Thoughts on the 2010 Elections

I will confess that the outcome of the 2010 elections is not wholly what I had desired.  This will likely elicit cries from the audience that I am a closet liberal, but I assure you that this could not be further from the truth.  My political philosophy is far more nuanced and does not lend itself to being shoehorned into neat ideological categories.  Despite this, I will gladly take the results, because I am hoping that it means we will have a period of legislative gridlock during which nothing gets accomplished.  I mean this not in the traditional sense; not much good gets accomplished when one party has control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.  Instead, I mean this in the sense that I hope that little legislation detrimental to our nation gets accomplished.  In other words, I wish for a “do nothing” Congress that, by default, stymies everything that the president wishes to do. 

This is contrary to what I’ve written in the past, belittling Congress for doing nothing, with members working too little, and mostly just collecting a paycheck while waxing ecstatic about their own individual grandeur.  I still advocate a strong, competent legislature, but the operative word is “competent.”  What we have witnessed in the past 100 years does not evoke confidence in the legislature, which is mostly a tool of the executive.  Or perhaps the executive is a tool of the legislature, as the latter body has effectively delegated much of its responsibility to the former.  But I digress.

In 2006 I hoped for a Democratic victory, as I did in 2008, both of which I've also written about.  I wanted all of these idealistic liberals and hopeful independents to have their hopes and dreams crushed.  They were simply trading one set of incompetents for another.  I suspect that many of them see that now, and I suspect that many more simply refuse to believe it.  But the seed of thought has surely been planted.    

The period of time after the 2006 elections, and more so after those that took place in 2008, has shown me and hopefully others the dangers of giving one party too much power.  Democrats believed that the sweeping victories in those two elections gave them “a mandate” to push through various legislative agendas.  It didn’t, but more on that momentarily.

I have also come to more firmly believe that we are in need of a strong third party to offset the slavish devotion to ideology the “Big Two” possess.  It seems, on the surface, that we are simply swinging from one extreme to the other; each victory by one party being seen as a triumph of that party’s ideological underpinnings.

John Boehner, the presumptive Speaker of the House, said last night that change starts now.  I cannot help but to stifle a yawn and a snore.  I vaguely recall that I’ve heard such talk before.  Despite his proclamation, which I suppose is merely his effort to win graciously, you will likely see the GOP attempt to rectify the “grievances” that Democrats have issued to them these past four years.  Nothing will change.  Washington will not, contrary to Boehner’s rhetorical musings, begin doing what’s best for the American people.  Boehner’s party is in charge, just as it was four short years ago.  They say that insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  If that’s true, then Americans are collectively insane. 

The sense of supreme validation this election gave to the idolaters, those who raise a fist in victory and say, “We Won!” is scary.  I can’t help but ask, “Who won, and what did they win?”  Did Americans win, or did the GOP win?  Is the latter good for the former?  And what did they win?  Power?  If the answer to that question is yes, then we should be scared, indeed. 

This is all the more frightening when one subscribes to the oft-mentioned notion that Americans have some manner of collective wisdom in elections.  Consider all the hoopla that is made just prior to Election Day about how effective the massive amounts of money spent on ads and campaigning are at swaying the electorate.  How things change the day after, nay?  Now the virtues of the collective wisdom of party-line voters, uninformed voters, and plain apathetic voters is extolled to no end.  Further, the winners wrongly interpret this collective wisdom, and see it, again, as legitimizing their personal ideology, which means they are less than likely to compromise.  Vae Victus, indeed.  In this case, however, they fail to see the reality. 

If Americans do have a collective wisdom, it does not lean in favor of one ideology over another.  This election was not a referendum against Democrats or Obama, nor is it an outspoken desire to see a conservative agenda pushed through by a newly empowered GOP.  This election, like those of 2006 and 2008, is a referendum against the ineptitude of our government as a whole.

What to Eat? - A Political Metaphor

You walk into the only restaurant in the county.  You're famished.  You haven't eaten in what seems like days.  You sit down, and open the menu.  It's printed on high-quality paper, and there's all sorts of fancy decoration.  The table's are really nice too.  And the wait staff is top notch.  In other words, the presentation is impeccable.

However, your menu choices are:

A.) Tuna melt and fries.
B.) Grilled Cheese and fries.

You're really, really hungry, so you order the tuna melt.  It's terrible.  You can barely stomach it.  The mayo is rotten and the tuna tastes like something caught in a Thai toilet.  Worse, the fries consist of potato chips left out in the kitchen for three days.  And it cost you twenty of your hard earned dollars. The fine print on the menu says, "No Refund."

So, you figure, what the hell, I'm still hungry, so let's try the grilled cheese.  No one can screw that up.  Oh, and it comes.  It looks delicious.  The wait staff guarantees that it is the best sandwich ever, and that it will completely eradicate the taste of rancid tuna left over from the first order.  All of this, for the low price of $30.

You dig in and are immediately let down.  It too, is terrible.  The cheese is, strangely, not melted and slightly moldy.  It's certainly not what was advertised.

So what do you do?  It's the only restaurant in the county.  You go back a couple of times, trying both items on the menu, and they never get better.

Let me ask you: Would you keep going back to this restaurant?  No, I'm guessing that you would not.  At least not until they got a third item on the menu for you to try.  Instead, you'd either stop eating out, or drive to the next county.

Our current political system is this restaurant.  You have two choices, and both of them taste like the inside of a dead deer's ass.  Why do you keep going back to eat it?

In 2008, I did not vote in the presidential election.  It was my own little way of protesting this system.  Why would I eat a steaming pile of shit given to me on a silver platter and then smile all the way to the cash register, because, well, I gotta eat, right?  I wouldn't.  I was presented with two equally repulsive candidates.  And before you tell me that I should simply vote for the "lesser of two evils," I say, no.  I shan't do that under any circumstances.  That offends me.  If we can sit here and rationalize all the ill in our nation because, despite that ill, "this is still the freest/best country on earth" can we at least not pretend that the empty-headed nimrods that are presented to us as presidential candidates every four years are the best people our nation has to offer?  Please?  Pretty please with sugar on top?  Because they're not, people.  Yes, this country may very well be the freest/best nation on earth, but that doesn't mean that because of this we should sit back and relax and let these colossal douche bags beat it to death with huge steel dildos.  (Yeah, I'm a lot more lewd than normal; I'm fucking pissed.  When I submit this for publication, I'll be sure to make it teen friendly.)  Being good is no excuse.  Do you know what happens when you fail to maintain "the best?"  It because the "used to be the best, but is now just sort of okay" item of discussion.

So, please give me a third choice on the menu of democracy.

Think of voting as the sustenance of civic virtue.  But like your real-life diet, you must be careful what you consume.  You must be careful on what you cast your vote.  Your vote is fucking sacred.  It is SACRED.  Don't toss it away because you must vote for, for, for SOMEONE!!!  Right now, you've only got two choices; one with a D (for dumb fucks) and one with an R (for really fucking stupid).  Continued consumption of these two items is sure to make you unhealthy.  It sure isn't doing much for our nation, is it?

Coming Out of the Closet

I am incredibly hesitant to label myself.  Other than “Marine,” which has defined me far more than any other label, I really abhor the idea of being grouped in with anyone on just about anything.  Perhaps I relish the role of “outsider,” or perhaps it’s a defense mechanism that allows me to “fit in” and semi-identify with all manner of people.  Besides the foreboding feeling that I’m coming upon the middle part of my life having accomplished very little (which is in fact rather absurd), I do not generally engage in enough self-reflection to allow myself to answer the questions that the previous sentence engenders.

For years, I’ve had misgivings about “conservatism” and “liberalism” and it’s saddened me that those are really the only two viable camps in which a person can make a home, ideologically.  It has always struck me odd that most everyone indeed DOES fall inside those two camps; on almost every issue they are in complete agreement with the ideological grounds of one camp over another.  You’re either a liberal, and identify strongly with token liberal issues (abortion, gay marriage, regulation of industry) or are a conservative, and identify strongly with token conservative issues (abortion, gay marriage, deregulation of industry).  I often thought that these stances were intellectually inconsistent – how can you want the freedom to do whatever you want in your personal life, but then wish for mind-numbing government control over other aspects of society such as schools and the market?  Conversely, how can you want free markets but want draconian laws specifying who you can sleep with in your own house?  The whole thing was just plain odd to me.  Where I grew up, there was no such thing as “libertarians."  Sure, I did know people who might have been libertarians and had libertarian ideals, they just didn’t know it.  So they suffered through cognitive dissonance as it pertained to reconciling the beliefs of their “camp” with the beliefs of their mind.  Most were “conservatives” and it was just easier to toe the line.

And really, that might be the reason I don’t label myself.  I never had a group with which to identify while growing up.  I couldn’t understand how I was the only person who, for example, believed that a woman can choose an abortion if she’d like, but also thought government was too big, too unwieldy, and too god damned intrusive.

Nowadays, I do realize that I was and am more of a libertarian than anything else.  But still, I resist calling myself that.  I will say it in private.  But one gets the distinct impression that to do so in public is akin to political suicide – Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, nor is his son.  In fact, his son Rand recently wrote an article distancing himself from that label.  Why?  Because no one knows what the hell a libertarian is, apparently.  Or, as Rand says, it’s simply because people have the WRONG idea of what a libertarian is.  I will also say that the rabidity of Ron Paul’s supporters in 2008 turned me off from the label “libertarian.”  It also turned me off from Ron Paul (though he and I do disagree on matters of foreign affairs and defense).  So you have two of the most recognizable libertarian politicians who…aren’t even libertarians.  I think there exists a branding problem.  I say this because I really think that more Americans identify with libertarianism than exists members of the Libertarian Party (to which I do not belong – see above).  I’d go so far as to say that the MAJORITY of 18th and early 19th century Americans were libertarians, to one degree or another.  They may not have believed that a person should be a homosexual or other distinctly religious things, but I’d guess that they mostly thought that those decisions should be left up to, get this: the individual.

Maybe that’s the problem, or say, the incompatibility of libertarianism in the minds of most people today.  Certainly there exists a large number of libertarians that don’t “believe” in abortion, but think that the choice to have one is best left to the person.  However, most people in general, I think, view these sorts of issues as issues in which the state SHOULD be intimately involved.  More accurately, perhaps, is the notion that “freedom” only exists so far as you agree with the particular freedom in question.  I really think this is a true statement.  For example, you have people who claim to be about “freedom of religion” but vehemently oppose the construction of a mosque near supposed holy land in NYC; they only like freedom of religion if they benefit from it (and simply forget about arguing rule of law – they’re interested strictly in the emotional).  I’d bet my entire salary that these are the same people that will protest the removal of Christian crosses from publicly funded road-side memorials erected for slain policemen.   They want the government to prevent a privately funded Muslim mosque/civic center from being built, but also want the government to allow publicly funded religious memorials.  They don’t really believe in freedom of religion – they believe in freedom of THEIR religion FROM other religions (or lack of).  Imagine the uproar were Muslim symbols to be publicly funded.  The possibility of religion being explicitely personal and leaving government out of it entirely almost never occurs to them.  You could note the same inconsistencies in virtually every issue of “freedom.”  Whereas liberalism and conservatism serve a great deal as moral compasses to the adherants of each (or immoral guides if you’re on the other side), libertarianism doesn’t do that at all.  It leaves the choices up to the person, which is probably part of the reason it has difficulty finding people who might become members.  The problem is that our political parties are now the definers of morality.  Libertarianism doesn’t have to do that, and that scares people.

I can only wonder if the main players in either camp even believe in the basic tenets of their ideology anymore – the flock simply goes along with whatever the shepherds say, so their understanding of the complexities of any particular issue is moot.  This is simply slavish devotion to talking points.  They’re like patrician Romans in the late Republic; they paid lip service to the gods to reap political benefits, but didn’t think that they really existed.  Conservatives, to whom libertarians have often been closely compared, aren’t conservative anymore, at least not fiscally.  They talk the great talk about fiscal conservation, but that’s all it is.  The kicker is, I don’t think that the leaders of these groups have more than a superfluous understanding of any of their pet issues – it’s talking points deep (One can see this in the talk of Obama’s Islam and citizenship – they’ve been giving talking points and that’s as far as their understanding goes; call it the Palinization of politics, though it began long ago.  Max Baucus represents the liberal side, as it pertains to health care legislation…).

What is my point, other than to compose beautiful writing on issues about which no one cares?  I suppose my point is that I sort of wish that everyone were a libertarian, because that would mean people would largely leave each other alone to live their own lives in whatever manner they saw fit.  It’s the embodiment of “live and let live.”  But people simply cannot do this, and must seek to subjugate others and force them to live by their rules; to do otherwise is somehow an affront to their personal moral code (hence the phrase often bandied about like some sort of rally cry – “This is a Christian Nation!”).  If everyone were libertarians, they could really believe it when they say, “I don’t agree with you, but I support your right to say it.”  As it stands right now, they believe nothing of the sort.  If everyone were libertarians, they could really believe it when they say that we live in the freest country on earth.  As it stands right now, we have archaic laws that stifle freedom.  If you don't believe me, you should try to buy a pack of clove cigarettes for your own personal consumption on your own property.  You can't.  Because they're banned for sale in the US.  If everyone were libertarian, we might not have $13 trillion in debt to go along with our bloated, inefficient government and social programs and crumbling highway system.

My other main point, which might very well be lost in the verbosity of my prose, is to say that libertarianism has a branding problem.  Libertarian politicians don’t want to be called libertarians.  How can regular people admit to being such a…a…a…THING!, when these people won’t admit to it?  Hardly anyone even knows what a libertarian is, nor do they know what it would mean for them if libertarianism were popular (i.e. yes, Suzy, you can still believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and you can choose not to practice it, but you can’t tell Bobby that he cannot).  The branding issue might as well be smacking us in the face with a ball peen hammer.

The Faultline Movement, such that it is (or isn’t), is my way of formulating some personal political philosophy.  I suppose that it’s more about me defining myself than fomenting real change from the grass roots level, or at least equally so.  Perhaps libertarianism really is too tainted by false notions to make a meaningful change.  I don’t know.  Perhaps being a libertarian is akin to being gay – it takes a bit, perhaps a lot more than a bit, of moral courage to come out, and sometimes it’s just easier to stay in.  That way you don’t have to answer so many questions.  Questions you’re not even sure HOW to answer, because you no longer fit into the neat, tidy little boxes of Gingrich and Clinton.  After all, we humans like conformity; we like feeling like we belong.

Maybe it’s time to redefine what it is to be a lover of personal freedom.  Or maybe it’s just time I came out of the closet.

Morning Coffee (156)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. Today is the second day in what appears to be the Most Optimistic Year in history. I suppose we'll see what everyone's saying around 31 December. If I had to guess, it would be something along the lines of, "Here's to hoping that 2011 is better than this year."

See? You like how I take that optimism and crush it under the boot heel of pessimistic realism? I do what I can, folks. If you didn't like such bitter Brew, I suspect that you would not keep coming back for more, day after dolorous day.

Blasphemers Will be Punished by the Hand of the…uh, Law:

This past July, lawmakers in Ireland banded together to protect an endangered group of social belief systems, called religions. These institutions are so frail, despite having millions of adherents and the ability to generate untold millions of dollars in tax-exempt revenue around the globe, that in Ireland a law was passed in July of this past year (2009) which protects these belief systems from blasphemy, making said indiscretion a crime.

Thank the gods/God/Allah/Yahweh/Buddha/Quetzalcoatl/David Koresh. If this law weren't passed, these "religions," as they're called, would surely have lost what little prestige they still have, and would likely have been eradicated within a couple of years. (Since we're talking about religion, I pray that you sense the sarcasm.)

This law, the breaking of which can result in a fine of up to 25,000 euro (almost $37,000), defines blasphemy as, "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted." That is what I call "clear and comprehensive."

I am no lawyer, but it seems to me, through the use of my ill-educated mind, that the operative phrase is "intentionally causing outrage among as substantial number of adherents of that religion." It would appear, then, that a court must decide if the resulting outrage caused by some nefarious blasphemy (i.e. what we might consider free speech) was done intentionally. The element that does NOT appear to be considered, however, is whether or not that outrage was, by any measure, rational. This law, arguably, encourages irrational behavior by the faithful. If I were to publish or utter matter that was critical of a particular religion and that religion's adherents irrationally became outraged, and say, rioted and looted buildings in Copenhagen, I would still be at fault. If I somehow escaped the rabid lynch mobs caused by my blasphemy, I could be fined a fair sum of money for "intentionally" causing outrage. Never mind that I didn't intend for the adherents of this belief system to cause millions of dollars in damage to public and private buildings and/or cause harm to persons in the vicinity of the expression of outrage. Isn't an eternity in Hell enough of a punishment?

I had always considered blasphemy an act that could only be committed by an adherent to a particular faith. It always seemed difficult to me that someone who does not believe in something could blaspheme against it, but I guess this is not true. I think it shows how insecure these religions are; they can stand not even the slightest criticism from those outside their faith, let alone inside it. It is as if they realize how intellectually shoddy their faith's construction is, and fear that their flock will also realize it if they are allowed to hear these outside blasphemers. (Brewer's Note: Not all members of religions are this way. The Brewer knows some fine individuals that are happy to discuss and address a non-believer's questions and criticisms, no matter how harsh they may be.)

Dermot Ahern, a justice minister (maybe THE justice minister, I do not know), is of the opinion that the law is necessary, because the 1936 constitution protects only the belief of Christians. And if you know anything about Europe, immigration has somewhat changed the face of faith in many countries. So, according to Ahern, it is necessary to protect the beliefs of all faiths. I agree with this. But why not simply amend the constitution to state that all faiths are protected, rather than bring about a law that arguably limits free speech? I see no reason for this law. Laws surely already exist that protect people from being discriminated against based on their beliefs, age, sex, etc. Fear must be the only reason. Fear of offending someone. Fear of riots in the streets over cartoons depicting Muhammad. I should add that the authors of these cartoons still face real threats to their lives. I can't help but wonder, though, if this law protects the beliefs of atheists. It must, right? I would hope that a Christian official would be fined for saying something derogatory about atheists, but I find this unlikely.

Atheist Ireland, which claims to protect the rights of atheists, agrees with me that this law serves only to hinder free speech. In response to this law, Atheist Ireland published a list of 25 quotes from all sorts of people that technically would result in a fine under this new law. These quotes have been uttered by the likes of Mark Twain, Bjork, Salman Rushdie, George Carlin, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and, yes, Jesus. That's right; some of the things Jesus had said would have resulted in him being fined 25,000 euro under this law.

What is it that they say? "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Hopefully, this nonsense will be repealed, and a valid law will be created that prevents discrimination, while preserving free speech. I do not think it terribly likely, but I can hope.

Burj Dubai Set to Open:

I love the city of Dubai, which is situated in the United Arab Emirates. I visited there in 2003, and was impressed with the city and its residents. Dubai has taken a big hit in this financial crisis, the irony of which I couldn't help but to admire. UAE's leaders had endeavored to relieve the nation's dependence on oil for its economic vitality, and thus invested heavily in real estate and infrastructure and building projects to hopefully lure other investors and big-spending tourists. I give UAE credit for identifying that they needed to diversify their economic base, which most countries in the region seem very reluctant to attempt. I hope that Dubai and UAE comes out on top in the future, but right now it seems they are feeling the crunch, just as much, if not worse, than the rest of the world.

But good news is on the horizon. The Burj Dubai, the world's newest "tallest building" is set to open soon. So far though, from what I've read, it seems that they're having issues renting out space in this magnificent, 2,640+ feet tall building. Despite this, it should give Emiratis something to cheer about; a boost in national pride and prestige. Congratulations to Dubai.

Word of the Day: Constitutional (noun): A walk taken for one's health.

On This Day in History: The Alamanni cross the frozen Rhine and invade the Roman Empire (366 CE). Georgia is the fourth state to ratify the US Constitution (1788). The Russian garrison at Port Arthur surrenders to the Japanese (1905). President Nixon signs an order lowering the speed limit to 55 in order to conserve gasoline during an OPEC embargo (1974). A moron was enjoying the first day of marital bliss in his life (2001).

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." – Jesus Christ, said to the Jews in John 8:44, example of possibly blasphemous speech covered by the new Irish law.

Morning Coffee (155)

Greetings Coffee Drinkers. Welcome to the year 2010. I'm sure you are all looking forward to seeing just what this year has in store for you. I know I am, though I'm relatively certain that it will be "more of the same."

 

Hopefully everyone was safe and with luck, you can even remember what they did last night. With luck, you did nothing foolish, like elope, for example. I was very safe, as I had a few drinks with the proprietors of the restaurant situated below my hotel. I also remember my evening quite well. I departed the restaurant at about 2330 and walked up to my room. By this time, it was beginning to sound like a warzone outside. So I opened my windows and, half in and half out of my room, I beheld a cacophony of completely random fireworks. It seemed as though every house in the village held their own fireworks display, and each house was competing with the houses adjacent to it. It was madness. (Nay, it was SPARTA!) Soon, the streets filled with smoke and it smelled like a battle had was taking place. I happened to enjoy this immensely and took many, many
pictures. You can see more here, here, right – here, here – also, and, here. Another here.

 

All in all, it wasn't a terrible evening. I am sure there are some out there who had a marvelous evening, likely spent with good, old friends who were deeply missed and who finally returned to be a part of each others' lives. Perhaps they'll move in together again, or lend each other money and buy each other expensive gifts. Maybe they'll just "be there" for one another and provide emotional and/or logistical support in these, the most difficult of times. Wouldn't a story like that warm your heart? It most certainly would mine.

 

"I want to paamp, you uap!" – Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Today on my way back from the free uber-breakfast offered by my hoteliers, I saw a magazine called "Planet Muscle" on a small desk in the hallway. Since I take perverse pleasure out of annoying myself, I picked this magazine up and took it to my room to "read." I must confess that I get a real kick out of these things. Actually, the whole "muscle culture" provides me with great amusement. This magazine is really just a huge, cleverly designed advertising campaign for various supplements.

 

In fact, the first third of this particular issue are real ads showing numerous "before and after" photos of "regular guys" who achieved miraculous gains of rock-hard, striated, slab-like layers of mass in just weeks, all this while cutting down their body fat percentages from the 20%-range to single digits. Some ads even have cleverly placed newspapers that have been Photoshopped into the hands of these "regular guys" so as to give the real impression of just weeks passing. I will confess to being unable to make out the publication date in either picture. Despite this minor issue, all they had to do, apparently, was consume the supplement in question. These supplements have delightful names that range from the hard-core-sounding "Hemo-Rage Black," "Melt-Down Fat Assault," and "Dark Matter/Dark Rage" to the very scientific and medicinal sounding "Halodrol MT," "Quadracarn," and "Kre-Alkalyn." I can only assume that there are distinct markets within this market; one for the jock-like and another for the more discerning wanna-be.

 

The prowess of each and every one of these items in providing "explosive gains" is shown by one hulking behemoth or another, with glistening, hairless bodies, ridiculous fake tans, and gelled hair who state emphatically in giant, cartoonish fonts about how this is the best product they have ever used. See, all of these products are the best product ever. No real science is provided, other than improbably large numbers about the massive amounts of growth hormone or some other substance provide. That being the case, you must try them all if you want an utterly impractical, farcical physique like these men.

 

The rest of this magazine features cleverly written articles, which are really just advertisements for other supplements. They might be interviews with various iron-pumping idols or just features about the lifting prowess of this guy or that guy. Sometimes, Big Name Muscle Guy will show you what he does in order to get "horse-shoes," or as regular humans call them, triceps.

 

This is a huge industry, preying on the inadequacies and, quite frankly, the gullibility and complacence of men everywhere. See, a lot of these guys really want to look like the tools in these magazines, but they haven't the will to really train. What they do have is disposable income, so they will run right down to GNC and buy the newest, berry-flavored supplement which is sure to put them over the wall that they've encountered in their training regimen (i.e. fantasizing about the things in these magazines and not going to the gym).

 

The magazine also has plenty of "fitness babes." Some of these girls aren't bad looking, having not yet achieved the freakishly abnormal muscle mass and associated "dude-look" of some of the female competitors you might have seen. And since this industry is geared primarily towards men, these women provide nothing of value other than posing in very little clothing. (As an aside, the owner of the magazine before me dog eared literally every page that featured a scantily clad, suggestively posing woman, whether she was featured in an advertisement or not. I found this to be hilarious.) Most of the women you see in this magazine are mere props to advertise some sexual supplement or another. The gullibility of the audience has already been firmly established, so why not attempt to dip further into their pockets by suggesting to them, obliquely, that they can bag themselves a couple of these hot fitness hunnies, and perform some miraculous, if ill-defined, feats in bed, so long as they use Vigor Lab's "Chainsaw," which I think just makes your penis hard. I cannot tell for sure. But it goes right along with the miraculous feats enabled by "Hemo-Rage Black." And if she is turned off by your "bacne" and won't give it up willingly, you'll now be able to simply take it right after ripping the door off her Prius.

 

Needless to say, the magazine in question gave me an easy twenty minutes of enjoyment, while I laughed at the absurdity of it all, and contemplated the gullibility of the target audience and admired the slick production of these half-hidden ads. And it led to a decent, lighthearted Brew, I think.

 

Word of the Day: Panacea (noun): A remedy for all diseases, problems, or evils; a universal medicine; a cure-all.

 

On This Day in History: The Julian calendar comes into use (45 BCE). Russia begins to use AD (Anno Domini) (1700). Ellis Island opens (1892). The Ball drops in NYC for the first time (1908). The Navy SEALs were established (1962). A fool took some apparently meaningless vows and was married (2001). Random other things (Various).

 

"These Shameful Metaphors. I fought it through the teeth. Shameful Metaphors; biting at your heels. Shameful Metaphors; I fought it cheek to cheek. So why then has my life made no sound? And are your eyes closing even now? My life made no sound. I fear your eyes closing."