Oh, Afghanistan

The United States' relationship with the nation of Afghanistan is a complicated maze of plausible deniability, conveniently applicable amnesia, two-faced policies, and political dick swinging. Oh, and blatant lies. 

Now, as I have mentioned before, political memory is only about 30 years so it is no wonder to me that very few Americans have any idea what their country is doing over there in the first place. 

I'll give you a hint. A few things happened about 50 years ago.

Fifty years ago the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962 is signed by J.F.K. This officially starts the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, and operation Ranch Hand is launched roughly two months later. 

But wait, what-the-fuck does Vietnam have to do with Afghanistan? 

Two things; Communism & Heroin. (Click for appropriate music: "Last Dance")

The Foreign Assistance Act of '62, "provides '...military assistance to countries which are on the rim of the Communist world and under direct attack.'" (Wikipedia) This not only opened the door for military operations in Vietnam, but also for assistance in training and supplying the Mujahidin, starting in 1980.

But we must back up here, much happened before 1980 to lead to the U.S.'s official involvement in the Afghan region...

Communism and Heroin are near inseparable when it comes to military actions in the third quarter of the 20th century... Heroin trade (generally backed by the CIA) funded many localized anti-Communist insurgent groups. The Democratic fight against Communism is a total fucking junkie.

History and example time... The oriental area of production of the 1900's via The French Connection was disrupted to the point of collapse by the rise to power of the communist party in China in the 1940's and trade between Asian markets and the U.S. ended completely as a result of trans-pacific trade collapsing due to the war against Japan in the 40's. A double whammy in the same decade to all the U.S. junkies thanks to Communism and Imperialism... 

So after WWII, the Sicilians took over for a while...  but where to grow those damn poppies? What was relatively close to Sicily's manufacturing labs? Oh yeah, the area later to be referred to as the Golden Crescent. 

'Sup Afghanistan? You guys already grow this stuff, have an established trade route west, why not make bank by turning it into an even bigger export product?

Now, with the massive Asian proliferation of Communism following Stalinist Russia's defeat of Hitler in '45, (yup, they broke the Nazis, we (the U.S.) just kept them from defeating Britain and held them from capturing Africa and the entire Atlantic... no small feat, but hardly a 'victory.' We did kick the shit out of the Japanese Empire though. Russia just kept Japan out of their own back yard.) America's hard-on for hating the Communist threat of the 1930's was re-fluffed. 

So first, the worlds greatest illegal drug-dealing operation headed to Indochina to trade guns & tactics for smack. And in the 60's and 70's the CIA helped establish the Golden Triangle in Burma, Laos, Thailand, & Vietnam with anti-Communist Chinese Nationalists... Meanwhile....

...In the same area, a little "hot" conflict was escalating in which the U.S. was busy poisoning and bombing the countryside to halt the advance of an idea of government south of the 17th parallel. This, led to hundreds of thousands of American G.I.'s fighting a long and arguably pointless war... and as the troops were stuck there some found out that when the pain and senselessness is too much to bare, sometime booze and grass just don't cut the mustard, however, there was something a bit stronger being manufactured in those dense jungles... Heroin. 

And they brought their habitual chemical coping mechanism, being used to fund the shadow versions of the same fight that led them to have to cope in the first place, back to the States with them... Where the best local suppliers were usually getting it from two sources... Folks like Frank Lucas who were getting their dope from the Golden Triangle or the Mafia who were getting theirs from the Golden Crescent...

Now, a few years later, in 72, this hard drinkin' good livin' SOB of a Texan was elected as the 2nd District Representative to the House. Now it just so happens that I consider this man to have one of the truest moral compasses of government. To his credit are legislations such as The Safe Drinking Water Act, he fought to raise minimum wage, increase Medicare and Medicaid, for Veterans' rights, and he was pro-choice. Considering the base of his constituency was both women and African-Americans, Charlie Wilson was a legitimate defender of the "little guy." 

It was same moral conscious that led him, in 1980, to use his pull as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to allocate support for the Mujahidin so that they could fight the Soviet occupation of their homeland, Afghanistan. Over the 80's Congressman Wilson helped reallocate hundreds of millions of dollars to train and arm these "rebels" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And with U.S. aid these fighters were able to integrate the technologically superior small arms with a hundreds of years old history of guerrilla fighting on native soil to bring the Soviet forces to a standstill, and ultimately crippling the U.S.S.R. finically (not that they were the only source of financial ruin, but you can see the parallel I'm making here to a similar war waged on an idea, say, terrorism).  

So with Perestroika and the fall of the U.S.S.R., the legitimate "threat" of Communism was all but wiped of the face of the planet (sorry China, but you're such a mess that you were never much of a military threat... until lately). So, with Reagan's all but gift-wrapped & handed victory there... It was time to pick a new fight... but Communism was too politically identifiable a conceptual threat... Hmmm what did we have a ton of experience building and could arbitrarily "fight" for the sake of the military-industrial complex? Oh shit! Remember Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin? Now there is a guy who can pick a fucked-up fight, he gave us the Red Scare... Let's take another from his playbook, Marijuana, er; no… let’s just say DRUGS!!!

<< Never mind that we get our medicines from a place called a "drug store," if we fear monger enough, loudly and passionately enough the general God fearing American is so gullible that they will totally buy it! No all we need is a sick catch phrase... "Just Say No!" Bam. Packaged and sold... South America, Middle East here we come...>>

Combined with the lingering terror of a dictatorial state, the U.S. now had two fights that they could secretly back in order to combat each other... 

...And add to that the largest known reserves of this nations true junkie fix... the new shadow wars were on!!!

So, the 70's, 80's, & 90's were spent wrapping up the Cold War and fighting Communism wherever we could find it, so we could install "friendly" dictators of our own. Who, in turn for the rule of a nation would keep the supply of oil flowing cheaply into our auto-mated veins... and when the Communist "threat" was in undeniable decline, the enemy of "drugs" was the next best scapegoat for our democratic, "peace"-loving brand of capitalist imperialism. 

Now, I feel I should take a moment here. I am not opposed to this "democratic, "peace"-loving brand of capitalist imperialism," I just wish as the clear winners here we had enough balls to not have to lie to ourselves about this. It is the nature of living things, competition for resources. May the most intelligent, devious, underhanded bastard win! As Bill said, "The pen is mightier than the sword." But on occasion it does help to just shank a motherfucker in the gut and just have the discussion be over with. But I digress.

Back to the point... With the Internets and subsequent technology boom of the 90's added to the freewheeling "I didn't inhale" style of Slick Willie's the war on drugs could focus on the real bad guys; Coke & Heroin. So, off to the jungles of South America (where we were already) and to the western steppes of the Himalayas... 

Now if there is one thing that history has taught the western world it is that no matter how big and hot and strong you think you are... DON'T FUCK WITH AFGHANISTAN! Every dumb cunt that has attacked and invaded those people since the 6th century has been whipped, beaten, and humiliatingly been sent home with what little of their tail remains tucked around their sore and bleeding balls! Come on!!! 

I was 15 and stoned out of my mind when I first heard about the strikes to eradicate the poppy fields and change the government there, and even at that time I could've told you, dumb fucking idea guys... So, three years later - still stoned - it came as no surprise that some extremists got pissed enough to say "fuck you" back and used the training we gave them to fly a few planes into a few buildings... but then again, considering the evidence it was just another Pearl Harbor all over again... oops, digressing again...

So when ex-Generals like Stanley McChrysal say that the U.S. has only been in Afghanistan since 2001, they either don't know the history of the very conflict that they have been involved with for the past decade, or they have a political gun to their head to shut-the-fuck-up and spin this shit proper.

~Why can't I get a job with these idiots? I want health care too.~

We didn't win anything there. Just a bunch of shame, thousands of seriously disturbed young men who have been brainwashed through the rigors of military service (the number one complaint of vets trying to reintegrate to civilian service is that they cannot function without the "camaraderie" of the service, plus PTSD), oh, and a huge financial bill we cannot pay. We're still the number one consumer of drugs in the world, we just found a dealer much closer to home, Mexico. No people or religion we have demonized and oppressed hates us any less. And the bulk of the people in this country still have no clear idea about anything as their main sources of information come from one of two packs of mercilessly masturbatory lying fools. When we leave Afghanistan in 2014, very little over there will have changed, but here all we did was lose ground to stand on. 

Education Reform

Reaganomics: "refers to the economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with supply-side economics, often pejoratively referred to as trickle-down economics.

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and control the money supply in order to reduce inflation." (Wikipedia)

There is one area of the American society where this policy could show amazing results. Education.

Imagine if education was refitted to the theories of trickle-down economics...

First, let's reduce government spending in the areas of "welfare." Why should this country waste money via the policies of "no child left behind" when in reality I would wager that over half the kids in the education system will never benefit from more than an 8th grade education. They will just grow up to be clerks, or administrators, manual laborers, or some other occupation where only a basic level of literacy or mathematics is required and most certainly not a college education. This would relieve millions (if not billions) from both federally funded student loans (Sallie Mae's broke ass) as well as remove the need for so many of this nations funding crippled high schools. Seriously, how much education do athletes really receive and use anyway?  Privatize all sports beyond the middle school level and free up those education funds for providing education.

Second, one would have so much tax surplus if one were to only allow those who showed enough potential to gain anything from a high school education to progress into public high school. Basic rule of capitalism, if you create a competitive (and limited) market you almost ensure that only the most qualified would be allowed in. Sure there would be corruption, but I would rather have a wee bit of that as in terms of government spending, for it would pale in comparison to the amount of "waste" we currently have. 

And an added benefit of reducing the number of institutions that exist for the sake of needless "higher" education, is that there would be fewer teaching jobs, thus also making a competitive job market (with presumably higher pay) for educators leaving only enough room for those educators who have both the best minds and are the most highly motivated to teach... also the stress on teachers of having to coddle inadequate students and their bitchy parents would all but disappear, making for a much more rewarding work environment. 

In addition, there will always be private high schools for the average kids with rich parents...

And think of the boon to the industrial and service sectors if the bottom 50% were weeded out and sent either to some vo-tech institution or directly into the workforce? Not only would that reduce spending but the tax base would swell as well...

 ... This would clearly aide in keeping income tax low, as well as the CGT. Neither would have to budge as they would be offset by the larger tax base created by all the new workers who would enter the workforce so much earlier by way of not wasting time in college. And a more highly trained workforce via vo-tech in lieu of high school, as well as the privatization of athletics would add to that tax base, as well... bam! Rolling in the dough!  

With that in mind, we can now address the third pillar of Reagan's plan... Reducing government regulation. With the bulk of students fully entering the private sector at 14-16 instead of 20-somethings, the amount of regulations on managing so many fewer students in public education as well as relieving the need for so many schools, and loans, and government funding for higher education... in addition, only the best and brightest of our youth would have to navigate these complicated waters, and one can assume that due to the higher average ability as well as fewer participants would decrease both the need for regulations as well as regulators...

Finally, reducing the money supply is a little tough for me to apply to this argument as it is a concept I admittedly don't really understand enough to talk coherently about. So, moving on... 

Overall, the concept of aiding in the possibility of the top/ most able to succeed and that success "trickling down" to the lower echelons actually could work with education...

Don't waste time and money on those that are least likely to make a real use of being dragged, kicking and screaming through the process of becoming learned...

Don't hold the top back on the chance that a few from the bottom might just even make it through the system... only to wind up working in Fast Food or a Foot Locker anyway.

Have you looked at where college grads are finding work these days anyway? Yup, the bottom rungs of the service sector and manual labor... but they are entering it at 22-26 with $50,000 of debt instead of at 16 with a blank slate.

Think of it this way, in a more Rand-ian sense...


Have you ever had the experience where your class, as a whole, is graded based on the change in individual achievement as opposed to the independent quality of work? By that I mean is that two people received the same "B' grade despite a clear difference in the quality of the work, in that the "B" was assigned because each's performance was graded against each's own previously measured ability as opposed to the whole... 

To use a sports analogy... If person 1 ran the mile, the first time, in 7 minutes whereas person 2 ran the same mile the first time in 11 minutes. If on the second run person 1 improved the time to 6 minutes, and person 2 down to 9.5 minutes... both would receive a "B" grade as the change relative to each's initial performance is the same... That doesn't make much sense, to me... In a true evaluation, person 2 would have received a "-C" and a "+C" respectively whereas person 1 would have earned a "+B" and an "-A" for each time... 

Real ability isn't relative to the individual, it is relative to the whole population... To reward those of lessor ability equally for a comparably lackluster performance does not raise the lessor, it lowers the higher. What is the point of a better performance, compared to the whole, if it will be accepted just as equally as one of clearly lower quality. Why try at all if, in the end, effort and ability essentially don't count for anything. 

If one can make an report or product - drunk and high - just as well as another trying his damnedest - using all his sober capacities - and at the end of the day the one trying harder gets the pat on the back for effort, where is the incentive to the one who could do much better achieve more? 

This is the state of education in this nation; lift the bottom up, while holding the top down. Shouldn't it be the other way round?

All men are not created equal. Should there not be an effort to separate the average from the above as well as from the below? And I don't mean a slight possibility for the intellectually "above" to maybe not be lumped in with those who are clearly intellectually inferior? 

Can we realize that it is everyone's best interest to nurture the "above" and save them from being publicly ridiculed by the masses as nerds or geeks...

...in comparison to the those that will go on to major in Kinestheology and who will get all the encouragement, excuses (like carte blanche when is comes to criminality - say rape, thanks Ohio), public admiration and opportunities for social success...

...wouldn't it make more sense to encourage those who now seem to toil in obscurity towards, say, the solutions to real issues like sustainable energy, cultural conflict resolution, ethical population management, etc.?


Happy Head Hunting... now that that MBA doesn't guarantee any level of knowledge or competency.

Should public information be made available to the public?

At times (lately,more often than not) it seems I live in a country of moronic bureaucrats and brainless administrators…

For example this article in the NY Times (click to read); "After Pinpointing Gun Owners, Journal News is a Target"

This is a classic example of what I have come to dub the "I want it both ways (so long as you're never in the right)" mode of new thinking.

So here is some background music for your thinking; (song of freedom)

I have had to suffer from this form of un-logic as long as I can remember - since roughly the age of five... It's a terrible reality to attempt to maneuver through and I admit, I flat out gave up after ten years... and now after another 15, I'm just sick of it... ergo this blog which is basically a huge FUCK YOU to all these double-talking bastards.

...but I digress...

Back to the point, and article... It seems here that the gun owners in this article can't decide on what they want, so it seems as if they have chosen to bitch about everything instead of pick a side and stick with it.

No one appears to have argued that gun registrations shouldn't be a matter of public record, just that the public records shouldn't be made public...

This is odd as it seems to accomplish every body's wishes.

• The concerned citizens now have easy access to information as to who and where registered gun owners are... i.e. I don't want my kid playing over at Johnny Doe's house because there is a gun there... 
• Potential home buyers can look at said map and see if they would live in a gun crazy neighborhood or not. If they want to feel safe... either believing that more guns do or don't accomplish safety, this makes its an easily visible choice... 
• Also if they wanted to compare said map to a similar map criminal gun violence, that would also be an indicator of how many unregistered gun owners there might be... 
• OR just how trigger happy the locals are...
• In the wake of the last 10 or so gun violence events over the holiday season that made national headlines, people may just actually want to know where gun owners are at... it's all perfectly legal anyway... And if you don't like the laws of the land, write or run for office and change them legally... or just move to a country where the law is more blatantly an entrepreneurial enterprise, say some Central American countries...
• If you are so concerned about "the public" knowing you have a gun wouldn't you just have rather purchased and unlicensed one anyway? Or is the law only for your benefit?
• And finally, hey all you gun owners that justify gun ownership in the name of home defense, now that there is actually the real possibility of imminent threat, your legal gun ownership is now statistically closer to being justified... as your house is now an easy target for someone to break into, armed, for the purpose of stealing your gun, thus giving you the justification for having it in the first place... Wait, wouldn't then this map actually add security to your home as a potential home invader would want to avoid a house where the residents are armed? duhhhhhh...

Really my favorite part of this article is where, "Scott Sommavilla, president of the 35,000-member Westchester County Firearm Owners Association, said... 'They’re (the gun owners) really upset about it (the list/map). They’re afraid for their families.'"

Uhhhh. You own guns for the sake of protection... and now that it is easier to find out that you are a gun owner, you're afraid?!?!?!?!? Afraid of what? Other gun owners? Does this make anyone else's brain ache? I find myself slamming my head against the desk I am seated at... 

The last half of this article is the part that makes me quite ill...
 When you are held to the standards of the law and public concern over gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy shooting, and you disagree with this... you don't write a letter to the editor peacefully expressing your concern, nor do you contact a lawyer or write a congressman... the first thing you do is to threaten the journalists (protected by one of those other pesky amendments to the Constitution) and their children (just sooooo wrong, and possibly illegal, and definitely in poor taste) with violence.

“It sparked a conversation that needed to occur in this country, and it revealed tactics that will be employed when gun owners feel their rights are threatened,” The Journal News’s features editor, Mary Dolan, said.

Way to make your point...

The message I get from this outrage is that these vocal gun owners want the law to justify their gun ownership in the name of protection (damn you, second amendment!), but everyone else shouldn't be given the same protection, in order to arm themselves with knowledge,  of where at least some of the guns are around their homes...

So, the choices here seem rather clear.

Gun owner's:

1. Don't worry about it. It's not that big a deal. Now the public knows you are packing heat, and that you are NOT to be fucked with...
2. If it is that big a deal, and guns are that much of a danger and a social stigma...

• Don't own registered gun's; you won't be on the list, and you keep your "precious." Just buy your guns at estate or garage sales, off Craigslist, or some other similarly, totally unregulated point of sale... 
• Don't own guns period.
• Ban together and change the laws, so that you don't need to be registered and anyone (even the "crazies"- look in the mirror much?) can buy whatever they want.

The moral of the story... welcome to the United States of Fear & Contradiction... where limited government should apply to me and mine, but should exist for the sole purpose of keeping an eye on those of whom I disagree with because they are a threat to "freedom"...

Peace-out.

the other side of the trillion $ coin... objective reporting?

It seems, lately, that there is more and more troubling news flooding into our lives on a regular basis. Whether is is each new revaluation in the coming economic apocalypse, another gunman on a rampage,  some child star/ roll model/ whatever getting high or showing too much skin, or some other example of society's moral fabric being prematurely distressed and tattered like a pair of designer jeans…

In a movie, it was once prophesied, that "If You Book Them, They Will Come." Now, if you are a concert junkie you may know this does not always hold true…

...but if you step back and look at the abstract here, you can notice an odd phenomenon. If you take the energy to look for examples of some thing or concept… you will start to see those examples more and more frequently…

Let's use green automobiles for a metaphor here… If you start looking for little green cars… all of the sudden it will appear as if there are green autos everywhere! How is it possible that there were all these greens autos allover and you never noticed them before?

Well, two things are happening. First, you're looking for green cars, thus when you see them they stand out in your mind mores than if you weren't looking for them. Second, because you are NOT looking for white, blue, black, red etc. cars, they will appear less dramatically in your mind than the green ones you are looking for… So these two instances not only make one notice the green cars more than usual independent from each other, but they act upon each other in a synergistic way resulting in a greater total effect.

So bringing this back to media's reports on the state of the world… If you look for sensationalist happenings… you'll naturally notice more of them… and naturally you will notice less coverage of positive and/ or uplifting stories…

Compounding this, is the speed and accessibility of media coverage and the incursion of social media as "news" and/ or reporting...

We have greater and more instantaneous coverage of events via the internets… So we have several things going on here…

First, the limiting nature of speedy reporting… When you try to report as fast as possible there is a symptom of this tendency that is counter productive, there is no time for diligence. By that I mean that if the goal is to publish a story as fast as you can in order to get "the scoop," there is a natural inclination to use the first knee-jerk observations as fact, without taking the time to investigate more than just the initial observations. So any attempt at a well rounded picture is voided as that would take too long. Opinion will supersede fact.

The other dark reality of speedy reporting is that any event that connote be explained in less than a certain time constraint is likely to be skipped over, or simplified to the point of absurdity. Three major current examples; national and/or global economic issues, nutrition/ health, pollution/ climate destabilization. Even less likely to be tackled is how all these issues  are actually interdependent.

Lastly (but by no means comprehensibly nor finally), is that with the nature of 24 hour TV news and the vastness of the internets there is no good way to differentiate between those that are actually trying to report honestly (remember how journalism is best served objectively rather than subjectively?) from those who are totally full of horseshit and bile… Nothing is sacred anymore, well not that anything ever really was…

(but there is always a dim hope in the corner of this big dark room to bring something lovely back from the dead)

Like legitimately false and humorous reporting…

The converse of that would be welcome too…

But Orwell's nightmares are alive and well…


So, i'll just go make a sandwich and watch some cartoons.

Strovia.

Drarker side of Oz. Cuz there is a darker side of everything....

All you dope smoking hey hey hey mother fuckers are familiar enough with the concept that Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" sorta syncs up with the 1932 cut of "The Wizard of Oz" if you press play on the album at the second Roar of the MGM lion at the start of the film.... in all honesty, just "Time'"s bells'  coincide with the color shift...

I have a better one....

There is some planning involved...

You have to add 3-5 seconds in-between each tracks ( it take a little tinkering, but sooooooo worth it) there is a way to sync-up Disney's animated "Alice in Wonderland" with the Velvet Underground's "And  Nico" album..... this is an mp3/ iTunes (best if all assembled in an iMovie) plan ahead, drop tabs or pop caps kinda thing...

Play with it...

you'll soon see that the first hour-ish of minutes of scene changes in "Alice" can quite deftly parallel the  the tone and tempo of that very very VU album.

Check it.

Just roll up w/ a spliff or 3....

Here's to the queen of hearts, and your'e back alley shenanigans!

Headless chickens in search of giving head

The world is at a new dawn...

I digress, not the dish soap...

So many people are so lost.

what do they got?, but simple paycheck tomorrow?

gems? Facebook friends? a 401K worth half what was meant to be?

two weeks vacation, and shared custody?

do all these turmoils and hustle really make YOU happy?

ask yourself.... no, really.

take a sip and a moment.

when was the last time numbers did not factor into your evaluation of your life...

... and contentment?

Seriously?

are you actually working towards anything?

other than a number? a number... rent, interest, credit ratting, retirement....?

is that the value of your life?

a number? a number you have no real tangible attachment to....

other than a number you may be able to pass along to your next generation?

is that the sum total of all your experiences, loves, losses, and learned?

is that all you got? 

just a fucking set of digits? not simply your fingers and toes, but something much less tangible than that?

is your genenic code reduced to a bank account #, are you nothing more to your kin than a routing # + interest? 

Is that what you grew up to be?

Look you or your kids in the eye.

no really LOOK.

look through tomorrow, and yesterday, and a generation from now...

are you working for today, or just tomorrow only...?

or are you painfully looking yet?

what kind of world have you suffered though?

are you making a better place for those of yours, too young to have any influence, on the existence that they will have to bare?

this is a time for all of us to sociologically attempt some sort of "i will do better."

So what you gonna do?

buy fancy for now?

or learn, invest & try?

the future is the world your kin will have to survive...

the horrors you thought were so unbearable,

will be revisited upon yours, so much worse that you can conceive,

unless you make a resolution today, tonight...

to construct a better place for you & yours.

not tomorrow, but yesterday.

so if you give just a tiny piece of shit...

save not yourselves,

but your loved ones,

from the eventual tomorrow.

RESOLVE THAT.

G'Night.

p.s. don't hate me, for I hate you not, just trying to make you see what i do.

Les Aimes Premiere, Rent Later

Given a true option, I will always choose comrades over personal comfort.

Case in point;

I would rather spent a month of rent towards a meal prepared by an amicable chef over a lease.

Connection is more fundamental to ones own being than such a simple luxury than a domicile.

In 30 days, the one night entertained by the company of comrades, and fed by the competence of a co-soul is more valuable, to me, than a place to call my own. This is not altruism. This is the value of community. There will always be a couch or a floor or a gutter or a Y to crash at... a night of sublime and privilege to be a recipient of another's will and skill of passion will always trump my personal comfort.

Simple things like wages, money or a place to crash are a dime a dozen...

to afford the sublime of mutual appreciation, the gourmand speaking here, is paramount.

If I had to trade a bed vs. affording a friend's services dictated by whomever they are employed by...

I choose friends.

Thus I call upon Orwell's "Down & Out in London & Paris."

I will survive the slings and arrow of the circuit, for a true gourmand.

"It is amazing how one can exist without the necessities of life as long as one has access to its luxuries."
to poorly paraphrase "Pitch Black."

On that note, I would cross the pond for a good meal - and as a guy, the possibility of a lay, but that is a distant secondary.

I know where my priorities lay.

If in my power, I will easily put comfort aside for the sake of an others' need.

I feel that, through my history, this is weird...

...but why?

I just don't get how connection is secondary to contentment.

They are one in the same right?

Right?

I would much rather put my own lack of resources in jeopardy for the sake of another and their company than to struggle and starve alone...

Mind you this is by no means altruism as I feel I gain more through these moments than anyone else...

So what is it?

I need people more than they need me?

Je ne sais bobkat....

...but if ever the call comes down the line,

I will steal cars,

hold up an Exxon,

or just whatever.

Its not me that is so sacred,

it's honest humanity.

Skipping the pond is a bit of a leap,

haven't been/ had to yet...

but its not beyond reach,

nor conception...

...but i hold nothing back.

That isn't a New Year's res by any means...

...it's just how i roll...


Happy Happy.