MEH...

     I've talked about this to a silly level of detail before and upon thinking about it further, I present the short version of HOW HOT IS SHE? but this time with words.

ALRIGHT: The pros outweigh the cons with an alright girl, but there are definitely cons.

CUTE: An improvement over "alright", but while there's nothing wrong with a cute girl, there's nothing particularly right about her either.

HOT: Me. You. Fuck.

OKAY: Eh, if I have to... Also, the longer the "kay" syllable, the greater the difficulty in accepting the choice.

RUBBER DUCKIE, YOU'RE THE ONE...

     I don't know. Maybe it was because I had a brother but I never saw Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street as a gay couple and at some level it bothers me that other people do. However, explaining why is no easy feat. And believe me, if someone wants to go around peddling the idea that Bert and Ernie are a gay couple, whatever. I'm not gonna fight it but I just don't know where the association comes from though I guess it's an adult perspective.

     My brother is close enough to my age that I have no memories of not having a brother so he's always been there. We also shared a room all throughout our schooling so the idea of two boys/men sharing a room together didn't exactly strike me as strange. But that's how those two came across to me...just two brothers living together and sharing a room with unseen parents (it's not like you saw the rest of their home - hell, even the bathroom was only implied on a sing-a-long record I remember having as a kid). It didn't occur to me as a kid that they were supposed to be grown-ups. The muppets on Sesame Street never struck me as adults, even the Count, because their behavior was decidedly more childish than even the actual kids on the show. Manifestations of id I suppose if you wanna go psychological here.

     I know now, many years later, that Bert and Ernie were actually based on the Odd Couple so they weren't brothers, they were roommates just like Oscar and Felix on that show and Bert and Ernie roughly paralleled their respective neat & tidy and messy & casual attitudes. One of the many things on Sesame Street intended as nods to the adults they knew were watching along with their children. Perhaps since The Odd Couple has been long off the air that the gay insinuations have come more into play as the original reference is lost to living memory...or perhaps it was always there but I was content with my "they were brothers" interpretation rather than friends living together (in the original television series, they were both divorcés sharing a Manhattan apartment).

     I guess Bert and Ernie are what you need them to be. Roommates to those who remember the original reference; gay for those who find comfort in them being a loving gay couple in an often trying (but forgiving) relationship; and brothers, for people like me...or maybe just me.

PROMOTION AND EVOLUTION...

     There's this concept out there called the Peter Principle. It is defined as "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In other words, people are promoted based on skills and achievements until they get promoted to a level beyond their abilities and there they remain. "[W]ork is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." It basically sounds like a recipe for a workplace run by idiot bosses...a formula endlessly exploited by comics, television series, and movies. While bored at work one night, I was wondering if instead of the Peter Principle, it was more like promotion is related to evolution itself and that while goodness could come out of it, it's ultimately based on people being bad at their jobs.

     It may sound weird, but one interpretation of evolution that I've had is that it is fueled by failure. In evolution, success leads to stasis. I'll start with fish to illustrate. The fish species which evolved into amphibians were not good at being fish. Their fins were bad for swimming among other things so they couldn't compete for food and resources like the other more suitably adapted fish species could. In this do-or-die situation, they learned to exploit the land somewhat. As you know with frogs and salamanders, they are tied to water but can exist in the air as well.
     Those amphibians which sucked at being frogs and such would evolve into lizards and those lizards which sucked at being lizards became mammals and birds. And finally with humans, those chimps which sucked at being chimps became humans. We are here because of a long line of ancestors which sucked at their jobs. And before you object, remember that species such as sharks and crocodiles have remained more-or-less unchanged since dinosaurs roamed the Earth over 65 million years ago. Sharks and crocodiles are VERY good at what they do so there's no pressure on them to change.

     I think the workplace operates in a similar manner. If you are really good at what you do, you will remain where you are because the Powers That Be will not want to lose their prized employee who allows them to not work as hard. Only those who are hampering efficiency and/or frustrating management get considered for promotion or at least lateral transfers to other departments until they find something the person is good at and leave him or her there.
     How do you know it's because you're good and not because you already suck? I would say if managers are seeking answers to questions they should already know from you then you are one of those hyper-competent people who's probably right where they belong (and almost certainly underpaid).
     If however management either leaves you alone or is always asking you to do other tasks than the one you thought you were hired to do, well then perhaps maybe you're not so good at your job and lacking justification to get rid of you, they're trying to see if perhaps you would fit better elsewhere because you're mucking up the efficiencies of the workplace where you're supposed to be. Maybe after a while, you actually get transferred officially (or even promoted) to another department (and thus made someone else's problem) and it will come with a pay raise in an effort to provide incentive to get you out of your current ineffectively performed job. And yes, this probably means the genuinely competent people who could've done the task the incompetent has now been assigned for more pay will now resent that person and/or the workplace as they languish in their same position for the same pay. But since they are competent, they can't mess up on purpose hoping to get the same result. They're too honorable to do something like this. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

     Put more simply, the people who aren't so good at the jobs they were hired for (but not so bad that they have to be fired) get more opportunities for promotion because management keeps shuffling them around in an effort to find their best fit. They "evolve" into department heads or managers because they suck at what they do. Ideally they become what they are in fact good at but I guess since we're usually witnessing the evolution itself rather than the evolved state, we are filled with resentment watching these people get ahead because pay raises are based on promotion and not competence in the workplace.

MY TWO BITS ON SNOWDEN...

     I fully support what Edward Snowden has done and I agree with Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War that this leak surpasses even their own in terms of importance. But why, you ask? It's very simple actually...

     The basis of the justice system in our country is presumption of innocence. Whether the job of the government or a prosecutor, it is their responsibility to prove beyond the benefit of doubt that the accused is guilty of a crime. It is not the job of the accused to prove their innocence.

      And no, I don't buy into the bullshit claim that one has nothing to fear if one has nothing to hide.

      The NSA surveillance programs that were revealed via Snowden's leak turned that presumption on its head. Understand I'm not talking about ordinary spying done by governments against other governments. That has a long history and what they do is fine. The problem here is that it involves U.S. citizens and when what you're doing involves U.S. citizens, the laws of this nation and the spirit of those very same laws must be followed to the letter if not better.
       Warrantless spying on U.S. citizens creates a presumption of guilt and I can't stand for that. It's also a violation of the Fourth Amendment which not only requires the government to have a warrant and/or reasonable suspicion to initiate a search, but it must also have a specific target in mind. Law enforcement agents cannot search for anything more than they are allowed to search for. There's a reason these limits on power exist.

      The NSA spying program works on the assumption that all citizens are terrorists or are aiding terrorists until shown otherwise. Also, there is nothing specific being searched for nor have the people being searched via this program been charged with or even accused of a crime.

       The fact that this isn't being talked about by the press has been infuriating. With rare exception, the mainstream press is actually condemning Snowden rather than the revelations made. This in turn makes me furious because since when did the press become official spokesmen for the government?

      At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, it really does bring about the feeling that we are in the opening stages of a dictatorship. Not now...not through President Obama (I'm not that crazy), but soon. That slow transition...

      It certainly does feel like the groundwork has been laid.

CONFIDENCE IS BORN OF CHARITY...

     One of the commonest forms of advice anyone (but especially males) will receive for dating will be the stressing of the necessity of expressing confidence. And personally, I get that. I see how that works because like anyone else, I'm impressed by confidence when it is witnessed in others be it for dating, in the arts, standing up for oneself, etc. Confidence is certainly wonderful to be around and influenced by. It is indeed.

      However, where does confidence come from? As I've often stated in the dating game, how am I supposed to be confident around women when women (up until June 24th, 2012 anyway) have always refused to go out with me? I would say confidence comes from victory and without victory, there can be no confidence. And while a date is more an endgame thing, smaller victories exist too leading up to that. Victories like girls you're actually attracted to smiling when you talk to them or those same girls giving you their phone numbers. Victories like girls actually competing for your attention. That, in particular, is a wonderful experience that I personally have only witnessed happening to other men...men who would also be getting the attention of the girls I have liked over the years. O jealousy!

      But it got me thinking. What gets the confidence ball rolling? Some people possess it in spades whereas others, like me, desperately scrape the bottom of my psychology's leaky bucket looking for anything I can use because confidence has long since ceased to be available to me in useful amounts. I feel like the lead Prawn in District 9 patiently trying to distill fuel from scraps of their machinery to power their idle mothership. Here I'm combing through scraps of life experiences hoping to distill enough confidence to take a chance on someone and that the effort won't be wasted because I know it will be a long time before I've distilled enough to try again and in the meantime, I'll've only gotten older.

      But still, where does it start? What is the basis of confidence? And then it hit me...childhood. But more specifically our parents. Our first experiences of confidence were acts of charity by our parents. Do you remember making drawings or picking flowers or singing songs for your mom and/or dad? Maybe you got good grades on your report card... Or at least do you remember watching other kids do the same when you were older? What is the parents' reaction to their child's decidedly crude drawing, hackneyed jokes, presentation of common wildflowers, or off-key singing? It was "beautiful", wasn't it? Much praise was given, was it not? And it was an act of charity on the part of the parents because there is no way in hell I can accept that any parent, no matter how enthralled they are with their own genetic progeny, actually believes that the drawing was beautiful or that the joke was funny or that the flowers were well presented/selected or that the singing was great. We've seen art done by masters; heard songs composed  by The Beatles; seen the brightest, most colorful bouquets; witnessed unparalleled intelligence from scientists and philosophers; and we've all listened to some damn fine comedians over the years too.

      These parents are bullshitting their children, but for a good reason. Harsh criticism early on will destroy their desire to create and stand out. The charitable confidence given to them in the beginning encourages them to continue because yes, having an audience matters.
      I've tried to tell myself over the years that the approval of others isn't necessary and to a certain extent that is true because I worked on my language for a good eight years without anyone cheering me on to do so. But to a further extent, it is also a lie. I would argue that the energy/inspiration necessary to create this language derived from my crush on The First One, from learning how other languages worked, and perhaps additionally from whatever well of prior confidence in my abilities I had had from earlier periods in my life when crude gestures/attempts could still garner praise. But then, that language has lain largely dormant for over ten years now. Imagine how much closer to completion it would be today if I had someone (or several someones) supporting me in my quest either through praise, encouragement, or even simple curiosity on their part?

       Eventually these kids will go to school and have friends who will not give them praise just because. Suddenly they will find themselves challenged to earn their praise. Here, those children who have had much charitable confidence put in their psychological buckets will find themselves able to weather these storms. They will get better at drawing; better at writing; better at singing; better at joke telling; better at their particular sport; better at school; etc. and earn praise that way. They will turn their charitable confidence into plain old confidence and with that confidence, they will get the girls they like because they will be projecting the air girls find attractive.
       As for everyone else, barring acts of charity anew, we are lost. As for dating, Winwood was the one who charitably donated confidence to me that girls might actually want to date me. I fear over a year later that it has worn off. I'm tired and finding myself not wishing to try anymore. I feel myself missing my time to work on my own shit again. I feel myself wanting to pull back. I wonder if I should? But then I realize I'm fast staring down the barrel of middle age and if I truly do not wish to die alone, I cannot stop...

      Confidence may be born of charity, but it is sustained by skill and damn it, I need skills...

THE WORTHLESSNESS OF BEING MALE...

     I'm pretty sure genetic diversity is the only reason males exist. The mixing of alleles appears to be our only real function. Like the Vice President who has but two functions, waiting on hand should the President die and breaking a tie in the Senate (seriously, look it up), men appear to only exist for the purpose of insemination. Sure, like the Vice President, we can find other things to do in the meantime but otherwise men are useless.

     Insects like ants and bees take this to the extreme. Males are born only to mate with the queen. That lucky guy then immediately dies and the remainder of his cohorts hang around doing no work and consuming hive/colony resources until they are kicked out by the workers later in the season to starve.

     I guess the reason there's so many of us is because the female does not control the sex of our species but rather the male and his reproductive system does not favor Xs over Ys giving males a 50/50 shot at being born. But it's obvious to me that women are the half of our species that is important. They're the ones who actively engage in reproduction. A man's role ends (evolutionarily speaking) at ejaculation. That is the only point in the reproductive cycle a male need participate in. It is the only time a male is definitely needed. At every other point in any human's given life, a woman can do the rest of the work. For only those few minutes does the male shine. The rest of a male's life is spent trying to impress a female enough to be given those few minutes and trying to determine if a female is susceptible to/suitable for such impression.

      Recent scientific speculation suggests that the evolution of sexual reproduction was mainly to keep one or two steps ahead of the viruses, bacteria, mold, and parasites ever nipping at our species' heels. Sexual reproduction exists also to produce random favorable combinations to help deal with random environmental effects like drought, famine, prolonged cold, etc.

      I hear of some species like deer and sea lions in which there will be a dominant male who has a harem of females. Many males of these species are born but never mate because they cannot compete with the alpha...that is, until the alpha dies. Then it's war for a new alpha. But still, it shows even for them, the relative uselessness of males. It makes me wonder how many of us would ever be born if women were in control of sex determination. What ratio of males to females would be necessary to retain sufficient genetic diversity to ward off the threats mentioned earlier?

     Or has the evolution of selfishness ensured that males would continue exist in great numbers even with such an ability on the female's part because females would rather have a male of their own than share one amongst many?

SCI-FI TECH

      Some days I think the most futuristic technology shown in science fiction is the "manual override" function.

      Seriously, consider your real life stuff. Computers sort of have it. If your mouse stops functioning, you can use keyboard commands to navigate most stuff. But my television? Without the remote I cannot access menu functions. Some days I'm surprised I can still adjust the volume, change the channel, and turn the damned thing off without a remote. My old stereo could not access the auxiliary port without the remote which seemed ridiculously stupid since every other function could be done on the unit itself. How many of you can roll down your car's windows without power? Even if it was a terribly inconvenient crank...you'd think a panel could opened to access one. You know they'd have one in sci-fi. Hell, the Starship Enterprise had manual controls. Yes, it looked like an Atari joystick but damn it, in an emergency, you could steer the Enterprise from your seat.

      I don't know. I just wonder about stupid shit like this every so often...