Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Monday, January 30, 2023

A Few Words About Finding Love & Sex

I've been thinking a lot lately about my kids. I've got two girls, both elder teenagers, girls who'd already be married adults in another time and place. Here they are growing up in this crazy world that feels very much like it is losing its direction in some very basic ways. For example, why do I keep reading about women who don't like getting choked during sex?

No. Don't answer that. 

I already know the answer.

Friday, June 15, 2018

5 Things on a Friday: Building on Momentum

Before we get started this week, I’ve got a couple of announcements:
First, my Swim Across the Sound team still needs your support.  We’re about halfway to our fundraising goal, and I know that a lot of people have been on this site lately checking out the happenings.  Most of you fins folks can easily afford to support Team RBG.  Please do that.  It’s for a good cause.
Yes, this is me swimming.
My second announcement is about #SBRLLR.  This week’s post did gangbuster numbers, which is awesome.  Thank you for that.  
If you’re wondering what to read next, well… I personally think the whole thing is worth reading, especially if you care about context.  However, most folks have liked Chapter 2.  If you also like Chapter 2, then I hate to say it, but you ought to just bite the bullet and read the whole damn story.  
It’s free, you cheap bastards.
Finally, if you liked #SBRLLR, and you’ve been thinking about doing something similar, please reach out.  As I said earlier this week, one of the reasons I wrote the memoir was as a way of starting this conversation.  Ideally, you should have a set time period to write about along with a collection of anecdotes.  With that, we should be able to draw up an overall outline and lay out scene structure for the first chapter or two.  That should be enough to get you going.
Alright.  Let’s get it on.

Friday, July 28, 2017

5 Things on a Friday: Let’s Talk about Messaging

Something occurred to me this week.  It’s this: The right way to talk about the current moment in politics isn’t to talk about the politics of the current moment at all.  In the modern world, one can find news to fit one’s worldview regardless of what that worldview happens to be.  Someone out there somewhere is reporting news with an editorial slant that agrees with whatever philosophy each and every one of us personally finds comforting.  Since people like to feel good about themselves, almost everyone has chosen to get their news from sources that make them feel some combination of smart and vindicated.
Arguing about reality is therefore pointless, and indeed, it’s becoming increasingly pointless to argue at all.  
Spoiler alert: no one is listening.
With this in mind, I’ve realized that the right way to talk about modern politics is to ignore the message and to focus entirely on the success or failure of the messaging.  In the end, it’s the success or failure of the marketing that’s going to determine the future of this country.

Friday, January 6, 2017

5 Things on a Friday: Netflix & Chill TV Reviews

I’m doing Netflix TV this week because let’s be honest: no one cares about Congressional ethics panels.  Am I right?  Certainly not Congress.


So fuck it.  If they don’t care, why should we?

Friday, September 2, 2016

Friday Mad Science: How to Meet Women

Friday Mad Science is back!
The Internet blew up earlier this week with talk of “pickup artists” and “How to talk to a woman wearing headphones.”  Folks have spent the week running down men for wanting to meet women, and in the long run, I do not think that this is in anyone’s best interests.  The problem is not that men and women do not need to meet and even get together, it’s that there is a right and a wrong way to do everything, and right now, dudes are reading a shitload of bad information.  Blame technology, the PC police, the Baby Boomers, or whomever you’d like.  Whatever the reason, what we have now is an entire class of people who have no clue whatsoever how to speak to the opposite sex.  
It’s become a serious problem, apparently.

Friday, February 6, 2015

5 Things on a Friday: Hall of Meat

This week: Harper Lee has a new novel, Americans aren't getting it as much as they claim, and a tour the hallowed halls of the Hall of Meat.  

It's Friday, folks, and all this snow is getting to me.  I don't know what else to say about it.  Let's get it on!

Friday, May 10, 2013

Friday Mad Science: A Few Things to Think About...

A report released on Monday was the first to openly blame the actual Chinese government for a lot of the cyber-attacks that have hit this country over the past ten years.  And while I don’t think it’s surprising that the Chinese are trying to hack American government computers as part of a prolonged espionage campaign, what is surprising is that the American government has responded by making what would ordinarily be a covert struggle public.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Friday Mad Science: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

Happy Friday, everybody.
***
From issue #5 of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero.
***
P. Diddy says he is not banging Kate Upton.  So I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief?

Eh.  The Internet seemed shocked by this story--shocked, I tell you!--especially because of the age difference.  But I personally didn't care... until I saw the link on TMZ to their retrospective of Upton's Sexy Twitter feed.

As it happens, that is worth your time.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Friday Mad Science: The Queen of Gold Diggers

The big news of the week was undoubtedly the Fiscal Cliff deal and all of its unending ramifications and negotiations, but Hugh Hefner’s marriage to Crystal Harris also made news, and in many ways, it was the marriage that was the more entertaining of the two stories.  Guardian writer Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett wrote my favorite article on the subject, in which she called Harris’s marriage a “master class” in gold-digging.
In the article, Cosslett writes that all women are essentially prostitutes who want four basic things from a man: money, power, a reputation for bad behavior, and an inability to get it on without medical assistance.
“Sites such as "Nice guys" of OKCupid are testament to the fact that these good, honest post-feminist new men are left to fester on the onanistic scrapheap by heartless jezebels while the cynical, overbearing Christian Greys of this world are ball[s] deep in Greek goddesses.”
Hef.
Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
Y’know, look.  I get that it’s a joke and all, but still.  Hefner’s in his 80’s, and Harris is in her late 20’s.  She’s described sex with him as being such a small part of the relationship that it’s barely worth mentioning, and frankly, I can’t imagine what these two have to talk about--though it must be something.  So what?  Is this just a PR stunt for Hef?  I can’t imagine that the guy is so completely lacking in self-awareness that he doesn’t at least have an inkling of what he’s getting himself into.  And on the flipside, we can reasonably assume that there’s a pre-nup involved, but even so, Harris must have to wait some time to collect something.  I mean, Hef’s in pretty good shape to be 81; I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that he lives another ten years.  Does she have to wait that long?
Unless, you know, there really is some truth to this idea that what women want, subconsciously or not, is the power that a man brings to the relationship, coupled with the security of having enough money and resources to sort of ensure a better-than-decent life.  And if they can get all that without having to actually put much effort into the relationship, well, that’s all the better right?  I mean, that’s just good economics.  

Less Work + Better Payout > More Work + Less Money
To be honest with you, this whole thing is making me a little paranoid.  I’ve been married twice, I have two daughters and two dogs (both also female), and I can’t honestly say that I understand women in any way.  Yeah, we have a nice house and a decent life, but on the other hand, I know that my wife has to put a lot of effort into keeping it all running, and there are times when I know that she resents it.  When I can see that what she really wants is to just run screaming from the house, leaving us all to wallow in our own crap.  
The issue here isn’t so much that I think that Sally would do that, it’s more that I have trouble gauging how pervasive those feelings are.  Which is to say that we tend to love those things into which we pour our efforts.  And since I know Sally works hard to keep our household and our family moving forward, I can posit that for the most part, she wants to be there.  The thing is, this is important to me.  I don’t want it to be a thing where she made a commitment that she’s now stuck with or in which she cares about us and doesn’t want us to suffer and so embraces the responsibilities inherent in being a wife and a mother.  That’s not good enough.  Bottom line, I don’t want to be a chore.  And when I see these crazy-ass gold-digging matches--and that people get into these things voluntarily and seem happy about it--it makes me wonder if, bottom line, I’m providing a nice-enough life for my spouse.
Welcome to “A Husband’s Insecurity: Class 101”.
This, by the way, is what comes from having a parent who’s an alcoholic and another who’s a severe co-dependent.  You spend your entire life waiting to see which way the wind is blowing, looking for any sign of how soon the other shoe is gonna drop, and in the long run, it makes you crazy-paranoid about the relationships in your life.  All those random mood swings are not at all good for a person’s psyche.
*sigh*
This is one of those problems that a pair of fur-lined handcuffs and a set of entry-level nipple clamps would probably solve, but to be honest with you, that’s just not the way I swing.
L'ouch!
Also courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
***
Congress finally signed a deal to avert the Fiscal Cliff, but although Republicans held out until the last minute, the fact is that the deal they wound up getting wasn’t anything like the one that President Obama originally put on the table back during the discussions to end the stalemate over the Debt Ceiling--the so-called Grand Bargain talks.  At that time, the President was looking for $2 trillion dollars in total debt reduction while Republicans were looking for more like $4 trillion, and there was some thought, skeptical but genuine, that this country’s leaders might finally be willing to deal with our long-term spending and entitlements issues.  However, after all the crying, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, what we finally got was a mere $737 billion of reductions, and what with making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent and all, it’s only really a spending cut when considered in comparison to what would have happened had nothing occurred, i.e. a continuation of 2012’s policy with no changes whatsoever.
Or, as they said on NPR yesterday, Congress underperformed even the most pessimistic of predictions for the resolution of the crisis.
With that said, it’s worth noting that many Democrats feel like they’ve given up all of their leverage now that they’ve agreed to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.  That sets up another massive fight in the coming months over a pair of issues, the debt ceiling and the sequestered spending cut that were the other half of the Fiscal Cliff considerations.  With tax levels seemingly settled, that leaves only spending cuts as an issue going forward, meaning that for all that Republicans seemingly just got their asses handed to them, the fact is that they’re in pretty good position for the rest of the Congressional term.
Personally, I just hope that reality gets put on the table in some form or fashion.  Right now there’s talk of cutting spending, and that’s fine, but if we agree up front to hold Defense spending constant, and we also agree up front to hold Entitlements spending (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) constant, then really, what we’ve done is to hold the vast majority of government spending constant.  So with that, it’ll be more or less impossible to reach a meaningful deal.  I mean, yeah, you can reach a deal.  You can jack up the interest of Student Loans, and you can put Welfare Mothers on the street, and you can maybe even cut farm subsidies--although I wouldn’t count on that last one happening--and do some other types of trimming around the edges, and if you’re lucky, you can maybe trim ten percent of the problem.  But if you don’t deal with the actual meat of the budget, you can’t make real, substantial progress towards fixing this country’s fiscal problems, and that, I’m afraid is that.
It’s a tough problem, but it’s not one that’s overly difficult to understand.  We fought two wars, and we put it on the credit card.  In addition, we have an aging population, and those folks who’ve retired represent the wealthiest, voting-est, most influential generational cohort in this nation’s history, and those folks are not going to cut their own benefits just at the point that they’ve begun to actually draw upon them.  On top of that, we retain a strong vested interest in the global status quo, but that status quo is protected unilaterally, meaning that in international security terms, nearly every nation on Earth is free-riding on American Hegemony.  Finally, there are countries that will lend us money, but even at super-low interest rates, the fact is that the debt service has mounted collasally.  
I’m sorry, but the fact is that you can’t fix that stuff by nibbling at the budget around the edges.  But nibbling around the edges is all that anyone seems to want to do anymore.
I’ll be interested to see how this all plays out, but I’m trying to remind myself to be even more pessimistic than I am normally and to expect Congress to underperform even my bottom-rung expectations.
***
Despite all of the above, John Boehner was easily re-elected Speaker of the House.  I’m not Boehner’s biggest fan, but I think the paralysis in the House is more an issue of his inability to control the junior members of his own party than it is an inability or unwillingness to work across the aisle to get things done.  Regardless, more of the same is on the way.

The winner, and still champion..
***
Finally, they’re casting for the role of Peter Quill in the new Guardians of the Galaxy movie.  Rumors include Michael Rosenbaum (Smallville), who’s confirmed to have read for the role, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Dark Knight Returns), who’s not.  
If you’re wondering, here’s hoping for Rosenbaum.
***
Have a great weekend!

Saturday, November 10, 2012

A Few Words About the General

At first I was gonna skip this, for a variety of reasons. But then I started reading some of the Mainstream Press's breathlessly inane prattle, and I figured, "Alright, I'll do something, but I'm gonna save it for Friday Mad Science." But my guys are still working, and I can't leave, but there's also not much for me to actually do, so... here goes.

Two things bother me about this Petraeus thing. First, why the Hell is the Media portraying this guy as some kind of victim? I mean, gimme a fucking break. Here is the commander of the War in Iraq, an Army Ranger, and arguably the most powerful guy in the Middle East, and somehow SHE forced HIM? I'm sorry but no. I've never met the man, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he's probably no one's idea of a shrinking violet. I'm also betting that he knows that "No" means no.

So... Did she tie him down? Was he raped? I doubt it. So can we then please stop pretending that this thing is somehow anything other than his own fault?

In my experience, older, more powerful men are not typically forced into bad situations by younger, far less powerful women. In fact, I think history shows that quite the reverse is normally true. So let's stop feeling sorry for this guy, okay? He knew what he was doing, I promise you.

Second: why did the President accept his resignation? I get that it's a double-standard, perhaps, but really, who cares? I've been in the Army, and I know for a fact that they almost never prosecute adultery, and more to the point, the guy is retired. Okay, maybe there's a blackmail angle, but the same Is true for members of Congress with high levels of security clearance, and those guys cheat with great regularity. So I'm not buying the security angle. I mean, maybe it's true, but it's still bullshit. And anyway, the guy had proven to be effective at killing terrorists. Against that, truthfully, I could care less who he's sleeping with.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Friday Mad Science: A Guy's Guide to Fifty Shades of Grey


Alright, I’ll admit it.  I wanted to know what the fuss was about, so I swiped my wife’s copy of Fifty Shades of Grey this week and read maybe a third of it Tuesday night.  Fair warning: I’m about to get into that in some detail, so if you’re not ready for that—or you’re under seventeen—you probably ought to turn back now.

Fifty Shades of Grey
Fifty Shades of Grey isn’t what I’d call scintillating reading for the most part—at least the first seventy pages or so weren’t—so I skimmed it until I started getting into the freaky parts.  With that said, once this book gets freaky, it gets really freaky.  The male lead in the story is a control freak whose parents beat him as a child, and as a consequence he comes to see love and sex through the prism of discipline, obedience, and violence.  Thus, this is a story with hard core bondage and beating and even talk of fisting (!), and frankly, some of that stuff, I can’t believe the women of America are going for it.

Still.  The fact that the women of America are getting into a story about bondage and violent sex doesn’t necessarily mean that their husbands need to go out and buy a pair of fur-lined handcuffs, a cat-o-nine-tails, and a size large butt plug.  I mean, if your wife does want that stuff, then by all means have at it, but I personally think the reality is a little different.  For example, I really liked the movie Die Hard.  But just because I thought it was badass when Bruce Willis fought European terrorists in his bare feet and then pulled out the shards of glass afterwards on camera while he was talking to his “pal” on the radio, that doesn’t mean that I’m looking to re-up with the Army, so I can personally fight the Taliban without any shoes on.  The same principal applies with women and this book.

And yet, there is something here.  I mean, there’s a lesson if we have the wit to see it.  There’s something in the characterization of Christian Grey that appeals, or else the book wouldn’t work.  And it’s not just his money (although I don’t discount the money’s value).  It’s this: Christian Grey’s ultra-human ability is his supernatural attention to detail.  As it happens, that level of attention to detail is worth a lot more than you’d think. 

Consider: Mr. Grey is a super-rich corporate CEO, but he still has time to learn literally everything that there is to know about Ana, the book’s protagonist, right after their first meeting.  Even his gaze is “intense”.  He obsesses about everything.  This is not the guy who’ll show up for a date with no clear picture of how that date itself is gonna go.  No.  This is a guy who knows everything in advance.  He has it planned to the minute, and he has the resources to make sure that absolutely nothing is gonna go off script.  This is a guy who shows up for a date with reservations for a specific table at a specific restaurant at a specific time with a specific waiter.  He brought the outfit that he wants his girl to wear with him, and it fits perfectly because he had it tailored even though she never realized that he’d taken her measurements.  And he’s already ordered dinner ahead of time because he did the research in advance in order to find out what his girl’s favorite foods are.  And all of that is sexy (rather than creepy) because this is a guy that Ana likes.  He’s good looking, he’s successful, and bottom line, she’s literally overwhelmed by the power of the attention he’s paying to her.  That, all of it, makes her feel incredibly special.

To feel that special, I think a lot of women will put up with an awful lot.  Maybe even zip cuffs and ball gags, and the occasional I’m-not-fucking-around spanking.  And really, even if they won’t, I’m pretty sure that they’d like to pretend that they would.

To an extent, I think this might even be a universal issue for women, especially young women in relationships that they’re not sure about.  They want the undivided attention of their men, they want to return that attention and show their love, but they don’t want to have to compromise themselves in order to do it.  That’s the tension in the book, and it’s a tension that I think exists in real life.  The fun of it then comes when we see Ana redefine herself and her definition of appropriate.  Ana really likes Christian, and she’s willing to do “pretty much” anything in order to show that to him.  This is where the book succeeds—in defining and then redefining that idea of “pretty much”.

For guys then, I think the key is to find a way to make your girl feel special.  Find some way to show her that you’re paying attention.  Make her happy, so that she’ll want to make you happy.  Be honest about it.  And then maybe you’ll be in a position to start pushing boundaries and exploring that idea of trying “pretty much” anything.


As a last thought, let me just say that Fifty Shades of Grey is very reminiscent, at least to me, of American Psycho.  So much so that I kept waiting for Christian to handcuff Anastasia to the bed, give us ten pages of why the music of Phil Collins is a seminal part of Eighties pop culture, and then cut Ana in half with a chainsaw.  That never happens (I don't think), but I'm just saying... it's freaky.

* * *
One of the guys in my office sent me a pretty interesting article from the New York Times this week about differences in voting, beliefs, and outcomes between younger and older Americans.  The upshot is that while older Americans have suffered in the downturn, younger Americans are suffering a lot more.

Younger adults are faring worse in the private sector and, in large part because they have less political power, have a less generous safety net beneath them. Older Americans vote at higher rates and are better organized. There is no American Association of Non-Retired Persons. “Pell grants,” notes the political scientist Kay Lehman Schlozman, “have never been called the third rail of American politics.”

Bottom line, older voters tend to vote, and most of the systems in place in this country’s social safety net are and have been designed to support the Baby Boomers’ generation.  In contrast, unemployment and under-employment are brutally bad for recent college graduates, and no one cares.  Baby Boomers are worried about their retirements; today’s recent college grads can’t find jobs in the first place.  Given that government is even now choosing to cut funding for education instead of funding for social entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, the problem looks to get worse long before it even thinks about getting better.  And the way that the government propped up the housing market means that even if you are young and well-employed, it’s still difficult to afford to live anywhere nice.

* * *
Thursday was a tough day for Conservatives.  The Supreme Court upheld the President’s health care reform law but struck down the Stolen Valor Act.  That’s not the way I’d have bet in either case, and what’s even weirder is that Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative from George W. Bush’s presidency, cast the pivotal vote in the case.  He actually sided with the Court’s liberals to uphold the law.

With all of that said, I think the health care law has gotten more than its fair share of coverage.  However, the Stolen Valor Act is much less well-known.  It’s meant to protect military veterans by making it illegal for a person to falsely claim that he or she earned military honors.  In this specific case, the Court ruled that false claims of valor are still legal forms of speech, and bottom line, the First Amendment protects liars. 

As I said in the opening, the success of that argument surprises me.  One would expect that the First Amendment would protect both the truth and statements of opinion, but I’m surprised it protects blatant falsehood.  That protection is certainly not universal.  For example, liable and slander are both examples of falsehood that are specifically disallowed, and speech that does harm is not protected either.  With that in mind, it’s hard for me to understand how the public good is served by protecting blatant lies, especially when the subjects of the claims are a matter of public record.  But I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps there is some aspect of this that I simply do not understand.

* * *
So it’s been a weird week, right?  Maybe the weirdest (and worst) part of it came from a National Geographic poll: over a third of American’s believe that UFOs have visited Earth, and a full tenth of Americans believe that they’ve actually seen a UFO.

*sigh*


* * *
The John Hancock building
where Bain keeps its
headquarters.

Yeah, that’s politics.  But as a matter of reality, it’s also a cheap shot.  Bain specialized in buying out troubled companies with private equity, cutting their costs, and then reselling them on the public market one their profitability was improved.  That may or may not be a good qualification for a potential Commander-in-Chief, but even if it’s not, the reality is still this: if a business is going down, it can either cut its costs or die.  In either case, workers are likely to lose jobs and/or face wage and benefit pressure.  The difference is that if the firm goes out of business, everyone loses.  However, if the firm survives, but only some people lose their jobs, well, in that case it’s only the losers who lose.  And if the firm does turn around, the folks who made it happen often also make a lot of money.  That is the free market at work.  It’s not always pretty—in fact, reality is that it’s rarely pretty—but it is effective.  Bain, and the way that Bain operated, was a legitimate part of the free market system.

* * *
Finally, here’s a sign of the Apocalypse for you: Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are releasing a $39,000 backpack through their high end fashion line, The Row.  If you’re wondering, thirty-nine grand is supposedly a lot of money to spend on a purse/backpack, even for the well-heeled.  The price, apparently, is mostly driven by the kind of alligator from which it’s made.

Word on the street is that The Row already has orders for two.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Weird but Cool Business of the Day: PantyPinata.Com

My friend launched her own business this morning: The Original PantyPinata.Com.  As I said in the title, it's a weird but really cool idea for bridal showers.  Bottom line, you fill a pinata with panties, and...

Well, now that I'm reading through the directions, I see that you don't actually hit the thing with a bat.  Too phallic?  Not phallic enough?  What do I know?  Go watch the video.

Then do me a favor and order one of these things and invite my wife to the shower.  We could use some new "not granny" panties.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Friday Mad Science: Alice Kramden Speaks!


I should preface everything I’m about to say by noting that Sally agreed with last week’s poster that I sounded like a sexist asshole.  So maybe this is one of those "Women are from Mars, Men are from Penis" kinds of things.  Keep that in mind as you read through this next bit.

I ask you: is THIS a happy marriage?
Last week I wrote some perhaps tactless tuff about a professional hurdler who’s still a virgin, and at least one of you found it offensive.  You called me stuff and made fun of my grilling—that was unnecessary, by the way—but since my internal voice heard your opinions in the high-pitched screeching of Alice Kramden from The Honeymooners, your comments were also a hilarious diversion from the typical monotony of my regular morning commute.  And I tried to answer while on my commute via my new phone, but that got to be such a pain in the ass that I finally decided to just finish my thoughts here. 

So here is the deal.

My problem with this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is that it makes sex out to be some kind of gift or reward.  Like, “When my guy finally agrees to marry me, I’m going to reward him the greatest gift I have to give in return.”  And that’s an attitude that I absolutely hate.  Because if you think of sex as a gift or a reward that you, as a woman, are giving your spouse because of his good behavior then you’re totally short-changing and distorting your relationship.  You are, bottom line, prostituting yourself.  I mean, you can dress it up however you like, but in reality it’s just a kind of business arrangement.  You give me this, and I will give you that.

I don’t personally like to think of sex as currency.

On the contrary, while I wouldn’t call sex the center of a good relationship, I would personally argue that it’s pretty damned close.  I mean, sex might not be the bricks and foundation of the house, but it’s certainly the mortar that holds those bricks together.  It is, bottom line, the physical manifestation of the relationship itself.  So treating it like a reward is treating the relationship itself like a reward.  If sex is a reward, then withholding sex as part of an argument is acceptable as a means of achieving a change in behavior, which is just another way of saying that it’s okay to use sex as a weapon or as a tool of manipulation.  And frankly, while that might be legal, I don’t recommend it if you want your relationship to work out long-term.

The decision of when a couple should become intimate is, of course, unique to the couple itself.  You’ll note that I’m not promoting pre-marital sex for teenagers.  However, I think that when two people are adults, then they ought to feel empowered to make adult decisions without making those decisions into some kind of game.

‘Nuff said.

* * *
MQ-9 Reapers seem to be doing most of the killing in
Afghanistan.  I've long thought the problem with this
program is that we're using Hellfire missiles to kill troops.
In economic terms, that's a TERRIBLE use of resources.
I saw a couple of places this week that the War in Afghanistan is now basically located in Western Pakistan, and that U.S. officials are increasingly willing to admit it.  This is only possible because the war, such as it is, is mostly being waged by drone strikes, punctuated by the occasional commando raid, neither of which require much in the way of a footprint inside Pakistan itself.

So the real question is this: is it hard to shoot a drone down?  Apparently it’s not at all difficult technically, but as with so much else that’s going on, the reality is that there are parts of the Pakistani government that are more than happy with the United States’ covert war in the western part of their country.

This is one of the unfortunate recurring themes in the Middle East if you ask me.  I mean, I’m no expert, but it seems to me like the leaders in the region specialize in saying one thing for public consumption and then doing something else, something that is in their interests politically though perhaps not publicly.  Which is to say that parts of the Pakistani government would very much like to bring their lawless tribal regions under control and stop all the bullshit that the people in those regions constantly cause.  But in reality, the Pakistanis don’t seem to have enough control over their own territory to actually crack down on the militants, leaving them with the unpalatable choice of allowing foreigners to do their fighting for them—even within their own borders.  Of course, that makes them look weak, and so here we are.  To save face, the Pakistani government has no choice but to protest the drone strike killings, especially when those killings involve collateral civilian casualties, even when, in reality, the people being targeted are—at least unofficially—well known enemies of the Pakistani state.

It would be nice if the U.S. could find some way to ratchet down the violence on all sides and get some of these guys to come to some kind of long-term accommodation with us and with each other.  That’d be more useful than, “You’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us, we’re going to kill you.”  I mean, brute intimidation and containment might work for awhile, but a better long term strategy would, in my opinion, lead to a more stable outcome for all concerned.  Of course, that’s only possible when you have a negotiating partner who’s willing and able to negotiate in good faith for the other side, and I’m not at all sure that one of those exists in tribal Pakistan, but at the same time, there is a good definition of insanity that defines the term as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  I’m continually afraid that bureaucratic inertia is going to keep us engaged in these places long after a more considered policy would have found a better third way.

* * *
Thor Hushovd in the World Champion's
Rainbow Jersey at the Tour of Britain in 2011.
One of my favorite riders, Thor Hushovd, is skipping the Tour de France, and I’m really sad about it.  Hushovd is an all-arounder and recent World Champion who won several stages in last year’s tour, and if memory serves he even managed to keep the Yellow Jersey for something like a week last year after an initial success in an early time trial.  In any event, I like Thor because he’s a bigger guy who’s not a great climber but who climbs well enough that his other skills make him a match for even the best riders on all but the highest mountaintop finishes.  That’s the kind of rider that I aspire to be, and seeing that others actually make it work at the highest levels of the sport inspires me.

* * *
Still on pre-Tour news, last year’s winner Cadel Evans won a stage of the Criterium du Dauphine earlier this week.  In contrast to the routes from the last two Tours, this year’s Tour route apparently contains over 100km of time trialing, which tends to favor time trialists and all-arounders like Sky’s Bradley Wiggins, along with Mr. Evans, over pure climbers like two-time runner-up Andy Schleck.  So, bottom line, it once again looks like a pretty good Tour in the making, though not at all the same kind of Tour the last two Tours have been.  This one is looking to be a sprinty affair with lots of little chances taken to gain tiny advantages in the general classification.  Bottom line, after all that racing, whoever time trials the best is looking to win the whole thing.


And that's all I've got.  Have a good weekend!

Friday Hair Metal: A Retrospective of Sexiness

I'm not in a metal mood this morning.  These first two are favorites, and they're about the same topic, too, so I've grouped them.



To make my point about sexiness, I probably should have used the official video here.  But.  This gig is live from Paris, and what could be sexier than that.



The idea here was to show some kind of progression.  George Michael treats these topics with a soapy kind of respect.  Timberlake is singing about a broken heart, but in the music video, he's clearly calling his (very famous) ex a slut.  And then there's Katy Perry, for whom the whole topic is a gag.

Also: in my head, I call her "Cat-E".  Is that weird?



Anywho, let's go back to the Master.  Supposedly Michael was actually dating the girl in the video at the time that it was shot.  Ironic, then, that the whole song comes off today as a last gasp for hetero respectability before old George comes out of the closet and makes a whole different kind of music.  

I'm a big George Michael fan, but I Want Your Sex is not by any means one of his better tunes.



So...  What'd I miss?

Friday, June 1, 2012

Friday Mad Science: Ai Weiwei and the Twenty-Nine-Year-Old Virgin


I can find nothing of interest in the news that I consider to be real news, so this week we’re gonna look at a bunch of stuff that definitely is not news.  It all comes from Slate because, well, Slate is an interesting site where a bunch snotty NYC liberals write about topics that they don’t understand.  Needless to say, I love it and read it daily.
All I'm saying is... it's a shame.

So, let’s get started…

Lori “Lolo” Jones is a twenty-nine-year-old virgin!  She’s also a champion Olympic hurdler.  All I can really say about that is that it’s a damn shame.  I’m afraid Ms. Jones has built the act into something that it isn’t; withthat much build up, she’s bound to be disappointed if and when she ever actually participates.

I also don’t understand why she hasn’t simply gotten married.  Someone that pretty and that successful must have had at least a couple of would-be suitors with something on the ball.


Ai Weiwei is my new favorite Chinese artist.  I have no idea why the PRC’s government is watching him, and I don’t care.  His Animal Heads/Chinese Zodiac sculptures were awesome.  They’re currently on display at theHirshhorn.

The Dragon from Animal Heads/Chinese Zodiac by Ai Weiwei.
 Hulu is also awesome, and the companies that own it wish that it wasn’t.  That’s not news.  What’s weird is that Hulu’s awesomeness is a problem.  And the problem is, specifically, that online ad rates are lower than regular TV ad rates, which is weird because online ads can’t be skipped on Hulu whereas almost no one actually watches regular TV ads.  Someone needs to explain that to me.  I think the truth here is that all advertising is effective, but it’s nowhere near as effective as TV networks would like their advertisers to believe.  And the problem is that you can quantify that pretty easily with online ads whereas with regular TV, there’s no way to prove ineffectiveness, leading corporations to live in the beautiful glow of their own self-destructive illusions.  Given how the management’s pay structures are built on the ongoing illusion of success, one can easily see why illusory success is more appealing in modern America than real, quantifiable statistics are.


Finally, I’m tired of hearing about Alan Moore’s take on the things DC Comics has done with The Watchman.  Bottom line, Moore sold his rights, he received and accepted the money offered, and the property changed hands.  If he wanted the rights back after a definite time period, he should have either specified that in his initial contract or been prepared to offer a market rate for the rights’ current value after the sale.  His argument now is akin to me selling you my house and then getting mad when you repaint it because I’d assumed that the bank was going to foreclose on your mortgage, and I’d therefore been planning to buy it back at well below market price, and your new color scheme is outside of my vision for the house’s decor.  And I’m VERY MAD ABOUT IT!!! 

I mean, all of that may be true, but once you own the house, it’s yours, and my assumptions about how your ownership is going to go are totally irrelevant.  Moreover, Moore’s assumption that DC Comics would stop printing his life’s masterwork and simply give it back was ludicrous on its face. 


And… that’s all I’ve got.  See?   I told you none of it was even moderately important.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Friday Mad Science: Pliny the Younger and More...


Happy Friday.  Boy, did this week ever suck.  I'm happy as all Hell that it's almost over.

So, I don’t know that any of this stuff is important, but here’s a snapshot of what I found interesting this week:

Medieval statue of Pliny the Younger, the
namesake of the alleged best beer in the world. 

I’ve never even had a Pliny.  Hell, I don’t think I’ve ever even seen one in stores.  Anybody out there on the Internets ever had one?  What makes it so awesome?

* * *
Also on Slate, Farhad Majoon says that Facebook’s IPO mainly means the site will soon be featuring more ads.  That makes an unfortunate kind of sense.  With that said, I’ve been enjoying Facebook more than usual lately, and I think their algorithm for figuring out what I’m interested in is pretty damned impressive.  Bottom line: they show me links to triathlon training websites and various comic-related things on a regular basis, and when that stuff interests me, I click on it.  Viva e-commerce! 

Now all they need to do is figure out how to get me a six-pack of Pliny the Younger, preferably without having to pay for shipping and handling.

* * *
Speaker Boehner's official photo.
You're surprised I didn't show him crying,
aren't you.
Speaker of the House John Boehner is already setting up another fight over the debt-ceiling—for right after the November election!  He says that any additions to current spending must be met with offsetting cuts, and if you ask me, that’s a fine idea.  He’s apparently also making some noises about tax reform, and if you’re a regular reader of this space, you know that I’m for that, too.  What I don’t particularly want to hear, however, is that we can only define tax “reforms” in terms of tax reductions and/or that no tax increases of any kind will be considered for any reason.  That shit flies in the face of simple reality, and frankly, I’ve had enough of it.

Boehner says he wants a comprehensive solution, and again, I’m for it.  But the idea that there can be no give-and-take, no revenue increases to counter-balance the spending cuts for a more realistic, more levelized approach to true budget reform is, to me, a total non-starter.  As a Republican, I am no longer interested in my party’s grandstanding over their typical dogmatic bullshit.  They need to balance the budget in a way that will actually work first, and then we can talk about the ideology of how we move forward.  Until that happens, I will continue to believe that they are self-interested ass-clowns whose first and only care is the divisive politics that keep their party in some semblance of power in at least one branch of government—whichever branch that happens to be.

On the other hand, President Obama’s recent announcement that he now supports gay marriage seemed like a more left-winged attempt at that same kind of divisive politics.  In this case, it’s on an issue that I don’t happen to care about, but still…  The timing was weird, and it seems to have cost the President something in terms of his national polling numbers.  I’m coming around to the idea that Obama made the announcement because he’s lagging in campaign contributions, and the gay community represents a potential contribution windfall, but it’s still such a tough issue nationally that the whole thing is hard to understand. 

I mean, personally, I don’t care.  My state of Connecticut recently legalized gay marriage, and that was fine with me.  Which is to say that it’s a free country, and allowing gays to marry costs nothing, so why would we disallow it?  Against that simple idea is the fact that the current standard, i.e. state by state legislation, seems to be working, so why suddenly make a push for a national policy when there’s no national-level consensus?  Gay rights are evolving, but like it or not, it takes time to change minds.  And bottom line, this is still a majority-rules society. 

I suppose that if you’re gay, and you live in Tennessee, and you want to get married, then that’s a pain in the ass, and that’s unfortunate.  On the other hand, it completely escapes me why anyone who’s gay would want to live in Tennessee, and more to the point, it’s not like the people of Tennessee are rounding up gays and putting them in camps.  You can leave if you want to.  So this issue, like so much in life, is about trade-offs.  You can be gay and live in Tennessee, and you accept whatever level of marital freedom that state provides, or you can move to Connecticut like I did, and yeah, maybe the cost of living is higher, but the upside is that you can work in New York City and be surrounded by people who accept you as you are.  That has certainly worked for me, and I’m not even gay.  If other folks have to also make that choice, I fail to see why it’s my problem.  It is what it is.  We don’t always have to change the world just to suit our personal needs.  Sometimes it’s enough just to go someplace where folks can accept us for who we are.  That’s true even if you’re straight.

* * *

On a perhaps related note, sociologists have known for awhile that teenaged girls from poor families are far and away more likely to get pregnant than are girls from affluent families, and that once those girls from poor families give birth, their chances of breaking the cycle of poverty are almost non-existent.  What they’re discovering through research, however, is that it’s not that teenaged motherhood causes poverty, but rather that poverty causes teenaged motherhood.  They discovered this by comparing the outcomes of sisters from poor families who had and had not given birth during their teenaged years, and what they discovered is that the average differences in eventual socio-economic outcomes are negligible between the teen moms and their non-teen mom sisters, but that the poorer a girl is, the more likely she is to have a baby while she’s still a teenager. 

This is not to say that we should start condoning teenaged pregnancy, or that being a young single mother is somehow not as difficult as we thought it was.  Being a teenaged mom is definitely hard, and indeed, women who were mothers as teenagers are far more likely to be poor for their entire lives than are women as a whole.  However, the research seems to indicate that where these girls started has more to do with where they wind up than the simple fact that they gave birth early on in life.  Which is to say that we ought to consider how we can give these girls a fighting chance early on, and then maybe we’d be in a better place to address chronic, cyclical family poverty beyond simply saying, “Don’t have sex because you might get pregnant.”  I mean, yeah, that’s true and all, but it’s also demonstrably only one part of the story.

* * *
The Giants got their Super Bowl rings this week, and if you’re interested, there are some terrific pictures of the new rings up on Big Blue View.  My favorite thing about the rings is that they not only have all four years that the Giants have won Super Bowls on them but also the years that Big Blue won the NFL championship before the Super Bowl era.  The Giants are actually eight-time World Champions—a thing that I think gets lost in the shuffle when comparing the legacies of the most successful franchises in the League’s history.

If the Jets or Tim Tebow are more your thing, then what you want to hear is this: right now, Jets coaches are complimentary of Tebow and critical of incumbent QB Mark Sanchez.  They’re saying that Sanchez needs to improve his decision making—fair point—but that Tebow’s throwing motion looks “good”—a thing that I think I will believe when I see it.

The Titans, meanwhile, don’t seem to be doing too much.  They acquired a lot of skill players in the draft but no solutions for the interior of the Offensive Line, and that’s despite the fact that their Head Coach is a Hall-of-Fame Guard.  If that’s not ominous enough, the team has also signed only two or three of its draft picks—in contrast to the Giants, who have all of their draft picks signed—and on top of that, the team just got word that star WR Kenny Britt needed another surgery on his knee (surgery was performed yesterday).  Ugh.
                                                                                                                                                                            
In any event, it’s starting to look like it’s gonna be a tough year to be a Titans’s fan.

Finally, there’s some news about the Chargers, and if you’re interested, by all means go check it out.  Personally, I feel so far removed from my halcyon days as a kid watching Dan Fouts and company that it’s hard to feel the same way about the team that I did way back in the day, especially since I find current QB Phillip Rivers to be personally unlikeable.  I want to care, but I just don’t.  Not in that same way, anyway.
* * *

One last note: I’ve got my first—and perhaps only—triathlon of the year this weekend.  It’s the Milford Y-Tri, a short Sprint consisting of a 300-yard pool swim, an 11-mile bike ride, and a 2.5-mile run.  It’s been a fun race in the past, and I’m looking forward to it this year as well, but in a way I’m more looking forward to simply finishing it so that I can go ahead and shift my focus fully to training for the Fairfield Half-Marathon

With that said, I feel like I’ve been swimming pretty well the past week or so, and yesterday morning I made my 4.7-mile Manhattan bike commute in well under 20-minutes—and that’s with one two-minute traffic light stop—so who knows?  Maybe I’ll actually do well.  That would be nice.

And that’s all I’ve got this week.  Have a good weekend.