I scream, you scream we all scream for ice cream (and not monogamy...)

Remember how pumped you got when you heard the "Ice Cream Man" music coming from his truck as it turned down your street?

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! ICE CREAM MAN! ICE CREAM MAN!"

I was thinking, after watching another Netflix documentary, of course, about how we absolutely love variety, even arguably require it, in our society. We LOVE options, choices, alternatives... variety. We LOVE to experience new ice cream flavors, foods, cars, clothes, properties, fragrances, shoes, phones, locations, watches, make-up, movies, facebook profile pictures, gadgets, clubs, bars, etc. etc. etc. We LOVE our variety! We ARE variety! I WANT MORE AND I WANT IT DIFFERENT THAN BEFORE!

So why should we believe that the same brain obsessed with trying new things would behave any differently when experiencing sex, or deciding when to have it, and who to have it with? Why do we try to control our natural desire for variety when underwriting that critical emotional investment, the non-platonic relationship, and are so unbelievably surprised, like the sun didn't come up surprised, when our significant other gives into the same desire we saw last night at dinner when he / she asked for cheesecake mid-diet, only this piece of cheesecake came with the ability to help him / her orgasm, and it wasn't the same mate, i.e. us!

It is tough to swallow (no pun intended...), but it is fact: human beings crave variety, and that craving for "different" does not go away just because we are all "supposed" to practice monogamy in relationships. The desire to screw other people is deeply embedded in all of us. I am going to leave the law of diminishing returns out of this one, as a good friend often accuses me of being "cold-hearted" when I incorporate economics, etc. into concepts as treasured as "love", sex, etc. But bottom line is we get bored with monotony, and seeing the same person naked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again JUST. GETS. OLD. (and so do they, which doesn't help either). So naturally, like when we take the leap of faith and try something different at our restaurant, our curiosity and desire for variety kicks in, and we start fantasizing, thinking about taxing that hottie we see on our morning run, or in line at Starbucks, etc.

Monogamy may become a thing of the past. More and more people are deciding to believe in a different lifestyle, and it involves sexing with variety, forever. I think it really is a matter of whether or not you are able to let go of the benefits marriage is "supposed to" provide and invest in the belief that it is acceptable to sex with more than one person in your lifetime. People are scared of marriage, and are more interested in avoiding the heartbreak and fiscal consequences that come with divorce, where the odds favor it, than they are in spending their life wondering if their spouse is still attracted to them. Result? We all become kids again, yelling for the ice cream man, only now we are hearing the soundtrack to a good porn instead of a synthesized xylophone, and we are just as excited to try something new when "it" arrives today as we were then!

"evolution revolution" part 3

Another feature of "common evolution" theory is how the human being is "96% similar to the great ape species" (depending on whose data your referencing), based on genomic sequencing.

Damn... all that evolving for a measly additional 4%? But what a 4% it is... responsible for those few ancillary inventions, like the jet airplane, internet, skyscraper, and artificial heart, to name a few.

What I don't understand is why didn't all the apes evolve by 4%? Let's say it all started with a male and female ape, somewhere in the jungle on Earth, 10 million years ago. As they pro-create, baby apes grow up, pro-create, etc., and a colony develops, etc. All these apes stick relatively close by, interacting in meeting fundamental survival needs and working with the laws of scarcity. Now, what stimulus in that jungle, or anywhere on Earth (say a pair of apes head west for new opportunity), caused these apes to begin evolving, that isn't present today, in the same primitive environment? In other words, in order for evolution to make sense today, based on the fact that humans exist and apes still exist in their relatively "original" format relative to the human (we are clearly different; at least two apes got left behind here...), some apes evolved, some didn't. What on Earth, pre-human existence, caused "some" apes to evolve, and others to sit tight? They were all eating the same bananas, experiencing the same rain (and water matter for that matter), subject to the same weather, rocks, grass, leaves, trees, bamboo, threats, disease, dirt, mud, rivers, creeks, bugs, wind, thunderstorms, climate, etc. then that they are today. Or maybe not? Was there a threat or obvious benefit available to at least one male and one female ape that caused them to "stand up", where the rest, never subject to such, took a seat?

I firmly believe Earth has not changed "that" much, from a climate perspective, in the time evolutionists argue it has taken for apes to evolve into humans. My money is on the bet that the jungle responsible for helping grow the first male and female ape is a lot the same today as it was then. This goes for the whole global landscape. If that is the case, what stimulus then, likely present today, would cause apes to commence the evolutionary process? What needs weren't met?

4% is quite a leap in genomic growth (assuming linear or non-linear projections), and I am assuming that this 4% is what is responsible for our ascension in sophistication of lifestyle (or thanks to this extra 4%, we have constructed an economy that works quite different than competing for who gets the last banana by grunting and punching). But what set it in motion, and my God, is 4% all that separates the brain responsible for converting minerals from the soil into laptop computers from the brain responsible for converting the same minerals into launch-able excrement? Picture the world pre-human. Looks alot like a National Geographic piece. Now picture the first apes, sitting around then, like they are today, at the zoo. What caused at least one male and female to quote "stand up" then that isn't causing their grandchildren to today if the things haven't changed that much?

reverse retirement... anyone else want to join me?

So lately I've been thinking about this whole retirement thing, more specifically how I will likely spend my last years on Earth free from the burdens that come with employment, arguably the free-est time of my life, old, tired, mad, impotent, and bored.

Do I have to? 

What if we could reverse the process? What if we could spend 22 - 35 "retired", but then worked from 35 - R.I.P.? I would much rather live it up 22 - 35 and work til death than check out at 65 and rot in my Mercedes. If you think about it, in business, the older you get, the "more experience" you offer, and are subsequently more valuable, so why are we calling it at 65, when, if we kept working, we would make more money, pay more taxes, etc.? It would be a great economic breakthrough. 

Social security costs needed would plummet as a result of the drop in medical needs of those "retired" (as well as Medicare), or 22 - 35, and the older workers would keep earning more money. How much loot does a Dr. leave on the table if he retires at 65 by the time he turns 75? All that not-earned income, and the taxes it would generate, is lost. 

My God the fun we could be having right now vs. scripting cliche cover letters and creeping on Linkedin! All my retired relatives are old as shit and constantly belly aching about how bored they are all day. Put them to work! Let us enjoy our youth! 

I would love to have all the fun in the sun I could now and would welcome a working death sentence in a hot minny. I would sign up in a heartbeat. I don't want to retire at 65. I want to work so I can avoid pissing myself every afternoon after 7 stiff J. Walkers.... wait, I would just piss myself every afternoon after 7 stiff J. Walkers "retired" at 28 anyway...

:-)

the "golden ratio"... coming to a plastic surgeon near you

I remember growing up I was definitely as attracted to commercially advertised, or "popular" females, as the rest of the hormone-soaked adolescent male market, but never really understood why. Cindy Crawford, Pam Anderson, Shania Twain... us dudes all saw these epic profiles and reacted the same, regardless of how they compared to our then girlfriends, true personal tastes, etc.

No question, every day, all day, all of us hollered accordingly:

"She's freakin' hot!"

As I got older, I began to notice that, in the course of normal, everyday life, certain female faces "stood out", or caught my attention, and at first I couldn't pin point what it was about these beauties that was so damn intriguing. But, they all dug up similar emotions experienced during a Baywatch episode 6, 7 years prior. I would think...

"Why can't I stop looking at this person?"

Depending on the situation, I would have trouble forgetting a face for an amount of time abnormal relative to how long it takes to forget the average stranger's face. In other words, we pass by hundreds of faces every hour, day, week (depending on your living and work conditions), and, usually, immediately forget 100% of them. We even glance up every now and then and make direct eye contact with a total stranger, and science proves that if we saw that same person again later that day, we are not guaranteed a memory of them from earlier that day to remind us we have seen them before. They would appear a total stranger, never experienced before. We forget them in seconds. But there are those chosen 2 or 3 every year or so (for me) that STUN me, I mean really knock me back, sear my memory, and I would still think of that face the next day, week, even month. 

So I took hard mental note what it was about these gems that latched onto my conscious attention the last time I saw one, and pieced together a list of features that were unique and relatively rare compared to the "crowd" (just the first 4):

1. symmetry of the face

2. surface area of the eyes relative to the total facial real estate

3. concavity of cheeks as a result of deepened cheek bones

4. balanced smile

When I saw another masterpiece, I ran through my mental checklist, and checked each feature off as I glanced at her money-maker. Then I tested friends, identifying a gem in crowded mall, a group picture, etc., and sure as Obama's incompetence, all homey's were in! It appeared we had a Cindy, Pam, and Shania match 15 years later!

In conducting an investigation, I watched (loving Netflix!) the documentary "The Science of Sex Appeal" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1309188/) to see if my list had any relevance or merit. It turns out there is strong evidence around there being a scientific formula governing what attracts us to the opposite sex. Certain features of the face, and how they measure in proportion to other features, along with where they are placed in relation to others, with great, great precision, control to what degree we are "universally attractive". One ratio, or the "golden ratio", when applied to certain facial features, turns out to be a top quality in our Cindy's, Pam's, and Shania's, and the strange Minka Kelly look-a-like sipping a martini to my right...

Watch the documentary to learn more!

And whether you're modeling for CK and 10-10 on breaking 10s' hearts or rocking a slightly rigid jaw line / crooked smile as a result of 1.) significant dental work as an adolescent and 2.) 5 years of ear-hole crack-back block football hits like me, not to worry! It's 2012! Plastic surgeons await! 

But beware! Note the "golden ratio" relies on ultimate precision! A fraction of a millimeter exists between a successful plastic surgery and looking like the BEAST from Sandlot!

Happy Saturday!

"evolution revolution" part 2

A common argument I encounter when working to disprove the theory that humans evolved from monkeys is that all species ever existing on planet Earth evolved from the same source, or a single-cell organism, it originating in the ocean.

I think about this every time I brush my teeth, thanking the evolutionary spirit for removing the 2, 3 rows of hundreds of triangular razor blades that my great white shark ancestors realized they didn’t need once they began to walk on land, for they are saving me loads of loot on toothpaste cost by leaving me with my bicuspid and friends.

Here is the gaping hole in the key scientific equation associated with this theory.

Assuming this 100M’th great-grand daddy of a single-cell 1.) possessed the fundamental, biological properties of the current cell, and 2.) originated in the sea, then one would logically conclude that this oxygen-dependent organism derived its O2 from water, similar to a fish with gills; its respiratory system extracted oxygen from water. Without this basic physiological process, the cell would die. If you doubt that, go breathe under water, and report back regarding how your cells react.

Where the theory shifts its dependence on science to hype is when this cell “leapt from the water and onto land”, hence the first step in its evolving to live as a land-based single cell organism, etc.

I ask you to spend your Friday afternoon trying to answer this: how can a cell, whose respiratory system is completely dependent on water-based oxygen derivation, survive long enough outside its water-based environment long enough to pro-create?  How long can a “fish” survive out of water? Let’s reverse the process; how long can a monkey survive under water? Do you think that when either species is desperately seeking diffusion of its fundamental survival molecule from its blood it is thinking about growing legs or consolidating them into a fin, or pro-creating for that matter? Absolutely not. They are too busy dying.

The water-based single cell that leapt from the sea would not have enough time, even if it were on a kamikaze sex mission, to pro-create and support the evolutionary cycle, before it died. And the same goes for all his buddies who wanted to be the first to feel the sand beneath their “someday” toes. And even if it could ejaculate through whatever magical sex organ it has in the evolutionists’ fairy tales in time before calling it, the recipient of said semen would certainly die far early in the pregnancy cycle due to the same oxygen-deprivation process her one-night’er next to her experienced.

It just flat out does not make any scientific sense.

I am not saying I know where humans came from. I don’t. Nobody truly, with absolute certainly, knows, hence the constant investment of time and energy into trying to figure it out and the arguments that accompany debating the unknown. What I do know is that evolution overlooks some very fundamental scientific evidence that supports its impossibility, and that is all on which I can focus.

Did we come from God? I don’t know. But I do believe that a pretty awesome something is responsible for our bodies, and it created us separate from squawking, shit-throwing, lice-picking / eating, purple-assed apes, and even they didn’t come from Johnny single-cell on the beach, either.

act like a monkey today! because you were never, and will never be, one ("evolution revolution" part 1)

This is part 1 of my "evolution revolution" series of blogs where I will be working diligently to offer substantial evidence to eliminate all potential doubt in your mind that we, humans, evolved from apes.

You don't need to spend this year curious as to whether or not 1.) your "tail bone" once served as the structural root for your, well, monkey tail, or 2). if since last night's Discovery Channel program boasted how we "uprighters" share 98.5% of our DNA with primates, then that means your 1M'th great grandma swung from a tree (how un-lady like!).

First.

Today, when you act like a monkey, and I mean all day, hunch over like an ape, ball your fists, and swing your arms as you lunge along, like an ape, for the next, well, all day.

Let me know how your lower lumbar feel around 8:30pm tonight.

When you're icing your back, or find yourself in HR for "monkeying around" (HA!), ask yourself "why would I resist, or challenge, the natural contours of my spine when all my needs are already met standing up?"

It's the same reason apes didn't "stand up", or intentionally inflict substantial discomfort and pain to themselves through contorting their skeletal structures, including repeatedly activating the same nerve endings you did all day that you both share, and are responsible for transmitting pain signals to your brain.

They had no reason to. All stimuli required for homeostatic function in the ape kingdom can be experienced in an ape's natural skeletal state; he / she can eat, sleep, have sex, urinate, etc. just fine without contorting his / her spine, or any other skeletal system, for that matter.

Look at them today. What can't they reach or see that they need to touch or watch for survival? Nothing.

So, unless you're reading this with a throbbing sensation pulsating in your lower back, you probably decided to not lunge around hunched over all day, simply because you don't need to, and you can bet the same amount of money you put on your favorite NCAA bowl game that today your monkey buddy over in the African safari will not be working on power point standing up either.

unconditional love... it's your Gladiator armor for your 2012 love fantasy

So one of my oldest friends, a best friend, who has always shot straight as straight shootin' can get (and who I actually listen to), recommended I "tone down the aggression between the lines in some of my posts"...

"I love them, and you make great points, you just seem really angry, and that can hinder the effectiveness of your message..."


"fuck living positive - negativity spreads faster" - Lloyd Banks (and we all know he's right, so blame yourself for my blog poppin' off)


I love this friend dearly, so in honor of her name and all she stands for in my life, I am going to tone it down... just this once (love ya' tortilly)

Unconditional love. Allow me to explain.

I am asking you to start your New Year 2012 off by thinking of a person that you already tell you "love".

Go ahead. Pick one. Just one.

Now...

When you picture this person in your mind, if they were to betray your trust, stab you in the back, lie to you, hurt you, etc. etc., would you revoke their license to enjoy your love? Most likely, yes.

It's only natural; hurt me, and I no longer love you. How can you love someone who hurts you? How can you love someone who, at that point, "must not" love you? After all, if they "loved you", they wouldn't "hurt you". Right?

It's the age-old mystery anyone who ever had their heart broken struggles to solve for... well... in my experience, literally years.

BUT, NOW...

I have grown my mind around the fact that love, for it to truly work, and in its truest sense of the word, must be unconditional. In other words, if there are conditions and covenants for this mutual consideration of "love", or something like "I will agree to love you so long as you 1.) don't lie, 2.) don't cheat, 3.) don't etc. etc. etc.", it will never work, because the sheer delicacy of the emotion, and how dearly we hold it to our hearts, will always be vulnerable to harm, BECAUSE of its delicacy, and how dearly we hold it to our hearts...

It's almost virtually impossible to not experience pain after we admit our love because we all believe our love is the ultimate gift and, if he left the toilet seat up, or if she texted her ex-boyfriend "happy new year", they must not appreciate that supreme, suffocating, emotional blanket.

By the time the human psyche reaches a point where its comfortable in risking its most sincere, intense, precious pearl of vulnerability, it automatically, simultaneously goes on the look-out for anything that may harm its treasured romantic past-time...

It's like when you finally muster the courage to wear your favorite suit or dress to dinner... how much more aware are you of every crumb that breaches the artificial boundary you've set around your garment?

Love is the same! Every minute attack on your "brand new vintage Coach purse" of emotions is going to send you into a fucking volcanic tailspin!!!

So! Don't bother with the conditions... add "unconditionally" to "I love you" the next time you share your golden ticket with (insert name here). This way, you shield off any potential threats because threats can't exist if you aren't afraid of losing anything, or being hurt or harmed...

"I love you unconditionally".

I like it! It's your Gladiator armor for your 2012 love fantasy!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!?

Happy 2012 from Dallas, Texas, where I commit to love those I already love and will love "unconditionally". My heart is armor-ed up!