He's in his mid-60's.
He's in his mid-60's.
God bless Jennifer Moses (via Partial Objects), for pondering two important existential questions: "What teenage girl doesn't want to be attractive, sought-after and popular? And what mom doesn't want to help that cause?"
In the pale-turquoise ladies' room, they congregate in front of the mirror, re-applying mascara and lip gloss, brushing their hair, straightening panty hose and gossiping: This one is "skanky," that one is "really cute," and so forth. Dressed in minidresses, perilously high heels, and glittery, dangling earrings, their eyes heavily shadowed in black-pearl and jade, they look like a flock of tropical birds. A few minutes later, they return to the dance floor, where they shake everything they've got under the party lights.
Raised in an environment without an alpha male patriarch, they will have - as the old women say - daddy issues. Every wonder why attractive girls are with older men? It's not just the wallet. Girls crave masculinity, and that feeling triples for girls raised without a strong father. Moses daughters will all have serious daddy issues. Today's man can date younger women well into his 40's, thanks to Moses:
All of which brings me to a question: Why do so many of us [mothers] not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this—like prostitutes, if we're being honest with ourselves—but pay for them to do it with our AmEx cards?
Regular readers can guess my answer. It's the n-word - narcissism. Parents do not view children as independent life forms. Instead, every man's son is to life the father's unrealized dreams, and every mother's daughter is to become a fashion accessory.
While Moses wouldn't confess to narcissism, she does nibble at its foreskin:
And what mom doesn't want to help that cause? In my own case, when I see my daughter in drop-dead gorgeous mode, I experience something akin to a thrill—especially since I myself am somewhat past the age to turn heads.
Moses' confession is revealing. She's a successful woman. She's a published writer. She's written books. She has an article in the Wall Street Journal. Yet what does she want more than anything else? To be sexually desired by an alpha male.
Age ravages us all. In days past, one could at least expect wisdom and insight from the elderly. Old women used to tell the young ones, "Your youth and beauty are fleeting. Do not squander it." Today, instead of helping the young avoid the mistakes and risks of promiscuity, old women seek vicarious vagina tingles through their daughters.
As a man, I can only say, "Thank you."
Have you seeen the "Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia"?
If not, what's wrong with you?
A rich friend complained about low energy, and overall lack of vigor. Assuming that he knew about such things, I asked him about his Androgel dosage.
"Androgel?" "What's that," he asked. "Dude, aren't you on Testosterone Replacement Therapy?"
He "doesn't fuck his his hormones or any shit like that," and I stopped playing Evangelist years ago. If you want to feel like shit because of ignorance, why should I waste time arguing with you? I dropped the subject, later thinking about the experience.
This is a guy who has more cash savings than I'll earn in the next ten years. The guy is rich. Yet he is losing a step each year, and can't stop it. Although barely middle class (and a piker in my social group), I feel great. Although not using Androgel, there are many supplements that enhance my two greatest assets - the oval objects in my sack and my skull. And it costs me less than the montly payment on a He-must-have-a-little-dick car.
Most of my acquaintances are rich - and uniformly ignorant. What does HRT stand for? To me, that's the most important question a man can answer. What good is being rich if you feel like shit? Every old rich guy I know longs for lost youth. Well, why not modulate your testosterone, human growth hormone, and insulin-growth like factors? You need not want to look like Sylvester Stallone to recognize that, for a 64-year-old man, there is indeed at least a shallow fountain of youth.
Why doesn't every rich person know what Stallone knows? What doesn't every rich person know what I know?
Most people either aren't good at finding information - or they are too busy to look. Yet these same people devalue information. Consider, for example, the following fact:
People with more youthful faces earn several thousand dollars more each year.
You can't argue with that fact, as it simply exists. Now imagine I proposed the following: "I can give you a skincare protocol that will make your face appear at least 5 years younger. For this, I ask $500."
You wouldn't pay me. Nobody wants to pay for information. Yet your decision is foolish and contrary to the facts. Why wouldn't you pay for something that will yield huge financial returns? You won't because you won't pay for information. There's nothing unusual about this bias.
And it is a bias. We should call it the free information bias. We are biased against information we must pay for, and we only want information that is free. If someone isn't giving the knowledge away, we won't pay learn it.
Information bias is so extreme that a blogger didn't know how to answer this e-mail from me:
Your blog is fascinating, and it's obvious you know a lot about [a certain subject]. Rather than spend dozens of hours reading your blog and all of the citations you make, I'd rather just ask you some specific questions I have. How much would you charge to talk to me for an hour?
No one had ever contacted that blogger offering to pay to talk to him. He didn't know what to do. I proposed an hourly rate less than what most hack lawyers charge for doing shit work, and he was floored to receive it. The talk was so excellent that I tacked on a few extra bucks as a tip.
The free information bias is leading to a two-tiered society. People talk about the rich and poor, and the haves and have-nots, but I see something different. There are the clued and the clueless.
The clued's knowledge grows daily, as the Internet connects similarly-minded people. Meanwhile, the clueless wonder why they can't get it up like in the "good old days."
The saddest and most insightful line from this interview: "School ain't gonna last forever," which was Heynes' advise on how to deal with bullying, and also an indictment of the prison rules style of Western education.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -- Senator Barack Obama, Dec. 20, 2007.
"Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world" - President Barack Obama, March 19, 2011.
"American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger" - President George W. Bush, March 19, 2003.
There is a major hate crimes issue in Oakland and San Francisco. Blacks have singled out Asians for assaults. Here is a typical story:
A man who had just stepped off a Muni bus in the Portola neighborhood of San Francisco was attacked by a group of eight people late Wednesday night, according to a spokesman for the San Francisco police.
When I read that headline, I knew immediately that the "group of eight people" were black. I was also certain that the victim was Asian. Yet the San Francisco Examiner buries the lede:
The attack happened at about 11 p.m. Wednesday as the 33-year-old man was getting off of a 9-San Bruno bus at the intersection of Silver and San Bruno avenues, San Francisco Police Department Lt. Troy Dangerfield said.
If you continue reading, you'll find the lede in the story's concluding paragraph:
The victim in the attack was Asian American, but there is no immediate indication that the attack was racially motivated, Dangerfield said.
Some of you will say, "How can we know it was a hate crime!" You wouldn't make that same statement if the victim had been black, and the assailants had been white. That's because you're a racist. And you're in good (bad) company.
The very next day, the San francisco Examiner offered this headline, "District Attorney George Gascón says hate crimes on the rise in San Francisco." No, this is not about blacks brutalizing Asians. Instead, it's about whites attacking Mexicans.
Three men were arraigned Thursday in connection with an alleged assault on two Mexican nationals in the Tenderloin in which the suspects yelled “white power,” San Francisco prosecutors said.
District Attorney George Gascón cited the “brutal” attack as evidence that hate crimes and white supremacist groups are on the rise in The City.
In San Francisco, there has been one wolf pack of whites on non-Asian minorities. One. Yet that one assault is enough to justify claims of a "trend." Meanwhile, there have been dozens of black-on-Asian assaults.
Yet District Attorney George Gascón has not formed a task force to combat the horrible hate crimes blacks commit. Like most San Francisco liberals, Gascón is a racist. He simply doesn't care that Asians are targets. Or if he does care, he doesn't have the courage to go against his racist constituency - which would howl at anyone who proclaimed blacks capable of committing hate crimes.
Although federal judges are given life tenure, many keep their eyes on the private sector - and few firms pay better than Goldman Sachs. Perhaps that's what federal judge Denise L. Cote was thinking when she sentenced a man to prison for committing a crime that led to no economic loss?
Mr. Aleynikov’s conduct, [Denise L. Cote] said, “deserves a significant sentence because the scope of his theft was audacious — motivated solely by greed, and it was characterized by supreme disloyalty to his employer”
Whoa. Of course one has to note the ironic reference to greed. Goldman Sachs' entire existence is devoted to greed. Greed is good and greed is god. Why is it wrong for a normal person to be greedy? (That question answers itself!)
Aleynkiov's sentence is unjust not just because it was four times greater than what the United States Probation Department recommended, but because Aleyikov didn't actually harm Goldman Sachs. Aleyiknov instead (allegedly) stole a few lines of computer code that, according to Goldman's Chief Financial Officer, were not even integral to Goldman's business.
In the post-bailout, new Amerika, disloyalty to an employer now justifies a sentence of 8 years in prison. I'm actually not surprised. If you are, start following the headlines - because this isn't the Founder's country anymore.
I had a humorous discussion with a female friend recently. She's pretty, has a career, and is single at 41-years old. I told her that she was an incessant nag, and thus no man worth having would be in a relationship with her. "Men with options," I explained, "don't put up with bullshit. Why get nagged by a 40-year-old woman when you can have sex with a 25-year old?"
I explained her choices: Settle for one of the millions of nice guys who'd be honored to be married to her; or change her personality. Be pleasant. I then continued my biceps curls.
I got from her the most common reply. In fact, this reply is not merely common. It is what I hear 100% of the time: Men are afraid of strong women.
The theory goes as follows: Men are conditioned by society to be leaders of women. As opportunities for women were made equal, women gained power and status. Most men are afraid of high-status women.
That theory would be valid if professional women were coming home to discuss Tolstoy and Mencken. They become frustrated when their husbands instead turn on ESPN.
Is that what's really going on in the average American relationship? Unfortunately not, as this article about professionally-successful women illustrates. Here is what men are "afraid" of:
Michelle Quiogue, a physician whose husband, Jason Sperber, stays home with the two kids, finds she has to curb her critical impulses when she walks in the door after a long day of seeing patients. “It’s a challenge not to say anything when there are dishes in the sink,” she admits. “But I have to check myself—he wasn’t Martha Stewart when I married him, and he won’t be Martha Stewart now.” Still, there are some things a mother can’t tolerate. Jason, a former teacher, is a wonderful, patient father, “but Lucy’s hair is often not properly combed,” says Michelle. “I know he tries, but I don’t think he tightens the ponytail enough.”
She's a doctor. Rather than coming home to read medical journals or great works of fiction, she's nagging her husband about dishes in the sink. Dishes in the sink! Loose ponytails! That's what she "thinks" about.
A conversation with me would go like this:
Dr. Wife: There are dishes in the sink.
Me: It'll take you less time to put them in the dish washer than to tell me about it.
Dr. Wife: The ponytail is too lose.
Me: Are you fucking kidding me? That's some ludicrous bullshit right there.
If her beta-male husband says, "I'm not listening to this," he'll get a lecture about cowardice and insensitivity. How dare he not receive a lecture about the inappropriateness of his conduct?
No doubt people will lecture me. "Mike, the wife is really communicating that it's important to her that there not be dishes in the sink. It's not about dishes in the sink. It's about the disrespect she feels when he doesn't tidy up the place. Dishes bother her, and he knows that. She feels neglected and ignored."
I know all of that bullshit, and I don't fucking care. Do you not understand that I - and you - will be dead soon? Do you really want to spend your days being hen pecked? And if that poor bastard in the story did the dishes, do you think his wife wouldn't find some other way of being "disrespected"?
Unfortunately, modern society has turned a vice into a virtue, elevating it above all others - indulgence. Every sentiment you have is relevant. Everything that pops into one's head must be given attention. Anyone who says otherwise is either an asshole "who never listens," or a coward who is "afraid of a strong woman." Indulging someone has shifted from an act of grace to a moral requirement.
Yet 75% of what we think - and 95% of what we feel - is nonsense. Ernest Hemingway noted that, "The first draft of anything is shit," and most of our thoughts aren't even first-draft material.
Most thoughts are not thoughts - but instead are transitory psychic garbage that should evaporate in the atmosphere of our higher-order brains. Most of what pops into our heads shouldn't be shared with others. It has no value. Keep that shit to yourself.
Yet people call those of us who refuse to indulge nagging, weak. Or cowardly. How does that even make sense? Since when is saying, "This is how I am going to live my life" an act of weakness? Most people are terrified of living their own lives - of defining and creating their own destinies. Refusing to indulge the trivial is an act of strength.
Hen-pecking is not intimidating. I've read books that have completely blown my mind, and made me question everything I believed to be true. Being told that there are dishes in the sink wouldn't terrify me. Like stepping in dog shit at the park, it's an annoyance.
What's the prize for indulging nagging? Answer: More nagging. Congratulations on your wasted life, and be sure to see the man for your Great Big Trophy of Regret. (Or do you think old men are bitter because they have too many good memories to nurture their weary souls?)
As with most things in modern life, the truth has been inverted. Refusing to indulge the trivial is not a sign of strength, but of weakness. The beta male fears the tyranny of his wife. The alpha male laughs.
Back to my friend: There are millions of men who would endure her nagging. Tens-of-millions, maybe. America has created an entire generation of "men" who'd not dare say half of what I've just posted. They will accept their tongue lashings, if you promise them a pat on the head before putting them to bed without sex.
Yet women don't want those men - at least not for long. Seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women, and women cheat on their spouses as often as men do.
And so the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy of the beta male dies.
When UCLA political science [sic] major Alexandra Wallace posted an anti-Asian rant on YouTube, UCLA officials did what government always does. It ordered an investigation. UCLA's actions tie into a common theme, namely, that government has a monopoly on force.
When a plump little cumtrap like Wallace posts an inappropriate video, we're all supposed to sit on hands. We're supposed to do nothing. It's for the government alone to act.
Yet what could UCLA do to Wallace that is worse than what the Internet's everyday people have done? Her life is going to be very difficult, as Google searches are part of every employer's pre-employment process. People who Google Wallace's name will find that video. The government needn't do a thing to punish her, as the rest of us will.
Wallace's case raise broader lessons. Often the best thing the government can do is...Nothing. Take it away, Asian singer dude: