The Brazillian Wax Issue

New Jersey was considering a law to ban brazilian waxing in the state. They have since scrapped the idea. But it does provide me with a nice chance to address this controversial issue.

For those of you who are not familiar with this issue, there are basically two sides: those who believe waxing should be banned (the "pro-pubes" side), and those who believe in a woman's right to modify her own body hair (the "pro-sphinx" side).

Traditionally, it is the conservative, religious types who believe waxing ought to be outlawed, often with exceptions for "health of the woman" concerns. They often cite various Bible verses supporting their positions that waxing is immoral and dangerous, like Isaiah 3:17:

Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

And Lamentations 1:8

Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward.

And their favorite, 1 Timothy 5:11

But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

Though in that last case, I don't think the author is using the word "wax" in the same context.

There are many others versus waiting to be taken out of context. Although I'm not religious, I do tend to agree with the anti-waxing crowd. New Jersey wanted to ban brazilian waxing because two women were injured, and we just can't abide that. We need to live in a world that is perfectly, 100%, guaranteed safe. It's for the children.

Although, I tend to distance myself from the anti-waxing side of the issue because anti-wax extremists have been known to bomb salons.

In one case, several people were injured in the bombing, and one cosmetologist was killed. While tragic, though, you have to consider how many waxings that cosmetologist might have performed during her (probably "her") career. Hundreds? Thousands? How many women might have gotten an infection? At least one. And that's one too many.

On the other hand, if New Jersey banned waxing, that would just drive it into the black market. And I think we can all agree that that's the last thing we need: back-alley waxing salons, probably run by pimps.

I can already hear your objections: "But Daniel, why can't the women just go to neighboring states to get their waxes?"

Well, that's possible. But too many women getting waxes are minors, so they would have to get parental permission. But that could be dangerous in the case of abusive parents. And in any case, laws like this spread. It's just a matter of time before Pennsylvania and New York have similar bans in place.

Either way, New Jersey has reconsidered its consideration. But the debate isn't over. The issue is still divisive. And in this time of wars and disease and economic armageddon, I think it's important that we remember to focus on the truly trivial things like this.

From abclocal.go.com:

"It's a woman's body. If she wants to get it completely waxed then that's up to her, it's her choice to do that, so I don't know why it would be illegal," said Carol Betting of Cherry Hill.

Because it's unimportant, that's why.

How To Kill Guns In America

The United States military is no longer going to sell the used brass to civilian bullet manufacturers. This has caused the supply of ammunition to plummet. Add to that a general "bank run"-like panic of people buying guns and ammo because of Comrade Barack's new anti-gun administration. So increased demand and plummeting supply. That makes for a huge spike in ammunition prices.

But the Dems are going about this all wrong. Increased demand means increased profit means increased motivation for more manufacturers to get into the game. Sure, you can try to regulate it, but that's just like throwing a boulder into a river. The water of the free market will just navigate around it somehow. It always does.

However, it occurs to me that the reason the Great Depression lasted so long was mostly because of price controls (and its cousin, wage controls). If the Dems really want to kill guns in America, price controls. Don't try to make bullets expensive.

For example, right now .30-06 ammo is $1.20 per round. Two years ago, it was $0.20/round. It's six times more expensive now. If a manufacturer can make a profit selling a .30-06 round at 20¢, imagine the profit margin when they can sell it at $1.20.

No, price controls. All bullets, regardless of caliber, must cost no more than, say, 35¢/round. As always, when price controls are enacted, shortages result. Do the same thing with guns. No gun can cost more than, say, $500 (except Mosin-Nagant, which shouldn't cost more than $35 :-) This will effectively kill guns in America because there will be no profit motive to manufacture and sell them, regardless of demand and 2nd Amendment, and all that.

(On the other hand, that will affect the law enforcement agencies and military, too, but who cares. They won't need guns if no one else has guns.)

Just trying to help the cause of tyranny. Seems to be the thing to do these days, and I'm nothing if not a joiner!

The Stripper Tax

They tax food. They tax shelter. And now they're taxing love. From the New York Post, "Stripper Tax Is Hard To 'Bare'":

By BRENDAN SCOTT

ALBANY - Call it an un-cover charge.

A Brooklyn assemblyman introduced a bill yesterday that would require patrons to pay the state $10 every time they visit a strip club or topless joint.

Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, said the flesh fee could raise as much as $500 million for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual abuse and child prostitution.

States have increasingly turned to the adult-entertainment industry to help close budget gaps in recent years.

Texas lawmakers are fighting to save a similar $5 "pole tax," which was struck down as unconstitutional by a state judge.

Gov. Paterson, facing a $14 billion budget deficit, has proposed a tax on Internet downloads that would also apply to Web porn.

"The bottom line is, we have to protect people who have been victimized by unscrupulous individuals, and we cannot continue, especially in this economy, to have government pay for everything," Ortiz said.

That last line is just unbelievable. "[W]e cannot continue [...] to have government pay for everything". Did government suddenly turn into mommy and daddy with deep pockets paying for college and rent? In fact, government doesn't pay for anything because:

Everything the state says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.

Nietzsche wrote that, or so Google tells me, and he's a big name, so you know it must be accurate.

But I don't really want to get into any philosophical discussions today. I just wanted to express my outrage at a pole tax. I mean, can't our culture have something sacred? Are we going to allow the state to get its hands into everything? Maybe the bouncers will slap the iron fist away.

I like that the Texas courts ruled it unconstitutional. The Iraq War, the Drug War, gun registration and permits—all those are just fine. But tax a stripper, and woah, violating the constitution.

I have a feeling the Texan judges might be patrons of certain establishments that would have otherwise been affected by that tax.

You know the state taxes illegal drug transactions? I wonder if there are many gangsters reporting their drug deals on their 1040s. I'll bet H&R Block has a specialist on staff for just such an occasion. They can probably deduct a lot as "business expenses".

In many cities and other jurisdictions in America, a person has to report to the police station before he commits a crime. I have a feeling that such laws aren't intended to actually be followed as they are to just have more to throw at someone.

Self-righteous prosecutor: "Your Honor, the defendant is accused of raping and murdering 17 kids, and he didn't report it to the police station prior to the events!"

Gallery: "*gasp*"

Jury: "*gasp*"

Judge: "Order, order!"

Reporter outside: "It was complete pandaemonium in the court house today when the prosecution alleged that the defendant failed to report his crimes to the police station before committing them."

Later, in some leather and mahogany-covered office somewhere:

Chief of staff: "Senator, we're getting deluged with emails and phone calls about the Smith Trial."

Senator: "Remind me again."

CoS: "Smith was convicted for failing to report his crimes to the police prior to committing them."

Senator: *grasping his chest and downing a finger of scotch* "What is our Christian society coming to? It's all that MTV and Grand Theft Auto these kids are playing."

Later, in New York City:

S/RES/1875 (2009):

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions regarding a failure for criminals to report their crimes prior to the act,

Reaffirming that such actions are like totally bogus,

Emphasizing that that's not cool, dude,

Underlining its commitment to law and order,

Welcoming this chance to further steal national sovereignty and personal freedoms,

Acting under the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Reaffirms that we are totally not down with that, man,



2. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Reporter: "With the United Nations still debating the matter, Russia and China have allied in their firm commitment against what they are referring to as 'decadent Western capitalism'."

Much later, in a ditch in Arkansas:

Reporter: "I'm here with the 13th Mechanized. The war against the Chinese is going poorly for us. Texarkana is the last bastion of Freedom on the North American continent, thanks in large part to the impressive number of unregistered guns and ammunition buried in backyards. But it may not be enough. We keep shooting the reds, but they keep sending more over here. The lieutenant informs me that the Chinese tanks are only miles down the road now. There is nothing standing between us and them. This is the last stand for freedom. At a time like this, I can't help but recall that this all started with the Smith Trial and that heinous man's failure to report his crimes prior to committing them. If he had just reported them—what was that? What was that? I'm hearing the reports of Arkansas artillery. The lieutenant is on the radio! The reds are just over the hill. They're coming! They're—

*end of recording*

###

You see what failing to observe the rule of law can do? You who think it's okay to drive 35 in a 30 or smoke pot on the weekends or carry a gun without asking permssion—it is you who will be the ultimate downfall of civilization.

Which leads nicely back to my point, if I can be said to actually have one in this post.

In the original article, Ortiz said:

The bottom line is, we have to protect people who have been victimized by unscrupulous individuals

To which I can only say:

Hello, pot. My name is kettle.

Dialogus Denialium

Hey, m—, I've been thinking. Wanted to run some stuff by you. Remember that Facebook status line I posted recently?

'Daniel notes that you can't spell "Daniel" without "denial".'? That one?

Yeah. I've been thinking on that, and it occurs to me that there's a lot of philosophical and psychological implications in that statement.

Here we go.

Oh hush. Like any good philosophical discussion, we must first define terms. In this case, the most nebulous term is "denial". What is "denial"?

A river in Egypt?

Oh hush. What does the dictionary say?

de·ni·al (dĭ-nī'əl)
n.

1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.


2. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.


3. Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.


4. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.


5. Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.


6. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.


7. Abstinence; self-denial

Yeah, it seems we have three main definitions to work with: refusing the truth of a factual statement; refusing the existence of a belief; and abstinence or self-denial. All three of which I believe in this context can deal with, say, emotional states. "I am happy" is a factual statement that can be denied. It is a belief that I can refuse to hold. Or it is an emotional state I can refuse myself.

Given that, we have to define emotions. What are emotions.

A feeling or mental state effected by thoughts and events.

Is that what the dictionary says?

No, that's my own definition.

Ah, very nice. But I disagree with it. It seems to me that all emotions are based on hormones. I base this assertion not on any factual evidence I have, but simply logic and personal experience. For example, recently I've been toying around with this idea. The other night, I thought about this idea and I nearly burst into tears. The next morning, I thought about it, and I was excited and motivated. Later in the afternoon, it frustrated and upset me. Each time I thought about it, I was in a different physical state: exhausted from a long day, energized from a nice night's sleep and filled with a good breakfast, etc.

Couldn't you also say that the thoughts and processing you did about the idea influenced your state of mind from one session to the next?

Yeah, that's true. And if that was the totality of my case, I could readily agree with you. But this happens a lot to me. When I was a kid, naturally my perspective on time was skewed and emotions were not temporary states but permanent ones. As I got older, I began to realize that emotions pass with time and will return with time. It's just a natural course of our circadian rhythms and such.

But that's an argument from personal anecdote. It holds no logical validity.

That's true if I was going to use it as a premise in a logical syllogism, or if it was the basis of a philosophical theory. But I'm using it as the basis of a philosophical hypothesis, for which personal anecdote is perfectly valid.

Go on.

Well, let's talk more about emotions and the brain. What is the brain, on a fundamental level.

A mass of biological matter engaged in processing various chemical and physical processes.

Right, and what are emotions?

The brain's interpretation of various chemical and physical processes.

Right. So if emotions are basically just programs on a chemical computer, it would stand to reason that external chemical stimuli would affect the results of the program, right?

I don't know. It sounds like you're in denial about your emotions.

Oh hush.

You know, if you keep telling me to hush, I might just do it. And then where will you be.

Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, m—.

Going back to the original topic of this discussion, which definition of "denial" did you mean when you wrote that "you can't spell 'Daniel' without 'denial'"?

I don't know. You're my unconscious. I was hoping you'd tell me.

I'm part of your unconscious. But there are a lot of us beneath these calm waves. I've no idea which one of us put this idea into your head.

So you don't know?

No.

Well, that's a bit anti-climactic.

Oh, hush.

My First Tech Demo

This past weekend, I showed off a website I'm working on. I've never done anything quite like this before, showing off a new technology. The site is still in its alpha stage, so the paint is still drying, and it shows in some places.

I was really surprised at how the convention turned out. I had no idea what to expect. I've always been on the other side of the table. So it was interesting to see things from the vendor's side.

In general, it was a positive experience. But I noticed several distinct classes of people I talked to:

• The Moochers. These people wanted the free stuff and felt obliged to waste my time by having me tell them about something they clearly didn't want to hear.



• The Geeks. These people wanted to hear all about the various technology we used on the site. And they have all kinds of brilliant suggestions about technology they're familiar with that we should employ. "Hey, you wrote this in PHP? You should try out ASP, it's like PHP but so much better because I use it and it's awesome and you should try it and let me tell you all about variable dereferencing in ASP for the next 45 minutes!" I love to hear about this kind of stuff, but that's not why I'm here. Perhaps you can save your enthusiasm for cocktail hour.



• The Overly-Enthusiastic. These people are absolutely stunned with our product and were willing to have a sex-change operation so they could have my children (this group is predominantly male).



• The Unenthused. These people want to hear my spiel, but they are woefully unresponsive. It's like talking to a brick wall. A poorly dressed, mumbling brick wall. They say that 96% of communication is non-verbal, so if you're not giving me anything but the occasional grunt, you're not giving me much to work with. If you're not interested, leave. I'm not offended.



• The Monday-Morning Quarterbacks. These people really really really like your idea, but it should be totally different. "You built a search-engine website? Nice. Can I download it and use it as mind mapping software?" Um, no. No you can't. You can however download mind mapping software and use it as mind mapping software. But generally you want to leave a search engine online and use it to search for things. That's how it works.

In general, things went very well. I had a blast talking to everyone. Even the uninterested people were useful for engendering demand. It's all about warm bodies, even the people who look like they are actively dying of boredom.

Dr. Mary Ruwart's speech at the 2009 NH Liberty Forum

I just got home from the first day of the 2009 NH Liberty Forum. There is so much cool going on, but I'll wait until the forum is over to go into that.

What I want to talk about right now is the keynote speech that Dr. Mary Ruwart gave. Dr. Ruwart is a biomedical scientist who has worked in pharmaceutical companies for decades (I assume given the context in her speech). She was around before the 1962 FDA legislation required drugs to be proven to be "safe and effective".

I'm trying to think of an awesomer word than "awesome". Really, I'd have to make one up.

I won't attempt to recreate her speech; I imagine it'll be online shortly. She went through all of the points about how drug companies operated rapidly, safely, and without patents prior to the FDA. She showed us solid evidence about how the FDA and other medical and pharmaceutical regulations are killing millions of people each year in the US alone.

And she showed us how regulations are getting worse thanks to things like CODEX, a UN attempt to regulate vitamins, which according to some statistics from Germany where these regulations are already enforced, will cause many, many, many more deaths while preventing none, and thanks to Obama's new stimulus package which will require all medical spending---public and private---to be cost effective. Translation: rationed. If you're old or infirm or otherwise not of excellent health and prognosis, you will not get health care under Obama's new plan. You will not be allowed to purchase your health care privately, domestically or abroad. You will have nowhere to go.

You will die.

As she said, this is not about sales taxes or zoning regulations or concealed carry laws. This is about your right to live.

The woman knows what she's talking about. I defy anyone to watch her speech and remain even a shred of faith in the state. If you don't become an instant anarchist after hearing her talk, you have probably committed a crime against humanity. It's that good.

She is brilliant.

I'll post a video when I find one. There were almost 1000 cameras at the speech, so I imagine I'll find it on YouTube somewhere in the near future.

I just wanted to get this bit of awesomeness down. I'll have more to report from the front lines of liberty here in the Free State as the weekend progresses.

I'm at the 2009 New Hampshire Liberty Forum

If you happen to be in Nashua, NH, stop by the Crowne Plaza Hotel and visit me at the 2009 New Hampshire Liberty Forum. I'm staffing the Alekese.com table, #17, today and tomorrow starting at 9:00 AM.

The Google Bug; or, a certain code monkey needs caffeine and sleep

We finally got the newest version of the site up and running. It looks good. It works good. We have to show it tomorrow and Saturday at a convention in Nashua.

But one thing wasn't working. The Google ads we put on the site were not showing up. I fiddled with it briefly, but I figured it was something in the Google settings that we have to flip to turn the ads on, so I ignored it.

Turns out, the ads are working just fine. I have Firefox's Adblock Plus add-on installed and turned on. Naturally, I wouldn't see the ads; they were being blocked.

Yeah.

That's a category of bug I like to call "Daniel's being a dunderhead". I wish I could say it is an uncommon variety. Alas, it tends not to be.

Showdown 2009: The Laptop versus the Deadline

On Monday, I got my new laptop in the mail.

On Friday, I have a major major major deadline at work.

These two are not compatible events. So instead I blog about my conundrum. It's a MacBook Pro. My very first Mac. An interesting change; it'll take a while for me to get used to it, I think. The last time I used an Apple computer was in elementary school computer class. I had to use that hypercard program and play Oregon Trail. I never got to Oregon. My party always got trampled by angry buffalos.

Happy Blogiversary to Me

I started this blog on February 29, 2008. Since we don't have a February 29th this year, I'm not sure if my Blogiversary is February 28 or March 1. I'll hedge my bets and post this at midnight between the two. Either way, it's time to get funky, baby!

Exactly one year ago todayish, I published my first post, titled We cannot get out. We cannot get out. They have taken the Bridge and second hall. It was a paragraph comparing this blog to the Book of Mazarbul, found by Gandalf in Moria.

The Book of Mazarbul had drama, plot, characters, beautifully written prose and poetry. This blog has none of that. It's a simple comparison.

I've published over 128 posts this year, which equals about one post every three days. I've written far more than 128 posts, but most of them remain drafts forever as I run out of time while writing them and then forget what I wanted to say when I come back to them later on. Or maybe they just sucked and I couldn't figure out a way to un-suck them. Which means that the 128 posts I published are the cream of the blogocrop. This blog does seem to be complete crop sometimes, but I enjoy it, even though the vast majority of my readers are my mom.

I've discovered a number of strategies to running a successful blog, none of which I've yet implemented:

• Be female.
  
  If a woman starts a blog, for some reason it'll be two or three orders of magnitude more successful than an equivalent blog run by a man.(The same thing goes for YouTube channels.)
  
  I can't implement being female, at least not cheaply. I could fake it, but probably not convincingly. Unless I read more blogs authored by women (assuming those authors are not faking it, too).



• Be famous
  
  Famous people all seem to have blogs these days. But famous people don't have anything interesting to say. This is partially because famous people don't blog about the topic for which they are famous, usually. They write books about those topics. They blog about their personal lives, which are just as boring as yours. But it won't stop you from reading about it.
  
  The only way I'm ever going to be famous is if I commit a heinous crime. But then Son of Sam laws will prevent me from blogging about it, which renders the whole crime thing kind of pointless.
  
  Speaking of points ...



• Have a point
  
  Topics have a fan base. So if you blog half-competently about a particular topic, you're likely to attract at least some of that topic's fan base to you. I originally intended this blog to be about my adventures in recording audiobooks for LibriVox, but it turned out that, as much fun as it is, there is just not a whole lot to say about it.
  
  The only time I'll ever have a point is if someone stabs me with a hot dog fork. "That's not just a promise; that's a guarantee!"™

My sister has implemented two of these strategies for her blog, The Elephant in the Middle of the Room . She's not famous, but her shrewd implementation of the other two has caused her blog's popularity to take off and continue to rise, which may in turn allow her to complete the hat trick.

Instead of describing my blog as "woefully unpopular", I prefer to use the term "intimate". Like a dinner party with you and three of your closest friends. So to my three readers (and to all you people who stumble across this site while running a Google Image search for vampires), I thank you for joining me on my blogiversary.

Let's eat!