LINE OF THE DAY, part XVI

I've been reading the comment section for this article in i09 and stumbled upon this comment by ilos: 

i realised in my mid teens polygamy without the marriage or probably procreation part is pretty much the social norm regardless of what people admit in studies

constantly men walking around single yet few women ever single at any given time

your circle of friends will consist of men half of whom are single at any given time and women maybe 1 of whom is single, the men will stay single for months or years but women will have a man within weeks or days

the traditional bs with men having to make the first move still very much the case yet you will only know one or two guys who can actually bona fide pull that off with strangers or new acquaintances as opposed to utilising work relationships or social circles to drift into relationships

and everyone knows their one buddy who is always swimming in ladies throwing themselves at him

led me to conclude that given there are equal numbers of men and women, the majority of women are seeing a minority of men. in other words, somewhere out there are a handful of guys banging all the girls.

they dont know their mans doing it, but until they marry up and get their hooks in how could they really. every workplace ive ever attended the same pattern plays out, every group of people ive ever known, and the people theyve known. a swarm of single guys, no single women, and one guy with a new girl whenever he wants.

ive sold countless friends on this theory down the years over drinks (often post infidelity breakup). its all subjective evidence of course, but i do get consistent peer based verification.

fortunately for the sake of gene dispersion, i think that handful of guys head for the hills whenever procreation is raised 

      I wonder if it has any merit? It's an interesting idea and as he points out, subjectively, it makes sense. Stuff like this makes me wonder if the origin of human intelligence was not about survival skills in the sense of hunting, but rather, it was about survival skills in the sense of procreation. As a decidedly non-alpha male, I will admit to feeling extreme levels of jealousy towards the obvious-alpha males in my local peer groups. I want to do something about this: I want to eliminate my competition. I have the intelligence to devise weapons and traps that would be able to overcome a man who's stronger than me but society keeps me from acting upon it...now. But what about then? Back before history, before laws (written or oral)? Would that be the reason for the ascendance of the human race? Other species related to humans still use the dominant alpha-male hierarchy. He gets all the chicks, so to speak whereas the other males have to content themselves with nothing, rape, or waiting for the alpha to get weak. So did the non-alphas of primitive man devise the ultimate strategy of killing the more attractive (in the sense of worthy of procreation from the female point of view) males forcing the females to consider them instead? I get the impression we as humans are still very primal in that wanting an alpha. Men still want to be ruled by kings, we have this fascination with charisma, and women are still primally attracted to guys they will complain about to their girlfriends while remaining preternaturally unattracted to the so-called nice guys, or non-alpha male types.

      So our newfound intelligence has not overcome the old order, but I wonder if this intelligence that our species has used to attain all these glories and wonders was ultimately based in murdering sexual rivals? I'm restrained by social pressures, but absent them, what would necessarily stop me from psychopathically murdering males who don't have to compete for the attention of the females I am attracted to? You don't win in the game of life by placing second. So if you're second, you have to be vicious because only by being vicious can the beta males hope to overcome the natural advantages of the alphas, right?

ADDENDUM: Another commenter actually mentioned in his comment, quoting from this article, that: "What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women.
...
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives."

So there's that I guess...

GOOD'S INFLUENCE OVER BAD...

      See, I still have a few negatively-themed entries in the pipeline. I write down starter thoughts (usually while depressed, sad, frustrated, or simply angry) on slips of paper at work and get around to them whenever on here. Some never see the light of day...the mood either passed or too much time had gone by for me to care anymore.

       One such negative entry will be written about. I don't see why it wouldn't. It's an interesting idea for me that I'd like to see written out. The thought starter is I am comparing myself to an endangered species...not to a particular species, but as a concept. There's another, slightly related to it thematically, where I was lamenting that I would only ever be worthy of a girl who is older and has realized she has exhausted her options and is now willing to settle for a schlub like me. That entry will probably never see the light of day given the recent loss of my catalyzer Digby. I can't see myself getting into a deep enough funk to want to hate on myself in another Inimandvs entry. I also have something tentatively titled "Fame Hypothesis" that I would have to explore. I made a notation after someone commented on Kim Kardashian's frequent appearances on magazine covers, wondering if it was now illegal for her not to be on at least one. The thought starter to be elaborated on was, "the amount of exposure required to keep your name in our collective memory is inversely proportional the stability of your fame." Neil Armstrong was listed as a genuinely famous counter-example to Kim Kardashian. I look forward to writing that entry. But not tonight...

      I actually went to New York City for the first time alone in my life yesterday to meet for the first time, my friend of several years, Bronx. The bus arrived very late so I immediately felt bad for her since I knew she was waiting. She also doesn't have a cellphone so it's not like I could text her that I was gonna be late. She later told me that she was wondering if she were being stood up but believed strongly that I would never do something like that to her (thank goodness!) so she continued to wait in the Port Authority Bus Terminal. When I finally did arrive, neither she nor I knew that I would not be arriving at a specific gate so we had no idea where we were gonna be. We did finally catch up to each other but not before passing each other several times. I noted her first, but my visual memory sucking the way it does, I didn't stop the girl I suspected to ask and instead went for the old stand-by, "Eh, she'll recognize me first." Turns out she did, but not after both me and her continuing to wander around the station a bit more. When she did recognize me, she came in for a hug, which I weakly gave both out of surprise (didn't know she would) and because I didn't want to come across as weird. A firm, first handshake might be good with men, but what does a firm (in this case, take "firm" to mean a full embrace rather than a "teepee hug"), first hug mean to a woman? Would that have been a good thing for me to have done? In retrospect, this initial meeting could have been coordinated better like me telling her what I was wearing (and vice-versa) or even the old cutesy stand-by of her carrying a sign with my name on it.

      But whatever, we joined up and left the station to walk to a mostly vegan vegetarian restaurant she likes to frequent. I don't know the area at all so I asked that she bring me somewhere. I was surprised to find that city blocks are not as large as I thought they were. We went easily 32 blocks to our destination, but it didn't take long at all. I guess New York City is big, but not that big. Anyways... I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian so I ordered conservatively avoiding any of the soy-meat options given my experiences with the stuff before (my store doesn't sell plain TVP, so if you don't counter-marinade it or boil those awful flavors out, it's almost inedible on its own, but in soup, like a spongy, tasteless chicken nugget). The waiter asked if I wanted any (faux) chicken, pork, or beef. I went with "chicken". The stir-fry lo mein that I ordered was generously sized and the side order of playing-it-safe french fries was very good. I saw on the menu an option for fried soy-chicken. I'll have to try that the next time I go there be it with Bronx, or even just on my own. I wonder what breaded and fried soy meat tastes like? It didn't help with eggplant, something my father used to fry, but maybe the frying oils make the soy meat taste good instead of merely tolerable. I think I noticed my soy chicken more because its flavor didn't seem to match the overall flavor of the lo mein noodle dish, but it wasn't awful like my store's brand. Bronx got a soy chicken mango marinade something or other and she enjoyed her meal too. She suggested we go dutch on the meal though I paid more than half because I left the tip.

       From there we wandered around a bit until we got to Washington Square Park and there we lounged for several hours people watching and occasionally chatting. Bronx was tired from several days of not sleeping well so we took it easy, snapped a few photographs of each other, but mostly just took in the local atmosphere from a shaded bench. A television series was being filmed called "Point of Interest" which in the words of one of the set photographers was sold to us beautifully as, "Just another crime drama." Ooh! Can't wait to tune into that! I wonder if we'll be out of focus in the background of any of the shots they had filmed that day? We each got something to drink from a vendor, but she wouldn't let me pay for her. It came out to five dollars total. I paid the man with a five dollar bill and Bronx gave me two dollars like it would be crazy to have let me pay for her. Perhaps it bothered me nominally, but considering my Best Friend would not have hesitated to have let me pay for her, it was also a welcome change of pace.

       The weather was beautiful. I chose yesterday specifically because it would be the coolest day we'd be getting all week and that it was. Warm sun, cool breezes, and plenty of shade (in the park at least). The park fountain was misting, creating a local rainbow, but snapping it was difficult because of the many children playing in the water. I didn't want to look like a creepy, potential pedophile so many beautiful shots were lost in my paranoia. But I was happy with the shot I took of us. For those of you who know where to see it, you get a good, genuine smile from me. I didn't regret our not speaking much and as I had told her, I was happy just to have the company to which she agreed. When we were talking, she's engaging and playful...endearing qualities but since my Best Friend asked, no, I didn't get the impression that she would want more from me than simple friendship. That's how I felt it, and that's okay, I'm cool with that though I'll admit I wouldn't mind otherwise in the slightest if not more so because she delights me. All the girls I've crushed on in the past have elicited a sense of wonder from me, and we all know how that has gone. I wonder if delight is a better starting point, or even a preferable one?

      But as the sun started to set, we took the subway back to the P.A. bus terminal (it was funny because we both were caught off-guard by the train's initial lurch. She accidentally jabbed me in my abdomen [and then several times on purpose while smiling] and commented that I have a hard belly whereas hers is soft. She guided my hand to her belly saying that. It was a cute moment.) and from there I went home, but not before Bronx walked me to the gate and we hugged goodbye. Again, it was not a firm hug, though this time I tried to do so. I notice stuff like that and add that to my understood list of reasons I believe Bronx is not looking for more from me than friendship. We agreed that we'd like to see each other again and I found ourselves both talking about future things together throughout our day. I felt comfortable around her and she, with me as well. I look forward to the next time. Hopefully, she'll be more alert and I'll actually have something we can do together.

      So, y'see. The negativity will have to wait. It's been coated in some goodness. I'll get back to it when it's worn off...

LINE OF THE DAY, part XV

      Taken from this article in Gawker. Comment by JasonsRobot:

Yep. If time travel were ever possible in the future, someone would've gone back in time and done something.. like kill Hitler as a child for example - That will never happen because, if it did/does, we wouldn't have experienced Hitler in our past if he was killed as a child.

Unless all time travelers are assholes and do stuff like help Hitler and cause The Depression... and thwart me from getting laid in high school.

/my theory: time travelers are cockblockers and assholes/

THOSE THINGS YOU NOTICE...

      I've started scanning my journals again after a long absence. Hard to believe it's been almost 2½ years since I've last spent some time doing this.

      As I scan each page, I skim the contents of the upcoming one. While the most common theme is me talking about girls I want and have wanted (and wouldn't've minded wanting), the second most common is rediscovering all these things my friends, both past and present, said they were going to do for me or places we were supposed to go together that ultimately never panned out. It made me think of a journal entry I made in 1994 which may be the first of these examples that survived. So, so many have since followed and I'm sure a great many preceded it, it's just by that point I was writing shit down. I can't even remember them specifically anymore which is what makes reading these entries surprising. While I've forgotten the specifics of each broken promise/intention (with the exception of a few "famous" ones), it all has blended in my mind into this seamless continuum of disappointment in my friends and occasionally family.

SAD BUT TRUE...

      I've been hearing Adele's song "Rolling in the Deep" for a couple of months now and I really like it. It sounds like a soulful ballad straight out of the 1960s. This song would fit in perfectly on CBS-FM as a long "lost" hit that is finally getting its much-deserved airtime. Today, however, is the first day I actually watched the video on YouTube because, despite having heard the song many times before, I never actually learned its title.

      Adele sings beautifully and I can only hope that this song was actually a composition of hers since I would very much like to believe she is more than a voice. But the one thing that makes me want to listen to her more is the very thing she is being made fun of for and that is, her weight.

      Now, normally for me, music is purely an aural experience. I don't actually care what the musicians/bands I've listened to look like because really, who gives a fuck? You're supposed to LISTEN to music, not watch it despite what Mtv taught a generation of young Americans. Adele is overweight, but not fat, and for this she is derided and I don't really don't understand that at all. While in real life, I'm incredibly biased against fat and overweight people (especially women since I want to be attracted to them), in music, it's about the SOUND, not the look. Mama Cass, of The Mamas and The Papas fame, is no pleasure to look at, but one listen to "Make Your Own Kind of Music" and her cover of "Dream a Little Dream" and your ears are in love. That being said, Adele's voice (at least in "Rolling in the Deep" - I have yet to venture forth into her catalog) is fucking amazing and I'm glad to have been able to have heard it.

       One thing that has bugged me about music, and I'm sure this has been true since the beginning and not just the advent of Mtv, is the emphasis of the look over the sound. For me, in music, if you're more concerned about your looks and image than your sound, you're doing it wrong. If you happen to be handsome or hot, hey, great for you. By all means, revel in that coincidence. The trouble is, I highly doubt the incredible coincidences present in music, especially female musicians. Wow, you're all hot, really? That tells you something must be wrong. I'm not saying none of these women (and the occasional prettyboy) aren't talented or at least competent singers, but really? No fat and/or ugly people have any talent in this world to share with us? And in the one medium where they need not be judged for their appearance on top of that? Go fuck yourselves music industry.

       That being said, in a perverse way, I am glad Adele is not some skinny white chick strutting her stuff in skimpy outfits belting out a tune like that. I'd still like the song, but I'd be skeptical of her. The sad thing, we all know the many obstacles set before Adele before she could get a recording contract simply because of her weight and I imagine she must be facing enormous pressures to lose that weight now that she's suddenly popular/famous. I'm not calling her a "real woman" or "big and beautiful" because I don't believe in any of that shit. It's not a coincidence that the only people who are telling you that beauty is more than skin deep are obviously flawed in some way. I don't mean to imply that I only care about looks. Far from it, intelligence and personality matter even more in the end because of the three, only looks fade. However, beauty is certainly not fat...at least not in a country of plenty. If food were hard to come by, a woman who were fat would most certainly be attractive, nay hot. However, when food in plentiful and cheap, remaining skinny in the face of overwhelming temptation is the more attractive option.

       Anyhow, the sad thing is, because Adele is overweight, she has greater credibility in an industry that hasn't had a genuine movement since Grunge in the early 1990s. American Idol is not credible music and does everything it can to convince people that music is about appearances over sound. I only watched American Idol when someone else was watching, but I made it a point to never actually watch the contestants singing. I wanted to LISTEN to them because that's what music is all about...LISTENING. It's sad that because of Adele's weight, she must therefore be talented...perhaps way more so than most female singers you've heard as of late. It's pleasing to know that no agency probably wanted to give her a recording contract and yet were so overwhelmed by her raw talent that they had no choice. I can only hope Adele's future work does not disappoint.




"Rolling in the Deep" by Adele

B&!!!

      I've been lurking on the 4chan /b/ board for about eight or nine months now and in the past two weeks, after having observed its rough and unforgiving culture, began tentatively posting on the board. A few responses here and there and have posted three threads thus far...two of them successful in my opinion (39 and 159 posts in those two threads respectively). It's a harsh board, but I've begun to see its charms.

      I'm picking up their lingo and getting plenty of laughs from the various thread types that I like following such as the Infothreads and the You Laugh, You Lose ones. The Spiderman image macro meme is by far my favorite that's cropped up in this time and I have been saving some for use later (as well as other macros) and creating a few of my own...some of which get positive responses. I am still very much the "newfag" despite my long observance period, but I don't care. I'm there for some fun, not to become one with Anonymous.

      This being said, I managed to score my first (and hopefully last) banning today for posting in a spam thread. I did not create this thread, I merely responded to it with an image macro that read "This shit again?" as there are many threads of this nature which garner trolling responses like that. I've read 4chan's rules for posting before, but clearly have not memorized them. The ban is only two weeks. I appealed it, but not so much to ask to be unbanned but rather, to acknowledge my error and that I accepted it. If the mods are willing to forgive me, so be it. If I was the victim of someone using a ISP spoofer or whatever it was called when they can randomize their IP address, then maybe I will be unbanned.

      Oh well, lesson learned. The only thing that bugs me about the banning is that I wasn't even trying to get banned. It's one thing if you're being an asshat on purpose, harassing other board members and such, but a banning for doing something on an image board that is so utterly common that it's considered normal kinda sucks.

POEM FROM A FARAWAY FRIEND

(reprinted without permission of course!) The origin of this poem is currently unknown to me (or the poster). I reprint it here because it amused me. I have not made any corrections to the text.

Funny Poem! LOL!

I wrote your name on sand, it got washed
I wrote your name in air, it was blown away, then
I wrote your name on my heart and I got heart attack
God saw me hungry, he created pizza
He saw me thirsty, he created Pepsi
He saw me in dark, he created light
He saw me without problems, he created YOU

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
You should know what you are
And once you know what you are
Mental hospital is not so far
The rain makes all things beautiful, the grass and flowers too
If rain makes all things beautiful, why doesn’t it rain on you?
Roses are red, violets are blue
Monkeys like you should be kept in zoo
Don’t feel so angry you will find me there too
Not in cage but laughing at you
When your life is in the darkness,
Pray to God ask him to free u from darkness
And if after you pray and you are still in darkness,
Please pay your ELECTRICITY BILL!

SINCE YOU DIDN'T ASK...

      I am not a nice guy. I am a loser. Superficially the two types can appear similar, but there's a difference. Whereas nice guys will ultimately be settled upon by women who once sought, but have come to realize they will not be able to get, winners, losers can only hope for pity and in my experience, pity is rare...happening about once a decade.

      I reupped on my pity this year, back in March, so I guess that means I will be due for another shot of it sometime around 2021...

WHY NOT DEFLATION?

      I'll never understand this constant inflation thing on the part of the Federal Reserve. Our dollar has been severely depreciated in the past century. Check for yourself here and it's all because of an inflationary policy dictated by the Federal Reserve and I'm sure Congress too with its reckless deficit spending in peacetime.

      Right now under Bernanke, he is attempting to go for a targeted 1-2% annual inflation rate, which, while slow, is still ultimately exponential. Yes, the deflationary policy I am proposing is ultimately exponential too if left in place indefinitely, but I'm not looking to either inflate or deflate the dollar out of existence. I am seeking a balance, a kind of 21st century version of the Resumption Act.

      Originally our money was tied both to silver and gold and later only to gold before that standard was dropped commercially in 1933 and nationally in 1971. It was $19.39 per troy ounce from 1792-1834; $20.67 per tr.oz. from 1834-1933; $35 per tr.oz. from 1934-1971; $38 per tr.oz. from 1971-1973; and finally $42.22 per tr.oz. from 1973 to this day even though the United States will no longer pay gold out in exchange for dollars. $42.22/tr.oz. remains the official price of gold in the United States so why not make that the goal of the Federal Reserve? It took almost forty years to get to this point so what would be so wrong having Congress order the Federal Reserve to restore this parity in a similar time frame? Hell, I'll even give the Fed fifty years to do it in order to smooth the transition.

      I'm not saying we should go back to a gold standard (nor am I saying I would be against it either). However, just because the dollar and gold are no longer considered equal partners in the economy does not mean the dollar's value should be officially eroded over time. You would think it would be a duty of Congress to ensure the public's faith in its currency's integrity ESPECIALLY since the currency of the realm cannot be traded for gold coin at any Federal Reserve Bank. For me, the extreme deviation of the actual price of gold versus its official price is a failure on the parts of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board ($42.22 versus over $1500 per tr.oz. today) and an extreme one at that.

      The way I looked at the old gold standards was that they didn't make for suicide pacts with its citizenry. I find the current fiat systems akin to the old company store or a kind of loyalty oath to a system you may or may not support. In the old days, to use one example, Mexico used a weighting standard for its gold coins that was very similar to the United States. Basically, two pesos in gold was equivalent to one dollar in gold. Now, say Mexico was a much more powerful country and successfully invaded and conquered the United States any time before 1933. Holders of US paper currency would find themselves holding worthless paper bu those holders silver and gold coin would not be shit out of luck in this scenario. Their money could be melted down and recoined into Mexican coins of the realm with little loss on their part. Nowadays, our currency is purely fiat. Assume the same scenario of a powerful Mexico conquering the United States after 1964 (I say this because the US still had silver coins until 1964). Now you're fucked money-wise. All of your paper and coins are worthless. So while, yes, this does create an urgency on the part of the citizenry to not see their country fall, it also forces the citizenry into this position lest you wish to lose everything you've saved. Gold and silver coins were convertible world-wide and not subject to trading whims (consider how the values of Union and Confederate currencies shifted depending on either side's fortune in battle - the gold and silver retained value, but the paper rose and fell with each battle).

      Anyways, usually the argument I hear against deflation is that it would ruin the economy because it would make debts harder to pay and because people wouldn't buy things believing the price would drop in the future.

      Yes, debts would be harder to pay and that is the allure of an inflationary policy today. Borrow a sum today and effectively pay less back in the future - the longer the term, the better. No one phrases it that way, but that's the ultimate benefit of inflation to governments and to borrowers in general. It's a balancing act. You can't make inflation too high or else no one will lend you money and if it's too low, you have to restrain yourself from getting too indebted lest you risk defaulting. Inflation benefits debtors. The ultimate in inflation, official devaluation, is of greatest benefit to people who owe money.

      Deflation makes debts harder to pay over time so under a deflationary regime, not getting into debt in the first place is a high priority. If you go into debt under deflation, it had damned well better be worth it and it had better be short term. Deflation ultimately benefits savers. I would imagine banks would not be fans of deflation as it would not be necessary for people to put their money there. It would effectively earn interest under a mattress!

      Inflation does create an imperative to spend now as things only get more expensive in the future. Wages and prices do not rise in tandem so the poor and working classes lose under inflation. Inflation is supposedly the grease that lubricates the personal spending which makes up over 70% of our economy.

      Deflation might reduce some consumer spending, but I think it would more reduce impulsive spending - the kind that isn't good in the long run anyway. I'm sure, like inflation, wages and prices would not fall in tandem. Wages would likely fall faster than prices so it wouldn't be totally a win for the poor and working class under deflation. But the idea that the economy would suffer heavily is total nonsense as far as I'm concerned. If your boiler breaks down, you're gonna replace it now rather than wait through a cold winter in the hopes of getting a lower price next year. If you're hungry, you're not gonna starve hoping for deflationary effects to kick in later. And so forth. You might only hold off on upgrading your cellphone or getting a new car until necessary meaning that people would keep their possessions longer before replacing them but wouldn't that create a net positive for maintenance/repair jobs? Might deflation ironically INCREASE spending in the economy? You wouldn't have to save as much for the future because each dollar saved now would be worth that much more as you near retirement whereas now each dollar saved is reduced in value. The value of a dollar saved in an inflationary environment is subject to the economy and how it is invested (think of those who cashed out in late 2007 versus those who cashed out in early 2009 - my IRAs lost half their value in that time).

      Dollars MUST be invested in an inflationary environment or else you're guaranteed to lose come retirement. A hundred dollars when I was born left under a mattress is worth $28.85 today. I could not retire on savings alone in an inflationary environment. But what hath all this forced investment wrought? I don't want an IRA or a Keough or a stock portfolio, I don't understand them. I don't believe I should be putting money into investment vehicles I don't understand yet if I don't, I lose. I don't believe this current economic crisis would have happened (at least to the extent it did) if people didn't have to invest for retirement. There's too much money in the investment pool...way more than there should be and I think it the result of people being forced to invest under an inflationary regime.

      Now, I'm not strict "the dollar must be exactly $42.22/tr.oz. gold" guy. I believe that the dollar should be allowed to hover, rather than float and that it should hover around $42.22/tr.oz. gold. In peacetime and boom times, the dollar should deflate, maybe even below that target price, but not too much lower. That way, in war time and recessions, when extra dollars floating around are actually helpful, they can be made available through inflation and "stimulus packages" and when hostilities or the economic crisis passes, the dollar's value can be restored.

ADDENDUM: I will also argue that sustained deflation would be good for the environment too as all these billions of now nearly worthless coins the United States produces and has been producing annually for decades will have their purchasing power restored meaning that they will actually get used  instead of hoarded in jars awaiting redemption at a CoinStar.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Much of this post has been inspired by Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis blog. You should read it. I don't support his stance on unions (at least so much as he appears to be against ALL unions, not just public service unions which I oppose to a certain extent [that is, I don't believe they should be able to negotiate wages, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be to negotiate the employer/employee relationship in terms of procedures like hiring/firing practices or whether or not seniority should have a place]) but otherwise I find much of what he writes sound.

TV SUCKS - IT REALLY DOESN'T, BUT STILL...

      I just can't get into television anymore and by that I don't mean to imply that I do not WATCH television. I do. Less of it than I used to, but it's still up there on my list of weekly time-wasters.

      The majority of what I watch now are comedies, and animated comedies at that. The newest show that's just-can't-miss for me is Louie on F/X, and that too, is a comedy. I don't really watch new dramas anymore. I think the newest ones were Pushing Daisies, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Reaper...all of which have been cancelled.

      I blame Babylon 5.

THOUGHTS OF A DARKER NATURE...

      I saw this question the other day and since I was already depressed, it did nothing but reveal the dark nature of my heart and mind. The question went something like, "If you had the opportunity to have your present day mind put into a younger version of yourself, would you do it? If I told you that the price you had to pay for this miracle was that everyone you have ever loved would die, would you still take it?"

      I would have to say that on any normal day, I would never do this. But the past few days have been very different days. I realized that yes, I would do this. I'm angry. I'm lonely. I'm frustrated with the way things have turned out. I'm tired of being a loser. I would totally do this provided that "this" is I get back, say, my 16 year old body. My current mind and memories would be in place. I guess it would be up to me to avoid revealing just how mature I would be for my age. I would be in school again and would likely be bored but I know I also wouldn't give a fuck and I think I would hoping that this attitude would be a game changer for me as I would also hope that the guilt of knowing what I had sacrificed to achieve this did not overcome me.

      I am a horrible man. I admit it. That's how lonely I am. That's how much I hate myself. I hate myself so much that I would happily sacrifice EVERYONE I have ever loved just on the gamble that I might do better if given a second chance even though it would probably just all happen again...just shifted sixteen years into the future...

Z'HA'DUM

      I want to see her again and by her, I mean the First One. I know I will likely never see her again in life nor do I hold any belief that she and I could actually ever have something together, but I want to see her again. This always happens. Every time I am set back by one of my crushes, she comes to mind. She's a home of sorts. A place to return to when my delusions of love have again been crapped upon. It's some perverse gesture of respect I suppose. I wish to return to the one who got this crazy train of desire rolling. The one for whom I created a coded alphabet for so I could write about her in front of everyone and have no one know. The one for whom I created a spoken language so even my thoughts of her could remain unknown to those listening in. The one who is the standard candle by which I measure attraction and desirability. The most beautiful of them all. The one I have not seen in over fifteen years...she still lives on within me. The crush itself is asleep: it awaits her return. All the other crushes have died, currently except for Digby...or are on life support like Rabbit and my other college crush. But hers remains like some spellbound dragon. Digby will one day join her...eventually...after fighting tooth and nail. That crush too, will become frozen in time.

      I wish the First One had a Facebook account. She has an unused MySpace account that was cast adrift the day she signed up for it. No pictures were ever posted. The last images I have of her are from my video yearbook. But I did hear the Mystic tell me that she has seen her; that she once had a Facebook account; that people she knows are friends of hers. I admit I am strongly tempted to ask this of her...to find her. I want to see her again.

THE NOTE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE...

      The Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the unit responsible for the actual printing of our nation's currency suspended the planned February 2011 issuance of the new colorized series 2009 $100 bills due to production problems, most notably a crease which would form during printing causing a much higher than usual rejection rate of the new notes. Until the problem is resolved, issuance of the new notes will not happen. However, demand for $100 has not ceased and it looks like these delays have finally caught up with them.

       I guess the BEP had enough series 2006 plates left over to use as back up, but that time came to an end at the beginning of 2011. Whereas coins get new dies at the start of each new year, paper currency uses "series" and those series reflect changes either to the notes themselves (such as the introduction of the large, off-center portraits with series 1996 $100, $50, and $20 bills and the more recent colorization starting with series 2004 $20 and $50 bills) or changes in one or more of the offices of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer. Since series 1974, the year changes when a new Secretary of the Treasury is made and a suffix letter (has yet to go higher than "A") if only the Treasurer changes (series 1977-A, series 1981-A, series 1988-A, series 2003-A, and series 2004-A are the only ones since this new scheme). And even when a new series date should appear, its production will be delayed until the plates from the previous series wear out. I guess it's a combination of a lack of a law forcing the BEP to change the series date immediately, plates are probably expensive to make, and a case of "waste not want not". So starting in 2011, with the series 2006 plates exhausted and the new series 2009 $100 bills not yet ready, the BEP was forced to create a new series of uncolorized $100 bills under series 2006-A. As far as I know, this is historic.

      I received my first series 2006-A $100 bill the other day. It has some counting crinkles but no folds. I'm considering collecting it (and swapping it for a better one should it come along) both because of this perceived historic production and because it is the only note which will begin with "K". Starting with series 1996 for the denominations $5-$100, in addition to the series date, a prefix letter was added before the serial number of the note starting with "A" and advancing by a letter with each new series. I don't know why, it's entirely unnecessary, but there it is. I generally only collect up to the $20 bill because of affordability issues and so far, getting the complete prefix alphabet has not been hampered by this...until now.

    $5              $10            $20            $50           $100

                                     A-1996      A-1996      A-1996

B-1999       B-1999      B-1999                         B-1999

C-2001      C-2001       C-2001      C-2001      C-2001

D-2003      D-2003                                            D-2003

                                     E-2004       E-2004

F-2003-A                                                          F-2003-A

                  G-2004-A  G-2004-A   G-2004-A

H-2006                                                              H-2006

I-2006        I-2006        I-2006        I-2006

J-2009       J-2009        J-2009       J-2009       J-2009

                                                                          K-2006-A

      Having finally seen the note, I am surprised and disappointed with it...for the same reason. I found it unusual that the notes bore the same signatures as series 2006 (Cabral-Paulsen) when it should've borne the signatures of (Rios-Geithner) and why series 2006-A? If you'll note the crude chart above, there were two series 2006 $5 bills, differentiated only by colorization (I-2006) and the previous uncolored notes (H-2006). Why not just make a K-2009 note bearing the signatures of Rios and Geithner (or if it "has" to be 2006-A, it should still bear their signatures). Now, this I would actually believe to be running afoul of the law. Cabral and Paulsen are no longer serving in those functions yet a whole new series of $100 bills has been created bearing their signatures two full years after they left their respective offices. That really bugs me.

      However, despite that, the series 2006-A $100 note is still historic as far as I know. Will it ever be a valuable keepsake? Almost certainly not. The days of veritable rarities have long since passed. I'm sure tradition will continue and these notes will be made until their plates run out...or maybe not. I've noticed the production of these notes has been low and no doubt the BEP is embarrassed at having to make them in the first place so production just may be cut short once the colorized $100 bill printing problem is solved. Either way, series 2006-A will be one to talk about for collector in the future.

series 2006-A $100 FRN (I hope this note doesn't get popular in Dallas)

     As a side note, I still remember the first time I saw one of these enlarged, off-center portrait notes. My Dad gave me one in the card for my high school graduation. They could have only been released for a few months by that point. I derided it as Monopoly money. Strange now, how the older notes are the ones looking like the play money now...

ADDENDUM: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] offered this explanation for why series 2006-A is what it is: "When NXG [NextGen, i.e., colorized] $100 production halted due to sporadic paper creasing, the BEP went back into production of NCD [New Currency Design, i.e., 1996-generation] $100s to meet the continuing high demand for this U.S. currency denomination. With the NXG $100s bearing a new series year and new signatures, a decision was made to retain Series 2006 and Cabral/Paulson signatures on the NCD $100s. The A was added to the series to distinguish between the different production cycles."

      Personally, I still think the signatures should have been Rios/Geithner and the series should have been K∙2009, but uncolorized or even as it was pointed out on this site, the BEP could have continued to use series  H∙2006 with the Cabral/Paulson signatures until the J∙2009 colorized $100s were ready for full-scale production. Such a minor issue, yes, but it really does bug me.

THE CHILD SEER...

      I've had several epiphanies during my life. Most were good, even awe-inspiring. Others were shocking and a few, downright depressing. Two of them have been in my head for a couple of days now because, SURPRISE! SURPRISE!, I've been depressed for the past three months almost non-stop. My sadness is turning into anger...I can feel it now, seething within. I'm angry at Digby; I'm angry at myself; I'm angry at my workplace friends for not standing in solidarity with me over this...how they continue to talk to her. Even RedMom, whom I have depended on as a spy of sorts, has cheerfully confided in me how she didn't like her at first but thanks to me encouraging her to get intel on Digby, she has gotten to know her and really likes her now. Gee, thanks. I feel like a piece of shit now. My friend, the Security Guard, isn't buddy-buddy with her, but he has spoken to her and made her laugh, which only feels like him rubbing it in since I never got her to smile and laugh so casually with me over all these years. I know he's not doing it on purpose, but that's not how wrath works a soul. The only people I work with who don't talk to her don't cross paths with her. I really thought there'd be at least one but her ass is apparently quite suitable for kissing. I'm so very happy to know where I stand in comparison to Digby...below her, always...which brings me to those epiphanies. Does no one believe in shunning anymore?!!

      To this day, I still distinctly remember being in third grade and standing outside. I don't remember if this was before school, during recess, or waiting for Mom to come get me; but I do recall suddenly realizing that one day, my schooling would come to an end and with it, my childhood and this realization came with a sense of foreboding, not excitement because I realized that I would become like Mom and Dad; that I would have to work for a living, no more playing...just work...I would never amount to anything. I couldn't even answer the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" like a normal kid? I remember in first grade answering "sewer worker" with all the sincerity a six year old can muster. Now, to be fair, I used to sit, stare through the grating, and watch the tide force its way through the sewer in front of my childhood home so that fascination may have played into this...but I'm pretty sure my class was a mixture of doctors, lawyers, movie stars, and Presidents...certainly not sanitation workers. But there it was...an eight year old already aware of his lot in life.

      The other one was when I was fourteen. I remember walking home from school...I even know what street I was on - Asbury - when this happened. It was this sudden, dreadful feeling of..."you're going to die alone." Understand, this wasn't a motivational feeling; one that would prompt me to get my ass in gear and do something about it feeling, no...it was the feeling of truth, a heavy truth that I have not been able to shake to this day.

      And yet, whereas I never questioned the wisdom of the eight year old seer, I have always stood to challenge the fourteen year old seer and I don't know why. The eight year old me was right. I have not amounted to anything; I work all the time for little benefit - I haven't had a weekend in twelve years. Yes, my bills get paid and I still have a little leftover each month, but my station is precarious. I am only an injury away from destitution. I stand in such a place where the abyss can be beheld. I still have some wiggle room, but its edge is still too nearby for comfort.

      But I have refused to believe the fourteen year old yet he has been right for the past eighteen years. Why do I still pretend it could be otherwise? I don't understand what this boundless optimism of mine is based upon. Does one reversal really undo my damaged psyche? ...does it? I am close to finding out. As my grief yields to anger - I have it bookmarked - I will enter upon the world of online dating. I really really wanted to get one, even if only one, girl (whom I wanted) to go out with me from real life first. I am deathly afraid of the emotional damage that will be done to me if I am as rejected online as I have been in life. I could handle that rejection if I could fall back unto life, but life has 100% rejected my desires and I know I am no winner and come preloaded with some strong faults like my total inexperience, working overnights in retail, and my inability to drive. I am not sure if having my own place, being debt free, being dedicated, and being mostly in shape and healthy will be enough to overcome those faults. I fear for my future as I again attempt to stare down the fourteen year old in the shadows of time...