Lately every thing I say sparks an angry debate, so now I'm just going
to start asking for it. Hope you're all still talking to me by the end
of this.





White guilt is really veiled White Supremacy, because it works on the
belief that white people naturally controlled everything, and that they
should have known better. The whole premise of white guilt stems from
the idea of white people being more civilized than everyone else, which
is utter bullshit. White people just invented bigger weapons and
angrier religions.



People forget that the civilized world did not emerge until sometime
right before Kennedy got shot. And not the first Kennedy either; I'm
talking about Bobby.



People who claim to feel white guilt are actually being condescending
assholes, and your best line of defense is the clothes-line. Right in
the mouth, too. These people claim to feel ashamed that they are white,
but they are actually tossing around a world-history view in which
white people were big and advanced and mighty, and everyone else was
prancing around the jungle just happy to finally have mastered fire.
Out of nowhere, white people arrive and kick ass with just the pinky
finger left free from sipping their tea. Without taking responsibility
for their awesome power, these towering Arian Emperors bring
corruption, hate, wastefulness, and a general lack of culture to the
childlike races they conquer.



Horseshit.



The truth is, white people were just as quaint and uncivilized as any
image you may have of some cannibal dancing around with his brother's
bone through his nose; especially the proponents of white supremacy.
Think of the Ku Klux Klan, wearing fierce costumes, dancing around a
fire, calling to their angered God to help them destroy their enemies.
We have words for people like that, very very White words... like...
FILTHY SAVAGES. I like that one, it has a nice colonial ring to it.
White people were filthy savages.



Not to say anyone else was any better; that would be self-defeating.
Frankly, everyone was an asshole, and the people who don't like to
admit it can go straight to PC Hell. Native Americans were always
slaughtering each other like livestock and taking over each others'
land. Indians had a class system that made segregation look as
reasonable as having separate men's and women's bathrooms by
comparison. Africans were massacring each other and trading slaves long
before white people joined the party. So what exactly was the
difference?



Guns. Seriously. Fucking guns. A white guy saw Chinese fireworks and
said "I bet I could use that to put a chunk of metal through my
neighbor's skull all the way from my front porch..." And the rest is
history. A bunch of savages spent eons battling for supremacy, with
only occasional notable success by one or the other (usually Egyptians,
Chinese, Romans, or that one Frog). But then white people started doing
drive-by shootings in their massive sailboats and it pretty much became
a crackers-and-cheese kind of world from there. There was nothing too
spectacular about it.



Sometimes white people gave other people guns, but it worked the same
way then as it does now. We'll sell you the missile launchers, but if
you want the nukes you have to go haggle with Russia. And history has
taught us that Russia was too far of a swim for the Indians.



The funky thing about slavery is that it had a lot less to do with
guns, and a lot more to do with receipts and mail-in rebates. The
funnier thing is just as many white slaves were owned in North Africa
as Black Slaves were owned in the United States. White people were just
as bad about selling each other for table salt as anyone else, the
difference was they had Swiss Bank accounts to hide the profits in, so
no one had to know about it.



It was kind of the same thing with the beginning of white supremacy;
white people needed to figure out a way to sell each other out without
catching a lot of shit for it. White people in America needed a way to
separate their white slaves from their black slaves, without loosing
labor. The result was the invention of white supremacy, and white
solidarity, by white people who knew both things were bullshit, and
only believed in Rich Supremacy (now often referred to as the GOP).



So they told their white slaves that they had been freed because they
were the Rich white folks' brothers. They were free to go the hell away
into the woods and fend for themselves... or, they could stay, and for
a wage that was smaller than the original cost of feeding and housing
them as slaves, they could pay rent and be overseers, like big-shots.
So naturally these brilliant men started paying rent, lynching people,
growing mullets and going to war so the Rich white folks' children
wouldn't have to.



White Slave Owner: "Wow, you guys are really gung-ho about this whole turncoat/backstabber thing..."



White Guy With No Chin: "No one's ever called me 'Brother' before..."



White Slave Owner: *pats WGWNC on the back* "And no one else ever will... ever again."



Self hating white-guilters are really just liars, they don't really
want to help; they just want to sound good. They talk a lot of shit,
but when it comes down to it, they
don't want to give you reparations either. But they don't have to admit
that, because they live an ideal lifestyle where they can say all they
want with no risk of having to shell anything over. The average
white-guilter is extremely liberal (until a gay guy hits on them) and
as such lives only in areas where they have no land to hand over to any
black people; like a studio apartment in the upper-east side. This also
means they don't have a mule (in most cases).



This isn't really the worst aspect of white-guilter supremacists
though, since as a matter of fact, the only people who actually believe
in reparations are the people who would receive them, which after you
take into account all the blacks in America who are recent immigrants,
and blacks who have married white women, is almost no one.



Part of the reason for this is that the government could not possibly
get something like reparations right. It would be a lot of tax dollars
spent on something that would not actually stop anyone from
complaining. While the government does
like big expensive gestures that don't actually help the people they
are trying to shut up, no one has the time or patience for troubles
that come with that particular undertaking. The original agreement is
not very attractive by today's standards, and that would come back to
bite Congress on the ass sooner than later. First of all, to most
people, a mule's maintenance and fuel intake expense is extremely
disproportionate to its output of usefulness, and not in an acceptable
way like an SUV with spinning rims. Secondly, we've already tried the
whole land-giving thing for people we once oppressed, and that had
depressing results at best. The first time it was called
"reservations", the next time it will be called "gentrification" as
it's not especially likely those acres will be coming out of prime real
estate. The third problem is that giving money to people who might
possibly need it is communism, and seriously, fuck that.



Also people tend to think we've already given reparations based solely
on the fact that slaves bought by white people now get to live in
America, and slaves who weren't bought by white people still have to
live in Africa. Good deed for the day DONE. It's not quite right, but
it has it's merit. It's wrong that white people bought slaves, but
either way you'd be descended from slaves, and your particular
circumstances lead you to be a descendant from slaves who owns a
Nintendo and doesn't have AIDS. It's still pretty flimsy as an argument
against reparations, but it startles the shit out of most sensible
people, and then they pay attention to your next couple of paragraphs.



The real reason no one likes reparations is because everyone feels only
the guilty should be punished (billed) and no one thinks they are the
guilty party. This is fairly reasonable since no one really brags about
Great Great Grandad's Plantation these days, so even if you're
descended from slave owners, no one has really broken it to you yet.
Furthermore, most Americans actually aren't descendants of slave
owners. Even Americans who have been here for generations are
statistically low in slave-owner ancestors. When slavery was in its
prime, owners still only made up a small portion of the population, and
the slaves in the North (back when they had them) were primarily white.
Which brings up the lesser-known issue of the fact that half of all the
white people who came over on boats around thanksgiving time were
slaves. Way more people, not just black, are descended from slaves than
from slave owners, so who really gets reparations? The confederacy also
had higher casualties than the Union, so way more people are
descendants of abolitionist soldiers than Confederate fucktards. It's
hard to sort all that shit out in fair terms. And since the only white
people who actually claim to consider themselves part of the guilty
party are actually racist as hell, it will never even make it to a
vote. And Obama's not going to do shit, but you already knew that. If
you want to be really specific about getting paid back, you can also
track down the asshole salesman, usually another African, occasionally
a greasy kidnapper from Spain. Getting reparations from Spain would be
kind of cool, they do after all, have land and mules.



Some kind of comeuppance for Jim Crowe type laws might be in order though. Maybe a national flog-a-guy-in-a-pickup-tru

I think everyone is pretty tired lately, me especially, but it doesn't mean I get to be innactive at all, in fact I work six days in a row starting yesterday, and I can't stop getting into political debates when I'm 'relaxing'.

But in a way at least I have peace of mind.

I've actually accomplished a new level of peace of mind concerning about a half dozen personal issues concerning a half dozen people. Things I won't really even hint at here, but basically the things that have kept my mind toiling at night when I try to sleep mysteriously all were thrown around and eventually knocked into their correct positions in he past few days. In fact the timing was probably something I was subconsciously responsible for, having it out with so many people in the span of two days. The Election did it to me.

The election was another such peaceful ending. I've had my political outs with everyone already and I'm sure this will just bring more, but I woke up at 5:30 AM on Tuesday to vote, with a nervous ache in my stomach believing that John McCain was actually going to pull off some kind of massive turn around, and be the next person making decisions about my people's lives, safety, money and morality. The announcement that Obama defeated him by 200 electoral votes with many states left to go produced a kind of calm and swell of happiness and relief I will never be able to make anyone who believes in the ideals of our current republican leadership to ever understand.

Part of me was also overjoyed that I actually did get to witness the election of our first black President. I know I try to look at things with race as an irritating leech from the past, and usually view things from an outside perspective, but this actually felt incredible.

8 years that I have felt every second of in my gut have stopped clamping up on me, and fallen away. We can return to the healthy prosperous country I grew up in. It's like coming home.

People will be irritated with me for that statement and I'm sure it would be easy for someone to bring up something about how John McCain was not George W. Bush, or start some tirade about how Obama's policies are almost sort of socialist-ish, if you view everything in extremes... but at this point, I could care less. I'm too at peace knowing that the economy that made my family poor and on edge through my earliest years, that returned to us these past eight years will be ousted for the one I thought could never end during my middle youth. I am at peace knowing I don't have to write any more angry blogs about people with real power trying to destroy our constitution with homophobic scribble for at least four years. I'm at peace knowing the focus of the war on terror will resume being faced on terrorists. I am at peace knowing how many of my generation will be coming home from violent wasteland streets where they die for things so dispicable I cannot imagine how anyone believes in them. I am at peace knowing someone who thinks infrastructure is an important investment is taking my tax dollar. I am at peace knowing people who believe in education and equality within that very system are the ones holding my tax dollars soon. I am at peace knowing someone who does not believe the natural and right state of the economy is a majority of strugglers, holding on to the bare necessities, with little or no luxuries, surrounding a rare few men of the American dream who live in wealth that is hard to imagine; is regulating the economy. I am at peace knowing that someone who is not an extremist religiously, economically, or socially is at the helm... soon.

For all of these things I wait, but I can sigh of relief that they are somewhat set in their happening.

But a third strange thing happened the next morning. Another kind of ending and parting that does not necessarily make sense to be so large for me personally. Michael Crichton was reported dead by his family.

If you don't know who Michael Crichton is, I'll list the hand full of his books that were adapted into hit-or miss, but always well known films: Jurassic Park, The Lost world, Congo, Sphere, The Andromeda Strain, Rising Sun, Disclosure, The Great Train Robbery, Eaters of the Dead (the 13th Warrior), and Timeline.

Crichton was my first real author, back when I was still a kid in 1993 all souped up about Jurassic Park. First book aimed at adults ever read. To this day I've read 17 of his books. They are formulaic, I must admit, but it's a good and unique formula, and he encouraged me to always write an extreme level of detail and fact and realism into everything. He made technical scientific information readable and interesting without leaving anything out or bogging it down. His books that were considered Sci-fi, could all for the most part be considered science fact within a few decades. He was never a fantasy author, and I liked that.

His non-fiction was something I enjoyed even more than his fiction. Travels, which details the most fascinating parts of his adul life in brief episodes is something I read repeatedly when I need more information or inspiration to obtain my own life experiences.

Which is why it was a shock. He was secretly battling cancer, and though he always looked 20 years younger than everyone else his age, he was really dying. A man I certainly expected to outlive most of his generation, died at 66.

I could get into detail on my annoyance towards the end of his life with how he used his book in a way that was hypocritical to the points about politics that he had made in it, but that seems harsh and pointless now. He was always way ahead of everyone else anyway, maybe I just didn't get it. In any case it's strange that the man who made me a writer has written his last book. I should consider myself lucky, as most people learn to love to write from authors long dead before they were born.

But in some way I am at peace with this as well. Things end. This has. Ian Malcolm is dead this time, it's not a mistake.

I don't think I hate anyone anymore. Seriously, anyone.

For the first time in years, I shall sleep well.

My least favorite thing about debates is that they are very subjective to the observer. If you believe one person is honest and the other is not, and you do not have a fact sheet in front of you, whenever the two site opposites as fact, then you simply believe the one who is telling the truth is your boy.

So no one really ever wins a debate.

In terms of justification, both candidates exaggerate their points. I don't like it but it's not too severe.

Case in point Obama in the first debate said 95% of American's would get a tax cut under his plan. Inaccurate; 95% of Americans filing as families will receive a tax cut. The 95% of people filing as single will see their taxes stay the same. In the third debate Obama reworded it to "95% of Americans will not see their taxes increase under my plan." Which makes the statement accurate without full admitting he was inaccurate the first time.

Similarly McCain cites our spending $600 million on oil in countries who don't like us. Inaccurate; we spend $500 million on foreign oil total. That amount includes the oil we buy from our allies like Canada. McCain unfortunately did not attempt to rephrase this in the third debate, he used it again verbatim.

And that's why he is down in the polls. Even if something is common knowledge as being a lie or mis-statement or a wrong choice, McCain keeps harping on it as if he's deaf, and we do not need a president who does that during policy making, or during diplomatic discussion.

Something people occasionally bash Obama for is when he says "John is absolutely right about..." during debates. But pay attention. Obama listens to what McCain says, and gives him credit when credit is due for having a correct idea or assumption, and then illustrates areas where McCain is shortsighted in his opinion or chases the incorrect method by Obama's estimation.

McCain's method is to make a false statement about a well documented aspect of Obama's policy, and after Obama explains how the statement is false, McCain plays deaf and does not adjust his argument. Instead of trying to find a fault or difference with Obama's method, he repeats the same inaccurate description of Obama's plan.

McCain has many fundamental differences with Obama and Obama's way of solving problems, but instead of citing those differences in perspective as his argument against the Democrat's policies, he tells people Obama's policies are something other than what they actually are. It's hard to have confidence in the plans of a man who cannot defend his own ideas and differences with his opponent without making false claims about what the opposing view actually is.

Joe The Plumber.

McCain would not shut up about Joe the Plumber. In brief:

McCain pointed out that Obama talked to Joe the plumber, and Joe was afraid that after he took over the plumbing business he had worked for so many years, that his taxes would go up too high for him to succeed as the owner of a business.

Obama confirmed that indeed happened, but his plan involves keeping taxes the same for people making less than $250,000 a year, 95% of taxpayers, and has included tax breaks and special program opportunities for small businesses. Businesses getting tax increases will be large multi million dollar corporations, not small businesses.

This is true. Joe works for a plumber who's business makes over $250,000 dollars... but no individual makes over $250,000. That figure is the gross of the business, not an individual, meaning even if Joe took over (which he can't he doesn't have a plumbing license) his taxes would not increase even without receiving Obama's small business help benefits. only 5% of Americans make over $250,000 a year, that number includes almost no small business owners, as it is nearly impossible for a small business to create enough revenue for any individual in the company to make $250,000 individually and still fall under the category of "small business".

Later McCain claimed Obama's Health plan would hurt Joe by forcing him to provide health insurance for his employees or be fined by the law, and forced to use the government health care system.

This is also not true. Under Obama's plan, Small businesses are exempt from being fined for not providing benefits to employees, it provides the government health insurance plan as an optional choice for Joe or his employees if he or they cannot afford other private insurance companies.

McCain gives a $5,000 health tax credit to individuals. The average health premium is 4 times that, and his plan causes the guidelines that require private insurance companies to take older patients and patients with pre-existing health conditions to expire, without creating a new option for those people who cannot get insurance from private insurers under those circumstances, making that $5,000 essentially useless. He then finishes destroying the point of that credit by taxing job health benefits for the first time in history, which actually WILL increase Joe's taxes if he provides health insurance for his employees, and does not provide a new option for his employees if he does not. This essentially takes the $5,000 tax CREDIT, and makes it into a RETURN, and thus you MAY break even, but you are not just getting an extra $5,000.

Research is a funny thing like that..

Research is also funny because it made me think I was wrong for a minute. I found a comparative financial site that's projections showed McCain's plan increasing jobs and gross far better than Obama's. I was fascinated and wanted to see how my math was so wrong and theirs was so different then mine. I got excited too soon. The at each stage the comparison cites all of the factors that the projections do not take into account, and those factors included Spending, The war, the fact that Obama's plan is flexible and McCain's plan is permanent and does not allow for adjustments (the projection pretends both stay exactly the same without adjustments or time line programs which is drastically inaccurate in calculating Obama's plan), differences in policy regarding business regulation, education, the new health plans or the taxes as concerning the health plans, McCain's plan on balancing the budget, Obama's tax cuts for businesses that create jobs in America instead of outsourcing, etc.

As I read further I found that the writers of the research also believe strongly in the trickle down economic system, and calculated that as a parameter for all the projections, spending about a page on explaining how cutting taxes on the top executives in large corporations causes them to invest in in more endeavors, which creates the need for more materials and resources, which creates more jobs. In that stage they failed to mention the factors that were not included in the projections such as the cumulative data on the real-world effects on the American economy during the 12 year stretch of R. Reagan, and G.H.W. Bush, and under the 8 years of G.W. Bush, CEO bonuses as investments, rates at which money is invested in bank accounts in real-world situations (basically it shows how the system COULD work if everyone is nice and throws all of their extra earnings into American investments, without taking into account the real world rates at which that actually does or doesn't happen)

The article also failed to articulate the fact that Obama's plan does a better job of paying for the government, by receiving higher taxes from the group of people who though they only represent 5% of the population, represent 33% of the population's pre-tax income. Obama's plan cuts taxes for families in the lower 5 (out of 7 total) income brackets but leaves the taxes on single taxpayers the same. Obama's plan increases the government's funds to be used towards programs and balancing the budget (which won't happen under either plan and at least Obama is honest about that timeline) while only increasing taxes on people who make between 6.25 times and 27.93 times the gross income of the average American family.

Those poor souls who make between $250,000 and $1,117,000 annually will be increased from 36% taxes to 39% taxes while everyone else who makes less than 250,000 (the average person/family making about $40,000 - $55,000) are living it up like kings on still only 36% taxes.

Tough break, really.

In McCain's plan every bracket gets taxed roughly 36%, but there are more loopholes for large businesses (which Joe will not qualify for), and for the first time in history, your health benefits will be taxed.

So I guess it will be another day before someone gives me evidence to change my mind.

The next issue I found startlingly irritating during the debate was the energy policy discussion. McCain accused Obama of missing the big picture of using American off shore drilling. Obama pointed out that he wanted to look into offshore drilling to see if it was worthwhile or not before making a decision, and that first he wanted to push Oil companies to drill on the land they already own which they have not developed yet. He also pointed out that we consume 11% of the world's Oil, but even with offshore drilling will only provide under 3% of the world's oil, and therefore it was not a solution to the problem.

This is an overlooked issue that has irritated me for a long time; Oil companies currently own very large areas that are not yet being used due to a lack of money being invested into developing that land for oil rather than other investments the oil companies are making. The push to create more offshore drilling simply gives drilling land to companies that already are not drilling to their full potential. It's just an excuse to give certain companies more real-estate. It's a complete waste of time. And given the fact that Obama's statement about 11% consumption verses 3% potential output is actually completely true, it really is a futile endeavor. Keep in mind that with only 3% output we are still the third greatest oil producing country in the world. It's not as if we aren't already pumping our own gas, we just need more than ANYONE actually has.

McCain also harped on Nuclear power. Plutonium and Uranium are not cheaper than oil, and radioactive waste needs to be sealed and protected for 20 to 50 thousand years. Japan, whose favorite hobby is taking something Americans thought up, and making it better and faster, have not managed to make widespread nuclear power efficient yet, and they've been working on it for 30 years longer than us. Again, this is a really poor solution, and is coming from a man who believes it is necessary to cut American scientific research and development to accommodate the economic difficulties, and the Wars that he feels we need to send more troops into (while somehow costing us less money than it is now with less troops in those countries than his plan entails, that would take some stroke of genius.)

Obama's plan involves increases in development of land and water based wind energy (which 15 years of study concludes is more cost effective and efficient than nuclear energy, and new studies are finding does not effect bird species diversity and life as was once expected) and more research and development of geothermal, solar, cellular etc. McCain has only recently stated he has any desire to have the country look into these options, and only after he was criticized for not considering them, AND still has yet to give any plan regarding HOW he intends to create programs to develop these resources.

McCain's energy plan is more expensive and less efficient, not to mention less environmentally sound. A Lose, Lose, Lose, situation.

Afterwards the Roe V. Wade argument was brought up, at which point McCain accused Obama of voting for late term abortions and partial birth abortions.

Obama replied that he had voted down a bill that did not allow exceptions for situations in which the health and life of the mother was at stake. The state already had laws in place that prevented such late term abortions, so he felt comfortable that he was not doing harm by voting against the bill until it included text protecting the rights of the life of the mother.

McCain scoffed at this and said something that infuriated me beyond anything a politician has uttered out loud so far in the past 3 elections. He said we need to change American culture.

The beautiful thing about America is that it has many cultures, and many ways of thinking about things. McCain misses a fundamental part of America. You can make a law that tells people not to harm each other, but you cannot tell them what to think of each other. Someone is probably thinking he means the same thing as when Dr. Martin Luther King would say we need to change culture to eliminate racism. But I've watched McCain and Palin long enough to know he means we need to all be Christian conservatives, and that his way of thinking should be taught. He and his VP are already pushing for Abstinence Only education, and Intelligent design theory (Which Palin still blatantly calls Creationism, because she's that far gone) so another statement from McCain, no matter how seemingly small, that refers to the Christian Right thought police is enough to send me into a rage these days.

He also pissed me off by saying that for a Justice to the Supreme Court there would not be an opinion litmus test, that it would be about qualifications... and followed that up by saying that a person who regularly upholds Roe V. Wade would show through that decision that they were unqualified... Wow.

Then Obama shied away from pointing out the fact that as a professor of Constitutional Law, he was well equipped to choose a Supreme court Justice based on merit instead of just an opinion litmus. That made me almost as irritated with him as with McCain. But I suppose he did not really have to say anything spectacular after McCain made two terrifying statements within a minute of each other. Not difficult to compete against.

Obama is against abortion, but is for state legislation instead of federal constitution changes. He also believes in the rights to health and life of the mother of the unborn child. That is how most democrats feel, and that is how most vote. Most state laws reflect this. Obama was smart and made a jab at Palin's
abstinence only education stance, and it's statistical correlation to abortion rates and unwed mother numbers (and was finally a jab at Palin's personal situation, which the official Obama camp has been ignoring until now) But I'm sure none of that matters to anyone who is fundamentally conservative.

That pretty much concludes what went on in the debate, and why I believe as a nation we need to send a "Dear John" to Mr. McCain. I believe this will happen, but believing is not enough, action will make it happen. I really feel that Barack Obama needs to be the next president of the United States of America in order for this country to be safe and secure, and economically sound.

I've been trying to figure out why the term "liberal" so easily lends itself to being an insult. It can just be used without any other descriptive word attached to it, and still leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths. No context is needed in order for people to know that it is meant as a slight. "They are liberals."

And none of this makes any sense. You can attribute almost everything you have to "liberals".

You don't have to live as a slave, why? Liberals.
You don't have to wear a dress that covers your ankles or even a burka, why? Liberals.
You don't pay taxes to a king across the ocean who randomly sends his soldiers into your house, why? Liberals.
You don't have to believe in the national religion, why? Liberals.
You don't live in a communist dictatorship, why? Liberals.
You do not go to prison because you have a debt, why? Liberals.
You can vote as a woman or minority, why? Liberals.
You have freedom of speech, why? Liberals.
You are not locked in an institution if you suffer from depression or Alzheimer's, why? Liberals.
You have the right to a job or education no matter what your race, why? Liberals.

The truth is; every freedom or comfort you enjoy was fought for by the filthy liberals of some time past,  every group of people branded "Liberals" as an insult brought the change and progress that allowed us to become who we are now. The "conservatives" in each case are the group of people who less than 100 years later were to be branded hard headed, uncivilized, and primitive or short-sited, by history.

Why should anyone believe 'this time' it is a different situation? Why has 'liberal' persisted as a usable insult? Even in recent history there is no major fuck-up that can be attributed to liberal thinking that could be used as an example to keep people's hatred of the word alive. Where do we look for such an example? Kennedy's passing of civil rights bills, or the outstanding economy we had under Clinton's liberal economic plans?

Liberal, from latin Liber, free; the word once meant generous, tolerant. adj. 1, favoring progress and reform in social institutions, and the fullest practicable liberty of individual action. 2, tolerant. 4, not strict. 5, bountiful; generous.

I'm not sure how exactly this became a dirty word.

Right now people seem to think it stands for living in a hippie commune, not fighting terrorism, abortions for all, making prayer illegal or something like that, and allowing gay marriage.

So far allowing gay marriage is the only semi-accurate description of what liberal politicians stand for, and a lot of them are too conservative even for that, (much to my annoyance) including Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

We stand on the shoulders of radical liberals like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and even Progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt, and then curse their kind. We live in a nation founded on liberals, and swear allegiance's to a nation whose key word is Liberty, and then use the word as a pejorative.

I should point out that the definition of Liberal includes the word "practicable".  "favoring ... the fullest practicable liberty of individual action." Meaning as much freedom as possible without causing more harm than good. It's a balance right from the go. There's nothing about letting everyone do what they want no matter how much it hurts everyone else. Most Liberal politicians aren't even as liberal as their own supporters, and yet the label remains an image of politicians who want to turn American values on their ear.

Though in all fairness to the conservatives who cannot recollect a historical icon of greatness for their own, you can't have historical conservative heroes; just by the nature of the beast. History will never look at leaders who say "broken or not, it's as good as it gets and I don't want anything to change" as brave, heroic, or significant.

In a nutshell:

Jim: "Obama; your stance on your current thirst..."

Obama: "I would like to drink a cup of orange juice, then clean out my cup and put it in the drainboard."

McCain: "See, there's another thing that Senator Obama doesn't understand; you can't drink the whole bottle of orange juice without causing problems for other juice drinkers in the house. I remember when I was in prison, I had to share rations with the men that were being held with me. We weren't given much food, but I was generous and understanding, and I have a history of sharing my rations. I have experience in sharing orange juice."

Obama: "I'm sorry John; No one was talking about drinking the whole bottle...
Jim, you have another question?"

I'm not going to talk much about Obama's pick for Veep, because Biden isn't all that interesting. He's got good credentials, acts angry at times that are appropriate to act angry at... for everyone except a politician: and that's about it. There's nothing too big about it. He can do the job, and he balances out the relative inexperience of Obama. No tricks just boring math.

McCain on the other hand pulled a surprise. And by surprise, I mean he did something everyone would have expected him to do if this were a movie or television show, but not real life.

And in an interesting way, it was brilliant... but had shit timing. If he'd announced his decision was Palin a month ago, people would not necessarily have so easily seen it was a stupid trick. But he did it just when the fact that Hillary's supporters are still miffed and might swing away, is still big and bright and flashing on every TV screen in the country.

That fucks it up.

Aside from that it's beautiful showmanship; I couldn't have picked a better candidate myself.

And you may be thinking "wouldn't someone similar but with much more experience, that no one could question, help him more?"

Hell no.

Here's why:

It's psychological; McCain has to bring in three opposite camps of voters with the addition of ONE name to the bill...

Whenever I comment that Sarah Palin is hot, women think it's strange that I think so. Men on the other hand, know exactly what I mean. She looks different from two different angles; and that is a very unique trait. A woman sees a 44 year old mother of five, who has worked her way to the top at top speed, and fought corruption. A man sees a woman who still has at least half of her looks and figure at 44, who knows how to work a suit and a bun. And women can't see the mens' angle; because she's middle aged, she's not blonde, she's not dressed like a rich bitch, or a whore, (she doesn't look like McCain's wife) She wears glasses, and she's not anorexic.

Because of this, the "I hate all bimbos" alarm does not get set off, and middle aged disgruntled Hillary supporters are not given an immediate reason to dislike her. The fact that she fought corruption in the republican party and raised 5 kids adds to that impression.

A sexist old man sees something else completely. She's a former pageant queen, and I knew that before I even read it, just from looking at her. Men can spot those kinds of things. She's won three pageants, including Miss Congeniality (yes, like the Sandra Bullock movie) and came in 2nd when they were deciding who would be Miss Alaska for the Miss America contest. She was two steps away from being Miss America. And now she's potential VP. Good golly; miss Molly.

A man sees that. especially a middle aged or older republican voter. And especially a sexist old man who does not want to be ruled over by any woman... which is precisely the beauty of it: her extreme lack of experience (half a term as governor, several years as mayor of a town barely bigger than my high school, fishing, BA in Journalism, and HS Basketball, is her full list of credentials) coupled with her image of being a fresh, lightly aged, snow bunny; makes her non-threatening and entertaining to these men. To them, she will be easily put into her place, and become the hot little secretary to the big powerful war hero Republican President. She does not have Hillary's dry-bitch way about her, instead she has locks of brown hair falling loosely out of a school teacher bun, over sharp metal frame glasses and the same eyes, lips and smile that won her beauty pageants just twenty years ago, never mind a few crows feet and laugh lines. She wouldn't turn my head if I saw her walking down the street, because I'm 24 years old and she's 44... however, if I were closer to her age; she just might.

And it gets better. Her biography reads just like an FHM interview with the sex symbol actress of the moment. It tells of all the goofy tomboy things that she likes doing while hanging out with the boys, in between being a beauty queen and celebrity politician, in black heels and power skirts. Basketball, hunting, eating moose burgers, fishing, walking around in cute fury snow boots, and oops, tee hee, she used to smoke a little weed back when she was naughty... Complete with sexy schoolteacher photos.

She's the political version of a centerfold. And women don't detect it. Beautiful. Perfect. Sexist men get the only kind of female VP they could ever admit to voting for. As an extra bonus, there's the fact that she likes nature; when it means hunting, fishing, or drilling in a wildlife preserve (and she goes farther with that one than even McCain or Bush) and doesn't otherwise act too cute about the poor little aminals...

And it gets EVEN BETTER.

McCain has yet one more demographic problem: The Evangelical Right. He lost their support when running against George W. Bush back in 2000, and has not fully recovered. Being a former womanizer who eventually married mistress number fucknowswhat, and asked his first wife for a divorce does not impress that particular crowd. No matter what; he was going to need a Veep they could sing praises about.

She fits that like a glove as well. She is strongly against gay marriage, is a pro-life hero, is a hardliner creationist and believes it should be taught in school as a science as an alternative theory to evolution, and she's held positions as the prayer leadership in just about every job or group she's ever belonged to.

Tic Tac Toe, three in a row: Sweeps up disenfranchised feminists and working class mothers, holds the attention of old fashioned and/or sexist men, has a strong draw on the Pat Robertson crowd.

And we get back to his only real problem: he announced his choice just at the right time to let everyone know it was just a ploy. She may not realize it, because such an invitation is such a huge honor, but everyone else knows that it's impossible to know from her lack of experience in anything that involves dealing with or understanding more than auditorium's population of people: if she'd be a worthy candidate to help run the country. And they did not choose her because they are confident that she can.

She probably doesn't know that after the election they will probably tell her not to think too hard, and to just stand around looking pretty. She might not appreciate that too damn much. But by then it will be too late, and everyone else will have seen that bullshit coming. They think she'll be easy to control. They think old men will also think she will be easy to control, and therefore be okay to vote for her. They might be wrong. Who knows. They might be right. It won't matter as long as the plan works. But I don't think the plan will work, because I think the only person they are really fooling is her.

I call this Hell Week, because in theater, Hell week refers to the last week of preparation before opening night of the show. It seems to be a dually appropriate way to describe the week leading up to what is officially my last day as a Bloomfield College student, and the Graduation ceremony. This will be ranty, and off center. Sorry.

It was Thursday, as nearly all startling, wonderful, and hateful events in my life happen on Thursdays, or at least the main chain of events begin on a Thursday, even if the events unfold over a longer course of time than one day. This one began on a Thursday, and is set to end on a Thursday, the day of the Graduation Ceremony. This one started out with five dollars and a missing grade. I was heading into the Bursar's office to pay a five dollar debt for renting a camera that I returned a day late in order to get all my work done on my final project for my Religion 333 class: Mythology. I was also intending to stop by across the same room to where the Registrar's desk was, in order to find out why I had not yet received a grade in the very same class. Mission A went about as smoothly as could be expected, but then there was mission B.

I was informed that I had never shown up to my Religion 333 class, and was withdrawn. I also found out that they had me listed as being in Religion 333: Christianity. Two completely separate classes had been given the same course numbers, and were separated only by section numbers. Somehow this had been confused, and I was never informed until today. Thus I was getting no credit for a class where I had turned in a beautiful final project, and had grown to be one of my professor's favorite students for my work and participation (In spite of missing two assignments).

I was told that I had to seek out my professor, and have him sign a letter stating that I had indeed completed his course and received a grade. Unfortunately, he was not on campus until six o'clock, and I had to wait to get my letter until after the registrar's office was closed, so I could not clear my problem out in one day. I waited around nervously, and then went to the school twenty minutes to six, where I found my professor in the teacher's lounge on the second floor of the science building. He happily wrote up the letter for me, and told me that he would email the proper authority my grade (which he said was either a C+ or B-, averaging my in class work and final project versus my slacking off on two essay assignments) and sympathized with me, since the last week of his college career had been marred by a very similar situation in which he actually had to track down professors who no longer worked for the same school in order to prove he had credit for their courses. In any case that problem seemed on it's way to being swiftly kicked in the pants.

Friday morning shifted into gear from essentially a night of idling in Park. I hadn't gotten sleep a few other nights recently as well, but Friday, it seemed to be amplified. at 6:30 I woke up, splashed water in my eyes, and put on my "I'm awake enough to drive" face. We got to mountainside hospital around 7:15, and I'll spare you the parking details aside from the fact that later on I was moving the car onto my Grandma's street in the rain.

Mom needed to have her throat and stomach looked at using a tube camera. Gastroscopy and the like. Not fun. My sister and I sat in the waiting room; she staring into space with her eyelids drooping, and I reading at least three chapters of Age Of Anxiety. Eventually we were called in because Mom's procedure was finished.

She was not in very good shape. Apparently the anesthesia had caused her larynx to go into spasms, and then shut itself. The doctors had to race to put tubes down her nose to pump oxygen to open it again, and begin her breathing again. She very easily could have died in her sleep on the table. The doctor had ordered that the anesthesiologist stay in the room during the whole procedure (this particular doctor always insists on this, and now everyone knows why) had he not, it would have ended badly indeed.

from this point, Mom's throat was torn up and made it very difficult to eat or drink anything (cottage cheese included) and the weekend was not looking up for her at all. Dad took off from his night job to stay home and help comfort Mom.

Saturday was tedious and uneventful, and by the end of it, most of us were pretty sure Saturday and Sunday had both passed due to its length.

Sunday was not a whole hell of a lot better except for finishing Age Of Anxiety, and beginning work on a new art piece. Mom was actually worse in some ways then she had been before, and by this point everyone was on edge. No one was quite in good spirits, and no one was quite in good health, particularly Mom.

There was actually some sleep leading into Monday, though not particularly much. Anything is an improvement. Again I went to the registrar office to fix my graduating situation. I presented the letter, and informed the woman that my professor had emailed the office to clarify other missing info as well. She denied this, telling me she would have heard about it if he had, and put two new pieces of evidence against me I had to deal with before getting this fixed.

One was the schedule I had turned in from my adviser in December that read in my handwriting:
REL 333 | 1 | Special Topics: Mythology | M,W | 7:55-9:40pm
when it should have read:
REL 333 | E1 | Special Topics: Mythology | M,W | 7:55-9:40pm

My failure to put an "E" excuses the registrar's office for placing me in
REL 333 | Christianity | T,TH | 10-1:40pm instead of
REL 333 | Special Topics: Mythology | M,W | 7:55-9:40pm
and never informing me when I am withdrawn from the class for never attending it. I didn't bother to bring up the fact that my adviser had dictated the information to me when I had written that schedule, and that he had apparently not double checked it before signing it,

The second piece of paper showed that in the absence of my name from his roster, my professor had added my name, but for some reason this was not sufficient for the registrar's office to switch my file to the correct class. Fine. Apparently for the midterm, he hadn't done it, so somehow the registrar felt vindicated.

I was told to try to contact my professor and then come back after they were done with a meeting. I could not get my professor, and I called back, and found out I was in even more trouble. The professor HAD in fact sent the email, and so that was all basically cleared up, BUT: I wasn't scheduled to graduate anyway because I still had four classes remaining, and had not filed my diploma application.

I had not known there was any such thing as a diploma application, and I got told that I should have known, and that even my sister had already filled out hers. I was also given a lecture about the fact that I had not gotten my substitutions for classes arranged yet. I actually had. It was discovered that the main adviser had two f the substitution confirmations from last year already, and though she had filed them with my records, she had never put them in the system. This was still my fault. The other two were substitutions that required approval from the head of the CAT department. I remembered the hassle I had gone through a year ago to seek her out to get those taken care of, and now I was being told to do it over again because the paperwork did not appear to exist, or at least were not found in the same file as my other paperwork that had been ignored for a year. I could not find the Head of CAT, so I was told the Registrar would call her to try to sort it out.

an hour later I talked to her on the phone, and she had cleared it up. She called the head of the department and that woman had instantly agreed that those credits were accounted for. Neither of them felt obliged to look into the details of this, so my records now mark those two courses with WAIVED, when a year ago they had actually been substituted by two special programs I had been chosen to participate in.

I came into the office and filled out the application form to get my diploma in maybe 8 weeks, and got to listen to how lucky I was that I went to a small college where the three of them took time out of their day to fix these things up for me, so that I can get my degree. It was too late to enroll me in the Graduation Ceremony, so I will not get to attend my own graduation, and walk to get my diploma, but I had to smile and thank them fervently to appease them while they finished my paperwork.

I found out that the application is not commonly known to students, because no paperwork or warnings are issued regarding it, but the adviser usually gives it to you during your senior check as one more item to sign. She hadn't given mine to me during either of my senior check meetings a year ago.

It was utterly and entirely my fault.

I was never informed that I was enrolled in the wrong class, and when I was dropped from that class, I was never informed of this either, not in Email or letter or phone call. One count of: Not checking up on problems I am not made aware of.

I did not double check my adviser when he told me what section to write down for the class I had chosen. One count of: Not checking up on my superiors.

I did not go into the registrar/advisory office and set up a meeting to make sure that after they received paperwork from my professors, that they actually entered it into their database before filing it away, as is standard procedure for receiving paperwork regarding students' credits. Two counts of: not checking up on my superiors.

I did not receive any information regarding the need to sign a diploma application, because: A. I was not told about it during my senior check as is common procedure, B. No written letters or warnings are issued by the school about this application, and C. Had written letters or warnings been drawn up by someone with any foresight, I would not have received them anyway, because the failure to file my other credit information a year ago caused me to be off the list of students receiving any written information about graduation. Two Counts of: Not Checking up on problems I am not made aware of.

So you see, it is entirely my lackadaisical blunder that has lead me to miss my own college graduation. Completely. Had I made sure my professor knew which section he was signing me up for, had I come into the registrar's office and made sure they changed my information according to papers my Mythology professor sent them, had I come in solely to make sure they did not have my schedule mixed up, just on a hunch, had I scheduled an appointment with the head of Advising to make sure she filed the information my professors sent her after my senior check the way her job requires her too, had I scheduled yet another appointment with her to ask her if there was any random paperwork that I had to fill out many months before I graduate that she failed to tell me about, I would be walking at my graduation on Thursday.

In light of all this, I assume full responsibility.

I don't have much choice, they already told me it was all my fault.

Perfect thing to add to my Mom's week too. She really needed to know right now that she wont see the first member of our immediate family to graduate from college walk at the ceremony.

Every so often I become curious about myself, and sift through the oldest writings that I can find from myself, particularly the ones relating to real life events. The largest source of this research is often a journal that I kept, starting just a few months after I graduated from High School. This journal received the most attention from me back in the days when I first started it, so even though I maintained it somewhat up until the present, the most complete accounts of my day to day life are five years old.

Naturally, most of it is insignificant, and probably the most profuse pieces are the ones dwelling for unreasonable lengths of time on people and events that I now can hardly understand having ever let clutter my mind for more than a week. If I were to ever need proof that time heals all wounds, I would not have to go much farther than my old journals. Filled with anger and hurt over the actions of people who no longer even visit my thoughts without some third-party traveler-down-memory-lane to give them a ride; they speak to me with a voice of blind finality. It is as if they can't comprehend that there will be a future without these pains and interferences. In reading newer entries, I find this never really changes.

Even more striking are the entries that have changed many times since they were written. The text is the same, but the meaning has evolved. I read words that I wrote while I was being deceived, and find myself at times amazed to remember that I ever felt a certain way, or thought in certain terms. Other times I am amazed by the amount of my own insight, that foreshadowed future events in ways I had not remembered being swift enough to predict so early in the game. I watch myself change and at the same time watch myself repeat. It is like watching a needle on a record player, though it progresses further down the vinyl, playing different songs, it is still moving in a circle, with each revolution bringing me back just shy of where I was before. Progress away from where I began is a slow spiral, with the revolutions becoming shorter as I get older and time appears to speed up.

But what interests me the most are not the incidents that I have forgotten, or the events of which the meanings have changed because of new knowledge, but the minor events that have become pops and crackles on the vinyl. Insignificant minor sound events that are not part of the tune or melody of the song, and are not an intentional significant part of the story told on the album, but appear none the less, and remind me that this is my own, very personal copy of this record. They are not important but I remember them like any of the major notes or drum-strikes. It amazes me to read vague journal entries about days that seem to be of no consequence, but that I remember the details of what I was thinking, what I was feeling, and even the temperature and the smell.

 

This scratch was the last day of July, four years ago. Saturday. My Saturdays had been ruined for most of High School from work, and my hours shifted again so that the same was happening to me during the summer before my sophomore year in college. My summer classes had all been canceled, so I didn't see anyone during the week except at work, and the weekends were now filled up by work as well. It had been a convenient schedule during the spring semester, but now it was just tedious. I had been working at Carvel for nearly four years now. It was demeaning when I was a teenager, but this year it was on a new level; and now it was cutting into my Saturday nights. It was also eating up my entire Sunday, but that didn't bother me so much.

I knew it was going to be a bad day when I arrived; my manager was alone. His wife was not there and neither was her driver, Jackie. That meant he was fixing to leave, and probably fast. He was hustling to get out the door, and responded to all of my questions about what needed to be done for the day in a dismissive "trust me, it doesn't fucking matter" kind of way. We both knew I wasn't going to have time to accomplish anything.

I stood in silence behind the counter, leaning up against the Italian Ice box, waiting for the onslaught. And waiting for Dan. It was ten minutes before the rambunctious children and the dimwitted parents, and twenty minutes before the Dan. He arrived through the thicket of badly tanned, middle aged teenagers, and passed by into the back room with a glance to me of shared irritation, muted by some kind of personal amusement that could not so quickly be killed; even by a crowd this large. I took this to mean that he had either been recently laid, or recently high. He came around the second path from the back room, wearing his yellow uniform shirt, which he had probably slid over his clothes as he walked, without stopping, a quick lap to the back of the store, and then to the front. Now there were two at the Alamo.

 

The first several waves had ended and there was ebb in the tide of customers, at least in a relative sense. Dan and I had a little bit of time to talk finally. We cursed the customers for the way they flock to us and then become confused and antagonized by choices and prices as if chimps before screaming children at a zoo. Dan also cursed his own bad luck and stupidity.

As best as he could tell, after work ended tonight, he was royally fucked. His mother had told him that she needed to speak to him about something after work, and he knew it was because she had been in the garden earlier that day. He explained that a week ago, he had held a party at his house with several of his friends, and they had smoked several blunts. In order to keep the smell out of the house, they had smoked behind a large bush near the fence in his yard. After everyone was thoroughly toasted, they went back inside to continue drinking and merry-making. Because everyone was so badly hit at that point, no one had cleaned up the many cigarette butts or the handful of finished joints. Dan had been meaning to take care of it, but hadn't gotten around to it all week. Now he was caught. He paced around in a kind of controlled cold-sweat, cursing his laziness with his characteristic odd energetic, upbeat, enraged composure.

Dan was seventeen, several years younger than I was, and I could feel it whenever he spoke at great length, or got excited. He was at an age where he had ambition, but knew he had some spare time before he had to act on it, so his devotions were all spent on skateboards, dime-bags, and vaginas, none of which was he often in short supply. He was a tall, thin, English and Italian boy who everyone thought was Jewish, with a tan complexion, and curly hair that was only three shades lighter than the skin of his face. He was two inches taller than I was, but you would never notice because he weighed nearly fifty pounds less than I did, and had typical male teenage posture.

Women adored him, and at times it was very difficult to see why. Aside from his hair and his tan skin, his over-all appearance was reminiscent of Paul from 'The Wonder Years', he was not ugly, but he weighed less than most women six inches shorter than him and had no defining, handsome features. He wore narrow glasses with thick black plastic frames like many of the other 'skater' boys his age, and when coupled with the hats that he wore when he was not at work, they had the effect of making him look fifteen instead of seventeen.

Regardless, he was constantly showered with attention from girls of surprising quality. I had seen a picture of his ex-girlfriend who he was still occasionally involved with, and she was stunningly beautiful. In spite of my confusion, I was always happy for Dan and his good fortune, though I was even happier on the rare occasions that I would one-up him or temporarily make him jealous, but that was severely infrequent.

More waves of customers had come through, but it had begun to rain in sheets, and flash threats at peoples' appetites for frosty beverages; so we were in the calm again, discussing our mutual desire to become filmmakers while watching the rain gush from a sunny sky, and the lightning flare the neighborhood into overexposed pictures through the front window of the Carvel. We went to the side door to try to take a cigarette break, but discovered that we had no matches or lighters. We tried to improvise but there was nothing of any use. There was an old fashioned flint lighter for a Bunsen Burner, but we found that it no longer sparked (we never found out why it was there to begin with) and we attempted to use the bottom of the coffee maker but that failed as well. Eventually we were defeated, and slumped into the seats in the back room to watch on the monitor for customers.

The rain began to let up, but the barrage of customers did not immediately fill up the void of raindrops as heavily as it might have. As the day became evening, several of Dan's friends from high school showed up. I let him take a break to talk to them out front while the customers were calm. Later they came inside and talked to me as well.

Dan retold the story of how doomed his night was, for the benefit of the people who did not already know, for condolences in the form of "Awh that suuuucks dude." And words of teenage wisdom in the form of lousy excuses he could make about not knowing what other people at the party were doing. After an extremely brief time, the hunt for a lighter was rekindled. The rain had started up again and so no one wanted to run to a store, plus everyone was broke anyway. Eventually the three girls scrounged up enough change to afford matches, and Dan's goofy friend with long curly brown hair agreed to run to the convenience store to get them. He took off into the rain with everyone laughing at him, and returned victorious, ten minutes later with a pack of matches, and all the change he had left with because he felt it was more amusing to steal the matches than to pay for them.

Dan and I went through the store to open the side door, and his friends met us through the back alley where we sat in the doorway finally enjoying our cigarettes and the waning of the rain and the sunlight. As we talked, I could not keep my attention from one of the three girls in the group. She was a short white girl with brown sharply layered hair, and piercing eyes. She wore a green and white striped polo shirt over faded jeans, and smoked a thin veil past her deep gaze and black mascara.

There are two kinds of women I have found that I am a complete sucker for, the first is the kind of woman whose zest for life lights up an auditorium and hypnotizes every member of the audience into an intoxicated, dazed smile. The second is the kind of woman whose eternal hushed sadness gives her the constant beautiful despondency of the last flower on a dying, blackened tree. And by nature, the image must be every bit as pretentious as that description implies. I am a sap for the former kind of woman because she brings happiness, and never fails to reciprocate any of the love or friendship she is given. I am a sap for the second kind of woman because she makes me believe that she can see and feel the kinds of things I do, and that her silence is spawned from her deep internal reflections, and constant observation of the world around her. This is never the actual case, but I was two young to be fully aware of that at the time, and this girl played the role of the second kind of woman to the hilt.

I had noticed her earlier, and when I had a second to myself, asked Dan who she was and if she were available. No. She was dating so-and-so. I could never keep Dan's friend's names straight so I had to ask who the hell that was, and it was the short boy with curly long hair who had gone to steal the matches. Of course. Naturally, it had to be the shortest, goofiest, most irresponsible male in the group.

Now I found myself puffing away on one of Dan's cigarettes, trying my damnedest not to keep looking at the girl. It wasn't working. What was worse was that even though she was being held by her boyfriend, every time I accidentally looked in her direction, I caught her gaze, right back at me, with her beautiful solemn frown. I did not know how to feel about her look. Her face was sadness, but it also seemed to be judgment. Everything I couldn't know about what she was thinking, she could know about what I was thinking. The rest of the group yakked, oblivious to anything but their pointless conversation about the trouble they had caused three nights ago, and the look on everyone's faces they ever annoyed. I was partially relieved and partially saddened when they left, and the customers returned.

 

An hour later, the customers died off again and Dan and I prepared for another cigarette break… to find that the matches were now completely missing. We searched the back alley, the inside of the store, and the front steps. Dan was more of a real smoker than I was, and because of this, he was at his whit's end. It was the third time this shit was happening, and he couldn't deal with it.

When all seemed lost, the girl with the sad eyes returned with another one of the girls, and told us that she had the matches in her pocket since her idiot boyfriend had left them on the front steps. We went to the back to unlock the door to meet the girls in the alley for another cigarette. While in the store, Dan informed me that the new girl was a friend of theirs who liked him, whom everyone was trying to set him up with, but he wanted no part of her, and that this was a very uncomfortable situation. We put on our social faces and opened the door.

Another of the guys from earlier joined us, and we all began to calm down and enjoy ourselves again, but as soon as I had taken two drags off my cigarette, customers arrived. Dan began to stand up, but I motioned him to stay. They were his friends, so I would get the customers. I placed my cigarette on the metal counter, cherry elevated so that I could return to it later.

Once I was at the counter, it became one customer after another, and I could not return for what felt like an eternity. Dan and the girls came to the front of the store and informed me that my cigarette had managed to smoke itself without me finally. The other boy was in the bathroom, and the customers had scampered off, so the girls began to plead to be able to come behind the counter and make their own soft serve cones. Dan looked to me for the answer, reverting back for some reason to our standard employee hierarchy of authority, and I of course said it was fine. Of course it was really a disaster, but it was a brief, fun disaster, and I had every intention of letting Dan clean up the mess.

Afterwards I continued to finish up some preparations for the next day while Dan stood outside, with the two girls, probably trying to cordially explain that he was not interested in the second girl. I looked up from my work once and spotted the dark haired girl staring in through the window at me. She immediately looked away and stepped aside out of view. Dan came in and told me that everyone had left, and I told him where to start cleaning. We had one last swarm of angry W.A.S.P.s and then a half hour to close the store in quiet. Dan became focused on the trouble he was in again, and I couldn't help drifting into thoughts of the girl.

I felt tired and angry and ripped off. I felt used up by my job, and demeaned by my position wearing a stupid uniform serving desserts. I felt hindered by my constant lack of real money, and my inability to do anything about not having the things I wanted, including her. But most of all I felt old. I wasn't in the same world as Dan and his friends. I remembered their world clearly, but I was not part of it, and I was not even particularly fond of visiting it. It wasn't a fun vacation spot; it was just a hot, sweaty, angsty line at Disney. It made me feel tired, and it made me feel like an adult waiting in line for the waterslide, surrounded by screaming children.

I liked Dan and his friends, and I liked my Boss, and the store manager and their families. I liked all of my coworkers. They were all my friends. But it was over. Classes were less than a month away, and I needed the change. At 11:00 I turned off the lights and said goodbye to Dan on his skateboard, and got in my car to make one stop at the grocery store, and then go home. I needed the goddamn sleep.

The dream was at least 12 hours ago, so it's a bit blurry but I ran over it in my head when I woke up, so I have the basics. What struck me about the dream wasn't what happened, but the various random and obscure people who were in it.

Half 1.

Maybe this was a seperate dream all together, I don't remember it so well but I think there was at least some segue into th next section. It also featured a strange guest appearance from the past and is therefore noteable.

There was some kind of major event that had large extravagant crowds in streets that were some kind of fucked up cross between London of old, and New York, current. I think it was supposed to be Bloomfield center though. I spotted a girl I had a thing for many years ago, who had let me have her number and then subsequently started acting like I was the plague before I even tried to call her. I tried my best to avoid her now that I saw her. I don't recall the circumstances, but somehow outside forces made us have to share some kind of vehicle, maybe a small cab.

She began ridiculing me and getting on my case about how when I saw her I had immediately turned my head and tried to hide and ignore her. "Typical". I wasn't afforded the chance to point out that I did that because that's what she used to do only worse. She then went on to accuse me of causing her distaste for me by widely spreading information about an off beat sexual act she had done with so-and-so. At first I felt a pang of guilt, but slowly I remembered that I had never told anyone that I knew that, except my best friend, who immediately forgot about it, and not until after she had acted so strangely. In fact I had never even known who the guy in the scene was until she told me right then. I had nothing to do with anyone knowing about that. I told her off, and decided that if I ever saw her or anyone I'm in similar situation with again, I was going to walk up and open my mouth first; instead of give a shit and try to avoid them.

I don't think that dream was actually about the person who was in it.

The second half is more confusing.

half 2.

I was at some kind of ceremony with a friend of mine who I used to go to a lot of places with, but eventually stopped because of his job, and how much of a hassle he could be by himself.

I was taking pictures. The event somehow revolved around a girl I have known for a fairly short amount of time, who I am not necessarily comfortable with, because her basic intentions might or might not be good. I tried not to focus on her too much even though she is basically my friend

While taking pictures, A girl I used to know, who I once also had some feelings for was given the opportunity to speak on stage. I got some really great shots of her that I knew she would want.

I gave my camera to my friend briefly, When I got it back I found that he had gotten another good picture but had also stumbled upon some old eighties footage that Matt, the writer of the page X-Entertainment would want in high quality, because he had already posted it for an article ripped off a very distorted VHS. It was some kind of live action commercial involving someone in a hideous Strawberry Shortcake costume, and the guy who played Garfield and Peter's voice. I think it was during the Macy Thanksgiving parade.

For some reason the dream broke for some kind of PSA making fun of soccer moms. They lead their families and soccer teams as if to a battle at the edge of a small stream in a park. the point is now lost on me.

at the edge of the stream I was trying to get pictures to yet another girl I know, that she might want for her head shots. She decided to stay with her professional ones and was kind of bitchy about it, without even looking at my shots first. I saw the professional ones, and the photographer had made her look more harsh than necessary while trying to make her up very sexy. Mine were better, but I knew she wouldn't have known the difference even if she'd seen them so I dropped it, rather annoyed.

I then ran into a guy I went to elementary school with. We got talking, and he ended up asking me about the where-abouts of a girl. I didn't really know mostly because I didn't care. According to the dream, he and her had been close in Television production class in high school when we were there together, but the fact that she had this particular lame boyfriend prevented what might have been something more interesting. (None of this is true. I did not go to high school with either one, I hadn't even met her yet in HS, they have never met each other, and do not even live in the same state.) I politely as I could pointed out that she can get on my nerves, and that she puts her breasts in peoples faces to distract them from the fact that she is rather homely and unkempt. such an odd pair they would make. It was so odd that I crossed two such random people's lives in my dream.

That's all I really remember, but that's 8 people who I have no business having dreams about, at least not now. 6 of them, not ever. And yes I've not mentioned any of their names because they or their friends could read it.

Like any young jackass I was compelled today to google my own name to see if there was anyone with my name of any fame or interest, and also to see if any references to myself appeared. Turns out I'm a Romance Novel Hero.

http://stephanietyler.com/books/beyondhiscontrol/

Yeah. Speaks for itself. As soon as I'm in good enough shape I'm going to retake that unbelievably gay cover with myself and send it to the author. Yeah. Awesome.

You should all buy the book. Several copies. Force her to make a sequel.

Like any other man my age, I have observed a fair amount of porno since I was old enough to first discover that my peepee didn't just peepee. Don't bash me for it, I am not ashamed; and anyway, your boyfriend looks at more porn than I do, I can pretty much guarantee it. I'm comparatively on the low end of the scale.

Being an observant bastard, over the years I have made some significant discoveries which I wish to share with you now. If for no other reason, to entertain myself without having to drop my pants.

1. The beauty of a woman in any porn has a direct negative relationship to the quality of the video (at least if you happen to have any taste)
Gorgeous Girl:
Bad lighting.
Awkward close-ups.
Low resolution.
Constantly obscured by penis.
               
Skanky Girl:
High Definition.
Francis Ford Coppola camera work.
No man-shaft.

2. The beauty of a woman in a one-on-one lesbian scene has a direct negative relationship to the beauty of the other woman in the scene. The prettier the one girl is; the skankier, and/or fuglier the other one is going to be. (at least if you have any taste) The best you can do is pick a film with two fairly average looking women.

3. In any one-on-one lesbian scene, the prettier of the two girls will always her back to the camera, and the fuglier girl will always be in plain view. Full frontal. The whole goddamn time.

4. Fake breasts float. And it is not attractive.

5. Fake breasts always look like they are about to pop. And it is not attractive.

6. There is a direct relationship between the darkness of a pornstar's fake tan, and the lightness of a pornstar's fake blonde hair. And it is not attractive.

7. Everyone will eventually see someone they thought looked like a fish in High School, suck someone off on the internet. If You don't watch porn you'll at least hear about it.

8. Everyone will eventually see someone they thought was a stuck up bitch in High School, make out with her chubby college roommate on Girls Gone Wild. If you don't watch porn you'll at least hear about it.

9. Anyone who watches enough porn to actually BUY porn should be considered an addict.

10. Female pornstars don't know that they are bad actors. Male pornstars don't care that they are bad actors.

11. If any porn advertises something in it's contents that you don't know what it is; it will will probably give you nightmares if you watch it.

12. Internet porn is intentionally indiscreet, and no one knows why.

13. If you let your boyfriend videotape you, you are already a web celebrity.

14. Cheerleader uniforms have never made anyone look any younger than they are. And it is not attractive.

15. Spyware is now officially an STD.

16. Men in professional porn are all abnormally large, men in internet porn are all abnormally small. All of them take up too much camera time. (ie: any)

17. Shaving it into that stupid little Mohawk is pointless. Bald or bush; pick one. No one's hooch needs a professional stylist.

18. All porn has pedophilic undertones (lollipops, cheerleaders, pigtails, school uniforms) and everyone pretends it's not creepy.

19. Pornstars do not age gracefully, and no amount of eyeshadow can hide it.

20. 90% of men who claim they don't look at porn, look at illegal porn. Unless they clearly use softcore alternatives (Victoria's Secret Catalogs, FHM, 'Charmed' reruns, female pro wrestling) be wary of men who make this claim.

so yeah, that's about it. 

In my creative writing class we do a lot of free-writing exercises. I tend to like what I come up with, but most of it would be in bad form to read to the class at the given time. I’ve decided to throw some of the bits and pieces here for anyone who’s interested. It’s all rather random and cryptic mind you. but it’s there.

No particular order.


Blush the eyelids over ashes of lashes
Next to those stars as if all that is neutral is cold
All that is white burns, and all that is black smolders
Face paint the woman who fell from space
***

Strike up the band. Tear through the suede.
Voice of hands, talk of letters, sound of page, scream of screen
print me on your eyelids; I’ve done as much
If the rest of you
doesn’t vibrate too
then it’s down too low
or it isn’t music
Fuck this beat
Speaking of beats
lets ride the line in a pick up truck with Sal and Dean
and pretend to be deep
try it again
let’s ride the center line in a pick up truck with Sal and Dean
and pretend that we are deep
Let’s be thugs with beautiful voices
and don’t judge a book by it’s readers
Harmonize with samples of long lost artistry
***

For Tradition’s sake I’ll start with the black boots and sleeves and hair of my muse. Red accentuates the black like roses over wrought iron. open the floodgates. Strike to let her know you’re here. Don’t forget who’s in the audience tonight. Cigarette fog is the calling curtain between men who do not dance close enough to their girls. Don’t let the boogieman in between you and that black skirt.
***

Back where you had me
lost in the signals and pink noise
you floated down and found me in the rain
wet circuits and lost apparitions balding wires and fraying steel
copper illumination shorted and rusted beyond
all you can see laid out before you
past the trees and the fog
float down through the white noise
to the light waves
electric air bringing you out of the clouds where you hide
and wait for the jet stream to wash you back into the undertow
***

There’s a childish smile on your face
until I say put down the flowers
when it starts over again
I won’t do this much longer
And you have a lot to learn
about love and wickedness
We’ll share them both
Over a bottle
as we laugh together
while staring each other down
We both lose
my fault
and yours
I like to think mostly yours
***

warm. dark and sweet cinnamon rolled around into a beautiful spiral of soft heat. delicious. slender sweet and draped in beads of glistening candy. yum. light and soft in all the right places. chewy. I try to remember you are not food.
***

My throat cracks as I am swallowing dry leafy ashes. She looks at me. I can see her features from the moonlight, a far away lamp post and the gears of the car. Her eyes appear black, but none of the details are lost. She opens her tiny lips to say something, but nothing escapes. She looks me in the eyes and then turns away to rest her head. I try to clear my throat of the black embers without making enough noise to startle away the doe. I struggle to be quiet and then ask her what it was she was trying to say to me. She tells me it’s nothing. Tells me not to worry. Smiles. I tell her she’s lying. I should have just kissed her instead.
***

2007
1. in the Beginning
Where did you bring in the New Year? My room
Who were you with? My bed
Did you kiss anyone at midnight? No
Did you make any resolutions? Yes, get my ass to Korea and get in better shape. I Did both of those. Unfortunately I also resolved to get laid abroad; but that did not happen. haha.

2. Your Love Life...
Did you break up with anyone? No
Did you get anything for Valentine's Day? No
Did you meet anyone special? No
Fuck you survey

3. Friends and Enemies......
Did you meet any new friends this year? Yes, a few in Korea, and one or two in my fall classes
Did any of your friendships end? I think I may have totally phased certain people out this year
Did you dislike anyone? Yes of course.
Did you make any new enemies? No, not really
Did you resolve any fights? No, I have none that can really be resolved
Do you have any regrets when it comes to your friendships? No

4. Your BIRTHDAY!!!
Did you have a cake? Yes
What did you do for your birthday? Hung out with the family, then friends later
Did you have a party? Sort of
Did you get any presents? Johnny Walker
If so what was the best thing you got? Johnny Walker for my headache

5. All about YOU....
Did you change at all this year? In some small ways
Did you get your hair cut? Yes, big change, a difference of probably 15 inches
Did you change your style? I think going from 10 years of long hair to looking kind of Jock-ish is a change of style. Oh and I ended my feud with jeans.
Were you in school? Yes
Did you have a job? Yes, of four years, left it three weeks ago
Did anyone close to you give birth? No though I understand a friend is now pregnant
Did you move at all? From Bloomfield to Belleville
Did you go on any vacations? One for the school trip to Asia, the other just a weekend in PA
Did you leave the country at all? Korea and Japan for a month
Would you change anything about yourself now? Yeah, I'd buck up and get back on my damn confidence.


6. Wrap Up.
Is 2007 a good year? Some was great, some was pretty damn drab
Did 2007 bring any new insights? Yes, many
Do you think 2008 will top 2007? I hope to hell it does
Do you have any goals for 2008? Yes, I'm sure there will be room to get into that later

7. What is the last alcoholic beverage you drank? A bottle of Bacardi Gold

8. Do you think your good looking? Yes, actually I do.

9. Who took this survey before you? Ramilio

10. Who was the last person to send you a text message? I don't do text so much so lets go with AIM. It was Marcy and it amused me, because I got to it like 4 hours after it was sent, and apparently she was bored with me not responding so it said: "Justy Wusty was a bear, Justy wusty had no hair…" silly person

11. Are you happy? No actually

12. Want to kick anyone's ass? Always

13. What time is it? 4:00pm exactly

14. How many hours on average do you work a week.? None for the moment, but that will end soon

15. Do you like someone right now? Sure, I mean I can't hate EVERYONE… oh, you're asking THAT.

16. Who was the last person to call you? Keith?

17. What's your sign? Libra… yawn

18. Where do you spend most of your money? Bills, asshole

19. Where does most of your family live? Everywhere

20. Are you an only child or do you have siblings? Big sister

21. Ever been called a hoe/slut? Yeah, so?

22. Ever been called a bitch? Only by my sister.

23. Did you ever collect Beanie Babies? On the shelf next to my mint condition original line of My Little Ponies.

24. Collect anything? Nine Inch Nails CDs, used to collect Godzilla movies as a kid, might actually go and buy the DVDs now… might.

25. Myspace or Facebook? I prefer Facebook except the bombardment of shitty 'applications' everyone keeps adding. It's better than Myspace bombarding me with friend requests from fake porn girls

26. Are you missing anyone at the moment? A handful actually, one in particular is really surprising to me. Never thought I'd be sappy in that particular way

27. Do you support the troops? Some. Maybe most

28. Could you handle being in the military? Maybe, I think there's a lot I can handle

29. Are you hungry or thirsty? Thirsty, horny, tired restless, want the whole list?

30. Ever had to take a sobriety test? No

31. Last time you went to the gym or worked out? Yesterday

32. What is your current wish? Curse you. Let's cut the bullshit, first I'd like to be more appreciated by people for what I actually do, and what I actually am to them. Then I'd like a fine piece of woman, who also appreciates what I do and recognizes who I am to her. Then we can start getting into a budget for my film.

33. Where do you wish you were right now? Bed. Not mine

34. Favorite place to be? In my drunken stupor

35. Last letter/piece of mail you received besides junk or a bill? My report card you twat, already opened by my previous landlord. The stupid school still hasn't registered my change of address, and my stupid landlord still hasn't registered that he needs to mind his own fat hairy fuck guinea business

36. Last time you went to the zoo? Bronx, January

37. Do you drunk dial? Rarely, only if I'm really, really pretty positive it's going to get me somewhere.

38. Stupidest thing you ever did with your cell phone? Bought it

39. Ready for the weekend? It's Monday, calm the fuck down

40. What did you do yesterday? Watched too much Futurama

41. Are you in a relationship? No, haven't you even been paying attention? It's like talking to a wall; this survey is just out to fucking lunch.

42. Are you a commitment person or a "lets just have fun" type? Sometimes I meet a girl I'd really like to be serious with, and other times I meet girls I hope just want to play.

43. Would you allow yourself to be set up on a blind date? Yes if the person setting it up isn't pretty out of touch

44. What's your favorite feature of the opposite sex (clean version)? Eyes, the right pair of eyes can stop time for me. Sappy

45. What's your favorite feature of the opposite sex (dirty version)? Some girls have asses that outshine the rest of their body; some girls have lovely breasts that make it impossible to sit across from them at dinner without wanting to forget your food. It's hard to say, but I suppose if we're going by actions, then in intimate situations my focus always stays more on breasts, neck, and belly button.

46. What's your favorite guilty pleasure? I'm really open, so anything that qualifies as a guilty pleasure with me is going to be something I know better than to tell anyone like this.

47. Are you happy with your career? I will be, I chose the one thing I've know since I was five years old would make me unbelievably happy

48. If you could change one thing about yourself what would it be? I'd snap out of this little down-time and regain my former confidence. I'd also probably cut 10 pounds from my stomach and reapply it as muscle. That would be helpful.

49. Do you consider yourself a good person? The best I know

50. Do nice guys finish last? Usually. At least in the first few rounds

51. Have you ever done anything with good intentions that backfired on you? Of course, it can be hard to predict the exact right actions, especially if you miscalculate other people

52. If a lie protects you would you prefer it over the truth? No, the lie never really protects me.

53. What's your biggest regret? Putting up with high school the way I did. Just sort of sitting back and watching my teenage years walk by. Maybe a little of the same in college, though really I didn't sit back at all, I ran in circles, there was just nothing there to run into.

54. How long was your longest relationship? Around 5 months. Lame

55. Was it's ending a mistake? HA! No, the last three months of it was the mistake

56. Do you believe ex lovers can remain friends? I know many who do, successfully

57. Have you ever found out something about someone that completely changed the way you thought about them? I wouldn't go that far

58. Are you sorry you found this out? I'm never sorry to gain any knowledge

59. Do you think you will ever find "the one"? I believe I will find someone I can stay with and love fully for the rest of my life. I don't believe in it in a "The One" kind of way though.

60. Do you want kids? I don't know. This is a weird question for me lately. Normally it's a no, but there's this one kid who made me want to be a dad when I had to deal with her at work, and really recently I've actually missed her enough that I'm kind of open to the idea of having my own kids one day again. You have no idea how weird it is for me to say all that. Me being all sentimental. What the living fuck.

61. When's the last time you felt like your heart was broken? I'm kind of depressed, so it feels a little like that every night regardless of what's going on. I'm not going to be emo and cry about it though.

62. What do you like best about yourself? My brain is rather splendiferous

63. Would others agree? Many have, a few haven't.

64. What character trait is most important to you? Are breasts a part of 'character'? Understanding and the willingness to listen. The rest follows that.

65. Do you miss college? I'm still there for an extra semester

66. Have you ever had a job you were ashamed to have worked? No, though I have had plenty I hated to work at regardless of shame

67. Do you have exciting plans for tonight? No, I'm broke. I'm pretty unhappy about it too.

68. Would you ever date someone you worked with? Yes, most people marry someone they meet in the work place. That's a really stupid one to rule out unless you want to be a career bachelor of the virgin persuasion.

69. Do you believe in love at first sight? There have been times where the first sight of someone has made me feel like I was being knocked to the floor, and my heart was liquefying in an instant, but I'm not naïve enough to really think it was 'love', it was just me being sappy and a girl being particularly fucking amazing at the moment of impact, so to speak.

70. Would someone having a child keep you from dating them? Common sense usually tells me yes because of my age and position, but I've met women I wanted who already had children, and I know I would have dated them without counting that into the equation too seriously.

71. Have any tattoos? I'm considering getting a white-ink pair of wings of my own design.

72. Do you hold grudges? Sometimes. If someone does something truly wrong and vile, I do not give them back my forgiveness or respect. But it takes a lot to get put on my grudge list. I'm not a big feud guy.

73. Would you rather have a wild night out or a quiet night on the couch? Wild night out, always.

74. Favorite movie? OLDBOY

75. What was the last movie you watched? AV (not AVP)

76. Do you go out of your way to impress people? Not usually

77. Are you always honest? With most people I'm honest 100% of the time, with a short list of people my options are lie 100% or avoid them completely. I usually consider that the other person's fault.

78. Has it ever gotten you in trouble? Occasionally truth gets me in trouble. Lies have, once in a great while

79. Would you ever get back together with an ex? No trust me, that would take a lobotomy

80. Do you consider yourself sensitive? Lately more than I usually am, but I'm not sure that's saying too much

81. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Good, I think

82. Do you repeat movie lines? It's my hobby with certain friends

83. Are you embarrassed to sing? Not usually, though now I'm horribly out of tune and practice so I probably SHOULD be

84. What are your hopes for the New Year? Graduate, Start a full time job, get an Apartment with my best friend, start really living, finish getting into shape the rest of the way.

85. Have you ever hid your TRUE feelings for someone? Out of respect yes. Though to be fair I know how much I 'glow' when I'm with someone I really have feelings for, so I'm sure I've never hidden it WELL.

86. Are you a romantic? See questions 26, 42, 44, 59, 69, and 85 to weigh the evidence for yourself.

87. Are you quick to open up to people? No they are quick to open up to me.

88. What's your biggest fear? Missing out on life

89. What is something about you that everyone would agree on? Nothing. There is always someone with an opposite enough perspective on life that they will be able to disagree with you no matter how fundamental a thing you think you have found.

MORE 2007 Questions

90. Did you start dis-liking some one? Indeed

91. Did your heart get broken? Eh, maybe a little.

92. If you could change something about this past year, what would it be? Oh Christ, just about everything but the Korean project.

93. Are you happy with how things turned out? It seems to have ended up ok.

94. Did you do anything life changing? My trip could count as such. It was certainly a new important experience.

95. Favorite piece of clothing? A few of my shirts from Korea, maybe my darker pair of jeans. I hated jeans for so long I was strangely happy to make amends by getting that pair.

96. Did you go to any parties? Yes, a few good ones, a few mediocre ones.

97. How many bf/gf's did you have? None, this was a lame, lame year in the love department. I'm going to make 2008 very different. Not pulling another 2007

98. How's school going so far? Close to graduation, a few snags are coming up but I should be fine.

99. Did anyone close to you let you down? People who weren't that close to me let me down severely, people who were close to me… some mildly disappointed me.

100. How old did you turn this year? 23

101. If you could end the year with someone in particular, who would it be? It's a bit late to worry about that one now mister.

102. Which do you prefer - eyes or lips? Both are pretty damn important to me, but I'll say eyes

103. Can you speak another language? A tiny bit of bad Korean

104. How about you put your legs behind your head? Just barely, but I can put your legs behind your head and make you happy about it.

105. When was the last time you went dancing while under the influence? A few weeks ago with my friends, I was cut by a lame-o named Sleazy McScumstick. You heard me, haha

106. Does talking about sex make you uncomfortable? Vagina

107. What are two bands or singers that you will always love? Tool and Nine Inch Nails are the nes I have been stuck to since middle school and will always need.

108. What of the seven deadly sins are you guilty of? Lust: Yes. Greed: maybe a little. Sloth: Not really no. Vanity: certainly. Jealousy: definitely. Gluttony: No. Vengeance: yes. You can thank the movie Se7en for me being able to remember all of those off the top of my head.

109. If abandoned alone in the wilderness would you survive? Yes I believe I would.

110. Have you danced in the rain? I am Gene Kelly

111. Do you like winter? Not so much

112. How tall are you? 5'9-1/2"

113. Do you like funny or serious people better? Funny, obviously. I don't think I have any serious friends.

114. Are you a gullible person? No

115. Do you need a girlfriend/boyfriend to be happy? I shouldn't but these days I really think it would make a significant difference.

116. If you could have any job what would it be? Writer/Director

117. Are you easy to get along with? For most people, very.

Prologue:

I've decided to do a series of writings that are somewhat different from my usual entertaining or social/political persuasive articles. These will not be for the purpose of convincing my readers to consider some of my ideas for ways to change society, but instead are a view into my personal beliefs and morals on various subjects for the sake of gaining personal understanding. These articles are not about you, they are about me; philosophically, morally, and preferentially. It's less of me getting on my soapbox than it is of me explaining myself on the witness stand.

The reason for this is that I have noticed a trend in which people seem to believe they know how I think, and more often than not they are severely mistaken. I hate misunderstandings, and I hate being insulted by peoples' ignorant guesses as to what I am all about. Now I can avoid that. If someone is confused I can simply direct them to the pre-written pre-processed ground chuck of my mind.

***

I'm going to dive right in on this first piece and discuss everyone's favorite subject; sexual intercourse.

I wouldn't say I have lax sexual morals, in fact like all of the rest of my morals, they are extremely strict; my rules are pretty much unbreakable. I simply have a different set of rules than other people might, though frankly, not very different. Oddly enough I've found I'm one of the most strictly moral people I know in spite of my atheism. Actually that's not very odd, but religious people tend think it is.

Just in general I don't think there's anything immoral, taboo, sacred, or dirty about sex; absolutely nothing at all. Sex is a pleasurable body function of reproduction, and nothing more or less important.

Amoral or Immoral:

Obviously I do not think masturbation is immoral.

I don't think it's immoral to have sex with someone before marriage, especially considering marriage is a human invention and just a religious ritual.

I don't think having sex with someone you do not love is immoral. Lying or making someone believe you are in love with them in order to have sexual encounters with them however is immoral.

I don't think one night stands or 'hook ups' are immoral. I do think in these cases there are necessary precautions against pregnancy and STDs that should be taken, but the act itself I feel is clean.

I don't judge someone by how many sexual partners they have had. There is no right or wrong amount. Each relationship was an individual choice, which was not immoral. I do not use the term slut to describe a woman simply because she has had a multitude of partners. I see nothing constructive in making that judgment.

I think it is immoral to have sex with another person when you are in a relationship unless it is under the circumstances of a mutually agreed upon threesome or orgy, or if it has been agreed that it is an open relationship in which you are allowed to have extrarelationship encounters; and you know for sure that this will not hurt the person you have permission from. In my case I do not tolerate being cheated on, and I will not cheat. I do not think that I am levelheaded enough to ever be in a relationship that was open to outside encounters. I'm selfish, and if it was offered to me it would be tantalizing, but I would have to be fair about it, and there is no way I could handle my woman being in bed with another man; therefore the same would have to apply to me.

I think it is immoral to have sex with someone who you know is in a relationship that is not open to outside encounters. However, I have to admit that this is a rule I don't pay as stern attention to as the others. I rarely bother to criticize anyone who breaks this rule. I'm also lax on this rule regarding myself depending on the circumstances. For example, two years ago a woman came on to me who was engaged. I had never met her fiance, and I knew he had cheated on her on more than one occasion and was generally a controlling person. I also knew that she had cheated on him once before (later claiming it was a response to his infidelity) and that she was generally a self-absorbed person. In this case I did not have enough respect for the relationship to block off my physical wants with moral restraints. Eventually she did have enough respect, and nothing came of it between us, but certainly not because I was strictly moral in this particular aspect. I have been cheated on, and I certainly do sympathize with the other person in the relationship, so under more normal circumstances I am not usually open to being someone's back door man, nor support others who do the same. In the case of the other person being married, I cannot think of any reason to justify cheating with them.

Role playing, costumes, sex toys, restraints, and other such kinky crap is okay by me. Some of it I like myself. As long as permanent harm isn't coming to anyone than I don't think it's immoral. I'm personally not into serious bondage, but it's not immoral, and there's certainly nothing wrong with blindfolds and handcuffs. Anyway, no matter what you do, whether it's my taste or not is just good clean fun. And I mean that; all non harmful, consensual sexual activities are wholesome forms of fun, and are a release of stress.

Nonstandard sexual acts such as oral sex, anal sex, handjobs etc. are obviously also not immoral. There are some things I'm not into (mostly ass related; I don't want to lick an asshole or have mine licked, or put anything up the shitter) but specifically, I am not morally against these things in any way. I do not think that a woman who gives head is a whore, and I don't think it is demeaning to be in any of those other sexual positions.

I don't think homosexuality is immoral, however, personally, the thought of that kind of contact with another man causes me some revulsion. More power to people who can swing one way or the other, but apparently I'm not one of them.

I don't think threesomes or orgies are immoral in any way, however I have noticed that three out of four times, they are not a good idea in a relationship. During situations in which the parties involved are only together sexually, there is usually no issue, but if two or more of the participants are in a relationship, then it becomes complicated, and is a matter of maturity, what people really want, understanding, and jealousy. I think most people are not mature enough to have a healthy relationship that involves bringing other people into it, at least not until they've been together a very long time. I doubt if I were in a serious relationship that I would be very likely to invite a third person into the bedroom, though in a strictly sexual situation, I'm as selfish as the next guy, and two women at the same time is not something I refuse.

I believe firmly that all non-consensual acts of sex are completely immoral. Date rape drugs, sexual assault and rape, sodomy, threats, and the like are all completely intolerable.

I have a very specific perspective on age in terms of sex. I believe strongly as most people that there is such a thing as pre-sexual beings, people who are too young to participate in sexual acts, and it is highly immoral to have any sexual contact with people so young. I do not agree with the government's opinion that this applies to anyone under the age of 18 (or 16 with parental consent) because obviously people are sexual before that time, and are no longer children at that point (though I'm not very likely to break these laws even if I do not completely agree with the specifics). It's safe to say a twelve year old girl should not be being touched, however, I find it impossible to argue that someone who is fifteen or sixteen is not a sexual being. I'm also not specifically hung up about age differences. If a 40 year old wants to have sex with an 18 year old, that is at the discretion of the two people involved; I make no judgment. I don't think most romantic relationships with such age differences work; however, sexually I am not opposed to this choice.

A bizarre matter to try to deal with logically (and also bizarre to try to address publicly without creating major shock and offense) is consensual incest. It took me a long time to come to a full conclusion to this since my initial programming is so one-sided, but I've come to the position that it is a form of abnormal behavior rather than immoral behavior. Initially I felt that since this is not a sexual path that can lead to healthy reproduction I considered it wrong, but I'm not talking about healthy reproduction in this article at all, I'm talking about sex. I don't condemn homosexuality for this reason, and so rightly I cannot do the same in this case. I think part of the reason that this is even more difficult to address than something like homosexuality is that the word 'incest' itself brings up images of a drunken father sneaking into his five year old daughter's bedroom at night. Our natural reaction to this word is an image of pure evil. Or you may just picture hillbillies, one or the other. Maybe addressing this will help me understand homophobics a little bit better. I think desire for someone closely related to you is unnatural, uncommon, and possibly the result of an unhealthy upbringing, but the same argument has been made over and over about homosexuality, so I'm stuck in an awkward place in between reaction and reason. If I see you making out with your cousin I may shudder, but from now on I may also keep my mouth shut (except to suggest a sex therapist) I garauntee I get some argument from this.

Bestiality. I don't even want to bother going through the same amount of forethought that went into my last paragraph, I'm just going to stick with a simple; "don't fuck your sheep." That's too sick for me to bother deciding if it's immoral or amoral. It's gross as hell either way... Actually, technically no animal can count as a truly consenting adult, and therefore it is completely immoral as it is a form of abuse. ha! I win.

Prostitution. This is another difficult one. On the surface I am not entirely opposed to the idea of the exchange of money for a sexual favor. If it is the choice of both participants I have nothing to say about it. However, in most cases the prostitute is subjected to a considerable amount of abuse, which the customer is contributing to. Most prostitutes are not in the business because it is a field that interests them, but more often than not, out of necessity. Most prostitution is a form of sexual abuse, and therefore hiring is a means of supporting a system of abuse.

I feel there is a connection between prostitution and the different forms of stripping, however, strippers are not subjected to the same kind of physical and mental abuse as a prostitute, and it is generally less of a forced position. The interaction between stripper and client is fake and unfeeling, but I do not have sufficient reason to be against the hiring of strippers morally.

On that note I feel the same about pornography. It is sex for money, but not under the same conditions a prostitute suffers, and while I feel that someone participating in hardcore pornography may not be mentally sexually healthy, I again lack sufficient reason to find it immoral. The matter of it being an unhealthy lifestyle is just my opinion, and not a moral judgment.

Contraception methods.

I'm obviously not opposed to contraception, and obviously I do not consider abortion contraception, in fact I've already done my abortion rant, and I might provide the link later instead of dwelling on it. However there are some methods of contraceptives that I like and some that I am not especially fond of.

I'm not especially fond of coitus interruptus, or 'pulling out'. I'm sad to report that it seems to be becoming one of the most common methods of contraception among people my age. It's not entirely ineffective, as it is true that pre-come should not contain any sperm, however, there are occasions in which this is not the case. If the couple has sex more than once than this will not work, unless the male goes to the bathroom in between; killing all of the sperm left in his 'tubes' by urination. Meaning no 2nd round until you do 1. any other sexual activities performed before having intercourse create the same situation. I don't know who takes a bathroom break during sexual activities, but it's certainly not everyone. Also, it is difficult to do without practice, which means you will likely screw up two or three times before you get used to pulling out right away. On a more selfish note, like any other guy, I much prefer coming inside. Almost everyone I know who uses this as their usual contraceptive method has more than one story about how they got in the moment and didn't pull out, and their girlfriend got angry at them for two seconds and then forgot about it. People make this method extremely unreliable.

Condoms for now are my weapon of choice although they have drawbacks as well. Effective for the most part, but they do reduce some sensitivity. Also, when I lost my virginity it was with a condom, and at the time I felt as if that put an asterisk next to "not a virgin" because technically contact was between myself and latex, and not directly between me and the woman. It's a stupid mental block many men have that we need to get over, but it is there.

Frankly, I'm looking into vasectomy. I don't want kids, condoms or to have to pull out. If I want kids later, vasovasectomys are now 97% successful, and are getting better, if I want kids it will be years from now, and I'll very likely be able to fix my situation. Frankly I think more people should get vasectomies. Actually with our overpopulation I think most of them should get them and never get them reversed unless they are ready to have kids, and are worthy of breeding, but that's another rant.

Aside from the pill, which I consider the best form of contraceptive (it's temporary, helps contain and minimize on premenstrual discomfort, almost 100% effective, and puts the control with the woman, instead of the man who is historically more likely to be neglectful about contraceptives) the three methods above are the only methods with any real merit. All the rest are rarely effective and are mostly ignorance. Rhythm my ass.

Obviously getting checked for STDs in between partners, especially if there is reason to suspect you could have contracted something is wise and necessary. Vaccinations should be requirements as they are discovered, much the way people are required to get certain vaccinations already. HPV vaccinations should already be required. Knowing you are carrying a sexually transmitted disease, and continuing your lifestyle as if you are not is obviously horrible. Again, honesty is a necessity. And again the one other pro behind condoms comes up; high level of protection against transmission. Of course condoms are not perfect protection, but they are a significant help.

Pursuit Of Happiness

The pursuit of sex is something that I've noticed come into argument frequently with people I know lately. I think it's important to understand that the drive for sex is primal and powerful. I often hear the criticism that some people are always thinking about sex. Yeah; and? Sex is a basic human need and ranks extremely high, there is nothing wrong with the fact that it is important to people. For men it is a major motivating factor in almost everything they do (with different degrees depending on the person) The drive to do work, be healthy, be clean, gain power, gain respect, and be social are all rooted in sex. After a man's belly is full, the next thing his body tells him he needs is sex. It's an unbelievably strong driving force behind life. You may criticize a man individually for his methods of trying to acquire satisfaction, but criticizing him for having the drive is pointless. There is no reason to criticize someone for having and acting on this desire. It is a natural instinct, which there is no reason to repress.

In any case I do not believe women are far behind men in this aspect, although women are far less visual in terms of their sexuality, where as for men it is almost all visual, making the desire more transparent, and easily turned on. From my experience a woman's sex drive is as powerful as a man's, women just have a different way of processing sexual stimulus. Neither one is right or wrong nor better. Men will never have much tolerance for going long periods of time without sexual activity, and there is no logical reason to deny this of anyone, so I think the argument is tired. If you are annoyed that part of a man's motivation is sexual, tough. It will always be that way; and there is nothing wrong with that.

Briefly; Sexual activities that do not cause physical or emotional harm to a participant, or involve non voluntary participation are not immoral. Sexual pleasure is 'good clean fun', and I consider nothing under that umbrella to be dirty or taboo. The pursuit of sexual pleasure is as noble a cause as the pursuit of any other leisure, provided it is performed honestly and without force. Thus are the sexual opinions and morals of one Mr. Justin Daniel Brandt.

The first thing that always strikes me in any debate is how shockingly illogical most people are. I never expect it, because I try to believe that everyone has the mental capacity for abstract thought and logic, but I always turn out wrong. People run their points in circles, and never actually get around to saying anything that supports their opinion. "Two plus two equals five because if you look at it, there are more numbers than three. Four is the wrong answer because it is not five, which I feel is the right answer. Six is the sign of the Beast. I've seen fives, and I know that there are two twos in five, because five is bigger than two. You can't have five without two and two, because then it would be a smaller number. So obviously; two plus two equals five." That's how every debate I've been a part of lately has sounded, and it's driving me nuts.

And on that note; people don't know shit about homosexuality. I've had a lot of close gay friends, and I feel I've had the ins and outs of it explained to me pretty thoroughly. Frankly, none of it was all that counter-intuitive. Before I asked the questions, I could pretty much already guess the logical answer. I don't really understand what is so mystifying about it to other straight people.

I've spent the past few days and weeks in various debates about homosexuality, and all of them have been confounding. People really think gays are from another universe, and things about their sexuality are based on a completely alien set of rules from straight people. What the hell? I think I should start out by clarifying a few common misconceptions about most gay people that I hear pretty regularly. I've gotten my answers straight from the horse's mouth, from more than one horse, so I assure you; this is not just my humble opinion.

"Places like the Village have more gays because being around so many gays causes the children who are born there to become gay." – A logician's nightmare. In order for the community to be predominately gay in the first place, it would have to be due to a lot of unrelated gays moving there from other areas. If most people in the area are gay, there probably aren't a lot of children being born and raised there, to be influenced into homosexuality, which is pretty simple biology I think. Anything after that is the Nature versus Nurture argument.

"Creative people are more likely to be gay, and are gay because it makes them fit in better with their peers" – There are no more creative faggots than uncreative faggots. If you are in a creative community you are more likely to feel free enough to come out of the closet, but you will still be in the vast minority. Truly creative people are also less likely to do things just because a lot of other people are doing them. Being creative often entails an inability to make yourself do anything just because the herd is doing it, let alone change your entire sexuality. Even without the evidence that it is more nature than nurture, this argument has no solid logic.

"Gay people can become straight if they concentrate hard enough, and straight people can become gay if they try hard enough as well" – There is a lot of good argument for the idea that all people are mixed sexuality, and lean in one favor or another in varying degrees. In such a case, someone who is mostly straight, may be able to focus on their less frequent desires enough to act on them, or maybe prefer them, but I really think that this is just natural bisexuality. Most people are far enough degrees one way or another that altering something as programmed in as what turns you on, is impossible. Orientation and taste are different, one is fundamental. It never ceases to amaze me that people who shudder when they see cock can actually convince themselves that they could exercise their brain into disliking women, and loving penis. Even if this is possible, what person would go through this process just to fit in with a small minority of other people, if that is their only motivation, and the reasons not too include: rejection from friends and certain relatives, potential violence, frequent public humiliation, abandonment from their personal religious community, severe drop in sexual options (since so little of the population is gay), and denial of certain American rights? I cannot fathom how I could ever possibly concentrate hard enough for long enough to make myself not cringe at the thought of kissing another man, and therefore have equal trouble imagining how someone could do the same to achieve the opposite goal. In my conversations with some gay men, they all said that the prospect of intercourse with a woman was uncomfortable, and kind of gross. Essentially, it just felt wrong. Becoming gay would be way more trouble than its worth.

"Gay people become gay at a certain part of their lives" – Of the many gay people I've spoken with at great length, all of them admit they were gay from birth, though a few say they didn't know it or were confused. There was no 'becoming gay'. The closest to becoming gay were a few people I knew who were bisexual, and eventually said that one gender just didn't do for them what the other gender does. This supports the idea of degrees of sexuality, and is also likely supporting evidence that social pressure on heterosexuality simply helps confuse people who were always gay, but did not know how to deal with their attractions. Of the people who said that they did not know that they were gay until later in their teens also stated they had always been confused and tried to lock things up. All of them also noted that their best friends' knew they were gay even when they did not know it themselves.

There seems to be a small percentage of homosexuals who are sexually dysfunctional because of sexual abuse or rape. Whether or not their homosexuality can be attributed to the abuse or not is up for debate, though in some cases it seems obvious they were straight before the abuse. It is common knowledge that people who are sexually abused as children are more prone to pedophilia, and so it is impossible to rule out abuse as a factor in altering a person's inborn sexuality. These people often display sexual characteristics and dysfunctions outside of just being homosexual.

Many people also site cases in which a much older person divorces their spouse and then 'becomes' gay. More often than not, these cases are stories of people who were always gay, and were married due to social and family pressure, during times when homosexuality was unfathomable in their community. Marriages of convenience for closet homosexuals are something that is especially common in older homosexuals. Society would not allow for their lifestyle, and so they adopted he straight lifestyle. This does not mean they ever became straight; they simply played the part for as long as they felt they had to.

The reason I bring this all up is because of the issue of gay marriage. People are very up-in arms about this issue, and I think it's kind of ridiculous. I've pretty much explained what I think people need to understand about being homosexual, but I appreciate the fact that from a religious standpoint, none of that matters. To you, it is still a bizarre abomination. Dually noted. I completely see where you are coming from. However:

Just about anything in the bible that wasn't said by either Jesus or Moses; is just reinterpreted ancient folklore, and not the word of god. Half of it does not even take into account God's omnipotence, and therefore is in err, and in lack of knowledge of god's teaching. That's the part of the bible that condemns homosexuality; the part of the bible written by people who had never heard the word of god from any of his prophets.

More importantly, the argument is whether or not gay marriage should be legal in America. People have forgotten the most crucial parts of the ideals of America. Someone missed a few years of elementary history. Freedom of religion and separation of church and state is the number one fundamental principle that the United States of America was founded under. It's at the top of the list. Therefore, anything contrary to that, such as basing laws solely on the teachings of Christianity, is fundamentally un-American in practice. I think that's all I really need to say, though I doubt anyone will listen.

On a similar note, certain sects of different religions including different forms of Christianity interpret the bible differently. If a certain church chooses to recognize a gay union as a legitimate marriage, the government would be imposing itself on the church unconstitutionally. Likewise, a completely different religion that has no text to dictate marriage as only heterosexual could exist, in which case Christian based laws for legal marriage in the US would also be unconstitutional.

People against homosexual marriages also fail to recognize the faith of many homosexuals. The issue of Civil Union versus Marriage is a very important difference of personal meaning. Heterosexuals against gay marriage feel that civil unions are good enough in terms of rights for homosexuals, without allowing for holy religious sanctity and recognition as a marriage. They don't understand that these homosexuals may be religious themselves, and therefore denying them the right to a holy union is a serious affront to their human rights. Civil union is not the same thing as marriage, and cannot replace the divine meaning of being in a true marriage. Christians may feel that churches that allow gay marriages are wrong, but it is unconstitutional for our government to dictate what beliefs are correct or incorrect.

In order to control or deal with something you need to first understand it, and I don't think many Americans understand homosexuality. Most Americans learn about gays from lesbian porn or Will & Grace, and neither of those are too much help. People fail to see that even in cultures such as the Spartans who encouraged homosexuality, nothing was inflicted on heterosexuals, and the percentage of gays in a population did not increase significantly. The most ridiculous thing that seems to be on so many peoples' mind is the 'agenda' to turn everyone gay. The destruction of heterosexuality is impossible. What people also need to understand is that homosexuality cannot be destroyed either. There will always be variations at birth, and homosexuality is something that everyone is going to have to deal with permanently in a way that works comfortably for everyone.