Thursday, February 20, 2014

A hot investing tip

I know the technology is a ways off, but the wave of the future is baby vending machines. Better start investing now.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Hey, you Enlightened Progressives!

If you find it reasonable that two men or two women be listed on a birth certificate, you've just forfeited your right to ridicule me for believing in the Virgin Birth. You got that?!

The fucking bigots

Facebook (yeah, I am back on facebook against my better judgement) won't let me list my gender as "an amoeba".  I have always identified myself as an amoeba. From the time I was just a blastocyst, in fact. How dare you say I may not identify myself as an amoeba! I started out as a cell. Thus, my very essence is unicellular.

Outright Gnosticism

The following is a reply I just received to my hateful, bigoted, Nazi-like defense of the coital conception of marriage:

"Homosexuals can have kids, by the way, through sperm donation and women who wish to carry one's child. Personally, I don't want to fuck or have children. Sex is okay, I guess, but I don't want my body almost ripped in half just because you want me to have kids. Why don't you try to poop a cantaloupe because that is the equivalent of childbirth. Also, I don't care about flesh. Vagina, penis, both, neither, all I care about is the person. The person I want to be with for my whole life. I want to be with them for who they are, not what they are. Also, asexuals want to get married also, it's equal rights. Freedom to marry the person you want to be with 'til death because you love them more than any one else in this world."

So, the person has NOTHING to do with his or her or its body. Σῶμα, σῆμα, indeed! By the way, I wonder how this anthropology which underpins every argument for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" jibes with the materialist notion that we have no minds, just brains.

What I hope will be the unintended consequence of the new anti-gay law in Kansas

A Restaurant in Kansas. Two men enter and ask to be seated.

Hostess: Er, um, you're a same-sex couple.

Guy1: Well, we're just friends.

Hostess: Our Restaurant is a family-friendly establishment, and we have a strict policy of refusing service to deviants who might threaten our family-friendliness.

Guy2: What the hell?

Hostess: It's h-e-double-toothpicks, please, sir.

Guy1: What? You think we're gay?

Hostess: I have to make sure, sir. Restaurant policy.

Guy1: How?

Hostess: Kiss me, sir.

Guy1: What!

Hostess: Kiss me. You both have to kiss me before I can seat you. Policy.

(The guys look at each other befuddledly and then say, "okay", and proceed one after the other to give the hostess a very chaste peck on the cheek.)

Hostess: That won't do. I am sorry, but those kisses were very gay.

(I think you get the idea where this sketch is headed.)

Untergang des Abendlandes

Bogart & Bacall

Tracy & Hepburn

Sandler & Barrymore

I am showing my age, but, what the hell, I miss Johnny Carson

Jimmy Fallon is so very bland that he makes oatmeal seem picante.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Split by a suffix

Gibbon famously (or infamously, depending upon your point of view) mocked the Christians for having rioted over an iota during the Arian Controversy. I wonder what Gibbon would have thought of the battle over an "ed".

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Monster and His Art

If you believe Dylan Farrow and are so disgusted by what Woody Allen did that you can no longer watch his films, are you being morally inconsistent if you still appreciate Wagnerian Opera?


If you think that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, then you are a vile, twisted, depraved bigot who simply wants to demean, humiliate and oppress Gays and Lesbians. That's pretty much accepted as axiomatic now. Fine. People are idiots. I just cannot take this equation of basing marriage on sexual complementarity with an irrational, sadistic animus towards homosexuality seriously. You know why? The two have nothing to do with one another. Even John Corvino admits that the question of same-sex "marriage" is entirely separate from whether or no homosexual relations are immoral.

Also, if basing marriage upon sexual complementarity necessarily entails homophobic bigotry, then, please, please, please, explain to me Ancient Sparta. In Ancient Sparta homosexual relations were not just tolerated, not just accepted, not just celebrated, but relied upon as a way to maintain morale in its army. Sparta was at the very top of the Riddle Scale; gay relationships were deemed literally indispensable for the existential defense of the city. And yet Sparta never ever understood marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman. So, the Spartans according to what passes today as Enlightened Reason must have been irrational homophobic bigots even though they did the very thing the Riddle Scale says you must do to be entirely untainted by homophobia, i.e. treat homosexuality as indispensable to the well-being of society.

A talking point

If the state wants to show disapproval of a kind of marriage, then it does so through criminalization as it does now with incestuous and bigamous marriages, not by withholding legal recognition. To suggest that the state stigmatizes some relationships by not recognizing them as marriages is to say that the state stigmatizes friendships, and that’s just silly even if some recent scholarship suggests just that.

And, yes, I know that one of the stated reasons of DOMA was to express “moral disapproval of homosexuality” (but this statement was given only by some members of the House, and it's just false to infer that this is what motivated every voter for DOMA in the House AND the SENATE) Well, that’s just dumb. Even John Corvino, one of the most prominent advocates for the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" has acknowledged that the morality of homosexuality and the legal recognition of ss’m’ are two entirely separate questions.
“The connection between the morality debate and the marriage debate is not absolute. One can believe that homosexuality is morally wrong while also believing that same-sex couples should have the legal freedom to marry, just as one can believe that divorce is morally wrong while also believing that a free society should permit it. Conversely, one can oppose same-sex marriage without believing that homosexuality is morally wrong (although the position is rare). [What’s Wrong with Homosexuality, p. 149]”

The question of the morality of a relationship has nothing to do with the question of what counts as a marriage. For instance, I think incest is immoral. Nevertheless, I would never deny the possibility of an incestuous marriage. On the other hand, I have nothing against a same-sex gin rummy partnership, nothing at all, but I would never ever say that such a partnership could ever become a marriage.
Thus, opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" cannot by itself be "homophobic", even if by "homophobic" we are to understand in its broadest sense as "a moral disapproval of homosexual relations".

Thursday, February 6, 2014

The Demands of Equality

Our dear leader famously exclaimed, "if we are created equal, then surely the love we share is equal as well." Therefore, we should have same-sex "marriage". Fine, but it just occurred to me that "if we are created equal, then surely the needs we have are equal as well." Therefore, we should have massive income re-distribution.

An Observation

I hate English. In almost every other language my first name sounds musical: Paulo, Pablo, Pawel, etc. But in English it sounds like a turd dropping in toilet water.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

This should be obvious

Why is there so much free porn on the internet?  Well, remember in 1984 Ingsoc had a porn division for the proles?  Porn is the perfect way to keep the masses distracted and stupid.  It is an addictive opiate that keeps people occupied and ashamed. People who are too occupied with sexual gratification don't care about the police state, but if they do, then the police state can blackmail them into acquiescence with records of their depraved browser histories.   And people who waste so much time masturbating lose any sense of solidarity, the sine qua non of any successful revolt against tyranny.  I have no doubt that all those free porn sites are federally funded.  No doubt at all.  Free porn sites keep the proles at bay.

Is this Latin Correct?

It better be.  I spent nearly forty bucks to have it printed on a sweatshirt:

fellator esse histrionum pornographicarum malo protestanti.

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Best thing I heard today

"I just got married."

"First time?"


"But you're eighty.  Why'd you wait so long?  She a good cook?"

"Not particularly, no."

"Well, does she clean the house well?"

"Not really."

"Good in bed?"

"We're both too rickety and decrepit for that stuff."

"Why then?"

"She can drive at night."