MYKERU.COM

The TSA: Ethics for Idiots

Posted on April 13, 2011

 

Courtesy of The Village Voice via  Digg: This Is How the TSA Pats Down a 6-Year-Old Girl.

Now, it's hard enough to watch this video, even harder if you imagine being the parents of this little girl. Her entire experience is of being protected by them, especially against people who want to touch their "special places". Yet they have no choice but to watch her subjected to a full-body pat-down including her "sensitive areas".

Now, what exactly could a six-year old girl be carrying in her waistband or crotch, just what amount of explosives -- even the mythical "binary explosives" the TSA used to justify people having to dump more than 3 ozs of shampoo -- could she be carrying that would present a threat to an airliner?

Maybe she was a "mule", in which case the total amount of say, heroin, she was carrying couldn't even give her much of a rush.

The TSA's rationale for this will be that they were "following the rules", which is, of course idiot-speak for "this stuff written over here gives me carte blanc to turn my brain right the hell off".

Quick lesson in ethics. Quick because there are only two kinds of ethics. First is Deontological ethics, the other is Consequential.

The foundation of Consequential ethics is exactly what the name implies: Things are right or wrong only in regard to their potential consequences. You justify a rule for or against X on the basis of it resulting in Y and Z, as best you can determine. If it does harm to oneself or others, then it's bad. If it creates good, it's good. If the consequences or neutral, then no one should really care. Utilitarianism, expressed by the adage "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a form of Consequentialism.

The rational for Deontological ethics, which are entirely rule-based, is "because I said so". "I" being the king, the pope, God himself or some other form of authority, and that's about as far as it goes.

If a rule is written in stone, literally, and the punishment for violating it tends to be severe, especially when it really has no other apparent consequences than the immediate punishment meted out to the person violating it, then you can be pretty sure it's Deontological.

Prohibitions against eating meat on Friday, mixing fabrics, lying with another man and pretty much all of The Bible are rule-and-rule-only-based Deontological ethics.

As you can imagine, Consequential arguments tend to be sophisticated. The idea of arguments applied to Deontology is kind of a contradiction in terms, as once you start justifying the rule, you are appealing to consequences. Because of that, Deontological authoritarian rules are simple, and for the simple-minded: This is the rule, do it or else.

The problem is, as sophisticated as Consequential ethics are, once they are adopted, they become rules in and of themselves, the whole idea of the rationale for having the rule in the first place tends to drop out and you quickly end up with de-facto Deontology.

See how this applies here?

Somewhere, way back somewhere, there was a rational for doing body searches, but once the rule was applied, the reason for doing it became secondary to just blindly following the rule because it was a rule.

The same can be seen in the War on Drugs and Zero Tolerance policies. Certainly there's a social interest in preventing people from free-basing Drano and bringing a flame-thrower to school, but once the whole Consequentialism of it crosses the divide into being just a rule, then you end up with forfeiture of entire properties because some cop claims he found half a pot seed and kids get expelled because they inadvertently brought in a 3-inch molded plastic gun from a G.I. Joe play set.

Pretty soon, application of the rules, and the punishments for violating it, soon become infinitely more severe than than consequences of the violation itself.

When you see a TSA agent patting down a scared little six-year old girl, what you are watching is an entire organization gone zombie, blindly lurching through the motions, with no fucking clue why they started whatever it is they think they are doing in the first place.

Share

Cannibal Trolled

Posted on April 12, 2011

 

Wherein  I attempt being an asshole and only partially succeed.

 

More Fresh Meet.

So, there I was, waiting at the vacant ass-end of the bar area of Lia's Italian restaurant in Chevy Chase, MD .

The bar proper, with its shelf of pristine and back-lit decorative bottles that never held any liquid, ever, ran along a wall to my right. Sitting on a high stool around a high manhole cover-sized table, I looked forward over my own shoulder, between more virgin bottles shelved before a  recessed wall-length mirror, like Wild Bill Hickock should have done when he was holding aces and eights.

Unlike Hickock, after a few of these meets I sort of welcome a  bullet right in the back of the fucking head.  Sartre once wrote in No Exit that "Hell is other people". Of course, he was talking about women but, remember, if he wrote that, when he got home from the cafe Simone de Beauvoir would have cut off his dick with a letter opener.

When I first walked past the decorative and totally ersatz glass-enclosed gas fireplace set in rough-hewn stone in the entrance, only a few patrons were scattered around on this Wednesday night: A couple of wrong-side-of-twenty women sat at the bar laughing a little too conspicuously with -- or at -- some schlub apparently subsidizing their drinks. A commuter type in a respectable $400 gray suit sat hunched over his fruity little drink, alone, doing a pretty good cover of  young Willie Loman.  In addition,  a few groups with their wine and cilantro-laced appetizers cluttered up various too-small four-top tables, each forming their own little self-conscious conspiracy of fun.

Now, in a truly fair and just universe, at this point a fugitive motorcycle gang would ride through the glass and brass doors, break a bottle of Jack over the bartender's head, and simply rape the fuck out of the place. As that didn't happen, you can form your own opinion about what kind of universe we live in and just how your God is no fun.

Disappointed,  I headed for the back away from the fun and chatter. Past a black woman in bootilicious purple stretch pants and short, dyed-blond hair the color of Easter basket straw, jabbing at her iPhone, head tilted back in a way that suggested she was either myopic,  just torturing the device or, more likely, whoever was on the other end of that text conversation.

My reason for heading to the back  isn't just my general misanthropy although, yeah, this is me we're talking about.

See, the sticking point in meeting people, and for me that means women, is facing the depressing job interview that supposedly decides my worth as a human being as seen through her eyes. Of course, the last thing that would ever occur to most of these women is that I would rather scrape together pocket change giving behind-the-dumpster blowjobs than apply for a position at Her, Inc.

 

 

Yeah, I already had a wife too

These meets are not romantic. Not in any sense of the word fun. None of it involves any Sleepless in Seattle soul-mates connecting. Mostly it's just confrontational bullshit dressed up to be sociable.

Well, OK, maybe the last part is kind of fun. My kind of fun. Because, let's face it: The number of people you can completely piss off is one rough measure of one's efficacy as a human being. Jesus Christ, do I love confrontation, even if it isn't the sort of confrontation that ever leads to hot, angry badger sex.

Still, this setting, this kind of Italian restaurant, was disconcerting exactly because it wasn't confrontational enough. Frankly, first meets should be held in places with piss in the corners just to set the mood. In fact, the whole feel of the place radiated the the snotty "whatever" of smug little 20-something fuckers with perfect little catalog-shopped lives full of sleek appliances which are positively pristine as they are too God-awful stupid to figure out how to use them.

Now, ostensibly Lia's is an Italian Restaurant, but nothing about it was reminiscent of my impression of Italian restaurants growing up within striking distance of all things New York Italian. For all I knew, Lia's could be "fusion" Italian, a culinary incantations that would make my grandmother Enunciata to rise from the grave and go all stabby on some pretentious little shit-packer of a chef for fucking around with perfectly good Risotto.

The decor of those restaurants, as I remember them, were apparently themed around a series of unsuccessful yard sales. The tablecloths were the faded pink of red and white checkering. The candles stuck in straw fiasco-wrapped Chianti bottle drizzled wax down the side like a horse's giant cumshot frozen in time. The waiters all surly. They wore a sample of the day's special on their aprons and fairly radiated the threat that suspected stiffers and potential smart-asses would be beaten in the side alley before they ever saw any demitasse.

For those seriously bitter as escarole, there were the Italian "Social Clubs" in Brooklyn. In those places you could almost tell which of the grey, shifty-eyed and combed-over aging dago patrons were contemplating retirement into the Federal Witness Protection program and/or dreading a forcible dirt nap in a construction site, whichever came first.

"Eh, where da fuck ya been?

Then, after a day of thumbing soup, you could see those waiters sitting the one right-side-up cane-backed chair among a barren forest of chairs stacked upside down on tables while a low-totem busboy mopped. A glass of red in front of them, a Lucky curling up a plume of instant cancer from between their fingers, with nothing left to do but go home and be eviscerated by their wives, whose transformation into  a large nagging hairy melanoma in a daily-wear black mourning sack the day after their 30th birthday was predicted by every other Italian woman they had ever seen in their lives.

Of course, I exaggerate, but not a whole hell of a lot.

The only advice on women my father ever gave me was "No Italians". Advice that I've not only heeded, I've lived it, aided by first-hand experience with the special kind of mean-spirited crazy that runs through the X chromosome in the Italian side of my family.

Lia's lacked the weight of the skull-bashing cast-iron cookware that clanged from the back of those places and in my gran's tiny kitchen in an equally tiny apartment over her family's florist shop.

That's to say, it completely lacked the ambiance of rich food and menace that I had come to associate with fine Italian dining. The decor was in the upscale honey-glow and amber-walled Ikea-Starbucks style that cleverly lacked just enough character to ever go the way of dark faux-pine paneling and avacado upholstry. One can hope for a gritty dystopian future age of retro-fitted steam-punk that displaces that ubiquitous crap-happy ÅSSHÄTT-style furniture. In that respect Lia's light fixtures cobbled out of empty, upended wine bottles was a good step in that direction.

The staff was young, chirpy, decidedly non-Italian, and overtly insincere. Say what you will about those old-school waiters with bad attitudes: At least when they despised you they meant it and were totally upfront about it.

Me, it's not as though I have to go out of my way to make people hate me. More like it's a gift.  The way I figure it, I'm just grating off the thin veneer of bullshit between people's half-hearted "happy to serve you" act and what they really think. Otherwise all people do is dangle blank-eyed party masks in front of their faces.

Such was  the waiter who came up to me to do initial recon. Not only was he a couple generations and seemingly a head full of Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors from the dour, dumpy waiters threatening both murder and suicide with their mere presence, but he also was the product of relaxed intermarrying that would have been unthinkable in the days when Canal Street formed an impenetrable DMZ between Little Italy and Chinatown.

A DMZ which I myself had penetrated with my marriage to Xiaopeng (heh-heh). My grandmother on my father's side was quite the specimen of insular New Utrecht Avenue Italian-American bigotry. The only thing that bothered her more than blacks, Asians and the memory of some Jew who shorted her a nickel in 1930, were people unfortunate enough to mistake her for Sicilian. To her, Sicilians were Italians, but only in the same sense that Neanderthals got to hang from the human family tree.  Naples was the pinnacle of human civilization, what little she knew of it, and wouldn't let you forget it.

You can imagine what she would have thought of Xiao. Luckily, she was about four years into Alzheimer's by the time I was married couldn't give a fuck even if she wanted to. That and she thought John F. Kennedy was still president. She didn't like that, because although he was Catholic, he was the wrong kind of Catholic.

So, when the waiter asked me if I would like anything, I stuffed down my sense of impending inter-personal disaster and more or less cheerfully asked him to give me a minute as I was (obviously) waiting for someone. My Motorola Droid sat on the table between text messages, the conversation poised in mid-motion, and I wondered how many times he had seen this exact scene of bullshit marching on played out, and whether he also noted how it all ended badly.

Trust me: It all ends badly. The only time that's not true, when it all doesn't end badly, is when it starts off bad and goes downhill from there.

Experience trumps optimism.

You see,  these meetings are invariably not only from online interactions, but through ass crack-of-the-internet sites such as Craig's List which, at least recently, was notable for it being a one-stop shop for acquiring hookers a half step from the streets and the psychotic med students who love 'em and kill 'em.

Admittedly, Craig's List or any online dating site, is shit useless when it comes to finding that special someone, establishing a relationship and living happily ever after. Or simply getting laid. The women posting and replying to posts are either too ugly, old, or generally dysfunctional to get attention from men in any other way.

However, as a petri dish to examine women's expectations and behavior, it's a dream come true for true for guys, like me, who find this sort of thing both entertaining and instructive. Especially if you completely ignore any idea that the entire exercise tell you at least as much about me as it does about them.

 

Trolling: A Personal History

Let me put to rest an unexplained mystery from a tiny little footprint of the Southwest that has gone unsolved all these years.

Before the internet made jerking people's chains easy and light-speed fast, a minor flap occurred  in the early 90s around Needles, CA and Fort Mojave, AZ. Some clever little proto-troll dick crafted the most unlikely-looking, muppet-eyed and tri-tentacled bogus specimen of squid out of modeling clay, stuck a ruler next to stuck a ruler next to it all science-like for scale, and shot some pictures of it.  Then, after some legwork, a semi-implausible flyer with the picture appeared in businesses and post offices warning people of the "Yucatan Mud Squid" encroaching on the waters of  the Colorado River.

Apparently the potential for a toe-nibbling, undocumented beaner squid causing panic among waders was such that the Kingman Daily Miner did a piece debunking the burgeoning hoax.

Yeah, that was me.

I would like to take this opportunity to belatedly apologize to numerous freaked out Colorado River tube-rafting tourists; to the tourist-dependent shit-hole tri-state economy; to biologist Sally Stefferud of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department for making her chase after chimera and to Miner staff reporter Eric Pulsifer for forcing him to be the guy who "busted the squid thing wide open".

OK, maybe I don't feel guilty about that as much as I should.

And over the years, just as an escape from being completely earnest all of the time, occasionally (if, by "occasionally" you mean "a lot of the time") I would pop into an online forum and jerk people around some.

 

A Brief Philosophical Digression Designed To Make Being a Cynical Jerk Seem Like a Quest for the Truth.

Here's the thing: Lots of things are possible, but of those things that are possible a much, much smaller set of things are real and, of those things that are real, an even smaller set can be found, observed and put in a bell jar.

And the number of things that simply don't exist at all or are impossible is infinite. So, if you look at it that way, reality itself is basically outnumbered.

People like to think in terms of what's possible and then conflate those things that are possible with those things that are real.

Like this:

The thinking, delusional by definition, that because one can imagine something then therefore it must in some sense exist, that belief, wants and expectations can will something into being,  is the underpinning of religion, pseudoscience, fairy tales and human males seen through the prism of women's expectations.

Although I like to think of what many women do online, which really just comes down to online shopping for men, as something like this:

It's the little things that count

 

The philosopher Larry Laudan, in his book Science and Values -- which begins from the premise of critiquing the subjectivist premise of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- postulated that all disagreements occur in a hierarchy of fact, method and values. More importantly, almost no arguments are resolved at the level of fact.

That is to say, the mere fact that something does or does not exist has little bearing on whether people will argue over the damn thing. People are more than capable of leaping right over the most basic ontological standards to get to what is either important to them, or allows them to posture in such a way to show themselves taking a stand for something or other which has value to them.

We live in the age where people make careers and fortunes out of taking brave stands against things that are either non-issues or invented out of whole cloth.

Think of it: Are discussions of the supposed Pay Gap between men and women, Global Warming or anything to do with politics and religion ever resolved by simply presenting a list of facts? Of course not. If someone doesn't like them as presented, and unable to find their own counter-factuals, they will appeal to methodology, either deriving new "facts" or dismissing the means by which the facts they didn't like were derived. Method is just a way-station of course, with the real destination being values.

All arguments are about values. Not really about the way things are, but about the way people want things to be, the way they should be.

Now and then I would post in the comment section of some online magazine consciously tweaking people to drop the pretense that they were arguing about fact and get them to reveal the values behind it. No Creationist, for example, really has a problem with the facts of Evolution, as such. What they have a problem with are what they see as the consequences of the Theory of Evolution, which ridiculously runs the gamut from eugenics, fascism and abortion to heavy-metal music, kids shooting smack and kids shooting themselves.

Arguments against pornography, for another example, rarely focus on the artistic and scientific merit of the reverse cowgirl and instead attempt to tie pornography to a series of slippery slopes where pornography is linked to violence against women, child abuse, sex trafficking and whatever social ills it can be tenuously tied to. The real immediate harm cause by pornography, which is painful penile shaft chaffing, is almost never addressed.

Once you realize that all arguments are about values, it makes it easier not to be turned to sputtering, dumbfounded amazement over people who are incapable of simply grasping what is right in from of their face.

Which sounds irrelevant to this entire post, except when you think of the perennial complain of women that there are "no good men" because their values are such that they've rejected or overlooked all those men who actually exist.

 

Fishing for Dysfunction

Nor do I feel particularly guilty about posting some of the most cynical mind-fucking I ever devised to Craig's List so I could harvest an embarrassment of riches in dysfunction.

I know this isn't a valid statistical sample. I know, due to the quirk of my gender and orientation I'm not applying this to men as well. I'm also not applying it to gay men, lesbians, the trans-gendered, most mammals, flat-worms and prokaryotes.

Go do your own.

Also, I know this isn't finding me love or in any way cleaning my pipes. That's not going to happen anyway, not with my piss-poor attitude anyway, but it does demonstrate the yawning gap between expectations and reality that makes life a living hell.

From adventures in Craig's List, I discovered a strange sub-culture of women who never seemed to be able to move things out of email and chat. Or just made me for an ax murderer. It was just letter after letter, another person popping up in my chat program to tell me how their day was. Any suggestion to get a cup of coffee was met with a deferral, a deflection, an assertion that it was "too soon" two weeks into it, or a simple declaration that I had not yet proved myself.

That fed into further posts and I began referencing this set of women, and imposing caveats and limitations.

An excerpt from a typical missive of mine:

So, tell you what: We aren't going to meet. We aren't even going to pretend to and we realize that none of this shit translates into the real world. Email me and I'll make a few jokes, validate you, and provide easily replaceable short-term entertainment and then you can move onto the next one. No expectations, no one gets hurt and I won't get the shocking revelation in a meat-space meeting that you are older than you claim, far heavier, dumb as a fucking post and have three kids from a pool of a dozen potential fathers that you forgot to mention.

Let's not have that happen. Say, a dozen or so emails and then you can move on.

Now, really, the tone and content is just so assholish and insulting, obviously written by such a jerk, that some women just had to respond. They just couldn't help themselves. They had to tell me off.

Some responded just to denigrate the size of my penis (which is, of course, tiny), inform me that I had a very bad attitude (ya think?), inform me how nice the man they had was (while they perused Craig's ads) or give me a little bit of both and, on top of it, announce they were from a completely different planet:

Undecided as to weather [sic] I think you are funny or you just have a bad attitude?  I can see how meeting a few times may be frustrating for you....usually it is the man that steers the situation that way for whatever reason.

Bzzzt! Thank you for playing! Johnny, what do we have for the nice lady from the ammonia seas of Neptune?

What also emerged, simply by limiting the possibility of further emails or a meeting were another subset of women who had no greater purpose than to be exempt from whatever limitation I imposed. Now the time-table for meets and the number of emails, which I carefully counted, began to accelerate.

Too easy, really.

 

Taking My Asshole Self Out in the Real World

I began to see the influence of values played out on personal ads, such as those posted on the faltering Craig's List. I assume though, the same tendencies get played out in Match.com or Plenty of Fish, as they did in the old-school newspaper personal ads and, to some degree, in real life.

Personal ads posted by men, the ones that aren't merely ham-fisted trolling for sex written by idiots, are mostly about who the men posting are, what they do and what they bring to the table. Or, at least they are what men imagine themselves to be or are willing to lie about being. Men are the sellers in a buyer's market.

Women's ads, on the other hand -- examples of taking values, the possible imagined as probable, the probable as attainable and then the attainable as mandatory -- are all about what they want. Often it seemed as if women took the energy they expended as little girls on a world of unicorns and glitter and applied it to finding another human being who would put up with their shit.

Women can take this to such lengths that their posts become veritable laundry lists of requirements that are either completely contradictory quests for a "successful, driven and financially independent man who has lots of time to travel", or just-so fine calibrations of characteristics where the woman is "looking for man who is funny, but not too funny and who only I will get his jokes" or simply such a string of permutations that the odds or any real set of persons having those characteristics are vanishingly small. There aren't many "Six foot three, red-haired, investment banker and semi-professional water polo forwards" out there.

Once you recognize this sick tendency, then the answer to age-old questions such as "Why are women so fucked up?" begins to fall into place.

Of course there's value in demanding what doesn't exist or, at least, is exceedingly unlikely. By demanding men meet the standard of some grotesque of unlikely contradictions and razor-thin conditionals that probably can't exist in the real world, it serves to devalue those men who actually do exist in the real world. Which is exactly the same argument made when women claim they have to meet the unrealistic standards of fashion models which, given photo-shopping, even the models themselves can't meet.

However, the argument that women have unrealistic standards imposed on them is so often repeated as to be conventional wisdom while women imposing unrealistic, even delusional standards on men, is considered, well, having standards.

What was even more fucked up was that women's posts sometimes contained nothing but a list of requirements for what kind of man they felt they deserved while revealing nothing concrete about themselves. Certainly nothing that would inspire the just-so man of their imagination, the affirmation of everything they valued in themselves, to bother answering the damned thing. These women's complete indifference to even paying lip-service to the idea of reciprocity showed their idea of a relationship was simply consisted of calling up the universe for take-out.

Very often this was the case even when they revealed that they had no real reason to value themselves so highly and were, in fact, dowdy middle-aged bitches, single mothers who considered their inadvertent pregnancy right up there with the Virgin Birth, or were just plain fat.

Now, the first and most obvious objection, is "men have requirements too".

This happens to be true, but it isn't the requirement that all women be Victoria's Secrets models, as some women claim.

Men's requirements can be boiled down to more or less three.

That is,  a woman:

  1. Should have a pulse
  2. Not be completely bat-shit crazy, and
  3. Not be fat.

Not only are these fairly low standards, but the  first and third aren't  hard and fast rules due to the perverse nature of fetishism and even the second is pretty negotiable due to limited availability of women who can fit that particular criteria.

Still, I wouldn't have known this unless I started answering these posts. Which I did.

The reason is I didn't want to date these women. I didn't want to understand them. I didn't want to be the shoulder they cry on.

I want to be the one they complain about.

And, up to a point,  I was very successful.

 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Summary

Some of the meets and near meets as a result of my trollish Craig's List postings included

  • A woman I met for coffee whose entire conversation consisted of how we can't know anything. I of, course, wondered how she could know that. Now, when I say that was her conversation, I mean exactly that. She circled that one idea endlessly, through my drinking three cups of coffee, until she practically disappeared up her own asshole.
  • Another woman, in the same diner months later, who announced she was looking for a NSA (No Strings Attached) relationship, gave a running critique of all the men currently fucking her and her frustration that none of them met her just-so standards for dildos with a pulse. The punch line: The woman was a middle-aged, fat, dumpy, straw-haired and literally a librarian. My single comment at the end of her half hour monologue of discontent, was "Do you own or have access to a mirror?" For some inexplicable reason she just wasn't "feeling it" between us. Thank Christ.
  • A 50-year old self-described "classy" woman who, when arranging for the obligatory coffee, said she would call the next day at noon. She called at 4:20 the next day, apparently thinking she had the power to make men be at her beck and call still, and was all ticked off that I had made other plans. Then she lied about calling and leaving a voice-mail at noon, something disputed by my own phone's log, then followed it up with a voice-mail in which she treated the whole thing as something I did to her, assured me she wouldn't call me ever again, and then left another, even longer voice-mail within the hour. Then some emails. She was confused. She just didn't understand me. Obviously. Unfortunately, I didn't get to ask her something I was curious about, which was her vagina. Specifically, ripping off Gilber Gottfried, how big was it, how dry was it and how many men's lives did it claim?
  • A woman who responded to my post all chipper and slowly revealed that she was a soon-to-be-single mother whose three year-old child came first. To which I say "Good for you. Go away". That she was divorcing her alcoholic husband and sent me photos in which her appearance was so drastically different that they had to encompass a ten year period, at least. Finally she revealed that pregnancy had "destroyed her body". The pregnancy, mind you, not enough Ben and Jerry's to feed a Trident sub crew, which would have been my first guess. None of which disqualified her from getting a free dinner. What did was her insistence on time, places and the Four Seasons Restaurant which, I suspect, appeals to self-described "classy" women. Her general humorlessness and insistance that wooing her was very serious business finally lead me to cancel, after which she sent a glowing account of some other guy who took her to dinner, all of which transpired with amazing speed.

And that, kids, are the highlights. Obviously all caveats that this is Craig's List, where bottom-feeders go to die, are to be acknowledged.

What I found though, is that a sizable number of women, for whatever reason, never make it to any stage where a meeting takes place. Either the conversations peters out, or are resigned to just chat and email. A whole sub-set of women seem to exist who only want, or can only maintain, on-line pseudo-relationships.

The problem: Chat gets old fast. Letter writing is a dead art, but mostly because it was killed by  women who don't realize one writes letter after letter to people one already knows.

 

One Man's Mundane and Desperate Existence is Another Woman's Technicolor.

The thing about one woman's response was that she was up my ass almost immediately. Not to tell me I was a jerk, not to make dire predictions about my fuckless future. She immediately realized I was just fucking with people for the sake of fucking with people and decided to play me like a fucking fiddle.

I don't mind, really. The only think I mind about being played like a fiddle is when, like real fiddles, they are played badly. When it's done well it's music.

Brutal ad ;) couldn't help responding.
Anyways let's do it- a dozen e-mails.
Where should we start?

Translation: I am so onto you. So I reply, digging in with the dickishness.

We can start with the last book you've read, how many pounds you have to lose, or less-than-subtle digging into my net worth.

This goes on back and forth, approaching the dozen email limit when I get this in response to my total lie that I don't post to Craigslist a lot:

You're on enough to know the type of woman you're going to hate is 99% of the population. Perhaps you are a hopeless romantic waiting for that 1%? Maybe you love to hate. You just love arguments and women that piss you off.

But I can't imagine many women respond to an ad like that. So you must be looking for someone that caters to a certain part of you that needs the instability around.

So intriguing!

Busted. Seriously, it's not a dig, it's not lording it over, she's not really outraged, it's simply an acknowledgement of my motivations and that she knows exactly what I'm up to.

Holy shit: She's variant of the  Cannibal Troll. Practically, anyway. Not a troll, per se, but that rare and specilized predator (if that) who has the acumen to swoop down and snap a meal right out of other predator's mouths.

Not only that, but in the process I bit my tongue.

The Cannibal Troll is not to be taken lightly. The Cannibal Troll is to be respected. You can see where this is going.

Here:

Melissa: I get out of pilates at 9:30. Meet you at 10ish?
Apr.06.11-08.14.42PM

Me: 10 at Lias. Parking permitting
Apr.06.11-08.15.38PM

...

Me: Here
Apr.06.11-10.17.04PM

Melissa: What are you wearing?
Apr.06.11-10.20.19PM

Me: Red short sleeve.  Jeans. In the bar area at the round table in the back
Apr.06.11-10.20.55PM

Meliss: K. I'll be there in a few minutes. Why didn't you ask for a pic?
Apr.06.11-10.24.14PM

Me: Uh, because it's unnecessary and/or you might be scary?
Apr.06.11-10.24.55PM

Melissa: Ha wouldn't you want to know before?
Apr.06.11-10.26.06PM

Not really, it's necessary because if life is a series of disappointment, which it is, why in fuck break the chain?

"I like sunsets and long walks on the beach"

That and most women's pictures online are about as credible as the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Before the next text message, Melissa did a sort of sweep into the booth side of the table.

Now, if you were to closed caption my brain at that very moment, all you would get was a text abbreviation.

OMFG.

She was pretty. Well, actually, stunningly, darkly beautiful, really, like the anti-blonde eclipse: Long, straight dark brown, almost black,  hair that arched around the oval of her face to her shoulders. Deep semi-precious black onyx eyes that were so dark as to give the impression being much larger than they should. A wide, full-lipped mouth that almost threatened to split open horizontally into something impossibly needle-toothed like a Bunraku maiden-to-demon puppet but never did.

No, actually the piranha-mouthed thing,  that's just me and expectation.

Strike that.

Anyway: She has features universally Latin, that is, both Roman and Iberian.

Women like to ask guys what their "type" is. Which, like questions regarding whether a particular pair of jeans make their ass look fat, any guy with any sense of self-preservation or, at least, dying with dignity, should stall until he can find a convenient window and defenestrate himself. Answering it, even if he has an answer, contains no benefit whatsoever.

Besides, I have absolutely no consistency in women. My relationships include a rather dumb girl of Cyprian descent, a Filipina Valedictorian, a "full-figured" and relentlessly Irish-looking woman nine years older than me, my People's Liberation Army ex-wife and a psychotic human stick-insect of Ukrainian ancestry.

But, now sitting across that table should you mention it, I would have to say that.

Please.

She looked like what you would get from doing a mash-up of a computer-generated Latina pop singer, a woman resurrected from the pyroclastic flows of Herculaneum and, although she was apparently not Jewish, the cover of Hot Chicks of the Israeli Defense Forces.

And so, I thought "Ah, fuck".

Right there my invincible shield of assholishness was rendered completely fucking useless.

This, of course, would have major consequences. Seriously, it was all almost  enough to convince me there is a God, and He hates me.

Because, after so much assholish trolling, turning myself into a human hedgehog to keep the pain and hurt and disappointment at bay, somehow I ended up with this, with her sitting across from me. Even worse, as the conversation progressed, it was clear that she got it.

The Italian restaurant seemed oddly appropriate, as incongruent as it was to the Godfather films.

I knew how Michael Corleone felt.

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in".

Now, just before you think there's a happy ending (heh-heh) here I wish to dissuade you from that idea, pumpkin.

The music swells, "The End" appears, the lights come up and you go out the aisle  into the fresh, crisp air and to the parking lot.

Where you get mugged.

I fucked it up. Not that I dropped the asshole facade, but I just couldn't do it. And, of course my being an asshole was 99% of the attraction in the first place. In fact, I was so disarmed that later my new friend (grrr..sonuvabitch) Melissa described me as "nice", "kind" and "sweet". Game over, man, game over.

Place stake over sternum, strike with wooden mallet. Repeat as needed.

You know what this means, don't you? I get to be the guy friend. Which, come to think of it, is the bull-pen where I've been winding up throwing strikes at nothing most of my adult life. It means I get to hear about her dates, what a jerk some guy is and, ultimately, how some guy taller, richer, younger, better looking and less annoying than me bangs her until she has a vision of Jesus smoking a gold bong and spraying  jelly beans from his asshole.

So, this is my punishment.

I know: No "Game". Whatever you do, don't tell Roissy.

When that happens, when I get tagged as "nice", people make the assumption that the asshole who writes this kind of stuff is the persona and the nice guy is actually me. By the time enough time passes for the reverse to become obvious, that the nice guy is, in fact, the persona I have to adopt for day-to-day-living or spend my free time sitting in the back of a patrol car trying to gag up a secreted handcuff key, it's already too late.

Exhibit A: The following text I received just the other day:

Melissa: Want to go get manicures and pedicures together?

Me: Manicures and pedicures? Apparently I have been unsuccessful in convincing you I'm not gay.

Melissa: You wouldn't have to get polish.

Oh, yeah, this should be good.

Share

Fukushima: Rachel Maddow’s Critical Reaction

Posted on March 18, 2011

Before Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC, the pairing of him and Rachel Maddow was a study in hot and cold.

Although always backing up his position with facts, facts, more facts and, just in case some goober really didn't get it, facts, Olbermann had all the passion: He cared. He ranted. He was described as arrogant and bombastic by people who wouldn't have liked what he had to say regardless of how he said it, such as the supposedly centrist, but unfailingly right-leaning "liberals" who populate American punditry and apparently only get to be called "liberals" by virtual of their close proximity to right-wing pundits who are so authoritarian that their one sentence review of Thomas Malthus would be "A pretty good start".

That he would rub his outrage in these people's beady little eyes  like Frank Zappa's Deadly Yellow Snow was just icing.

Maddow, on the other hand has just as much a command of facts, but is always unfailingly polite, even deferential, and even to guests who come on her show and say palpably idiotic things right to her face.

In her own way she is far, far more infuriating than Olbermann could ever hope to be.

As a gay woman she would occassionally touch on  issues  that  resulted in having someone on her show who was trying to block legislation which would benefit her directly, marginalize her, or the person was just a fucking moron who would more or less call her an abomination unto God to her face.

At those moments most anyone -- and not just a snarky bastard such as myself who has been previously implicated in a plot to lure fat, right-wing idiot bloggers into an unsanctioned UFC cage fight -- would hope that she had a ball peen hammer under her desk, and that she would use it.

She never did.

If you wanted a person who could absolutely not be provoked by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, and, one assumes, therefore drive them into greater heights of head-exploding apoplexy, you'd call on Maddow.

As a self-described geek, in the days following the unfolding Fukushima disaster, Maddow has put her command of facts, her could-piss-off-the-Pope geniality and enthusiasm, and talent  for explaining things to people assumed not to be stupid, to good use.

In the following clip Maddow gives a long, detailed and entirely informative description of exactly what a nuclear reactor does and what happens when it degrades into a "meltdown":

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

The first thing worth noting is that there's nothing at all esoteric about how a nuclear reactor works. I mean, you would think it's some science-fictiony thing whereby the "power of the atom" is tapped in a really cool Star Trek Warp-Core device.

Actually, the way it works is this:  That radioactive shit is hot. You pack enough of it together and it gets really, really hot. When it gets that hot you run some water past it to make steam and drive a turbine to generate electricity.

Basically, the theory is about as high-tech in and of itself as the coil in an electric tea kettle. The difference being when your tea kettle breaks down you might trip a breaker, even have a really nice fire, perhaps even burn the house down, as opposed to turning your house into the center of a 30 kilometer exclusion zone:

 

Chernobyl Today: A Creepy Story told in Pictures

Even with control rods that can drop between the zirconium-cased pellets of radioactive fuel and impede an oh-my-fucking-god it's hot nuclear reaction, it's clear that once a nuclear power plant is up and running, what you have is a tiger by the tail.

A very, very pissed-off tiger with a very, very greasy tail.

A tiger that isn't just dangerous on its own, but has the bonus of shitting out pure danger too.

You can worry so much about that tiger, the actual nuclear reactor reacting happily away in its containment housing, that you can forget about the waste it produces, namely, "spent" nuclear fuel that is no longer good for generating electricity but is still radioactive as all hell and must be stored in ever growing stockpiles in cooling pools for decades until it becomes not radioactive enough to be shipped somewhere and dumped down a mineshaft and, hopefully, forgotten about.

Maddow goes out of her way to make the point that, while the nuclear material being used in the reactor is worrisome enough, the real screaming danger comes from those stacks upon stacks of used, but still deadly, nuclear fuel rods.

That is, Fukushima going into partial or full meltdown isn't from the live nuclear fuel being used to generate electricity, it's starting at the pools of used control rods. If the water can't circulate in those pools, heats up and begins to boil off, or if the pools themselves are compromised and the water drains off, that's where the really disastrous meltdown is most likely to begin.

In fact, it's already happened. The fire in the Fukushima plant #4 happened with that reactor shut down before the earthquake and tsunami hit, so the fire, explosion and release of radiation from the compromised containment building is entirely due to the spent rods in storage.

Nuclear power: It's scary when you don't understand it. When you do, its pants-shitting terrifying.

And this is coming from someone who could have be considered more or less an advocate of nuclear power who had been appalled by it being the only technology that could save us from oil addiction and yet, we've systematically backed away from it.

You can sort of see why.

Although there's a big difference between the causes of the accidents at Three Mile Island in the 70s, and Chernobyl in the 80s, and vastly different outcomes, the fact that there has been a major nuclear accident once a decade somewhere in the world has to give anyone pause.

The differences between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could be used to make a case for the safety of Western nuclear power. Chernobyl was a crap-tastic Soviet made plant without anything like adequate containment that, in the shortest version of the story, was fucked around with by the night shift. Three Mile Island, we are told, could have a plane flown into its containment building without a leak.

So Chernobyl was bad, sure, but when you are talking about modern third or forth generation nuclear power plants, it's apples and oranges compared to Chernobyl's crappy first-generation design.

That would never happen here.

And then along comes Fukishima to completely fuck up that comforting narrative.

Fukushima is a fully modern, up-to-date, built according to code nuclear power plant. Which means it has endemic and fairly stupid design flaws, was built as cheaply as could be gotten away with and is the bastard offspring of the company that owns and operates it and the supposed regulators who were supposedly regulating it.

As catastrophic as the March 11 earthquake and tsunami was, it did almost no damage to the Fukushima plant. What it did was cut off the power long enough for things to go fully tits-up and then, for reasons really too dumb to fathom, the back-up generators were placed by design low in a facility that was supposed to take earthquakes and tsunamis into account, where they got swamped.

All of which would be almost amusing, if you were a connoisseur of stupid, were it not for the immanent danger to thousands of people, the prospect of a huge tract of Japan being turned into a ghost town and the near certainty at this point that scores and scores of plant workers and emergency crews are going to have to die horribly (and no doubt anonymously) to prevent all of the above.

As scary, stupid and sad as all that is, Maddow does make pains to reign in hysteria by being very careful to distinguish between a nuclear meltdown in a plant like Fukushima and a nuclear explosion, which are very different things.

Way back when, before I turned to philosophy as a means to render myself loveless and jobless for the duration of my life, I majored in political science. Specifically, I was interested in the politics surrounding nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons strategy, which is the study of the lesser of evils where the lesser is still pretty damn evil. Besides, there's nothing like tracing the history of strategy from Proportional Response to Mutually Assured Destruction to realize that everyone in a position of power is either insane, or backed into a corner and completely out of their depths. As part of this I had to study how nuclear weapons were invented and the theory and practice of how they are constructed.

Making a working nuclear weapon isn't easy. Which is why the Manhattan project needed the best minds of that generation and basically all the money in the world.

Refining enough fissionable material, like the Uranium-235 used in the dead-simple bullet-type Little Boy bomb used on Hiroshima, is a pain in the ass. When you step it up to using fissionable Plutonium the physics of the thing get even tougher.

In the 70s a Princeton physics undergrad named John Aristotle Phillips was able to design, not build, a working nuclear device. But he managed this by doing a little social engineering on some poor shlub at DuPont who gave him pretty well established information on how to construct an explosive lens to make Plutonium achieve critical mass.

To make the Plutonium go boom, you need the right kind of Plutonium, the right size of Plutonium, about the size of a softball, and the right shape of Plutonium, that is, perfectly circular.

Imagine, if you will, the technical problems of making a nice, smooth ball bearing out of one of the most relentlessly toxic substances on Earth.

To get all that achieve critical mass and result in a nuclear chain reaction you have to compress it. All at once. Perfectly. Through 360 degrees.

Take a rubber stress ball and try to do that with your hands and you can see what a frustrating proposition that is.

Perfectly symmetrical compression is achieved by a configuration of explosives around the Plutonium, an explosive lens, that can quickly and uniformly compress the material just the right amount.

Think of a solid Bucky Ball made out of C-4 explosives.

If it's at all asymmetrical, or in some other way not perfect, all you get is a conventional explosion that throws around some Plutonium. In effect, a nuclear "dirty bomb".

In a meltdown on a nuclear plant the best you could hope for, if you were hoping for something that completely sucks, is the "dirty bomb" effect. Even if the fuel rods degrade into a molten mass burning its way through the water table, you are just not going to get the right kind of fissionable material, the right shape and anything like the perfect compression for a sustained chain reaction that will result in a nuclear explosion.

Not that any of that is a reason for doing a happy dance.

After watching other coverage of the disaster, where it was clear that the reporters either didn't know how a nuclear power plant works, and how it can all go terribly wrong, couldn't explain it, or just figured their audience wouldn't get it anyway or would be bored by the whole thing, makes one appreciate what  Rachel Maddow has accomplished in her last few shows covering the Fukushima disaster.

The quality and depth of her coverage, and her refusal to sell her audience short makes me wonder two things:

The first is why aren't there more people like her on American news channels.

The second is when will Comcast/MSNBC get rid of her.

Share
Filed under: News, Politics, Science 4 Comments