It's pretty often I some comment on TV or in person, maybe in the lyrics of a song or some kind of news commentary, damning a good person with high morals for some slip up, or just blatantly casting dispersions without any substance at all. It seems to be rather in vogue to "damn the saints". Find someone of high character and dissect them until every possible flaw is magnified to such extremes as to make the subject seem to be some sort of heinous monster. But why? What drives this mad dash to prove the failings of others?

Jealously could be one factor, but I don't think it's the main cause. It's more a feeling of inferiority, caused by guilt. Those who spend endless time picking apart others seem to have a deep-seated problems of their own. Drugs and Alcohol, infidelity, lying, cheating, you name it. It's often very easy to see the flaws of these character assassins, be it the singer who preaches against the an elected official when their own past is littered with hookers and drugs, or the news commentator who's been married 5 times talking about infidelity of a minister. Those who caste stones typically have the large piles of rocks at their own feet, in the form of their own personal problems. These metaphorical rocks they caste are really their own problems they want to throw at others.

Sarcasm, apathy, cynicism, they are all forms of self defense. They are a way to deal with your problems by laying them at the feet of others. Of course, this doesn't solve anything. It only makes enemies, hurts others, and achieves nothing positive. It would make more sense for one to deal with one's own problems, rather then seeking out the flaws of others. But it's quite often the case that those with these problems refuse to let go of them.

I suppose, if you experience enough hardship and/or heartache, it simply becomes you. It becomes such a large, overwhelming facet of your being that it defines you as a person. You can literally lose yourself to depression, guilty, and suffering. Without it, you don't know who you are anymore.

If people want change, they have to be willing to let go of this burden. After while, it might seem like a pet or a badge of honor, but in reality, this kind of anger and pain is more of sickness that will only destroy you and hurt those around you. You've got to let go of it. And the first step isn't to lay it at the feet of others and accuse them of being responsible. The first step is to be responsible for it yourself.

Where is home? For too many of us these days, there is no real home. Long gone are the days when you could expect to have just one family home that you grew up. Most people have to move several times before they are adults. So the places you live in might not ever really have the time necessary to become "home". The longest my family ever stayed in a place was 15 years, with the shortest just a few months. The place where we stayed for 15 years sort of felt like home. But then I moved away, and then moved back, and then we all moved somewhere else, and soon it felt like I didn't have a home anymore. They were all just places where we stayed. Locations, not home. Even now, the apartment I live in by myself, for the last 3 years, doesn't really feel like home. It's just another place I'm staying. I'm never certain when I might move.

You know where I do feel at home? On my computer. It seems like that's the only constant I can cling to, my anchor in this world. As long as it's working and online, I feel like I have a base. Not only does it provide the very money I need to survive, but also alot of the personal connections I have. Now my computer is my home.

I have several computers, but my one, main desktop is my "home" computer. It's the only I really lean on. That is strange, in and of itself. All of my computers can access the internet and do the same things, but one of them feels more like home then the others. I guess the feeling of home is most connected to that which you rely on the most to anchor your world. And my desktop is that "home base" that I live around. Every other computer is more like a toy, since I don't rely on them. If they break down, I'm not troubled much by it. But when my desktop breaks down, I'm frantic. It's like the fragile anchor I've based my life on is shattered by the Blue Screen of Death, or some weird Disk Writing Error, that threatens the very core of my being. Sounds rather dramatic, eh? But as long as it's running, I feel all right. That might be why I never turn it off.

For people whom travel alot or have nothing at all, the concept of home is often reduced down to a thought or even a memory. It's possible to make your home out of a fantasy in your head of people and places. A thought you indulge in whenever you need some support and security. Such a home can never be taken from you, but it's lack of substance can make it fragile. Often these imaginary homes are anchored by some kind of memento. Just a little physical something you have that reminds you that this home is real. As long as you have that object, you know your mental home is real, and some sense, even that you're real.

I guess the concept of "home" is a constant that you build your life around. Be it a real location, or physical object, or even just an esoteric thought that keeps you grounded and stable in your mind. Something that makes you feel safe and secure, even if it's probably not. It holds you together and reminds you who you are. As long as you have that one thing, then all of the other chaos of the world can be dealt with in time. But without it, the crushing weight of the world could well overwhelm you.

I asked a psychology student today, "What is Crazy". Her responses was, "I know what is Crazy". Not exactly a clear definition. But then again, psychology as a whole isn't much of a clear science. Unlike other sciences that exist off imperial facts, psychology is defined more by society then by reason.

But under a more scientific light, what is "Crazy". Is it a detachment from reality? Is it an inability to blend in with society? Is it an inability to control one's actions?

A viewers of a scary movies often experience a detachment from reality, to the point where they jump when something scares them on the screen, or become paranoid after watching the movie of some kind of monster or boggy man that continues to stalk them like it did the characters from the film. This seems to be a rather sharp detachment from reality, but is acceptable because others have also experienced it as well. So detachment from reality seems acceptable as long as others have experienced the same thing, but unacceptable if nobody else has. This means that people that experience unique detachments are crazy only because nobody else has experienced what they feel. It's an interesting, if somewhat prejudicial way to look at things. Are we really to punish people for being unique? In psychology, that often seems to the case, because physiology is social motivated, rather then scientific.

How about the unwillingness, or inability, to blend in with society? This is always a volatile subject. How far out of society's norms should a person be allowed to act? If the actions are consciously driven upon by the individual, then it becomes an issue of personal expression verses social acceptability, which varies widely from region to region. Things like tattoo and dress can get a person into alot of trouble if the local population exercises alot of peer pressure against them. Of course, some people are completely incapable of acting like everyone else. Their actions always seem bizarre because they don't comfort at all to social norms. But really, should people be punished just for being different? This seems more a factor of local prejudice then an actual malady, depending of course, one if those actions harm another person. Then again, who hasn't seen a "Trespassers will be Shot" sign? Apparently, under the right circumstances, extremely anti-social behavior is acceptable, even to the point of death. It's all about what society is willing to accept.

How about the inability to control one's actions? Again, this seems to hang strongly on one's point of view. If you see something upsetting, it's considered acceptable to be angry about it. But becoming angry simply from a visual stimulus is an example of not being in control of one's actions. Certain things we aren't in control of at all, such as hunger and pain, so having those factors influence your actions is considered acceptable. Again this is because other people have experienced the same thing. Even killing and murder become acceptable, if other people agree that it is. Soldiers and Police shoot people, often people that don't pose any immediate threat to their lives, because they are told to do so. They aren't crazy or considered homicidal because their actions are justified by others, but people still end up dead, so the results are the same.

A man dismembers corpses in his basement, that's clearly crazy, right? But the man at the morgue does the same thing daily for slightly different reasons, and it's rational behavior. Is it "Rational Reason" make the autopsy a sane action? Hard to say, as what people consider rational is still set by society more then by the individual. The Slasher or Lone Gunmen might have plenty of rational reasons to kill people, in their opinion. These aren't likely to be reasons acceptable by others though. It's only the reasons for killing that society accepts that are considered sane and rational.

Psychology can seem like society's overbearing attempt to control individuals, but that doesn't mean it's without merit. Plenty of people seek out help from others to help mold their actions into something more desirable, not just by society, but by themselves. Compulsive behavior, bad dreams, irrational fears, these are all things that people actually seek out help to overcome. But really, this kind of help has existed since the dawn of mankind. From churches and temples, to bars and fraternities, people have sought out the help of others to control their own actions. A person with extreme dementia might have sought out an exorcist in the past, to purge them of their mental demons. And even today, a frightening number of people self medicate their problems away at bars. Who hasn't sought the comfort of a Beer when life's troubles get you down? Or Television, another popular source of self medication.

But overall, this makes psychology far from a science. It's more the current culture indoctrination of the exorcists of the past. Just another way for people to drive away the demons in their mind, when peer pressure and substance abuse fails.

On a side note, why do the people that study psychology always seem to have serious ego and personality problems themselves? That's something I'm still studying...

What is power? I don't mean scientific power, like a Watt or Joule. I mean human power within society. Human power is measured by your ability to get what you what. You're ability to influence things and people at your choosing. Is raw strength power? Certainly not by itself. If you have strength but choose not to use it, you have no power. Power is measured not only by your strength, but your willingness to use it. A small man with little strength exercises alot more power then a large man with great strength, if that small man is willing to do whatever it takes to get others to bend to his will, even to the point of self destruction. A man, willing to throw his life away for something, gains immeasurable power.

Of course, money is a large factor to power, as well as personal influence. But at the end of the day, your ability to get others to throw their lives away to suit your will is still the truest measure of power. You don't have to pull the trigger on the gun yourself, but somebody does, and this measures your power. Be it governor, dictator, or president, they all measure their power and influence based entirely on their number of men they can use to enforce their wills on others. Police Officer or a Soldier, power is still expressed through violence, or at least the potential of violence exercised on your behalf. This is what makes civilization possible.

But let's take this out of a global view of power, and back down to a personal level. This is something I've put a great deal of thought into, because women are attracted to power. The reason is simple enough, women want their children to have the best possible start in the world, and a father of great power will make that possible, as well as add his influence to her own. Of course, in their younger years, women often fail to recognize the greater power of money and influence, over that of raw strength and personal violence. A simple bully, willing to throw his life away over minor disagreements with others, has what appears to be power. Of course, in the long term, this anti-social behavior leads to perpetual poverty and, sometimes, prison. So this power is actually very limited and weak. What becomes apparent to most women, with a few years of experience and maturity, is that the more powerful man is one whom controls others *without* direct violence on his part.

But power as a whole is still very anti-social. Power requires you to crush others hopes and dreams if they are contrary to what you want. You don't have power unless you can bend others to your will. So even a business man, without any history of physical violence, still needs to exercise a form of social violence against others in order to have power. He needs to crush his competition, eliminate their ability to compete, and destroy their lives in ways far more lasting then just a black eye. If he doesn't, he doesn't really exercise alot of power. Because of the competitive nature of Power, if you don't exercise power, then power is exercised over you. You either control others, or you ARE controlled by others.

This leads to one continuing flaw of humanity; Only the most ruthless and moralless gain much power. But where does the peaceful leader stand in all of this? How does somebody like Gandhi factor into this situation?

The peaceful leader can only exist in conditions where the people he is standing up against lack the will to exercise violence. Gandhi is a good example, because of the inherently passiveness and good nature of the British people. If Great Britain had truly been a violence and heartless people, then a spray of bullets would have put down any insurrection in a heart beat. There were many men of Britain that did have such resolve and would exercise such violence to maintain their power. But these men required the support of the people of Britain to continue, no matter what they did, and those people lacked that kind of resolve. The people of Britain were progressively becoming more passive. They didn't have the will to commit vile acts in order to maintain their power, as they once had in the past. Improving living conditions and social activists made them soft. They grew sick of the endless bloodshed. So Gandhi was able to use the morality of the British people as a tool to undermine their power, and eventually achieve victory. Again, power is not only raw strength, but people's willingness to use it. And the will was simply not there to maintain Britain's hold over India.

Depending on others to back down in order to impose your will on them, or reject their control over yourself, is a noble means of pursuing power, but it's also highly flawed. There is no shortage of people without morality or restraint that would not hasten to commit vile acts in order to achieve their ends. And there are a small, clever, few whom manipulate the situation so they can commit their vile acts without violating morality in the eyes of others. They simply find means to justify their actions, or painting the victim as the aggressor. A small group of religious people in Waco Texas were exterminated, when they posed no threat others, nor actually did anything offensively. The justification of the American government was that they resisted, and the media helped to paint a picture of them as insane "cult" members. The government was then able to exterminate them without losing their moral stance, there by maintaining their power. Had the government not crushed these people, the power of "Law Enforcement" would have been rendered a serious blow. Again, power is maintained through violence. It is the only measure of power with any substance.

Coming back to my pervious point, Money is often considered Power. But the reality is that money is worthless. It only produces results as long as the power of those that print that money remain. If it wasn't for the guns of the police and army, that money would have no power at all. The strength and the unity of armed men, willing to kill on command, is what gives money it's power. The willingness to exercise violence is the only true measure of power. When two people disagree on something, and neither part is capable or interested in a compromise, it is the party willing and able to exercise the greatest violence that will get their way.

Of course, you don't actually need to hurt or kill anyone to have power. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Killing and harming people leads quickly to all kinds of repercussions. These can quickly undermine power, and resulting in far more lost then gain. Power is best used to intimidate. I suppose, to use a more popular modern term, this is Terrorism. The ability to inspire fear in others is how power is best exercised. The US government is a big user of Terrorism, by way of it's overwhelming military power and nuclear arsenal. This enables the government to exercise great power over the world, as well as maintain the value of it's money, as mentioned above. The ability to strike fear into friends and enemies alike is how power is maintained and used. When smaller governments and political groups use these same tactics, the US government is forced to crushed these threats to it's control with as much force as it can muster, simply to demonstrate that they are in charge and their power is to be feared above all others. The moral justification given after the fact are simply to maintain the general support of the population of the US, which has never been a particularly strong supporter of the violence, even if it's necessary to maintain power.

This is one strong disadvantage to a democratic government, is the constant need to justify the use of violence in order to maintain power. To this end, propaganda is essential to keep the public supporting the continued usage of violence. Again, power is not only a measure of your ability for violence, but your willingness to act. If a group like the US military is not willing to use their firepower to in order to threaten their enemies and friends alike, then it doesn't represent power. If a soldier backs down from killing a child with a gun, or blowing up an entire village to kill a handful of enemies, then it's true power is vastly reduced. This is the cost of power is always acts of evil.

There in lies the cyclical problem of the world. This is why wars never end. If you don't have power, you will eventually become oppressed by those that do. But in order to obtain and maintain power, you have to become ruthless about it. So, no matter how peaceful minded the people are, they are forced to due terrible things in order to have power, or be controlled by those that will. The only way peaceful people can continue to justify their actions is by self delusion. Usually this is the act of painting your enemies as truly evil, and changing facts to make your own actions look justified. And as the maintaining of power is a complicated and messy thing, it's unavoidable that these "peaceful" people are forced to do horrible things in order to maintain the appearance of power to others. This can even include killing their own people, just to demonstrate to the world that their government will not allow any form of opposition.

But bringing this all back down to a personal level again, the question I ask myself is, "Do I want power?". Power is a self-damning proposition, but it is the only means to get what you want from the world. How much would I sacrifice of my humanity to gain power? But then again, how much of my dignity would I sacrifice to others by allowing them to have power over me? This is the great balancing act of human existence. Do I harm others to gain control, or keep my humanity and by controlled by others. I'm afraid the answer is easy for the kinds of people that shouldn't have power. The more base and deplorable you are, the more power you are likely to covet. Isn't allowing evil people to gain power, itself, a crime against humanity? But can you really fight that crime by becoming a terrible person yourself?

In life, there are no easy answers.

Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one.
-Nietsche

My loneliness is epic. I'm afraid it's unquenchable. There is no human being that can fill this intense need that dwell within me. My heart is an endless, bottomless pit. It swallow up all affections, destroys trust, and can't be filled. Love is a lost cause. My only choice is to face existence alone. If I can just shut out all desire, close my empty heart, maybe I can go on. I won't live, but I'll exist. As long as I can remain without hope, I can continue on. Fragile, volatile, and empty. Nothing will ever fill me. I will remain a hollow man.

The world of men has not always been such a peaceful place. I'm certain many people will balk at me saying this (assuming anyone DOES read this), but we live in quite peaceful times when compared to those of our past. A good example is the glorious civilizations of the past, like that of the Romans. Well, on the surface Rome was the pinnacle of human achievement, under that polished marble and bronze facade lurked a violent and blood thirsty people, who's capacity for carnage would terrify the mind of any modern man. Their idea of civilized politics always ended in somebody getting stabbed to death, beheaded, burned, poisoned, eaten alive, or countless other violent ends. And this was in the highest ranks of their society, so you can only imagine the constant threat of death that followed around everyone else. For all of their achievement, the Romans were rotten to the core as a people. Rome's destruction was ensured from it's inception, because it was built on lies and blood. The true glue that held Rome together was humanity's dream for something better, but it lacked the strength and resolve to achieve their such lofty goals.

But as we move forward, we see humans progressively pushing more and more towards justice and peace. There have been no shortage of set backs, but again and again something better was built on the ruins of destroyed hopes, until we reach the present. If the humans of the past possessed the same technology we have today, they would have destroyed themselves in an instant. Their capacity for bloodshed vastly dwarfs those of modern man.

I would hope that this movement towards peace would be a reflection of human evolution, but genetics fails to work so quickly. Also there have been too many instances where humanity has had the opportunity to regress. So what common thread has been pulling humanity forward? Religion. Buddhism and Hinduism in the East, Christianity in the West.

I'm certain more then a few people would decry this, in such pessimistic and anti-religious times. Religion's connection to politics, as well as morality, as made it the made it the lightning rod for rebellious factions of our society, such as those hoping for radical social change and the young. It is both labeled as ridiculous superstition, as well social oppression. And it's hard to argue these points, as it probably is both. But what does it repress?

Humans are a dichotomy of two forces. One is our biological mind, and the other is our logic. The biological minds cares not for good or evil, right or wrong, justice or terror, but instead is drive by moral-less base instincts. It is a creature capable of great compassion, as well as bloody violence. It's neither good or evil. It is our logical mind, the soul that makes a human a human. This is what demands something more. It's our logical mind that desires justice, peace, and a better future for our children. Unfortunately, the logical part of the human mind is just too weak to control the biological at this time.

Well some people possess the self control and determination to maintain control over their biological mind, most of the time, the vast majority of people find this very hard. It's not easy to justify NOT breaking the law, if nobody gets hurt. It's NOT easy for a man refuse the advances of a desirable woman, even if those advances would destroy a happy relationship with his existing spouse. There are many weak points in time, millions of small decisions that occur everyday, where there is no overriding, logical argument to defeat more bias human instincts. And those small decisions add up quite a bit.

For example, one man might bump into another and rudely walk away without a second look. This situation can quickly escalate into fighting, which often can result in permanent injury, or even loss of life. Loss of life can create the need for revenge and retribution, which leads to family or even community based feuds. If the violence escalates, large scale blood loss can occur. And this butterfly effect of violence is easily spurred on by bad economic times and emotional instability, which themselves can be brought on by other violent acts and social unrest. The compounding effect of violence, injustice, and anger can lead people to dissolve the ties of civility completely, leading unending violence, anarchy, and self destruction.

But just one moment of peaceful thought can hold back this tide of suffering. If there is just the tinniest pressure to remain in control at a moment of temptation for violence, this tide of self destruction can be stemmed. And just imagine what effect might be had if everybody had this tiny positive pressure on their actions every day, to avoid conflict and keep the peace, in all of life's tiny decisions. You'd get the reverse butterfly effect of violence, and have a society that constantly moves towards peace.

This the effect of religion. It is hope for something better then what really exists. Some could call it a self-delusion, and it might well be. But it's a anchor in times of conflict. It's a bit of illogic that helps the logical mind control the biological when reason fails.

People often look at religion as a barrier, holding them back from being truly free. And this is also true. It is a barrier for certain, and it does hold you back. But what does it hold you back from? Violence? Lust? Greed? Are these things people really want to be free to do? I'd hope not... but that's just a personal opinion, and not a point of discussion. The point is that people are correct to see religion has both a restraint on their actions, as well as illogical superstition. But it is both these properties that make it such a powerful tool in helping mankind achieve their true dream, which is a better world. It's not perfect, but in all of human experience, it's works the best.

Some people have used religion as a justification for violence, which is unfortunate. Conflict is a natural part of humanity, and in times of conflict people use any and all tools at their disposal, including hijacking faith, to achieve their ends. I personally find this deplorable. It isn't religion that creates conflict though, it's humans. People's desire for another man's land and wealth, as well as fear of being attacked for theirs, is what leads to all conflicts. This is the true basis for every war ever fought. Religion is just the bystander, caught in the crossfire. Religion becomes a tool strong armed into something that is quite contrary to it's original purpose. As the old adage goes, "The Winner of every War had God on their Side". It's sad that religion is always stolen by those in power to justify the means necessary to defeat their enemy. War is a soulless and amoral monster, that devours everything in it's wake. But religion has little, to nothing, to do with it. People's inability to take responsibility for their actions is what is truly to blame.

You are the sunlight that brightens my day. You're words are the air that fills me with life, and being with you is the hope that keeps me alive.

You're disinterest is the gapping mouth that devours my soul. The darkness that consumers me and plunges me into the cold embrace of despair.

You're lovers are the fuel that feeds my rage. It is the black stains that twists my thoughts of you into madness.

You're heartache cuts through my rage like a knife. For I would give anything to heal your soul.

The thought of never speaking to you again is the heavy chain that binds me to you. No matter the pain, I can't let you go.

And so the cycle continues.

The Tragic Princess is my name for a certain class of young women, of whom you're probably very familiar with, as you'll find them everywhere. They are young, very attractive, and always in trouble, usually of their own creation. The creation of a Tragic Princess always seems to come from a poor father figure, or maybe none at all. Somehow, the lack of a father figure in their live always lowers their self worth. Their mothers never gave them much self esteem either (an interesting side note, their mothers almost always started out as Tragic Princesses themselves). So when these Princesses were young, they lacked both guidance, as well as emotional support. When they reached puberty, they began to attract alot of attention from men. This gave them the first sense of empowerment they might have ever felt. The advances of men also bolster their self esteem, since males often rain compliments down on the women they pursue. But this self esteem is fleeting.

There are many reasons why self esteem created by sexual advancement is a fleeting property in women. For starters, the compliments only last as long as the sexual stimulus in a man's brain exists. After ejaculation, reality begins to set in. The hazy fog of stimulation in the man's brain ceases, and he finally sees the women for who she truly is. If his original interest didn't extend past sex, he's likely to flee the scene like a criminal spotted by police. So the self esteem built up by men only interested in sex, is quickly smashed to bits by reality. A very attractive women is likely to inspire a great deal of stimulation in male minds, leading to flocks of men that adore her, but only as long as they don't reach orgasm. As the Princess learns of this fact, she tends to keep men close enough to keep them stimulated, but not close enough for actual sex. This is the situation that leads to alot of "Male Friends".

A woman with alot of "Male Friends" doesn't really have any friends at all, at least not men. What she has is something more akin to sexual worshippers. These are men that adore her body and the stimulation it brings. They helplessly follow her around like puppies, lead by instinctive mating urges. This group of men also help to distance the Princess from other women, since she sways the attention of men away them. Sometimes another women will follow the Princess around, either out of a hidden desire to capture the attention of one of her male flock, or out of some latent homosexual desire for the Princess as well. This is why alot of Tragic Princesses have lesbian encounters with their female friends. But again, sexual admiration is something quite different from real affection.

One great advantage for a less attractive women is that the men in her life tend to be there because they like her as a person, just as much as they want to be her lover. There isn't enough sexual stimulation to seriously cloud the judgment of perspective lovers, so there's more opportunity to appreciate the woman as a person. So well these less attractive women's opportunities for sex might be lessened, their chances of finding a lasting relationship are increased. A woman could well be too attractive for her own good.

The Tragic Princess, on the other hand, will undoubtfully engage in many relationships, very very few of which have any hope for a lasting relationship. This continued departure of lovers tends to batter the spirit. Every time their ego is built up by a pursuing male, it's smashed down again once sex is no longer a factor and he decides to move on. The Princess finds herself unable to believe anyone that compliments her, and the same self loathing she felt in childhood, is reinforced in her adulthood. This all leads to more self destructive tendencies that help to insure the Princess's life will be a troubled one.

As noted earlier, this Tragic Princess Syndrome is usually ciplical. Just as genetics give attractive features from mother to daughter, so too does mother pass down her Tragic Princess state of mind to her daughter. Because of the number of lovers the Princess encounters, pregnancy often results. But due to the revolving door of relationships, this almost always leads to a single parent household. Of course, simply being a part of a single parent household doesn't lead to the creation of new generation of Princesses. The key factor is the low ego and emotional problems of mother. A parent with ego problems isn't going to be very supportive or strong, since they have many of their own issues to deal with. Without strong support at critical times in a child's development, the girl produced will likely have the same ego issues that caused strife in her mother's life. And if she's attractive, she too will become part of the Princess cycle.

This covers both the symptoms and origin of the Tragic Princess, but what about solutions? Since the issue seems to center around self esteem, a woman in this cycle should seek to improve herself and her self image. Avoid the use of men to improve her self image, as they will only help continue the cycle of self loathing. Instead focus on building herself up as a person, through career and other forms of self improvement.

There is always the temptation to return to using men for an ego boost, but like a drug, the effects don't last and the repercussions in guilt and loathing of men will only make things worse. It's easy to look down on those you can control. But when you put yourself on a pedestal as Master, you also distance yourself from those you control. It's lonely at the top. As long as a Princess uses sex to control men, she will never get to know them as people, and they will never know her as a person either. Don't be sexy, don't flirt, don't accumulate more "Male Friends". Monogamy is the only means to producing a lasting relationship, and I don't mean just monogamy of sex, I also mean monogamy of the mind. Continued flirting with others will only distance the Princess from the one lover she truly desires. Make a choice, stick with it. You can't ever have it all, but if you're lucky, you can have what you need.

What is Morality? Is it just random set of laws written down in a book? Is Morality something handed down by a magically god upon high, just to stop you from having fun? I know more then a few people that think so. Some people hear the word Morality and run and hide because they see it as little more then chains and shackles, holding them back from their blissful, hedonistic fun.

But you know what Morality really is? It's just a good idea. Morality is all about avoiding, or doing, the things that will make you happier in the long run, and improve the lives of those around you.

For instance, sure, stealing is easy. Who doesn't want to take whatever they want, whenever they want? It makes you feel POWERFUL! But it also hurts people. If you've ever been robbed, you know that first hand. Being stolen from sucks.

Not only does it suck for you personally, but it sucks for everybody else too, because we all start to loose faith in one an another. Soon everybody is locking their doors, hiding their stuff, attacking people for just looking in their general direction. Stealing is just a bad idea. In the long run, it makes the world a worse place. Easy to understand, right? Stealing is a bad idea.

How about another immoral thing to do, like having alot of sex with random people. Sure, sex feels GREAT! Who doesn't want to pound one out whenever you get a chance. He likes it, she likes it, the donkey looks happy, whatever!

But when you screw around alot, you pass around alot of nasty diseases. And no matter what vacant, vapid, small brained doof tells you, screwing around hurts your feelings eventually. Sex without love will eventually leave you feeling very empty inside, heartless and alone. I don't care who you are, I've seen it time and time again. It ruins people's hearts and souls. Eventually they can't even have an trusting relationship with anyone.

And, of course, the big issue with rampant sex, unwanted pregnancies. Either somebody has to take care of them, or people just kill them before they are born. Either way, a baby suffers, the mother suffers, even the father (when child support kicks in!).

And do I really need to point out the problems with killing people? I think that's a level of immortality that everybody can understand. How about breaking other people's things, taunting others, making up your mind about people before you know them? These are all immoral things. And don't even tell me that's just a Right-Wing thing. How many times have you seen somebody with a baseball cap and wife beater shirt, and instantly made up your mind about them?

Moral codes, like the ever popular Biblical ones, are things that wise men wrote about, not because they were dicks and wanted to spoil everybody's fun, but because they cared about their fellow man and wanted their fellow man to live a happy and fulfilling live. Morality isn't handcuffs or a prison cell, but a set of ideas that help you get along with people, and not be a total dick. It's not about reaching a heaven after you die, it's about making a heaven right here, on Earth.

On a side note, it's worth pointing out that freedom and civil rights can only exist if people have the self control and morality not to act like rutting animals. Animals end up in cages. If you can't control yourself and exercise some responsibility, then you can't be a free man. A continued path of irresponsibility by the masses will only lead to a complete police state, since people that act like out of control children will need a Big Brother to watch over them constantly. If you value your freedoms so much, excess some morality with them. Because if you don't clean up your act, you can bet some police office will do it for you!

I'm sick of Tourists. Well, I suppose it would be more accurate to call them College Students, but really, they are tourists for all intensive purposes. They come to Chico, sit around, drink, live in their own little world, occasionally tear things all to hell, and then up and leave. They take up all of the jobs, create an amazingly bad reputation for all young people in Chico, cause all kinds of trouble, and, unless you work for the College, give nothing back to the community but Grief. Not that they care, they are Tourists after all. Chico is just another stop on their lifetime of spending their parent's money and partying. I suppose it might not be so bad, but Chico has a reputation as a "Party College", so only the most spoiled and unmotivated students show up here.

Well it's annoying on alot of levels, one that is particularly getting to me is that it's hard to meet a nice woman in this town. With the flood of college-age bimbos, it's easy to loose sight of nice local girls. And, thanks to the terrible influence of this "Party College", alot of the local ladies have very... um... "colorful" pasts. In other words, Drug/Alcohol problems, illegitimate kids, divorces, STD's, emotional baggage, stalker ex's... and this is all by the time they are 21. It's all very depressing.

I suppose I could up and move. Just uproot my entire existence to some place a bit more quite. But I just barely know most of Chico, I can't imagine how many years it would be until I could settle into some other place. And I would miss my family alot. They are the only people I physically talk with on a regular basis. I work at home, I don't even have Co-workers to mingle with. If I moved some place away from them, I would really be alone.

Another annoyance is the complete and total self absorption these College Students have. I'm pretty certain they see everyone in this town as cardboard cutouts. Not like real people, but just obstacles in their path to their true future, somewhere else. They don't have any common decency. And yet they never fail to point out the flaws of others.

Some parent swats their kid on the butt, and these vapid parasites decry the incident as if a war-crime had been committed. But they know the quickest path to the abortion clinic if the birth control fails. They have no responsibility to anyone but their own self-centered existence. I think they cover for this by pointing out the problems of others. I suppose, in their mind, as long as they can find somebody worse then they are, then they are prefect. You could say, they absolve their sins by punishing others.

Maybe I'm just getting too old for this shit. I just can't stand people that smoke, drink, and screw around like there's no tomorrow, and yet never do anything with their lives but complain about how bad everybody else is. I can't stand the endless bitching about the problems they seen in the world, from people who's great contribution to society is getting stoned all the time. I'm sick of this carefree, screw-tomorrow-because-I-don't-live-here, Tourist mentality. Actually, worse then Tourists, as at least Tourists spend money and have a marginal interest in the locals.

I don't care if people want to bitch, as long as they do SOMETHING. But this childish finger pointing, holier-then-tho attitude is just ticking me off.

This isn't really much of a post. It's not a coherent thought with a point, I'm just rather annoyed.