Song Lyrics: “Take Me To Church” by Hozier

Take Me To Church” by Hozier

My lover’s got humor

She still giggle at a funeral

Knows everybody’s disapproval

Should’ve worshipped her sooner

If the heavens ever did speak

She’s the last true mouthpiece

Every Sunday is getting more bleak

Fresh poison each week

We were born sick, you heard them say

My church offers no absolutes

Tells me worship in the bedroom

The only heaven I’ll be sent to

Is when I’m alone with you

I was born sick, but I love you

Mend me to be well

A-men, amen, amen

Take me to church

I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your light

I’ll tell you my sins, and you can sharpen your knife

Offer me that deathless stare, good god

Let me give you my life

Take me to church

I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your light

I’ll tell you my sins, and you can sharpen your knife

Offer me that deathless stare, good god

Let me give you my life

If I’m a pagan of the good time

My lovers is sunlight

Keep the goddess on my side

See the mantle sacrifice

Drain the whole sea

It’s some shiny

Something meaty for the main course

That’s a fine looking high horse

What you got in the stable

We the lot of starving faithful

That looks tasty

That looks plenty

This is hungry work

Take me to church

I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your light

I’ll tell you my sins, and you can sharpen your knife

Offer me that deathless stare, good god

Let me give you my life

Take me to church

I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your light

I’ll tell you my sins, and you can sharpen your knife

Offer me that death-less stare, good god

Let me give you my life

Social Wetworking

MAD%20HATTERS%20TEA%20PARTY%20STAMP%20SET

Shit puppies. I just turned back on my Facebook. What the hell was I thinking? Now all that shit I write is going to show up in front of muh ex gurl and a bunch of web randoms who got added up when I was trying to rule the web last. Blocked her so she won’t be doing that shit where she’s seeing someone but wants me in her home twenty-four seven to see how long it takes before the good old days explode on us in a giant pile of drama.

Being an incredibly sexy poet is just so hard. Whine and dine with me.

facebook_pic

Just Call Me Dr. Love Cakes

The_Longer_We_Make_Love_Barry_White_wiki

Barry White’s ghost gets jealous when we talk on the phone.

He says my voice is too low and sexy for him to listen for
long without a cold shower. Maybe two.

love_doctor

Any time Dr. Love Song calls you must pick up the phone.

Ladies, you know who you are, no games now that school is in session.

Alright we have taken care of the two essential points to understand: first that I am too sexy so you can’t have it, stop asking, and second that women everywhere have to stop everything they are doing and listen to me like the words are gospel.

On to the business of the day:

Can it work for men and women to be just friends, and can a friendship survive an attempt at romance?

Oh Dr. Love Beats don’t play around so listen up while I crank that dial.

First we got sexy friends and how they don’t end up pants down with feet kicked up the second the doors closed behind them. It’s all about just what this person is to you and how you act around each other.

If you act like brother and sister, even if neither of you thinks of it like that, then no harm can come of it but keep in mind now that this means things like that person could come walking out of the bathroom in nothing but a towel, their birthday suit and a single lifestyle for both of you but you still are not on the hubba-hubba-hubba train.

Never really know something like that until you test it and it’s not recommended to test that one out wildly.

Good friends the answer is: yes. Just people you know barely well enough to call friends probably not, and if anyone is spending a lot of time away from their honey to be with someone they barely could call a “bestie” then it probably means they are in the process of checking out of the relationship but of course every situation has unique factors.

tumblr_l9n8yd1pjh1qzfgkqo1_5001

Then we have sexy, long-time friends trying to figure out if kicking the romance tree will drop poisonous snakes on our heads or maybe rain a bounty of delicious apples.

That is a very tricky one and where the romance is so easily sucked out of the room like a giant vacuum cleaner set to the no-sex-in-the-champagne-room setting just got turned on every time it comes up.

First you have to think yourself out and if the friendship gets permanently threatened in your head by something like cheating or dishonesty then this not a friend that is solid enough to consider this for.

Nobody said it was easy but adults actually manage to handle these big feelings in mature fashions, but that’s where the romance dies and rots in the corner of the room.

You can’t really take it forward with a friend without risking the friendship unless you can be sure they also share in a policy of time apart healing wounds, in so far as being civil with the next man or whatever the situation might be.

That means talking it out, which is great for couples to keep open lines of communications but is doing it ass backwards if you are trying to pitch some woo.

So the answers to today’s life questions are: yes if you’re good and close friends who know limits, and nobody ever won the love game without taking a gamble but at the same time dumb bets never break the bank.

Some parting words for the men of the audience before Dr. Love Cakes retires for the evening to my silk bedding and multiple wives.

Never met a woman yet that I had a worth talking about relationship with that didn’t try and push me away in one form or another. But if you already got that figured think on this one: don’t become that overly pushy guy or she’s going to push you right out the door one day.

When they say “space” or “time” or just ignore your fucking txts / calls then stop fucking bugging them for awhile even if that girl has you so in a twist right now.

You can man it up for a few days, don’t give me this shit about how you just had to do the million calls thing.

If she wants it and you want it and she knows it, all the stuff is as set as it gets without you there to fuel that fire like we love to do.

So go do something else for awhile before you make that poor woman break her phone against the wall.

Blah Blah Blah Blah

I don’t feel like writing anything too serious today. I’ll just keep typing into this laptop to fill up the space in my head that creeps and crawls. I have plenty to say, too much in fact. But it’s not going on the Internet. Sorry but my ever so interesting life story is not something I’ll put on here. I know all about tearing my heart out and wearing it on my sleeve for complete strangers. I’m the master of TMI (“too much information”) and I ramble as bad in conversation as I do online. But the person I am changes too fast to even keep track of anymore these days. I will say this though: for someone so young I’ve lived a rather full and complex life. Even though I’ve barely lived at all I could die with a smile on my face today, I’ve made my mark and changed cold hearts with my compassion as well as hardened hearts with my malice. I can finally view existence as something that makes sense and remembered that believing in myself is the only thing that ever made sense to me.

Adventures In Modern Marketing

The Great Internet Marketing Guru takes a few questions and concerns from his clients.

Let’s listen in:

“My internet ad campaign was a total wash. I ended up taking a bath and nobody even visited my site!”

“Did you put boobs all over it like I told you to?”

“No, I thought that was too superficial and sensationalistic.”

“And that would be why you failed. You forgot your audience is nothing but superficial and craves sensationalism.”

“So what do I now?”

“Take a picture of your penis and put it on Craigslist.”

“Okay … but what is that gonna help?”

“Nothing. I just want you to relive the shame of former roommates of mine.”

***

“I saw this ad making a claim I shouldn’t buy a product. Should I believe it?”

“Of course! Ads were created to tell you what not to buy, not what to buy. So when an ad tells you to buy something, you know it’s fake because they are trying to advertise to you. But when an ad tells you not to buy something, you know it’s real because they are not advertising to you.”

“Wait … what?”

***

“So I got all these people reading my blog about tech and travel but I want to use my blog audience to expand my business promotions as well. How can I retool my blog without loosing readers?”

“It’s easy: Dramatically announce you will be leaving the blog, probably the whole Internet, forever. Send that out and then wait a few days, then come back with some false tale of woe and then start selling hub caps and spark plugs off your blog-doohickey.”

“That really works?”

“Oh yeah, totally! People usually use it to switch from catatonic to mildly psychotic instead of non-monetized to monetized, but all blogging is pretty much the same thing.”

***

“I was thinking of opening up a singles dating service online and…”

“Get the hell out of my office.”

***

“I heard that Twitter was the new tool for marketing professionals with the hottest and latest ideas.”

“Who told you that?”

“That guy in the rabbit suit trying to give out fliers.”

***

“Someone told me you could market products on Facebook more effectively than using banner services.”

“Depends on what you mean by ‘market.’ If by that you mean annoy people and be ignored, then yes it is very effective.”

***

“I bought up all my domain names and registered on every social network that exists. Is there anything else I should do before I set out to rule the digital landscape?”

“Yes. Hire a mafia. You are late to the game, the only way you’ll get any traction now is to break kneecaps and go gangsta on Google.”

***

Thus concludes another session of ultimate wisdom from The Great Internet Marketing Guru.

What Is Art?

The Newsweek cover story for this week examines the issue of  “The Creativity Crisis.

If there is any truth to a decline in creativity in the U.S. it likely stems from a lack of value for the arts and a lack of healthy national discussion over the value of art itself in our society.

But the discussion almost always goes straight to:

I like to go through it backwards, because I’m weird.

Renaissance art is soft-core porno. Or … pornography is art. No cheap smut film can match a masterpiece, that’s not what I am saying. It is just a matter of prudish mentalities that separates one form of nudity from another.

The truly obscene becomes a form of art all on its own. Even without the creator ever holding such an intent. It’s really, really bad art. But what the SCOTUS defines “protected obscene speech” is bunk. The more obscene something becomes the more we should be taking cares not to expose young impressionable minds to this art, but I would defend it as free speech even when I find the expression itself downright immoral and disgusting.

I do draw some lines, however. The most recent example that helps to define my view of what art is would be the SCOTUS ruling on ‘crush‘ films as protected. This violates my standard of harm being caused to living creatures for the sake of art, therefore I must stand opposed to protecting ‘crush’ films for they are not fictional animals being slaughtered for entertainment. This standard of mine applies to all art forms, as long as no harm is done in course of making your art I have no desire to shut you down even if you produce a product I find more than merely questionable in nature.

One example of ‘questionable art’ finding its way into American Culture would be the appearance of anime featuring a naked young vampire girl slaying people on Hulu and YouTube with partial white blurring over the scene. I found that single scene not only offensive but outrageous. However, I would be upset to hear of people trying to get the videos pulled for the crime of poor taste.

Art of value is able to invoke any topic and any feeling without being merely obscene, but I have always argued that the only way we will ever be able to discover and reveal the great works of art to be found in our times is to loosen our neck-ties about what exactly we call “art” in the first place.

My medium is words, mostly written but spoken word as well. I used to be able to produce illustration that did not stink, most recent attempts looked like I was five years old. I have focused too much on my writing and any drawing talent I have has fully withered at this point. I’ve also always enjoyed pottery especially wheel pottery. I have never produced a painting I would want to show anyone, and having so little success with that medium I have never been privy to its joys.

This here is art, this post and this blog and this account. It’s a hybrid art, something like ‘HTML Art’ should apply here. Some of you might think I’m playing games or being annoying with something I post, but this is just a place to express for me. And the art I find most interesting is usually the art that pushes out our sensibilities and confronts the subject matter directly.

And that is essentially what I think art is: all creative expression under the limit of doing real harm. I wonder if anyone has a shorter definition and if anyone thinks the SCOTUS definition of “socially redeeming value” has any merit. I personally think that such an absurd and arcane definition of art in the United States and the absolute lack of focus on the importance of the arts in our mainstream culture is why the Torrance study cited in Newsweek showed a decrease in the creativity in our kids.

Until we out-grow our puritanical stage, we cannot grow as a larger society.

Arizona Protest Images & Immigration Cartoons

Protests were held in Tucson, and Phoenix, Arizona against the racial profiling law (known as “AZ SB 1070” which is the acronym of Arizona Senate Bill 1070) that was vomited up thanks to the incompetent Governor Jan Brewer and the group knows as “FAIR” that maintains multiple ties to racist elements.

(AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

***

These are  some political cartoons on the topic of immigration, all of these images coming mainly from a 1.5 million member Facebook group that formed as “1 MILLION Strong Against AZ SB 1070” and now has outgrown its title.

Senate Reconciliation Now!

The Republican obstructionism on the health care reform agenda is not “principled objections” as Senate minority leader Eric Cantor suggests. It is non-principled, pure nihilistic policy of poisoning the well and deception on behalf of conservatives.

The liberal majority that elected Democrats to office in 2008 has spoken.

The Public Option must survive in a final health care bill, and the process of reconciliation between House and Senate bills is the only avenue by which Democratic representatives can claim to have made any “meaningful reform” come reelection time.

Make it clear that this will not go away, and we the liberal progressives will not be silent.

This push did not come from the White House, or the Progressive Caucus, or from the desk of Sen. Harry Reid. This push for a strong public option through reconciliation came from the people who understand that health care is a moral issue, not merely a budgetary issue.

Both President Obama and Senator Reid remain open to the pursuit of Senate reconciliation, but I believe it important to state that this in itself is the “failure to sell health care reform to the American people” I spoke of before.

Instead, we will have to make perfectly clear that the public option must go forward and does not continue to be the “public optional.”

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced on Friday afternoon that he would work with other Democrats and the White House to pass a public option through reconciliation if that’s the legislative path the party chooses.

The party has spoken. The ball is their court now in congress, but we must not allow this to fade into the night.

Just as Paul Krugman recently closed an op-ed with, “Health Care Reform Now!” I would say the as he except in different words given the changing of the situation but holding the same meaning:

Senate Reconciliation Now!

Texas Joins In On The Science-Denial Trend

The state of Texas has jumped on the science-denial bandwagon currently gripping the right-wing. Texas has challenged the EPA findings that greenhouse gas emissions are classified as “dangerous,” claiming that the findings are based on flawed science. This is of course a false and absurd claim coming from the leading greenhouse gas emitter of the U.S.

Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional director over Texas, said the agency is confident the finding will withstand any legal action. He also said the move isn’t surprising considering Texas’ pattern of opposition to the EPA.

“Texas, which contributes up to 35 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources in the United States, should be leading the way in this effort,” he said. “Instead, Texas officials are attempting to slow progress with unnecessary litigation.”

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said it’s the first legal challenge by a state, though industry groups have also challenged it.

Texas says the EPA’s research should be discounted because it was conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007 for its work on climate change but has since been embarrassed by errors and irregularities in its reports.

(Nobody ever successfully connected the so-called “Climategate” hacking incident, which I assume are the “errors & irregularities” mentioned, and the matter of the Greenhouse Gas Effect or the Climate Science findings as a whole in any way except political partisans with obvious Big Energy funding and absolutely no facts to back up the case they make.)

The guys and gals of The Great State of Denial, good ol’ Texas, seem to hold different standards of The Scientific Method and Comparative Analysis. Maybe those words are just too big for Texas.

I see this as just a symptom of a much larger problem breeding under the surface: the praise of ignorance over knowledge; the willful destruction of critical thinking.

The “debate” over climate change can be settled in moments by the most simple process of comparing the credibility of the sources and the amount of raw data on both ends. There is not a debate going on in the scientific community, there is a consensus with a few skeptic holdouts that have almost all published debunked papers at some point or another, but within the political community and the business community they would like very much for this issue to be up for debate. But it’s not, an overwhelming body of evidence exists in favor of Climate Science and skeptics fail to bring any new data (“Climategate” was the biggest joke on conservatives and their complete inability to rationally review data ever) so it’s simply “denial” and nothing more from these Big Money influenced talking heads. The Deniers and the Consensus; Texas just put itself on the side of the Deniers.

What lies under the surface here is the desire to squelch all rational discussion and replace it with bumper-sticker sound bytes. If anyone dares speak out against these ridiculous claims circulating and tries to use facts instead of rhetoric, then you can bet they will start up the personal attacks and just making even more broad claims about more unproven garbage. If you are even perceived as “smart” then you must be a “elitist liberal” who will only “lie to confuse you.” They are teaching people to hate intelligence and love stupidity in the once great state of Texas, all in the name of keeping their rich friends happy and scoring cheap political points while they are at it too.

Sane Society and Intellectual Honesty

Sometimes things I say confound people. They are talking to me via Facebook or chat room or email, and I say something like: “I think the term ‘intellectual honesty’ is a misnomer, just like the term ‘sane society.'”

I always manage to do these things where I make a complex statement, and it’s hard to jam the reasoning behind it into “140 characters,” so to speak.

This is why I love blogging.

I might lose just about all of you if I go on too long, but these URLs won’t go down so you can read my verbose verbage another time if you so desire. Like most who know a little about writing I know to kind of sum it all up in that last paragraph that everyone reads anyway.

Let’s start with “Intellectual Honesty” and why I call it a “misnomer”:

I am most certainly not saying that any person being intellectual is thereby being dishonest, by any means. The reason I believe the two words do not link is because the alternative is an impossibly. One cannot be dishonest in regards to your own personal reasoning and personal opinions, no matter if any facts collide with their intellectual position or not.

I can “intellectualize” any issue for you to the point that whatever provable facts and established evidence have far departed from whatever wide assertion I am making. You can find lots of examples of this on this very blog.

Whereas “honesty” relates to strict codes of precise reasoning that, as much as many desire them to, do not change at the whim of an individual. I believe the people screaming these false cries of “creeping socialism” are being “intellectually honest” with us, but they are still dishonest in their facts, in the labeling and on the raw record.

“Intellectual Honesty” is either one of two things: it is a given, where 100% of all people everywhere are “intellectually honest” so it is a redundant term; or it is a fallacy in that intellectualism may be in it’s nature honest but honesty is not by it’s nature intellectual. Either way I feel that this term doesn’t convey any kind of realistic view of the world, regardless of who is using the term.

Now on to “Sane Society”:

This term, to me, is a misnomer in complete and full. While one can glean and nit-pick through a society and raise up certain examples of sanity and good graces, there is a massive gap between that assessment and the picture of the whole.

I present to those believing that at a certain point we will attain a fully “Sane Society” here on planet Earth that to a certain degree establishments rely upon a certain amount of disorder. Utopian Society would be without need for “laws” or even “group morals” for all persons would never consider such acts that might disturb good public order and ethical treatment of others in first place. Other than for the sake of pomp and circumstance there would no need for “leaders” or anything but basic levels of “establishment” because all peoples everywhere would already understand and adhere to “Sane Society” principals. I believe a certain amount of chaos and disorder is inherent to the human condition itself, therefore while I enjoy musing over a “Sane Society” and the “Utopian Dream” I also view it as nothing but a muse in which to model a better world as opposed to the ultimate consequence of human progression.

What I am really talking about is the words we use and how we use them.

With the sharp increase in ad hominem attacks and red herring arguments in our lexicon, I can see how some might view these as less than important points. But I think these kind of issues are at the root of what is preventing good communication between opposing viewpoints in our society today. There is a strong need for a focus on critical thinking and making better arguments, and it starts with using language that makes real sense.

Urban Institute Overviews The Public Option

Ezra Klein of The Washington Post has called this the “best overview of the public option” he has read so far, and I concur:

Getting to a Public Option that Contains Costs: Negotiations, Opt-Outs and Triggers

The debate over a public option has essentially become a debate over the size and role of government in the health care system. The central argument, as we see it, should be one of fiscal conservatism—that a public option should play a role in addressing the very serious problem of health care cost containment. The current debate between the left and the right on this issue is obscuring the fact that consolidation in both the insurance and provider markets is propelling a higher rate of growth in health care costs. The consolidation of power, particularly in provider markets, makes it extremely difficult for insurers to negotiate rates for their services and contributes to rapid growth in health care costs. A strong public option is one that ties provider rates in some way to Medicare rates (though set at likely higher levels), and that is open to any individual or firm regardless of firm size. It would thus provide countervailing power to providers and help control cost growth.

We argue that a strong version is necessary because there is little else in health reform that can be counted on to contribute significantly to cost containment in the short term. Capping tax-exempt employer contributions to health insurance has great support among many analysts (including us), but it faces considerable political opposition. Proposals such as comparative effectiveness research, new payment approaches, medical homes and accountable care organizations, all offer promise but could take years to provide savings. Thus, the use of a strong public option to reduce government subsidy costs and as a cost containment device should be an essential part of the health reform debate.

We recognize that there is opposition to a strong public option. Both the House and Senate proposals are considering relatively weak versions to make the public option more acceptable. Both proposals would have the public option negotiate rates with physicians and hospitals. We see two problems with this. One is that negotiating rates is not simple and it raises difficult implementation issues; for example, with whom would the government negotiate? Further, negotiations are most likely to be unsuccessful with providers who have substantial market power. Since this is at the heart of the cost problem, a strategy of negotiations seems unlikely to be effective, as has been affirmed by cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate has proposed a public option with an opt-out provision. This has the advantage of recognizing regional diversity in political philosophy by allowing states to pass legislation to keep it from being offered in their states. A disadvantage of this proposal is that it would exclude many who would potentially benefit from a public option. The states likely to opt out are likely to be those with high shares of low-income people and many uninsured.

The other alternative is to establish a strong public option but not implement it unless a triggering event occurred. The goal would be to allow the private insurance system to prove that it can control costs with a new set of insurance rules and state exchanges. The triggering events could be the level of premiums exceeding a certain percentage of family incomes or the growth in health care spending exceeding certain benchmarks. Since the public option would only be triggered because of excessive costs, however measured, we assume that a relatively strong version of a public option would come into play.

We recognize that taking a strong public option off the table may be necessary to enact reform legislation. But this will mean, at a minimum, higher government subsidy costs by not permitting a payer with substantial market power to bring cost containment pressure on the system. The outcome is likely to be that costs will continue to spiral upward. In effect, the nation would be relying on the range of promising pilot approaches to cost containment that would take some time to be successful. If they are not, we may be left with increasingly regulatory approaches, such as rate setting or utilization controls that apply to all payers. This would mean much more government involvement than giving people a choice of a low-cost public option that would be required to compete with private insurers.

(Read entire paper in PDF)