New Obsession: Health/Fitness
|
Posted:Jun 10, 2012 7:21 pm
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
4228 Views
|
At a certain point in time one becomes completely disgusted with how fat they've gotten. For me, it took about 8 years for it to finally click, but it did. I mean, sure, I disliked how I looked and had desired to be fit. I just never had the push to change the sad state that my body was in. For some reason, things changed in January.
Since the last week or two of January, I have dedicated a lot of time and effort into pursuing the body I've always wanted. I altered my diet (fewer sweets, less often; serious calorie limitations), and a gym membership where I work on bulking up as well as burning fat. As a result, I am about 30 pounds lighter, and that's with a fairly significant amount of muscle added.
Things haven't progressed exactly as I had expected/hoped. I suppose that's unsurprising, and that realization has come close to derailing all of this effort. In fact, that's a large part of why I'm back on here. Seeing all of the gorgeous people that I can only dream of fucking while in my current state has me hoping that will be a boost in my motivation.
Still, I've managed to persevere, and I continue to inch closer and closer to the final mark. Hopefully, by year's end, I will be down to the body fat percentage desired. The amount of muscle I want will probably require until about mid-2013.
I'm not quite sure about the intention of me posting this as I don't really want this to come across as narcissistic. Sorry if it does.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Why Is Sex Taboo?
|
Posted:Jan 22, 2012 6:58 pm
Last Updated:Jan 22, 2012 8:04 pm
4369 Views
|
This has been a question that I've been mulling around my head for the past couple of weeks or so. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, I believe. For one, I'm not getting the volume of sex that I desire, so that has me thinking about sex more than normal. Secondly, I think my department at work has allow my inner sexual beast to be unleashed. I mean, I've always been open about sex, but a couple of co-workers and I have started a continuing dialog where we are discussing all facets of sex. Is it inappropriate for the work place? Absolutely, but it's fun as Hell. Still, it shouldn't take a special dialog for us to open up about sex.
Whether you're Christian, Atheist, or anything in between, sex is the very key to our existence. Either sex evolved as single-celled organisms evolved into complex organisms, or God gave it to us to enjoy and beget society. Personally, I side with Evolution. Either way you look at it, it's something that we are MEANT to do. Why is it as a Western society that we have chosen to make this so taboo?
Historically, it's a pretty obvious answer. The growth of Christianity in the Dark and Middle Ages and the "authority" of the Catholic Church really oppressed sexual freedom, completely reversing the openness that ancient Roman and Greek civilizations had in regards to sex. While the Catholic Church has loosened up its requirements for sex, there are still remnants of the belief that sex should be for procreation only, proving that religion still has too much of a stranglehold on social liberties, but I digress. This still doesn't answer WHY pleasurable sex was demonized by the Church in the first place.
That's what I still struggle with grasping. However, I DO understand why sex outside of marriage was and still would be taboo. That, to me, makes sense even though I don't, personally, subscribe to that belief anymore. Religion having a problem with that doesn't shock me. In fact, I'd be shocked if religion DIDN'T have a problem with that. Saving oneself for their life partner and only sharing oneself with their partner makes sense. Again, not that I agree with this; it just does have some basis in logic, that's all.
I went into writing this blog, thinking that I had an idea of WHY sex, in general, is taboo. The more that I think about it, the more I'm not sure of what any reason could be. Even looking at this from a strictly religious standpoint baffles me. I guess I can take solace in the fact that society is starting to question this, as well. I've noticed more and more Christians promoting books about sex and how to/why you should enjoy it (granted, within the confines of a heterosexual marriage). Still, I see that us in the Americas are lagging sorely behind our European counterparts.
As I realize everybody on this site already knows, sex is an amazing gift. It can be used as a powerful tool for society. Hell, even other mammals have discovered this fact, as well. Yet, Americans seem to fail to grasp something that monkeys and dolphins instinctively understand. Not only does sex do wonders for social bonds and is a great equalizer in society, but it does wonders to help the bond within the confines of a marriage. The latter being a big part of why I'm confused that the Church could ever have been against it outside of procreation. Again, I know I don't need to tell any of you this.
Ultimately, the state of sexuality in Western society has made me want to become a revolutionary. Sex being relegated to the underground and shamed in the mainstream pisses me off. Why shun the gift that very few animals get to experience? Nobody knows how powerful and wonderful sex is like someone who's not getting any. Viva la revolución!
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
So, We Meet Again...
|
Posted:Aug 28, 2011 8:23 pm
Last Updated:Aug 29, 2011 2:18 pm
3559 Views
|
Shit, it's been quite the long time since I've been back on the site. Normally, I'd play it coy and say that I have no clue why I'm back. However, on sites like this, I think the reasoning is pretty obvious.
Unfortunately, my dry spell has been pretty bad. It's nearing 2 years now, and that's about all I can take. My recent attempts at finding some fun outside of this site seemed promising, but they always fall through. It seems like no matter how open the people around you are, they're still not as open as the ones you find on this site. That's what makes this site great, but that also shows you the progress that society still has to make...
Anyway, I need to get my dick wet in something pink. Need I say more?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Soda Shop
|
Posted:Mar 7, 2010 9:11 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
4355 Views
|
Okay, so the following is a shameless plug...
About a couple of years ago, I made a blog post on here titled "Stoner Rock". This was near the beginning of my love affair with the genre. Since then, I have expanded my library greatly, and now I know several more great stoner and doom metal bands. It's safe to say that I am obsessed with the genre. What, exactly, is "stoner rock", you ask? Stoner rock is a sub-genre of rock, obviously, that focuses heavily on distorted guitar, heavy bass lines, and influences from the 60's psychedelic rock (Blue Cheer, Leaf Hound, Thunder and Roses) and 70's hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple).
After a year of a growing love affair with the genre, I was given the idea to create an Internet radio station that focuses primarily on stoner rock, doom metal, and sludge metal with some hard rock mixed in. Not only that, but what sets us apart from other Internet stations is that we are focusing on independent bands and independent labels. There is so much great underground music that is missed because of under marketing due to a lack of funds. Our goal is to change that. Since February of '09, the station has been making steady progresses toward our goal. Currently, it's online and streaming 24/7 at it's official website, and we have also set up several pages on some popular social networks.
So if you are wanting to take a trip back to the 60's and 70's along with some refreshing bands that are still recording and touring, take a listen over at thesodashop.com or visit us on last.fm (last.fm/group/The+Soda+Shop), MySpace (thesodashop.com sodashopradio), Facebook (thesodashop.com sodashopradio), or Twitter (thesodashop.com sodashopradio). We also have a blog on WordPress (thesodashop.com .
------------------
Disclaimer: Currently, "The Soda Shop" is not a company/organization, nor is it bringing in any income. In its current state, it is just a budding community, focusing on promoting great music without any monetary contributions in return. Besides, the Affairlook ToS does not forbid website plugs in blogs (especially by actual, non-commercial members). Advertisements are only prohibits it over email, IMC, and chat rooms.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
A 'Living' Constitution is a Dead Constitution
|
Posted:Jun 1, 2008 2:33 pm
Last Updated:Mar 7, 2010 9:28 am
4109 Views
|
Ron Paul was right when he said this in his new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto. Every time we decide that something in the Constitution is no longer relevant to the times, the Constitution becomes a document that gives no more direction than a piece of blank paper. How can we uphold liberty when we continually spit in the face of the document that shows us the way?
Reading further into the book, I came across a quote by Henry Hyde. Paul doesn't mention him by name, but after a little searching, I discovered that it was Mr. Hyde who said the following, in reference to Ron Paul's "radical" idea that Congress be the one to declare war: "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time, Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn't done any more."
I share Paul's sentiment, in the next paragraph, which mentions how it's such a relief [note: sarcasm] that we have politicians who are keeping us updated on what's "relevant" in our Constitution. One question, though, isn't it up to the people to decide what's relevant? That question then begs the following: are we really losing this much control of our government? The sad answer is a resounding "YES!"
It bugs me how overgrown our government has become and all in the name of freedom. It really creates an oxymoron out of "government protection". Yes, by giving up our liberties, we may be more likely protected from poverty and foreign governments, but those are the things that should worry us least. The thing that we should be protected from the most is the one thing that our government can't and won't protect us from… itself. I'll admit, it'd be foolish for the government to want to relinquish the power it has.
As individuals, we must give up power in order to gain order and protection from external threats, but a government has no such threats and need for protection, so the idea of giving up its power doesn't make much sense. That's why it was important that our government's powers be limited in the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't written relevant to those specific times. It was written because they knew what a government would do with no restraints. They saw it with England, and we get to see the same thing with our ever-growing government.
We, as Americans, are no safer from terrorism than we were pre-9/11. Our government has its agenda to uphold, so they're going to make all of these claims that the eroding of our civil liberties is working to protect us. Sadly, people are wiling to buy into this propaganda. There is no doubt that our government has thwarted terrorist attacks since 9/11. I, just, don't believe that the Patriot Act and similar legislation has had anything to do with that. We thwarted terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, as well. We can't all be naive to believe that the only terrorist attacks planned were successful ones. The extra protection given to us, if any, is not worth the civil liberties that we are continuing to lose.
As long as neocons and liberals continue to see an increasing need in government intervention whether it be at home or in a foreign nation, our liberties will continue to dwindle while we see no reasonable increase in security, but a decline in protection from a tyrannical state that our Constitution was meant to prevent. If we allow our politicians to continue to shit on the document that has given us the ability to stand up and fight, then we have turned our backs on founding fathers and on what it means to be free. We have turned our backs on what it means to be American. We weren't meant to be free of hardship and pain. We were meant to be free of a government that offers us no protection while actively working to take away what liberties that we are willing to give up before fighting back. We need to restore our Constitution. We need our elected politicians to respect the document that our nation was founded on, that they took an oath to uphold, and that millions of Americans have fought and died to protect.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Legalization of
|
Posted:Apr 4, 2008 7:35 am
Last Updated:Jun 18, 2008 9:44 am
4252 Views
|
Plain and simple, I support it. While I feel that cheapens the value of sex to an undesirable level, I am not the entire population. It makes no sense to keep this illegal.
From what I can tell, the criminalization of is purely a moral issue. A bunch of moral high-horsers decided that Christianity is THE only religion, and thus the entire population needs to follow their God's lead. Unfortunately for us, they were the vast majority back then, and everybody else pretty much had to go along with their biddings.
Morality aside, there are other, logical arguments to support the idea of keeping illegal. With the rising number of STDs and those infected, it would make sense that would be a cesspool of disease that if we were to eradicate, we could help cut down on the amount of STDs being transfered.
Unfortunately, I think this is the wrong way of thinking about it. Instead of keeping it criminalized to cut down disease, it only helps to spread it. This is where the benefits of legalization come in. With it legal, there would be legal brothels opening up across the country, and then you could regulate the cleanliness of the services provided. Much like liquor, when is illegal the quality actually goes down. People are looking for ways to make a quick buck and quality is the last things on their minds at the time. Not to mention the could also be screened for diseases. On the streets, this isn't possible, and to turn away customers because of their cleanliness means you could be turning away your meal ticket for the next day. The disease-related issues of could only improve upon legalization.
If you want proof, just look at the places in Nevada where it's legal. The places are clean, disease free, and for what the women are doing, it's a very good environment for them to work in. Their are clean, and the prostitutes are treated with respect and dignity. Maybe it's just a fluke, but I completely feel it's not. If given the chance to capitalize on the market, people will do it, and if people don't have to break the law to do it, the industry has the opportunity to have high quality standards like we would expect from any other industry.
As for moral issues, I don't like . I think it's wrong to cheapen sex to that degree, and I feel that it's a waste of money. However, I'm not going to push for my morals to be the law. That's just ridiculous. As long as the is between two, consenting adults, there should not be an issue. There can be no victim if both parties involved are consenting to the act. This, of course, would still keep (even if the 'paid' for the services afterward) and illegal, as it should be.
When it comes down to it, it's the choice of the prostitutes and their to make. Whether or not it's a moral act, we have no place to legally ban it. Anything else is intrusive and unequal.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
New Independence
|
Posted:Apr 4, 2008 6:54 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
3814 Views
|
I am finally out on my own. After a few months of debating and searching, I have finally got an apartment of my own. A very nice, cheap apartment with a great community behind it. I don't think I could have asked for much more.
Now that I'm on my own, I can finally come and go as I please. That was probably the biggest hindrance in my sexual activity while living with my parents. Now I can be more sexually open without my parents, and I'm hoping this opens new doors for me.
I would always worry about my parents catching on about my activities. Now I don't have to worry about it. Being that they are fairly conservative, they wouldn't approve of the lifestyle I want to explore. Now I don't have that burden.
Let's see what the future holds for me. Hopefully it brings me many fun times. One can only hope.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
What I Hate About the Left and the Right: the Left
|
Posted:Feb 24, 2008 8:43 pm
Last Updated:Apr 9, 2008 7:51 pm
4449 Views
|
Well, I finally have posted what I don't like about Democrats (American "liberals"). It's quite the long-winded read, so only read if you either (a) hate Democrats, (b) hate Democrats and Republicans, or (c) just like to read long-winded rants against your political party.
There are so many things about (American) liberals that bother me. Some of their ideologies are just so disgusting that I cannot help but to overreact to them. I know I should not get so upset over someone else's ideologies, but the sheer audacity that (American) liberalism has gets me to that point, and there seems to be little I can do to stop it from getting to me.
First thing is first. The name that Democrats take for their ideology. They name it "liberalism", but they are anything but. This makes me angry because what political philosophy I identify with is much closer to true liberalism than the Democrat Party would ever hope to be. For them to be true liberals, American liberals need to not only promote social liberalism (which they do), but also support economic liberalism, and that is something American liberals have never been good at. In fact, they seem quite destined to destroy economic liberalism. Liberals? I think not. They are nothing but a pseudo-liberal creed of emotionally-driven lemmings.
As I started off with in my rant against Republicans, I'm going to attack the "secular-left" position on religion. While some of the right's accusations about the left's stance on religion is a bit exaggerated, I think there is some truth to it. For most "liberals", there seems to be some truth to it. Liberals absolutely hate religion. For whatever reasons they may come up with, they want it removed from anything remotely public. From public schools to Christmas, many liberals will not stop until religion is no longer a part of society. I understand the view that we should not have any organized prayer started by school faculty, and I understand that our government should not have any religious preferences. I completely agree with this. After all, our Constitution states that we have freedom of religion, and any our government should have no favoritism towards any of them. The left just seems to take it farther and want to erase it from privately-owned stores. This is especially evident with Christmas. You see an ever increasing number of stores that no longer uses "Merry Christmas", but a more politically correct "Happy Holidays". It is fine that stores choose this. Just as they should be free to say "Merry Christmas", they have every right to exclude any mention of Christmas during the seasons. It is just unfortunate that liberals are actively seeking the removal of any religious holidays from society.
Speaking of the removal of religion in society, this brings me to Political Correctness. This is the fantasy idea that relativism should be embraced. That since everybody is all different and it is "wrong" to judge others, we should be completely tolerant of everybody's moral stances and views. While, to a great extent, I believe that we should realize that morality is subjective, I still feel that it is completely rational to take a Realist standpoint and criticize the morality of others, so as long as we do not try to enforce our morals through legislation. The idea that we should be completely tolerant of everything is self-defeating. As James Rachels said, "if we did not think that some [social practices] were better than others, there would be nothing for us to tolerate."
We have no right to NOT be offended. Anything and everything can be considered offensive in its own right. There is no way we can escape that. PC tries to make it so, but the truth is, even by being "careful" we are being offensive to the people we are trying to tolerate. For instance, one of my old teachers was a pastor, and he golfs. He would often join up with other groups when play was slow. The groups he would join would often swear, and when they found out he was a pastor, they made an effort to be more courteous. There is nothing wrong with trying to accommodate others, but to go as far as changing who you are and how you act based on someone can be offensive in itself. Being too careful is also self-defeating. This is not to say that we should be as crass as we want to be, as tact is a good thing to have.
The funniest thing about this relativist view that PC tries to convey is often hypocritical. In order to promote this idea of all-inclusive tolerance, one would have to believe that other, less tolerant views are incorrect. Again, it is self-defeating. This leads many people to be hypocritical in their teachings.
Another view of (American) liberals is this common concept of Utilitarianism. This is a concept of believing that everybody is equal and deserves equal things. If someone believe this, they can knock themselves out. It is a respectable viewpoint. However, what makes liberals so wrong in believing in this is that they try to legislate it through social programs and taxation. They so adamantly promote equality of outcome, and this takes away from the people who strive to make themselves better by trying to make them equals to those that clearly do not have the same ambitions. It is not fair or just to promote the government stealing, especially from its citizens. That is a huge flaw in this ideology, it ignores others' rights. If these liberals feel that it is in the best interest of others to do something that negatively affects someone else, it is justifiable. Again, if this altruistic view makes someone happy, then they should go for it. I am not going to stop anybody for living this viewpoint. I just wish liberals had the common decency to limit this viewpoint to those that share it. I am not willing to give up my luxuries that I earned to give to people that I feel do not put forth the same effort as I do. Call me selfish and greedy, but it is my right to be selfish, and nobody has the right to change that.
If liberals want to be altruistic, they can give to and volunteer at non-profit organizations that strive to help others. These private, non-profit organizations do a lot better of a job of helping others than the government programs could ever aspire to. If liberals really want to help out those less fortunate, and treat everybody equally, then they should realize that forcing others, through legislation, to do the same is not treating people, like me, as equals. In fact, it does quite the opposite.
Besides the topic of welfare, my biggest stumbling block with the liberal ideology is their hypocritical views of the Bill of Rights. Whenever a conservative will try to ignore the Bill of Rights, they are right there to stand in the way. As well they should, too. However, whenever it is convenient for themselves, they will ignore the Bill of Rights, as well. This is best illustrated regarding the Second Amendment. Yes, the right to bear arms. For whatever reasons may be, liberals LOVE to ignore this right. What gives them this inspiration? Their Utilitarian views, of course. If they feel that it better suits everybody else that rights of others are trampled to promote overall "benefit", they are more than happy to oblige.
The simple fact of limiting guns does nothing to promote safety and security. The best argument, in my opinion, against this stupid idea of limiting guns is the fact that doing so does nothing to prevent guns from being in the hands of a criminal. It only prevents law-abiding citizens Breaking the law is of no concern to criminals. After all, that is what makes them criminals. They disregard the law to do as they please, regardless of what harm it does to others. If they want a gun, they will obtain one illegally through black markets. It is not a hard thing to do. This egoist view is a prime example of why we NEED law-abiding citizens to own guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the people that do not have any respect for others. If everybody owned a gun, there would be less of a risk for gun violence, since the would-be criminal would have to contend to the fact that the "victim" would also be armed. Since criminals are egoists (in this case, anyway), they are not going to do anything that would have a very high risk of it ending badly for themselves.
Even if guns were removed from society, it would not remove the desire to do others harm in certain people. There has been violence and murder before there were guns, and there would be violence and murder in the absence of guns. If someone wants to harm another, they will figure out a way to inflict this harm with or without a gun.
It is not the government's job to hold the hands of its citizens, either. Gun accidents are not to be blamed on the fact that these people were allowed to own a gun. Accidents happen with anything remotely dangerous. People accidentally cut their fingers off with machinery and other items such as knives and glass. There is danger in blunt items, as well. It is the responsibility of people to learn how to use items correctly to minimize the chance of harm, whether this be unloading and locking up a pistol to keep away from one's or keeping one's fingers away from the blade of the chainsaw, especially while it is on.
Public education is another objection that I have with in regards to the liberal ideology. Instead of streamlining our public education and making it efficient, liberals think the problem is underfunding. This is clearly not the case. Taking in account for inflation, our schools receive twice as much funding per student as they did in the 1970s. The education system has been declining. The issue is not the funding. The issue is productivity and poor teaching. Liberals fear a voucher system because they know that the teacher's union would have severely diminished power. We would not want to remove the worthless teachers in our education system, would we? We should, but liberals certainly do not want to.
For whatever reason it may be, liberals are afraid of a competitive market in education. If we were to give parents vouchers and allow them to choose the environment they want their learning in, schools would have no choice but to remove excess spending and poor teaching in order to keep the money coming into the school. If they were unable to improve enough, the schools will fail. Contrary to liberal beliefs, this failing of schools would be a good thing. It would allow good schools to expand and improve. European countries follow this, and they are better off for it. They are consistently at the top of test scores, while American schools settle into the middle of the pack. This is not an issue whether or not European teens are more intelligent than American students. This is an issue of the quality of the education. Our system is not working, and money is not the answer. Let Capitalism work its magic and fix what ails our schools. Products are better when there is more than one company to produce the good/service that we desire. This is because of competition. If a product is poor, consumers are not going to buy the poor product, especially for the same price. The same should apply to schools. Why be forced to send your to schools that do not meet your standards? If you can get away with paying the same price for a better education, why not?
Minimum Wage is another funny product of American liberalism. I guess one can lump this in with the whole welfare argument that I have above, but I like to think that this is stupid enough of an idea that it merits attention. The fact that very few people actually earn minimum wage is lost on liberals. Either that or they actively choose to ignore this. These bleeding-heart liberals continue to rip away the rights of the companies in favor of talentless employees that do the bare minimum, yet somehow are deserving of more money for their easily replaceable labor. Simply put, the people earning minimum wage do not deserve the money that they already earn. Not only is that true, but the idea of minimum wage is self-defeating (we see this quite a lot in their ideologies, do we not?). By forcing companies to pay their talentless (I know, this seems harsh, but even McDonald's workers are paid more than minimum wage for their 'labor') more money, the costs of their products have to increase to make up for the lost profit due to the higher cost of the production. By making products more expensive, Minimum Wage once again makes it harder for minimum wage workers to afford the things they need. The entire point of having minimum wage is to make it easier for these people to afford necessities, is it not? This is why it is self-defeating.
If people want to make a decent living and to live without worry of financial ruin, they need to pursue more job skills and fix their spending habits. If someone has a middle-class income, they are unable to own a 145-foot yacht (credit to Neal Boortz for this example). Most liberals would agree, then, that they should not purchase a yacht. Yet, they do not apply this concept to poverty-level incomes. If they cannot afford to have any luxuries or a family, they should not have either. Cutting out non-essential spending makes it much more manageable to survive on a smaller income. It is that simple. Do not live above your means. If someone still struggling to make ends meet, this is what caring, non-profit organizations are for. They should go and seek assistance. They are more than enthusiastic to help people in their time of need. It is not an employer's job to see that an employee is financially secure. It is respectable for an employer to do that, but it should not be enforced through any legislation.
Yet another lovely disagreement that I have with American liberalism is illegal immigration. The name says it all, it is the immigration of aliens into our country illegally. There should be no argument with this. If a person does something illegally, they should endure the punishment for the illegal act. If someone comes into America illegally, they should be deported. There is no reason why these people, who are actively breaking the law, should receive amnesty for their actions. Are illegal aliens bad people for wanting to immigrate to America? Of course, not. While it may not make them bad people, it does make them criminals. I know, it is hard to think of these people as criminals, but that is exactly what they are. They are actively breaking the law that others have to abide by in order to benefit themselves. Regardless of how understandable their actions are, they are still illegal.
With that said, I do not disagree with an open-border policy. I think most of these "criminals" should be allowed across the border. The problem with that is before we allow this to happen, we need to make it so that these people do not receive the same luxuries and privileges as American citizens do. They need to be contributing members to society, first, before they can reap the benefits that the rest of us sow. It is only fair for those to reap what they sow before anybody else benefits from our actions.
Unions. Yes, unions. The idea behind unions is not a bad one. It is to help protect workers from terrible working conditions and under-payment for the labor that they do. It helps to keep the balance between workers and employers. What gets me mad about labor unions is that they want it to be that their jobs are secure while they are in negotiations for better working conditions (environment, wages, etc… . This distorts the balance between employers and employees. This tips the balance in favor of the employees, and that is unfair. Unions should not have to worry about this. If their labor is worth that much money, they need not worry about being replaced. However, if one's job is easily replaceable, the company should have every right to hire in new people. After all, if others are willing to work in replacement of the workers in negotiation/on strike, then they must view the working conditions to be acceptable. If someone does not have to risk their employment while demanding better conditions, then they can ask for unreasonable pay increases and benefits that they do not deserve without having to worry about being tossed aside like the trash that they are. Instead, of someone truly believes that they deserve more that they are willing to risk their job security for these better conditions, then they are not being greedy. They are being sincere, and those people deserve to be negotiated with rather than the spoiled brats with job security, stomping their feet and whining for better pay and more benefits.
Overall, everything I have been ranting about has to deal with one, all-encompassing idea. That idea is liberty. American liberals have this twisted view that government should be here to serve us. That is only partially correct. Our government was never made to protect us from every little inconvenience. Our government is here to keep the nation stable and to protect us from external threats. Those threats being other governments or other citizens that are out to attack others. Every other threat to our happiness can be attributed, mostly, to our own carelessness. The government does not and should not have the resources to hold our hands at every turn and every bump in the road we face. We are capable of succeeding on our own, and our government's job is just to see that nobody interferes with that pursuit.
The hearts of liberals are in the right place. The problem is that they allow their emotions to determine what is the best course of action to take. While that may not always be a bad way to make decisions, it should not be what we base our views on. American liberals live in this fantasy world where everybody is altruistic and we all get along. That is not reality, and because of that, we cannot have government policies that embrace this false sense of reality. Liberals only need remember the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If you do not want someone to steal from you, do not support the government stealing from others, and so on. It is that simple. Think rationally, and you will see that CLASSIC liberalism is the way to go instead of American liberalism.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Smoking Bans?
|
Posted:Feb 16, 2008 9:25 pm
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
4095 Views
|
This is a topic that I have yet to cover. There seems to be a desire in a lot of people to ban smoking in restaurants. While I know the tremendous health hazards that smoking (especially second-hand smoke) can cause, but people are smart enough to pick and choose what environment they are willing to interact within. Because of a lack of a smoking ban in restaurants, people have chosen not to eat where smoking is allowed. Clearly, nobody but those people made that decision for them. I see no reason why government has to hold the hands of its citizens, and this would be yet another example of the government treating us as . If people are willing to risk their health for a meal, so be it.
Besides the fact that the government would be parenting us with such a ban, they would also be stripping the rights away from business owners. If a business owner wants to lose revenue by deciding that they want to allow smoking in their place of business, then it is their choice to make. It is not the government's job to "protect" each business owner from the negative consequences of their actions/decisions. What makes America great is the fact that we can sink or swim by our own decisions. It is what makes us free people, and I would not have it any other way. There are arguments that businesses are losing a lot of money because of this issue, but I cannot help but to disagree. I feel that business owners are, generally, smart enough to realize that they are losing revenue due to a missing demographic. If such was the case, they would be quick to change the environment their business offers. If they do not, then they should not own a business if they are ignorant enough to think that they do not have to cater to the desires and needs of their customer base. It takes smarts to make it in the world of business, and any "hand-holding" that the government does with businesses only hurts the evolutionary process of creating smarter and more productive businesses.
I guess my overall point is that the government's job to protect its citizens only applies to external threats. There is no need for the government to protect us from ourselves. I would like to think that I am fully capable of making the decision of whether or not I want to endure a smoky environment for the duration of my meal. I realize the overall health benefits this would create, but the government just should not be that involved in our lives. Should our government force us to adhere to strict nutritional habits, as well? After all, that would have tremendous health benefits attached to it. I am sure you see my point, but I feel that I cannot stress it enough. There are a lot of things that would make mankind healthier and, theoretically, better off in society, but that would take away so many of our freedoms that life would become boring. There cannot be joy if there is no pain, and how can we feel the exhilaration of success if we have nothing to overcome?
I am not willing to give up my liberties because some people are too stupid to realize that they can choose not to go to restaurants that allow smoking. If people want businesses to change to their needs, they need to work on the businesses instead of trying to pass legislation that tramples on the liberties of people such as myself. My government already controls enough of my life. I do not need it in this area of my life, as well.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Stoner Rock
|
Posted:Feb 13, 2008 8:04 pm
Last Updated:Aug 16, 2009 8:15 pm
4161 Views
|
I have an immense passion for music. I've found my home in rock music (as well as metal). To me, there's nothing better than a great guitar solo to add onto a brilliant song.
It has recently dawned on me (the past couple of months) that there is a genre of music perfect for my tastes. It is a slower tempo, bass-heavy, bluesy style of rock that is centered around riffs and seems to be the continuation of Classic Rock. In other words, it's the raw, dirty rock that is Stoner Rock. In my opinion, there is no better genre. It takes the tradition of rock 'n roll and fuses it with a heavier sound that is orgasmic.
A few months ago, I wouldn't have realized that there was a genre named this, let alone find myself attracted to it. It all started when I was linked to the profile of a Detroit band, Novadriver. From there, I explored their label's bands that they promote, and my love for Stoner Rock was born. Before this, metal was starting to take over, and not that it's a bad thing, but this is just more proof that my heart lies with rock. I haven't looked back since, even though I still love certain styles of metal.
With all that said, I highly suggest that you people listen to some Stoner Rock/Metal bands that I am fond of:
Novadriver
Greenleaf
Dozer
Halfway to Gone
Red Giant
Clutch
Five Johnson
The Brought Low
Alabama Thunderpussy
Devil To Pay
Down
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
If You Don't Like It, Ignore It
|
Posted:Jan 24, 2008 11:21 am
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
4072 Views
|
"If you don't like it, just ignore it" is a popular saying. I am sure we have all heard this a few times in our lives. The saying makes sense, and it seems like it would be a good thing to follow. I mean, if we do not like something, then we should just ignore it, what is fundamentally wrong with that idea? In theory, nothing is really wrong with it. In reality, it makes everybody complacent and ignorant by emphasizing that nothing is worth judging and dissecting. The other problem is that people become hypocritical when they try to support this viewpoint. People tend to preach this reasoning when they are criticizing and berating others for not abiding by the very ideology that they are now ignoring.
There are plenty of examples where it is a good idea to follow the ideology. For the most part, if we disagree with things, we should just let it be and move on. That is, if what we disagree with has little to no effect on our lives. Things like what people do behind closed doors. Things like a person's hobbies or likes and dislikes. These are things that we should not be actively trying to change, especially as a society as a whole. We should not be trying to force people to into accepting what we believe, as most of us would agree. We are all different, and we tend to accept this, for the most part.
While it is a good idea to not attempt to change a person's ideologies, it is as equally bad to not judge one's ideologies. I am not supporting the idea that we should judge a person. Absolutely not. I am saying that we should judge lifestyles, choices, and morals of others around us and even within ourselves. How else do we know who we are and what we think and feel if we do not dissect what is that makes us who we are? It is by questioning and judging that we become stronger in what we believe. We are able to then expand our minds and not only improve ourselves but improve our communities and society as a whole. Without questioning the world around us, we would not have technology and advances in medicine. Science would not have existed if people did not ask questions and observe the world. The same principle, I believe, needs to be applied to ourselves. If we don't ask questions and observe ourselves and others, what hope is there for improvement on the grand scale that we, as humans, are capable of achieving?
If we start to ignore the differences between ourselves and other cultures, we become complacent. We no longer strive to learn about why people think the way they do. We no longer care about why we think the way we do, as well. We become ignorant. We give up what makes us so uniquely human. We are creatures who are able to ask questions and think about why things are the way they are. If we allow ourselves to not form an opinion about things we do not like, we are unable to know the differences between what we like and what we dislike. We no longer know who we are. Our quest for knowledge ends with this complacency.
Of course, there are people who take this too far. They start to judge the people and label others as right or wrong, good or evil. This, of course, should be avoided. We are all human, we all make mistakes, and we are never always correct, and a person should not be judged for being human. That is not to say that some people are not truly bad. There are people out there that make it a point to be as evil as they possibly can. These people have no remorse for their actions, and they do not seek to improve themselves to help society. They see society as a burden and have no compassion for it. These people deserve judgment, but it is still not our place.
There are people who honestly believe that we have no place to speak in disagreement of someone else's ethics, but the majority of people who like this idea are generally hypocrites. They tote around this idea of absolute tolerance, but completely miss the fact that by speaking out against others' "less tolerant" beliefs, they are going against their very morals. Of course, the funniest part is when they try to preach this ideology while doing so. These people are clueless, and they do not seem to understand why.
A good example of the event/situation is what inspired me to write this rant. A web comic that I frequent has recently been under some heavy flak by a blogger turned comic critic. The avid fans of the comic I read were quick to use this ideology when remarking on the critical blog. More than once they said, "if you don't like it, you can just ignore it." Of course, in doing so, they prove that they are incapable of doing the same thing. They could just as easily have ignored the the blog that is being critical of the comic that they hold dear. Then they would not be hypocrites, and I would not have a topic to rant about.
I do not blame the people for wanting to speak out against this blog. It is perfectly natural for us to form an opinion about something. I, obviously, support forming an opinion, and I am not shy of being blunt about it. I would, clearly, be a hypocrite if I were to say and believe anything else. We, as humans, generally allow ourselves to be inquisitive. We realize that is our nature to seek answers for the questions that we have. Most of us realize this whether or not we say it. Our actions prove this.
It is unfortunate that there are some people willing to ignore our human nature and try so hard not to judge that they distance themselves from what makes us human. Then, there are the people, as I mentioned above, that are so blatantly hypocritical. I will not go as far as saying that these people want to be hypocritical. I believe these people want to subscribe to idea that we should be completely tolerant, but they clearly cannot break free from their human nature. Unfortunately, they do not see the fatal flaw in all of this, and their willingness to be complacent is their downfall.
I know I have made this point more than once already, but I just cannot stress it enough. We should not try to ignore what makes us human. We all have the desire to form opinions about something. We should embrace what sets us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Why shun this incredible attribute? I am not saying we should be judgmental of others, though. We should not label others because we disagree with them. It is not our place to try to elevate ourselves above one another. We are all human, and we are all uniquely flawed. However, that does not mean we cannot seek to improve ourselves and our society. By embracing each other and our differences, being open about disagreements, we can only improve upon ourselves.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Relationship Disappearing Act
|
Posted:Jan 21, 2008 7:54 pm
Last Updated:Apr 27, 2024 11:3 pm
3914 Views
|
I love these cases of "now you see it, now you don't" regarding relationships. They're so fucking confusing and frustrating, you can't help but to love them. Right? Only if you're a sick, twisted fuck who loves the misery and confusion of others. >.>
So, anyway, in my previous blog I mentioned that depending on how well the pursuit of a relationship was going to go, I was either going to stay or leave Affairlook again. Well, if you haven't gathered by now, I'm deciding to stay after the events of tonight have destroyed any chance of a relationship with the woman I was pursuing.
Care for the story? Of course, you do! I will not disappoint, though it's a simple and short story. Well, the chick I was pursuing has been friends with this one for a few years. He's in a band... and now I just gave away the rest of the story. Yup, he got the girl, and now I'm shit out of luck. Typical "guy in a band" story. Oh well, at least I was allowing myself a buffer for disappointment, and now I am already moving on.
So yeah, that's the short story. I just had to rant a little bit, plus I had to give everybody the explanation of why I'm staying. Hooray?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Back For More
|
Posted:Jan 20, 2008 2:24 pm
Last Updated:Jan 24, 2008 12:38 pm
3977 Views
|
I had a bit of a hiatus from this site. I'm not entirely sure why, but it was just starting to bug me, and I needed to just spend less time on this site. Now, I'm back, but I don't know for how long. It all depends on how this one pending-relationship works out.
Until I know I'm in the relationship, I'm going to still be looking for outside action. I'm pretty much for anything, anymore. I know a few posts back I said that I wasn't willing to do any more gay experiences, but I've since changed my mind. I'm also still looking for women to have my way with along with couples. As I said, I'm going to let myself be pretty much up for anything.
We'll see in the next few days if it's good to be back or not. 
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (cheesesoda) use [blog cheesesoda] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
101
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
