Comments by AbbieNormal (page 10)

I second the WTF. I understand the fantasy aspects, I just don't see a point anywhere.

BG, it does cut both ways. Evolution, while admitedly a theory, not an established law or fact, still deserves to be mentioned at the very least, probably explained and taught as the dominant theory, in science classes, yet there are those who seek to ban it from public education. While I can muster some sympathy if evolution is taught as unassailable fact, it is the dominant scientific theory, and should be taught.

As for the effect, the only one I see is lots of people congregating outside bars for smokes. While I admit to not missing coming home reeking, I am disturbed that this will just be seen as no big deal. Since it didn't put bars out of buisness and since patrons, despite hating it and being inconvienced, adapted, all objections will be ruled illegitimate. The very idea that anything is not the buisness of the government if someone screams loud enough recedes a little further. Since the mid 1970's the government has been on a crusade to reduce the "corrupting" influence of unregulated money on politics. They've managed to gut the first amendment of it's core, preventing the government from regulating political speech or activities related to lobying the government or supporting a candidate, while preserving the outer shell, flag burning, government funding for crucifixes submerged in urine and Nazis and Clansmen marching. It's easier to hold a Clan rally than place ads in a paper in favor of a candidate. Anybody else see that as perverse? Anybody believe they've lessend the corrupting influence of money on politics? All they've done is mandate a discount price, yet that very failure will be used as a justification for more of a failed policy, not less. Anybody else see why I'm getting tired of politics?

I've always considered it extremely rude to smoke when other people were eating. In a bar is a different matter, it's like considering a ballpark a resturaunt 'cause you can get a hot dog. You want food in a bar that is your decision. Unfortunately people have decided that the right not to be offended in any manner is apparently the greatest societal right, and they are therefore justified in crushing any kind of behavior they find distasteful. There was a day when something called "courtesy" or "manners" dealt with such matters, but just a shade below being offended in any manner on the list of intolerable acts is being judged in any way by any other human. Pretty much makes law the only avenue left, since nobody feels obligated to exercise judgement. Correct that, people are affraid to exercise judgement.

I don't think there are any firsts left for me. I think I peaked. I haven't been to a club in two months and haven't even considered going, something I used to do (the considering) at least once or twice a week, with somewhere around 20-30% of those deliberations yielding a positive result. I know where I can go for a blowjob or FS and how much it would cost, and I know where I could go for decent but clean LD's, and where I could go for just about any SC experience I'd want. They're all driving distance and within my budget, and I don't care.

Damn, I meant to work in a joke about being fleeced with the sheep line. Oh well. OK, just a few more quick thoughts. We can discuss in more depth later, but everyone talks about how great the 50's and 60's were economically. One working parent could afford that house in the suburbs and the car. Now we could compare that with what is considered bare necessity for a middle class family now, but I've been into that. So what changed? Three things (IMHO). In 1965, after having stringent control for nearly 40 years we basically allowed unrestricted immigration. Whereas in the past we only allowed (for the most part) people who we thought had more than a strong back to offer (we had all the strong backs we needed), but now we seem to give preference to people with no skills whatsoever. In addition, in the 1970's women started entering the workforce in large numbers. Women had always worked, usually only until they had their first child, but now women were seeing work as a sort of self validation, a duty. Then there was the hyperinflation of the late 70's. So, we're suddenly surprised that opening the doors to cheap labor and nearly doubling the size of the labor force has meant that a single blue collar wage earner can't provide an upper middle class lifestyle? Now juxtapose that. Can a single earner provide the 3 bedroom rancher and the car, and feed and clothe the wife and two kids, like in the 1950's? Damn right, but now he's considered poor.

OK, maybe I'm jumping the gun but I've got a few minutes alone with my laptop, so let me add a few points. The libertarian in me screams every time I hear that "well who NEEDS 50 billion dollars". Exactly why is it up to someone else to decide what anyone needs? I mean this is basic economics, but Bill Gates has 50 billion because people line up to buy what he offers. So it's supposed to be up to someone else to decide that those millions of people willingly handing over hundreds of dollars each to Bill are all wrong, and some wiser person should jump in and decide what Bill really "needs", as opposed to what people have wilingly given him in return for something that didn't exist till he invented it. Then there is the old saw about CEO salaries. OK, exactly who is holding a gun to the board of directors heads making them offer those salaries? The top CEO's get those salaries because someone thinks they are worth it. One quick example I like to cite is Jack Welsh. When he became CEO of GE the company was worth 14 billion. When he left, with a "scandalous" retirement package of $8 million a year, the company was worth an extra $400 billion. This was not coincidence, he was responsible for changing that company and making it grow. So, he retires with an annual take of 0.002% of the value he added to the company. Now most high paid CEOs make their "obscene" salaries by stock options, meaning they only make money if the company grows. I have some personal experience with this, sadly not me. One relative got in early on a successful web business that everyone knows. He was a very talented programmer and took a salary of $80,000, a fraction of what he could make in salary anywhere else. The rest was stock options. After three years he retired, because his health was shot from the hours and stress, but he retired with enough stock to take three years off and live comfortably. He still has enough money to pick when and where he wants to work, but for three years all he did, literally, was work. So, should someone decide he doesn't need all the money he earned? Now one final point, someone mentioned that we all seem to equate freedom with money. Yes, because it is the means of freedom. If you depend on someone else to feed, clothe and care for you, how free are you? MIDancer mentioned that poor people weren't free because they are always worried about how to feed themselves or pay the rent. OK, how free are Cubans? The government gives them all an education and health care, unless they do something silly like voicing an opinion. Then not only don't they get food, a place to live, or medical care provided, they can't buy it. Any government that can provide for all your needs can also withhold them, unless you have the means, and the right to procure them for yourself. Welfare, socialized medicine, social security and food stamps aren't freedom, they're feed for human sheep. I'll add more later, but there are already cases in England and New Zealand where people are being denied government health care because they engage in unhealthy habits and lifestyles. So, let the government in, let them provide for all your needs, but don't be surprised when they all the sudden decide that if they're paying for your health care you aren't allowed to skydive, or smoke, or drink, or eat butter, or criticize the government.

Shit, I've missed a lot. However, I'm going on vacation, Thanksgiving, and don't really feel like writing 5,000 words on everything I've seen posted. Now some might say, well why take 5,000 words?, why not post a quick rebuttal? I will say once again, and appologize once again, I take people seriously and their arguments seriously until they give me reason to do otherwise, so rather than a glib paragraph I feel compelled to address substantive points seriously, and with a certain respect. By God there is so much red meat here I can hardly constrain myself, but for the fact that I refuse to dash off something in 15 minutes (out of the aforementioned respect) and that I really don't have a few hours to devote to an answer, well, I digress, but a few questions or observations. Too many people see the economy as a zero sum game, is there any evidence whatsoever to support the supposition that a capitalist/market economy is zero sum? So, people think corporate heads are paid too much. Compared to what? Again the zero sum. Some think that somehow a corporate salary should be evenly distributed. So, let's say there is an unparalleled heart surgeon. Should his fee be determined by what the people who mop his brow and hand him instruments make? As for the role of women, sadly I think a lot of what we are seeing is a backlash and a lot of how strippers and other "sex workers" are treated reflects a desire to see them degraded. An ugly idea, I agree. Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm going to spend a joyous week with the family, and will reply at length in the future.

Just to clarify about the bug up my ass on some of these topics, follow this link. http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm And just for the record, No, National Journal is not a right wing publication, that's National Review.

I'd have to agree that stripclubs are, and probably have always been a haven for socially marginilized men to act out their power fantasies. But then I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I think one thing that is very new is the idea that people have a socially constructed "gender" as opposed to a very real, explicit, and genetic sex. The idea that men and women are the same, but for social constructs is one of those fashionable academic ideas that, despite any science whatsoever, and all the science to the contrary, will take a long time to die. The problem is that those who belive this have sought to impose a single standard that does not allow for male/female differences. Men and women, boys and girls, have always been socialized in very different manners, usually in ways established over generations that sought to channel sex differences in positive ways, but now we are experimenting in ways never seen before. I'm going to leave it at that for now. Now, just to go on record, "womens issues" are absolutely legitimate. In the past when there were disperate legal standards for men and women it was absolutely right and proper that they should be changed. I am more ambivalent on recent trends, but will leave it at that for now.

I think one thing that is taking place is that our culture is being, for lack of a better word, feminized. What used to be considered the "manly" virtues, strength, agression (properly channeled), competitiveness, individualism, decisiveness, these are all being denigrated. Now kids in school aren't taught that you shouldn't fight, but if you fight, fight fair and don't pick on the weak, or even better defend the weak, even if it means fighting, or that the best way to stop a bully is to confront him, they're taught to whine and run to some authority figure. OK, so that is slightly off topic, back to the point at hand. Strip clubs are one of the few places men can openly look at and flirt with women without worying about lawsuits. It's just nice to be able to act like a guy. Yes, I like beer, I like hot women, I want to have sex with them and will let them know it, and I like it even better when they are naked and trying to make me happy. As for the changing roles of women, I may be a little off on this, it is still an idea that is forming, but the big message to women for about the past 40 years is that they can "have it all". They should be personally and professionally fulfilled, and if they aren't its because someone is opressing them or standing in their way. Now as far as I know, even back in the 50's nobody was ever telling men anything other than grow up, get a job, learn to compromise and make a happy life as best as you can. Find a good wife, have some kids, support them, and if you're lucky, at the end you'll have a few good years of retirement and the satisfaction of having raised good kids and sent them out into the world ready to contribute.

"Mead's story didn't seem too strange compared to all the other weird stories about different cultures." No, actually it does seem very strange. A nearly amateur touring the south pacific just happens upon three supremely distinct cultures that just happen to mirror the great debates of the time? But I suppose I should go back to basics. This amateur is able to determine, without the benefit of speaking the language or knowing the history, that one is a society based on love, one on hate, and one on superstition. Those are conclusions, not observations, and the mere fact that she reported conclusions raises the bullshit alarm. To my knowledge Meade spent no more that a year or so in her research. Amazingly perceptive. And further, I don't consider video clips on CNN to describe a culture, and I really don't know what other weirdness you are talking about, and further the fact that some news organizations get things wrong, or report strange stuff does not make Meade's arguments more plausible.

Maybe later. This may need a new thread, but Chandler raises a great point. Maybe Later is a pretty mushy reply. I have said, maybe later, but not in those words, and only when I truely wanted a dance from the dancer, just not right away. Is that rude? It has worked both ways for me. Most of the time the dancer knows to circulate back at some point and I'll probably be ready for a dance. On occasion the timing has been really bad. One or two times I've explained this and that I really did want her to come back, but that the timing was just off, but really, please check back again (only one did, she got $100 for 5), but most don't come back. Others, well a few I've bought the dance anyway, since I did ask them to come back, and it was very busy. Most of those times I enjoyed it, a few I didn't. The other cases were when I explained, yes I did say check back, but now is not a great time, and was met with attitude or hostility. Thoughts?

jablake, no, it is not obvious, you alluded to other things, apparently "religious penis faithful" in Japan, African tribes on video, and some Indians who like cows, with no other context. Are there claims about the "religious penis faithful" that I should know about? Are these claims wild? Are they supported or dubunked by some video? Are they considered scientific fact, or even plausible? No, the point is not obvious. It is about as far from obvious as is rhetorically possible. Learn to write or quit trying to pretend you are engaging in some sort of discussion as opposed to an incoherant rant. Sorry to be so harsh, you seem to try to be polite, but you are utterly incomprehensible most of the time, and while I don't wish to be rude or dismissive, I can not reply seriusly to such an incoherant insubstantial mess.

Jablake, you need to make a coherant argument, address specific points, not just obscure hints of some video or an unidentified witness. Then you say; "Also, there was the doc on Japanese religious penis faithful. That seemed wacked out. Then there are the video documentaries on different African tribes. Those seem wierd. The people (some) of India and their cow loving ways among unusual beliefs . . . " So there are Japanese "religious penis faithful", and there are African tribes, and apparently some videos of them, and some people in India who love cows. How on earth am I to comprehend what you are talking about? Is there a point? An argument? An opinion? Being informed that there are "Japanese religious penis faithful. That seemed wacked out. Then there are the video documentaries on different African tribes. Those seem wierd. The people (some) of India and their cow loving ways among unusual beliefs . . . " does not really add anything to my understanding of exactly what it is you are arguing.

OK, that satisfies the absolute minimum requirements for scientific OBSERVATION. It is specific enough to be checked. In science however, even an observation (experiment) is not considered legitimate unless confirmed by a disinterested third party. But seriously, this doesn't set off anyone elses bullshit alarm? Three distinct cultures that just happen to all be close enough to be studied by one woman in the early 20th century, right around the time of the great philosophical debates about socialism, militarism, religion, and the social utility of them all. Athens? Sparta? Christianity (dogma) versus universal brotherhood (love/socialism). Love, Hate, Superstiton? Come on, just to have three perfect examples of the big three questions, right at hand, ready to study, that doesn't raise the skeptic in anyone else?

MIDancer, Astrologers were the forerunners to astronomers and astrophysicysts, Alchemists were the forerunners to chemists. I don't begrudge her her biases or observations, I only wory that they may be considered science when, admittedly at first blush, they read like a bad version of a platonic allegory. As for Shakespeare, yeah he ripped off everyone from the Greeks to the Phoenicians, but come on, the dude could write. I love Mailer, Wolfe, Capote and all the rest, but do they really compare to Shakespeare?

MIDancer, as I've said before, most customers deserve courtesy and return the same, some don't. It really isn't worth worying about. Don't mistake other people's dysfunctions and problems for yours.

OK, I admit I've never read Margret Meade. In grad school I did have a roomate who was a physical anthropologist (now a dead discipline, figure out why). He rolled his eyes when I mentioned Margret Meade. Just from jablake's description above, if accurate, I can now get an idea why. She finds on one island, three distinct cultures, one based on love, one on hate, and one on religion. What are the chances? Now unless this was obviously allegorical, I'm going to have to call bullshit right there unless she named the island, the tribes, and someone else corroborated her research. That, as described, just doesn't pass the smell test.

Well as a former president postulated, yes, it is possible for someone to have sex with you without you having sex with them, but it's not nearly as fun.

I think it is, as I've said before. I also don't think it is too surprising given that there is a lot less money in it that there used to be. A good dancer needs people skills similar to a salesman, a real estate agent, whatever. She has to be able to read people, convince them they want what she has, and have them leave happy they paid for a dance and looking forward to another. A former ATF got into the buisness before I ever started clubbing. She told me that in the early 90's the club was packed every weeknight, and she'd never walk out with less than $300. That is for a weeknight in a club with no lapdances. By the time she quit to run her buisness full time (she started a personell agency, she's a headhunter) she said she was lucky to take that much home on a Friday or Saturday night, and a good weeknight might be $200. That is about a 30-40% paycut over about 12 years, meaning with even the very mild inflation we've had for 2 decades it is probably closer to 50% in real terms.

FONDL, I think you raise one of those interesting marginal cases. When you buy a sofa, and the delivery is free isn't that about the same as buying a meal and having it delivered? If you pay for delivery I'd tend to think not tipping is OK. If the delivery is free, I'd say possibly a tip is in order. If the guy delivering the sofa just plops it down in the living room, maybe no tip. If he helps you move the furniture and get it just where you want it, tip. So I'm also sometimes baffled, but generally go by the rule that if I hired you, you shouldn't expect to be tipped. If your boss has you doing something for me, then possibly a tip is in order. I'd have tipped the truck driver and helper, not the chimney sweep or the gutter cleaner, and the mattress delivery guy I'd tip if he helped set up the new mattress in the bedroom, but not if he just brought it in the house and left. There are also a few areas where tipping is customary, like a barber or a cab driver, even though you are paying for the service specifically. david120, what you usually find is that the best tippers are people who held a tipped job. I've been a delivery boy, a waiter, and a bartender. I tip well. Being a waiter is often described as the most expensive job you'll ever have. I don't know a single waiter or ex-waiter that tips less than 20%. As for tipping on a lapdance, I'll do it if the dance was particularly enjoyable, but not as a rule.

FONDL, you are in luck, Oprah has it all figured out. http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/200212/omag_200212_tipping.jhtml More seriously, having some experience with tipped professions you aren't expected to tip fee for service folks. If you are paying to have carpet installed, or the exterminator, or the movers you hire they are doing exactly what you paid for. If you have agreed on a price, you aren't obligated to tip. A Tip is generally reserved for someone who is doing a service that is not part of what you pay for. If you go to a resturant, you buy the food, you tip for the service. If you stay in a hotel, you pay for the room, you tip the bellhop and the cleaning ladies. That is my general rule. How much to tip depends on what they do for you and can vary by profession. In general I tend to tip based on time and effort required. The waiter waits on you and provides for all your needs for nearly an hour. He gets a big tip. The pizza delivery guy drops off your pizza along with dozens of others on a route, he gets a buck or two regardless of the bill.

"Really? I could be wrong, but just offhand sounds so completely idiotic it could have only be written by someone that actually has money." Well I do make a decent living, and I do eat well, but back when I was starting out I ate very healthy on $15 a week in 1986. That'd probably be about $25ish now. So, $25 can get you 5 Big Mac meals, or a week's worth of groceries. I think the problem is that you confuse "healthy" with "health food" or organic. You can eat rice, beans, oatmeal, fresh vegtables, meat, fish, chicken, eggs, bread and all the rest and be very healthy on a budget. A quick scan for a 2500 calorie diet comes up with (for example) 3 slices of bread, 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup pasta, 1 cup rice, 2 cups of veggies or 1 cup lettuce (or leafy greens) and 1 cup of veggies, 2 pieces of fruit, 1 cup of fruit juice, 1 cup milk, 1 cup yogurt, 2 oz cheese and 8 ounces of meat, OR 2 eggs, OR 1 cup of beans. Everyone interested, get out a cup. When was the last time you ate only a cup of pasta. Weigh out 8oz of meat. That is about 1 chicken thigh or one small chicken breast. I could do the diet recommended above for less than $25/week, and that is the diet recommended for a full grown man. Now, compare that with the local McDonalds where as mentioned, each meal can come in at $2 for a burger and fries, assuming a breakfast equivalent of burger and fries, this also assumes no drink. Sorry, you can not live on a $1 burger and a $1 fries per day for a month. Try it if you don't believe me. In my experience a breakfast runs abour $3 and a lunch/dinner about $5, but for argument sake call it $2. That comes to $42/week, well over the $25 it costs to eat healthy. A more realistic fast food number is nearer $90/week, a $3 breakfast and a $5 lunch and dinner. Just for the heck of it I pulled out my local grocery circular. I planned a more extravagant American diet, tilting perhaps a little toward the healthy side, but with lots of luxury items like steak and salmon, no hamburger, and plenty of fresh fruit and veggies. Breakfast is 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup yogurt, 1 cup OJ, 1 slice toast and one piece of fruit. Lunch is soup and salad or a sandwich with either a glass of milk or a cup of yogurt. Dinner is 1 pound of meat, a salad, a steamed veggie, and either rice, pasta, or potatoes. This is closer to what I eat, and is well over 3000 calories a day, which is over the 2800 recommended for active duty soldiers, which means I have to hit the gym, hard, on a regular basis. So a breakdown. Meat, $17 which includes 1 pound each of pork, lamb, ham, chicken, chicken breast, NY strip, salmon, turkey, and a dozen eggs. Note that this is almost three times the meat recommended in the pyramid, I'm talking luxury diet. Add 1 bag of dried beans (which is about 4 cups cooked, for $1 and $18 gets you an overabundance of protein. One pound each of broccoli, carrots, asparagus, squash, sweet potatoes, russets, and cauliflower, plus 2 lbs of lettuce comes to more than enough servings, and about $12. Bananas, blueberries, apples, pineapple, enough for a week, $14. OJ for a week, another $3 if you buy concentrate. Oatmeal, rice, bread, pasta, a weeks supply is well under $8. Add in canned soup for lunch at about $5, yogurt and milk, and cheese, plus condiments,and odds and ends and groceries for a luxury diet that includes steak, salmon, asparagus, and prepared ham and turkey can be had for about $70, and will last for far more than a week when you consider leftovers and the fact that there is about 3 times the meat/beans/eggs needed. Eating healthy, even overeating healthy, is far cheaper than junk/fast food. I spend less than $200/month on groceries, and I eat extremely well (see above), but I never eat out.

Chandler, there is still no comparison, on every single issue you raised we are far better off than any previous generation, and we have DVD players and cell phones too. I know what you said is "common knowledge" or what passes for it nowadays, but it is exactly the opposite of the truth. Far more americans can afford a healthy diet, can access health care and insurance, and can attend college than ever before. In addition real household incomes are also higher than at any other time, with the exception of a brief period around 1998 when it was very slightly higher. A healthy diet is cheaper than fast food and is easily affordable by almost anyone. Spending on food as a percentage of income is lower than ever before and continues to drop. From 1929 through 1950 food consumed about 20% of a family's disposable income. That number has dropped continuously since then and is now just under 10%. That includes eating out too. For those who can't afford food there are a myriad of programs such as food stamps and WIC they can turn to, let alone churches and charitable oganizations. As for a healthy diet, unless you want the food police who go around telling everyone how bad everything is for them to have actual enforcement powers then we'll have to be satisfied that a healthy diet is available to everyone, wether they choose it or not. Health care is most certainly available to anyone (as opposed to health insurance, which too many people equate with health care), and as a matter of fact health insurance of some sort is more readily available than anyone will admit. For those who can't afford their own insurance and are under the poverty level in income there is medicaid and for those in the middle, well Bush just vetoed an expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it would have expanded to the point where the government was providing health care for children whose parents were making up to $83,000 for a family of four, as opposed to covering ONLY those who make up to double the poverty level, around $40,000. We are now at the point where the government is looking to expand subsidized health insurance and care into families earning well above the median income. Many people may go without health insurance for some period of time, but it is most certainly available, again not taking advantage of what is available is not the same as not being able to get it. College attendance is also at an all time high. In 1950 about 5% of the population graduated from college. By 1970 that was about 15%, by 1990 it was up to about 20% and now nearly 28% of the population has at least a Bachelor's degree by the time they are 25 years old, and a further 27% either is attending or has attended college without earning a degree. That doesn't even count another 6% with associate degrees. On every front, inflation adjusted income, costs of consumer goods, food prices, access to health care and insurance and government assistance on all of those, plus college attendance, we are better off than any other people in history, so I don't buy the argument that the last 5 or 10 years of decline in stripclubs is the result of people needing to save money. All the information cited above is available online from the Census Bureau. My point wasn't to compare our poor with the third world, it was to point out that what was commonplace in the past, real poverty, real deprivation, in this country doesn't exist anymore. Even our poor have disposable income and can afford a house and car, so to say that strip clubs are declining because nobody has money to go there anymore is in my opinion balderdash. We are awash in money. True, $3/gallon gas doesn't help, but then if you drive 1,200 miles a month (assuming 25MPG as the average) the difference between $2/gallon gas and $3/gallon gas is about $50 in the monthly budget. That might be a stripclub visit for some people, so yeah, maybe there is a link to people having, or at least feeling they have less money to spend on strippers, but it isn't because they are being squeezed back into poverty. As far as strippers? Yeah, I think the industry is way down. I do think it is a reflection of some overall societal trend, just not the one you think. I think a lot more is due to the pornification of the culture. What you had to go to a stripclub to see a few decades ago you can now see on TV. If you don't get cable you can rent porn. If you have a computer you basically have a lifetime supply. I think this is also why clubs are trending higher mileage. Some of those who are only interested in the visual part will now stay home and put in a DVD, leaving those who want more interaction more represented among the customers.