Doglife

The People I Know Who Smoke Weed

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:59:20 -0400

Note: I realize that this is a rather simplistic take on the whole thing. I don’t go into statistics or great detail, but the subject doesn’t call for it. When faced with considering whether this pot-stuff is good or bad, it’s pretty open-and-shut. I have no problem with smoking if that’s what somebody wants to do, I am merely pointing out that like everything in life there are consequences. Also, this is based on my first hand experience, which is, like all firsthand experience, limited by how many people I know.

Comfortable
Comfortable wherever they are, in whatever situation they are. If they live in squalor, then they are fine with it. They are fine with unpaid bills, with mooching and screwing people over. They are completely ok living with piles of dirty laundry, unwashed dishes, with being dependent and lazy. There is no imperative to do anything write now though they can plan like hell. They can make lists and talk about shit they are going to do. I would say that the emotional imperative to be concerned is gone, the ability to be decisive, or the need to be decisive is also gone. Their conscience is now purely intellectual. It’s as if they only do anything because they know they should, not because they feel they should.

Slow
They are slow to pick up on hints, or on anything subtle. Now, because I didn’t know them before they smoked weed I can’t say for sure whether this is a product of it or not, but they are slower, on average, than the people I know who don’t smoke. It could also be that they are thinking about smoking, instead of thinking about what is being said to them.

They can hold off
The idea that weed is not addictive comes from the fact that they can pause their intake for a stretch of time. Long enough to get clean to do a drug test, long enough to convince somebody that they are no longer smoking. They always go back though. It is a crutch. I would compare it to an average drinker who is not an alcoholic, but who enjoys alcohol. It is still a kind of addiction, but not the chemical-dependency kind, more along the lines of returning to something you enjoy if there is not a more important goal in mind.

Fairly cool under pressure
This is true, though it comes across as just not getting it, not understanding the situation. There are situations in life in which the only logical reaction is to feel stressed. Feeling stressed may not help things out, but the fact is that you should be because there is bad stuff going on. It’s human. So yes, I am saying that potheads don’t really act like regular people.

They tend to be identity-seekers
They like the idea of smoking as much as, or maybe more than, the THC itself. Would-be gangstas, would-be hippies, would-be anarchists, all taking pride in the fact that they are smoking an illegal substance. They smoke because they want an identity. They are being defiant and rebellious. This is them defying the government and their parents. They like to wear stuff with weed on it, or Rastafarian insignia, like a brand to ensure that people know they smoke. They like being around other smokers so that they can they can feel like part of a clique as they smoke.

Why it should not be legalized
For one thing, it could be done if they were motivated enough. Anything can be made legal with a motivated movement behind it. Look at the relative success of gay marriage. Are you telling me that gayness, which is strictly forbidden by the popular religions, is more acceptable in a country full of zealots than cannabis, which isn’t mentioned at all? The fact that it doesn’t look hopeful in the near future possibly says something about why it should not be legalized. It kind of fits with the perception of lazy slowpokes who would rather wallow than accomplish. Maybe the reluctance of the government to legalize it is just a test to see how much opposition they will face. They predict that the potheads will just say “fuck it” and go home to hit the bong if they meet a little opposition, and they have been correct so far. Apart from the fact that all kinds of law enforcement people would be put out of work, it might seriously affect the national ability to get anything done.

Pot-heads and their sandy vaginas

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:57:10 -0400

So earlier today I whipped out a post, somewhat poorly proofread, as are most of my posts, on problems I had with weed-smokers and smoking. People I have known personally, and extrapolating from my little group of acquaintances. It was not intended as flame-bait, the next one may be, but that one wasn’t. Unlike most of the stuff on the Internet these days, it was not pro-weed, and as such I expected any reaction I got to be hostile. I was right, there was much hysterical pants-wetting (well, more than I expected), for example, in this Disqus forum. How dare this motherfucker not agree with us! How dare he not fall in line with the fashionable opinion! He is ignorant!!! Ignorant, I say! That was pretty much the level of discourse. Only one of them, this guy, tried to actually articulate thoughts as to how I was wrong. The thoughts made no sense, but he tried, and for that I have slightly more respect for him than the rest.

As for the actual forum arguments, they were emotional and hastily-written by kids who were reacting instead of thinking. This is exactly the way Conservatives (like Fox News viewers) react to anything Liberals do that does not fall in line with right-wing propaganda. It’s what happens when you can’t summon up rational arguments and thus are forced to bring out the straw-man army, and the insults, in order to vent your rage. All dissent feels like an attack, and you cannot contain your wrath.

People like weed because it makes them feel good, the same reason I drink. Fine. Both things have negative side-effects. I was content to leave it at that, but now I am considering throwing up a blog specifically to troll pot-enthusiasts. Seriously, this could be a gold-mine.

There are no simple jobs

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:23:44 -0400

There are no simple jobs, except to the people who don’t have to do them. Cooking, on the surface and without looking too closely, seems less complex than say, surgery, but when you are faced the the array of flavors, flavor-combinations, techniques, and individual tastes, you see that it’s really not. The stakes are slightly different, a surgeon might be dealing with somebody’s life, but the fallout of failure is financial and with damage to his career, the same fallout from a chef-disaster. So on the personal level, the stakes are similar.

Both chefs and surgeons are notoriously difficult to work for, temperamental, prone to arrogance and bossiness. This is because of the constant pressure of things that could go wrong, and the sheer immensity of the tasks they are faced with, the massive amounts of knowledge they must have in order to form cohesive ideas, to assemble results from chaos.

Of course, both fields can be simplified too, a competent, experienced nurse can be an adequate substitute for a doctor much, if not most, of the time, and many chefs simply order pre-cooked food from food-service suppliers so that their work consists mostly of plating it. Any profession can be reduced from true complexity to being simple enough for hacks to pull it off.

It’s all in how you choose to perceive it. If you don’t want to pay them, if it suits your ego to be derogatory or insulting at a particular time, then their job is dumb enough for a five year-old to do, if you happen to be stuck doing it, then it feels like rocket science.

Impractical Science

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:39:28 -0400

The truth is that for all the supposed advances in science and technology there is very little in the way of practical benefits to show for it. So yes, your MP3 player can hold every song you ever heard in your life, and we can watch movies that look pretty on our really thin flat-screen TVs, and we can heat up our frozen boneless buffalo wings in 2 minutes, but none of that is even remotely important. Comfort, entertainment, convenience are all things mankind has proven that he can live without, but still that’s what everybody wants. All this brain-power thrown at the pursuit of pleasure and emblems of status, and yet science, the study of our environment is supposed to be so important. Mankind wants to wants to explore, wants to cures diseases, and make the world better, but more than any of that, we want cool stuff.

Sure we have medicines that cure a few diseases, but they can’t cure death. If they could, the world would be even more crowded than it is now and life would be miserable. They know stuff about the universe, yes, but how is that going to help anybody? How is any of that practically useful?

The only practical pursuits in science are to lengthen human lifespan, to improve the quality of life throughout that lengthened lifespan so that people can be more productive, and to ensure that life on planet earth is livable when everybody is living longer. Wanting to figure out the age of the Earth when everybody is afflicted with death is like wanting to catch the end of the in-flight movie before your plane crashes. It is all about discovering things that are irrelevant to the true nature of our existence.

The sad thing is that nobody seems able to tell how meaningless all of the gadget-making, minor-drug making, and space/time exploration is. The public gets so enthralled every time a smaller, powerful computer comes out, or a bigger thumb-drive, or some kind of new erection-aid is discovered that they forget that none of those things is really essential, and not even all that convenient, just minor improvements on things we already have.

There is an upside to everything

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:52:24 -0400

Loneliness
Loneliness when viewed on it’s own, without thinking about how other people are, is not a bad thing, especially when compared to the horrors of failed relationships, and the fact that most people are a waste of time. The loneliness experienced when surrounded by other people, is far worse that sitting at home in a quiet apartment with only your cat for company. Society pressures people to associate with other people, not because this makes sense or because this is necessarily healthy, but because your average person lacks the emotional and psychological resources to survive without a support-group of friends and family. In a sense, being lonely, and being able to handle it for more than 10 minutes, means that you are stronger than you average person.

Impotence
Sex, like Christmas, like Valentine’s Day, is just another commercialized product that big-business has taken control of, repackaged and is in the process of selling back to you. Commercial sex is a lot bigger deal than the real thing. The whole problem of psychological impotence is due mostly to sex being such a big thing to everybody. If you are impotent and are able to accept it, then that takes some of the pressure off, which in turn will take care of the impotence if it is, in fact, psychological and not, you know, cancer.

Exhaustion
You get to sleep at night. There is nothing like being tired at night to get you to sleep. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, and in those cases, being exhausted can serve as a distraction from other problems you may have. Like pain it tends to swallow up everything else in your life.

Hunger
Apart from making you appreciate food, you get a tolerance for those basic uncomfortable situations of which adult life is full. It makes you less of a pussy, and patient. Note that short-term hunger is different from chronic hunger leading to starvation, though I guess, the same principle holds true. You also may lose weight if you are hungry enough of the time.

Smoking
There are apocryphal benefits relating to the positive effects of nicotine on the part of your brain that is affected by Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease. There is more stuff concerning the relative immunity of smoker’s to airborne diseases due their passages constantly being flooded with mucus, but there are more definite benefits to smoking, that while not make up for the obvious drawbacks, are definitely there. These benefits include:

Something to do with your hands

A basis to socialize with other random people in designated smoking areas

Something to look forward to every hour or two

A long tradition of smokers in movies that serve as a club to which you have been admitted

Something to force self-righteous non-smokers to keep their distance

Poverty
There is no greater motivation to work hard that the desire to escape poverty and a life among the poor. The whole reason rich kids like Paris Hilton are the way they are is because they have not had enough poverty in their lives. Poverty can also teach you the value of money. To be honest it does not always work, but it’s an excellent teaching tool that is available only to the poor.

Incompetence
Incompetence and stupidity do not always go hand in hand. A stupid person can be, and usually are, competent at limited tasks that don’t call for a lot out outside-the-box thinking, and most intelligent people are incompetent at something. The upside of incompetence is that you get the motivation to learn if you are courageous enough to keep going even after your incompetence has been demonstrated.

The crack pipe of denial

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:44:03 -0400

You have all of these rules that don’t fit with the complexities of real life in the real world. Don’t smoke this. But why? Because we say it’s harmful. But the science doesn’t say that. Ok, here, go to jail, get raped for a few months and we’ll see what you say. You don’t hit your wife even though the crazy bitch once punched through a plate glass window and threatens to do it again about once a month. Click the wrong link on the Internet, go to jail. Your browser pre-fetches the wrong page in an innocent Google search (Firefox does this by default) and you go to jail. You can deny and deny and deny all you want to, you are still going to jail and there is not a person who knows you who would argue otherwise because of the shit they found on your hard-drive (“I can’t believe he was into that!”). You will see a story on your local TV news about the guy who got caught with this shit on his computer, they will give your name, and that’s it for your entire life.

It doesn’t matter what you actually do, what your circumstances actually are, or whether you had no control over the situation. If they can catch you, and offer some evidence that you are guilty they will and that’s that. The bruises on her face will make the jury and the public hate you even if you were the one in traction for a month. Not even your lawyer will try very hard. The truth is irrelevant to everybody else but you the way it was irrelevant to you when the same thing happened to somebody else.

Seriously, does it matter to you at all that there are men in prison for crimes they did not commit? Does it matter to you that many of the “releases because of DNA” stories never reach the local, let alone national, news? Does it matter to you that many of the innocent men in prison never committed crimes that would involve DNA evidence? No, it doesn’t, because you don’t want to think about the possibility that it could happen to you, even if you aren’t poor, or from a minority group.

The innocent guy behind bars for another man’s crime is so played-out, has become so much of a cliché that nobody cares anymore, it has lost whatever shock-value or empathetic charm it had before. It’s not as cinematic or entertaining. Once you take away all that good stuff what you have left is the depressing fact of a man who has lost years, often decades of his life in a hellhole with genuinely vicious people. It’s depressing, and who wants to be depressed? Well, ok, at least he’s out now, let’s give him some money and move on. Let’s think about something funny and hip! Hey, wanna see a picture of a cat? It’s a cute cat!

Seriously, escape, diversions, that’s how you choose to handle the difficult things. If you don’t look at all the ugly things showing in through the cracks, then you don’t have to deal with the feeling that maybe you should be doing something, anything, about them. It’s much safer in a darkened room, with an episode of Lost playing on your new flat-panel, and your laptop open on your lap. If you don’t think about the ease with which your rights, your freedom, everything you have worked for, can be taken away from you, without you even trying, then you don’t have to be afraid. You can just light up your little crack-pipe of denial and puff away.

How people react to new things

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:50:29 -0400

Fear
The first thing they feel is fear. How do I handle this? How do I react? Usually they try really hard to pretend that nothing strange is happening, that this is all normal. They try to ignore the oddity. When first faced with it they dredge up the last thing they remember hearing or reading, and adopt that as a guideline. As things filter back, things heard long ago or seen on TV, or overheard in restaurants, they refine their approach a little bit.

Searching
If the recovered bits of knowledge from the furthest reaches of their brains are not particularly negative they may try, tentatively, to embrace the new thing. Often they will opt for peaceful co-existence. But they are always looking for knowledge, new ways to process it, always open to the observations of others like them.

Whispering
At this point they will gossip, sitting and whispering, sharing speculations. At some point somebody will voice a particularly frightening possibility, or even an outright lie regarding the new thing. Panic will over-ride reason and they will react as a group, each one reinforcing the fear of the others. See, I am afraid too, there must be something to this.

Lynching
Not necessarily literal lynching. They will seek to remove this new thing from their presence. They will broadcast their fearful speculations as a means of infecting more people with fear thereby getting power to remove this feared object.

Recipe for a compliant society

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:43:17 -0400

1. Domed cities
This is less about aesthetics or about clean air than it is about control. You want a greenhouse, a place where you so completely control the citizenry that even what they breathe I not up to them anymore.

2. Crack pumped through the ventilation system
This will keep everybody happy. Instead of a salary in currency you give them a crack high every few hours as an incentive to get more work done. The people who want to get high without working will be weeded out by the real workers themselves.

3. When they have outlived their uselessness they get recycled
Eventually all they will want to do is get high all the time and their productivity will fall. This is the point at which you recycle them and replace them with the young fresh ones who have never been high.

Phallic football

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:11:31 -0400

You ever notice that football players look like penises? That rounded helmet and the body-protection that keeps them rigid. There is also the matter of tackling where the player launches, or thrusts, himself at a target, helmet first. I have noticed that they spit a lot on the sidelines too.

Other issues here that are not found in other sports:

The tight pants. Why? It’s like playing in a latex body-suit. Why does a manly sport need to show off the glutes of its participants?

The contact. They all have to pile up to stop a runner or to get a loose ball. Piles that are two or three men deep, writhing and grinding.

The shape of the ball. Not exactly phallic, but elongated, which makes it more phallic than a regular spherical ball.

It seems like there is a lot of denial here. Being a heterosexual male football fan myself I am no way implying that this sport is gay, however, it does seem to have been designed by someone with issues.

Sex as a sport

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:02:24 -0400

Living in a Red-State or claiming a puritanical religion does not really indicate a lesser interest in sex, as the red-state obsession with adult material indicates. Clearly there is a market there that is in the closet and willing to indulge themselves only in private because sex has a negative stigma. I suppose that one way to make sex, and also porn, more publicly palatable would be to market it as a sport. A contest of fitness and skill and will. A version of wrestling where the winner gets certain benefits, or perhaps some kind of who-can-orgasm-first contest. Before you dismiss this, let me point out why this could work, how the athleticizing of sex would make it more acceptable:

Not for “pleasure”
The moral objection to sex is rooted in the fact that sex is pleasurable for most people. If the objective of intercourse is, say, for procreation, the it loses it’s offensiveness to moralists. In that case you clearly are not doing it for recreation, therefore you are not a hedonist or whoremonger. Well here you go, a reason to do it that involves competition instead of erotic bliss.

Feminism
Here we have an arena in which men and women could compete as equals and individuals. It’s about skill, not about upper-body strength or predatory instincts. Sex is the one arena in which men and women operate as equals in real life as well.

It is not all that different from many sports
Thing about the amount of close contact between MMA fighters on the floor, or boxers clinching, or basketball players posting up. Think about the nudity in professional wrestling, diving, tennis, bodybuilding. The only thing missing is penetration and heterosexuality.

Local sex leagues
These will provide all the benefits of any kind of local competition, like college or Olympic sports with the same tribal mentality and vicarious conquest. Conservatives love competition, and the lust for victory may eventually outstrip any prudishness.

Death and denial

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:18:21 -0400

Do you realize how much denial you have to use to get through an average day without losing your mind? Every old person, every car-crash, every homeless lunatic, every news story about cancer you encounter is a reminder of your future: The fast savage death, the slow slide into decrepitude, the squalid slide into decrepitude, suffering and death and brutal kicks to the ego all the way. But none of it bugs you does it? Not enough to keep you from functioning. You ever think that maybe it should? That maybe it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be crippled by terror and despair?

You have to pretend, to simply silence the horror, to close your eyes to it and distract yourself with work and pastimes to keep from letting it in.

Who fights your wars?

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:09:45 -0400

What kind of people do you get to fight futile wars? Do you send smart people, or people who are ready to die in the service of any objective no matter how pointless? Do you actively recruit and send forth the people who would make life better or the people at home, or the ones we can all do without?

Forget about Iraq or Bush or anything like that. Boil this down to the basic concept. You need a war that will be beneficial for certain reasons, but it not an essential war in that the safety of your citizens is not threatened, and nobody is in any danger of being invaded. Do you go tossing your best at the “enemy” or do you take the opportunity to get rid of some dead weight?

War could be seen as an equivalent of Keynesian hole-digging. You dispatch soldiers to another country, or to your borders, where they wait and, occasionally, die. They send home money as they do all of this, and are kept occupied, maybe even pick up a few skills and most of everybody is happy. But you don’t do this with the people who might actually be getting something done in other areas. You put only your most expendable in danger.

Entertainment for bad people

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:05:34 -0400

Hey, Hollywood, how about some movies with unscrupulous people? Bad people need to be entertained too, you know. How about one where the bad guy wins, where the murderer outsmarts the detective? The whole perception of “right” as always winning, or as people who work for the government as always being right, it’s a little suffocating. A little tiresome. How much of the regular world can identify with that? All the people with bodies in their backyards, the closet bigots and the child-molesters who never got sent to prison. You are missing out on a whole untapped market there.

I don’t mean that you have to glamorize bad things either, the glamorization of anything is tiresome too. Too many skinny beautiful people with morals in a world of fat and/or ugly sociopaths. Sure, everybody wishes they could be Clive Owen or Megan Fox, but by the time you hit a certain age you know that not even plastic surgery can help you and you secretly long that the heroes were not so completely different from the ghoul in your mirror.

I want to see a hero take out his dentures and go down on grandmother and it not be a Farrelly brothers comedy, I want to see a vile and stereotypical pimp outsmart some cops and a Columbian drug-lord who is a genuinely better person than the police-officers trying to trap him, and he should speak perfect English. I want to see the stereotypes and cultural hypocrisies turned on their heads.

Real Racism

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:04:16 -0400

Comedian Bill Burr says that “real racism is subtle”. And these days it is, due to a real life version of Godwin’s Law, where nobody wants to continue arguing the minute you bring the master race shit into it. The white hood stuff has been relegated to the backwoods and small-towns where nobody expects anybody else to make sense. It belongs to the Palin-lovers or the inner-city Farrakhan-worshipers and people who wish the world would go back 40 or 50 years so that they can feel more at home in it. They can’t handle the subtlety

Real racism, meaning the kind that exists everywhere else, is so subtle that sometimes its presence is hidden even from the racist. Usually what happens is that this person has a definite vision of what racism is in their heads which allows them to condemn other people of their race, but not themselves. I am not a racist because I don’t believe they should be lynched. I am not a racist because I have had those people in my home many times. I am not a racist because I don’t chase them out of my store with a shotgun.

Real racism allows you to have sex with members of another race, have people you can call friends who are from another, hated race, work for a boss who is from that race etc.. It is very inconsistent. Of course, I am not telling you anything you don’t already know.

Football with babies

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:41:26 -0400

In the future we will play football with babies, you know, to increase the stakes a little bit and make sure everybody “takes care of the ball”. Don’t worry, though, they will not be real babies, just clones. Clones will be the new black people by then. How it will work is that we will start out with robotic babies. Imitation babies. They will look real but not really be real, so that the spectators, the fans will be eased into this notion of something really being at stake here. If the baby dies there will be more, you will have a baby-holder with NFL certified babies. The babies will have to be of a standardized length and weight, so that most likely they will be clones of the same person, a white person so as not to send any racist messages. This move to baby-ball will discourage wide-receivers and running backs from spiking them, as that will be seen as “cruel”.

Basketball will not be so easy, though I foresee it being more of a contact sport than it presently is, with pads and helmets. Maybe gun-ball would be better. Dribble and shoot. Each team outfitted with bulletproof vests and 9mm handguns. Maybe the ball will have a small bomb instead and the timer on the bomb will be used instead of a shot-clock. Instead of dunking on somebody you get to shoot them at close range. Why not?

The fact is that porn has nowhere to go from here unless we make something currently illegal, legal. There is too much money to be made from jaded perverts in society. Maybe snuff-films with terminally ill people (think that girl in Fight Club) or bestiality, or necrophilia. The fact is that we are running out of orifices that can be fisted (the oral-fisting thing just is not going to take off), and that experiment with girls eating feces, the test to see how popular it would be, that didn’t really work either except as a spectacle in grossness and to see how far chicks would go when given attention.

Society is jaded and wanting more. The morality of government will have to relax to deal with this, all those ever-hungry perverted imaginations.

Why you don't want to catch flies, with or without honey

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:49:05 -0400

This is the end-argument of people who like to appease, the why-can’t-we -all-get-along folks. You catch more flies with honey, meaning that you get more people to agree with you if you don’t piss them off. The big question is, do you want these people agreeing with you? Let’s say that you could get Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage over to your side if you were to be nice to him (or, if you are Republican/Conservative I guess the equivalent would be Jon Stewart), would it be worth it? If you could change the minds of the people you hate at work, the ones with the lame ideas who get by by being pretty or kissing ass, would you want to?

The line is between the people who have a genuine argument full of merit, and the people who just want to win a fight, who are looking to do this by breaking your will to argue with them. If I am right and know I am right, and know that my argument is unassailable and should be obvious to any adult, then I don’t particularly care if you join up with me.

Your continual dissent just marks me out as being smarter than you are, and when other people do I agree with me, we can all point and laugh at you and feel better about ourselves.

Flies are flies, people. You don’t want them in your house.

The hypocrite market

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:49:35 -0400

Search the word “pornography” on Amazon and you find all these books telling you how to break the addiction, search for “porn”, however, and you find other books that seem to hold a positive view of it.

The anti-porn books, I suspect are aimed more at the wives of guys who watch it than at the guys themselves. It’s the kind of book a woman gets for a man as a part of an ultimatum to stop or get a lawyer. They frame it as an addiction, which would make it an easy problem to solve, simply find something more important to replace it, which is the solution to all addictions. There, problem solved in one sentence, no need for a book. But they saw a market (these control-freak wives) and they exploited it with books that are useless.

By framing it as an addiction in the first place you give it a ton of power, ranking it up there with heroin and crack, but it’s not really an addiction is it? If it is normal for people to want sex, then wanting sex in itself is not abnormal, and porn-consumption can be a symptom of this. If you can’t miss an NFL game during the season, and spend the off-season watching old highlights and closely following the draft, then you are not an addict, just a really big fan. But Porn has that evil, sex, and must be characterized differently. You can’t be a porn-fan, you have to be some kind of psychological cripple who should be in rehab.

These books an example how to play on the insecurities and hypocrisy of other people and make money doing it.

Are vaginas really all that awesome or is the female withholding of them just a ploy to drive the value up?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:01:54 -0400

If every woman was a slut would there be a market for pornography? For prostitutes? Probably not. But never discount the stupidity of the market. People pay for bottled water. There is the fact that it supposedly tastes better, is cleaner, and you get the appearance of more disposable income than the guy who drinks from the tap. In a world of freely available vaginas and undiscriminating women, there may still be value in being able to show off by paying for some. Prostitutes would be like Jewelry and pointless accessories for you car. You could say you were looking at porn because you were just so tired of the real-life chicks, thus proving that you were a man of distinction.

Note also that women have freely available penises at present and it just seems to have made them more picky. The glut in the heterosexual penis-market allows women to choose based on other factors apart from willingness to have sex. It is not unreasonable to suppose that if a working female aphrodisiac were to be invented and introduced into the public water-supply, that men would, after the initial phase of excitement, be more and more reluctant to have sex.

So yes, the value is being driven up. But is it being driven up by women? The answer to this question is a definite probably not. Religion is a part of the reason women are less willing to have sex, as well as male cockblocking. No guy wants a world in which other guys get to have sex and they don’t, hence the adoption of rules (by old guys) to restrict coitus. This is why the invention of erection drugs is such a big deal. The old guys who control things don’t want to see morals collapse completely just when they are too old to take advantage of them, they now have a shot at participating when there are orgies in the streets, which means that orgies in the streets are more likely to occur now than they were, say 10 years ago. Religion, for the most part, likes the no-sex thing because it creates a tension that can then be funneled towards other ends. Try getting somebody to strap a bomb to themselves when they know they can go get laid.

How books can be scary

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:00:26 -0400

All the words
Books for grown-ups have lots of words in them. Lots. Pages with walls of text, and for it all to make sense you have read all of them.

You don’t know this guy (risk)
You trudge through all of these words and what’s the guarantee that you won’t be bored and full of regret at the end? None. There is no such guarantee. You could go all that effort and still not feel fulfilled at the end.

What do you get for doing it?
You don’t get paid to read, you don’t meet girls by reading, basically, all you do is lose time. In fact, if you don’t get your books at the library, you pay them, to let you read.

It takes concentration
Concentration is hard when you are not used to it. There are so many distractions in the world around you, so many things that don’t take brain-power, like TV. You turn on the TV, you watch a few minutes of a show, you can tell if it’s boring or not. No effort necessary.

There are so many of them
You ever been in a library? The place is riddled with books. A million books each with a million words an more coming out every day. You will never be able to read a significant fraction of that, so why bother trying?

"Sympathy" vs self-interest

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:19:00 -0400

The same kind of nitwit thinking that gets you by on a daily basis with your retarded children and you dead-end repetitive job, is not really the kind of thinking that you should apply to matters of state or policy. This is why having a conversation about politics with a moron is so annoying and pointless.

Let me give you an example that I came across today:
Person 1 got arrested for doing something that is arguably wrong and tells person 2. There follows a conversation that can be summed up like this:

Person 1: That’s a gross violation of my civil rights!
Person 2 (the moron): Well, I have no sympathy for you if you put yourself in that situation!

Sympathy. This reasoning is applied across a wide spectrum of complaints. The arrest and deportation of legal and illegal immigrants, the harassment of minorities by the police, the harassment of environmental protesters by various arms of the government. A few years back it was applied by some Conservatives in defense of the harassment of legal east Indian immigrants in the wake of 9/11. The fact that they wore turbans and thus might be mistaken for Arabs justified retarded rednecks harassing them.

I love the fact that they view rights and freedoms as dispensations that they as citizens are allowed to “bestow” upon whoever pleases them. Bestow in the sense of having a favorable but irrelevant opinion of it. Like the “good” immigrants, meaning people from Europe and submissive Asian women imported to take care of old and aging rednecks in the rural south under the guise of marriage.

“Sympathy” should have nothing to do with how you view somebody’s rights. The more rational person sees everybody else’s rights as an extension of their own, meaning that if somebody else can get fucked because of their skin-color or ethnicity, then the possibility exists for me to get fucked some equally invalid reason. That’s it, common-sense self-interest. Pure selfishness is how you make a society better.

Note who these people tend to be though, the bigots and the people who hold dissenters in contempt, they tend to be Conservatives, hypocritical Christians, people who claim to be guided something other than logic. They claim a religion of kindness and humility and selflessness. The enlightened self-interest that I am talking about does not fit into their supposed motives for doing anything.