Goliath

Nobody routs for Goliath.  I mean he's just so  big and it's just so unfair.  Now, the biblical Goliath, presumably, was born that big. The real world Goliaths, however, usually got there with hard work.  When people on the bottom are looking up; they do so with contempt, they thumb their noses at them.  Talk about how they don't do shit because they always defer things down the totem pole. You hear things like, "I always tell him what to do, and he takes my advice" or "I can do his job, he just has a fancy degree" all this is complete and utter bullshit.  I will give some primary examples and then I'll end this.  I'm having deja vu, so I believe I've written about this before.

Nurses always believe they know more about medicine than doctors. I recently had an argument with a close friend of mine whose mother is a nurse. My dad is a doctor.  We argued on this issue and her only evidence is, "I know a lot of nurses and they all say this."  Well, consider the sources.  People don't want to admit that they are expendable.  I responded that I knew a lot of doctors.  This is true but I couldn't say the second part because Goliaths, like doctors, don't assert the truth that the nurses are much more expendable than they are because that's just mean.  That's like a fat person being able to make fun of skinny people all day long but if a skinny person makes fun of a fat person, it is seen as much meaner and harsher.  Nurses advise doctors and doctors judge the validity of the advice.  The best example of this is the TV show House. 

      People that don't appreciate Goliath (most of the population), could look at the hospital and say, "House doesn't do shit, he just makes fun of people, hits them with canes and has his staff figure out what is actually wrong."  Yet, as the seasons progressed, crew members left or got fired, once he got rid of everyone and used a janitor.  When that happened, the patients got treated well.  But, when the staff decided to work independently of House or when House was in the hospital, the patient care suffered.  It's very simple why.  Those at the bottom of the totem pole strike all the time, especially in Europe, but nothing really bad happens in the company except bad PR.  If there wasn't a threat of violence by the strikers, the employers could easily replace them with other workers.  But, if the employer would go on strike, the company would probably collapse in not too big of time.  Doctors and the Goliaths normally spent an obscene amount of time in school or building a company from the ground up.  They took the most risk, they deserve more money, and they know it inside and out because they have to pick up the slack the staff does for them when they're not there.

I for one, will always respect Goliath, even as a David.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Blackfish

With the CNN documentary, Blackfish, people are now petitioning to free the killer whales from captivity.  This is classic liberal thinking; "Since we don't like it, nobody can like it."

If someone is offended by the documentary and appalled at how the killer whales are treated, then they shouldn't go to Sea World anymore.  That simple.  Why feel the need to ruin it for everyone else?  The object of knowledge distribution and informative documentaries is to educate people on an issue and then let them decide what to do with it.  Unfortunately, this is not what those who sympathize with the makers of the video do.  They want to ban all killer whales in captivity and ruin everyone's fun.  

If the documentary is as powerful as you claim it to be then it by itself will cause the demand for killer whales to plummet and Sea Worlds to close.  Then the owners may have to decide to release the killer whales back into the wild.  Or maybe they'd just kill them.

I'm sure that many "experts" claim that killer whales could easily transition from captivity to the wild but I'm not so sure it'll be that easy.  They may die anyway.  Maybe if Sea World goes under, they'll kill the whale.

The point of any art, which is what the video is, is to release a catharsis or an emotion.  Real art should stand on its own and need no interpretation.  That is what Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged.

Some people who saw the video were encouraged to go to Sea World because they believe they have a chance to see a trainer get killed by a whale.  I know that's not what the video makers intended but that's art, it changes based on who's looking/reading/watching it.  Like all things, I let the invisible hand decide.  Here's the video, nobody is forcing you to go to Sea World so don't force us to not go.  Let's just see if this documentary is powerful enough to convince people not to go.  Something tells me, it isn't.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page

What I learned from the government shutdown

What I learned from the Government shutdown
The government is shut down! What are we going to do?  Who are we going to blame? 
These are the questions that all the pundits and "experts" are battling.  Well, I
was raised by a scientist and all we have now is a variable that has been
eliminated.  Based on what happens, we can see what that variable does.  So far, it
doesn't seem like it does much.

First off, the last two weeks, I have not noticed anything different in my life.  I
wake up, I go to work, I check e-mail, eat food at restaurants etc. etc.  Nothing
has changed except every now and then when I watch TV I see something about a
government shutdown and people coming up to me asking me what it all means.  Here's
the answer in a nutshell...it means the conservatives are right, we don't need the
federal government that much because private enterprises will pick up the slack if
people want it.  Let's see some examples from the last two weeks.

While watching a sport channel, I looked at the ticker on the bottom of the screen
and read, "Army vs. Navy game may be cancelled due to the government shutdown." 
Well that's a great way to get Americans upset, take away their football.  Me, I
couldn't care less.  I've never watched the Army vs. Navy game, I am an Ohio State
fan so I was looking forward to that game.  That and starting at noon on Saturday
there are other college football games to choose from.  Who cares if one game is
missing? and I do have a cousin that's an alumnus of West Point and I still didn't
care.  A couple days later, I was watching the same sports channel and I see
something like, "Army vs. Navy has received funds from private enterprises and the
game will take place." Well, apparently someone cared.  Problem solved.  The next
Saturday the armed forces were still able to play football because they found the
money.  Apparently people cared even about the non-rivalry game.  Alright so that
crisis averted.

Then we had the military controversy.  If you're killed in action in the military,
your family gets $ 100,000.00.  Now the families of those who died and are in all
those coffins coming home from Afghanistan won't get paid because of the government
shutdown.  Now, President Obama could just take his pen out, draft an executive
order and pay these families but no he didn't do that.  President Obama seemed to
use this to stick one to the Republicans and their shut down so he screwed our
troops.  I truly believe Bush would have been crucified definitely figuratively and
if the liberals got to him, maybe literally.  Obama, however, always gets a pass and
this time the liberals don't have to be hypocrites because they're rooting for our
enemies anyway in the war.  Now, the American people can be like, "see with the
government shut down, the military families won't get any money."  What happened
though?  The corporations ruined the liberal cause once again.  Fisher Price(tm) was
like we'll pay it.  Then private individuals started donating money to Fisher
Price(tm).  Some schools even decided to do a fund raiser to raise money to pay the bill to
the military families.  A corporation showed up the government by throwing all their
money around and the private citizens started reimbursing the corporation.  Yea,
this capitalist society is so full of greed you can't rely on generosity (sarcasm
greatly involved in the last sentence).

The only thing I can see is the national parks are closed.  I try to hike in a
national park every year and I love them.  This is a case where private citizens
cannot step in because they're not allowed.  I have a feeling though if you were to
say sell the Grand Canyon, there would be buyers.  You can even put in the contract
that it has to be used so people can see the view and not destroy the park for
commercial enterprises.  That can be done.  When I brought this up to someone they
said, "Don't you have to pay to get into a national park?"

Yes you do.  It's $20 per car for the day.  You can get week passes
and other denominations but that's the one I normally pay. 
Apparently national parks are run at a loss or else they would have
stayed open because it is a way for the government to make money. 
Or, this is the only thing those opposed to the shutdown could
shutdown to make people notice.  Either way, this is not too
catastrophic to me.  Like I said, if the government were gone, 
someone would buy the national park from them.  Liberals may
contend, "Yea but the entrance price would probably go up so our
poor couldn't appreciate them."  If you were so concerned about
that, you'd complain that it's twenty dollars a day!  That's a
price! Why not just have it be free?  Well the government wants some
money too.  There's that greed again.

If the government shut down is really the Republicans' fault, I say thank you
Republicans for proving my conservative views are right.  All these programs and
whatever the hell the federal government pretends to do are probably just as
ineffective and useless as I thought.  There really is too much government waste. 
So, now that we know this, let's use the federal government only for strong national
defense, to keep out national parks open (naturally keeping the entrance fees), and
the Supreme Court when we don't think our state courts upheld the constitution
enough.  There's probably a couple more things but It won't cost that much if those
are your only expenses so then you can lower taxes and give more money to the
people.  Any kind of gap this will cause will be picked up by private enterprises as
we noticed during the shut down.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be
bought at the bottom of this page

Homophobic gays

Homophobic Gays

 I love paradoxes. How can someone be a homophobic gay?  Well it's actually more common than what the media would like to contend.  I could search through lexis nexis and other sites to come up with these articles from "Blade" (a homosexual magazine) of people feeling guilty because they engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex when they consider themselves gay but quite frankly, I'm just too lazy.  I know they exist because when I wasn't so lazy, I have read them.  But on to the issue.  

Gays are unlike most minorities in that it's extremely hard to stereotype them nor can you definitively identify them all on the street.  There isn't a set pattern that describes them except that they engage in activities sexual in nature with the same sex as they are.  This definition doesn't even work too well as some women make out or do things sexual in nature with women to attract other males because they are heterosexual.  This type of person is the point of this essay; there is nothing wrong with calling that person "straight."  

I have met a gay man that openly say anti-gay comments like "I hate flamers."  It was odd when I heard this but he explained to me that flamboyant gays give gays like him (bulky muscles, facial hair and other "manly" features)a bad name.  I likened this to the same as Chris Rock when he gave his speech 'blacks vs. n-words' in a stand up routine in the late 90's.  I met this man in 2002, a lot has changed for gays in that time. Nowadays, gays have a new target, and it's anyone that admits anything that may provide evidence against a gay gene.  

I am very open about my asexuality.  Every one of my friends/acquaintances/family has accused me of lying with the exception of one of my gay friends.  The one friend, however, took exception when I said, "I became asexual when I was 21"  I know that it is a taboo now because the notion that you "became" a sexual preference is absolutely "beyond offensive."  But why?

This same friend recently posted a video that was captioned "After watching this, nobody will ever doubt being born gay." I had to watch this video to see what this "overwhelming" evidence was. I talk in my book how the "gay Gene" theory isn't given much validity and even gays aren't willing to take it to the next level by merely taking a blood test to see if they're really gay; much like I took a blood test to find out if I am O-.  The "nature vs. Nurture" debate, which is exactly what a born-gay assertion is(siding with nature), has been going on since Descartes debated Locke.  And since then, there has not been one issue that is definitively proven either way.  Locke, who believed we were born a blank slate (Tabla Rassa), believed everything was nurture.  He has yet to be proven wrong definitively.  At my college, a group of people argued gender was a social construct and not genetic.  Their proof, hermaphrodites have a "Y" gene(XXY) and they aren't considered male.  The logical answer would be "XY = male; XX= female" and there is a 3rd gender, "XXY = Hemaphrodite" Done.  But they didn't accept that thus leading to another chapter.  So, you're telling me, that sexual preference is the only thing in the history of the world that is exclusively nature?  I find that extremely hard to believe.  Like all nature/nurture arguments it's probably a combination of both, but this isn't an article about the "born-gay" notion.  

The video is people approaching straight people and asking, "When did you realize you were straight" to point out how ridiculous it is to ask that question.  I found out that gays are supposed to be extremely offended by answering this question.  This confused me because one of my gay friends volunteered it when she came out to me. She said, "I became gay when I was 12."  This is a normal age when people find out their sexuality.  I wish people would ask me that question about my asexuality instead of the normal, "You're lying."  Oddly, this same friend that is absolutely appalled by the question "When did you know you were gay?" has no problem when people tell me I'm lying.  What if someone accused him of lying about being gay?  If "When did you become gay" is "beyond offensive," then that I think goes into a whole new stratosphere. 

As I've talked to more and more gays, I find that either I just happen to run into the outliers or there is a real problem with the gay community.  They only accept you if you (a) Never admit to having done anything sexual in nature with a member of the other sex and (B) are liberal.  This means that the "club" normally designated LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) is false because bisexuals now are being ostracized by the gays and lesbians because they go back and forth from one sex to the other.  This goes directly against the "born gay" notion.  Any kind of group that ostracizes it's members if they don't think exactly like they do is dangerous.  Most liberal groups in general are dangerous; see occupy wall street and the multiple rapes, murders, and millions of dollars in property damage. 

Fact is, most gays have tried to do things sexual in nature with the opposite sex.  Maybe after experiencing this and not enjoying it, it made them discover they were gay.  Hence that would be the moment you realized you were gay and thus the answer to the "absolutely appalling" question of when you became gay.  

Now, is it offensive to ask a straight person that?  Of course not!  That would be hypocritical of me.  I also don't think it's a ridiculous question for straights and the people on the video shouldn't have been that shocked.  It probably happened right around the time you got over your "girls/guys have cootie" stage.  Me, I had my first crush at 3-years-old but the bitch moved to Spain thus ending our relationship. I never went through the cootie phase but I've been asexual for the last eight years.  Have I kissed or done things sexual in nature with people since then, sure, but I haven't enjoyed any of them, thus confirming my belief that I am asexual.  You don't lose your "gay card" just because you experimented with the opposite sex.  

If gays were tolerant of gays who do that, and let them be open about this experience instead of forcing them to repress it and not tell anyone as if they did something wrong, then I would have no problem with gays. Gays have become intolerant of people for not being as gay as them.  It used to be LGBT all stood together in solidarity to be accepted and not part of the DSM-IV (List of psychological disorders) like they were in the '70's.  Now the LG's hate the B's and have kicked them out of their club because they don't fit their mold.  Gays scream about how they want to be equal and society should tolerate them but they are intolerant of gays that after coming out, try activities with the opposite sex once in a while and shun bisexuals and asexuals.  

I met a flamboyantly gay man last weekend who asked me if I was gay.  I told him no and we talked about how I'm asexual and both gays and straights ridicule me for that.  He responded, "Gays hate me too because I hate Obama."  This is the other tisk-tisk.  If you're gay, apparently you're not allowed to be a Republican. There's a group called the "Log Cabin Republicans" which are gay Republicans and the gay community hates them.  Why? What does preferring to be in a relationship with the same sex have anything to do with your views on the economy, big vs. small government, abortion etc. etc.?   Yes Republicans tend to be against gay marriage but maybe the Gay Republicans link that view to "big government" which is a Democratic ideal.  Maybe they think, "the government has no right to tell me who to be with" and they extend that to, "The government has no right taking my hard earned money."  The latter being a right-wing view.  Are you really less gay because you don't believe you should kill a fetus? Are you less gay if you look at all the government waste and realize that they suck at investing money so maybe we shouldn't give them as much? Are you less gay if you don't want to rely on the government to defend your home and you'd rather have a gun?  I would say no to all these things. I don't get much static from other right-wingers because I'm pro-abortion.  Why does the gay community give Republican gays (not all of them are officially in the log cabin Republican camp) so much static?  Why are they viewed as traitors?  Where is the tolerance they so loudly cheer for?  I guess the Gay community is like any other liberal organization; French Revolution, mob mentality.  Remember, Robespierre, one of the founders and starters of the French Revolution, would eventually get guillotined by French Revolutionaries for not being radical enough.  Seems that's where this is headed to.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.  

Reflecting on Boston

"Any time a bomb is used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror"

~Barak Obama ~ Eerily similar to my quote on facebook the day following the attack 

"We will find them an bring them to justice" ~Both Barak Obama and Sheriff of Boston Police Department.  I was skeptical because Obama made similar comments after Benghazi and nothing has happened since. But it happened, kudos to BPD and the President 

"(Just like the 78-year-old marathon runner) We may be temporarily knocked off our

feet, but we will pick ourselves up and we will finish the race" ~President Barack

Obama.  Also eerily similar to my silver lining posted on facebook earlier this week.

Black hat, suspect # 1 shot and killed as he hijacks a car ~ 

Wednesday Boston Bruins game, entire crowd sings National Anthem loud enough so the singer stopped and deferred to the crowd to do it.  Bravo on the Patriotism Boston.  I don't remember anything like that after 9/11, just a lot of flags but I don't

remember spontaneous karaoke night at the sporting event.

I must say I'm emboldened and proud of the American spirit since the Boston tragedy.

And those who starkly oppose our president will point out that it wasn't the Feds

or his men that killed suspect # 1 and captured # 2 but the local police that did.  I have always held that despite my personal differences with someone, I will give credit where credit is due.  The last five days Mr. President, thumbs way up, good job.  We got great words and great action!

I’m not sure what happened as different websites tell me different things but if Boston was forced to evacuate their homes, I had mixed feelings, on one hand it’s not the government’s right to force you from your home, on the other, if you don’t leave…..well….that seems like probably cause to see if you’re aiding and abetting.  I guess you could just let cops search your home while you’re in it.  My mixed feelings got some vindication because it was a homeowner who actually saw blood in his backyard, opened the tarp of his boat to find the 19-year-old and then called the cops.  So, if he was evacuated…..that wouldn’t have happened as the cops had already searched the house/shed.  

honor is evil

Throughout my life, I have always believed that your word is your bond.  If you say you’re going to do something, you do it.  If you can’t do it, you be very apologetic!  I have broken my word a handful of times but I have always apologized profusely for it.  I thought this was an admirable trait, I didn’t even think it was a rare one.  As I live longer, I realize that not only is it rare, but it’s vilified.  I can’t say it’s how I was raised because I look at those who raised me and I don’t see honor at all.  My pappou (Grandfather) was the most honorable man I’ve known.  I can’t think of one time that man ever said he was going to do something and not delivered.  I’m not going to say he was perfect, he had many faults, but if I got it from anyone it would have had to have been him.

This is happening because with people very close to me they consistently give me their word about something, break it, then get mad at me for thinking that they would actually carry through with it.  Most of my closest friends have broken their words to me but they are always extremely apologetic and it is rare so therefore, I don’t hold it against them.  I have a lot of problems for the select few who aren’t apologetic, like it’s somehow my fault.  I get excuses like “Life happens” or “it’s unfair because I didn’t realize X” But for these excuse artists, fear not, for media and conventional wisdom seem to back you up.

As I watch the Dark Knight, I revel at how great of a movie it is.  Heath Ledger does such a phenomenal job as the Joker and Christian Bale is by far my favorite batman.  But let’s look at batman, a man that has an altar ego.  A man that puts on a façade that he’s some trust fun billionaire who inherited his dad’s company but doesn’t care about anyone but himself, meanwhile he fights crime every night keeping Gotham safe.  It’s not that he expressly lies, but he misleads, which I’m okay with.  Then there’s the Joker.  The Joker never breaks character.  He tells the world this is what I’m going to do, and then does it.  He says throughout the movie, “I’m a man of my word.”  And never does he go back on his word throughout the entire movie.  This is the message that is sent, honor is evil, just like the Joker.  If you want another example of this being reinforced, take the show Dexter, one of my favorite shows.  Again, the protagonist is a dark character.  In the most recent season, one of the villains, a Ukrainian mob boss, also constantly gives his word to Dexter, a man he’s trying to kill.  Again the Ukrainian mob guy who is evil in all aspects, never breaks his word to Dexter and constantly tells him he’s a man of his word.  Dexter, on the other hand, lies all the time.  He lies to people he’s about to kill, he lies to his sister whom he’s closest to, he lied to his wife, he lies to everyone.  He even brags about it as he’s taunting a victim, he promises he won’t hurt them if they do something, they do it, he says he’s going to kill him anyway.  The man says, “You said you’d let me go” Dexter responds, “You think I’m a killer, but not a liar?!”  The Ukrainian mob boss was a killer but not a liar, the Joker was a killer but not a liar.  So yes, you can be a killer but not a liar, Dexter just happens to be both. Yet, the people love Dexter and hate the Joker and the Ukrainian mob boss and root for Dexter, the liar and the killer rather than just the killer.  Keep in mind Dexter killed the Ukrainian mob boss’ lover.  I can understand why he would want to kill Dexter. 

The media seems to give villains the characteristic of honor and make it devoid in the heroes.  It is hard to be an honorable man, when I see the stars of Hollywood and celebrities, it is clear they fail miserably at it.  So, if you can’t be honorable, attack it.  That’s what emboldens those close to me that blame me for believing they could be honorable.  After all, based on conventional thinking, I’m calling them a villain.  Therefore, I love being, and will continue to be, the villain.  You may hate me, but if I tell you I’m going to do something, I’m going to do everything in my power to stay true to my word and you can take it to the bank.  In near 29 years, I can only think of two times I didn’t keep my word.  Both I regret, and both I’m very apologetic for.  For self-attack decreases the likelihood that it’ll happen again.  In this new culture where honor is villainous, is there really any wonder why divorce rates are so high and backstabbing so common?  

How Victoria Azarenka is like WWE champion CM Punk

Two weeks ago, I was not a Victoria Azarenka fan.  Like many of the female tennis players, she’s a bad server but a great returner.  She was # 1 in the world but tennis rankings have always baffled me because there’s so many tournaments, I feel it’s unrealistic that a player can play that often and travel as much as they are required.  But, if you miss a tournament, your ranking gets affected in a larger amount than is fair.  True, every player has this same problem but this is how Caroline Wozniacki was # 1 but never won a major, she played more tournaments than anyone.  So, I could believe the “experts” when it was all about Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova and nobody cared about Azarenka.  That being said, I still picked Azarenka to make it to the finals and lose to Sharapova so I did trust her over Serena.  But, nobody really believed me. 

I am one of the few people that is not in the closet about being a WWE fan.  I’ve had to defend my fanship to almost everyone for over a decade.  After watching Azarenka win, I realized one more reason I’m a WWE fan.  The superstars in the WWE treat their audience like adults.  Yes, you can insult us.  You can insult the city where we live.  We’ll get over it, it’ll be okay.  Right now, CM Punk has been going on for months about how sheepish the masses are and how all someone has to do is mention the city they’re currently in and they go nuts.  Fans boo him immensely but then he mentioned the town they were in right after mentioning that if he did they’d cheer.  The crowd cheered loudly at the mention of their city.  He then rested his case.  He openly talks about how he doesn’t need the people and the people don’t matter.  Tomorrow is the Royal Rumble; the writers of the WWE have expertly set up the championship match of CM Punk vs. The Rock.  The dichotomy is obvious.  The man who despises the people vs. the man who calls himself “The People’s Champion.” 

Interestingly, the women’s tennis final was set up in the same way without any script (I think).  Usually the crowd unfairly attacks Azarenka for her grunting.  The William sisters, Sharapova along with many other women grunt.  It may not be as loud or as long as Azarenka but Azarenka is the only one that constantly gets mocked and ridiculed by the fans for it.  In the semi-finals, Azarenka got hurt so left the court for a training break. This is completely legal.  When she came back, she ended up beating Sloane Stevens, the 19-year-old sensation that the world, including me, fell in love with.  International news syndicates came out attacking Azarenka for manipulating the rules.  CM Punk has been champion for a modern-era record of 434 days, and a lot of matches he too gets counted out or disqualified since the title can’t change hands on these things.  Again, CM Punk is well within the rules to do it.  He is not the only champion to do it by a long shot.  But, he gets vilified more than anyone else.  Same thing happened to Azarenka.  So then the finals took place.  Sure, Stevens captured the fans attention with her charismatic, funny and charming interviews but now we have one of the oldest women on tour, Li Na.  Li Na has been cracking up fans for years with her surprisingly candid and honest interviews.  One of the reasons I like tennis is that interviews aren’t all the same, they are quite funny and Li Na is one of the best.  Li Na plays her best at Australia for reasons she can’t explain.  This was well documented in her run to the finals beating two of the top women, Radwanska and Sharapova.  As she kept highlighting how she loves Australia, just as how CM Punk predicted, the fans loved her for complimenting their country. 

So, at 3AM eastern time, I sat down on my couch to watch Victoria Azarenka, the woman that has been attacked and crucified in newspapers across the world for the last two days vs. Li Na, the woman that everyone loves for her charm and hilariously candid interviews who loves Australia, battle it out for the championship in Australia.  The fans didn’t boo Azarenka except for one time during the match.  But they were notably silent when Azarenka did well and cheered much louder for Li Na.  It was obvious who the fans wanted, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  Li Na would collapse on the court twice for a twisted left ankle and had to receive help from the trainer.  Nobody cared, unlike when Azarenka did it once just two days ago.  The 2^nd time Li Na fell, she banged her head pretty hard and they were worried about a concussion.  If the fans didn’t love Li Na before, they certainly did now.  The woman has come back from twisting the same ankle twice, possible concussion, but she’s going to fight to the bitter end.  She’s not tapping out, she’s not going to quit, she’s going to stand on the opposite baseline and battle the number 1 player in the world.  Victoria Azarenka would beat her in three sets. 

I loved the match but at the end during the ceremony I watched intently to see Azarenka’s speech.  Unfortunately, she did the classy thing.  She got up there and thanked the fans.  I know the logic, without the fans there couldn’t be the large prize money reward for playing tennis.  But, I’m an economist, if it wasn’t for what these players could do, the way they can entertain the masses, they wouldn’t show up.  There are much more people that like watching tennis than can play tennis at the ability of those on court.  Lower supply, higher cost, Azarenka deserves the money.  If CM Punk beats the Rock, he will come out on Monday Night Raw the next day and say, “Once again, I have beaten your hero.  Once again, I have proven that you don’t need the people to be successful.  Once again, I can’t be stopped and have beaten everyone in my path for 435 days to prove that I am the Best in the World”

Now, I didn’t expect Azarenka to say that.  If she did, I’d love her for it.  But, if I were her, I wouldn’t have thanked the fans.  She broke down crying after she won.  I understood it, through all the adversity, having a nation against her, she walked into enemy territory and still got the job done.  Athletes should be mentally tough, but what she went through is unfair and it had to be tough.  I normally dislike crying in sports by male or female but this time I was okay with it.  So, I know I don’t have a big following.  But I will say it for Azarenka since she’s too classy to say it herself.  “I have come out here, and I have beaten your heroes.  Back to back I took out the two non-Australian players you love the most.  Boo me if you want; mock me if you want; but this (as she holds up the trophy) says that I am the champion, this solidifies that I am unquestionably, undeniably, indisputably the Best in the World!  

XFL too early?

As the football playoffs are down to the final four, I look at the NFL and wonder
about where today's sports have come.  Over 10 years ago, Vince McMahon came up with
an idea called the "XFL," which kept football pure.  He had a professional football
league in America that still allowed you to hit players.  Trash talking wasn't
penalized and players and teams were paid more for wins.  Even back then, there
seemed to be discontent with how babied the NFL has become.  Defenders are sometimes
penalized for "leading with their head when tackling."  Looking at the NFL players,
I noticed that all of them have their heads located above their shoulders.  To make
a tackle, they bend down and drive their shoulders into an offensive player.  Given
that, given the placement of the head on a human body, in order to drive your
shoulder into someone, you have to lead with your head.  Football is supposed to be
a hard hitting manly sport.  Now since pretty boys like Tom Brady play it, defensive
players are fined constantly for making hard hits on players.  Defensive players
complain about this all the time, especially now.  But, when Vince McMahon offered
them an alternative, the XFL, it was rejected.  Almost nobody watched.

I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, a very big football town.  My high school has the
state record for most state championships in football.  Because of this, there were
many football jocks in my high school and they all seemed excited about the XFL
since it would allow them to watch real hard nosed football again.  But, alas, this
didn't happen.  No matter what McMahon did, he couldn't get people interested in the
one year that the XFL was in existence.  It ran during the off-season of the NFL and
it still didn't catch.  Now when I hear NFL linebackers complaining week after week
because Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL, fined them for tackling someone
hard, I wonder if maybe the XFL's problem wasn't that people didn't want to watch
hard hitting football but that people hadn't hit a fever peek yet with the kid
gloves of the NFL.  Have we reached the fever pitch now?  Was the XFL tried too
early?  Will a Vince McMahon come out of the wood work and offer an alternative so
people can play real football again?  Are fans really upset to see the
overprotection of kickers and quarterbacks and the main defenders on their favorite
teams continually suspended for a game because of a hit that would have been
perfectly legal not too long ago?  Or have Americans really gotten too soft to
appreciate a violent sport?  In a country where anything that could possibly be
construed as taunting is harshly penalized and victimized, maybe people just aren't
built to handle someone looking them in the eye and saying "you suck."  Maybe they
can't handle a bruise on their skin without running to their mommies or wives crying
like a little girl.  Throughout the years, records will be broken, but I will never
give credence to any of them because if you were allowed to hit the way you could in
the old days, these players probably wouldn't be achieving these numbers.

Response to college humor gay marriage

There’s a college humor video about gay men threatening straight men that are against marriage to approve of gay marriage or else the gay men will steal their girlfriends and “marry the crap out of them” Let me respond to those gays that made that video.  So their point is that they’re all ripped because they love the gym.  One, I know a lot of gay men that aren’t ripped; they’re not nearly as homogeneous and stereotypical as the video implies.  But their “ripped” physique is really just a show.  What happens if someone tries to attack the girl?  Clearly the gays won’t care as much as they are “taking one for the team” so to speak.  That and they don’t want to mess up their designer shirt with its perfectly pressed sleeves.  Do you really think that guys care if our pizza stained T-shirt is damaged?  No, real men aren’t image conscious; they wear their scars as a badge of honor.  Not sure if “chicks” really do “dig scars” but men think they do.  We are much more likely to get in between a man much bigger than us and our lady.  Sure we get our asses kicked and maybe we’ll wake up in a pool of our own blood but our goal is really just to distract the man so that the woman can get away.  If we succeed in that, it doesn’t matter how bloodied we are, hell we’d brag about it.  It would be nice to win the fight but if we don’t oh well.  You think your kisch cooking flamboyantly gay man will bloody his immaculately smooth skinned face for you?  I think not.  This piece is assuming that men act like real men.  Nowadays, they are a very rare breed and maybe it’s because men are becoming more and more effeminate.  I know many heterosexual men that act like women….hell I have trouble finding ones that don’t in New York as I say in my book.  So, you know what men do cook now.  But let’s pretend that men act the way they say in the video, IE the way men should act.  What happens when it’s late at night and something goes bump in the night?  Men will grab a weapon whether it be the fireplace poker, a baseball bat or something and go walking around the house searching for what that noise may be.  Dave Chappelle makes fun of white men in horror movies for always “going outside to investigate. “  But that’s an accurate assessment to what we would do.  If your lady wakes you up and says, “What’s that?”   You’re going to go check it out.  And maybe you’ll die, but hopefully you make enough noise that your lady knows to call for help and not be embarrassed if it turned out to be nothing.  Real men would gladly die to keep their lady protected.  Will your gay husband do that?  Nope, he’ll just cuddle with you with the covers over their head as if an intruder couldn’t tell from the lumps if they were to come in.  That physique won’t do you any good if you’re not willing to use it to protect your woman.  But alas, women would love the gay husband.  Unfortunately, real men are only necessary when shit hits the fan or when you have the illusion that something is amiss.  What happens when a mouse comes into the house or there’s a spider that needs to be killed?   Your gay husband will jump up on the chair screaming with you.  While we’ll chase it with a knife or a gun trying to kill it.  In the Spider case, we would use our hands if you’re not in the room but if you are, then we’d resort to a shoe or a paper towel.  For those of us that are superstitious, we would let the spider crawl on something and carry it outside and let it back into its natural habitat while you and your gay husband stand on a chair screaming bloody murder.  We will also fix things We’re very handy and can save us a lot money by doing home construction ourselves.  Your gay husband would never rugged or callous those smooth hands of his.  The interesting thing about this is I don’t actually know what women want. Growing up women were appreciative that when they were overly emotional, I was the steady rock of Gibraltor.  They could come to me about anything and I wouldn’t have an emotional reaction no matter how fucked up it was.  I would offer my advice and normally it helped.  Past couple years however, it’s just gotten me into trouble.  Women tell me, ‘I want someone to cry with me” and I’m not very good at that.  Also, my non-emotive dissect the situation stripped of all emotion analysis just make them upset.  So, yes your gay husband will cry with you.  When you’re crying on his ripped physique, he’ll be getting your hair wet with his tears.  He may whine about how your tears are ruining his pristine shirt but normally they’re sensitive enough to just not bring that up….but they’d be thinking it.  Real men wouldn’t.  Fuck the shirt, let it all out and cry, I will be the sturdy force.  Which one would women prefer?  I guess it depends on what the situation is, but I think more often than not, they would rather have the person they’re crying on, crying with them…which makes no sense to us real men.  But women were never good at logic. 

I’m assuming that everything in the video is true.  If it’s true that women have already told the gay men how they like to be kissed or fucked and expect real men to just intuitively know….well then whose fault is it that you don’t get fucked the way you want?  Women’s.  You’re supposed to be the communicators, if you tell your gay friend but not your lover because you expect your lover to intuitively know that’s your fault, not ours.  It’s not our fault that you share more with them.  Sure, the gay guy is more understanding and more willing to listen but on the topic of sex, real men are interested.  Now if you tell us and we refuse then the gay men have a point but if you tell the gay guy how you liked to be fucked but not us, it’s not our fault that they kiss you the way you want to be kissed and fuck you the way you want to be fucked and we don’t, it’s actually yours. 

Is encouraging your kids a bad idea?

I remember when I was young, my little brother and I took a laundry basket of things we no longer wanted to this mound of grass across from my house to sell them to cars as they drove by.  My pappou (grandpa) was one such driver.  He pulled over and looked at our items focusing on a microscope.  He asked how much we were charging for it.  I said, “You can have it for free because you’re our pappou”

My brother said, “No, you have to pay us full price”

My pappou put down the microscope pointed at my brother and said, “He’ll go far in life” then pointed at me and said, “You won’t be”

Now that both me and my younger brother are in our late 20s, it’s not looking good for my pappou’s prediction.  I have been financially independent from my parents for about five years now, living on my own in the greatest and one of the most expensive cities in the world while traveling all over the world on my own dime.  My brother, on the other hand, is a constant college drop out and is currently on year 8 since he enrolled with no graduation in sight.  He constantly borrows money from my family and his life has been a series of failures that he continually blames on anyone but himself.  I take this as proving my pappou wrong.  In fact, of the four kids my parents spawned, I am the only one that is financially independent from them.  The others may go off on tangents trying to make it on their own but they always end up getting fired or quitting early on and coming crawling back to my parents’ house or their bank accounts.  It’s possible that I will hit a rough spot in life and be forced to do the same thing but to date; I have gone the longest without any financial help from my parents whatsoever.  The interesting this is, if you talk to my parents they will extol their other three kids and glaze over my accomplishments.  This has always been true throughout my life.  At first I told myself that I was successful despite them, but now I’m beginning to wonder if their lack of faith in me growing up, and my underdog status helped me.

There was once a case in which a father named his oldest son “Winner” and his younger son “Loser” because at birth he believed he could tell which one would be successful and which one wouldn’t be.  As it turned out, Loser was extremely wealthy and prosperous while Winner led a life of drug and alcohol abuse and going in and out of prisons never amounting to anything.  The question becomes was the father wrong or did Loser have a chip on his shoulder that drove him?

I had always wanted to live in New York, a city my father despised as he grew up in New York.  For the entire first year of college, whenever he spoke to me, he’d start the conversation with “Do you hate New York yet?” I always responded, “No” and now that I’ve been here for over 10 years, I still love it.  Both my parents applaud my older brother for his genius but he has failed in every business endeavor he has ever tried.  My sister is hailed by my mother as a survivor but she, aside from finding a fiancée whose parents house she can stay at, has never been able to even split rent on an apartment and keep a job for over a year.  Yet my mother still calls her a survivor and a grinder to get what she wants, but her life is a series of failures as well.  I never get any credit from my parents.  My mom writes off my success with “Well your cousin got you the job, so you needed help.” 

The difference is that I was given an opportunity and ran with it, grinded, survived. In 2005, my sister kicked me out of my brother’s apartment while he was away.  I lived from friend’s house to friend’s house while working a job but living out of a backpack for months waiting out my sister until her failures forced her back to the Midwest where my parents lived letting me reclaim a permanent residence.  Who’s the survivor in that story?  If you ask my mother, it’s still my sister.  Everyone else in my family has made contacts, gotten opportunities but have squandered all of it.  One person gave me one shot and I ran with it.  Yet, my parents will still praise my brothers for their ingenuity and my sister for her ability to grind and survive without any basis in fact.

All four of us were raised by the same two people.  The only difference was they believed in me the least and I am the most successful by any objective standards.  Loser was always the child that was neglected and ignored but he rose above it to become much more successful than his brother.  Psychologists say that these golden children are pushed too hard by their parents and that’s what causes their collapse.  Maybe, but my theory is, they feel entitled to things therefore are not willing to work for it.  Since they don’t work for it, they fail miserably.  So when it comes to raising your children, perhaps downplaying their accomplishments and teaching them to only blame themselves for their failures may be the best way to help them succeed.  My father was extremely successful and his father told him from an early age that he would be pissed at him if he took over the family business (diner).  He said to him “I flip burgers so you don’t have to” From an early age my father was taught that his father wouldn’t accept him crawling back to him after college.  I personally refused to crawl back to my parents’ house in the Midwest because I hated living in the Midwest and I love NewYork.  Once the safety net was taken away, success seems like the only option….and that’s what me and my father did.  Though, I’ve gone this long without praise, so I don’t think I deserve any. After all, it appears praise is what gets people into trouble! 

The kids aren't alright

Every generation since the ancient Egyptians have looked upon the next generation with scorn.  I try to step back from this as much as possible.  I turn a blind eye on school shootings, drug use, tattoos, piercings and the stuff that has been going on for eons and say that the news is just better now but this stuff has always continued.  What I'm going to talk about is how entitled today's youths are.  This is not going to be about Obama or the economy or anything like that.  It's going to be about kids and their parents.

Last weekend I spent some time with a family of four kids.  I also grew up with a family of four kids, and the similarities between the two are striking.  In both families, 7 of the 8 children feel that even after they've graduated college and gotten a degree, their parents should still pay for everything.  If the father complains that he doesn't want to support them and pay all the bills, the kids isolate the mother and vehemently attack their father and try to convince their own mother to divorce their father.  I'm shocked by this reckless, vehement behavior.  I completely understand trying to separate from your parents and live your own life but I always believed that to mean becomining financially independant as well.  These kids want a lifetime of financial dependance but still demand their parents not treat them like little kids.  If you're going to act like a little kid and refuse to save your money for paying your bills and instead waste it on Ipads, bars, clubs etc. etc. then I see no reason why you shouldn't be treated like a little kid because that's precisely what they do.

I stayed mostly quiet doing this 2-day tirade that was sparked because the father was upset that his son informed their father that he needed to pay his cell phone bill while he sent him pictures of him partying in Europe.  When I did speak I said, "Look, do what I did, get a job, get financially independant so that way when your parents try to control your life you can tell them to fuck off.  My parents have no control on where I go and what I do simply because I'm the one paying for it" this was answered with, "Wow, somebody has mommy and daddy issues"

This is coming from the same person who has constantly told me that her younger brother is the favorite of the family.  Oddly, the same kid that sparked this entire conversation because the father got pissed that he had to pay for his cell phone bill.  This father is paying for all his kid's housings, cell phones, and bills.  The youngest of the four is 26 years old.  Complaining about your parents is one thing, but trying to convince your mom to divorce your dad because he voices his frustration in having to pay for all your bills so that you can stay at home and play computer games/X-box/online poker/watch TV etc. etc" is just plain asinine.  then may favorite insult comes up "Dad is so selfish!"

In these situations I think the dad is too selfless.  I think it would be best for the father to cut his children off.  Force them to get a job and make something of themselves.  You want to move out, than pay for your own place.  No, I'm not paying your bills, if you can't afford rent, you should have thought about that before you bought the new Iphone 5 or whatever the latest contraption is.  I believe in the virtue of selfishness but I wouldn't call complaining that you have to continually support your kids well into their 30s for every expense as selfish.  The problem is kids use their parents unconditional love against their parents.  They use it as a weapon "you won't cut me off because you love me."  this is dangerous.  Parents should and usually will sacrifice their well being for their children.  These kids know this so they try to bring their parents to bankruptcy so that they can party and live a slothful life.  This is why I think unconditional love is dangerous. 

Here's a simple message to kids out there, if you hate being babied by your parents, become financially independant, if you can't cut it, then don't bitch at them for being frustrated.  The only blame for your incompetance, despite what society tells you, is you! 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

What you need in a spouse

Many books have been written about the perfect marriage.  There are many dating sites that ask a series of questions about your likes and dislikes to set up a profile that they can match you up with people.  Me adding my thoughts to the pool seems like a drop in the ocean.  Especially since I'm asexual, how can I speak about this?  Well, in order to not like something, you have to know something about it.  I believe my asexuality helps me to step back and look at relationships from an objective, non-emotive point of view. 

If you ask people in good relationships what they like about their spouse, they say things like "he/she has 'it'" but can't describe "it."  Or, "There's just something about her (from now on I'm going to speak as a heterosexual male, since that is what I used to be so 'spouses' will be feminine but my comments apply to men as well)  Even in the movies they're vague as in "You complete me" or "yin to my yang."  But what specifically is it?  It's really just the ability to handle you.

The reason why I firmly believe that those who are 100% of a given culture should marry their own culture is becuase members of that culture have a unique ability to understand you.  For instance, being Greek is such a large part of who I am.  I have friends of other nationalities that range from off the boat to 2nd generations but trace their lineage to a particular country.  I find that I can get along with Eastern Europeans because the geography and culture is similar to Greeks.  What I realized is that people from other Orthodox Eastern European cultures don't really know how to handle me the way a Greek girl does.  I don't even have to be that close to a Greek girl for them to know how to handle me.  I do have a short temper and I do stubbornly dig my heels in and a lot of my closest friends either get intimidated or wait it out.  The thing is, there is a way to deal with me in that particular situation.  Most of my closest friends are girls, and one of them is Greek, she knows how to deal with it better than anyone when I get like this.  What I noticed is though, I've never lost my temper and snapped around a Greek girl who didn't immediately know how to handle the situation.  Greek casual acquintances of mine knows how to handle me better than my closest and dearest friends. 

When you are married to someone, they will see you in every possibly mood that you could be in.  You want that person to know what to do no matter what happens.  It is not something that can be learned later in life.  You can argue that these Greek girls know how to do it because their fathers act like Greek men so they grew up with it.  I'll give some credence to this but I will say that I'm thoroughly convinced it can't be taught later in life. 

Now some people say "I don't want to be handled" in which case, you're too insecure to be in a relationship.  People can talk all they want about how they want someone who's smart, logical, funny,sensitive, can close a restaurant/bar with, balances me out etc. etc. but the most important thing is to ask yourself can this person handle you in every one of your moods.  if the answer is yes, then the rest is just details. 

I feel I would be remiss if I didn't include this.  I spoke about my observance of how Greek girls know how to handle me.  The thing is, I'm starting to realize that Dominicans seem to have this understanding too with me the way Greeks do.  So, that adds a counter to another claim I made in this passage (If you are of a certain culture, you should stick with that culture) but independant of that claim, the main point is find someone that can handle you.  Then, divorce is far less likely. 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site

hugs

I have no qualms about admitting that I'm a hug whore.  I really enjoy a nice passionate hug and I seek them out and can't think of one time where I shied away from one.  I've always looked at hugs as the feminine equivalent of a hand shake.  Like handshakes, I do judge people on the way they hug.  With a handshake, however, it's very simple, was it firm or was it not firm?  Ever since I was young, I always respected someone that when they shook my hand, my hand hurt afterwards.  I actually have a moral problem with shaking without a firm grip, which gets me in trouble with women since a lot of times they will shake their hand in pain.  I do feel bad when this happens, but I really can't shake with a non-firm grip.  this is why I try to hug women.  In Ohio,where I grew up, this is almost always taken the wrong way and the women cower back thus leaving me in an awkward position since I went in for a hug, got denied, shook hands and now I just have to hope I don't hurt her hand.  I have never gotten in trouble for squeezing too hard on a hug.  That's why I like European and New York culture where women and men (and in Europe men and men) hug as a greeting even if it's their first.  Hugs are so much cooler than handshakes because the way people hug is as unique as people get.  Here are some examples. 

Almost always when a guy hugs another guy, there is a last second pull back as they don't fully commit and use their arm lengths to cover the slight distance they pulled back just before impact.  Now, when I'm hugging another guy, I expect and don't mind this.  I realized though that when I hug my homosexual guy friends, they don't have this last second pull back.  This is regardless of if they have a boyfriend at the time.  It also crosses gender lines the other way, one of my female friends does hug me like a guy.  Now, how big of a deal is this?  Well, I used to have another female friend that hugged me like a guy and I will briefly talk about her.

Throughout the time i've known her, we were very close friends.  I believe a lot of people have a hierarchy of friends but I'm one of the few that puts a lot of thought into it.  There are 9 people I have let in my highest hierarchy of friends.  Three of them were mutual friends of hers.  Although I loved hanging out with her and I was a guest at her house on many many occasions, I always put her just a hair under the highest hierarchy.  When she hugged me, she hugged like a guy, and more often then not only used one arm.  It was just enough so that I didn't complain.  During the first couple years of our friendship, I would call her out if she didn't hug me good bye, which is why I thought these hugs were just to stop me from calling her out.  I came up with other reasons why she wasn't welcomed into my hierarchy but I realized that was wrong when in 2011, after we had been close friends for 8 years, we decided to go on a trip to Europe together.  I saw her at JFK and she walked up to me, wrapped both arms around my waist, interlocked her hands where my spine meets my buttocks and pulled hard toward her.  Immediately my posture straightened and I hugged her back passionately.  At that exact second, she was elevated as the 9th member of the hierarchy.  it turns out that the only thing that kept her out was the way she hugged me. 

The other interesting thing about a hug is that it shows how well you know someone.  Unlike hand shakes, I don't hug everyone the same way; since i know what they're going to do I react accordingly.  One of my best female friends hugs by lunging forward and literally jumping into your arms.  Usually when I hug, I lean in, but with her, I plant my feet because I know that I'm not only hugging her but I'm going to have to catch her.  My friend's cousin also comes at you with a running start but rather than jump, she wraps her arms around you and twists to her left (your right)  so, when I hug her, I relax the right side of my body and twist to ease the impact.  when she shifts, I ease her back.  My friend's other cousin will not let go until I pick her up.  She affectionately wraps her arms around my neck and nestles her head in my chest and waits.  Since I'm a foot taller than her, I'm leaning down to hug her, I merely straighten and she comes up with me and then she lets go.  The weird thing is, it's never planned or articulated, it's just that somehow I know she wants me to pick her up.  One of the other hierarchy friends wraps her arms aroud me, nestles her head into my chest and relaxes her body as if she's going to sleep.  This is what I call an affectionate hugs.  The ones who charge at me forcing me to set my feet I call passionate hugs.  The JFK girl is still a passionate hug but rather than charge toward me, she grabs me and pulls me toward her.  I haven't decided which hugs I like best.

My standard hug with a girl is to lean in wrap both hands around her and rest them in the middle of her back.  I pay attention to what she does so i'll know for next time.  I'm still thrown off guard by the JFK friend because I don't know when I'm going to get a passionate hug or a standard hug.  Although, since our trip to Europe in 2011, she has never hugged me like a guy like she used to. 

Hugs are the # 1 thing that cheer me up.  As I say in my book, there is no greater manly feeling than when a woman is wrapped in your arm and you feel her body relax.  As I think about this, there really are no two people that hug alike.  I still know two girls that hug me like guys but they do so in different ways, one uses one arm, the other two.  Asians don't like hugging, I can't possibly imagine why.  There's something mysterious, instinctive and unspoken about them.  Never have I consciously prepared myself to hug someone, I just naturally know what I'm supposed to do and the more times I hug someone, the better I get without even realizing it. 

autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Just the facts

I have a little cognitive dissonance.  On one hand, I have a book called, The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years and on the other hand, I say that the election proves that America is no longer a center right country.  Did America really change over the years?  Is now the silent majority that was center right turn left?  At first, it seems yes, but I'm beginning to reconsider.

Before the election I hoped for rain in Cuyahoga county (the county most of Cleveland is in) since without Cuyahoga county Romney would be up 6 points.  I hoped for rain because voter turn out drops 60% when it rains, usually the people that come out to vote through rain, sleet or snow are Republicans.  The Democrats stay home, and given that Obama only won buy 100,000 votes, I think if it rained, Ohio would have gone to Romney  That being said, even if Romney won Ohio, Obama still would have won the election so who really cares?  Someone once asked me, "If New York is so liberal, how come the congressmen are Republicans"  At the time, Pataki was our governor and he is a Republican.  Mayor Bloomberg was running  as a Republican and hadn't switched his position to "Independent' as of yet.  I thought about this and I couldn't answer the question at the time.  My only explanation was this "Silent majority" thing.  Now, I realized that my prayer for rain and the fact that Republicans have won seats in very blue states like Massachusettes, New York and New Jersey are related.  A lot of congressional and mayoral elections happen on an off-Presidential election year.  Senate is up every six years, so doesn't correspond always with the 4 years of the Presidential and Mayoral is always an off year.  Fewer people vote in the mid-term elections, and it's really only the people who believe it's an honor to vote...which are the same people that will go even if it's raining.  Thus, Republicans can win in blue states because liberals only come out to vote every four years. 

The reason why so many experts picked Romney to win was because they didn't think that African-Americans, young people and Hispanics would come out to vote as much as they did in 2008.  When polling, most of them asked more Democrats than Republicans, thus these "experts" used a curve to judge it since there was no way the demographics would come up the way they did in 2008.  Instead, they averaged the weight by the votes in 2008, 2004, 2000 and 1996.  They were dead wrong, in fact, more of these demographics came out in 2012 than they did in 2008.  What we're seeing now isn't a shift in America to the left, we're seeing more people motivated to vote.  In some places you can vote online.  Since it's easier and more convenient to vote, more people are voting.  The more people that vote, the less likely a Republican will win because there are more people who are influenced by Hollywood, TV and celebrities, which are predominantly liberals than people who step back and see the big picture.  Yes, in 2008, President Obama won, lowered taxes on middle to lower income people like me so my paycheck went up.  But, Obamacare made it more expensive for my boss to give me health insurance, he took the hit for a couple years but then gave in and took more out of my paycheck.  This and people got laid off which is very rare in my company for office employees.  The problem is, the negative side effects come later, while the positive was instantaneous.  I can see how someone in my position would say, "well, I got more money so go Obama" without realizing that the people as a whole are hurting because now employers have more trouble hiring and paying people.

I am not a Republican, I'm an objectivist.  Democracy is about the power to the people to vote.  If more people are voting, that's good, on an objective level, for what Democracy stands for.  I do believe the Democrats are worse for the country than Republicans but that doesn't mean people should be dissuaded from voting.  Now people believe voting is important, maybe that's because of how close Bush vs. Gore was.  This is a good thing.  I don't even know if I want to write here, "Now they just need to stop being selfish and look at the big picture."  because as an objectivist, I think selfishness is good.  When Russians had to wait in line for bread, gas and other essentials under the communist regime, they fought tooth and nail to get out.  When Americans had to wait in four hour lines for gas and couldn't go to the grocery store for a week, they never turned their anger to the government.  Ayn Rand would say that an Obama victory is good because the country would be messed up enough for everyone to finally get why socialism, legislation based on emotion and the left policy can't work.  This way a real conservative can win, just like Raegan won because Carter fucked up America.  I still believe the world hasn't progressed in 5,000 years.  Raegan was only 30 years ago.  So, Obama may be the new Carter.  I guess another blog is needed to attack Dick Morris for saying that the current state of America is just as bad as Carter.  It's not even close.  So, America was never a center right country, but a majority didn't vote.  A majority of voters were center right.  Now, more people are voting, so your message needs to hit more people. 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page

Katrina vs. Sandy

Unlike how the title sounds, I'm not going to compare the two storms' devastation.  I don't believe it's a contest, Sandy was only a category 1.  I don't remember what Katrina was but Lousiana prepares a lot more for Hurricanes than the northeast simply because they get more with much more severity.  With that said, and given that property in New York and New Jersey is more than New Orleans, Katrina caused 191 Billion in damage whereas, last estimate I heard, Sandy caused 30-50 Billion.  I'm more interested in the people's reaction to it.

After Katrina hit, all I heard was how racist Bush was for not helping them.  I didn't hear anyone fault President Obama for Sandy.  I live in New York and nobody here said, "Why did he go to New Jersey and not New York?"  The closest I heard is that Statan Islanders got mad that when the snow storm hit, FEMA evacuated and they set up their food donating services in areas that were not most affected.  This got to the point that Statan Island resident have started collecting things such as suits and food to hand out to the beach front people who were most affected by the storm.  This will not get national news....hell it didn't even get local news.  I know this because I work with a woman who lives on Statan Island.  So, why is it that Bush can be blamed for Katrina but Obama can't be blamed for Sandy? 

Some know that President Obama had an extremely good reason not to come to New York.....Mayor Bloomberg asked him not to.  What you may not know is that the mayor of New Orleans also asked Bush not to come.  They did this for the same reason.  Their cities were a mess and they couldn't handle blocking off more streets and diverting resources to host the President of the United States.  This is completely understandable which is why Bush and Obama should not be faulted for national disasters.  That's not what happened though.  Kanye West says, "Bush hates black people" at a fund raiser for hurricane victims.  Why doesn't Kanye West say "Obama hates White people" afterall, most of the people who have ocean front properties and live in Long Beach Island, NJ, and Breezy Point, New York (two of the most devastated areas for Sandy) are White.  How about, "Obama hates rich people."  Those houses are very expensive.  Or "Obama hates Italians" because Seaside Height, the Jersey Shore that the show made famous, was absolutely destroyed by Sandy.  But you don't hear this from anyone.  I'm going to repeat again, none of these things should be said, but I'm sure people would be appalled and accused of racism if they were said.  I wish this same animosity and bitterness would be shown toward those who criticized Bush for Katrina. 

I still would have no problem with FEMA being cut 30% like Romney suggested.  Individual giving is skyrocketing to help the northeast.  The NFL and the University of Kentucky alone have given over 2 million dollars.  I know 2 million is nothing compared to 30-50 billion, but these are just two of the multiple private sector people giving money for the relief effort.  I also think that States have more incentive to give.  Yes, New York's government claim to be broke but when you have one of the highest taxes and tolls in the country to enter, you shouldn't be unless you are horrible at budgeting and managing money.  The fact that they probably are is why the government needs to be small.  Sure those who took the train from central jersey to Manhattan for work every day are happy that they get a free bus since their train won't be fixed for about a year, but that doesn't mean FEMA is underfunded or necesary of the amount they receive.  I just wish that natural disasters wouldn't be so politicized the way liberals do.  Name one conservative that even hinted at Obama being at fault for Sandy or Irene.  Now compare that to the droves of liberals that blamed Bush for Katrina. 

Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of the page

The people have spoken

President Barack Obama has won re-election.  Many people have their theories why ranging from the black vote being too large to overcome to superstorm Sandy to the Republican Candidate being a woman hating, anti-student, out-of-touch rich man who can't relate to people.  Given that Romney was up in all the important swing states (Ohio, Florida, and Virginia) before the storm and then even during the storm to invariably losing all of them on election day as people were still reeling, the storm I give credence too.  I really can't believe the other ones, because the first insinuates that a White person will never beat a Black person for president.  As for Romney's campaign, aside from his Monday Night Football comment "Nobody wants to watch woman's bobsledding" I didn't think his campaign was that bad.  His comment wasn't bad, it's just that when everyone says you hate women and you make a comment about women sports...well...you may be playing into their hands. Then again, Monday Night Football is typically watched by men so I doubt it did much damage.  Whatever the reason, and I'm sure millions of people will have their answers, let's just stick to the simplest point, in the clearest discrepancy between candidates since Carter vs. Raegan, the people chose Secular-progressive, far-left, entitlement Barack Obama. 

This means that the silent majority is no longer right.  It used to be that when you went outside you'd hear abortion on demand, gay marriage, get divorced, poor people are the most important members of our society, trees and small animals are more important than humans, Christians are hypocritical psychopathic murderers, only white people commit crimes, all black criminals were arrested because of racist cops etc. etc. etc. but then when it came down to a vote, these positions got crushed.  That's because in the voting booth, with no liberals to yell at you, throw a pie at you or start a riot because they don't agree, people were free to vote how they felt, and they always chose the position on the right.  Even as recently as 2008, the droves of black people that came out to vote voted against proposition 8 (legalize gay marriage) in astounding numbers since many blacks are religious and are against it.  Not-so-long ago, the idea that you'd quit work and just live off the government was not very attractive and not many people wanted to do it....now people are preferring it to working, just as they have in Europe.

The majority now is the screaming, obnoxious, French Revolution mob that is the liberal positions.  That is what America wants.  They love the message that nothing they do is their fault.  If you watch Forrest Gump, one guy that hits Jenny (Forrest's girlfriend) justifies beating Jenny as, "It's this damn war, you know I would never hurt you."  In 1995, when Forrest Gump came out, the audience generally reacted to this to condemn the man and find his excuse for what it was; absolutely retarded.  Just because you're against the war the federal government has gotten us into, doesn't give you the right to beat your girlfriend.  Nowadays, I'm not so sure if we condemn that man.  The message of the liberals is that nothing is your fault.  You get divorced, nobody's fault, just two adults doing the mature adult thing.  You rape and murder 14 women, the question everyone wants to know is, "What were your parents like?" "how were you brought up?" as if the answer could justify the behavior. Obama doubled the national debt from when he took over, not his fault, it's Bush's.  In 4 years Obama sped up the decline by easy to see numbers and people said, "Damnit Bush, it couldn't be Obama."  Yes, Obama is not seen as a messiah anymore, but that's not the point.  Nothing is his fault.  "My boss took more out of my paycheck because Obamacare rose the prices too high for him to take the full brunt of the hit" blame my boss not Obama.  You can't find a job, it's not your fault, it's the schools or Bush, or racism, anything but you.  Here's some money that you didn't earn.  Oh you need more, fine, we'll just steal from rich people, they can afford it.  Sounds eerily similar to "Lehman Brothers and big Wall Street corporations are so big, they can handle giving out housing loans to people that couldn't possibly pay them back."  What happened?  Oh wait, they did collapse, they weren't too big to take that hit....Democrats forced them into it, but we blame Bush or wall street anyway.  Here Wall Street, here's a bailout, oh you're still fucking it up, here's another one.  It's a nice message.  It's not my fault I can't work, so I'm going to sit on my couch and get obese on the government money after all it's not that I'm lazy, it's because (fill in the newest excuse liberals provide).

I've often said that I want to be dead by 50.  This is in defense of everyone who tells me how to live my life.  I got a job so my parents can stop telling me how to live my life.  Bloomberg tells me I can't have a soda above 16oz, so after March (when the law goes into effect) I'll have to buy two 16 oz since 20oz is barely enough for my meals now...and sometimes I do have to go back up and buy another 20oz.  Now I'll consume 32oz, but I work for my money so I can do this.  People defend this law with "Well Obesity is a problem and the government has to take care of people who are obese and don't have healthcare" without seeing the contradiction of if these people without health care are so poor, than how the hell can they afford to eat so much to get so fat?  it's not their fault, it's the synthetic food America uses to feed everyone.  Laura Ingraham, conservative talk radio host, says that if the Republicans can't beat Obama, then they need to change their platform.  The Republican platform is limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, Traditional values.  If that can't win in America anymore and needs to be redone, then I really do want to die in the next 22 years (I'll be 50 in 22 years).  I know the invisible hand is blind to politics.  I know there is no country like America that gives these ideals.  Without a place where people are encouraged to do well forcing them to make products that help everyone so they can sell more of it.  In a world where you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, what will people do?  The occupy Wall Street protests saw many women get raped because they made a pact, "No matter what, don't tell the cops."  The rapists don't blame themselves, society doesn't blame the rapists, they blame Wall Street.  Who wants to grow old in a world like that?  Now more than ever, I want to be dead by 50, so you can bitch and moan all you want about how much soda I drink, and my refusal to go to the doctor for every ache and pain, or my refusal to take medication or my refusal to drink water because what you're claiming will happen as a result, seems better and better the longer I live. 

Now, someone told me yesterday, "If Obama wins, I'm moving out of the country."  I told her "I'm not, because even with Obama, this is stll the greatest country in the world."  This is the only country that is run on an idea of power to the people, and freedom to not let the government interfere in your life.  That is what the founding fathers envisioned.  They never said that nothing is your fault but blame other people.  They saw the government as a necessary evil but still evil therefore they wanted it limited.  Even the idea of a central bank was a hotly contested issue.  That was the majority opinion for about 236 years,

But now, Americans were given a choice, traditional values, power to the people, limited government intervention or enormous government telling you what size soda to drink, whether or not you can get healthcare, massive unemployment, debt increasing by over a trillion dollars a year, wasteful spending, give more money to people who prove they can't handle money and take it from those who prove they can handle money.  The results are in, the latter wins by a near landslide!!!  Too bad there are no other countries run on an idea. 

You can always bitch

Recently I had a conversation with someone I care about.  He is youger than me but I've known him pretty much his entire life.  He is 24-years-old now, and he is kicking ass by the conventional standards.  He has already passed his 4 exams to become a CFA and is working for a firm that has sent him to three continents.  He lives in a small city and isn't pressed financially.  Recently, he came to visit me in New York, a place he spent his early childhood but has no recollection due to moving out at a young age.  As I showed him around the city, he, like many people who come to Manhattan for the first time (or first remembered time) his eyes were to the sky in awe at all the big buildings and lights.  We spoke briefly about living in New York, and I explained to him how my favorite thing is nobody pays any attention to you when you walk around on the street, you are around a lot of people but you are alone.  Most people are indifferent or despise this notion, but that is why I love the city I live in.  He, however, nodded his head in agreement and said that he thought it would be really cool to live in a city like that.  I told him how proud I was at how great he was doing and he just kind of shook his head back and forth as if he was holding something back before saying something along the lines that he wants more.

For as long as I've known him, he's always been modest.  I didn't expect him to say, "Yea, I'm fucking awesome" but I was kind of surprised that he wasn't happy. I then told him that there was nothing wrong with not being content.  He went on to talk about eldery people he knows that were shot at by the Nazi's when they were 6-years-old, had siblings killed because soldiers used them as target practice when they were on their way to get bread, being forced into the mountains of Eastern Europe having to live off the land when they were teenagers, getting into bad marriages and having to grind their way out etc etc.  At the end he's like, "So my situation isn't really like theirs but I look at them and they have these cool stories, but I don't.  But when I tell them this they just tell me that they wouldn't wish what happened to them on anyone, so I guess I should just be happy with what I got." 

I looked him dead in the eye and I said, ":Bullshit!" 

It doesn't matter that other people have it worse, it doesn't matter that so many people think you're kicking ass and by all normal conventional standards you're doing awesome, the only thing that matters is what you feel inside and what you see when you look in the mirror.  Yes, maybe someone who was shot at by Nazis at the age of 6 has trouble empathesizing with you but that doesn't mean that you lose your right to bitch.  You always have a right to bitch.  I talked about my story about how I had to be unemployed for a year and half before finding a job that paid the bills.  My only goal was I wanted to stay in New York and be at a job that requires me to look at a computer all day and have minimal contact with people.  At the time, everyone told me my goal sucked and it needed to be more specific.  Despite that, I got what I wanted.  He looked at me and said, "See that's a cool story, I don't have that, I don't even have a goal like you did,"

I responded, "Then make your goal to find out what your goal is.  And when you're the one living it, the story never sounds that cool"  I then talked about how he had to move from Europe to America and switch schools 7 times before the age of 12.  I switched schools for the first time at age 14.  He nodded and said, "yea, but I never saw that as being that cool, but I guess that's your point, it never seems cool when it's you."

I tried a diferent strategy with him in utilizing Socrates with regard to this.  I told him that he knows he doesn't want to be where he is now.  Maybe he should try moving to Chicago, Miami, New York or a big city given that when I told him about the anononymity of walking by yourself in New York that it was something he craved since his small city everyone looks at him like he's crazy if he goes for a walk.  Sometimes when finding what you want to do, you have to first look at what you don't want.  I then commented on his statement about "At 24, I achieved a goal I worked really hard for when I got my CFA so now I got my goal...now what."  I responded, "That CFA is your ticket to anywhere you want to go.  It's not the ends, it is now a means, you are now more employable, more marketable, so you can go somewhere else and it may get you a foot in the door and since you've been moving around your whole life, you're used to starting over in a new city.  He was quiet for a while as I kept explaining to him that the only thing that matters is if he is happy with where he's at.  I referenced The Alchemist because the main character has a goal to go to the middle of the desert and find this alchemist that can turn lead to gold.  Everyone said he was crazy, along the way he got a job he enjoyed and made him comfortable, but he left it because it wasn't his goal. 

A lot of people have similar stories as the person in the alchemist.  People get stuck in their jobs, blink and realize they're 60 and are miserable.  Fear is the thing that stops people from quitting and seeking out what they truly want.  Maybe you're like him and don't know what it is you want, but you only get that by constantly trying new things and if you like it, then you have a better idea of what you want to do, if you don't then you are still closer because you can cross something else out. I really wish I was able to tell him the quote "Satisfaction is the end of desire" so it's good that he's not satisfied because life should always be about seeking what you desire and then maintaining it, which is a desire in and of itself (you desire to maintain what you desire).  That's all my goal was when I was unemployed, I had lived in New York for 4 years at that point, it had been my goal since I was 4-years-old, now the desire was to maintain my living in New York.  At no point should you ever be afraid to bitch, there is no job that is perfect for everyone.  If you're not happy, seek out another position that will make you happy.  If people tell you you're crazy, than politely nod but keep pursuing it.  Never feel guilty because someone has it worse.  Just because you don't have the worst story ever, doesn't mean you can't desire to make your life better.  You live your life, nobody else, that's why you're the only person who matters in the question "Is where I'm at awesome?"  I'm not a believer that everything happens for a reason. But I do think that every experience is a learning experience.  I believe that everyone you speak to can help you discern truths.  So, I repeat to you, never ever be afraid to bitch, everyone has that right, and I urge you to have the strength to go through the grind seeking it.  I understand it's extremely hard and there is so much to fear about it, but at the end of the day, you will be able to look in the mirror and be content with the person you see.  Is there any goal more worthy of seeking as that? 

Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site.