NO GAY SEX! (unless you have a LOT of cash to fork over)

So here I am, sitting here at the computer wasting time on Facebook, and going back and forth looking at other pages. Along with Google, my spam mail is promising money left and right. Payday loans, bad credit loans worth more than I've ever had at any one time, free grants the government is just going to pay me to sit here on my ass.

So sure, I can definitely use more money. Not at 3500% interest or whatever, and I'm certainly not sending in $45 (normally $245, but I'm getting a special deal! they must know how awesome I am) to get my free information kit on how to make $1000s a day just like this guru with his fancy webpage and video of him driving nice cars. The whole thing on facebook of bill gates or some random ass lottery winner saying they will give you free money if you share the post and just ask for it...talk about a joke.

First off, Bill Gates isn't giving me money. Secondly, despite being part of the Giving Pledge thing a bunch of billionaires put together as their own little charitable club they belong to (I suspect mostly to make them feel better about themselves in a public relations sense), these guys aren't giving money away to regular people. They are looking at "legitimate" charities. I suspect they have a hand in running some of those charities to begin with, which is almost ridiculous if you ask me. That's more like a tax write off without actually losing a penny.

I tend to peruse the job ads from time to time, and I've found out hard work often pays less than everything else. A 16 year old ditz in high school speaking on the phone using a pre-written script to work from actually makes more money than most jobs I see where manual labor is actually involved for some guy just trying to support his family. And it's also amazing how many jobs now require a college education just to get some job that pays less than $30,000 a year! What the hell is THAT? Is the state of our public education system so bad that you need college just to get you closer to a simple wage that's high enough to pay the bills of a mediocre lifestyle? And what's with all the staffing companies? Every corporation out there is working with a bunch of $10-$15/hr workers who aren't really working FOR the company. Don't get me wrong, a lot of those people do great work, and for some that's the only way to get work. I guess it's better to float the CEO's pay when you underpay everyone and don't have to offer them perks...

Now, I don't have much in the way of job skills. I was the 16 year old ditz on the phone, I sided houses for awhile, I did security work, and I've worked in restaurants. None of which paid all that well. Sometimes I worked very hard at those jobs, but a lot of the time I kind of slacked off and just did what needed to be done without anything extra. Why? Because it didn't really matter much. Months of hard work resulted in me making no more than some guy who spent his entire day jerking off. Sometimes I made even less than those guys who didn't know their head from their ass, and I was picking up their slack. But it seemed my low wage was barely able to be afforded by the boss, so no raise for me or anyone else. Now don't mind me, I'm just venting, the entire point of this article isn't to complain, I just lost focus for a bit...and I'm too lazy to delete all that wasted effort.

These days I'm still trying to figure out how to make more money. A substantial amount to be exact, not just something to get me by for the next week or so. I'm talking about random ass jobs for good money. And I've decided I have VERY FEW caveats. You pick the job, task, etc- minus the caveats listed below- and we'll talk.

1) I will NOT kill anyone for cash (although I might maim someone for the right price- which also means you footing the lawyer fees). If you want me to be your killing dummy, we do the cash ahead of time of course so I can get the money to the wife and kids first. Then I'll be your huckleberry.

2) I will NOT let a bull charge me and ram me right in the gonads...or take a baseball bat there. Plain and simple: no nut shots that could result in permanent damage!

I mean c'mon, I'm pretty dumb, I'll admit that. But I'm not COMPLETELY insane!

3) NO GAY SEX (unless you're coming with something like a million bucks or more, I'm thinking closer to $10 million, but we can negotiate- AND that gets no publicity- save that for Dallas Cowboy fans)

Other than that I'm pretty much game. I'll drive you around town, do your shopping, you name it. You want your house demolished, re-drywalled or burned down, I'm your guy. You want me to clean your house in some odd looking outfit (or no outfit at all) while you videotape it? You're a special kind of odd, but I'll still do it! You want me to play a real life game of Frogger on the freeway, wrestle wild herds of feral cats, whatever your fetish might be, I'm your man. You tell me what game you want me to play, we'll discuss a price tag and then I'll do whatever it is you want for that price. Proof of funds are required and I get paid that day. Don't get me wrong, I still have every intention of continuing working a job, short of winning a big lottery I just want to raise about $100,000 so I can wipe my debts out and get a good down payment for a house. Although I would definitely take more money than that if the jobs just keep coming. Every man has his price, and I'm no different. It's all a matter of negotiation with me. I CAN be bought!

So pass this on to all your friends that actually have money they are willing to part with in order to be entertained by directing my antics and help me make some real friggin money.

The Oldest Argument

THE OLDEST ARGUMENT:

> "Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ."
> The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks
> one of his new students to stand.
> "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
> "Yes sir," the student says.
> "So you believe in God?"
> "Absolutely."
> "Is God good?"
> "Sure! God's good."
> "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
> "Yes."
> "Are you good or evil?"
> "The Bible says I'm evil."
> The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a
> moment.
> "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can
> cure him. You can do it… Would you help him? Would you try?"
> "Yes sir, I would."
> "So you're good...!"
> "I wouldn't say that."
> "But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.
> Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."
> The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does
> he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to
> Jesus to heal him How is this Jesus good? Hmmm?
> Can you answer that one?"
> The student remains silent.
> "No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from
> a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
> "Let's start again, young fella Is God good?"
> "Er...yes," the student says.
> "Is Satan good?"
> The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."
> "Then where does Satan come from?"
> The student: "From... God…"
> "That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in
> this world?"
> "Yes, sir."
> "Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"
> "Yes."
> "So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,
> then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle
> that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
> Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues: "Is there
> sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do
> they exist in this world?"
> The student: "Yes."
> "So who created them?"
> The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.
> "Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks
> away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
> "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus
> Christ, son?"
> The student's voice is confident: "Yes, professor, I do."
> The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to
> identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
> "No sir. I've never seen Him!"
> "Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
> "No, sir, I have not."
> "Have you ever actually felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your
> Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for
> that matter?"
> "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
> "Yet you still believe in him?"
> "Yes."
> "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
> science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
> "Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."
> "Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has
> with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
> The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his
> own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
> "Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
> "And is there such a thing as cold?"
> "Yes, son, there's cold too."
> "No sir, there isn't."
> The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room
> suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.
> "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited
> heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything
> called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we
> can't go any further after that.
> There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than
> the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when
> it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or
> transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You
> see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot
> measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.
> Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
> Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
> like a hammer.
> "What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"
> "Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it
> isn't darkness?"
> "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
> something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
> light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called
> darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality,
> darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker,
> wouldn't you?"
> The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be
> a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"
> "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start
> with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
> The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you
> explain how?"
> "You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You
> argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You
> are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
> measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and
> magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view
> death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot
> exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the
> absence of it..."
> "Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from
> a monkey?"
> "If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,
> of course I do."
> "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
> The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where
> the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
> "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot
> even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching
> your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"
> The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has
> subsided.
> "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me
> give you an example of what I mean."
> The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has
> ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
> "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the
> professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain?
> No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
> empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
> with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we
> trust your lectures, sir?"
> Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
> unreadable.
> Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll
> have to take them on faith."
> "Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,"
> the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"
> Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it
> everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.
> It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.
> These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
> To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does
> not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.
> It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe
> the absence of God.
> God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does
> not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when
> there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
> The professor sat down.

Debate Analysis- 3 Days Later

This last Wednesday night I saw the first 2/3 of the presidential debate (the first one I've actually watched, and more geared toward doemstic policy) before my wife distracted me with what she likes to call better action than politics, which she hates.
(3 points for the wife)

First off, IF this was my first exposure to the whole campaign, and I came in totally ignorant of everything, Obama won the debate, and I would definitely be voting for him over McCain.
(1 point Obama)

My take on the negative campaigning question, I had issue with both of them. Neither really answered. Obama tip-toed around the question, while McCain expressed disgust with negativity while simultaneously throwing in a few negative sounding jabs at the democrats.
(0 points)

On the economy, Obama sounded really great. McCain's plan was pretty sound on the surface. However its amazing to me that the moderator showed results of both plans adding about $200 billion to the deficit annually. Obama later retorted something to the effect of all independent organizations showed his plan to be perfectly sound and on target (I dont have the exact words, so don't quote me). McCain wasn't exactly on target either, but I think he had a greater grasp on the simple math...added to the fact that he supports line-item vetos, which would greatly help to reduce useless expenditures. Obama said programs would need to be cut in order to make room for some of his programs. I get that, however, his plan still leaves way too much taxation on the group that will provide more tax money either directly, or through new jobs that provide for more taxes through those people. Everytime in history has shown unfair taxation on the producers has resulted in less overall tax rolls.
So just what is Obama going to cut???
I do agree with Obama on working the tax code to encourage American companies to bring their production back home, while discouraging further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.
(draw- 1 point each)

On energy policy, both had great ideas. Obama is still pondering the whole drilling issue, while McCain is ready to act. I score McCain that point. No matter what we do, we have to utilize all options, not just drilling, and not just anti drilling. As cheap as it makes gas in Iowa, the ethanol mandate needs to go, along with their subsidies. Obama made a point about the oil cmpanies having 68million undrilled acres of land they have leased,where they COULD get oil. The problem with that is, IS THERE ACTUALLY ANY OIL THERE? I'm in favor of them "using it or losing it", but I think we ought to concentrate efforts of drilling where we KNOW its at. I think Obama is, while not saying it, against going that direction. (1 point McCain.
)

On healthcare, I think both candidates have great ideas, and some not so great ideas, but both fall short.
(0 points)

So tallying it up, Obama and McCain score 2 points in my book each. My wife gets her 3 points...so she wins....but I'm biased and she's not running or elegible for the office. Pure scoring would show Obama as the winner of this debate. So given the draw, in my books, the debate goes to McCain for not totally flubbing this one up. Noone expected him to be anywhere near close, at least not according to main stream media outlets, and even a lot of conservative media outlets. He held his own, despite poor coaching from the leadership of the GOP.


Both candidates stuck almost squarely to their side of the aisles arguments. Obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but his words arent as loud as his voting history. He's going to have to adopt a few conservative perspectives to get all those things done he says he will, unless of course the DNC achieves filibuster proof control of Congress. McCain talks about issues, but his words give way in favor of hard-right perspectives on what should be said and done. While associations with certain people can come into question and are important, along with judgement calls on things, the issues based solely on provable facts are the only real strength of a republican platform. Unfortunately the republicans always fall short on following a real gameplan.