Ladies, Put Down Your Cell Phones and No One Will Get Hurt!

It baffles me that women don't understand that men are so easily tamed. Women fail to appreciate the value of silence when it comes to men. They fail to appreciate the value of actually saying what you mean and meaning what you say. These women fail to get what the want.

A friend called me a while ago and told me that he boyfriend wasn't responding to her calls and texts as promptly as she wished. She told me that she would call several times before her boyfriend would call her back.

First of all, there is nothing more annoying that having someone you don't want to speak to call you a million times. Now, this might sound harsh because who wants to consider that they are being annoying in a relationship. But, let's give it a scenario. Boyfriend is hanging out with the boys tossing the football. His phone rings during the fun time and it's his beautiful, charming, fun, classy girlfriend. However, he knows that he's in the company of 6 other guys and he doesn't want to give his girlfriend anything less than his undivided attention. So, he doesn't pick up and plans to call her as soon as he has some alone time.

Girlfriend doesn't like this, she continues to call. She starts speculating about how beautiful the girl is that he's cheating on her with. She becomes even more upset that he has not answered her calls and irrationally texts and calls a million times. Boyfriend, at this point, knows that he is in a lot of trouble for absolutely nothing. As any smart human being would do, he becomes frightened about the inevitable fight which is about to ensue, all because he was tossing a football around with his guy friends.

Of course, this is not always the scenario. There are lots of innocent activities a boyfriend might be doing when it is inappropriate to answer of phone. He might be trying to find out who Number Two works for. He might be sleeping. He might be in a movie, a meeting, etc.

Gradually, the girl begins to call the boy like 10 times more than she gets called. She begins to resent the fact that she can only communicate with her boyfriend on his time. Acknowledging that his actions are selfish, we must consider how selfish it is to believe that anyone else is at our beckon call 24/7. Moreover, the guy begins to learn that his girlfriend will ALWAYS be available when he wants to talk because she always answers the phone or he'll just pick up when he's good and ready.

The answer: STOP CALLING! Let them come to you! Hopefully, that's how it was in the beginning of your relationship. Things should not change just because you are an official couple or just because you have gone on a couple dates! Women apparently don't know this. Then, men wonder how they got themselves into this mess and insist this is not what they signed up for. She seemed so nice and sweet at the beginning, now she's some crazy stalker who won't leave me alone. Alas, the relationship begins a slow, steady collapse.

Sure enough, following this advice, within a very short time, he was calling her as a good boy should. The lesson: Never ever underestimate the power of silence!

I spoke to another friend who told me that her boyfriend was supposed to come visit her this weekend and is trying to wiggle his way out of it. As a preliminary matter, that already means two things. (1) You have allowed him to walk all over you; and (2) you need to break up with him because you obviously aren't a priority.

She tells me that he has a game of some sort and his team is counting on him. She proceeds to tell him via text "obviously this is not a good time, come another time." Women apparently fail to understand that sarcasm will not be detected and such a statement will be construed liberally and literally. Her boyfriend now thinks it is perfectly fine if he doesn't come. Meanwhile, what she meant to say was, "If you are not here but such and such a time, this relationship is over."

With about 99% certainty, he will tell her that he is not going to come and she's start flipping out. She will do so under the pretense that she made it clear to him that he was to skip his game and come. He will be baffled and confused. He will insist that you just said it was ok for him to go to the game. Alas, you DID actually say that. Now, there will be a fight over something that could have been adequately handled by saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

Seriously, You Must Be Joking!

In dating, men and women are looking for very different things. Early on, men are looking for perks of a sexual nature, while the perks for women tend to be more alcoholic and caloric in nature. For anyone that says they don't play games, that means you just go right ahead and hop into bed because honestly, the entire dating process is a game. What varies is how seriously people play that game.

So, you meet someone, they ask for your number and they call to ask you on a date. There are several reasons a girl might say yes to such an offer. One, is that she actually really liked the guy and thinks he's her future husband. Another is that she thought the date sounded fun. Maybe she's just bored. Really, it doesn't matter why we go, but if we go, we begin "dating".

Men, for some unknown reason have come to equate buying dinner with getting ass. It's funny when you have gone on a couple dates with someone and they haven't gotten any ass, you'll notice the restaurants you go to get nicer and nicer. Then, if you do sleep with that person, they'll do one of two things. One, is they'll continue to wine and dine you acknowledging that you are still "dating" and maybe that they actually have class. The second move involves nesting.

You know what I mean. The nesters. The ones that either want to settle down or their just homebodies and they think because they impressed you sufficiently to get you into bed, that they no longer have to do any work. This tactic must have worked on some, otherwise it simply wouldn't exist. However, that tactic will never work with me! In fact, it's the fastest way to ensure I will never speak to you again. Nesting! You have got to be kidding.

Frankly, I think nesting is for people that hate to date. It's for people that actually dread the dating experience all together. The people who get nauseated and clammy at the thought of conversation, wine, and a MEAL with another people because they might actually have to talk to them for like two whole hours! The way I see things, if you don't have an hour of talking points on yourself (half the time of a date, assuming your date has an hour on themselves) then you deserve to be single! And, if your date deserves to be single, then you should have two hours of stuff to talk about! I mean, have you done nothing with your life? Never gone on vacation? Seen a good sports game? Seen someone fall out of no where? NOTHING!?!

Which brings me to a funny dating story. So, sometimes, just to be mean and cruel I date people so that I have horrible dating stories to tell. The guy moves along, thinking I am actually interested in him and he might have a chance of getting some action, when really, it's all just a big joke on him. So, sparing the details of how this particular individual landed himself in this pitiful spot, we were out at lunch one day and the bill comes. We were finishing up cocktails so it sits there, he doesn't touch it. Then, I finally open the bill up and look at it. He asks some question regarding how I would like to handle it. Not surprisingly, it was obvious I was going to have to pay for at least my own lunch. But he now begins to suggest that I might like to buy him lunch as well.

I was very confused because I don't remember telling him that I wanted to buy him lunch. He's a pretty big loser and a really big jerk, so I couldn't think of any reason why I would want to buy him lunch. But, for some reason, he thought I might want to buy him lunch. So, I simply told him that I did not, in fact, want to buy him lunch. After which he still proceeded to put his wallet in his pocket. After instilling some further clarity into the statement regarding his payment, he finally coughed up some money.

During the course of the lunch, there was a discussion about being a "player" and how when girls met him they always thought he was the "player type". Now, as I laughed internally thinking, "Who in their right mind would seriously date you, thus allowing you to be dating multiple girls at once?" I told a story about someone I used to date thinking so much of our relationship, meanwhile I was dating all these other people at the time, it lasted a couple weeks, etc. So, this guy asks me how many people I was seeing now. "What do you mean?" His response was, "Well, like you and me?"

So... what you are asking is how many losers do I get to take out to lunch on a regular basis? Well, frankly, I don't even have guy friends as pathetic as that. Apparently he thought we were like really dating and feared he was being played. I thought this was hysterical because we're not hooking up, he doesn't pick up the bill, he doesn't drive me places, we don't do couple activities, etc.

So, the moral is if you don't pay the bill, you're probably not dating so you probably wouldn't qualify as someone that is getting played. And, even if you think you're actually dating someone without having to pay all the bills, you need to get your shit straight because you're obviously going to get played if you aren't paying for shit! I thought this was a basic principle but I have met more and more boys in this unsophisticated part of the country that seem to lack even the most basic manners!

Drycleaners...

Riddle me This: Why is it that every dry cleaner loves their customers? I mean, seriously, how can this be the case? At least one of their customers has to be an ass hole. "You're an axe murder? Oh, that's cool, we still love you." Perhaps the next time you are feeling unloved you should head over to the dry cleaner for a reminder that they love you. Of course, depending on their turn over rate, it might take a day or two before you get the message . But alas, it will come sooner than later.

One Hysterical Example of Why Our Drug Policy Undermines Respect for Our Criminal Justice System

Notice the snort in the newsroom. "I think we're dead"...?! What!? It's too funny! But it is also a prime example of why the criminalization of marijuana undermines respect for our criminal laws in general. If the very individuals who are supposed to uphold our criminal laws are breaking them, then acting like idiots, making the news, and not being charged with a crime themselves... don't we think it's time we simply admitted they committed no crime and change our laws!

Ducky Ducky; Quack!

This is precisely the kind of quack I am talking about. This idiot says "the State is God walking on Earth"? What does that even mean?! I guess he might mean something along the lines of the state is an almighty being? I am still unclear if that's what he meant because even if it is it is completely irrelevant to anything else he says...

Abortion "creates promiscuity." Now that's a moronic statement if I have ever heard one! Maybe its organisms, arguably a gift God gave us. Maybe this dude is just bitter he's not getting any. "Murder, inc."? And he calls other people radicals! Hahaha, this kinda cracks me up!

"The Federal Government has no role in the instrument of salvation" and yet he thinks that the government should be involved to promote his religious views, specifically those against homosexuality and abortion. He says there is a "founding Christian principles in the Constitution". Uh, have you heard and the separation of Church and State you fruitcake? And what the hell is this about "black churches" were destabilized because of Federal funding? I suppose white churches were doing just fine with any "funding" they were receiving so uh... what're you getting at here buddy, no common denominator... You certainly aren't saying that funding to churches is destabilizing to society since you only specified "black churches" and I imagine since you're so gung-ho about religion that you can't believe the church itself is a "perverse cause". It sounds to me that his argument is "black churches" constitute "moral degradation". So, I have to think he's just plain racist. (Please see the commentary by Kanye West below...) And interestingly, I hear him say nothing about what this "degradation" was that was "caused by federal funding". He only rattles off a list of organizations, all of which benefit gay communities or the poor (and apparently mostly "black communities") and calls them "perverse".

It's no wonder that every President has appropriated more and more money, it's because you're a moron buddy and you haven't made even one coherent argument! In fact pretty much everything you have said is hypocritical. It is so troublesome to me that there are still individuals out there that can listen to this man and think he's making a good, or even, decent argument for anything logical or coherent. He might as well have just recorded himself saying, I am a racist capitalist who wants to hoard all the money for myself. I believe in a Republican party that is compassionate, not a group of moron monkeys like this fool!

My Party; The Hypocrisy in Our Bipartisan System

The bipartisan system. What a concept. A system in which believing in a laissez faire economic system and the right to abortion are incompatible. I think what bothers me the most about bipartisanism are the candidates. Although, upon reflection the candidates are likely motivated to act by what they believe their “party” wants. Or perhaps what their “party” wants is really what is required to become nominated as a “representative of the party”. The thinking is something like: “If you’re not “Republican” enough you won’t appeal to the “Republican” vote so we can’t nominate you, regardless of how socially logical your policies might be”. So perhaps it is simply a nasty cycle that American voters have precipitated since the birth of our Constitution.

To be sure, there are benefits of the system. Some additional checks and balances that even the Framers never intended. I have to be honest, though: the idea that a woman in our Nation cannot freely exercise the right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy appalls me. That is simply one belief I think there is simply no place for in the world and I consider myself to be sympathetic to some pretty outrageous ideas and social policies, conservative and liberal alike. It further appalls me when MEN have the audacity to speak on a WOMAN'S right to choose. (This comment is made in regards to the overarching issue, I do believe I man has every right to assert his belief on the matter when it comes to his own child, but in that circumstance alone. Otherwise, I find this issue to be one that is exclusively a “women’s issue” only because when it really comes down to it, a woman is really the one who will suffer the ultimate sacrifices of bearing a child. A man may participate in the child's life or not at his will.) Obviously, I cannot and would not argue that abortion is good or right or Christian. Nonetheless, imposing a responsibility of bearing a child on a woman simply because of her female status and the truly unavoidable nature of women to get pregnant is a grave disservice to this Nation and most importantly, to that child.

I say unavoidable which is sure to evoke attack. Of course you can use “protection”. But no method of “birth control” apart from sterilization (which some of these lunatics might be lobbying for) is completely effective. Furthermore, the loudest speakers against abortion are generally those who oppose it for religious reasons. Ironically, however, Catholics do not believe in using any method of birth control. I can only presume that those Catholics who actively oppose a woman’s right to choose live in a fantasy world or think women should just be baby makers and rearers (perhaps the ideal of the "fantasy world" and the A.D. women's role are not that inconsistent). Unfortunately, this is the real world. It is a world in which young girls have unprotected sex with other young boys when they are not married. A world where poor single mothers cannot afford to feed their children and those children are growing up without fathers because the father had the “luxury” of leaving to live his own childhood. And so I beg the question, what kind of family values are these?!

Of course, these are not the circumstances of every abortion, or even most abortions, in this country. In fact, I might argue that preventing the precipitation of poverty and teenage motherhood is the “ideal” exercise of a woman’s right to choose (if such an abstract of an "ideal exercise of the right to choose" exists, and of course, it would be secondary to abortion necessitated by health risks). Abortions are expensive for many individuals and difficult to obtain if you do not know how, have no transportation, have no clinics near you, etc. Ironically, babies are more expensive and more difficult to raise than an abortion is to obtain. But welfare assistance is free and relatively easy to get because most poor people know how. If they don’t, they can usually ask a friend or neighbor.

I am appalled because it seems to me that the very same individuals who preach against abortion (and usually vote “Republican”) seem to be opposed to paying for welfare. Those people are nothing but hypocrites. I would challenge those individuals who squarely fit into the group that oppose abortion and favor welfare spending cuts to go to a poor community and talk to teen mothers. Ask them how many of them would have gotten an abortion if given the opportunity at a low reasonable cost and if the abortion was made accessible. Welfare is accessible. People in poor communities know how to get welfare and yet they can’t get an abortion so they can’t get off welfare because they have children to raise and they can’t work because they have no education because they dropped out of high school because they were pregnant because they could not get an abortion. I think you know where I am going with this. Furthermore, even if they got a job that required no job skills or education (which exist but we still don’t hire people who don’t have a high school education because we now hire college grads for these jobs!) they would have no health benefits and end up making less money than they did on welfare. (I suggest you read The Working Poor by David Shipler who addresses these issue in depth).

I challenge people who fit squarely in that category of believing in “pro-life/welfare cuts” to go to improverished communities and ask teen mothers that would have opted for an abortion if it were cheap and readily available to them how many of them think they would have finished at least high school. Or how many of those women think their lives would be better if they had not had to care for a small child when they were themselves a small child. Or more importantly, how many of them think their child’s lives would be better if they had waited until they were an adult to have a baby. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were fiscally prepared for the event. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they were married and lived with a husband and had a dual income. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they had an education which allowed them to assist the child with their homework. If they thought their child’s life would be better if they weren’t living in a housing project surrounded by addicts, gangs and drug dealers.

I challenge those idealists to go to improvished communities and ask how many people support their cause! I can guarantee they’ll find not one person who supports their cause or agrees with their views. I imagine some argument along the lines of “it’s because these people are uneducated free-loaders”. The truth is rather that those fitting squarely within this ideology are uneducated themselves. They are uneducated about the true social issues the surround those on welfare.

Why could they find not one person? It is because they have no idea what they are talking about and seek to impose their idealistic views on a world they know nothing about. Worse, however, is that they make no attempt to find out what the issues in the “ghettos” are. They simply don’t care. They think that every clump of cells in a womb has the right to be brought into gang banging poverty; has the right to families that can barely afford food; has the right to have inadequate education; has the right to lack responsible parents that wanted to or were ready to have children; and has the right to have little or no hope of breaking that cycle. Then, they seek to impose social policies that will make the situation in this clump of cell’s life even bleaker.

Bipartisanism bothers me because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose not to have a baby she is not financially, emotionally and socially prepared to raise so that we can cut welfare spending. But that “party” doesn’t exist.

If the Men That We Love Aren't the Men That Love Us, Then *!%& The Men And Here's to Us!

I started looking for something funny on youtube to comment on... just 'cause. I think I needed it. But, I found these instead and I thought they were so awesome that they should be shared. I can't imagine the courage of putting yourself out there like these women did here (and for all the world to see). But the inspiration is something I know I need in my life right now. I need the reminder of how much I love myself as things have gotten a bit low lately. But most importantly, I think women should remember our strengths and powers which we so often mistake as weaknesses. Our ability to love and comfort but our need to be doing it for the right reasons, which often I find my friends and I do not. So, I'm "hollerin' when I heard it".



I thought this was great too. We should always remember who we are. We should always remember who others are, even when we think we might have lost them. Or perhaps, when we think they might have lost themselves. We must be compassionate. We must be understanding. We must put ourselves in someone else's shoes.




And, although I was feeling really good about not having a man until I saw this... I thought it was hysterical.

Finally, Someone Knows I am Right!

I finally found someone this weekend that also thinks Brady Quinn is going to be a bust and that he should be thanking his lucky stars he didn't get drafted any higher than 22. This fairly high, yet lower than expected, draft number should afford him the luxury of slipping out of the League without too much embarrassment. Although, perhaps for personal reasons I wouldn't mind if he had taken over as the biggest bust in draft history.

Telfair's Nameplate Gives Way to Apple Strudel Poptarts

"He seems to have a recurrent handgun issue. He also seems to have an expired driver's license issue and a wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time issue. He is a soon-to-be-former Celtic, at least according to co-owner Wyc Grousbeck, who alerted the media via e-mail to the fact that Sebastian Telfair was not going to be a part of any Celtics' plans. 'I wanted to let you know that we have removed Sebastian's nameplate from his locker in Waltham,' Grousbeck wrote. 'The facts and circumstances of his case have not yet been determined but he does not have a Celtics locker and we do not anticipate that he will.'" -Telfair didn't belong in Boston, Bob Ryan, Boston Globe

Ok, first of all, "wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time issue". I would venture to say, and I'm just spitballin' here, the real problem is most likely it's just about always the wrong time when it comes to Sebastian Telfair. [At this juncture you should throw on Eminem's "Criminal", which is the soundtrack for this blog entry.] Not that I am shadowing Telfair as part of his security detail (as it's pretty clear he's got that handled himself) and would know exactly how he spends his time but I mean, come on! Most people can get through a lifetime without criminal charges. He can't make it one year!

There is a group of "compassionate people" out there that think the Celtics should wait until it has been determined for sure that the gun did not belong to his "girlfriend". First of all, that excuse is getting old. "Seems" to have a handgun issue is an understatement. I think it's pretty clear at this point that he does in fact have a recurrent handgun "issue". And last time I checked carrying around a loaded handgun is against league rules regardless of whether it licensed to your "girlfriend". Of course, he wasn't working at the time of the most recent incident, but Telfair has proven he's a huge liability, the Celtics have enough problems as it is.

In other news, apple strudel poptarts are pretty good. Check 'em out. Perhaps they can take over Telfair's spot on the Celtic's bench. They don't pack heat...

And coming soon: Why Sebastian Telfair should have taken advantage of a free education.

Methadone Treatment: Policies of Legal Narcotics in the U.S. Work

Criminal laws do not and cannot cure addiction. A fact we must face as a Nation in order to address our failing 'War on Drugs'. A fact that we must face as a Nation if we believe in compassion and seek to find a viable long-term solution for this affliction. A fact that we must face if we want to find socially beneficial remedies to drug problems rather than exacerbating the problems with band-aid jail sentences which cost Americans millions annually.

This trailer shows some insight about the true power of heroin addiction:


The FDA recognized this sentiment when it approved methadone treatment. Methadone is a legal synthetic narcotic. It is used to treat heroin addiction as well as addiction to narcotic painkillers. This concept in the abstract is shocking to many that know nothing about American drug laws and policies. Methadone provides opiates to addicts because they cannot live without them. Synthetic simply means that it produces the same reaction in the brain but is not made from natural poppy plants. By taking this medication heroin addicts are able to function normally in society by feeding their addiction for opiates but in a synthetic form. It has been one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction ever realized.

Methadone is one of the greatest steps toward treating addiction because the individuals who are treated with methadone are getting their “fix” and they are taken out of the illicit drug culture in order to achieve this necessity of addiction. Those using methadone are no longer required to steal, prostitute themselves, or otherwise participate in crime in order to feed their habit. They are no longer required to visit their drug dealer every day. They are able to acquire their “fix” easily and at a low cost. They do not have to worry about their dealer not being able to supply which could leave them suffering from unbearable withdrawal symptoms. They do not have run the risk of getting AIDs or other intravenous diseases because they share needles. Moreover, because they know where they can get their “fix” they do not have to spend their day as they did as an illicit addict.



The daily life of a heroin addict is a repetitive cycle with only one goal: to get that fix. Because of the nature of the brain’s dependence on heroin (and to a somewhat lesser extent, other narcotics) once an individual is addicted, there is no way to avoid this goal. It will cause a truly addicted individual to do anything in order to achieve that goal. Nothing is as important as achieving that goal. That is what we must understand when we approach this problem and determine how to deal with it as a society. We must understand that an addict has no control over the crimes they commit in order to achieve their goal to a large extent. A compassionate criminal code should and could view this type of crime as that of necessity given the mental state of the criminal. It is armed with this knowledge that we examine the benefits of methadone.

Methadone provides normalcy for those afflicted with addiction. Without opiates to quell the demands of the opiate receptors in the brain, addicts cannot function as normal human beings within our society. By providing them with this “fix” methadone allows those on the treatment to acquire gainful employment and otherwise contribute positively to society because they no longer are employed as a full-time heroin addict. Prior to their treatment on methadone, they were forced by their addiction to spend the entire day doing whatever it is they had to do in order to get their fix. Through methadone treatment, they simply have to take their medication and are freed from the requirements the illicit drug world necessitated.

Methadone is a wonderful example of how decriminalization of drugs in the United States will decrease crime and increase productivity. Those on the treatment are now free to participate positively to our society, not because we have denied them their “fix”, but rather because we have made it legal for them to get it. Although these individuals can never be restored to their preaddiction state, they are far better off on methadone treatment than as narcotic addicts. The government has decreased crime by allowing these individuals to take advantage of methadone treatment because they are no longer required to participate in an illicit market. The government has taken money out of the hands of undeserving drug dealers who used to sell these addicted individuals heroin. The government has negated the requirement of these individuals to participate in theft, prostitution and a variety of other crimes that afforded them their drug addiction. The government has obviated the need to spend much needed tax dollars on jailing these individuals for crimes they no longer have to commit to feed their addiction. The government has alleviated the risk that these individuals will overdose and die because of their drug addiction. The government has decreased the spread of AIDs and HIV in the U.S. through this drug policy. The government has created jobs and put money into the American economy through the creation of methadone clinics and the sale of a legal drug.

At which point I leave you with your thoughts.

“You can’t stop here. This is bat country.” -Hunter S. Thompson