Do You Feel Lucky?

(and feel free to comment! My older posts are certainly no less relevant to the burning concerns of the day.)

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Am I Misunderstood? An Examination!

Many times, it seems I am misunderstood. But am I? Am I really? A lot's riding on the question, so it bears scrutiny. And when the answer comes, you can just about bet it will bear repeating. But how to go about it? How is a question like this investigated?

The simplest way is the most obvious: I will say something - in English, to make the results fair - and it will be up to you readers to either misunderstand me, therefore proving the necessity of my investigation into this issue, or understand me, vindicating me, and putting all these doubters and low whisperers to shame. Making them stew in the invalidity of their baseless accusations thrown around like so much used newspaper! But what to say? What sort of statement would be most suited to use as grist for an investigation like this?

Some might say: a plain statement. Come out straight and plain, with a simple declaration of claimed fact. But then we get into contentious ground. What fact? How was the fact chosen? How do we know it is in fact a fact? What are the bases for our judgment that the fact is factual? And again, the very choice of which fact introduces the specter of new bias: not all facts are to everyone's liking. Is this a good fact or a bad fact? In whose view? By what moral metric? How is that sustained - with reference to an infinitely-arguable supernatural, or with recourse to one of many possible and often mutually-conflicting systems of ethical philosophy? As we can see, a plain statement of fact has the potential to raise more questions than answers.

Which is why some might say: go with a question. Leave it open-ended. Let the reader interpret the question as they choose! So long as their interpretation can be supported from within the text, they should be free to answer according to their own interpretation of what those words asked. And by their answer, we will be able to see whether or not some critical misunderstanding has occurred.

Which will give us our answer. But will that answer be sufficient? Suppose the answer comes back negative. No misunderstanding at any detectable level. Does this provide any assurances against future misunderstanding? It's arguable. And what if the answer comes back yes? "Misunderstanding detected!" Scramble the jets, what's our game plan to deal with THAT? Are we ready for that eventuality? Are we ready to hear the answer we don't want?

If not, then maybe we should consider whether we're even ready to ask the question. Or make the statement, depending. Maybe we should just admit that too many questions have already been asked; too many statements have already been made. To proceed any further would simply stack the deck - in favor of a "no" result, if the statements and questions thus far have been clear, but in favor of the dreaded "yes" result if not. Am I really ready to know?

I don't know. I honestly don't know.

Can a person be ready to know if they don't already know? Is knowledge prerequisite to understanding? How can there be understanding before knowledge? And absent some understanding of what we're up against, how can readiness be any more than a self-delusion?

Whether it can or it can't, I'm on pins and needles here, kind of!

More About Me Pt.3

Time for some More About Me. There was More About Me Pt.1, followed by More About Me Pt.2, so now what? What more about me do you need to know? How big my DICK is...?

Folks, I've got an enormous, mind-bogglingly huge seven-inch dick.. My big seven-incher towers over relatively shorter, smaller penises. When I take that thing out, there are gasps and wide eyes - shock and fear are the norm. "Did he just take his DICK OUT??"

Those of you who previously may have been mistakenly informed of my big, EIGHT inch dick - or who have thrilled to the rumors on that count - sorry. I've only measured the thing twice, the first time it came up solid well into the eight inches, which I was fine with - I even wrote a song about it! (Which I can't play any more. It no longer works, rhyme-scheme wise but I refuse to false advertise.) But then I found out I'd used the ruler incorrectly, and come up with a bad metric. The standard for dick-measuring metrics is not to measure from the balls-side, but to go all in from the root-top. Who knew? Veteran or inveterate dick-measurers, I guess, but it was news to me. So, clued in, I got my ruler out for the re-do. Result?

Remeasurement yields a firm, final, amazing colossal seven inches. Folks, that means my dick alone is more than half the national average of all dicks. That just goes to show you it pays to things the right way, to get some results you have confidence in. Alternate theory? Maybe every time I measure my dick, I lose an inch's-worth on the remeasurement.

Folks, it's too much to risk. The measurement stands, it was done in accordance with all international conventions and my effing gigantic seven incher is in the books. No further measurements will be a attempted, tolerated - or necessary. The results are in, and they are FUCKING HUGE. That's a final verdict.

I mean, have you people seen my dick?! It's a fucking monster. The sheer seven inches of it is...it's huge. It's impossible to even quantify how huge this...dick is. You know? I mean, the sheer penisness involved alone, it's like...holy DICK this dick is fucking BIG.

WHAT. A. DICK.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Douche-Tarr And The Adventures In The Friend-Zone

There needs to be a Saturday Morning TV show called Douche-Tarr And The Adventures In The Friend-Zone.

Douche-Tarr is a stalwart barbarian, cut from the same loincloth as Thundarr (or Maganzo!). He's ranging through a postapocalyptic wasteland called The Friend-Zone, along with his trusty steed Hi-Ho (a heavily equinamorphized penis - you can kind of tell that's what it is, but it's disguised enough to pass muster), his sidekick Wing-darr (a seven foot cross between a wookie and Big Bird, except he's orange and his wings work), and Princess Gloriannus. She's interested in Douch-Tarr and his quest, but she's not into him "in that way" - And Neither Is Any Other Woman In The Friend-Zone.

Basically, Douche-Tarr and his team are fighting their way through different groups of mutants and adventures. Douche-Tarr says pretty much whatever's on his mind, so you know where he's at. Partly he's trying to find a way out of The Friend-Zone, but also partly he's trying to locate the hidden fabled Fountain of Lady Brain Boners, which is rumored (or fabled) to imbue who who finds it with the ability to pretty much reliably induce brain boners in all the ladies, magically transporting the finder out of The Friend-Zone (and then the Fountain magically relocates someplace else within The Friend Zone, so that it remains hidden and hard to find!).

At the end of every episode, Douche-Tarr recounts another lesson he's learned about valuing women for more than just that "one thing" (which is never actually named or explained - dudes it's a kid's show!). But somehow, none of those lessons really seem to change his outlook much.

However, it would all be very educational for the viewer.

I think this is the sort of programming we need on tv.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Quote of the Day: a Bitch

"Life's a bitch, and you're equal to it."

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Benediction #1.

"My blessings be on my enemies. My their hate bear fruit from a thousand trees.

Sunday, October 05, 2014

Day shift

All my dreams gave notice and quit. It's empty on the factory floor each night, no magic to make or supervise. But in the day, those dreams come by. Disheveled, ghastly in the light, they grouse a bit and beg for change. I tell them, please! Come back to work! I'd be so glad to take you back. You played so well by dim limelight. By daylight, you're simply not believable. They look at me strange, as if I came from a world that had lost its soul, its shadow, its reflection and gone looking for it in theirs. But I'm sure it was the other way round

Friday, October 03, 2014

Owned

The concept of ownership is incredibly strange when applied to humans, isn't it? If we ask the question: "Is it possible for someone to OWN me?" - we rebel against that. How can someone own me, it sounds tyrannical! But the real question is not one of deed or claim, but one of gift. The question is whether it possible to give yourself to another.

It is. How otherwise? If you cannot give yourself, who owns you and who is preventing the gift? If you cannot give yourself then you are not your own.

But of course, the gift is sentient, and that adds complexity. We can only say ownership of a sentient being if we mean ownership with permission and ownership by permission. Such gift and such ownership is not slavery. It is a gift full willing - and yes, it is subject to revocation.

The person who has given themselves to you can take it back. Fully and completely.

And some might say, well hell, that cheapens it then. "What's the point? It's meaningless to say it was given, if it can be taken back."

What a fool. A gift in love, a gift of self is not cheapened because it can be taken back. It doesn't mean less, it means more, infinitely more each day, because it is not taken back. Because it is a gift of self given freely, not once - but with every breath. That's not as if to say "oh god my every breath it's like I'm breathing the pure LOVE OF YOU, BABY!" Naw. Even I'm not that bad. Chemistry and magnetism whether emotional or sensual or spiritual or just plain sexual - it's all cyclical. In a life-long love it crests, and waxes, and wanes, and returns again. And some days, yup, the fizz is at LOW EBB. And other days you may even feel just "I'm sick of you!"

Yet the gift was given, and you give it again. Even on those days where you're sick and bored, you could take it back, but you end up not. Instead you sit up, and you think of all the reasons you gave it, and you remember who your lover is and who you are, and you know what power exists between you when you are together and calm and one, and yourselves. When life's not giving you static and you aren't, either. And remembering, you put memory into action, and the gift is still there. Each of you belongs to the other. Each of you has all the other has, and so you've got yourself back as well! The gift remains given, and you give it again.

Every day, and with every breath, the gift remains given until you take it back. This means so much more than the slavery, the locked property people accuse you of, when you say you have given your self and taken another's in gift. It means so much more, because every day is a day you could choose to give up, if you wanted to. Every day is a day you could take back the gift you gave. If you couldn't believe in it ever again, anymore, your love would escape and your self would again be yours.

Love is a gift and love remains a gift. Every day you stay you make of your self a gift given it freely.

Thursday, October 02, 2014

What's Your Meyers-Briggs Personality Type?

I am ENFJ: THE MENTOR.

This reminds me of when I was a child, and me and my brothers were playing with a tape recorder. It was sort of a television show where it was being made up as you go using action figures (or as we called them, "figgers") for the principals. There was Bending Legs (that was his name - the Fischer Price Adventure People motorcyclist guy. The only one of all the Fischer Price Adventure People who had, you guessed it, bending legs) in the lead role of "Hero," there was Ben Kenobi in the role of his mentor, "Mentor," and of course the obligatory comic-relief action sidekick: Mr. T, as "Clockwatch."

I remember the key scene, Hero is unconscious in a burning building, and as he begins to stir, to come to, we hear Mentor's disembodied voice..."The Power, Hero...use THE POWER, Hero...!" And then Hero is like "...something...that's IT! That's got to be the key - QUICK! THE POWER! BOOOOOP - YEEE HAW!"

Apparently when he says aloud, "BOOOOP - YEEEE HAW!" he goes flying through the air. "The Power." Anyway, then the THEME SONG plays: "Hee-ro! Hee-ro! When danger is near! Far I go!"

Did I already tell this story?

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Dialectical Criticism of Greek Myth #1: Dionysus Misspelled

The cult of Dionysis arose late in the game after the main pantheon was heavily established. Dionysis's origin myth is rife with rejection from the established humans who prudishly spurned the new-jack god and suffered for it. Sometimes by magic whammy, but often enough by being lynched by revelers, devotees of the god! In the myth's world, the established gods were in favor of Dionysis and his elevation of debauchery to something to be consecrated, venerated. It was the mainstream humans who were portrayed as philistines - opposed to the coming of the new god's cult, just as any upstanding citizen might be opposed to a movement that takes wine as emblem and the formation of a drunken mob as sacred liturgy.

I read the myth as a tantalyzingly-cloaked account of what may actually have historically happened. A cult springs up devoted to the grape, to wine and with drunkeness its sacrament. The cult is a wildfire success, but opposition rises against it from the more staid, sober elements of society - and I'd be surprised if enough of them weren't lynched by indignant, sloppy-drunk hordes. Such opposition was blasphemy, from the cult's standpoing! The authorities put their stamp on the movement as part of sublimating it, gathering it in, saying it has a rightful place and then channeling it more-or-less harmlessly into its place. Better than leaving it a rampaging and unstoppable countryside phenomenon - the rave of its day, only far less tamed. It is embraced, made to follow stations of regular worship, transmuted into merely: carnival. The ritual topsy-turveying of proprieties, the blowing off of steam, but endorsed by the man. No longer in opposition.

Another revolution contained.

So yeah: you give Dionysis a temple to keep him from bringing down every other one.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Thought of the day: creative.

Destruction is a creative act. And I love to create, so stay the hell back.

Humanity Is Not Your Tribe.

"Us Versus Them."

Group-based bias.

Identifying in groups, thinking one's group good, regarding others suspiciously, prepared for hostility. A problem in this day and age? Simplistic thinking? More like natural. More like tribal, like a blood deep animal instinct. The territorial/extended familial instinct. The instinct of loyalty for and protectiveness of one's tribe. It's actually not even a problem!

The problem is when it's misapplied. The problem is when you do not know your tribe. Racism. Nationalism. These are expressions of a false tribal loyalty.

Nationalism teaches us to grossly distend and misapply the strongly felt loyalties that homo sapiens felt for tribe, extended families, for people one knew and with whom we worked in intimate cooperation: to carve out a niche for survival, to live and thrive within the bounds of our known world.

The known world was a small place, then - a garden. Hundreds of thousands of years of this living bred into us the value of such strongly-felt loyalties. Bonds of automatic trust for the members of one's positive bias group. It bred into us a concomitant wariness of, often hostility towards any out-groups one came in contact with. Naturally. Contact then often meant conflict, but usually at least competition. Us versus them was not only perfectly natural, it made good sense.

Still is. Still does. The problem is you, if you think your tribe encompasses millions of strangers. The problem is you do not know your tribe.

When writing began to make words that could stay, words that could fly, bridge long distances, bring news and values, it acquired power to unite vast stretches of land in culture, in civilization. Shared language accompanied conquest. Shared language was itself conquest. Soon, members of wide territories were exhorting each other to stretch and extend natural feelings of tribal loyalty to one's "countrymen." Bonds that had grown from shared experience in shared land, that were felt towards the families and people one actually knew, were now being stretched and distended beyond all sense. Likewise the out-group bias, the sensible wariness and preparedness for hostility towards any outsiders who actually showed up in our land - this too was perverted and misapplied.

Hordes of people we didn't know and had never met were to be treated as if they were our tribe. Hordes of other people we didn't know and had never met were to be marked out for hatred sight-unseen. We were to be prepared to war upon them.

This false tribal bias is powerful indeed. War used to be a fairly local phenomenon, but as media united wider and wider areas under culture it couldn't stay such. Once local tribes, clans and families began to ally themselves into nations, there proved to be no stopping them. Any territories occupied by tribes that had not so united their strength would be conquered by the nations that had. Disunited tribes would be swept aside, their territory divvied up and annexed. The tribes themselves could flee to further territories - a temporary solution at best, as war and conquest would not stop. Tribes that refused to flee would fare no better: conquered, subjugated, enslaved or assimilated - solutions considerably more final.

Racism is very like nationalism. Please note by "racism" I mean here race-based bigotry, such that anyone might feel. Any one of any race can have a race-based bias. Even though there are other far more complex definitions, additional senses invented to convey other ideas, the irreducible core of racism is race-based bigotry. As with nationalism, the positive group bias - the part where we are to treat millions of strangers as if we love them - is perhaps not so bad! We wouldn't call it racism if positive bias towards the in-group were the extent of it, we'd call it racial pride. For nationalism, if positive bias towards the in-group were its extent, we'd call it patriotism. Our high regard for a stranger based on some grouping we share with them may prove misguided, but as long as we are giving them the benefit of our ignorance and not the detriment of it, we don't call it bigotry even though it is bias. Positive bias, we don't call bad.

It is when we teach ourselves to regard millions of strangers we don't know as if their group makes them bad that we call bias bad. We call it prejudice, to treat or regard people as bad when we don't know who they are. When we know only one limited aspect of what they are, when we judge the person bad because of how we view their group - we call that bigotry.

Tribal bias was perfectly good, healthy and natural. Working on the scale of the local, of those one knows, tribal bias was kept in check by human encounter and real experience. As neighboring tribes came into contact, initial distrust would lead to clashes. But assuming neither tribe was strong enough to drive the other out, continued sharing of the same territory would breed a distaste for misery - ours and theirs. As we each evolved little accommodations to reduce conflict, our efforts would erode the initial cautious (and mostly beneficial) distrust. Otherness would be supplanted by acquaintance. True cooperation would spring from mutual benefit to be gained in trade, in exchange of knowledge, and soon enough, exchange of mates. Over hundreds of years of such contact and exchange, tribes become tribe - enriched and strengthened.

Nationalism and racism are based on false tribe, but the feelings they give rise to are powerful and real. When huge group divisions encompassing millions of strangers are used to bring down one's hate and contempt upon the other side - also comprised of millions of strangers - the check of personal encounter and cooperation is nowhere to be found. Distance breeds demons. Worse, the demon bred at a distance will be treated as one, once you meet it in person. False tribal loyalty is real enough to take lives, to make wars, and to set in place blood debts of hatred that - without the check of intimate cooperation and encounter to temper it and teach each group that the other is as human as we are - will endure down the centuries: an inheritance of hate.

Us vs. Them. It's natural. A survival mechanism. It's never going to go away. Grouping together and aligning in solidarity is too powerful, is too beneficial. We will not do away with it, and nor should we. Tribal loyalty remains a good and useful thing, limited to what tribe always was: those who we actually live among, encounter and experience. Then as now, it's sensible to be cautious of those whose ways we don't know. Then as now, it's sensible, understandable and human to affiliate strongly with those whose ways we do. All of this is nothing to fight.

What we must be on guard against is not bias, and not even negative bias, but ignorant bias. In a global age, people group along increasingly vast lines, and we're not going to stop this powerful alignment from happening. But we can prevent our own thinking to be contaminated with irrational distortions and false loyalties. We can keep our loyalties based in life experience, at our own human scale. It's insane, inhuman, to consider our tribe to be a group that includes millions of strangers. It's ignorant and diabolical to decide there are millions of other strangers we're not prepared to regard, encounter, or experience as equal in human dignity to ourselves. It is when we let our loyalties be ruled by abstractions that we allow strangers to be branded enemies, all based on the dictates of a false tribe. We make demons of others in our own minds, and we stand ready to do worse: to be demons ourselves. To treat the other inhumanly, if ever we should meet. All because you we do not know our tribe.

Know your tribe. If you don't know your tribe, you don't have a tribe. If your tribe includes millions of strangers - you don't have a tribe.

Humanity is not your tribe. You do not know them. Media has made it possible for you to know, and live, and love, and be in communion with - so many humans, a great deal farther-flung from you than was ever possible in past times! But possibility is not life. Life is human-scale. Life is not made of abstract people.

If you do not know the person, if you do not live in their life and they in yours, if you do not love them and share their love, whatever some media connection could somehow possibly let you be to each other gives no power, makes no connection, makes no difference. You don't know them.

Who do you know? Work with? Live with? Love? Who are you in communion with? Who is your community?

These are the people you know. These are the people it is natural for you to be biased towards. It is even good! You know them, and they know you. You love what is good in them - and love always makes bias. These people are your in-group. They are your tribe. It is as good to be cautious towards outsiders. You don't know them. You don't know them, yet. And as you chance to encounter them, you will have a chance to come to know them, person by person. You will have this chance for every person you may ever meet.

You will only have it so long as you haven't poisoned yourself against them, by placing yourself in one false tribe - and them in another.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Hope for the future #1: Racism.

Racists are cowards, and can only survive cowering under cover huddling and whispering with people they already know share their bullshit views. They gain very few converts there.

Every generation racists raise more children embarrassed of their parents. And then they die. The battle for hearts and minds is not won in the invisible dark. It is won in the light, incrementally, over lifetimes, over centuries.

It needs patience, but ultimately this: only truth can withstand the light of human reason.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Arguments between the Id and other abstractions #1: the Conscience?

I finally figured out the difference between us, sir. You are Haughty in Righteous Cause. Sometimes even with righteous cause! Not I.

I, I, I am arrogant in all matters of inconsequence. So long as they call to me, I thrill to rush in, conscious in my exaggerated sense of self and worth! This is arrogance: to hold an exaggerated or falsely high estimation of self or self worth. I know I am arrogant. I glory in it, I glory in what calls me, I rush in to it - dauntless more than brave, heedless more than courageous - but those as well, surely. In valor, we may say, so long as we leave the better part. I find I have rushed in before conscious of the call, and as I fly through and out of the frame gang-tackling it, I feel at the very least equal to it.

Superior, maybe. But that isn't a bad thing! If it can be managed, one should find ways to be superior to all one's calls.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

I don't feel the need to picket the Catholic church over pedophile priests. I denounce the crime itself, I'll note the criminals are in fact not the church, but enemy agents sheltering within it to leverage whatever trust, power and respectability it has left while violating both the oaths they took and those who it was their sworn duty to guide and protect! I'll note Rome's shocking failure to condemn the problem, and I'll sound a call for the truly penitent to take up a stricter penance, in gratitude for Christ's forgiveness: confess to Caesar. Turn yourselves in. Even blameless Christ submitted himself to human judgment,  and paid for doing so. Submit yourselves to human justice. Christ forgives sin, but you are criminal. 

So too it saddens me that Islam as a whole does not rise up to condemn the acts of these blasphemous heretics whose gospel is God Says Kill. But if a Muslim fears these beasts, fears for life, limb and loved ones, they are fucking a right to do so. Only thing an extremist hates more than an infidel is an outspoken moderate.

I am Christian and I ask: what has betrayal of vows, abuse of trust and the penile penetration of juvenile orifices to do with the church of acceptance of God's judgment? God's judgment upon us, which is Christ, halleloo y'all!? NAUGHT. There is no excuse to be found there.

So too Islam. What does the murder of strangers, civilians, in order to drum up publicity for a political grievance - what does this have to do with the religion of submission to God's will?

Naught.

Oh, I jihad. I jihad all the time. See me war.

Monday, September 08, 2014

Quote of the day: Responsible

"I am responsible for all I say or do, for when questioned I am the one who must have response.

I am responsible for all any do to me. For no one but me will respond for me.

It is right and fair for every single one, and people are hell, and life is cold and this world is death. And some have advantages I don't have, and still we must make response for ourselves, or suffer and die. Good fortune of others does not make my lot unfair, and we will die.

Until then only you must make response for only you. Suffer no liars to deceive you on this point, to your sorrow."

- Sir Fauntleroy Gilchester Fakereference

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Strong Assertion

I don't know about psychic media.

I keep an open mind, but I don't believe in anything paranormal or anything supernatural. If it exists, hey, it may be abnormal! But if it exists it's natural and if it exists, we - homo sapiens sapiens, I mean - is going to get it. As in, "get" it. Grasp hold, drag it kicking and if need be screaming into the light of our comprehension. Probably take a pass or two to fine tune the description slash theory on some of the most abnormal shit there is, but we'll do it. We'll get it, or die trying. We'll grasp it or - as they used to threaten in the old books, "...or I'll know the reason why."

You'll say I have too much faith in humanity, too much faith in the method. You would be wrong. I assure you I'm the strongest skeptic yet met. I suspect I am a stronger skeptic than any of you.

We haven't really talked philosophy, though. It's possible my strong suspicion here will prove unfounded! In any case, skepticism is no contest. It's a moral position, one whose survival value and adaptive benefit has been tested and proved again and again and again.

My faith in humanity is not faith at all, really - faith is a pure figure of speech, here. Same with my faith in the scientific method. Such "faith" is no more than justified confidence based on track record. Again and again and without exception yet, the method is proved sound. It is made to run on human error, and to advance by falsification. Again and again we have proved equal to its good use. Confidence justified - compellingly so, as I hope anyone with a decent brain and half a mind to use it would agree.

Anyway, I do enjoy the topic of psychic media, things of that nature. I don't believe in that stuff based on current studies and facts in evidence, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious about what others believe! Damn curious, what others believe.

But then what do you want, belief is not suspicion, belief is not conjecture. It's a feeling, and sometimes, an irrational one. Maybe sometimes justified, too! But a lot of the time you don't know. You know what I believe?

I believe skepticism is the strongest moral position you can stake out.

One should not believe in the truth value of any proposition whose validity is not compellingly established. For me, for phenomena, that pretty much means the method. Reality - if you please, reality ought to be demonstrable and repeatable, or else we ought to suspend judgment.

Huh. Bit of a tangent there, but very clear I believe. I don't imagine any of you will find any claim in it you'd care to contest. There never was a claim I made I couldn't back up - except the one that I will take back down. I love the test best when I'm proven wrong. I don't understand why anyone would not crave disproof, thrive upon being proven wrong. I love human error, and especially my own!

It's how we advance.

Friday, September 05, 2014

"The Trick": One Weird-ass Peculiar Unbeatable Sweet Trick to Change the World, Pt.2

~ This Post is a Part 2. There was also a Part 1. ~

Ok, I just had a guy pay me $5 for "The Trick" crash course life improvement program. Accordingly this notice herby notifies all and sundry that I have begun employing this mark for this service as a "mark in trade," and that if my mark can be demonstrated to infringe on a similar mark for the same class of product or service, I thereby owe that rights-owner five bucks then, don't I? Fuck your legal fees pal! Let's see your C & D demonstrate infringement first, because as I've always and already informed you - once it's demonstrated, I immediately comply.

You'll never have to file suit on me. File suit without C & D'ing me and you'll be paying my legal fees, pal. I get that legal letter with infringement clearly demonstrated, I won't waste one minute or a single dime! I'll take it to my fucking attorney and see what she has to say. She has no fool for a client. If she agrees you've got the mark, or even feels it's arguable enough to go to court - I'll just call it something else! Easy. Especially for me, I come up with better business ideas than that during sex. But to be honest, here, I'd caution you. I'm of the opinion that you don't have an enforceable mark. To be honest. I bet upon examination, my service and product is going to be so different from yours as to be a completely different type of product or service, and wholly unconfusable with yours. Whatever the hell yours is. And even assuming it exists! Screw your legal fees. At best you'll be paying MINE, pal. Watch it.

Hell technically, I don't even have to give you the five dollars. I'd only be doing that because to me, that's all part of my sweet trick.

Also part of The Trick, you can see above displayed the decency and dignity we were talking about earlier. That's where the "one encounter at a time" case-by-case aspect comes in so crucial! None of your absolutism here, none of your idiotic inapplicable universal principles. Those don't work case-by-case, because there you have to proceed on merit. Your Ideals, your Virtues, will never ever work on merit. Except maybe in the freak case where one happens to pertain, but you could live and die waiting for that to happen.

On merit, case-by-case, you'll see the above example pertains to "dude got his lawyer involved." Due consideration for etiquette is advised in such a case! And let me tell you, your lawyer's not going to feel belittled by a little straight talk. It will refresh them. And then they will assure you how decent I've been, to caution your ass. Which will reassure you! You'll be like - "that Sweet-Trick bastard! He had my dignity in mind the whole time!" I sure did. And then they'll invoice you.

THE TRICK. It works. Even there, you can see how well it works!

I used to call it Invincible Professionalism, but then I saw that #1 I'd been acting the same way off work for years. Long before I came up with the brilliant idea to act that same way on the job. And who the hell knew it would work? Nobody acts that way on the job! I thought I was a genius when it worked even better. But also, #2, I kind of had to stop calling it Invincible Professionalism because...well, to be honest, in practice, in conjunction with my specific personality, there's nothing particularly professional about it. Nothing all that professional my sweet THE TRICK. Tee-Em.

I tell you what though, it's weird. It's weird what to call it, and it's weird how to class it, but you better believe whether I come up with a better name or not I am as of now in business with this. This sweet trick of mine is a gold mine on cloud nine, people! Because you know what? "Change the world"? Hell yes! People will eat that up, and I intend to charge by the barge for the pleasure of enriching their fucking lives.

One Weird-ass Peculiar Unbeatable Sweet Trick to Change the World

I always do the random acts of kindness, and Morgan Freeman is damn right - that does change the world, but here's another trick I find also works great. And not a lot of people seem to have picked up on it! Even though, pretty simple right?

One encounter at a time, random or not, speech or action: treating each other we meet with decency and dignity, whether they've done so or not. Whether they hate how we see the world or love it. Whether we love them or not. Whether we in fact hate them. Whether either of us thinks the other has "deserved" it.

The above trick is so fucking nasty, so sneaky and unexpected that it pretty much runs roughshod over people who'll have no reference frame for how they can react! What are they supposed to do, when you come back at them with THAT? It's like a jujitsu move. But warning: anyone who's a total dick will A) first be extremely suspicious of your motives, and then second, B) eventually shift to thinking they can "take advantage of you." Good luck with that.

C) varies, to be honest. You have to play that one by ear. As long as you keep using the sweet trick, they're pretty much fucked don't worry.

I'm serious, people! Dead sincere. The above sneak trick, or "sweet trick," as we seem to have agreed I'll call it, works like riding a bike off a log - you could never learn to forget a thing like that. This one weird-ass peculiar unbeatable sweet trick, if practiced consistently, will change your whole world. I just wish I had a catchier name for it. Maybe just call it, "The Trick"? TM!

Be clear, here: my sweet trick has nothing at all to do with treating the other "as we'd treat the self." No relation at all to any so-called "golden rule" situation. Number one, because that rule doesn't fucking work - not for practically anybody! It only works for people who have self-love. No wonder people scoff.

My sweet trick also has got fuck all to do with kindness. Or love, or anything like that. Unless mercy? But seriously, WHO CARES what it's called. It works! It's my sweet trick.

People have no idea how to stop it, or stop you doing it, or stop you.

My sweet trick. Change your whole experience of the world.

Fiction Friday: Another Going-Away Party.

At the party tonight a dear friend and I were delighted to have a chance to catch up, and did so. As we talked, we realized that despite the loveliness of the occasion - so many people we both knew, loved and missed! - and despite each of us having kicked off with frank, sincere assurances of "never better," by the time we finished catching up, between us she and I had just described a pretty hard year. She summed it all up with "I just pray next year is easier." I immediately nodded my sincere agreement, adding "I just pray next year there is a God."

She started punching my arm, but when she saw the surprise in my face - why am I ever surprised over getting hit? - and she saw the lack of any "me giving her shit over she of all people praying" vibe, she stopped punching and gave me just the best hug ever. I had to to tell her stop I'll cry! Thank god I didn't, but I guess we both had already, a little. Then another new mother walked up to say hi to Suzy, and she smiled so at the both of us, seeing the trace tears but seeing only good tears. I excused myself before concern could creep in.

Before I left, though - these were my two favorite wives, and I told them so. Suzy said she didn't like that. She requested it be changed to "favorite moms." Now of course at that, Julie and I said "SUZY!" And then she stopped a second and then she laughed, seeing the dilemma. Both Julie and Suzy had met Lauren at the engagement party, but Suzy had even babysat Tally one happy night. Clearly they knew, the competition was considerably less stiff in the "wife" category.

"Well okay," she groused, "wives it is." Then after a second she started, adding "Hey! That's not going to last either!" Made a hurt face. We all cried a little laughing at that perfect pout of hers. I actually felt bad for a second, then I felt good thinking of her prediction, then eventually settled on worse.

Suzy's a card!

Sunday, August 31, 2014

*BOON REDEMPTION POLICY: Important Change. Check Terms of Your Specific Boon to See if It Applies.

Those of you in receipt of an as-yet unasked BOON* are hereby informed of a change in terms. Effective immediately, Boon (hereinafter "Boon*" or "BOON*") is defined as the offer: "You may ask of me 1 thing which is in my gift."

Previous boons offered either unspecified or under the explicit term "Ask of me that which is in my power, and I will grant it," are no longer valid. However, as always, holders of an expired or other invalid boon may redeem it for a valid Boon* by turning in their invalid boon and performing 1 one (one) Stunt*.

I Did Not Say Goof

Would you please goof off with your sarcasm or whatever it is? You know damn well I don't care if you believe me.

Friday, August 29, 2014

The Damn Disclaimer.

This blog is fiction. If I write an autobiography, that would be novel.

This blog is writing practice. Practice does not make perfect. Play makes perfect. This blog is practice.

This blog is anthology. If I have spoken words, their use ends with the sound. If I have sent a letter, its use ends with having been read. The purpose of those words has been fulfilled. Here, those words find repurpose.

Facebook: "Some Say..." Pt.2

This post is a Part 2. There was also a Part 1.

OK, that Pt.1 was a lovely dissertation or some crap, but cutting to the bottom line that got a bit buried at the tail end of it, the point of the post is, I believe there's only one "Dogimo Jones" on Facebook, but whether there is or there isn't - that's me!

That's my name. Dogimo Jones, Attorney-At-Love some call me. I am not an attorney!

I am not at love, but I can advise you.

Sincerely,

Joe

P.S. I should have put "warmly." Go back up there mentally and change it to "warmly," or better yet! Keep it "sincerely," but just put some warmth into the sincerity. Mentally!

P.P.S. And I do apologize for any perceived churlishness on the part or in the eyes of people who reached out kindly, heart-in-throat, warm hand virtually groping through the ethernet to be my friend - and were cooly rebuffed, for the very excellent reason that I never really bothered to think through at the time. But see part 1!

Facebook: Some Of You...

Hi folks. Let's call this post, "Facebook For Some."

Facebook is a place for people to stand up in a room full of...everybody...and spout an ignorant, ill-advised statement the likes of which they would never have spoken aloud to you, if there were only one other person watching and listening. They'd have shut their mouth. They wouldn't have said the thing they just said to the whole wide circle of their wirld.

Why this happens is a bit of a mystery. It's because they see certain people spout very definitely-worded views, they themselves have some definitely-held views, and they think that's the same thing. "I can do that!" When it turns out the view in question, so definitely-held, had never once been even cursorily-examined by the viewholder - that's when you get those ignorant, inadvisable statements.

It works so great! People they love come out of the wordwork, gently gently, probably only one at a time because they see oh, Aunt Sally Ann already took care of his ass for him: "Dogimo. You can't really mean that, can you? Even in light of bif, bam, bop?" People they respect come flying out from all directions ripping the ignorant statement to shreds and then pounding them into the dirt. "What's wrong with you? Expect better from yourself!" And then the people to whose worldview the statement was attempting to pander come flying in from all the other directions, "DAMN RIGHT!" "TELL it!" "Finally someone with the GUTS!" "Don't listen to these fools and deniers!" Then everybody gets in a big fight.

The system works perfectly! People who are ignorant and indifferent to reason get, really, no worse from the reactions their ignorant, ill-advised statement brings. People for whom human reason and, particularly, reality-as-jointly-observed go together to form a bit of an "Achilles's Heel" in the foot of the courage of their convictions - those folks may end up failing, losing their shit stancepoint in favor of an open-minded hopeful expectation of eventually coming to a better one, or better yet, skipping straight to a better one. And because almost every strongly-worded stance is going to get enough rah rah support from the likeminded knee-jerks in the camp it's meant to stand for, encouragement results. The person who never, ever would have said that idiotic, ignorant, unadvisable thing to you face-to-face will be reassured: on Facebook, this simply is the social norm.

Now for me, Facebook is less about all that. Facebook is a place for me to view and enjoy the beautiful, underage children pictures of my paranoid, privacy-obsessed family. I honor that. I make a point of never accepting a Facebook friend request except for someone who A) I recognize the person's name.

B) I have looked the person directly in the eye. A human eye, a space between filled with nothing but breathable atmosphere, no windows, no screens, and another human eye. The eyes, as they say (apart from Zooey Deschanel's which are windows to heaven) are the windows to the soul.

And C) aforesaid eye contact has occurred OUTSIDE OF WORK. In the context of a social interaction which was at a minimum not unpleasant.

Technically that was a policy before I realized how well my familial paranorms justified it. Originally I had no justification at all for my comfort levels and normal responses! Imagine that.

All of this was before. Some of you, a couple of you asked me if I could be a friend to you on Facebook. Given all the above (and to be fair, the family objection/justification did come in pretty quickly after an idle talk with my sister - I don't think I'd ever had a Facebook friend request to turn down yet, at that point), if you did, I probably turned you down.

What a scumbag!

I have a Facebook account now, one that I am beginning to use for more than just to see pictures of my beautiful and ferocious mother, occasionally father, constant brothers and sisters and the many, many progeny of many of them. I'm using this one for no good. No good reason. No reason. All of the above. Friend me!

If you want, now you can friend me. As he comes begging and cowering back, trying to get those good graces, "Oh, NOW you want to be my friend!" Well, to be perfectly truthful, not really. I want to be your FACEBOOK friend.

Some of you, I was already your friend.

Good morning!

I am,

Dogimo Jones

Unedited Comments from my Secret Free Thinkers Facebook Debate Group #2: The Grammarchy

As usual, the problem is not what's claimed (classism, elitism, bullyism as claimed bases for a would-be grammarchy). It is the absolutism and oversimplification used to make and support the claim.

Where a given rule aids clarity? GRAMMAR ELITE GOOD. They win not because "It's a rule"; they win not because the power of rules can "shut down" and "bully" people into silence! And what sheep, if so; what cowards to be shut down, shamed by ignorance of some silly rule!

Where the rule truly is silly, is useless, the grammarchists are easily dethroned and ridiculed for insisting on it. Where the rule powerfully aids clarity, though, the grammarchists rule. By divine right: the will of the people to a language capable of wielding meaning with power.

It's case by case, as almost always it is. Absolutists can eat a dick!

But even there, my generalization is overbroad. In a given instance, many of them will choose not to.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

A woman wants to see you succeed.

Otherwise, she won't fuc* you for *hit.

Unedited Comments from my Secret Free Thinkers Facebook Debate Group #1: Widening Circles

It's probably a good thing. It shows people that their circles of acquaintance and even intimacy encompass a whole spectrum of views. The strident folks sail in and make ass of themselves, but often do a decent job presenting the side. People you respect surprise you by chiming in the voice of reason on behalf of a side you don't credit with reason.

Facebook is the sociocultural version of early 1980s MTV's play-it-all mix list. By within another 10 years or so, I fully expect to see some "Alternative" surfacing, but for suck's fake, this time I hope they leave the flannel out of it.