Confessions of a Recovering D-Bag

Posted on February 22, 2013 by wellsdc

8388756753_96e97955f4_z Teenage me, probably around 1992, wrote and publicized the following Valentine’s Day poem, and I will bear that shame for all my days:

Roses are red, violets are blue.
Women are evil, and nice guys get screwed.
I wrote you this poem because I wanted to say
I’m not bitter at all on this Valentine’s Day.

It goes on for several more whiny quatrains, but I think you get the idea. I share this now not in service of the belief that “nice guys get screwed,” but in atonement for ever actually thinking that way. I have been out of the dating pool for a few years now, and it has given me the time and perspective I needed to see just what a d-bag I used to be. If I can use this realization to help even just one person live a more fulfilling life, it will be worth it.

I used to fall victim to the notion that there ought to be a standardized set of procedures for dating. The world of the typical American man has changed from what we imagine was a time when men could meet certain standards and expectations in order to qualify for a mate. Most of these standards involved income or social status, with looks thrown in as (at best) a secondary concern. Factors like charm, personality, and compatibility were near the bottom of the list in this mostly-imagined previous era of courtship. Women, as the idea seems to go, picked a suitor from a panel of applicants based on these attributes. The upshot of this is that men had a uniform set of goals and attributes for which they should strive in order to “succeed” at finding a bride (or hookup, or whatever.)

Very, very few of us have debutante balls like in Downton Abbey, where a young woman can announce her availability to the world. Also, most of this imagined past of following dating instructions set forth in a cultural manual is just that: imagined. Life has always been complicated, I believe, and while the specific norms of relations between the genders (all of them) is in flux, they have always been complicated too.

I could write an entire book or more on everything that I have gotten wrong over the course of my life, but (a) I have stuff to do, and (b) it is an ongoing process of realization. I am not saying this in search of forgiveness, or even just to get a cookie. Rather, I have discovered a wondrous world in which people can coexist and interact without undue concern over gender or identity roles, where a relationship with a woman that culminates in friendship rather than sex is not somehow a failure, where a guy can meet a woman and develop a friendship without feeling pressure to at least try to have sex with her, and where one’s ability to share fully in others’ lives potentially extends to everyone, not just their own gender.

It can be a beautiful place, and I want to share it with others who think the way I once thought.

Whether others want to join in this world is up to them, but this world exists, and it is all around us.

Photo credit: emmstitch [CC BY 2.0], on Flickr.

I Can’t Tell If This Is Satirical, Whiny, or Both

Posted on February 22, 2013 by wellsdc

I’m not sure if this is:

a satirical look at guys who think their lack of money and fame is the main reason women don’t drop trou for them (as opposed to, say, their whiny and entitled attitude and insistence on a degree of physical perfection in a mate that they do not expect of themselves); or
a passive-aggressive attempt to satirize women who move to Los Angeles, spend a great deal of time trying to build a career, as well as a great deal of time working out (the two are probably closely connected in LA), and yet dare to be picky when someone who lacks ambition or accomplishment but is a really nice guy expects to be able to sleep with them.

I’m leaning towards option 2, but satire is becoming more and more difficult to recognize as satire.

Even if this is actually the douche-tastic lament of a spurned Nice Guy™, I have to recognize that it has some effective song parody qualities.

(h/t Manboobz)

A Murder of C Corps

Posted on February 20, 2013 by wellsdc

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Wednesday morning hypothetical:

Corporations are “persons,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court and various political and media figures.
Corporations (and other artificial business entities) have certain rights under the Constitution, a matter upon which the major disagreement is the extent and breadth of said protections.
Corporations operating in a market economy seek advantages and dominant positions over competitors, with the aim of maximizing profits.
Corporations sometimes embark on campaigns to improve their own products, services, or value to customer; lower prices; or gain other advantages in local, regional, national, and transnational markets. The effect of such campaigns is, at times, the bankruptcy or closure of rival businesses.
In some cases described in #4, the rival business ceases to exist.
Businesses may intend to drive a competitor out of business, but at a minimum, they embark on business campaigns with the knowledge that closure of a rival business is likely to result.
In jurisdictions that define murder as intentionally causing the death of another person, is a business in this situation guilty of murder? In jurisdictions that define manslaughter as knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing the death of another person, would that statute apply?

Just a thought I had. Texas defines criminal homicide (murder and manslaughter) as involving the death of an “individual,” and defines “individual” as a “human being,” Tex. Pen. Code §§ 19.01(a), 1.07(a)(26), so corporations here are probably safe. I can’t speak for other states, though. Discuss.

Photo credit: jlpeterson from morguefile.com

Insomnia and Google Searches

Posted on February 20, 2013 by wellsdc

At least one night a week has been relatively sleepless, for unknown reasons so far. Since I am not one to allow a single waking hour to go unwasted, though, it seemed like high time to play around with the auto-fill function on Google. All of these are 100% and and happened between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. today.

Indeed, these are the questions that haunt us in the wee hours of the night.

That’s, uh, good to know…

Okay, raise your hand if you saw that third one coming. Are you raising your hand? Liar. No one could have predicted that one.

o_O. Good night, Google. You obviously need sleep at least as much as me.

Happy Valentine’s Day!!!

Posted on February 14, 2013 by wellsdc

In honor of Valentine’s Day, I was planning on writing a snarky fake history of how the holiday came to be, involving an ancient barbarian warlord who sat upon a throne made of human hearts or something. I was going to name him Val-on-Tyne and say he lived in northern England. Two things stopped me: (1) Such an account would require either a heavily-Photoshopped picture or an actual drawing. I don’t want to devote the time to the first and a lack the skill for the second. (2) What little is known about the real St. Valentine is gruesome enough.

Via Americans Against the Tea Party

Via Wikipedia:

Though the extant accounts of the martyrdoms of the first two listed saints are of a late date and contain legendary elements, a common nucleus of fact may underlie the two accounts and they may refer to one single person.^[14] According to the official biography of the Diocese of Terni, Bishop Valentine was born and lived in Interamna and was imprisoned and tortured in Rome on February 14, 273, while on a temporary stay there. His body was buried in a hurry at a nearby cemetery and a few nights later his disciples came and carried him home.^[15]

Via Saints.SQPN.com:

Profile

Priest in Rome, possibly a bishop. Physician. Imprisoned for giving aid to martyrs in prison, and while there converted the jailer by restoring sight to the jailer‘s daughter. While Valentine of Terni and Valentine of Rome sometimes have separate entries in martyrologies and biographies, most scholars believe they are the same person.

There are several theories about the origin of Valentine’s Day celebrations that relate to love and sentiment. Some believe the Romans had a mid-February custom where boys drew the names of girls in honour of the sex and fertility goddess, Februata Juno; pastors “baptised” this holiday, like some others, by substituting the names of saints such as Valentine to suppress the practice. Others maintain that the custom of sending Valentines on 14 February stems from the belief that birds begin to pair on that date; by 1477 the English associated lovers with the feast of Valentine because on that day “every bird chooses him a mate.” The custom of men and women writing love letters to their Valentine started on this day. Other “romance” traditions have become attached to this feast, including pinning bay leaves to your pillow on Valentine’s Eve so that you will see your future mate that night in your dreams.

Died

beaten and beheaded c. 269 at Rome

buried on the Flaminian Way

relics later translated to the Church of Saint Praxedes

It’s an interesting enough story as it is. Just fill in the blanks with some political intrigue. Maybe picture Ciarán Hinds in the role of Valentine.

“Tell them there that Missouri’s daughters and her sons are yours no more”

Posted on February 13, 2013 by wellsdc

An old, yet still compelling, story came my way today (h/t Matt), of a young man who sought to express his Scottish heritage, but was shunned by school officials who don’t think men should wear dresses. This all played out in Missouri.

A Granite City High School senior doing research on his family’s Scottish heritage purchased a kilt made out of the family’s tartan and decided the garment’s coming out party would be at the senior prom.

School officials, however, said no.

William Carruba was denied again Tuesday by the Granite City School Board, where he had turned in hopes of having the school’s denial reversed. Officials there said kilts are “nontraditional” and that they do not fit into the district’s dress code.

“I understand full-heartedly,” Carruba, 19, said of the board’s decision after the meeting. “I’ll just … wear pants.”

Superintendent Harry A. Briggs told the 65 people in attendance that the denial was not simply about the kilt.

“We must adhere to our (dress) policy,” Briggs said. “To do otherwise would be reckless on our part.”

While he said he respects the tradition of the kilt, Briggs, who said he is of Scottish-Irish heritage, said normal attire must be worn to school functions.

“It’s not what we call normal wear,” he said of the kilt, adding that “attending the prom is a privilege, not a right.”

Okay, fair enough, what with school policies and all. Maybe the problem is with the policy itself (unless the goal is to keep kids from expressing themselves, which it might be.)

I’m tempted to break out some Braveheart quotes, a la “Go back to England and tell them there that Scotland’s daughters and her sons are yours no more. Tell them Scotland is free.”

What this really needs, though, is some Scottish-highland-dancing McGuirk:

Retirement and Infallibility

Posted on February 12, 2013 by wellsdc

The world is all abuzz about the news that Pope Benedict XVI will retire at the end of February. This news does not affect me at all, but it gives me an opportunity for snark, and I have let far too many of those pass by of late.

What follows is a series of stupid and sarcastic questions. I know they’re stupid. I’m wasting time on purpose here.

This is the first time that a pope has resigned his, uh, popedom since Gregory XII in 1415, who stepped down because of reasons (do you actually care?) Here’s the thing, though: they didn’t dogmatically define the doctrine of papal infallibility until the First Vatican Council of 1869-70. When the current pope steps down, does he have to do something to give up his infallibility, or does he get to keep it? (I am aware that infallibility is quite a bit more complicated than this. To me, that just makes it sillier, but to each their own.)

If he has to give it up, is there a ritual or ceremony for that? Do the books explaining it still exist? I mean, they’d be really old.

If God takes the infallibility powers back, are there any safeguards to protect the outgoing pope’s other senses? What if God accidentally takes his sense of smell too?

If the soon-to-be-ex-pope gets to keep his infallibility, what happens if he and the new pope disagree on a matter of doctrine? I mean, there would be no reason for anyone to ask the previous pope, I assume, but the guy is still going to have opinions? Could this possibly destroy the universe, sort of like in the movie Dogma?

Like this, times infinity

I Tried to Avoid the Guns-as-Phallic-Symbols Angle… (NSFW?)

Posted on February 11, 2013 by wellsdc

…but my search for images licensed for re-use led me to this picture, titled “Male-Kink”: Continue reading →

My Right Not to Get Shot

Posted on February 11, 2013 by wellsdc

girl_with_an_ar_15_by_elendil004-d4nbnin

So, uh, this happened…

I alluded to this earlier, but it merits its own discussion: I am standing up for my right to not get shot. Sure, it is not expressly stated in the Bill of Rights that I have a right not to be the unwitting victim of someone who forgot to clear his chamber before carrying his gun in public, but I shall posit that I have the right nonetheless. Call it a penumbra right, or one of the rights guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment that the Supreme Court is too lazy to address.

Consider this: no one, to my knowledge, has ever successfully challenged a conviction for unlawful discharge of a firearm on Second Amendment grounds. Laws prohibiting homicide, several centuries of jurisprudence would suggest, trump any individual’s right to bear arms (whether you can keep your gun after a criminal conviction is a different question, and has been subject to much legal wrangling.) See, no one is seriously threatening to come and take your guns. It is both unconstitutional and ridiculously impractical. The NRA says that to get you to buy more guns. It’s not a conspiracy, because it’s really obvious what the NRA is doing.

Moving on to individual discussion about guns, if your first response to any critical commentary on guns is to loudly assert your Second Amendment rights, you sound like a jackass, and I no longer feel constrained by politeness to refrain from telling you that you sound like a jackass. I’m not saying you can’t own guns. I’m not even necessarily saying that you can’t carry your gun around. What I am saying is that you have no right to expect me to assume, on sight, that you are one of those “law-abiding” gun owners. Continue reading →

Cryptic Philosopher

____ Days Since Our Last Industrial Accident!

Monthly Archives: February 2013