Corey Taylor is a Douchebag

30 09 2009

On Saturday, I went to a place called Fear Farm to see the End of Summer Scorcher. It was a day long concert with Sevendust headlining. It was 104 degrees with a completely clear sky, so I purposely didn’t get there in time to see all the bands. I walked in while Sick Puppies was playing. They have some song on the radio right now that I don’t really like, but they seemed decent live. Then, Otep took the second stage. This was my third time seeing them. They were facing the sun, the sound wasn’t great, and they only had a 30-minute set. I couldn’t hear the guitar most of the time. They’re much better headlining a dark place like the Clubhouse in Tempe. After that, Atreyu hit the main stage. I was pretty sure I didn’t like them. I was right. They suck. Next, it was back to the second stage for Shadows Fall. I’d never seen them before. They’re good live, but I just don’t get into a lot of their songs.

Five Finger Death Punch was next. I saw them at the first End of Summer Scorcher a year ago. They were great then. They went on when the sun was still up, and the crowd wasn’t insanely huge. At one point during a song I was singing along to, I swear that signer Ivan Moody saw me getting into it and pointed me out. This year it was a bit different. They were still great, but the crowd was easily ten times the size. It was nuts. The concert sold out, and this band had to have the biggest crowd of the whole show. They only played two songs from their new album, one of them being “Hard to See”, which is really pretty good. I don’t recall them playing either of the singles that were tacked onto their first album after it had been out for a while. They finished with “The Bleeding.” It was great.

Corey Taylor’s Junk Beer Kidnap Band took the stage after that. I was completely ready to be disappointed. Earlier in the week he was on the local radio station saying that it’s not metal, and that he didn’t care if anyone liked the band. He and his friends were having fun. It was very not metal. The first song they played was “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince. They did some crappy originals (that weren’t very original), a Rolling Stones cover, and the two mellowest Stone Sour singles. Toward the end they seriously played the Cheers theme song. “Where everybody knows your name”? – Yeah, that song. They finished with “Wish” by Nine Inch Nails. That was cool, but it hardly made up for the other crap. At the very end Corey yelled, “fuck you!” into the mic. No Corey, Fuck you.

Having never seen Sevendust before, I waited around for them to play, and I once I heard a few songs, I left. They seemed pretty solid live, but I’m just not that into them and I had a headache.

Nickelback Jokes

23 09 2009

Nickback walks into a bar. There’s no punch line because there’s nothing funny about ruining music.

That’s the best joke I got when I asked for Nickelback jokes. If you have any better ones, let me know.

If you liked Five Finger Death Punch’s first album…

17 09 2009

…you’ll be pretty disappointed with their new one. Some of the songs are very obviously aimed at radio play. Among the ones that aren’t, some of the songs are pretty hard, like The Way of the Fist, but much of the riffs are recycled. It’s like they’re ripping themselves off. One of the first things that really stood out when I heard their first album was the lyrics. They expressed the frustration and disgust with society that I can really relate to. 🙂 The lyrics in many of the new songs are outright bad. Cheesy. This time, it’s all about how I’m a bad-ass with a big dick and I’m going to kick your ass.

I knew this was going to happen.

The broken window fallacy and an idiot

16 09 2009

The following is a word for word excerpt for Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson:

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop.  The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone.  A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies.  After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection.  And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side.  It will make business for some glazier.  As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it.  How much does a new plate glass window cost?  Two hundred and fifty dollars?  That will be quite a sun.  After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business?  Then, of course, the thing is endless.  The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum.  The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles.  The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look.   The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion.  This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier.  The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death.  But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit.  Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury).  Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window.  Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit.  If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business.  No new “employment” has been added.  The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier.  They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor.  They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene.  They will see the new window in the next day or two.  They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made.  They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

The entire book is available here in plain text and PDF form.

It is one of my many totally unrealistic wishes that everyone in the world become familiar with this story and understand the implications for just about every government program in existence, especially the mother of all government programs – war. I bring this here because I recently read something absolutely horrible and idiotic on The Huffington Post. Thom Hartmann, who apparently has a nationally syndicated radio show, wrote a piece called Want to Stimulate the Economy? Lower the Retirement Age to 55 Now! Let’s get started:

One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).

The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.

When I read drivel like this, I immediately think that anyone that isn’t too dumb to learn how to read will recognize instantly that the author is a moron who not only shouldn’t be listened to, but who really ought to be universally scorned for insulting the English-speaking world’s collective intelligence. Then I remember how much smarter I am than the average person. Fuck. Some people are pretty dumb. Some people are going to actually buy this horseshit. They might even like it so much that they begin to look forward to reading the next stinking turd this bonehead craps out. Bad ideas like this need to be destroyed before stupid people start believing them. I shall do my best. Tell all your friends.

The first thing to address is that the claim is beyond extraordinary and should be greeted with extreme skepticism. Then we must dismiss the man as a dipshit when he paints objection as right-wing, as if right-wing people are the only folks with at least a tiny bit of sense. Finally, he claims that history is on his side. Ridiculous. Let’s see how he supports his outlandish claims:

Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.

If enough Boomers left the job market, it would even flip the current dynamic of too-many-people-chasing-too-few-jobs upside down, and create a tight labor markets. Tight labor markets drive up wages.

And as wages go up, tax revenues — which are paying for Social Security (among other things) — would increase.

The first thing he completely ignores is productivity. Many of the most productive employees in out society are over 55. The young people who would replace them would not be nearly as capable of doing the same work. There are a handful of jobs that suit the young, but of course, these are not the jobs that would be opening up. Companies and entire industries with lots of people over 55 would be in a lot of trouble. Total wages would almost certainly fall along with productivity. It would almost always be stupid to pay a 22 year-old with no experience the same wage as someone with 30+ years experience. To put it another way, it’s foolish to presume that the wages of the newly employed would match the wages of the newly retired. It’s especially stupid to conclude that total wages would increase so much as to push up tax revenue high enough to cover massively increased cost of Social Security.

I wonder if this man has looked at the numbers he’s talking about? Does he have any idea how much this would increase the cost of Social Security? If I were to take a stab, I’d guess it’d be somewhere around double the current price tag which is nothing to sneeze at.


Ah, I found state-by-state data here which show that in Arizona in 2000, there were 442,372 people aged from 55 to 64, and 465,062 were 65 and over, so the population of people eligible for Social Security retirement benefits would nearly double and increasing the benefits by just 10% would be more than enough to double the costs of the program. Now, Arizona might be an odd exception, but I seriously doubt it. Like Florida and Texas, we have more than our share of old people in this state. Can anyone take this idea seriously now? 2008 Social Security spending was $608 Billion and expected to rise rapidly in the next several years. Can anyone imagine how new tax revenues from newly employed young people could possible begin to cover this? It’s pretty much a mathematic impossibility. Yes, I understand that “tightening the labor market” would put upward pressure on wages, but that could never begin to have that great of an effect, and I further understand that a massive drop in productivity would limit the ability of many employers to pay higher wages. In fact, I would predict that several businesses would fail and we might not be much better off in terms of employment.

Moving on:

Additionally, these new-into-the-workforce people can then pay off student loans, buy new houses and cars, and otherwise drive the economy from the bottom up. Which will further increase tax revenues further strengthening the Social Security system.

Need I introduce Say’s law? Though it defies common nonsense, consumer spending does not drive an economy. It is only through production that we are able to maintain and improve our living standards, aka real income.

To further tighten the job market and drive up wages (and tax revenues), modify the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 — which tightened the labor market and reduced unemployment by establishing the 40-hour work week – to include all hours worked by a person. We could also, like in France, drop the 40-hour maximum-workweek threshold to 35 hours (used by the Mitterrand government to successfully lower unemployment and stimulate the French economy). A final step would be to emulate the rest of the developed world and require by law that every worker get at least two to four weeks a year of paid vacation — further tightening the labor market. (emphasis added)

I don’t understand what exactly the part in bold means. Anyway, I’m sure this is great news to employers and would-be employers. I would like to have a business of my own someday with employees, but the heavily restricted labor market scares me. I think I’d rather go to a country with more economic freedom. I can’t be alone in my thinking. France has been having labor issues for quite some time. Overall unemployment is a bit over %8, but unemployment among those under 25 has been more than 20% for the great majority of the last 15 years. France is a horrible model to emulate, but Thom gets even better:

In Uganda, Joseph Okwakoi gets it. He’s the president of the National Youth Council in that nation, a group that has considerable political power (and an affiliated Member of Parliament, the Central Youth Party’s Joseph Kasozi).

Earlier this month, Okwakoi called on Parliament and President Museveni to lower the age of retirement for government workers (the country’s largest employer) from the current 60 years of age to 55. This single act would instantly create about 15,000 job openings in the country, which could be filled by currently unemployed young people.

President Museveni replied that he’d consider it seriously, pointing out that, “The retirement age was actually 55 when we came but because of manpower shortage we put it at 60.” Now that the manpower shortage has eased, wages are falling, and unemployment is rising, he noted, “We shall study it.”

What Joseph Okwakoi understands is that there is a marketplace for labor. When the supply of labor exceeds demand, the price of labor (“wages”) falls. On the other hand, when the demand for labor is at or greater than the supply of labor, the price of labor – wages – increases.

Yes folks, we need to be more like Uganda where half the population earns less than $1.25 per day. Please pay special attention to the fact that the government is the largest employer.

I must admit that one of my dream jobs is to host a radio talk show and it’s severely annoying that idiots like this guy are the ones who actually have this job. I like the talk radio format, but I don’t actually know of a single host who’s currently on that I would actually like to listen to.

After Uganda, he starts talking about US labor history. I see nothing interesting until the end:

Then we can begin to bring our manufacturing jobs back home from China and the other important steps (Medicare For All and Card-Check for unionization) to restore the strength and integrity our nation and national economy once had. (emphasis added)

Once upon a time, US labor law was simply the First Amendment – free association. People were free to form and join unions as they wished or negotiate the terms of their employment on their own. Employers were free to fire workers for striking or joining unions and they were also free to make exclusive employment contracts with a single union or contract with multiple unions. Even without their modern legal privileges, unions in some industries were quite powerful. Currently, a union is formed when a majority of workers vote to create one by secret ballot and all workers are forced to join whether they want to or not. The vote is held when a certain threshold of workers sign a card indicating that they want the vote to happen. The card is not secret. There is move going on to change the law so that if a majority of workers sign a card, the union is automagically born. There is no secret ballot, meaning there is no privacy, meaning union thugs know who to blame when they don’t get the union they want. The history of organized labor in the US is filled with violence. Civilized people should be offended by this idea.

Yeah, I’m basically anti-union. Educate yourself.

Of course strippers are people

11 09 2009

Hi, Johnni K. Thank you for checking out my page. It is not my intention to offend anyone, but on this page I refuse to bite my tongue. I make generalizations. I find them useful.

I have, in fact, had a negative experience with a stripper, but that was a long time ago and is not at all what motivated my post on the matter. I do not go to strip clubs, but I have met a lot of strippers, nevertheless. I see how they behave, and I see what happens with the guys that get involved with them. It never seems to work all that well. There’s a lot to it, but the big thing I see is that girls that do that for any length of time just don’t seem to have much respect for men.

I don’t hate or even dislike these girls. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to date them.


I must address the accusation that I’m stereotyping. Yes, I do that. It’s not hateful. Most stereotypes are true. Black people really do like fried chicken. If you’re an exception to a general rule, good for you.

Also, this idea came out when I was talking to someone about giving advice to young people, particularly one’s own children. “Don’t date strippers” is what came out. It seemed obvious enough, but I encountered resistance. The men who are most likely to disagree with me seem to be the ones who didn’t know they had this option. Maybe they don’t, but that doesn’t make my advice wrong. Those most likely to agree are guys that know, have known, or have dated strippers. One guy married one. It didn’t work out.

I did once work with a guy who almost exclusively dated strippers. Before he went to prison, he was dating someone who became a stripper when he suggested it. He might be out now.

One more thing, there was this show on one of the pay cable channels called Family Business. It was a reality show staring porn star, director, and entrepreneur Adam Glasser (aka Seymour Butts) and his family who were also involved in the business. I saw an episode where Adam was trying to meet women. He was getting set up with them or finding them on the internet or something and going out on dates with them. None of them seemed all that cool with his chosen profession. He acted as if there was something wrong with their reaction, as if it was unexpected. I remember thinking about how it couldn’t be all that hard for a male porn star/director to get some strange, but that’s not what he was looking for. He was lonely and wanted a girlfriend who wasn’t in the industry. Sorry dude, that isn’t on the path you chose. Deal with it.

It should not be that unusual for anyone to shy away from a guy (or a girl) that has sex with strangers for money. Stripping might be a step or two away from that, but it can get pretty damn close.

Read this, please

9 09 2009

Several days ago, Roissy posted a bunch of excerpts from a forum for women who correspond with, fall in love with,  and marry prison inmates, guys on death row and such. It’s a rather long post, and it’s really quite amazing. Everyone should see this. It’s one thing to read about this sort of thing, but quite another to read their actual words. It’s all a bit scary and depressing.

If you think women aren’t crazy, read it. I know that it’s a minority of women that actually do this, but this fits in well with the trends that we notice. Women go for jerks, the unavailable, assholes, criminals, and when they lack any sense at all, cold-blooded murderers.

Some advice for young people

7 09 2009

For girls:

Don’t be a stripper.

For boys:

Don’t date strippers.

Hating on the pick-up artist community

2 09 2009

I don’t exactly consider myself a member of this community, but I’ve watched it for a while and learned a few things. The modern community was born on the internet. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know who really started it, but I believe it began on a usenet newsgroup. Usenet, since nobody seems know this, is an older internet protocol for message boards with all the technical sophistication of e-mail. I’ve read some of the old posts that are archived at, and they seemed to consist guys trying different things to improve their success with women and sharing the results. A lot of learning took place. Some of the guys that are making lots of money on seminars and “bootcamps” today started there.

I think the seriousness with which some guys take this stuff and the complexity of their jargon is a bit silly, and it’s crazy that people spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on books, DVD’s, seminars, and one-on-one training. However, I understand how frustrating and devastating the world can be for a man who has little to no success with women, and I know that some dudes have a bit more disposable income than I do. I know someone who once spent over a grand on a pre-internet “computer dating service” and had very limited success. George Sodini recently went on a homicidal rampage where he targeted only women after 19 years without sex. I’ve seen some pretty serious frustration in people I know. Sexless life for a man with hormones is basically a fate worse than death, so I suppose I can understand why some dudes might shell out a few bucks to remedy the situation. Still, I think it’s pretty nuts when tons of good information is available on the web for free.

The first problem with the community is that it exists outside the paradigm of equality of the sexes. The claims of feminism are rejected, even laughed at. It doesn’t say that men are better than women, but it does say, very loudly, that we are different, a lot different. This is important because it’s something that modern males don’t really seem to understand. Sure, they may have noticed that girls cry more and like the color pink more than them, but many of the most important differences are not nearly as apparent. Often, a guy with unsatisfactory success with women will blame his looks, foolishly thinking that looks are as important to women as they are to men. Without evidence to the contrary, a guy automatically assumes that the female mind works like his own. Young men are not learning this from their parents or teachers, nor do most of them learn it on their own, so the community serves a noble purpose. We are different and for acknowledging that, the community is branded as sexist.

The other problem is that it’s all about manipulating the pants off of girls through dishonest trickery. It really isn’t. Okay, there are “tricks” and there are certain bullshit games that can be played, but this is not a necessary component. A man can have  game without lying or resorting to any sort of dirty tricks. It’s not necessarily about getting laid right now either. It’s about being attractive to women. I’ve never actually seen VH1’s pick-up artist, but I have seen a trailer. If you’ve seen the losers on that show, you should understand what they’re looking for.

A little while ago, in a thread called “How to hit on girls” I posted a hidden camera video of a PUA meeting a girl on the sidewalk during the day. They were making out within 10 minutes. This sparked some hostility toward me and the PUA community.

geek_grrl said:

The PUA thing is all about manipulating very young women with low self-esteem or boulders rolling around in their skulls into sex. They advise the “neg,” a backhanded compliment (insult) to “take her off her pedestal.” And not-so-subtle techniques like touching a woman’s arm, if she withdraws, ignore her. If she responds positively, give her more attention. Seriously, all that’s missing is snausages and a whistle.

No. It’s not about young women. It’s about attractive women, which often happen to be rather young but not necessarily. Low self-esteem is not required at all. Game works on all women. Sure, there are a lot of tricks and things that will work better on the younger ones, but the basic core is universal. The infamous neg is how a guy can get a girl to question her relative value. The goal is to bring her down to his  level, so it’s really only useful on those who see themselves as being above the crowd of guys hit on them. It’s not about making her feel bad, and if he does that, he did it wrong.

And PUA’s basic teaching boils down to treating women as if they’re magical beasts guarding the kingdom of pussy. Defeat the beast, get the pussy.

Actually, this is the way guys naturally see things. PUA’s actually try to deprogram this thinking.

PUA’s “quality women” are young (early twenties), heart-achingly beautiful (they call them a 9+), have self-esteem issues, and are devastatingly naive. It’s a very specific group of women.

I see. For eons, men and boys have rated girls on the 1-10 scale. The most impressive thing a PUA can do in front of a young beta student is approach a 9 or 10 and have success. Looks are the primary thing that attract males to females, but I would not judge someone as a “quality woman” based only on looks. I can’t speak with authority on how that term is used within the community, but quality implies relationship material, which requires a lot more than looks.

Now by all means, if that is what you want, go forth and get it. I bear you no ill will, and don’t think you’re a jerk for knowing the sort of woman you want and going for it.

What bugs me about this is that you just say things like “good with women” as if we’re all the same exact thing, and not really people, but magical creatures who have to be unlocked with a magical key. PUA works with some women. It doesn’t work with all women. Same goes for that awful BS “The Rules” which is all about manipulating men (they refer to dating profiles as their “lobster traps” and completely dehumanize men in the same way. Um, “yay equality?”) It only works on a specific type of man, not all. The Rules treats men as magical beasts guarding the kingdom of the Amex platinum card.

One of the first things I understand about human females is how different they are from one another. However, the core, pick-up artistry is universal. If you

Rules Girls and PUA guys should get together and make lots of manipulative, sexist children. That would be awesome.

If recognizing the differences between the sexes is sexist, that would, in fact, be awesome. We should all be a bit more sexist.

Be honest, PUA stands for Pick Up Artist. It’s not Long-term Relationship Artist. Women are people, just as diverse in what they want and who they are as men.

Women are more diverse than men in almost every area. The art is useful and even necessary for relationships, particularly with American women. A man needs to be a certain way to get a girl and he needs to keep being that way to keep her. I don’t like that things are this way, but they are.

I just wish you’d stop referring to your “quality women” as women in general. That’s the part that makes you sound like jerks for painting us all with the same brush.

Who me? When I refer to women in general, I’m talking about women in general.

I’ll have more on this topic later.

Plenty of Fish

1 09 2009

Mark said:

I work with, their competitor. Perhaps you could share your opinion on that site as well.

Sure. That site sucks. I actually have a profile there that I made years ago. It’s very out-dated. I don’t know how to delete it. The look and feel of the site is just horrible. All thumbnails are uncropped squares, and whatever algorithm re-sizes them does a horrible job, so everyone looks like they’re fat and have bad skin. That’s not to say they aren’t fat and don’t have bad skin, but you have to go to their profile to find out. Even then, as I seem to remember, the pictures are limited to a rather small resolution so you don’t get a very good look anyway. A friend of mine met the least impressive girl I’ve ever seen him with on that site. I don’t really know how though. I can’t find anything there, including the quit button.

Oh wait, I seem to have found it. My profile is deleted. Cool.

The forums don’t look so bad, though.