[davelj]

Marion wrote: “Dave, I understand you have to pay prostitutes, as mentioned previously, no decent woman would have you. I, on the other hand, don’t have to resort to such tactics.”

Apparently you do, Marion. How’s the search for that vaginamoney lawyer coming along?

As a point of fact, I’ve never actually directly paid for sex before (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course – I’m not ruling it out for the future), but I’ve paid for a lot of meals, gifts, vacations, etc. for women over the years (that could be interpreted as “indirect” payment for sex). Of course, if these women are considered “prostitutes” by you… and I recall from an earlier post of yours that you were complaining about a guy not treating you to a “nice dinner” (I believe it was)… wait a minute, Marion… this whole prostitute thing is starting to take an interesting turn…

[davelj]

Marion wrote: “Dave, I understand you have to pay prostitutes, as mentioned previously, no decent woman would have you. I, on the other hand, don’t have to resort to such tactics.”

Apparently you do, Marion. How’s the search for that vaginamoney lawyer coming along?

As a point of fact, I’ve never actually directly paid for sex before (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course – I’m not ruling it out for the future), but I’ve paid for a lot of meals, gifts, vacations, etc. for women over the years (that could be interpreted as “indirect” payment for sex). Of course, if these women are considered “prostitutes” by you… and I recall from an earlier post of yours that you were complaining about a guy not treating you to a “nice dinner” (I believe it was)… wait a minute, Marion… this whole prostitute thing is starting to take an interesting turn…

[davelj]

Marion wrote: “Dave, I understand you have to pay prostitutes, as mentioned previously, no decent woman would have you. I, on the other hand, don’t have to resort to such tactics.”

Apparently you do, Marion. How’s the search for that vaginamoney lawyer coming along?

As a point of fact, I’ve never actually directly paid for sex before (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course – I’m not ruling it out for the future), but I’ve paid for a lot of meals, gifts, vacations, etc. for women over the years (that could be interpreted as “indirect” payment for sex). Of course, if these women are considered “prostitutes” by you… and I recall from an earlier post of yours that you were complaining about a guy not treating you to a “nice dinner” (I believe it was)… wait a minute, Marion… this whole prostitute thing is starting to take an interesting turn…

[davelj]

Marion wrote: “Dave, I understand you have to pay prostitutes, as mentioned previously, no decent woman would have you. I, on the other hand, don’t have to resort to such tactics.”

Apparently you do, Marion. How’s the search for that vaginamoney lawyer coming along?

As a point of fact, I’ve never actually directly paid for sex before (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course – I’m not ruling it out for the future), but I’ve paid for a lot of meals, gifts, vacations, etc. for women over the years (that could be interpreted as “indirect” payment for sex). Of course, if these women are considered “prostitutes” by you… and I recall from an earlier post of yours that you were complaining about a guy not treating you to a “nice dinner” (I believe it was)… wait a minute, Marion… this whole prostitute thing is starting to take an interesting turn…

[davelj]

Marion,

“OMG!” is, like, totally not a thoughtful retort to a point someone has made. Pretend for a moment that you have critical thinking skills and provide a logical rebuttal to the point of my prior post that, in short, “having children is one of the most destructive things that a couple can do to the planet from an environmental standpoint.” Otherwise, your “OMG!” will be interpreted as, “I feel that I have to say something, but I can’t argue with your logic.” Like totally.

Since you’re wondering, I had a very normal childhood. I’d even go so far as to describe it as “happy,” as far as such things go. Among other things, I was not molested, nor did I torture small animals. For a bit more context, I was voted “Most Talented” in my high school graduating class, and was honorable mention in the categories of “Class Clown” and “Most Likely to End Up in Prison.” You can read into that what you will.

Now, it’s Friday night, Marion. Don’t you have a trick to round up?

(I have to admit I just laughed to myself when I read that last sentence again. Was that wrong?)

[davelj]

Marion,

“OMG!” is, like, totally not a thoughtful retort to a point someone has made. Pretend for a moment that you have critical thinking skills and provide a logical rebuttal to the point of my prior post that, in short, “having children is one of the most destructive things that a couple can do to the planet from an environmental standpoint.” Otherwise, your “OMG!” will be interpreted as, “I feel that I have to say something, but I can’t argue with your logic.” Like totally.

Since you’re wondering, I had a very normal childhood. I’d even go so far as to describe it as “happy,” as far as such things go. Among other things, I was not molested, nor did I torture small animals. For a bit more context, I was voted “Most Talented” in my high school graduating class, and was honorable mention in the categories of “Class Clown” and “Most Likely to End Up in Prison.” You can read into that what you will.

Now, it’s Friday night, Marion. Don’t you have a trick to round up?

(I have to admit I just laughed to myself when I read that last sentence again. Was that wrong?)

[davelj]

Marion,

“OMG!” is, like, totally not a thoughtful retort to a point someone has made. Pretend for a moment that you have critical thinking skills and provide a logical rebuttal to the point of my prior post that, in short, “having children is one of the most destructive things that a couple can do to the planet from an environmental standpoint.” Otherwise, your “OMG!” will be interpreted as, “I feel that I have to say something, but I can’t argue with your logic.” Like totally.

Since you’re wondering, I had a very normal childhood. I’d even go so far as to describe it as “happy,” as far as such things go. Among other things, I was not molested, nor did I torture small animals. For a bit more context, I was voted “Most Talented” in my high school graduating class, and was honorable mention in the categories of “Class Clown” and “Most Likely to End Up in Prison.” You can read into that what you will.

Now, it’s Friday night, Marion. Don’t you have a trick to round up?

(I have to admit I just laughed to myself when I read that last sentence again. Was that wrong?)

[davelj]

Marion,

“OMG!” is, like, totally not a thoughtful retort to a point someone has made. Pretend for a moment that you have critical thinking skills and provide a logical rebuttal to the point of my prior post that, in short, “having children is one of the most destructive things that a couple can do to the planet from an environmental standpoint.” Otherwise, your “OMG!” will be interpreted as, “I feel that I have to say something, but I can’t argue with your logic.” Like totally.

Since you’re wondering, I had a very normal childhood. I’d even go so far as to describe it as “happy,” as far as such things go. Among other things, I was not molested, nor did I torture small animals. For a bit more context, I was voted “Most Talented” in my high school graduating class, and was honorable mention in the categories of “Class Clown” and “Most Likely to End Up in Prison.” You can read into that what you will.

Now, it’s Friday night, Marion. Don’t you have a trick to round up?

(I have to admit I just laughed to myself when I read that last sentence again. Was that wrong?)

[davelj]

Marion,

“OMG!” is, like, totally not a thoughtful retort to a point someone has made. Pretend for a moment that you have critical thinking skills and provide a logical rebuttal to the point of my prior post that, in short, “having children is one of the most destructive things that a couple can do to the planet from an environmental standpoint.” Otherwise, your “OMG!” will be interpreted as, “I feel that I have to say something, but I can’t argue with your logic.” Like totally.

Since you’re wondering, I had a very normal childhood. I’d even go so far as to describe it as “happy,” as far as such things go. Among other things, I was not molested, nor did I torture small animals. For a bit more context, I was voted “Most Talented” in my high school graduating class, and was honorable mention in the categories of “Class Clown” and “Most Likely to End Up in Prison.” You can read into that what you will.

Now, it’s Friday night, Marion. Don’t you have a trick to round up?

(I have to admit I just laughed to myself when I read that last sentence again. Was that wrong?)

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

Ahhh Volcker… there was a Fed Chairman… balls of steel… didn’t give a rat’s ass what others thought of him. Just did the right thing. We’ll never see someone like him again at the helm of the Fed. It’s too political now and there’s no going back. We’re left with spineless sycophants. Precisely what we deserve. Plan accordingly.

[Author]

Posts