Honest to the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.
I have a buddy whose brother went to Harvard to get his MBA. This is the same guy who said that he didn't learn a damn thing, but knew full well he was going there for connections. Providing further evidence that the Ivy League has essentially jumped the shark and no longer produces innovators or industrialists or entreprenuers, but instead has just become a rent-seekers club, he sent me this.
You just have to be kidding me.
REALLY???
Oh, DON'T make decisions that waste time?!
Oh, I'm sorry, I went to the Carlson School of Management where they told us to make decisions that DID waste time. But then again, that's why Harvard is so much better than your average Big 10 University.
You see kids, this is one of those important differences that will set you apart from the rest of the morons when you go to a Yale or a Harvard and not one of those braindead "public" universities. You get pearls of wisdom like;
"Don't make decisions that waste time."
You aren't going to get that at the U of Florida or Penn State.
No, you have to go to the Ivy League to get that wisdom.
Does ANYBODY in the non-corrupted private sector hire these morons any more? And if so, why????
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Herman Cain the Real Conservative
Anybody who is intellectually honest knows the real racists in the country are liberals and leftists. And I don't say that to be accusatory or a partisan. I say it because it's true. The reason why is liberals and leftists are obsessed with race. You have to fill out EEOC forms, declare what race you are, when reporters interview people "race" is always a factor.
Race race race race.
Whether they are NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY disrciminating does not matter, the definition of racism is treating somebody differently (for better or worse) based on their race.
So when polls like this one come out, it once again shines a bright light as to who the real racists are (not to mention hypocrites).
The reason Herman Cain is very popular amongst conservatives is not the color of his skin. It's his character. He is the only non-politician out there. He is a real man who has had a real job. He didn't inherit the world like Romney. And he speaks bluntly and truthfully and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is honest. And it is because of these things he SHOULD be the Republican nominee.
He just happens to be black.
And it doesn't phase one conservative.
It does however show who is judging people by the color of their skin and not their character. It also belies the hypocrisy of anyone using the insepid term "Uncle Tom."
Race race race race.
Whether they are NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY disrciminating does not matter, the definition of racism is treating somebody differently (for better or worse) based on their race.
So when polls like this one come out, it once again shines a bright light as to who the real racists are (not to mention hypocrites).
The reason Herman Cain is very popular amongst conservatives is not the color of his skin. It's his character. He is the only non-politician out there. He is a real man who has had a real job. He didn't inherit the world like Romney. And he speaks bluntly and truthfully and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is honest. And it is because of these things he SHOULD be the Republican nominee.
He just happens to be black.
And it doesn't phase one conservative.
It does however show who is judging people by the color of their skin and not their character. It also belies the hypocrisy of anyone using the insepid term "Uncle Tom."
Saturday, October 08, 2011
We Will Be the 99%
So Grerp sent me this.
I am now accepting your own "99%" photos and we shall post them here. Make sure they are as ludicrous as the real ones...which will be hard.
You can send them to CAPTcapitalism (at) yahoo dot com
I am now accepting your own "99%" photos and we shall post them here. Make sure they are as ludicrous as the real ones...which will be hard.
You can send them to CAPTcapitalism (at) yahoo dot com
Projected Marriage Rate
Them is pretty strong correlation coefficients. Though I believe the trend is linear and not exponential.
ht
Friday, October 07, 2011
Unemployed Unicorns
Once again, going to point out that until the housing market recovers, you can expect unemployment to stay high.
By the way, how's that 9.1% unemployment treating you democrat-voting youth?
Maybe you can go and "occupy" something. That'll turn the economy around!
On a related note "after receiving a masters degree in literature."
By the way, how's that 9.1% unemployment treating you democrat-voting youth?
Maybe you can go and "occupy" something. That'll turn the economy around!
On a related note "after receiving a masters degree in literature."
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Recession Medicine
This song makes it almost impossible to NOT enjoy the decline. And I'm not a fan of country;
Heteronormative Whiteprivilage Unicorncentricism
When Sinfest starts mocking it, you know these things have failed to permeate into the mainstream and everybody realizes it for what it is.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Old Man Learns to Enjoy the Decline
"Old man" meaning a guy who is maybe 45. Though his post spoke to me and it confirms once again you should be enjoying the decline.
My good friend Marty with a good post.
And I don't think these ladies majored in Anthropology.
Hey, it's property tax time in Minnesota! I wonder if they're going to go up?!
My good friend Marty with a good post.
And I don't think these ladies majored in Anthropology.
Hey, it's property tax time in Minnesota! I wonder if they're going to go up?!
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
You Started It, But We'll Finish It
Warning - this is a long one, so pour yourself a martini or a Rupmie.
As I age I get more and more of this thing called "hindsight."
Regardless, you combine these two traits, hindsight and confidence, you get authority. The authority to look back at life and start making claims that aren't opinion, they're fact. Facts like HR is a worthless profession that has caused more damage than helped. Facts like just because they're older than you does NOT mean they have more experience or intelligence (matter of fact, they're just more prone to corruption, age does not command respect). Facts like democrats play on the ignorance and feelings of well intentioned people as well as fan the flames of jealously and merely bribe people to vote for them with other people's money. These are facts. Not opinions.
Oh yes, there is a war. That's a fact that I don't even have to defend. But who started it in its most recent form? Some will claim that is a matter of opinion, but sadly once again hindsight and confidence permit me to authoritatively state it was women. Hands down, and that's a fact.
But again, I'm not some 18 year old rube who is fresh off the assembly line. I'm not some "nice guy" anymore who was brought up by a single mom in a very asymmetrical manner when it came to the sexes. I'm not that honorable guy why kept on thinking "what's wrong with me" and never developed the courage to say, "what's wrong with society." And I'm certainly not the guy who is going to take it personally when I start pointing out genuinely inconvenient truths and am called a bigot or a racist or a misogynist or pick any term from the communist/feminists playbook.
No, I'm the experienced guy who went through the meat grinder and amazingly has found himself in Bayeux alive, intact and only strengthened because of the experience. And given the hell I had to go through, you damn right I know what's going on. And like hell my experience isn't going to help the boys landing on the beach right now, because nobody, absolutely nobody deserves to go through that hell again.
So let us start out with a very simple question - why is there a battle in the first place?
A simple question, but one that needs answering. What did men do that was so horrible that we deserved the ire, the hatred and the war that was waged against us? The reason I ask this is at least in the beginning, I did nothing to offend or hurt women. As a boy and a young man, I did everything I was told. I was nice, I was kind, I was sweet. I did PRECISELY what they women told me to do. And not only did I not succeed in dating any of the women I pined after, I was actually ridiculed, berated and demeaned. I remember girls acting like they were going to go on a date with me or show up to a dance with me, only to find out it was a joke. I remember getting slapped in the face no less than 4 times before graduating from high school and for reasons that were so innocuous the only one I could remember was flirting with a girl and rummaging through her purse (which obviously earned me a slap across the face). Not once in my entire life have I ever struck a woman.
Now, if it was just one guy, one lousy nerdy guy out of 150 million American men with these experiences the evidence could be considered anecdotal. But it isn't. You ask the majority of men who are essentially NOT of the WWII generation or older and I guarantee you the majority of them (not all) were the exact same way and had the exact same experiences. Started off nice, with the best of intentions, tried their best, maybe even bought a girl flowers and probably have a score of 0-4 when it comes to slugging the other sex, all of which resulted in a big fat zero when it came to courting success.
Of course at the age of 18 or 19, your average man is still too clueless and lost to know what's going on. It's like they landed at Omaha and just got pounded by some German 88's. They're dazed, they're confused, they aren't even cognizant enough to ask "why." They're just taking a beating.
Of course that is the question. "Why?" What on god's green earth did we do to you to deserve this in middle school, let alone the following decade? We came with flowers and innocence and kindness and with the best of intentions and asked you on dates, only to get slaughtered.
I personally cannot answer the question why. I can only guess. And if I had to guess I'd say it was because feminists from the 1960's had so indoctrinated you as children via the schools or even feminist parenting you had a predisposition to view men as the enemy. Never mind the then 13 year old boys of our generation and successive generations never did anything to "oppress you" or "keep you down." Never mind for that matter the men of the WWII generation and Baby Boomers didn't do anything to oppress women either. No, you just were programmed to view men as the enemy, as your oppressors. Dirty disgusting boys that "you should throw rocks at" if I recall the t-shirt logo correctly.
Perhaps it was because of a lack of fathers or father figures given the new penchant women have for divorce. No man in the house to teach you how to treat boys, or perhaps there was a man in the house, but he too is still being shelled by his wife into submission and becomes the complete beta male incapable of providing a decent male role model.
Media? 90210 anybody? Melrose Place? I'm trying to think of other demented shows targeted towards young girls that would warp their formative years in how to treat boys, but I'm grasping at straws as my memory fades. To quote Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Perhaps it was a combination of all three."
Ultimately though, sadly, the reason "why" is moot. It doesn't matter why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It doesn't matter why Islamic-nutjob assholes bombed the WTC. And it doesn't matter why boys received such a hostile reception upon hitting puberty. All that matters is what happened.
Second, along the same lines of "why" is something more fundamental to men and women and courtship in general.
Shouldn't we like each other?
I mean last I checked men and women were kind of designed for each other a little bit. And I ask this one question as it applies to a whole bunch of different levels.
Isn't dating supposed to be fun? Shouldn't we go out and have a good time? No, there has to be drama, chaos, crying, rules, stipulations, rule changes and that's just assuming the poor guy can navigate the mine field and actually land a date. And oh goodie! Look what he gets to look forward to!
Sex anyone? Is it not enjoyable? Why "hold out?" Why attach strings to it? What evil possesses you to use it as a bargaining chip whether you're married or not? And dare I suggest using sex to extract resources is the definition of prostitution? Or is that cutting it too close to the truth?
And the ultimate one that will confuse me till I'm dead, marriage or committed relationships. Aren't you supposed to SUPPORT your husband? I don't mean financially, but emotionally, aren't spouses to support each other? You know, be there for each other. If there is empirical proof that the war was started and continues to be waged by women, this is it. The reason why is it is the EXCEPTION when a wife actually supports and takes care of her husband. He comes home, beleaguered from his work. And she dons some heels and a little outfit and pours him a martini. That's what I'm talking about! Unfortunately, the VAST MAJORITY of marriages the women AT BEST slightly nags him or leaves him alone. Most of the time the women are harassing, berating, lecturing, complaining or just plain fighting against their husband. Why on god's green earth did you get married in the first place??? Better yet, why should men get married at all if instead of supporting them you are constantly fighting against them, if not just simply wearing them down? What's the upshot? And again
WHY???? What did we do to you?
Third is a very shrewd observation on my part. You already know about me getting hit 4 times in high school because the girls at the time liked the power trip. But there were other instances of what was completely unacceptable or idiotic behavior on the part of women/girls, primarily in their teens and 20's. One that is a bit innocent is the "I have a boyfriend in Brazil." This was a popular one when I was in middle school and high school and it was amazing how many girls had real boyfriends in different continents. Another more dangerous, if not psychotic one was suicide threats. I had no less than three women threaten suicide while I was dating them. Temper tantrums were also very popular. I remember trying to drive on 35W (just south of where the bridge collapsed) when my girlfriend at the time just started screaming (she was from California). Another girl from California punched me because I refused to have sex with her. I remember third throwing her phone and pictures and everything around her apartment (the argument of which again I can't remember). And I cannot fully recall the infinite number of head games, mind games and flake outs I suffered in my 20's.
"Pick me up, I'm ready!" 30 minutes later, "Oh, I'm sorry, I have a headache."
"Let's meet at Mancini's!" "Well my morbidly obese friend decided to show up with us, you don't mind do you?"
"Here's my number. Call me!" .......................
But isn't it interesting...
very interesting....
(can any of you guess where I'm going with this?)
(I'll give you a couple more guesses)
(it is quite shrewd an observation)
how after the age of 28, 29 30 or so, all that drama goes away?
I haven't had a girl threaten suicide on me since I was in my twenties.
I haven't had a girl throw a temper tantrum on a busy interstate since I was in my twenties.
I haven't had a girl hit me in quite some time.
And you know, there's been a shocking lack of mind games and flake outs since I passed the 30 year old mark.
Could it POSSIBLY be that this was nothing more than FULLY CONSCIOUS self-created drama to get attention? And could it be that they fully well knew what they were doing? And it is NOT that they "grew up" all of the sudden when they hit 30. That they KNEW FULL WELL it was wrong to hit men at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL throwing temper tantrums were wrong at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL threatening to commit suicide was wrong at the age of 10. And they knew FULL WELL it was wrong to lie at the age of 10.
They just had no problem using it till the age of 30 because they knew us men/boys were naive enough to think it wasn't on purpose. That there might have been something psychologically wrong with them, or worse, we blamed it on ourselves.
But again, I'm not here to lecture people about such stupid behavior. I'm just asking the question WHY?
What in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick is the purpose in doing that or employing such tactics? It certainly wasn't "well intentioned." It certainly wasn't "in our best interests." It's like using biological warfare against orphans. It was an act of war.
And finally (though there are many examples more) is something that I will intellectually honestly admit I do not believe women do consciously or maliciously, but still has an effect (and this is actually a matter of opinion, so I will grant you that). And that is your voting preferences.
Not so much in a "republican" or "democrat" sort of sense, but rather how you vote or what governs how you vote. You vote with your heart. Admirable. Honorable. But sorry, stupid and naive. Not because of your aims to help out the children or help out the poor, but there are no brain cells in the heart! ie-You only look at the intended consequences of policies and politicians you vote for, but so poorly think through the unintended consequences and ramifications, let alone what ulterior motives politicians and their political donors might have.
Hidden behind the socialist agenda of "helping the children" or "helping the poor" is a huge and financially IMPOSSIBLE price tag. It's not feasible, but nefarious politicians know how to tug at your heart strings and make you vote for them. And since federal and state government finances are not as exciting as The View of People Magazine, you fail to understand how the true costs of making everything free to everyone are simply masked and deferred with debt (if you don't understand that last sentence, then I strongly suggest reading more Cappy Cap and watch less Sex and the City). With the right to vote comes the responsibility of being an informed voter. And just "going with your heart" or "voting for the little guy" without bothering to look up the budget or the finances of the country/state/county simply destroys the nation and your future AND the future of your kids (which is an argument for another time).
But that's not the worst of it (at least as it applies to the battle of the sexes).
The worst consequence of your voting patterns is the replacement of men with government.
And, frankly, it's already done.
You really don't need us.
You have affirmative action, tons of social resources at the state and local levels, welfare, WIC, EBT and a legal system that is pretty slanted towards your side when it comes to divorce and the divvying up of a couple's assets. You have a public school system that is progressively taking a larger and larger role in baby sitting...errr....bringing up...ummm... "educating" your children and more and more laws passed governing and regulating how children are to be brought up. If you don't have a husband but want children you can adopt, have an IV fertilization, surrogate, etc. etc. Society is on your side because no individual is more celebrated than the single mother or the single woman "living in a man's world." In other words you have voted in a system where the only role men play is that of a tax payer and not that of a father or a husband or a lover, leaving us to ask once again the question, "why, what did we do to deserve financial slavery?"
Now, of course, some of you like that idea. Which only proves my point further because it shows some of you really just wanted men as financial slaves. But there is a consequence to this. There is a cost. And you may be starting to notice this. That there is a price to pay for all the mind games that were played. The dates that you flaked out on. The tantrums, the drama. The dishonesty and lying to men about what you wanted and what you didn't want. The divorce, the alimony the child support. And myself, along with every other guy who made it to Bayeux alive can see it now in beautiful hindsight.
Some of you in your 40's, 30's, even upper 20's are asking "where are all the good men?" Some of you have given birth to BOYS and now you have disadvantaged-skin in the feminist game you may have helped create. Some of you, fresh off divorce and enjoying "post-marital bliss" are realizing the men are not knocking at your door like they were in 1981. So continuing with our "battle of the sexes" analogy, perhaps I can describe what is happening and the consequences for waging an uncalled for war on us.
There is a battlefield. On one side are the girls and on the other side are the boys. BOTH of us have been told by society, media and nature or "genetics" to go and find somebody from the opposing team. It is a strong urge, arguably the strongest biological force there is, and thus the attempt to meet ensues. If this was 1940, the battle would look something like this.
Girls liked boys and welcomed them over.
Men were happy to oblige. Not really a battle.
Of course, that's too easy and remember, our WWII grandfathers were of course abusive, misogynistic sexists. So the sexual revolution of the 1960's was absolutely necessary so we could punish future, unassuming, innocent generations of boys for the evils of our WWII generation grandfathers. The Baby Boomers beget Gen X and beget Gen Y so that when teenage boys hit the NEW and IMPROVED battlefield today it looks like this:
It is a veritable battlefield.
One sided, but veritable.
Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question. "How long will the dismembered stickmen boys stay on that battlefield?"
And the answer actually varies depending on the stickman. I got out at 25. I know some men left the battlefield as early as 18. I know men in their 60's who are still wandering around on the battlefield just as dazed and confused when they first landed 42 years ago. Some never get it together and stay on that battlefield till they die in the real world. But I would say on average 15 years.
So by the time a young man hits 30 or so, he starts questioning why he is there taking a pounding. He starts to question why he is even trying to date one of these girls in the first place. He starts to remember his parents getting divorced or a friend's parents getting divorced or ONE OF HIS OWN FRIENDS GETTING DIVORCED. He even starts to question whether he should follow his biological imperative or just get a vasectomy and live the bachelor life forever. And it is at that point he crawls over the hill, stumbles over all roughshod and shot up with holes and joins us in Bayeux.
Sadly here the battlefield analogy ends, because unlike real soldiers thrown onto the Normandy beachhead, we have the option to stop fighting. We have the option to stop participating in the battle. We can give up. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the same for women. Oh, sure, some women can throw in the towel and go on and lead happy lives, but whereas I would think only 5-10% of women can genuinely override their genetic hard-wiring, I would say nearly 60-70% of men can do it. Besides, you've been giving us great practice and incentive to do so since we were 14. So it's not that hard of a jump.
Naturally, when men declare they are leaving the battlefield or women find out they are leaving the battlefield the question of "what??? You're just going to give up?" follows.
And then comes the textbook fear-mongering questions that REALLY are a sign of desperation from the "enemy." I've been so kind to answer them too;
Q - "So don't you want to ever get married and have kids?"
A - No, like my freedom and my money
Q- "Do you want to die ALOOOOOONE in a nursing home?"
A - No, i won't die alone, I presume there will be other people there my same age and as I always have done I will make friends there. Additionally, if I make it to a nursing home, because of the fact men die 10 years before women, I will be a mack daddy and will have multiple women chasing after me. Besides, isn't it pretty arrogant to marry some one, let alone have children for the sole purpose of them providing you entertainment when you age?
Q - "Who's going to take care of you when you get older?"
A - Well, thanks to your voting patterns all health care and social security is free. In short, your children will be taking care of me. Additionally, again, are my children to be slaves to take care of me? Is THAT why I should have children and get married? To have slaves? Thankfully I had a vasectomy while you had 4 children from 3 different guys and you voted democrat all the time. Tell them I say "thanks for being my unwilling and unwitting slave."
and so on and so forth.
The reason for the questions is women (and people in general) can't really understand or believe you're giving up. They can't believe you're abandoning your primary biological motive and just up and going. People, but particularly women, can't fathom what would be better than a life with them and can't imagine a place where you'd be going once you leave the battlefield. But here ladies is where the men are going:
You see, they are leaving the market. And the reason why is that yes, as youth we had these dreams of meeting a beautiful cool, intelligent woman. We had dreams of finding a really neat girl and maybe settling down with her. And yes, the biological drive was very strong. But when our entire youth was not just wasted, but a negative experience, nay a PUNISHING EXPERIENCE you realize around the age of 30, that is was all just a lie. That or a bill of goods somebody was trying to sell you. At this point most men go through a depression (notice how suicide in men jumps around age 34 and then drops), but most of us look at life and say,
"OK, maybe I'm not going to find that really cool chick I wanted to meet, and maybe I did waste my youth at bars and clubs, and maybe there is no need for me as a role of a husband or a father, but now I'm no longer wasting my time. I'm doing what I want."
And BOOM! They enter Bachelorland.
Bachelorland is a magical place. A place where you get to keep the majority of your money. A place of true freedom where you get to do;
what you want
when you want
how you want
say what you want
hang out with who you want
do what you want
say what you feel
and there's no guff or nagging about it.
Once we pay our taxes to subsidize other people and other people's children, we still have the majority of our money to spend on ourselves. More importantly we have the majority of time to spend on ourselves. And better than that, society has advanced to the point there are LIMITLESS intellectual, physical, video, artistic and other pursuits to pursue and enjoy a happy, fulfilling life. We got our pals, we got our friends, we got a life.
And that (and you need to sit down for this) IS WITHOUT YOU!
No nagging, no crying, no drama, no divorce, no child support, no "my child comes first" BS, no jumping through hoops for sex, to abuse, no slapping, no flaking, no psychotic behavior, no mind games, no half my assets, no nothing.
You're gone, you're outta here, you're irrelevant.
Congratulations! You "won" the battle and men have surrendered! Now leave us alone.
Now who are the winners and who are the losers in this? Well, unfortunately there's more losers than winners.
The losers number many. Notably the women who continue fighting on the battlefield when there's nobody left to fight. Be it because society, media and feminists constantly barrage them with images of Sex and the City or EPL or they can't override nature or they just plain can't believe there are no more men left on the field, they continue to fight essentially no one. Ironically "fighting" against men while trying to attract one Enjoy the cats!
Also in the losing category are the men who had to suffer such BS for most of their youth, and worse, those men who never realize they're being shelled. They wander through life confused and befuddled about something that must not only take an inordinate amount of brain power obsessing about, but something that certainly must lower their life expectancy. They never achieve true happiness because they think it lies through the battlefield instead of getting off the battlefield and living their own life.
But, third, is the biggest and most innocent victims of them all. Admittedly this post has been very broad with the brush. I talk about women and men in general because it's impossible to have a conversation about it if you don't generalize (of course feminists and liberals love to use this technicality as a means to accuse you of sexism, but as I pointed out before, we know their political incentives and I plain don't give an ef anymore). However, there are obviously women who do not fall under this category and are not the malicious or warring types. These are the innocent and most undeserving victims.
The reason why is that the bad girls ruing it for the rest of the good girls. And it doesn't take a lot. It just takes one bad woman to divorce one good guy, and that good guy is off the market for good. I have PHENOMENAL, WONDERFUL, LOVELY women in my life who would make a great wife for any guy willing to get to know them. They ARE the ones who want to make a man happy. They'll cook, they'll clean, they'll not only dress sexy, but stay sexy because they WANT THEIR MAN TO BE HAPPY. They are the ones who not only claim to be independent, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT working REAL JOBS, producing REAL WEALTH. They want REAL MEN and when they vote, they think. They think not just for themselves, but are actually good, educated and informed stewards of democracy, thinking of society as a whole. The LAST thing they want is what feminists to them they should want. They want to be happy. Matter of fact, feminists HATE them and would call them "female Uncle Toms," but that is because they are jealous that my friends have better lives and are happier than these feminists could ever be.
However, sadly they are all in their 30's and 40's. And by that time the men who are left are either;
1. Confirmed bachelors
2. Divorced men who have no incentive to go back
3. Jerks and #%%holes that they don't want to date.
4. Desperate effeminate men that had too much single mother upbringing or too much brainwashing in the schools and frankly don't turn them on.
Did they do anything to deserve this?
No.
Did they sling a single arrow at the boys on the battlefield?
No.
But they are the ones paying the price for their fellow "feminists" sisters" assault on boys/men.
So ladies, or rather should I say "girls" because it's too late for the ladies, you have a choice.
You're either with us or against us. If you're with us we can ALL enjoy great lives which is what I really think we were programmed to do. We can enjoy each others company. We can go out on dates. We can get married and raise families. We could just jet set around the world getting drunk, eating good food and having great hot monkey greasy sex. We can work, we can play, we can HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN A MUTUAL BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP.
However, if you want to be unnatural, if you want to fight your biological drives and subscribe to feminism and make yourselves men. If you want to be childish. If you want drama and chaos and put attention above meaningful relationships. If you want to ruin it for other girls by destroying men through mind games and psychological "drauma." If you want to "dominate" over men or make them pay for some injustice at the age of 14 that they were completely incapable of doing, or if you just want to toy with the hearts and minds of men and boys, go right ahead and declare war. Because in the end, you won't win the battle of the sexes. And it won't be because men will ultimately counterattack and "win this round."
We'll just forfeit the battle
and in doing so win the war.
ht to Dr. Helen for the inspiration for this post.
As I age I get more and more of this thing called "hindsight."
Commensurate with this I also gain confidence when I look back and realize that, yes, though I made many and horrible mistakes in my past, for the most part I played it straight, played by the rules and was a good guy. Even more so when you consider what information I had available to me at that time and what environment I was in and sometimes the outright lies I was told were "truth." Whether my decisions panned out for me or not is irrelevant. I tried my best and sometimes am amazed I even succeeded this much.
Regardless, you combine these two traits, hindsight and confidence, you get authority. The authority to look back at life and start making claims that aren't opinion, they're fact. Facts like HR is a worthless profession that has caused more damage than helped. Facts like just because they're older than you does NOT mean they have more experience or intelligence (matter of fact, they're just more prone to corruption, age does not command respect). Facts like democrats play on the ignorance and feelings of well intentioned people as well as fan the flames of jealously and merely bribe people to vote for them with other people's money. These are facts. Not opinions.
But the fact I'm going to talk to you about to day is a fact about the "war of the sexes."
Oh yes, there is a war. That's a fact that I don't even have to defend. But who started it in its most recent form? Some will claim that is a matter of opinion, but sadly once again hindsight and confidence permit me to authoritatively state it was women. Hands down, and that's a fact.
It is here that the "enemy" in this battle of the sexes will now go into knee jerk hyperdrive reaction. Claims of sexism, mysoginy, blah blah blah. We've heard it all before for the past 40 tiresome years. They will ignore my claim it was women who started it (let alone be open minded enough to ask why I've come to this conclusion), in part because they're rank and file enlisted soldiers, brainwashed not to think, but react immediately to protect the hive and the ideology. There are others, let's call them "officers" who know full well what they were doing, but will still feign ignorance and act appalled, because if they didn't, then it would belie their ulterior motives.
But again, I'm not some 18 year old rube who is fresh off the assembly line. I'm not some "nice guy" anymore who was brought up by a single mom in a very asymmetrical manner when it came to the sexes. I'm not that honorable guy why kept on thinking "what's wrong with me" and never developed the courage to say, "what's wrong with society." And I'm certainly not the guy who is going to take it personally when I start pointing out genuinely inconvenient truths and am called a bigot or a racist or a misogynist or pick any term from the communist/feminists playbook.
So let us start out with a very simple question - why is there a battle in the first place?
A simple question, but one that needs answering. What did men do that was so horrible that we deserved the ire, the hatred and the war that was waged against us? The reason I ask this is at least in the beginning, I did nothing to offend or hurt women. As a boy and a young man, I did everything I was told. I was nice, I was kind, I was sweet. I did PRECISELY what they women told me to do. And not only did I not succeed in dating any of the women I pined after, I was actually ridiculed, berated and demeaned. I remember girls acting like they were going to go on a date with me or show up to a dance with me, only to find out it was a joke. I remember getting slapped in the face no less than 4 times before graduating from high school and for reasons that were so innocuous the only one I could remember was flirting with a girl and rummaging through her purse (which obviously earned me a slap across the face). Not once in my entire life have I ever struck a woman.
Now, if it was just one guy, one lousy nerdy guy out of 150 million American men with these experiences the evidence could be considered anecdotal. But it isn't. You ask the majority of men who are essentially NOT of the WWII generation or older and I guarantee you the majority of them (not all) were the exact same way and had the exact same experiences. Started off nice, with the best of intentions, tried their best, maybe even bought a girl flowers and probably have a score of 0-4 when it comes to slugging the other sex, all of which resulted in a big fat zero when it came to courting success.
Of course at the age of 18 or 19, your average man is still too clueless and lost to know what's going on. It's like they landed at Omaha and just got pounded by some German 88's. They're dazed, they're confused, they aren't even cognizant enough to ask "why." They're just taking a beating.
Of course that is the question. "Why?" What on god's green earth did we do to you to deserve this in middle school, let alone the following decade? We came with flowers and innocence and kindness and with the best of intentions and asked you on dates, only to get slaughtered.
I personally cannot answer the question why. I can only guess. And if I had to guess I'd say it was because feminists from the 1960's had so indoctrinated you as children via the schools or even feminist parenting you had a predisposition to view men as the enemy. Never mind the then 13 year old boys of our generation and successive generations never did anything to "oppress you" or "keep you down." Never mind for that matter the men of the WWII generation and Baby Boomers didn't do anything to oppress women either. No, you just were programmed to view men as the enemy, as your oppressors. Dirty disgusting boys that "you should throw rocks at" if I recall the t-shirt logo correctly.
Perhaps it was because of a lack of fathers or father figures given the new penchant women have for divorce. No man in the house to teach you how to treat boys, or perhaps there was a man in the house, but he too is still being shelled by his wife into submission and becomes the complete beta male incapable of providing a decent male role model.
Media? 90210 anybody? Melrose Place? I'm trying to think of other demented shows targeted towards young girls that would warp their formative years in how to treat boys, but I'm grasping at straws as my memory fades. To quote Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Perhaps it was a combination of all three."
Ultimately though, sadly, the reason "why" is moot. It doesn't matter why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It doesn't matter why Islamic-nutjob assholes bombed the WTC. And it doesn't matter why boys received such a hostile reception upon hitting puberty. All that matters is what happened.
Second, along the same lines of "why" is something more fundamental to men and women and courtship in general.
Shouldn't we like each other?
I mean last I checked men and women were kind of designed for each other a little bit. And I ask this one question as it applies to a whole bunch of different levels.
Isn't dating supposed to be fun? Shouldn't we go out and have a good time? No, there has to be drama, chaos, crying, rules, stipulations, rule changes and that's just assuming the poor guy can navigate the mine field and actually land a date. And oh goodie! Look what he gets to look forward to!
Sex anyone? Is it not enjoyable? Why "hold out?" Why attach strings to it? What evil possesses you to use it as a bargaining chip whether you're married or not? And dare I suggest using sex to extract resources is the definition of prostitution? Or is that cutting it too close to the truth?
And the ultimate one that will confuse me till I'm dead, marriage or committed relationships. Aren't you supposed to SUPPORT your husband? I don't mean financially, but emotionally, aren't spouses to support each other? You know, be there for each other. If there is empirical proof that the war was started and continues to be waged by women, this is it. The reason why is it is the EXCEPTION when a wife actually supports and takes care of her husband. He comes home, beleaguered from his work. And she dons some heels and a little outfit and pours him a martini. That's what I'm talking about! Unfortunately, the VAST MAJORITY of marriages the women AT BEST slightly nags him or leaves him alone. Most of the time the women are harassing, berating, lecturing, complaining or just plain fighting against their husband. Why on god's green earth did you get married in the first place??? Better yet, why should men get married at all if instead of supporting them you are constantly fighting against them, if not just simply wearing them down? What's the upshot? And again
WHY???? What did we do to you?
Third is a very shrewd observation on my part. You already know about me getting hit 4 times in high school because the girls at the time liked the power trip. But there were other instances of what was completely unacceptable or idiotic behavior on the part of women/girls, primarily in their teens and 20's. One that is a bit innocent is the "I have a boyfriend in Brazil." This was a popular one when I was in middle school and high school and it was amazing how many girls had real boyfriends in different continents. Another more dangerous, if not psychotic one was suicide threats. I had no less than three women threaten suicide while I was dating them. Temper tantrums were also very popular. I remember trying to drive on 35W (just south of where the bridge collapsed) when my girlfriend at the time just started screaming (she was from California). Another girl from California punched me because I refused to have sex with her. I remember third throwing her phone and pictures and everything around her apartment (the argument of which again I can't remember). And I cannot fully recall the infinite number of head games, mind games and flake outs I suffered in my 20's.
"Pick me up, I'm ready!" 30 minutes later, "Oh, I'm sorry, I have a headache."
"Let's meet at Mancini's!" "Well my morbidly obese friend decided to show up with us, you don't mind do you?"
"Here's my number. Call me!" .......................
But isn't it interesting...
very interesting....
(can any of you guess where I'm going with this?)
(I'll give you a couple more guesses)
(it is quite shrewd an observation)
how after the age of 28, 29 30 or so, all that drama goes away?
I haven't had a girl threaten suicide on me since I was in my twenties.
I haven't had a girl throw a temper tantrum on a busy interstate since I was in my twenties.
I haven't had a girl hit me in quite some time.
And you know, there's been a shocking lack of mind games and flake outs since I passed the 30 year old mark.
Could it POSSIBLY be that this was nothing more than FULLY CONSCIOUS self-created drama to get attention? And could it be that they fully well knew what they were doing? And it is NOT that they "grew up" all of the sudden when they hit 30. That they KNEW FULL WELL it was wrong to hit men at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL throwing temper tantrums were wrong at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL threatening to commit suicide was wrong at the age of 10. And they knew FULL WELL it was wrong to lie at the age of 10.
They just had no problem using it till the age of 30 because they knew us men/boys were naive enough to think it wasn't on purpose. That there might have been something psychologically wrong with them, or worse, we blamed it on ourselves.
But again, I'm not here to lecture people about such stupid behavior. I'm just asking the question WHY?
What in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick is the purpose in doing that or employing such tactics? It certainly wasn't "well intentioned." It certainly wasn't "in our best interests." It's like using biological warfare against orphans. It was an act of war.
And finally (though there are many examples more) is something that I will intellectually honestly admit I do not believe women do consciously or maliciously, but still has an effect (and this is actually a matter of opinion, so I will grant you that). And that is your voting preferences.
Not so much in a "republican" or "democrat" sort of sense, but rather how you vote or what governs how you vote. You vote with your heart. Admirable. Honorable. But sorry, stupid and naive. Not because of your aims to help out the children or help out the poor, but there are no brain cells in the heart! ie-You only look at the intended consequences of policies and politicians you vote for, but so poorly think through the unintended consequences and ramifications, let alone what ulterior motives politicians and their political donors might have.
Hidden behind the socialist agenda of "helping the children" or "helping the poor" is a huge and financially IMPOSSIBLE price tag. It's not feasible, but nefarious politicians know how to tug at your heart strings and make you vote for them. And since federal and state government finances are not as exciting as The View of People Magazine, you fail to understand how the true costs of making everything free to everyone are simply masked and deferred with debt (if you don't understand that last sentence, then I strongly suggest reading more Cappy Cap and watch less Sex and the City). With the right to vote comes the responsibility of being an informed voter. And just "going with your heart" or "voting for the little guy" without bothering to look up the budget or the finances of the country/state/county simply destroys the nation and your future AND the future of your kids (which is an argument for another time).
But that's not the worst of it (at least as it applies to the battle of the sexes).
The worst consequence of your voting patterns is the replacement of men with government.
And, frankly, it's already done.
You really don't need us.
You have affirmative action, tons of social resources at the state and local levels, welfare, WIC, EBT and a legal system that is pretty slanted towards your side when it comes to divorce and the divvying up of a couple's assets. You have a public school system that is progressively taking a larger and larger role in baby sitting...errr....bringing up...ummm... "educating" your children and more and more laws passed governing and regulating how children are to be brought up. If you don't have a husband but want children you can adopt, have an IV fertilization, surrogate, etc. etc. Society is on your side because no individual is more celebrated than the single mother or the single woman "living in a man's world." In other words you have voted in a system where the only role men play is that of a tax payer and not that of a father or a husband or a lover, leaving us to ask once again the question, "why, what did we do to deserve financial slavery?"
Now, of course, some of you like that idea. Which only proves my point further because it shows some of you really just wanted men as financial slaves. But there is a consequence to this. There is a cost. And you may be starting to notice this. That there is a price to pay for all the mind games that were played. The dates that you flaked out on. The tantrums, the drama. The dishonesty and lying to men about what you wanted and what you didn't want. The divorce, the alimony the child support. And myself, along with every other guy who made it to Bayeux alive can see it now in beautiful hindsight.
Some of you in your 40's, 30's, even upper 20's are asking "where are all the good men?" Some of you have given birth to BOYS and now you have disadvantaged-skin in the feminist game you may have helped create. Some of you, fresh off divorce and enjoying "post-marital bliss" are realizing the men are not knocking at your door like they were in 1981. So continuing with our "battle of the sexes" analogy, perhaps I can describe what is happening and the consequences for waging an uncalled for war on us.
There is a battlefield. On one side are the girls and on the other side are the boys. BOTH of us have been told by society, media and nature or "genetics" to go and find somebody from the opposing team. It is a strong urge, arguably the strongest biological force there is, and thus the attempt to meet ensues. If this was 1940, the battle would look something like this.
Girls liked boys and welcomed them over.
Men were happy to oblige. Not really a battle.
Of course, that's too easy and remember, our WWII grandfathers were of course abusive, misogynistic sexists. So the sexual revolution of the 1960's was absolutely necessary so we could punish future, unassuming, innocent generations of boys for the evils of our WWII generation grandfathers. The Baby Boomers beget Gen X and beget Gen Y so that when teenage boys hit the NEW and IMPROVED battlefield today it looks like this:
It is a veritable battlefield.
One sided, but veritable.
Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question. "How long will the dismembered stickmen boys stay on that battlefield?"
And the answer actually varies depending on the stickman. I got out at 25. I know some men left the battlefield as early as 18. I know men in their 60's who are still wandering around on the battlefield just as dazed and confused when they first landed 42 years ago. Some never get it together and stay on that battlefield till they die in the real world. But I would say on average 15 years.
So by the time a young man hits 30 or so, he starts questioning why he is there taking a pounding. He starts to question why he is even trying to date one of these girls in the first place. He starts to remember his parents getting divorced or a friend's parents getting divorced or ONE OF HIS OWN FRIENDS GETTING DIVORCED. He even starts to question whether he should follow his biological imperative or just get a vasectomy and live the bachelor life forever. And it is at that point he crawls over the hill, stumbles over all roughshod and shot up with holes and joins us in Bayeux.
Sadly here the battlefield analogy ends, because unlike real soldiers thrown onto the Normandy beachhead, we have the option to stop fighting. We have the option to stop participating in the battle. We can give up. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the same for women. Oh, sure, some women can throw in the towel and go on and lead happy lives, but whereas I would think only 5-10% of women can genuinely override their genetic hard-wiring, I would say nearly 60-70% of men can do it. Besides, you've been giving us great practice and incentive to do so since we were 14. So it's not that hard of a jump.
Naturally, when men declare they are leaving the battlefield or women find out they are leaving the battlefield the question of "what??? You're just going to give up?" follows.
And then comes the textbook fear-mongering questions that REALLY are a sign of desperation from the "enemy." I've been so kind to answer them too;
Q - "So don't you want to ever get married and have kids?"
A - No, like my freedom and my money
Q- "Do you want to die ALOOOOOONE in a nursing home?"
A - No, i won't die alone, I presume there will be other people there my same age and as I always have done I will make friends there. Additionally, if I make it to a nursing home, because of the fact men die 10 years before women, I will be a mack daddy and will have multiple women chasing after me. Besides, isn't it pretty arrogant to marry some one, let alone have children for the sole purpose of them providing you entertainment when you age?
Q - "Who's going to take care of you when you get older?"
A - Well, thanks to your voting patterns all health care and social security is free. In short, your children will be taking care of me. Additionally, again, are my children to be slaves to take care of me? Is THAT why I should have children and get married? To have slaves? Thankfully I had a vasectomy while you had 4 children from 3 different guys and you voted democrat all the time. Tell them I say "thanks for being my unwilling and unwitting slave."
and so on and so forth.
The reason for the questions is women (and people in general) can't really understand or believe you're giving up. They can't believe you're abandoning your primary biological motive and just up and going. People, but particularly women, can't fathom what would be better than a life with them and can't imagine a place where you'd be going once you leave the battlefield. But here ladies is where the men are going:
You see, they are leaving the market. And the reason why is that yes, as youth we had these dreams of meeting a beautiful cool, intelligent woman. We had dreams of finding a really neat girl and maybe settling down with her. And yes, the biological drive was very strong. But when our entire youth was not just wasted, but a negative experience, nay a PUNISHING EXPERIENCE you realize around the age of 30, that is was all just a lie. That or a bill of goods somebody was trying to sell you. At this point most men go through a depression (notice how suicide in men jumps around age 34 and then drops), but most of us look at life and say,
"OK, maybe I'm not going to find that really cool chick I wanted to meet, and maybe I did waste my youth at bars and clubs, and maybe there is no need for me as a role of a husband or a father, but now I'm no longer wasting my time. I'm doing what I want."
And BOOM! They enter Bachelorland.
Bachelorland is a magical place. A place where you get to keep the majority of your money. A place of true freedom where you get to do;
what you want
when you want
how you want
say what you want
hang out with who you want
do what you want
say what you feel
and there's no guff or nagging about it.
Once we pay our taxes to subsidize other people and other people's children, we still have the majority of our money to spend on ourselves. More importantly we have the majority of time to spend on ourselves. And better than that, society has advanced to the point there are LIMITLESS intellectual, physical, video, artistic and other pursuits to pursue and enjoy a happy, fulfilling life. We got our pals, we got our friends, we got a life.
And that (and you need to sit down for this) IS WITHOUT YOU!
No nagging, no crying, no drama, no divorce, no child support, no "my child comes first" BS, no jumping through hoops for sex, to abuse, no slapping, no flaking, no psychotic behavior, no mind games, no half my assets, no nothing.
You're gone, you're outta here, you're irrelevant.
Congratulations! You "won" the battle and men have surrendered! Now leave us alone.
Now who are the winners and who are the losers in this? Well, unfortunately there's more losers than winners.
The losers number many. Notably the women who continue fighting on the battlefield when there's nobody left to fight. Be it because society, media and feminists constantly barrage them with images of Sex and the City or EPL or they can't override nature or they just plain can't believe there are no more men left on the field, they continue to fight essentially no one. Ironically "fighting" against men while trying to attract one Enjoy the cats!
Also in the losing category are the men who had to suffer such BS for most of their youth, and worse, those men who never realize they're being shelled. They wander through life confused and befuddled about something that must not only take an inordinate amount of brain power obsessing about, but something that certainly must lower their life expectancy. They never achieve true happiness because they think it lies through the battlefield instead of getting off the battlefield and living their own life.
But, third, is the biggest and most innocent victims of them all. Admittedly this post has been very broad with the brush. I talk about women and men in general because it's impossible to have a conversation about it if you don't generalize (of course feminists and liberals love to use this technicality as a means to accuse you of sexism, but as I pointed out before, we know their political incentives and I plain don't give an ef anymore). However, there are obviously women who do not fall under this category and are not the malicious or warring types. These are the innocent and most undeserving victims.
The reason why is that the bad girls ruing it for the rest of the good girls. And it doesn't take a lot. It just takes one bad woman to divorce one good guy, and that good guy is off the market for good. I have PHENOMENAL, WONDERFUL, LOVELY women in my life who would make a great wife for any guy willing to get to know them. They ARE the ones who want to make a man happy. They'll cook, they'll clean, they'll not only dress sexy, but stay sexy because they WANT THEIR MAN TO BE HAPPY. They are the ones who not only claim to be independent, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT working REAL JOBS, producing REAL WEALTH. They want REAL MEN and when they vote, they think. They think not just for themselves, but are actually good, educated and informed stewards of democracy, thinking of society as a whole. The LAST thing they want is what feminists to them they should want. They want to be happy. Matter of fact, feminists HATE them and would call them "female Uncle Toms," but that is because they are jealous that my friends have better lives and are happier than these feminists could ever be.
However, sadly they are all in their 30's and 40's. And by that time the men who are left are either;
1. Confirmed bachelors
2. Divorced men who have no incentive to go back
3. Jerks and #%%holes that they don't want to date.
4. Desperate effeminate men that had too much single mother upbringing or too much brainwashing in the schools and frankly don't turn them on.
Did they do anything to deserve this?
No.
Did they sling a single arrow at the boys on the battlefield?
No.
But they are the ones paying the price for their fellow "feminists" sisters" assault on boys/men.
So ladies, or rather should I say "girls" because it's too late for the ladies, you have a choice.
You're either with us or against us. If you're with us we can ALL enjoy great lives which is what I really think we were programmed to do. We can enjoy each others company. We can go out on dates. We can get married and raise families. We could just jet set around the world getting drunk, eating good food and having great hot monkey greasy sex. We can work, we can play, we can HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN A MUTUAL BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP.
However, if you want to be unnatural, if you want to fight your biological drives and subscribe to feminism and make yourselves men. If you want to be childish. If you want drama and chaos and put attention above meaningful relationships. If you want to ruin it for other girls by destroying men through mind games and psychological "drauma." If you want to "dominate" over men or make them pay for some injustice at the age of 14 that they were completely incapable of doing, or if you just want to toy with the hearts and minds of men and boys, go right ahead and declare war. Because in the end, you won't win the battle of the sexes. And it won't be because men will ultimately counterattack and "win this round."
We'll just forfeit the battle
and in doing so win the war.
ht to Dr. Helen for the inspiration for this post.
Monday, October 03, 2011
The Circular Reference of Worthless Degrees
I've mentioned this before. Matter of fact, I think the writers of Archer have plagiarized me.
Help a Cappy Cap Sponsor Out
VouchSafe is one of our advertisers here on Cappy Cap. And what better way to support capitalism and freedom by visiting our sponsors?
Actually, matter of fact, you don't even have to buy anything, just "Digg" this link and that is all he asks.
Man from UNCLE
So I'm watching the Man from UNCLE Series which is phenomenal. Not just a good plot with lots of action set in the cold war, but HOT chicks carrying guns at UNCLE headquarters.
However, since it is from 1963 I believe you see a TON of young actors before they became big. This clip as Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and Colonel Klink all together within 2 minutes of each other.
However, since it is from 1963 I believe you see a TON of young actors before they became big. This clip as Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock and Colonel Klink all together within 2 minutes of each other.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
The Bubble and Burst of Ballroom Dancing
Tonight was an epiphanal night for your Captain, and he wishes to share it with all your fine upstanding junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists, and that epiphany is about the realm of ballroom dancing.
I am often faced with a quandary when middle aged women ask if their young, teenage sons should learn ballroom dance. Understand this is a quandary for me because my experience has both pros and cons to it, neither of which (until tonight) has edged out one over the other.
The battle between learning and not-learning basically boils down to two things.
1. When I was literally the best swing dancer in the entire state of Minnesota in the late 90's and early 2000's, it was grand. Swing was hot, I was hot, and I think I racked up over 200 dates alone in that 3 year time span. Dated the hottest (and most psychotic and dumbest) girl on the scene. Icing to the cake was the Salsa craze that followed. I wasn't necessarily the best dancer, but any "gringo" who wasn't all hands and didn't have a green card as an ulterior motive to dance with the ladies came at a premium. Again, life was grand.
but
2. Inevitably all good things come to an end, and they come to an end in an eerily similar pattern. First there is the craze. Everybody wants to do it, hot people, ugly people, people who climb on rocks. Then the skill level of everybody increases. Some people get better than others and this insults the former "kings and queens" of the dancing world. Cliques form in a very middle school manner, and of course, there may have been some dating going on, not all of which ended successfully. Sure enough due to failed relationships some people leave the scene, one clique won't dance with the others, and it all goes to pot. But worse, hastening the "goes to pot phase" is the entrance of two very different types of men, but PRECISELY identical effects on the dance scene - Green card searchers (latin dancing) and Single Christian Middle Aged Males (swing/ballroom scene).
These men, desperately incentived by ulterior motives, ABUSE ballroom dancing and essentially scare all the women away. Women now can no longer just "go out dancing" and enjoy a good night of it. They are now harassed by illegal aliens looking for a green card or desperate middle aged men looking for a wife. The dancing no longer has merit unto itself. It becomes a tool for desperate men.
This, more than anything else, scares the women away in droves and leaving the dance scene a nerdy-remnant shell of its former greatness.
Thus the cycle is complete, boom to bust, and ballroom dancing returns to where it "normally trades at."
The question then becomes, should the young man ever bother learning to ballroom dance? Does he learn in the hopes he times it right like I did, and with the added benefit of timing two ballroom bubbles and avail himself of (literally) limitless romantic opportunities? Or does he just pursue other pursuits and move on with his life?
I'm happy to tell you I've found the definitive and correct answer;
Do not learn ballroom dancing until you have a girlfriend or wife you dearly love.
The reason I say this is because of the "stable market value" of ballroom dancing.
Understand, though in the past I was a big proponent of ballroom dancing, that is only because I was lucky enough to live through two bubbles. Bar the great 90's swing dance craze and the early 2000's salsa craze, inevitbaly these things come to an end. And if you look back at the past 100 years, maybe, MAYBE 7 of them cumulatively were ballroom dance crazes of any time.
Regardless, that's what they precisely were.
Crazes.
They weren't "normal."
They weren't "the base line" of society.
These were fleeting, ABNORMAL phenomenons in society.
And if you timed them just right, fine, all was well and good (pretty great actually).
But if you got on the bandwagon too late, it was single Christian groups and green-card potlucks.
So you have to determine whether you should learn to ballroom dance based on the other 93 years or 93% of the time when ballroom dancing is "trading" at its normal market value and is not in a craze or "bubble" stage. And it is most decidedly NOT worth it.
The reason I say this is because of my experiences tonight. I went to about the only place in all of southern Montana to do some ballroom dancing. The venue was actually quite large. The band was quite good. And there was no less than 300 people. I walked in thinking I hit gold.
But the a couple observations.
1. NOBODY knew what they hell they were doing. Bar the SCARCE old couple who genuinely knew how to two-step, the remainder of the dancers were just flinging each other around and faking it about as bad as you could. Pockets of "woo-girls" filled the center of the floor as they danced with their beers in hand, and not one man on that floor could have ever been called a "leader" because the women were just turning themselves. I've seen mosh pits more organized than that.
2. Because of #1, even if you KNEW how to ballroom dance it wouldn't matter because no women knew how to follow. And conversely for the Lady Cappy Cappites, it wouldn't matter if you knew how to dance, because none of the men could lead, let alone keep the beat. So again, you could be the best dancer in the state (and I'm not joking when I say, I think I quite literally was), but it won't matter because you ultimately need a partner who knows what they're doing.
3. A reminder that suburbanite princess mentality transcends all rural, suburban and urban broders: There was one time I was at The Times Cafe in Minneapolis. I was in a suit, Vic Volare and the Volare Lounge Orchestra was playing. They had a GREAT floor open and martini's were pouring. It was probably the single best dance floor/joint in the entire Twin Cities and you could not ask for a better floor or band. After getting shot down 4 times in a row, I just decided I would plum ask every single looking lady to dance in the joint. After 30 minutes, I was summarily shot down by every girl in the joint. The floor remained open, until a cackle of woo girls decided to go out on the floor and dance with each other.
Tonight was a repeat. New to the venue I asked a lady sitting next to me at the bar if the band "ever played anything danceable." She said it was her first time there, but her friend from across the bar had been there plenty of times and would know. So we BOTH start beckoning her over and she yells across the bar, "But I don't want to dance with him!' We roll our eyes, continue to beckon and inevitably she comes over. I asked her, "Do they ever play any danceable music? Let alone does anybody here REALLY know how to dance?"
No, not really, she said, and I thanked her for the information.
Of course, fresh in my mind was her presuming I wanted to dance with her. Yes, who else would I want to dance with besides her and her fellow 40 something, aging women friends, with 1980's clothes and noticeable aging physical features? Brushing it off, I could brush it off no more when 10 minutes later I see these same women, acting like veritable 14 year old girls as they start dancing with each other on the dance floor. And I'm not talkign the jump up and down, wiggle butt dance. I'm talking they're trying to swing dance with one another, while there is literally over 100 genuine, tall, good-looking cowboys of their same age.
In short, it was tonight I realized just what a bubble ballroom dancing is when women would just plain prefer to dance with themselves than perfectly capable guys.
So the lesson to learn here gentlemen of the Capposphere is that unless there's a ballroom bubble, there's no point in learning how to ballroom dance. Most women, in a stable market of ballroom dance, will have no interest in dancing with you. Most women will shoot you down. And most women, would actually prefer to dance with each other than a clean cut, good looking guy 10 years their junior who is a stranger. And if you do enter the ballroom world, you can be prepared to join a world of middle aged to elderly single folk looking desperately for some kind of edge or skill that will give them game.
The conclusion is obviously not to learn ballroom, but I will provide one caveat.
Ballroom dance is worth learning if you have a signficant other. THe reason why is it is a currency for men. Just like flowers, poetry, buying drinks, paying for dinner, all of that is WASTED on girls you are merely dating or trying to date. All of those, including ballroom dancing should be reserved for a special girl that actually DESERVES those things. Do men REALLY like ballroom dancing? Sure some, but even I tire of it. Did I like writing funny, witty poems to impress the girls in college? No, but I thought it would work, of course it didn't. And how much money did you waste buying soon-to-be-dead flowers, soon-to-be-eaten-chocolates, or soon-to-be-drank drinks?
You will soon realize ballroom dancing is merely one of many forms of what is ultimately categorized as ATTENTION.
And all men, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow will soon realize you don't use attention to get women (that's where indifference, ignorance and lying about your income come in). You use it to reward the nice sweet ones that treat you nice and don't play games and like you for you.
Therefore, the Captains' new official policy on dancing (as well as poetry, buying dinner, paying for drinks and any other form of attention) is reserved for those special women you are either seriously involved with or married to, or good female friends you really do like and respect.
Wasting these talents or efforts on women as a means to cajole them into dating you, is simply that. Wasting talents and efforts.
I am often faced with a quandary when middle aged women ask if their young, teenage sons should learn ballroom dance. Understand this is a quandary for me because my experience has both pros and cons to it, neither of which (until tonight) has edged out one over the other.
The battle between learning and not-learning basically boils down to two things.
1. When I was literally the best swing dancer in the entire state of Minnesota in the late 90's and early 2000's, it was grand. Swing was hot, I was hot, and I think I racked up over 200 dates alone in that 3 year time span. Dated the hottest (and most psychotic and dumbest) girl on the scene. Icing to the cake was the Salsa craze that followed. I wasn't necessarily the best dancer, but any "gringo" who wasn't all hands and didn't have a green card as an ulterior motive to dance with the ladies came at a premium. Again, life was grand.
but
2. Inevitably all good things come to an end, and they come to an end in an eerily similar pattern. First there is the craze. Everybody wants to do it, hot people, ugly people, people who climb on rocks. Then the skill level of everybody increases. Some people get better than others and this insults the former "kings and queens" of the dancing world. Cliques form in a very middle school manner, and of course, there may have been some dating going on, not all of which ended successfully. Sure enough due to failed relationships some people leave the scene, one clique won't dance with the others, and it all goes to pot. But worse, hastening the "goes to pot phase" is the entrance of two very different types of men, but PRECISELY identical effects on the dance scene - Green card searchers (latin dancing) and Single Christian Middle Aged Males (swing/ballroom scene).
These men, desperately incentived by ulterior motives, ABUSE ballroom dancing and essentially scare all the women away. Women now can no longer just "go out dancing" and enjoy a good night of it. They are now harassed by illegal aliens looking for a green card or desperate middle aged men looking for a wife. The dancing no longer has merit unto itself. It becomes a tool for desperate men.
This, more than anything else, scares the women away in droves and leaving the dance scene a nerdy-remnant shell of its former greatness.
Thus the cycle is complete, boom to bust, and ballroom dancing returns to where it "normally trades at."
The question then becomes, should the young man ever bother learning to ballroom dance? Does he learn in the hopes he times it right like I did, and with the added benefit of timing two ballroom bubbles and avail himself of (literally) limitless romantic opportunities? Or does he just pursue other pursuits and move on with his life?
I'm happy to tell you I've found the definitive and correct answer;
Do not learn ballroom dancing until you have a girlfriend or wife you dearly love.
The reason I say this is because of the "stable market value" of ballroom dancing.
Understand, though in the past I was a big proponent of ballroom dancing, that is only because I was lucky enough to live through two bubbles. Bar the great 90's swing dance craze and the early 2000's salsa craze, inevitbaly these things come to an end. And if you look back at the past 100 years, maybe, MAYBE 7 of them cumulatively were ballroom dance crazes of any time.
Regardless, that's what they precisely were.
Crazes.
They weren't "normal."
They weren't "the base line" of society.
These were fleeting, ABNORMAL phenomenons in society.
And if you timed them just right, fine, all was well and good (pretty great actually).
But if you got on the bandwagon too late, it was single Christian groups and green-card potlucks.
So you have to determine whether you should learn to ballroom dance based on the other 93 years or 93% of the time when ballroom dancing is "trading" at its normal market value and is not in a craze or "bubble" stage. And it is most decidedly NOT worth it.
The reason I say this is because of my experiences tonight. I went to about the only place in all of southern Montana to do some ballroom dancing. The venue was actually quite large. The band was quite good. And there was no less than 300 people. I walked in thinking I hit gold.
But the a couple observations.
1. NOBODY knew what they hell they were doing. Bar the SCARCE old couple who genuinely knew how to two-step, the remainder of the dancers were just flinging each other around and faking it about as bad as you could. Pockets of "woo-girls" filled the center of the floor as they danced with their beers in hand, and not one man on that floor could have ever been called a "leader" because the women were just turning themselves. I've seen mosh pits more organized than that.
2. Because of #1, even if you KNEW how to ballroom dance it wouldn't matter because no women knew how to follow. And conversely for the Lady Cappy Cappites, it wouldn't matter if you knew how to dance, because none of the men could lead, let alone keep the beat. So again, you could be the best dancer in the state (and I'm not joking when I say, I think I quite literally was), but it won't matter because you ultimately need a partner who knows what they're doing.
3. A reminder that suburbanite princess mentality transcends all rural, suburban and urban broders: There was one time I was at The Times Cafe in Minneapolis. I was in a suit, Vic Volare and the Volare Lounge Orchestra was playing. They had a GREAT floor open and martini's were pouring. It was probably the single best dance floor/joint in the entire Twin Cities and you could not ask for a better floor or band. After getting shot down 4 times in a row, I just decided I would plum ask every single looking lady to dance in the joint. After 30 minutes, I was summarily shot down by every girl in the joint. The floor remained open, until a cackle of woo girls decided to go out on the floor and dance with each other.
Tonight was a repeat. New to the venue I asked a lady sitting next to me at the bar if the band "ever played anything danceable." She said it was her first time there, but her friend from across the bar had been there plenty of times and would know. So we BOTH start beckoning her over and she yells across the bar, "But I don't want to dance with him!' We roll our eyes, continue to beckon and inevitably she comes over. I asked her, "Do they ever play any danceable music? Let alone does anybody here REALLY know how to dance?"
No, not really, she said, and I thanked her for the information.
Of course, fresh in my mind was her presuming I wanted to dance with her. Yes, who else would I want to dance with besides her and her fellow 40 something, aging women friends, with 1980's clothes and noticeable aging physical features? Brushing it off, I could brush it off no more when 10 minutes later I see these same women, acting like veritable 14 year old girls as they start dancing with each other on the dance floor. And I'm not talkign the jump up and down, wiggle butt dance. I'm talking they're trying to swing dance with one another, while there is literally over 100 genuine, tall, good-looking cowboys of their same age.
In short, it was tonight I realized just what a bubble ballroom dancing is when women would just plain prefer to dance with themselves than perfectly capable guys.
So the lesson to learn here gentlemen of the Capposphere is that unless there's a ballroom bubble, there's no point in learning how to ballroom dance. Most women, in a stable market of ballroom dance, will have no interest in dancing with you. Most women will shoot you down. And most women, would actually prefer to dance with each other than a clean cut, good looking guy 10 years their junior who is a stranger. And if you do enter the ballroom world, you can be prepared to join a world of middle aged to elderly single folk looking desperately for some kind of edge or skill that will give them game.
The conclusion is obviously not to learn ballroom, but I will provide one caveat.
Ballroom dance is worth learning if you have a signficant other. THe reason why is it is a currency for men. Just like flowers, poetry, buying drinks, paying for dinner, all of that is WASTED on girls you are merely dating or trying to date. All of those, including ballroom dancing should be reserved for a special girl that actually DESERVES those things. Do men REALLY like ballroom dancing? Sure some, but even I tire of it. Did I like writing funny, witty poems to impress the girls in college? No, but I thought it would work, of course it didn't. And how much money did you waste buying soon-to-be-dead flowers, soon-to-be-eaten-chocolates, or soon-to-be-drank drinks?
You will soon realize ballroom dancing is merely one of many forms of what is ultimately categorized as ATTENTION.
And all men, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow will soon realize you don't use attention to get women (that's where indifference, ignorance and lying about your income come in). You use it to reward the nice sweet ones that treat you nice and don't play games and like you for you.
Therefore, the Captains' new official policy on dancing (as well as poetry, buying dinner, paying for drinks and any other form of attention) is reserved for those special women you are either seriously involved with or married to, or good female friends you really do like and respect.
Wasting these talents or efforts on women as a means to cajole them into dating you, is simply that. Wasting talents and efforts.
The Captain's GE Interview Story
This was no more than about 4 months ago.
So desperate was I to get out of Minnesota I was applying for jobs that were paying as little as $9 an hour. I didn't care. I just wanted to get out. Minnesota was a veritable prison where it claimed to have a major metropolitan metro and it seemed it would have the ability to provide younger adults a promising career, but it just wasn't happening. The banking sector was helplessly corrupt. The overall economy was infested with nepotists and cronyism to the point you couldn't land a job unless you knew somebody or your last name was "Dayton" or "Cargill." And to top it all off 50 years of socialist liberalism was driving any real economic growth and entrepreneurship to the Dakotas or Mexico.
And so despite my impressive track record of hard work, academic achievement, ability to predict economies and general super-awesome economic genius, it was nothing but a day in and day out to eek out some living in this dying economic entity for the past 4 years.
4 years is a long time, and the 12 before that were at best described as "hostile." Inevitably this wears on a man and I was quite depressed. Not suicidal, but the days ended up becoming things to live through, not necessarily stepping stones to a greater future.
Inevitably, I had enough. I knew that if I stayed another year, I would be pushing that suicidal line. Besides which, my "Enjoy the Decline" philosophy was starting to cement and my own naturally derived logic told me to get out. At any cost, because, well, working as a Wal-Mart stockboy for $8 an hour in Rapid City during the dogshift would be infinitely better than working in the Cold Detroit for what inevitably end up being about the same.
So I started applying for jobs.
Any job.
Long as it was in the Rapid Citya area.
Park ranger, stock boy, chief risk officer, police officer I even applied for a pawn broker position.
Anything I could simply "do."
Inevitably, I came across a "sales rep" position at GE Capital located in Rapid City. It paid $10 an hour and no benefits. This didn't matter to me because I did have ancillary income from online classes, books, etc. (thank you Cappy Cappites!) and could afford catastrophic insurance. All that mattered was I was in Rapid City, would be out of Minnesota and be among the mountains and more or less saner more conservative people. The pay cut would be worth the mental health.
And to my luck I received a call from their HR department. She gave me the regular rigmarole of stupid HR questions. I was answering in boiler plate form. But when she asked why I wanted to work for GE, I (stupidly) answered truthfully.
"I want to move to Rapid City, always wanted to live there and I inevitably want to settle down and retire there."
Then came an odd question from her. One that stuck in my mind;
"But you want to work for GE too, right?"
I answered, "Uh, yes, of course."
I must have answered correctly because a month later I was at an actual in-person interview. Two middle aged men sat across from me. One overweight, the other with a beard. Both leaning over as if they were eager to meet me.
The questions ensue, I answer them, and I quickly realize that because this is such a low-paying job, their primary problem is not just retention, but alcoholism and drug use. More than 4 questions about my use of drugs and alcohol and can I manage the simple and expected task of showing up on time and not hung over.
I look at them as if they never looked at my resume and kind of laid it on the line for them, "Look, guys, I'm 35. I've owned rental property, ran my own business and have worked in the financial service industry for over 14 years. I'm not some 21 year old kid out of college who is still partying. I'm going to show up on time and be sober. That's the minimum I can promise."
Their concerns seemed assuaged by my mini-speech. They then asked why I wanted to work at GE and I gave them the same response I told the HR gal.
"I've always wanted to live in Rapid City, blah blah blah."
And eerily enough, they asked the same question,
"But also because you want to work for GE, right?"
"Uh, yeah, right."
2 weeks later I got the rejection letter.
Now I'm not bitter (they only were paying $10 an hour), but let me explain something here to those of you at GE, or any other firm that is looking for some kind of "sworn allegiance" to your firm or your company.
Screw you.
Are you kidding me? $10 an hour and you think people WANT to work for you?
Is this a joke, or just another baby boomer derived sh!t test to see if you can get people to lie and tell you what you want to hear, thereby another sick and twisted "test" of loyalty?
I am literally speechless at the fact you expect people to parrot or make some comment of allegiance to a firm that pays $10 an hour. Do you think anybody WANTS to work at GE? Let alone a crappy call center position? Let alone WORK AT ALL?
The answer to your most inane question of "why do you want to work here" is a simple one;
MONEY
You are going to pay me.
Expecting another answer is simply testing out ability to kiss ass and brown nose.
Now, if you want that, ask that question.
"How much are you willing to brown nose, kiss our asses and bend over?"
There are people out there who will answer truthfully. Matter of fact, I think most of the US civilian labor force is so desperate, not to mention fed up, they'll tell you right off the bat.
But Jesus H Christ, to think you're being "sneaky" or "really clever" about asking us why we want to work there and think somehow our answer, if ass-kissing or not, will determine our level of loyalty and efficiency is only the pure bunk that can come out of the aging and decrepit HR "profession."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the public sector is the primary threat. But since this is a democracy, the public sector and government we have is merely a reflection of the general population that voted them in there. And while the government is the single biggest threat, that doesn't mean the idiots that voted this latest moron into office don't infect the private sector either. And so infectiously stupid are they, not only do they ask you stupid questions like "why do you want to work here," they then go out of their way to suggest, "but it's also because you want to work at GE, right?"
Right, just so I might have the off-chance of meeting your rent-seeking CEO so I can shove a lightbulb up his....nostril.
You enjoy filling those alcoholic, drug addict $10/hour jobs with automotonic "GE cheerleaders."
I wonder if they interrogate the Chinese laborers they hire so intensely as they do the American ones?
So desperate was I to get out of Minnesota I was applying for jobs that were paying as little as $9 an hour. I didn't care. I just wanted to get out. Minnesota was a veritable prison where it claimed to have a major metropolitan metro and it seemed it would have the ability to provide younger adults a promising career, but it just wasn't happening. The banking sector was helplessly corrupt. The overall economy was infested with nepotists and cronyism to the point you couldn't land a job unless you knew somebody or your last name was "Dayton" or "Cargill." And to top it all off 50 years of socialist liberalism was driving any real economic growth and entrepreneurship to the Dakotas or Mexico.
And so despite my impressive track record of hard work, academic achievement, ability to predict economies and general super-awesome economic genius, it was nothing but a day in and day out to eek out some living in this dying economic entity for the past 4 years.
4 years is a long time, and the 12 before that were at best described as "hostile." Inevitably this wears on a man and I was quite depressed. Not suicidal, but the days ended up becoming things to live through, not necessarily stepping stones to a greater future.
Inevitably, I had enough. I knew that if I stayed another year, I would be pushing that suicidal line. Besides which, my "Enjoy the Decline" philosophy was starting to cement and my own naturally derived logic told me to get out. At any cost, because, well, working as a Wal-Mart stockboy for $8 an hour in Rapid City during the dogshift would be infinitely better than working in the Cold Detroit for what inevitably end up being about the same.
So I started applying for jobs.
Any job.
Long as it was in the Rapid Citya area.
Park ranger, stock boy, chief risk officer, police officer I even applied for a pawn broker position.
Anything I could simply "do."
Inevitably, I came across a "sales rep" position at GE Capital located in Rapid City. It paid $10 an hour and no benefits. This didn't matter to me because I did have ancillary income from online classes, books, etc. (thank you Cappy Cappites!) and could afford catastrophic insurance. All that mattered was I was in Rapid City, would be out of Minnesota and be among the mountains and more or less saner more conservative people. The pay cut would be worth the mental health.
And to my luck I received a call from their HR department. She gave me the regular rigmarole of stupid HR questions. I was answering in boiler plate form. But when she asked why I wanted to work for GE, I (stupidly) answered truthfully.
"I want to move to Rapid City, always wanted to live there and I inevitably want to settle down and retire there."
Then came an odd question from her. One that stuck in my mind;
"But you want to work for GE too, right?"
I answered, "Uh, yes, of course."
I must have answered correctly because a month later I was at an actual in-person interview. Two middle aged men sat across from me. One overweight, the other with a beard. Both leaning over as if they were eager to meet me.
The questions ensue, I answer them, and I quickly realize that because this is such a low-paying job, their primary problem is not just retention, but alcoholism and drug use. More than 4 questions about my use of drugs and alcohol and can I manage the simple and expected task of showing up on time and not hung over.
I look at them as if they never looked at my resume and kind of laid it on the line for them, "Look, guys, I'm 35. I've owned rental property, ran my own business and have worked in the financial service industry for over 14 years. I'm not some 21 year old kid out of college who is still partying. I'm going to show up on time and be sober. That's the minimum I can promise."
Their concerns seemed assuaged by my mini-speech. They then asked why I wanted to work at GE and I gave them the same response I told the HR gal.
"I've always wanted to live in Rapid City, blah blah blah."
And eerily enough, they asked the same question,
"But also because you want to work for GE, right?"
"Uh, yeah, right."
2 weeks later I got the rejection letter.
Now I'm not bitter (they only were paying $10 an hour), but let me explain something here to those of you at GE, or any other firm that is looking for some kind of "sworn allegiance" to your firm or your company.
Screw you.
Are you kidding me? $10 an hour and you think people WANT to work for you?
Is this a joke, or just another baby boomer derived sh!t test to see if you can get people to lie and tell you what you want to hear, thereby another sick and twisted "test" of loyalty?
I am literally speechless at the fact you expect people to parrot or make some comment of allegiance to a firm that pays $10 an hour. Do you think anybody WANTS to work at GE? Let alone a crappy call center position? Let alone WORK AT ALL?
The answer to your most inane question of "why do you want to work here" is a simple one;
MONEY
You are going to pay me.
Expecting another answer is simply testing out ability to kiss ass and brown nose.
Now, if you want that, ask that question.
"How much are you willing to brown nose, kiss our asses and bend over?"
There are people out there who will answer truthfully. Matter of fact, I think most of the US civilian labor force is so desperate, not to mention fed up, they'll tell you right off the bat.
But Jesus H Christ, to think you're being "sneaky" or "really clever" about asking us why we want to work there and think somehow our answer, if ass-kissing or not, will determine our level of loyalty and efficiency is only the pure bunk that can come out of the aging and decrepit HR "profession."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the public sector is the primary threat. But since this is a democracy, the public sector and government we have is merely a reflection of the general population that voted them in there. And while the government is the single biggest threat, that doesn't mean the idiots that voted this latest moron into office don't infect the private sector either. And so infectiously stupid are they, not only do they ask you stupid questions like "why do you want to work here," they then go out of their way to suggest, "but it's also because you want to work at GE, right?"
Right, just so I might have the off-chance of meeting your rent-seeking CEO so I can shove a lightbulb up his....nostril.
You enjoy filling those alcoholic, drug addict $10/hour jobs with automotonic "GE cheerleaders."
I wonder if they interrogate the Chinese laborers they hire so intensely as they do the American ones?
Friday, September 30, 2011
Pull Up a Chair with Cappy Cap!
And read the quality linkage that he has linked to below!
Several years ago I was kicking around writing a book called "Socialism, Inc" indicating that socialists fully knew what they were doing and were running a business with the exact same goal of capitalists - to make money. Of course the only difference is they would not provide anything in return.
Reminds me of the occasional story you'll hear about a kid dying or being taken away by the authorities when their eco-nazi-vegan parents refuse to provide the infant with nourishment. Again, they are more important than the cause they purport to support.
Yes, there are such things as stupid questions. Particularly those you have to ask because you failed to read the text or the book, who are typically stupid.
Putin vs Obama in a death match.
My question is "if you're a republican, why are you even bothering going to Berkeley?"
"I'm majoring in travel and hospitality." I worked at this degree mill called the "Minneapolis Business College." One of their majors was literally "travel and hospitality." I think to get accepted to the program your IQ must have been inversely related to your weight.
Make sure to enjoy your weekend by ensuring you enjoy the decline!
Several years ago I was kicking around writing a book called "Socialism, Inc" indicating that socialists fully knew what they were doing and were running a business with the exact same goal of capitalists - to make money. Of course the only difference is they would not provide anything in return.
Reminds me of the occasional story you'll hear about a kid dying or being taken away by the authorities when their eco-nazi-vegan parents refuse to provide the infant with nourishment. Again, they are more important than the cause they purport to support.
Yes, there are such things as stupid questions. Particularly those you have to ask because you failed to read the text or the book, who are typically stupid.
Putin vs Obama in a death match.
My question is "if you're a republican, why are you even bothering going to Berkeley?"
"I'm majoring in travel and hospitality." I worked at this degree mill called the "Minneapolis Business College." One of their majors was literally "travel and hospitality." I think to get accepted to the program your IQ must have been inversely related to your weight.
Make sure to enjoy your weekend by ensuring you enjoy the decline!
Recession Medicine
If you're in a foul mood and need to vent, I strongly suggest working out to this music;
It's from the anime "Samurai Champloo" which takes about 3 full watchings to fully appreciate. It is no Cowboy Bebop, but eh, will the Japanese ever acknowledge their screenwriting sucks and outsource?
Probably not.
It's from the anime "Samurai Champloo" which takes about 3 full watchings to fully appreciate. It is no Cowboy Bebop, but eh, will the Japanese ever acknowledge their screenwriting sucks and outsource?
Probably not.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Death Bed Theory
Mercy almighty.
If there was one question I'd ask a modern day feminist it would be simply this;
"Is your life so pathetic, so vapid, so pointless, and so petty that you have nothing better to do?"
It again eludes to my "Death Bed Theory" of liberals, communists, socialists, leftists, professional activists and protesters, etc. That when the time comes, and they are on their death beds, they will actually rue and regret not doing anything real in their lives.
This isn't wishful thinking. I'm not saying this because I WANT it to be true. I'm being intellectually honest when I say I believe, deep down inside, they know their lives are nothing but a farce and their "crusades" or "political causes" they're championing are first and foremost to make themselves feel better, not anything as noble as the cause they purport to support.
But over time, and as they age, and as they witness other members of their generation produce REAL things and make REAL TANGIBLE contributions to society and in short make something REAL out of their lives, they MUST inevitably KNOW they're living a lie. This slow realization I can only see playing out one of two ways.
1. A powerful "rationalization hamster" in concert with an all-too-willing media makes them double down on "grrrrl power" or "going green" or "sticking it to the man" or "enter commie hobby void of calculus and real work here." In which case they live a progressively more lonely and lonely life, become progressively more conspiratorial (in that conspiracies are the only thing that is capable of refuting what they see empirically in their lives) and become progressively more extreme and angry (ever meet a happy old feminist with cats, or a genuinely happy male liberal in his 50's?) Sadly this path results in them on a death bed having to acknowledge they pissed away their one shot at life (and ironically forces them to "pray" their is an afterlife, which the majority of them poo pooed because religion is for "losers.")
or
2. They have an epiphany, usually brought about by a child, a marriage, near death experience, a check stub that shows how much money the government takes out, a job, a career...in short...an adult experience, they come back to the real world, join it, enjoy it and then go on to lead a truly productive and enjoyable life.
In short my entire theory is premised on them being willfully ignorant, which is a euphemism for evil. They know they're lying. They know they're doing it to economically benefit for themselves sans work. They know they're hypocrites. They know they're deathly afraid of real work, real math, and real effort. They fear real life and the real world and hide behind "victim" status to parasite off of others and make life easier for them.
But in the end, oh yes, the end. They must rue that decision to not try. They must regret not trying to work hard at a real job and truly support themselves. They must regret the years of youth wasted "protesting" this or "protesting" that. Getting petitions signed. Or chasing after members of the opposite sex for their "intelligence" or political beliefs instead of people they were viscerally physically nuclear hot for. They must wonder what it would have been like to drive a gas-guzzling sports car, or eat a juicy steak, or not care about faking to "care" about global warming, or to just dress up in a gorgeous dress or a sharp suit and be the center of attention at a party. Worst of all, I do truly believe they will regret not achieving their best. they will regret not trying. They will deep down inside know they had wasted the past 80 years of their lives avoiding the real world, never caring to participate in it, but rather parasite off of it and they, unfortunately, will never know what they could have done with that precious one shot at life
as they slowly drift away
and the tunnel vision sets in
alone in a government paid nursing home
where even their cats didn't come to visit them
and die
unknown
uncared for
and ultimately,
irrelevant.
Post-post. From a reader and I have to once again hang my head in shame. Apparently there was a book written about crusaderism LOOONG before I quoted the term. Sigh, I'll never have an original thought. Though it is heartening (and confirming, I might add) that I arrived at the same conclusions Eric Hoffer and Ayn Rand did without reading one word of their writings.
If there was one question I'd ask a modern day feminist it would be simply this;
"Is your life so pathetic, so vapid, so pointless, and so petty that you have nothing better to do?"
It again eludes to my "Death Bed Theory" of liberals, communists, socialists, leftists, professional activists and protesters, etc. That when the time comes, and they are on their death beds, they will actually rue and regret not doing anything real in their lives.
This isn't wishful thinking. I'm not saying this because I WANT it to be true. I'm being intellectually honest when I say I believe, deep down inside, they know their lives are nothing but a farce and their "crusades" or "political causes" they're championing are first and foremost to make themselves feel better, not anything as noble as the cause they purport to support.
But over time, and as they age, and as they witness other members of their generation produce REAL things and make REAL TANGIBLE contributions to society and in short make something REAL out of their lives, they MUST inevitably KNOW they're living a lie. This slow realization I can only see playing out one of two ways.
1. A powerful "rationalization hamster" in concert with an all-too-willing media makes them double down on "grrrrl power" or "going green" or "sticking it to the man" or "enter commie hobby void of calculus and real work here." In which case they live a progressively more lonely and lonely life, become progressively more conspiratorial (in that conspiracies are the only thing that is capable of refuting what they see empirically in their lives) and become progressively more extreme and angry (ever meet a happy old feminist with cats, or a genuinely happy male liberal in his 50's?) Sadly this path results in them on a death bed having to acknowledge they pissed away their one shot at life (and ironically forces them to "pray" their is an afterlife, which the majority of them poo pooed because religion is for "losers.")
or
2. They have an epiphany, usually brought about by a child, a marriage, near death experience, a check stub that shows how much money the government takes out, a job, a career...in short...an adult experience, they come back to the real world, join it, enjoy it and then go on to lead a truly productive and enjoyable life.
In short my entire theory is premised on them being willfully ignorant, which is a euphemism for evil. They know they're lying. They know they're doing it to economically benefit for themselves sans work. They know they're hypocrites. They know they're deathly afraid of real work, real math, and real effort. They fear real life and the real world and hide behind "victim" status to parasite off of others and make life easier for them.
But in the end, oh yes, the end. They must rue that decision to not try. They must regret not trying to work hard at a real job and truly support themselves. They must regret the years of youth wasted "protesting" this or "protesting" that. Getting petitions signed. Or chasing after members of the opposite sex for their "intelligence" or political beliefs instead of people they were viscerally physically nuclear hot for. They must wonder what it would have been like to drive a gas-guzzling sports car, or eat a juicy steak, or not care about faking to "care" about global warming, or to just dress up in a gorgeous dress or a sharp suit and be the center of attention at a party. Worst of all, I do truly believe they will regret not achieving their best. they will regret not trying. They will deep down inside know they had wasted the past 80 years of their lives avoiding the real world, never caring to participate in it, but rather parasite off of it and they, unfortunately, will never know what they could have done with that precious one shot at life
as they slowly drift away
and the tunnel vision sets in
alone in a government paid nursing home
where even their cats didn't come to visit them
and die
unknown
uncared for
and ultimately,
irrelevant.
Post-post. From a reader and I have to once again hang my head in shame. Apparently there was a book written about crusaderism LOOONG before I quoted the term. Sigh, I'll never have an original thought. Though it is heartening (and confirming, I might add) that I arrived at the same conclusions Eric Hoffer and Ayn Rand did without reading one word of their writings.
Stupid Fly Over Hicks
Not as cool as you west coasters, right?
And remember, oil is BAD. It's EEEVILLLL! With all the stupid jobs it brings and employment. No, much better to take out that second mortgage on your California home so you can go green.
And remember, oil is BAD. It's EEEVILLLL! With all the stupid jobs it brings and employment. No, much better to take out that second mortgage on your California home so you can go green.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Do You See What I See?
This is so painfully obvious why self-checkout lanes are being phased out in grocery stores vs places like Home Depot which plan on keeping them.
I'll give you another hint. Coupons? Who uses coupons?
Anybody want to field this one? Bueller? Bueller?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)