I Don't Get the Cocaine Thing.
I mean, I love the song. But the substance is a pathetic excuse for a recreational drug.
Someone on Twitter was just complaining about its after-effects, and the very thought made me take an antihistamine in sympathy.
I mean, I don't care how good it would supposedly make you feel: would you douche with alien-blood? Of course not: concentrated acid in the vagina = bad.
Well, then: why would you snort coke?
And, yes: I did try it once, it in 1980s. It achieved nothing. And why would it? I mean, under normal circumstances, I don't need something to bring me up. I need whatever it takes to knock me out, so I stand a chance of sleeping that night. Coke does the opposite of what a drug ought to do, while irritating one's nasal passages. Two birds with one stone: attacks a vulnerable body part while making it impossible to sleep. What is the upside supposed to be?
Okay. I'm done. For now.
(Attila the Hub: "Do you know the effect alcohol can have on the liver?"
"Yes," I respond. "But it's okay, because I gave up all other substances that are hard on the liver, like Tylenol. Also, I don't have to watch the damage occur. Also, there is no such thing as the cocaine equivalent of a nice little glass of red wine, loaded with antioxidants. The stuff has no legitimate use whatsoever."
To his credit, he did not roll his eyes before resuming reading his book.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 1 kb.
Lucky for Me
. . . that I tend to prefer antihistamines to decongestants, and that I live in a dry climate that keeps my allergies in check. I'm still on generic Claritin, and it's working just fine right now.
Pain control? I have to get that on the street, since I'm cramping up 28 days out of the month as menopause looms. And my doctor doesn't want me taking more than 10 milligrams of Ritalin a day. If I really need to get something done, therefore, I need to double up.
1
That law pisses me the hell off. I use pseudoephedrine regularly for sinus headaches and it has become an enraging hassle every time I need to pick some more up. Thankfully Daisycat does most of the shopping.
I don' t know, maybe I should talk to my doctor about a prescription. Gosh, I could have it on auto-refill and mailed to me monthly. No hassle with bringing a little card to the pharmacy window, waiting for Granny to finish her a long and confusing conversation with the pharmacy technicians about her five different drugs, then filling out my personal information on a log-book with everyone else's information out in the open for anyone to see, before receiving my **OTC** decongestant! And *THEN* worrying about whether it's been 30 days since I last picked up a couple boxes, so that I don't end up with a warrant for my arrest!
Posted by: Desert Cat at October 06, 2008 07:38 AM (6go9w)
2
But look at how it's eliminated meth use in this country . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 06, 2008 02:47 PM (TpmQk)
Time for the Premier of Another Gay Movie: Gays Gone Wild!
The Release Is This Coming Friday, 8/29!
(at the Sunset 5 in Los Angeles, or this same weekend at the Quad in NYC)
Says Jonah Blechman: "Opening weekend is important, so show your support for queer cinema and bring a friend or two...or twenty! And please join me and some of the cast in LA for Q&AÂ’s and Parties...all the info is below, including a link to purchase tickets. . . . Cheers to a new Spring Break Extravaganza!"
Here's the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFJAOFdO-s
Oh—and a few reviews:
"Â… scene-stealing powerhouse Jonah Blechman, who plays the insanely hysterical Nico, is as terrific and hilarious a comedic actor as any Jim Carey or Mike Myers!" Shotgunreviews.com
"The most hilarious gay film spoof ever made!" Gay.com
"Silly, raunchy, fun! Lotsa hot guys, making out, promiscuous sex, backstabbing, drinking, projectile vomiting, etc!." Out in Hollywood, with Greg Hernandez
• Tues., Aug 26th: The Falcon – Beige
7213 Sunset Blvd. @ Poinsettia
*Cast on Site
• Wed. Aug 27th: Hamburger MaryÂ’s – Bingo
8288 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood CA 90069
*Cast on Site
• Thur. Aug.28th: Avalon – TigerHeat
1735 Vine Street (N.of Hollywood Blvd) Hollywood
*see Perez Hilton and his Music Video in the Film
• Fri. Aug. 29th: Eleven – Fresh
8811 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069
*No Wait in Line with Ticket, Cast on Site including Brent Corrigan
• Sat. Aug. 30th: Here Lounge – Destination
696 N. Robertson Blvd (next to The Abbey)West Hollywood, CA 90069
*No Wait in Line with Ticket, Cast on Site
• Tues. Sept. 2nd: MJ's – Rim Job
2810 Hyperion Avenue, Silver Lake, CA 90027
**Cast on Site including Brent Corrigan
• Wed. Sept. 3rd: Here Lounge – Garage
696 N. Robertson Blvd (next to The Abbey) West Hollywood, CA 90069
*Cast on Site
• Thur. Sept.4th: Avalon – TigerHeat
1735 Vine Street (N.of Hollywood Blvd) Hollywood
*Cast on Site including Brent Corrigan
Credits:
Directed by Todd Stephens
Written by Todd Stephens, based on a story by Eric Eisenbrey and Todd Stephens.
1
And you are doing this free advertising because...???
Or, hey, if you got paid, there should be some disclosure somewhere, no? Even if it's just "AtH wrote the screenplay, so go watch it!"
Or am I missing some clue as it whizzes past my head? Entirely possible; a long weekend is coming up and my mind is no longer on my work...
Posted by: Gregory at August 27, 2008 04:42 PM (cjwF0)
2
What are you talking about? I've always been a real conservative. That promo for a gay film was just my attempt to get something done in a bipartisan fashion. I was reaching across the aisle to the campy comedy camp. . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 28, 2008 04:03 AM (TpmQk)
3
I cannot believe there's actually someone walking around carrying the name Blech-man. No wonder his parents called him Jonah. Only way it could have been worse is calling him Job.
Or possibly George. But that's just because I'e got a phobia to that name.
Besides, bloggers don't need to be bipartisan. Look at Kos. Ain't nobody nominating him to be POTLeftyBlogosphere...
Posted by: Gregory at September 01, 2008 11:41 PM (cjwF0)
As a friend once remarked about David Bowie, back in the 1980s, "he's a genius, and I don't know whether I want to be him, or make love to him." I sympathized with the dilemma; I really did.
And I'm not claiming that Suzi's a genius, but just look at her: the hair. The ability to scream and hold a note at the same time (I can't hold a note even when I'm not screaming; I can't hold a note if I put it on my jump drive and wear it around my neck on a thin silk ribbon).
The black leather jacket. The fact that she was doin' this back before Joan Jett was even a gleam in Kim Fowley's eye. And her body; it's just freakin' perfect.
Were We Talking About Legalizing Drugs?
Here's an argument for moving it higher on the priority list; I'm surprised I didn't think of this, but I was probably already seeing red from the Feds' infringement upon the rights of Californians, so I wasn't able to "zoom out" and look at the international picture.
The War on Drugs is even more destructive when one looks beyond the U.S. borders—and, within and without those borders, when one takes a peek at where that "black-market premium" is going:
The Taliban is able to sustain their operational pace in fighting against ISAF and the supported Kabul government because they have been able to tap into the cash flows generated by the opium/heroin production and distribution markets. Opium eradication efforts sponsored by either the Kabul government or foreign military forces pushes farmers to turn non-state actors for protection. Those non-state actors provide protection for a cash fee and temporary loyalty. The loyalty buys silence and logistical support while the cash provides weapons, corruption and a means of making credible promises.
We also know that prohibition has not been successful in eliminating drug use in the United States or other rich nations. It is a moral/political posture of luxury that may bite us in our ass as it fuels a visible insurgency in Afghanistan, potentially funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and could potentially lead to a massive failed state in Mexico with the attendant mass migration flows that would entail.
Bringing the drug market into the overt and open white market and away from the black market would be a significant blow to these insurgencies. Legalizing most narcotics and then taxing them at a high rate is a viable option. It will strengthen weak states where the United States has a strong interest for stability. This will occur by removing a significant funding stream for the guerrillas and transferring it to the state.
Fester, quoted above, was in turn riffing off of this piece from the Small Wars Journal. Read both articles, mkay?
Along with energy policy, drug legalization should be placed within the interconnected set of issues that affect national security, and shame on me for not noting that when I blogged about the "War on Drugs" earlier in the day.
1
The strange thing is that you prosecute and you say you wage war and allathat... but you don't kill 'em off. Or even threaten to kill 'em off.
Now, take Malaysia and Singapore (heck, even Indonesia). Draconian as anything. Get caught with drugs, you face a MANDATORY death sentence, preferably carried out within 3 weeks. Not to say you won't find drugs here, but you'd have to work really, really hard.
I happen to hate drugs. With a vengeance. Alcohol and caffeine I can live with. Opium, barely - and I hate it because of the Brits. All the narcotics and amphetamines and crap, I would prefer if someone actually A-Bombed the damned people who make the stuff. But on principle, I believe regulations should be relaxed for medical usage.
Point is, if you lynched every druggie distributor you came across, or threatened to (and actually did a large majority of 'em in), I'd say your War on Drugs would see a whole lot more success, Tom Clancy style.
Posted by: Gregory at August 20, 2008 02:14 AM (cjwF0)
2
Um. But if we did that, we wouldn't, like HAVE drugs around.
It is, as Benny Hill would say, like burning down the house to get a piece of toast.
No Ritalin for people with ADD? No SSRIs for people with OCD? No sleeping pills for people with Delayed Sleep Onset Syndrome? No pain killers for people with . . . pain?
No weed for cancer patients?
Come on, Gregory: let's go all the way, and outlaw antibiotics.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 20, 2008 02:32 AM (TpmQk)
3And I'm perfectly willing to use some of the savings/tax revenue to set up more clinics.
That is what I meant by harm reduction. Yeah, kinda liberal sounding to me too, but not really. Because the net effect is likely to be less government spending, lower taxes, and less government intrusion into the lives of citizens. (Not to mention actually *helping* the people who don't want to be addicted anymore.)
Which, last time I checked was a pretty conservative set of ideals. (Not that I have any illusions about most Republicans being conservative anymore these days.)
Gregory, where does that leave you on the weed? It's certainly less harmful than opium, and generally more benign than alcohol.
Posted by: Desert Cat at August 20, 2008 07:15 AM (6go9w)
Actually, I have friends who tell me that I should "get my card" because of my sleep problems, and I'd love to use something else to get off the Ambien once in a while, but that would require the Feds to stop violating California's right to legalize medical marijuana within its borders.
In the meantime, I'm not going to paint a target on my back.
Here's an idea: let's win the WoT and solve the energy crisis. Then we can concentrate on not just medical marijuana, but full decriminalization of everything short of heroin and crack—and maybe them, too. (The more we legalize, the more we can regulate, and the more street crime goes down as the prices drop. And the more we can get people into rehab if they get truly hooked, if simple using is not going to land them into our already overcrowded prisons all on its own.)
Posted by: Desert Cat at August 19, 2008 06:48 AM (6go9w)
2
Yeah--I only risk arrest by the #$^&# Feds anytime I decide to exercise it.
I should probably read *The South Was Right.* 'Cause it seems to me that the price of ending slavery in this country was to permanently damage states' rights.
You'd think that with a War on Terror going on--and the continued threat of terror in this country--they'd have better things to do than flout the will of CA voters by conducting periodic raids on our MM clinics.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 19, 2008 11:30 AM (TpmQk)
3
My solution to insomnia is L-Tryptophan.
My solution to the drug war is to sell any and all drugs from Government owned state stores, stocked only with recreational drugs grown or manufactured in the USA. We already own the farmers, let them earn a little something for the subsidies. I'm sure Merk won't object to access to this lucrative market.
Keep all the current regulations about dealing and using on the books and apply them to illicit users and dealers. Using drugs other than the GI approved product, committing a felony under the influence of any drug or DUI would result in loss of driving and second amendment privileges. Is that draconian enough?
I picture a world full of hitch hiking, sober, disarmed, college students regretting their choice of youthful rebellion and a bunch of losers standing in line at the druggy equivalent of the DMV lamenting their lost liberties.
I'm sure liberals will demand an express line for the poor, elderly and handicapable. The people who actually suffer from cancer, aids and legitimate pain will be on their own because all their needs have been met by cheap, affordable, universal heath care. They have to stand in line with the rest.
I see drug usage plummeting, nothing kills a buzz faster than government involvement.
Posted by: Sejanus at August 19, 2008 04:05 PM (y3IBO)
4
Not much of a flame war, if you ask me... even the worst ones I've ever seen on the WWW are as bad as the Usenet ones were back in the day.
Ah, those were real good times, they were...
Posted by: Gregory at August 21, 2008 02:46 AM (cjwF0)
Yes, Virginia . . .
there is such a thing as alcoholism.
With it being so overdiagnosed, and used as such a catch-all description among the twelve-step crowd for any essential element of human nature, it's easy to forget that there's a real phenomenon of addiction to alcohol.
So you could read this, or go to New Zealand or Tokyo something to remind yourself of the dangers of Demon Rum.
1
But for crying out loud, don't visit Australia. You'd be convinced that you could drink a whole bottle of Swing and nothing would happen to you*
*except you'd sing a bit louder at the pub crawl**
**so-called because while you started out upright, you'd be crawling by the end of the night.***
***never could survive more than 7 pubs and 6 pints.
Posted by: Gregory at July 10, 2008 12:16 AM (cjwF0)
2
Was I unclear? It's just that the U.S. has what is either a Puritanical fear of or a healthy respect for alcohol; so behaviors that are considered definitely over the line here seem more ambigous in Australia, N.Z., Japan, and Europe. Oh, and Canada.
I've therefore always admonished any U.S. Bowery bums who asked me, that they should not try to keep up with Asians, Kiwis, Canucks, Euros, or anyone else when it comes to drinking.
Of course, D, I never saw you and you-know-who in action . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 10, 2008 02:30 AM (1q/ac)
37 pubs and 6 pints
Crikey, mate, is that all? around here, I call that breakfast.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at July 10, 2008 06:23 AM (1hM1d)
4
Well, you know after that little session I started getting a bit woozy, so I thought I should cut myself off before I started getting really drunk. The laws on drunk driving are fairly tough over there, ya know?
And I cry foul. 3.4 litres of beer is a shitload of liquid breakfast to carry around without pissing all over yourself.
Posted by: Gregory at July 10, 2008 04:17 PM (cjwF0)
Bob Barr Sees the Light . . .
And recants his drug-warrior ethos:
For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.
Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I'll even argue that America's drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, "War on Drugs," in 1972.
America's drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.
The result of spending all of those taxpayer's dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.
While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.
It gives me hope that my brain won't get calcified when I'm his age.
1
I don't know about privatizing drug rehab programs.... Why not a government-funded system, available to everyone, that provides real treatment and diversion and recovery rather than insanely punitive measures designed to boost the prison complex and its profit margins?
Not everything government-funded is bad. And the open market is not the answer to every problem. Too often, a free market solution means that poor people get nothing, or get the McDonalds version of the solution.
McRehab is not going to be good enough, perhaps especially for the poor, those with more reason to fall into despair-induced drug use in the first place.
Every dollar spent on drug treatment, or on education, or on preventive medicine, or on literacy programs for prisoners, or on similar projects, produces a SEVENFOLD return in the form of lower recidivism, shorter parole times, lower rates of AIDS and other expensive health problems, and higher taxes paid back into the system. 7 to 1. Pretty good odds.
Let's just pay for proper rehab, instead of turning it over to some insurance beancounter's bottom line.
Posted by: Rin at June 10, 2008 04:49 PM (bSHZa)
2
The only methods I can see that would reduce drug use in the US are unacceptable from a Constitutional viewpoint.
Our criminal justice system cannot even keep criminals serving time from getting drugs. If that goal is out of reach, then keeping drugs out of anything even remotely resembling a free society is AFI (absolutely impossible).
Posted by: John at June 11, 2008 04:07 AM (iequ2)
3
Certainly there is a certain inefficiency in government programs... but that's not inherent in the concept of government programs, but in their implementation. Just as religion is often used to justify torture, oppression, and murder, but those practices are not inherent in the concept of religion.
A well-run government program, funded efficiently by taxpayers pooling their money for the good of the community, is the most effective way to get services to the bottom tiers of the society, fairly, impartially, universally.
For-profit enterprises would serve the top tiers well, obviously. Private hospitals, schools, and rehab clinics are lovely and effective.
But the corporate world has not shown much interest in taking care of the little guy. They don't provide decent wages or insurance or safe working conditions, beyond the level to which the government forces them to rise.
The very purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits while minimizing costs. How well will that serve an impoverished teen drug addict with no assets?
I'll agree all day long that government programs have had serious flaws and have produced serious frustrations in those they should have served. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for government programs to be efficient, well run, cost effective, and -- because they don't operate on a profit motive -- far superior to private services.
Medicare is an example, by the way. It runs at an overhead of something like 4%, while private insurance providers-- which have to make the CEOs and shareholders rich, and must therefore minimize outlay while jacking profits -- run at an overhead of 30+%.
Let's make government programs better, not shrink government's ability to fund programs so much that it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Posted by: Rin at June 11, 2008 09:26 AM (nHdti)
4
Rin, I wasn't suggesting that the ideal rehab programs are for-profits; I was suggesting that the idea rehab programs are sensibly run nonprofits--usually composed of those who have directly experienced the problem they are trying to solve.
I think it's much better to have members of the community controlling these efforts, rather than government bureaucrats. I agree that for charity work, the nonprofit model is more practical. Of course, a lot of the people who do this kind of outreach do in fact have some kind of religious faith, so that has to be factored in: do we fund the churches and synogogues who are back these efforts with public money? Or do we let them do their own fundraising?
Given how generous Americans are, if we keep taxes as low as possible it will keep a lot of charities/nonprofits healthy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at June 11, 2008 10:22 AM (1q/ac)
5
Run by people in the trenches, I can understand. Funded by individual choice seems more risky.
Everyone gives to the cute-baby rescue fund. How many people give to the HIV-positive hooker who needs rehab for heroin fund?
One advantage of government funding and oversight is that a program has to be equally available to all, regardless of whether s/he's nice, religious, smart, or useful to society.
If a private or religious organization will provide help indiscriminately, to all who need it, regardless of affiliation or background or personality, then I'm ok with government funding of that program. Otherwise, the government has to organize its own programs and provide services to all, even the unseemly.
The faith-based initiatives programs of the Bush administration took my tax money and gave it to programs that limited services to members of certain groups (and helped build conservative mega-churches along the way). That's not an ok way to spend my money.
Posted by: Rin at June 11, 2008 10:33 AM (nHdti)
6
"Helped build conservative mega-churches"? Source? I'd never heard that the mega-churches were linked with faith-based initiatives.
Speaking of faith, your faith in the government (and therefore, possibly, in human nature) is touching.
My argument for faith-based programs--particularly WRT problems like severe drug addictions and homelessness--is that they are often in the best position to make demands from their clients that the actual behavioral component in their problems actually change. The government cannot do that (again, as John points out, if we are assuming we want to live in a free society). Only religion (or some kind of belief system) can really make that demand.
Posted by: Attila Girl at June 11, 2008 11:01 AM (1q/ac)
7
only faith makes rehabilitation possible?
I don't think I buy that!
in an enlightened society, one in which more-or-less healthy people have access to jobs and dignity and forward movement toward happier lives, even a total athiest can be persuaded to kick his addiction and try for a better life
(with, I suppose, the threat of prison as a quiet motivator if he doesn't -- and a free society can still be one with punishments for bad behavior)
It shouldn't take a belief in God to be able to believe in or work toward a better life on earth.
Posted by: Rin at June 11, 2008 11:53 AM (bSHZa)
8
You might want to read the first third of the Alcholics Anonymous "big book," less as a sort of literal statement about the nature of addiction, but as (1) a history of one of the great American contributions to world culture (Kurt Vonnegut placed it above jazz music!); and (2) a document about the nature of human transformation; pay particular attention to the work of William James as it influenced the thinking of the Oxford Group, and the chapter "We Agnostics."
It's a quaint work, but it certainly had flashes of amazing insight.
You and I share the same goals, but I
- do NOT want the state punishing people simply for having addictions, and
- do NOT want a entity with the coercive power of the government to be in charge of anyone's attempt to transform his or her life. That is placing too much power into hands that are already powerful enough.
Talk to Jack about this--I do believe that AA was the beginning of a transformative moment in his life. The insistence that there be a "higher power" in one's life does not equate to an a belief in God qua God, but only an admission that where one's addiction is concerned, one doesn't have all the answers.
A lot of people are furious that judges send people to AA, and therefore violate the "separation of church and state." But if the state is going to have a dog in this fight, it must be by finding out what grassroots approaches are already working--and assisting them--rather than forcing change from above.
If Rational Recovery works, fine--let it have some support (places to meet, etc.). If Secular Sobriety works, fine--give it a presence, or some meetings, in a recovery house for athiests.
But the state is not, cannot, be in the business of transforming lives. Down that road lies fascism.
Posted by: Attila Girl at June 11, 2008 12:47 PM (1q/ac)
It's a MADD, MADD, MADD, MADD World . . .
We gots us an organization that's experiencing "mission creep."
I may start an organization called "Drunks Against Mothers (DAM)."
Or maybe one called "Busybodies Against Fun (BAF)." How about "Hermits Against Nearly Everyone (HANE)"? Or, "WhatEver You Are Doing Must Stop Abruptly, Right Now (WEYADMuSARN)"?
Naturally, I'm just trying to help. If we can stop just one person from being seduced by the logic of the neo-temperence forces, it will have been worth it.
1
Speaking of "Grand Theft Auto", MADD in Wisconsin is pushing a law that would allow the state to confiscate vehicles being driven by someone pulled over for DUI, in the manner of seizure by the DEA. They frighten me.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 11, 2008 09:12 AM (BvmQM)
2
That would be those who think spouses of alcoholics should be forced to live not simply in their existing miseries, but under constant threat of losing their transportation / means of earning a livelihood. That makes all the sense in the world: punish the families of alcoholics even more. Hooray!
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2008 11:19 AM (Hgnbj)
3
I've heard horror stories, too, from people who worked for companies that made Breathalyzer units as to how often that small police departments calibrate their units. And how they sterilize mouthpieces and tubing with--get this--isopropyl alcohol.
A pre-schooler could blow a 'home run' (as the police call it) after that. Funny how machines producing a lot of 'home runs' weren't allowed to be touched by the factory reps doing free calibrations. . .
Posted by: Darrell at May 11, 2008 09:01 PM (PEe1x)
4
The rubbing alcohol took me a minute, since I briefly switched into germ-phobic mode. Naturally, that's my first resort for anything I deem too germy for soap and water, or detergent.
If the item is for culinary use, I'll sometimes use inexpensive gin (surprise!).
When I was in college, I got pulled over once. I had had two glasses of wine with dinner, but if I get stopped my fundamental weirdness generally makes any municipal police officer suspicious. (The sheriff's deputies around here are more likely to "get" me.)
I refused the breathalyzer, and the urine test. I figured blood was the only really accurate test. Naturally, it came up clean.
The trick, if you're a weirdo, is not to get stopped in the first place.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2008 09:39 PM (Hgnbj)
Posted by: Darrell at May 11, 2008 09:44 PM (PEe1x)
6
Btw, I've never gotten stopped for a DUI or any variant. I just believe in science. And accuracy. And fairness.
Ever notice that since testing for parts per trillion has become possible in the last few years they are finding a lot of things in the drinking water? Of course they are! Even the meatball hogie the tech had at lunch if they're not really careful! People worry about so many silly things. Maybe someday States will set alcohol standards at PPT, and the States will wind up with everyone's cars and Al Gore will be really, really happy!
Posted by: Darrell at May 11, 2008 09:53 PM (PEe1x)
7
I think everything will be all right as long as there aren't any micro-organisms in my eyelashes.
And as long as there aren't, in my body, any molecules from either (1) anything dead, or (2) anything that any person or animal ever excreted, from the beginning of Time.
There's no place like home.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2008 10:23 PM (Hgnbj)
8
Obviously, pretending to drive drunk is a terrible crime against humanity. Just as having a sexual fantasy in which you don't imagine putting on a condom is at-risk behavior.
;-)
Posted by: Rin at May 12, 2008 09:42 AM (f8xXa)
9
These people haven't read Civilization and Its Discontents, have they?
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 12, 2008 06:52 PM (Hgnbj)
10
My favorite drunk driving story: I am Mormon, so do not drink alcohol at all. When I was in the 82d ABN division, my squadmates and I had a great thing going. I would drive, they would go out and get snockered, and they paid for all my soft-drinks. They could get loaded to the eyeballs and not have to worry about DUIs (this was in the late 70s/early 80s and so predated most of the "designated driver" movement). Now, the Fayetteville PD (Fayetteville being the town next to Fort Bragg, where the 82d is stationed) had this habit of stopping ALL the cars traveling on the road from Fayetteville to Ft. Bragg, and doing breath checks. This was clearly unconstitutional, but given that all the people they pulled over were drunk, they could always say "they were driving funny" and it was hard to argue with them.
I got pulled over one time, stone cold sober at 2:30 in the morning after the bars were closed. Everyone else is the car was completely sloshed (no open containers, though, that was part of the deal). The cop tells me I was "driving funny." I told him I had had nothing to drink. He didn't believe me.
He has me get out and touch my nose with one hand while holding the other out. I succeeded. I told him I had not been drinking. He had me keep doing stupid things, UNABLE to believe that I wasn't drunk. Finally, I lost my temper and started hopping up and down alternately on my left and right legs, touching my nose alternately with my left and right hands, singing "The Star Spangled Banner" at the top of my lungs. After the first verse, I asked the policeman if I needed to do any more. He seemed highly disgruntled that he could not arrest me for something, particularly with three friends in the car joining in highly off-key (and laughing at the cop). I suspect he would have liked to rough me up a bit for being "sassy", but it would be his word against 4, and _I_ was completely sober, which would have a tendency to make people wonder what was going on.
We made it back to base all right, and for some reason, I was never pulled over again after that...
David
Posted by: David at May 12, 2008 09:48 PM (AoSNx)
11
My coordination and balance are so bad that I just can't handle those field sobriety tests--even stone cold sober.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 13, 2008 06:16 AM (Hgnbj)
12
Even if you could star in Cirque du Soleil, you might 'fail' those subjective tests. The decision is made within ten seconds of talking with you.
I always take precautions when having a sexual fantasy. I have too many imaginary friends already.
Posted by: Darrell at May 13, 2008 01:45 PM (58jFo)
If having illegal narcotics in your post-high school learning environment "greatly diminishe[s]" your chances at success, then California has been doomed to failure since what, 1959? Somehow the state, and its college graduates, manage to muddle through.
More seriously, I always wonder what happens to these guys who are arrested in their early 20s for meeting a sliver of the insatiable undergraduate demand for pot-smoking. I was never any dealer, nor much of a user, but I've known and worked with quite a few perfectly successful people who dealt drugs in college.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
More on the Very Important "Are Three-Ways Gay?" Issue
Over at Just Barking Mad:
As long as there is female anatomy separating the guys there is nothing gay going on. Some will parse it to mean as long as the men are at opposite ends of the female; but thatÂ’s a constructionist viewpoint.
These rules are traditional from coast to coast. Now some may argue that the First Rule of Female-Male-Female isn’t biblical. But I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where it says that “woman shouldn’t lay with woman . . . ”
This leads him (the writer is male, if I know my sexes—and, ahem, I do) to a conclusion that some will find quite plausible, and some will find nearly as blasphemous as my initial suspicious misunderstanding of the "Ceiling Cat."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
The Male Heterosexual Kink Scale.
So. What are the most common male heterosexual fantasies?
How would you rank these on the pedestrian-to-kinky scale?
a) touching a female breast;
b) touching and otherwise interacting with female genitalia;
c) being in one bed with two women at the same time;
d) fishnet stockings;
e) knee-high boots;
f) watching a woman pleasure herself;
g) sucking from the nipple of a lactating woman;
h) being tied up or otherwise dominated by a woman;
i) watching a woman pee;
j) fucking a girl in the ass;
k) a great manicure on pretty feet—to be examined up close, or possibly with your tongue;
l) the idea of being with a woman because she is very overweight;
m) being with a woman because she has had children, or because she is in her forties and fifties;
n) being with a women because she is past retirement age;
o) stimulation of the male prostate gland.
UPDATE: I've had a request that participants in this very scientifical survey actually use the names of the acts, rather than the letters I've assigned. This will (1) allow discussion of such matters as penetration of the male anus by a woman (using whatever works)—which I forgot to list [now added: see o]—and (2) participation in the discussion by non-engineers.
UPDATE 2: Martin sends the following feedback regarding what's "normal" versus "kinky":
Just one of countless false dichotomies we face every day. Indeed, one could ask a few thousand randomly chosen people to rank acts on a some arbitrary numerical scale, and somehow average the responses.
But the bigger question is wondering what possible use could come from that data.
Which brings us to Martin's third rule of measurement: Do not gather data until after you have decided how you are going to use it.
I can see why that would work for a mathematician—after all, those guys tend to travel light. I'm not sure it would be the correct attitude for a scientist, though, since it would pretty much knock out all basic research in one fell swoop.
Posted by: Hog Beatty at January 15, 2008 09:02 PM (wksJa)
3
So, Hog--which items on the list hit your buttons?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 15, 2008 09:06 PM (SXBHu)
4
Reverse j and k, and divorce "because she has children" from "because she is forty or fifty" and you pretty much have my life story up to the age of thirty-four. Glad you reproduced the short list. I wouldn't want to cop to anything embarrassing in a place where every byte lasts an eternity.
Posted by: Darrell at January 15, 2008 09:38 PM (VtVMz)
5
kinky list:
c (i think it would be fun, but I think it would be fun because it's kinky)
g
h (a little light wrestling with a strong woman rocks! very kinky and quite the turn on, no b&d for me, though)
i, j (i would guess most people would find i and j pretty pedestrian though)
n
Posted by: Frank Wardley at January 15, 2008 11:15 PM (XmFK6)
6
a, b, c - yawn
d,e, f - yummy
g, j, k, h - whatevah!
i, l, n - ewwwwww!
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 16, 2008 06:32 AM (1hM1d)
7
So, what's "kinky"?
Really, not trying to be pedantic, but "kinky" can mean "I think that activity is weird" to "I think that activity is uncommon," which are somewhat different things.
Posted by: Christophe at January 16, 2008 07:18 AM (td8Qe)
8
Answering the question as, "Which activities/fantasies are the most popular among heterosexual men?", I'd rank them as:
b a c f d h j e k i g i m n
In order of most to least common. Of course, I'm a merchant, not a therapist, so I almost certainly have a slightly skewed view. Then again, who doesn't?
Posted by: Christophe at January 16, 2008 07:22 AM (td8Qe)
9
This emerged from an argument with a male het friend who casually tossed out that breast milk was a terribly common fantasy. I had thought it was a bit on the exotic side.
I figured you'd know, if anyone did.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 16, 2008 07:35 AM (SXBHu)
10
My usual way of judging how common a fantasy is among het men is, "How much porn is there that features it?" Of course, that is somewhat biased by the number of performers who exhibit the fetish characteristic and are interested in performing...
Posted by: Christophe at January 16, 2008 07:39 AM (td8Qe)
11
Well. to a normal male consumer of porn there is probably a sampling error--less so with you, given what you do for a living.
Of course, there are certain types of things I haven't seen offered through Blowfish--bestiality and the like. I'm sure there are legal issues involved, there, though.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 16, 2008 08:14 AM (SXBHu)
12
Nothing about having the gal dress up in a wonder woman outfit, tie you up with the lasso and try to shove her invisible plane up your arse?
Not that I would be into that or anything.
Drew Carey
. . . on medical marijuana, and why the Feds should chill in Cali.
Me—I'm finishing a Cohiba. A real, Cuban Cohiba. (Hey: why is Cuba any different from China? Give 'em enough rope—er, hemp, whatever—and they'll build something useful with it.)
I bought my mother a senior steak with the salad bar option at the Sizzler right outside Inglewood. Our personal Sizzler. We talked about Nebraska, of course. Afterward we went back and chatted until the dog calmed down. I showed the mom how to use her new digital camera, and then proceeded to head on home. I wanted a smoke, however, on the way back to the Pasadena area.
"So, where's your cigar cutter?" I asked.
"My what?
I lopped off the end of the Cohiba with one of her kitchen knives, and smoked it on the way back. I kept relighting it, but you know how cigars are. The last couple of inches get wet and weird and difficult to re-light. So I'm going to bed, hoping the drapes and my clothes and my car don't stink too much when I wake up in the morning.
I mean, it all good fun, until I have to do that extra load of laundry to exorcise that wet, doglike, smokey smell out of all my clothes.
It was worth it, though.
And, unlike the case with medical marijuana, it would have been easy to talk my way out of it if I'd been stopped.
1
Don't forget to change your clock tonight, after your smoke.
I would be surprised if you weren't strip searched in Cali for any smoking related activity. The cops probably couldn't make it through all that traffic to respond to the citizens' cell calls of a smoker in a car. Or your home. Or maybe you lucked out due to all the residual brush-fire smoke in the air.
Posted by: Darrell at November 03, 2007 10:53 AM (oi8LS)
1
So, Reality is for those too weak to handle drugs, no?
FWIW, I followed the link back to the Slate article, which
briefly maligns alcohol drinkers...
-Bob
Posted by: Bob at October 17, 2007 07:38 PM (k94s3)
The ailing White House press secretary and amateur rock musician got a special get-well gift this week: a guitar signed by Roger Daltrey (The Who), Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) and Paul Stanley (Kiss). It was presented to him by David Fishof, creator of Rock 'n Roll Fantasy Camp, which Snow attended last year.
H/t: The Cotillion gals (we stopped talking about sex for a moment, and I found out about this cool story).
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.
