Sex is. Nothing you can think of will change this. Making people promise not to have sex is just one more thing that doesn't change the fact that sex is.
Cultures of the past, and in some parts of the present world, addressed this issue by enslaving the female part of the population. If females are kept separated from men, then they can't be having sex with them. This is the only approach that has proven to work.
Western cultures have chosen something called women's liberation, a situation where women are allowed to go around freely. This is going to result in sex. The alternative to a lot of sex is female enslavement. Take it or leave it.
I personally think male enslavement is a more logical option, but they're bigger and stronger.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Gay Marriage
Alan and Denny got married last night on Boston Legal in the final episode of that series. They were married by Justice Scalia. Gays protested since they were obviously not gay. Why shouldn't anyone marry anyone else? I don't get the fuss.
Traditional marriage that conservatives want so enthusiastically to defend meant that the woman passed from being owned by her father to being owned by her husband. Why should anyone want to defend that?
Traditional marriage that conservatives want so enthusiastically to defend meant that the woman passed from being owned by her father to being owned by her husband. Why should anyone want to defend that?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Prop 8
I will probably talk around the edges of this issue, but here goes.
On the one side is a bunch of people who want to get married and aren't allowed to. For these people this is extremely important, vital to the daily experience of their lives.
On the other side is a bunch of people for whom this whole issue is basically meaningless. They don't really know any gay people and would prefer that they never did. If somewhere there are gay people marrying, their lives will be completely unaffected. Unless they own a wedding store where their business will prosper. Their children might find out this is happening. Well, guess what? They will anyway. This group wants to cause suffering to other people just to feel that their fantasies are true.
Probably prop 8 isn't any more legal than the previous proposition that the supreme court overturned.
My recommendation is to get over it. Grow up and move on.
This is a lot more straight forward than I imagined it would be.
On the one side is a bunch of people who want to get married and aren't allowed to. For these people this is extremely important, vital to the daily experience of their lives.
On the other side is a bunch of people for whom this whole issue is basically meaningless. They don't really know any gay people and would prefer that they never did. If somewhere there are gay people marrying, their lives will be completely unaffected. Unless they own a wedding store where their business will prosper. Their children might find out this is happening. Well, guess what? They will anyway. This group wants to cause suffering to other people just to feel that their fantasies are true.
Probably prop 8 isn't any more legal than the previous proposition that the supreme court overturned.
My recommendation is to get over it. Grow up and move on.
This is a lot more straight forward than I imagined it would be.
Starbucks
Quote:
'According to friends, three weeks ago, Cendant Corp. founder Henry Silverman "abruptly" told his wife of almost 30 years, Nancy, that it was "over," and "moments later moved out of their apartment on East 72nd Street."
'In fact, insiders told Page Six that last spring, Henry, 68, met a hot, blond 28-year-old woman from the Midwest while in line at Starbucks at Columbus Circle. Henry chatted her up, gave her his number and told her, "Google me."'
I always go to that Starbucks when I am in New York. Once I met with my financial adviser there. A red Ferrari was sitting at the curb, and I asked him, "If I spent all the money I have, could I afford to buy that car?" Sadly, the answer was no.
'According to friends, three weeks ago, Cendant Corp. founder Henry Silverman "abruptly" told his wife of almost 30 years, Nancy, that it was "over," and "moments later moved out of their apartment on East 72nd Street."
'In fact, insiders told Page Six that last spring, Henry, 68, met a hot, blond 28-year-old woman from the Midwest while in line at Starbucks at Columbus Circle. Henry chatted her up, gave her his number and told her, "Google me."'
I always go to that Starbucks when I am in New York. Once I met with my financial adviser there. A red Ferrari was sitting at the curb, and I asked him, "If I spent all the money I have, could I afford to buy that car?" Sadly, the answer was no.
Liberal Media
My tirade about people shouting in Republican rallies came from watching Keith Olbermann. He's sort of a natural tirader, really too emotional and volatile for me. Rachel Maddow with her mild humor is more my speed.
After hearing all my life about the "liberal media," it's nice that finally there is one. I suppose if you are completely fascist it all seemed liberal to you. Now we have MSNBC and The Huffington Post to show us what a liberal media would actually be like.
In Sacramento we have the remnants of the Sacramento Union to show us what unfettered right wing media would be like. Sarah Palin was their candidate. In the old days we saw nothing but a pale abstraction of reality.
After hearing all my life about the "liberal media," it's nice that finally there is one. I suppose if you are completely fascist it all seemed liberal to you. Now we have MSNBC and The Huffington Post to show us what a liberal media would actually be like.
In Sacramento we have the remnants of the Sacramento Union to show us what unfettered right wing media would be like. Sarah Palin was their candidate. In the old days we saw nothing but a pale abstraction of reality.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Agenda
What are the big issues?
Financial meltdown.
2 wars.
Health care crisis.
Naturally I have opinions on all these subjects. Who doesn't?
I could rant endlessly about the financial meltdown alone. And probably will.
Why isn't it enough that the Iraqi government wants us out? The clearest thing I can say on this subject is that our military presence in the middle east is part of the problem. Would we like it if there were a lot of Arabs with guns patrolling our streets? Democracy is a flower that grows only in its native soil. It can't be artificially grown in an American military hothouse. The idea that all violence must cease before we can withdraw is a self-canceling phrase. These remarks are not intended to criticize the American military. It would be helpful, however, if they and their political leaders would learn to recognize what are military problems and therefore solvable by armies and what are not. Kuwait was a military problem fully solved by a military response. The present activities in Iraq are best described as nation building.
Off the subject question: Would someone please explain to me why placing missiles in Poland is not a provocation to Russia? "Because we say it isn't" will not be regarded as responsive. Suppose Khrushchev had said the missiles in Cuba were for shooting at Mexico and therefore not a provocation to the US? Would we have bought that?
After spending all this money on the bailout, health care starts to sound cheap. Just do it and get it over with. This is a problem we can fully expect to simply go away.
Financial meltdown.
2 wars.
Health care crisis.
Naturally I have opinions on all these subjects. Who doesn't?
I could rant endlessly about the financial meltdown alone. And probably will.
Why isn't it enough that the Iraqi government wants us out? The clearest thing I can say on this subject is that our military presence in the middle east is part of the problem. Would we like it if there were a lot of Arabs with guns patrolling our streets? Democracy is a flower that grows only in its native soil. It can't be artificially grown in an American military hothouse. The idea that all violence must cease before we can withdraw is a self-canceling phrase. These remarks are not intended to criticize the American military. It would be helpful, however, if they and their political leaders would learn to recognize what are military problems and therefore solvable by armies and what are not. Kuwait was a military problem fully solved by a military response. The present activities in Iraq are best described as nation building.
Off the subject question: Would someone please explain to me why placing missiles in Poland is not a provocation to Russia? "Because we say it isn't" will not be regarded as responsive. Suppose Khrushchev had said the missiles in Cuba were for shooting at Mexico and therefore not a provocation to the US? Would we have bought that?
After spending all this money on the bailout, health care starts to sound cheap. Just do it and get it over with. This is a problem we can fully expect to simply go away.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The case for long elections
Spending money is good. Stop moralizing about how much money is spent on presidential elections. Just get over. If you have money, you should spend it. Preferably you should spend it this month. It would help if the 100 richest Americans would each buy 100 cars a piece. Don't put it off. Buy them now.
To get to know someone really well requires a lot of exposure. Not every political candidate becomes the kind of comedic icon of a Sarah Palin. Most have to work very hard getting their names, faces and ideas into the media.
When Obama and Clinton were battling their way through the primaries, I was practically alone in thinking this was good for the process. By staying in the contest Clinton kept Obama in the press. We got to know him better. She is probably responsible for the fact that he is now the president elect. She was much better known and did not need this extra boost.
Running for president also changes a person. It changed McCain into an angry, bitter person we didn't turn out to like very much.
It changed Hillary Clinton into someone we liked for the first time. We admired and respected her before, though we didn't exactly understand her, but by the end she had changed into someone rather likable. This was the biggest surprise of the election for me.
I didn't know Obama before, but he seemed to loosen up toward the end. Maybe he will enjoy being president enough to let us enjoy it, too. I haven't enjoyed anyone since Jack Kennedy, whom I was too young to vote for. Besides, I probably would have voted for Nixon, the only politician I ever shook hands with.
Obama seems rather formal, even stiff sometimes, so it would not be good if that was all we got to see of him. We can hope he has changed into someone who is comfortable with being watched all the time. He seems remarkably unparanoid. I wish him and us well.
To get to know someone really well requires a lot of exposure. Not every political candidate becomes the kind of comedic icon of a Sarah Palin. Most have to work very hard getting their names, faces and ideas into the media.
When Obama and Clinton were battling their way through the primaries, I was practically alone in thinking this was good for the process. By staying in the contest Clinton kept Obama in the press. We got to know him better. She is probably responsible for the fact that he is now the president elect. She was much better known and did not need this extra boost.
Running for president also changes a person. It changed McCain into an angry, bitter person we didn't turn out to like very much.
It changed Hillary Clinton into someone we liked for the first time. We admired and respected her before, though we didn't exactly understand her, but by the end she had changed into someone rather likable. This was the biggest surprise of the election for me.
I didn't know Obama before, but he seemed to loosen up toward the end. Maybe he will enjoy being president enough to let us enjoy it, too. I haven't enjoyed anyone since Jack Kennedy, whom I was too young to vote for. Besides, I probably would have voted for Nixon, the only politician I ever shook hands with.
Obama seems rather formal, even stiff sometimes, so it would not be good if that was all we got to see of him. We can hope he has changed into someone who is comfortable with being watched all the time. He seems remarkably unparanoid. I wish him and us well.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
I feel proud
In this moment I feel proud of us. While across the globe there are countries fighting against the ethnicity next door, America has just elected an African-American president. All the analyses say that race played no role. It's hard to imagine that that is even possible. We are still a beacon to the world. We overcame our deepest bigotry, and you can too.
John McCain gave the best speech of his run this evening.
P.S. The worst thing about Republicans is when they stand in front of a crowd of red necked white people and call them the "real Americans." We are all the real Americans. I want to say this as unambiguously as possible--this is the reason I have never voted for a Republican. I never want my vote to be an insult to another American.
If they wished to refer to themselves as stereotypical Americans, I would have no objection.
John McCain gave the best speech of his run this evening.
P.S. The worst thing about Republicans is when they stand in front of a crowd of red necked white people and call them the "real Americans." We are all the real Americans. I want to say this as unambiguously as possible--this is the reason I have never voted for a Republican. I never want my vote to be an insult to another American.
If they wished to refer to themselves as stereotypical Americans, I would have no objection.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Excitement
This is the most exciting American election I have ever experienced. Something wonderful appears to be happening. My friends are afraid to say it out loud. We are hoping as hard as we can hope that intelligence will win over fear and hate. Even I went in and phoned people for an hour. We are hoping that so many people will vote that all the cheating in the world will mean nothing. We are hoping most of all that hope will win.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Plagiarism
If you read this blog, you will know he stole this from me. Even the wording is practically the same. Plagiarism.
If They're Too Big To Fail, They're Too Big Period
via Robert Reich's Blog by Robert Reich on 10/21/08
According to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the biggest Wall Street banks now getting money from the government are just "too big to fail.” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a different euphemism – he calls them “systemically critical.” The point is that if any of them goes down, it could take the whole financial system with it. So we taxpayers have to keep them up.
We’re hearing the same argument elsewhere in Washington for saving General Motors. It’s just “too big to fail.” So Congress is considering a bailout that would keep GM afloat and sweeten a merger between GM and Chrysler.
Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe – just maybe – it’s too big, period.
We used to have public policies to prevent companies from getting too big. Does anyone remember antitrust laws? Somewhere along the line policymakers decided that antitrust would only be used where there was evidence a company had so much market power it could keep prices higher than otherwise.
We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful. Too powerful in that so many other companies depended on them, so many jobs turned on them, and so many consumers or investors or depositors needed them – that the economy as a whole would be endangered if they failed. Too powerful in that they could wield inordinate political influence – of a sort that might gain them extra favors from Washington.
Maybe the biggest irony today is that Washington policymakers who are funneling taxpayer dollars to these too-big-to-fail companies are simultaneously pushing them to consolidate into even bigger companies. They’ve prodded Bank of America to take over Merrill-Lynch and Countrywide. JP Morgan to acquire Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. And now they’re urging General Motors to absorb Chrysler.
So we’re ending up with even bigger giants, with even more power over the economy and politics, subsidized by taxpayers, and guaranteed never to fail because they’re just ... too big.
If They're Too Big To Fail, They're Too Big Period
via Robert Reich's Blog by Robert Reich on 10/21/08
According to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the biggest Wall Street banks now getting money from the government are just "too big to fail.” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a different euphemism – he calls them “systemically critical.” The point is that if any of them goes down, it could take the whole financial system with it. So we taxpayers have to keep them up.
We’re hearing the same argument elsewhere in Washington for saving General Motors. It’s just “too big to fail.” So Congress is considering a bailout that would keep GM afloat and sweeten a merger between GM and Chrysler.
Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe – just maybe – it’s too big, period.
We used to have public policies to prevent companies from getting too big. Does anyone remember antitrust laws? Somewhere along the line policymakers decided that antitrust would only be used where there was evidence a company had so much market power it could keep prices higher than otherwise.
We seem to have forgotten that the original purpose of antitrust law was also to prevent companies from becoming too powerful. Too powerful in that so many other companies depended on them, so many jobs turned on them, and so many consumers or investors or depositors needed them – that the economy as a whole would be endangered if they failed. Too powerful in that they could wield inordinate political influence – of a sort that might gain them extra favors from Washington.
Maybe the biggest irony today is that Washington policymakers who are funneling taxpayer dollars to these too-big-to-fail companies are simultaneously pushing them to consolidate into even bigger companies. They’ve prodded Bank of America to take over Merrill-Lynch and Countrywide. JP Morgan to acquire Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. And now they’re urging General Motors to absorb Chrysler.
So we’re ending up with even bigger giants, with even more power over the economy and politics, subsidized by taxpayers, and guaranteed never to fail because they’re just ... too big.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Proposal
Here's my idea. It appears to be becoming a habit that we rescue companies with big chunks of government money because they are "too big to fail."
What if we decided that if they are too big to fail, they are also too big? Period. What if we decided that this was the perfect definition for the violation of anti-trust? What if the condition for accepting government bailouts was that you had to break your company up into a lot of small ones?
I thought of this the other day and have become quite fond of it. Then these nice small companies could die to their heart's content. There would be a transition, just as there is with any anti-trust break-up.
It would be the company's choice: work out your own solution to your financial problems or accept government money and break up into smaller companies. For me this is a traditional capitalist solution, contrasting sharply with the socialist solution where the government buys into the corporations.
What if we decided that if they are too big to fail, they are also too big? Period. What if we decided that this was the perfect definition for the violation of anti-trust? What if the condition for accepting government bailouts was that you had to break your company up into a lot of small ones?
I thought of this the other day and have become quite fond of it. Then these nice small companies could die to their heart's content. There would be a transition, just as there is with any anti-trust break-up.
It would be the company's choice: work out your own solution to your financial problems or accept government money and break up into smaller companies. For me this is a traditional capitalist solution, contrasting sharply with the socialist solution where the government buys into the corporations.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Republicans
The Republicans did well when they nominated John McCain. They did well because he was the only well known Republican that was perceived as at least a little bit independent of George Bush.
Then they messed it up by failing to establish a campaign that clearly distinguished John McCain from W. There is nothing about the administration of George W Bush that we want to continue. If we can't tell the difference between Bush and McCain, Obama wins.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Greenspan
All this hind site is starting to get on my nerves. The NY Times is now ragging on Alan Greenspan, blaming him for everything. I can remember when he was practically sainted.
I would like to remind everyone that I sold my house two years ago and now live in a ratty apartment because I completely saw this coming. It's almost time to buy. Not quite. Now that everyone has seen the light, things may start to improve.
I would like to remind everyone that I sold my house two years ago and now live in a ratty apartment because I completely saw this coming. It's almost time to buy. Not quite. Now that everyone has seen the light, things may start to improve.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain
For 5 minutes I thought I might vote for John McCain. He seems less slimy than Republicans usually do, more real, less knee jerk laissez-faire capitalist kiss-ass oil business flunky. (Yes, this is a precisely accurate representation of my opinion of the other party.)
Or did. In the last month this has all changed. If he wins based on his current tactics, I will be back to wanting to emigrate. His campaign is based on the idea that their is no bottom--one might continue to descend in the area of campaign tactics indefinitely. Intelligence, truth, honor are now all irrelevant.
I would like to remind everyone that he is already old and starting to show normal amounts of memory failure and dementia. Do you really want the endless comedy that a Palin presidency would involve? Maybe there is such a thing as too much laughter.
Or did. In the last month this has all changed. If he wins based on his current tactics, I will be back to wanting to emigrate. His campaign is based on the idea that their is no bottom--one might continue to descend in the area of campaign tactics indefinitely. Intelligence, truth, honor are now all irrelevant.
I would like to remind everyone that he is already old and starting to show normal amounts of memory failure and dementia. Do you really want the endless comedy that a Palin presidency would involve? Maybe there is such a thing as too much laughter.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Looks Like...
In an informal office poll 41% of Entertainment Weekly staff think
Sarah Palin looks like
Tina Fey. Let's hope it's all a comedy routine.
Follow up: Tina Fey to play Palin on SNL.
Sarah Palin looks like
Tina Fey. Let's hope it's all a comedy routine.
Follow up: Tina Fey to play Palin on SNL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)