Sunday, December 10, 2017

Paulo Coelho on...

To me I always think as in terms as nature. As in looking ahead point A to Z.
Or A and Z is the same as all is connected and the same to go somewhere and
that is better than going nowhere. The one effects the other all are the same.

Knowing everyone is a victim of stupid people and when it happens you
slap your chest running a circle saying yep, yep, yep!
Because being it's from stupid people it would invalidate the victim part as you
just go on without it depending upon what happened. But keep in mind I am talking
about the stupid part. Stupid makes others pay for it along with them. And that is
not fair to others who don't want to cut off their legs to save a toe!
Would you be willing?

~~~~~Like I say about my website.
You make the difference! This reflects this sites push for treating everyone fairly.
Do not judge people not knowing the road they are on in life, what in their past put them there.

Ask why! Life is short!
What you do to others effects everyone good or bad!
Also speak up for yourself & others, do not just sit there in your car!

My work, it for the empowerment of people!
To point that It's Just A Ride!

~~~~~Paulo Coelho on Jesus, Twitter and the difference between defeat and failure
One of the world's most popular writers, Coelho has survived being sent to an asylum by his parents and tortured by Brazil's ruling militia.

n pride of place in the living room of Paulo Coelho's apartment in Geneva is a fan's portrait of the author. A pointillist work, the huge image consists of the colour-coded coffee capsules George Clooney endorses. The background is composed of ristretto capsules (black), while Coelho's eyes seem to have been picked out in decaffeinato intenso (claret). Perhaps sadly, the artist has not used the new linizio lungo (apricot) capsule to perk up the colour scheme.

This is not the strangest gift he has received, Coelho says. "I'm in my apartment in Rio in 2000 and the doorbell rings and there's a beautiful woman, very tall, very sexy, green eyes. She was carrying a small tree. I said: 'What is this?' She said: 'Don't speak Portuguese.' She said: 'I came from Slovenia because I want to plant this tree here and I want to have a son with you.'" Long story short – Coelho put her on a flight home and saw her only once more, with a boyfriend in Slovenia. And the tree? That's not important now, he laughs.

For the next hour and a half he laughs a lot. A genial funster has today replaced the solemn preacher-novelist damned by one critic for writing "something David Hasselhoff might spout after a particularly taxing Baywatch rescue".

This incarnation may not be what has made the 65-year-old Brazilian an international bestselling author with 9.8 million Facebook fans, 6.3 million Twitter followers, and a fanbase embracing readers in the Islamic republic of Iran and the socialist republic of Cuba. Personally speaking, Coelho in the flesh is more appealing than Coelho the writer.

"Do you want to see my bow?" he asks at one point. Coelho is a keen archer. He has seen The Hunger Games and can confirm that Jennifer Lawrence's archery technique is authentic. "The only thing that relaxes me is archery. That's why I have to have apartments with gardens."

His other favourite activity is walking around Geneva. "I walk every day and I look at the mountains and the fields and the small city and I say: 'Oh my God, what a blessing.' Then you realise it's important to put it in a context beyond this woman, this man, this city, this country, this universe. It goes beyond everything. It goes to the core of our reason for being here." What if there is no reason for being here and – there's no easy way to put this – nice walks around Geneva are as good as it gets? "It's still a blessing." Good comeback.

Back to the coffee portrait. For Coelho, it demonstrates one of the cardinal virtues he extols in his new book, Manuscript Found in Accra – elegance. Why is elegance important? "I don't know what I wrote in the book, but elegance goes to the basics." He points to his portrait. "This is very elegant because if you take an isolated Nespresso capsule, it would mean nothing but with three or four you can create anything. So for me elegance is this." Nespresso PR people who are liking the way this piece is going so far may want to excise the next sentence from their press pack: "I don't drink Nespresso by the way."

Coelho's colour scheme is as minimalist as his portrait. Today he looks like a Brazilian Sweet Gene Vincent: white face, black coat, white beard, black trousers, white shirt over black T-shirt, white wisps of hair, trailing behind him as he struts through the apartment in Cuban heels sipping black coffee. He has a butterfly tattoo on his left wrist.

The other virtues set out in his new book are boldness, love and friendship. A pedant might note that elsewhere in his writings, Coelho has argued that friendship is a form of love so should not be considered a distinct virtue. Also courage rather than boldness is the virtue you need if you are to realise the the message, expressed in his 1988 novel, The Alchemist, that wherever your heart is you will find treasure. But nobody, least of all Coelho, would suggest the oeuvre of the writer, who has sold 145m books worldwide and been translated into 74 languages, is devoid of contradictions. "If I have to summarise this book in one sentence, which would be very difficult," he says, "it is this: accept your contradictions. Learn how to live with them. Because they aren't curses – they are blessings."

The Jesus of the gospels was, Coelho argues, similarly contradictory. "Jesus lived a life that was full of joy and contradictions and fights, you know?" says Coelho, his brown eyes sparkling. "If they were to paint a picture of Jesus without contradictions, the gospels would be fake, but the contradictions are a sign of authenticity. So Jesus says: 'Turn the other face,' and then he can get a whip and go woosh! The same man who says: 'Respect your father and mother' says: 'Who is my mother?' So this is what I love – he is a man for all seasons."

Like Jesus, he's not expressing a coherent doctrine that can be applied to life like a blueprint? "You can't have a blueprint for life. This is the problem if you're religious today. I am Catholic myself, I go to the mass. But I see you can have faith and be a coward. Sometimes people renounce living in the name of a faith which is a killer faith. I like this expression – killer faith."

Coelho proposes a faith based on joy. "The more in harmony with yourself you are, the more joyful you are, and the more faithful you are. Faith is not to disconnect you from reality, it connects you to reality."

In this view, he thinks he has Jesus on his side. "They [those who model their sacrifice on Christ's] remember three days in the life of Jesus when he was crucified. They forget that Jesus was politically incorrect from beginning to end. He was a bon vivant – travelling, drinking, socialising all his life. His first miracle was not to heal a poor blind person. It was changing water into wine and not wine into water."

Paulo Coelho insists he has led a joyful, fulfilling life. It could easily have been otherwise. Born in Rio de Janeiro in 1947, he longed from a young age to become a writer, an ambition his parents frowned upon so much that they sent him, aged 17, to an asylum. "My parents thought I was psychotic. Like now, I read a lot and I didn't socialise. They wanted to help me."

He was eventually released in 1967 and enrolled in law school – one of several attempts to become, as he puts it disdainfully, "normal". Later he dropped out, became a hippy and made a fortune writing lyrics for Raul Seixas, the Brazilian rock star. Brazil's ruling militia took exception to his lyrics (some of which were influenced by the satanist Aleister Crowley). As a result, he was repeatedly arrested for subversion and eventually tortured with electric shocks to his genitals. These experiences, incidentally, account for his scorn for the idea that Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who was photographed with Coelho's books on his shelves, might have learned anything from the Brazilian's thought: "I think he had never read my books. It was PR. I wonder if he knew the story of the author he would have been proud of having this book on his shelves. I was part of these dreadful years in South America."

Why, given his history, didn't he choose the path of renunciation? "But I did! After the asylum and torture, I said: 'I am tired. Enough. Let me behave like a normal person. Let me be the person who my parents wanted me to be – or society or whatever.' So back in 1975 I married someone in church, got a job. I was normal for seven years. I could not stand to be normal. Then I divorced and married another person who is now my wife [the artist Christina Oiticica] and I said: 'Let's travel and try to find the meaning of life.' I had money because I had been a very successful songwriter, so I had five apartments in Brazil. I sold everything and I started travelling."

His epiphany came in 1986 when he walked the 500-mile road to the Galician pilgrimage site Santiago de Compostela. He described his spiritual awakening there in one of his earliest novels,The Pilgrimage. "Then I said: 'It's now or never.' I stopped everything and said: 'Now I am going to fulfil my dream. I may be defeated but I will not fail.'"

This distinction between defeats and failure is central to Coelho's new book. The former are incidental, chastening wounds risked by those who listen to their heart, the latter a lifelong abnegation of the responsibility to follow your dream. Or as the narrator of Manuscript Found in Accra puts it: "Take pride in your scars. Scars are medals branded on the flesh and your enemies will be frightened by them because they are proof of your long experience of battle." That advice is borne of his life experiences? "Absolutely. I am proud of my scars and they taught me to live better and not to be afraid of living."

He looks at me sharply: "They taught me also to be a cold-blooded killer." Beg your pardon? "When I see people trying to manipulate me, I kill. No regrets, no hatred, just an act of – " He makes a throat-cutting gesture. He's not the fluffy bunny his writings might indicate him to be? "Ha! No! I can be very tough. If people think you're naive, they discover in the next second that they don't have heads. So love your enemy, but keep your blacklist updated."

Coelho clearly thinks highly of his readers and online fans. Indeed, Manuscript Found in Accra could be considered the ultimate tribute to them – the collaboration of sage and his online disciples. Share your fears, Coelho tweeted his followers, that I might offer hope and comfort. The resultant book consists of Coelho's meditations on such themes as courage, solitude, loyalty, anxiety, loss, sex and victimhood suggested by followers. Manuscript Found in Accra might function as an aphoristic grab bag of his principal thoughts. The treacly narratives of such novels as The Alchemist and Eleven Minutes have been excised but the cliches remain. He actually does write stuff like this: "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" and "Don't give up. Remember it's always the last key on the ring that opens the door." Those of you who may so far have resisted the endorsements of Madonna, Julia Roberts or Bill Clinton may now be tempted to read him if only to test the proposition that Paulo Coelho exists to make Alain de Botton look deep.

Coelho lightly fictionalises this collection of putative aphorisms: the conceit is that we're reading a manuscript lost for 700 years, based on the talk a mysterious scholar called the Copt gave to the citizens of Jerusalem on the eve of its invasion by French crusaders. "The great wisdom of life," the Copt says toward the end of the book, "is that we can be masters of the things that try to enslave us."

How? Coelho says: "By taking responsibility. Today people aren't encouraged to take responsibility. It's easy to obey because you can blame a wrong decision on the person who told you to do this or do that. From the moment you accept that you're the master of your destiny you have to accept responsibility for every single action of yours. So why bother to follow my dreams? Then I can avoid being a failure – which is not true of course: you are a failure from the moment you don't allow yourself to be defeated."

Coelho by contrast snatched victory from the jaws of his several defeats. "Am I hyper rich? Yes. Do I want to prove this? No. Go back to your essence – don't play this consumerism game. This is nonsense. At the end of the day, the day that you die, the last minute, you have to answer this question: Did I really enjoy my life?"

How will he answer this question? "On 30 November 2011 I did," he says enigmatically. In that month, he was prompted to go for a scan by his agent M̫nica Antunes, whose father had recently died of a heart attack. "She was worried that both her husband and I were smokers. I said: 'No way, Jose. Come on. I walk every day. I have a very healthy life. I don't smoke much Рsix cigarettes a day.'" But the day after his wife's 60th birthday he visited the cardiologist for tests. "He said: 'You're going to die.' I said: 'I don't believe you.' He said: 'You're going to die in 30 days. This part of your heart does not respond any more to electric impulses so probably it is blocked.'

"I was shocked of course. But I had time to answer this question that you just asked me. I remember I was in my bedroom and I said: 'If I die tomorrow, I would die very happy. First, I did everything I wanted to do in this life – sex, drugs, rock'n'roll. You name it I did it. Orgies and whatever." Orgies? "Oh yes. Orgies. Ha ha ha!

"Second, I had my share of losing but I did not quit. Third, I followed my road, my bliss, my personal life journey and I chose to be a writer. And I succeeded, which is more difficult, you know?

"Fourth, I've been married for 33 years to the love of my life. So what else can I ask? I will die with a smile on my face, with no fear, and I believe in God. So no problem if I die tomorrow. That is what I thought."

Paulo Coelho, you will have noticed, did not die when his doctor said he would. "But I pray that when I die I will die with the same state of mind I had on the 30th of November 2011."

How would he counsel his followers to die contented? "I can't tell them. I only know that the most important gift that you have is courage – be courageous." He lights a cigarette and smokes it in seeming defiance of what he calls the Unwanted Visitor, death.

In the January of every odd year since 1988, he has tried to find a white feather. Only if he succeeds does he write a book. Unfortunately for some of his critics, he found one earlier this year and so plans to write another book. It won't take long. "I write a book in 15 days. Then I go to social communities – I love social communities."

He means Twitter and Facebook. Why? "Twitter I think is an art. Because if you're connected to people you learn how to summarise. I used to do that when I used to write lyrics. It was always the tendency of my life to be clear without being superficial." He's not superficial? "No. Each sentence is dense, poetic."

Coelho signs a copy of his book for me: "Avoid those who say: 'I will go no further.' Love, Paulo Coelho."

As I walk from his apartment into a city of writers greater than Coelho (Rousseau was born and Borges died here), I wish, though not wanting to be ungrateful, he'd chosen a better quote from his book. For example: "Fate is never unfair to anyone. We are all free to hate or love what we do." That seems to me Coelho at his best, going beyond upbeat banalities and challenging those who make victimhood their identity.

At least he didn't write: "Cross me and you die." Though clearly he could have done.

Bitcoin aspect as a Pyramid Scheme, Bubble like thing

Back in the 1990's I was getting into a life insurance company
pyramid scheme AL Williams. It was life insurance funded by stocks.
At the time it looked good as the internet stocks where up and stable.
But came the crash and recession and lawsuits on AL Williams.
(Noted lawsuits happened after I quit!)

I quit because of the issues and the road of a recession and...
My dads insurance broker warned me about the issues
and that the gears are in motion for many lawsuits against them.
I later found out as I have a tendency to meet people before 
I meet them or relates, that a co-worker at a hotel I worked at
his grampa passed away and the family could not get his 
life insurance because the money was not there. So they where
one of the people that sued! Awkward moment for me, but I let him
know I dropped out before any lawsuits and it was the rocky road
ahead why I dropped!

Relating to Bitcoin I would see it as the same. Will it be there when you 
want it? Bitcoin is like a pyramid scheme it will happen sometime! Crash!?

Reflection about paranoia, Hushmail's former CEO?
~~~~~Well their former CEO sits on the bitcoin Foundation. You should also never use Hushmail for privacy. They spill to the feds every chance they get. In fact, hushmail feeds you a MITM login upon request from any shady LE authority that will capture your private keys so they can decrypt your entire inbox. It's happened many, many times.

Give it's just a light to it but I need to say because of the investment into Bitcoin
being would I like to put my money into a pyramid scheme, bubble like thing?
NO! Because of the long term risk.

Even in the stock market, futures and trading it is iffy! Well stocks now
are high up and like to say the iceberg is coming out of the water more,
so Bitcoins are able to pop out of the water more than it normally
would. When stocks are high other things do better. It can be like...
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, 
you never know what you'll find." - James Carville.

But the push in China would hold as investing in china is different.
The view of a company going broke is not broke as long as there is trust
the broke company will go on supplying goods in one way or another
still making money. But in reality it's a bubble. Also relating to the fact
is the power it holds and of what threat or against governments in a high
level of power bitcoin has! Points that needs to be looked at!

If Bitcoin goes down it can pull down the stock market with it
right into another great depression like the stock market did
in the past!

I would like to see Bitcoin get dumpped in to the poor to cover issues
in a minimum wage retirement cure all fix. It would help more than not 
for the poor. Bitcoin would be a better investment to dump it
into the poor as those are the 99% of labor force pushing on METH for
productivity in the workplace taking down sales with them.

~~~~~'A Real Bubble': Billionaire Warren Buffett Doubles Down on Bitcoin Doubt
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett has joined the ranks of those who believe the market for bitcoin is in bubble territory.

According to MarketWatch, Buffett touched on the subject during an annual question-and-answer session held in Omaha earlier this month. While Buffett focused on a range of topics, he honed in on the cryptocurrency market during his remarks.

"People get excited from big price movements, and Wall Street accommodates," he was quoted as saying. Describing bitcoin as a "real bubble," according to the publication, Buffett also criticized the idea of applying a value to bitcoin.

He told attendees:

"You can’t value bitcoin because it’s not a value-producing asset."

Not a value-producing asset? I have to note people would be the asset.
And in that points to slavery... We all are anyway. Wage slaves etc.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Gay Cake better than a Sorry Cake

The whole point of not making a gay marriage cake is really stupid in why
is it a issue in the first place?

~~~~~The case concerns a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Lawyers for Jack Phillips relied on two parts of the First Amendment -- free exercise and free speech -- to make his case, and at times Kennedy seemed torn during the lively and sometimes rapid-fire arguments.

As a lawyer for Phillips made his free speech argument on behalf of the baker's "artistic expression," Justice Elena Kagan and other liberals pounced, asking where they were supposed to draw a coherent line designating which business owners could qualify for an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. A jeweler? A makeup artist? A hairstylist?

Needing to note a cake shop is not a church it's a business that pays taxes and
follows Federal and State law. A business is a business not a Church!
Noted if it was that would be a market in the Church also bad in what happens after.

But rights are rights and who are you to cry over a gay cake when some gets their
sorry cake made!?

Friday, December 8, 2017

Spaghetti grilled cheese and not the Benzoyl Peroxide

From time to time when I make spaghetti I will toast bread and make a
sandwich with it. I also use Parmesan in it... Not Romano!!!
"Milk can be bleached with benzoyl peroxide or a mixture of benzoyl peroxide
with potassium alum, calcium sulfate, and magnesium carbonate but, in that case,
vitamin A must be added after treatment."

But really a spaghetti grilled cheese does sound better.
If you have spaghetti free it's not hard to improvise it.

~~~~~Spaghetti Grilled Cheese
I like carbs on my carbs. While this Spaghetti Grilled Cheese made with garlic bread might seem over the top, I think it is a fun way to repurpose leftovers.

t’s a classic Italian meal, turned into one incredible sandwich. Spaghetti with meaty bolognese sauce is sandwiched between layers of fresh mozzarella and Parmesan Garlic Bread. While it looks messy, the mozzarella perfectly contains the spaghetti. The sandwich won’t fall apart, but I do advise against wearing a white shirt.

The Parmesan Garlic Bread is a big upgrade to the buttered toast that is in typical grilled cheese sandwiches. The bread itself is soft and easy to bite into, but it has the perfect crispy, garlicy, cheesy, crust. It compliments the bolognese wonderfully, while the mild mozzarella melts into stringy soft deliciousness. The spaghettis is tossed in a beefy bolognese sauce and place between layers of mozzarella.

The key to this recipe is using soft Italian bread. You want it to be smooshy. (That’s a word, right?) The softer bread really soaks up the butter and garlic as the butter melts, and most importantly, the soft bread makes the sandwich much easier to eat. Spaghetti grilled cheese can be a bit tall, so it’s important to use soft bread so that you can smoosh it down to fit it in your mouth.
Before we jump to the recipe, I thought I would share some more fun food mash-up recipes!


2 slices soft Italian Bread
1 tablespoon Butter at room temp
1/2 teaspoon Basil
2 cloves Garlic
1 tablespoon Finely Grated Parmesan
1/2 cup
Bolognese Sauce
1 cup Angel Hair Pasta

In a small bowl, mix the garlic, basil, and butter together. Then spread this on one side of each slice of the soft Italian bread. Next spread 1/2 tablespoon of the finely grated Parmesan on buttered side of each slice of bread, lightly pressing it into the butter.

Bring a pot of salt water to a bowl, add the angel hair pasta, and cook until al dente, and drain.

Stir the cooked angel hair into 1/2 cup of the bolognese sauce.

Lay a piece of the buttered garlic bread down, buttered side facing down. Top with 3 slices of the fresh mozzarella, arranging it so it covers the bread. Spread the bolognese covered angel hair over the mozzarella, and top with another layer of mozzarella. Add the second slice of bread on top, buttered side facing up.

Heat a skillet over medium-low heat and add the sandwich and cover the skillet. There is no need to grease the pan. The key here is to go low and slow with heat, and not to move the sandwich. After 5-6 minutes the first side of the sandwich should be golden brown, carefully flip the sandwich, and cover the pan again. Toast the second side of the sandwich and serve immediately.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Why do females watch at male's crotch?

As like a law of nature yes women look! And that is ok. Why?
For many reasons to have value, love and belongingness.
To many guys at least the ones that have a brain understand it's ok to have 
value to a female. Out in the world it's prone to just be a face in the crowd.
Something like a worker in the darkages to die in the corn field and
have them bury you in the ground with no one knowing who you are.
Just some worker! Men, Women it's like the "Yin and Yang the concept of 
duality forming a whole." We are not islands! A point to make it together!

Life is lonely and to be looked at is gold! It's ok everything has a purpose
and the point is to ask what is it? To be a thinking man and ask
"what is a woman's role?" Whatever she wants it to be, what is the value?

~~~~~Female Sexual behavior: Why do females watch at male's crotch?
 I don't crotch-watch as a rule, and given my status as a heterosexual man I suppose that isn't all that surprising. The last crotch I remember feasting my eyes on was on the cover of Sticky Fingers (Oh, and by the way, just so you know, that's NOT Mick Jagger's crotch on display. The crotch in question belongs to Joe Dallesandro, a member of Andy Warhol's posse – Andy designed the cover). As I recall though, I have noticed the outline of Sir Mick's dick in some film or photo. Ditto for Robert Plant... David Bowie... I could go on. Cocks have always been pretty front-and-center in rock n' roll. Spandex was invented in 1959 at the height of rock n' roll and it was no doubt registering the imprint of some rock star's dick shortly thereafter. But apart from rockers and maybe Mikhail Baryshnikov, I don't recall ever casting a sidelong glance at some guy's clothed crotch. I came of age in the blue-jeaned seventies, so if some guy had a hammer-sized dick I suppose I would have noticed, but for the most part it was out-of-sight out-of-mind. This has been doubly true in the decades following, since khakis and loose-fit took over the world.

I don't generally watch women's crotches either. I've known guys who are quick to pick out a camel-toe impression, but my eyes drift to the face and breasts. I'm an expert at breast watching, actually. One or two glances at the way in which the wind blows the fabric across a woman's body will reveal in my mind the shape, not just of her breasts, but of her whole naked body that I swear would be indistinguishable from the reality. It's a gift really. One that I'm sure I share broadly with my gender as we guys are visual creatures. We're good at spatial processing. We can read maps, rotate three-dimensional objects in our heads and determine from the folds in a woman's dress, precisely what her bare breasts will look like as she straddles our naked hips and whips us with her hair.

Women aren't like that, of course. Their acuity is verbal, emotional. The visual elements of their attraction are infused with emotional meaning. They'll notice a man's smile, the warmth of his eyes. Sure they'll take in the full physical impression, his height, his hands, but they certainly don't hone in on sexual imagery. When did you ever walk into a woman's work area and see the latest Playgirl centerfold hanging above the filing cabinet? Women simply don't look at men the way men look at women.

At least that's what I thought anyway. I've spent pretty much my entire adult life in the frankly comforting belief that my meat-and-two-veg were never on display. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to showing a woman my penis. In my youth the reciprocal display of nakedness was pretty much my highest aspiration. But there have been many times - fresh from a cold swim, for instance, or during the bulk of my adolescence when I had a hard-on a good fifty percent of the time - that I was grateful for the invention of pants. Imagine my surprise when I learned that I might as well have been wearing saran wrap the entire time.

I came to this conclusion after I scrolled through an online female sexuality forum (hey, it's research!) and came upon a topic entitled "crotch-watching." I went from there to other online forums and even began asking female friends if this is something they did. They all admitted that this is something they had (to varying degrees) engaged in. It was a revelation. I felt I had inadvertently stumbled across a secret truth, like discovering that the Earth really is being ruled by aliens. Now that I know, I feel I must let the secret out. So listen up guys, women not only look at a man's crotch, but they're just as adept at determining the shape and size of a guy's dick as we are in determining the size and shape of their breasts. And get this: They almost all do it and they do it a lot. A man's crotch is the first thing they check out after the face. And forget about the rest of the body parts women are supposedly attracted to. According to a recent survey on what body parts women notice, face and crotch were 45 percent and 38 percent respectively. Hands, chest, butt, hair, abs etc. polled in the single digits. All this finger wagging about how we guys are obsessed with our penises and it turns out women think about our dicks even more than we do!

Now, while crotch-watching is an apparently universal pastime, the manner in which it's done is highly individual. Some women do it once in a while, others do compulsively. Some women try to visualize the naked penis, others just want to be reassured that there's something there. Some sneak a quick glance, others will take a nice long stare (as long as they think you aren't looking – nobody wants to get caught!). But from all the information I've been able to glean over the last week or so I've arrived at a couple of universal principles.

1. A woman will only check out your crotch if she's attracted to you. If you're ugly, short, a total jerk or anybody she would rather claw her eyes out than sleep with, rest assured her eyes won't be settling on your crotch. In computer parlance this would be known as a conditional statement. If A then B. And it's not: If A then maybe B. If she's attracted she WILL check out your crotch. She may not be able to make anything out, but at some point her eyes will drift there. Nor will the statement generally be: If B then A. Only rarely will a woman look at the crotch first and then decide she wants some guy. This may be the one of the great differences between men and woman. For some guys the sight of cleavage is like peripheral motion to a cat. It snaps their attention into focus.

2. Size matters. It's not that women are looking for a summer sausage resting on your thigh. But if all they discern is a cocktail weenie then B will force a reevaluation of A. Again this is one of the differences between men and women. I don't know of any guy who would turn down sex with an attractive woman because her breasts weren't big enough. But women can be turned off by a small penis. Note that this is apparently a visual aesthetic. It isn't a matter of what she perceives the erect size might be. Given the choice of a 3" inch flaccid and 7" erect penis or 5" flaccid and 6" erect penis, every woman that responded stated her preference for the 5" and 6" combo. Seems that women are visual creatures after all.

So what should you do, now you know that women are looking? Well, that depends on whether you're packing a salami or a pepperoni stick. If you're got the goods, by all means advertise. But don't overdo it. Spandex bike short are okay but spray painted-on jeans are a no-no. One way to accentuate what you have without looking like you're trying to, is to wear your dick on the right side. The zipper adds a triple layer of fabric on the left side and tends to break the visual line. On the right side it's all dick, from base to head.

If you'd rather hide what you have, then wear baggy pants. Pleated khaki's are like lead to a woman's x-ray vision, but be aware that when you're sitting you're still somewhat exposed (although women prefer to look at men's crotches when they're standing). Now I know what you're thinking. If women can wear padded bras, then surely we can add some padding of our own. Take my advice, if you're not already packing a cucumber it's probably best not to shove one down your pants. I know, I know, it's a double standard, but if A becomes B and that that leads to C, trust me. If she's got her heart set on summer sausage and all you can serve up is a cocktail weenie, it's not going to be much of a feast for either of you.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Kim Jong Un Isn’t Afraid of Donald Trump South is!

Kim Jong Un Isn’t Afraid of Donald Trump but South Korea fears Donald Trump!
Why is that what relates? Walmart? When I worked at Walmart in the 2000's
I was in the office and while waiting for the crunch I noticed a memo.
It was about not pushing / stirring up workers with problems to get them
in their mania so they can get productivity! This was something some
Walmart's did and was causing some problems.

It was to the point Walmart put out a memo to tell those Walmart's doing it to quit.
It may cause undesirable effects.

Undesirable effects? Like South Korea pushing in on the US with Trump
that points to unstable! Why the push on Trump to get what from it?
Unstable from it? Kim Jong Un is crazy for pushing a unstable person with
his finger on the buttons in the US! Kim Jong Un is not crazy?

"CIA says North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, but ‘very rational"

"South Korea fears Donald Trump more than North Korea as World War 3 threatens to breakout"

Well? I hope Kim Jong Un thinks about this! People in the US know Trump is unstable.

Please tag:


A tax cut? Trickle down economics trickles down to the stock investors not
the workers. Why pay the workers better you would have to pay for more
benefits more into retirement etc. They would be better off to put the money
into the stocks. But that keeps the workers staying home more often, being
they spend what they earn with less to be taxed income low taxes does not help.
They take in more tax dollars then they pay out in taxes and with low taxes...

~~~~~"For Jim Garland, who owns a corporate aircraft cleaning and support
services company, a $14 per hour worker has a true cost of $19.63 per hour,
or about 40% more than base pay. This so-called "loaded rate" includes fixed
expenses federal and state taxes, health insurance, workman's compensation,
uniforms, and paid time off along with soft costs like the time spent training
a new hire."

Thus the issue in the 2000's at Georgia Pacific in a Oklahoma small town the
workers knew you only work there for under six months because they get rid
of you so they don't pay benefits. It was seen as a temp job as most jobs in
small towns are dead end jobs shown by the town not having growth.
Reflecting the many that end up with minimum wage retirement.
Small towns are small for a reason, make nothing got nothing doesn't
help anyone with anything!

Stay low, makes no grow.

We've all heard the claims that cutting tax rates for the richest Americans will improve the standard of living for the working class. Supposedly, top-bracket tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages for the average worker, and an overall upturn in our economy. It's at the heart of the infamous trickle-down theory.

The past 40 years have seen a gradual decrease in the top bracket's income tax rate, from 91% in 1963 to 35% in 2003. It went as low as 28% in 1988 and 1989 due to legislation passed under Reagan, the trickle-down theory's most famous adherent. The Clinton years saw the top bracket hold steady at a higher rate of 39.6%, but under the younger Bush's tax-cut policies, the rich are once again paying less. The drastic change in tax policy that has taken place since the early 1960s gives us a great opportunity to study and evaluate the claims that lower taxes for the rich translate to more wealth for the average American.

We can compare changes in the top tax rate with the real GDP growth rate (a measure of the growth of the entire U.S. economy), and three measures of how life is for the average working American: annual median income growth, annual average hourly wage growth, and job creation. If cuts for the rich were really the magic elixir for the economy and the middle class that the Republican consensus claims it is, we would see an increase in the four indicators whenever the tax rate dropped. However, this is not the case. Such a trend occurs sometimes, but the opposite happens at other times!

Let's look one by one at comparisons of key economic indicators to the top tax rate.

1. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic growth.

This graph shows the fluctuations of the real GDP growth rate over the period, indicating the performance of the U.S. economy as a whole. It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to -1.) So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy; now it's on to median income growth.

2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?

3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.

Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.

4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.

Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

So, can you tell what our conclusion is yet?
Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators examined in this report are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. However, what this study does show is that any attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future? To put it simply and bluntly, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.