Monday, December 26, 2011

Is isolating yourself disrespectful?

I've always been someone that prided himself on always being themselves.  If people don't like me for me, then I want nothing to do with them just how they don't want anything to do with me, so we're good. But what if there is one thing different about your personality that offsets people.  Can you make any concessions?

To be more specific, I do not like being in large groups of people.  It's not something I'm comfortable with regardless of who the people are. I just spent Christmas with my first cousin once removed and his family.  Since they usually assume I'm returning to Cleveland for the holidays to spend with my immediate family, their invitations normally come late.  This one on December 22...prior to that date, I planned on being alone in my apartment watching the NBA.  Most people consider this sad, in fact two other people invited me to their Christmas parties because they felt bad, but I turned them both down.  I would have been content watching the NBA alone for Christmas but with my extended family, I can watch the NBA and hang out with people I truly enjoy spending time with, so I agreed. 

To be clear, I love hanging out with them as I have watched my second cousins grow up and have gotten closer and closer with them.  I went over to their house while they hosted Christmas.  I was social and hung out with them but then I reached a point in the night where I just wanted to be by myself.  This happens almost every time I'm in a group of people.  A lot of times it gets me into trouble.  I have another first cousin once removed who refuses to invite me to parties she hosts because I do this.  What I realized this time, is that Arty, my first cousin once removed, and his family has always respected my privacy when I do this.  Normally I wait until everyone is occupied than I slip into an area where nobody is and just stay by myself.  This time, my cousin was asking me to play pool, and I looked at him and said, "Honestly, no, I just want to watch basketball" I had already played a lot of games throughout the night so saying I don't like playing pool would not have been believable.  He said, "That's all you needed to say" he put the stick down and left the room.  I found this odd, because I thought naturally he'd just ask someone else to play, but he and his brothers walked out of the room.  It was as if they knew I had hit a moment where I wanted to be myself.  As I watched the Lakers/Chicago game, Arty came in and asked me if I was okay or just chilling.  I said I was just chilling and he left it at that. 

At halftime of the game, after about 45 minutes of being alone, I rejoined the party and carried on without a hitch.  Now, I know how I am when I'm in an uncomfortable environment, I lash out and before I say things, I ask myself if there is a more offensive way to say it and that's what I'll go with.  This alone time stops me from doing this.  As I reflect on this, I wonder why others don't have the reaction that Arty did.  What is so disrespectful if a guest just wants to be alone for a little while?  Why am I banned from houses for doing this?  This doesn't go only for parties, I want to live alone, my roommate now is offended by that becuase he craves people. I'm more of an introvert, I don't like big groups of people....why is it so hard for people to just leave you alone?  It hasn't affected my relationship with Arty or his family, and he's not like that at all.  He loves groups of people, hosting and public speaking....yet even though it's not a trait he possesses, he understands my needs.  But even if you don't understand it, why would you be offended by it?  So no, I don't think you should ever make concessions, If you need to do something for your own sanity, you should do it.  If the people you think care about you truly care about you, they'll understand. 

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Hating Christians

I do not understand why people hate Christians who wear their religion on their sleeves.  I believe in God, but I'm not extremely religious nor do I wear it on my sleeve.  And yet, when I see so much animosity toward people like Tim Tebow for loving God, I question why? 

Whenever I say this, people bring up the crusades....okay, that was hundreds of years ago in a time where people basically killed each other all the time for little to no reason...especially if you were royalty.  So, I don't buy this.  Tebow has never told anyone that they're going to hell for not being religious.  He has never preached his religion on anybody else.  He simply thanks God for giving him his talents and for blessing him that he is able to do what he's always dreamed of doing since he was 6-years-old.  What is wrong with that?

Why is it only for Christians who wear it on their sleeves.  People don't hate devout Muslims are Hindus that don't eat meat or drink.  The Hesidic Jews are about the closest thing to the vitriol but they seem to hate non-hesedes too, so I can understand that.  Christians, however, do talk with people not as religious as they are, but still this vitriolic hatred.  People literally get offended when someone saves sex for marriage....why?  I think that's the best gift that you could give your spouse "You are the only one to have sex with me."  That's awesome, not realistic, but I wouldn't villify someone for it.  Why would you? 

Look if someone wants to be religious, let them be so long as they don't preach!  And if you do hate someone for being religious, hate all religious people, not just the Christians!

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

Friday, December 9, 2011

Chris Paul should be a Laker

Recently Chris Paul was traded to the LA Lakers from the New Orleans Hornets for Lamar Odom and Adrew Bynum.  The Houston Rockets were also involved but LA was not receiving any players from them so I'm leaving them out.  Commissioner David Stern blocked the trade because it was "unfair" and many owners agreed with him including Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, who made public his e-mail he sent to the commissioner complaining that the Lakers gave up no draft picks and shaved 40 million in costs in making the trade, leaving cap room and options to trade for another big name such as Dwight Howard.

As an extremely loyal and devout Cavalier fan, I cannot endorse the e-mail sent by our owner. In effect, he is trying to make it impossible for anyone to thwart the Miami Heat and live up to his guarantee "that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win an NBA championship before the self-titled former 'king' wins one" (From Gilbert's statement after Lebron James decided to go to Miami). 

Also in his e-mail GIlbert said, "They should just rename 25 of the 30 teams the Washington Generals"
A little different from "If you thought we were motivated before tonight to bring the hardware to Cleveland, I can tell you that this shameful display of selfishness and betrayal....has shifted our "motivation" to previously unknown and previously never experienced levels" (see above reference)

The hornets would've received a good/great center in Gasol or Odom and a really good power forward in Luis Scola (From Rockets),  They believed they were benefitting from this trade.  It is only an issue between the three times involved in the trade and should have nothing to do with any other owner or the commissioner.  We had the lockout to try to limit Stern's power, and now he is blocking teams from doing what they think is right for their team.  I don't think the New Orleans Hornets would purposely destroy their franchise to help the Lakers...if they want to make a trade, nobody except the teams they're negotiating with should stop them!

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

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Exceptions make the rule

My judgment of when a video has gone viral is if I've seen it.  I don't spend much time on Facebook, even less on youtube and none on Twitter, so I normally don't see videos unless everyone else has seen them first.  This is why I believe people have seen the video of an Iowa man speaking about Gay rights by a notoriously liberal organization.  In the video, a man gives a very eloquent 4-minute speech about how he had two female parents and he came out alright, therefore being raised by two same-sex parents is the same as being rasied by a man and a woman.  Above the video is a statement "Why are we against this again?" Let me answer.

I listened to his speech and his only evidence was, "I do well in school" and "Nobody can tell I was raised by two women." Great, I can't tell if someone was raised by divorced parents until they tell me.  Hell, I can't tell if someone was raised by a single parent, does this mean that having a single parent or divorced parents is just as good as having two or married ones?  No anti-gay marriage advocate has ever said that in 100% of cases the child will turn out bad....the argument is that the likelihood they will is higher. 

It is a fact that homosexuals(yes even lesbians) have a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals.  The average homosexual couple stays together for 1.5 years...that's hardly enough to raise a child.  Being around homosexuals encourages your kid to be one too and most gays I know, for reasons unknown to me since they are the most protected minority in America, will tell you that they would not want their kids to be gay because they don't want them to go through what they have.  Homosexual parents promotes being homosexual and their kids are more likely to be homosexual as well. My favorite thing about this comment is when liberals scoff at it and then tell me in the next breath that there's a gay gene and see absolutely no contradiction.  Of course, if liberals could pick up on contradictions...they wouldn't be liberals would they be?

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

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Guilty until proven innocent

As I continue to watch the news and TV, I can't help but think that we have strayed so far in this country.  Sure, on paper, the criminal justice system says we're "Innocent until proven guilty" but as I keep listening to accusations, I begin to laugh at how ridiculous it is to think this is true.  Maybe for some things, like insider trading or the like but you are certainly guilty until proven innocent if you A) are a male and are accused of sexually harrassing a female B) Are an athlete and get accused of performance Enhancing drugs and C) Are accused of molesting a child.
 "A" has come up because I keep hearing about how someone else is accusing Herman Cain of sexual harrassment.  The problem is, there is never any proof.  The only proof I hear is, "Where there's this much smoke, there has to be fire"  That's not true at all.  Especially if you're talking about a conservative.  You can get millions of people to tell you that the phrase "Separation of church and state" is found in the constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not.  There are many liberal women, there's a reason for the expression, "Hell hath no fury over a woman scorn" so it stands to reason that you can find a handful of women who knew Herman Cain, got appalled by his conservative ideas, so made up a rumor about him. Multiple accusations does not a conviction make, you need proof.  I need something like "Since Herman Cain repeatedly harrassed me, I taped it, here's the tape."  That never happened.  When this was brought up at the time it happened, it was concluded that it didn't happen.  The only evidence is that he didn't do it because that was the conclusion of the only investigation into it.  But alas, that's not what people will believe simply because so many women claim he did.  And all have one thing in common....no proof whatsoever.  And the same people who vehemently defended Bill Clinton for doing the same thing to Paula Jones and Linda Tripp are condemning Herman Cain.

To move out of politics, I'll go to Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine, two men accused of molesting little boys when they were assistant coaches for Penn State and Syracuse respectively.  The only evidence for Jerry Sandusky is that in 1998, he was banned from the locker room when little boys were showering because of accusations and when interviewed he fumbled when asked point blank "Are you sexually attracted to little boys."  I admit, the second one gets me a little suspicious....why not say no?  But then again, if he did, nobody would beleive him....nobody believed the Duke Lacross players when they denied raping the stripper six years ago....luckily banks and taxi cabs keep detailed records showing their whereabouts in the time frame that the stripper gave....without that, they probably would have been convicted.  Joe Paterno says that he took away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and banned him from being in the locker room when boys are showering because of what he heard from his assistant coach McQuery who alleged he saw it.  But why did McQuery wait 12 years to report it to the cops?  He's the one who saw it.  So, based on the evidence, I don't think there's enough for me to definitively say Sandusky did it.  I was very hard on Sandusky in my last post but now, I just want evidence. 

Now Bernie Fine is a different story.  This time, there is a tape recording of an alleged victim talking to Laurie Fine, Bernie's wife.  He complains that Fine is touching him and the wife just rolls with it by saying "Yea he's got problems."  Nowhere in the phone conversation does the guy say exactly where or how Bernie Fine touched him.  It could have been a pat on the knee that made him uncomfortable.  Or a slap on the ass, which is common in sports...Brett Favre did it to every one of his teammates.  As I listened, I was skeptical, until the accuser said something along the lines that he thinks Bernie wanted him to give Bernie a blowjob.  His wife responded, "Of course he did, why wouldn't he?"

   That leads me to believe that there might be something to the Bernie Fine case.  I don't know why his wife was so cool in the phone conversation, that's more distrubing. Makes me think she's one of these stay-loyal-to-my-husband-no-matter-how-fucked-up-he-is wives.  I wish that in the phone conversation he said, "Hey Laurie, he touched my penis" or "Made me pull down my pants" or "Put his hands in my pants and grabbed me" something specific instead of "Touching."  That phone conversation was enough for Jim Boeheim to back off on calling the accusers liars but I still think the evidence is kind of weak.  This is the most damning of the three but still, it's just that his wife said, "Of course Bernie would want you to give him a blow job" and "Yea, Bernie has problems"  The accuser goes on to say that he did have sex with Laurie Fine...which I think was a way to get back at Fine....get back at him for what?  Well, I can think of one thing but again just the act of accusing Fine makes me believe that he doesn't like him.  So, having sex with his wife just confirms, he really doesn't like him.  Without the accusation, you wouldn't jump to "Because he molested me" so it's possible there's another reason.  Why is it that when the accuser said at the time of the incident "Ask these four people, they'll confirm my story" and all four people said, "No, he's lying"?  Why would that be the case?

Six years ago, the Duke Lacross story gave me hope that any woman can't accuse any man of rape with nothing more than tears as evidence.  Now, I'm beginning to believe that it was merely an exception to the rule.  It seems that women and children are given an "Accuse anyone of rape" card and that has dangerous implications.

Friday, November 11, 2011

In defense of Joe Paterno

I have never been a Penn State fan.  I am completely indifferent to their program and everyone in it.  It is from these eyes that I can be completely objective and call Joe Paterno's firing not only wrong but a sign as how pathetically 1984 are society has become.

Let's review the facts, in the 90's a perverted piece of shit by the name of David Sandusky raped 10-year-old boys in the locker room of Penn State.  He was an assistant coach under Joe Paterno.  One of his other assistant coaches caught David Sandusky sodomizing a boy.  Following proper protocal he told his superior, Joe Paterno.  Joe Paterno following the same protocal told his superior the athletic director.  At this point it is the athletic director's job to call the police and report it.  Or at the very least, the guy who actually saw the act taking place should call the cops.

Let's just pretend Paterno did in fact call the cops and they arrest Sandusky.  After getting arrested, Sandusky pleads not guilty and it goes to trial.  They call Paterno to the stand and say, "What do you know?"  He responds, "My assistant coach told me he saw David sodomizing a boy in the locker room" in which case, the defense lawyer gets up and screams, "Objection, hearsay" the judge, following proper protocal says, "sustained" and Paterno's answer is stricken from the record.  For all Joe Paterno knew, his assistant coach could have been lying to him about Sandusky.  Maybe they had animosity.  He did ban Sandusky from being in the locker room while his players were showering and presumably took away his key.  So, Joe Paterno made sure that he wasn't in a position to do it again on Penn State property.  Could he have called the cops....yea maybe but he's not the right person to do it....the man who actually SAW it is.  By the way, the witness is still an assistant coach at Penn State for the exact reason I gave.  He can testify against Sandusky, so they don't want to be mean to him by firing him because maybe then he won't testify.

In the book 1984 by George Orwell, a major theme is that nobody keeps secrets from big brother.  Children rat on parents, spouses on each other, parents on their children, there is nobody you can confide in.  Jim Tressel of Ohio State was fired for not telling the athletic director about players selling memorabilia.  Joe Paterno was fired for telling the atheletic director of misconduct....so it seems like whether you do or don't, you get fired if something amiss happens.  You must report it to the government, to big brother, to the cops, then all is huncky dory.  Forget that Joe Paterno has been loyal for over 40 years to the organization.  He isn't even worthy of being fired in person, the board of directors called him on the phone to do it.  That cowardly, selfish, disloyal, act is far worse than anything Joe Paterno did.  Joe Paterno protected the kids by not allowing David Sandusky in the locker room anymore.  Sandusky quit a little while later.

This is just another indication of how Al Pacino describes educational institutions in Scent of a Woman "You're building a rat ship here, a vessel for sea going snitchers, and if you think you're preparing the minnows for manhood, you better think again because I say you are destroying the very thing this institution proclaims it instills."  he goes on, "I don't know if Charlie's silence here is right or wrong?  I'm not a judge or jury, but I can tell you this, he won't sell anybody out to buy his future and that my friends is called integrity, that's called courage, now that's the stuff leaders should be made of."  Academic institutions only try to promote big brother mentality, Rat out everyone, save your hide, no loyalty.  If this sounds good, read 1984 and see where this mentality leads you. 

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Mob mentality

It is odd to me the mentality of a mob.  Whether it be the KKK, the Wall Street Protestors, the people of Jerusalem who wanted to crucify Jesus or Unions.  There never seems to be any rationality to them.  The KKK couldn't even decide if they wanted to kill blacks or Republicans so they just killed both.  The mob is never united, it's just a bunch of people who rally behind some cause.  The result is anarchy.  Almost every wall street protestor interviewed has a different reason why they're there ranging from bailouts to banks to the war in the middle east to legalizing marijuana.  All they want to do is destroy, not to change.  All the KKK wanted to do was kill and all unions want to do is make as much money as possible from company owners.

The other ones are obvious but unions are mobs too.  They convince workers that without them, they would be working inhumane hours for little to no pay and would need to start at the age of 6.  What the union men don't realize is that it is they who are being exploited by the unions, not their employers.  I work for a construction company and the amount the company has to pay to the union is about the same hourly rate they have to pay their employees.  That means that each worker costs them about twice a worker's salary...which means that without the union, they could afford to hire another worker and not affect their bottom line, which is the only thing a corporation really cares about.  Also, people don't understand the very basis of how labor works.  Not all blue collar workers are willing to work 20 hours of manual labor for little to no pay....so they simply wouldn't.  This is why the Irish rose so quickly in America and why the HIspanics currently are. They are willing to put in the hard work to make it to the top.  The Irish did it without unions and the Hispanics who are paid under the table do too.  Everyone has a limit though and the better you are, the more alluring offer you get.  In construction, very often, you're on a job with many different construction companies and they notice if you're a hard worker and if you're employer pays you shit, that makes you easier to lure away to a different company.

There is a direct correlation between the power of a union and the amount of layoffs.  Unions don't prevent layoffs, they enable and cause them.  If you fire one worker, than you save twice the salary (the salary of the employee and the amount you have to pay the union).  If there was no union, there would be less incentive for them to fire you because they wouldn't save as much.  Union workers have come to accept the high turnover rate and they don't enjoy job security.  The union tells them, "Imagine how bad it would be if we weren't here fighitng for you to keep you job" 

Well, they may be being paid less,but they would have more security.  The cost to hire them would be half that to an employee and the cost savings to get rid of them would be half....so if they weren't there, they stand to be better off.  By forcing the price of labor up, the contractor can't hire as many workers, which means more unemployed workers.  Unions force and guarantee employment by doing this and then claiming they're helping them.

The union's only power is for you, the mob, to illogically fight against your employer so that your union can exploit you.  Just like Pontius Pilate who killed Jesus because he feared the mob, your employer has to let the union exploit you and make it that much easier for them to fire you.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Obsession with eating babies

I don't understand people's obsessions with describing how they want to eat babies as ways of saying they're cute. This happened on a recent episode of "How I Met Your Mother" Marshall on the show sees a baby and says, "I just want to put those little feet in my mouth."

This is something I normally hear from women.  I've heard comments like "I want to bite those cheeks" to "Nipple on their toes" and the generic "Gobble them up."

Obviocusly new borns are too young to understand but this does continue till like age 2 or 3 where they can comprehend what it is your saying.  This seems slightly psychotic to me.  I mean, I see babies, and yea they're cute, maybe I want to hold them, or sometimes I get the urge to kiss them on the forehead but it has never occurred to me to put any part of their body in my mouth.  Am I crazy? 

Monday, November 7, 2011

Running the marathon

I can think of several reasons why not to run the marathon.  First off, the first guy to run the marathon died of exhaustion from it.  On a more personal level, I had to stop wrestling in high school because I blew out my knee.  Both my knees were weak to begin with.  Now, after this, I ran cross country for two years.  So, now not only do I have bad knees, I got bad shins from running with shin splints and bad ankles from constantly rolling/'spraining it and continuing to walk/ run and perform on it.  So, for me , it's a lot more than the normal "you have to be nuts to run 26.2 miles!"  After my friend ran the marathon yesterday, she squatted down.  Squatting hurts my knees.  My other friend will squat when she's tired of standing to relax her legs.  If I crouch into a catcher's stance (what they do) I feel a sharp pain in the back of my knee and handsprings.  This had been the case for at least as long as I can remember but probably my whole life.  Running the marathon is not worth going to the hospital for reconstructive knee surgery, which is a distinct possibility if I ran the marathon. 
          With all this said, there's one question I keep asking myself; What if you did?  This leads to so many more questions like how would it feel?  What's it like to say 'I ran a marathon'?  Can that be put into words?  I think not.  I can't put into words how proud I am of my friend for doing it.  The odd thing is, it's the 2nd time she has.  The first time was the Chicago one last year.  I wasn't there and was like "Good Job, you're crazy" like most people react.  But seeing her with the cape and the medal signifying she finished the New York City marathon, I couldn't help but want to constantly hug her.  She had told me that she hurt all over so stop hugging her but why was I so proud?  I realized I was having a different emotion as we kept walking; envy.  I envied the feeling, the knowledge that I have conquored the marathon.  She can say she did it twice.  I actually like to run.  That was never the issue.  I feel New York City would be the ideal place because I know and power walked/run on a lot of the course.  I'm not familiar with the entire 26.2, but I am familiar with a vast majority since I and many of my friends have lived near part of the route.  The problem with this is you can't run the New York City marathon unless you've run one before.  There's no way I'd run it twice.  But what if I just run the course the day before the race? This way the barricades are already in place, so I have it mapped out....or map my own 26.2 miles course looping back to my apartment.

So now for more questions.  How do I know my legs can't handle it?  How do I know I wouldn't be able to finish?  When I ran cross country, I drank 6 cans of soda and 2 hot dogs for lunch every day.  What if I decided for 5 months, I'd actually do the traditional thing.  I trained correctly, I worked at it and gave myself the opportunity to run 26.2 miles.  Why not try? For that's the only way I'll get an answer to these questions. 

Now evidence why I may be able to.  When I ran cross contry, I averaged 6:35 minute mile for 3.2 miles.  After 9 years or so of no exercise and doing nothing athletic, I ran a 9 minute mile.  That's horrible by my and cross coutnry standards but not so bad for general population standards.  I never timed how fast I could run only a mile when I was in Cross Country shape.  But, at West Point to max the mile test, you need to get a 6:30.  After that that they stop you.  So, over a 3.2 mile course, I was averaging five seconds less than the maximum required for the United States army.  I saw a lot of old people who finished the marathon.  Yes, I ran cross country 11 years ago, but can I get near that shape again?  My friend maintained an 11:23 mile pace up till about mile 23 where she dropped to 11:55.  So, I was running a 5 minute quicker pace for 3.2 miles.  Does that mean if I dropped the pace by five minutes, I could go another 23.1 miles?  I think there's only one way to find out.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Girls today

I feel this is an appropriate day to write on this topic.  I don't think I'm that old but I definately see a difference between girls when I was in high school and girls who are currently in high school with regard to the internet.

When I was in high school, girls were very cautious about having their boyfriends or guys take a risque picture of them because they feared it would end up on the internet.  Now, girls do it to themselves.  If you go on facebook, you can see this immediately, the girls my age very rarely, if ever, have pictures of them in bikinis or anything risque on Facebook.  Then you go to a girl in high school and you see literally multiple photos of them in bikinis, close up of their cleavage, and other pictures that leave little to the imagination.  Some even show nipple, which I didn't even know was allowed on facebook but apparantly it is.  Now some girls my age or older will slip and have a picture of them in a bikini but like I said, they're very low in number.  Almost every girl in high school up until the legal age to drink have facebook pages flooded with risque photos...I'm not sure how or when this switch was made.

Sure you can argue that attractive girls want to flaunt what they got.  They worked hard to get their gorgeous physiques so why not show them off?  Looks don't last forever so flaunt it while you got it.  Especially on Halloween where even girls my age dress like sluts but have rabbit ears or something on so they don't actually say they're dressed as sluts.  This is why Halloween is the most popular day to be raped.  It is also the most popular day to try a drug for the first time.  Go out to a bar and you can immediately see why the former statistic is quite obvious to discern.  If you are worried you won't have enough will power to do something disrespectful, don't worrry, the younger ones will post all of it on facebook for your viewing pleasure. 

Saturday, October 29, 2011

NBA lockout

The NBA has just announced that we will not have basketball in November.  This bothers me to no end as I am obsessed with the NBA.  In every debate, one should pick a side.  I am siding with the owners.

The thing that the players refuse to agree to is anything less than 52% of all basketball related revenue.  This is approximately 80 million dollars.  I think the owners are being nice offering 50%.  This is a common problem in all businesses and corporations.  Secretaries think that since they do all the bitch work and paper work that they are actually running the companies.  It is very common for lower tier people to believe those at the tops do nothing and the lower people are stuck doing all the work.  This is also seen in construction, those actually lifting steel beams and putting them in place putting the building together hate that the architect of the building gets credit for building it.  In all examples, the distribution of the money is fairly distributed.

I have a problem with David Stern in his dress code for the players and tyrannical suspensions.  The most egregious of this was suspending Rashard Lewis of the Orlando Magic 50 games for testing positive for DHEA.  DHEA is a natural hormone made by the body.  Everyone in the world has DHEA...and if you don't, you should go get some DHEA supplements because it is one of the most important hormones your body needs to function.  I assume that Rashard Lewis tested higher than the normal limit people have, but that's like faulting him for drinking more water than the average person.  It's decisions like these where I can understand the players having issue with David Stern but David Stern and the owners have worked very hard making basketball the global game that it's become.  They literally go around the world searching for talent and advertising/building teams that thousands of people will pay good money to watch live.  I don't know exactly what goes into the daily operations of an NBA owner so I will just say it this way: NBA players are paid millions of dollars to do something that they've been doing for their entire lives and maybe even paid to do early on.  It is the NBA owners responsibility to find a way to make enough money to pay these multi-million dollar contracts while still running a successful team.  In no way should the salaried employees be compensated at a higher revenue share that the company brings in than the people who find a way to pay all the salaried employees every week.

I really hope the players give in to the 50/50 revenue split soon.  They're asking for something they don't deserve and I really want to watch basketball.  If they dismiss what the owners do so much, than they should start their own league like they threaten.  At least then I can watch basketball again...and they'll find out just how badly they need the owners!

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Bulletin Board material doesn't exist

After watching the New York Jets beat the San Diego Chargers last week, I have decided that the days of "Bulletin Board material" no longer exist. 

"Bulletin Board material" is when an athlete talks trash before a game, which causes the opposing team to get extra motivated to play and subsequently destroy the team that made the offending comment.  Most athletes scoff at the idea of Bulletin Board material because "If you can't motivate yourself, than you really have no business being out there in the first place."  A valid claim, but in this PC world, given the epidemic of pussification of men as outlined in my book, Bulletin Board material isn't indifferent, it works for the aggressive teams.

It's fascinating to me that I'm going to football for my examples as it has the reputation of having the toughest men.  Bulletin Board material under the tyrant that is David Stern (NBA) would probably be heavily fined, which may inhibit players in the NBA from saying it.  Really, I just think football is the only sport that actually has remnances of real men who would make Bulletin board comments.  Basketball and baseball (I don't watch hockey so won't comment and in this country there clearly is three dominant sports) just don't have real men playing anymore.  Now for my examples.

A couple years ago, the New England Patriots stormed through the regular season with a perfect 16-0 record...they went on to win the first two playoff games making them 1 win away from being the second team ever to finish a season undefeated.  The only team in their way was the New York Giants.  Michael Strahan got on TV and said, "We will beat the Patriots 21-17!  They asked Tom Brady, the quarterback for the Patriots, about this comment knowing full well that the Patriots always give vague answers if at all and claim they never listen to the media.  Tom Brady asked what the quote was as he never heard it, upon hearing it, he gasped, "We're only going to score 17 points?"  then chuckled and continued, "okay."  The media had a field day with this.  Every sports analysts in the country kept talking about bulletin board material and how stupid Strahan was for saying it.  Many said he should have just shut up and they were excited for when Tom Brady walked onto the superbowl stage and said, "Watch this!"

I was watching....the New England Patriots only scored 14 points in their loss in the superbowl to Strahan's New York Giants.  Brady and the bully Patriots were punched in the mouth and like most bullies you punch in the mouth, they ran and hid!

Example 2:  Last week, Rex Ryan said, "If I had been chosen as the coach instead of Norv Turner, I'd have two rings by now given how stacked those teams were."  The Jets were on a three game losing streak at this point.  Again, every analyst in the country said that because of these comments the Chargers (Norv Turner's team) would demolish the Jets.  The Jets were victorious last week despite their losing ways this season.

Example 3-4: Last year, Rex Ryan before their playoff games with the Patriots and the Colts said, "This game is personal, I hate Tom Brady and I hate Bill Bellichek" and "The Colts eliminated us last year, so now it's personal, I really want to get them back."  For both games, the experts said that the Jets would be demolished because of Ryan's comments....the Jets won both games!

In the 80s, if you made these comments, then you better watch out.  Given the pussies that play professional sports now adays, you make these comments and those you offend will run and hide!  The only example I can think of where bulletin board material actually worked in this millennium is when about 4 or 5 years ago, someone said, "Tiger Woods is overhyped" when he was matched up with him head to head.  Tiger Woods went on to win the first 10 holes, with only 8 remaining.  In golf this is referred to as "9-8"meaning you're up by 9 with 8 holes to go thus it's impossible to win.  It's sad that since the millennium, golf has the only example of bulletin board material actually working! 

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

Monday, October 24, 2011

Let the children play

There is a common stigma in this country that the days where kids could run around and ride their bikes around the neighborhood are gone becuase of pedofiles. I can't fault anyone for thinking this way.  Hell, in my book, I make a similar claim, but now I'm not so sure.  There are two conflicting views on this subject.  (1) the stories of pedofiles and the public list of child predators and (2) Most missing child cases turn up that the parents or another family member is the guilty party. 

    Objectively speaking, the latter is what most convinces me that even now kids can ride their bikes around their neighborhood just like I did as a kid.  No matter how many pedofiles show up on that list, the facts remain that the amount of kids abducted by strangers pales in comparison to parents or other family members. 

I liken this topic to the question: "Would you rather let your children go to a friend's house that has a pool or one where you know the family has a gun."  Most people say the pool, yet statistically and objectively speaking, much more kids get injured or killed in a house swimming pool than by guns in the house. The balancing factor is hearing that a kid got shot is so much more traumatic than that they drowned or slipped while running and became severely injured.  The thought that your child can leave home and someone picks them up to rape and murder them sounds so much worse than bad parenting. The reason is, in the former, there are many victims, the children and the poor parents and family that have to endure this....the latter, it's only the child.  Few people ever have sympathy for parents that abuse their children, and I don't blame them.  So I say, stop sheltering the kids and let them play!

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Getting involved

Recently I was on the subway going home when this group of what I presume to be high school students walked on to the train.  There were three girls and two guys.  It was a relatively crowded train so they weren't all standing together.  But one of the guys was within arm reach of one of the girls.  When she wasn't looking, he would extend out and pat her on the back.  She turned around, smiled and told him to stop.  Every now and then she would hit him.  When she would scold him, he started calling her names such as "Ugly" "Big nose" "Jew" and "Arab."  What her background was, I am not sure but she had very light skin, which doesn't reveal anything really.  But, clearly she couldn't have been Jewish and Arab, but I'm going to guess Jewish. 

When we reached the next stop, some people got off and the guy moved in and was right next to the girl he was harrassing.  He said, 'Now, that I'm right next to you, I can really harass you."  To which she smiled.

As the train continued, he kept up the name calling, and messed up her hair by pulling it over her face and holding it there so she couldn't see.  When he let up, she'd be smiling while hitting him in the chest and telling him to stop. 

Throghout this time, I was against the doors on the opposite side of where they'd be opening.  This was happening in front of me yet I did nothing because the girl was smiling and it just seemed like they were joking around.  I could tell by the expressions on everyone else in the car's faces that they were just as annoyed as I was, but nobody said anything.  We got to the next stop and a lot of people got out freeing the area next to me by the door.  The guy wraped his arms around all three girls and shoves them into the door next to me.  They hit the door pretty hard but had no reaction.  He continued to mildly harrass her and then they stopped. 

Throughtout this time, I urged myself to say something, but I didn't.  My logic was, "She's smiling, so she's not too concerned about it and not in any harm.  For all I know it's her boyfriend or brother or something." When he shoved them into the door, I asked myself, "What exactly needs to happen for me to step in?"  Where is my threshold?  Would it be different if she wasn't smiling?  If she needed help, why didn't she ask for it, there were people on the train?  Then again, battered women rarely run and ask for help, they actually vehemently defend their assailants.  Maybe I just don't want a confrontation.  I didn't know these girls.  They mean nothing to me, I'm not going to get in a fight for them.  If charges were brought, the girls wouldn't back me up. so why bother?  Then I thought of a quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." 

I regret not getting involved.  I've seen confrontations like this on the train before and usually the aggressor immediately backs off when a stranger scolds them.  Something, I've never really understood either but that is normally how these things end.  I'd like to think that if it escalated, I would have done something, but the more I think about it, the more I think of the Kitty Genovese story.  Kitty Genovese was violently raped and murdered on a lit street.  At least 27 people saw her get raped and subsequently murdered, yet nobody called the cops.  When asked why, they replied, "I thought someone else would have." 

I was just like those 27 people.  I waited around for someone else to get involved.  I would like to implore those of you out there to learn from my mistake.  I hope if this ever happens again, I'll be confronational because I really don't like feeling this guilty.  If I said something, and I had the 5 of them yelling at me about how it was just a joke, at least I would have known I tried! 

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

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Girlfriend vs. Wife.

It seems common sensical that what qualities you look for in a girlfriend should be what you look for in a wife.  True, most people have to date many people before they find the one they want to marry, but that's more testing the market and seeing what you like and dislike so you can better judge what your wife should be like...but does this work?

It's odd I think about these things as I am asexual, but just because I don't want to do something (get married and/or date) doesn't mean I can't ponder about it.  My parents have the best marriage that I have seen, yet they are completely opposites.  My dad is a scientific-minded, black and white, hard facts kind of guys, and my mom starts most sentences with "I feel" and is more an intuitive type.  What ends up happening is they balance each other out and thus their weaknesses are thwarted by each other.  This is why people say, "Opposites attract" but does it HAVE TO be this way?  Can a marriage work if the two of you are similar?

When I look at dating couples, it seems you do not have this "opposites attract" thing.  Instead, they normally are quite similar.  They think the same way, this is why they can understand each other better than most outside individuals.  My two closest friends understand the way I think because they too are very logical.  Because of this, they can handle me in all my forms.  They know why I'm doing what I'm doing and, more importantly, how to handle me and how to get through to me much more effectively than my close intuitive friends.  This got me thinking about this.  Although none of them I am emotionally involved with, I entertain how I would react with someone like them.  It seems that by my parents example, the intuitive ones are the ones fit to marry.  Yet, shouldn't your wife be able to handle you?  Shouldn't your wife know how to get through to you?  By the way, feel free to reverse the genders, the rule still applies.  They say that you should never marry/date someone that is exactly like you because although your strengths are magnified, the weaknesses are too.  There's no balance.  Does that con outweigh the fact that your with someone that is incapable of understanding how you think? 

My logical friends know exactly how to get through to me, how to debate me, how to counter my defense mechanisms.  Maybe I haven't found someone to match the wife credential.  Maybe it's someone that's intuitive but knows how to handle me even though they don't understand why it works.  That last sentence makes no sense to me but I'm leaving it to help spark the thought in your head. 

As far as why there's different characteristics in your wife than your girlfriend, the only reason I can think of is that your wife is much more vested in it.  Sure, a girlfriend can be happy that you want to live within your means, but when you're married, you have to think of their needs too.  Your decisions affect your wife much more than your girlfriend, so that's why you may need someone to balance your decisions to make sure you don't go too far down the wrong path.  You're opposite, however, doesn't know how you think and therefore may not know how to get through to you to stop you.  So, again, does the pro outweigh the con? 

My conclusion is you should date people like you but as soon as you're ready for marriage, start looking for people who fit the criterea outlined in my book but think the exact opposite way you do.  Again, we come back to my biggest problem with relationships...they're just so illogical.

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

Monday, October 17, 2011

Defending Obama vs Ron Paul

Ron Paul recently attacked President Obama by saying that his drone strikes were unconstitutional.  I have a problem with this.

The constitution says that the President, being the commander in chief, can authorize any act of war for up to 90 days without congress' consent (Articles of Confederation).  Although up until President Clinton, no president had actually utilized this, it was in the constitution for emergencies.  Clinton used it to bomb Baghdad, Kosova, and many other places whenever heat was on him about scandals. That was an abuse of this right.  The drone attacks, however, I don't think are an abuse.  President Obama has done a good job killing Al Queda members.  He is responsible for taking out Osama Bin Laden and even American defectors.  I don't know how Ron Paul can fault him for this. 

Ron Paul wasn't doing well in the polls to begin with, but this made me jump off his band wagon (If you look at previous posts, I actually liked him).  I still want a president that's going to be able to do what's needed to be done in the war on terror.  Although, I wouldn't give President Obama the highest marks for this, these drone attacks were a very good strategy. 

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

Sunday, October 16, 2011

My Critique on President Obama

Since, I am going to defend him in a post in the near future, I decided I'm going to attack him finally.  Both in my book, and the rare times I mention him in this blog, I find myself defending him.  I make little asides saying that he's a socialist and whatever but it's always hidden amongst positive words. So, here it is, why I don't like President Obama.

Since he first started campaigning till now, his solution to everything is to have the government take over.  If the government is taking over banking, health care, and all other aspects of the economy, that is socialism.  This is why I don't think it's hyerbole to call him a socialist since all his ideas relate to having the government running everything, even though they fail at almost every endeavor.  The reason they fail at almost every endeavor is because the government, unlike the private sector, doesn't care about making a profit.  So, they spend recklessly and keep throwing money at failing ventures.

To go toward my point that government programs fail, President Obama's ideas have raised the national debt 4.2 trillion dollars since he took office.  Think about that for a second, that's 1.4 Trillion dollars a year!!!  His "economic advisors" will tell you that it would have been worse if he didn't do the bailouts to the car industry and the banks.  The bank bailout did give the government 20 billion dollars in revenue, so that's a fair point. I'm not sure about the cash for clunkers campaign.  The problem is, I can't go back in time and have him not bail out the banks and cash for clunkers and see what would happen.  So, it's all speculation, I think we would have had a couple months of real hardship and then rebounded if the invisible hand was allowed to do its thing without government interference but there is absolutely no way to prove that.  Also, keep in mind, the government lost over 500 million dollars in Solyndra....so, the 20 billion profit isn't spent too wisely is it?  The government is not a hedge fund, it's not, "Oh well, we made an investment that didn't pay off sorry."  Let the private sector make the risky investments because they're the ones who actually want a profit!

Secondly, he's just too available  When he first took office, he was always on TV.  It was really the first time in my life, where I didn't think it was a big thing that the President was speaking.  In fact, after a while, some TV stations stopped showing it because they didn't get the viewership to justify reimbursing their sponsors who paid for a spot on the regularly scheduled programming.  He also gave his opinion on things that he admitted he knew nothing about, like the cop who responded to a distress call in Boston and then was accosted by the professor that lived there.

Thirdly, he raised capital gains tax and made it unprofitable to have a small business. He also punished the rich for being rich by raising taxes on them, the job creators, and raising how much they have to pay to give their employees healthcare.  This means that the employers have to spend more money per worker, which means they're less likely to hire, which means more unemployment....hence the problem we have.  Also, the capital gains tax punishes you for making good investments....so, why invest?  Looks like venture capitalist and the small businesses they help won't be doing so well.  The more I think about President Obama, the more I see Chavez.  Chavez oppressively took from the rich and gave to the poor.  He even went to poor neighborhoods throwing chickens on the street.  What happened was, the poor came out in droves to support him and the rich fled Venezuela and emigrated to other countries.  This means more supporters for Chavez, yes the country is in shambles but at least he's popular!  President Obama seems to be following this model. 

The underlying factor behind all of this is President Obama has socialistic ideas.  We knew this by his association with Bill Ayers and Reverand Wright.  He's also inexperienced, the presidency is not something you learn as you go on the job.  I used to commend people for running for office when they weren't corrupted by politics thinking it could help....based on Obama, I think this might be a false assumption, then again, I need a bigger sample size.  It does not work when people say, "I'll just hire people who do know around me." as people said to defend President Obama.  Maybe, Herman Cain will win the Republican nomination and beat President Obama and then once again, we'll have a man inexperienced in politics as president.  Then I'll see if an unexperienced Republican is just as bad as an unexperienced Democrat. 

Coming soon: I defend President Obama from Ron Paul 

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

Saturday, October 15, 2011

The Wall Street Protestors

Everyone seems to have an opinion of the wall street protestors.  Well, I wish I could add some bold, contrary to the general consensus view on it, but it's just too obvious both what it is and what it's not.  It is a move for revolution and socialism in America to honor Karl Marx.

The protestors are not a right wing conspiracy to demonize President Obama.  I hear this about a lot of protests and, to be honest, yes it does happen.  It's so commonplace, there's a name for it, they're called "Protest warriors."  What protest warriors do is walk into protests and make large signs and loudly proclaim an extreme version of the view.  An example of this is for an anti-war protest for Bush, people walk in with signs saying "Bush should be assassinated." The goal of this is that the more moderate protestors don't want to associate with something so extreme so they leave, thus making the protest smaller or non-existent.  If this is what the right-wing is trying to do, clearly they're failing because the protest is growing.  I'm against protest warriors in general when you're on the right because the left doesn't really get scared off by extreme views.  I think "Bush is a Nazi" would be an excellent protest warrior sign considering Bush, last I checked, didn't order the murder of 6,000,000 civilians.  Yet, all over Greenwich Village and college campuses across the nation, this was a common sign.  So, you really can't be too extreme for these people.  If the right-wing is doing this, stop, clearly it isn't working.

The protestors are not a group backed by President Obama to create class warfare and turn the middle and lower class against the upper class.  Although I believe President Obama's ideas and term champions the spirit of this, I do not believe it was a conscious deliberate act that he backed and created.  I hear, "Remember, Obama was a street organizer in Chicago" that's cute, but he didn't organize this one.

The protestors are unorganized, spoiled, whiny little bitches.  When you interview them, they don't seem to know why they're out there.  One guy said, "I think we should legalize marijuana" well, I'm glad he knows the significance of why he's there.  What happened is, the 4% of college students that graduate and are unemployed (yes, the number is that low) bitch and moan about no jobs, yet they aren't willing to work their way up.  They think, "Hey, I graduated college, I should be guaranteed at least 60,000 a year even though I have no work experience."  They scoff at $ 7/hr jobs and refuse to work their way up the way that almost every single successful person did.  The reason why 90% of businesses fail when it's inherited is that the entitlement that people feel they deserve for graduating college or because their parents were successful doesn't work!  No matter what governent programs, inheritance, subsidies, etc. etc. are in place, hard work and working your way to the top is still the best way to be successful.  The protestors don't understand that, they want a job managing or trading at a bank, not as a mere teller.  When I graduated, I had this mentality, I was promised $ 60,000 a year working for my dad.  The only catch was I wouldn't be allowed to live in New York anymore.  So, I took my unexperience ass and hit the job market hard, I worked recruiting college kids in Kentucky, I sold office supplies business to business, I took any shit job that I could get until I found one that adequately paid my bills.  I learned real quick that the sense of entitlement I had in college was pathetic, moronic and downright ascenine.  So, the protestors are whiny, violent, little bitches and I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Founding Father's presidency

As we are 13 months away from our next presidential election, I look back at the history of the presidency and wonder about how it all started.  In 1776, the articles of confederation stated that there is an election, whoever had the most votes is the president and the second most is the Vice President.  Even back in those times, there were two major parties and it really ended up being a two person race, one representing each party.  This lasted for 27 years until they decided that the system was ridiculous and presidents got to choose their running mate/vice president.  Was it that ridiculous though? 

The whole point of what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish was balance of powers.  They wanted to make sure that there would be no King George III in America, so when you look at it at under that goal, the system makes complete sense.  The Vice President is of the opposing party so it keeps the president in check from promoting far right or far left legislation.  If you look at today's government, this is exactly what happens anyway.  Two years after almost any election, the party opposing the president's party wins the house.  It seems that the voters make this the case anyway when they do this.  What hasn't changed since the inception of America is that the vast majority doesn't want complete party power.  That's why it's always so hard to get anything done, because the house has to approve and then the Senate and even then the President can veto 

This is really the greatness of our system though.  For if bad presidents could get their way, than we may have another George III.  So, why did they get rid of second place being the Vice President?  Clearly the top two people should get the top two positions in government and what's the difference if it's two people fighting or 428 vs. 100 vs. 1?  The balance is the same, if not, much less confusing.

~Larry Couchmanos
  Autographed copies of my book can be purchased at the bottom of this page.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Fresh blood

      Well, just as I post that it's a two man race, Rick Perry's performance in the debates plummets him and Herman Cain seems to pick up his supporters. 

Cain's big thing is that he's going to cut taxes across the board, corporate, personal, wealthy, and bring the capital gains tax to zero.  Obviously, I have no problem with that, I'm of the right-wing, I identify strongly with conservatives, and the definition of conservative is people who want lower taxes, strong national defense, limited government and traditional values.  Reducing the capital gains tax to 0, will help small businesses by giving venture capitalist and investors incentive to invest in up and coming businesses, which potentially causes more self-made people. Herman Cain says this will not decrease revenue for the government because with more self-made people, you have more people making enough money to raise their income bracket, thus give more money in taxes. This happened in the 60s and 80s under Kennedy and Raegan respectively, so it's not far-fetched.  Although I commend him for this, I haven't heard one Republican candidate say "I'm going to raise taxes" or "I'm keeping them the same."  As far as I know all eight candidates at the debate want to lower taxes, so why should that differentiate Cain?

One thing I like about him is that he ran a successful business in Godfather pizza.  Now, some people scoff that's it's only a pizza joint.  This is especially true if you live in New York where independant pizza shops are pretty much on every block.  But you know what, I respect anyone that can run a business.  I also like that it was pizza because if he became president, I don't think he'd continue with this ridiculous Michelle Obama policy of trying to force people to eat right.  I mean the man had a bacon cheeseburger pizza, my mouth waters just thinking of that.  So good, none of this "you can't buy soda with food stamps" and "We have a problem in this country with childhood obesity and my daughters are no exemption" both things Michelle Obama said.  What I eat is none of the government's business and I think Cain would agree.  So, I like this. 

Now for the criticism of Cain, he talks about how he's going to cut spending.  He's making vertical cuts and horizontal cuts.  He talked on Fox and was asked, "Specifically what are you going to cut" and he just went back to how he's going to do fiscal surgery.  The interviewer pressed him some more to be specific and he wasn't.  The interviewer threw him a bone by saying that both Obama and the Republicans are refusing to be specific about what will be cut because they will alienate some special interest voters and neither one wants to gve their opponent ammunition and what you will cut is ammunition.  I scoff at this.  I may be naive and idealistic but Goddamnit, I'm stubborn too, I do not like people who dodge questions.  I support the bold, I want someone to tell it like it is.  I respect Perry for saying Social Security is a ponzii scheme, which it obviously is.  I would like Cain to get specific.  So, I knock him for that.  The other thing that annoyed me is that he said, "I had colon cancer, they cut me open and took out part of my colon, that's what I'm going to do to spending.  That's the type of surgery we need, I had massive surgery, so that's what I'm going to do to spending."  I'm sorry, the fact that you had surgery doesn't make you a surgeon.  This may irk me more because I work with so many people who think that just because they've had multiple medical issues, it's equivalant to graduating medical school and they give medical advice accordingly.  So, until he becomes bold and gets specific, I'm leaving the jury still out.

The one thing Herman Cain did get bold about is he said "African Americans are brainwashed" in that they refuse to even consider voting Republican.  Well the numbers back this up.  In the last three presidential elections, (Gore, Kerry, Obama) the black vote for the Democratic candidate were in the high 80s or higher.  With President Obama, this makes sense, the other two, it follows Cain's point.  What makes his point even more valid is what I know from persoanl experience.  In college, I would go to College Republicans (CR) debates as I was a member.  When the blacks in CR would participate in the debate, the other side took even more offense than they normally did.  They would call them racist, a traitor, etc. etc.  A black radio host told Juan Williams (black contributor on Fox news) to "Go back to the porch."  After Cain's speech, I heard blacks on the news calling Cain a bigot.  This is ridiculous.  I can't fathom being black and using black ethnic slurs against other blacks.  I mean the n-word is used as a term of endearment by some of them so I don't count that.  I guess this just provides more fuel for Chris Rock's contention that black people are more racist than white people because they hate black people too.  Except this time it's Conservative blacks vs. non-conservative blacks.  So, I'm glad Herman Cain boldly stood against them because this is a real problem right-wing black people face.

I will briefly talk about Bill O'Reilly's comment that "Herman Cain knows nothing about foreign policy" he said this because Cain's answer to "Iran will have a nuke this year, what do you do?" was "Have energy independence so that we need less oil from Iran, so they have lower revenues so can't afford it."  It's clear by all Cain's answers that he thinks economically, the problem is, I don't think he can think any other way.  Then again, we need an economics or finance guy in the white house.  O'Reilly said that that will take much longer than a year, he wanted a quick solution.  Cain didn't have one, yea, me neither, any suggestions Bill?  Not your responsibility?  Fine, I haven't heard anyone give a solution to that.  So, I don't fault Cain for that.  The fault I would put is that our oil comes mostly from Venuezuela and Canada.  In the middle east, Saudi Arabia is our largest contributor so his plan really sucks when you take that into account so maybe he doesn't know much about foreign policy.  Then again, he could always pick people in his cabinet who do.

So, would i mind having Cain in the White House?  No, I wouldn't.  I want a economics/finance/self-made business man minded president because the economy is the major problem.  Am I going to jump and celebrate if he wins....well no, I'm not that impressed by him and I want to see some nuts and bolts before I tell everybody that they should endorse him.  Like my last post, I'm losing hope that the Republicans will give me a candidate I can get excited about, the first three that popped up have done nothing, maybe a fourth will make a come back in the next six months or so.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Republican Candidates

        I really wish I could report that I'm confident that the future is bright looking at the possibilities of who will oust the incumbant president and lead way to a conservative government.  When President Obama won, I thought there was a silver lining in that he would mess up the country so that a real conservative could be preseident; just like how Jimmy Carter messed up the country to allow a conservative like Raegan to lead.  Alas, it doesn't seem like that silver lining is correct.
       As I look at the Republican candidates, I am once again finding myself drawn toward people who are getting destroyed in the polls.  This, however, is an objective post therefore I will not take into accounts probability of success.  Ideally I would like Sarah Palin to be the next leader of this nation simply because she has not been corrupted by politics.  She's real, speaks from the heart, and I really couldn't care less if Roe vs. Wade is the only supreme court case she knows or if that's her baby or not (though if it wasn't, I think it would further add support that she is against abortion as she wouldn't let her own daughter get one when she was unmarried and the kid had Down's) or if she doesn't read any newspapers (actually, that furthers my belief that her mind hasn't been brain washed).  But alas, she didn't even make it to the debates so let's pick one of them shall we?  There is an entire chapter about Sarah Palin in my book if you want to read more. 

     I would have to choose Santorum who barely edges out Ron Paul.  I do believe our country to be the best in the world ut I do like the European model of a VAT tax or consumption tax, which Santorum advocates.  All of them want to repeal Obama-care and pull back the reigns on big government so Santorum has that going for him as well. He also is not a big fan of social security, which I like.  Ron Paul I do believe has the firmest grasp on economics and finance, which is what this country needs but as far as nuts and bolts, and all around, I would cast my vote for Santorum.

    As for Rick Perry and Mit Romney...well, I don't like Romney saying he wants to give the illegals that are already here full rights of Americans (or maybe just educate them) but there's nothing I really like about Perry either.  It looks like one of them will win the nomination, which will put me in a position I found myself three years ago....voting for someone I don't like sinmply because I don't like Obama.  It didn't work for McCain and I don't think it'll work for Romney or Perry so just as I had no hope for Obama's campaign, I'm losing hope for the Republicans to win as well.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Reflecting on Irene

I'm so happy I put things in writing.  I predicted that I thought that it would downgrade to a tropical storm when it hit New York...She did.  So I'm gloating a little.

Yes the beaches were bad but I mean are we THAT surprised that a massive storm left large waves?  I mean 15 ft waves in the Atlantic Ocean isn't exactly impressive.  Hell, bad storms on Lake Erie get to be 8-12 ft. and it's a lake!  Anyone who has swam at Long Beach, Jersey shore etc, the waves are consistently pretty big.  That's why I love swimming there, I love when waves take me out.  This doesn't happen where I grew up on Lake Erie.  We had break walls so the waves existed, but nothing like the ocean.  When she hit Howard Beach, she was a hurricane (I think, it's pretty close it was right around there when it got downgraded), so you're telling me that that's only good for another 3 ft. to thunderstorms on Lake Erie?  Sorry I'm not too impressed.

those of you who follow me on facebook know that I did say what would impress me.  I felt that I should define what would be considered bad.  I admit that I was a little worried my prediction would be wrong but alas it wasn't.  So I was right, she was a tropical storm when she hit me in NYC.  What I said on Facebook was that "If I lose power, I'll be impressed."  Now, I thought she might knock out my power.  Even everyone I asked of the 9 other people who weren't afraid that I spoke to said we would lose power.  Granted, I think it was only like 2.  I was skeptical...I didn't lose power as of yet.  They say the storm passed but maybe a tail wind will kick up and take out the power.  I'll write a retraction if that happens.

So, I'm not impressed.  The storm passed while I was watching a TV show because I was told I had an hour.  The Show lasted 45 minutes and when I turned the news back on, she was gone.  I didn't hear her out the window.  I didn't lose reception.  I had no idea.

Now, for those of you who are impressed because of the millions of people who lost power. A) most of those were in the south, I gave her credit that she would be bad in the south...the one family I know in North Carolina wasn't too impressed with her, but they're 2 hours from the coast, so I don't think it's a very good example.  Now hundreds of thousands in Long Island and Queens are without power, so you scream I should be impressed.  Not so fast.  The power company cut power to the evacuated areas in Howard Beach, the 5 Towns and elsewhere because they were worried the flooding would meet the electrical wires and if the electrical wires were hot, it could be very bad.  So, it was precautionary.  I don't know how many of the hundreds of thousands lost power from the Irene herself and not the electric company cutting off the power.  So I'm not impressed with that either.

What about all the flooding you saw on TV?  There was no beach at Howard Beach and Long beach (both in NY) and Longbranch (Jersey shore).  Well my friend lives in the five towns (near Long Beach in Long Island) and I've had to drive to her house during downpours and massive showers.  And I hydroplaned for most of the way to her house.  One particular drive I remember, I was convinced my car wouldn't make it and ran stop signs because stopping I believed would guarantee my car wouldn't make it through....that was not during a tropical storm just a regular old thunderstorm.  So, now the parking lot by the beach was flooded.... Again not too impressed.  Fox News said, "It looks like Venice"  I've been to Venice on at least three occasions.  They don't have cars to go around, they have boats.  In this "like Venice" place, cars were driving.  Some turned around at an intersection because it was too bad...but emergency vehicles and garbage trucks blocked ways to the rockaways and other beaches.  That couldn't happen in Venice, those cars would sink.  So, A little hyperbolic there Fox News.  Now I didn't drive to my friends house during Irene.  She, like many others, heeded the evacuation notice.  But I'm wondering how much worse it was than that time I drove to her house in a Thunderstorm.  I saw cars and minivans hydroplaning through as they waved at the newscaster.  I'm not too impressed.  For me to give credit to flooding, those cars should have been being carried by the water down the street with the driver having 0 control.

For those who want to go upstate where they used rafts to get to people....fine, upstate may have gotten bad, but I didn't see that in Long Island, which still isn't New York City by the way.   My comments were she wouldn't be too impressive in New York City and she wasn't by all my objective standards I put before.  Sorry Irene. Now, it's not bad to be prepared in case shit does go down.  But I still have never been in a Hurricane.  I think this was my first tropical storm. 

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Me and Irene

          On the day before Hurricane Irene arrives, I remain unafraid of her wrath.  Right now, she's in the outer banks chilling in North Carolina.  She's probably causing havoc on places like topsail island, which is a very fine place to vacation.  But by the time she makes her visit to New York, I don't think she's going to be a ferocious.  According to the news, I'm dead wrong but they always overreact.

Now, sometimes they're correct.  The December 26, 2010 snowstorm was every bit as bad as they said it would be as well as the one in February.  I drove through both.  Now the February one went unnoticed in New York, where temperatures were high enough to just be a downpour of rain, but driving through Pennsylvania, as I was, it was really bad.  I'm guessing Irene will be like that snowstorm in February, really bad in the south (ok PA isn't the south but bare with me) but by the time it comes up here, not so bad.

This is New York City, my favorite place in the world.  I'm sitting 190 ft above the ground two crosstown blocks away from the closest area deemed an evacuation area.  I'm still not scared.  I guess you could say that if the worst case happens and I don't live through this, I wouldn't be too concerned because I've lived a fulfilling life and I really can't think of a better place to die than in New York City.

Irene, however, most likely will not be my end. New Yorkers just panic really easily.  Especially for something like this that we almost never experience.  Some say there was one in '95 but I don't remember that one so it must not have been THAT big a deal.  Others talk about a category 3 that hit in the 1930's.  Well, I just read a long history of New York, named "New York the novel" where they go through the history and they failed to mention this horrendous hurricane.  Maybe it happened, but it interests me that when I talk about how all the predictions from the 30s about air pollution and water levels and such were dead wrong, people tell me "Well the measuring technology back then was extremely inaccurate so we have no idea what it was really like."  Fine, I'll turn that argument back on you, the measuring equipment for the hurricanes weren't accurate back then so we have no idea how bad that hurricane was.

This is NYC, we don't have horrible weather like earthquakes, massive tornadoes, and hurricanes.  That's why a lot of us live here.  The Earthquake that people TELL me we had earlier this week, I didn't even feel.  They say that those in higher building did, so fine.  Some say they felt it.  Nobody was injured, my co-worker saw his monitor move.  I'm not impressed.  If you have to tell me we had an Earthquake, then it really wasn't that bad.  I should have my own horror story.  Even if the "experts" are right...it's a category 1; the weakest hurricane.  Sure, our buildings aren't built hurricane proof like in the hurricane zones but still this is very minor and I think Florida, Mississippi, New Orleans and such are laughing at our panic.  Hell I am.  Now I've only found 9 other people who are just as unafraid as I am of Irene but as Mark Twain said, "If you ever find yourself in agreement with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." 

I'm also getting sick of everyone telling me that I'm making the same mistake as people in New Orleans for Katrina.  Let's compare the two cities.  New Orleans is in a hurricane zones, they have hurricanes all the time, they've had two in my lifetime.  New York has had none.  New Orleans is below sea level, New York is not.  The problem in New Orleans were the dykes and levies failed, New York, doesn't have this problem.  Therefore, this is nothing like Katrina.

When the dust settles, I believe New York will be left with minimal damage.  Maybe some trash cans will be blown around and some branches will fall but that happens in most thunderstorms and won't impress me much.  So, I say to Irene, I'm in the City, if you want to show up for our date, you can.  But I have a feeling you're going to stand me up or at the very least, not be everything you're cracked up to be.  Just another woman misrepresenting herself. 

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Anal Sex

A lot of guys love talking about Anal sex.  I guess the most famous one is Howard Stern.  Almost every time he had a girl in his studio, and had a sex conversation with her, he would always ask if they do anal.  I never really got the point of it though.  I mean, I can understand anal with a girl you don't care about but why would you do it with one you do?  Most people when I pose this question to them, look at me like I'm crazy but they never give me an answer.  The question is basically, As a heterosexual male, why would you want to perform an act that homosexuals commit, not because of desire, but as a necessity or lack of an alternative option?  The best response I got to this question is, "Well, I think she has a nice ass, and the fact that I can fuck something that I find aesthetically pleasing, excites me." 
      This made sense at face value.  When I was heterosexual, I never said, "Damn look at the vagina on that girl." When I see a naked female, I do not focus on the vagina, so this seemed to have merit.  But, I think the real reason is a deep down understanding of what exactly anal sex is; the ultimate form of domination. 

    If you look at it historically, this immediately becomes self-evident.  Inmates in prison, to break in a new inmate and "make them their bitch" will sodomize them.  To those who say this is only done because they're horny and have no females around, I will point out that during Bill Clinton's Job Corp program, in which they took kids from the ghetto and put them in a school with the greatest facilities and material, yielded many cases of sodomy among the school kids, and it was a co-ed program.  Anyone who has read the book the Kite Runner, knows that Ajab's ultimate revenge for taking a sling shot to the eye was to fuck the assailant in the ass.  After establishing his dominance, he let him have the final kite that gave the main character the victory in the kite tournament.  And the example that I'm most ashamed of, but alas it helps my point, in Ancient Greece, teachers, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates would sodomize their students so they were not unruly and became receptive to their teachings.  I believe fucking a girl in the ass is continuing this tradition in that when you do so, you are signaling that you are dominant over her...and that is never something you should do to a woman you care about.  The final form is, there's a phrase "Bend over and take up the ass" meaning you got cheated or lost badly in a negotation.  To the point that, you would do anything they told you do. 

     Now that the reasoning for why is out of the way, I'll get to why you would never do it to any woman you care about.  If you've read my book, I am against homosexual lifestyles because it exponentionally increases your chances of an STD by up to 1,000% depending on which disease you're referring to.  This is because the lines of the anus has very thin skin that is easily torn and highly infectious material is constantly coming out of there, which increases the risk of infection to the open wound.  That and STD's are best transported through semen and blood, both of which, even with lubrication, is highly evident in anal sex.  If you perform this on someone, you are increasing their risk of infection and/or an STD (now if you don't have one, the risk of the latter is obviously diminished, but the former applies). 

    So grab it, take a body shot off it, but do not fuck it.  As for homosexuals, I fully understand that there really isn't an alternative to having sex.  I guess the mouth is the closest thing, but it really isn't sufficient.  So, I understand why you take the risk, but the statistics don't lie, it's a major health risk and if you do have an option, like you heterosexuals do, obstain for everyone is created equal and it's not healthy to believe you have someone completely dominated.  The act, in and of itself, is extremely unhealthy as well.  Some urges need to be repressed.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Anti-civility

I always hear, "You gotta be civil" but I'm not very good at this.  In fact, I don't even know why you have to be civil.  I just ran into someone that I've known my entire life on the streets of New York.  Now, her and I are no longer close and we both know this as I have made it extremely clear over the past few years.  During our meeting, however, I was civil and I enterained her questions.  She claims to be doing well for herself and I told her that I'm happy she's getting her life back in order, which is a true statement.  Then, the conversation turned to the part I wanted to avoid.  She spoke about wanting to be close again and yatta yatta yatta.  This forced me to remind her that I hate her.  Now, I was trying to avoid this part but what do you want me to do?  lie in the name of being civil?  She came out and asked "Do you really hate me?"  Yes, I do.  I'm not going to lie, I'm going to answer her question.  It seems ridiculous to me that I need to somehow, in the name of some retarded rule to try to be civil, to lie to her.  It's her fault for asking.  This isn't even the first time, she continually asks me this and forces me to confirm again and again that I want nothing to do with her. 

      Why do people subject themselves to this masochistic behavior.  Who gives a shit if I don't like you, why is it so important to people to be liked by everyone?  Personally when I find someone that everyone likes, I become suspicious of them and accuse them of being fake.  I keep hearing that if people were brutally honest all the time, the world would be a mean place (see the move The invention of lying).  But at least you know where you stand with people.  Not this constant guessing about duplicity, sincerity and the like.  So fuck being civil, if I've told you I hate you chances are I still do.  The more you ask, the more upset I'm going to be at you and the more ammo I have for my arsenal that is already large enough for me to come to the conclusion that I hate you, so really you're just fueling the fire.  And if you hate me, tell me, I won't hold it against you...In fact, I will respect you for it. 

And for you Hippies that hate the word hate, I will say that you cannot love if you can't hate.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

What we value

I don't really want to bring up a certain basketball player because everyone seems to jump on that and they never see the bigger issue.  But, I realized by those that defend him that people value mediocrity and low integrity now a days.  People love liars.  People loved Bill Clinton because he lied unapologetically.  In schools, people get rewarded for ratting out their classmates. 

Now adays, if you work hard to make something of yourself by going down the long hard road, you're a fool.  If you strive to always tell the truth and beat yourself up if you ever go against yourself, you are criticized.  People do not value integrity, they value mediocrity.  You are considered the greatest if you join people you can't beat.  Tennis and boxing is the only thing I can think of where you are not praised for being mediocre, for refusing to beat the best.  You don't see Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic play doubles tennis, because that would be stupid.  A couple years ago you didin't see Rafael Nadal join Federer to play doubles.  They were always against each other.  The two best battling one on one. 

I get criticized often because I hold people accountable to their word.  If they say they are a certain way, I judge them on that standard.  If they say they're going to do something I expect them to do it, and if they don't, I expect them to feel some remorse, some contrition or be sorry they didn't.  I will be the first to admit, I don't always do what I say I'm going to do.  I do not always tell the truth, but I do get mad at myself every time I go against my word.  I'm ashamed every time I chicken out of something I said I was going to do.  Nobody ever blames me when I show so much self-anger and criticism for not doing what I said I was going to do...I thought originally that it was because since I condemn myself, they don't want to pile on.  Now, I'm beginning to think that people are too scared to hold themselves to their own standards.  People praise dishonesty.  People come to expect dishonesty.  And that is truly sad.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Rescued Damsel in Distress

I don't claim to speak for all guys on this one.  I believe that men could potentially have a different motive for the classic damsel in distress scenario, but I believe that objectively the woman should run.

If I saw someone roughing up a girl, I'd like to think that I would step in and help her out.  This is especially true if I care about the girl in that she's someone I know.  When I step in, however, I would want to girl to run.  The only reason I'm engaged in a fight is so that she can be okay.  If she sticks around, that's added pressure to win the fight.  If I lose, the assailant goes right back to what he was doing.  In fact, now he believes he earned it.  If the girl runs, and our fight is merely a distraction, even if I get my ass kicked, the girl is safe.  People do not need that much of a head start while running away to get away.  Thus, even if I get my ass kicked and the girl is safe, I accomplished the goal....for her to be safe. 

Some guys will argue that if you do this for a girl you don't know, though noble, she has no way of contacting you to thank you in any way she deems fit.  Though, I don't see too much of a problem with this, if your sole goal is to get laid, well then I don't think your intentions are too honorable.  An honorable, chivalrous, old-fashioned guy is doing it so the girl can be safe...if that leads to relation than so be it, but it should be a side effect or goal of your actual intent....the girl's safety.  So women, if a guy stops an assailant that is trying to hurt you...run.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

NBA playoffs over March madness

This is not a prisoner of the moment opinion.  Granted these playoffs have been exciting in that they've been unpredictable, a trait that is normally placed on March Madness but even if it ended up being Lakers vs. Boston for the third time in four years, I would still pick the NBA playoffs over the NCAA March Madness for a variety of reasons other than the superior talent in the NBA.

Most people criticize the playoffs because it takes over two months to annoint a winner.  I never realized why this is a bad thing.  I'm obsessed with basketball, therefore I have no problem watching for two months.  Hell, I'd watch all year round.  One thing that disappoints me is March Madness is only three weeks, so if you love basketball, the fact that you get it for over two months should be a plus not a minus.

When I watch an exciting game in the NCAA tournament, there's always a let down because what would have happened if they got to play again?  Who would win?  You don't have this problem with the NBA because you get to watch it 3-6 more times.  When I see two great shooters answer each other back to back as the second half is coming to  a close, I'd love to see that multiple times.  Think how less memorable the Chicago/Boston series a couple years ago would have been if it was just one game.  I can't even remember any shootout in March Madness but I vividly remember 6 out of 7 Ben Gordon vs. Ray Allen for who is more clutch, multiple overtimes among seven riviting games.  Only the playoffs give me that.  Sure when it's lopsided it's good to get it over with in one game, but when a team gets blown out in the playoffs, I wait to see if they can do it again.

The previous reason is why non-basketball fans should enjoy the playoffs more.  As I am a basketball fan, I take it one step further.  There is a game within the game of a series.  Coaches are forced to make adjustments from game to game.  Like right now, will Erik Spoelstra activate Z given that in game 1 the Bulls destroyed the Heat in second chance points?  How will Miami answer back?  Will they?  What changes will Thibidou make...he didn't seem happy with the Bulls' performance.  Will Derek Rose continue what he did in the previous round of one game hot, the next game cold?  The coaching battle is much more prevalant in an NBA series because you can see how the players and coaches adjust to what happened.  In the NCAA Tournament, you can see it between the two halves, but that's so much less intriguing and gives you such a shorter amount of time to ponder. 

With all this said, I really don't understand why people like March Madness better.  Even the classic argument "Anyone can win" isn't even true.  No mid-major team has ever won the NCAA tournament...ever.  Yea Butler got close two years in a row, and George Mason and VCU made it to the final four, but only in March Madness is the final four cosidered a great accomplishment.  If truly Cinderella could win, wouldn't we have one example of Cinderella winning?  NCAA still has yet to show this.  But when the Detroit Pistons with no stars beat a team of four cinch hall of famers that could make an olympic team (Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Gary Payton) in 2004...that was much more impressive than anything VCU, George Mason, Butler or any other mid-major can boast.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Longer life is not a sign of how far we've come

I hear ad nauseum that a vast majority of every person that ever lived past 70 is still alive today (last I heard 67%).  This is vomited out to somehow prove at how great our medicine is.  I document in my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years how I'm unimpressed with medical advancements, but now I'm going to attack these "longer lives."

Is it true that in the old days they didn't live longer?  Yes.  but also in the old days, people didn't take multiple pills every day just to maintain their life.  Is that really a life?  Any time you necessitate a pill box marked by each day of the week, you're cheating.  I know this is true for pretty much everyone over the age of 50, but there in lies my point, look how many pills you have to take a day to maintain your health.  You want me to be impressed by that?  That's like getting yourself cryognically frozen for 200 years and demanding praise for living so much longer than everyone else.  Scientists and doctors will tell you that these pills have no effect, but all drugs have effects, and these are drugs. A drug is defined as any substance other than food that affect the way your mind and body work....these pills you're taking every day, is it food?  No, Does it affect the way your body works?  Yes, you would be decrepid and extremely unhealthy without it, therefore, it is drugs you're taking and all drugs have effects.  These drugs take on a variety of euphemisms such as Bio-identical hormones, vitamins, supplements, replacement therapy, hormones etc etc.  If it looks like a pill, is taken like a pill and performs like a pill, it's a pill.   Critically injured people living on machines could live for a very long time on that machine, but guess what, their quality of life sucks so much, that sometimes their family chooses to unhook the machine.  This little 10 different pills a day to maintain your health, is just a lesser form of this.

So, I choose to live a natural life.  I don't go to the doctor when I'm sick, I don't take medication, I don't take pills.  I constantly give my immue system a lot of practice, and guess what, I do much better than the vast majority of people that take these supplements/drugs/medication etc. etc. etc.  And if I have to choose between having a yearly colonoscopy or death, I choose death.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

New age women and relationships

As I look around, I see a vast change in what women want in a man.  Men haven't changed much in what we want, which is interesting but women seem to no longer like strong men.  I'm not talking about confident men, as that is still consistent but they no longer like a man to fight for them.  They much rather prefer passive, non-aggressive men, unless of course they're aggressive toward them, because then they're assholes and chics love assholes. 

This came to me when someone close to me was telling me the story of how he met his fiancee.  During that story, he said that after pursuing her, he found her talking with a bunch of guys.  He backed off and observed her get hit on by his cousin's friends.  Now, obviously since I told you that he is talking about his fiancee, you know how the story ends.  But, here the interesting part...he got the girl by not fighting for her.  He got the girl by standing back as others moved in.  In the old days, if guys are hitting on the girl you like, you step in.  You fight for her.  But now, you get the girl by not fighting and being passive.  How did this happen?

The other example I saw of this is when I watched a fight break out over a girl.  If you think I'm going to say the girl liked the winner, thus contradicting what I"ve already said, you are wrong.  When the fight was over, the woman came rushing to the loser to take care of him and villified the victor.  Only in the human species does a woman value the loser of a fight over the winner.  Now, there are a couple scenarios where this is acceptable.  For one, if the guy is fighting to defend the girl because she's in trouble, winning or losing is acceptable because you are getting hurt for her.  But, if there is just a fight for who the better man is, objectively the woman should go to the victor...yet this is not the case.

Now, the femininst movement is probably to blame for this.  Women have always taken care of men in the home, and now they've extended it to all aspects of life, work, home, confrontation.  What exactly is left for the man to do?