Archive

Archive for May, 2011

What is the Mechanics of Non-Consensual Oral Sex?

May 20, 2011 10 comments

The escapades of Dominique Strauss-Kahn have become a topic of worldwide discussion in the last week. Apparently he forced a maid, Nafissatou Diallo, to perform oral sex on him.

While I am no expert in the field of rape or sexual assault, one has to wonder-

How can a 62 year old guy of average build FORCE a 30-something woman who is almost 6 feet tall to blow him? What is the mechanics of non-consensual blowjobs?

Forcible vaginal or anal penetration is possible. A forced titfuck or something similar between her buttcheeks is doabale. Even ejaculating on her without her consent is within the limits of my imagination. But how can a guy get a woman to blow him against her will, unless he has a weapon or could get her killed if she did not comply. If DSK had threatened her with a weapon, or something along those lines, we would have heard it by now.

Short of possessing a credible threat of lethal violence, why would any guy willing put his dick in the mouth of an unwilling woman?

I am not saying that there was no sexual contact or even an element of assault in whatever happened in that hotel room. However the whole idea that he willingly put his dick in the mouth of a scared, unwilling and likely angry woman appears somewhat bizzare. It is far more likely that it was aggressive flirting gone wrong than anything close to most people’s idea of sexual assault or rape.

Comments?

NSFW Links: May 18, 2011

These links are NSFW.

Assorted Slim Cuties: May 16, 2011 NekkidCuties

Assorted Slim Cuties: May 16, 2011 Nudie Cuties

Trios: May 15, 2011 NekkidCuties

Trios: May 15, 2011 Nudie Cuties

Tumblr: nekkidcuties.tumblr.com/archive
Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

LOL: May 18, 2011

May 18, 2011 3 comments

From 4chan/b..

Comments?

Categories: Dystopia, Economy

How Physicians Lost Credibility and Why it Matters: 1

May 17, 2011 4 comments

Contrary to what most of you might believe, physicians had pretty shitty credibility for most of recorded history. While they were a few “superstars” attached to some famous king or feudal lord- the vast majority were seen as worse than midwifes, witches and traditional medicine men.

The two main reasons behind this poor public image were-

1. They could not do much to help their patients- modern surgery started in the 1890s, and modern medicine came into its own only after the mid-1930s.

2. Prior to the early 1900s, their understanding of physiology and pathology was so poor that they frequently hurt more people than they helped.

Modern medicine is therefore a relatively recent concept- about 60 odd years old. I would consider the period from 1950-2000 as the golden age of being a doctor- in terms of respectability and credibility. It began with antibiotics, advanced surgical techniques, useful drugs and ended with aging baby boomers, google and web 2.0.

So why and where did things go so wrong?

A. The average age of the patient and the type of diseases treated by physicians has changed over the years. In the early part of the golden age, the majority of diseases were acute to subacute (infections, accidents, injuries) because the average age of the population was low. Most treatments resulted in complete cures and satisfied patients.

Today the average patient is far older, has chronic diseases and is far less likely to be completely cured. Modern medicine is still pretty shitty at treating chronic diseases with some exceptions (high blood pressure, auto-immune diseases).

B. Doctors and surgeons have already lost a huge amount of credibility by acting in their own financial interests rather than for their patient. The amount of corruption in areas ranging from prescribing questionable new medications, accepting bribes from pharma, directing patients to use their testing facilities, performing useless or harmful surgical procedures has reached unthinkable levels.

In a previous era, such scams could be easily hidden because person-to-person communication was limited by available technology. Today every publicly available instance of misconduct gets circulated on the interwebs and is archived for posterity. Access to such real information has been corroding the image of physicians for the last 15 odd years- though the process has accelerated in the last decade for obvious reasons.

C. A combination of factors from medical tourism, information on the interwebs, patronizing attitude of physicians plus their sparse face-to-face time have created a situation where a significant percentage of the population now sees physicians as rich, black-mailing scam artists who use a guild system to extract money from people without providing good value for money.

Physicians for better or worse are the face of the health care system and will therefore also bear the culpability for mal-actions of hospital administrators, insurance companies and pharma.Their principal threat of job action- aka letting sick people die is not going to help them if they do it on a large scale. Nobody like a murderer who is also a black-mailer, even if they have MD after their name.

Did I mention that well-trained doctors from English speaking countries could be used to replace them? Politicians and bureaucrats will side with physician guilds only if it does not affect their grasp on power and survival.

In the next part I will talk about the consequences and effects of this credibility loss on physicians, the nature of medical practice and society at large.

Comments?

Who Will Pay Physicians, Lawyers etc in the Future?

May 17, 2011 4 comments

Some careers such as medicine and law are often considered to be far more stable and lucrative than others- though that is changing. However most people who enter these careers still believe that they will be very well compensated in the near and distant future. Even though these professions have strong professionals guilds which restrict the number of entrants in the system- one question is rarely asked.

How can a shrinking economic system afford to keep on paying these scumbags without imploding?

Until the last 40-odd years, professions like medicine and law were well paid but did not reach the absurd levels we see today. Some of you might say that technological advances in fields like medicine and the changing role of lawyers justifies their increased compensation. I disagree..

If anything technology should have brought down the cost of health care- which it would have IF most doctors were not greedy scumbags. How much of the spending on healthcare helps the patient, at a quality of life or outcome level? How much of it is bullshit perpetrated to increase the income of doctors? The same can be said about law- how much of it has net positive social utility?

The rapidly growing post-ww2 economy (1946-1970s) did create a lot of new money and wealth, as did the credit-based version from the 1980s to the mid 2000s. But that was then..

Today we have a real economy that is shrinking, both demographically and monetarily. However the demands on the system- healthcare, pensions etc are growing. So how can you plug the gap between increasing costs and utilization of systems such as healthcare with a decreasing amount of money? The same goes for lawyers- how can a poorer system pay more for less?

While some people, including myself, believe that euthanasia will become increasingly popular- it cannot make a significant dent in healthcare costs for the vast majority of problems which are fixable.

It is certainly possible that doctors might refuse to treat patients unless they are paid a ransom. However doctors often have kids, an office and a place of work which is public knowledge. It is therefore conceivable that a number of them might die in gruesome and unnatural ways once more than a small percentage of the population is not treated. Let us not forget google-type solutions, medical tourism and increasing use of cheaper immigrant doctors.

Ultimately politicians and bureaucrats care about their survival, and WILL throw the medical lobby overboard if retaining them means sinking along with them.

The same is true as far as lawyers are concerned. A significant part of corporate law might be unsupportable for the same reasons as inflated earnings for doctors- there is not enough money under the current economic paradigm.

Comments?

Money has no Value Unless it is Spent

May 16, 2011 13 comments

Here is a thought experiment-

Imagine you had a million USD in paper bills, gold or on electronic cards. Would it be of any value to you, or others, if you did not (or could not) spend it?

The vast majority of people functionally ignore that money has value only IF it is spent. While saving some money helps smoothen out bumps in your income flow- hoarding money beyond a certain extent is useless.

A billionaire or any corporation with tens of billions on their balance sheets are functional dead ends for money, as most of that money is unlikely to ever be exchanged for any product or service. For all practical purposes, that money is dead and gone from the real economy to exist as a number on some accountants spreadsheet. Since money cannot buy you immortality or even agelessness, hoarding money is a truly fucked up mis-allocation of a commodity. Yes, money is a commodity- just like oil, coal, iron, copper and wheat.

Most people would frown upon a moron trying to buy crude oil on a massive scale- only to dump it in a reservoir where nobody could ever use it. So why do we celebrate morons who do the same with money?

Comments?

People Do Not Care About Stuff Which Does Not Benefit Them

May 16, 2011 5 comments

Many white morons in the CONservative blogosphere (who I shall not link to) have a very stupid belief about the future.

These idiots actually believe that non-whites will miss the ‘good old days’ once whites become an old, powerless and worthless minority.

The reality is that nobody will care about them or miss their presence.

Here is why-

People universally care about and cherish things which benefit them and are perceived to be fair. Most people in the western roman empire did not miss its demise, just like the oppressed subjects of every empire that has ever existed in human history. If the current system is perceived to be discriminatory, unfair, unjust or exploitative by the new majority- it won’t be missed.

Do you think that the current system isn’t discriminatory, unfair, unjust or exploitative to non-whites?

Wanna bet that they will still give a shit? Seriously?

Comments?

Retirement is the Secular Version of Afterlife

May 15, 2011 10 comments

All traditional religions have some concept of an afterlife and profess that the soul is immortal. The basic idea behind these currently unprovable concepts can be summed up as-

There is an existence beyond the physical realm.

I, for one, neither care or believe in such bullshit. Anything that cannot be perceived or quantified is suspect, especially if indirect and circumstantial evidence is lacking. However, many religious and often poor people believe in this crap and keep on living otherwise shitty lives slaving away for priests and nobles of that era. While traditional religion has declined over the last 100 years, secular religions have risen up to fill that gap.

Capitalism is a secular religion which promises old age prosperity to people who are willing to sacrifice their youth, happiness, dignity and health. Let us, for a moment, ignore that the current financial paradigm and input conditions are incompatible with a decent retirement for most people, including baby-boomers.

The more fundamental question is-

Why sacrifice happiness in your youth for the chance to enjoy life when your body is failing?

You might have noticed that doing traditional ‘grown-up’ things like studying hard, living frugally, caring about your employer, buying a house, marrying, having kids etc is now the path to ruin, rather than happiness. So why do many people still care about the distant future? In my opinion, people care about retirement for the same reason they believe in an afterlife- they believe that their hard work, humiliations, stress and deprivation will not be in vain.

Believing in retirement or afterlife allows them to ignore/ rationalize their current abuse and exploitation.

Therefore destroying belief in the current concept of retirement is necessary for destroying capitalism, as we know it. I am not implying that we throw old people under the bus, unless they are white. Maybe we could have a system that provides a decent middle-class lifestyle to every old person regardless of whether they saved, invested or slaved away in their youth.

Comments?

NSFW Links: May 14, 2011

May 14, 2011 1 comment
Categories: Uncategorized

Two Minutes of Hate: May 14, 2011

May 14, 2011 2 comments

Have a look at this scene from the movie version of ‘1984‘.

now compare it to this clip of the celebrations after the announcement of bin Ladens death

Disturbing, isn’t it? Comments?

Why do LIEbertarians Defend Systems which Fuck Them?

May 14, 2011 2 comments

I have noticed something odd about the morons who self identify as LIEbertarians.

They enthusiastically support institutions, people and ideologies who screw them every single day.

Some of you might say- but so do CONservatives. While that is correct, the vast majority of CONservatives are too dumb, ignorant and plain fucking stupid. Just as retarded kids have lower culpability for their actions, CONservatives siding against their own interest is sorta expected. However, a significant percentage of LIEbertarians are not retarded morons and are, in fact, capable of some degree of rational thought. So why do they often behave in a manner identical to CONservatives?

The answer lies in their motivations.

CONservatives and LIEbertarians share a common set of desires grounded in a zero-sum worldview. Though they may deny it, the actions of LIEbertarians show that they support a steal-and-con somebody else to gain a bigger piece of an never-increasing pie. They believe in secular religions such as Austrian Economics, Randism rather than traditional ones like right-wing versions of Christianity.

What is the difference between quoting from, say, Hayek or some paragraph from a religious book if they both support the same bullshit? Does a suit confer more respectability on its wearers opinion than a religious garment? Does university education confer more respectability than a monastic order? Economics is less reputable than astrology, numerology or entrail reading. Believing in any economic theory irrespective of what you see around you is blind faith.

If you are going to believe in mumbo-jumbo, why not believe in versions which will give you returns tomorrow rather than 30 years from now?

Comments?

LOL: May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011 8 comments

I am making this one sticky for a day or so because Google is sending me a lot of queries about ‘Callista Gingrich Hair’.

A Friday the 13th themed post.

Who is scarier?

Callista Gingrich

Callista Louise Gingrich, née Bisek (born March 4, 1966) is the President of Gingrich Productions, a performance and production company focused on audio, video, and photographic production. She is married to former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs

Why Reducing Taxes On The “Rich” Does Not Create Jobs

May 13, 2011 14 comments

Ever wonder why “trickle down” eCONomics does not work? While the idea of letting ‘deserving rich’ keep more of their ‘hard earned money’ so that they will reinvest it to create more jobs sounds plausible, our experience in the last 30 years suggests otherwise.

Lowering taxes on the rich is linked to job loss, not gain.

But why is that so? Why would the ‘deserving rich’ not reinvest money to create more jobs?

Let me enumerate the reasons-

1. Since the ‘deserving rich’ are scam artist sociopaths with a single-minded focus on making more money, they tend to choose the quickest way to do so.

For the last 30 years, the quickest way to make more money has been through financial shenanigans. Investment in the creating, developing and making real things simply cannot give you the returns that various financial products can. How many real life business can consistently grow over 10-20% per year?

2. We reward failure in financialism, but punish it in everything else.

Even before the bailouts of 2008-2009, the governments of western and many eastern countries rewarded failure in financialism with more money. In contrast we do not bail out or assist failed companies that make real things or provide real services. Combine this with the higher returns mentioned in the previous bullet point and you can see why investing in the real world is not worth it.

3. The ‘rich’ are zero-sum sociopathic control-freaks who interpret their luck as manifest destiny.

Having someone else make a decent amount of money causes immense pain to the ‘rich’ even if they were to benefit for the labor of said person. This is probably one of the least talked about reasons why the rich do not create jobs even if it benefits them.

They also lack to ability and willingness to support innovation, unless they have no other choice. The ‘rich’ are not welcoming of change and thus the best way to effect change is to eliminate the rich, their kids and grandkids.

4. The sheeple in many western countries are stupid enough to believe that the rich are deserving and rational.

Many morons actually believe that giving more money to the rich will make everyone prosperous. But why would an obsessive money concentrator (rich person) want to redistribute their ill-gotten money? Greedy sociopaths cannot behave like normal human beings.

I would add that a small percentage of the population (about 10%) who are upper-middle class also believe that they are on the threshold of becoming rich, and therefore act as unwitting shills, pimps and gangsters for their masters.

Comments?

LOL: May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011 3 comments

Caught in the act.

A clip from 1970’s educational filmstrip – Mom walks in on son who is masturbating in bed. She deals with it in a progressive but also VERY embarrassing way.

Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

The Real Problem with Google Chrome Laptops: Value for Money

May 11, 2011 5 comments

As some of you might have heard today, Google is pushing its own OS on a series of Chrome branded laptops (Samsung, Acer)- see below.

In my opinion, these glorified netbooks are poor value for your money.

A very decent laptop preloaded with Win7 and compatible with ALL of your existing applications costs about 400-500 $. A couple hundred bucks more gets you fairly high-performance laptops with decent graphic cards.

Compare that to Google’s chrome notebooks which are essentially larger netbooks (11-12 ” screens) preloaded with a new OS for about the same price (350-430 $). Win7 laptops can already do what these glorified netbooks can, but are not crippled like them in other respects (graphics, games and pre-existing application compatibility).

Even the cheapest, WiFi-only, iPad 2 is 499$- and it has tons more apps plus a far more optimized user experience.

It is obvious that this project was conceived and managed by MBAs, charlatans, morons, brown-nosers or autistic engineers. What do you think?

Comments?