Sunday, November 25, 2012

Viagra killed the almost porn star

I used to do a bit in my act:

You know who I feel bad for when it comes to porn? Fluff girls. Fluff girls are women who stand off camera and perform sex acts on the male porn stars in order to get them excited for the shoot. But here's my question, why don't fluff girls just become porn stars themselves? Because think about it, the only requirement for being a porn star is that you're willing to be a porn star. The only credentials needed are a few holes in your body. And depending on the fetish, sometimes not even those...

How hideous do you have to be to be relegated to fluff girl status? When a porn director makes you a fluff girl, what he's really saying is: "Look, we're willing to put any sex act on tape...just as long as it doesn't involve you."

The bit went through a few incarnations, but I was never happy with it.

Anyway, last year I tried bringing it back with a few new tweaks. After a show a woman came up to me and explained that she worked in porn (behind the camera, I'm sad to report). She explained that my fluff girl bit was all wrong. According to her, the advent of Viagra had made fluff girls obsolete.

This led to an intriguing conversation about some of the technical aspects of porn, but no discussion of the acts themselves. And certainly no talk of me going back to her place for some porn reenactments.

I hope at my funeral they make this story part of my eulogy. It sums up my entire life. My comedy finally leads to a conversation with a woman who works in porn, only she works behind the scenes and only approached me so she could correct one of my bits. It figures that my sole run-in with the porn world would resemble an encounter with the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons (only with smaller tits).

Monday, November 19, 2012

Pimping is easy. Explaining it isn't.

Older male celebrities can pull hot, young women. And they do. All the time.

This includes male celebrities (usually pompous actors) who like to make a big showing of being male feminists. You know the type: the actors who pretend every female director is a genius and spend half of every interview bloviating about how they like being in movies with strong female characters. And if you watch the special behind-the-scenes commentary, you may even get to hear them say that the reason the flawless looking actress they're co-starring with is famous is because she has a "really sharp acting mind."

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap! Boy, I'm so glad he said that. Hollywood needs more guys like him. He just seems like a really good guy.

Then you see the 19-year-old nymphomaniac he's shacking up with and suddenly your male Cinderella and his carriage of nonsense turns into a big, hypocritical pumpkin.

No one should blame older male celebs for shacking up with young bombshells. If you're walking down the sidewalk and you see a Rolex and a Swatch side-by-side you're going to grab the Rolex and kick the Swatch into the gutter.

What's great is watching these frauds squirm when an interviewer asks them about their better half being half their age. They always try to explain it by saying, "Sure she may be young, but she's really mature and wise."

So are women your own age. You're with her because she makes Betty Boop look like Rachel Maddow, not because she has a Buddha vibe. Don't these dopes realize they're just drawing more attention to their jailbait-loving ways by pretending their girlfriends' luscious young looks are just a side note?

You'd think an actor could come up with a better excuse. At least try to spin it by changing the subject back to her mind: "Well as you know I really value a woman's mind, and women my age are just too forgetful!"

This way you can also get points for being self-deprecating.

Boy, he just seems like a really great, humble guy. Good to see fame hasn't gone to his head. Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Quotes that are actually useful

I bet at some point one of your co-workers had a daily quote calendar on his desk. You know, those calendars that deliver a brand new slice of affirmation each and every day!

For those who go paperless, your daily dose of cornball may come in the form of a daily quotation email.

Regardless of how they are delivered, what these lists of quotations normally amount to is a bunch of hokey affirmations with no absolutely no utility. Half the time they don't even make sense: White bread is just wheat bread waiting to be born!

And after spamming you with positivity, they will always insert one mildly cutting Mark Twain quote; you know, for all you affirmation-loving cynics out there!


Here are some quotes that you may not always see, and that may have some actual utility in your descent through life:

Arthur Schopenhauer:

If you want to know your true opinion of someone, watch the effect produced in you by the first sight of a letter from him.

Men are by nature merely indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies.

The two enemies of human happiness are pain and boredom.

A man can be himself only so long as he is alone.

HL Mencken:

EM Cioran:

Anyone who speaks in the name of others is always an imposter.

Oscar Wilde:

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.

A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.

An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.

There are many things that we would throw away if we were not afraid that others might pick them up.

Ambrose Bierce:

Future. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured.

Bertrand Russell:

Liberty is the right to do what I like; license, the right to do what you like.

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.

Sin is geographical.

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.

Raymond Chandler:

The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be.

Murray Rothbard:

It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.


After all, life hasn't much to offer except youth, and I suppose for older people, the love of youth in others.

Often people display a curious respect for a man drunk, rather like the respect of simple races for the insane... There is something awe-inspiring in one who has lost all inhibitions..

(On preferring cash over other gifts): “It's a thing which can't be beaten anywhere, for it wants nothing at all to eat, and it takes up very little room, and it fits easily to the pocket, and it doesn't break in pieces if it happens to be dropped.”


Speak low if you speak love.


As a matter of self-preservation, a man needs good friends or ardent enemies, for the former instruct him and the latter take him to task.


No one ever teaches well who wants to teach, or governs well who wants to govern.

Hannah Arendt:

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

In order to go on living one must try to escape the death involved in perfectionism.
If you notice some overlap between some of these, perhaps it is because as the already quoted Schopenhauer said:

The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority have always done just the opposite.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Merry Holidays!

We are heading into the holiday season. Notice I didn't say Christmas. In America, everything is holiday this and season's greetings that. Christmas, Hanukkah...seldom mentioned by name.

It isn't like this everywhere. Despite being very politically correct, and probably even more totalitarian in its enforcement of PC dogma (at least for now) than the US, in the UK (still a pretty close relative of the US) people still say Christmas. Go to a UK restaurant website this time of year and you will see advertisements saying, "Book your Christmas dinner now."

This is even true in London; probably the most multicultural city in the world.

Is this because UK residents are more religious than Americans? No. In fact, the opposite is true. Regardless of which survey you view, the UK is always ranked as being more secular or atheistic than the United States.

I wonder if these two trends might be related. Perhaps because in the UK it is assumed that few people truly believe in God or G-d, the word Christ doesn't cause so much discomfort. In the US, where a lot people really, really believe, there seems to be a fear that any allowance of Christ into the conversation is a slippery slope on the road to theocracy.

Once the divine component shrinks into the background, Christmas becomes just another generic good will holiday. Maybe the "War on Christmas" will fade when Americans stop believing in Christ.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Romney should have used some of his money to buy a calculator

Today I read a line in the New York Times saying that Obama's easy win is the result of the "McGovern coalition coming of age." I would say the victory is the result of trends predating 1972.

Forty+ years of turning public schools into factories for manufacturing politically correct robots has worked. Doctrinaire egalitarianism now starts in kindergarten, not college. College is merely the honeymoon after thirteen years of egalitarian courtship. Today even cultural conservatives unthinkingly use the language their opponents have prescribed for them.

Why haven't conservatives won a lasting battle in thirty+ years? Under Bush II, when supposed conservatives had all three government branches, the government expanded dramatically. The clock was hardly “turned back.” Why?

Because the war of ideas was lost a very long time ago, through the children. The very premise of even nominal conservative government could only be upheld so long as there were enough Americans with a less jaundiced view of pre-sixties America to keep voting to preserve what was left of it. They are now dead or outnumbered.

Home schoolers comprise a very small sliver of the population, and they are viewed with some suspicion (even by some conservatives). The vast majority attend public schools, where the war of ideas is long over. Yet conservatives continue to pat themselves on the back each time some minuscule home school "victory" happens somewhere. And they complain about liberals being unable to do math...
The conservative platform as it now exists can't be effectively transmitted to children. Vague lines like "class warfare" and "We're on the road to socialism!!!" aren't ideas, and certainly have no resonance with kids. Liberal principles are easily converted into talking points that can be repeated and spread. Example: Climate change and its implications is an idea. Saying it doesn't exist isn't. A kid can't really make an "I don't believe in climate change" macaroni and paste mosaic for his parents' refrigerator (and if he did his teacher would flunk him).
As for entrepreneurship being "the American dream," most humans don't have the constitution to be entrepreneurs. Most people hate their boss (they see themselves as the little guy oppressed by their boss), so pinning your fortunes on a campaign that emphasizes bosses as "the backbone of America" is numerical folly. Saying "entrepreneurs built this country" makes many younger people automatically think wicked robber barons. Saying "rugged individuals built this country" makes many younger people automatically think murderous pioneers (famed "pioneer" state Colorado went to Obama). Thus, building your platform around these memes is a horrible strategy. America is a mob rule republic. Numbers matter.
Nearly all of the money and cultural influence now resides in NY, MA, DC, and CA. The most conspicuous liberals are elected there; Pelosi, Schumer, etc. These politicians roughly reflect the opinions of those who set the national agenda. This doesn't look likely to change.
The war of ideas is lost for conservatives, and with it the numerical battle. John Galt ain't gonna show up to save anybody.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Inconvenient Truth About Jealousy

Self-help books are worthless, the people who read them are hopeless, and the authors who write them are shameless.

Self-help books about relationships are the worst. Much like economics books, they espouse advice and theory while conveniently ignoring that the situations they're discussing involve human actors.

A typical one size fits all nugget from these tomes: Jealousy results from low self-esteem.

You could just as easily argue the reverse, that the reason some people don't experience jealousy is because their self-esteem is so low they don't think they deserve the person they're with. Therefore, they don't feel jealousy. It's odd that the self-help/psychobabble coven has taken this stance on jealousy. After all, every other exit sign on the self-help highway reads "You're not doing _____ because you don't think you deserve _____."

But not jealousy. For some reason that brand of self-preservation automatically signifies "low self-esteem."

What if you're just really in love and have visions of the agony you'd feel if you lost that person? It's crazy to have concerns about that? People take elaborate steps to avoid disaster in other parts of life. They buy flood insurance in areas that seldom flood. But in your love life it is a sign of low self-esteem to sometimes imagine a worst-case scenario? 

[Obviously, I'm talking about jealously in moderation. If the word jealous automatically makes you think Raging Bull, you're already too deep in the Oprah-Dr. Phil abyss to contribute to humanity and I forbid you to read further.]

Sometimes jealousy comes from being realistic. Sometimes you know your significant other could have done a lot better than you, and you don't want to lose your lucky break. That lucky break could very well be the only good thing in your life. So is it irrational to have some anxiety about losing something you were lucky to catch in the first place? If anything, by being realistic about your lover's superior appeal, you are practicing self-actualization, an exercise most self-help parrots recommend.

Let's say you're a stunning couple, a couple comprised of two knockouts...a little jealousy still makes sense. After all, if your partner is a stunner, you know that other people are going to be even more dogged and ruthless in their attempts to seduce that person (being a stunner yourself, you'll have experience with this). Knowing this is the case, is it so neurotic to be a little vigilant? When you have an Aston Martin in your garage, you take steps to protect it.

Another reason being a little suspicious doesn't necessarily mean you have low self-esteem: infidelity is on the rise. Traditional monogamy is taking a beating here in the dying West. Who is to say your mate isn't going to be a trend follower? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

William Shakespeare, who may have coined the expression "green-eyed jealousy," wrote Othello, probably the most enduring take on jealousy. It contains quotes like:

Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ.

But really, a more useful Shakespeare quote about jealousy would be:

For love, thou know'st, is full of jealousy.

That's from The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Haven't heard of it, have you? Exactly. Ironic, considering The Two Gentleman of Verona sounds like a bad self-help call-in show.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Only the Good Vote Young

When political commentators discuss voting blocs, the age of voters is often a key focus. But political commentators don't treat age blocs equally. Here are the narratives we are given:

When old people vote as a bloc, we are told it is out of fear. And the politicians who target them by demagoguing Social Security and Medicare? They are accused of cynically pandering to the fears of elderly voters.

But when young people vote as a bloc, we are told they are simply making their voices heard! It is the beauty of the political process! And the politicians who pander to them by making impossible promises about issues like education? Why, they are simply paving the way for a brighter future! No cynicism here, friends.

I think this is because the media is enamored with the narrative of the 60s youth movement; the narrative that says young people rose up as one warm and fuzzy voice to cuddle a broken nation. So whenever young people appear to be voting as a bloc again, the media always frames it as "a moment."

Funny, all we ever hear is that today's youth are stupid, lazy, ignorant of history, blah, blah, blah, but when those stupid, lazy youths rise up to force their stupidity, laziness, and ignorance of history on the rest of us via the voting booth, we're supposed to hail this as a wonderful thing.

Pandering is pandering, whether it is lying to deathbed voters about saving Medicare, or lying to young voters about making education cheaper. In either case, one generation is shifting the cost of its preferences onto another. So why does the media present one as "progress" and the other as "fear-based?"

Every move made by every politician is politics, and every promise, no matter how much faux optimism is lacquered on it, and is designed to generate votes from a specific group. Whether the target is old or young, there is always an element of fear:

"Unlike my opponent, I understand the needs of our seniors, which is why I'm going to preserve _____."

"My opponent wants to cut _____. But I know what our young people need to compete in today's global economy, which is why I'm going to invest in _____."

For some reason pandering to the fears of the young doesn't spark accusations of fear-mongering. Maybe politicians should change FDR's phrase to: "The only thing we have to fear is the AARP."