Category: Uncategorized

By on

Apparently Troy Jackson, the Democrat’s new candidate for the Maine seat in the U.S, Senate, had sexual relations with his second cousin. This is news for some reason. There is nothing illegal or wrong about it. Maybe a little weird for some people but nothing that would stop me from voting for someone.

What I object to is the waste of space in the media to pursue this non-story. There is a better use of this space given the state of the world than investigating second cousin sexual relationships. Give me a break.

By on

I am about to confess something horrible about myself. I am warning you in case you want to opt out of further reading. I totally understand. Nobody likes to hear people’s confessions. Oh you think it will be fun at first, hearing people’s deepest darkest secrets but I am pretty sure it turns in to repetitive stories about self abuse on lonely Saturday nights and deliberately not ringing up an item at the self check out at the grocery store. So, believe me I understand. 

Any way my confession. Bob and I are looking into pre-paying our funerals because, well, I am told it is the right thing to do. I agree in principle but I am finding myself really reluctant to commit. It isn’t fear about talking about death either which would be a legitimate reason for avoiding the purchase. I, in fact, researched the costs with three different companies and talked in more depth with one woman. 

No, it isn’t fear. It is greed. Every time I think about paying for my funeral I think why I am paying for this? Shouldn’t my heirs? I mean I am giving them money, the least they can do is pay for my funeral. I would much rather they take it out of their cut from my will than for me to give up the money now when I can be buying expensive cocktails at overpriced restaurants.

Furthermore, what do I care about disposing of my body. I mean. Shit. I am dead. Do I have to do everything? Do what ever you want with my body but really why should I spend the precious time I have left figuring that out. Fuck it. All I can say is – if you can have some fun with my dead body, have at it as nothing would please me more than knowing that my body came in handy for a few practical jokes. Otherwise, who cares and why should I be the one to do something about it? What are they going do about if I don’t, I will be dead. 

I can’t get the proper motivation to do anything about it. I know this sounds terrible. The reoccurring explanation for pre-planning is do you want your loved ones, who are in mourning, to figure this all out during this really sad, possibly traumatic, moment in their life and, again, I am sorry to say, yeah why not. I mean their day has already been ruined with my death. Why should I ruin my day too by paying for it. Besides, planning my funeral might give them an opportunity to take their minds off the large empty void my absence will cause in their lives and focus on something really important — getting me in the ground so they can go out and spend whatever is left of my 401K. And, since I am already making confessions and this make me even a worse person, I am genuinely planning to have no money left when I leave this mortal coil. So I will be sticking my heirs with the full funeral costs out of their pocket book. Sorry heirs.

By on 2 Comments

My nickname among my friends in high school was Space King which was due to the likely experience of finding me high anytime you encountered me. I am surprised that I even graduated given the minimal amount of time I put into my studies. My parents were confused too as my fairly poor grades did not reflect all the time I put in at the public library. I think it was their sly way of letting me know they knew what was really going on. I really think my mother was deliberately trying to annoy when she asked me return her library books because that meant I had to actually go to the library.

Despite fully embracing drug taking, I never wanted to be known as a drug dealer. I avoided crossing this particular line. I might sell a joint or two as a friendly gesture but a joint or two was not a drug dealer. I never got into the habit of buying large quantities of pot so that I could sell the excess. Anyone who sold large quantities pretty quickly slipped into paranoia about who they were selling to. This was a different time and if the cops found even a joint on you, they could send you to prison for a long long time. Good friends could narc you out, particularly if the cops had found any drugs on them. The extra money never seemed worth the trouble to me.

But mostly I was interested in my reputation. I had political ambitions in my youth. If I sold dope, I knew some asshole would remember my ill-spent youth and put the kibosh on my political career. I don’t know why I thought that this would protect my image. I mean people didn’t call me Space King for nothing.

Any way, I kind of reformed when I went to college. I reduce my drug taking to an occasional puff of marijuana and I began to study because I realized that being a pot head was going to limit my options. I was a new man. Unfortunately my reputation preceded me. I was seating in the college library actually studying for an exam when a woman I went to high school with approached me. This was a woman who I barely knew. I don’t think we said two words together the whole four years of high school. I thought it was odd but maybe she thought we attended a small high school and we were at a large university now, maybe she was looking for a friendly face. Boy was I wrong. She pretty quickly explained she had a big test tomorrow and needed some speed and wanted to know if could sell her some.

I was devastated. All that time I sacrificed making extra money was for nothing. Despite everything, I still had a reputation of being a dealer. I tried to be mad at her but I just ended up laughing. She explained that everyone knew I was big dope taker in high school and she just assumed that I would still know how to get them. She told me she would cross me off her list as possible speed suppliers. I was eternally grateful for her consideration but I fear the damage was done. I guess you can take the Space King out of the opium den but you can’t take the opium den out of the Space King. That is also is when I decided my political career was finished. The Democratic Party has never recovered from this loss but I did save them the awkward press conference when I would admit to being Space King.

By on

Tom Cotton repeatedly asked TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew whether he was Chinese and/or a Chinese Commie. Chew should be complimented for his remarkable restraint when faced with such monumental stupidity and/or rudeness. Mr. Chew told Cotten numerous times that he was from Singapore, not China and not a Communist.

When someone repeatedly asks something, there is a suspicion that the Senator is setting a trap for the person. Giving his prey several chances to admit the truth and when he doesn’t, springing into action with evidence that Chew was both Chinese and a Commie. This did not happen, so all Cotton discovered was that Chew was from Singapore and not a Communist. All facts that were known before Chew sat down for the hearing.  

I first thought what an idiot but, after viewing the video, I realized Cotton was trying to connect Chew and TikTok to China and Communism without having to actually provide any facts that proves his point. Cotton will say he was just asking questions, that he in no way was saying that Chew was a Chinese Communist, he was just verifying whether this was indeed true. So without actually saying that Chew was a Chinese Commie, Cotton gets to paint Chew as a Chinese Communist because why would a US Senator ask about that unless Chew was a Chinese Commie. Cotton’s mission accomplished.

Cotton then highlighted how Chew’s views on Chinese political issues didn’t match Cotton’s which then, especially if the person is Asian, makes that person a potential Chinese Commie even if that person is a Singaporean businessman. Now I am not saying that Chew’s position are particularly brave but remember he is a businessman doing business with China. He needs to be careful how he addresses these issues. I doubt that Chew’s position on these issues are that different from any other Western business person working in China. Indeed, I would expect that Cotton would pursue this line of questioning anytime he had an opportunity to question someone.

So what did we learn from Cotton’s aggressive grilling of Chew — that Chew is not a Chinese Communist and the Chinese government is a dictatorship that Chew won’t criticize in a manner that would make Cotton happy. None of this is exactly new information but thank you Sen Cotton for confirming what we already knew while also subtly undermining Chew’s reputation in the process.

This is sad because there were legitimate questions about China and TikTok. Maybe Cotton’s colleagues addressed them with Chew in their questioning. But, of course, none of that was reported on because the exciting news was Cotton trying to get Chew to admit being a Chinese Commie.

I can’t help but to be reminded of Joe McCarthy badgering his witnesses about being Commies. For most Americans this is a bad look but, unfortunately, for ambitious Republicans it is a way to get seen by the constituencies that matter in the GOP. They want to see people who will take on the Chinese Communists head on so Cotton did everything he needed to show them he is their man and that is all that matters.

By on


Tom Knighton explained why the above CEO Salaries are in line even though they are disproportionately higher than the average employee. It has, you guessed it, something to do with capitalism.

First, Knighton rightly points out that the excess money that these CEOs makes, if confiscated from the CEO’s and divided among the average employee, wouldn’t make a difference in a lower paid employees paycheck. Well, yeah, one executive’s salary wouldn’t make much of a difference but what about the other executives’ compensation. Most companies have VP and executive VPs coming out the ying yang who are also grossly overpaid. Throw those salaries in and I imagine you would have a much bigger kitty to distribute.

Then CEO’s have a responsible position. If they make mistakes, they could endanger other people’s jobs. Spare me. If CEOs are doing their job right, they could be eliminating jobs, so it doesn’t much matter much to the average employee. Let’s face it the average employee’s job is always under threat whether it be automation, elimination or outsourcing. The idea that the CEO is protecting his employees jobs is laughable, at best. If the shareholders and top executives are making money, there is little concern about the lower paid employees. Indeed, the average employee might be in more danger from a good CEO than a bad CEO. Besides the CEO has a team of executives working with him. If he makes a decision, it is being vetted by Board of Directors and other Executives, he rarely, if ever, makes an important decision alone. The risk is low of something disastrous.

Finally, and most importantly for Capitalism, Knighton believes you can find lower paid employees anywhere, it is difficult to find someone who can be a CEO. Knighton might look into the meat packing industry who are trying to find workers to operate dangerous machinery. Slaughter houses are having such a difficult time hiring people for these positions that they are breaking the law and hiring minors. They are also lobbying state legislatures to lower the age to work in these slaughter houses. As opposed to say, raising wages significantly in order to attract adults willing to risk life and limb to operate these machines. Why doesn’t the same philosophy of higher wages attracting the best people used to attract the best machine operators? If it works for CEO’s, it just might work for average employees as well.

As far as CEO pay is concerned it would be interesting to see if a lower pay was offered to smart ambitious young people who have yet to prove themselves what the results would be. What’s the worse that could happen? It’s not like the CEO would lose his life if he made a mistake, not like the teenagers working in a slaughter house. And, if they succeed, a lower wage for CEO would then bring more revenue into the business. Which is a win win right. I mean isn’t keep wages low one of the primary goals of a CEO? Why shouldn’t the CEO’s salary be included in this consideration. I am pretty sure you could find someone willing to do the job for less and I am betting that a good number of them could do a job. On the other hand, I know for a fact that slaughter houses can’t attract the right people to work in their establishments. Who, then, is more important and deserving of higher salaries?

Sorry, I still ca

By on

Laura Perrins is complaining about the end of our meritocracy. A common worry among Conservative thinkers everywhere. Diversity is ruining our institutions which now disregard talent and ability for skin color and gender. She remembers a day when only the best got their positions through their efforts, talents and intelligence. 

Wait. Perrins believes that we had a meritocracy. Really. Think about it. There was a time when people didn’t consider race and gender and only made decisions based on who was the best person for the job. The trouble is, as I cast my mind back in history in order to understand her point, I couldn’t find much evidence to support her contention. When exactly did the Western World have a meritocracy?

Never is the answer if you are having trouble coming up with a response despite what conservative thinkers are saying. It pains me to have to point this out but in the good old days, both gender and race were a very important consideration on who got the job. People of color and women were eliminated from consideration from the start. How this can be considered a meritocracy is beyond me.

By on

Jesus said “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In my youth, people rarely, if ever, talked about homosexuality. They did, however, talk a lot about divorce. Divorce was considered a big sin. Politicians who divorced risked being defeated at the next election if they divorced. Elizabeth Taylor was pilloried in the Senate for her many marriages and her seduction of married men. Divorce really meant something.  

But nary a word about homosexuality which, admittedly, was understandable. People didn’t really talk about heterosexuality much either so it makes some sense that I didn’t hear anything about homosexuality. Sexual conversations were taboo. Still, people made a point out of telling me that divorce was wrong and why it was wrong. There was no doubt where the Church stood.

The sexual revolution of the 1960’s opened up the conversation. When gay people started coming out, this new visibility caused a conversation that was largely ignored for much of history. However this doesn’t explain the rather benign treatment of divorce in 21st century Christianity. I rarely hear Christians decrying divorce with the same ferocity as they do about homosexuality. Now Christians have every right to give their opinion on what is and what is not a sin. I have no problem with that.

What is annoying, however, is that divorce, a common mortal sin, has dropped off the radar for Christians while homosexuality has become a burning issue requiring frequent condemnation and correction. Some Christians are adamantly opposed to adapting their doctrines regarding homosexuality but are remarkably flexible when it comes to divorce. Can anyone say that divorced people (henceforth known as adulterers) are subject to the same level of animosity as gay people. Some want homosexuals excluded from civil marriage. Some object to selling wedding cakes to gay people because this somehow supports the gay life style as opposed to a simple business transaction. Why are adulterers allowed to remarry? Would the righteous bakers object to selling a wedding cake to a remarrying adulterer?

The modern Christians emphasis on gay sin, which only a small number of their congregants are committing, over divorce, which makes up a much larger group of their congregants is puzzling. Sin is sin. Well, there has to be redemption in order for there to be forgiveness. The sinner has to stop committing the sin. Is this happening with adulterers? Wouldn’t redemption for an adulterer be not having sex any longer with their new spouse? I think we all know this isn’t happening. Adulterers are welcomed back into many churches with open arms despite the fact that they are continuing to have sex with their new partner. So, why then, does the homosexual have to stop having sex in order to be forgiven while the heterosexual adulterer can continue on his merry way.

Christians lost the cultural battle over divorce. Too many church members are divorced now for them to fight divorce. The churches risk alienating potential members if they were to renew their battle against divorce. Hell, in Protestant churches, the pastor could be divorced. This is how pervasive divorce is. Ministers are committing a grave sin, a sin that Jesus felt particularly important enough that he talked about as a sin, and these same ministers rage on about the sin of homosexuality. How can these people be taken seriously as fundamentalist Christians when they continue to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to believe.

The modern Christian seems to think if he is in a heterosexual marriage, his ticket is punched and all he has to do is to get to heaven. He no longer has to worry about divorce or, for that matter, adultery as long as it is heterosexual. Which is a sad commentary on modern Christianity. A cursory reading of the Bible will show that Jesus had other concerns other than gay sex. Off the top of my head, I can think of feeding the poor, focusing on saving souls as opposed to acquiring cash and turning the other cheek when attacked by an enemy. But, no gay sex is the problem. If that is all Christianity can offer, they are doomed.

By on

A lot of people are upset about the potential overthrow of humanity by AI. I stopped worrying for the following reasons:

  1. If AI decides to decimate humanity because they think humans are going to destroy the earth and the earth would be better without us, then my worries are over, as is every other human being. The only thing I can compare it to is a meteorite striking the earth. If it happens, it happens. Anything is possible and I will do anything I can to make sure it doesn’t happen but this is the problem here, isn’t it. There isn’t much I can do to stop a meteorite or AI, for that matter. Worry about it (and meteorites) seems pretty pointless. 
  2. But what if there is something we can do about it? What is that? Make laws that stop people? Is that even possible? How many High Tech companies are working on AI now?Let’s face it, if there are people who can create an AI that will destroy the human race, they are going to create it come hell or high water. Some deluded tech billionaire will think he can gain some enormous advantage and, additionally, is convinced that he has the smarts to keep AI under control and will put the whole shebang into motion before I can lift a finger to stop them. I am not even sure what I am supposed to do to stop them. I will happily support any laws or actions that might but what is that? And, more importantly, can you explain it to me in such a way that I will do something.
  3. AI can do incredible things with data. The problem with data is that it sometimes fails to change the minds of human beings who must act on it, at least for now. The problem for AI taking over is human beings. AI still needs some human intervention to make things happen and humans can willfully refuse to believe data that they don’t like to see. Think Global Warming. The data don’t matter, humans will do what humans want to do. Data be damned.
  4. Humans, as we all know, are irrational. This means they make decisions based on a lot of information that they picked up from ancient religious texts or an internet conspiracy theorists. How does AI deal with such emotionally driven data? I am not sure it does and it certainly isn’t programmed to incorporate this irrationality into its calculations. How does AI understand such emotions as love or hate both which can cause people to behave crazily and unpredictably?
  5. This is where I think the scientists worried about AI go wrong. Scientists are prone to favor rational thought and verifiable data to emotional responses. These blinders make them favor systems of thought based on rationality and data. But, hey, human beings, as we know them, have been around for more than 6,000 years and we didn’t survive this long because of rational thought. We survived because of fear and love. Think of all the things we do based on emotion. I mean would a machine build a pretty thing because it is pretty and I enjoy looking at it. Or take care of a terminally sick person because they love them and they want to make their lives easier. Or kill thousands of men, women, and children because of some ancient grievance long ago forgotten. Let’s face it Human Beings act more out of hot emotion and less from reasoned thought.
  6. This puts AI at distinct disadvantage. Unlike human beings, AI is rational. How do you incorporate human irrationality in such a way that AI can rationally respond. Human Beings can fall in love with their pets for Christ’s sake. Think about it. People love their cats and dogs. These are not rational thoughts which make humans difficult to gauge. Which is why I think it is just as likely for human beings descending into a Luddite rage that destroys AI and any machines that stands in our way. Keep in mind the movie 2001. It was humans that got the better of the machines and that is where I stand on the issue. Of course, I am a very emotional irrational human being and that may have something to do with it. Maybe it is just wishful thinking. Probably.

By on

Well, it is certainly reassuring that Governor Abbott realizes that shooting migrants is against Federal Law. And, just as a helpful reminder for Abbot, it is also against God’s law. It is right there in the Ten Commandments. I thought it was against Texas Law too but, who knows, I am willing to risk being wrong here and say it is. I apologize if I am wrong.

I am sure in a week from now, after the media make a big media storm about this, rightfully in this instance, and Abbott’s political analysts assess the damage done, he might even apologize. But only if absolutely necessary. Honestly I don’t think that Abbott wants to shoot migrants. He is dealing with a difficult situation that nobody really has the answer to and he wants to make political hay. Abbott was careless. He was thinking about the problem and not that the vast majority of migrants are actual flesh and blood human beings.

So, he found himself thinking out loud and it popped into his head that the only way for this problem to end is for the migrants to disappear and an easy way to make that happen is shooting them. Then, knowing this sounded awkward, he tried to reassure his audience that, of course he can’t actually murder anyone because the Feds would arrest him. Which is not reassuring at all. It sounds very much like the only thing stopping him from mowing down migrants is the thought that he wouldn’t do well in prison and not his own strong moral values. Abbott’s tone is shockingly dehumanizing and that is worrisome.