Instapun***K.com Archive Listing
InstaPunk.Com

Archive Listing
December 8, 2012 - December 1, 2012

Friday, December 07, 2012


What Do You Miss?
MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE MUSIC. No, I'm not trying to live in the past, but with so much new hope and change on the way, I got to thinking about some of the bygone pleasures. Past and present are always a mixed bag. Sweet corn has never been better, but the tomatoes of my youth are hard to come by. The crops are genetically engineered to ripen all at once, and there is something missing from the juiciness and taste I recall. We've never had more access to the everything than we do now, thanks to the internet and other electronic miracles, which may be the reason that the things lost in the shuffle stand out more than they otherwise might. That's the reason for this motley list. Some of the missing things could come back, and others won't. So don't read this as lachrymose. I'll start with two things so discrepant you'll be able to see that this is part reminiscence, part wishful thinking.

Deliveries to your house. Not Fedex, not UPS. There was once a milkman in a white truck who delivered milk in bottle that clinked in his steel milk bottle carrier. In the movies he wore a hat and a white uniform, but in real life not so much. The early morning dew glistened on the clear bottles. There was also a bread man in a colorfully brand-specific panel truck that actually exuded the aroma of fresh bread when he arrived. He had glazed donuts too. Ours was the Bond bread man. Before I'd ever heard of James Bond. Why, perhaps, I kept smelling bread when I first read the novels. Beyond these, there was the egg man, the Fuller Brush man, and the Jewel Tea man, who kept my grandmother supplied with the staples of life, including scented tissues and toilet paper. He had a flat tray filled with his wares and he talked for half an hour before he filled her order. We have no time for such things anymore. Okay that it's all gone, sure. But nice to remember anyway. And it's perfectly okay to miss it.

Snack food. This one actually hurts a little bit. I miss Doo Dads (I could eat a whole box in 20 minutes without even feeling guilty), and I'm not the only one. There's actually a website that makes a point of memorializing losses such as this:

Another great Nabisco Snack Mix that people seem to fondly remember is doo dads. It was a snack made up of 5 different parts: Toasted peanuts, pretzels, rice squares, wheat squares and cheese Tid-Bit Crackers (which were so popular you could buy Tid-Bits by themselves).

I know it sounds like Chex Mix, but as it turns out, it was nothing even close, so much that if you even compare them to an avid doo-dad lover you will get beaten. They are nothing alike. Doo dads are 100X better (or so I've been told).

Once a snack staple starting in the late 60s, they really became a childhood favorite of everyone in the 70's/80's. In the 90's, as sales stared to slip due to the influx of chips/crackers/snacks that were in the market, doo dads tried out some new flavors hoping to bring them back to life, but the as the 90's came to a close so did doo dads...

Sadly, they are now gone. Will they ever return from extinction? People have been trying to get Nabisco to relaunch them for years now, but we will have to wait and see if doo-dad nation gets their prayers answered.

And here's what their commenters had to say:

Nabisco, please please please bring these back!!!

The 100 Cal Ritz Snack Mix is the closest I can get to my beloved Doo Dads, bring them back!

I last bought Doo Dads around 2004. I bought the last 6 boxes on the shelf (Clio, MI). I may be wrong about the exact year, but it was definitely in the 2000's. Definitely a different flavor than Chex Mix. The flavoring was more intense in a great way. With a choice between the two, I would choose Doo Dads every time. I really hope that they do come back eventually.

Chex mix sucks. Bring back doo dads.

If I were a millionaire, I would pay nabisco to bring back Doo Dads. The number 1, best snack food anyone can have.Doo Dads! WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO NABISCO? YOU NEED MONEY? PETITIONS? BOYCOTT? Doo Dads will be your number one seller. Make a smart move Nabisco! Lets get Doo Dads back on the shelves, or at least available thru internet sales... I miss Doo Dads.

Me too.

TV dramas. You know how newspaper obits always show pictures of the dead as old people? That's how the channels that run old TV dramas treat old TV viewers too. They load up on shows that were always aimed at old people, like Perry Mason, Diagnosis Murder, Murder She Wrote, and JAG. Or they skip all the good stuff for more recent stuff that's really just old even to old people, like Miami Vice. And, yes, other channels like SyFy run supposed "classics" like The Twilight Zone, but they keep recycling a mere handful of episodes that are more like Kim Kardashian than entertainment; they're famous for being famous and that's about it. Who hasn't seen the episodes with William Shatner, Burgess Meredith, and Gig Young a zillion times? Enough already.

Here are some shows you don't see on Nickelodeon or TVLand. Why? Because they were good shows, probably better than most of what you can get today.

The Defenders. Not the silly Las Vegas thing with Jim Belushi and Jerry O'Connell. Instead, the best lawyer show yet televised. E. G. Marshall and Robert Reed as a father-son lawyer team who didn't even win all their cases. Black and white. Thoughtful. I challenge you to remember a single episode of any lawyer show you've seen in your life. I can still recall an episode of the Defenders in which a young man was accused of the hit and run murder of a pedestrian. He failed to hit the brakes because a friend was sitting on top of the back seat and would have died if the driver had braked to save the pedestrian. I'm not sure we even heard the verdict in that one. We were supposed to decide for ourselves.

Naked City. More black and white magic. A gritty look at NYC detectives. Everybody remembers and laughs at Dragnet. It wasn't all a joke back then, either. Hats, suits, coffee, and booze like you love in Mad Men. Only authentic, not fabricated as a semi-satirical homage.

One Step Beyond
. What I personally preferred to The Twilight Zone. (Sorry. Always thought Serling was ham-handed as a writer. Sorry.) Our host John Newland introduces a story in which something was going to occur. It was as anthological as the Zone but, well, cooler. When the odd thing began to happen the music alerted you. It was cool. Did something extraordinary and miraculous happen? Or was it all just coincidence? Cue credits and out. I miss it. Nothing better to watch late at night, including Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld. Why can't I have it?

The Forsyte Saga. The original juggernaut of Masterpiece Theater, not the slick remake you find when you go looking for it. More black and white. Endless episodes. The all-time greatest soap opera you've ever seen. With a single exception (Kenneth More), the performances are astounding. Dallas and Dynasty are pitiful by comparison, and Soames (Eric Porter) beats J.R. by a mile in his reptilian villainy. If you haven't ever seen this, do whatever you can to get it. It will take your mind off a world of trouble. Forgive the black and white. You'll get used to it. You'll fall in love with Nyree Dawn Porter, and you'll make the acquaintance of some of the best Brit actors ever, with the exception, of course, of Kenneth More. Yeah, you can buy the DVD, but why wouldn't they run it on one of the umpty-gajillion cable channels? Just asking.

Shogun
. I know. Richard Chamberlain was the Madonna of his day. He was an American who went to Britain and came home with a British accent. Offputting. Once upon a time he was Dr. Kildare, not as good a show as Ben Casey (should have included that on my list because House ain't new either, so here's a peek), and everybody figured out he was gay, but it didn't really matter. (Yeah. Knowing there are gay actors isn't exactly an Obama discovery. I knew Rock Hudson was gay when I was 14 for heaven's sake. Biggest surprise? Why all the fuss when his illness proved what everyone knew already.) But there were two roles Chamberlain was born to play, both miniseries. This was one of them. It's the miniseries that put miniseries on the map, and he's great in it. So is Toshiro Mifune, who's man enough for two men, and Yoko Shimada is hypnotically unattainable.

The Thornbirds. This is the other one. And it has Rachel Ward. I don't care how Catholic you are, or even how gay you are, Rachel Ward was a game-changer. Women absolutely love this thing, and men can stand it too. With all the crap that's on TV it's a shame this isn't available on one of the otherwise horrifying women's channels.

The Fugitive. A Quinn-Martin Production. Say it in a loud unapologetic voice. Harrison Ford wasn't the Fugitive. David Janssen was. Ford ran for, what, two hours? Janssen ran for years. And the show was good. He was always the outsider, with an outsider's insight and an opportunity to help because of that insight. And the depths of his own unsolvable tragedy. In black and white again.

The New Breed. Also a Quinn-Martin Production. Ask yourself. How many comic star turns have you seen Leslie Nielsen do? All playing off the humorless hero character he once played in movies and television. Have you ever seen him play the stick he isn't in his comedies? Here's the archetype of the protagonist he spoofed in his spectacular second career. Do I have to tell you? Black and white.

Didn't think this would happen. Turns out, this is going to have to be Part I. I'm tired now. Next installment will cover TV sitcoms (funny ones... remember them?), cars, candy, fast food franchises, stockings, soda pop bottles, and airline travel.

See you then.




Thursday, December 06, 2012


InstapunkCelebrityCard

The Celebrity Card

I once thought of MTV as a breath of fresh air. I thought
 I would never stop watching it. I learned better. Years ago.

MY OWN WAYBACK MACHINE
. Yeah, in the wake of the election, 6 in 10 Americans favor increasing taxes on people who make more than $250K a year. Never mind that such people already pay most of the income taxes, and never mind that even confiscatory rates of taxation on such people wouldn't solve the fiscal crisis or make even a dent. Regardless, there can be no doubt that the class warfare argument has worked spectacularly well for the Obama administration. Why?

The answer is simple, even elegantly simple. But it's also as perverse as it is simple. Perverse because it's representative of one of those disconnects that are so gigantic and contradictory most people are unable to comprehend its absurdity. Not even the supposedly far-seeing righty proponents of the new media recognize the extent to which the internet, a zillion cable channels, and the cancer-like growth of social networks have compounded rather than alleviated their messaging problem.

Who are the most visible rich? Celebrities. Our adulation has been cultivated as pervasively as our subconscious resentment, via every kind of media in the exploding technological universe. We're all vulnerable to being seduced by physical beauty, success, glamorous lifestyles, artistic talent, and lucky if unequal combinations of same. We desperately want to like the people we envy, as if some their shine could rub off on us, as if -- were we to meet them -- they would like us too.

It's the real secret of Obama's populist appeal. He's the dork -- we all recognize that in him, the would-be (but not) basketball star, the laughable bowler, the gawky golfer in shorts, the stuttering party wallflower with an intimidating and barely respectful wife -- who stands in for all of us when he pals around with movie stars, sports icons, and music legends. He's icy and even contemptuous with his political peers (politics has been called the show business of ugly people -- ugh), but he's "likeable" in sum because he's as obviously starstruck as we would be given the opportunity to meet Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and all the lesser lights of American celebrity. And when they treat you as some kind of savior, well, that's just an Everyman's dream come true:



Of course, this kind of sentiment is naive if not insane. What would celebrities know about anything real? They live inside a cocoon of personal assistants, publicists, agents, managers, and fashion consultants whose whole livelihood consists of making them feel special and infallible. If you have any trouble believing this, The Backstage links at The Smoking Gun should convince you. Granted, these entries are short on what Hollywood stars require, but that's not usually done by contract. It's done by the natural perquisites of royalty. Whatever's the worst in The Smoking Gun list, be it Madonna or JLo, you can pretty much count on the fact that an A-List movie star needs more.

Thing is, we know all that already. We love it in one sense and resent it in another. Thanks to TMZ and Perez Hilton (etc, ad nauseam), for example, we know that celebrity doesn't always arise from talent. All those reality shows which have made stars out of talentless cartoons like Kim Kardashian, Ice-T's wife Coco, and Jersey Shore's Snooki make it clear that financial heaven can be achieved by idiot freaks who couldn't even be trusted to handle a week of pet-sitting.The idea of being famous for being famous has taken solid root in the national consciousness. Quick quiz: How many of the following vulvas have you seen flashed on stage or posed getting out of limousines? Madonna, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, etc, or do you prefer the more mainstream gallery presented here? In either case, do you know anyone in your personal circle who would pose in this way, and would you look to such women as spokespeople for a theoretical "war on women" when this is going on in the liberally celebrated Arab Spring? Doubt me? Ask Lara Logan of CBS News. It's all good, right, as long as the Jews are put in their place.

People are capable of contradictory emotions. Somehow we don't penalize the president and his oafish wife for hanging out with the richest do-nothings in the world. At the same time, the constant media barrage subtly convinces us that this is who ALL rich people are. They have more than they need. They didn't earn what they have, not really. And we deserve to take more and more from them, not least because we have loved them so much. They OWE us for our love and loyalty and fascination.

Except that it's all a crock. The most visible but also most unreal subset of America's wealthiest citizens -- movie stars, rock stars, and glamorous exhibitionists -- are not the real emblems of American wealth. The bricks underneath the CGI turrets are (probably boring and boringly unsybaritic) engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs, scientists, industrial designers, and flat-out innovators. They're neither Brad Pitt nor Victoria's Secret models. Most of them achieved their 250K+ per year income by studying long hours, working very hard long hours, and taking risks most wouldn't take. A great many did it by doing work most of us wouldn't accept. And I'm not talking about illegal immigrants. Know anybody who's made money in the plumbing business?  Not always but often, they have to deal with our shit. They do it, at all times of day and night. They should be penalized because you're not making ends meet? Farmers? Know any? Plowing fields, shoveling animal shit, dealing with state and federal regulations every day about how and what they feed their stock, fertilize their crops, and survive for another year on the doomed family farm?  Don't like your local car dealer or gas station? Both pinned between major manufacturers they can't control and retail customers who cherish grudges that last for years. How dare they ever make a quarter million dollars a year? Dis. Grace. Ful.

Yeah, let's punish them. Because Paris Hilton has pissed me off one time too many. Riiiighhhht.

So here's the rub. The Obama administration continually parades our lunkhead president before celebrities who make mega-millions by pretending to be other, smarter, braver people. Which is actually a clue that our president is a would-be celebrity who is pretending to be a smarter, braver thing than he is. But nobody sees. The celebrities endorse him, he gushes in their presence, and people find the whole act charming.

Meanwhile, and much much worse, conservatives can't figure out how they lost the most important election in the history of the republic. Use the search function to enumerate all the incredible stupidities of the right. (Keywords: stupid, conservative, republican, intelligentsia, and Howdy-Doody.) This one's probably the worst, though. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell actually think they know what's going on.

btw, there was also a moment when Rome lost its republic. But history is no guide for us. The end of the Roman Republic was the beginning of the Roman Empire. The end of the American Republic is the end of the nation that never really wanted to be an empire when it had the chance. The first nation ever to make that choice. Proof of American exceptionalism now that it's finally and officially done with.

Rejoice, all ye would-be celebrities. Can't wait for Hollywood's new senator from Kentucky, Ashley Judd. Have to admit she's got pert boobs. Haven't seen her vulva yet, though. I'm prepared to be impressed.

As for the card being played? It's the death card. The good news is that it won't achieve its full effect on December 21. It's going to take years of agonizing suffering and regret instead.




Tuesday, December 04, 2012


Pandora's BoxiPad

Even her. With a complete context of bluegrass music. What isn't in Pandora?

DISTRACTIONS. If you're not forty-ish or over, go away. You already know about this. Though maybe not its tremendous brilliance and depth. I'm talking about the internet radio application called Pandora (thanks, Marge). It reminds me of The Boomer Bible. It's a mirror. Depending on who you are, it 's just a convenience, a way to hear the music you loved when you were young. But if you're curious and alive, it's a continuously expansive wonder, an opportunity for entertaining education on a grand, perhaps even encyclopedic scale. I think it's the single greatest computer application since PhotoShop, but we all know I'm no longer to be trusted on technology matters. My wife has to program my cellphone for me. Thirty years in the computer business just plain wore out in my case. I'm obsolete. Why this post is aimed at people exactly like me. Aging men who don't see what all the consarned excitement there is about devices like the iPad. I'm thinking, for example, of the commenter who said he'd read the humor books I recommended but no longer wanted to read anything or have anything to do with anything MSM-ish except reruns of the good old TV series like, well, I forget which ones, but you get my point.

Some of you cranks have laptops. Fine. I'm assuming a start from Ground Zero instead, just to show you the minimum price of admission. One iPad, $399. One aftermarket speaker set with subwoofer and a jack that plugs into the earpiece hole, $49.99. Speakers like this are highly directional, but they're good and if you put your shoeless socks on the floor, you can feel the bass beat. Oh. Yes. The Pandora internet radio application. Free.

Reward? Infinite. Can't listen to radio anymore? You get to define your own radio stations by entering the name of a performer, song, or composer. Wikipedia calls it a limitation that you don't automatically get any of these when you start playing your station. They're wrong. What you get is a radio station. That's the magic of it. You are listening to radio. The songs you hear are closely related in some way to what you asked for, but the relation can be temporaneous, historical, antecedent, or derivative. You can skip ahead or object via thumbs down to a song on your station you don't think belongs, yet you're discouraged from doing so because for each and every song played, you get a history of the artist(s), which amounts to an invitation to an education in the music you most like. Wow.

Whatever music you like, it's all here. Researching this post, I've defined stations for the Rolling Stones (thanks, Dave), and, uh, gasp, here goes: Ronnie Spector, Puccini, Miles Davis, Tom Waits, Mozart, Bonnie Tyler, Doris Day, Johnny Cash, Edith Piaf, Hazel Dickens, Robert Johnson, Benny Goodman, Gorecki, Bernard Herrman, the Supremes, Bush, Sinatra, Smokey Robinson, and even a little known composer of Gregorian chants. They're all there.

On the iPad, you get to read everyone's biographies, from Beethoven to Bush. And the copy is well written, usually longer than the song being played.It's not deep in real musicology, but it's invaluable in delineating webs of influence, prior, contemporary, and lasting. What I can't list is all the names and works that show up on each station, filling in a context we all know is always there -- who influenced who when and why this song is related to the last -- but after a day of exploring this thing seriously for the first time, I can report that my mind is seriously blown. I love it.

No matter when you were a kid, get it.

No matter what genre you love, get it.

No matter how pissed off you are and think nothing can ever restore your soul, get it.

The sound quality is absolutely magnificent. Youtube is no substitute. Just make sure you spend the $50 bucks for decent speakers.

You ladies saddled with nasty old men like me can file your thanks in the usual place, the Comments section.

The rest of you? Sorry. It take us longer to catch up. But some of us are trying.





Monday, December 03, 2012


National Debt vs. The Deficit:
A Distinction with a Difference.


[NSFW] Aside to Joseph: Yes, I was optimistic, but I happen to agree with
the other RL. "I'm not saying we can't survive a second Obama term. I'm
saying we can't survive voters who would reelect Obama." Ergo sorrow.
Particularly when all the cool cats run off in so many different directions.
Like the rhythm or not, I AM still dancing. Not spry enough? Do me better.


WE STILL RESPOND TO COMMENTERS (OBSOLETE POLITESSE DIES HARD). Helk inadvertently did everyone here a service with his latest odd critique:

"While I can hardly disagree that the country faces unprecedented problems, I find it interesting to see that you have taken the position that our national debt is a problem. I recall posting here a long time ago that the debt was going to be the primary factor in determining the quality (or lack thereof) of our future. People yelled me down for being retarded. Well, I see that you have finally embraced that line. Not the retarded line (though I suspect you embrace that also) but the debt line."

I was nonplussed. We've all yelled at Helk about a bunch of things, but strictly because he worried about the debt? I doubt that. Obama's spending, and Bush's before him, has been a continually recurring topic at this site. Then I recognized a fundamental area of misunderstanding that afflicts more people than I'd realized. Way more important than I'd realized. So thanks to Helk for surfacing the disconnect.

If you search the site, it's true I don't talk much about national debt. What I talk about all the time is the annual budget deficit, the rate at which it has grown, and the federal policies that will cause the deficit to increase in future beyond our power to control -- e.g., unexamined entitlement spending, which by definition is not subject to budget discipline.

Obviously, these subjects are closely linked, but they are not identical. Deficits do not equal national debt; deficits increase national debt, meaning they're a cause not the dread face of disaster itself depicted in the giant LED running tote boards at tea parties and Ron Paul gatherings. Nightmare on Elm Street territory. The day is imminent when a Dickensian usurer, a Sopranos legbreaker, or Freddie himself will show up demanding payment in full. (Maybe December 12, 2012, on Mayan Apocalypse Day?) So if you're fixated on national debt, talking about deficits is somehow not quite on point. By inference, the source of Helk's dismay. I'm grousing about a measly one or two trillion a year and they, like Atlas, are manfully bearing the full weight of the 20 to 60 trillion total. They're serious and I'm a dilettante, negligently ignorant about the enormity of the real calamity.

Which is not only complete and utter bullshit, it's evidence of an extreme economic navet used to justify much of the liberal scorn toward tea partiers.

Worse, the exclusive focus on national debt as opposed to deficits represents the same kind of zero sum logic that makes a laughingstock of most leftist, anti-capitalist economics. The lefties act as if every dollar earned by millionaires is a dollar stolen from "working people." They refuse to understand the basic principle that capitalism creates wealth for everyone in the workforce. In the same way, people who insist on comparing government economics to the household economics of individuals earning wages or salaries are missing the crucial fact that the better and more illustrative analogy is to business.

The error here is not so much structural as psychological. It's easy to make mistakes and fall behind in matters of personal debt. When the debt total reaches the point that discretionary income is reduced, it's human nature to rue the credit transactions spent on too many toys, too many meals out, impulse purchases of fancy cars, and other unnecessary luxuries. Things which did not contribute to the possibility of higher wages or salaries. These aren't investments. They're just deficit spending. That's when the interest payments and the ever-increasing TOTAL really start to bite.

Business debt is a different animal altogether. Almost all growing, thriving businesses, especially big businesses, carry substantial debt. That's why there's a bond market. Businesses borrow money to make more money. They borrow to build new plants, expand into new markets and geographical regions, and to finance lags in short-term cash flow associated with rapid healthy growth.

What was that last term? Cash Flow. What makes debt affordable is long-term healthy cash flow. Tell me you make $25K a year and owe $50K on credit cards. Should I be concerned about the total? Maybe. Especially if you're only going to earn $20K next year and will be borrowing more to maintain the same standard of living. But if you show me you're on track to earn $50k next year and $100K the year after that, my interest in your debt total will decline as long as you also show me you won't increase personal consumption at the same rate.

Just as all publicly traded corporations have some level of debt, so do most governments of even the richest nations. It's not the debt total that matters; it's the cash flow. If you are growing your GDP faster than you're growing your national debt, you are still a good investment to your creditors. If your income is rising faster than your debt, foreclosure day never comes.

And it's never the case that NO national debt is ideal or even desirable. That would be akin to a business that has no ambitions to grow. "We'll just sit here quietly, thank you, and twiddle our thumbs while all those idiot risk takers pass us by in revenues, profits, locations, and employees." Stasis ain't paradise if the population is still growing. Bitter as it might be to contemplate, there are government investments that involve productive debt: a state-of-the-art military, the interstate highway system, the Panama Canal, the Marshall Plan, etc. If they're the right investments, we all benefit. If they're wrong, we all pay the cost and elections are the constitutional cure.

Why so many reputable economists argue quite sincerely that levels of national debt don't matter. If they can defend their assumptions about levels of economic growth, they are right.

Why the national debt obsessives aren't even participating in the right argument, the necessary argument. Which -- heresy of all heresies -- isn't even about achieving an annual surplus, not even a single dollar surplus, at any cost.

Shiver.... Writhe in torment... Scream in outrage.... Get it out of your system. The necessary objective is to reduce the rate of growth in deficits below the rate of increase in the GDP and establish a trend of doing that consistently, controllably, and by a significant margin.

That's how you grow your way out of a fiscal crisis, even a deep one like we're in now. Why the Reagan economy grew in spite of large deficits (regardless of whose fault they were). The booom outgrew the rate of increase in the national debt. Hate it? Sorry.

The difference between the fiscally responsible and the fiscally irresponsible boils down to whose assumptions about what contributes to economic growth are right and whose are wrong.

The national debt and its always staggering total becomes fatal when the rate of its increase becomes unstoppably greater than any possible growth rate in the private economy. Why I have railed continually -- rather than shriek about the national debt -- on here and now topics like the depressive effects of higher tax rates, Obamacare's explicit and unintended costs to businesses and individuals, exponentially increasing regulations on business, malicious disincentives by the EPA and other federal agencies to exploit abundant American energy resources, and a prevailing leftist mentality which somehow still believes that essentially Marxist delusions about the viability of centrally managed economies are true and socially desirable despite an entire century of bloody proof positive to the contrary. Not to mention the general and almost murderously effective impacts of the propaganda effort to substitute sexual and chemical license for freedom of speech, religion, and independent thought as signposts of human liberty.

Meanwhile, we read and cluck about the dire, perhaps culturally fatal, effects of drastically declining birth rates in Europe and Japan. While our progressive leaders take constantly to the airwaves encouraging us to support abortion and quit defending our own cultural traditions in favor of immigrants who don't even ask permission before demanding their share of our lives and livelihoods, including legal immunities we don't have. Does it occur to any of you to utter the words "national debt" in THIS context? It occurs to me.

Yeah. I haven't been talking about the real issues. Because I'm an unabashed apologist for traditional "authoritarian" republicanism. Meaning that I recognize the federal government exists, has power, and needs to exert whatever slender moral authority it has left to forestall permanent fiscal calamity. Peculiarly eccentric me.

Once again, thank you, Helk. Is light a particle or a wave? I know it's both. At the same time. If you don't, your chicken tending has caused you to fall behind.





Gorillas

You youngsters won't relate to this. All those old guys who don't talk to you,
can't work their cell phones, and grunt a lot are human gorillas. We used to
keep girl children chastened. One day you'll miss us. By then it will be too late.

MORE HARBINGERS OF DOOM. We didn't achieve our miraculous effects by being kind, celibate, or sensitive. We mostly threw our weight around.



We had this entirely wrong idea that the female should be attracted to the male not because he was pretty but because he was ardent. We actually didn't think pretty hadn't anything to do with it. Except on the female side.



We assumed she would see eventually that ardent was related to devoted, meaning he would do absolutely anything to stay with her and keep her safe.



Including die.



But for the most part, that's been our mistake. Since you've become bonobos, we're off the hook. Too bad for our old ancestors.

Except for those of us who still have our Faye Wrays. Tiny shrinking percentage that it is.

Don't get all bent out of shape. We're not kidding but you don't know what that means anyway. All good. grrr.

Dude.




Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to InstaPunk.com Learn More