I have to wonder -- would have I gotten laid yesterday if I had just said yes?
I'm hanging out at my local House of Blues bar cos.. well, I like it there (even though their drink prices are just attrocious). The bar was getting full and I was sitting alone but the stool next me was empty.
In walks a girl and she asks if the seat next to me was taken and, of course, I said no. There she sits, with vibrator in hand (one of those notification vibrators, okay?) and the first words out of her mouth was "this was the only bar in the area I could find.. I needed to get out NOW THAT I JUST BROKE UP". (Okay, it's a paraphrase, but I think it's really close)
I'm watching the Tigers/Cardinals game on tv and couldn't be bothered, but I asked if she was alone. And she said yes.. "I thought coming out by myself would take my mind off of BREAKING UP".
Now, she wasn't that bad.. I would give her a 6 (an LA 3). I mean, I wouldn't brag if I bagged her or anything. But, she kept repeating the fact that she just broke up.. Now, that's a major flag. I may be single, may be looking but I'm DEFINITELY not looking to be someone's little after break up fuck. Or, worse than that, the ear that has to listen to someone who's going through it -- I have my own problems. That's what friends are for - not strangers at a bar.
Her vibrator went off and she asked if I wanted to come sit with her and I declined. But, I wonder... would I have gotten laid? I betcha I would have...
Monday, October 23, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Attention Deficit Disorder anyone?
I just finished reading Arianna Huffington's interview (Playboy Interview: Arianna Huffington) in the latest issue of PLAYBOY (Nov 06).
First, let me say that I don't like Ms. Huffington. I just don't. Maybe it's that accent of hers, or that I find her to be the most conservative Democrat (in fact, I thought she was a Republican - I found she was ten years ago to my suprise) alive. Even worse than Hillary Clinton.
With that said, I have to admit that I was in agreement with much of what she said in her interview. It was enlightening, telling and I do admire her stance that President Bush must be impeached.
What I want to address is not her accent, her political slant or her "blogosphere". It's her idea that mainstream media has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).
Why does the main stream media have Attention Deficit Disorder? Because the PEOPLE have attention deficit disorder.
Huffington's opinion is that we need to stick on top of a story so that the people will know and, thus, do something about the situation. The problem is that the people don't care.
Yes, the people of this nation don't give one rat's fucking ass what the government does. And what's worse -- they trust the government blindly.
She brings to point many serious situations that have occurred in the Bush Administration; the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina are two. She wants the Dem's to take over power in the two Houses as well as the Executive branch but it's the People that have to do that.
And the People don't care. Or should I say -- the young people don't care. Just look at the last Presidential Election's percentage of people actually voting? 215 Million people registered to vote in 2004. Of that 215 million, only 115 million voted (source: 2004 US CENSUS BUREAU). The US population is roughly 293 Million. Less than 50% of the people voted (give or take). The people that did vote were older. 55 and over were more likely to vote than those 18-24, even though there were just as many 18-24 who registered as there were 55 and over (again, US CENSUS BUREAU).
The poeple of yesteryear were more in tune with current events. And they knew - it was best because they were the ones to keep the powers that be in check. That's why the older generation is so adamant to vote. However, as you delve more into the MTV generation, there are less and less voters from them. Why? Their stance is - "it doesn't affect me." And all the while, it does affect them. They just don't see it. And they don't care.
Their attitude is why vote when it won't affect their lives. Their not scared enough or they just don't care about what goes on in the world. If it doesn't have anything to do with Nick Lachey or Jessica Simpson; or Brangelina or the newest Coach bag, they could give a shit. Neither are they voting or getting involved with what's going on in the world. Why should they?
Cos they can't be bothered. "Let someone else worry about that... give me another Redbull and Vodka please."
It's this attitude that will allow the powerful-yet-in-the-minority groups grab a foothold in the political ring (like the Jesus Camp, bible-thumping NeoCon Christian right).
When someone like Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson or even Ingrid Newkirk finally makes it to office and makes wild and crazy changes that will affect everyone, those of you who were too stupid to keep tabs on your world will wonder -- what the fuck just happened?
I vote - do you?
First, let me say that I don't like Ms. Huffington. I just don't. Maybe it's that accent of hers, or that I find her to be the most conservative Democrat (in fact, I thought she was a Republican - I found she was ten years ago to my suprise) alive. Even worse than Hillary Clinton.
With that said, I have to admit that I was in agreement with much of what she said in her interview. It was enlightening, telling and I do admire her stance that President Bush must be impeached.
What I want to address is not her accent, her political slant or her "blogosphere". It's her idea that mainstream media has ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder).
Why does the main stream media have Attention Deficit Disorder? Because the PEOPLE have attention deficit disorder.
Huffington's opinion is that we need to stick on top of a story so that the people will know and, thus, do something about the situation. The problem is that the people don't care.
Yes, the people of this nation don't give one rat's fucking ass what the government does. And what's worse -- they trust the government blindly.
She brings to point many serious situations that have occurred in the Bush Administration; the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina are two. She wants the Dem's to take over power in the two Houses as well as the Executive branch but it's the People that have to do that.
And the People don't care. Or should I say -- the young people don't care. Just look at the last Presidential Election's percentage of people actually voting? 215 Million people registered to vote in 2004. Of that 215 million, only 115 million voted (source: 2004 US CENSUS BUREAU). The US population is roughly 293 Million. Less than 50% of the people voted (give or take). The people that did vote were older. 55 and over were more likely to vote than those 18-24, even though there were just as many 18-24 who registered as there were 55 and over (again, US CENSUS BUREAU).
The poeple of yesteryear were more in tune with current events. And they knew - it was best because they were the ones to keep the powers that be in check. That's why the older generation is so adamant to vote. However, as you delve more into the MTV generation, there are less and less voters from them. Why? Their stance is - "it doesn't affect me." And all the while, it does affect them. They just don't see it. And they don't care.
Their attitude is why vote when it won't affect their lives. Their not scared enough or they just don't care about what goes on in the world. If it doesn't have anything to do with Nick Lachey or Jessica Simpson; or Brangelina or the newest Coach bag, they could give a shit. Neither are they voting or getting involved with what's going on in the world. Why should they?
Cos they can't be bothered. "Let someone else worry about that... give me another Redbull and Vodka please."
It's this attitude that will allow the powerful-yet-in-the-minority groups grab a foothold in the political ring (like the Jesus Camp, bible-thumping NeoCon Christian right).
When someone like Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson or even Ingrid Newkirk finally makes it to office and makes wild and crazy changes that will affect everyone, those of you who were too stupid to keep tabs on your world will wonder -- what the fuck just happened?
I vote - do you?
Monday, October 02, 2006
The.. bald kitty
I've noticed something rather interesting. I think it must be a trend that is more popular than I thought.
It's...
The shaving of the pussy hair.
I've noticed in all of the previous issues of Playboy that I have that most of the women presented to us in their splendor are actually either fully shaven or have very little hair left on their nether-regions.
This is... HOT.
The thing that got me thinking about this was a recent viewing of a 70's era porn. Now, you gotta love the 70's porn. They actually have much better storylines, the acting is much better and they're actually filmed on.. well.. film. None of this home video look. Of course, they didn't have home video cameras back then so, of course they look like film. I'm sure production values were much more expensive back then.
Anyway, back to the subject -- if you've seen a porno from the 70's, you'll notice that the muff on the women are sooooo full (they're like.. small trees or other foliage) and untrimmed. Whereas, looking at porn today you'll notice neatly trimmed bush or non-existent bush. Airstrips, little patches and the like are there and they're equally hot.
There's actually a need for pubic hair - it's like a filter or catcher of "stuff". It's needed for hygiene and I think it's used as an insolator. The latter I'm not sure about.
But the bald, shaven stuff is awesome and I applaud any woman who has taken a razor to their mound of happiness and taken it off. It makes for easier access, less hassle and man.. it's just good to look at.
So, pick up a Playboy and a few razors... or, go get a Brazilian wax. It might itch for a bit after shaving but hey.. it's just the cool thing to do.
It's...
The shaving of the pussy hair.
I've noticed in all of the previous issues of Playboy that I have that most of the women presented to us in their splendor are actually either fully shaven or have very little hair left on their nether-regions.
This is... HOT.
The thing that got me thinking about this was a recent viewing of a 70's era porn. Now, you gotta love the 70's porn. They actually have much better storylines, the acting is much better and they're actually filmed on.. well.. film. None of this home video look. Of course, they didn't have home video cameras back then so, of course they look like film. I'm sure production values were much more expensive back then.
Anyway, back to the subject -- if you've seen a porno from the 70's, you'll notice that the muff on the women are sooooo full (they're like.. small trees or other foliage) and untrimmed. Whereas, looking at porn today you'll notice neatly trimmed bush or non-existent bush. Airstrips, little patches and the like are there and they're equally hot.
There's actually a need for pubic hair - it's like a filter or catcher of "stuff". It's needed for hygiene and I think it's used as an insolator. The latter I'm not sure about.
But the bald, shaven stuff is awesome and I applaud any woman who has taken a razor to their mound of happiness and taken it off. It makes for easier access, less hassle and man.. it's just good to look at.
So, pick up a Playboy and a few razors... or, go get a Brazilian wax. It might itch for a bit after shaving but hey.. it's just the cool thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
