Bliss
Is Not When You Don't Remember
It's When You Don't Mind.
The Present
Is As Good As The Past And As Good As The Future
Now And Here
Now And There
Then And When, Everywhere.
Freezing In Warmth.
It Starts At The Finish,
And Ends At The Beginning
And Then,
It's Over.
Screwy Reviewy: wheelchair
+++ NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS SUSPECTS+++
Last night started innocently enough. After doing one chore, I headed to the liquor store to purchase some acceptable beers and some horrible liquor. A night of drinking lay ahead, but I could not be sure of the circumstances therein.
Suddenly, my mate, Sebastian, called. He invited me over to enjoy liquor and beer and his company, all at the same time. I accepted his request, especially because he offered to pick me up, and I had already had 4 standard drinks.
After arriving, much talk about rap music and drinking beer seemed to be the tone of the night, with many examples presented on youtube and to my lips. Out of somewhere, my friend Sebastian received a text message inviting him to a party from my friend Allister. We did not immediately accept because neither I, Patrick, or my friend Sebastian, were "good to drive".
When our third friend Terrence arrived, we asked him if he would like to attend the aforementioned party. Indeed, he did. And so we did. After a long drive with much ballyhooing and mucking about, We arrived.
We arrived to meet the company of many old mates. Nigel, Alexander, and Graham to name a few. After several games of "who's got the most British-sounding name?" and "Pint Pong", several young ne'erdowell's were in attendance. After seating myself in a wheelchair, I discovered how fun handicapability could really be. I was a man obsessed.
I wanted the wheelchair. And I wanted it Awfully. After asking my mate Terrence to be my accomplice in theft and being politely refused, I turned to other methods. I tried to beg Alexander to let me have it. He referred me to Nigel, because he was the one who liberated the wheelchair in the first place. Nigel, after many pints, assured me he would not mind if it was to disappear. I had found the grail.
After wheeling the wheel chair to a less populated area, I hid it behind a tree and behind a sign. Not driving on this night or intending to, my plan was to come back at daybreak to retrieve it. Shortly after this, I experienced memory loss.
At daybreak, I was filled with low-intensity regret. Instead of retrieving the aforementioned wheelchair, I instead intended to return it to it's original thieves. And so I did. After drinking 2 energy tinctures, I felt confident enough to face the day.
Last night started innocently enough. After doing one chore, I headed to the liquor store to purchase some acceptable beers and some horrible liquor. A night of drinking lay ahead, but I could not be sure of the circumstances therein.
Suddenly, my mate, Sebastian, called. He invited me over to enjoy liquor and beer and his company, all at the same time. I accepted his request, especially because he offered to pick me up, and I had already had 4 standard drinks.
After arriving, much talk about rap music and drinking beer seemed to be the tone of the night, with many examples presented on youtube and to my lips. Out of somewhere, my friend Sebastian received a text message inviting him to a party from my friend Allister. We did not immediately accept because neither I, Patrick, or my friend Sebastian, were "good to drive".
When our third friend Terrence arrived, we asked him if he would like to attend the aforementioned party. Indeed, he did. And so we did. After a long drive with much ballyhooing and mucking about, We arrived.
We arrived to meet the company of many old mates. Nigel, Alexander, and Graham to name a few. After several games of "who's got the most British-sounding name?" and "Pint Pong", several young ne'erdowell's were in attendance. After seating myself in a wheelchair, I discovered how fun handicapability could really be. I was a man obsessed.
I wanted the wheelchair. And I wanted it Awfully. After asking my mate Terrence to be my accomplice in theft and being politely refused, I turned to other methods. I tried to beg Alexander to let me have it. He referred me to Nigel, because he was the one who liberated the wheelchair in the first place. Nigel, after many pints, assured me he would not mind if it was to disappear. I had found the grail.
After wheeling the wheel chair to a less populated area, I hid it behind a tree and behind a sign. Not driving on this night or intending to, my plan was to come back at daybreak to retrieve it. Shortly after this, I experienced memory loss.
At daybreak, I was filled with low-intensity regret. Instead of retrieving the aforementioned wheelchair, I instead intended to return it to it's original thieves. And so I did. After drinking 2 energy tinctures, I felt confident enough to face the day.
Screwy Reviewy: Can't Hardly Wait
Pictured Above: The Hard Truth.
I just watched a movie called Can't Hardly Wait, and was surprised by a couple of things. One, how good it is, considering is came from 1998, which I lived through; and had the distinct impression nothing good happened. Second, it represented high school presented in a fairly unique and accurate way.
WARNING: SPOILING YOUR FUN ALERT. WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST, UNLESS YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT LIKE ME.
This movie is set at a party commemorating the end of high school, something I would never be involved with. One character, an italian redhead I'd like to have intercourse with, represents that attitude, initially not wanting to attend. When her friend asks her "what else are you doing tonight?" She has no answer, so she attends. Illustrates the point succinctly.
What's initially great about this movie is there's no hero I can identify. One, a character called "preston meyers", is who I'm supposed to be rooting for, I think. He babbles on about fate and indulges in other magical thinking, finding "signs" and indications he is fated to become an item with jennifer love huge-tits. The only thing I can really relate to is wanting to have sex with a brunette fox, which I want to do at any moment. Other than that he's fairly obnoxious.
But the movie gives equal time to so many other characters you can basically take your pick. Personally I identify with the fire-in-the-hole fox I mentioned, and seth greens character, who is the normal "wigger" character. Only because of his appreciation of black culture and desperate need to get laid; both major themes of my time in high school.
Since this is the last time many of these characters will see each other, the stakes are high. People are doing "what they always wanted to do", consciously or otherwise. And therein lies the drama and comedy.
It was refreshing to see the normal cinematic "high school dynamics" totally absent. By that I mean not everyone was jealous yet enamored by the "popular kids" in particular. There was very little "Us versus them" mentality. With the exception of one character, an x-files nerd. Which hilariously dates the movie, seeing as how nerds have now moved onto video games and energy drinks exclusively. He and his 2 friends have a plot to exact revenge on a jock(example of played out boring shit in movies) Yet when this character gets a couple of beers into his belly, he doesn't give a fuck about anything but being a total beast. Something I can also relate to.
So overall, I felt many characters easy to relate to, and their social interactions as a very accurate(though farcical) representation of high school social life. Seeing as how this movie came from the "deadball" era of comedy movies, and probably everything else, the late 90's, it gets extra points. This gets my rating of download it illegally and enjoy it.
James Lee was correct, but not too bright.
The gunman that took 3 people hostage at the discovery networks headquarters on september 1st, interested me for 1 reason. He didn't commit the violent act for religious, personal, or otherwise "stupid as shit" reasons. The reasoning behind the act was environmental activism. I wouldn't consider myself an environmentalist first. To put it quickly: I support environmentalism when it's primary concern is the betterment of humanity. So did this man's views jive with me?
In a nutshell, kinda sorta. I'm annoyed with alot of the reaction to global warming; because I think they don't focus on the primary concern: People. Most of the popular media describing global warming and the ensuing environmental crisis is only focued on one thing: fuel and the resulting pollution.
There's 2 more aspects to global warming, to put it simply: Overpopulation, and human suffering. I was first annoyed by the non-mention of human suffering in popular media. If the sea levels are going to rise to levels that drown previously populated areas, like New Orleans and Sri lanka, shouldn't people in those areas be evacuated? If, right now, we can only slow global warming, but not prevent it, shouldn't we be more concerned about immediate effects?
This man, James Lee, completely missed, ignored, or wasn't concerned with that point. Instead he focused on overpopulation. And that is where he was correct, but bitter. There are too many people. This has been said before, notably in the 1970s, and yet earth supports more people now than any of those scientists thought it could. They weren't precisely correct about doomsday, but their conclusion(to curb population growth) is still a good idea for other reasons.
Even if cornucopianism is true, and we can just keep expanding and inventing, why? Things would be a hell of alot easier if population was simply reduced. Why struggle for technology and resource conservation when we could all turn to the simplest form of conservation: LESS PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.
I don't share this mans contempt or hatred for humanity. Every human currently alive should remain alive, and enjoy their life as much as possible. But why more people after the current ones?
Most "breeders" as they're referred to by lesbians and idiots, believe their real and/or hypothetical personality and/or parenting to be extraordinary. Yet. according to the most accurate estimates, There are 6,866,400,000 people on earth. Your ability to produce a super-child is estimated by how super YOU are divided by your breeding partner, so 1 in 3433200000(assuming you are super). Even if you are, and swear you know how to pick 'em, that's like rolling a 1 in 3433200000 die everytime you "hit it raw", you moron.
The only lasting reason to breed is your DNA. So your "family continues on". Really? Your own family 5 generations ago was genetically 1/32nd of you. If you breed and trust your offspring to breed for 5 more generations, they'll only be 1/32nd of you once again. You are a blip on the radar. Not only that, but you'll be fucking dead by then, so who cares? Your great-great-great-grandchildren will know as much about you as you know about your great-great-great grandfamily. What a legacy!
Overall, this dude and his act made me think. And that's Probably a bad thing.
In a nutshell, kinda sorta. I'm annoyed with alot of the reaction to global warming; because I think they don't focus on the primary concern: People. Most of the popular media describing global warming and the ensuing environmental crisis is only focued on one thing: fuel and the resulting pollution.
There's 2 more aspects to global warming, to put it simply: Overpopulation, and human suffering. I was first annoyed by the non-mention of human suffering in popular media. If the sea levels are going to rise to levels that drown previously populated areas, like New Orleans and Sri lanka, shouldn't people in those areas be evacuated? If, right now, we can only slow global warming, but not prevent it, shouldn't we be more concerned about immediate effects?
This man, James Lee, completely missed, ignored, or wasn't concerned with that point. Instead he focused on overpopulation. And that is where he was correct, but bitter. There are too many people. This has been said before, notably in the 1970s, and yet earth supports more people now than any of those scientists thought it could. They weren't precisely correct about doomsday, but their conclusion(to curb population growth) is still a good idea for other reasons.
Even if cornucopianism is true, and we can just keep expanding and inventing, why? Things would be a hell of alot easier if population was simply reduced. Why struggle for technology and resource conservation when we could all turn to the simplest form of conservation: LESS PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.
I don't share this mans contempt or hatred for humanity. Every human currently alive should remain alive, and enjoy their life as much as possible. But why more people after the current ones?
Most "breeders" as they're referred to by lesbians and idiots, believe their real and/or hypothetical personality and/or parenting to be extraordinary. Yet. according to the most accurate estimates, There are 6,866,400,000 people on earth. Your ability to produce a super-child is estimated by how super YOU are divided by your breeding partner, so 1 in 3433200000(assuming you are super). Even if you are, and swear you know how to pick 'em, that's like rolling a 1 in 3433200000 die everytime you "hit it raw", you moron.
The only lasting reason to breed is your DNA. So your "family continues on". Really? Your own family 5 generations ago was genetically 1/32nd of you. If you breed and trust your offspring to breed for 5 more generations, they'll only be 1/32nd of you once again. You are a blip on the radar. Not only that, but you'll be fucking dead by then, so who cares? Your great-great-great-grandchildren will know as much about you as you know about your great-great-great grandfamily. What a legacy!
Overall, this dude and his act made me think. And that's Probably a bad thing.
Legalize Drugs, Conclusion
Pictured Above: No shit.
Drugs. The word itself inspires A mix of imagery that is at the same time fun, dangerous, cool, evil, sad, and positive. I can feel the fast-rushing ambivalence in myself just thinking about it. I'd wager to guess that most people my age have the same lack of strong opinion about the entire issue of drugs.
When I say the entire issue, I mean the entire issue. Imagine I've just asked you how you feel about the "Issue of drugs". Your answers would come in all shapes, sizes and flavors, including but not limited to:
1- LEGALIZE THE LEAF BRO! It's like, just a plant! It would be like making iceberg lettuce illegal!
2- I think soft drugs are okay, but hard drugs are pure evil and should be illegal. Clearly, heroin and cocaine users deserve to be the victims of crime/dead/imprisoned because they didn't make the wise choice to be addicted to coffee and cigarettes like me.
3- Everyone in the U.S. Is over-medicated. What happened to like, eastern methods, ya know? Like watching "enter the dragon" on repeat until depression lifts?
4- Drugs are mad crucial. I'm on drugs right now. It's great, I feel all fuzzy inside and everything looks funny.
Not to belittle any opinion too much, these are all fine statements holding their own truth(does that sound post-modern? The doctors must have done a great job covering the lobotomy scars). However, opinions on "drugs" are all these things combined and then some.
Most people believe in medicine. That is, if someone is in physical pain it's certainly okay If they medicate to help manage it. What about emotional pain? Well, That too is seen as okay by most people. The line people draw in the sand is between using drugs to feel "normal" and using drugs to feel "damn good". But all drug use, among the sick and healthy, prescription, over-the-counter or illicit, is essentially the same thing: alteration of consciousness.
There are countless ways to alter consciousness, and not all of them are substances you can ingest. You can deprive yourself of sleep, sleep as much as possible, eat a whole lot, fast, meditate, watch stand-up comedy, listen to music really loud, do crossword puzzles, write, hyperventilate, hypoventilate, masturbate, fuck, use sensory deprivation, ride a rollercoaster, exercise moderately or excessively, self harm... the list goes on.
Which begs the question, what's the big deal when the way of altering your consciousness is a substance? Many substances you can use are more mild than these other methods. And even if they aren't, What's wrong with altering your consciousness, for recreation, and not just to cope?
Society holds onto the idea that the drug free, unafflicted individual is the ideal. If that's the case, everyone would be walking around acting like Penn Jillette and Henry Rollins. It's fine for some, but not for everyone. I suggest that if the majority population wasn't caffeinated, hungover and possibly dopesick during the day, and wasn't drunk, high, or possibly experimenting with psychedelics the rest of the time, the world would be a worse place to live in.
Pictured Above: A drug free world
It's well known and repeated that musicians, actors and other artists have an appetite for drug use and a predilection for drug abuse. What's less often said is there are tons of drugs users and abusers who are just regular people, and without the restrictions of the law; Joe-Six-Pack might be as common as Joe-bag-of-blow and Joe-eats-oxycontin-like-skittles. Since most drug users aren't trying to "just escape", but instead trying to improve their coping skills or find peace of mind, I think the effects would be a net positive.
It may sound a little too optimistic, but the status and popular opinion of all drugs is defined primarily by it's legal status, secondarily by myth, and finally by it's actual effects. When you look at the world of drugs as a whole, and I mean a real whole, prescription drugs and illegal ones all being equal, There are doubts about the legality and safety of each and every one. Each and every one.
The basic, uninformed argument is "There are certain illegal drugs that just don't do anyone any good". It's really not true. Many people have happy, positive experiences with hard drugs. If you don't believe it, read it from the horses mouth instead of watching "requiem for a dream" again. A demonized drug's addiction potential is partially physical, and partly because they're so damn good. However, if you think it's worthwhile to protect people from the possibility of addiction, nicotine, most anti-depressants, and caffeine should be outright illegal, right now.
My conclusion is that a relationship between a drug and it's user is such a subjective, personal thing with great variations. Some people are hopelessly addicted to cigarettes and suffer health consequences, and others try heroin and don't like it(really, read up) we can't make any absolute statements about any one drug. And if that's the case, They should all be legal. Each and every one of them.
That, or they should all be prescription. For recreational purposes as well as medical. But that would open a can of worms, dirt, and birds of prey we'd never get closed. Legalize drugs.
The feline community agrees.
Historians Fail Again
So, If you're not Familiar with Ernest Shackleton and his antarctic exploration, Read Up. And If his life's work wasn't enough, He left a drinkable relic behind with his passing, 11 bottles of Charles Mackinlay & Co. Whisky, at the bottom of the damn world, over a century ago.
Upon discovery of the liquor, many questions about it arose. And they have now been answered here. And the answers are despicable. Observe:
Q: A century old? Is the liquor any good still? Is it better with age?
A: Well, liquor sitting in an airtight bottle is just the same as the day it was bottled. Only aging in barrels effects flavor. Since most of the bottles recovered are airtight, It is ostensibly the same exact liquor Shackleton chose to drink on his expedition. However, the original recipe for this Whisky has been lost. So This is all that's left of it.
Q: Isn't it frozen?
A: Though the crate was frozen solid when it was retrieved earlier this year, the whisky inside could be heard sloshing around in the bottles. -22 degrees fahrenheit is not enough to freeze the liquor. For reference, 84 proof liquor freezes at -30 degrees. The proof of this Whisky is unknown, so it may or may not have frozen in the last 120 years. The flavor likely hasn't been effected.
Q: Oh, great. So I can drink it, right?.
A: Well, you can't, because you don't deserve to. But can anyone drink it? Well, get this, "no". They plan to put a syringe through a cork of one of the bottles, So that modern scotch makers can attempt to replicate the liquor.
Q: That's stupid. why? Do they need ALL 11 BOTTLES preserved in a museum or something?
A: Actually, after a bunch of smug scientists oooh and aww at it, it will be RETURNED TO WHERE IT WAS LEFT.
Does this make any sense to anyone? There are 11 bottles to go around, the Liquor is still good to drink. The attempt to replicate the liquor is great and all, but we have some of the original that's still just waiting for us to drink it! The Liquor itself has no historical importance, besides being liquor that isn't made anymore that was the drink of choice for a great explorer. He brought it with him to drink it. What's the point of leaving it? Would there be any difference If we just filled the bottles back up with wild turkey, and split the original liquor between the modern relatives of shackletons team, The modern explorers who uncovered it, and the scotch maker who will try to replicate it? It would be a serene moment for all of them, and the shackletons Scotch Whisky tale would have a great ending.
INSTEAD, All they are doing is depriving those who most deserve to drink it, being smug about how well they're "preserving history", and practically saying "Come Steal the Whisky and drink it". You read right. Someone will steal it. I know because If I happened to be around the south pole in a helicopter and someone said "Hey, want to get loaded on 120 year old scotch?" I would say Yes, and I would take the rest home and get selfishly drunk on it myself. Because it's silly not to. Childish.
That said, though I'm appalled by their decision, they've opened the next chapter. and I can't wait for a few years from now when I read "Local independently wealthy canadian tipler steals and drinks historic hooch, exclaims 'I'm not sorry'".
The Case For Downloading
I'm happy to have been born when I was. 1987. By the time I was in the early stages of puberty I could happily go on the internet and masturbate to real porno. Well it wasn't exactly happily, it was more nervously; half expecting my dad to interrupt at any moment to play DOOM. But that's besides the point. The point is that the internet changed the game right when I was becoming a sentient being.
Since then, there has been an ongoing clash of cultures. The clash is between the young modern, tech-savvy, sensible population, and money-grubbing, willfully ignorant old farts. The controversy started with music. mp3 downloading was happening for years in the early-mid 90's(I know because I did it) but it was not a big issue until CD burning became widespread. You know how things panned out there. Many sickeningly rich musicians campaigned to put an end to people enjoying their music in the form of free file transfers between private citizens. I was shocked to find out that the law actually came down on their side.
Of course, nothing changed. People who are inclined to download music and movies found more clever and efficient methods, and those who think intellectual property should come at an arbitrary price came up with silly halfway methods like selling downloads. This has continued to this day and the battlefield has turned into an embarrassing reconstruction period.
Here are the reasons why downloading music and movies free is superior:
1- It's fast, easy, and efficient. This should be obvious. You used to have to go to a play or see a musician to be entertained, now you can just dick around on the computer. There will still be those who want a hard copy of certain things, so they can buy one. But otherwise, the computer file is the smallest, most dynamic medium yet invented.
2- The artist does not suffer. This is a common myth to this day- "if you want to support this, go out and buy it, don't just download!". These people don't really understand how entertainers make money. Very little is made by actors, musicians, or filmmakers through selling actual copies of the work. The most money is made through
"the advance", advertising deals, residuals, shows(particularly in other countries), merchandise selling(pro-tip, never give up merchandising rights), finding pennies and nickles on the ground, asking to hold $10 and never giving it back, you name it. If you don't buy a CD, you are not depriving the artist of $14-18 dollars. You are depriving them of less than a dollar in the case of lesser-known artists, and a few dollars in the case of big names. Yes, it adds up, but it's not even close to primary income.
3- It levels the playing field. Particularly for music. Imagine the days before the internet. How did you find out about "underground" music? If you're my age, you probably don't even know. I imagine word of mouth, going to shows, and reading music magazines. So once you have the name and description of an artist you think you'll like, you buy a copy of his music, or if you're lucky, dub it from a friend. Then it's just a gamble If you'll like it. Through youtube and free downloads, the deepest of underground musicians has a chance. Buying an LP is a big deal, a gamble. Typing something in the youtube search bar? That ain't shit.
4- It sticks it to the man. A few unsigned emcees and plenty of punk/metal groups have just stayed DIY and produced and manufactured their own stuff, receiving ALL the profit. The internet is a new medium that's beyond even that. You don't even have to cover the cost of the CD-R to put something up on the internet. Trent Reznor, when his record company obligations were over, just released his new shit for free online. Of course, he was already rich by that point, but it's still cool. Of course most musicians want to make enough money through music alone, and they still can by selling hard copies, merchandise and playing shows. But music online is an absolutely FREE medium, and shows a lot of love for the fans.
5- Puts an end to some profiteering. I always bought used CDs if I could, because they were cheaper and worked just the same. And you know what? the artist didn't make a dime off of that. Only the record store did. Same thing with used DVDs. Between paying some chump a few bucks just to transfer a DVD from an owners hands to yours, and downloading that shit because it's 2010, which would you choose?
There are countless other reasons you might be thinking of right now, but the basic point is that those who fight the powers of the internet and file sharing are dragging their feet into the future. Whether not my reasons are good, it's a moot point- File sharing will continue anyway. Find a way to survive in the modern age.
King Cobe's True Stories: Medical Trials
I had recently quit my job because I didn't like it. It was about a year after high school and I had worked in landscaping of some sort(really any outdoor work) for about 3 years. I quit apropos of nothing, I just didn't want to do that for one more day.
Of course I had no better idea for a job that suits me, if I had I might have already tried to get it. Instead I was interested in other ways to make money that were not regular employment. The most interesting one, that required no practice or qualifications, was guinae pigging.
I checked the papers for medical trials, and most of them of course read something like "HAVE YOU TAKEN CRACK COCAINE? ARE YOU A HABITUAL CRACK-COCAINE SMOKER?". I hadn't used any recreational drugs except no-doz pills(while playing cards, a fairly unpleasant experience), but it occured to me that I could act as a control in whatever research they were doing.
Assuming drugs would be involved, I also assumed that they would be likely equal in side-effect potential to the illicit drug that was the subject of the study. So I opted for the alcohol one.
I left a message on the automated number they gave, explaining that I haven't had one drop of ethanol and don't use any illegal drugs, so I could be a control. To my surprise, They said they'd pay me just to be evaluated, which would include a urine sample, a physical and a psychological evaluation. The pay wasn't much, about enough to cover the expense of traveling to and from the place, with the promise of quite alot of money(If I remember right it was about $1000) if I was accepted and completed the trial.
Not having a car, I rode my bike to the light-rail station, rode that to lexington market, and walked about 2 blocks to the only existing subway line in baltimore. I took the subway to johns hopkins hospital, and checked in.
The urine sample and physical were understandable and what I expected. The psychological evaluation caught me off guard. At first it was about how much I drank and when, to which I answered nothing and never. After that it was a written test that seemed pretty standard, probing into whether I was obviously depressed or divergent from normal psychology in any obvious way.
I thought that was it, but instead; the female doctor returned and said she had "some questions" for me. She then pulled an enormous packet of paper out, one of those big cocksuckers you'd have to use a mega-stapler to bind. I said ok.
I had the impression my experience was unusual right away. All the questions involved anti-social behavior, in particular regarding the law. My guess is the first test tipped them off to some personality "disorder" I may or may not have.
Any way you may violate a person or property, there was a question about it. "Have you ever set something on fire?", "Have you ever stolen from someone's house?", and they all had follow up questions. For the fire question, it was something like "A. for fun, B. to destroy it, or C. because you were pressured". I was beginning to feel uneasy, especially because the book was nowhere near done, and I don't like thinking about destruction and harm. The funny thing is, I had done most of them.
The questions of course grew in intensity. The female doctor even let me know at some point that she is not the police. "Have you ever forced intercourse on someone?" for example. A crop of questions like that, I was feeling like shit even having to remember that I hadn't done anything that terrible. Alot of these later questions asked if family members had done them. The only one of those that had a follow up is "Have any of your family members been arrested". My answer is yes. "More than once?" Yes. "Were they convicted?" No. They didn't ask the crime, which I thought was stupid. As if simply being arrested implies antisocial tendencies.
My uncle was arrested in Ohio, while hitchiking, with no I.D., $10 in his pocket, and no fixed address. The charge was "Vagrancy". Land of the free, right? He asked the arresting officer if being poor was a crime. This was of course when he was arrested. But my answer of "Yes" to the question implied that a family member has harmed other people, and that I could too, because nature trumps nurture in a hospital after all.
After all this, abruptly, it was over. Any introspective activity or therapy couldn't have left me in as much of a funk. For the first time in my life, I wanted a drink. I just felt malaise and uneasiness. Having to tell a stranger that I've stolen from a friends house, broken stuff for fun, beaten people up and been beaten up. I answered honestly because this is science, and I shouldn't mess with it. She said she'd "let me know" If I was accepted in a couple of week.
That was it. I left, ashamed of some of the things I've done in my life, but of course relieved I hadn't harshly "victimized" anyone. I was also a little less trusting of psychology. The test, though enough to make me upset, had very little depth. The follow up questions are a good idea, but couldn't do as good as an explanation. The "has a family member been arrested" question being a shining example. Whatever conclusions she could draw from my evaluation had to be a bit off. Also I could have just lied the whole time.
I was accepted, but by then didn't want to do it. It involved taking some drug(or maybe a placebo). I remember "meth" being in the name, but that could be anything from adderal to MDMA to poison. I probably could have done it, but my evaluation left a bad taste in my mouth.
This story is so memorable because I was blindsided by my first encounter with modern psychology. And I wasn't happy with that I experienced. Coupled with the fact that the questions dug up all the "bad shit" that had ever happened in my life, I feel like my personality was markedly different afterwards. Ultimately for the better, I think.
Before the test I was a bit more of a romantic optimist and thought I might be a genius or something. Afterwards I felt like every other piece of shit, and that I had to work really hard at my ambitions to achieve them. A lot more self-critical. That's the story!
Screwy Reviewy: DXM
Piuctured Above: Medicine/Goofballs
I drink alcohol regularly, but I seem to be afflicted with a cold, or might be suffering through allergies. In any case, I considered it would be best to lay off the hooch, and what else is available for a psychonaut/manic-depressive/poor white shizoid such as myself?
Cannabis? don't much care for it.
Nicotine? A bit mild for the amount of "strange" i want to feel.
Caffeine... it's like a has-been actor desperately trying to make a comeback; there's something pathetic about the energy drink market.
mushrooms/amphetamines- can't get any right now.
And then it occurred to me, some of the wierdest people I've known have regularly abused the over-the-counter disasosiative "dextromethorphan hydrobromide", more often known as DXM; and "robo-tripped", for cheap thrills I assume.
I went to the closest place I could think of, because I was amped up to do it. That happened to me "compare foods", chain grocery store that, at least right here, caters to the hispanic community. I was a little dissapointed when the only syrup(I like drinking, so I opted for syrup instead of pills) that contained DXM without other drugs was intended for children. So It has about half the drug content and twice the sugar/thickeners/shoelaces content. But I thought "It'll have to do".
When I calculated the dosage, the bottle only contained 177mg DXM, which robo-trippers don't call a "trip" at all. At this level, All I had to look forward to is a "mild stoning effect". The night was already set in motion, so I took it like alcohol shots chased with water. It wasn't hard for me to drink, which reinforces my theory that my stomach works similar to a cement mixer.
It took a long time to take effect. I even just gave up on the idea and started reading a bunch of shit, not paying attention. The first effect was feeling like I had used cannabis, and my least favorite effect- being unable to read without re-reading a sentence 3 times. Also, I was listening to music hoping it would sound different; and not only did it sound the same as when I was sober, I actually grew quite opposed to hearing any music. Then I made the fateful decision to do some laundy.
When I stood up and walked, everything took a really long time. I was uncoordinated, like I was drunk, but I could fix it, as long as I concentrated on moving. My head felt very light and my vision razor sharp. I can only compare the effects to previously used drugs; it felt like mild cannabis, mild alcohol and mild adderal use all at once. But my brain was moving well ahead of my body, which made me a big giddy. It's like the first symptom of dissasociation, so I was excited at the novelty, thought the effect wasn't very strong.
Going to the laundry room, which is outdoors like a shed, it occured to me just how slow and deliberately I was moving, esspecially compared the my thoughts racing. I kept doing things in the wrong order- I had 2 loads of laundry, one had been washed and needed to be dried, but I instead poured the soap in the cup first and almost poured it into the washed load. I had to concentrate very hard to do everything right. This continued inside, when I went to get water without a glass.
Then I devised a sort of "litmus test" to decide how fucked up I might be. Since I was moving slow, I "ran" from one point in my living room to another. My gait was so hilarious that I laughed out loud. Not only was it almost slower than walking, but it was exxagerated, like a cartoon of someone running, fists balled up and pumping. I kept doing this test and noticed For a distance I thought 2 steps, I took 3. This happened each and everytime. I kept doing it because it was funny to me.
Getting up to take a whiz, which I've had to do often, even my urination is slow. There's a physiological reason for that, but also I'm experiencing time passing by really slowly, similar to mushrooms.
So that's where I am now. This is written under the influence, not after the fact. This is a fairly low dose, but I feel very, very wierd. And that's kind of nice for a short period. I'm glad I didn't take more, because my final conclusion is that dissassociatives are crazy-ass drugs. A dissassociative "trip" sounds like a horrible idea. I feel much less surprised now that people freak out on high doses of PCP like they do.
But if you want to feel wierd in a unique way, I reccomend a low dose of DXM. Ketamine is apparently physically safer, but I'd rather abuse over-the-counter-medication than have people associate me with raving.
P.S. people famously make spelling errors on DXM, so they are left intact in this piece.
P.P.S. I still have a cough
For the love of rap
I didn't always like rap. Until I was about 12, I hated it. I hated it because it seemed to celebrate the really bad parts of humanity. There are songs about robbery, Songs about abusing drugs, songs about taking advantage of women for fuck's sake. I still can't stomach some of the darker songs, but I started to understand the purpose.
Anyone who makes music of any kind is a flawed individual. Whenever there's a "controversy" about a musicians exploits in real life, You shouldn't be surprised and shouldn't fuel the fire. Joe american at 1234 Main street doesn't make music, or shouldn't; because responsibility and moderation isn't interesting.
Despite that, all other form of music, with the exception of just a few artists, Only hints at the artists flaws, only expresses the emotions stemming from their exploits. Rapping is the first time when I heard someone describe the whole picture. Rappers love to be "real". If you spent recreational time with a rapper of quality ilk, You couldn't be surprised by anything they indulged in, because they already told you about it in their songs.
And that's what I've come to love. Whereas other lyricists write vaguely about something that's probably about their heroin addiction but could apply to your break up with your girlfriend, A good emcee doesn't filter himself to make it easier for you to relate to him. Alot of it seems to be written to be above and beyond what you can relate to, to the point when you think "this dude is wild". As a writer or musician, what can be better? There are no limits. There is no filter.
Emceeing is just expressing who you are, what you do and how you feel as honestly as possible. It's music and it's a confessional. And I like how the beats sound.
Anyone who makes music of any kind is a flawed individual. Whenever there's a "controversy" about a musicians exploits in real life, You shouldn't be surprised and shouldn't fuel the fire. Joe american at 1234 Main street doesn't make music, or shouldn't; because responsibility and moderation isn't interesting.
Despite that, all other form of music, with the exception of just a few artists, Only hints at the artists flaws, only expresses the emotions stemming from their exploits. Rapping is the first time when I heard someone describe the whole picture. Rappers love to be "real". If you spent recreational time with a rapper of quality ilk, You couldn't be surprised by anything they indulged in, because they already told you about it in their songs.
And that's what I've come to love. Whereas other lyricists write vaguely about something that's probably about their heroin addiction but could apply to your break up with your girlfriend, A good emcee doesn't filter himself to make it easier for you to relate to him. Alot of it seems to be written to be above and beyond what you can relate to, to the point when you think "this dude is wild". As a writer or musician, what can be better? There are no limits. There is no filter.
Emceeing is just expressing who you are, what you do and how you feel as honestly as possible. It's music and it's a confessional. And I like how the beats sound.
Confirmed Pacifist
Pacifism has permeated American culture in many fairly bizarre ways. The most notable of which is among people who declare themselves outright pacifists. Most typically, these are women, which is a really faint delclaration seeing as how they are very rarely called upon to fight, militarily or otherise. By "otherwise" I mean fist-fight. If I'm physically attacked in public, The first question anyone will ask in response is "Did/Why didn't you hit them back". Whereas a female will only be told "I'm glad you weren't seriously hurt!".
When declared by a male, even in the theme of this post, I question whether he's just trying to be unusual in his opinions for whatever reason, or if he's only considered the issue of combat in it's simplest and most innofenstive of definitions(example: Does violence make you upset?). Males however are more likely to have amalgamated some "I'm a pacifist...unless..." position in the form of "I don't throw the first punch, but if someone else does, I'm going to fight and win!". This is the most ridiculous declaration I've heard, and the one I've heard most often. It's like elevating the "eye for an eye" ethos(already counter-indicative of pacifism) to "ideology for an ideology". All this form of non-violence, if it can be called so, indicates is that the proponent won't use violence on non-violent people. That's great and all, for women and me, but doesn't mean anything in an already violent world except you're willing to put yourself at a disadvantage by accepting the first blow/offensive(which can sometimes be the only one).
And finally, there's the confirmed pacifist. Someone who doesn't think violence works pragmatically, or ethically. This is still split in 3, with my position being "doesn't work pragmatically" exclusively. No one responds to violence against them or their culture by deciding "Damn, we really learned our lesson. Ever since those hateful men hurt me/destroyed everything I love, I've decided they're right". They get angry and exact revenge, become depressed, or fight against the agressors in non-violent ways. Fighting against the agressors in non-violent ways is the most respectable and sensible option. Because in the first step you agree that what they did is wrong, and you can't simply retaliate with violence which would be equally wrong. In the second step you decide what they did cannot go ignored, because it's wrong. And in the third step you are attempting to defeat them by methods they didn't think could work themselves. No opressor has ever staged a sit-in or bloc to get their way.
I don't think that those who use violence are evil or wrong. They're emotional and unreasonable, and I was the same way, when I was a child. Anyone who can hold onto those "ideals", if they can be called so, into adulthood can not be considered rationally or ethically(if you're into that sort of thing) sound. I'm a pacifist. Not because Violence makes me cry, not because violence is preached against by my religion, but because violence doesn't work, and never has.
When declared by a male, even in the theme of this post, I question whether he's just trying to be unusual in his opinions for whatever reason, or if he's only considered the issue of combat in it's simplest and most innofenstive of definitions(example: Does violence make you upset?). Males however are more likely to have amalgamated some "I'm a pacifist...unless..." position in the form of "I don't throw the first punch, but if someone else does, I'm going to fight and win!". This is the most ridiculous declaration I've heard, and the one I've heard most often. It's like elevating the "eye for an eye" ethos(already counter-indicative of pacifism) to "ideology for an ideology". All this form of non-violence, if it can be called so, indicates is that the proponent won't use violence on non-violent people. That's great and all, for women and me, but doesn't mean anything in an already violent world except you're willing to put yourself at a disadvantage by accepting the first blow/offensive(which can sometimes be the only one).
And finally, there's the confirmed pacifist. Someone who doesn't think violence works pragmatically, or ethically. This is still split in 3, with my position being "doesn't work pragmatically" exclusively. No one responds to violence against them or their culture by deciding "Damn, we really learned our lesson. Ever since those hateful men hurt me/destroyed everything I love, I've decided they're right". They get angry and exact revenge, become depressed, or fight against the agressors in non-violent ways. Fighting against the agressors in non-violent ways is the most respectable and sensible option. Because in the first step you agree that what they did is wrong, and you can't simply retaliate with violence which would be equally wrong. In the second step you decide what they did cannot go ignored, because it's wrong. And in the third step you are attempting to defeat them by methods they didn't think could work themselves. No opressor has ever staged a sit-in or bloc to get their way.
I don't think that those who use violence are evil or wrong. They're emotional and unreasonable, and I was the same way, when I was a child. Anyone who can hold onto those "ideals", if they can be called so, into adulthood can not be considered rationally or ethically(if you're into that sort of thing) sound. I'm a pacifist. Not because Violence makes me cry, not because violence is preached against by my religion, but because violence doesn't work, and never has.
What's in a name?
One of the more irritating and slightly sad things white people do it speculate about their heritage or ancestry. I say, speculate, because that's exactly what it is. Here's why:
My government last name is Volz. It's pronounced as "VolTz" and because of that, you may have guessed it's german because of pronounciation. Volz:Voltz::Nazi:Natzi. Roughly translated it means "Folk", meaning, ya know, "people". Even if translations were 100% accurate, that wouldn't imply much of anything about my ancestry, even if it could imply something about it, which it can't.
ONE- names in the united states, by tradition but not by law, are passed from the father. So my name has been passed, for whatever reason(no reason at all) because a bunch of dudes with the last name "volz" managed to breed. How "german" I am has nothing to do with my name except "someone was german, sometime.". Observe:
German dude breeds with sweedish chick- children 50% german
Male child(50% German) breeds with Irish chick- Children 25% German
Male Child(25% German) breeds with American chick(like, plymouth rock style)- children 12.5% German with 12.5% margin of error)
Male child breeds with "who cares?" chick(true in the first line)- children barely german, dispite namesake.
TWO- In addition to/despite namesake, some use family histories to make definite statements about ancestry. Family histories are just like real history, except worse. Unless you are from a very famous, literate, and proud family, The only account of your family history is written by the family itself. One, biased account. Would you agree with an account of history with only one author, who was involved in it? If so, You'd belive elvis never did drugs and Hitler was half jewish.
No one writes a family history with the intention of making the family sound bad, so any positive statements you could find in it are speculative.
THREE- Place of origin does not speak to character. If I was to use my own origins(speculative, as mentioned above), All I could tell was where my blood relatives were from and when they moved. Using that, you can't tell anything. German immigrants moving to america in the last 200 years? The reasons are as vast as: religious persecution, curiosity, thinking america was a great place, escaping justice in germany, avoiding serving in a war, boredom, Thinking germany is a little too cold for their liking, Hearing the roads were paved with gold in america, Being mentally ill, feeling like it, Seeking to profit from ignorant people, and seeking to liberate ignorant people. You really can't tell.
FOUR- Ethnicity denotes nothing. So even if you've calculated the fraction of your primary(usually plurality, not majority) Ethnic history, And you're 100% sure it was from the most noble/respectable parts of that forgotten and irrelevant society, That really doesn't effect how you act and who you are. Genetics has no memory, accept the memory encouraged by modern society.
If it did, it would mean because your ancestors were smart and courageous people, That you're smart and courageous by default. But on the other side of the coin, it would mean those whose ancestors were ignorant and cowardly, would be ignorant and cowardly be default. The idea is clearly racist and bigoted. A logical person can't see it one-sided; As in the case of "Those with good ancestry are good, and those with bad ancestry can rise above anyhow" If the positivity you feel with your ancestry or family history is legitamite, then racialism is true. If you don't think it's true(and you ought not), Then your family history doesn't mean jack shit.
I am an american.
My government last name is Volz. It's pronounced as "VolTz" and because of that, you may have guessed it's german because of pronounciation. Volz:Voltz::Nazi:Natzi. Roughly translated it means "Folk", meaning, ya know, "people". Even if translations were 100% accurate, that wouldn't imply much of anything about my ancestry, even if it could imply something about it, which it can't.
ONE- names in the united states, by tradition but not by law, are passed from the father. So my name has been passed, for whatever reason(no reason at all) because a bunch of dudes with the last name "volz" managed to breed. How "german" I am has nothing to do with my name except "someone was german, sometime.". Observe:
German dude breeds with sweedish chick- children 50% german
Male child(50% German) breeds with Irish chick- Children 25% German
Male Child(25% German) breeds with American chick(like, plymouth rock style)- children 12.5% German with 12.5% margin of error)
Male child breeds with "who cares?" chick(true in the first line)- children barely german, dispite namesake.
TWO- In addition to/despite namesake, some use family histories to make definite statements about ancestry. Family histories are just like real history, except worse. Unless you are from a very famous, literate, and proud family, The only account of your family history is written by the family itself. One, biased account. Would you agree with an account of history with only one author, who was involved in it? If so, You'd belive elvis never did drugs and Hitler was half jewish.
No one writes a family history with the intention of making the family sound bad, so any positive statements you could find in it are speculative.
THREE- Place of origin does not speak to character. If I was to use my own origins(speculative, as mentioned above), All I could tell was where my blood relatives were from and when they moved. Using that, you can't tell anything. German immigrants moving to america in the last 200 years? The reasons are as vast as: religious persecution, curiosity, thinking america was a great place, escaping justice in germany, avoiding serving in a war, boredom, Thinking germany is a little too cold for their liking, Hearing the roads were paved with gold in america, Being mentally ill, feeling like it, Seeking to profit from ignorant people, and seeking to liberate ignorant people. You really can't tell.
FOUR- Ethnicity denotes nothing. So even if you've calculated the fraction of your primary(usually plurality, not majority) Ethnic history, And you're 100% sure it was from the most noble/respectable parts of that forgotten and irrelevant society, That really doesn't effect how you act and who you are. Genetics has no memory, accept the memory encouraged by modern society.
If it did, it would mean because your ancestors were smart and courageous people, That you're smart and courageous by default. But on the other side of the coin, it would mean those whose ancestors were ignorant and cowardly, would be ignorant and cowardly be default. The idea is clearly racist and bigoted. A logical person can't see it one-sided; As in the case of "Those with good ancestry are good, and those with bad ancestry can rise above anyhow" If the positivity you feel with your ancestry or family history is legitamite, then racialism is true. If you don't think it's true(and you ought not), Then your family history doesn't mean jack shit.
I am an american.
Legalize drugs, part 3
The problem with the "Just say no" zero tolerance approach to drug use is that it's the worst of both worlds. It causes some people to fear drugs that could improve their quality of life, and causes those who use drugs to be misinformed about them. The stigmatizing of drug users in turn makes them more likely to use irresponsibly- because they've been told that's the only possibility. Overall, fear is never as good of an approach as humor. For example:
p.s. concept and images with help from Mr. Rice Powers
p.s. concept and images with help from Mr. Rice Powers
Legalize drugs, part 2
Began here.
These men both surprised me with their brusque and totally accurate opinions about the elephant in the room; Drugs. It's the elephant in the room, because drugs have been used by people since they were the woolly mammoth in the room. Yet since at least the middle ages there have been efforts to ban some or all drugs. Which begs the question, what would the world be like if drugs were legalized?
Firstly, people would still abuse drugs. People would still rob each other for drugs or drug money, badly produced drugs would still kill people. One of the worst arguments that exists for drug legalization(usually given by cannabis-advocates) is that once you take the criminal or forbidden element out of the drug culture, all of criminality and abuse would disappear. Criminality and abuse are part of humanity with or without drugs; the difference after legalization being that only the criminals and abusers would be punished, not the casual user.
And for that casual user, there would be a period shortly after legalization in which some would expand their horizons. I use my favorite drug every day because it's the best one I've tried that I have easy access to. But on the few occasions I've been able to try a drug that is illegal for me, I think "I would use this alot more, if I could get it". That's why I think you'd see a shift in what are the most commonly and least commonly used drugs; and I think for the better.
Legalization means there could and would be locally produced drugs. With the advent of legalization, companies could market and distribute their own(as they currently do with prescription drugs, tobacco and alcohol). Regardless, once you allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to produce his own drugs, He will. Because Tom's good with horticulture, Dick's good with chemistry and Harry wants to make some money. Do-It-Yourself is already part of drug culture, and it would only bloom and blossom after legalization for obvious reason.
Writers, usually being pretty on-the-ball historically, have come out as advocates of sobriety, legal drugs, quasi-legal and illegal drugs; or at the very least expressed which of these things have worked for them. Though many other entertainers and public figures might not initially want to air out their dirty laundry in public, over time, they would. In addition, unless you think drug use is completely removed from the creative process(a pretty novel idea), It can be assumed that some no-names or no-creates will discover their muse drug(s) once they have easier access to it. I personally would welcome whatever happened in this realm, just for curiosities sake.
...to be continued.
These men both surprised me with their brusque and totally accurate opinions about the elephant in the room; Drugs. It's the elephant in the room, because drugs have been used by people since they were the woolly mammoth in the room. Yet since at least the middle ages there have been efforts to ban some or all drugs. Which begs the question, what would the world be like if drugs were legalized?
Firstly, people would still abuse drugs. People would still rob each other for drugs or drug money, badly produced drugs would still kill people. One of the worst arguments that exists for drug legalization(usually given by cannabis-advocates) is that once you take the criminal or forbidden element out of the drug culture, all of criminality and abuse would disappear. Criminality and abuse are part of humanity with or without drugs; the difference after legalization being that only the criminals and abusers would be punished, not the casual user.
And for that casual user, there would be a period shortly after legalization in which some would expand their horizons. I use my favorite drug every day because it's the best one I've tried that I have easy access to. But on the few occasions I've been able to try a drug that is illegal for me, I think "I would use this alot more, if I could get it". That's why I think you'd see a shift in what are the most commonly and least commonly used drugs; and I think for the better.
Legalization means there could and would be locally produced drugs. With the advent of legalization, companies could market and distribute their own(as they currently do with prescription drugs, tobacco and alcohol). Regardless, once you allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to produce his own drugs, He will. Because Tom's good with horticulture, Dick's good with chemistry and Harry wants to make some money. Do-It-Yourself is already part of drug culture, and it would only bloom and blossom after legalization for obvious reason.
Writers, usually being pretty on-the-ball historically, have come out as advocates of sobriety, legal drugs, quasi-legal and illegal drugs; or at the very least expressed which of these things have worked for them. Though many other entertainers and public figures might not initially want to air out their dirty laundry in public, over time, they would. In addition, unless you think drug use is completely removed from the creative process(a pretty novel idea), It can be assumed that some no-names or no-creates will discover their muse drug(s) once they have easier access to it. I personally would welcome whatever happened in this realm, just for curiosities sake.
...to be continued.
Legalize drugs, part 1
"I'm a pill popper. How you feel is just chemistry. I'm addicted to weed, but I pop different kinds of pills depending on what I have to do"
-some dude I work with
This man's assertion that "how you feel is just chemistry" is totally correct. You can get more alien feelings by running a marathon or depriving yourself of sleep than you can by using most drugs. So why the bias against something that more directly alters feelings? All drugs do is provide a direct route to however you would like to feel without all the lifestyle changes and hemming and hawing. In addition, this mans admission of "I'm a pill-popper" is like nothing I'd heard before. Who admits to being a pill-popper? Someone who recognizes the physical reality of drugs and holds no preconceptions about form. Currently, the preconceptions are:
Drugs you can drink: something that's socially acceptable to use occasionally, as a celebration or another extreme.
Drugs you can smoke: Something you will have to use every day for maintenance and is addicting, though can be used functionally.
Drugs you shoot: you're a junkie and useless.
Drugs in pill form: Should only be taken when taken Ill or possessing tangible personality disorders. Taking for fun is a "slippery slope".
Though the absorption is different for these different methods, they're all drugs, and they all do the same thing- whatever the user is desiring.
"He got fucked up, there was nothing wrong with him. This is america and you should be able to get as fucked up as you want. We should legalize everything. It would cause total chaos, but we should still do it".
-some dude I work with.
This man presents an interesting point- even if you agree drugs are destructive, that doesn't by extension mean they should be illegal. If you consider consequences in regard to ethical decisions you are engaging in realpolitik- which is for twelve-steppers and sadists, exclusively. It's not about 'what would happen' if we did something, but 'what is right'.
The speaker expresses too a seemingly perverted but actually legit patriotism in his statement; The united states is interested in freedom primarily. So as long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights and dignity, everything ought to be allowed. Because absolutely all drugs can be used responsibly(there is still no drug that makes you attack and harm people as a certainty), they ought to be legal.
As far as the "caus[ing] total chaos"; Not only should that not matter to an american who is more interested in liberty than safety, it's a temporary condition. Drugs are not poison necessarily, and not all drugs are equal. If they've been marketed and used for a long while, they are legitimate. It's like capitalism; competition. There's a reason the most common drugs in the world are caffeine, alcohol and nicotine, and why no one is taking low doses of arsenic to get fucked up. If and when all drugs are legalized, the most useful and effective drugs would be used by more people and the least useful and least effective drugs would be used by fewer people.
It would/will be a slow process of selection.
-some dude I work with
This man's assertion that "how you feel is just chemistry" is totally correct. You can get more alien feelings by running a marathon or depriving yourself of sleep than you can by using most drugs. So why the bias against something that more directly alters feelings? All drugs do is provide a direct route to however you would like to feel without all the lifestyle changes and hemming and hawing. In addition, this mans admission of "I'm a pill-popper" is like nothing I'd heard before. Who admits to being a pill-popper? Someone who recognizes the physical reality of drugs and holds no preconceptions about form. Currently, the preconceptions are:
Drugs you can drink: something that's socially acceptable to use occasionally, as a celebration or another extreme.
Drugs you can smoke: Something you will have to use every day for maintenance and is addicting, though can be used functionally.
Drugs you shoot: you're a junkie and useless.
Drugs in pill form: Should only be taken when taken Ill or possessing tangible personality disorders. Taking for fun is a "slippery slope".
Though the absorption is different for these different methods, they're all drugs, and they all do the same thing- whatever the user is desiring.
"He got fucked up, there was nothing wrong with him. This is america and you should be able to get as fucked up as you want. We should legalize everything. It would cause total chaos, but we should still do it".
-some dude I work with.
This man presents an interesting point- even if you agree drugs are destructive, that doesn't by extension mean they should be illegal. If you consider consequences in regard to ethical decisions you are engaging in realpolitik- which is for twelve-steppers and sadists, exclusively. It's not about 'what would happen' if we did something, but 'what is right'.
The speaker expresses too a seemingly perverted but actually legit patriotism in his statement; The united states is interested in freedom primarily. So as long as it doesn't interfere with basic human rights and dignity, everything ought to be allowed. Because absolutely all drugs can be used responsibly(there is still no drug that makes you attack and harm people as a certainty), they ought to be legal.
As far as the "caus[ing] total chaos"; Not only should that not matter to an american who is more interested in liberty than safety, it's a temporary condition. Drugs are not poison necessarily, and not all drugs are equal. If they've been marketed and used for a long while, they are legitimate. It's like capitalism; competition. There's a reason the most common drugs in the world are caffeine, alcohol and nicotine, and why no one is taking low doses of arsenic to get fucked up. If and when all drugs are legalized, the most useful and effective drugs would be used by more people and the least useful and least effective drugs would be used by fewer people.
It would/will be a slow process of selection.
when positive thinking goes wrong
1- Self esteem
The "self esteem movement" started in the late 70's. Born out of assumptions and the likely self-esteem of those who propagated it; it's main tenet is that a positive view of oneself is an important thing to have. My objection to this is simple- If you tell me that you feel good about yourself, it begs the question "Why do you feel good about yourself?". And if you have a good reason, then you ought to just find satisfaction in that reason. Self-esteem is, however, a more limited concept. It need not involve reason at all- just delusion.
What the critics say: "self-esteem: an erroneous appeasement." -Ambrose Bierce.
What I say: Self-awareness is the new self esteem.
2- Optimism
Optimism can be considered seeing the best in things. In people, in circumstance, in events. The problem is, any technical knowledge or intellectualizing immediately murders optimism. In answering the classic question "Is the glass half empty or half full?", more varied answers could be:
-Both.
-It's half full, but could be twice that full.
-It's half empty, but looks tasty!
-Half empty or half full or what? If you mean of fluid, Then I'd have to measure- it's hard to tell with the naked eye. It's very unlikely that it's a half[empty or full] anyhow, it's probably a little off from that mark, depending of course on how you prepared the demonstration.
-I can't be sure, but don't leave it unattended. That's how date rape happens.
-Is there booze in there?
Not to totally mock the idea; these varied answers can also be applied to personal life choices and world events. Optimism is just too simple to be useful.
3- Narcissism
The simplest incarnation is "thinking you're better or more unique than others". I, like all great men, have felt that way about myself before. My beef with narcissism is when that state of mind fails to lead to anything of value; which is true of most narcissists. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to you achieving more than others, is righteous. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to laying in the cut reminding yourself that you are better than others, is lame.
In the more advanced stages, magical thinking enters the picture to fill in the obvious gaps in logic. When magical thinking enters the picture, you should leave it.
...
Despite all this, I think positively. But in a more realistic and subtle way. I don't pretend that I'm great, my life is great, or that I'm destined for greatness; only by the merit of my existence. Rather, I think positively because it's more likely to get favorable results than thinking negatively.
It's chiefly the most pragmatic approach, and secondarily, a more pleasant way to live.
The "self esteem movement" started in the late 70's. Born out of assumptions and the likely self-esteem of those who propagated it; it's main tenet is that a positive view of oneself is an important thing to have. My objection to this is simple- If you tell me that you feel good about yourself, it begs the question "Why do you feel good about yourself?". And if you have a good reason, then you ought to just find satisfaction in that reason. Self-esteem is, however, a more limited concept. It need not involve reason at all- just delusion.
What the critics say: "self-esteem: an erroneous appeasement." -Ambrose Bierce.
What I say: Self-awareness is the new self esteem.
2- Optimism
Optimism can be considered seeing the best in things. In people, in circumstance, in events. The problem is, any technical knowledge or intellectualizing immediately murders optimism. In answering the classic question "Is the glass half empty or half full?", more varied answers could be:
-Both.
-It's half full, but could be twice that full.
-It's half empty, but looks tasty!
-Half empty or half full or what? If you mean of fluid, Then I'd have to measure- it's hard to tell with the naked eye. It's very unlikely that it's a half[empty or full] anyhow, it's probably a little off from that mark, depending of course on how you prepared the demonstration.
-I can't be sure, but don't leave it unattended. That's how date rape happens.
-Is there booze in there?
Not to totally mock the idea; these varied answers can also be applied to personal life choices and world events. Optimism is just too simple to be useful.
3- Narcissism
The simplest incarnation is "thinking you're better or more unique than others". I, like all great men, have felt that way about myself before. My beef with narcissism is when that state of mind fails to lead to anything of value; which is true of most narcissists. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to you achieving more than others, is righteous. Feeling that you are better than others, if it leads to laying in the cut reminding yourself that you are better than others, is lame.
In the more advanced stages, magical thinking enters the picture to fill in the obvious gaps in logic. When magical thinking enters the picture, you should leave it.
...
Despite all this, I think positively. But in a more realistic and subtle way. I don't pretend that I'm great, my life is great, or that I'm destined for greatness; only by the merit of my existence. Rather, I think positively because it's more likely to get favorable results than thinking negatively.
It's chiefly the most pragmatic approach, and secondarily, a more pleasant way to live.
Just like riding a bike
Your body and brain alike are a machine, and they have each been redesigned and redeveloped over 5,300 generations to build the best machine for optimal performance right now, if you're alive to read this.
Everyone is able to excel at something. This is not [only] a feel good inspirational message, it is a fact of evolution and circumstance. If an animal fails in enough capacities, it won't survive.
You are given certain abilities by default. Others you learn out of need or curiosity. Most remarkably, you don't forget. No matter the depth or non-intensity of inactivity or laziness since using a skill, you can do it again as if perfect records have been kept.
Fucking, Fighting, Writing, Caring, Thinking, any activity at all... If you've learned it, you'll always know how to do it, just like riding a bike.
Everyone is able to excel at something. This is not [only] a feel good inspirational message, it is a fact of evolution and circumstance. If an animal fails in enough capacities, it won't survive.
You are given certain abilities by default. Others you learn out of need or curiosity. Most remarkably, you don't forget. No matter the depth or non-intensity of inactivity or laziness since using a skill, you can do it again as if perfect records have been kept.
Fucking, Fighting, Writing, Caring, Thinking, any activity at all... If you've learned it, you'll always know how to do it, just like riding a bike.
Nature is a big mean son of a bitch
Something that irritates me every snow and storm season is the criticism of whatever methods are in place to help temper blizzards and hurricanes. These things are legally considered "acts of god". Even the atheists wouldn't bother taking "god" out of that one. It's a thing no one has real control over. It would be like holding Haitian emergency services accountable because they didn't do enough to stop the tectonic plates from shifting in the earthquake.
If the roads aren't plowed enough for you to enjoy a "few beers" at the bar like usual, then you have to drink at home. If the hurricane has flooded your home, then you have no home. During and after extreme weather events, things can't just go on like they always did. And in cases of true tragedy, there's no one to blame but god if you believe in him.
All we can do is brace ourselves before the storm, and try to fix shit afterward. This applies to more than just weather. Before cold and flu season, you can take vitamins, get immunized if possible, whatever. But if you get sick you get sick. There's a storm, or there isn't. Your sinuses, like the roadways, can't be clear every moment. And just like you could unexpectedly careen off the highway and die on a slippery road, you could just get iced by the common cold one year.
Nature should bring humility to you. Rather, it should humiliate you. Anyone whose upset that the snow prevents them from going where they'd like to has never actually considered the possibility of premature death from sickness or weather. A moment, while in the midst of extreme weather or sickness, it occurs to them "nature doesn't give a flying fuck about me!". We're all lucky the casualties aren't higher than they are. IF you're so anxious to get to your job at kinkos, plow the roads yourself.
If the roads aren't plowed enough for you to enjoy a "few beers" at the bar like usual, then you have to drink at home. If the hurricane has flooded your home, then you have no home. During and after extreme weather events, things can't just go on like they always did. And in cases of true tragedy, there's no one to blame but god if you believe in him.
All we can do is brace ourselves before the storm, and try to fix shit afterward. This applies to more than just weather. Before cold and flu season, you can take vitamins, get immunized if possible, whatever. But if you get sick you get sick. There's a storm, or there isn't. Your sinuses, like the roadways, can't be clear every moment. And just like you could unexpectedly careen off the highway and die on a slippery road, you could just get iced by the common cold one year.
Nature should bring humility to you. Rather, it should humiliate you. Anyone whose upset that the snow prevents them from going where they'd like to has never actually considered the possibility of premature death from sickness or weather. A moment, while in the midst of extreme weather or sickness, it occurs to them "nature doesn't give a flying fuck about me!". We're all lucky the casualties aren't higher than they are. IF you're so anxious to get to your job at kinkos, plow the roads yourself.
Chuck D for president.
Earlier today, I posted a song to my facebook. It was "Harder than you think" by Public Enemy. A friend of mine; an educated american man with no shortage of political opinion, posted in response "Chuck D for president".
At first glance, you might think that this is the run-of-the-mill "-insert some silly thing- for president" proclamation thats only meant to express vague dissatisfaction and a sense of humor. That might be the case, if it wasn't totally possible.
My dad used to sometimes refer to Frank Zappa's consideration of running for presidency in order to reinforce that fact. It's important to remember. The president doesn't have to have been a politician previously. That's why many entertainers, already being in the public eye, seized that opportunity, like this guy, this guy, and this guy.
Which is what irritates me about those who celebrate Barack Obamas presidency as a major shift in american politics. This guy isn't a revolutionary. He's He's not even a free thinker, compared to Frank Zappa or Chuck D. He's rather drab; more similar to this guy, or especially this guy. Whatever the implications of that are, it's certainly not that a new era of change and hope has commenced.
Though americans are slowly realizing that's the case, they haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion: that a politician is a politician no matter how he looks or how charismatic he may be, and further; we don't have to elect a politician. Imagine how things would be if Chuck D were elected president instead of Barrack Obama. Would our circumstances be worse than they are now? Not only that... isn't it possible they'd be better?
The acceptance speech always sets the tone for the entire presidency. So compare this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnA7OVIgLkE
To this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCx5Std7mCo
I'd pick the latter. Believe me, I was there.
At first glance, you might think that this is the run-of-the-mill "-insert some silly thing- for president" proclamation thats only meant to express vague dissatisfaction and a sense of humor. That might be the case, if it wasn't totally possible.
My dad used to sometimes refer to Frank Zappa's consideration of running for presidency in order to reinforce that fact. It's important to remember. The president doesn't have to have been a politician previously. That's why many entertainers, already being in the public eye, seized that opportunity, like this guy, this guy, and this guy.
Which is what irritates me about those who celebrate Barack Obamas presidency as a major shift in american politics. This guy isn't a revolutionary. He's He's not even a free thinker, compared to Frank Zappa or Chuck D. He's rather drab; more similar to this guy, or especially this guy. Whatever the implications of that are, it's certainly not that a new era of change and hope has commenced.
Though americans are slowly realizing that's the case, they haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion: that a politician is a politician no matter how he looks or how charismatic he may be, and further; we don't have to elect a politician. Imagine how things would be if Chuck D were elected president instead of Barrack Obama. Would our circumstances be worse than they are now? Not only that... isn't it possible they'd be better?
The acceptance speech always sets the tone for the entire presidency. So compare this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnA7OVIgLkE
To this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCx5Std7mCo
I'd pick the latter. Believe me, I was there.
Tattoos: Not that cool
Though it is possible for a decent human being to get a sharp looking tattoo, or tattoos, and move on to bigger and better things; there's more often some kind of obnoxious subtext in the whole act. Here is a definitive and complete list of tattoos, the people who have them, and the people in their lives.
A- The extremely visible, totally bad-ass, impossible to cover up unique design
This person is clearly trying to differentiate herself. Imagine her without her tattoo. She'd look like the average brunette, probably giving you the eye in a bar, who you could take home and have very average sex with. What she doesn't realize is that tattoos are so mainstream, that now she just looks like the average brunette with a neck tattoo. Call me simple, but all I think when I see a unique tattoo is "unique tattoo", then I move on...
B- some tiny tattoo(s) of a heart, chinese lettering, a star, a butterfly, or something equally "cute" on the neck, back, small of back, belly button or ankle
Worn by men and women alike nowadays, having tattoos like these is similar to wearing earrings or coloring/styling your hair. It's decoration. There's nothing wrong with that. There is however, something wrong with thinking you're doing something outside the box, which unfortunately, many just-turned-18-year-olds think. "Mom and dad think I'll regret it, but I know I want a pistol on my left titty till the day I die!". Totally fine if you do, but no one cares.
C- really intense and ornate back/chest pieces
"Oh, sweet bro! What's that, like a goblin, or a dragon or some shit? and a staff and like an epic warrior horse?" Not that all of them have to look like this. It could be a back piece of all shit that I like, but I have the same questions. "how long did that take? didn't you have something better to do?", "How much did that cost? Didn't you have something else you could spend it on?", "How much did that hurt? Wouldn't you rather have been jerking off or something?". The answers to these questions are 'A long time, no; A lot of money, no; a shit ton, no, I prefer pain" respectively. It's a matter of priorities- people who have these are typically some combination of masochist, spend thrift, and image obsessed. None of which I can appreciate(except maybe masochist).
D- solid black letters, expressing an inspirational or nihilistic message in some language the subject doesn't speak, or stylized english letters.
In latin this means "Blow me". This is my favorite kind of tattoo, and the only one I've even considered getting myself, but there's tons of ways it can go wrong. Firstly, if you're working in another language, or you're illiterate in your own, make sure it's correct...
Second, make sure it's a phrase or thought that's worth a damn...
Yuck. And third, put it somewhere where it can be hidden(if it's in english). Why? Not out of shame or guilt or anything, but just common sense. Don't air out your dirty laundry in public, even if you think it smells like candy apples. I'd love to have "Get drunk Stay drunk" tattooed across my adam's apple, but I know it would arouse suspicion when I'm drunk in the public. Just the same, If you walk around with this...
It may arouse suspicion that you're a complete moron.
So, It's not an accomplishment, it doesn't add to your worth, it's just a hundreds-of-dollars pretty picture on your skin. There's nothing wrong with that, if you're trying to treat yourself to something nice; it has more permanence than almost anything else. But I don't have a tattoo for the same reason I don't roll on chrome rims or bathe regularly- it does nothing for my actual quality of life. Consider the same, unlike this guy.
A- The extremely visible, totally bad-ass, impossible to cover up unique design
This person is clearly trying to differentiate herself. Imagine her without her tattoo. She'd look like the average brunette, probably giving you the eye in a bar, who you could take home and have very average sex with. What she doesn't realize is that tattoos are so mainstream, that now she just looks like the average brunette with a neck tattoo. Call me simple, but all I think when I see a unique tattoo is "unique tattoo", then I move on...
B- some tiny tattoo(s) of a heart, chinese lettering, a star, a butterfly, or something equally "cute" on the neck, back, small of back, belly button or ankle
Worn by men and women alike nowadays, having tattoos like these is similar to wearing earrings or coloring/styling your hair. It's decoration. There's nothing wrong with that. There is however, something wrong with thinking you're doing something outside the box, which unfortunately, many just-turned-18-year-olds think. "Mom and dad think I'll regret it, but I know I want a pistol on my left titty till the day I die!". Totally fine if you do, but no one cares.
C- really intense and ornate back/chest pieces
"Oh, sweet bro! What's that, like a goblin, or a dragon or some shit? and a staff and like an epic warrior horse?" Not that all of them have to look like this. It could be a back piece of all shit that I like, but I have the same questions. "how long did that take? didn't you have something better to do?", "How much did that cost? Didn't you have something else you could spend it on?", "How much did that hurt? Wouldn't you rather have been jerking off or something?". The answers to these questions are 'A long time, no; A lot of money, no; a shit ton, no, I prefer pain" respectively. It's a matter of priorities- people who have these are typically some combination of masochist, spend thrift, and image obsessed. None of which I can appreciate(except maybe masochist).
D- solid black letters, expressing an inspirational or nihilistic message in some language the subject doesn't speak, or stylized english letters.
In latin this means "Blow me". This is my favorite kind of tattoo, and the only one I've even considered getting myself, but there's tons of ways it can go wrong. Firstly, if you're working in another language, or you're illiterate in your own, make sure it's correct...
Second, make sure it's a phrase or thought that's worth a damn...
Yuck. And third, put it somewhere where it can be hidden(if it's in english). Why? Not out of shame or guilt or anything, but just common sense. Don't air out your dirty laundry in public, even if you think it smells like candy apples. I'd love to have "Get drunk Stay drunk" tattooed across my adam's apple, but I know it would arouse suspicion when I'm drunk in the public. Just the same, If you walk around with this...
It may arouse suspicion that you're a complete moron.
So, It's not an accomplishment, it doesn't add to your worth, it's just a hundreds-of-dollars pretty picture on your skin. There's nothing wrong with that, if you're trying to treat yourself to something nice; it has more permanence than almost anything else. But I don't have a tattoo for the same reason I don't roll on chrome rims or bathe regularly- it does nothing for my actual quality of life. Consider the same, unlike this guy.
He loved drinking
Why do I love drinking? And why do I do it alone?
The first few drinks is like turning the page. The best time to have them is directly after work, or on a miserable morning. The first very welcome effect is stress relief. At my 3rd drink, I can't even remember where I was feeling aches and pains, and the weight of the world is just gone. This is worth it for it's own sake, but I typically begin trying to work on some creative pursuit.
Does alcohol fuel the creative proccess? You can find tons of talented and untalented people opining on that question, but my answer is "for the working man, yes". After a day of mindless toil, The creative parts of my brain are just not working. I'm irritated, tired, and a little angry. You can't have new and interesting thoughts in that condition. A few drinks puts me in an optimistic condition, which might be all I need.
Ah, but it's not all I need. As I begin getting down to business, the workday and larger worries and troubles creep in. Sometimes they invade my work, or they just cause me to freeze. I certainly can't have that. At this point, I'm at a crossroads between "well, just do the best job you can and if it's not that good, just admit you don't have what it takes right now" or "I'm getting drunk". I pick the latter 90% of the time.
As I drink more(much more), several things could happen. I could fall asleep very early. But dreamless sleep really isn't much of a "consequence" seeing as how some people can't even get to sleep. I could still not do a very good job or call it quits, but at least I'll be really drunk instead of being disappointed in myself. Or, and this is what makes it all worthwhile; I could do a great job, and be really drunk.
It's happened several times. Now did I do a good job because I was drunk? Well, there's no telling. But in my case, the work is different. When I work with all my mental faculties, I'm spiteful, angry, and funny because of that. When I work on something drunk, it's clever, optimistic and good because of that. The work is good because I did it in a condition of feeling ZERO STRESS and maximum joy. That's right, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest work is of a higher quality if it comes out of that mental condition.
So that's why.
The first few drinks is like turning the page. The best time to have them is directly after work, or on a miserable morning. The first very welcome effect is stress relief. At my 3rd drink, I can't even remember where I was feeling aches and pains, and the weight of the world is just gone. This is worth it for it's own sake, but I typically begin trying to work on some creative pursuit.
Does alcohol fuel the creative proccess? You can find tons of talented and untalented people opining on that question, but my answer is "for the working man, yes". After a day of mindless toil, The creative parts of my brain are just not working. I'm irritated, tired, and a little angry. You can't have new and interesting thoughts in that condition. A few drinks puts me in an optimistic condition, which might be all I need.
Ah, but it's not all I need. As I begin getting down to business, the workday and larger worries and troubles creep in. Sometimes they invade my work, or they just cause me to freeze. I certainly can't have that. At this point, I'm at a crossroads between "well, just do the best job you can and if it's not that good, just admit you don't have what it takes right now" or "I'm getting drunk". I pick the latter 90% of the time.
As I drink more(much more), several things could happen. I could fall asleep very early. But dreamless sleep really isn't much of a "consequence" seeing as how some people can't even get to sleep. I could still not do a very good job or call it quits, but at least I'll be really drunk instead of being disappointed in myself. Or, and this is what makes it all worthwhile; I could do a great job, and be really drunk.
It's happened several times. Now did I do a good job because I was drunk? Well, there's no telling. But in my case, the work is different. When I work with all my mental faculties, I'm spiteful, angry, and funny because of that. When I work on something drunk, it's clever, optimistic and good because of that. The work is good because I did it in a condition of feeling ZERO STRESS and maximum joy. That's right, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest work is of a higher quality if it comes out of that mental condition.
So that's why.
No Noble Lie
Honesty is goddamn important. I haven't always said that outright; more often I said something vague about the subject. The 'something vague' I had to say about the subject, like the 'something vague' anyone has to say about the subject, goes exactly like:
"Well honesty is the policy. You know, cause it's real. You'll always get caught lying. The only time it's ok to lie is to make someone feel better or to save someones life, like the noble lie, ya' know? that shits deep, Who said that "noble lie" shit anyhow? Neiyeetchsxzyee?".
Thats only the most shallow understanding of "honesty". Not that I'm any more qualified to discuss this than the imaginary person who authored the above quote(who was really me, trying to be clever and perceptive but actually being passive-agressive).
Honesty is more than telling the truth; It's living truthfully. Between people putting on a front of what they wish they were, stealing when they can get away with it, and lying to stop something from happening that might make them upset; the only honesty most people practice is the kind that doesn't mean a thing.
Honesty isn't alot of fun in the short run. It puts you in more awkward situations than the Sum of all 70s, 80s, and 90s coming-of-age sitcom scenes you've seen could, even if you were the main character. The pay off is that living honestly results in real level of comfort; the comfort that no one can call you on your bullshit, because there's no bullshit to be called on.
Moreover, a person can self-deceive(lie) themselves into a sense of entitlement; which is the least useful or appreciable thing a person can have. If one takes an honest inventory of themselves, they're more likely to be humbled than self-fulfilled. Being honest is thereby an agent of progress, or at least self-criticism; which is more useful than rationalization and oblivion every time.
"Well honesty is the policy. You know, cause it's real. You'll always get caught lying. The only time it's ok to lie is to make someone feel better or to save someones life, like the noble lie, ya' know? that shits deep, Who said that "noble lie" shit anyhow? Neiyeetchsxzyee?".
Thats only the most shallow understanding of "honesty". Not that I'm any more qualified to discuss this than the imaginary person who authored the above quote(who was really me, trying to be clever and perceptive but actually being passive-agressive).
Honesty is more than telling the truth; It's living truthfully. Between people putting on a front of what they wish they were, stealing when they can get away with it, and lying to stop something from happening that might make them upset; the only honesty most people practice is the kind that doesn't mean a thing.
Honesty isn't alot of fun in the short run. It puts you in more awkward situations than the Sum of all 70s, 80s, and 90s coming-of-age sitcom scenes you've seen could, even if you were the main character. The pay off is that living honestly results in real level of comfort; the comfort that no one can call you on your bullshit, because there's no bullshit to be called on.
Moreover, a person can self-deceive(lie) themselves into a sense of entitlement; which is the least useful or appreciable thing a person can have. If one takes an honest inventory of themselves, they're more likely to be humbled than self-fulfilled. Being honest is thereby an agent of progress, or at least self-criticism; which is more useful than rationalization and oblivion every time.
In solidarity with Yakutsk
It's cold. The coldest it's been here in North Carolina(the shallow south) since the 70s, there's freeze warnings in Florida, and the mid-atlantic has seen some negative temperatures. That's not interesting really, but what it does to people and institutions is.
Extreme weather of any sort is distracting and mind erasing. Lewis black put it better, at about 1 minute in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zpgai0n0cI
"FUCK IT'S COLD!" indeed. Now you're probably raising your hand to say "Well, this would feel warm to someone in Russia!". Of course. In a place where
this fucking monster racoon thing, and
this baby apex predator(yes, that's just a cub), and
some kind of a roided-out horse call home, the standards of "extreme" cold, or "extreme" anything, for that matter, are a little different.
For example. Take a good long look at this:
As an American, this probably helped you ring in the new year, gave you a few cute anecdotes the day after, and helped you Fingerbang Suzy Creamcheese for the first time several years ago. For a russian, this is the only way to get piece of mind when the day will get as warm as NEGATIVE THIRTY-THREE DEGREES FAHREN FUCKING HEIT.
Drinking increases the feeling of warmth. Now I know you think you're a genius for responding with "it doesn't actually make you warmer!"... while this is completely true, it really doesn't matter to a person who can't even focus on anything except how cold it is. So long as they're not actually at much risk of freezing to death- it's 30-50ml, again and again, to freedom.
Who could maintain objective reality when the objective reality is threatening to freeze your flesh off and turn you into brown bear food? Who would dare tell a Russian citizen that he ought to lay off the vodka or moderate his consumption when it will mean all he can think is "FUCK IT'S COLD!" for months on end? The Russian government, that's who.
Last year, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called Russia's alcohol problem a "national disgrace" and said he was determined to cut consumption by a quarter by 2012. This started this year by setting a minimum price of a half liter of vodka. Nothing like this has been tried since the soviet days, and for good reason. Gorbachev limited the production of Vodka and did not allow it to be sold before 2PM. The result was citizens drinking perfume and mouthwash instead, and buying bootleg liquor(which is common there), some of which was processed from plywood(making it methanol, a.k.a. poison).
To a Russian, this is the equivalent of asking you to feel cold as fuck all the time, or drink poison. Just so your countries statistics look better. Even if your lifespan is increased, Extra years aren't worth a damn if they're spent shivering and depressed. This is the problem with any Nanny-state, it cares not about a citizens quality of life, but only about keeping you alive longer so it can extract more taxes from you and in turn institute policies that further reduce your quality of life.
I'm certain Dmitry Medvedev's consumption won't be reduced because of this policy, and that's why he sees no problem with it.
Extreme weather of any sort is distracting and mind erasing. Lewis black put it better, at about 1 minute in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zpgai0n0cI
"FUCK IT'S COLD!" indeed. Now you're probably raising your hand to say "Well, this would feel warm to someone in Russia!". Of course. In a place where
this fucking monster racoon thing, and
this baby apex predator(yes, that's just a cub), and
some kind of a roided-out horse call home, the standards of "extreme" cold, or "extreme" anything, for that matter, are a little different.
For example. Take a good long look at this:
As an American, this probably helped you ring in the new year, gave you a few cute anecdotes the day after, and helped you Fingerbang Suzy Creamcheese for the first time several years ago. For a russian, this is the only way to get piece of mind when the day will get as warm as NEGATIVE THIRTY-THREE DEGREES FAHREN FUCKING HEIT.
Drinking increases the feeling of warmth. Now I know you think you're a genius for responding with "it doesn't actually make you warmer!"... while this is completely true, it really doesn't matter to a person who can't even focus on anything except how cold it is. So long as they're not actually at much risk of freezing to death- it's 30-50ml, again and again, to freedom.
Who could maintain objective reality when the objective reality is threatening to freeze your flesh off and turn you into brown bear food? Who would dare tell a Russian citizen that he ought to lay off the vodka or moderate his consumption when it will mean all he can think is "FUCK IT'S COLD!" for months on end? The Russian government, that's who.
Last year, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called Russia's alcohol problem a "national disgrace" and said he was determined to cut consumption by a quarter by 2012. This started this year by setting a minimum price of a half liter of vodka. Nothing like this has been tried since the soviet days, and for good reason. Gorbachev limited the production of Vodka and did not allow it to be sold before 2PM. The result was citizens drinking perfume and mouthwash instead, and buying bootleg liquor(which is common there), some of which was processed from plywood(making it methanol, a.k.a. poison).
To a Russian, this is the equivalent of asking you to feel cold as fuck all the time, or drink poison. Just so your countries statistics look better. Even if your lifespan is increased, Extra years aren't worth a damn if they're spent shivering and depressed. This is the problem with any Nanny-state, it cares not about a citizens quality of life, but only about keeping you alive longer so it can extract more taxes from you and in turn institute policies that further reduce your quality of life.
I'm certain Dmitry Medvedev's consumption won't be reduced because of this policy, and that's why he sees no problem with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)