Saturday, July 30, 2005
Bulwer-Lytton
They're up! The 2005 Bulwer-Lytton contest results are up! O sweet purposefully awful prose...
Friday, July 29, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tracable documents
You know, I always wondered whether they did this...I guess now I have my answer.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Another plug for universal health care
Inspired by this Krugman piece.
It is quite simply retarded that we don't have universal healthcare. And when I say retarded, I don't mean retarded in an abstract liberal sense of justice sense of the word, though certainly that applies. I mean retarded in the very practical and economic sense of the word. First, a little background:
In the beginning, America had an awesome health care system. Doctors were well paid and respected, and American hospitals were the best in the world. Unfortunately, due to increases in the sophistication of treatments (and therefore cost) as well as an ever-aging population (proportionally), health care costs started to climb. Enter the HMOs. The HMOs were created by fucktard MBAs who saw an opportunity to make a buck. They said to the world, "Hey! You know what? The reason your health care costs so much is those greedy doctors are purposefully overcharging you, are needlessly administering unnecessary procedures, and are generally responsible for all that is wrong with health care! If you give us your money, we'll make sure you pay less for your health care, and we'll deal with those mean old doctors by strictly regulating what they can and can't do to treat you, and thereby we'll trim all the fat off of the health care system and everyone will live happily ever after!"
So we did. Except the problem was that the premise is and was totally and utterly false. The problem was never the doctors, and even if it had been, it turned out that the administrative overhead of figuring out what kind of treatment was covered for each and every patient and negotiating with doctors about it and so on and so on and so on created such a massive beaurocracy that any savings that might have existed were utterly overshadowed. To give you some perspective, in the current American health insurance world, about 30% of every health care dollar goes to administration. Also remember these are businesses, so they want about 25% of every dollar to be profit. So you're left with less than half of every dollar actually going towards your care. In comparison, places like France and Canada spend only about 10% on administration, and the rest goes to care. Don't we have an awesome system?
Enter universal health care. Why is this a good idea? First of all, we live in a society where you get treated even if you can't pay for it. So despite healthcare becoming too expensive for a lot of people, those people still get sick, they still go to the hospital at the last possible moment, and they still get treatment. Which you pay for. And, in fact, if they had gotten proper preventative treatment, they might not have needed that expensive ER visit which, again, you paid for. So there's one win for universal healthcare: supplanting last-minute drastic treatment for cheaper preventative treatment.
But more important than that is cutting out all the goddamn administrative overhead. Since each HMO has to maintain its own administrative army to handle the load, there's a huge amount of duplicated administrative effort. If you consolidate everything into one entity, you cut out the duplication, which is a huge savings. You also save by allowing an entity like the state of California to negotiate drug prices en masse for reasons similar to how your employer can get lower health insurance rates than you can as an individual. And finally, you can trade in the profit margin for, at worst, some governmental inefficiency. So you save money. Do you hear me people? YOU SAVE MONEY. AND YOUR EMPLOYER SAVES MONEY. WHICH HELPS THE ECONOMY GROW. YOU GODDAMN FUCKING IDIOTS.
Opponents will tell you one or both of two things: a) that you're increasing the size of government and that government is inherently evil and does nothing good for anybody, and b) that the system will drastically increase taxes. With regard to a), you only believe that if you're stupid and listen to Republican rhetoric. Certain things work better when the government runs them or at least regulates them. Certain things don't. Sometimes you can get a better result if you hand the problem to the markets and let the equilibrium fall where it may. Other times you can't. The current fucked up system is what we got when we let the markets play their little game. That experiment ostensibly failed, among other reasons because at core we aren't a completely morally corrupt people and place all kinds of restrictions on the nature of health care that have weird (and usually negative) effects in the free market (as in the last-ditch ER visits mentioned above). Let's talk about better solutions now, m'kay?
With regard to b), the argument is specious. Technically, yes, taxes would increase. But the overall cost would actually decrease. Why? Because you're already paying for health care in a different form. Right now your employer pays a premium directly to (likely) an HMO on your behalf. Economics will tell you that, on par, you basically split that cost with your employer. All we're talking about here is shifting that premium to a tax that would go to the state. And, per the reasons mentioned above, making that shift in the system would actually save everyone a fuckload of money.
How much? Roughtly $8 billion for the state of California alone.
So why don't we have centralized healthcare? Two basic reasons:
So write your representatives. Or, you know, don't, because money talks in Washington and you don't have any. So be like me and be silently pissed off at the utter stupidity and gullibility of the human race.
It is quite simply retarded that we don't have universal healthcare. And when I say retarded, I don't mean retarded in an abstract liberal sense of justice sense of the word, though certainly that applies. I mean retarded in the very practical and economic sense of the word. First, a little background:
In the beginning, America had an awesome health care system. Doctors were well paid and respected, and American hospitals were the best in the world. Unfortunately, due to increases in the sophistication of treatments (and therefore cost) as well as an ever-aging population (proportionally), health care costs started to climb. Enter the HMOs. The HMOs were created by fucktard MBAs who saw an opportunity to make a buck. They said to the world, "Hey! You know what? The reason your health care costs so much is those greedy doctors are purposefully overcharging you, are needlessly administering unnecessary procedures, and are generally responsible for all that is wrong with health care! If you give us your money, we'll make sure you pay less for your health care, and we'll deal with those mean old doctors by strictly regulating what they can and can't do to treat you, and thereby we'll trim all the fat off of the health care system and everyone will live happily ever after!"
So we did. Except the problem was that the premise is and was totally and utterly false. The problem was never the doctors, and even if it had been, it turned out that the administrative overhead of figuring out what kind of treatment was covered for each and every patient and negotiating with doctors about it and so on and so on and so on created such a massive beaurocracy that any savings that might have existed were utterly overshadowed. To give you some perspective, in the current American health insurance world, about 30% of every health care dollar goes to administration. Also remember these are businesses, so they want about 25% of every dollar to be profit. So you're left with less than half of every dollar actually going towards your care. In comparison, places like France and Canada spend only about 10% on administration, and the rest goes to care. Don't we have an awesome system?
Enter universal health care. Why is this a good idea? First of all, we live in a society where you get treated even if you can't pay for it. So despite healthcare becoming too expensive for a lot of people, those people still get sick, they still go to the hospital at the last possible moment, and they still get treatment. Which you pay for. And, in fact, if they had gotten proper preventative treatment, they might not have needed that expensive ER visit which, again, you paid for. So there's one win for universal healthcare: supplanting last-minute drastic treatment for cheaper preventative treatment.
But more important than that is cutting out all the goddamn administrative overhead. Since each HMO has to maintain its own administrative army to handle the load, there's a huge amount of duplicated administrative effort. If you consolidate everything into one entity, you cut out the duplication, which is a huge savings. You also save by allowing an entity like the state of California to negotiate drug prices en masse for reasons similar to how your employer can get lower health insurance rates than you can as an individual. And finally, you can trade in the profit margin for, at worst, some governmental inefficiency. So you save money. Do you hear me people? YOU SAVE MONEY. AND YOUR EMPLOYER SAVES MONEY. WHICH HELPS THE ECONOMY GROW. YOU GODDAMN FUCKING IDIOTS.
Opponents will tell you one or both of two things: a) that you're increasing the size of government and that government is inherently evil and does nothing good for anybody, and b) that the system will drastically increase taxes. With regard to a), you only believe that if you're stupid and listen to Republican rhetoric. Certain things work better when the government runs them or at least regulates them. Certain things don't. Sometimes you can get a better result if you hand the problem to the markets and let the equilibrium fall where it may. Other times you can't. The current fucked up system is what we got when we let the markets play their little game. That experiment ostensibly failed, among other reasons because at core we aren't a completely morally corrupt people and place all kinds of restrictions on the nature of health care that have weird (and usually negative) effects in the free market (as in the last-ditch ER visits mentioned above). Let's talk about better solutions now, m'kay?
With regard to b), the argument is specious. Technically, yes, taxes would increase. But the overall cost would actually decrease. Why? Because you're already paying for health care in a different form. Right now your employer pays a premium directly to (likely) an HMO on your behalf. Economics will tell you that, on par, you basically split that cost with your employer. All we're talking about here is shifting that premium to a tax that would go to the state. And, per the reasons mentioned above, making that shift in the system would actually save everyone a fuckload of money.
How much? Roughtly $8 billion for the state of California alone.
So why don't we have centralized healthcare? Two basic reasons:
- Republicans have convinced everyone that any government program is a priori a bad idea, and
- The HMOs have so much money that they are a significant force in governmental lobbying, and damn wouldn't you know it? They were the 9th highest donors in the 2004 election cycle and gave 68% of their money to Republicans. Funny that Republicans think HMOs are just fine, huh?
So write your representatives. Or, you know, don't, because money talks in Washington and you don't have any. So be like me and be silently pissed off at the utter stupidity and gullibility of the human race.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The true cost of software
This is what I hate about free software apologists.
First, let's assume that the analysis is correct and that most of the value of software is in the creation of derivative revenue sources (e.g., support, maintenance, etc.) and that the intrinsic value of the software itself is relatively minimal. Fine. Great. Wonderful. All software is free (as in beer) and the software world makes money off support and service. But wait...what do the financial incentives in that system suggest for software makers? That's right, boys and girls: in that system it makes the most sense for the producers to make the absolute shittiest software they can get away with and then make a mint on the "support." And when I say shitty, I explicitly mean _shitty_. I _don't_ just mean mostly cheaply made, though usually cheaply made does imply shitty. In this case, the economic model in fact _demands_ shitty software even if it costs _more_ to make shitty software than it does good software, because if the software isn't shitty then there's really no room to make money off the support and maintenance. It also suggests that consumers won't mind that the software is shitty so long as the support is _fantastic_. The software itself isn't worth anything but the support is, remember? So why would you care if the software is crap so long as the support is stellar? Doesn't this sound like a fantastic business model?
Now, to the Linux community's credit, they do indeed seem to be following exactly this model. Why do you think IBM is so in love with Linux? They take an OS/platform that is basically an inscrutable, inconsistent, unmanagable piece of shit (note that I'm not saying Windows isn't also an inscrutable, inconsistent, unmanagable piece of shit), and they make money off of trying to fix it to do something useful.
But secondly, I don't think I buy the model to begin with. Nobody seems to take the open source contributors' time and energy into these financial calculations, and this is a huge part of the analysis. For the most part, nobody is paying these people. Sure, some of them do in fact collect salaries specifically for the open source work they do, but a lot of these guys are contributing in their free time. Or they made their dot-com millions and just do this to amuse themselves and not to support themselves. And indeed, that's the crux of this: for the rest of us, it's _free_ time. Nobody's paying them for it. They do it because they like fucking around with software. Which is great and all, except, guess what: that's not capitalism. People doing pro bono work generally does not fit into the capitalist model except insofar as other people take advantage of the fact they are providing something for nothing. Like, say, IBM. For us software developers, that's not an economic model, folks. People doing what I do for free has the net effect of lowering my salary, which frankly pisses me off. Imagine trying to bid for a contract in your job and having some shmuck come in and say, "Hey, you know what? I'll do that for free!" Would you admire his selflessness? No. You'd be fucking pissed off since you lost that contract. This is the part of the free software movement that pisses me off.
So what do I think should happen? Well, I don't know, to be frank. Because of the way source code and compilers and business models work right now, there's no way to decouple being able to look at source code from being able to build the software and run it. Being able to see the source for something you use and/or build off of is a good thing. It makes for more stable and transparent systems, which is good for producers of software and consumers of software alike. Hiding your source in that sense is a terrible and short-sighted idea. Closed-source companies always claim that if they have to reveal their source then competitors will easily be able to steal their ideas. The truth, however, is that trying to actually figure out someone else's source and then adapt it to your project is non-trivial, and moreover one would hope that you would have patent protection on any substantial idea in one of your products independent of its particular implementation. Patent protection as a general concept is a good thing, though certainly the current IP system is utterly fucked and needs to be rethought in the context of modern software.
But anyway, I still think you should need to pay to run a piece of software. You can look at the code all you like...that will foster an open research environment, allow others to build off the ideas in your work, etc. But building software is a complex enterprise, and there should be an economic model behind it that directly encourages good, working software and not derivative support contracts that encourage the production of crap. And again, you Linux morons, I'm not pointing to Microsoft as a model...Microsoft should not be the poster-child of proprietary software because a) they are annoyingly secretive about their source, and b) their revenue comes from a monopoly and not from market forces producing good software. In the U.S., we have never had a regulatory and intellectual property environment that actually fosters competition in the software world. It has yet to happen. And I think it would at the very least be an interesting experiment. But it never will until all the free software fucktards like Stallman stop demanding that all software should be given away like party favors thus fostering an entrenched support industry that will make damn sure computer systems are never manageable and reliable enough that they actually work out of the box and instead start demanding an even playing field.
If everyone would just listen to me, the world would be a better place. Because I'm always right.
First, let's assume that the analysis is correct and that most of the value of software is in the creation of derivative revenue sources (e.g., support, maintenance, etc.) and that the intrinsic value of the software itself is relatively minimal. Fine. Great. Wonderful. All software is free (as in beer) and the software world makes money off support and service. But wait...what do the financial incentives in that system suggest for software makers? That's right, boys and girls: in that system it makes the most sense for the producers to make the absolute shittiest software they can get away with and then make a mint on the "support." And when I say shitty, I explicitly mean _shitty_. I _don't_ just mean mostly cheaply made, though usually cheaply made does imply shitty. In this case, the economic model in fact _demands_ shitty software even if it costs _more_ to make shitty software than it does good software, because if the software isn't shitty then there's really no room to make money off the support and maintenance. It also suggests that consumers won't mind that the software is shitty so long as the support is _fantastic_. The software itself isn't worth anything but the support is, remember? So why would you care if the software is crap so long as the support is stellar? Doesn't this sound like a fantastic business model?
Now, to the Linux community's credit, they do indeed seem to be following exactly this model. Why do you think IBM is so in love with Linux? They take an OS/platform that is basically an inscrutable, inconsistent, unmanagable piece of shit (note that I'm not saying Windows isn't also an inscrutable, inconsistent, unmanagable piece of shit), and they make money off of trying to fix it to do something useful.
But secondly, I don't think I buy the model to begin with. Nobody seems to take the open source contributors' time and energy into these financial calculations, and this is a huge part of the analysis. For the most part, nobody is paying these people. Sure, some of them do in fact collect salaries specifically for the open source work they do, but a lot of these guys are contributing in their free time. Or they made their dot-com millions and just do this to amuse themselves and not to support themselves. And indeed, that's the crux of this: for the rest of us, it's _free_ time. Nobody's paying them for it. They do it because they like fucking around with software. Which is great and all, except, guess what: that's not capitalism. People doing pro bono work generally does not fit into the capitalist model except insofar as other people take advantage of the fact they are providing something for nothing. Like, say, IBM. For us software developers, that's not an economic model, folks. People doing what I do for free has the net effect of lowering my salary, which frankly pisses me off. Imagine trying to bid for a contract in your job and having some shmuck come in and say, "Hey, you know what? I'll do that for free!" Would you admire his selflessness? No. You'd be fucking pissed off since you lost that contract. This is the part of the free software movement that pisses me off.
So what do I think should happen? Well, I don't know, to be frank. Because of the way source code and compilers and business models work right now, there's no way to decouple being able to look at source code from being able to build the software and run it. Being able to see the source for something you use and/or build off of is a good thing. It makes for more stable and transparent systems, which is good for producers of software and consumers of software alike. Hiding your source in that sense is a terrible and short-sighted idea. Closed-source companies always claim that if they have to reveal their source then competitors will easily be able to steal their ideas. The truth, however, is that trying to actually figure out someone else's source and then adapt it to your project is non-trivial, and moreover one would hope that you would have patent protection on any substantial idea in one of your products independent of its particular implementation. Patent protection as a general concept is a good thing, though certainly the current IP system is utterly fucked and needs to be rethought in the context of modern software.
But anyway, I still think you should need to pay to run a piece of software. You can look at the code all you like...that will foster an open research environment, allow others to build off the ideas in your work, etc. But building software is a complex enterprise, and there should be an economic model behind it that directly encourages good, working software and not derivative support contracts that encourage the production of crap. And again, you Linux morons, I'm not pointing to Microsoft as a model...Microsoft should not be the poster-child of proprietary software because a) they are annoyingly secretive about their source, and b) their revenue comes from a monopoly and not from market forces producing good software. In the U.S., we have never had a regulatory and intellectual property environment that actually fosters competition in the software world. It has yet to happen. And I think it would at the very least be an interesting experiment. But it never will until all the free software fucktards like Stallman stop demanding that all software should be given away like party favors thus fostering an entrenched support industry that will make damn sure computer systems are never manageable and reliable enough that they actually work out of the box and instead start demanding an even playing field.
If everyone would just listen to me, the world would be a better place. Because I'm always right.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
On Carlinism
You'll forgive me...it's 1:30 am, and I'm in a melancholy mood...
I was discussing with a friend recently our relative views on, well, everything. Seeing as how she was talking to me, you can rightly assume that she shares at least some of my dark, jaded outlook on life. But she hasn't give up entirely on humanity. And I realized that I totally have.
It was kind of shocking to me, actually. It seems somehow anathema to liberalism to be fatalistic about the prospects for our species. And yet, I am also an empiricist, and the empirical evidence points inevitably to the fact we are, as a species, selfish and self-destructive. Maybe that's actually the core of liberalism anyway...the fundamental recognition that people are self-interested fucktards, and that that is, you know, bad. Conservatives either fail to recognize the dark nature of humanity (inexcusably idealistic naivete) or recognize it but just don't give a shit (understandable narcissistic apathy).
Anyway, back my main point. Think about it. Sure, you have friends you believe are good people and are trying to make the world a better place. But consider humanity as a whole. Look at history. The things we believe to have positive developments in human society were inevitably paid for with the blood and suffering of countless generations. People are entirely reactive. Nothing ever changes unless a critical mass of people are miserable.
Take a moment and wrap your brain around the implications of that simple fact. We are totally incapable of proactively working for the good of humanity. Self-governance, social welfare...none of them came about because it seemed like a good idea to the ruling class. It came about because enough people were being dicked over that they went and killed the fuckers collecting their taxes and tithes. And for a moment, things were good. But soon the revolutionaries (or more likely, their children) became decadent and apathetic. They stopped giving a shit about the people who had less than they did because they had what they wanted. And voila, you have a brand new ruling class. Repeat.
Every human society in history has followed this pattern. At least the ones who had enough resources and became efficient enough to allow for division of labor, an economy, and free time. Every goddamn one. Roman empire. Charlemagne. Byzantine empire. Kingdoms of the middle east. England. Spain. France. Portugal. And now, United States. And just look at the state of national politics to see that we've forgotten the dangers of an entrenched aristocracy and of an insurmountable class divide. This country has taught me that the only thing democracy buys you is a cheering section behind the tyrant.
It's fucking depressing. Every time I read about world events I get this profound sense of disappointment and infuration at humanity. And this, I think, is the fundamental aspect of Carlinism.
"What may sound like anger to some is really nothing more than sympathetic contempt. I view my species with a combination of wonder and pity, and I root for its destruction." -- George Carlin, Brain Droppings
It's just so frustrating. It wouldn't be hard. We could do it. But we don't want to. We prefer to hoard, to demean, and to follow. We are fucktards. Absolute quintessential fucktards.
"...It's not so much individuals, it's about my contempt for the way [people] organize themselves and handle themselves. The contempt is because this species, including the American variety, had a great deal of potential. An incredible higher brain, able to do all these conceptual things beyond just food, eat, shit, fuck. I think that gift from nature has been completely wasted, and the pursuit of power, money, position and objects and possessions…all those things have pushed off the radar the more intelligent aspect of humans." -- George Carlin
I get pissed at people like Karl Rove, Bush, every retard in the Religious Right from Frist to Dobson to Falwell, all the sleazes in corporate America like the Ken Lays of the world, but you know, this last election taught me that it's all the other normal people that enable them to exist. To paraphrase Newton, if the world is ruled by assholes, it is because they stand on the shoulders of giant idiots. All those rat bastards are powerless without the throngs of braindead zombies that support them. All the money people voluntarily give up, money they could use to actually better their community, contribute to the knowledge of the universe, to warm somebody who's cold or feed someone who's hungry, and they fucking give it to Focus on the Family. No one holds a gun to their head. Nothing would happen to them if they didn't make the donation. But they do.
We thought that if we could get rid of the unelected monarchs and make the church more accountable to its congregation, if we could just give the downtrodden a voice, then we could fix it. We could make it better. We thought it was the upper eschelon standing in the way of our inevitable journey to Avalon. But look at what we've done with the world. We blithely poison ourselves and voluntarily give power to the unscrupulous and malevolent. And we fucking deserve the results.
So you know what? I'm just not going to feel guilty any more. I don't care. I'm going to enjoy the ride. I'm not going to feel guilty about not giving money to Second Harvest, not donating blood, not volunteering, none of it. It's a drop in the ocean of ignorance and apathy. Even if we were to make the world a better place, we are too shortsighted and petty not to fuck it all up again anyway. I have one shot at life, and every moment I waste worrying about a scourge of wasted intelligence that has done nothing to justify its viral existence is a tick off my internal clock. Fuck that. There are games to play, Go-Karts to ride, cotton candy to eat, and orgasms to have.
Call me when the world ends. With any luck I'll be laughing too hard to notice.
I was discussing with a friend recently our relative views on, well, everything. Seeing as how she was talking to me, you can rightly assume that she shares at least some of my dark, jaded outlook on life. But she hasn't give up entirely on humanity. And I realized that I totally have.
It was kind of shocking to me, actually. It seems somehow anathema to liberalism to be fatalistic about the prospects for our species. And yet, I am also an empiricist, and the empirical evidence points inevitably to the fact we are, as a species, selfish and self-destructive. Maybe that's actually the core of liberalism anyway...the fundamental recognition that people are self-interested fucktards, and that that is, you know, bad. Conservatives either fail to recognize the dark nature of humanity (inexcusably idealistic naivete) or recognize it but just don't give a shit (understandable narcissistic apathy).
Anyway, back my main point. Think about it. Sure, you have friends you believe are good people and are trying to make the world a better place. But consider humanity as a whole. Look at history. The things we believe to have positive developments in human society were inevitably paid for with the blood and suffering of countless generations. People are entirely reactive. Nothing ever changes unless a critical mass of people are miserable.
Take a moment and wrap your brain around the implications of that simple fact. We are totally incapable of proactively working for the good of humanity. Self-governance, social welfare...none of them came about because it seemed like a good idea to the ruling class. It came about because enough people were being dicked over that they went and killed the fuckers collecting their taxes and tithes. And for a moment, things were good. But soon the revolutionaries (or more likely, their children) became decadent and apathetic. They stopped giving a shit about the people who had less than they did because they had what they wanted. And voila, you have a brand new ruling class. Repeat.
Every human society in history has followed this pattern. At least the ones who had enough resources and became efficient enough to allow for division of labor, an economy, and free time. Every goddamn one. Roman empire. Charlemagne. Byzantine empire. Kingdoms of the middle east. England. Spain. France. Portugal. And now, United States. And just look at the state of national politics to see that we've forgotten the dangers of an entrenched aristocracy and of an insurmountable class divide. This country has taught me that the only thing democracy buys you is a cheering section behind the tyrant.
It's fucking depressing. Every time I read about world events I get this profound sense of disappointment and infuration at humanity. And this, I think, is the fundamental aspect of Carlinism.
"What may sound like anger to some is really nothing more than sympathetic contempt. I view my species with a combination of wonder and pity, and I root for its destruction." -- George Carlin, Brain Droppings
It's just so frustrating. It wouldn't be hard. We could do it. But we don't want to. We prefer to hoard, to demean, and to follow. We are fucktards. Absolute quintessential fucktards.
"...It's not so much individuals, it's about my contempt for the way [people] organize themselves and handle themselves. The contempt is because this species, including the American variety, had a great deal of potential. An incredible higher brain, able to do all these conceptual things beyond just food, eat, shit, fuck. I think that gift from nature has been completely wasted, and the pursuit of power, money, position and objects and possessions…all those things have pushed off the radar the more intelligent aspect of humans." -- George Carlin
I get pissed at people like Karl Rove, Bush, every retard in the Religious Right from Frist to Dobson to Falwell, all the sleazes in corporate America like the Ken Lays of the world, but you know, this last election taught me that it's all the other normal people that enable them to exist. To paraphrase Newton, if the world is ruled by assholes, it is because they stand on the shoulders of giant idiots. All those rat bastards are powerless without the throngs of braindead zombies that support them. All the money people voluntarily give up, money they could use to actually better their community, contribute to the knowledge of the universe, to warm somebody who's cold or feed someone who's hungry, and they fucking give it to Focus on the Family. No one holds a gun to their head. Nothing would happen to them if they didn't make the donation. But they do.
We thought that if we could get rid of the unelected monarchs and make the church more accountable to its congregation, if we could just give the downtrodden a voice, then we could fix it. We could make it better. We thought it was the upper eschelon standing in the way of our inevitable journey to Avalon. But look at what we've done with the world. We blithely poison ourselves and voluntarily give power to the unscrupulous and malevolent. And we fucking deserve the results.
So you know what? I'm just not going to feel guilty any more. I don't care. I'm going to enjoy the ride. I'm not going to feel guilty about not giving money to Second Harvest, not donating blood, not volunteering, none of it. It's a drop in the ocean of ignorance and apathy. Even if we were to make the world a better place, we are too shortsighted and petty not to fuck it all up again anyway. I have one shot at life, and every moment I waste worrying about a scourge of wasted intelligence that has done nothing to justify its viral existence is a tick off my internal clock. Fuck that. There are games to play, Go-Karts to ride, cotton candy to eat, and orgasms to have.
Call me when the world ends. With any luck I'll be laughing too hard to notice.
Monday, July 18, 2005
About that firing thing
Did I say fire? I meant not fire. Yeah, I can see how you might have been confused...
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Inspirational phrases for a baby shower
Feel free to add your own.
It wasn't that hard to spread your legs/Yet we're still amazed his sperm found the egg
You let a retard sleep in your bed/Hope the kid likes special ed
We're really sorry the condom broke/But at least now we get some rum and cokes
Perhaps one day you and your child will be walking all alone/And you can point and say, "Look! That's the bar bathroom where mommy answered the bone-a-phone!" (ok, a bit long, but I liked it)
We know this is hard so don't feel so bad/Some day the circus will come back and you can find the dad
When the kid realizes his dad is so ugly the mind just boggles/Just calmly explain, "Sweetheart, mommy had beer goggles"
We dearly hope you don't fuck up your kid/Quite as much as your parents did
We're all delighted and ever so pleased/You contracted the most joyful sexually transmitted disease
Just goes to show that with enough stout/You'll believe him when he says, "I'll pull out"
Congrats on the bundle of joy, and try not to think about/The fact it will be 10 times larger than the orifice it needs to come out
We're happy about the baby, but it's still kind of shitty/That its daddy could be any guy in the city
We loved putting together this stupid goddamn party, no really it's a thrill/But next time just remember to take the goddamn pill
We're sure the kid will be perfect and won't need a brother/But it's still good to know if you fuck this one up you can still make another
It wasn't that hard to spread your legs/Yet we're still amazed his sperm found the egg
You let a retard sleep in your bed/Hope the kid likes special ed
We're really sorry the condom broke/But at least now we get some rum and cokes
Perhaps one day you and your child will be walking all alone/And you can point and say, "Look! That's the bar bathroom where mommy answered the bone-a-phone!" (ok, a bit long, but I liked it)
We know this is hard so don't feel so bad/Some day the circus will come back and you can find the dad
When the kid realizes his dad is so ugly the mind just boggles/Just calmly explain, "Sweetheart, mommy had beer goggles"
We dearly hope you don't fuck up your kid/Quite as much as your parents did
We're all delighted and ever so pleased/You contracted the most joyful sexually transmitted disease
Just goes to show that with enough stout/You'll believe him when he says, "I'll pull out"
Congrats on the bundle of joy, and try not to think about/The fact it will be 10 times larger than the orifice it needs to come out
We're happy about the baby, but it's still kind of shitty/That its daddy could be any guy in the city
We loved putting together this stupid goddamn party, no really it's a thrill/But next time just remember to take the goddamn pill
We're sure the kid will be perfect and won't need a brother/But it's still good to know if you fuck this one up you can still make another
Friday, July 15, 2005
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Don't buy Google
I just read that Google has a price/earnings ratio of 119.
Let me say that again because it's important: Google's price/earnings ratio is 119.
That means that their stock is worth 119 times their earnings. Hypothetically, this means people expect Google to grow, in the long term, by doubling seven times. Seven times.
They need to double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
AND THEN FUCKING DOUBLE AGAIN.
Ok, so that's an oversimplification, but still...goddamn. It's like the beanie baby craze all over again.
Let me say that again because it's important: Google's price/earnings ratio is 119.
That means that their stock is worth 119 times their earnings. Hypothetically, this means people expect Google to grow, in the long term, by doubling seven times. Seven times.
They need to double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
Then double.
AND THEN FUCKING DOUBLE AGAIN.
Ok, so that's an oversimplification, but still...goddamn. It's like the beanie baby craze all over again.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Why organized religion is a bad idea
Ah yes...of course the Church has traditionally been the defender of reason and truth in the face of hysterical "science." Just ask Galileo.
(Christ...at what point did these people completely lose touch with reality?)
Also, I couldn't help but post this.
(Christ...at what point did these people completely lose touch with reality?)
Also, I couldn't help but post this.
I got bored again
Unremarkable peon seeks independently wealthy braniac supermodel - 25 (san mateo)
Reply to: anon-83910102@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-07-12, 2:15AM PDT
I've tried these sites before, but I have yet to find that special straight-haired brunette, large-breasted, independently wealthy, sexually deprived braniac supermodel and her lonely extra ferrari that I just know is out there waiting for me. I'm really not a picky guy, but I have yet to find her.
I can see us together in my mind...
...her gently sloping nose exquisitely reconstructed after being bitten off at the age of 6 by a meth-crazed, gimpy Saluki...
...her hazy, vacant green eyes, one lazy like the two of us on a Saturday night cuddling on a tired bean-bag chair...
...her turgid yet surgically botched nipples that make her shirt look like it's hiding tic tacs rammed haphazardly onto the sides of gracefully curving turkeys...
...her hips two angelic parentheses surrounding the universe's warmest and most welcoming asterisk...
Oh, it could be so beautiful!
I don't know much about you, oh beautiful fantasy woman, but I know in my heart of hearts that you must...simply must!...meet the following criteria, for I cannot imagine you any other way:
- Be sexually aroused when the announcer of the Lea and Perrins commercial announces lustily that, "_You_ were dry, but _I_ made you juicy!"
- Enjoy as a token of your deep and everlasting affection the fact that you will need to stare intently at my stubbornly flacid manhood while clapping excitedly and exclaiming, "I believe, Tinkerbell, I believe!" in order for me to become sexually aroused
- Like pretty sunsets
- Enjoy fine dining, be an excellent cook, and yet inexplicably also maintain the totally unreasonable cultural standards of female body shape
- Have the heights of your already enflamed passions elevated inescapably by the fact that I like to sing "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain" during my sexual partners' moments of climax
- Be brilliant, successful, enviably gorgeous, charming, loyal, and witty, except insofar as your expression of said qualities exceeds my own
- Will glow with loving admiration at the sensitivity and empathy of my gift when I send your emotionally unstable sister a wire hanger for her baby shower
- Defecate infrequently, and when you do, only emit the finest aloe vera-enriched bath soaps
- Appreciate me for who I am, accepting my physical and emotional flaws unquestioningly and without holding me to unrealistic and shallow standards
My sweet fantasy fungal spore of perfection, I hope this note finds you well. Your acceptably attractive, selectively courageous prince awaits you so that we may begin our idyllic life together! Please email me soon! Every moment we are not together is an unbearable eternity of emotional constipation! You are the enema that will release the thundering, fragrant torrent of my passions!
Write soon, my sweet!
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Friday, July 08, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Why is Microsoft retarded?
Why does Microsoft keep doing such stupid shit? Haven't they learned about bad PR yet? Christ...
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Anti-humor
I don't know why this is so funny, but it is. This ain't bad either.
...and while we're at it, baby jokes!
...and while we're at it, baby jokes!
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Friday, July 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)