My best drug bust story

I live in Czech Republic, and here we have these little gambling dens that are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They also have cheap beer and one can get attached and have a local one they go to frequently after everything closes at 5am. So I was drinking and smoking joints at one with a friend at around 7 in the morning as the sun was coming up towards the end of winter. We always had talked about how it had smelled funny in there, but most of these places smell funny because they are a den full of prostitutes, alcoholics, and compulsive gamblers filling slot machines with their welfare checks and the carpet looks like it is about as clean as a Brazilian prison cell. Anyway, at one point about 20 swat police storm the place with their AR-15s fully drawn and pointing bright flashlights at everyone. We were all told to get on the ground and my friend and I were lying on the ground looking in front of us and we saw a couple swat guys with one of those giant slabs of metal cops use to break in doors and he starts slamming at the door at the back of the room where all the slot machines are. There’s a lot of screaming once they get in and they pull this scraggly 20 something guy out who knows his day has clearly come. Turns out he was making a drug called Pervatin which is basically like meth, except shittier (yes. it is possible) . We were all held, searched, and questioned and then let go after a bit.

Should Prostitution Become Legal?

First of all, I do think it should be legal. However I think the reason why it has stayed illegal has less to do with legislating morality and more to do with the fact that there hasn’t really been a good model anywhere in the world that has worked that well. It’s also one of the occupations where women are actively “groomed” into becoming prostitutes and this immediately eliminates the whole “I’ll do what I want with my own body!” argument. It’s also an occupation which is bound by certain health guidelines which doesn’t really exist in many other jobs as far as I’m aware. For instance, where I live (Czech Republic) prostitution is illegal however there are still brothels all over the place full of women (mainly from Eastern Europe) . I’ve heard multiple times that one has to be extremely careful going to prostitutes here because since it is illegal there are no health checks, and even worse, since Porn actresses have to be frequently checked, and have all their health records kept on record, so when a woman gets HIV she has to stop doing porn, but fucking for money is what they know so they turn to prostitution, which means it is now a public health issue. Which then begs the question as to who has to set up a system to make sure that prostitutes aren’t speading diseases, and the answer to this, is government, which then in turn means that tax payer dollars are going to be used to create a vast network which supplies health care to prostitutes (which even here, where the laws are extremely open regarding sex, drugs, and gambling, nobody wants to pay for) . You can imagine a similar situation in the US occuring reagarding what politician would actually put their name behind creating new programs that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure prostitutes are getting health care (not to mention mental health checks as well. ) . And then, on top of everything else, you know how many times porn stars have to be checked? Before every shoot, and all of their medical records have to be documented. So, if we are using that as a model as to how to deal with prostitutes we can see that they (as well as all the men of course) would have to be checked daily, or perhaps having sex with multiple men in a day wouldn’t even be possible.

Again, I’m all for legalizing prostitution, it’s just that nobody knows a decent way to go about it.

Should the government let polygamists marry?

Because as we all know, people are born polygamists. It’s not some “lifestyle” based on religious values or a choice. Polygamists generally know and feel about their desire to have 12 wives at a very young age and are persecuted for it. As it concerns marrying your couisin, this map shows the states where it’s still legal to do so (looks kind of familiar…. :/ ) so depending on your definition of incest, it is legal in many more states than gay marriage (not to mention mostly in, “protect the sanctity of marriage” states. In all this talk about “protecting society” and other nonsense, people generally forget about what’s at the core of the issue (and also what the Supreme Court recently rules on) and that’s that homosexuals have civil rights and should be afforded the same opportunities as straight couples. We can go into people who want to marry a stack of pancakes later, but for now lets just take some baby steps towards equality.

Did Chomsky deny bosnian genocide and support the Khmer Rouge ?

First his response to the allegations concerning the Khmer Rouge

“The two prime examples on which we focused were Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in the same years. A long chapter is devoted to each. These are very telling examples: comparable atrocities, in the same region, in the same years. Victims of the Khmer Rouge are “worthy victims,” whose fate can be blamed on an enemy. The Timorese are “unworthy victims,” because we are responsible for their fate: the Indonesian invasion was approved by Washington and fully supported right through the worst atrocities, labeled “genocidal” by a later UN investigation, but with ample evidence right at the time, as we documented. We showed that in both cases there was extraordinary lying, on a scale that would have impressed Stalin, but in opposite directions: in the case of the KR vast fabrication of alleged crimes, recycling of charges after they were conceded to be false, ignoring of the most credible evidence, etc. In the case of ET, in contrast, mostly silence, or else denial.”

As it pertains to Bosnia he stated.

“He (Milosovic) did all sorts of terrible things, but it wasn’t a totalitarian state. I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition…”

Again, the main thrust of the conversation is about how the media uses imagery, and stories to help galvanize public support for a war.


Christians obsessed with feeling as if they are martyrs

I think the core of the problem lies in the fact that some Christians thrive on feeling martyred and becoming “warriors for Christ”. I watched the video with the duck guy, and it was no mistake that he ended his speech with “what are you gonna do about it?!”. The way the issue is framed, it’s always as if “the real christians” are losing some sort of battle against the secularists, progressives, or whatever label they want to put on the “other” in the US.

But…They do have one ace up their sleeve, and that’s that the Bible really does have some extremely harsh things to say about homosexuals. It says they should be killed. If you are a literalist, and you take the word of the Bible literally, then it’s pretty hard to persuade these types to ignore the laws of the old testament. And this trait isn’t exclusive to just Christianity. Islam has its own problems with literally interpreting scripture written hundreds of years ago and relating it to current events, and so does virtually every other major religion on the planet. The test of how devout one is, is based upon how literally one interprets the scripture. Sure, one could say that the Bible is full of allegory, and metaphor, and that these books were written at a different time, for a different people, but even this simple starting points of pretty much all of contemporary theological research is seen immediately as being part of the secularist agenda to water down Christianity. As long as the Bible says that homosexuals should be killed, you’ll have people who interpret it literally.


If you’re talking about that Reality TV guy, and his comparison of gay people to those who fuck goats, and then started babbling about the Old Testament, and then this caused some controversy (because of course the US should take their advice about sexuality from a duck hunter living in a swamp) then no, you don’t have a “right” to keep your job if you’re messing with a company’s brand identity. All companies are obsessed with their brand identities, and there’s no faster way to get a companies attention then messing with their public image. Even the Chick-Fil-A guy ended up backpedaling on his statements and he owned the whole damn company! Was he forced to? Probably not. But was he encouraged to stop saying political statements? Absolutely!

Is the duck hunter reality TV guy free to talk about what the Bible has to say about fucking goats? sure. Of course he is, and I support his right to say whatever bat shit crazy comments he wants to make. Does he have some right to have his job protected, and have his employer automatically stand behind him for doing so? ummmm no. Take members of the armed services for instance, they’re not allowed to attend and political demonstration in their uniforms. With reality tv your actors are the brand, and the station has no obligation to keep your job if you are actively hurting their brand identity.

I know a lot of the right wing talk radio is screaming about “Free Speech” and “political correctness” but in reality the issue is just about the power that companies are given in the US to pretty much fire people at will. In Europe it’s obviously harder to fire anyone, but these same people talking about free speech would shit themselves if they found out that some liberals were making it harder to fire bad employees (ahem….Public school teachers…)

The democrats have already compromised their desires on what the CR is supposed to be about: the budget

The Genius of Karl Rove is that he began implementing the idea that your best strength is to attack your opponent with your own weakness. So, if your candidate basically dodged the draft and spent his time “protecting” Texas from rogue Vietcong air assaults because he’s a rich kid, then you attack your opponent (Kerry) for not being a real veteran, and we get the Swift Boat Veterans for truth.

The end goal isn’t to win the debate, it’s simply to muddy the waters enough to the point where people throw up their hands and say “Well, there are a lot of different opinions about that, who knows”. It’s the high point of cynicism in politics and the Republicans are masters of it. In this case it’s pretty much the same, if you’re completely unwilling to compromise, and you shut down the government because of it, then just blame your opponent for doing exactly what you are engaging in. Sadly, it works quite well so I don’t see this tactic going away any time soon.

Politically, is there any way for the House GOP to pass a “clean” CR without looking like they “lost” the shutdown fight?

Why is everyone so sure that the Republicans will lose this battle? They’ve been very effective at getting their talking points into the public discourse such as “slimdown” and “partial shutdown” and people also seem to forget that people actually voted in these Tea Partiers knowing how rigid and unwilling to compromise they were, The Koch Brother’s Freedom Works even vetted Cruz before he became a congressman. It’s not really a surprise that he acted the way he did. Now I know that last time the GOP shut down the government they did get hurt politically for it, but it seems like that was a different time. I’d say that this round they’ll likely remain unscathed. Sure, polling shows that most “blame” the GOP for the shutdown, but that doesn’t mean they dislike it as a tactic. Given the fact that the ACA is already completely watered down, and the Dems compromised literally hundreds of times, and this is the response they get for it, I don’t see why the GOP would actually make a compromise on the issue. I say they’ll just keep doing what they’re doing, and in the end, don’t be surprised when the Dems compromise yet again. And then after the Dems blink, and compromise again, the Republicans will take credit for it.

TLDR: Is Cruz polling worse with his constituency than previously? Nope. And that’s the point. I say this is a win win for the GOP.

Why pagaents should be made illegal

I’ll give a quick rundown of why pageants are repulsive to many, however I’m not sure you really want to hear it.

The most obvious is that they sexualize children at any early age. Flaunting your sexuality before you have any idea of what it is, probably isn’t a good trait to instill.

Secondly it puts importance on good looks above intelligence, determination, or any other number of things which society should value.

It makes a somewhat disgusting personality type. The pagaent mom, who tries to live out her own life through her daughters.

It focuses on make up, white teeth, and shallow personality traits and rewards them.

It instills traditional gender identities. Women should look pretty, and get a man to take care of them. Which incidentally what most pageant moms aspired to be.

They cost a shit load of money.

Miley Cyrus and Sinead

If it was Lady Gaga or Madonna swinging naked on a wrecking ball or grinding on some guy on stage people would be talking about how strong of a woman she is or what an artful way to express themselves it was.

That’s the point, Miley had to do it in order to be like them, and continue on with her career. Her handlers knew that engaging in these types of acts, and hiring a performance artist cokehead to shoot her videos would give her an air of legitimacy. Since with Pop Stars, the most dangerous thing is them being seen as inauthentic (since as previously stated, it’s pretty obvious they don’t even write their songs, or the music).

So while I don’t really care about miley swinging around on a wrecking ball naked, I do think the point of the video combined with the VMAs was a preconceived PR blitz in conjunction with the new album. Like I said, I’m indifferent as to whether this is “bad” or not, but certainly it isn’t Miley’s choice at the same time. If someone offered you millions upon millions of dollars, and promised a fullfilling career for years to come to shake your ass and swing around naked, then you’d probably do it. Sinead’s article was simply stating that as soon as she gets used up, she’ll be disposed of, because that’s what we do with these types.

Miley has about as much say in how she acts, as she does in producing her songs. Pop stars are good at what they do by not being unique, they get famous by doing what they need to do to continue , and taking direction. Her new image was absolutely focus grouped, and discussed by probably literally hundreds of people before the VMAs, and her new video. The script of “good girl gone bad” is as old as the pop music, and she’s following the same script as Madonna, Britney, et all.

Now, does that means she’s prostituting herself? Well, not really, but she certainly isn’t the one making the decisions about what she wears and how she acts. She probably doesn’t even write her own twitter updates or her songs. On top of that her voice is also reworked by various pitch correctors and technicians. So basically everything about her is the product of someone else’s vision.

Is this a bad thing? meh. I don’t know. I think she’s a vapid shell of a human being but if someone paid me millions of dollars to shake my ass I probably would too.