Guys,
I meant to comment on the election a lot sooner, but I was busy with post Sandy business at our trashed shore house back then. I've also been busy at work. Anyway, I have thoughts on the election, and I think it was a fraud; I think it was stolen.
In 59 voting districts in Philadelphia, there were 19,605 votes cast. Out of those votes cast, there were ZERO for Romney-zero! How likely is that? Consider the following. One, Mickey Mouse is always good for a few write-in votes; even a cartoon character got more votes than Romney did. Secondly, even if these voting districts were black; even of 95% of blacks voted for Obama; that would still mean that 5% of them voted for Romney, correct? If multiply the numbers, (0.05*19,605), we should have had 980 black votes for Romney. However, we're supposed to believe that there were zero votes for Romney in these 59 Philly voting districts.
The same thing happened in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Cuyahoga County is better known as Cleveland, OH. In certain, Cleveland voting districts, again, we had zero votes cast for Romney. Again, how likely is that? How likely is it that a major party candidate gets fewer votes than Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck? How likely is it that no blacks voted for Romney when the statistics say that he should garner 5% of those votes?
Then, we have to consider the countless reports of vote numbers EXCEEDING the numbers of registered voters in certain jurisdictions! That's right; in many jurisdictions, there were greater than 100% votes cast. One jurisdiction had 108% votes cast. What does this mean? For example, let's say that a certain city or county has 100,000 registered voters; no jurisdiction will have an even 100,000 registered voters, but play along; this is for illustrative purposes only. What this means is that there were 108,000 votes cast, even though this hypothetical jurisdiction has only 100,000 voters! Does this pass the smell test?
How could anyone win re-election with Obama's record? How could any man win re-election when the prices of food and fuel have doubled? How could anyone win re-election when incomes have dropped while prices have gone up? How could anyone win re-election when hit by that double whammy? How could anyone win re-election when record numbers of people are losing their homes? How could anyone win an election when presiding over the WORST economy since the Great Depression?
One theory I've heard proffered says that there are more people on the dole, so many don't feel the bad effects of the economy like they would have in the past. While it's true that there are more takers (i.e. people on the gov't dole), their handouts won't go as far in this economy. They have to buy food and fuel too, not to mention pay utilities. Well, their funds won't go as far, so they have to be feeling the effects of Obama's socialist policies too.
What bothers me about all this is that the Republican party isn't contesting the results; they aren't even raising the same questions I raised here! Moreover, the conservative pundits to whom I listen (mainly Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin with a little Sean Hannity and Andy David mixed in) haven't made a big deal about this. Rush, in all fairness, did point out the voting irregularities in Philly; he spent part of one show discussing this one day immediately following the election. However, he hasn't raised a fuss about it; he hasn't made a hue and cry about this travesty. Wouldn't one expect him to cry from the rooftops about this? Wouldn't one expect Mark Levin to raise a fuss about voting fraud? One would think so, given their opposition to Obama and his policies.
I could go on, but you get my point; the recent 're-election' of Barack Hussein Obama was stolen. Yeah, I said it! BHO did not win the recent election fairly. Sorry folks, but there's too much smoke here; there's too much that doesn't pass the 'smell test'. Usually, if there's smoke, there's fire MAKING that smoke; usually, if something stinks, it's because something is rotten-duh! With all that smells here, nothing is being done; nothing is even being investigated. That's what bothers me.
Folks, if we don't have honest, fair elections, we don't have a republic; we don't have anything! If we don't have honest elections, people will lose what little faith they still have in the system. What happens when people lose faith in the system? I could think of many answers to that question, and none of them are good.
In closing, the recent, American election was a fraud; it was stolen; Barack Hussein Obama did NOT win the election in a legitimate fashion. How can anyone tell me with a straight face that, in certain jurisdictions, Mitt Romney received ZERO votes out of thousands cast? How can anyone tell me that a major party candidate received no votes when Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are always good for a few write-in votes? How can anyone tell me that certain jurisdictions had more votes cast than had voters? How can anyone tell me this passes the smell test? It doesn't-end of story.
MarkyMark
14 December 2012
02 December 2012
What Abortion Says about Women
Folks,
I'd like to talk about what abortion says about women. It says nothing good; if anything, it says that they're the epitome & quintessence of evil.
Women are the ONLY species of life that kills their own babies-the only one! Not even rats, the most vile, evil, and disgusting of animals, kill their own babies; even the despicable mother rat does not kill her own babies. However, women do, and they've done so to the tune of 50 MILLION PLUS since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Also, what's telling is that the majority of women are in favor of abortion. If they weren't, then politicians wouldn't be deathly afraid of doing anything that could be even remotely construed as infringing on what is euphemistically called "a woman's right to choose". No matter how you slice it, politicians are deathly afraid to do anything about abortion. Why? Because the majority of women (who comprise the majority of voters, BTW) are in favor it, that's why.
It should really be called a right to choose murder, because that's what abortion is. Yeah, I said it! You don't like that? Too freakin' bad! I'll call a spade a freakin' shovel; here, we tell the TRUTH. Isn't it rather telling about women when they dislike the truth so much?
What does it say about women when they have chosen to commit a genocide almost UNPARALLELED in human history? What does it say about them? Uh MarkyMark, you're being hateful towards women-wah! Well, what would YOU call a mass murder totaling over fifty million lives, hmmm? Sounds like genocide to me, and women have committed it en masse. Hitler, who some say killed six million Jews, has nothing on modern, American women. Neither does Josef Stalin, who killed at least 20 million Russians during his reign of terror. American women have killed more than history's two most evil men combined! Did you ever think about that?
In closing, abortion says that women are evil. Sorry, but there's no gentle way to put it. When you have a genocide unparalleled in the annals of human history, those committing said genocide are evil. When a group of people have committed more mass murders than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin COMBINED, I'd call that genocide, wouldn't you? What do you call those who commit genocide on such a mass scale? Traditionally, we've called them evil. Since women are responsible for over fifty MILLION babies being killed since 1973, they are evil no matter how you slice it. Until next time...
MarkyMark
I'd like to talk about what abortion says about women. It says nothing good; if anything, it says that they're the epitome & quintessence of evil.
Women are the ONLY species of life that kills their own babies-the only one! Not even rats, the most vile, evil, and disgusting of animals, kill their own babies; even the despicable mother rat does not kill her own babies. However, women do, and they've done so to the tune of 50 MILLION PLUS since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Also, what's telling is that the majority of women are in favor of abortion. If they weren't, then politicians wouldn't be deathly afraid of doing anything that could be even remotely construed as infringing on what is euphemistically called "a woman's right to choose". No matter how you slice it, politicians are deathly afraid to do anything about abortion. Why? Because the majority of women (who comprise the majority of voters, BTW) are in favor it, that's why.
It should really be called a right to choose murder, because that's what abortion is. Yeah, I said it! You don't like that? Too freakin' bad! I'll call a spade a freakin' shovel; here, we tell the TRUTH. Isn't it rather telling about women when they dislike the truth so much?
What does it say about women when they have chosen to commit a genocide almost UNPARALLELED in human history? What does it say about them? Uh MarkyMark, you're being hateful towards women-wah! Well, what would YOU call a mass murder totaling over fifty million lives, hmmm? Sounds like genocide to me, and women have committed it en masse. Hitler, who some say killed six million Jews, has nothing on modern, American women. Neither does Josef Stalin, who killed at least 20 million Russians during his reign of terror. American women have killed more than history's two most evil men combined! Did you ever think about that?
In closing, abortion says that women are evil. Sorry, but there's no gentle way to put it. When you have a genocide unparalleled in the annals of human history, those committing said genocide are evil. When a group of people have committed more mass murders than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin COMBINED, I'd call that genocide, wouldn't you? What do you call those who commit genocide on such a mass scale? Traditionally, we've called them evil. Since women are responsible for over fifty MILLION babies being killed since 1973, they are evil no matter how you slice it. Until next time...
MarkyMark
18 November 2012
Chris Matthews' Sandy Comment
Folks,
As one who experienced the wrath of recent, Hurricane Sandy, this comment leaves me speechless; it truly leaves me speechless. Our family had our grandparents' old house flooded, courtesy of Hurricane Sandy, and this piece of crap is saying he is GLAD that it happened?! He's glad that people lost everything, thanks to Sandy? He's glad, because it helped Barack Hussein Obama 'win' the rigged election?
Oh, but MarkyMark, Chris Matthews qualified his comment; he said that he was only glad for the political impact Sandy had. Yeah, that's true, but-he only did so AFTER someone on the panel GASPED at what he said. Play the embedded video for yourself, and you'll see; Mr. Matthews, that POS, only corrected himself AFTER being called out for the gross insensitivity of his comment. How DARE you say that, Chris Matthews! How dare you!
Oh, and if you've been wondering where I've been in recent weeks, it's been to help clean up the flood damage during my free time, and to help save family memorabilia. Unfortunately, we left some family photos and stuff on the first floor of the house, which was flooded out. Thankfully, it was only two feet deep, but that was deep enough to do some damage. No, we couldn't save everything; we saved the vast majority of photos and memorabilia, but we couldn't save everything.
The house had never flooded out when previous hurricanes hit NJ; even during the last, major hurricane to hit NJ in 1944, the house had never flooded. Also, after all the drama and hype previous storms had received and turned out to be false, we didn't think Sandy would be that bad. We all remember how Irene was hyped up, yet all it turned out to be was some wind and rain. After seeing hyped up storms turn out to be nothing over a period of three decades, few of us thought Sandy would be that bad.
Without further ado, here is that POS, Chris Matthews, saying that he was GLAD that Hurricane Sandy happened, because it helped Barack Hussein Obama win a rigged, reelection. I'll have more to say about that soon, so stay tuned!
Is that not INCREDIBLE?! Can you believe anyone would think, let alone say, something like THAT?! How DARE you, Chris Matthews! How dare you! Do you know there are thousands in the tri-state area who lost everything? Are you aware that there are people STILL without power, thanks to Sandy? You know that that means that they're sleeping in an ice cold house, right? The Mid-Atlantic states do experience cold weather starting in November; you know that, don't you, Mr. Matthews? He is such a POS!
All right, I'm done ranting. I don't have a TV, so I didn't get to see this live. When I heard about this, I couldn't believe it; how could anyone, even an Obama devotee like Chris Matthews, think, let alone say, what he did? Anyway, I did a search on YouTube, and I found Mr. Matthews comment. THIS is what passes for journalism in America these days. Bye for now...
MarkyMark
Oh, but MarkyMark, Chris Matthews qualified his comment; he said that he was only glad for the political impact Sandy had. Yeah, that's true, but-he only did so AFTER someone on the panel GASPED at what he said. Play the embedded video for yourself, and you'll see; Mr. Matthews, that POS, only corrected himself AFTER being called out for the gross insensitivity of his comment. How DARE you say that, Chris Matthews! How dare you!
Oh, and if you've been wondering where I've been in recent weeks, it's been to help clean up the flood damage during my free time, and to help save family memorabilia. Unfortunately, we left some family photos and stuff on the first floor of the house, which was flooded out. Thankfully, it was only two feet deep, but that was deep enough to do some damage. No, we couldn't save everything; we saved the vast majority of photos and memorabilia, but we couldn't save everything.
The house had never flooded out when previous hurricanes hit NJ; even during the last, major hurricane to hit NJ in 1944, the house had never flooded. Also, after all the drama and hype previous storms had received and turned out to be false, we didn't think Sandy would be that bad. We all remember how Irene was hyped up, yet all it turned out to be was some wind and rain. After seeing hyped up storms turn out to be nothing over a period of three decades, few of us thought Sandy would be that bad.
Without further ado, here is that POS, Chris Matthews, saying that he was GLAD that Hurricane Sandy happened, because it helped Barack Hussein Obama win a rigged, reelection. I'll have more to say about that soon, so stay tuned!
Is that not INCREDIBLE?! Can you believe anyone would think, let alone say, something like THAT?! How DARE you, Chris Matthews! How dare you! Do you know there are thousands in the tri-state area who lost everything? Are you aware that there are people STILL without power, thanks to Sandy? You know that that means that they're sleeping in an ice cold house, right? The Mid-Atlantic states do experience cold weather starting in November; you know that, don't you, Mr. Matthews? He is such a POS!
All right, I'm done ranting. I don't have a TV, so I didn't get to see this live. When I heard about this, I couldn't believe it; how could anyone, even an Obama devotee like Chris Matthews, think, let alone say, what he did? Anyway, I did a search on YouTube, and I found Mr. Matthews comment. THIS is what passes for journalism in America these days. Bye for now...
MarkyMark
11 November 2012
Jersey Shore Parody
Guys,
Sorry I haven't posted much, but life has been crazy for me. Just when life was returning to normal after my mother's death, Hurricane Sandy had to mess things up. I won't get into that, because I and my family fared a lot better than many people. I'll tell you what though; I'll be GLAD when 2012 is over! It's been one hell of a year for me.
That said, I was relaxing after breakfast this morning, and I found this parody of Jersey Shore. I stopped watching during season five, and I never went back to watching that wretched show. That said, this parody is funny! Without further ado, I'll play the video.
Did you find that funny? I sure did! Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
Sorry I haven't posted much, but life has been crazy for me. Just when life was returning to normal after my mother's death, Hurricane Sandy had to mess things up. I won't get into that, because I and my family fared a lot better than many people. I'll tell you what though; I'll be GLAD when 2012 is over! It's been one hell of a year for me.
That said, I was relaxing after breakfast this morning, and I found this parody of Jersey Shore. I stopped watching during season five, and I never went back to watching that wretched show. That said, this parody is funny! Without further ado, I'll play the video.
Did you find that funny? I sure did! Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
14 October 2012
Recent Developments with Cleveland Bus Driver
Folks,
It seems that the City of Cleveland has suspended the bus driver who defended himself against the violent woman on his bus. I shared the video in my previous post. View that first before continuing. Anyway, the city has suspended him pending an inquiry, and it looks like he may lose his job over this incident. This has been a hot topic on Mancoat, which is where I got the video in the first place. When discussing the recent developments, I submitted my thoughts about the situation. To sum things up, I think this case is totally wrong, and I will show you why.
This case is total BULLSHIT! The bitch was drunk when she boarded the bus. Like many drunks, she was loud and obnoxious. She was also violent, as evidenced by hitting the bus driver-an act caught on video. Now, the last time I checked; the last time I rode public transportation; one is not supposed to be drunk while on said public transportation. Also, it is a violation of FEDERAL LAW to disturb the operator; the operator is to be left alone to get the people to their destination safely! What, pray tell me, is hitting the bus driver, but disturbing the operator in a serious way? Isn't this bitch guilty of violating the law on multiple counts? Why isn't SHE being prosecuted for her gross (not to mention multiple) violations of the law? Why is this being forgotten here?
Just by being drunk, the bus driver had every right to toss her off the bus. When she got loud and obnoxious, he had every right to toss her off the bus, because not only is she being a nuisance to the other passengers; she is DISTURBING THE OPERATOR-duh! I don't know about Cleveland city buses, but NJ Transit buses have signs conspicuously posted telling passengers that they are to stand behind the line and NOT disturb the operator. With someone loud and obnoxious on board, it's harder for him to concentrate on traffic, pedestrians, the route, etc., so it's a lot harder for him to do his job safely. When she got violent, she was way over the line; not only that, she had crossed multiple lines by that point, and the bus driver had multiple justifications already to toss her off the bus.
Now, when things got violent and she HIT HIM FIRST (it seems like that is being forgotten here!), what was he supposed to do?! How else was he supposed to handle the situation?! He couldn't continue to operate the bus with her acting like that. If he'd pulled over, called the cops, and waited, then he'd have been well behind schedule; he would have been disciplined for that, because bus drivers have to keep to their schedules. What's he supposed to do, let her keep hitting him? As far as I can see, he was in a no-win situation. Again, this is total BULLSHIT.
In closing, the drunk, obnoxious, and VIOLENT woman is the one who should be prosecuted here. She only committed multiple violations! Let's review, shall we? One, she was drunk; on many transit systems, this is a no-no. Two, she disturbed the operator by being loud and obnoxious. Three, she HIT the operator! When I last rode a bus and train in July, I recall seeing signs posted telling passengers that they were NOT to do these things; I mean, she only violated multiple federal & state laws! Does that not mean anything? Shouldn't SHE be the one punished here? I think so. The City of Cleveland is wrong in suspending the bus driver, because: 1) the bitch violated multiple laws with her conduct; and 2) the driver was in a no-win situation. What was he supposed to do? Those are my thoughts.
MarkyMark
It seems that the City of Cleveland has suspended the bus driver who defended himself against the violent woman on his bus. I shared the video in my previous post. View that first before continuing. Anyway, the city has suspended him pending an inquiry, and it looks like he may lose his job over this incident. This has been a hot topic on Mancoat, which is where I got the video in the first place. When discussing the recent developments, I submitted my thoughts about the situation. To sum things up, I think this case is totally wrong, and I will show you why.
This case is total BULLSHIT! The bitch was drunk when she boarded the bus. Like many drunks, she was loud and obnoxious. She was also violent, as evidenced by hitting the bus driver-an act caught on video. Now, the last time I checked; the last time I rode public transportation; one is not supposed to be drunk while on said public transportation. Also, it is a violation of FEDERAL LAW to disturb the operator; the operator is to be left alone to get the people to their destination safely! What, pray tell me, is hitting the bus driver, but disturbing the operator in a serious way? Isn't this bitch guilty of violating the law on multiple counts? Why isn't SHE being prosecuted for her gross (not to mention multiple) violations of the law? Why is this being forgotten here?
Just by being drunk, the bus driver had every right to toss her off the bus. When she got loud and obnoxious, he had every right to toss her off the bus, because not only is she being a nuisance to the other passengers; she is DISTURBING THE OPERATOR-duh! I don't know about Cleveland city buses, but NJ Transit buses have signs conspicuously posted telling passengers that they are to stand behind the line and NOT disturb the operator. With someone loud and obnoxious on board, it's harder for him to concentrate on traffic, pedestrians, the route, etc., so it's a lot harder for him to do his job safely. When she got violent, she was way over the line; not only that, she had crossed multiple lines by that point, and the bus driver had multiple justifications already to toss her off the bus.
Now, when things got violent and she HIT HIM FIRST (it seems like that is being forgotten here!), what was he supposed to do?! How else was he supposed to handle the situation?! He couldn't continue to operate the bus with her acting like that. If he'd pulled over, called the cops, and waited, then he'd have been well behind schedule; he would have been disciplined for that, because bus drivers have to keep to their schedules. What's he supposed to do, let her keep hitting him? As far as I can see, he was in a no-win situation. Again, this is total BULLSHIT.
In closing, the drunk, obnoxious, and VIOLENT woman is the one who should be prosecuted here. She only committed multiple violations! Let's review, shall we? One, she was drunk; on many transit systems, this is a no-no. Two, she disturbed the operator by being loud and obnoxious. Three, she HIT the operator! When I last rode a bus and train in July, I recall seeing signs posted telling passengers that they were NOT to do these things; I mean, she only violated multiple federal & state laws! Does that not mean anything? Shouldn't SHE be the one punished here? I think so. The City of Cleveland is wrong in suspending the bus driver, because: 1) the bitch violated multiple laws with her conduct; and 2) the driver was in a no-win situation. What was he supposed to do? Those are my thoughts.
MarkyMark
12 October 2012
Act Like a Man, Get Treated Like One
Guys,
Eli Johnson, a stalwart at Mancoat, shared this with us. He finds examples of women getting their pussy passes revoked, and this is yet another example. This chick acted like a hellion; she acted like a man, so she was treated like one. Way to go Mr. Bus Driver!
Women need to be put in their place; they need their pussy passes revoked. Let's hear it for Mr. Bus Driver!
Eli Johnson, a stalwart at Mancoat, shared this with us. He finds examples of women getting their pussy passes revoked, and this is yet another example. This chick acted like a hellion; she acted like a man, so she was treated like one. Way to go Mr. Bus Driver!
Women need to be put in their place; they need their pussy passes revoked. Let's hear it for Mr. Bus Driver!
30 September 2012
No Such Thing as Honest Money
Guys,
If you think using gold, silver, or some other precious metal will prevent debasement of the currency, then you do not know history. All precious metal does is change the METHODS of currency debasement, nothing more; it does not prevent it. Let me explain...
Back in Ancient Rome, copper was a precious metal. The Romans used it in their money, the As. After all their foreign adventurism and burgeoning social programs at home, they ran short of money; they needed to-gasp-PAY for all their government boondoggles! So what did they do? The HALVED the amount of copper in the As, thus DOUBLING the money supply overnight. Using a precious metal didn't prevent debauching the currency; it merely changed the methods employed to do so.
The same could happen if we had our money still backed by gold or silver. Also, the same could happen if we used nothing but gold and silver for our money. If we were using gold and silver to back our paper money, all that would need to be done is reduce the amount of gold and silver backing each bill out there. If we were using gold and silver as money, then we could simply do as the Ancient Romans did; we could simply reduce the amount of gold and silver in our money. In either case, the money supply is expanded, is it not? Can gold, silver, or other precious metal prevent debasement of a nation's currency? No, it cannot.
Gold and silver aren't any more 'honest' than paper money. That phrase, 'honest money', really burns me up. There is no such thing as honest money! The form that money takes isn't important. What is important that those administering the money supply do so with honesty and integrity. THAT is the key, the key that everyone forgets. Since we have a bunch of crooks in government (including those administering the money supply), we will have crooked money-no matter what form that money takes.
MarkyMark
If you think using gold, silver, or some other precious metal will prevent debasement of the currency, then you do not know history. All precious metal does is change the METHODS of currency debasement, nothing more; it does not prevent it. Let me explain...
Back in Ancient Rome, copper was a precious metal. The Romans used it in their money, the As. After all their foreign adventurism and burgeoning social programs at home, they ran short of money; they needed to-gasp-PAY for all their government boondoggles! So what did they do? The HALVED the amount of copper in the As, thus DOUBLING the money supply overnight. Using a precious metal didn't prevent debauching the currency; it merely changed the methods employed to do so.
The same could happen if we had our money still backed by gold or silver. Also, the same could happen if we used nothing but gold and silver for our money. If we were using gold and silver to back our paper money, all that would need to be done is reduce the amount of gold and silver backing each bill out there. If we were using gold and silver as money, then we could simply do as the Ancient Romans did; we could simply reduce the amount of gold and silver in our money. In either case, the money supply is expanded, is it not? Can gold, silver, or other precious metal prevent debasement of a nation's currency? No, it cannot.
Gold and silver aren't any more 'honest' than paper money. That phrase, 'honest money', really burns me up. There is no such thing as honest money! The form that money takes isn't important. What is important that those administering the money supply do so with honesty and integrity. THAT is the key, the key that everyone forgets. Since we have a bunch of crooks in government (including those administering the money supply), we will have crooked money-no matter what form that money takes.
MarkyMark
23 September 2012
F-105 Thunderchief
Hey Guys,
Sorry I haven't had much to post lately, but I just don't have much to say anymore. I'm no longer angry at women, nor am I angry at the misandry we face in society; they are what they are, and that's that. Besides, there are other, better bloggers out there anyway, guys who are saying what needs to be said far better than I ever could.
Having said that, I have had some free time. I've been digging through YouTube for documentaries that interest me. This one was one I not only watched years ago (during the 1990s when Discovery had their outstanding Wings program); I taped it. When my mother died, I simply couldn't save all my tape collection, which had many Wings episodes. I had neither the time to save them all, nor did I have the space to keep them. Having said that, I saved some the Wings episodes that I'd taped years ago; I saved the ones that really stood out to me over time. The video you're about to watch is one of those that I saved.
Even though I've seen this multiple times, I still get choked up when I see it, particularly at the beginning and the end. Part of it is because, when I was a young boy, our school took a field trip to McGuire Air Force Base; the base had a full squadron of F-105 Thunderchiefs that flew for the NJ Air National Guard. I also saw them do practice bombing in the Pine Barrens, because their bombing area was near Penn State Forest. I remember these planes when they were operational. To see them sitting as hulks in the Arizona desert is sad.
What's even sadder is the heartache and BS the pilots endured in Vietnam. From having the government TELL the enemy where they were going to raid and when, to fighting with their hands tied behind their backs (e.g. not being able to take out a SAM site unless it fired at you), these guys put up with a lot. The comments from Ray Moss and Tony Cushenberry are particularly poignant, at least for me.
The documentary lasts about an hour. If you're a guy who likes airplanes, it'll be time well spent. Without any further ado, here's an excellent documentary on the F-105 Thunderchief...
Jeff Ethel was the first gentleman they interviewed. He has an interesting story, which you can read about here. So tell me-did that video choke you up like it did me? I'd love to hear your comments. Thanks, and by for now...
MarkyMark
Sorry I haven't had much to post lately, but I just don't have much to say anymore. I'm no longer angry at women, nor am I angry at the misandry we face in society; they are what they are, and that's that. Besides, there are other, better bloggers out there anyway, guys who are saying what needs to be said far better than I ever could.
Having said that, I have had some free time. I've been digging through YouTube for documentaries that interest me. This one was one I not only watched years ago (during the 1990s when Discovery had their outstanding Wings program); I taped it. When my mother died, I simply couldn't save all my tape collection, which had many Wings episodes. I had neither the time to save them all, nor did I have the space to keep them. Having said that, I saved some the Wings episodes that I'd taped years ago; I saved the ones that really stood out to me over time. The video you're about to watch is one of those that I saved.
Even though I've seen this multiple times, I still get choked up when I see it, particularly at the beginning and the end. Part of it is because, when I was a young boy, our school took a field trip to McGuire Air Force Base; the base had a full squadron of F-105 Thunderchiefs that flew for the NJ Air National Guard. I also saw them do practice bombing in the Pine Barrens, because their bombing area was near Penn State Forest. I remember these planes when they were operational. To see them sitting as hulks in the Arizona desert is sad.
What's even sadder is the heartache and BS the pilots endured in Vietnam. From having the government TELL the enemy where they were going to raid and when, to fighting with their hands tied behind their backs (e.g. not being able to take out a SAM site unless it fired at you), these guys put up with a lot. The comments from Ray Moss and Tony Cushenberry are particularly poignant, at least for me.
The documentary lasts about an hour. If you're a guy who likes airplanes, it'll be time well spent. Without any further ado, here's an excellent documentary on the F-105 Thunderchief...
Jeff Ethel was the first gentleman they interviewed. He has an interesting story, which you can read about here. So tell me-did that video choke you up like it did me? I'd love to hear your comments. Thanks, and by for now...
MarkyMark
25 August 2012
Lance Armstrong
Guys,
I have thoughts on Lance Armstrong's situation. In short, I don't think he's guilty. One, he's been tested more than any other athlete on the planet! Two, I think there is some jealousy and envy at work here. Three, he simply worked and trained harder than his competitors.
Lance Armstrong has been poked, prodded, sampled, and tested more than ANY other athlete on the planet! He's been tested what, 500 times or thereabouts? If he'd been guilty of any doping or use of performance enhancing drugs (hereafter PEDs), wouldn't he have been caught at least once in all those tests? Especially if those tests are done at random (i.e. he doesn't know where or when they'll be), how can he evade a positive result? How could he always have someone else around to pee in the bottle for him? How could he do so if the tests are observed, like my urinalysis tests were observed while I was in the US Navy? Sorry, but there's a reason Lance Armstrong passed the hundreds of drug tests he's taken over the years: he's not guilty-duh!
Secondly, I think that there's a lot of jealousy and envy at work here. Nowadays, instead of admiring, respecting, and studying successful people, we vilify them; we say that they MUST have cheated to get where they were; they must have stolen from someone; they must have screwed someone over.
It's rather telling that, when Mr. Armstrong was winning his first Tour de France victories, the French were the first to raise the specter of PED use; it was the French who first went after Lance Armstrong. Why wouldn't they? First of all, cycling is not 'our' sport; it's seen as a European sport. Secondly, Armstrong and other Americans are seen as interlopers by the Europeans. Thirdly, from the French perspective, here's a Yankee SOB who not only crashed 'their' party; he made them look bad. Lance Armstrong kicked their asses in THEIR sport! You think that won't incite some jealousy from the socialist minded French? Come on!
Finally, Lance Armstrong succeeded because he flat out worked HARDER than his competitors did; it's as simple as that. I read an article years ago detailing how Armstrong would train in the mountains. He'd find the steepest mountain he could, then he'd climb it three or four times; he'd even do this on cold, rainy days! That's right; even when it was 40-45 degrees F outside (that's 4-7 degrees C), he'd be charging a gnarly mountain three or four times during a training session. On days when his competitors (and indeed most sane people) would be curled up by the fireplace nursing a cup of hot chocolate, Armstrong would be charging the mountains; he'd be out training for the Tour. Is it any wonder Lance Armstrong kicked the tails of his competition? Is it any wonder he laid the groundwork to his seven victories during the mountain stages?
Yesterday, I was listening to the pundits on sports radio. They were saying that, because Lance Armstrong elected to not fight the USADA (US Anti Doping Agency), he is guilty; in effect, the one pundit said that he effectively pleaded no contest; to them, that was a tacit admission of guilt. I don't think so. Mr. Armstrong said that, after all the BS for the better part of a decade, he's had enough. I can understand that.
I remember how, back in the late 1990s, I was falsely accused of stalking, harassment, DV, etc. My psychobitch told so many lies that I could have easily nailed her for false swearing, if not outright perjury. However, I didn't do so for a couple of reasons. One, I had vengeance on my mind. Two, I just wanted to get on with my life. I wanted the nightmares to end; I wanted to have a good night's sleep again. I remember how, when that whole mess was going on, crying out to God; God, please give me my life back! My prayers were answered, so I thought it was best to let things go at that point. Ergo, I can understand Mr. Armstrong's decision to stop fighting; at a certain point, why bother?
Also, the USADA, though non-profit, is a non-governmental organization. It received almost nine million dollars from the US Federal Government. It also almost three and a half million dollars from the US Olympic Committee, to whom it is contracted testing of PEDs. You can view the USADA's 2011 annual report here; go to page 45, and you'll see the aforementioned numbers. Why is that relevant? I'm glad you asked, because I'm about to tell you-ha!
What this means is that, in effect, Lance Armstrong would be taking on the government, which has almost limitless resources. In our adversarial legal system, only the rich can really afford justice, and have the resources to counter those of the government. If he'd beaten this charge, the USADA would have come back with another one. They could have and would have kept coming back, because this is not a criminal matter; since it's a civil matter, the standard of proof isn't as high. IOW, it would be easier for the USADA to win, and harder for an athlete (like Lance Armstrong) to beat the system. That's another reason I can't blame him fro throwing in the towel.
In closing, I don't think Lance Armstrong is guilty. I don't think his decision to not fight the USADA is a tacit admission of guilt, either; after fighting these rumors and charges for over a decade, Lance Armstrong had had enough. The man who fought so hard to beat cancer had had enough; the man who'd fought these doping allegations for years had had enough; the man who'd passed HUNDREDS OF DRUG TESTS had had enough. You're telling me he wouldn't have been caught at least ONCE? Come on! Lance Armstrong will always be King of the Tour de France. Until next time...
MarkyMark
I have thoughts on Lance Armstrong's situation. In short, I don't think he's guilty. One, he's been tested more than any other athlete on the planet! Two, I think there is some jealousy and envy at work here. Three, he simply worked and trained harder than his competitors.
Lance Armstrong has been poked, prodded, sampled, and tested more than ANY other athlete on the planet! He's been tested what, 500 times or thereabouts? If he'd been guilty of any doping or use of performance enhancing drugs (hereafter PEDs), wouldn't he have been caught at least once in all those tests? Especially if those tests are done at random (i.e. he doesn't know where or when they'll be), how can he evade a positive result? How could he always have someone else around to pee in the bottle for him? How could he do so if the tests are observed, like my urinalysis tests were observed while I was in the US Navy? Sorry, but there's a reason Lance Armstrong passed the hundreds of drug tests he's taken over the years: he's not guilty-duh!
Secondly, I think that there's a lot of jealousy and envy at work here. Nowadays, instead of admiring, respecting, and studying successful people, we vilify them; we say that they MUST have cheated to get where they were; they must have stolen from someone; they must have screwed someone over.
It's rather telling that, when Mr. Armstrong was winning his first Tour de France victories, the French were the first to raise the specter of PED use; it was the French who first went after Lance Armstrong. Why wouldn't they? First of all, cycling is not 'our' sport; it's seen as a European sport. Secondly, Armstrong and other Americans are seen as interlopers by the Europeans. Thirdly, from the French perspective, here's a Yankee SOB who not only crashed 'their' party; he made them look bad. Lance Armstrong kicked their asses in THEIR sport! You think that won't incite some jealousy from the socialist minded French? Come on!
Finally, Lance Armstrong succeeded because he flat out worked HARDER than his competitors did; it's as simple as that. I read an article years ago detailing how Armstrong would train in the mountains. He'd find the steepest mountain he could, then he'd climb it three or four times; he'd even do this on cold, rainy days! That's right; even when it was 40-45 degrees F outside (that's 4-7 degrees C), he'd be charging a gnarly mountain three or four times during a training session. On days when his competitors (and indeed most sane people) would be curled up by the fireplace nursing a cup of hot chocolate, Armstrong would be charging the mountains; he'd be out training for the Tour. Is it any wonder Lance Armstrong kicked the tails of his competition? Is it any wonder he laid the groundwork to his seven victories during the mountain stages?
Yesterday, I was listening to the pundits on sports radio. They were saying that, because Lance Armstrong elected to not fight the USADA (US Anti Doping Agency), he is guilty; in effect, the one pundit said that he effectively pleaded no contest; to them, that was a tacit admission of guilt. I don't think so. Mr. Armstrong said that, after all the BS for the better part of a decade, he's had enough. I can understand that.
I remember how, back in the late 1990s, I was falsely accused of stalking, harassment, DV, etc. My psychobitch told so many lies that I could have easily nailed her for false swearing, if not outright perjury. However, I didn't do so for a couple of reasons. One, I had vengeance on my mind. Two, I just wanted to get on with my life. I wanted the nightmares to end; I wanted to have a good night's sleep again. I remember how, when that whole mess was going on, crying out to God; God, please give me my life back! My prayers were answered, so I thought it was best to let things go at that point. Ergo, I can understand Mr. Armstrong's decision to stop fighting; at a certain point, why bother?
Also, the USADA, though non-profit, is a non-governmental organization. It received almost nine million dollars from the US Federal Government. It also almost three and a half million dollars from the US Olympic Committee, to whom it is contracted testing of PEDs. You can view the USADA's 2011 annual report here; go to page 45, and you'll see the aforementioned numbers. Why is that relevant? I'm glad you asked, because I'm about to tell you-ha!
What this means is that, in effect, Lance Armstrong would be taking on the government, which has almost limitless resources. In our adversarial legal system, only the rich can really afford justice, and have the resources to counter those of the government. If he'd beaten this charge, the USADA would have come back with another one. They could have and would have kept coming back, because this is not a criminal matter; since it's a civil matter, the standard of proof isn't as high. IOW, it would be easier for the USADA to win, and harder for an athlete (like Lance Armstrong) to beat the system. That's another reason I can't blame him fro throwing in the towel.
In closing, I don't think Lance Armstrong is guilty. I don't think his decision to not fight the USADA is a tacit admission of guilt, either; after fighting these rumors and charges for over a decade, Lance Armstrong had had enough. The man who fought so hard to beat cancer had had enough; the man who'd fought these doping allegations for years had had enough; the man who'd passed HUNDREDS OF DRUG TESTS had had enough. You're telling me he wouldn't have been caught at least ONCE? Come on! Lance Armstrong will always be King of the Tour de France. Until next time...
MarkyMark
10 August 2012
An Oldie but a Goodie...
Guys,
This sounds like an old joke, but I only heard it recently. Here goes...
A woman wants four animals in her life: a mink on her back, a jaguar in the driveway, a tiger in the bedroom, and a jackass to pay for it all!
Have a good night now...
MarkyMark
This sounds like an old joke, but I only heard it recently. Here goes...
A woman wants four animals in her life: a mink on her back, a jaguar in the driveway, a tiger in the bedroom, and a jackass to pay for it all!
Have a good night now...
MarkyMark
08 August 2012
Girl Power-Really?
Guys,
I have to give a hat tip to Pro Male/Antifeminist Technology for this 'grrl power' tech piece I'm about to fisk. This is an article about girls in technology doing Android apps. I can't make this up; I just can't. Here goes...
------------------
What's wrong with old school presentations? They may be simple and prosaic, but they're effective. They're also immune to computer crashes and dead batteries.
Why weren't there any BOYS competing for these prizes, hmmm? I mean, men only invented the vast majority of life changing devices and products we take for granted today! Might there not be a reason for that? Isn't it possible that, due to their temperament and aptitudes, that men will invent more than women will or have?
What cream is rising to the top here? Again, where are the BOYS in these competitions? If this were an all boys competition (and, all things being equal and-gasp-fair, this would be mostly boys), there would be a huge hue and cry; that's sexist-waaaahhh! Where are the women? This is oppression-waaaaahhhh! Ah, but when there are no boys in a competition in which they could and would do well, why that's all right; all is right in the world now that only girls are competing for these tech prizes.
I have a better, quicker, simpler, and easier idea: how's about reading the blasted label?! It saves battery power and money for the necessary data transfer. You want to change the way you consume? Pay attention and practice discipline-duh!
Translation: the mentors held the girls' hands and did most of the work for them.
Oh, and what about 'boy power', hmmm? Men are treated as second class citizens; they're bashed and trashed at every opportunity; whether it comes to school, college admissions, hiring, or promotion decisions, females get preference these days. Who needs girl power? Girls are more than empowered these days. How about some 'boy power'? How about helping the TRUE disadvantaged in America's schools today: our boys?
"The team saw this huge concentration of pregnancies in their area and came up with an app to educate girls about their options. You never see these kinds of apps on the market because there aren't girls creating them. We're trying to change that."
Here's a better idea: keep your freaking legs CLOSED! Ann Landers or Dear Abby had it right back in the 1980s, and they have it right now: for a woman, the only 100% effective contraceptive is an aspirin clinched FIRMLY between the knees. Abstinence works every time it's tried!
You know why a guy didn't come up with that lame-o idea for an app? It wasn't for lack of empathy; it wasn't for lack of a 'female perspective'; it wasn't due to sexism. No, it was because a guy would wonder why an app is needed to practice a common sense, preventative action-duh!
Uh, shouldn't someone, particularly a designated driver, already KNOW this stuff? Shouldn't people already know the signs of drunkenness? Shouldn't people already KNOW the signs to look for before going out? Shouldn't someone know what to do before someone gets drunk out of their mind? What about the health classes students are required to take? I learned all this stuff in seventh grade, for cryin' out loud! Didn't these empowered girls have health classes? If so, did they-gasp-LEARN anything therein? Finally, can't someone consult sites like WebMD to brush up on this knowledge?
How did this app even get past the preliminary rounds? How did it get past the second round? How did this group make the finals in this competition? What need does this solve? What are people going to do, pull out their smart phone, pull up the app, and treat a drunk person on the spot? If so, how are they going to concentrate on doing so while looking at the phone telling them to do X? Again, shouldn't people have an idea of what to look for and what to do BEFORE a night of hard partying? I have to scratch my head at this one...
I have a better idea on how to study: get together in a group if you must! Oh, I know, I know; it's not flashy, new, or high tech, but again, it works. Can someone study online? Can someone play games online? Yes, but it's not the same as doing it in person.
Why do students need to get together to study anyway? I would do it once in a while or for a group project, but I normally studied alone. Here's all you need to study: a quiet place, a table/desk, paper, pen or pencil, and the required books. Oh, and some discipline would come in handy too; you have to make up your mind that you'll study at the same time on the same day. That's it! Where does social networking enter the picture?
But MarkyMark, I don't have a quiet place to study; my home life is bad; it's noisy at home and I have no place to study. Okay, what about using the school or local library? What about using the park picnic tables on a nice day? What about using the tables at the local Starbucks? What about taking advantage of study halls or gaps between classes?
Many classes could be more fun and interesting if taught in the right way. For example, history could be more fun if it focused less on dates and more on the people involved in a particular event. Shoot, some events are better than any soap opera or drama you'll see on TV!
Science could be more fun too if its relevance were tied in to the real world. For example, physics, when one thinks about it and its ties to the world, is interesting stuff; it's neat! For example, by learning about rotational motion, one can learn WHY figure skaters pull their arms and hands in as they launch their jumps. It's all about conservation of angular (i.e. rotational) momentum; as they pull their arms in (i.e. decrease the radius), the rotational speed (the rate at which the skater is spinning) has to increase, so that angular momentum is conserved.
I can think of an example too. I was watching a figure skating event some years ago. This female skater launched a jump, but she fell. It turned out that she under-rotated, so her blade wasn't aligned with her direction of motion. I said to myself, "I'll BET she didn't pull her arms in far enough, so she didn't spin enough." Sure enough, when they showed the replay and the commentator spoke, this is EXACTLY what happened! Not only did I know what happened; I knew WHY. Why did I know? Because I'd studied physics. No apps were needed for this. All that was needed was to ask one, simple question during my studies: what is the parallel in the real world? How does this relate to what I see in the world around me? What's really needed is to change the way in which the subject matter is presented, and for students to study better. Ah, but we can't market an app for that now, can we?
This sort of thing is what you get when you don't reward good teachers, or reward those who WOULD be good teachers. Educational reform is needed, but that's another topic for another day...
Good luck, let's see what happens. The market will speak, and it will let them know if there's a need for this app.
Translation: even the top girl teams didn't actually WRITE the code; they borrowed others' ideas, and they copied their coding techniques.
Oh, and see my above comment: we don't need more games to help students master their science lessons. No, what we need is good, old fashioned hard & smart work. You know, study diligently every day with books, pencil, and paper handy to work out problems? You know, master mathematics, the language of science, first? Without mastery of mathematics, no one can or will understand science, because the hard sciences ALL make use of mathematics. Once math is mastered, one can easily learn science. Again, if one asks about how this ties in with the real world, one can learn a lot! Ah, but we couldn't market an app for that now, could we?
Oh, this is good! You'll see in a minute...
Sorry, Girls, but there are certain things in this life that, in order to learn and master, one must actually DO them. If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water. If you want to learn how to ride a bike, you have to saddle up. If you want to dissect frogs, you have to cut 'em open. Sorry, but for some things, there is NO substitute for practical experience.
I didn't like it; I wasn't particularly good at it; but, dissecting frogs was nonetheless valuable for me. How? I realized that being a doctor was NOT for me! I knew that, if I ever went to med school, that I'd have to do a whole lot more dissection, and not only of frogs; I'd have to dissect dead cats and cadavers too. I don't think an app could teach this. An app couldn't teach one to handle a scalpel or other medical instruments, either. Again, in order to learn some things, one has to DO them for real, not on some computer, tablet, or smart phone screen-duh.
Where does she get these numbers? Furthermore, how does she figure that their team will make five million? They'll earn five million in REVENUES, but what about profits? What will be left after expenses, such as for legal and marketing? What will be left over at the end of the day? Shouldn't these students know these things already? Shouldn't they have learned or figured this out before giving the presentation? Where's the 'grrl power' here?
Furthermore, what's to say that these girls will capture the entire market for frogs? What's to say that some school districts won't continue using frogs and doing dissection the old fashioned way? What's to say that there won't be competition from other apps doing the same thing? So how can these girls say that they will make five million dollars? Would it not have been more accurate to say that their POTENTIAL market is worth that much? Where is this superior, female intelligence I keep hearing about? Where's the 'grrl power'?
Whatever. Where were the boys in all this?
------------------
That concludes my fisking of this piece. Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
I have to give a hat tip to Pro Male/Antifeminist Technology for this 'grrl power' tech piece I'm about to fisk. This is an article about girls in technology doing Android apps. I can't make this up; I just can't. Here goes...
------------------
Don't be fooled by the old-school, cut-and-paste poster-board presentations that were propped up in the Intel (INTC) lobby in Santa Clara one evening this week.
What's wrong with old school presentations? They may be simple and prosaic, but they're effective. They're also immune to computer crashes and dead batteries.
Once onstage, the 11 teams of high school girls unveiling their mobile apps for the 2012 Technovation Challenge were totally new-school, stunningly savvy and digitized to the max.
Why weren't there any BOYS competing for these prizes, hmmm? I mean, men only invented the vast majority of life changing devices and products we take for granted today! Might there not be a reason for that? Isn't it possible that, due to their temperament and aptitudes, that men will invent more than women will or have?
Competing for the chance -- worth an estimated $15,000 -- to have their app developed and brought to the Android market, 520 girls in four cities around the country teamed up with tech mentors to brainstorm ways to put smartphones to good use. Following a theme of "science education," the 100 apps were winnowed down in regional playoffs, and Thursday it was time for the cream to rise to the top.
What cream is rising to the top here? Again, where are the BOYS in these competitions? If this were an all boys competition (and, all things being equal and-gasp-fair, this would be mostly boys), there would be a huge hue and cry; that's sexist-waaaahhh! Where are the women? This is oppression-waaaaahhhh! Ah, but when there are no boys in a competition in which they could and would do well, why that's all right; all is right in the world now that only girls are competing for these tech prizes.
"Our app is designed to change the way you consume, little by little, every single day," said Sonya Jendoubi, a 16-year-old junior at Lycée Francais La Perouse in San Francisco, showing off her team's Ecocitz app. By scanning grocery store products and learning instantly if the product is local, organic and comes in recycled packaging, Ecocitz "will help us fix our mistakes by focusing on people's misconceptions about what it means to be 'green.' "
I have a better, quicker, simpler, and easier idea: how's about reading the blasted label?! It saves battery power and money for the necessary data transfer. You want to change the way you consume? Pay attention and practice discipline-duh!
One by one, the teams took the stage Thursday in front of an audience of proud parents, teachers and mentors.
Some of the mentors had worked closely with the finalists, eight of whom came from the Bay Area. And for 10 weeks, women in computer sciences, programming and even venture capital volunteered their time and expertise to help the girls build self-esteem while they fine-tuned their concepts. The point of it all is girl power, said Tara Chklovski. She's founder of Iridescent, the science education nonprofit that runs the Technovation Challenge, now in its third year and growing fast.
Translation: the mentors held the girls' hands and did most of the work for them.
Oh, and what about 'boy power', hmmm? Men are treated as second class citizens; they're bashed and trashed at every opportunity; whether it comes to school, college admissions, hiring, or promotion decisions, females get preference these days. Who needs girl power? Girls are more than empowered these days. How about some 'boy power'? How about helping the TRUE disadvantaged in America's schools today: our boys?
"A girl's perspective is different and unique from the rest of the world," she said, "and the apps they've come up with reflect that. One's called 'Simply U,' and it's designed to prevent teenage pregnancy.
"The team saw this huge concentration of pregnancies in their area and came up with an app to educate girls about their options. You never see these kinds of apps on the market because there aren't girls creating them. We're trying to change that."
Here's a better idea: keep your freaking legs CLOSED! Ann Landers or Dear Abby had it right back in the 1980s, and they have it right now: for a woman, the only 100% effective contraceptive is an aspirin clinched FIRMLY between the knees. Abstinence works every time it's tried!
You know why a guy didn't come up with that lame-o idea for an app? It wasn't for lack of empathy; it wasn't for lack of a 'female perspective'; it wasn't due to sexism. No, it was because a guy would wonder why an app is needed to practice a common sense, preventative action-duh!
The pitches came fast and furious. Each team was allotted four minutes to describe their mobile app, the problem it was designed to solve, the competition already out there, and the marketing strategy they'd use to share it with the world. "Intoxication Station" from the Mountain View High School team took underage drinking head-on, with screen icons that brought up symptoms to tell how drunk someone was, offered first-aid tips and ways to get a ride home for a tipsy teenager, even help with hangovers.
Uh, shouldn't someone, particularly a designated driver, already KNOW this stuff? Shouldn't people already know the signs of drunkenness? Shouldn't people already KNOW the signs to look for before going out? Shouldn't someone know what to do before someone gets drunk out of their mind? What about the health classes students are required to take? I learned all this stuff in seventh grade, for cryin' out loud! Didn't these empowered girls have health classes? If so, did they-gasp-LEARN anything therein? Finally, can't someone consult sites like WebMD to brush up on this knowledge?
How did this app even get past the preliminary rounds? How did it get past the second round? How did this group make the finals in this competition? What need does this solve? What are people going to do, pull out their smart phone, pull up the app, and treat a drunk person on the spot? If so, how are they going to concentrate on doing so while looking at the phone telling them to do X? Again, shouldn't people have an idea of what to look for and what to do BEFORE a night of hard partying? I have to scratch my head at this one...
The "SATisfy" app helps students help each other study -- social networking style -- for their SATs, pairing up kids online by matching strengths and weaknesses. And "Niffler," the Monta Vista High team's learning game based on a Harry Potter character, helps kids learn their chemical compounds by maneuvering a bucket across the screen to catch the appropriate ions.
I have a better idea on how to study: get together in a group if you must! Oh, I know, I know; it's not flashy, new, or high tech, but again, it works. Can someone study online? Can someone play games online? Yes, but it's not the same as doing it in person.
Why do students need to get together to study anyway? I would do it once in a while or for a group project, but I normally studied alone. Here's all you need to study: a quiet place, a table/desk, paper, pen or pencil, and the required books. Oh, and some discipline would come in handy too; you have to make up your mind that you'll study at the same time on the same day. That's it! Where does social networking enter the picture?
But MarkyMark, I don't have a quiet place to study; my home life is bad; it's noisy at home and I have no place to study. Okay, what about using the school or local library? What about using the park picnic tables on a nice day? What about using the tables at the local Starbucks? What about taking advantage of study halls or gaps between classes?
"The idea," said Anupama Cemballi, 17, team member and junior at the Cupertino school, "is to help make chemistry fun. Chemistry can be really boring in class, but our app makes it interactive."
Many classes could be more fun and interesting if taught in the right way. For example, history could be more fun if it focused less on dates and more on the people involved in a particular event. Shoot, some events are better than any soap opera or drama you'll see on TV!
Science could be more fun too if its relevance were tied in to the real world. For example, physics, when one thinks about it and its ties to the world, is interesting stuff; it's neat! For example, by learning about rotational motion, one can learn WHY figure skaters pull their arms and hands in as they launch their jumps. It's all about conservation of angular (i.e. rotational) momentum; as they pull their arms in (i.e. decrease the radius), the rotational speed (the rate at which the skater is spinning) has to increase, so that angular momentum is conserved.
I can think of an example too. I was watching a figure skating event some years ago. This female skater launched a jump, but she fell. It turned out that she under-rotated, so her blade wasn't aligned with her direction of motion. I said to myself, "I'll BET she didn't pull her arms in far enough, so she didn't spin enough." Sure enough, when they showed the replay and the commentator spoke, this is EXACTLY what happened! Not only did I know what happened; I knew WHY. Why did I know? Because I'd studied physics. No apps were needed for this. All that was needed was to ask one, simple question during my studies: what is the parallel in the real world? How does this relate to what I see in the world around me? What's really needed is to change the way in which the subject matter is presented, and for students to study better. Ah, but we can't market an app for that now, can we?
This sort of thing is what you get when you don't reward good teachers, or reward those who WOULD be good teachers. Educational reform is needed, but that's another topic for another day...
Cembali said even if her team didn't nail first place they still planned to get their app into the Android market on their own. "And eventually," she said, "we hope to partner with tech and education companies, maybe even Sylvan Learning Centers, to get our app out there."
Good luck, let's see what happens. The market will speak, and it will let them know if there's a need for this app.
While some of the teams relied on the code-programming prowess of their mentors, others figured out how to develop the apps on their own, even using YouTube do-it-yourself videos on writing code. For most of the teams on hand, their initial app was clearly just the first step in a longer journey. The girls behind Niffler were already planning to add more games to help high-schoolers master their science lessons.
Translation: even the top girl teams didn't actually WRITE the code; they borrowed others' ideas, and they copied their coding techniques.
Oh, and see my above comment: we don't need more games to help students master their science lessons. No, what we need is good, old fashioned hard & smart work. You know, study diligently every day with books, pencil, and paper handy to work out problems? You know, master mathematics, the language of science, first? Without mastery of mathematics, no one can or will understand science, because the hard sciences ALL make use of mathematics. Once math is mastered, one can easily learn science. Again, if one asks about how this ties in with the real world, one can learn a lot! Ah, but we couldn't market an app for that now, could we?
But it was the team behind "Froggy Cut" that seemed to be shooting the highest.
Oh, this is good! You'll see in a minute...
The girls at June Jordan School for Equity in San Francisco addressed a long-standing biology class problem: how to avoid cutting up all those frogs year after year, thus saving money and frogs' lives. They came up with an app that virtually dissects the slimy amphibians, allowing students to tap into the magic of digital animation to do the dirty deed right there on the smartphone's screen.
Sorry, Girls, but there are certain things in this life that, in order to learn and master, one must actually DO them. If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water. If you want to learn how to ride a bike, you have to saddle up. If you want to dissect frogs, you have to cut 'em open. Sorry, but for some things, there is NO substitute for practical experience.
I didn't like it; I wasn't particularly good at it; but, dissecting frogs was nonetheless valuable for me. How? I realized that being a doctor was NOT for me! I knew that, if I ever went to med school, that I'd have to do a whole lot more dissection, and not only of frogs; I'd have to dissect dead cats and cadavers too. I don't think an app could teach this. An app couldn't teach one to handle a scalpel or other medical instruments, either. Again, in order to learn some things, one has to DO them for real, not on some computer, tablet, or smart phone screen-duh.
"Approximately 2.5 million frogs are dissected in high school biology classes every year," said one of the team members, pitching her heart out to the three judges. And without anyone questioning her math, she went on to posit that "with each frog costing $4, that's $10 million spent on frog dissection annually. Our app will cost each student $1.99. So we can save the schools $5 million and we can make $5 million."
Where does she get these numbers? Furthermore, how does she figure that their team will make five million? They'll earn five million in REVENUES, but what about profits? What will be left after expenses, such as for legal and marketing? What will be left over at the end of the day? Shouldn't these students know these things already? Shouldn't they have learned or figured this out before giving the presentation? Where's the 'grrl power' here?
Furthermore, what's to say that these girls will capture the entire market for frogs? What's to say that some school districts won't continue using frogs and doing dissection the old fashioned way? What's to say that there won't be competition from other apps doing the same thing? So how can these girls say that they will make five million dollars? Would it not have been more accurate to say that their POTENTIAL market is worth that much? Where is this superior, female intelligence I keep hearing about? Where's the 'grrl power'?
And that's a win-win-win ... if you include the frog.
Whatever. Where were the boys in all this?
------------------
That concludes my fisking of this piece. Have a good day now...
MarkyMark
15 July 2012
TV Is Going Ever More Matriarchal
Guys,
Before I get into the meat of this post, let me say this: life is returning to normal for me, and the worst of the estate business is behind us. My brother and I have been able to move along on the estate business quickly. In fact, we've already sold the house, and we did so in less than ten days! Barring any legal or financial snags, closing will be next month. Anyway, that means I'm getting my life back, which means time for posting.
What I really wanted to talk about was how blatantly MATRIARCHAL TV has gotten. I was watching the NASCAR race at Loudon, NH today (first race I've watched in months, BTW) when the predictable commercials and TV show promos came on. There was one show being promoted that, as far as I could tell, had all FEMALE characters; they were all women! There were no main, male characters I could see in the promo. The show was called Political Animals, and it's on the USA Network.
Back in the day, USA Network had some unique shows on; they had stuff on that no one else had, which made them worth watching. One of my favorites was Silk Stalkings, which I think originally ran on CBS, but I can't be sure; other than sporting events, I haven't watched network TV like CBS in ages. Another favorite show of mine on USA Network was Pacific Blue, which was about bike cops in Santa Monica, California. Unfortunately, that show jumped the shark after the third season; though there were some good story lines in seasons four & five, the show was never quite the same once they changed over half the characters. Even so, Pacific Blue was a unique show that I enjoyed.
Then, over the years, USA Network changed; they no longer had the unique fare that had set them apart back in the 1990s. I don't know exactly when, where, or how it happened; all I know is that, after 2000 or so, I just stopped watching their programming; they had nothing that I wanted to watch anymore. When I recently read the Wiki on USA Network, I found that there had been a change of ownership around the time I stopped watching them.
Anyway, they have this new show coming on. I think it's new; either that, or it's a new season. When I saw the promo for it during the commercial break for my race, I was like wow, why would I even want to watch that crap? They have some old crones starring it, one of whom is Sigourney Weaver. Even when she was younger and more attractive, I couldn't stand her; she was a bitch back in the day, and she's a bitch now. Only now that she's an old crone, she's even more, er, 'charming' than she was back when she starred in Working Girl, circa 1989.
Oh, because there will be some money left over from Ma's estate, I'll be able to pay off my house-yes! Since that would leave me some extra money each month, I thought about upgrading my standard of living while also saving for my future. I'm going to take half the extra money and save it, while upgrading my standard of living with the other half.
One of the ways I thought about upgrading my standard of living was to get a flat screen TV along with a cable or satellite hookup for it. After seeing the promos for the new shows this fall, I don't know; I don't know that I'm missing anything by not having a TV at all. I had a TV, but I gave it to Ma because I never USED the damn thing! The things that I really want to see are available online, such as the racing. If I want to watch QUALITY TV programs, then I can go to Hulu.com; that site has the old, classic TV shows that were, unlike today's trash, actually worth watching. I watched a couple of seasons of Adam-12 & Emergency! on that site-good, uplifting programming that showed men being men. I think I might be better off getting a bike or scooter with my extra cash. Either that, or I could start taking trips to Central & South America to meet some nice, hot women down there. I'll have more to say about that in an upcoming post...
In closing, TV, from the looks of it, has gone totally matriarchal. They don't even make a pretense of catering to men anymore-none! Since there's nothing for me to watch on there, why get a TV, let alone a cable or satellite hookup for the damn thing?! Seriously, why bother watching it? The races are increasingly available online; sites like Hulu & Netflix carry TV shows and movies. To see things that appeal to me, I don't need a TV. No wonder why TV and the rest of the old media are dying! Until next time...
MarkyMark
Before I get into the meat of this post, let me say this: life is returning to normal for me, and the worst of the estate business is behind us. My brother and I have been able to move along on the estate business quickly. In fact, we've already sold the house, and we did so in less than ten days! Barring any legal or financial snags, closing will be next month. Anyway, that means I'm getting my life back, which means time for posting.
What I really wanted to talk about was how blatantly MATRIARCHAL TV has gotten. I was watching the NASCAR race at Loudon, NH today (first race I've watched in months, BTW) when the predictable commercials and TV show promos came on. There was one show being promoted that, as far as I could tell, had all FEMALE characters; they were all women! There were no main, male characters I could see in the promo. The show was called Political Animals, and it's on the USA Network.
Back in the day, USA Network had some unique shows on; they had stuff on that no one else had, which made them worth watching. One of my favorites was Silk Stalkings, which I think originally ran on CBS, but I can't be sure; other than sporting events, I haven't watched network TV like CBS in ages. Another favorite show of mine on USA Network was Pacific Blue, which was about bike cops in Santa Monica, California. Unfortunately, that show jumped the shark after the third season; though there were some good story lines in seasons four & five, the show was never quite the same once they changed over half the characters. Even so, Pacific Blue was a unique show that I enjoyed.
Then, over the years, USA Network changed; they no longer had the unique fare that had set them apart back in the 1990s. I don't know exactly when, where, or how it happened; all I know is that, after 2000 or so, I just stopped watching their programming; they had nothing that I wanted to watch anymore. When I recently read the Wiki on USA Network, I found that there had been a change of ownership around the time I stopped watching them.
Anyway, they have this new show coming on. I think it's new; either that, or it's a new season. When I saw the promo for it during the commercial break for my race, I was like wow, why would I even want to watch that crap? They have some old crones starring it, one of whom is Sigourney Weaver. Even when she was younger and more attractive, I couldn't stand her; she was a bitch back in the day, and she's a bitch now. Only now that she's an old crone, she's even more, er, 'charming' than she was back when she starred in Working Girl, circa 1989.
Oh, because there will be some money left over from Ma's estate, I'll be able to pay off my house-yes! Since that would leave me some extra money each month, I thought about upgrading my standard of living while also saving for my future. I'm going to take half the extra money and save it, while upgrading my standard of living with the other half.
One of the ways I thought about upgrading my standard of living was to get a flat screen TV along with a cable or satellite hookup for it. After seeing the promos for the new shows this fall, I don't know; I don't know that I'm missing anything by not having a TV at all. I had a TV, but I gave it to Ma because I never USED the damn thing! The things that I really want to see are available online, such as the racing. If I want to watch QUALITY TV programs, then I can go to Hulu.com; that site has the old, classic TV shows that were, unlike today's trash, actually worth watching. I watched a couple of seasons of Adam-12 & Emergency! on that site-good, uplifting programming that showed men being men. I think I might be better off getting a bike or scooter with my extra cash. Either that, or I could start taking trips to Central & South America to meet some nice, hot women down there. I'll have more to say about that in an upcoming post...
In closing, TV, from the looks of it, has gone totally matriarchal. They don't even make a pretense of catering to men anymore-none! Since there's nothing for me to watch on there, why get a TV, let alone a cable or satellite hookup for the damn thing?! Seriously, why bother watching it? The races are increasingly available online; sites like Hulu & Netflix carry TV shows and movies. To see things that appeal to me, I don't need a TV. No wonder why TV and the rest of the old media are dying! Until next time...
MarkyMark
06 July 2012
Taking the Red Pill, by Nightstorm
Folks,
On Mancoat, there's a good discussion going on about how we men perceive women after taking the red pill. How did taking the red pill impact us? Do we find women less appealing? Do we still find them attractive? The typical answers went like this: though we still find them appealing from a physical standpoint, we men are turned off to women's EMOTIONAL & MENTAL BS.
Having said that, a few guys had longer, deeper answers to this question. One of them was Nightstorm, another luminary on the Mancoat forum. What you're about to read will show you, the reader, why we have the best & brightest guys in the world on there. Fasten your seatbelts, folks! This ride's about to get bumpy...
-----------------
-----------------
Good stuff, wouldn't you say? Amen, Nightstorm, amen...
MarkyMark
On Mancoat, there's a good discussion going on about how we men perceive women after taking the red pill. How did taking the red pill impact us? Do we find women less appealing? Do we still find them attractive? The typical answers went like this: though we still find them appealing from a physical standpoint, we men are turned off to women's EMOTIONAL & MENTAL BS.
Having said that, a few guys had longer, deeper answers to this question. One of them was Nightstorm, another luminary on the Mancoat forum. What you're about to read will show you, the reader, why we have the best & brightest guys in the world on there. Fasten your seatbelts, folks! This ride's about to get bumpy...
-----------------
In my blue pill days, I was often depressed because I thought the only way to happiness was the love and affection of a girlfriend. Those days are long gone. There is too much I hate about women's behavior and thinking that makes me despise them as human beings.
1. They aren't accountable for anything. They would rather quickly blame someone else, or use reverse psychology on you and somehow make it seem their fucked up behavior is your fault. You made them do this!
2. They will NEVER admit to a fault. Same as point one but with a different twist. The reality is, you could bust out facts, figures, numbers, truth.. and they will openly deny their own behavior and call you misogynistic instead. What turned me off from women in my early red pill days wasn't the fact that they was doing wrong, but it was that they was denying it when confronted with it. As if they had nooooo idea what I was talking about. They would NEVER... NEVER... NEVER... fess up to the wrong doings that they committed. If they even did, it would be a half-assed fess up like.. well YOU aren't so good behaving yourself either!
3. Masters of usery. They talk about men as if they was machines, not human beings. Infact, they have been so coddled, so pampered, so spoiled from reality.. that they have lost any sense of humanity in them. Its one thing to protect a child, but if you over-protect them, they become useless. Most women have become useless and even though they know what it takes to make a man happy, refuses to be a "slave" to that man.
4. Bitching, Nagging, Attitude. I don't know why women think this is in any remote way attractive to a man. I level of desire to feel a woman bitch is about the same as I feel as someone stabbing me in the back with a knife. I don't want it. Ever!!!
5. Entitlement. They have the strongest self-delusion that they are worthy of something just because they was born a woman.What they don't realize is the worth that they do have, was given by men. Take out men, and what worth do women have? ZERO! They will be living under bridges within less than 3 days. I have seen women who say things like "they don't deserve me!", perching herself up on her own pestal! As if she was some dam royal queen! In the words of Jesus, "If I honor myself, my honor is worth nothing". These women flatter themselves and honor themselves with self-worship to the highest degree with no shame. Am I suppose to go out of my way and indulge a woman with this completely made up fantasy that she is important? So important that I have to stand on the close side of the street curb so I can get hit by the car and not her? HELL. NO! Not only will I not do that, I REFUSE.
6. Cherry Picking. They demand all the privileges men earned through their sacrifice for free!!! Except with a twist. They don't want to sacrifice or be responsible or accountable themselves because their just 'ladies". So not only do they not qualify for the position, they refuse to play the full part. Yet men handed it over on a silver plate. Not only that, now that they are.. "equal"... they want men to STILL give them the benefits of chivalry and opening doors up for them.. and treating them like ladies.. who are "equal" to us. In reality, they are cherry picking the hell out of it and everyone knows it but wont' say a dam thing about it.
7. No sense of FAIRNESS, HONOR, or JUSTICE. Women are the most selfish creatures on earth with only the mere emotional delusion that their feelings for another human being is "love", while ignoring the fact that real love is actions, not feelings. They don't care about other women, let alone men or their children. They are number one in their life, they will destroy by the powers men gave them to destroy the very same men. They have no guilt and no remorse. If they happen to do feel something is wrong, they will shut it out via the sisterhood. At least men think about themselves and women. Women, only think about women, period.
8. Drama. Last but not least, their desire for drama. I have no pleasure or peace in being a jester for these bitches just so they don't get bored. Which only sheds light on how truly pathetic and boring their lives are. I have had women admitting to me that they literally purposefully will just out of no where bad-mouth a man right in front of him just to get him to start a fight with them. Unlucky for her, it went over-board and that drama lead to her being stressed out. Well, not so wise are we!
Women expect men to not only be there for them for everything hand and foot, but also expect us to smile when they wipe us like toilet paper and toss us away. Were suppose to be grateful that her majesties feet has put mud on us. Were suppose to be happy that she even took the time to shit on us.
When I see women now days, I don't see pretty little innocent girls who get beatin' up by big strong bad mean men. I see evil witches who want to torture everyone else because they themselves have no love for anyone else, except themselves.
For that, screw them. Screw them to hell. They can rot with their cats. There has been too many examples of good men being destroyed by these bitches that one should even remotely entertain the thought that he should be with one as a "soul mate". Your just another fiddle in a woman's life. When you come out, some magina will come in and take over. Her whole life is nothing but a play where she manipulates, controls, and decimates men at her will.
And the biggest irony of it all.. is men are blind to it, and men LET them do it.
1. They aren't accountable for anything. They would rather quickly blame someone else, or use reverse psychology on you and somehow make it seem their fucked up behavior is your fault. You made them do this!
2. They will NEVER admit to a fault. Same as point one but with a different twist. The reality is, you could bust out facts, figures, numbers, truth.. and they will openly deny their own behavior and call you misogynistic instead. What turned me off from women in my early red pill days wasn't the fact that they was doing wrong, but it was that they was denying it when confronted with it. As if they had nooooo idea what I was talking about. They would NEVER... NEVER... NEVER... fess up to the wrong doings that they committed. If they even did, it would be a half-assed fess up like.. well YOU aren't so good behaving yourself either!
3. Masters of usery. They talk about men as if they was machines, not human beings. Infact, they have been so coddled, so pampered, so spoiled from reality.. that they have lost any sense of humanity in them. Its one thing to protect a child, but if you over-protect them, they become useless. Most women have become useless and even though they know what it takes to make a man happy, refuses to be a "slave" to that man.
4. Bitching, Nagging, Attitude. I don't know why women think this is in any remote way attractive to a man. I level of desire to feel a woman bitch is about the same as I feel as someone stabbing me in the back with a knife. I don't want it. Ever!!!
5. Entitlement. They have the strongest self-delusion that they are worthy of something just because they was born a woman.What they don't realize is the worth that they do have, was given by men. Take out men, and what worth do women have? ZERO! They will be living under bridges within less than 3 days. I have seen women who say things like "they don't deserve me!", perching herself up on her own pestal! As if she was some dam royal queen! In the words of Jesus, "If I honor myself, my honor is worth nothing". These women flatter themselves and honor themselves with self-worship to the highest degree with no shame. Am I suppose to go out of my way and indulge a woman with this completely made up fantasy that she is important? So important that I have to stand on the close side of the street curb so I can get hit by the car and not her? HELL. NO! Not only will I not do that, I REFUSE.
6. Cherry Picking. They demand all the privileges men earned through their sacrifice for free!!! Except with a twist. They don't want to sacrifice or be responsible or accountable themselves because their just 'ladies". So not only do they not qualify for the position, they refuse to play the full part. Yet men handed it over on a silver plate. Not only that, now that they are.. "equal"... they want men to STILL give them the benefits of chivalry and opening doors up for them.. and treating them like ladies.. who are "equal" to us. In reality, they are cherry picking the hell out of it and everyone knows it but wont' say a dam thing about it.
7. No sense of FAIRNESS, HONOR, or JUSTICE. Women are the most selfish creatures on earth with only the mere emotional delusion that their feelings for another human being is "love", while ignoring the fact that real love is actions, not feelings. They don't care about other women, let alone men or their children. They are number one in their life, they will destroy by the powers men gave them to destroy the very same men. They have no guilt and no remorse. If they happen to do feel something is wrong, they will shut it out via the sisterhood. At least men think about themselves and women. Women, only think about women, period.
8. Drama. Last but not least, their desire for drama. I have no pleasure or peace in being a jester for these bitches just so they don't get bored. Which only sheds light on how truly pathetic and boring their lives are. I have had women admitting to me that they literally purposefully will just out of no where bad-mouth a man right in front of him just to get him to start a fight with them. Unlucky for her, it went over-board and that drama lead to her being stressed out. Well, not so wise are we!
Women expect men to not only be there for them for everything hand and foot, but also expect us to smile when they wipe us like toilet paper and toss us away. Were suppose to be grateful that her majesties feet has put mud on us. Were suppose to be happy that she even took the time to shit on us.
When I see women now days, I don't see pretty little innocent girls who get beatin' up by big strong bad mean men. I see evil witches who want to torture everyone else because they themselves have no love for anyone else, except themselves.
For that, screw them. Screw them to hell. They can rot with their cats. There has been too many examples of good men being destroyed by these bitches that one should even remotely entertain the thought that he should be with one as a "soul mate". Your just another fiddle in a woman's life. When you come out, some magina will come in and take over. Her whole life is nothing but a play where she manipulates, controls, and decimates men at her will.
And the biggest irony of it all.. is men are blind to it, and men LET them do it.
-----------------
Good stuff, wouldn't you say? Amen, Nightstorm, amen...
MarkyMark
04 July 2012
She's Not the Little Girl I Once Knew...
Guys,
We had an estate auction late last month, after which we listed my late mother's house. Now that this is done, my life will start returning to normal; that means you can expect some posting from me now. While wrapping up my mother's affairs during the past weeks, I caught up with some people from my old neighborhood. One of these is a woman I knew when we were both teenagers. As the old Beach Boys' song goes, she's NOT the little girl I once knew...
A few weeks ago, a woman stopped while walking her dog and chatted up my brother and me. We were taking a break from cleaning out Ma's house, and we were hanging out in the front yard. Rose, the old woman in question, had just recently gotten to know my mother before her death. She expressed her condolences, of course. Then, she said that she was scared because she's only a few years younger than my mother was. As the conversation progressed, she pointed to a nearby house and told us that she lived there. In response, I said that that was Toni X's (not her real name, obviously) old house. The woman then said that Toni X was her daughter, and that her daughter was still living there. I was like wow! Are you kidding me? Toni is still here?!
Back in the day, Toni was a cute gal. She wasn't hot, but she was definitely cute; I would have ratee her as a solid 6.5. She was about 5'5" (165cm) tall, weighed about 100-110# (45-50kg), had dark, curly, shoulder length hair, and a nice smile. We'd say 'hi' to one another in passing, usually while I was walking my dog. Toni would be a bit flirty with me back then; I remembered how, she'd playfully tap me on the shoulder or my arm as she said hello to me with that cute smile of hers. That said, I was too shy to do anything about it in response. As the years went by, I would occasionally think of Toni; I wondered what had become of her; and, of course, I wondered 'what if'? What would have happened if I'd responded in a more positive way? Would we have had a relationship of any sort? If so, what would it have been like?
Returning to the present, as I was talking to Toni's mother out in front of my mother's old house, I asked about how Toni was, that sort of thing. Toni's mother then said that I could stop by and see Toni if I liked, and I took her up on the invitation. I said that I'd stop by before I left the next morning, which was a Sunday.
Sunday morning came, and I was curious about how things with Toni would go. What did she look like now? What had she done with her life? What was she, as a person, like now? I walked a hundred yards or so up the street to Toni's house, and I knocked on the door. Her step father answered the door (Toni's real dad had died years before), and he called out to her before asking me in. As soon as I got inside, Toni came up to the living room area.
She was no longer the cute, petite, perky girl I remembered from my youth. In fact, she bore little or no resemblance to the girl I remembered; though she was still thin (near her teenage weight), she was different in every other respect. Though I knew, intellectually speaking, that she would no longer be the young girl I remembered, I couldn't help but think of her in that way; after all, that's how I'd known her. I knew in my head that she was 48 or so, but my eyes weren't prepared for the sight that greeted them. While her hair was still dark, it was no longer shiny and curly; it was a flat, faded brunette color, and it was straight. Her face had lost its youthful glow long ago. In fact, if I hadn't known it was Toni X from the old neighborhood, I would not have recognized her had I passed her on the street! I hate to say it, but Toni had become ugly since I'd known her when I was a teenager.
Her personality had also changed during the years. Back when I knew Toni, she was friendly, open, outgoing, and a bit flirty; she had that youthful innocence that makes young girls and young women appealing. Unfortunately, she no longer had that. Her voice had changed too; it was more gravelly or something. Both her countenance and her skin were hard; it was evident that her life hadn't been easy, and boy, did it show. For me, that was the biggest and saddest change.
When I knew Toni, she was friendly, cheerful, and outgoing. She had a sweet voice and smile. She was cute and perky. Now, she's more or less the opposite of all those things. Her voice is coarse and gravelly now. Her smile, while still there, is flat; it's no longer bright and cheerful. She's DEFINITELY not cute anymore; man, she got UGLY! Chris in Oregon always said that when women get older, they get ugly-how true it is.
What's even more bizarre is that Toni seems to think she still 'has it'! I got the house number and called her a few times when I thought about her in passing over the past two months. She never called me back. She never gave me her cell phone number-not that I wanted it. I was like, really?! Toni cannot and does not get much in the way of male attention these days, yet she blew me off like she was a 10 or something. Toni, my dear, you never were a 10, even back in the day. Nowadays, you DEFINITELY are not; you're anything but!
Even if she were still hot, it would be hard to have a relationship with her, because she's so far away from where I live now. Also, because my mom is dead, I don't have a reason to visit the old neighborhood anymore. Because my mom lived down towards the shore, getting to her place in the summer time is a royal PITA; if I didn't have a reason to go down there, I wouldn't go. I like the ocean and all, but not enough to sit in traffic for freaking hours! I just thought it would be nice to have a female acquaintance to talk to, nothing more.
In that vein, I remember Chris in Oregon telling me (was it in a comment or e-mail? I can't remember) how he'd thought about three cute girls from his youth. He then went on to say that it hit him that they weren't cute teeny boppers anymore; they too were 48, which meant they would be ugly. CIO was right! I know that Toni, a cutie from my youth, is no longer the little girl I once knew...
MarkyMark
We had an estate auction late last month, after which we listed my late mother's house. Now that this is done, my life will start returning to normal; that means you can expect some posting from me now. While wrapping up my mother's affairs during the past weeks, I caught up with some people from my old neighborhood. One of these is a woman I knew when we were both teenagers. As the old Beach Boys' song goes, she's NOT the little girl I once knew...
A few weeks ago, a woman stopped while walking her dog and chatted up my brother and me. We were taking a break from cleaning out Ma's house, and we were hanging out in the front yard. Rose, the old woman in question, had just recently gotten to know my mother before her death. She expressed her condolences, of course. Then, she said that she was scared because she's only a few years younger than my mother was. As the conversation progressed, she pointed to a nearby house and told us that she lived there. In response, I said that that was Toni X's (not her real name, obviously) old house. The woman then said that Toni X was her daughter, and that her daughter was still living there. I was like wow! Are you kidding me? Toni is still here?!
Back in the day, Toni was a cute gal. She wasn't hot, but she was definitely cute; I would have ratee her as a solid 6.5. She was about 5'5" (165cm) tall, weighed about 100-110# (45-50kg), had dark, curly, shoulder length hair, and a nice smile. We'd say 'hi' to one another in passing, usually while I was walking my dog. Toni would be a bit flirty with me back then; I remembered how, she'd playfully tap me on the shoulder or my arm as she said hello to me with that cute smile of hers. That said, I was too shy to do anything about it in response. As the years went by, I would occasionally think of Toni; I wondered what had become of her; and, of course, I wondered 'what if'? What would have happened if I'd responded in a more positive way? Would we have had a relationship of any sort? If so, what would it have been like?
Returning to the present, as I was talking to Toni's mother out in front of my mother's old house, I asked about how Toni was, that sort of thing. Toni's mother then said that I could stop by and see Toni if I liked, and I took her up on the invitation. I said that I'd stop by before I left the next morning, which was a Sunday.
Sunday morning came, and I was curious about how things with Toni would go. What did she look like now? What had she done with her life? What was she, as a person, like now? I walked a hundred yards or so up the street to Toni's house, and I knocked on the door. Her step father answered the door (Toni's real dad had died years before), and he called out to her before asking me in. As soon as I got inside, Toni came up to the living room area.
She was no longer the cute, petite, perky girl I remembered from my youth. In fact, she bore little or no resemblance to the girl I remembered; though she was still thin (near her teenage weight), she was different in every other respect. Though I knew, intellectually speaking, that she would no longer be the young girl I remembered, I couldn't help but think of her in that way; after all, that's how I'd known her. I knew in my head that she was 48 or so, but my eyes weren't prepared for the sight that greeted them. While her hair was still dark, it was no longer shiny and curly; it was a flat, faded brunette color, and it was straight. Her face had lost its youthful glow long ago. In fact, if I hadn't known it was Toni X from the old neighborhood, I would not have recognized her had I passed her on the street! I hate to say it, but Toni had become ugly since I'd known her when I was a teenager.
Her personality had also changed during the years. Back when I knew Toni, she was friendly, open, outgoing, and a bit flirty; she had that youthful innocence that makes young girls and young women appealing. Unfortunately, she no longer had that. Her voice had changed too; it was more gravelly or something. Both her countenance and her skin were hard; it was evident that her life hadn't been easy, and boy, did it show. For me, that was the biggest and saddest change.
When I knew Toni, she was friendly, cheerful, and outgoing. She had a sweet voice and smile. She was cute and perky. Now, she's more or less the opposite of all those things. Her voice is coarse and gravelly now. Her smile, while still there, is flat; it's no longer bright and cheerful. She's DEFINITELY not cute anymore; man, she got UGLY! Chris in Oregon always said that when women get older, they get ugly-how true it is.
What's even more bizarre is that Toni seems to think she still 'has it'! I got the house number and called her a few times when I thought about her in passing over the past two months. She never called me back. She never gave me her cell phone number-not that I wanted it. I was like, really?! Toni cannot and does not get much in the way of male attention these days, yet she blew me off like she was a 10 or something. Toni, my dear, you never were a 10, even back in the day. Nowadays, you DEFINITELY are not; you're anything but!
Even if she were still hot, it would be hard to have a relationship with her, because she's so far away from where I live now. Also, because my mom is dead, I don't have a reason to visit the old neighborhood anymore. Because my mom lived down towards the shore, getting to her place in the summer time is a royal PITA; if I didn't have a reason to go down there, I wouldn't go. I like the ocean and all, but not enough to sit in traffic for freaking hours! I just thought it would be nice to have a female acquaintance to talk to, nothing more.
In that vein, I remember Chris in Oregon telling me (was it in a comment or e-mail? I can't remember) how he'd thought about three cute girls from his youth. He then went on to say that it hit him that they weren't cute teeny boppers anymore; they too were 48, which meant they would be ugly. CIO was right! I know that Toni, a cutie from my youth, is no longer the little girl I once knew...
MarkyMark
14 June 2012
AARP Magazine a Celeb Rag
Guys,
I had a problem with my car this morning, so I didn't go to work. The car ran rough when I started it the first two times; after the third time, it ran normally. If I didn't have estate business to take care of tomorrow, I would have gone in to work; but, since I absolutely, positively HAVE to be at my mother's old house in the morning, I took it to the shop and had the ignition system checked. I have to meet the auctioneer; with the auction next week, I couldn't afford to blow this off. Anyway, nothing was found. I needed to have my oil & tranny fluid changed anyway, so I had that done.
Before I continue, let me say that things are slowly returning to normal in my life; by the end of the month, the worst of the estate business will be behind me. After the next two weekends, I won't have to make a trip down to South Jersey for a while. Ever since my mom died, I've had to drive down there every weekend to either get stuff out of the house, meet a contractor, do cleaning, etc. Since the auction will be conducted soon, that means my work is almost done-yes! As life returns to normal, I hope to resume blogging again. Now, back to my original point...
Anyway, while I was at the shop, I saw a copy of the AARP's magazine on the table. For those of you outside of America, the AARP is the American Association of Retired Persons; anyone 50 or over can join. It's SUPPOSED to advocate for older people, but that's BS. They advocated for Obamacare, a piece of legislation decidedly harmful to older people, the very people whose interests the AARP is supposed to serve! Anyway, the AARP is just another socialist advocacy organization.
Like many organizations, the AARP has a magazine that goes to its members. I saw a copy of it in the waiting room, so I checked it out. Since the AARP PURPORTS to advocate for people over 50, you would expect to find things about geriatric health issues, retirement, etc., right? Wrong! This copy of the AARP's magazine wasn't much different from People or your other celebrity rags! Why? Because the cover story was about sexy men who are 50 or over. They had vignettes on Vigo Mortensen, Yo Yo Ma, Denzel Washington, and others. How is this different from People or other gossip rags?! If the magazine is anything to go by, the AARP is not the organization for seniors to belong to!
For those of you who are 50 or over and are seeking an organization to represent your interests, do NOT join the AARP! It's just another, socialist advocacy NGO, nothing more. Rather, a better alternative would be AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens. Another alternative is Generation America, promoted by Chuck Woolery. I have a funny feeling that their membership magazines do not resemble your supermarket gossip rags...
In closing, I was surprised that the AARP's member magazine resembled People and other gossip rags. I would have expected it to discuss issues concerning older people, but it did not; no, it had an article about the sexiest men over 50-wow! How does that help older people again? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you're going to join an over 50 organization, make it Generation America or AMAC. Until next time...
MarkyMark
I had a problem with my car this morning, so I didn't go to work. The car ran rough when I started it the first two times; after the third time, it ran normally. If I didn't have estate business to take care of tomorrow, I would have gone in to work; but, since I absolutely, positively HAVE to be at my mother's old house in the morning, I took it to the shop and had the ignition system checked. I have to meet the auctioneer; with the auction next week, I couldn't afford to blow this off. Anyway, nothing was found. I needed to have my oil & tranny fluid changed anyway, so I had that done.
Before I continue, let me say that things are slowly returning to normal in my life; by the end of the month, the worst of the estate business will be behind me. After the next two weekends, I won't have to make a trip down to South Jersey for a while. Ever since my mom died, I've had to drive down there every weekend to either get stuff out of the house, meet a contractor, do cleaning, etc. Since the auction will be conducted soon, that means my work is almost done-yes! As life returns to normal, I hope to resume blogging again. Now, back to my original point...
Anyway, while I was at the shop, I saw a copy of the AARP's magazine on the table. For those of you outside of America, the AARP is the American Association of Retired Persons; anyone 50 or over can join. It's SUPPOSED to advocate for older people, but that's BS. They advocated for Obamacare, a piece of legislation decidedly harmful to older people, the very people whose interests the AARP is supposed to serve! Anyway, the AARP is just another socialist advocacy organization.
Like many organizations, the AARP has a magazine that goes to its members. I saw a copy of it in the waiting room, so I checked it out. Since the AARP PURPORTS to advocate for people over 50, you would expect to find things about geriatric health issues, retirement, etc., right? Wrong! This copy of the AARP's magazine wasn't much different from People or your other celebrity rags! Why? Because the cover story was about sexy men who are 50 or over. They had vignettes on Vigo Mortensen, Yo Yo Ma, Denzel Washington, and others. How is this different from People or other gossip rags?! If the magazine is anything to go by, the AARP is not the organization for seniors to belong to!
For those of you who are 50 or over and are seeking an organization to represent your interests, do NOT join the AARP! It's just another, socialist advocacy NGO, nothing more. Rather, a better alternative would be AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens. Another alternative is Generation America, promoted by Chuck Woolery. I have a funny feeling that their membership magazines do not resemble your supermarket gossip rags...
In closing, I was surprised that the AARP's member magazine resembled People and other gossip rags. I would have expected it to discuss issues concerning older people, but it did not; no, it had an article about the sexiest men over 50-wow! How does that help older people again? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you're going to join an over 50 organization, make it Generation America or AMAC. Until next time...
MarkyMark
31 May 2012
WTC Collapse as Recorded from Nearby Apartment
Guys,
I watched this video last year on the heels of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Unfortunately, I was unable to find it until now.
This video was shot by a woman and her family who lived near the WTC. This video was shot live with no commentary or hype; it's just their view of what happened and how they experienced that day. It's really quite good, and that it's worth spending the better part of a half hour to watch. I hope you all enjoy it.
If you'd like to learn more about the video, then go here to Bob & Bri's blog about 9/11 and the video they shot. Thank you.
MarkyMark
I watched this video last year on the heels of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Unfortunately, I was unable to find it until now.
This video was shot by a woman and her family who lived near the WTC. This video was shot live with no commentary or hype; it's just their view of what happened and how they experienced that day. It's really quite good, and that it's worth spending the better part of a half hour to watch. I hope you all enjoy it.
If you'd like to learn more about the video, then go here to Bob & Bri's blog about 9/11 and the video they shot. Thank you.
MarkyMark
25 May 2012
Barbarossa on Traditional Relationships
Guys,
Now that we have the closure of my mother's estate well underway, I finally have some time to catch up on my reading. I was hanging out over @ Mancoat when I came across THIS video by the one & only Barbarossa. In it, he discusses traditional relationships as they relate to Briffault's Law. This is some thought provoking stuff...
Hope you all enjoyed it. I found the 28 minutes and change to be worth my time...
MarkyMark
Now that we have the closure of my mother's estate well underway, I finally have some time to catch up on my reading. I was hanging out over @ Mancoat when I came across THIS video by the one & only Barbarossa. In it, he discusses traditional relationships as they relate to Briffault's Law. This is some thought provoking stuff...
Hope you all enjoyed it. I found the 28 minutes and change to be worth my time...
MarkyMark
26 April 2012
No Regrets
Guys,
I got a call at work from my mother's doctor this morning. It seems that my mom missed a physical therapy appointment earlier this week, which was something she NEVER did; she never missed an appointment. When she didn't show up for therapy, the therapist contacted my mom's primary doctor; my mom's doctor, in turn, tried reaching my mom via her home and cell phone for the last two days with no response. The doctor's office contacted the local police, and I went down to my mom's house. When we entered, we found my mom dead in her living/TV room.
Though I know that death must come for all of us, I didn't expect it to come to my mom-at least not yet. My maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother (my mom's mother & grandmother respectively) both lived in to their late 80s to early 90s. Given the family history, my mom should have lived that long too, so I was expecting this day to come 12-15 years hence, not now.
Normally, at this time of night (11:00 PM), I'd be fighting to keep my eyes open; I'd be ready for bed. Right now, I don't feel sleepy; I don't know how well I'll sleep tonight, or even IF I shall be so lucky to sleep. I just didn't expect this-at least not now anyway.
What I dread more than the funeral is having to sell my mom's house, her posessions, and close out her affairs. That's the part I dread the most, because it's a HUGE PITA-ugghh! THAT is the part I dread the most. I know that there are firms that do estate sales; I just hope my brother and I can find a good one, because that'll make our lives easier.
My relationship with my mom had been good for a long time, so I have no regrets there. I'd just visited her this past weekend. I'd been visiting regularly ever since I moved out in late 2004. I don't have any regrets about not spending time with her, nor do I have regrets about the relationship being less than it could have been; on both fronts, things were good.
I'm out of here. I didn't expect my mom to die-not now, anyway. I thought she'd be around another 12-15 years yet, given the family history. My relationship with my mom had been good for years, so I have no regrets there. I just want to get through the hassle of closing her affairs. Thanks for listening, Fellas.
MarkyMark
I got a call at work from my mother's doctor this morning. It seems that my mom missed a physical therapy appointment earlier this week, which was something she NEVER did; she never missed an appointment. When she didn't show up for therapy, the therapist contacted my mom's primary doctor; my mom's doctor, in turn, tried reaching my mom via her home and cell phone for the last two days with no response. The doctor's office contacted the local police, and I went down to my mom's house. When we entered, we found my mom dead in her living/TV room.
Though I know that death must come for all of us, I didn't expect it to come to my mom-at least not yet. My maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother (my mom's mother & grandmother respectively) both lived in to their late 80s to early 90s. Given the family history, my mom should have lived that long too, so I was expecting this day to come 12-15 years hence, not now.
Normally, at this time of night (11:00 PM), I'd be fighting to keep my eyes open; I'd be ready for bed. Right now, I don't feel sleepy; I don't know how well I'll sleep tonight, or even IF I shall be so lucky to sleep. I just didn't expect this-at least not now anyway.
What I dread more than the funeral is having to sell my mom's house, her posessions, and close out her affairs. That's the part I dread the most, because it's a HUGE PITA-ugghh! THAT is the part I dread the most. I know that there are firms that do estate sales; I just hope my brother and I can find a good one, because that'll make our lives easier.
My relationship with my mom had been good for a long time, so I have no regrets there. I'd just visited her this past weekend. I'd been visiting regularly ever since I moved out in late 2004. I don't have any regrets about not spending time with her, nor do I have regrets about the relationship being less than it could have been; on both fronts, things were good.
I'm out of here. I didn't expect my mom to die-not now, anyway. I thought she'd be around another 12-15 years yet, given the family history. My relationship with my mom had been good for years, so I have no regrets there. I just want to get through the hassle of closing her affairs. Thanks for listening, Fellas.
MarkyMark
Death in the Family
Guys,
I've had a death in the family; my mom died, so I don't know when I'll be back.
MarkyMark
I've had a death in the family; my mom died, so I don't know when I'll be back.
MarkyMark
20 April 2012
Truth Hurts, Baby...
Guys,
Here's a speech Matthew McConnaughey. He NAILS it! I thought my boys would appreciate this...
Like I said, the man NAILED it...
MarkyMark
Here's a speech Matthew McConnaughey. He NAILS it! I thought my boys would appreciate this...
Like I said, the man NAILED it...
MarkyMark
10 April 2012
Bond Girls: Then & Now
Guys,
If you want to be shocked, go take a gander at this gallery over at Yahoo. It features some of the better known women from the James Bond, 007 films; I'm talking about women such as Ursula Andress, Barbara Bach, and Maud Adams. These women, while some of the hottest to ever grace the silver screen, aren't so hot now...
MarkyMark
If you want to be shocked, go take a gander at this gallery over at Yahoo. It features some of the better known women from the James Bond, 007 films; I'm talking about women such as Ursula Andress, Barbara Bach, and Maud Adams. These women, while some of the hottest to ever grace the silver screen, aren't so hot now...
MarkyMark
03 April 2012
22 March 2012
Clubs Suck
Guys,
Here's a terrific opinion piece from the Guardian, a UK publication. Mr. Charlie Brooker tells us something we ALREADY knew-that nightclubs suck. I'll intersperse some of my wit & wisdom amongst his thoughts, but not much. Mr. Brooker did such a bang up job on trashing clubs that there isn't a whole lot I can add to the mix.
I originally ran this in December of 2008. I thought it was time to rerun it, so my newer readers could see this...
------------------------------
I went to a fashionable London nightclub on Saturday. Not the sort of sentence I get to write very often, because I enjoy nightclubs less than I enjoy eating wool. But a glamorous friend of mine was there to "do a PA", and she'd invited me and some curious friends along because we wanted to see precisely what "doing a PA" consists of. Turns out doing a public appearance largely entails sitting around drinking free champagne and generally just "being there".
That's not so bad-getting champagne and getting PAID to drink it...
I never liked clubs, either. Your sentiments are similar to my own. The only reason I went was to either enjoy some music and hang out with some buddies, or try scoring some chicks. I wasn't too successful at the latter, as clubs aren't my scene. Clubs are better suited for extroverted, 'peacock' type of personalities-IOW, attention whores. Since I'm not one of those, I never did well in clubs...
Isn't THAT the truth! I played along for a while, pretending to like them. However, when I seldom went to them, that kinda blew my cover, know what I mean? When I was in the Navy, I took my grandfather's advice; when I headed out on liberty, I headed the opposite direction the rest of the guys took. They went to the bars, while I went snorkeling, sightseeing, stuff like that. To me, that was more cost effective and a better use of my time...
I just LOVE the imagery you use here-ouch! Just the sensory impressions of your description is enough to dissuade me from ever going into a club again-not that I was ever big on cigarette smoke-yuck...
Drugs render location meaningless. Neck enough ketamine and you could have the best night of your life squatting in a shed rolling corks across the floor. And no one's going to search you on the way in. Why bother with clubs?
To see and be seen, man! Or, so attention whoring sluts can strut their used up, disease ridden stuff. I used to go skating down on the Jersey Shore when I lived down there. Some of the towns have clubs, so I'd see the habitues lining up outside. WTF do people wait in LONG ASS LINES to get into these horrid places anyway?! They'll wait for hours to get in to a trendy club! Even then, they might not get in! You have to have the desired 'look', so you'll blend in with the clientele-gag. There are articles on the web that tell you how to build rapport with the bouncers, so you can get in to the club quickly. Sorry, but that BS doesn't qualify for my time or interest. Sorry I digressed...
Anyway, I'd be skating in these shore towns, deriving my entertainment from people watching (cheap and better than the clubs), and I'd see the guys and gals lined up outside, hoping the club's bouncers would let them in next. The chicks would be dressed in the skimpiest, most provocative outfits imaginable! Shoot, they were dressed like whores! Come to think of it, they LOOKED like whores too, and I don't mean in terms of dress, either; I'm talking about that hardened, used up look so common in the modern, enlightened, empowered woman these days; guys call it 'the thousand cock stare'-how true it is. Uzem & Luzem calls modern women bad, amateur porn stars; judging by their dress & demeanor, I'm inclined to agree...
On a more serious note, there is a drug called Extasy. Entire TV programs have been done about Extasy! Guess what it's known as? They call it 'the club drug'-things that make you go hmmmm...
Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel, Mr. Brooker!
Not to mention the fact that most females in the clubs' target demographics are CARRYING DISEASES! Seriously, gov't records show that a whopping 44.8% of women ages 20-24 have HPV; that's almost half, or ONE OUT OF EVERY TWO WOMEN YOU'LL MEET IN THE CLUBS! Almost half of the young women you see out on the street are carrying HPV, or human papiloma virus; that's the virus that causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice ailments like that. BTW, they aren't CURABLE, either; once you have them, you have them for life! Can you imagine having a nasty disease like that for life, just for a screw? Even if you're successful in seducing a chick you met at the club, do you really want to 'do the deed' with her? I don't think I would; sex is good, but not so good that I want to die or get an incurable disease from it...
The second thing that struck me was frightening. They were all photographing themselves. In fact, that's all they seemed to be doing. Standing around in expensive clothes, snapping away with phones and cameras. One pose after another, as though they needed to prove their own existence, right there, in the moment. Crucially, this seemed to be the reason they were there in the first place. There was very little dancing. Just pouting and flashbulbs.
Surely this is a new development. Clubs have always been vapid and awful and boring and blah - but I can't remember clubbers documenting their every moment before. Not to this demented extent. It's not enough to pretend you're having fun in the club any more - you've got to pretend you're having fun in your Flickr gallery, and your friends' Flickr galleries. An unending exhibition in which a million terrified, try-too-hard imbeciles attempt to out-cool each other.
Mind you, since in about 20 years' time these same people will be standing waist-deep in skeletons, in an arid post-nuclear wasteland, clubbing each other to death in a fight for the last remaining glass of water, perhaps they're wise to enjoy these carefree moments while they last. Even if they're only pretending.
When I last went to a club (how long ago was it?), we didn't have the MEANS to take pics of ourselves. People would have done so if they could have; the only reason they didn't was because camera phones hadn't been INVENTED yet. All these have done is to reveal the attention whore lurking within. It's always been there, but it wasn't as readily apparent, due to the lack of technology that makes it possible.
Like I said, I couldn't add too much to that missive. Mr. Brooker hit that one out of the park...
MarkyMark
Here's a terrific opinion piece from the Guardian, a UK publication. Mr. Charlie Brooker tells us something we ALREADY knew-that nightclubs suck. I'll intersperse some of my wit & wisdom amongst his thoughts, but not much. Mr. Brooker did such a bang up job on trashing clubs that there isn't a whole lot I can add to the mix.
I originally ran this in December of 2008. I thought it was time to rerun it, so my newer readers could see this...
------------------------------
Nightclubs are hell. What's cool or fun about a thumping, sweaty dungeon full of posing idiots?
I went to a fashionable London nightclub on Saturday. Not the sort of sentence I get to write very often, because I enjoy nightclubs less than I enjoy eating wool. But a glamorous friend of mine was there to "do a PA", and she'd invited me and some curious friends along because we wanted to see precisely what "doing a PA" consists of. Turns out doing a public appearance largely entails sitting around drinking free champagne and generally just "being there".
That's not so bad-getting champagne and getting PAID to drink it...
Obviously, at 36, I was more than a decade older than almost everyone else, and subsequently may as well have been smeared head to toe with pus. People regarded me with a combination of pity and disgust. To complete the circuit, I spent the night wearing the expression of a man waking up to Christmas in a prison cell.
"I'm too old to enjoy this," I thought. And then remembered I've always felt this way about clubs. And I mean all clubs - from the cheesiest downmarket sickbucket to the coolest cutting-edge hark-at-us poncehole. I hated them when I was 19 and I hate them today. I just don't have to pretend any more.
I never liked clubs, either. Your sentiments are similar to my own. The only reason I went was to either enjoy some music and hang out with some buddies, or try scoring some chicks. I wasn't too successful at the latter, as clubs aren't my scene. Clubs are better suited for extroverted, 'peacock' type of personalities-IOW, attention whores. Since I'm not one of those, I never did well in clubs...
I'm convinced no one actually likes clubs. It's a conspiracy. We've been told they're cool and fun; that only "saddoes" dislike them. And no one in our pathetic little pre-apocalyptic timebubble wants to be labelled "sad" - it's like being officially declared worthless by the state. So we muster a grin and go out on the town in our millions.
Isn't THAT the truth! I played along for a while, pretending to like them. However, when I seldom went to them, that kinda blew my cover, know what I mean? When I was in the Navy, I took my grandfather's advice; when I headed out on liberty, I headed the opposite direction the rest of the guys took. They went to the bars, while I went snorkeling, sightseeing, stuff like that. To me, that was more cost effective and a better use of my time...
Clubs are despicable. Cramped, overpriced furnaces with sticky walls and the latest idiot theme tunes thumping through the humid air so loud you can't hold a conversation, just bellow inanities at megaphone-level. And since the smoking ban, the masking aroma of cigarette smoke has been replaced by the overbearing stench of crotch sweat and hair wax.
I just LOVE the imagery you use here-ouch! Just the sensory impressions of your description is enough to dissuade me from ever going into a club again-not that I was ever big on cigarette smoke-yuck...
Clubs are such insufferable dungeons of misery, the inmates have to take mood-altering substances to make their ordeal seem halfway tolerable. This leads them to believe they "enjoy" clubbing. They don't. No one does. They just enjoy drugs.
Drugs render location meaningless. Neck enough ketamine and you could have the best night of your life squatting in a shed rolling corks across the floor. And no one's going to search you on the way in. Why bother with clubs?
To see and be seen, man! Or, so attention whoring sluts can strut their used up, disease ridden stuff. I used to go skating down on the Jersey Shore when I lived down there. Some of the towns have clubs, so I'd see the habitues lining up outside. WTF do people wait in LONG ASS LINES to get into these horrid places anyway?! They'll wait for hours to get in to a trendy club! Even then, they might not get in! You have to have the desired 'look', so you'll blend in with the clientele-gag. There are articles on the web that tell you how to build rapport with the bouncers, so you can get in to the club quickly. Sorry, but that BS doesn't qualify for my time or interest. Sorry I digressed...
Anyway, I'd be skating in these shore towns, deriving my entertainment from people watching (cheap and better than the clubs), and I'd see the guys and gals lined up outside, hoping the club's bouncers would let them in next. The chicks would be dressed in the skimpiest, most provocative outfits imaginable! Shoot, they were dressed like whores! Come to think of it, they LOOKED like whores too, and I don't mean in terms of dress, either; I'm talking about that hardened, used up look so common in the modern, enlightened, empowered woman these days; guys call it 'the thousand cock stare'-how true it is. Uzem & Luzem calls modern women bad, amateur porn stars; judging by their dress & demeanor, I'm inclined to agree...
On a more serious note, there is a drug called Extasy. Entire TV programs have been done about Extasy! Guess what it's known as? They call it 'the club drug'-things that make you go hmmmm...
"Because you might get a shag," is the usual response. Really? If that's the only way you can find a partner - preening and jigging about like a desperate animal - you shouldn't be attempting to breed in the first place. What's your next trick? Inventing fire? People like you are going to spin civilisation into reverse. You're a moron, and so is that haircut you're trying to impress. Any offspring you eventually blast out should be drowned in a pan before they can do any harm. Or open any more nightclubs.
Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel, Mr. Brooker!
Even if you somehow avoid reproducing, isn't it a lot of hard work for very little reward? Seven hours hopping about in a hellish, reverberating bunker in exchange for sharing 64 febrile, panting pelvic thrusts with someone who'll snore and dribble into your pillow till 11 o'clock in the morning, before waking up beside you with their hair in a mess, blinking like a dizzy cat and smelling vaguely like a ham baguette? Really, why bother? Why not just stay at home punching yourself in the face? Invite a few friends round and make a night of it. It'll be more fun than a club.
Not to mention the fact that most females in the clubs' target demographics are CARRYING DISEASES! Seriously, gov't records show that a whopping 44.8% of women ages 20-24 have HPV; that's almost half, or ONE OUT OF EVERY TWO WOMEN YOU'LL MEET IN THE CLUBS! Almost half of the young women you see out on the street are carrying HPV, or human papiloma virus; that's the virus that causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice ailments like that. BTW, they aren't CURABLE, either; once you have them, you have them for life! Can you imagine having a nasty disease like that for life, just for a screw? Even if you're successful in seducing a chick you met at the club, do you really want to 'do the deed' with her? I don't think I would; sex is good, but not so good that I want to die or get an incurable disease from it...
Anyway, back to Saturday night, and apart from the age gap, two other things stuck me. Firstly, everyone had clearly spent far too long perfecting their appearance. I used to feel intimidated by people like this; now I see them as walking insecurity beacons, slaves to the perceived judgment of others, trapped within a self- perpetuating circle of crushing status anxiety. I'd still secretly like to be them, of course, but at least these days I can temporarily erect a veneer of defensive, sneering superiority. I've progressed that far.
The second thing that struck me was frightening. They were all photographing themselves. In fact, that's all they seemed to be doing. Standing around in expensive clothes, snapping away with phones and cameras. One pose after another, as though they needed to prove their own existence, right there, in the moment. Crucially, this seemed to be the reason they were there in the first place. There was very little dancing. Just pouting and flashbulbs.
Surely this is a new development. Clubs have always been vapid and awful and boring and blah - but I can't remember clubbers documenting their every moment before. Not to this demented extent. It's not enough to pretend you're having fun in the club any more - you've got to pretend you're having fun in your Flickr gallery, and your friends' Flickr galleries. An unending exhibition in which a million terrified, try-too-hard imbeciles attempt to out-cool each other.
Mind you, since in about 20 years' time these same people will be standing waist-deep in skeletons, in an arid post-nuclear wasteland, clubbing each other to death in a fight for the last remaining glass of water, perhaps they're wise to enjoy these carefree moments while they last. Even if they're only pretending.
When I last went to a club (how long ago was it?), we didn't have the MEANS to take pics of ourselves. People would have done so if they could have; the only reason they didn't was because camera phones hadn't been INVENTED yet. All these have done is to reveal the attention whore lurking within. It's always been there, but it wasn't as readily apparent, due to the lack of technology that makes it possible.
Like I said, I couldn't add too much to that missive. Mr. Brooker hit that one out of the park...
MarkyMark
15 March 2012
Sandra Fluke's CNN Op-Ed Analyzed...
Guys,
As I often say, I cannot make this stuff up. What you're about to read is Sandra Fluke's recent CNN op-ed with analysis from yours truly. Since I've made the SPLC'S black list, I figure I might as well do something to EARN my place on it-ha! Without any further ado, here is the-gag-'lovely & gracious' Sandra Fluke's op-ed with my commentary...
------------------
What CNN and the rest of the national media did NOT tell you is that Miss Fluke isn't a young, twentysomething coed; rather, she is a seasoned, Feminazi activist who's 30 years old! She spent five years working as a Feminazi domestic violence advocate in New York City.
Darlin' (that always pisses off the Feminazis!), you just hung a fastball over the middle! Stand by while I hit this out of the park...
Firstly, I have to ask one, simple question: why did you attend a Catholic university when any person with two brain cells knocking together knows that they take a dim view of birth control? Why did you do that?! Who the f*ck are YOU to demand that a religious institution change THEIR rules because you disagree with them? Isn't that rather arrogant? How is that any different than refusing to take off your shoes as a guest in someone's house who has a rule about removing shoes upon entry? Why didn't you simply attend another law school whose philosophy was more in agreement with your own? The truth of the matter is that you WANTED to cause trouble at Georgetown, isn't that right?
Before I continue, I have to take a little detour here. It is important that the reader have some insight into law school, which I will provide now.
Now, as I stated previously, I seriously researched law school. One of the many things I found out was that law school ranking matters. I also found out which law schools were the top law schools. Historically speaking, if you wanted a good future in the legal world, you wanted to attend a Top 14 (T14) law school. Georgetown is ranked 14th in the land, which puts it at the bottom of the T14. The ranking of the top 100 US law schools can be viewed here.
Another thing my research revealed was this: with the exception of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford), where you attend law school determines where you practice. Lawyers are risk averse, so they like to deal with alumni from their regional law schools. For someone wishing to live and work in New Jersey, that would mean attending Rutgers or Seton Hall for law school. Since Miss Fluke chose to attend Georgetown, one would THINK that she wished to live and practice in Wasthington, DC and its surrounding environs. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the aforementioned HYS, which will allow a lawyer to practice anywhere. One could attend Duke or Penn, allowing them to practice anywhere along the I-95 corridor. That said, where you attend law school determines where you practice. I'll come back to these two points presently.
Now, if Miss Fluke could get into Georgetown, she could have gotten into other T14 law schools; not only that, she could have gotten into T14 law schools that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC. When we look at the law school ranking table, we can also view the GPA and LSAT scores of the school's incoming student body, its 1Ls. Judging by the table, if Sandra Fluke got admitted to Georgetown, then her GPA & LSAT scores were good enough to get into Duke and Penn too; both schools place graduates along the I-95 corridor, so Miss Fluke could have practiced in DC as a grad from the Duke or Penn law schools. If Miss Fluke were willing to attend a good law school outside of the coveted T14 in the DC area, then George Washington University's law school (ranked 20th) was also an option.
Now, it's time to get back on track; it's time to move on to point number two.
The second point is that NOBODY is restricting access to birth control, Bitch! Where has access to birth control been restricted, hmm? One can obtain numerous means of birth control here in America; access isn't a problem, Sweetheart (sorry, I had to take another potshot to piss off the Feminazis, hehehe). You can get it anywhere, and do so cheaply.
Oh, and the $3,000 figure you quoted is false; you're a lying bitch!! I paid a visit to Planned Parenthood's website, and I found out that birth control pills don't cost anywhere NEAR $1,000 a year. After you arrive on Planned Parenthood's home page, you'll see a list of categories along the left side. One of those categories is 'birth control', which I clicked. That brought up a list of the various and sundry means of birth control, including birth control pills; I selected birth control pills, since that was your focus. According to Planned Parenthood's page on birth control pills (that's key!), they cost $15-$50 per month; on an annual basis, that equates to $180-$600 a year, which would be $540-$1,800 over three years. Uh, Darlin', that's a LOT less than $3,000 lie you told both to a Congressional committee and the nation! You're a LIAR!
Three, whatever happened to good, old fashioned abstinence? Whatever happened to NOT having sex-especially if you cannot AFFORD to do so?! Oh, and here's another thing: whatever you may think of abstinence, there's no disputing this: it works EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED! It has 100% effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy! Since avoiding pregnancy is one of the holy grails of modern feminism, why not practice abstinence more? Why not encourage other women to practice it more, since it is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy? Would you care to answer that, Sweetheart?
See my points above. You already have access to affordable birth control, Darlin'...
That was a pitiful, ineffective attempt to distract the American people from Barack Hussein Obama's HIDEOUS record. Isn't it propitious that this issue is raised in the public consciousness at the same time gasoline is about to hit $4.00 nationwide? Isn't this coincidental (NOT!) that this issue is raised in the public consciousness while unemployment is at record levels? You know what I think? I think you're a leftist plant, Miss Fluke...
Uh, I have another question here, Miss Fluke: why should religious organizations, churches, and schools be FORCED to violate their religious convictions? Why should they be compelled to do something that goes against the core tenets of their faith? Whatever happened to the First Amendment, part of which guarantees religious freedom, Miss Fluke? Whatever happened to the 'separation of church & state' that you leftist whores always kvetching about? Why aren't you crying out for separation of church and state in this instance, hmmm?
You're right about millions of women speaking out, but it's NOT for birth control. They're speaking out against higher energy prices, which impact their families in numerous ways. From cutting down their disposable income (more money being spent for fuel) to higher food prices (because higher fuel prices means higher transport costs), millions of women are more concerned about ECONOMIC issues, not birth control-duh! Higher prices for food, fuel, and energy means LESS money for vacations, toys for the kids, home improvements, etc. THAT'S what millions of women are concerned about, not birth control pills, you lying bitch!
How did your opponents smear you, Miss Fluke? How does calling BULLSHIT on what you said constitute a smear? If you say something publicly, how can you not expect to be called on it? How can you consider Rush Limbaugh's 'slut & prostitute' remarks a smear when you said, in effect, you were having so much sex that you needed someone else to pay $1,000 for your birth control expenses?!
What about practicing ABSTINENCE, my dear? If you're so concerned about avoiding unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% effective? Shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% free? Finally, isn't it just good sense to refrain from sex, so as to avoid contracting an STD or STI? What about THAT as a health issue?
Good question: who ARE these supporters?
I just did some more Googling around, and I found THIS information about PCOS treatment. You'll see that the link is from Womenshealth.gov-hardly a misogynistic web site! Note: birth control pills are only ONE treatment option-and that's only if one is seeking to avoid pregnancy. One can also treat PCOS via lifestyle changes and the use of diabetic pills.
Uh, what about OBSERVING the core tenets of your faith, Miss Fluke? If that faith's core tenets are not to your liking, why stay in that faith? Isn't it true that one of Catholicism's core tenets prohibits the use of birth control of any kind? Isn't this widely known? I'm not even a Catholic, yet I know that-sheesh! How stupid do you think we are, Miss Fluke?
Oh, and what did these beloved Catholic women of yours do BEFORE birth control pills were invented? You do know that they've only been available since 1960, right? What did humans do before then to avoid pregnancy? Did you ever hear of natural family planning, which IS taught by the Catholic Church?
Say WHAT?! How, pray tell me, does access to contraception impact participation in public life? What does one have to do with the other? I really can't wrap my arms around that. If you want to control your reproduction, why don't you control access to your vagina? Oh, and if you're really serious about your schooling, what about making that your focus, and not extracurricular activities like sex?
Uh, Darlin', as I pointed out before, birth control pills only cost $15-$50 a month through Planned Parenthood! That's hardly expensive; one could pay for that by refraining from one or two weekly visits to McDonald's or Taco Bell. Even if we accept the high figure of $50, that's still less than most people are paying to fill their cars with gasoline; many are paying more than that! I paid $40 to fill my car recently, and I drive a small, fuel efficient vehicle.
See my above comments. This is getting old. Oh, and as for kids being a financial burden, I've had parents tell me this: if you wait till you can 'afford' kids, you'll never have them; you're NEVER ready to have kids!
Uh, would you care to elaborate on that, Miss Fluke? Why can't women use these inexpensive forms of birth control? Care to tell us that? How can anyone have trouble affording $15-$50 a month it costs to obtain birth control pills from Planned Parenthood?
If that's the case, then why do you and other poor women need help with purchasing your birth control, Miss Fluke? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Uh, who pays for it isn't the issue-at least not directly. No, what IS at issue here is The First Amendment; what is at issue here is religious freedom. Wouldn't religious freedom entail worshiping God as one sees fit? Wouldn't that mean allowing a church to REFRAIN from paying for birth control if that goes against one of the core tenets of their faith? Miss Fluke, while telling part of the truth here, doesn't tell the WHOLE truth: mainly that this regulation is a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE-duh!
Those of us who call ourselves conservative (and I do, not that my long time readers need to be told that) never said it was an issue about taxpayers paying for birth control. What IS at issue is religious freedom; what is at issue is the government, in effect, TELLING the Catholic Church what to do, mainly violate a core tenet of their faith. Doesn't that make this a First Amendment issue? Isn't one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment freedom of Religion? How can we have religious freedom if the government is telling the Catholic Church what to do? Isn't the First Amendment one of the Bill of Rights? Ergo, can we not say that the First Amendment provides churches and religious organizations protection FROM government interference?
You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It's one of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution. You should have studied the Constitution during your first year of law school, Miss Fluke, so this shouldn't be news to you. How is this not a religious freedom issue?
What about buying a policy that covers birth control, hmmm? Better yet, what about obtaining it from Planned Parenthood or other entities providing birth control at a discounted price? If you can't afford $15-$50 a month for The Pill, how can you afford to have sex? If you're so worried about your health, what about abstaining from sex, and preventing pregnancy, not to mention a nasty STD?!
How is access to birth control being restricted, Miss Fluke? How is it not available when you can go to any Planned Parenthood office and get it? And if Planned Parenthood doesn't have an office near you (I can't imagine THAT in DC), did you know that you can purchase birth control pills online?! It's true! You can buy birth control pills online. One of the vendors I Googled was Discount Pharmacy online. They have birth control pills available for $30 a month delivered to your door; you don't even have to leave home to get 'em. Talk about affordability and convenience!
And attacking our First Amendment rights will not silence US!
Government should legislate according to the Constitution and our First Amendment rights; it should legislate according to The Bill of Rights! If it pisses off little Feminazis like you, too bad.
-------------------
Guys, that concludes my thoughts on Sandra Fluke's CNN op-ed piece. I could have put in a lot more into this piece, but I didn't; I merely hit the blatantly obvious issues. Even limiting myself like that, it's taken me most of the afternoon to write this. Miss Sandra Fluke provided a 'target rich' environment; she made my job easy!
What I can't understand is why ANY guy would want to sleep with her. Did you see her? She's not at all hot. She has a thick neck and short hair which accentuates that. Someone on Mancoat said that she looked like a young Janet Reno-ouch! I wonder if she swings the same way as Reno does? Until next time...
MarkyMark
As I often say, I cannot make this stuff up. What you're about to read is Sandra Fluke's recent CNN op-ed with analysis from yours truly. Since I've made the SPLC'S black list, I figure I might as well do something to EARN my place on it-ha! Without any further ado, here is the-gag-'lovely & gracious' Sandra Fluke's op-ed with my commentary...
------------------
Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women
updated 1:09 AM EDT, Wed March 14, 2012
Editor's note: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
What CNN and the rest of the national media did NOT tell you is that Miss Fluke isn't a young, twentysomething coed; rather, she is a seasoned, Feminazi activist who's 30 years old! She spent five years working as a Feminazi domestic violence advocate in New York City.
(CNN) -- Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
Darlin' (that always pisses off the Feminazis!), you just hung a fastball over the middle! Stand by while I hit this out of the park...
Firstly, I have to ask one, simple question: why did you attend a Catholic university when any person with two brain cells knocking together knows that they take a dim view of birth control? Why did you do that?! Who the f*ck are YOU to demand that a religious institution change THEIR rules because you disagree with them? Isn't that rather arrogant? How is that any different than refusing to take off your shoes as a guest in someone's house who has a rule about removing shoes upon entry? Why didn't you simply attend another law school whose philosophy was more in agreement with your own? The truth of the matter is that you WANTED to cause trouble at Georgetown, isn't that right?
Before I continue, I have to take a little detour here. It is important that the reader have some insight into law school, which I will provide now.
Now, as I stated previously, I seriously researched law school. One of the many things I found out was that law school ranking matters. I also found out which law schools were the top law schools. Historically speaking, if you wanted a good future in the legal world, you wanted to attend a Top 14 (T14) law school. Georgetown is ranked 14th in the land, which puts it at the bottom of the T14. The ranking of the top 100 US law schools can be viewed here.
Another thing my research revealed was this: with the exception of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford), where you attend law school determines where you practice. Lawyers are risk averse, so they like to deal with alumni from their regional law schools. For someone wishing to live and work in New Jersey, that would mean attending Rutgers or Seton Hall for law school. Since Miss Fluke chose to attend Georgetown, one would THINK that she wished to live and practice in Wasthington, DC and its surrounding environs. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the aforementioned HYS, which will allow a lawyer to practice anywhere. One could attend Duke or Penn, allowing them to practice anywhere along the I-95 corridor. That said, where you attend law school determines where you practice. I'll come back to these two points presently.
Now, if Miss Fluke could get into Georgetown, she could have gotten into other T14 law schools; not only that, she could have gotten into T14 law schools that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC. When we look at the law school ranking table, we can also view the GPA and LSAT scores of the school's incoming student body, its 1Ls. Judging by the table, if Sandra Fluke got admitted to Georgetown, then her GPA & LSAT scores were good enough to get into Duke and Penn too; both schools place graduates along the I-95 corridor, so Miss Fluke could have practiced in DC as a grad from the Duke or Penn law schools. If Miss Fluke were willing to attend a good law school outside of the coveted T14 in the DC area, then George Washington University's law school (ranked 20th) was also an option.
Now, it's time to get back on track; it's time to move on to point number two.
The second point is that NOBODY is restricting access to birth control, Bitch! Where has access to birth control been restricted, hmm? One can obtain numerous means of birth control here in America; access isn't a problem, Sweetheart (sorry, I had to take another potshot to piss off the Feminazis, hehehe). You can get it anywhere, and do so cheaply.
Oh, and the $3,000 figure you quoted is false; you're a lying bitch!! I paid a visit to Planned Parenthood's website, and I found out that birth control pills don't cost anywhere NEAR $1,000 a year. After you arrive on Planned Parenthood's home page, you'll see a list of categories along the left side. One of those categories is 'birth control', which I clicked. That brought up a list of the various and sundry means of birth control, including birth control pills; I selected birth control pills, since that was your focus. According to Planned Parenthood's page on birth control pills (that's key!), they cost $15-$50 per month; on an annual basis, that equates to $180-$600 a year, which would be $540-$1,800 over three years. Uh, Darlin', that's a LOT less than $3,000 lie you told both to a Congressional committee and the nation! You're a LIAR!
Three, whatever happened to good, old fashioned abstinence? Whatever happened to NOT having sex-especially if you cannot AFFORD to do so?! Oh, and here's another thing: whatever you may think of abstinence, there's no disputing this: it works EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED! It has 100% effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy! Since avoiding pregnancy is one of the holy grails of modern feminism, why not practice abstinence more? Why not encourage other women to practice it more, since it is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy? Would you care to answer that, Sweetheart?
I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.
See my points above. You already have access to affordable birth control, Darlin'...
I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.
That was a pitiful, ineffective attempt to distract the American people from Barack Hussein Obama's HIDEOUS record. Isn't it propitious that this issue is raised in the public consciousness at the same time gasoline is about to hit $4.00 nationwide? Isn't this coincidental (NOT!) that this issue is raised in the public consciousness while unemployment is at record levels? You know what I think? I think you're a leftist plant, Miss Fluke...
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.
Uh, I have another question here, Miss Fluke: why should religious organizations, churches, and schools be FORCED to violate their religious convictions? Why should they be compelled to do something that goes against the core tenets of their faith? Whatever happened to the First Amendment, part of which guarantees religious freedom, Miss Fluke? Whatever happened to the 'separation of church & state' that you leftist whores always kvetching about? Why aren't you crying out for separation of church and state in this instance, hmmm?
By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.
You're right about millions of women speaking out, but it's NOT for birth control. They're speaking out against higher energy prices, which impact their families in numerous ways. From cutting down their disposable income (more money being spent for fuel) to higher food prices (because higher fuel prices means higher transport costs), millions of women are more concerned about ECONOMIC issues, not birth control-duh! Higher prices for food, fuel, and energy means LESS money for vacations, toys for the kids, home improvements, etc. THAT'S what millions of women are concerned about, not birth control pills, you lying bitch!
Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women's voices regarding their own health care.
How did your opponents smear you, Miss Fluke? How does calling BULLSHIT on what you said constitute a smear? If you say something publicly, how can you not expect to be called on it? How can you consider Rush Limbaugh's 'slut & prostitute' remarks a smear when you said, in effect, you were having so much sex that you needed someone else to pay $1,000 for your birth control expenses?!
These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country -- women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.
What about practicing ABSTINENCE, my dear? If you're so concerned about avoiding unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% effective? Shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% free? Finally, isn't it just good sense to refrain from sex, so as to avoid contracting an STD or STI? What about THAT as a health issue?
Who are these supporters?
Good question: who ARE these supporters?
They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
I just did some more Googling around, and I found THIS information about PCOS treatment. You'll see that the link is from Womenshealth.gov-hardly a misogynistic web site! Note: birth control pills are only ONE treatment option-and that's only if one is seeking to avoid pregnancy. One can also treat PCOS via lifestyle changes and the use of diabetic pills.
They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice-based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother's health and the potential child's health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.
Uh, what about OBSERVING the core tenets of your faith, Miss Fluke? If that faith's core tenets are not to your liking, why stay in that faith? Isn't it true that one of Catholicism's core tenets prohibits the use of birth control of any kind? Isn't this widely known? I'm not even a Catholic, yet I know that-sheesh! How stupid do you think we are, Miss Fluke?
Oh, and what did these beloved Catholic women of yours do BEFORE birth control pills were invented? You do know that they've only been available since 1960, right? What did humans do before then to avoid pregnancy? Did you ever hear of natural family planning, which IS taught by the Catholic Church?
They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.
Say WHAT?! How, pray tell me, does access to contraception impact participation in public life? What does one have to do with the other? I really can't wrap my arms around that. If you want to control your reproduction, why don't you control access to your vagina? Oh, and if you're really serious about your schooling, what about making that your focus, and not extracurricular activities like sex?
These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.
Uh, Darlin', as I pointed out before, birth control pills only cost $15-$50 a month through Planned Parenthood! That's hardly expensive; one could pay for that by refraining from one or two weekly visits to McDonald's or Taco Bell. Even if we accept the high figure of $50, that's still less than most people are paying to fill their cars with gasoline; many are paying more than that! I paid $40 to fill my car recently, and I drive a small, fuel efficient vehicle.
And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn't cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.
See my above comments. This is getting old. Oh, and as for kids being a financial burden, I've had parents tell me this: if you wait till you can 'afford' kids, you'll never have them; you're NEVER ready to have kids!
Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy -- all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.
Uh, would you care to elaborate on that, Miss Fluke? Why can't women use these inexpensive forms of birth control? Care to tell us that? How can anyone have trouble affording $15-$50 a month it costs to obtain birth control pills from Planned Parenthood?
Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.
If that's the case, then why do you and other poor women need help with purchasing your birth control, Miss Fluke? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.
Uh, who pays for it isn't the issue-at least not directly. No, what IS at issue here is The First Amendment; what is at issue here is religious freedom. Wouldn't religious freedom entail worshiping God as one sees fit? Wouldn't that mean allowing a church to REFRAIN from paying for birth control if that goes against one of the core tenets of their faith? Miss Fluke, while telling part of the truth here, doesn't tell the WHOLE truth: mainly that this regulation is a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE-duh!
Those of us who call ourselves conservative (and I do, not that my long time readers need to be told that) never said it was an issue about taxpayers paying for birth control. What IS at issue is religious freedom; what is at issue is the government, in effect, TELLING the Catholic Church what to do, mainly violate a core tenet of their faith. Doesn't that make this a First Amendment issue? Isn't one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment freedom of Religion? How can we have religious freedom if the government is telling the Catholic Church what to do? Isn't the First Amendment one of the Bill of Rights? Ergo, can we not say that the First Amendment provides churches and religious organizations protection FROM government interference?
You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It's one of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution. You should have studied the Constitution during your first year of law school, Miss Fluke, so this shouldn't be news to you. How is this not a religious freedom issue?
I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.
What about buying a policy that covers birth control, hmmm? Better yet, what about obtaining it from Planned Parenthood or other entities providing birth control at a discounted price? If you can't afford $15-$50 a month for The Pill, how can you afford to have sex? If you're so worried about your health, what about abstaining from sex, and preventing pregnancy, not to mention a nasty STD?!
Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
How is access to birth control being restricted, Miss Fluke? How is it not available when you can go to any Planned Parenthood office and get it? And if Planned Parenthood doesn't have an office near you (I can't imagine THAT in DC), did you know that you can purchase birth control pills online?! It's true! You can buy birth control pills online. One of the vendors I Googled was Discount Pharmacy online. They have birth control pills available for $30 a month delivered to your door; you don't even have to leave home to get 'em. Talk about affordability and convenience!
Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.
And attacking our First Amendment rights will not silence US!
I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.
Government should legislate according to the Constitution and our First Amendment rights; it should legislate according to The Bill of Rights! If it pisses off little Feminazis like you, too bad.
-------------------
Guys, that concludes my thoughts on Sandra Fluke's CNN op-ed piece. I could have put in a lot more into this piece, but I didn't; I merely hit the blatantly obvious issues. Even limiting myself like that, it's taken me most of the afternoon to write this. Miss Sandra Fluke provided a 'target rich' environment; she made my job easy!
What I can't understand is why ANY guy would want to sleep with her. Did you see her? She's not at all hot. She has a thick neck and short hair which accentuates that. Someone on Mancoat said that she looked like a young Janet Reno-ouch! I wonder if she swings the same way as Reno does? Until next time...
MarkyMark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
