Did you know that the 1940-era comics in the Batman Franchise hint that both Batman and Robin were a gay couple? Don’t believe me? Have a look at a small collection of panels from Batman comics of that era.
Sleeping together, Tanning together and Skinny-Dipping with Boys..
Horseplay in the shower, carrying Robin in his arm and Pink Batsuits..
and finally, a rather suggestive panel.
Since many bloggers are writing about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, I have also decided to share my thoughts about this unfortunate event. First the basics..
Trayvon Martin was an African-American teenager who was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a man of mixed ethnicity (Latino and white American). Martin, who was unarmed, had been walking to the home of his father’s girlfriend from a convenience store when Zimmerman, a community watch captain, followed him after calling the Sanford Police Department, saying he witnessed what he described as suspicious behavior. Soon afterward, he fatally shot Martin.
Regardless of your opinion about Trayvon, George, Wannabe cops, Race, Florida or any thing else- we can all agree that Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman. There is also no doubt that Travyon was unarmed while Zimmerman was armed with the handgun he used to kill Trayvon. So the real question is about the motivations for, and behind, the killing.
There are those who say that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin to death, if only in self-defense. So let us see if this argument holds up..
1. Would George Zimmerman have been arrested if Travyon was white and George was black? Let me remind you that this event occurred in Florida, which has historically been one step up from Alabama and Mississippi as far as treatment of blacks is concerned. If you are disingenuous enough to suggest that race of the victim was not a major factor in the perpetrator not being charged, I have a bridge to sell you..
Have you noticed that most Americans pay attention to missing person reports on TV only if the ‘victim’ is female, white and blond? Why? Could it be that they do not value the lives of people of other races? Based on even a cursory observation of white Americans, it is fair to say that they exhibit more concern for missing dogs than black men.
2. There have been attempts to suggest that Trayvon was somehow a budding black thug based on an empty bag with marijuana “residues”, snapping at a bus driver, writing graffiti and having “tools” which “might” be useful in committing burglary. But is that really usual given his age? I can bet that most of you did everything Trayvon did when you were 16.
Moreover, is that really sufficient justification to kill a person? Would you still use this justification if the victim was white and the perpetrator was black? and isn’t suggesting that his dress was “thuggish” really that different from murdering people because they dress like hipsters or emos? Then there is the question whether Trayvon had actually stolen something or killed someone when he was killed by George.. because if he had not, then George really had no justification to stalk and kill him.
3. Some have said that George shot Trayvon in self-defense or during a scuffle. But how did that interaction start? Did Trayvon stalk and jump George or did George stalk and harass Trayvon? Was Travyon looking for George or vice-versa? Was it not George who initiated the hostile interaction with Trayvon? Did he produce any ID that he was a block watch guy? and how was Trayvon supposed to know that George was not lying?
How many of you would like to be stalked and harassed by a strange fat guy when you are walking back to your house at night? How would you react? Would you not confront the stalker? So why apply a different standard for Trayvon? Furthermore, why should you believe George Zimmerman’s account of the events? Isn’t it his word against that of a dead person- who, I might add, he killed. Based on the time lines of the phone calls and multiple post-shooting eyewitnesses, the entire interaction lasted less than two minutes- maybe less than a minute.
4. Why did it take the cops three days to identify the body as that of Trayvon Martin? Think about it- Trayvon had a cell phone and most likely a wallet on him. What were the cops in Sanford so busy with that they did not have time to promptly ID a dead black boy? Is this delay really excusable in our day and age? and why did it occur anyway?
Could it be that the Sanford cops treated the killing of Trayvon Martin as if he were a dog? make that a stray dog as they would have probably tried to ID a tagged dog and contact its owner. The very fact that the cops took three fucking days to ID Trayvon speaks volumes about how the Sanford police department perceives blacks.
I might write more about this story as events unfold and newer information becomes available.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Self Shots: Mar 26, 2012 – Thank you Tumblr!
More Self Shots: Mar 26, 2012 – History will note that Tumblr made nekkid self-shots mainstream.
For most of human history, physicians were incapable of effectively treating serious diseases. Indeed their efforts frequently resulted in their unfortunate patients dying and suffering at far higher rates than they would have otherwise endured. Physicians only gained the ability to have any worthwhile impact on the course of major illnesses in the 1940s- largely due to technological improvements secondary to ww1 and ww2 which included the development of new drugs (sulfonamides, antibiotics, first anti-cancer drugs, first effective anti-hypertensive drugs, better vaccines etc).
Note that physicians have had almost zero input in developing all of the drugs and technology which now allow them to be somewhat effective in practicing medicine.
Since a significant number of people who get into medical school have always been money and power-hungry, but lesser and timid, CONmen- they took full advantage of the situation to market themselves as mini-gods who required tons of money to exert their magic on their patients. Make no mistake.. few people who enter that profession care about anything beyond enriching themselves and bossing around sick or dying people.
When modern medicine came into being (after ww2) the population of western countries was young and relatively healthy. Consequently most of their diseases were acute or subacute, rather than chronic. Many of the then new drugs and treatments such as antibacterials, antivirals, anti-inflammatory, anti-psychotics etc were quite effective at treating many of these illnesses. For a time things looked good..Then the fertility rates dropped to sub-replacement rates and the population got older.
Today most of the illness treated by physicians are chronic. While we have made advances in treating such diseases, our abilities to treat them are pretty pathetic compared to what we can do for acute/ subacute diseases. However the need for more money and profits are driving physicians, hospitals and pharmaceutical/medical device companies to attempt to treat them with drugs and methods of dubious efficacy.
Therefore we have now reached a point where most medical treatments (by dollar value) is used to obtain small or dubious gains in life expectancy at the cost of considerable suffering for the unfortunate patients.
Most rational people understand that prolonging the life of an ill person to the point that it causes considerable suffering without any hope of recovery is not desirable and doing so is effectively torture. So why are physicians around the world, but especially in anglo-saxon countries, so opposed to euthanasia?
The standard and official explanation is that physicians look out for the best interests of their patients and want to protect them from harm. However medical errors, obvious misdiagnosis, negligence and other forms of medical malpractice are officially the 4th leading cause of death. Therefore the ‘ we are protecting patients’ line seems a bit hollow.
An alternative explanation is that patients with chronic and hard-to-treat diseases are cash cows, and the cost of specialized care and treatments of dubious efficacy are the major source of income for physicians.
Access to easy euthanasia would cause a considerable reduction in the income of many physicians. For most of them the specter of reduced income outweighs any consideration of the patients quality of life or suffering.
What do you think? Comments?
This post is about something I have seen in real life and the virtual world. In the past I used to find it infuriating, now I just find it amusing- albeit in a sadistic manner.
I am talking about “wannabe whites”.
So what constitutes, and does not constitute, wannabe white behavior? and why is it so irrational, bizarre, irritating and ultimately funny? My initial exposure to wannabe whites came through interactions with some of my close relatives in N. America. I later noticed the same mindset, behavior and attitudes in groups ranging from Filipinos to Iranians and South Americans.
Most wannabe whites are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from countries colonized by European countries in the 18th-19th century (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines etc). Some are immigrants from countries with a white ruling class (South American countries). Inspite of their diverse racial and cultural origins, wannabe whites think and act in a remarkably similar manner.
1. They go to ridiculous lengths to publicly prove that they are culturally whiter than white. Now I am not suggesting that people should not change behavior over time and space, but what is the point in trying to be somebody else? Is it even profitable to do so? I fail to see how such behavior achieves anything beyond providing entertainment to whites and non-whites. A good example of such behavior can be observed by reading the blog (and comments) of a brown moron known as Razib Khan.
2. They are always trying to convince whites and non-whites alike that they are ‘more whiter’ and therefore ‘better’ than others from their countries of origin. You might have noticed a certain moron called the Fifth Horseman try to convince others that I was “Sri-Lankan” (less whiter) than him. Apart from the fact that I look rather different from what he might imagine, how are the looks (or race) of any person even relevant to the validity of their ideas?
3. They try to constantly tell whites and non-whites that other people are human scum who deserved the ‘civilizing’ influence of whites. While I am critical of Indians, my opinions about east-Asians, Arabs, Whites etc are equally (if not more) negative. I am a misanthropist and proud of it. However many wannabe whites never seem to tire of telling others how bad people in their old country are. A blogger known as Atheist Indian is a good example of this dysfunction.
4. They always hold people who look like them to much higher standards than whites. When a white person screws them over, they see him as ambitious and clever. When a non-white screws them over, they see it as an example of cultural duplicity and dishonesty. But how can the same act be two totally different things depending on the skin color of the perpetrator? You can see a lot of this behavior at sites like Sepia Mutiny and especially in a recent post on that website.
5. They try to downplay everything good or substantial done by people who look like them and exaggerate everything that is even remotely bad about them. This behavior resembles what I talked about in point 3, but occurs on the level of culture and worldview rather than individuals. Most ‘famous’ Indian journalists and “intellectuals” perform a lot of cultural self-flagellation and self-denigration with the hope of being finally “recognized” by whites.
Might write more about this issue in a future post.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, Mitt Romney has a certain inability to connect with potential voters because of his frequent and very convenient shifts in views on pretty much everything.
Have a look at this YouTube satire set to Eminem’s 2000-vintage hit “The Real Slim Shady”.
False hope has been a major, if not the biggest, cause of human suffering throughout human history. Belief in the success of endeavours that have a zero, or close to zero, chance of succeeding can consume a lot of resources and time which could be used in a much more productive and fruitful manner.
But what exactly is false hope? and how does it differ from thinking big, day dreaming, optimism, grit and tenacity?
Some of you might see the difference between them as a matter of degree rather than absolutes, but is it so? Let me explain with some ‘non-false hope’ examples-
1a. Consider the wish to start and own a successful restaurant, bar, food truck or a similar small business. While the initial failure rate for such endeavours can be quite high- success is possible and easily observable as almost every one of us knows somebody who has been able to run a successful small business. Moreover failure in the first or second attempt does not preclude ultimate success.
2a. Many people want to age well as they get older. Once again.. a combination of lifestyle, exercise, diet, supplements, medications can greatly increase your chances of aging well. While you cannot completely insulate yourself from genetic disease, chance and sheer bad luck- it is certainly possible to reduce age-related deterioration of the body.
3a. It is possible to increase your success with women by not being a supplicating, timid pushover with oneitis. While you may not meet your ‘soul mate’, it will certainly get you more (and likely better) ass than you can get as a conscientiousness nice guy.
Now that we have covered a few examples of non-false hope, let us turn to some that illustrate false hope.
1b. The chances of becoming really rich, super-rich, famous or powerful are practically non-existent for most people unless you get really lucky or were born into it. I am not implying that it is impossible, just very unlikely and not worth wasting much sleep, let alone serious effort, over. It also does not help that no amount of money or power can make you immortal or omnipotent. Your very slim chances of becoming the next famous sport star, actor, performer or business mogul are not worth the almost certain loss of your youth, time and health.
2b. The chances that you will survive most metastatic cancers is slim to none. While a few less common cancers (most testicular cancers, many lymphomas, most childhood leukemias etc) are survivable even after significant metastasis, the common ones (most types of breast, colon, lung)are simply not worth treating with the intention to cure or slow down once they cross certain levels of metastasis. Indeed, treating such widely disseminated cancers aggressively causes far more suffering and loss of life quality than symptomatic treatment and palliative therapy.
3b. While the chances of having a pleasant and relatively stable domestic life have never been particularly high at any time in human history, trying to do so today is a fools endeavour. Between the high risk of divorce, child support, betrayal, economic ruin on one side and a relatively sexless marriage with lots of passive-aggressive bullshit from aging cunts on the other- it is hard to recommend long-term relationships with women.
The difference between non-false hope and false hope is therefore best understood as the chance and usefulness of success in any given endeavour divided by the risk of failure and the magnitude of the loss or sunken costs.
The first three examples in this post had moderately respectable rates of useful success with moderate risks from failure. The second three examples had very low rates of useful success with high risks and costs from failure.
What do you think? Comments?