Tie you over.

I'm working on a fairly large post that I intend to also be fairly well polished. In the meantime here is a sweet H.L. Mencken (who had some pretty smart things to say, mixed in with some pretty ignorant things as well) quote who I have been reading a bit of lately and who is, kind of, the reason for the larger post I'm working on.

Lying stands on a different plane from all other moral offenses, not because it is intrinsically more heinous or less heinous, but simply because it is the only one that may be accurately measured. Forgetting unwitting error, which has nothing to do with morals, a statement is either true or not true. This is a simple distinction and relatively easy to establish. But when one comes to other derelictions the thing grows more complicated. The line between stealing and not stealing is beautifully vague; whether or not one has crossed it is not determined by the objective act, but by such delicate things as motive and purpose. So again, with assault, sex offenses, and even murder; there may be surrounding circumstances which greatly condition the moral quality of the actual act. But lying is specific, exact, scientific. Its capacity for precise determination, indeed, makes its presence or non-presence the only accurate gauge of other immoral acts. Murder, for example, is nowhere regarded as immoral save it involve some repudiation of a social compact, of a tacit promise to refrain from it—in brief, some deceit, some perfidy, some lie. One may kill freely when the pact is formally broken, as in war. One may kill equally freely when it is broken by the victim, as in an assault by a highwayman. But one[Pg 31] may not kill so long as it is not broken, and one may not break it to clear the way. Some form of lie is at the bottom of all other recognized crimes, from seduction to embezzlement. Curiously enough, this master immorality of them all is not prohibited by the Ten Commandments, nor is it penalized, in its pure form, by the code of any civilized nation. Only savages have laws against lying per se.

-H.L. Mencken
A book of Calumny

-Brandon

Awful article at Forbes

I found this on BoingBoing (who are busy making remixes of this article). It's about why men shouldn't marry career women. Apparently a women's right to work is bad because it makes it harder for the lazy husband to be happier. Damn women's lib for making it harder to keep Michael Noer's wife in the kitchen.

The article is posted below. Not Forbes has tried to cover its ass by turning the single editorial into a "point/counter-point" page by taking on an alternate opinion. "We're not sexist we actually just wanted a debate, even though we didn't bother with another opinion until after we got fuckloads of complaints." Which is revisionism, which pisses me off. In today's internet age everyone had the ability to write whatever they wish online and access far more information then they ever could have decades ago. Professional publications like Forbes can post their own articles and editorials online for larger audiences to read. It's great. The internet also allows a larger degree of user control. Ability to do things, like, alter an article after it has already been 'published' or merely alter how it was presented in such a way as to change the original intention of the magazine. This ability to revise confuses those on the lookout for information because now the information flow has become inconsistent. This backhanded deceit makes it harder to trust your sources of information. Suddenly the reader is no longer sure if the articles are legitimate editorials or politically correct bullshit posted to mollify the masses. An editorial is meant to spark debate. Changing it in order to limit that debate is asinine even if the previous editorial was moronic. Forbes had every right to post the anti-career women article but they need to realize that the masses have every right to respond as well. Attempting to change the way the article is presented in order to calm the masses is cowardly.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

Point: Don't Marry Career Women
By Michael Noer
How do women, careers and marriage mix? Not well, say social scientists.

Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.

Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations. And why not? After all, your typical career girl is well-educated, ambitious, informed and engaged. All seemingly good things, right? SureÂ…at least until you get married. Then, to put it bluntly, the more successful she is the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you. Sound familiar?

Many factors contribute to a stable marriage, including the marital status of your spouse's parents (folks with divorced parents are significantly more likely to get divorced themselves), age at first marriage, race, religious beliefs and socio-economic status. And, of course, many working women are indeed happily and fruitfully married--it's just that they are less likely to be so than non-working women. And that, statistically speaking, is the rub.

To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.

If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).

Why? Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.

In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives' employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of "low marital quality."

The other reason a career can hurt a marriage will be obvious to anyone who has seen their mate run off with a co-worker: When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase they'll meet someone they like more than you. "The work environment provides a host of potential partners," researcher Adrian J. Blow reported in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, "and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals."

There's more: According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.

And if the cheating leads to divorce, you're really in trouble. Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating. According to one recent study on "Marriage and Divorce's Impact on Wealth," published in The Journal of Sociology, divorced people see their overall net worth drop an average of 77%.

So why not just stay single? Because, academically speaking, a solid marriage has a host of benefits beyond just individual "happiness." There are broader social and health implications as well. According to a 2004 paper entitled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?" marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances," higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life and better-adjusted kids.

A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because married folks are healthier than single people, it doesn't mean that marriage is causing the health gains. It could just be that healthier people are more likely to be married.

-Brandon

Message to the out of state UofI students back in town

You don't need obscene cleavage and asthma inducing amounts of perfume when going to your classes. It's school, not a fucking bar crawl.

Ang guys? Lay off the Axe. It doesn't really make you as attractive as the ads imply.

-Brandon

Morris Brown

I can't get enough of this song. I don't know what it is. There is just so much going on in the music and it all fits together so perfectly.

-Brandon

Made a new mix cd

It has a kind of an upbeat dancy theme to it. I guess I was prompted to put it together by my recent obsession with Bondo Do Role as well as my introduction to ESG. Everything else just sort of added itself in. I do think that it is interesting that more then half the songs or artists in the mix have some connection to Diplo. Shows what sort of influence he is on my listening habits.

-Brandon

The Show

I have enjoyed some of Ze Franks other internet creations in the past. His videoblog dubbed "The Show" has me hooked. Well it can be picked up from pretty much anywhere he has enough inside jokes to leave a lot of newcomers confused. Which is why it is a problem that he doesn't have an easily available link to the first episode. Thank god I'm here to save the day.

-Brandon

Fuck Israel. Fuck Hezbollah too, but fuck Israel a little more.

I don't understand why the west is so overwhelmingly in support of Israel when the root of the current and past conflicts with Lebenon, ongoing conflicts with Palestine and arguably the entire unstable middle easte situation lies in Israels history of militeristic and anti-arab policy. It pretty much began when Israel forced non-jews who had been living there when Britain had colonized, irrigated, and made it livable out of Israel and into infertile desert and wastelands where the refugees struggled to survive. It escalated when Israel over to an act of resistance by expanding borders and forcing refugees who had already been forced by Israel to move once to do so again. It happens over and over again. 1-10 Israeli's die from a terrorist act and Israel responds be killing ten times as many Arabs. The argument is that supposedly the disproporionate response will teach people to leave Israel alone. Of course it hasn't had any effect besides encouraging civilians who have suffered from Israeli oppression to side with the anti-Israeli terrorist groups. The real justification is that the lives 10 Jews are somehow as valuable as 200 Muslims. The justification is that Israel is led by people who some unproven and illogical believe that it is their god given right to control and dominate the region.

What I really hate is how some people percieve any disagreement with Israel as somehow anti-semetic. Or that being against Israeli defense policy means I somehow side with the scumbags launching rockets randomly into populated areas for the same (yet reversed) bigoted reasons that Isreal has. It is true that I am not a fan of religion and I am definatly "anti-religious influenced-political policy." What I am not a fan of truly though is senseless slaughter with no goal other then revenge or some abstract, never fully communicated lesson that has to be taught through mass murder.

-Brandon

Drunken post number 2? 3? 2.5? I mean... like... the second night of drunken posting... but not in a row. Just in general.

I am going to make an attempt to post a new blog post weekly at the very least. For now, in order to gain attention, here is my latest post which was written, posted and is being reposted far less then sober. I vow to not alter or delete this for the sake of honesty, the most important quality a human being can have.

So Steven(download his mixes, he is not only a sweet DJ but you can respect him as a person too) and Allyson have moved into the apartment from Steven's old place and Tim is now living with Carrie which is kitty-cornor (IE we are next to Steven and Allyson's apt.) to Violet's (who hates post modernism apparently but I can't accuratly yell you why) and my (who thinks some post-modernism is pretty clever) apartment. Tonight I drank with Tim, Patrick (I know through Tim and who is awesome but who I find intimadating in so far as he seems a lot smarter then I am), Carrie (I know through Tim and don't know that well, but seems cool and I will likely know better just because of proximity to our apartment) and Dustin (who is cool to hang out with because not only did I not know him that will, but I haven't seen him since High School until this week). I'm not as drunk as my last labeled drunken post but this is probably more then I have drank outside of a bar or party situation. The good news is I've finally cleaned my fridge out of all my "opened and mostly but not completely used bottles of alcohol." I don't drink much beer unless I've had a lot of something else before hand so I don't care about the terrible taste. One of the few beers I can drink and not hate is Guinness, and I generally find wheat beers far more barebly then light (and more widely drank) beers.

I'm not sure why it matters (and if I hadn't been drinking I'm almost positive I wouldn't bother telling people some of this) but I find reading my own drunken blog posts interesting, I'm less compelled to hide things when drinking (going so far as saying things to acquintances and strangers that I don't even tell my best friends or family). It makes for an interesting psychological study of the self.

Right now I notice that it is harder to focus and appreciate some of the music I love when drunk then when I am totally sober. What I sometimes wonder is if that is because I don't honestly emotionaly enjoy some of the music and I am a subconcious poser (which is a nightmare situation, and possibly why I fear it) or if it is because I honestly listen to music with intelligence and alcohol (which impairs the mind) messes with my ability to intellectually enjoy the most intelligent music I listen to (which is what my egotistic self wished to believe). I know that I fall somewhere between those situations. I know my (and every person whether they know it or not) is mostly shaped by nothing more then personal opinion but I also know that in the height of passion I tend to represent my opinion as fact and reject opposite opinions as wrong or inferior. I know it's pompous and doesn't make my any friends but it is something I do. I think it is probably because of my awkwardness and inablity/ignorace to function in honest social situations that prompts me to emphasize and subconciously hope that my strong polarized opinions will gain my attention and maybe respect where my social confusion and maybe slight social anxiety  set my back socially.

I know that my silence and inability to communicate with strangers out side of functional situations is rooted in my anger and emotional problems way back in elementary and some of middle school. I basically taught myself somewhere between sixth and ninth grade that the best way to avoid bullying and frustrating social situations I experienced thoughout elementary school was to learn to become socially invisible. I stuck to the few loyal (and arguably foolish) friends I had made and only made more through their introduction. I avoided strangers and stayed silent in classes. I didn't talk to strangers in a friendly way. I basically protected myself from pain (through bullying and violence) and ridecule (by saying somthing stupid or un-PC) by staying silent. My few best friends through high school (Violet, Steven, Martin, for a while Bobby Kennedy) kept my sane. They taught my enough (probably unknowingly) to function once I was finally placed in social situations outside of highschool and outside of pre-established social circles to at least function.

I think that the next most important part of my social development was to gain a job at the Hamburg (also thanks to Violet). The people at the burg have taught me to be comfortable with strangers and far more willing to remove my walls in front of strangers. They helped me to lose my social stiffness and take risks and do socially and sometimes legally unacceptable things that I had no moral or philosophical problems with. They only things holding me back was my fear of social fuckups.

I feel like I'm finally socially developing in a way everyone else did back in middle and highschool that I had subconciously prevented until some very cool people had helped my break out of.

In hindight I know I have messed up situations with people who were interested and made an effort to establish something with me. I regret my past ignorance.

The problem with this situation is simply that I finally feel tempted to enter a relationship beyond friendship but not only do I feel afraid of fucking up the act of establishing it but I worry about fucking it up with my personal neorosis after it has been established. And I worry about fucking up a friendship that I feel that I've just learned to maintain with a proposal of a sexual relationship. And I'm frankly afraid of the act of sex. Not that I don't want to experience it, but simply that I'm worried of embaressment from fucking it up when everyone around me has had some time to learn how to do it right. I know some of these fears are illogical and silly. And I preach and believe that emotions (like fear) that contradict logic are stupid to follow doesn't make me any less human or any more likely to resist my illogical emotional pitfalls.

I honestly wish that society had developed in a way that made my social indecision the norm for men and made women the traditional innitiates of a relationship. Not that I envy the hardships of women through the years, or that I am so naive as to think that any situation could possibly develop where men could be in control of society without having to be in control in the bedroom. I just don't like responsibility (which is probably the root of all of my problems in the first place, including what I haven't mentioned here).

I'm done. I vow to not edit this after the booze has worn off. It's a personal blogging philosophy anyway, but I want to make it official for my less then sober posts. Fuck revisionism. It's simply a long term form of dishonesty (which I disrespect more then any other human quality).

PS all conclaveproject.org sites are broken and not updated they are simply the last place I know these people have updated.