Even More Small Business vs. Corp Musings

after this one perhaps, do the [[[defending a corporation rather than small businesses.]]]
one reason I have seen people say that it is okay for banks to go out on a limb is to lend people start-up money so that they may open up their own small business.

umm, forgive me for being presumptuous, but I have to wonder what is so damn great about starting your own business.
okay, look.  if they had simply gotten a professional scientific degree in the first place, then they would not have to worry about their futures teetering on the balance.  They would not have to lose sleep over their career volatility, tottering on the edge of a cliff.  No knowing if they would be able to get their business off the ground and provide a steady, reliable income for themselves and also provide for their families if they decided to get married and settle down.

get a degree in a technical engineering or other scientific field, and work a job that you know for a fact will bring you prosperity and stability.  [[[your future would be far more secure, would be far more well--[[[guaranteed__assured]]] that your wo
some silly little business, so you can what, sell stuff??  I read somewhere where a lady had a business called "Le gift basket" or something like that, I dunno, something really stupid.

I have read people say out of frustration and anger at_[at the frustration of working for some other corporation,]]]__ that they will never work for "someone else" ever again.  they would far rather prefer to work for themselves.  I can't help but wonder

There is a vast canyon of difference betwixt working a crap job and working a professional job. -- I think, I think, that there is a different between working with objects or "things" as opposed to dealing with concepts. [[[ideas, notions, ideas.]]

this is what I mean when I talk about professional jobs as opposed to working simply/merely a business.
**any one of the engineering corporations,, like the automotive,,, or those that produce digital technology and communications.  Contribute to wireless networks, faster and more efficient computers.
**or any corporation that produces medical supplies.  Whether pharmaceutical companies.  Or any company either in the public or private sector that does biomedical research.
some dying dead, town that is slowly turning into a  ghost town__

some dinky little small town that is spooky, very suspicious of the outside world, very negative view of "outsiders" and "foreigners."  I like chain restaurants.  I like chain stores.  they are __- connected to the main thoroughfare.  the presence of a
-is a small town that is not up-to-date on communications infrastructure, _big city something or other,, link to a major corporation that has its __ corporate head offices in some other city,, going to be able to respond properly to an emergency??
I lived in a dinky little town for a couple of years while I was in college.  it was not enjoyable.

More Small Business vs. Corp Musings

From what I have seen, most small businesses are dinky little ragamuffin people tinkering with junk in their backyard.

I would rather work from something great, something powerful, something that actually has the realistic fighting chance of doing something good.  I want to work in and be in charge of something bigger than myself.

A corporation, as long as it is practicing honest, good capitalism, has the power and the means, the resources, to lift the standard of living in a society.  Running water, electrical equipment, generating electricity for a city, purifying recycling and
ensuring that the population receives a constant, reliable, clean water supply.

Working together for a common goal.  A large established company can have vision and the dream to make the world a better place -- and the resources to put this vision into practice.

Not bad corporations like the freakin entertainment industry.  That is a colossal waste of consciousness.  The music industry, the movie industry, the advertising industry with all its greedy and idiotic anti-Napster laws.  That is all pure garbage.  That is a whole sniveling mess that tries to charge the ludicrous claim that making a digital copy of a song is one of the most nefarious dangers to human well-being.

Technological advancements, produce them on a mass scale.  Like Microsoft.  Or even apple as an example back in the day.

Possibly the most important positive social change that large corporation can bestow upon a nation is the offer of jobs.  A livelihood.  I believe in jobs.  I believe in helping people help themselves.  Jobs are a far more _benevolent __ rather than simply donating blind charity, which does nothing but make people weak, dependent, complacent, and unable to support themselves.

This is one of the reasons I am so against welfare.  it is not merely because I am somehow a cruel, heartless, merciless tyrant.  It is because welfare inadvertently does more harm than good to the very people it purports to help.

T hey will become dependent on welfare, ___ They will come to rely on these free handouts rather than learning to work and support themselves.  Apparently the people are too lacking in foresight to see the looming future that welfare has in store for them.  Welfare recipients are unable to see that they are becoming fat and stupid and lazy.

Effecting social change does not seem to work when coming from a single solitary individual's [[garage or kitchen.]]] tinkering around in one's kitchen or puttering around in one's garage.

demand a [[raise the]]] educational standards in public schools.  Demand that discipline, motivation, and general behavioral queries must be made by the child's parents and indeed, must be decided upon by the child herself.

Perhaps back in the 1600s or even 1800s a single person could have created a revolution.  But that is because the whole entire population was simply a loose aggregate of a bunch of ragtag separate individuals who were not really citizens of a sovereign nation.  They were not really working cohesively towards a common goal.

There are a few for which the government seems to have to be at the steering helm.  Education, educational standards.  The US Dept of Education must make sure that in a standard two-semester organic chemistry course series in any college anywhere in the country, they really do teach the full course.

I am okay with scholarships and educational grants, i.e., money heavily invested in the nation's future.  These are people who will one day be tasked with running the country.  We in the current need to prepare them for that responsibility.

I do not see scholarships and other educational monetary support as being mere welfare.  This is not simply giving people handouts and making them dependent, unskilled, or unable to fend for themselves.

Quite the contrary.  Education is possibly one of the best investments a nation can do to ensure that the people prepare themselves for the future.  So they can gain marketable skills and become employable.  So that they can work and support themselves.  So that they don't have to rely on the government's artificial balustrades of food stamps or whatever.

Large Businesses In Industry As Opposed To Starting Your Own Business

Here is why I don't see it as a great idea to start your own small business in this modern work force.

I want to win.  I want success.  __ I wish to stake my claim on a piece of this nice property that is the modern-day workfare and warforce.  I would like to get my foot in the door as quickly as possible.  I do not wish to have any more obstacles standing in the way between myself and success other than those that absolutely have to be there.  I have already overcome and better yet, I have armed myself with certain tenets that some might call obstacles, but which I call necessary artillery, such as skill and education.

But the obstacles to getting one's own business to be cash-flow positive and to be a formidable competitor who can play on a level playing field with already-established business -- seem prohibitive.  They are insurmountable in this day and age.  maybe back in the 1800s when the nation was a little more ragtag and ___
When the nation was just getting established and just starting to form its identity, just beginning to make a name for itself

Back then, they seemed a lot more welcoming to new kids on the block.  This is because everybody was a new kid on the black back then.  but nowadays, the reality is that __
Insisting on starting one's own business -- this is nothing more than needless self-flagellation.

No way, because you are starting from the ground.  They are starting from scratch.  They must claw their way up from rock bottom.  If you work for a large established institution, on the other hand, they already have a leg up in the industry.  They already have a brand name and an established identity in the mind of the nation.  If you work for a large company, then you can ascend the ranks, and can go up that much faster.

Not some stupid corporation that sells ads or copies of music or some useless sht__ like that.  But something that [[[conveys___]]] forth a vision that can drive the country into the future.

Imagine trying to start your own hospital or your own airline!  Can you imagine the enormous hurdles that you would have to go through to convince the public that you are a kind face that can be trusted?  Trying to prove that your company is formidable, stalwart, reliable, solid.  It is an impossible feat to get people to understand that a new name brand means trustworthy and not some fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan, kooky thing that is just going to take people's money and run.
kind, reliable, trusty old stalwart.

Your own biomedical research company, your own university, same thing.

I feel that there is no need to put oneself through all that struggle and strife if the option exists to realistically sidestep all of that.

The obstacles are insurmountable to starting, establishing, and gaining ground for one's own business.  But more importantly, the respectable, formidable institutions are already established.

I don't see anything wrong with using an established corporation's success as your starting point.  As your springboard that you can use to jump-start your own career.  This is a good strategy to get your foot in the door of the working world.  This is a reasonable, sound, and logical way to get work experience.  You can rightfully internalize their successes and boost yourself upon their bootstraps.  Since corporations exist, you might as well use them to your advantage.

I would rather work for an established, long-well-known inst that already has a well-grounded reputation in the annals of infrastructure and life.

I'm not talking about some silly corporation such as the hollywood nincompoops or some corporation that tries to convince people to buy crap they don't need using money they don't have.

I am talking of seasoned, respectable, stalwart institutions, such as universities.  Such as hospitals.  Such as newspapers.  Such as the judiciary court system as long as it is something genuinely useful.

What I am trying to say is that the best career path is to choose to scientific research and discovery.  Choose something noble and useful that will benefit humankind.  If you'll notice, all the things that will benefit the greater good are already represented out in industry.  __ founded and solid in this country's economy and society.
It is a hackneyed phrase, but be a part of something bigger than yourself.

The innovation and technology, the biomedical research companies, and the education purveyors already exist.  Rather than trying to struggle from scratch, you can go and improve those.  You can build upon and improve the already-existing products and services rather than (forgive me in advance for another hackney) trying to reinvent the wheel.

The foundation, meaning the basic stuff, has already been perfected using tried-and-true methods.  Rather than expending energy on toiling away and laboring on a service for which the foundation already exists, it would be a far more efficient use of one's time and resources to improve an already-existing system.  I feel that an employee can contribute best to the betterment of society if they direct precious skills, training, education, enthusiasm towards improving the wheel rather than trying to chisel away at a rock creating exactly what has been created before.

It is still fully your work.  You still deserve full credit and recognition for the work you do.  It is not cheating; it is not taking credit for someone else's work; it is not plagiarism.  It is yours.

---
And look.  From what I've seen, a lot of people who own and run small local businesses are, well, weird.  They distrust everyone.  They distrust outsiders, they distrust foreigners, they distrust rich people, they distrust people who work for corporations.

They have a horrible small-minded mentality that really turns off anyone that might be willing to give them a chance.  They distrust anyone that didn't grow up as kids with their great-grandparents in the same microscopic town that has a total population smaller than the high school I attended.

I have applied for work at small businesses previously.  The person who accepted my application usually shriveled away in fear and disgust.  And of course I would not hear from them again, no matter how persistently I called and asked to talk to the hiring manager.  (Roll eyes.)  Look, I know I'm not a supermodel, but I also know that I could do the job excellently.  I could be trained in minimal time with flying colors, and I could become an excellent employee.  But they want to hear none of that.

It Appears There Are All Sorts Of Crap Arguments As To Why People Refuse To Get Married

I see that a male will offer excuses aplenty for why the two of them should not get officially married.  He will say things such as, “oh why do you have to worry about a time and place that is not here?  Why can't you be happy in the here and now?  Why can't you learn to live in the moment?  We don't need a piece of paper to declare our love.  Break free of the rules, anything is possible.  Why do you have to go and ruin everything by trying to change it?  Why can't you just appreciate what we have now?”

In this situation they might be living together or at least dating on-and-off for a good while.  They might have a kid or two because they are definitely having sex but unfortunately are sloppy, lackadaisical, mediocre in everything, including enforcing the birth control.  But the male refuses to make an honest man out of himself.  He refuses to respect the female or consider her wholly and fully enough to admit that they could do the right thing and declare their relationship official.

Trying to make the female seem like she is the bad guy just because she wants some answers, some honesty, some straightforwardness in their relationship.  When in truth he is an irresponsible selfish lazy asshole who just likes to be a drifter and a squatter and does not want to acknowledge the fact.

And he is trying to put a philosophical, psychobabble, pseudo-intellectual (the 90s were good for calling things as they saw em) spin on it to make himself sound noble.

What I really cannot believe is that some females actually profess to being happy about this.  Like, huh?  How in the world is this pathetic, sagging, flaccid, strength-of-a-dead-plant type of pseudo-arrangement bringing you any sort of happiness?  I really have a hard time believing that line of bull.

Hanging on by a thread to a half-hearted, half-assed relationship with barely any strings attaching you two -- this is somehow fulfillment and happiness?  Nothing actually connecting you two, fusing you two together -- this is happiness?  No stability, security (emotions-wise), no straightforwardness in the relationship -- is this something to appreciate or aspire to?

I read an amazon.com book review (odd but yep) where a female was saying she was heartbroken and devastated, not just once but a few times during the course of the relationship.  Because her boyf did not want to get married and he offered various excuses toward this end.  And somehow she convinced herself that he was being practical, that he was the logical smart one, and/or that what he said made sense.

Sorry gals, but after watching and reading about tons of dumb b----es making the same mistakes over and over again, I am left to the following scientific conclusion:  careless males are arseholes and careless females are dumbarses.

"I do not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it."

Here is my question. Why should they defend to the death? When you show no maturity, no responsibility, no intelligence and careful thought at arriving at your opinion. I read somewhere, "must they sacrifice everything, and you must sacrifice nothing?"

And I believe it applies in this situation as well. Why should they take all that responsibility to defend you, when you are not taking any responsibility in the way you act, and present your opinion?  no caution, (necessary precautions, preparations) (show no discretion in choosing your actions)

Butting Into Free-Thinkers' Business

Rebels are so hell bent on saying that quote "I control my life I make my own decisions I'm not going to ask anyone's permission on whether something is right or wrong."

They insist that no one stand in their way.  They insist that they be allowed to do their own thing.  Be independent, no one can tell them what to do.  "Mind your own damn business, butt out of my life.  Don't order me around.  It's MY life, I'll live it however I want."

Oh but you sure as hell have no problem with people butting into your business when things go wrong -- which they always do.  Believe you me, things always go wrong for this sort of self-destructive behavior. You sure as hell don't have a problem with people butting into your life when you are in the emergency room due to your drug overdose.

Fine, so go be independent.  Fix your own damn liver.  Do your own damn liver transplant surgery.  Administer your own damn kidney dialysis.  Administer your own damn chemotherapy for throat cancer or lung cancer; or cancer of the stomach lining.  ((Ulcer))))

These promiscuous whores screech and squawk, "oh it's my own life, I can do whatever I want, it's none of your damn business, it's my sex life, it's my bedroom, stay the hell out of my personal life, mind your own business."

Yeah, until you want someone to come in and rescue you.

Oh, sure -- until you want social programs that make ME pay for it.  Oh, then you sure as hell want me to be involved in your personal life.  Then you sure don't hesitate to make it incumbent on the general population to pay for _your_ mistakes.

This is as succinct and excellently summarized a statement that I can
Sex is a personal matter...  Stop forcing me to be involved in your sex life...  What you do in your bedroom is none of my business, and I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Blaming The Drugs

I am sick and tired of liberals making bullshyte excuses for violent criminals.

One common tactic is that liberals blame chemical dependencies for violent criminals' behavior.

they are looking for any BS excuse to absolve the criminals of any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.  "Oohhhh poor, poor criminal, it's not their fault, they didn't know what they were doing, the drugs made them do it, the alcohol made them do it, the cigarettes made them do it."

“Drugs” are not the magical enemy__

This is the same sort of bullshit that they attempt to use to excuse away drunk driving.

Or if not any other violent crimes, then liberals look for asinine excuses as to why the drug addict should not have to take responsibility for committing drug-related crimes.  The drugs made the person beat and abuse its family and steal money to get more drugs.

Ohhhh the poor criminal, they are a poor sweet innocent precious, angelic, pristine little angel victim.  The drugs are a conscious, sentient, self-aware entity.  The "drugs" seduced the poor drug addict (don't you dare call them a criminal!!) and made them stab and mug and rppe someone.  Poor drug addict is an innocent victim of the evil self-aware inanimate object.

sympathy for the devil --- ((drug addicts, and how liberals pooh pooh them and react with sympathy, and say, oh pooooor thing, he is addicted to drugs, the poor dear, it is not his fault at alllll,, no this was beyond his control, he is simply a victim of circumstances.

Drugs are not some sort of magical entity, a mystical cosmic force that fluttered here and forced you to succumb.  Drugs did not magically miraculously be the criminal to come here by way of the evil drug fairy to wreak havoc on you, making you the victim.

Wrong.  YOU are the criminal.  YOU are the one doing this to your family.  YOUR FAMILY is the victim.

Atheist Fundamentalist Zealots

you are an ignorant small-minded bigot.  you probably go around all day thinking you're all liberal and open minded and progressive and crap.  but you are unfeeling uncaring and you don't care about people's feelings.  you're telling me you cannot even understand the feelings and/or logic behind why someone might not want to do something that intimate?

how about you realize that it is a very important thing to a lot of people and that their choices are different from yours?  be a little more open-minded.  perhaps one day you will realize that not everyone fits into your little pre-determined roles.  the little cookie-cutter cubbyhole cutouts that you have decided for them.  you are the type of person who pigeonholes people into pre-judging roles that you have decided that they conveniently fit into.

We are not baboons or zoo animals, for Hera's sake.  We have evolved psyches, we have higher brains, we have emotions.

I think some atheists are a pain in the ass.  richard dawkins, jesse ventura, House.  Even if someone is atheist, they should realize and understand how important belief and community are to people.  Humans need that connection, we need that comfort, we need that reassurance that our lives have a purpose.  We need that sense of community that we feel with others who share our beliefs.  We need that__

You need to understand how important that is to human development.  If you choose not to understand, then you are extremely ignorant to one of the most important cornerstones of the human experience.  So while I might not agree with religious people on everything, I do respect the merits and usefulness that having belief offers.

"Man cannot live on bread alone."

here is how some religious logic goes:  the fact that your mind exists, as a fully thinking functioning circuitry of rational as well as imaginative, means there must exist something powerful enough to have created something that complex and intelligent.

The Subject Of Excuses For Criminals

Some opinionaters seem to think that violent criminals are simply "deviant" and nothing else.  Just that-- "deviant."

This is too mild a term and is inaccurate. Individuals that are murderers, rapists, child abusers, and the like, are not just "deviant." I wish the book would get its terminology right. These are criminals. These things that they do are disgusting and horrid and violate another human being’s sense of safety and well-being. Not to mention harm against the person’s physical safety.

And not merely because the law says so. It shouldn’t have to be stated on a piece of paper that a certain act is wrong. People should already have their own innate sense of right and wrong that stems from having a conscience, having morals, being a human being who lives in civilized society.  People who are of this human race should already have a strong idea of what constitutes violent, immoral behavior.  Having state-mandated regulations still are certainly a good thing because it means that a person should be convicted, found guilty, and sent to jail.

It’s strange that it newspapers or wherever, there seem to only be extremes on this opinion.  Some editorialists are under the impression that a mentally ill person does not necessarily know that what they are doing is wrong.

They still must be punished in some form. The crime that they committed, murder or anything of a violent, violating nature, is serious enough that the person who committed it should be punished no matter what. I think they are able to understand that they are being put in jail because they did something wrong. If staying out of jail is the only incentive to prevent someone from committing a crime, so be it.

I think it is ludicrous and insane that criminals can get away with murder by using the "insanity" plea.  Allowing murderers to live and be fed, clothed, and housed and having all of it paid for by hardworking decent, honest, noncriminal people -- that is what is truly insane.

Not throwing brutal murderers in prison -- liberal logic being that instead of punishing them and "giving up" on them, we should offer then guidance and rehabilitation.

These are not self-defense killings, they are premeditated murders.  Just think about that for a minute, and be honest with yourself.  This person committed murder, and they are an adult.  How old is this person??  This is not a child that has never seen the outside world.  This is a grown-up.  this is someone that has free will, that is a grown-up fully capable of [[amassing]] their own decisions.  of weighing the pros and cons of a situation, of sizing up the situation and gauging what the possibilities will be.  This is a grown-up who is responsible for their own choices in life.  This is a grown-up that is fully capable of accepting responsibility for their actions.  Let me repeat, this is a grown-up adult.  This is a person who is fully equipped with the needed faculties to understand that actions have consequences.  This person has the comprehension skills required to understand why murder is wrong.  They are fully capable of extrapolating what the possible outcomes will be for any decision they would make.

And too, if someone has not been guided in their life before they have become an adult and set in their ways, there is not much realistic possibility that they will suddenly magically change their minds now.

That episode where they were mad that the movie cut out a whole shooting-crime-spree scene, and then bobby had the opinion that the outlaw was a pretty nice guy.  What the “Brady Bunch” was trying to say, and what the original founders of free speech meant, is that we need to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  You can't cut out big chunks of the truth and still thinking you are getting the whole truth.  We need to know what kinds of sick people exist out there.  So that we can be informed and able to make good judgments and keep ourselves alert and aware.  I don’t want you being ignorant and thinking this guy was a good person when the plain fact is he was not.  You need to know the whole story.

makers of sopranos
you on the other hand, you are glorifying and in essence lying.  you're trying to convince everyone to look at the so-called human side of murderers, drug lords, r--ists.

really?  human side?  I remember a detective woman was a guest on Jane Pauley's talk show a few years back.  she said that in conversation, murderers and psychopaths will tell you everything you want to hear.  they will come off as being convincingly charming, witty, a little sad -- and they can VERY convincingly portray a bit of remorse and guilt.  enough to fool the vast majority of people.  and it takes an extremely skilled and patient detective, meaning an investigator and psychologist, to be able to discern the fact that the psychopath is faking all of it.

lisa ling on the other hand went into a prison cell, talked with some inmates for about ten minutes, then lisa ling and her airhead self came back out all bubbly and cheerful, "ohmigish they are like so totally human they are like not bad people at all, they’re totally nice, just totally give them like a chance, just be open-minded and like not afraid to take risks."  Well.  lisa ling is not a skilled trained expert in human behavior, certainly not the way a police detective is.

which I guess does not really surprise me.  all these guys found their pit chicks, their females that they can treat like s--- and slap around whenever they want.  hitler had a dog and a girlfriend -- does that erase all the other things he did?

Free Will And Behavioral Choices

Too many say that alcoholism, drug abuse, addiction, sex addiction, etc. are not behavioral choices.  They say that these are not consciously made decisions.  They say that these are diseases.  These are not choices that you are consciously actively making.  They say that these are completely out of your control, that you have no choice, that you have no ability to control your behavior.  They say that you simply do not possess the cognitive ability for healthy ___ [[non destructive, productive]]] behavior.

if you know and acknowledge for a fact that you are not capable of making good decisions, then the law cannot allow you to make those bad decisions that harm people.  if you know that you do not possess the ability to make good decisions.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  you can’t say that you have no control over the fact that you make irresponsible, stupid, dangerous decisions --
And yet at the same time expect that you are freely allowed to make those decisions.

free will
letting serial killers go free
Either admit that this person HAS free will and therefore they chose of their own accord, and  of their own volition to commit this heinous act.  Therefore they should be punished for making this choice.

-Or- admit that they did this thing because there is truly no such thing as free will.  In which case they still should not be let out in public society anyway.  Who knows what other hell they will wreak.

Either way, I win.

Academic Sources vs. Common Sense

There exists a silly, insufferable habit of academia-- namely, that they will not accept any common sense as a trustworthy source of information.  they absolutely REFUSE to accept any common sense offerings.

A lot of the rules of proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation are things that I learned from reading a lot.  I learned of these norms far earlier than I might have read of them stated outright in a grammar peerage book.

This brings up another issue.  One person's obscure information requiring academic referencing in MLA format is another's person's knowledge that they knew and grew up with.

I remember an assignment back in ninth grade English class.  The teacher stated, "Anything that is not common knowledge must have a works cited.  Hmmm... small problem there.  What exactly is the line of demarcation separating "common knowledge" from "obscure trivia that must be referenced in the bibliography?  (Hehe, "bibliography," there's a throwback term for all you nanopet and gigagotchi owners.)

A wealth of information that I learned growing up is possibly considered obscure modern trivia by most typical non-well-read, non-well-traveled, middle-class people.

For example, the capital of Bangladesh is Dhaka.  I can tell you what the population is, the literacy rate, the chief imports and exports, the average climate, the average life expectancy, and a host of other fascinating geographical tidbits.

I do not quite remember when and whence I first learned of these facts.  Perhaps from my parents, perhaps from family friends, perhaps from a world map that was published twenty years ago.

The point is, to me this is all common sense. 

I can list all the American States in alphabetic order.  I learned this from a children's song back in fourth grade.  I know this is reliable as the list of the states in alphabetical order-- because it is accurate.  That may be a tautological trivial statement, but oh well.  I know it is true because it is true.

Must I really go hunt down an academic source to prove that this is fact?  Or should I perhaps scavenge the folk authors who wrote this gem, this gem that is now in the public domain?

'''''But you have to find some modern-day academic source, accepted in peer-reviewed academic circles, that states this.  and the information thing can't be repealed or retracted''''''

Why exactly?
''''''Ssooo that any person reading this can now know this.  You must cite a reliable source that documents this information.  So that this information can be part of that heretofore ignorant person's repertoire.'''''

So, what you are saying is that that person is stupid.  Okay, so that person is stupid.  Okay, so if they are stupid, then how in the world is the act of citing even more academic sources going to help them expand their knowledge base?  Wouldn't this just further confuse and upset them?

They didn't know this prior.  But they are somehow magically going o be able to handle the burden of this knowledge upon their delicate psyches now?

This tedious insistence of academia is cumbersome and offers little practical, real-world use.

Why Females Should Not Use This Excuse, Either

Here is a fairly recent excuse making the rounds nowadays.  But it is potent and powerful because it tells women many of the things that they want to hear.  Some psychological warfare that is all the more devastating because it is sneaky underhanded.

Some males will claim that marriage is a misogynistic Jurassic institution.  That it has no place in our modern civilized world.  They say that it especially impedes women's rights and ability to lead full rich fulfilling lives.

But I am telling you now, always be very, very wary of males that claim to think that traditional conservative patriarchal institutions are sexist.  Trust me, I am an expert in deductive reasoning and human psychology.  This is what I do.  I study human behavior very carefully, and I glean people’s motivations.

Side note:  in truth, yes, for the vast majority of human history, marriage was a business transaction, a purchase in which the man bought the woman from her biological family and then owned her as his slave and property.  However, that was then.  That is not the case in this society any more.

Yeah, don't even try, dude.  You don't give a flyin sh*t about women's rights.  Do you protest r--- or the way that the legal system is skewed and messed up in that it doesn't even really recognize r--- for the crime that it is?  Do you try to raise awareness of this?  Have you tried to bring about positive change perhaps by running for local office or something like that?  Do you protest violence against women?  Are you aware, or do you raise awareness of the fact that in many countries it is legal for a man to beat and even murder his wife?

Do you protest prostitution and child abuse?  Do you protest or raise awareness of international sex trades in which young girls, children, are bought and sold and traded like spare body parts?  Those are also Jurassic archaic institutions that severely cripple women's abilities to lead fulfilling lives.

If you honestly want to talk about marriage being a Jurassic archaic institution, well, guess what.  There is no shortage of current events fodder in this world in which marriage is used as a tool to beat down, demean, degrade women.  Not to mention children.  There’s the taliban, there's the Waco compound-type things here in the US.  It is abusive, vile, and turns the stomach.

It is widespread, infesting the world, leaking like a virus into remote isolated cultures.  Rampant amongst extremist religious freaks that claim they receive "messages from" some g-d to take a child as a "wife."  So-called religion used as an escape-excuse to legalize the r--- of children.  Child abuse happening in remote villages all over the world.  Young tween girls who are children barely having started puberty, are forced into marriages with aging men.

THAT is an example of marriage being a sick abusive institution that preys on women.  It subjugates them, forces them into subhuman roles, treating them like work animals.  It is turned into a sick perversion of what is supposed to be a loving and *consenting* union between two adults.

But for someone to try to draw parallels between sick perverted nasty middle-aged men in undeveloped, primitive, stone-age cultures across the globe that sell and r--- pubescent-age children --and-- a grown woman in modern western society who has made the conscious choice to be married -- don't even try.

That is being deliberately obtuse and pigheaded.  There is always some self-important huffy puffy atheist-apathist that tries to use the excuse that two thousand years ago or two thousand miles away, someone by the same name has done something criminal.  Well okay, that's good, point taken, duly noted.  But what the hell does that have to do with someone in modern society who is reasonable, moral, rational, level-headed, possessing of good judgment, possessing of good decision-making ability?  There are freakish splinter groups in almost all factions of society, in all ethnicities.

For the most part, people have ulterior motives.  So you have to ask yourself, what is a male's ulterior motive in supposedly being against conservative "traditional" life arrangements?  Obviously he benefits from this “new world order” somehow.  Or else he would not give a crap about ridding the world of patriarchal institutions.  How does he benefit from ridding the world of such "Jurassic institutions?"

Simple -- he gets strings-free, attachment-free, commitment-free sex.  If there is no relationship, then he does not have to worry about her feelings.  The male does not have to regard the female as a human being, does not have to "talk" with her, does not have to meet her family.  He gets all the benefits of a "relationship" with none of the obligatory work.

Self-proclaimed "liberated," "independent-thinking" females often make the following objections to getting married:  Get married?  What for?  To cook and clean and be a slave to some guy?  Why the hell would I want to be stuck with a guy who is going to sit around watch football all day, develop a beer gut, not appreciate any of the cooking and cleaning I do around here, be an ungrateful ahole.  Why the hell would I want that??

If all that is true for marriage, then guess what.  All that also holds true for a living-together couple.  It is the exact same arrangement, simply minus the legal protections that surround a wife in a marriage.

So if you object to marriage on these grounds, then by simple logic you should also object to shacking up -- on the same grounds.  The same conditions exist in the shacking-up arrangement.  Indeed, this is often the pattern for a lot of male-female sexual relationships.

Societal Mores

Liberals accuse conservatives of being stuck-up, snobbish, conceited, holier-than-thou behavior.  Why?  Because conservatives have standards?

because conservatives want to be true to themselves and not kowtow to the morass of your opinion (and of your ilk)?  you’re saying that the fact that they have morals, the fact that they are human beings who have boundaries that need to be respected, that they have limits beyond which is disgusting for them, is what makes you better than them.

A common remark from liberals is, "does it not change with the times?"
you mean be a wishy-washy, easily manipulated dishrag who is easily swayed and bullied and steamrolled over by popular culture?  no thanks.

We were human beings then, and we are human beings now.  We have limits.  Some of these limits are bad, like racism.  Other limits are good and serve very useful purposes.  Such as the fact that we do not tolerate murderers and rps, and we have enacted active law to that effect.

Let us use an analogy.  We see that academic and intellectual standards are failing miserably.  we see that the level of education attained by the average public school person is pathetically woefully subpar.

so perhaps college admissions all across the country should show some flexibility.  perhaps they should prove to the general public that they are "cool."
hey we're cool.  we're one of you.  we understand.  we sympathize.  we'll totally do whatever it takes to get you in.  If that means relaxing the admissions standards by one or two standard deviations, that's cool.

so they should not have any conviction.  they should not have any consistency.  they should just be easily swayed by popular opinion.  who cares about standing your ground?  who cares about being consistent?  who cares about___

Don't Fall For This Excuse

Or, here's a really good one.  I notice that some males claim the reason they don't want to get married is that marriage is an archaic institution foisted onto the public by dogmatic, tyrannical, fascist organized religions.  (Their words, not mine.)

Er, okay, duly noted.  And they also claim that marriage is "demeaning" to women because it treats women like properly, women are chattel, women are basically slaves to their master.  (Again, their words, not mine.)  The guy insists that it is a matter of sociopolitical opinion and breaking free from shackles something-or-other.

Full disclosure -- I have to wonder about the sanity and the intelligence levels of females that fall for this crap.  Even fuller disclosure -- I see that a whole lot of self-described "free-thinking liberal" females actually spout this crap themselves.

But hang on a second, wait a minute, wait a minute.  Let us set all the facts out in a row.
1)   a male claims that he is against marriage because women are imprisoned, enslaved, they do not have freedom, they do not have liberty, etc.  a female claims she is against marriage for the same reason -- she does not want to be enslaved in a wifey prison.
2)   this supposedly means what it says -- he is opposed to an arrangement in which women are imprisoned, treated like indentured servants, are treated like slaves.
3b)   let us review the duties and responsibilities that a wife has in a marriage arrangement and household.  in the arrangement is which she is apparently treated like a slave, etc.  the wife cooks, she cleans, she takes care of the husband, they have sex, she nags and fusses at him to eat more healthily and to exercise.  she is the one that has to endure pregnancy, she takes care of the kids, she might choose to be a stay-at-home-mom and homemaker.
3b)   according to family research councils as well as economic growth surveys, in the majority of two-parent households, it is the wife who handles all the bill paying, utilities, expenses.  that doesn't necessarily mean she pays out of her own pocket, especially if the husband is the breadwinner.  it does mean that she controls the money.
4)  one more fact of the marriage arrangement:  in this modern day and age, and especially in this society, there is enormous legal protection for a wife.  If the husband is bored and decides to just pack up his stuff and leave, he better have a plan for fully supporting his soon-to-be ex-wife.  He is not allowed to just toss the wife or kids out on the street.  He is not allowed to just stop supporting them because he feels like it.  The law ensures the wife and kids are taken care of.  Many a family court judge across the country has decreed this [[decisioin, judgement ___]]]]]]]

hh)   next fact:  the guy that is opposed to marriage and his shack-up are living together.  In the cohabitation arrangement, what is the female's role?  Let us review the duties and responsibilities that the female in the shack-up has.  She cooks, she cleans.  A lot of shacking-up couples do have offspring.  Illegitimate, born out-of-wedlock offspring.
tr)   one major difference between marriage and shacking up.  In the shack-up, the female does not have any legal nor financial protection.
gg)   next fact:  the shacking-up guy still claims to be against marriage because of socio-politically what it represents.
..)   and yet the male is apparently okay with this shack-up arrangement-- in which the female has all of the exact same duties and responsibilities as a wife does in the traditional marriage arrangement.  But she has none of the benefits.

Check and mate.

Practical Arguments Against Moving In Together Before Marriage

There are many of them.

Haven’t you read any financial magazines?  Financial advice articles on msn.com or anywhere?  They all say the same thing -- get a complete credit check on your future to-be before even thinking about getting hitched.  Doing that would have revealed any and all financial hiccups in this person's past.  Gambling addictions, secret illegitimate children they are court-mandated to support, everything.

Do a full criminal background check.  In all fifty states.  And any international overseas criminal background checks.

Also any behavioral medical background.  Drug addictions, al anon, venereal diseases, abortions.

Sorry, but you have no right to huff and puff and get mad that that is all too nosy/busybody/none-of-your-damn-business/etc.  You’re getting married and/or moving in together.  The female has a right to know about everything.  And the male has a right to know about everything as well.

This should not be considered overly intrusive.  On the contrary, this should be considered just intrusive enough.  I mean, you're considering moving in with this person, for god's sake.  To even consider doing that, don't you want to first make sure this person is not a carjacker with AIDS?

It should really be common sense in this day and age, get full bloodwork done on each other.  All HIV, all hepatitis, all Chlamydia.  All what else, what else, that human papilloma virus that is apparently making the rounds nowadays.  Anything and everything.  This should be the case before you two even start having sex, whether you plan to get married or not.

Hey, look I'm not being hypocritical when I suggest all this background checking stuff.  When I get married, I will give my husband full disclosure and access to my background.  I will allow him to completely run the gamut of any and all background checks he wants to perform on me.  I have no problem being completely honest.  I'm an open book with the person I marry.  In return, I fully expect the same cooperation from him.  I'm talking family history of any murderous tendencies, bank statements to see if he ever owed any bookies money, everything.

The Road From Discovery- To Invention

Where does discovery end... and invention begin?

All the laws of physics were already set in place in the universe. (assembled in this arrangement)  All we had to do was find the precise combinations to be able to generate electricity, motion, atomic physics.  Sure, contraptions, machines can be invented, but __.

Isaac Newton stated, "If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."  Modern innovators, scientists, biomedical researchers are all standing on the shoulders of giants.  But which giants?

The natural laws of the universe have been set down before time immemorial.

Isn't it (the situation) that the laws of physics already dictated that it will be this way?  And then just sat back, waiting for us to discover the methods that put it in optimal arrangement so that the "inventions" could work?  Consider medicine and pharmacology.  Sure extraction + purification methods had to be created.  But didn't the laws of physics already decree that this precise medicine would have to be administered in this dosage, in this method (muscle, intrathecal, iv)?

What I am asking is, how much of this is truly invention and originality on the part of the human being?  What percentage of it was honestly completely willed into existence by the person who worked with this system most?  On the contrary, how much of it was, at its core and essence, merely discovery?

On a similar note, how much credit should the author or creator get?  There are grammar editing software programs, there are software that supposedly "increase your creativity tenfold" like mindmapping.  There are standing mixers that mix the butter and sugar or knead the bread dough; there are graphic design digital software programs. where must the line between creativity and help be drawn?

Pondering About Homo sapiens

laws of physics in this universe. - What is it that makes our species so special?

I am not really asking rhetorically; I really do want to know.  We have opposable thumbs and we have the ability to lock our knees when standing [walk upright]. But it is the laws of physics in this universe, in the so-called "very fabric of existence" that dictate that in this universe, pertinent to this universe's laws of physics, and existing sub-subatomic particles, that opposite thumbs are a boon (put us above other species).

What about the human gift of speech?  That is great, but not on a logistic level.  Not in any way special for the purpose of giving/exchanging relaying information.  All species have some form of communication -- whale clicks, bees dancing, bats radar/sonar, etc.  These all communicate information such as warn about enemies, claim their territory, signal fear of predator species, about where food can be found.

We do however, have the ability to do more lofty things with that speech, such as create stories, write plays, novels, etc.  But that is combined with human right-side brain, which gives us panache (affinity, flair) for creativity and having an imagination.  Maybe when they say gift of speech, they are talking about things like creativity and sht.

the four main laws of the universe - strong force (explain), weak force(explain), gravity and(4th I don't remember).

Even Creepier Than Deadbeat Females

I have sporadically seen another interpretation of this weird, skewed social creeper, and this one is even more creepy and repulsive.  Here, a female doesn't just have a few screws loose; the entire cabinet and its hinges are broken and smashed to the floor in a heap of garbage.

Say a female gets an unwanted pregnancy; i.e., she was stupid, careless, of loose morals, sloppy, lazy, and irresponsible.  She could redeem herself at this point by miraculously owning up to her responsibilities, keeping the kid instead of dumping it onto the state foster care system, and raise it right.

However, there is the dread chance she is an unhinged nutjob that genuinely thinks "society" is closed-minded, judgmental, old-fashioned, ad nauseum for expecting her to do exactly that.

"I'm not going to let society's stranglehold decide my fate and decide MY fate."  "Society cannot put these shackles on me and decide how I handle my situations."  Apparently expecting a liberal female to actually raise the kid that she pooped out into this world is a bad thing.

Expecting a female to take responsibility for her actions and to deal with her situation in a mature, levelheaded, gracious fashion is now known as "society" abusing and oppressing her.

Shacking up

Now there is an even more insidious trend slowly spreading like Ebola amongst the dating crowd.  That of people moving in together waaayyyyy before they are married, if they even get married at all sometime in the mythical future.  Sometimes they move in together merely a few weeks after they start dating.

Jeebus, for the concrete logic-based issue of safety alone is reason enough not to move in together too soon.  Come on, do I really need to elaborate?

Any possible half-assed or full-assed arguments against the safety issue that any dumbarse can cough up -- I'm not even going to list them because they are usually some self-contained, self-contradictory, circular illogic crap.  Just thinking about the existence of these arguments gives me a headache.

Yes, you are in fact putting yourself through this.  No one forced you to go through this.  No one forced you to move in with your “boyfriend” who in all honesty was still veritably a stranger to you.  How much did you actually know about him?

Some people even try to say that they want to live together because “that is making a commitment to each other.”

Erm, no it is not making a commitment.  What it *is,* is doing everything physically humanly possible in this universe *not* to make a commitment to each other.  I’ve said it once, I will say it again.  The only full, true commitment on the planet is marriage.

The only thing living together accomplishes -- is to amplify all the things that I've been saying is wrong with modern dating in the first place.  It just highlights all the problems with modern dating attitudes -- and solves none of them.

The lack of actual commitment.  The crappy, beating-around-the-bush, nonexistent communication.  The not having actual emotional connection with each other.  The not getting to really know each other before jumping in the sack.  Making up excuses in your head and rationalizing away misunderstandings, rather than seeing them point-blank for what they are.

They will usually come back at me with something like, “Well it's a practical thing.  It’s logical that you would live together first before getting married -- so that you can find out how the other person is.”

That sounds like a good argument, at first.  But think about it more thoroughly.  What exactly are you trying to find out when you say that the two of you should live together before getting married?  What is giving you the reason that "the two of you need to find out about each other?”

Does that mean that one or both of you were hiding something from the other?  Does that mean that one or both of you were lying to the other about something?  Perhaps about something substantial?  Or keeping big secrets about things that should have been already revealed to the other person, if the relationship were truly so “serious” that they are moving in together?

It’s self-contradictory, circular, self-contained illogic.  You say you want to move in with this person because he/she is a stranger and you want to know them better.  But if he/she is a stranger, then why do you want to move in with them?

It’s like one of those strict orthodox religions where one of the tenets is that you are not allowed to convert out of the religion.  ...But... if you do go out of that religion, then you do not have to worry about their rules anymore...  Including the rule that says you are not allowed to go out of it.  Do you see what I mean about the ridiculous self-contained contradictory logic?

I read somewhere that some female moved in with her male significant other, and it was revealed that the male had severe money management issues and severe anger management issues.  Before they moved in together, she saw some clues -- the male had mood swings and had weird habits with money (I don't remember the money details).  Frankly, a full financial background check would have revealed the bad credit issues.

In other words, you two were lying to each other about some mah-johr issues throughout the entire relationship.

So in other words, moving in together simply highlights everything that I’ve been saying is wrong with dating in modern society in the first place.  Two people are lying to each other through the skin of their teeth just so they could get the other in the sack.  The two people are shallow, sociopathic creatures who are carved-out hollow bloodless bloodsucking soulless ghouls that have committed some serious psychosocial misdemeanors in their past, and are now conveniently lying about it.

And as far as the mood swings, I really believe -- because I have seen it demonstrated before my eyes -- that people cannot keep major things hidden for an indefinite amount of time.  This is true with friends, co-workers, extended family members, everyone.  Eventually they will crack and will get tired of putting on a happy face, and they will blow up in front of you.

Most likely, the reason the female did not pick up on that, is that the two of them were not in the relationship for very long before deciding to move in together.  They didn't know each other long enough for important behavioral traits to show up.  And they conveniently ignored the common sense argument that it is never a good idea to move in together too soon.

A lot of females will say, "oh I want to be closer to him."  Well, this could simply be the introvert in me talking, but dammit I like my space.

The Subject of Deadbeat Females

regarding deadbeat dads, adoption, and certain perceptions and misconceptions
-- for the adopion, abandonment parallel males femal, *remb, the adoption comparison to deadbeat fathers

Hmm...  A somewhat common editorial opinion is that there is a double standard between people's opinions of women with their children as opposed to men with their children.___

But to be honest, this is not really what I am seeing everywhere.  Let us discuss some double standards that are prevalent in popular culture.

We've all heard news reports about deadbeat dads who abandon their children and don't stay in the children's life and don't want to pay child support.  Okay, I admit all that is bad.

But then if a woman does essentially the exact same thing, how come she is praised as being a strong woman in charge of her own life?  For example, if a woman has an abortion, she is hailed for being a strong woman, she is lauded for practicing her right as a woman.

That's nothing to say, to speak of adoption.  Certain talking heads always hail lavish compliments upon a female that gives her unwanted baby up for adoption.  Common quotes are, "oh she's being so courageous, she's being so brave because" something or other.  They usually say something like, "imagine the amount of heart-wrenching pain she had to endure for giving up her child."

They shower [[__lavish]] admiration and praise such as the following canned responses.  She's being so very brave and so courageous because she wants to give her child a better life.  She knows that she would not be a suitable parent, she know that she would not be a fit parent. So therefore she um, therefore she gave the child up, up for adoption.

So supposedly all that is true even though essentially she abandoned the child.  The biological mother weighed all her options, and she made the wisest decision that would bring the greatest benefit for all involved parties.

The commentary is usually accompanied by factology that happens to be accurate.  It is true that if a female gives up a child for adoption, it is in fact for the best.  She is usually single, uneducated, sometimes even a high school dropout, unemployed, possibly on welfare, often not even a legal adult.  She is in no shape to be a good parent.  By staying out of the kid's life, she is giving it a chance at a better one.  Okay, alright fair enough.

But then why couldn't we use those exact same [[arg]]__ in defense of deadbeat fathers?  Theoretically, you could very easily furnish the same exact arguments towards deadbeat fathers.  You could use the same modes of logic__
they keep getting thei- girlfriends pregnant, or whatever,

He could also say, oh well he knows that he's not a good person, he knows that he would not be able to give the child a good life, give the child a life.  So therefore he abandoned the child because he knows he would not be a fit parent.  He knew he would not be a good, suitable parent.  So therefore he leaves the child in the hands of far more capable human beings, to give the child its best chance in life.

so how come there's a weird double standard
the word double standard would have to be in there somewhere

And frankly, to be brutally honest, if the guy really is a bad guy, then he probably did the best thing for all involved parties by staying out of the kid's life.  I know this is not a popular opinion at all; in fact I don't think I have read this particular viewpoint anywhere.  Of course that makes this a single-mother household with fatherless child having to be raised on food stamps and government cheese.

so back to the adoption.  Remember how I mentioned that the biological mother is under the impression she is sending the kid off to a better life.  She's being so brave because she's giving the child a better life.

Erm, a better life?? you have to know about the state of the foster care system in this country.  it is horrible, children are abused, neglected, uh broken, abused by [_]  horrible broken homes, like that is the definition of broken homes.

This simply brings me back to my initial assertion.  I know it's not politically correct, I know it's not sugarcakes and rainbows and puppies and zero personal responsibility.

But it is what I believe.  This is what I mean when I say the female needs to be more discriminating in her choice of people to have sex with.  Both sex partners should have thoroughly considered all of this before risking the production of an unwanted child.  Not just the male, and not just the female.  They are both equally stupid and irresponsible.  The male is stupid for having sex and possibly creating a fetus that he has no intention of supporting.  And The female is stupid for not making sure the guy was a good guy before having sex with him and possibly creating a fetus.

But no one in any talking sound bites anywhere, nor in any lengthy, languorous, drawn-out essays ever arrives at this revelation.  They all miraculously arrive at the exact same conclusion -- that the primary burden of birth control falls on the male participant's shoulders.  Very few opinionaters ever offer any groundbreaking insight outside of this prepackaged canned response.  There is no additional insight that maybe, just maybe, the female participant should shoulder some responsibility of making sure an unwanted fetus is not produced.  It is always some permutation of the following:  "The evil predatory male has to make sure the precious innocent sweet naive female does not get pregnant."

I do not understand why everywhere I encounter ___ nearly every single editorial opinion writer, and practically everywhere on the internet is [[ablaze__] with this same exact opinion.  There is an astonishing lack of diversity in opinion on this particular topic.  This is the box, and there is astonishingly little variance of thinking outside of it.

Western Women Complaining About How Hard It Is Being A Woma… zzzzz

Theyre young sonof course hey hv anlot kf energy.  But they dont eant to do aythjgn useful so they resort ti being a oain in the ass.  Rehter hsn allocsting their energy toeards stufdyin scicne toeards preparinghtmesenvss for s usefuk future carerr thry comlalin sbt men

All they evr tslk abt is biw hard it is being a woman.

Yeah, right.  Erm, no life is not hard. You don't live in a third world country.  You are not cursed to existing in grinding, obliterating poverty. You don't have to deal with seeing trash and filth and unidentified gross objects strewn out all over the streets. You don't have to face starving beggars at your front door or traipsing after you as you make your way through town.

You have comforts and luxuries afforded to you that were [[unforesen nono_]]] [[[unparallelled nonn ]]] never before dreamt of throughout all of human history.

Welfare concerns.  Also, I no longer have any sympathy for people that claim there is no support or resources for poor people.  There are tons of resources.  There are charities, there are ___.  In poverty-stricken third-world countries, there are no opportunities.  There is no emergency fund, there is no public source of___.  there is no help.

Yeah, you do have to work hard to be able to pass the courses and complete the program and graduate.  Just like you have to do hard work to cook your own food and to clean up after yourself.  Well, that's life.

See there it is again, middle-class white kids complaining about having to do any hard work.  They’re thinking that simply living life is too difficult for words. Let me emphasize once again, that these are middle-class white kids, not rich lids. Yet these middle-class white kids are spoiled brats every bit as rich kids are wont to be.  Again, I don't see why all these western middle-class white girls are convinced that life is like sooooo haaaard.
There are all sorts of opportunities in western first world society.

And wringing their hands over college expenses being too high.

Now, this last one is a legitimate concern. If they truly are thinking about this, I am glad because it shows that they have comprehension, of the concept of thinking beyond the simple conspicuous here-and-now.

So go to a community college.  They have one-year-long vocational programs that will train you for a specific job
There are programs in medical office assistant, two-year programs in nursing, RAD tech, surgical tech.  As you can see, there are many that are healthcare related.  Yes? What is the problem?  It is a good thing that these are based in healthcare.  That means these are useful programs, you won't be wasting the state's money, and you are pretty much guaranteed a job when you graduate.

There are need-based educational grants for people who might come from modest means.

They might not have the resources to study some nonsense such as medieval Russian census techniques.  Well, these are silly, fluff, luxury pastimes for people who have not a care in the world.  These frivolous, useless libarts degrees for people who never have to worry about having to plan and budget and be responsible for themselves. They are not tasked with the burden of having to take care of themselves.  Even rich people don't necessary have that luxury of singing "la dee da dee da."  They have to keep making sure they are rich, remember?

Some nimrod nonsense about stripping to be able to afford the cost of college tuition.  What utter bs.  With all the scholarships, student loans, community college transfer programs in existence to help offset the exorbitant cost of education.

Because there are so many resources, and abundant options, and so much opportunity, I have zero sympathy for some dmass that says she needs to strip to pay her college tuition. Bs. There are tons of options for financial aid for vocational programs.

And look.  I hate to say it, but if a female is dumb enough to think she must resort to stripping to make money, then she is probably too dumb for any of the critical science majors.  Which means she is probably only smart enough for a useless libarts degree.  Which, as we all know, is a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of her time in the first place. Which brings me to my original precept. Go to community/vocational school and study something useful.

Aging, stringing along, sagging, hagging

Or the epidemic of aging boyfriends stringing aging girlfriends along is something that is slowly, quietly infesting western modern societies.

The female in this scenario gets no sympathy from me.  Oh boo effin hoo, cry me an effin river.  You agreed to this, and now you have the audacity to complain about it?  I don't want to hear it.  You chose to go along with this wishy-washy casual dating bullshit.  And now you're mad because he's not honoring a commitment that you two didn't have in the first place?

Quit hurting yourself

For a time I could not figure out whyyyy exactly a lot of these females were feeling "hurt"" because some random dude was having sxx with multiple partners.  It was like, okay, so he is sleeping with several partners simultaneously...  And sure, that is nasty and vile...

But why in the world would that affect you?  What in the world does that have to do with you?  If it upsets you that much, then break off the friendship.  That's what I would do.  Because I agree, I do not want to be friends with an STD-spreader.  That's gross.  What if I use the sink after him?  I do not approve of people that have that much lack of self-respect.

You do not have to take it upon yourself personally to feel hurt.  If I know a guy that is a male slut, it is not going to actually *affect* me emotionally.  If I have a male acquaintance that is a slut, I simply mutter, "hhunh.  He's a slut."  And then I shrug and go on about my business.

I see that a lot of females feel that they are "hurt" if a guy is a slut.  But -- sigh.  I really do not see how this would "hurt" you if some random dude sleeps around.  The only way it could "hurt" you is if you are one of the dumb sluts that he slept with.

Here is what I especially don't get about this.  Why are so many females claiming they are "hurt" or offended by this?  How would the vague assumption of some random guy being promiscuous affect you in any way?  This is what I do not get about some females' substitution for logic.  What in the world does a stranger's promiscuity have to do with you?

Why in the world would you want to bring that mess into your onw life?  if some guy wants to be promiscuous, fine, let him.  let him deal with syphilis and gonorrhea and chlamydia.  let him deal with illegitimate births born to a pre-broken non-family.

Ohhhh...  It is because you are sleeping with him.  Let me guess -- you started sleeping with him before you actually got to know him as a person.

Look, here's the thing.  Guys cannot "hurt" any female in a casual relationship in terms of sex unless she lets him.  There is no way in this physical universe that a guy can "hurt" you unless you made a stupid careless move yourself.  Again, this is all self-evident.  I learned all this by simply watching other people.  I didn't have to make any of these mistakes myself; I pride myself on learning from others' mistakes.

Like if I am friends with a guy for a while, let us use this as an example.  We are good close friends, we hang out, we talk about life, we talk about love in the general cosmic sense, there is an emotional connection, as evidenced by the fact that we get along well and we are friends.  But we are most definitely not having sex.  This is a clearly-stated delineator of the relationship.  We are friends -- no more, no less.  Then let us suppose he reveals to me that in fact he is a "player," i.e., a slut.

I might feel a sense of disappointment.  I would shake my head and look at him pityingly, the way you would look at someone that disappointed their parole officer.  And I probably would end the friendship.  Because, ew gross, that's a pretty major life issue not to have in common.  Most importantly, since we never had sxx, I would not feel hurt.

Human beings are evolved creatures.  We are not lower animals.  Ergo, sxxx has enormous emotional implications, ramifications, all that stuff.  This is common sense.

Sigh.  All this is, is reinforcing and proving everything that I have been saying for years.  It is aggravating that so many people screw up their emotional health, not to mention they cause massive social ills, because they refuse to face this truth.  So many on this blue-and-green ball refuse to believe that humans are very emotionally attached to sex.  A few even vehemently try to insist that this is a liability.  Idiots, the lot of them.  Shaking my head like the aforementioned disappointed parole officer.

Jhumpa Lahiri's "Namesake"

The book description on the back cover reads "wrenching love affairs."  One amazon.com reviewer put "tear-jerker at times... every time he falls in love."

boy, let me tell you, I read that line and laughed out loud.  to me it seemed that gogol never "falls in love."  no. the so-called love was shallow, contrived, laughable, predictable. i mean , he meets them one day and then the following day wihotut preamble, they are sudently having "ravenous sex" (jhumpa lahiri's own words)

gogol does not seem to know waht love is. he does not love himsef, so how can he possbi love another person? he does not recognize love when he sees it, such as his paretnt's love for eathcother (he thinks that because they don't make out on the couch in front of thier kids, that they do not love each toher), or his paretns' love for him (one of his girglfreind's parents are perfeclt fine with her and him shacking up a couple of floors above them, then coming downstarirs the next morning together, obviously having slept together, and therefor he thinks that "family" is much healthier than his own).

boy, they are a piece of work. a rather sick family dynamic.
++
by the way, I really do not consider Moushumi his wife in any sense of the word. their relationship is virtually identical to all of his shallow, image-packed, substance-free relationships wiht the various females he has slept with. they live together, big deal. they had already moved in together within a couple of months of dating. and they had been doing so for almost a year by the time they got married. same as all his other girlfrinds. except he diddn't marry any of them.

and moushumi is sleeping with several different males practicalle simultaneously. she slowed down after they got marreid, but she wasnt' happy about it. before she was marreid, she was whining and crying about paris. after she got marreid, she was whining and crying about paris.
++++++++++
I swear, they are like characters from Frinds, which are already one-dimensional parodies of __. pseudo-intellectual middle-class white people in new york who hold low-paying jobs that do not really contribute to society, somehow maintain the utterly glamorous image, and do not know any black people, until the 8th or 9th season when ratings are sagging so they stick a black girlfreind in there for posterity.

this need to be aproved by th ecool white kids. distincly, the white kids - a point that should not be lost on any of us but with which the author might be trying to pull a fast one over on us.  i mean, the black ghewtto crowqd is cool too, you mnow, like tgose gants rapper s with thier bling.  not to mention the hip latinos, with thier energetic drum-beating music providing framerwork for outspoken socially-conscious lyrics, and other stuff that they might share with the ganstsa rappin crowd but is distincly latino. theyr're young hip, + impatient, but they have genuine respect for thier fussy mexican catholic paretns, or cuban or peurto rican or wherever their family are from. but does either of these characters want to emulate them? no. why the hell not?
and honey, if he lives in new york then you _do_ know he encounters danceclub latinos everyday.

I, too, had an inconsolable need to be approved and accepted by the countercultrue in-crowd. you know, there's the standard regular cool kids, and there's also the alterna-cool kids who listen to indie punk-rock bands that no one has ever heard of, take the art courses at school, dress in goth clothes or skater clothes , dye their hair green or cranberry or death-pale bluish-black or generally just a really ugly hairdo. they obsess about death and decay, ponder over modern art and think that they are being deep. and don't forget, have plenty of sex + drugs.
Pseudo-intellectual, smarmy, art fags.
and then I graduated from high school and got the hell over it.
honestly, it's such a laughable, idiotic, juvenile desire, to want to be accepted by that crowd. but now you're a grown-up.  you should know by now, there's more to life than that.

uh, dude, like, isn't that exactly what you did earlier in the book, when you fawned and worshiped all over
what? you thought they were real?  sorry, dude, but they are just as fake and poser as these current ones. no, he says, the stuff they talked about was real, they really did know about art, art history, history of art, philosophy of art history, history of philosophy of art.
paris holton go fug yourself.  read this. the link is right here. it's hilarious. and true.
also, it reminds me of a sequence from "saved by the bell," which was also making fun of the art-fake crowd. "are we art?  is art, art?"

oh, and one more thing. where in the hell did they get all that money? as a "museum art curator." oh, yeah, the museum art curatory industry is booming. everyone knows it, and the stocks are soaring.

they are no more than the
,the kind of people that that movie "art school confidential" makes fun of.  thing is, they are so damn easy to make fun of, that is, high school kids would be making fun of them if they weren't so utterly convinced that they are the pinnacle of cool, that they are the __ they should aspire to.  well what do you expect from whiny middle-class white kids who are trying to sound deep?

We are no more forgiving when discussing books, movies written from a Chinese person's perspective.  Why should we be any less ruthless when discussing books written from an Indian perspective?

____One reviewer wrote, "she hates herself that much, that she can't stand to be associated w Chinese people."  and I realized, I agree.  that _is_ what that person feels.  even if the person themselves doesn't see it,   they hate themselves that much, that they absolutely hate their ancestry, they want to denounce, cast off their heritage.  they absolutely hate who they are, who their family are, where they come from.  they hate the land that is their native home. I can't imagine being filled with that much disgust, contempt, for one's(self) homeland.

he hates his own family, he has nothing but contempt for his parents' relationship with each other, he approaches them with an extremely disrespectful attitude - haughty, hipper than thou, cooler than thou, he thinks he is way better than them because they grew up in India and he grew up in the west.  he nearly cuts off all ties to his family, he hardly ever calls them, he gradually stops visiting them on holidays.

damn, even white people in america who think their parents are dorky don't do that.
let me ask you something, jhumpa lahiri and all other indian young people who want all this.  do people of italian ancestry act this way?  do they cut off all ties to their family, do they hide the fact that they are italian?  do they take it as a compliment when people mistake them for not being italian and think that they must be some other more fair-skinned caucasan group?
sigh.  sweeties, we already covered that in non-white reactions to white remarks 101.

look at this. everything, absolutely everything, about his girlfriend's parents is absolutely perfect. and his own parents, who entertain dozens and dozens of people at a time, this is far less than perfect, far less than ideal. why is that? why is the white people's way of doing things so much better than the indian people's way of doing things?
well, the white people appreciate fine food, fine art, fine music and theater.  so what are you saying, that indian food by definition cannot possibly be gourmet food, that indian saris and such do not require any skill, any creativity to compose?

I mean, damn, jhumpa.  is this what you feel about your family's home country?  no, you say it is not autobiographical at all, just a carefully observed portrait, in-depth look at someone who struggles with their identtiy?
so you are absolutely sure that there exists someone in the vast great somewhere who is so desperate to cut off all ties to india, that he throws himself into the soulless, gutless,

also, maybe you've heard this phrase, maybe not, the main character has no soul.
"they take drugs to remind themselves that they are still young." huh? okay, whatever
you say, chachi. (picture 1) giidy-up teeth click, 2) wink, 2) finger-gun-point thing.)
the main char's shakck-up has no soul, either.
she does drugs, she's a drunk, she's a chainsmoker. and she's a slut to boot. she'll hump anything on two legs that throws a little money her way. when she started cheating on him, I just rolled my eyes, gave a cynical snicker and had to admit that thoguth, "knew it."

what, you're mad because I revealed a crucial plot point? (rolling eyes.) trust me, I did not "give anything away" by mentioning that. if you have been paying attention to the book and the main chracters, you should know that they have the attention span of a fly hopped up on crack.  it was not a "no way, I NEVER saw that coming!" it was quite predictable.
regarding the white folk, I was surprised, however, that they bothered to get married.  I thought for sure they would be of the "oh, we don't need a piece of paper to declare our love, unlike you organized-religion, government-worshiping non- individuality conformists" variety.

well, damn, I got sick too, but you know what?  I loved it anyway.  I loved visiting all our relatives.  I loved playing with the Bangladeshi children, cousins who lived there, or next-door neighbors who are very close friends with my family.  I loved seeing the skyline in Dhaka during the slow, breathtaking, approaching evening by way of a beautiful sunset.

Good. At Least One of Us Is

I am getting irritated with all the liberal accusations that people are "trying to play God" anytime they are in favor of the death penalty.  They pout and say in a whining babyish voice, "You're just trying to play God.  You meanie."

This is my response.  (Glance up at the sky for a brief moment, then look back down here at people on earth.)  "Well, somebody has to."

If it is pre-meditated cold-blooded murder, I have no problem with the death penalty being used.  Of course, then then they spew other inane aphorisms such as, "using the death penalty won't bring the victim back," and other such irrelevant drivel, but that is a topic for another time.  This post has been a long time coming, but it was most recently spurred on by a recent "Crossing Jordan" episode.  That's a pretty good show, but like all good liberals, Jordan is against the death penalty for a mass murderer.

Anytime a liberal pouts indignantly, "because I want mywaymywaymyway nownownow!!!"  Says self-righteously, "you're just trying to play God!!!  Boo boo you!!!"  Subsequently pouts and throws a temper tantrum.

So it's not okay for us to play god by allowing someone to die.

Oh, but what about when deciding whether to keep someone alive?  Expressly expend and use effort, resources, money, labor to keep someone alive.  Oh, you sure as hell are okay with us "playing god" then.

If someone is severely injured, in a trauma accident, their body is severely mauled and mangled.  Perhaps this is a sign from G-dash-D.  Who are we to question the universe's authority?  Who are we to keep this person alive when the universe would so clearly have us do its bidding?  Who are we to question circumstances the universe has so obviously bequeathed its request upon us?  When it is plainly evident that the universe has given us a sign?

We are mere mortals.  Who are we to decide who gets to live?  Perhaps the universe ((( the powers that be; the spirits beings that circulate, that navigate the universe; or the multiverse if your beliefs cleave in that direction)) has decreed that thy will be done.

This person's body is beyond repair, and we are but mere habiters of this one plane of existence.  Why should we have any say in who gets to live?  In who gets to live and breathe another day?  Who are we to declare that this mortal vessel gets to see another day in the present universe?

This person is comatose, unconscious.  Such as Terri Shiavo.  There is very little brain activity.  This person is on full life-support -- oxygen machine, nutrients vitamins minerals, an IV tube constantly feeding this person because it is not physically possible to sustain this person's earthly body in any other manner.  Who are we to keep this person living?  Perhaps the universe has already sent us signs aplenty -- that we should let this person go mercifully and peacefully, and then move on.

Let’s get one thing straight, you liberals who love smugly questioning authority, organized religion, and law enforcement:  Every one of us plays god.  All of us.

We are always playing god.  Every single time that we decide what life-saving technique to administer to patients.  When we decide what sort of treatment, whether holistic, traditional western medicine, even more traditional eastern medicine, chiropractor stuff, surgery, titanium pins being put in a person's bones to hold their bones properly aligned and in place, talisman crystals lined up in a row to focus and harmonize the energies of the spirits of the universe to call zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

When you decide to get your kids vaccinated or decide not to get them vaccinated.  When you decide to take your heart medication precipitously.  When you decide to take your insulin to keep your diabetes in check.  When you decide to start eating more healthily and exercising.  When you decide to start doing yoga to help your heart condition and stress levels.  When you administer medicine for a stomach ulcer.  When you decide to undergo gene therapy, radiation therapy, et cetera.

More Words On The Related Subjects Of: Happiness Supposedly At Odds With Accomplishments; Pop Culture; And Authority Figures

More of this nonsense.

There was a movie called Gattaca a few years back.  It was about the evil future where they genetically enhance people so that said people do not grow up to become doofuses.  This is apparently "evil."  There was a guy in the movie who was born the old-fashioned way and so therefore lacked the genetic enhancement privilege.  (We the viewing audience were supposed to feel sorry for him, and I guess we were supposed to cheer for him when he got to sleep with Uma Thurman, apparently because he was such a sad sop that he deserved something good in his life.)

He wanted to be an astronaut or something, but he was not allowed to become an astronaut because he was in bad health, he was not tall enough, he was not missing enough loose skin flakes, his pee was the wrong color, etc.  (He didn't get to be an astronaut, so sleeping with Uma Thurman was his victory.  Or something like that, I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention.)

Erm, excuse me, but, tough cookies.  Most career paths that are actually worth anything, including being an astronaut, have some sort of necessary stipulations.  Number one, you must have the inherent skill, which will combine with your years of education and training to learn the job duties.

Number two, you must possess all of the secondary qualities that you might not immediately associate in your mind with the particular career, but when you think about it, you realize these are very realistic and reasonable expectations.

For example, to be a clinical lab technologist who might also have to draw people's blood, one must be very adept at many things.  You have to have a full range of scientific knowledge-- biochemistry background of human beings, biochemical basis of blood tests that are running, knowledge of how the testing instruments work, and the ability to troubleshoot the machines, among other skills.  That's all the obvious Part One.  Part Two-- you must have steady hands and good eyesight.  These secondary traits support the primary job requirements.

Credit Cards And Loans Grown-Up Complaints (So, More Spoiled Grown-Up Complaints)

From time to time I hear a sound similar to the buzzing of mosquitoes near your ear in summer.  Spoiled upper-middle-class or rich kids whine and cry, "waahhh!!  I have to pay the money back that I borrowed!  Wahhh!!  Why do I have to pay the money back for that impulse purchase of five hundred dollar shoes!!  Ohhh those credit card companies are so evil because they expect me to pay back the money that they lent me, which I consciously voluntarily used to make a whimsical purchase for myself!!!"

"Whaahh ,, it's not my fault I'm poor and can't afford those Nickelback concert tickets!!"  Really?  Nickelback?

"Wahhh!!!  I want a blackberry!!  Why shouldn't I have what I want??  It's so not fair that I can't afford to buy a blackberry and can't afford the monthly cell phone service bill that is much higher than a local landline bill!!"

**____I closed that credit card, and I haven't looked back.

I notice that a lot of the people protesting this tended to be all these spoiled lazy slacker middle-class white kids.  They were mad because they could not get a job.  They majored in crap majors in college, such as Philosophy of Art History.  Somehow they finagled some reasoning that blamed corporations for their own lack of employability.  They blamed corporations, the manufacturers, for the middle-class white kids' own lack of being able to buy stuff.

And then some people are complaining, "ohhh the credit card companies check your creditworthiness;" "how dare they do a search into your personal private business to see if you are worthy of borrowing their money?"

Well, why would they not check a prospective cardholder?  Why would a bank not check the financial background and spending habits of someone to whom it might potentially hand out a loan?  Why the hell should the credit card companies risk it?  Why should they risk lending out their money if there is a good chance they will not get it back?  You know that cynical but truthful joke of lending money to slacker friends that probably won't pay it back.  "Always borrow money from pessimists.  They don't expect to be paid the money back."

If you are truly so damn responsible and financially prudent with all of your affairs__ If you know how to handle   __ then guess what.  You would not need to borrow money in the first place.  You would have already envisioned that some day you might have an expense or two for which you should have planned ahead.  You would have already been enterprising enough to be prepared, and you would have already established a rainy-day fund for yourself.

intolerance impatience for people that complained that their jobs don't pay them enough; that Microsoft products were too damn expensive, that their jobs don't provide adequate healthcare; that their job provided no peace of mind, no [[[[sustainable longevity of long-lasting__]].

My counterargument to them is the following:  well, what the hell kind of crap-assed job do you have that does not provide job security, in a field that is not a useful endeavor that contributes to the progress and improvement of society as a whole?  What kind of a job do you have that does not have a good deal to provide affordable access to Microsoft software products?
they also tended to be violent and destructive.  they vandalized, they threw chairs through storefront windows.

Middle-Class White Girls, Try Being Genuinely Interesting Sometime; You Might Like It

They could be *actually* interesting, and go and learn about different cultures, travel the world, delve into their own family's heritage and investigate your family's history which is your own tapestry as well.

Go to international festivals.  Learn about different cultures.  You don't have to immerse yourself doing charity work, under the sweltering unforgiving sun toiling in the sands of some foreign land; hehe that's from Jane Eyre.  But at least learn about something beyond your own cushioned, cocooned front porch.

Middle-class whites act snooty around service workers as well as around people of minority races because they think this lends them an air of sophistication.  Middle-class white people act like this because they think this is how rich people act.  But in fact it is not how rich pp act at all.  Ultra sophisticated people who travel the world a lot, and this includes sophisticated white people, know that 2/3 of the world knows the sport we call "soccer" as football.  And what we call football, they call "American football."

But, no.  In an effort to prove that they are interesting and nonracist, they go and have s with a bunch of different dudes from different cultures.  I'm not kidding.

I see that a lot of middle-class white kids are content with simply calling themselves "white" and American and that’s it.  But I can't understand how they can just settle for that.  Acknowledging your American-ness is fine, I certainly admire the patriotism.  I am American, as well.  But that is hardly the whole story.  There is so much more to people's family than just that.  Your family is not just the dinky little small tonw you grew up in and the dinky small high school you graduated from.

Just calling yourself "white" is fine but is hardly conclusive.  There are many different subcategories of white.  Aren't you curious as to your detailed origins and genotype?  Don't you want to learn about your family's complete history and lineage?

Latvian, Irish, German, Scandinavian.  Perhaps a combination of the above, a mix-and-match patchwork.
tapestry___  research about

I know about my family's journey and ancestrage going back to about the twelve century.  I do not have a charted genealogy, no, but I do know my family's specific [[[_history,__,, chronology]]] of geographic movement, languages spoken, languages absorbed and [[[accepted as their own.]]  cultural traditions which they may have assimilated into their own family customs.

Certain universal truths that all humans practice around the world.  Certain family dynamic that transcends any differences in race, culture, ethnicity.  I think there is legitimately such a thing as a social norm.  It's not just a trivial matter of, "this is just how some people choose to live their lives, it is not because it is because of a moral compass, no it is simply a matter of personal preference and all other choices would have been equally valid, would have been perfectly healthy acceptable lifestyle choices."
==

gardening
takes an enormous amount of work and dedication,..  and it is fascinating.  growing your own food.  be truly, genuinely independent rather than simply aping the pop culture babble version of "independent" by engaging in needless self-destruction.  Some people think gardening is boring, but I don't abide by that opinion at all.  How can I, when I know what an enormous undertaking it is?

Do you know how much time effort it takes __  I have very close loved ones who are gardeners.  Before you even start to officially till the land and prepare it to support nutritionally critical plants, you have to check the soil conditions.  Are they optimal for supporting lush vegetation?  a gardener must add vital nutrients and minerals that nourish plants before the plants ever get to the stage of being a life force.

It might take a bit of luck, as in the weather... and that's about it regarding luck.  The vast majority of necessary traits are skill and talent.

I think farmers are fascinating.  I'm serious.  Farmers are people that don't even cross two whits in most of the populace's minds.
At Clemson University, there was one student who seemed a genuine, bonafide, country bumpkin *farmer.*  Not a low-grade redneck from the trailer park.  Certainly not a typical boring middle-class racist white girl roaming the suburbs aimlessly.

But a farmer, as in a girl who raises animals for food, feeds chickens, collects chicken eggs, raises cows and plumps and fattens them up so that said cows and chickens become sustenance for humans.  useful, economically important.
Sustainer of life and nourishment for her fellow human beings.  a girl who really knows [[[[darn it I am getting liek no isnpriation whatsoever.]]] cultivates food, really knows what food is philosophically, at the core.

I feel that they are harbingers of the emblems of feminism.  They are smart and interesting and they are making themselves useful to society.

Aren't you curious to find out about science?  I just don't comprehend at all the mindset that they don’t care to discover the universe and all its mysteries.  These mcw females are so boring that they want to remain boring and bored; they don't care about discovering the ways that the natural world works.

Atoms have certain properties and powers.  They have distinct effects on life and the universe at the fundamental level.  Then they join forces in the comingling of molecules to create a more important compound.  They work together to form a new force.  (Don't worry; this is a mellifluous, poetic way of describing it squarely for the sake of this essay.  When tutoring, I make sure I am much more straightforward and detailed.)