my life. Because they have no idea who I am. My sister recently wrote part of a book about No Child Left Behind. I tried to ask her about it, she gave pathetic little answers and had no interest in talking about it with me. Then she has to tell me about all the shit I need to do to fix my life, the part about getting insurance for the car she gave me is fine, but as far as always telling me what to do with my life, go fuck yourself, maybe if you had any idea who I am you'd have the right to talk but you don't so go fuck yourself. The worst part is that she gives good advice and knows how much I'm capable of, but she always says it in a manner that just makes me want to defy her, she makes me want to go in the completely wrong direction just to prove that I can.
Damn I'm a simple bastard. I was getting pissed as I wrote parts of that. Then the lovely lady in the office next door, the one I've got a thing for who really is gorgeous and sweet and funny and has very similar interest but doesn't seem the least bit interested in me and I'm going to accept that, came over to talk to me about our new intern, who by the way is also really cute, but shes a freshmen, meaning awfully young. Anyway the main guy at work is a little bit of a creep, which suits me fine as theres usually cute women here, is currently having a little talk with the intern concerning her affect. It's her first day and all she needs to do is observe, shut the fuck up dude! So she's probably going to be...
Ok now I actually talked to them and I hope I put her at ease a bit. Anyway the simple bastard comment is to the fact that a beautiful woman talking to me is pretty much all it took to make me, maybe not happy, but considerably happier. I don't know anymore. I've got to finalize things with the girl from study group that I'm not interested in. I'm pretty sure we are on the same page, er maybe not. I was just warned that I need to talk to her.
Shit I gotta go.
Jello Speaks
Jello Biafra has just written a letter to Barack Obama, via Change.org
I'm still in the middle of reading it but I feel like it should be posted here so....
Jello's Letter.
I'm still in the middle of reading it but I feel like it should be posted here so....
Jello's Letter.
I'm going to get an Anonymous bitch-slap
I did it again. I fell into the exact same situation that we've been talking about. I thought I was doing better, but when I see it slipping away I fall into desperation to try to cling to something that was never there. Which is bad enough, it's even worse when the only play book you have is the one "anonymous" called me out for, the nice-guy routine which is the worst play book ever. I need to burn that play book.
The first step is knowing when to admit defeat. Ok that's not even close to the first step but its the first one I'm thinking of now. I need to learn that you can't try to force someone to love you, it doesn't work that way and you only insult them and disrespect them. I can say this all I want but somehow I need to act upon this.
The real first step is that when a chick says, "were just friends" she probably means it. If shes says she just wants to be friends, and I still want to be more than friends I need to just walk away. Every time I try to ease my way in via the friend route its a fucking disaster. Everyone knows that route is a disaster, its an act of desperation and the one thing I should have learned by now is that desperate is not attractive, never.
And finally. Be cocky. Not totally arrogant and annoying, but have confidence in myself. Just go for it, trust your wit and humor. People like me because I'm free, open and funny, when I like someone I get so nervous about saying the wrong thing that I'm just not fun anymore. Which is why I tend to drink too much, it blocks my inhibitions and those fuckin guys always get in my way. Now lets just see if I can actually stick to this plan.
The first step is knowing when to admit defeat. Ok that's not even close to the first step but its the first one I'm thinking of now. I need to learn that you can't try to force someone to love you, it doesn't work that way and you only insult them and disrespect them. I can say this all I want but somehow I need to act upon this.
The real first step is that when a chick says, "were just friends" she probably means it. If shes says she just wants to be friends, and I still want to be more than friends I need to just walk away. Every time I try to ease my way in via the friend route its a fucking disaster. Everyone knows that route is a disaster, its an act of desperation and the one thing I should have learned by now is that desperate is not attractive, never.
And finally. Be cocky. Not totally arrogant and annoying, but have confidence in myself. Just go for it, trust your wit and humor. People like me because I'm free, open and funny, when I like someone I get so nervous about saying the wrong thing that I'm just not fun anymore. Which is why I tend to drink too much, it blocks my inhibitions and those fuckin guys always get in my way. Now lets just see if I can actually stick to this plan.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Shoe Heard Round the World
Ok you've all seen the video but here it is again
I gotta give the shrub props for the quick reflexes. My buddy had the perfect comment when I said that. "Maybe he saw it coming... like 9/11" OH.
I've been told that Bush isn't making a big deal out of this and thats good. It's one of those stories thats best to just laugh at and move on. The journalist should get in a little trouble, I mean thats not very professional behavior. Maybe do some community service or something. I mean I wouldn't b shocked if he serves a little time in jail, hopefully under a month, and he'll probably be a national hero if he does.
I gotta give the shrub props for the quick reflexes. My buddy had the perfect comment when I said that. "Maybe he saw it coming... like 9/11" OH.
I've been told that Bush isn't making a big deal out of this and thats good. It's one of those stories thats best to just laugh at and move on. The journalist should get in a little trouble, I mean thats not very professional behavior. Maybe do some community service or something. I mean I wouldn't b shocked if he serves a little time in jail, hopefully under a month, and he'll probably be a national hero if he does.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Heartless
Don't read too much into this, especially in light of the post below this. I'm actually quite happy these days. Yeah I've got a little drama with the ladies right now, but I don't think a single one of them is the least bit heartless, shit the problem with two of them is they like me more than I like them. But I just like this song so I'm posting it here, I can't even explain why I like the song, I just do.
A lil' Kanye West- Heartless
Aw the bastard block embedding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zaCVHpcukQ
Oh but this person didn't
A lil' Kanye West- Heartless
Aw the bastard block embedding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zaCVHpcukQ
Oh but this person didn't
The Ladies That Confound Me
Well as "anonymous" pointed out, I'm finally coming to grips with my real problem with women, my own insecurities. And man has shit changed. First there was a friend of a friend, I can't recall for sure but I might have mentioned her in the post about halloween weekend. There was a whole bunch of drama going on and so in order to break away I just went over and kissed this girl for a bit. We've hung out a few times with mutual friends, and she later told me that I was the only guy there that could have gotten away with that. She was a whole lot of fun, the sex was quite spectacular but for me it was just sex and even though she claimed it wasn't anything more for her either, I knew it was so I ended it before I caused her anymore pain. The reality is it wasn't quite as altruistic as that, she has her share of issues, but I'm not going to air that shit here. Especially cause she'll probably read this. As I told you before, you're a good shit and you someone who can love you like you deserve.
Then theres this girl from school, I've been helping her a lot with history. She was one of two in my study group, she was the one that really needed help. I've had a feeling for a while that she was interested in me but it wasn't mutual, shes a nice girl but she doesn't really do it for me. Unfortunately this whole time I've have feelings for the other girl in the study group, at first it wasn't a big deal because she had a BF, at which point I'm not trying to flirt and I'm far less awkward. Everyone I'm not hitting on loves me. I guess that proves I'm still not entirely without insecurities, oh well I'm heading in the right direction. I really can't tell whats going on with the girl I'm interested in, but I'm fairly sure its not much. But then there's the other one. We spent quite a bit of time on school work so we became friends, and then I was bored one night and invited her over to watch a movie. Then last weekend it was my roomies 21st b-day so I was heading to the bar and felt like I should bring someone. I tried a bunch of people and she was the only one who could come out. So we all go to a few bars have a few too many drinks and pretty soon it's morning and I'm not alone. Umm... Ok, no big deal, nothing much happened were both still clothed. But then she tells me she's never kissed a guy before. Woah. I didn't see that one coming. So we've hung out a few more time since and well it's been considerably harder for her to concentrate on history thats for sure. Theres some issues with this, first off I'm just not that interested in her. Second she's heading for school in a month. I guess my thought is that if she just want to go from learning about history to learning about sex so she doesn't head off to college a virgin then ok, thats fine. But I really don't think that she can keep herself from getting attached. Maybe its wrong for me to even fuck her if I'm not interested, I don't know. I'll also admit that I'm telling her I don't want to get serious because she's leaving for school soon, and not because I'm not into her. So similar to the first woman, this might get broken off sooner than later in order to save a bit of heartache, for her, I'm not feeling any attachment issues.
And then out of left field there's this girl from another class. She's really attractive and fun to talk to, but she's really religious which is more of an issue for her than me. When I first saw her myspace page and it had a very little on it and what was there was almost entirely religious I had a feeling she was going to be an annoying fundie. Man was I wrong, shes actually a pretty cool chick. She has a BF at the moment but they just started dating and it doesn't sound like its going to last. I hate to say it and I could be very wrong but just from what she's said I think that she has a BF and he has a fuck buddy. I hope I'm wrong because she deserves better than that but considering she said they met online, and stripped for each other on web cam before they met and had sex the second time they met, and she said all he ever seems to talk about is sex, including pretty explicit text messages at random times through out the day, I don't think I'm wrong to assume that he's just after he body. Which I can't blame him for, she's got a great body, but shes got an interesting mind too and she should be with someone who can appreciate that as well. She said that she thinks I'm really cool and she likes talking to me but being an atheist is a big problem for her. I know she wants a serious relationship and I think she'd be better off with someone who may not view the world quite the same but can appreciate her mind as well as her body rather than with a guy who at least claims religion while not treating her right, of course I could be a little bit biased here.
Then theres the girl from work, shes still cute funny smart and have a ton in common, but I don't think shes interested. No time to worry about that, cause I have to go get some lunch with her.
Then theres this girl from school, I've been helping her a lot with history. She was one of two in my study group, she was the one that really needed help. I've had a feeling for a while that she was interested in me but it wasn't mutual, shes a nice girl but she doesn't really do it for me. Unfortunately this whole time I've have feelings for the other girl in the study group, at first it wasn't a big deal because she had a BF, at which point I'm not trying to flirt and I'm far less awkward. Everyone I'm not hitting on loves me. I guess that proves I'm still not entirely without insecurities, oh well I'm heading in the right direction. I really can't tell whats going on with the girl I'm interested in, but I'm fairly sure its not much. But then there's the other one. We spent quite a bit of time on school work so we became friends, and then I was bored one night and invited her over to watch a movie. Then last weekend it was my roomies 21st b-day so I was heading to the bar and felt like I should bring someone. I tried a bunch of people and she was the only one who could come out. So we all go to a few bars have a few too many drinks and pretty soon it's morning and I'm not alone. Umm... Ok, no big deal, nothing much happened were both still clothed. But then she tells me she's never kissed a guy before. Woah. I didn't see that one coming. So we've hung out a few more time since and well it's been considerably harder for her to concentrate on history thats for sure. Theres some issues with this, first off I'm just not that interested in her. Second she's heading for school in a month. I guess my thought is that if she just want to go from learning about history to learning about sex so she doesn't head off to college a virgin then ok, thats fine. But I really don't think that she can keep herself from getting attached. Maybe its wrong for me to even fuck her if I'm not interested, I don't know. I'll also admit that I'm telling her I don't want to get serious because she's leaving for school soon, and not because I'm not into her. So similar to the first woman, this might get broken off sooner than later in order to save a bit of heartache, for her, I'm not feeling any attachment issues.
And then out of left field there's this girl from another class. She's really attractive and fun to talk to, but she's really religious which is more of an issue for her than me. When I first saw her myspace page and it had a very little on it and what was there was almost entirely religious I had a feeling she was going to be an annoying fundie. Man was I wrong, shes actually a pretty cool chick. She has a BF at the moment but they just started dating and it doesn't sound like its going to last. I hate to say it and I could be very wrong but just from what she's said I think that she has a BF and he has a fuck buddy. I hope I'm wrong because she deserves better than that but considering she said they met online, and stripped for each other on web cam before they met and had sex the second time they met, and she said all he ever seems to talk about is sex, including pretty explicit text messages at random times through out the day, I don't think I'm wrong to assume that he's just after he body. Which I can't blame him for, she's got a great body, but shes got an interesting mind too and she should be with someone who can appreciate that as well. She said that she thinks I'm really cool and she likes talking to me but being an atheist is a big problem for her. I know she wants a serious relationship and I think she'd be better off with someone who may not view the world quite the same but can appreciate her mind as well as her body rather than with a guy who at least claims religion while not treating her right, of course I could be a little bit biased here.
Then theres the girl from work, shes still cute funny smart and have a ton in common, but I don't think shes interested. No time to worry about that, cause I have to go get some lunch with her.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Gitmo Confessions
It should be an indicator that your "court" is a sham when the defendant tries to confess and the judge has no idea how to respond. Personally I don't think we should give them the death penalty because of the whole martyr aspect. Not the part about them getting virgins in heaven and all of that shit, but the part where they can seen as having been killed by the "great satan" by those sympathetic to their cause.
These guys need to go to a real court, and then probably to a real prison for a real long time. If they decide to execute them I won't complain too loudly. I've always said that I have no real issue with killing killers, I just don't trust our legal system to be perfect. And this whole idea of having to set up a whole new court system in order to try these people is just fucking stupid, unless of course you don't care about the law and just want to be able to get the convictions you want without having to admit to torture or show evidence or follow the constitution or the genevea convention or.... oh wait. Now it makes sense.
I really really hope that Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld et. all are tried for war crimes in the near future. Especially Rummy, he deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life, but even he deserves a trial. Ok maybe lock him up for a decade or so before that trial but a trial none the less.
These guys need to go to a real court, and then probably to a real prison for a real long time. If they decide to execute them I won't complain too loudly. I've always said that I have no real issue with killing killers, I just don't trust our legal system to be perfect. And this whole idea of having to set up a whole new court system in order to try these people is just fucking stupid, unless of course you don't care about the law and just want to be able to get the convictions you want without having to admit to torture or show evidence or follow the constitution or the genevea convention or.... oh wait. Now it makes sense.
I really really hope that Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld et. all are tried for war crimes in the near future. Especially Rummy, he deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life, but even he deserves a trial. Ok maybe lock him up for a decade or so before that trial but a trial none the less.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Big Three
Way to be up to the minute with the news Kilgore. This isn't exactly breaking news but I think it is something we need to take a few deep breaths and really think about before we make our own personal decision.
So here is my take on it. We as a society first need to cast aside our cold war views of the world and realize that you don't need to cower in fear at the word socialism. But currently we doing this fucked up mix of socialism and capitalism where we give a little bit to the bottom rung that has been left behind under capitalism, and we've taken away all risk to the very top levels by promising not to let them fail. It's like going to a casino and being told at the door that if you lose enough then you'll be recouped for your losses, by the taxpayers.
So to me we have a few options. The first is do the capitalist thing. Let them fail. Especially Chrysler, we've already bailed them out once. Using that as an example theres two ways to look at it. One is to say, "see that bailout worked, we saved Chrysler before and they turned around, we can do it again." Or you can say, "Because we bailed them out before they did not fix the inherent flaws in their business model and they never will so long as we continue to protect them." Lets just stick with the capitalist view, Milton Friedman and shit, it's not the governments job to run a business. The Government can regulate but it cannot mettle in the internal affairs of business. Friedman doesn't even want regulation but thats just stupid. So if these companies can get the loans the want and need from banks then go ahead. If the banks say these companies are too much of a risk then why the hell should the taxpayer take that risk? Oh sure go ahead and blame the fact that the banks are fucked too. Lassez-Faire bitches! Will this cause further problems, oh hell yeah it will, were talking millions of jobs for sure further sinking the economy and will probably be another domino that leads us into an old school depression. I'd really be curious what old Milton would say right now, he'd probably blame the impending doom on government regulations, claiming that if everyone had simply continued their shortsighted quest for ever increasing profits then none of this ever would have happened. Of course we also wouldn't have glaciers anymore and we'd really be running low on oil but who cares the economy would be booming! Were going to do something for them, so lets just forget about this pipe dream of pure capitalism and move on.
Socialist view. Don't bailout the companies, buy them out, or just nationalize them. The problem with this is that our government is not set up to deal with trying to directly run a business. I've gotten distracted by the news of the guys at Gitmo pleading for death. I'll talk about that next once I learn a bit more about it. But as much as my socialist leanings thing we should just buyout the companies and create like US motors or something. Make them produce cars that don't suck. Pay the workers what they deserve but cut out those non-producers at the unions. Theres no point in a union if your whole company is socialized anyway. Then there are all the obvious other problems with a socialist workforce.
UPDATE: I fucking hate blogger. I obviously wasn't finished with this, so I wanted to save it as a draft. Which means fighting with their stupid ass captcha program, no idea why you need to do that to save as a draft but then after the eighty seventh try (possible exaggeration) it works. Today I hop on and there it is published. Oh well. Ill try to finish it now.
I really don't see this country going the socialist route so I'm not going to bother expanding on that any further. And now that the House has passed a $14 Billion bailout. I find it very curious that the Republicans are blocking this. My first reaction is that, hey they've gone back to the ideology that once put them into power, fiscal conservation less spending and whatnot. They did oppose the big bailout, but wait they jumped on board once they added that extra little 150 billion in pork. So maybe this isn't about saving the country money. The cynic in me has a sneaking suspicion that the republican party might be so suddenly anti-spending because the spending might just might work. But see if they go along with it and it fails then they're culpable too, and they went against what they claim is their ideology. If they go against it, and it works then they'll spin it to somehow, but they perfect situation for them is to go against it, but the dems get it passed and it still fails to fix shit. Then they can gloat, Obama isn't the hero and they have a chance to become relevant again. Am I really so cynical that I think the republican party is so concerned with their own power that they will allow the country to crumble just to regain power.... after 8 years of bush. In a word. Yes. Yes I do.
So what do I think should be done? I guess we do need to bail the idiots out, but with massive forced changes. The first step I would take, and I have a distinct feeling that some of my liberal friends will balk at this, is to kick out the UAW. The union is one major reason why Toyota can turn a profit on a car built in the USA while paying a good wage and none of the big three can. I'll admit that I'm biased here but I just don't see much good in unions and I see huge negatives. So now the workers are getting paid based on ability, now lets look at the suits. Hey guess what, if you're at the top of any of the big three you might want to get a resume ready. And seeing as you're getting paid based on ability lets look at you're record. Oh my you had to beg the government to keep from closing up shop, guess what you don't get shit. If you fuck up a burger at Micky Dee's and get shit canned for you're incompetence you don't get a fucking severance package you get shit canned. If you lead a company with no foresight into the future, focus solely on building at-the-time-profitable SUV's while the rest of the worlds auto companies worked on fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources. To be fair the big three did put in some lame attempts at this stuff as well, GM build the first modern electric car back in the 90's with the EV1. It wasn't perfect but it was a good starting point for future automotive generations. So what did GM do? They took back all of them at the end of the leases, wouldn't allow owners to buyout the leases and then destroyed the vehicles. To me that sounds like an effort to placate their critics and nothing more. It absolutely wasn't a large market, especially at the time, but if they had worked on this technology they would be at the forefront of the hybrid/electric movement, instead of trying to create hybrid versions of full size SUV's which they brag about getting 20 mpg! GM could be selling a tiny electric city car and a more average sized electric, and all sorts of other hybrids and stuff for those who travel long distances on a regular basis. I mean realistically theres only a few times a year I drive outside the range of an electric in a given day. Shit. Need to stay on target with this. Another thing GM need to do is drop about half of its product lines. They could save millions just on all the different emblems they make for the same vehicles. Drop Buick, thats an easy one. Drop GMC trucks, they're chevy's. Use a model like Toyota. They have their normal brand, Toyota, they have a luxury line, Lexus, and they have a cheap/kids line Scion. Caddy is going to be their Luxury line, Chevy will be the normal line and Saturn as the cheap/kids line, or Pontiac I don't care, yeah actually keep Pontiac drop Saturn. See the difference is that the Big Three are all conglomerates of historic old brands and theres going to be a lot of people hurt whenever they kill a brand. I bet some people were even upset when they killed Olds. Hummer is just stupid, kill that shit off. Saab was a funky company but now they're just Chevy's, Opel's or Subaru's, I can't see it being worth it. Anyway you get the point.
I honestly don't think the government has the ability to try to control the day to day operations of any of these bailout corporations. What I want to see is those with ability to be rewarded in appropriate proportion to said ability. If you're the best assembly line worker you should get paid accordingly, if you get the minimum done then you get paid accordingly. Same exact thing for the suits. I'm still a firm believer in narrowing the gap between the top and bottom of a corporation, which isn't to say equal. Sure the people who spent years and tens of thousands of dollars in college to learn a specialized skill set deserve more than those who just went to high school, at least to start. If you've been working on the line for a long time and are really good then you'll end up making more than some young guy with a bachelors working in accounting. I'm assuming you get what I'm saying, a sensible pay scale for everyone. The bottom rung is a living wage and the top is very comfortable indeed, but without being stupid. The guy at the top is not worth 400 times more than the person at the bottom.
All that said there is one glaring problem wiht my plan and I want to admit itbefore I get called out for it. If you only pay the brass what they're actually worth, and not what their ego's claim their worth then you're probably not going to be able to get the very best people for each position. Until the entire corporate world gets on board then you might be in trouble. That said they are on the brink of collapse begging the government to spare them so "trouble" is a very relative thing.
So here is my take on it. We as a society first need to cast aside our cold war views of the world and realize that you don't need to cower in fear at the word socialism. But currently we doing this fucked up mix of socialism and capitalism where we give a little bit to the bottom rung that has been left behind under capitalism, and we've taken away all risk to the very top levels by promising not to let them fail. It's like going to a casino and being told at the door that if you lose enough then you'll be recouped for your losses, by the taxpayers.
So to me we have a few options. The first is do the capitalist thing. Let them fail. Especially Chrysler, we've already bailed them out once. Using that as an example theres two ways to look at it. One is to say, "see that bailout worked, we saved Chrysler before and they turned around, we can do it again." Or you can say, "Because we bailed them out before they did not fix the inherent flaws in their business model and they never will so long as we continue to protect them." Lets just stick with the capitalist view, Milton Friedman and shit, it's not the governments job to run a business. The Government can regulate but it cannot mettle in the internal affairs of business. Friedman doesn't even want regulation but thats just stupid. So if these companies can get the loans the want and need from banks then go ahead. If the banks say these companies are too much of a risk then why the hell should the taxpayer take that risk? Oh sure go ahead and blame the fact that the banks are fucked too. Lassez-Faire bitches! Will this cause further problems, oh hell yeah it will, were talking millions of jobs for sure further sinking the economy and will probably be another domino that leads us into an old school depression. I'd really be curious what old Milton would say right now, he'd probably blame the impending doom on government regulations, claiming that if everyone had simply continued their shortsighted quest for ever increasing profits then none of this ever would have happened. Of course we also wouldn't have glaciers anymore and we'd really be running low on oil but who cares the economy would be booming! Were going to do something for them, so lets just forget about this pipe dream of pure capitalism and move on.
Socialist view. Don't bailout the companies, buy them out, or just nationalize them. The problem with this is that our government is not set up to deal with trying to directly run a business. I've gotten distracted by the news of the guys at Gitmo pleading for death. I'll talk about that next once I learn a bit more about it. But as much as my socialist leanings thing we should just buyout the companies and create like US motors or something. Make them produce cars that don't suck. Pay the workers what they deserve but cut out those non-producers at the unions. Theres no point in a union if your whole company is socialized anyway. Then there are all the obvious other problems with a socialist workforce.
UPDATE: I fucking hate blogger. I obviously wasn't finished with this, so I wanted to save it as a draft. Which means fighting with their stupid ass captcha program, no idea why you need to do that to save as a draft but then after the eighty seventh try (possible exaggeration) it works. Today I hop on and there it is published. Oh well. Ill try to finish it now.
I really don't see this country going the socialist route so I'm not going to bother expanding on that any further. And now that the House has passed a $14 Billion bailout. I find it very curious that the Republicans are blocking this. My first reaction is that, hey they've gone back to the ideology that once put them into power, fiscal conservation less spending and whatnot. They did oppose the big bailout, but wait they jumped on board once they added that extra little 150 billion in pork. So maybe this isn't about saving the country money. The cynic in me has a sneaking suspicion that the republican party might be so suddenly anti-spending because the spending might just might work. But see if they go along with it and it fails then they're culpable too, and they went against what they claim is their ideology. If they go against it, and it works then they'll spin it to somehow, but they perfect situation for them is to go against it, but the dems get it passed and it still fails to fix shit. Then they can gloat, Obama isn't the hero and they have a chance to become relevant again. Am I really so cynical that I think the republican party is so concerned with their own power that they will allow the country to crumble just to regain power.... after 8 years of bush. In a word. Yes. Yes I do.
So what do I think should be done? I guess we do need to bail the idiots out, but with massive forced changes. The first step I would take, and I have a distinct feeling that some of my liberal friends will balk at this, is to kick out the UAW. The union is one major reason why Toyota can turn a profit on a car built in the USA while paying a good wage and none of the big three can. I'll admit that I'm biased here but I just don't see much good in unions and I see huge negatives. So now the workers are getting paid based on ability, now lets look at the suits. Hey guess what, if you're at the top of any of the big three you might want to get a resume ready. And seeing as you're getting paid based on ability lets look at you're record. Oh my you had to beg the government to keep from closing up shop, guess what you don't get shit. If you fuck up a burger at Micky Dee's and get shit canned for you're incompetence you don't get a fucking severance package you get shit canned. If you lead a company with no foresight into the future, focus solely on building at-the-time-profitable SUV's while the rest of the worlds auto companies worked on fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources. To be fair the big three did put in some lame attempts at this stuff as well, GM build the first modern electric car back in the 90's with the EV1. It wasn't perfect but it was a good starting point for future automotive generations. So what did GM do? They took back all of them at the end of the leases, wouldn't allow owners to buyout the leases and then destroyed the vehicles. To me that sounds like an effort to placate their critics and nothing more. It absolutely wasn't a large market, especially at the time, but if they had worked on this technology they would be at the forefront of the hybrid/electric movement, instead of trying to create hybrid versions of full size SUV's which they brag about getting 20 mpg! GM could be selling a tiny electric city car and a more average sized electric, and all sorts of other hybrids and stuff for those who travel long distances on a regular basis. I mean realistically theres only a few times a year I drive outside the range of an electric in a given day. Shit. Need to stay on target with this. Another thing GM need to do is drop about half of its product lines. They could save millions just on all the different emblems they make for the same vehicles. Drop Buick, thats an easy one. Drop GMC trucks, they're chevy's. Use a model like Toyota. They have their normal brand, Toyota, they have a luxury line, Lexus, and they have a cheap/kids line Scion. Caddy is going to be their Luxury line, Chevy will be the normal line and Saturn as the cheap/kids line, or Pontiac I don't care, yeah actually keep Pontiac drop Saturn. See the difference is that the Big Three are all conglomerates of historic old brands and theres going to be a lot of people hurt whenever they kill a brand. I bet some people were even upset when they killed Olds. Hummer is just stupid, kill that shit off. Saab was a funky company but now they're just Chevy's, Opel's or Subaru's, I can't see it being worth it. Anyway you get the point.
I honestly don't think the government has the ability to try to control the day to day operations of any of these bailout corporations. What I want to see is those with ability to be rewarded in appropriate proportion to said ability. If you're the best assembly line worker you should get paid accordingly, if you get the minimum done then you get paid accordingly. Same exact thing for the suits. I'm still a firm believer in narrowing the gap between the top and bottom of a corporation, which isn't to say equal. Sure the people who spent years and tens of thousands of dollars in college to learn a specialized skill set deserve more than those who just went to high school, at least to start. If you've been working on the line for a long time and are really good then you'll end up making more than some young guy with a bachelors working in accounting. I'm assuming you get what I'm saying, a sensible pay scale for everyone. The bottom rung is a living wage and the top is very comfortable indeed, but without being stupid. The guy at the top is not worth 400 times more than the person at the bottom.
All that said there is one glaring problem wiht my plan and I want to admit itbefore I get called out for it. If you only pay the brass what they're actually worth, and not what their ego's claim their worth then you're probably not going to be able to get the very best people for each position. Until the entire corporate world gets on board then you might be in trouble. That said they are on the brink of collapse begging the government to spare them so "trouble" is a very relative thing.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Cost of the Bailout
This is interesting, comparing the cost (in modern dollars) of major governments expenditures to the cost of the bailout which may or may not work. I will say that including the Louisiana Purchase was a little dirty, I mean yeah it doubled the size of the country but it's always been considered on of the best real estate deals in history, although this has it listed as 217 Billion in todays dollars, I guess thats still a good deal for flyover country. Anyway the list shows that this bailout will cost more than the following list combined.
The Marshall Plan
Louisiana Purchase
Moonshot
S&L Crisis
Korean War
The New Deal
Iraq War
Vietnam War
NASA (all time budget) - but does that include the moonshot?
Vs.
The Bailout.
Admittedly theirs a lot of flaws in this, including things like the population is five times what it was a century ago, in theory we get a lot of this money back, and the cost of Iraq is much much more than the 600 Billion listed. But that doesn't change that this bailout is fucking insane.
The Marshall Plan
Louisiana Purchase
Moonshot
S&L Crisis
Korean War
The New Deal
Iraq War
Vietnam War
NASA (all time budget) - but does that include the moonshot?
Vs.
The Bailout.
Admittedly theirs a lot of flaws in this, including things like the population is five times what it was a century ago, in theory we get a lot of this money back, and the cost of Iraq is much much more than the 600 Billion listed. But that doesn't change that this bailout is fucking insane.
War on Drugs
Anytime you hear the words "war on" and it's not followed by a group of people then you should know that its not a war that can be won. You can't wage war against terror, drugs, poverty, or an idea, and you sure can't hope to win a war against stupid. I'm still in the middle of reading this article but so far it's pretty good. It makes the obvious comparison between prohibition and drugs. The "war on alcohol" as we would call prohibition if it occurred today, was a absolute failure even after enough of the country agreed with it to get a freaking constitutional amendment passed, it failed so miserably that they passed another amendment to repeal the stupid law, again taking a huge number of pissed off people to get it passed. It's also an interesting note that conspiracy theorists love to point out that the Taliban saw heroin as a great evil and tried to eradicate it, and were quite successful at it. I'm trying to find just how much they reduced Afghanistan's production but I want to say around 90%. Heres a little article about it. But then the US invaded and the peasants went back to the best way for them to make money, grow poppies. Production has increased 2,000 percent since the US invasion, constitutes 87% of the world supply, is 50% of Afghanistan's GDP, and is the worlds largest drug crop in a single country. Afghanistan under US control has more acres for the production of heroin (and illegal morphine) than Columbia does for cocaine. There are those who claim this is not a coincidence or even an unfortunate side effect of the "war on terror." But I'm sure I can take it that far. Is it possible? Yeah. But I just don't have enough evidence to put on tin foil hat. I will say that the US must have known this would happen and did not have a plan in place to prevent it. I'm just more apt to blame incompetence than malfeasances.
Anyway the war on drugs is an absolute failure. It's the main reason we have the crime rates that we have, its the main reason we have the insane prison population that we do that is doing nothing to help reduce this countries economic woes. We could drastically reduce the cost of prisons (which admittedly would put a lot of guards in my town out of work), we would tax the sale of drugs to help the federal government out of debt, we would take away the main source of illegal income in this country making getting a real job more appealing, and those who abuse drugs could get the treatment they need instead of a jail cell and ending any chance of a good life.
Who ever thought this was a good idea anyway?
Anyway the war on drugs is an absolute failure. It's the main reason we have the crime rates that we have, its the main reason we have the insane prison population that we do that is doing nothing to help reduce this countries economic woes. We could drastically reduce the cost of prisons (which admittedly would put a lot of guards in my town out of work), we would tax the sale of drugs to help the federal government out of debt, we would take away the main source of illegal income in this country making getting a real job more appealing, and those who abuse drugs could get the treatment they need instead of a jail cell and ending any chance of a good life.
Who ever thought this was a good idea anyway?
XKCD wrote one about me.....
Friends with detriments. A little too accurate to be funny. I've danced that dance more times than I can count. Guess I never really thought of it as insulting to the woman to assume that you can win them over by being the friend. I suppose it is in its own way. I guess I still just hold to the theory that a good relationship is really just an amazing friendship so it made sense to pursue it that way. For better or worse the accepted method is to have romance then figure out if you can be friends. I'm still learning...
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Porn
A woman I know just told me about catching her BF watching porn. I had to laugh, although it wasn't quite as funny once she said that was the reason for the crash diet she's doing right now. "The girls were younger and thinner than me so I want to lose weight so I appeal to him more." At this point I need to point out that this lady is cute, like real cute. I'm not sure exactly how old she is, but I know she looks younger cause I thought she was about my age until she mentioned a teenage kid. Until I heard about her BF today I had thought about flirting with her eventually, probably wouldn't have worked from a logistics standpoint but such logic and reason has no place in the game of love. ha. Sorry that was so corny I just had to keep it. Anyway like I said this lady is really cute, great personality and shit too but she was concerned with her appearance so thats what I'm focusing on at the moment. But I also want to talk about porn more generally. I'm sure it'll be a big shock to any reader that this perpetually single slightly obsessed with the ladies guy has in fact watched porn, on more than one occasion even! The first thing I'll talk about is what the people look like cause that was my friends concern. How many movies of any kind have ugly people? Now do you really thing they're going to have even average looking people in a movie where the people are going to be naked the whole time? The second part is, sure the porn star might be hotter than she is, but I bet the guy in the porn was better looking than her BF, probably better equipped as well. Oh, bet she didn't think about that before. I bet you don't fuck like the people in that movie either, thats why they're porn stars. Party like a rock star, fuck like a porn star. It's a phrase cause real people don't fuck like a porn stars. Which bring me to something she didn't mention. We only talked for like 30 seconds about this. Anyway, Porn is much much rougher, nastier, and dirtier that real sex. I came up with an analogy for this a long time ago and never had a chance to use it. I realized this one day while watching something that would probably disgust me if I was asked to perform it, but in porn its cool. Why is that? Why is it sexy on a screen but a bit revolting in reality? Same reason we love to watch action movies with the crazy shoot outs, car chases and senseless violence. I love the first Die Hard movie, that doesn't mean I want to go run around barefoot on broken glass shooting bad guys. A movie has to be over the top, if its just like normal life then it's boring. There needs to be something spectacular about it. In porn the people are going to be beautiful (usually) and the sex is going to be insane, because thats all their is in porn. In an action movie, the people are still going to be beautiful, the hero will be in a completely ridiculous situation and is going to find and equally ridiculous way out of it, and cars will explode for no particularly good reason, 'cause thats what an action movie is.
I know that the person who this is in reference to will never read this, unless I show her, but I still want to to say it. You're beautiful just the way you are, mentally and physically beautiful and it makes me sad to think that even someone as pretty and smart as you can be driven to stupid crash dieting because of something as silly as a boyfriend watching porn. You're better than that.
As for the more general issue of guys watching porn. If your man likes porn don't feel threatened, it's just porn. You don't assume that he's going to go on a killing spree after watching Rambo, so why assume that he's going to try to have an orgy with midget amputees while wearing a gorilla mask after watching porn?
I know that the person who this is in reference to will never read this, unless I show her, but I still want to to say it. You're beautiful just the way you are, mentally and physically beautiful and it makes me sad to think that even someone as pretty and smart as you can be driven to stupid crash dieting because of something as silly as a boyfriend watching porn. You're better than that.
As for the more general issue of guys watching porn. If your man likes porn don't feel threatened, it's just porn. You don't assume that he's going to go on a killing spree after watching Rambo, so why assume that he's going to try to have an orgy with midget amputees while wearing a gorilla mask after watching porn?
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Oh Shit Grasshopper
who loves me?
Cause I just found out what I want for christmas. Miyagi Dojo (Karate Kid) adult footed pajamas. I don't even wear PJ's but I'd rock this.
Cause I just found out what I want for christmas. Miyagi Dojo (Karate Kid) adult footed pajamas. I don't even wear PJ's but I'd rock this.
Close-minded, Opinionated and Judgemental
My first proper post in a while....
My sister loves to call me close-minded and it really annoys me. Not because I think I'm completely and totally open-minded, but because she thinks I should be. Yes I am opinionated, and I'm ok with that because all the opinions that I hold strongly I've thought about a great deal, usually done research and then came to my conclusion. Once I've done all of that it's true that I can be rather close-minded to arguments from people who have not. Why is that a bad thing? I'll listen intently to someone wants to talk about the problems with Obama's fiscal policy. I'll completely ignore or possibly berate and belittle anyone who says Obama is a muslim socialist terrorist. If being open-minded means I need to listen when stupid people say stupid things over and over then I don't want to be open-minded. I can't call that a straw-man but it is picking on an easy target, so lets keep going. I also seem (am) rather arrogant when it comes to religion vs. science. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have a scientific mindset and I have half a clue about standards of logic and evidence. For some reason if you ask for hard evidence of super-natural shit people get all uppity as if you were the one making an unreasonable demand. If you say that an all powerful omnipotent all loving magic sky daddy created the world including and an evil henchman to cause pain and suffering then sent his son, which is really him, to die to erase the evil from the henchman, and now all ya gotta do to be happy forever after you die is to love the son, which is really sky daddy, and the only proof you can present is a book written thousands of years ago that sounds exactly many many other books written at the same time, and I have piles and piles of archaeological evidence, incredible DNA evidence, and countless attempts to refute the idea, all of which have failed, then excuse me for seeming close minded when I laugh at your superstitions. Open minded is the way to approach a situation, its not the way you need to remain forever on a subject. Never slam the door entirely mind you, always be willing to hear out a good argument thats a huge part of the scientific mindset, but so if evidence. Not all views deserve equal standing, out of habit I almost said "I'm sorry but not all views deserve equal standing" but why should I be the least bit sorry about knowing that some arguments are far more robust than others? Just because you can find two sides to an issue doesn't mean they are equal. I think this is an major problem with journalism, they like to show both sides which is good, but lets say something like the autism-vaccine link, you know the one that doesn't exist, then fine show both sides but before the discusion they should have to briefly explain what their views are based on. First you can have the mother (or father) of an autistic child with her sob story and how she started an organization to stop the use of vaccines, then have the medical doctor who has spent years searching for a link between autism and vaccines, the exhaustive research thats gone into their side of the story. They don't do this because the discussion would be over at this point, once you show the incredible disparity between truth and truthiness then how can the discussion continue? Once you see that one side has actually put huge amounts of effort into finding the cause of autism, and have learned in no uncertain terms that they can rule out vaccines as the cause. While the other side is simply angry and in need of something or someone to blame. Then it would quickly get turned around to show the harm, the people who are dying because of parents who think that vaccines cause problems and forget that vaccines do prevent deadly diseases that are nearly eradicated but can quickly come back if people stop getting vaccinated. So to follow the thesis of this post, when I first heard about autism and vaccines, I thought it was interesting, its a terribly disease thats quickly on the rise and maybe they've found the problem. So I looked into it, check out the CDC website, do some googlin' and quickly find out that people blamed it on the mercury in vaccines. We know mercury is is bad so injecting it into children can't be good, so thats a good hypothesis, but then you find out that others agreed so they stopped putting mercury in the vaccines since (i think) 1996 and it had no affect on autism rates. Thats a good indicator that mercury wasn't the problem. Keep searching and find out that considerable research has been done to try to find the link, and none of the research can find any correlation between the two. So then when someone from work asks me to look this stuff up because a client is talking about it, I say that yeah I'll print out the info, but there is no link, vaccines don't cause autism but not getting vaccinated could kill your kid. I don't think thats close minded, but if you want to say that it is that fine cause I probably don't care about your opinion anyway. The problem comes when its my sister that says it and I do care about her opinion, at least a little bit.
Another friend thinks I'm very judgmental, and I'm really not sure if I am or not. Personally I think everyone is judgmental and I'm not sure why we try to pretend we aren't or even why we think we shouldn't be judgmental. Don't judge based on stereotypes, thats obviously bad, and don't be quick to judge but once you know the person a bit you decide if you like them, if they're a good person or not, thats judgment and it's a good thing. Personally I think I'm bad about only seeing the good in too many people and ignoring their glaring faults. I don't discriminate, and I'm nice to almost everyone, but if someone does something I don't like then hell yeah I'm going to judge that person by their actions. The flip side of that is judging people as nice or friendly or whatever based on their positive actions. Again whats wrong with that?
Actually I think the real reason that she calls me judgmental is that she thinks I look down on everyone, which isn't an entirely false charge. I can be an arrogant prick, I know that. But the specific thing that I do that I know pisses her off really isn't meant to be an arrogant thing at all. When a friend says something that isn't true I correct them, and this annoys people. In my head I'm trying to teach them so that the next time around they are talking about the subject they can have more knowledge on the subject. I'm really not trying to be insulting or belittling at all, I'm not even trying to show off, but I know it comes off that way.
So as for being close-minded, if I don't know about the subject I'm very open, once I know about it you damn well better have some evidence if you want to try to change my mind, and if you want to call me close minded for not listening to an uninformed opinion, then go fuck yourself. As for judgmental, well again I think the other part is the real issue and I should work on letting minor shit go. But an Ant and all other insects are still animals motherfuckers (inside jokes aren't a good idea on a blog btw)
My sister loves to call me close-minded and it really annoys me. Not because I think I'm completely and totally open-minded, but because she thinks I should be. Yes I am opinionated, and I'm ok with that because all the opinions that I hold strongly I've thought about a great deal, usually done research and then came to my conclusion. Once I've done all of that it's true that I can be rather close-minded to arguments from people who have not. Why is that a bad thing? I'll listen intently to someone wants to talk about the problems with Obama's fiscal policy. I'll completely ignore or possibly berate and belittle anyone who says Obama is a muslim socialist terrorist. If being open-minded means I need to listen when stupid people say stupid things over and over then I don't want to be open-minded. I can't call that a straw-man but it is picking on an easy target, so lets keep going. I also seem (am) rather arrogant when it comes to religion vs. science. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have a scientific mindset and I have half a clue about standards of logic and evidence. For some reason if you ask for hard evidence of super-natural shit people get all uppity as if you were the one making an unreasonable demand. If you say that an all powerful omnipotent all loving magic sky daddy created the world including and an evil henchman to cause pain and suffering then sent his son, which is really him, to die to erase the evil from the henchman, and now all ya gotta do to be happy forever after you die is to love the son, which is really sky daddy, and the only proof you can present is a book written thousands of years ago that sounds exactly many many other books written at the same time, and I have piles and piles of archaeological evidence, incredible DNA evidence, and countless attempts to refute the idea, all of which have failed, then excuse me for seeming close minded when I laugh at your superstitions. Open minded is the way to approach a situation, its not the way you need to remain forever on a subject. Never slam the door entirely mind you, always be willing to hear out a good argument thats a huge part of the scientific mindset, but so if evidence. Not all views deserve equal standing, out of habit I almost said "I'm sorry but not all views deserve equal standing" but why should I be the least bit sorry about knowing that some arguments are far more robust than others? Just because you can find two sides to an issue doesn't mean they are equal. I think this is an major problem with journalism, they like to show both sides which is good, but lets say something like the autism-vaccine link, you know the one that doesn't exist, then fine show both sides but before the discusion they should have to briefly explain what their views are based on. First you can have the mother (or father) of an autistic child with her sob story and how she started an organization to stop the use of vaccines, then have the medical doctor who has spent years searching for a link between autism and vaccines, the exhaustive research thats gone into their side of the story. They don't do this because the discussion would be over at this point, once you show the incredible disparity between truth and truthiness then how can the discussion continue? Once you see that one side has actually put huge amounts of effort into finding the cause of autism, and have learned in no uncertain terms that they can rule out vaccines as the cause. While the other side is simply angry and in need of something or someone to blame. Then it would quickly get turned around to show the harm, the people who are dying because of parents who think that vaccines cause problems and forget that vaccines do prevent deadly diseases that are nearly eradicated but can quickly come back if people stop getting vaccinated. So to follow the thesis of this post, when I first heard about autism and vaccines, I thought it was interesting, its a terribly disease thats quickly on the rise and maybe they've found the problem. So I looked into it, check out the CDC website, do some googlin' and quickly find out that people blamed it on the mercury in vaccines. We know mercury is is bad so injecting it into children can't be good, so thats a good hypothesis, but then you find out that others agreed so they stopped putting mercury in the vaccines since (i think) 1996 and it had no affect on autism rates. Thats a good indicator that mercury wasn't the problem. Keep searching and find out that considerable research has been done to try to find the link, and none of the research can find any correlation between the two. So then when someone from work asks me to look this stuff up because a client is talking about it, I say that yeah I'll print out the info, but there is no link, vaccines don't cause autism but not getting vaccinated could kill your kid. I don't think thats close minded, but if you want to say that it is that fine cause I probably don't care about your opinion anyway. The problem comes when its my sister that says it and I do care about her opinion, at least a little bit.
Another friend thinks I'm very judgmental, and I'm really not sure if I am or not. Personally I think everyone is judgmental and I'm not sure why we try to pretend we aren't or even why we think we shouldn't be judgmental. Don't judge based on stereotypes, thats obviously bad, and don't be quick to judge but once you know the person a bit you decide if you like them, if they're a good person or not, thats judgment and it's a good thing. Personally I think I'm bad about only seeing the good in too many people and ignoring their glaring faults. I don't discriminate, and I'm nice to almost everyone, but if someone does something I don't like then hell yeah I'm going to judge that person by their actions. The flip side of that is judging people as nice or friendly or whatever based on their positive actions. Again whats wrong with that?
Actually I think the real reason that she calls me judgmental is that she thinks I look down on everyone, which isn't an entirely false charge. I can be an arrogant prick, I know that. But the specific thing that I do that I know pisses her off really isn't meant to be an arrogant thing at all. When a friend says something that isn't true I correct them, and this annoys people. In my head I'm trying to teach them so that the next time around they are talking about the subject they can have more knowledge on the subject. I'm really not trying to be insulting or belittling at all, I'm not even trying to show off, but I know it comes off that way.
So as for being close-minded, if I don't know about the subject I'm very open, once I know about it you damn well better have some evidence if you want to try to change my mind, and if you want to call me close minded for not listening to an uninformed opinion, then go fuck yourself. As for judgmental, well again I think the other part is the real issue and I should work on letting minor shit go. But an Ant and all other insects are still animals motherfuckers (inside jokes aren't a good idea on a blog btw)
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
ugh
What the fuck did I do to my shoulder? And my ribcage? I did move a few things for people at work yesterday, including a big cabinet thing but that shouldn't have cause anything. I did do other, um.... aerobic exercises for a few hours last night. I'm also a little concerned about possible carpel tunnel, a few times lately it's just felt like I've pulled something in the area below my wrist. I do type a bit, I guess its possible. I will feel so pathetic if I get injured typing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
