Response to college humor gay marriage

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

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

Defending guns in Newtown massacre

Like many people, in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, I found myself asking, "What kind of person can stare at a 5-year-old down the barrel of a gun and pull the trigger?  The shocking thing is, when you look at the facts, it is actually an extremely common psychological state.  I know anti-gun people will scream that this is why guns should be banned but I believe these instances are evidence for why we need less gun laws. 

Quickly, the psyche of a man that goes and kills 20 kids and 6 adults. it's shocking to me that the facts I've heard have been very contradictory.  I'm going to go with the scenario that he killed his mother at home, drove to the school, broke a window of the school, snuck in and opened fire on his mother's classroom before moving to another classroom.  This is a classic case of someone that is striving for his mother's affection.  He felt that his mother loved the kids she taught more than she loved him, so he punished not just the mother but the objct of her affection too....the kids. At first I wanted to call it "Oedipus" but Oeidpus you only kill the object of your mother's love so you can be with the mother.  If it was Oedipus, I guess he would have to kill only the students.  It is common, however, for a kid to feel jealous that their parent loves somebody else more than they love them.  This is merely an extreme case of that.  The most disturbing statement I've heard is "If you want to kill your parents that's fine but...." we have come to a point in our society where that's how we start sentences.

After this tragic event, I think that teachers should start bringing guns to school.  You obviously can't rely on the government or security to protect you fom these psychos so you have to defend yourself.  If teachers were armed, the bad people with guns would be disinclined to try anything and when someone tries to kill students, the teachers can shoot back.  I'm not sure it would have really helped in the Newtown case because he did have the element of surprise, but it wouldn' have hurt. 

One final political point.  If there are people capable of shooting 20 kids under the age of 6, then I'm pretty sure we can fine people that would have no problem shooting a heinous criminal firing squad style. 

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

Is encouraging your kids a bad idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The kids aren't alright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you need in a spouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

attacking Dick Morris

For the last two elections, Dick Morris, campaign manager for Bill Clinton, has predicted landslide victories for the Republicans.  Obviously, he was wrong.  He was all over his website Dick Morris.com with videos backing up his position of a Romney landslide.  I'm only going to bring up one video because it helped me see that Romney wouldn't win.  His defense to how wrong he's been the last 4 years is, "When you get a man elected as President, then you can talk to me" my response is, "What have you done for me lately."

He compared Carter to Obama by saying this (I'm paraphrasing)
           You have to remember under Carter, Iran held a bunch of Americans hostage at our   
           embassy showing how weak America was and inflation was so out of control that interest
           rates went up to 20% so nobody was saving.  Which is similar because now we have the
           Libya debacle, which is like Iran under Carter and the economy is bad.  This leads to a  
           conservative to win like Raegan did.

As I heard this speech, I said to the computer "Wow, we're nowhere near that now."  Libya, the ambassador and three other Americans are dead.  We just now need to find who did it.  There's no hostage, no rescue needed, they're dead, it's over now we just need to retaliate.  In Iran, we had to figure a way for them to release the hostages to prevent killing of Americans.  Interest rates are nowhere near 20% and inflation is not a problem.  Yes, the national debt is, but that's not the same thing and nobody has increased interest rates to astronimical levels or printed a lot more money in response to the debt.  So, all that his video showed me was that America isn't bad enough for every day people to realize why we need conservatives like Raegan in charge.

Maybe after another four years of Obama, they will.  Or maybe everyone will still blame Bush the way they do now.  Time will tell.

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

Just the facts

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

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

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

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

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

Katrina vs. Sandy

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

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

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

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

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

The people have spoken

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

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

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

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

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

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

people hate good news.

My last post triggered something in me.  People seem to love to hate people.  Sure, the word "hate" is taboo, but when you watch the news, it's always bad stories.  Why is that?  Some blame the media and although I really despise the media I think they are not the ones at fault here.  I think the media works just like they claim and the way any industry trying to make a profit when there's competition works; they give their customers what they want.

I never get into celebrity break ups.  I'm notoriously horrible at knowing who is married to who.  Normally the way I find out is when they get divorced.  I didn't even know Tom Cruise was married to Katie Holmes until they got divorced.  People who watch TMZ and celebrity stalk may call me crazy, but here's the point; why is it that I always miss the weddings but rarely the divorces.  It's because more people want to hear about their divorce, so it's covered more.  It gets more limelight and thrown on the cover of every newspaper so that even someone like me who avoids these things can find out about it.  I may be on my way to work, pass by the subway and when someone tries to hand me an AM New York or a Metro NY, I happen to see it on the front page.  This is what the general society loves; bad things to happen to people.  Ha, see another couple getting divorced.  The reason that Tom and Katie was so big, I'm told, is that they were together for so long and seemed so happy.  People hate when other people are happy.  Why is that though?

Deep down, we all have our skeletons, but rather than feel guilt, we want to point to other people's skeletons and problems.  Sure, I got divorced but Tom and Katie Holmes did too and they had a perfect relationship so maybe good marriages don't exist.  I find this pathetic, that's why I couldn't care less about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.  We want to throw stones in order to cover our own problems.  Me, I'm very introspective, it doesn't matter that Ben Roethlisberger raped a college girl in a night club, it doesn't excuse anything I do.  Sure, I'm a better person than Ben, but who cares, my goal isn't to not be a rapist, it's to be a good man and always follow my morals and base my actions on my morality not vice versa. 

This is why you can't defend someone that the media has already deemed evil.  the Duke lacross players were villains so we jumped on the case.  See these boys who go to a great school and are really smart are nothing but a bunch of lowly rapists.  Oh wait, the woman lied, the DA is being disbarred for his handling of the case?  Oh, never mind.  After that the media didn't care about them.  Nobdody cares that they were innocent but they loved when they were guilty. 

I think of celebrities and I see this pattern everywhere.  The only ones I can think of that we hold on a high pedestal is Derek Jeter and Tim Tebow.  Jeter doesn't get negative press the way Tebow does.  At first I thought it was because Jeter is half black, but then I realized that it doesn't have to do with race after all.  Tim Tebow is the epitome of what people don't want to believe exist.  He is a devout religious man who is saving sex for marriage.  most people believe that no Christian is ever successful in this.  I know three that were, so unfortunatley for you people who hate Christians, they do exist.  But Tim Tebow is a football player, a quarterback.  He's been a star since he was a teenager, constantly prodded to get mad, to not turn the other cheek.  He never bites though.  The media would love a Tim Tebow downfall like a Tiger Woods.  Afterall, if Tebow does it, if he is exactly what he says he is, than what does that do to society's belief that people like him don't exist?   The left hates traditional values, and that's all Tebow stands for, so they're going after him.  I hope that Tebow does it, not because I'm religious.  I've had by battles with devout Catholics and a lot of them are hypocritical, elitist and the most unforgiving people I've ever met.  But, that doesn't mean I want Tebow to be.  I think it's a breath of fresh air to think Tebow's can exist.  Sure, he may be a better man than I because I would have snapped by now.  Some argue that getting angry is good sometimes and I agree but when they're trying to get you mad, maybe it's better not to bite. 

It doesn't bother me that better men than myself exist.  it doesn't make me feel better that worse people than me exist.  In all honesty, I couldn't care less about celebrities and who they marry.  But I do like traditional values and I don't like how society vehemently attacks you for not agreeing with them.  So I'm routing for Tim Tebow as an in-your-face to the general public.  You can't ignore him like college lacross,he is an NFL quarterback.  Isn't it funny that that's the first thing people want to take away from him.  they say they want him to be a linebacker....after all, how many linebackers can you name? 

A good man

What makes a good man?  I've always been a believer that most men are inherently evil and although I think the people who claim that men never act selflessly are unfair, I think in general, man is selfish.  I also don't think selfishness is a bad thing as I am a objectivist, and that is what Ayn Rand (The mother of objectivism) vehemently believed.

Now, despite my views on man, men do good things sometimes.  They also do bad things.  even the most evil men in history probably did something nice once or twice.  Jesus marched into the temple and started breaking shit, vandalism is a mean thing to do and he was Jesus.  Was he justified in his anger? I think so, but it's a debatable point.  This came to me because someone that I've long considered a good man did something horrible.  Now, I know he feels extremely guilty about it to the point that he self-tortured himself, but it leads me to think, what is a good man?  for you can argue that a good man would have obstained from doing the horrible thing in the first place.  But what if it's someone who does something bad, but then feels deep remorse over it even though no outside person condemned him for it (nobody knew he had done what he did, he volunteered the information to cleanse his soul and keep it from bottling up).  So, if you self-condemn yourself and never forgive yourself but just try to move forward and never do it again, do you lose the good man card?  I don't think you should, but what about the person that in the same situation, obstained from doing it.  clearly he should get more points. Is it a numerical thing; like if you do x amount of bad things, does that make you  bad person?  By extension, if you do x amount of good things it makes you a good person?  That can't be it, because different things are weighted differently.  If you commit genocide against an entire population of people, there are no amount of good deeds that save you from that.  But, there is no counter on the other side.  I guess if you jump in front of a bullet for a stranger to save their life, all bad deeds get expelled.  but aside from dying for anoher person, there really is no good deed you can do that will forgive all else.

So, things are weighted differently.  the thing about good men, is they don't look for fanfare.  If a guy is hooking up with a girl, she passes out, and he leaves the room, he doesn't seek praise for not raping her.  He thinks that's preposterous to praise someone for not being evil.  but by keeping his good deeds low key, it only sets to highlight when he does something bad.  espeically becuase he's the one that condemns himself more than anyone else.  So....maybe that's a good man.  someone that condemns himself for bad things moreso than others, but doesn't look for reward when he does good things.  the problem with this is that people love to see good men go bad.  Look at Tiger Woods and Joe Paterno.  so, sometimes people's condemnation is greater than warranted therefore wouldn't equal even a good man's.  Someone may say that a cashier gave you too much change and you didn't give it back, you should have your hands cut off.  that's extreme and the good man couldn't be expected to match or surpass that. 

People say if you're going to write a blog, you should know the answer.  I say fuck that.  I don't know the answer, but it's an interesting question. 

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

You can always bitch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's strategy

After last week's presidential debate, people were confounded on how badly President Obama did.  I was no exception.  President Obama is normally a great speaker but somehow he didn't show it in the debate.  Many conservatives say that he can't speak without a teleprompter but he's done well in interviews and he doesn't have a teleprompter there.  Maybe he knew he was in trouble with his wife because their anniversary was spent with him having to work.  Maybe she pulled a "if you really love me, you will throw the debate." so he did knowing he has two more.  What is amazing to me is that it really didn't matter much.

In the three most important states (Virginia, Ohio, and Florida) Romney made headway to be leading in Florida and Virginia (and North Carolina) and closed the eight point Ohio deficit to one point.  These polls, however, have a three point error, so he's still neck and neck with Romney.  All he has to do is not get blown out in the next two debates, and I think he will win.  I don't think he'll get as destroyed in the next two debates as he did in the first, so things are looking good.

The question that everyone has been asking is why President Obama didn't use the 47% video in the first debate.   The next day, many experts were interviewed and none had a really good answer, but I figured it out.  President Obama didn't have to use the 47% quote because he knew that every single news station and commentator would bring it up the next day.  Even if it was in the context of how the President messed up, it's still repeated over and over and over on any news station for the next three days.  The beauty of it is that Romney doesn't get to tell everyone his response, which all agree he had.  Now, the point can be said without Romney's defense. President Obama has done very well attacking Romney when it's just him talking to an audience and Romney can't respond. 

Since I DVR everything, I very rarely see commmercials, it's normally just a tail end of the last commercial before my show comes on because I hit "Play" on the DVR too fast and it backs up to the commercial.  Despite this, I've managed to notice a plethora of Obama ads...I haven't seen 1 Romney ad.  Obama is corrupting the masses and people who spend all their time watching TV but not the news.  Since the debate, I've caught commericals talking about how Romney lied during the debate.  The day after the debate, Obama held a press conference again repeating that Romney is going to lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a point that Romney not only affirmed was inaccurate but commented that no matter how many times the President's campaign says it, it doesn't mean it's true.  The President's strategy is the same as Adolf Hitler's strategy, Hitler was quoted as saying "If a lie is told as often enough and as accurate enough, people will believe anything,"  The President is repeating the lie verbatim extremely often because he knows people will believe it, just like Hitler did and Hitler did very well in brainwashing a nation.  Now, I am NOT saying President Obama is Hitler; Hitler is infinitely worse than President Obama, but their strategies for campaigning are similar. 

I don't know who will win the election.  Experts always say, "You can't say 'liar'" when attacking your opponent, yet President Obama's campaign has used that termonlogy with no adverse effects (no positive either, it just remained the same).  Now with this picture that makes Romney look like he's mooning a little girl, it's ridiculous but people are dumb enough to believe that Romney actually did that.  I can't believe this election is so close.  I can't believe 25% of people polled say Obama won the debate.  That's also the same percentage of Amricans who believe Bush planned 9/11.  With 25% of the American population being this retarded, how can someone who actually knows how to run the country actually win?  In any objective world, Romney's victory would rival Raegan's over Carter and Mondale.  Romney knows business, he knows that punishing entrepreneurs and the job creators is bad for growth, he knows economics, he can do much much better than Obama in running our country but he's being outspent by Obama.  Which is ironic because all President Obama and liberals can talk about is how rich Romney is.  If he's so rich, how come he hasn't flooded TV with ads?  Even if Romney wins the election, I still fear for this country because all it's showing is that the general public is stupid.  They really think communism is a good idea.  They really think Obama creates jobs.  They really think that Obama raising the deficit by more than double what President Bush did (6 trillion increase for Obama; 5 trillion for Bush) in less than half the time Bush did, is still Bush's fault.  With people this stupid, where's the hope in America?

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

I finished the marathon

Well as you can tell by the title, I DID IT!!!! Now we'll talk about my exeperience  the drive out started rough as I didn't bring my GPS because I thought my friend's blackberry could direct us....it didn't do a very good job and after crossing the Queensborough bridge, we had trouble finding the LIE.  FInally we drove to Astoria and got on the grand central to the LIE  (Long Island Expresseay)to the Hamptons.  I was really nervous because I wanted to carb up but the restaurant closes at 10, it takes 2 hours to drive and we started at 7:45 but with the mishap, we were behind schedule.  I had brought 2 cans of Chef Boyardee in case the retaurant was closed.  We got there at 9:45 and they were extremely patient letting us sit and eat long after closing time.  I had a lot of pasta, bread and water so carbing up was done, now it was just go home and wait for the next day.

       I woke up at 3AM and couldn't fall back asleep.  At 5:30 I began preparing for the marathon.  Oddly the last time I put on the peteroleum jelly to prevent chafing for a training run, it was real surreal but this time, the last time I'll ever have to do it, felt like just any other day.  I had brought a zip lock bag of Frosted flakes and ate that.  At 6:30 I woke up my friend, took a G1 packet and drank a 20oz of gatorade.  So far everything was going as planned.  We left at 7:00 as it says it takes 40 minutes to get to the start of the race from my friend's house.  We arrived around 7:30 and I went to check the superfluous items, keys, cell phone and a G3.  I had 7 GU goo in my shorts because my goal was to finish in 5 hours and these are supposed to be taken every 50 minutes.  I also had a pack of SHotblock, which should be taken 15 minutes before the race.  When I tried to check the things, they told me I needed a bag.  I went to another table and asked if they had a small bag, the woman took my bag ticket and threw it away and told me that she didn't have one.  I asked for the ticket back, and she gave me a T-shirt ticket and said it was the same thing.  Then I see a big sign that said "Problems" so I went over there and told them of my predicament, they gave me a zip lock bag and mentioned she'd get in trouble by the person's whose bag it was.  I didn't care, I put my stuff in it and walked back to the bag counter.  I wanted to call my friend to see if she left yet but my phone had no service.  As expected, they didn't accept my bag ticket so I went back to the lady who threw it away and told her i needed it back.  She tried telling me that she didn't know which one it was but as it has my name on it I told her, "I DO!" and she handed me the box, I quickly found my tag and walked over and checked my bag.  Then I started stretching, at 7:45, I ate all 6 shotblock gummies.  Then I waited in line for the bathroom.  Strapped to me was my fuel belt with two waterbottles of gatorade and one of water.  When I got out of the portapotty, it was empty as everyone went to the start, so I walked to the race start.

     Everyone was confused at the start, the race started but nobody seemed to realize it, so people kept telling us and we went.  I started 8 minutes after the race oficially started.  I was wearing a sweatshirt which I was going to take off 8 miles into it.  The point was, the e-mail I got from my friend told me to run slower than normal for the first 8, then normal after that.  I wore the sweatshirt to slow me down.  It also said not to weave so when I got stuck behind slow people, I ran at their pace unless they walked than I went by them.  Some moved over, then I passed them as I was not weaving.  It was a relaxing part, I eavesdropped on runner's conversations and at mile 4 or 5, I realized I was sweating profusely and debated to take off the sweatshirt, but I didn't.  There was a water stand by mile 8, so I poured water on myself knowing that the extra weight of wet clothing wouldn't be a problem because I was taking off the shirt soon anyway.  I passed mile 8, and threw the shirt off, looked at my watch, which I had started the stopclock when I started the race and saw 1:26, the slowest I've ever run 8 miles, but that was the point.  During this time I didn't sing any songs to motivate me as I kept telling myself that the race doesn't start till mile 8.  Once someone remarked how they could see me Lebron jersey under the long-sleeve T-shirt so I pulled it up so he could see the "Sux" part, no reaction except "Oh:"  I didn't keep with the gatorade every 20 minutes at this point because I was taking it easy. 

Now the race had really started for me and I ran at my normal speed.  The crowds thinned out by now so I didn't have to weave too much.  At mile 6, the half marathon and marathon split, and after the split, cars are allowed to be driving so I did cross the street once so that cars would be coming toward me rather than behind.  As I got on the road that ends in a hair pin turn(mile 11) some people on their way back cheered me on.  I didn't return it, but just said "Thanks" as I wanted to conserve energy.  A couple ran by and got excited because they were from Cleveland, and the front of my jersey said Cleveland they stuck their hands out and I gave them 5.  THere were very few spectators but the few that remained would cheer me on and call me "Cleveland"  I kept going till I got to mile 16, looked at my watch and saw 2:44, I had just run my second 8 miles 8 minutes faster than the precious 8, which is called a negative split and exactly what I intended.  Now the hard part.

The hamptons marathon has a steep hill from mile 17.5 - 19.  I kept telling myself that I was close.  I got through it.  I noticed  lot of people walking, in fact, it seemed more people stopped to walk/stretch/go to the bathroom than didn't.  THe advice I received of "It's not worth it to stop" seemed wrong now.  There weren't many gatorade stands in the beginning but I had mine and took a sip every 20 minutes.  I hadn't used much even with taking a sip after the GU, as I did find something to wash it down with.  At this point (mile 16 or so) I threw away the water bottle with water as there are a lot of water stations.  As I passed mile 19, I told myself that the hard part was over and it's just smooth sailing from here.  Now every stand had gatorade and water, which I liked.  I think it was a good idea to put the gatorade stands at the end of the race rather than throughout.  By mile 22 or so, I abandoned my plan to only take gatorade every 20 minutes but every time I saw a gatorade stand and every 20 minutes with the ones I had strapped to me.  a couple times, they coincided but not often.  At mile 20 or so, I realized that the hard part really did take a lot out of me.  Mile markers seem to be very far apart now.  The "Auto Pilot at mile 20 that carries you through the remaining 6.2" that my friend claimed work was not working.  I kept looking at my watch at mile markers and it seemed that I had slowed to 15 minute miles.  So at 24.2 I decided that there was no point to keep running since running wasn't much faster than wallking as I can walk a mile in 20 minutes. 

I did this at the 2nd hairpin turn, (mile 24.2) it had been almost all uphill so the return trip should be downhill.  BUt when I was looking at it, it still seemed uphill.   When I stopped to walk, I was extremely dizzy but after walking for a little bit, I regained my equilbrium. As I watched 2 women passed me and one cheered me on, I said, "Let's go" and started runing, within 30 seconds they stoppped to walk, which was kind of a buzz kill for me.  I started alternating between walking and running.  I looked at my watch and realized that even if I walked all the way to finish, I would still finish before the 5 hour goal.  This was patantly false but math had abandoned me in my tired state.  I was around mile 25.  I was happy that at mile 19, we met up with the half marathon course because the mile markers and every 5k markers for the half marathoners, gave me more indication how close I was.  With the half marathon, you only add 0.1 rather than 0.2 to every mile marker for miles left.  I saw I had 3 minutes left before taking another GU.  I decided to walk tll then, I did so and then started runing and didn't stop till the finish.  Before mile 20, I realized that even though the Dixie cups were only a fourth full, It was still less than the sips I take.  So I took my sips, than threw away the rest.  Now, I carried the cup taking small sips...it usually took about 0.2 miles to finish it. 

At this point (after mile 19), I couldn't occupy my mind, it was really bothering me how far the mile markers felt.  I didn't sing all the songs that motivated me, I was just exhausted.  Before the race, I said if a woman passed me toward the end, it would motivate me to speed up.  Many woman passed me throughout the race, never did I use it as a motivation point.  Sometime around mile 25, an ambulance passed by which was really a buzz kill but I kept going.  I ran by mile 26 and immediately looked for mile 13 for the half marathoners to tell me I was 0.1 away.  I found it and other people cheered me on.  I turned a corner and there was the finish line, I heard my mother scream and many other people cheering.  I then kicked it and sprinted past the finish as I heard my name announced and I was from Brooklyn and it was my 1st.  I received my medal and cape.  Some guy who worked for the marathon chased me down and kept asking if I was okay and directed me to a water stand.  I took out the last water bottle (I threw away the other one when it was empty) which was half filled with gatorade and showed it to him.  I drank the rest then tossed the water bottle.  I knew this was my last run so I wouldn't need it anymore.  I then unstraped the fuel belt and threw it to the side for the same reason.  The guy took this as a sign I wasn't okay.  BUt I assured him I was, I could hear my friend and my mom calling after me but all I wanted was for the 5 minute countdown on my watch to expire so I could do my cool down stretches.  I forgot to stop the stopwatch, realized it with about 2 minutes left of the 5 mintues so I stopped it and subtracted 3 minutes so my finishing time was 4:51.  The official time was 4:56 and since in the beginning my watch was 8 minutes off the official time, I think it may have been 4:48, both logic work (the countdown and my memory) so one is true, one is false, I really don't know which one.  But I did accomplish my goal of sub-5 hours no matter how you look at it.

The 5 minute countdown expired and I collapsed down to do my cool down stretches.  My friend's husband told me it was a bad idea, but I knew I had to do it. I lifted my leg and started.  My dad helped me keep it straight.  I wasn't very friendly at this point because my dad didn't realize when I was going to switch even after telling him that when my hand reaches "4" I was switching.  So I called out switch.  As I went through, my thighs cramped a lot.  I kept looking at a snack stand and my friend kept asking if I wanted anything but I couldn't form the words that I wanted fries.  As it was misty rain and 60 degrees, perfect running weather, bad everything else weather, they seemed to be getting impatient, but I told them it would take 30 minutes and I wanted to finsih my stretches.  Suzanne, the woman who cheered me on in between 24.2 and 25, found me and gave me a bottle of recovery water that they give you for free.  I had my mom take off my tag and retrieve my stuff.  Finally I finished my stretches, chugged teh G3 recovery and the recvoery water realizing the recovery water was very salty.  THis helps most runners but I knew from previous experience it doesn't help me as my body overheats and I get the chills, which is exactly what started to happen at first but once i overheated, I never went to the other extreme.  I posed for pictures with my friend and my parents and then walked to my friend's car.  I realized my arms were killing me along with my thighs especially.  I made my way to his car and then sat in the back seat with my legs spread out across.  My calves began cramping majorly and I kept stopping it by putting one foot on top of the others and pulling my toes back but lifting my leg to put on the other hurt bad and took a decent amount of time, meanwhile I was still cramping.

My friend's husband got lost on the way to the restaurant and we were going near my friend's house, which was about 40 minutes away.  During this time I badly needed sustenance.  My friend had caramel in the car, so I tried that after being assured she had water.  Now that I had water, I took another GU packet as I had 2 unused ones (I brought one extra in case I ran slower than expected and 1 was given to me at mile 17).  I was really tired and lightheaded and I badly wanted to get to the restaurant.  I had been championing steak the whole previous day and since I finished so that's where we were going.  FInally we got to the restaurant and I couldn't get out of the car.  My friend offtered to help, I grabbed her arm but didn't want to pull on her as I knew she couldn't support my weight.  I managed to get to my feet.  I grabbed the waist of my pants because I literally couldn't lift my arms.  I shuffled my feet toward the restaurant and made it very slowly feeling the worst I've felt ever from running.  I got to the resaurant, still wearing the cape and sat down next to my mother, who gave me a sweater and other clothes.  She told me to go the bathroom to put on pants but I absolutely refused to do any extra walking.  As waitors came by I kept chanting "Beer, I need beer, someone get me beer" The waitor poured me water but I was done with that; I needed calories.  Finally he asked what kind of beer, I said Coors Light and he brought it and I took a sip and it was freezing cold and refreshing.  As I kept eating and drinking I started feeling better.  When we left the waitor congratulated me, shook my hand and told me that I look much better now than when I walked in.  My dad was happy to see color restore to my face.  I was still sore but I could lift my arms at least.  I turned the corner to recovery.

After that, I went back to my friend's house and took a long shower, which I desperately needed.  They went to sleep, I tried to sleep but somehow couldn't.  I was in a lot of pain but my head felt fine unlike when I finished.   I redid the math, and realized that my last 10 miles I averaged 12:27 miles, which includes all the walking I did between mile 24.2 and 26.2.  By extension, there is no way I was running 15 minute miles between 20 and 24 as I thought I had been.  My math or memoy was wrong when I made that calculation at the time.  Now for the first time, I had a regret, maybe I could have finished without stopping.  I started getting an itch to try again but that faded quickly.  I kept telling myself that most people I saw walked at some point so I was fine. The rest of the day was spent resting, going to dinner, and resting some more.  I was really sore and stairs were a problem, especially down.  I didn't fall asleep till midnight even though I went to bed at 10.  THroughout the day, people were texting and calling about my race.  I welcomed all of it.  Next day we had breakfast and drove to the city.  When I woke up this morning (same day as driving back to the city) it finally settled in that I had run a marathon.  It feels amazing and the regret I had from walking is long gone.  I'm so happy I did it, but I would never do it again.  The one thing I don't understand is despite all the fluids I was drinking during the race, I never had to go to the bathroom.  During all my long runs, I had to go to the bathroom but just held it.  I never did, I guess I was burning it off that quickly.  I tell myself now that given how bad of shape I was when I finished, if I hadn't stopped to walk, I may have collapsed or even not finished. Who knows if that's true, I"m never doing it again. 

Psyching up for Marathon

Excuse me, as I do something very corny.  But I want to psyche myself up for the marathon.  Hamptons marathon, I’ve ran Zakopana, Poland; Wroclaw, Poland; Krakow, Poland; Vienna, Austria; Berlin, Germany; Bratislava, Slovakia; Brooklyn, NY; Commack, NY Cleveland, OH; and Manhattan, NY in preparation for you.  You killed the first Greek that tried your relative, this one is coming for vengeance.  I’ve left sweat and blood on concrete sidewalks.  I’ve ran through sore muscles and pain.  I’ve ran till I couldn’t run anymore and walked my way through.  Many times I wanted to throw in the towel, but I made the promise that I would keep going until I got injured or until you and meet face to face.  Well, your minions couldn’t defeat me, now you got to do it yourself.  I’m coming for you, so bring it on.  Your 26.2 miles vs. mostly my legs but other parts of my body too, one will prevail.     So, on 9/29/12, I got one thing to say to you, “JUST BRING IT.”

Economics of a family

I've been labeled many things so this post may label me as Anti-woman but that's fine.  It isn't a secret that nowadays parents no longer raise their children.  The children rearing is left to nannies for the rich and high school girls and/or day care for the not-so-rich.  This is almost exclusively caused by the feminist movement.  I'm hesitant to say that the latest generation is more corrupt and reprehensible than my generation or those above me because every generation says that about the subsequent ones.  Even Egyptian hieroglyphs have this message and a couple hundred years ago, Baldassar Castiglione wrote about it in "Book of the Courtier."  But if it is true, I think the lack of parents raising their children is to blame.  My question is, "Why is it chauvinistic to say woman should stay at home with the kids?" 
        I am an economist so I make simplifying assumptions in order to make sense of the world.  Today's assumption is that women are better than men at everything.  Fair enough assumption, I'm not being anti-women, and men are too cowardly to speak against this so there, we're off to a good start.  Women are better than men at work and at raising children but sometimes the woman can't do absolutely everything.  There needs to be teamwork.  So, what can a man help with?  In economics, there is a law called "The Law of comparative advantage" it states that if there are two countries in which one country is better than the other at making two goods, it is still beneficial for the countries to trade if the inferior country focuses on the item where the gap between ability is narrower.  For Example, if country A is much better at making textiles and slightly better at making computer chips than Country B, Country A should devote all it's effort to making textiles, and Country B should devote their efforts to making computer chips and then Country A trades textiles for computer chips.  When this is done, Country A and Country B have more textiles and computer chips than they would have if they divided their efforts amongst the two goods.  In this way, everyone gains and nobody loses, which in Ecomomics is called a "Pareto improvement."  Now, how does this law relate to a family?
         As we said earlier, women are better than men at everything; they can go to work and work the system and get promoted and bring home more money than men.  They are also better at raising kids and keeping a clean house than men are.  Now, we need to see where the gap is least.  I think it's fair to say that the gap in women's ability over men is far narrower when it comes to the workplace and earning a paycheck than it is for child rearing, and keeping a clean house.  Since men are closer in ability to woman at earning a salary than they are at child rearing and keeping a house, it would be advantageous for the man to devote his efforts to earning the paycheck for the family and the woman to take care of the kids and keep a clean house.  This way the husband and wife (again, assuming that all people with children are married, as I said before economists make ridiculous assumptions to simplify things) get more money and more child rearing and cleaner house than if they split the responsibility amongst the two of them.  I think the future generations would benefit if house wives stop looking at their duty as inferior to a man's, it's just simply logical for them to do it. 

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

Training runs complete!

Today was my last training run; 8 miles.  Rather than do my normal course of making it a loop to end at my apartment, I had it end on Park Avenue and Broadway because there is a big fountain with lots of water spraying toward the center.  As I past this on previous runs, I always wanted to run through it to cool down but as it was normally about half way and I didn't want to run over 8 miles in wet shoes, I never did.  Today, in celebration for the training runs being over, I jumped into the fountain and walked around to cool down.  It was awesome.  Now a quick look back of my 6.5 months of training. 

I’ve come across a lot of adventures during my runs.  I’ve had old people stick their cane in my path, people drop suitcases causing me to jump over and pull my groin with about 8 miles left, I’ve ran through shin splints, massive tightness/pain in my calf, nagging knee and arch pain.  I’ve even ran drunk to prepare me for running on tired or not-100% legs.  I think I will need this for the marathon, as I don’t expect to feel 100% throughout.  I’ve had four people say they would run with me, none did.  I’ve been cheered on by Greeks, Asians, and blacks, one who just happened to be fluent in Greek.  I’ve been heckled by little kids and a black guy telling me his girlfriend runs faster than me.  I’ve received both praise and condemnation for the Lebron jersey I wear.  I had the marathon date be pushed up from Early January (Disney), to Early November (NY) to 9/29/12.  One thing I never did though was sit down or get off my feet because I could no longer stand.  I did stop to walk a few times (Approximately 7) but never did I sit to rest.  Some say this is bad because that means I never pushed myself to the Max, but I say it’s good because I kept trucking.  Those times I was forced to stop because I couldn’t run anymore I consider pushing it to the max.  All in all, the experience really sucked and I will never do it again but there’s just one more run left!

The taboo "I don't know"

It has recently occured to me that people are scared to death of the phrase, "I don't know."  We want to believe that we have all the answers.  We want to believe that everything that can be discovered has been.  That is why when you publish papers, you have to reference those before you that discovered the same thing.  This implies no new theories can develop.  Why is it so difficult to say, "I don't know."  Here are my most blatant examples.

Medicine.  So many times people believe themselves to be Doctors simply because they've had a long history of medical problems.  This is not what is needed to be a Doctor.  You don't get an M.D. simply because you're always in the hospital for some reason or another.  You cannot diagnose people.  WebMD has made this worse.  The recently canceled show, "House" satirized these people by having a character that does what doctors probably wants to do in berating patients who self-diagnose.  The show "Royal Pains" is another example.  The favorite thing of these pseudo-doctors is when real doctors, those that have gone to medical school, cannot discover a reason for an illness.  This is like candy for these retarded, ignorant, arrogant pieces of trash that annoy me by offering a medical opinion with absolutely no medical training or treatment of any kind.  Most of these people aren't even certified in CPR.  For example, four times in my life, I have collapsed.  Doctors believe it's something with my brain; whereas paramedics believe it to be my heart.  Both have been thoroughly tested and scanned and all came out clean.  No doctor can tell me why it happens.  When I tell people this, I get all sorts of opinions, mostly trying to promote their idealogy about how I should run my life.  In fact, only one person has resisted the urge to not comment on why this may happen.  She having two degrees in Finance and International Business from the Stern School of Business realized that that doesn't qualify her to make medical opinons so she refrained.  The answer is obvious...nobody knows. 

The other blaring example of this is the classic debate between Darwinism and creationism.  Here's the point, nobody has any idea how life came to be on this planet.  Darwin said in "Origin of Species" that the fossil record would either prove or disprove his theory.  So far, it has more disproved than proved.  There has yet to be a definitive transitional species found.  Archeopterox (looks like a half bird/half lizard) had potentioal but then it was discovered that the earliest fossils came much much later than the earliest full bird fossils and transitional species can't come before the end result.  That and there have been no early eyes, basically all these failed species that Darwin predicted would be found haven't been.  The argument against Creationism has similar problems.  In the bible, God creates animals before plants....why would he do something that stupid?  Plants are the bottom of the food chain, animals eat plants, bigger animals eat those animals but it's out of sequence in the bible.  That doesn't work either.  Why is it so difficult for people to admit the truth...nobody knows how life came on this Earth.  And yes, I would say the default goes to God.  but the answer to Darwinism vs. Creationism is "I don't know."

My last example is the environment.  In the 80's everyone worried about global cooling to the point that they wanted to cover the arctic in black soot to attract heat.  Now we have global warming fears, maybe in 30 years we'll be back to global cooling.  After all, every year we get BOTH record highs AND record lows, so both theories can have the same evidence.  That and you only see warming in urban areas, and farm animals produce much more potent and harmful greenhouse gases than humans, all make this argument  very very weak.  So, here's the point, when it comes to the weather....nobody knows.  Why can't we just say "I don't know."?  I don't know if it's getting warmer or colder, I don't know if it's caused my man, and honestly nobody else knows.  Of course, just like with medicine when no responsible professional can prove it or disprove it, the retards come out and put forth their opinion knowing that they can't definitively be proved wrong.

In closing, Plato said, "A wise person speaks because he has something to say, a foolish person because he has to say something."  and Socrates added, "Knowledge is knowing the extent of your ignorance" He even said, "I am the smartest man in the world because I know that I know nothing."  Over 5,000 years after Socrates was killed, I wish today's humans could realize the same thing. 

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