The Puma Man!

As anybody reading this who actually knows me personally is already aware of, I'm a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Me and my brother used to watch that show every chance we got.

Of all their shows, my absolute favorite was Puma Man. I've tried for years to find it on DVD (or even VHS!) so I could buy it. No matter the price, it was worth it. Unfortunately, it's never been offered for sale.

All Hail the Glorious YouTube! I have discovered the sacred Puma Man!

Here are the first two sections.


I know, you're not impressed yet. Keep watching.



That shit's funny. I don't care who you are.

Ahoy!

Off to Ohio to visit wit my brudda!

I'll blog on Wednesday or Thursday!

Jester

Go ahead, waste your vote!

I mean it, go ahead and waste your vote. Chances are that if you vote, you're about to completely throw it away.

Now, I don't mean this in my usual sense of "do the same thing over and over again and hope for a different result this time," or wondering why you think either major party is going to have candidates that do a bit of what they promise.

No, I mean this in a more pragmatic sense. Most of you live in states that are heavily favored one way or the other. Very few people (comparatively speaking) live in states that are "swing states," or ones where the public is not going to vote for one candidate by wide margins, due to the party bias of the majority there.

What does this mean to you? Say you live in Texas, and the year is 2000. The state is going to vote for George Bush. He will win the state, and therefore win the Electoral College votes for that state. End of story. If you vote for George Bush, you are throwing away your vote (unless you support him so overwhelmingly that you want that margin to be even higher). If you vote for Al Gore, you are throwing away your vote (unless you support him so overwhelmingly you just want that margin to be slimmer). But if you are like the majority of people, voting what you consider "the lesser of two evils" just to avoid the candidate you think is going to ruin the country... You're just throwing your vote away.

However, if you vote for a different party, you are making a protest. You are using your vote to say "I will not play this game so long as it remains rigged." You are saying "I will not support a false dichotomy which gives me no real choice." And if enough people realize this, then two things are likely to happen.

1) A lot more states will become "swing states," with voters actually getting more power
and
2) As third parties get higher percentages of the vote, the two major parties might be forced to actually listen to their constituents, as they realize their monopoly on power is slipping.

Two other possibilities that are less likely, but still entertaining,
1) People wake up to the idiocy unworkable nature of the two-party system, and we get a multi-party system that can actually restrain the rampant acceleration of government power
or
2) The government admits that everything is scripted, and just like professional wrestling, everybody enjoys the show a lot more when nobody is pretending it's real.

Anyway, due to the electoral college, you're most likely going to waste your vote. So think about that, before you try to convince me I'm wasting mine!

Jester

If not now, when?

Many of you are not libertarians.

Many of you are not political.

Many of you don't believe that we're headed for a crisis.

Many of you are going to vote for Obama or McCain, because anything else is a "wasted vote."

Still, watch this video. Even if you don't support Bob Barr, think about what this is really saying.

Have I mentioned Britney's Underwear?

Apparently, I'm not the only person who noticed...

Neil Patrick Harris, you are a god.

I've been told I look like a million different people. Well, not a million. But dozens. I almost never see the resemblance.

However, the two most common I get compared to are Topher Grace and Neil Patrick Harris. I see it a little bit with Topher, but I don't see it at all with Neil. Nevertheless, I hear it a whole lot.

And that really worried me a few years ago when he came out of the closet. Those of you who've known me my adult life know that when I lived in Texas, I was assumed to be gay on a daily basis. I heard a million reasons (from an imaginary lisp to the fact that I didn't drive a truck), but regardless, it was annoying. Actually, it started out puzzling, then became annoying. And finally got to be infuriating. I moved away from Texas, and the assumptions immediately ceased. I moved back, and they began again. Short of getting married, I don't see myself moving back to Texas for that very reason. Plus, it's approximately 14 degrees hotter than hell there.

So when I'm hearing that I resemble a man that actually IS gay, that scared me a bit. All I knew him as was Doogie Howser. And I so do not want to be thought of as a gay Doogie.

But that was before Barney. Damn. Barney kicketh some ass. That was before Harold and Kumar. That was before Old Spice.

Wait, I think we need a visual here...



And just when I thought he couldn't be any cooler... Then came Dr. Horrible.



Yes, ladies and gentleman. This is a bad-ass mother. So, even though I still don't see it, I'm not having any issues with the comparison.

Neil Patrick Harris, you are a god.

A Handout for Statists: by Stefan Molyneux

Note: this is not by me, it's by Stefan Molyneux. But upon reading it, I felt it should be posted as often as possible, as many sites as possible.

A Handout for Statists

"In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, if I don’t like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc.

I thought this might also be of use to you, because life is short.

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong – except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays “protection” money to, can it be really argued that he is making a “free” choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands – but will be forced to marry one of them – can she said to be really “choosing” marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a “social contract,” that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a “social contract.” Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a “contract,” then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it “charity.”

Statist: But I accept the social contract – and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract – and I have never agreed to a “social contract” of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a “social contract” that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood – and say that if people continue to live in “my” neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is “the government” not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others – a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose “the government,” do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point – you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master’s wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No – however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now – you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes – and your taxes are not extracted from you through force – then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I’m a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not – but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it – and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something – and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I’m certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools."

Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog

If like me, you are a fan of all things Joss Whedon, you have to check out his latest effort,

Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog

As with all things Joss, it

a) is unbelievably witty and funny
b) is really freaking hard to describe,
and
c) Has a terrible, terrible name. Joss is the master of all things except for naming his endeavors.

If you want to know the reasons behind it, you can read about it here:

To give you an idea of Joss's writing style, here's an excerpt from his "master plan" letter:

Dear Friends,

At last the time has come to reveal to you our Master Plan. BEWARE! Those with weak hearts should log off lest they be terrified by the twisted genius of our schemes! Also pregnant women and the elderly should consider reading only certain sentences. Do not mix with other blogs. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this blog. You must be this tall to read. ‘Kay?

Damn, but I wish Joss wrote more.

P.S. For those doubting my take on his ability to name things, let's look at his track record:

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - a name that kept uncounted hordes of people away from the series (including me for many years)
"Angel" - which had nothing to do with angels, and was not related in any way to "Touched by an Angel"
"Firefly" - which was neither an Animal Planet special, nor a hippie folk-music group
"Serenity" - which had nothing to do with being serene, but was actually an action/sci-fi movie.
"Dollhouse" - which is not the latest version of "America's Next Top Model"

All of these show names make sense AFTER you watch the shows... But names are supposed to draw people in, and I'm thinking these don't work so much for that.

Well, time for me to get back to working on music. Later!

Okay, I'm a nerd...

As you know, I LOVE the blog "Stuff White People Like."

Interestingly enough, though, according to that blog, I'm not white. I just know a lot of white people. I even took their Facebook test. 0% white.

Of course, the blog isn't about all white people. It's about upper-class white liberals. I'm neither upper-class, nor liberal.

I was going to write a blog about how I'm a white NERD, which is a different matter entirely... As is the beauty of the internet, somebody already came up with this concept.

I give you David Colborne's "Stuff Nerds Like"

#1: Monty Python
#2: Linux
#3: Role Playing (with bonus footage of actual nerds displaying incredible nerdity in the wild!)
#4: Free Stuff
#5: Anime
#6: Sci-Fi

Enjoy!

I feel empowered

I feel empowered to truly hate the term "empowered."

Now, it seems like a great concept. We should empower women. Minorities. The poor. We hear the term over and over again. It is a core concept of virtually every self-help book out there these days.

And they usually start in a solid place; you must first believe in yourself. This is very true. And while it doesn't really hold with most of the groups I've heard, I would say it does apply to most women I know. Most of my female friends don't really believe in themselves, except for short periods of time right after they've read the latest self-help book.

I think this is because these same philosophies that claim to be "empowering" do nothing of the kind. Yes, you do start by believing in yourself, in your ability to become the person you want to be, in your ability to take control of yourself, your circumstances, your life. But that is only the first step, and if not followed by concrete results, it is a meaningless step.

What people have been sold on as "empowerment" is actually a sense of self-entitlement. I am worthy of good things, therefore they should come to me. I am worthy of trust, so it should be given to me. I am worthy of happiness, so it should be mine. I am worthy of respect, so it should be given to me. I am worthy of the same wealth and power as anybody else, so it should be given to me.

Bullshit.

True empowerment comes first from the realization that there are opportunities out there, and secondly from the self-worth that comes from realizing the potential of those opportunities. Yes, you are worthy of good things, so go out there and earn them! You are worthy of trust, so go earn that trust - it takes effort, it takes time, and it takes diligence.

Nobody deserves to have anything GIVEN to them. What you deserve is the opportunity to go EARN it.

Are people given things undeservedly? Of course. That doesn't mean you deserve the same gifts.

This is one of the inherent problems with socialism and communism. It ends up leading to a sense of deserving something for nothing, or for a disproportionate reward system. It kills me when I hear politicians saying that anybody who works 40 hours a week deserves a substantial wage. Really? What if I work 40 hours a week holding a door open? Or putting popcorn in bags? Do I deserve a substantial wage, just like somebody who has spent years learning a craft or trade? Do I deserve a substantial wage, just like somebody who puts sweat and effort and back-breaking labor into what they do? According to the politicians, I do. And that's supposedly "empowering."

What happens is that life smacks you down for believing that shit. So then you feel less confident in yourself than you did before. You start feeling cheated. You start blaming others for your failures. It's the people stabbing you in the back, or the system keeping you down.

Self-entitlement and self-empowerment are mutually exclusive. If you want to be empowered, make a change. Take charge. When you succeed, feel the glow of having done it, instead of just wishing or dreaming. When you fail, take responsibility. Then fix it, and feel the empowerment that comes from getting it right. From succeeding. From doing, not just wishing.

I hear all the time about positive thinking creating an aura of positive energy that does something or other... If you read this regularly, you know I don't really believe in an energy that can't be measured, quantified, or detected. Positive thinking achieves results only when it leads to positive actions! With that said, I'm a huge believer in positive thinking, because that's where actions start. But all the thoughts in the world mean nothing without action.

As my parents' generation used to say "wish in one hand, crap in the other - see which one fills up first."

As I said before, most of the women I know really need to be empowered. They really need to learn how to believe in themselves. But it has to come from doing, it cannot come from a sense of self-entitlement, or it will lead to bitterness and self-defeat. They are being fed a load of bullshit by society, and it makes me sad.

I guess I'm a social retard!

You know, discrimination of all types abound. No doubt about it. Some are obvious; race, gender, class, etc. Some are extreme, others are less so.

One that surprised me, one that I never would've imagined, one that's become more and more apparent to me every day - is the one against homeschooling!

When I was a kid, people used to assume that homeschooled kids were stupid, that they weren't getting as good an education. It was common knowledge that parents could not possibly teach their children as well as trained professionals.

Well, that's been proved so far wrong that almost nobody bothers to assert that anymore. Homeschooled kids so routinely beat public school kids in every conceivable test that most public schools do their best to avoid all academic comparison. By every measure, homeschooling leads to far superior academic prowess.

Does this mean that people admit that homeschooling is better? Hardly. Having lost the battle when it comes to the very purpose of school (academic achievement), the default answer is that homeschooled kids have no social skills. Why? Because they weren't herded together in groups of thirty people of the exact same age, and droned at by underpaid and often underskilled teachers in a highly controlled beaureaucratic environment. This is obviously the best way to teach children the necessary skill for socializing in all other settings, as it so closely resembles... Um... Honestly? Nothing that I'm aware of.

When I was in New Orleans, everybody I knew there believed completely and totally in Astrology. I started asking people to guess my sign, and kept close track of the result (both strangers and people that knew me well). You would think that 1/12th of them would've guessed correctly. Nope - not a single one got it right. However, once I told them my sign, without exception they all said it was obvious, because it fit me so well. (You can guess how well this affirmed my belief in the system... *bullshit!*)

In the same way, I've never in my adult life had anyone guess that I was homeschooled. In fact, the vast majority of people express disbelief when I tell them that. Afterwards, though - they all start searching for any sign of social awkwardness, blunder, or faux pas. And when they see it, they immediately blame it on my homeschooling. It is clear that had I simply gone to public school, I would never make a single mistake. Ever.

I see them doing the exact same thing to other homeschooled people. But when it comes to the social blunders of publicly schooled individuals, all sorts of other reasons are given. "He's just a nerd." "She's immature." "He's kinda a jerk that way."

I've even had people claim they can tell a pattern in the "homeschooled social skills set" that points them out. Needless to say, I've never seen a successful demonstration of this so-called pattern.

You know what? I screw up in public a lot. I make stupid decisions, say things I probably shouldn't, make enemies where I don't mean to. It's not because I'm homeschooled. It's because I'm human. And probably a good bit because I'm a nerd with no interest in fitting in.

I know a lot of people with great social skills that went to public school. I know more that have little to none.

Reality check - very few people learn their social skills in school, whether it be home, public, or private. We learn them from our friends outside of class. We learn them from our parents, from our siblings. We learn them at summer camps, or at jobs. I learned mine first at home, then at church, at karate class, on the shooting range, in Boy Scouts, at the movie theater, out on dates. Did I screw up a lot when I was a teenager? Hell yeah. I'd like to find one person who can honestly say they didn't!

But saying that homeschooled kids can't socialize is the last bastion of hope remaining for those who cling to the public school model. People - wake up and admit the emperor has no clothes.

The public school model is a very recent phenomenon in human history. It's never been tried this way before. It will probably not be tried again for a long, long time. It is a complete and utter failure by every rational standard. Spending more money won't fix it. Hiring more specialists won't fix it. Pretending it's working won't fix it. It was an experiment - and it FAILED. We are close to dead last in every category when compared to any other "modern" nation. And when I talk to foreigners, they usually don't rave about American social skills, either.

So if you want to say that homeschoolers can't socialize, just keep clinging to that belief. The emperor looks mighty fine in that outfit, huh? There are homeschoolers that can't, no doubt about it. Just like there are public school kids that can't, and probably for the exact same reasons.

Homeschooling is not the only option, of course. And public education is quite doable, and a worthy endeavour. But not with the current system.

I leave you with a quote by C. S. Lewis

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Jester

It's been awhile...

It's hard to believe from the paucity of comments, but people do actually read this blog. I know, because I've been facing a lot of grief about not updating.

A lot has been going on that I'd like to talk about soon, from the Supreme Court decision on guns, to boobies, from the upcoming economic apocalypse, to boobies, from Bob Barr and Ron Paul, to boobies...

Now that I think about it, I don't really like talking about boobies. Just looking at them. And playing with them.

Regardless, I've been a bit busy, what with multiple houseguests, a trip to Boston, oh - and my job!

Anyway, I'll be definitely doing a Fourth of July post on Friday. I'm going to try to tone down a little of the focus on politics. It's hard not to obsess on it, when you feel like a roman watching your empire collapse. Still, there's a lot more to talk about than just politics. But the Fourth of July post will be political in nature, for obvious reasons.

Okay, I'll post more later. It's time to eat.

Jess

And now, the end is near...

Ron Paul is out. But to be honest, I'm not disappointed. He did far more than I ever thought he could. Even though he was shut out by MSM in so many ways, he managed to get his message out. And now his book Revolution: A Manifesto is selling out everywhere - not just for the first few days it was published...

I still think it's too late for this country. I still think we're far past the point of no return, and yes, I'm cynical. But the ideas of Liberty and Freedom (true freedom, not what we're offered in this nation) are perhaps gaining traction.

Assuming that all the votes cast for him were counted (and that's not something I would ever take for granted), he got 1.2 million votes. That's 1.2 million people willing to quit following the same path. 1.2 million people willing to try change.

Yes, I know there's another candidate promising change. I do not doubt for a second the sincerity or passion of Obama supporters. In a way, I understand it; his speeches are quite masterful. But a conversation with an Obama fan usually runs like this:

OF: How can you not like Obama? He supports change, and gives us hope!
Me: Awesome! What kind of change?
OF: He'll do things differently!
Me: Yes, that would be the definition of change.
OF: He's accomplished so much, and we can believe in him!
Me: What has he accomplished?
OF: He offers hope! Hope, change, hopechange!

Very few Obama supporters seem to realize that he is a Socialist, pure and simple. His rhetoric is pure socialist, his philosophies are pure socialist, and his voting record (what little there is) is socialist. If you're a socialist, fine. But if not, you really ought to know this. Personally, I don't think I'm entitled to the fruits of anybody else's labors, and I sure as hell don't think they're entitled to mine. But too bad, I live in a socialist country.

And yet, Ron Paul really got a lot of people thinking. His message of true Freedom, of true Liberty - it struck a chord in many, many people who realize that something's not right with what we've been told. People who are starting to see - our government is not what it claims to be.

What's next? I'm not sure where he's headed, other than continuing in Congress. But I am so grateful for what he did. It has given me a little hope for the future, that when this present nation crumbles, we can rebuild something better from the ruins. And the sooner we move from our current direction, the less painful that collapse is going to be.

So I'm throwing all my support behind Bob Barr. He's not perfect, of course. But of the candidates out there, he's the only one I could vote for and not feel guilty for hastening the demise of what's left of the USA. And Ron Paul paved the way for Bob Barr to make a real difference this campaign, something I never thought the Libertarian Party could ever do. Ron Paul pretty much converted Glenn Beck from being an absolute opponent to a fan, and then Glenn Beck gave Bob Barr a full hour on his show! Bob Barr appeared on the Colbert Report. He's been on CNN, and MSNBC.

For the first time in my lifetime, the Libertarian Party is not being summarily dismissed. Ron Paul's campaign was at the least a wake-up call to the PTB that not everybody is happy with a pat on the head and a hand-out as they remove the last vestiges of personal liberty. Bob Barr might actually get a significant percentage of the vote.

As I said before, I think it's too late. But boy, would I LOVE to be proved wrong!

Group Sex

Or maybe just the effect of gender upon groups.

I'm just an observer of human nature, but I think if you want to go out in public as a group, it's best to do it with some mixture of both men and women.

If you get a bunch of men together, not only does their IQ drop, but their maturity level drops further and further, until you end up with a bunch of 5th graders who are legally able to drink. Something's going to wind up broken, the humor is going to be tasteless and tactless, and nobody will want to explain any of the goings-on to the uninitiated.

If you get a bunch of women in a group, however... It's not that their IQ goes down, but they do get more and more bitchy, catty, cheap, and bossy. Ask anybody who relies on tips how they feel when they see a bachelorette party arrive. In my case, I know that at least one girl is going to be pissed that I don't play exclusively her songs (for free) and ignore the rest of the crowd - after all, her friend is getting married! Don't I understand that? Maybe if she just screams a little louder in my ear, I'll get the point.

Men I think understand that we're not fit for public viewing when we're like this. Throughout history, men have endeavoured to create "men only" get-togethers so we can act like idiots and not know about it the next day. Women have always tried to crash these things, somehow thinking they were missing out on something. Well, yes, they were. But if they actually knew how it would be, they'd know they weren't missing out on anything they'd actually WANT to attend!

I think women also have longer memories for embarassment than men. I know if I want a recollection of every social faux pas I've ever made, just ask any girl who was there. There are a few incidents that stand out with the men, of course, but men tend to forget. Women file it away as ammo for the sake of future arguments (and the difference between men and women arguing is DEFINITELY a post for later!).

So men tend to prefer to be alone when they congregate in groups. And it's a very, very good thing.

For whatever reason, though, women seem to prefer to go out in public when they've got a group together. And afterwards, they acknowledge that every girl there was bitchy, and obnoxious... But not herself, no. She was completely justified in belittling the man buying her drinks, right before asking him to buy her another. She was completely justified in not tipping the waiter anything; the service just wasn't as good. But her friends? They were all bitches, and she was embarassed by them.

Mixed groups seem to be the best, if you're going out in public. Yes, that one couple is going to be fighting and snipping to an awkward degree. And yes, one couple is going to be wayyyyy too PDA. But for the most part, it keeps the men from losing all emotional maturity, and the women from displaying the PMS Avenger each of them keeps inside.

Now, don't get me wrong - I usually have a lot of fun when I get together with the guys. I just don't think anybody else needs to be exposed to something that tacky and offensive. Which is pretty much the reason I wear shirts in public, too. And I imagine that women have a lot of fun in groups (though they usually end up bitching to me about it the next day). But I think there should be certain "safe zones" for women to do it. Any viewing of "Sex and the City" qualifies. Any living room where a TV is playing "The View" also works. These are almost guaranteed to be man-free zones (unless a man has been dragged there by a woman insisting he'll love it, and somehow he forgot where he left his testicles and agreed to try it). But out in public? Only if they all sign an agreement saying that they will fully admit to any and all bitchiness perpetrated while under the influence of other women. And apologize to all parties involved. Should there be denial, video evidence can easily be provided these days!

And women - if guys do want to get together with just other guys - don't sweat it, and don't crash it. Some things are just better left unseen, unwitnessed, so you can remain undisgusted. Trust me; we know you won't understand why we'd find _________ fun and/or funny. That's why we want to have just guys there.

The State of the Union... Or at least, Jess

My Fellow Americans:

You suck.

I say this not merely because of your adherence to participating in our two-party masquerade, or even for you willingness to watch Reality TV. No, I say it for a different reason; it's a fun way to start a blog.

Moving on...

I went to Texas for my Birthday. Had an absolutely awesome time. Didn't get to see everyone I wanted to, and those I did see I didn't get to spend enough time with. Still, there was food, and alcohol, and singing, and hugging, and alcohol. Good times.

Every year except last year, I've made two State of the Union addresses, one on my birthday, and one at New Year's. This year, doing one poses a bit of a challenge.

I didn't turn an exceptional number this year. I didn't move. I didn't embark upon a new career. I'm not in a relationship (no surprise there, right?). So what was this year about?

I'm old. I really am. I think of myself as a young man, just now finding his way in life. I feel barely into adulthood. But I'm in my thirties now. When I was a kid, that was old. When I was a teenager, that was old. When I was in my twenties, that was old. I find myself believing that age is only a state of mind. Really, who thinks that when they're not old? (Other than chicks who want to date old guys - which, for the record, I approve of, now that I'm old!)

But this has been an extraordinarily good year. Nothing momentous happened, either good or bad. And that has allowed me to accomplish more in terms of small steps in the right direction. A few small examples:

1) I've been going to the gym almost daily for over a year. I am now the biggest and most muscular I've ever been - which means that I could easily win a fight with a small child. Well, if it's a girl. And I have the element of surprise. Still, more manly than ever before!

2) I've been paying off my college debts. My original plan was to pay those off within the first two years of graduating. Well, eight years later, I'm now planning on paying them off within the first thirty years of graduating. Financial responsibility - that's what I'm all about!

3) I've gone back to work on my long, long delayed studio CDs. After the fiasco that was "Right Out of the Blue," I went back to work on a Rock and a Country CD. Then I moved to New Orleans. Then I moved to Las Vegas. Then I moved to Houston. Then I lived in a van, down by the river. But now I've gone back to working on them. In fact, I really should be working on them right now, instead of blogging. Crap.

But really, what was this year about?

I visited my grandmother's grave while I was in Texas. I didn't go there to communicate with her; I'm not really sure I believe in the concept of a "soul," but if there is one, it's sure not in the ground. But I did want a moment to remember her - she was one of my biggest supporters when it came to my decision to be a musician. She was so proud of every step I took. In a way, I was almost glad she didn't see when I was floundering, trying to find my way. But I do wish she could see me now.

I know who I am now, more than I ever have. I know what I want to do, and I'm doing it. I know who I want to be, and I'm working on being that person. I guess maybe in that way I am old, because I'm not searching for who to be, what to do, how to do it... I know now. And I'm heading there.

Will there be setbacks? I'm sure. Will there be surprises? I hope so. Will life be at all like I expect? Highly doubtful. Will I make mistakes, both small and gargantuan? Of course. But I know that I'm heading in the right direction.

What was this year about? Being happy. I'm not content, and hope to never be. But I am happy.

Back in Texas...

And it's HOT!

I'd forgotten about this. My mind hadn't forgotten, but the rest of me had. In NC, I never sweat. When everybody else is just drenched, I haven't perspired a drop, and I'd just begun to think of myself as a guy who doesn't sweat much.

Bull-freakin'-shit. My body just doesn't sweat until it gets REAL heat!

Another great thing about Texas - jalapenos. I had sushi yesterday. Guess what? Three different sushi rolls had jalapenos in them!

Only in Texas.

Today I'm hanging with my friend Katie. Life is good. There should be food and alcohol and perhaps a bit of commiserating about messed up relationships. That's what friends are for.

Talk to you all later!

Jess

I miss the wonder of it all...

I grew up in the fading light cast by the glory of the moon landings.

I grew up hearing about the astronauts landing on the moon. Walking, actually walking on an alien surface!

I grew up reading Heinlein's "Rocket Ship Galileo," Arthur C. Clarke's "Space Odyssey" and Asimov's "Foundation" series. I grew up with Star Trek and Star Wars, and I knew that as physics-defying nonsense-filled as they were, it was a tale of exploration - and we were explorers, and we were out there exploring!

And then I grew up.

It is the nature of Man that, in every society, you expand and progress, or you stagnate and decay.

We haven't landed on the moon in over 35 years. We've sent robots places, but Mankind has been stuck in low earth orbit ever since 1972. We beat the Russians, and lost interest. The "giant leap for mankind" never resulted in us learning to run; we sat back down and never tried even walking again. Instead of advancing - we stagnated. We decayed.

A few years ago, Bush instituted a new vision in NASA intended to put men on the Moon, and on Mars. It was a grand plan, a wondrous idea, a beautiful and majestic vision. Only problem; this vision didn't come with any money. And how could it? We've bankrupted ourselves with our pyramid schemes of entitlements, with our congressional-military-industrial complex, with our sheer greed. But Dr. Mike Griffin, the head of NASA, did his best to plan this vision anyway, and expand NASA's role in the future of real space exploration.

Then came 2008. All three major presidential candidates have signed on to the idea of reducing NASA, instead of expanding it. Once the Space Shuttle retires, we won't even have a way to send anybody into low earth orbit until 2014 at the earliest, which is more likely to be 2016, or later. The reaction to this in congress is shock, horror, demands that NASA do something about it... And decreased funding.

Now, the libertarian in me doesn't believe that NASA is any more deserving of funding than welfare. You can certainly make a point with that. And it certainly hasn't done that much grand and inspiring work in decades. But if you're going to cut things, I'd put that last on the list. First get rid of the Department of Education, which has done more damage to the very concept of learning than any one entity should! First get rid of the institutionalized health care mandates, and welfare, and overseas empire... Yeah, NASA would be one of the last things I'd cut. Still, I can understand why a true libertarian would want to. But as we watch the Chinese and Russians and Japanese and the EU ramp up their space programs, aiming for the Moon, aiming for Mars...

I miss the wonder. I miss feeling like we, as Americans, were headed there in the pioneer tradition that built this nation. I miss feeling like we were headed towards a brighter future in space.

I hope that this changes. I hope we retake the lead in true space exploration. It is truly the future. If we don't, we honestly have as good as forfeited our place in that future, because it will happen, whether we're a part of it or not. Maybe we'll do it through private enterprise, doing it despite the government instead of through them. Maybe not. I just don't know. But for now, I'm going to crack open a classic 50s SciFi book and read about how American Ingenuity will put colonies in space (most likely with giant computers and atomic power!)...

And I'm going to recapture a little of that wonder.

No, it doesn't.

I've just been having an online chat with an Army guy who keeps saying that the fact that we're arguing means we're free.

I've heard this argument before, usually from military guys (perhaps there's no correlation there), that because we're free to express our opinions, that's proof we're free, living in the freest country one earth, filled with freedom-loving patriots.

Okay. Can't you express your complaints in prison, too? Doesn't mean you're free.

The government owns your land. If you don't believe this, try not paying them your rent... I mean, taxes.

The government owns your personal life. If you don't believe this, try having any illegal drugs in your house when the government decides to search it (for which they no longer need a warrant, if they're smart enough to do it right).

The government owns your children. If you don't believe this, ask the FLDS members in Texas.

The government owns your communications. If you don't believe this, just ask Bush, or his flavor of the week attorney general.

The government owns your work. If you don't believe this, try not paying your income tax.

What do you own? The right to complain.

I'm feeling rather free right now. How about you?

My Favorite Font...

It's no secret to anybody that knows me that my favorite font is Times New Roman. Elegant, easy to read, compact... It's like a classy lady that manages to be hot at the same time.

Arial is usually the default font on most programs I've encountered. I've never liked Arial. Sprawling, crude, ungainly. I've never understood why people use it voluntarily. It's like dating the ugly girl when the cute one is right there beside her... *sigh*

Alas, I noticed that it's freakin' hard to read on this blog when I use Times New Roman. For whatever reason, it just doesn't show too well. And guess what font does? Arial.

AAAAAHHHHH!!!! THE INHUMANITY!!!!!!

Bonus points if you know where that quote is actually from!

While I'm rambling, let me throw out a tip for anybody coming to a dueling pianos show. If you ask us to do a song, and we tell you we don't know it, we DON'T KNOW IT.

1) Insisting that we DO know it, that we HAVE to know it, that EVERYBODY knows it will not make us change our mind and say "Oh, well now that you mention it, I really DO know it! Glad you persisted."

2) Yelling out the name of the song at every (relatively) quiet moment will also not annoy us into magically producing the song right out of our collective asses.

3) Telling us how important it is that you hear it does not enable us to magically download it into the iPod we had surgically implanted in our brains.

4) Offering to sing it to us really doesn't help, either. First of all, we usually don't let people sing onstage anyway, as we are not karaoke. Second of all, alcohol makes you sing in a monotone. Really, it does. Tape yourself if you don't believe me. Third, even if you sing it, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE SONG.

Okay, I realize that absolutely nobody will be prevented from this behavior by my blog. But damn, it felt good to say!

Jester

To all you Patriots; DON'T VOTE!

Okay, my headline is perhaps a bit misleading. Voting is important, and a great deal of what should be deciding the direction of this country. But here's my issue; most people believe it their patriotic duty to vote, regardless of their knowledge of politics, of history, of economics, even of what issues are at stake.

I've said it before, but let me say it again. Voting does NOT equal freedom. The right to vote does NOT mean you live in a free country. In most dictatorships, the citizens are given the right to vote; the ruling party merely decides ahead of time who you will be allowed to vote for. Anyone with a touch of cynicism will have a hard time finding that different from our current system. Anyone without a touch of cynicism is either inhaling some really exotic drugs, or not yet old enough to write their name in cursive letters.

The right to vote does NOT in any shape, form, or fashion mean that you are free. Contrary to what you have been told (or are likely to tell me), in the history of this country, very few people died to give you the right to vote. Many thousands died to give you freedom, a freedom most people are actively throwing away with every ballot cast. You CAN vote for freedom. But most people do not. Most don't even know how. (I'll give you a hint - it's not by voting for the candidate who promises you the most free stuff, or even for this guy, though at least he's honest)

Most people have a decided lack of interest in politics. I more than understand this; I sympathize, perhaps even admire this. I can't break away, myself. But at times, I sure wish I could. But yet these same people believe they have a patriotic obligation to vote. In essence, they are actively participating in a system they neither understand nor wish to be engaged in.

Voting is not an inalienable right, nor was it ever intended to be. But we have pushed ever harder for universal suffrage as a means to promote... Something or other. Fairness, I guess. But competence is more fundamental to true progress than this false sense of equality. You wouldn't say the best way to solve the medical crisis would be to declare everybody a doctor, would you? Admittedly, it would make prescriptions really fun. In medicine, you want a certain level of competence. And yet, isn't deciding the fate of a country as important as being a doctor?

Most people base their vote on feelings, party lines, and the oratory of the candidates. This is about as effective as betting on BasketBall Teams based on who has the best smiles in the starting line-up.

I think rather than making it easier to vote, we ought to make it much, much harder. Yes, this would mean far fewer votes would be cast. But it would also mean only the competent people who actually care would be making these decisions. Open to anyone, but you have to pass the following tests:

1. Speak English - I hate the English language, but it is the primary language of this country, and should remain so. If you can't read it, learn to.
2. Know basic economic principles - if you've never studied Austrian Economics, you might be suckered in by the governmental sleight-of-hand approach increasingly used for the last seventy years or so. And chances are you were taught the Keynesian Bullshit in college.
3. Know the voting record of every candidate you vote for. Don't know what Barack Obama voted for? (hint - he voted to fund the Iraq war every time it came up) That should be a problem. If the candidate is an incumbent, it should have say, 10 major votes that he/she cast in the last term. If you get 8 of 10 right, your vote for him/her counts. Otherwise, you're effectively voting in the best haircut, which is not really the best method. Well, not always.
4. Have read the Constitution. If you don't know what's in it, and what is most certainly not, then you have no real basis for knowing whether the president is doing his job (he's not), or whether congress is doing their jobs (they're not), or whether the government has grown beyond its intended scope (think Rosie O'Donnell in a size 2 dress).
5. Know some basic history. If you don't know shit about the Roman Empire (watching "Gladiator" doesn't count!), if you can't name any founding fathers not appearing on our currency, if you don't know why we fought the civil war (not about slavery), why we got into WWI and WWII, why Korea and Vietnam and Iraq I and II were unconstitutional, if you don't know what the Federal Reserve is or does... You really should be looking these things up before you vote.

Is this really too much to ask? I know, most of you will say it is. Relax. I'm not in charge. And if I were, I would totally go with a dictatorship anyway. Rather than appeal to intelligence, decency, and freedom, I'd probably have a different platform, largely based on eliminating Reality TV.