SUPER COOL AWESOMENESS

The constitutional right to privacy

2011-05-25T14:44:00.001-07:00

Privacy is the sole social apparatus that protects the individual from intrusion. Moreover, privacy is a principle that creates the means for individual dignity and identity. Privacy is vastly important because it protects peoples’ self-interests, and maintains their dignity. As with most complicated legal issues, the right to privacy derives from theoretical and philosophical debate. Thomas Scanlon wrote in the Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1975, privacy should be “a characterization of the special interests we have in being able to be free from certain kinds of intrusions.”[1]

In addition, there are many other aspects of one’s life that should be kept private; medical records, for example. Former President of the American Medical Association, Dr. Malcolm Todd contends, “The average patient doesn’t realize the importance of the confidentiality of medical records. Passing out information on venereal disease can wreck a marriage.”[2] However, peoples’ interest in privacy is not—or should not—be limited to information that could be damaging or embarrassing; a married couple, for example, does not want to be viewed carrying out a normal sex life. Nor do they want strangers to know about their sex life. The couple has nothing to be embarrassed about; nevertheless, if people are viewing or gossiping about their sex life, then their privacy is being violated. This is because a married couple’s sex life is simply none of your business, just as the amount of money in one’s bank account in none of anybody’s business except your own.

Privacy is paramount to maintaining normal social relationships. By ‘social relationships,’ I do not mean anything overly complicated; I simply mean the relationships people ordinarily maintain—husband and wife, friend, brother and sister, and employer and employee. The central point to be made about such relationships is that there are certain patterns associated with each individual relationship. Conversely, there are different patterns associated with different relationships. For example, a man may be a cold-hearted businessperson at work, but a sweet and sensitive husband once he gets home. Alternatively, a person who will curse like a sailor around his friend and will be extremely polite around his parents. Social norms suggest that people are the most real in situations where they are the most comfortable. However, it would be irrational to suggest that the aforementioned cold-hearted businessperson is really a sweet, and caring person whose businesslike attitude at work is merely a front; and the man who is crude around his friends but polite around his mother is simply putting on a front to not be disowned by her. This is because the conception of how one ought to act is determined by the situation.[3] One may find it completely appropriate to curse freely in one situation, while in another situation, the same person would find cursing offensive. There is nothing untruthful or hypocritical about any of the aforementioned behavior, no set of actions in a particular social relationship can characterize a person as the ‘real’ person any more than the actions of a person in a different social relationship.

THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST.

2010-10-17T18:20:00.000-07:00

If Christ did return, how would we know? What would he look like? Would he be cool or just another asshole offering me Sunday brunch to get me to convert to Christianity? Who knows?

With these questions in mind, I set out on a project to find the truth about the upcoming return of our lord. Filtering through a lot of gibberish and boring information, a few key points were extracted from a fiction novel that was in my mom's nightstand.

"For The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet The Lord in the air." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 RSV)
1. Jesus will come back to life
2. Jesus will fly around

"And with bright yellow aura will he fall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great strength." (Matthew 24:29-31 RSV)
1. Jesus will have a bright yellow aura around him
2. Jesus will be ripped and powerful

"Then TheLord will go forth and fight against those nations as when He fights on a day of battle." (Zechariah 14:3-5)
1. Jesus will love to fight.

"On that day the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward; and you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah." (Zechariah 14:3-5)
2. Jesus will create widespread panic through geographical disasters and earthquakes.

In conclusion: Jesus will come, fly around with a yellow aura around him, fight all the time, and in doing so creating giant holes in the terrain with his super powers.

I can only think of one thing that fits this description:

Christ will return as none other than Super Saiyan Jesus.

Yes, I was shocked at first too. No one could have known that Jesus was returning as a saiyan. I sure didn't, but it makes sense. Who else could regulate the earth with justice while still being ruthless and powerful enough to fire giant balls of energy at those who pissed him off? Amazing, isn't it?

Plus, the name Jesus has the letters "S," "S," and "J" in it. That cannot be a coincidence. It is certain now. Super Saiyan Jesus is coming and he's pissed.

(by the way, I stole this from ninjapirate)

Sarah Palin V. Barack Obama in 2012.

2010-10-12T10:38:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama would rout Sarah Palin in a theoretical matchup in the 2012 presidential election, according to a Bloomberg National Poll released Tuesday.
The Democratic president led the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee by 16 points, 51 percent to 35 percent, the poll found.

One in 10 voters said they would not cast a ballot, and 4 percent said they were undecided.

Palin said in an interview last week she would not likely run for president if voters preferred a more traditional candidate. But during this midterm election cycle, she has been endorsing and campaigning for a number of Republicans across the country, including tea party favorites Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware — a move by Palin that many see as an effort to lay the groundwork for a presidential run.
Still, Palin’s overall popularity remained low. Only 38 percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of her, while 54 percent viewed her unfavorably. Meanwhile, 53 percent said they viewed Obama favorably and 44 percent unfavorably.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama’s 2008 Democratic presidential rival, had among the highest favorability ratings, with 64 percent viewing her favorably and 31 percent unfavorably.
Those surveyed were nearly evenly split over whether Obama was doing a good job as president: 47 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved.
And more than four in 10 who previously backed the president said their support had diminished or that they no longer supported him.
The poll, conducted for Bloomberg News Oct. 7-10, was based on telephone interviews with 1,000 adults, including 721 likely voters in this fall’s midterm elections. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43463.html#ixzz12AQyELat

I have an idea

2010-09-26T10:22:00.000-07:00

I think movie producers should make a come-back film musical thing for high school musical. Except this time they should name it "high school shooting musical," and they should kill off all the people who were in High School Musical 1, 2, and 3.

Not saying that I condone school shootings, I'm just saying that High School Musical sucks and needs to die.

Thoughts?

The Grocery Store Story

2010-09-10T23:23:00.000-07:00

I was at a local grocery store looking to buy some frozen pizza, marshmallows, and milk (who are you to judge what I eat?). When I walked into the store I saw this tall, beautiful ginger--side note: I have a tall girl fetish, along with a ginger fetish--who had it all. She had radiant blue eyes, flawless legs, a soul, and the absolute perfect skin tone.

I had to pinch myself. Could it really be? Could there really be the most beautiful girl I've ever seen alone in a grocery store? This was too good to be true. There was no way I was about to act like myself and just awkwardly stare at her while going about my shopping. I had to talk to her.

Once I gathered up the confidence to walk up to her and talk to her, I figured the best way to start a conversation was by pretending to be shopping for the same thing she was, and then have a conversation about the product. I thought it was a flawless plan.

Unfortunately, I was wrong. As I walked up to her, I was feeling so good about myself that I even had the confidence to talk to her, that I didn't consider looking at the product first. I grabbed a small box next to her, pretended to read it, and then looked to her and said: "Excuse me, Miss. Have you ever tried this? I can't decide if I should get it or not."

Worst. Possible. Move. Ever. We were in the Tampon isle.

/cuts self

The DEA lies.

2010-09-10T10:36:00.000-07:00

The DEA obviously hides from the troops like Osama Bin Laden hides from the allied forces in whereverthefuck we're looking for him.

However, on the DEA's website it lists a plethora of (unfounded) arguments that justify their inhumane behavior. One of which is:

Fact 9: Europe’s More Liberal Drug Policies Are Not the Right Model for America.

Completely ambiguous and vague initial argument. Let's delve into it further:

The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread social implications as well.

That's interesting. The DEA is going to blame marijuana use (which, if you look at legitimate figures, never increased) for an increase in crime that NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, on May 19th of this year, the Dutch Justice Department announced that they were having to shut down prisons due to a lack of crime:

The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty.

The article infers that there might be some prison jobs in open in Belgium for those 1,200 individuals. Oh, and by the way, Marijuana is decriminalized, not legalized in Belgium.

Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals

My thoughts on war

2010-09-09T09:08:00.000-07:00

Instead of using expensive, deadly and inhumane bombs on our enemies, I propose that we blast our enemies with the Jonas Brothers' music until they surrender due to nausea.

The Truth About Beauty

2010-09-06T22:50:00.001-07:00

Most girls my age are self-conscious, it seems. But what they do not realize is that it does not matter if you are fat or skinny or blonde or bald, it is what is inside that counts. Well, you cannot take a picture of your inside, sorry girls.

The truth is most of them do not even believe their own bullshit. Every morning these same girls stand in the mirror like you and me and everybody else and criticize their bodies.

They poke that belly bump wishing it would flatten out

They try to hide their stretch mark

They spend hundreds of dollars on pro active and tanning salons and manicures and make up and teeth whitener and gym memberships all in an effort to make themselves look like the girls they admire in magazines.

What they do not know is that for every girl that wishes they could be more beautiful, there is another girl walking behind her who wishes she could look like the girl ahead. In other words, while you stand there on that wretched scale theres another girl standing on a scale wishing she could trade you numbers.

The truth is ladies, the body you have is the only one your ever going to get so you better start loving it or your just going to live life hating the only part of yourself you cant fully change. And even if you try to change it in as many ways as you possible, your vanity will never let you be truly happy because you will always be looking at the girl ahead of you wishing you had her ass or her hair.

You do not have to take my advice but the next time you find yourself in front of a mirror poking and prodding yourself, take a few steps back and see your body as a whole. Not the little close-up imperfections, the whole thing all at once.

You are a whole person.

You are not a pimple.
You are not a rippley thigh.
You are not a belly bump.

You are you as a whole, inside and out and THAT is real beauty; not a cleverly angled photo.

Pretty much, you life sucks if you don't find this funny

2010-09-06T22:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsTwDx_uEzc

Democracy is a load of shit

2010-09-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

The general idea behind democracy is that if everybody has a chance to vote on something, that the people will make the most just choice. Bull shit. That doesn't even work in theory; let alone in practice. Theoretically speaking, if I decide that all red headed guys should be forced to stay indoors (fucking gingers), then people would vote it down. However, what if I created an initiative that ostracized an even less popular demographic than gingers (if such a thing exists). What arbitrary power would shoot that down, even if the majority of people supported it?

Well, in American democracy, the courts....who are democratically elected. So, essentially, the people decide who the people that have the final say in all matters are. They could easily vote for some irrational prick, like themselves.

Besides, why should we trust individuals (who are as self interested as the rest of us) to arbitrate? What's forcing the final authority from acting self interested and inserting his or her own voice into the litigation? None, obviously. Except, of course, for elections--which exacerbates the judges' taking a self interest in cases.

This holds true in practice. For example, Proposition 8. The state of California decided it'd be just to hold a vote to decide if separate but equal was just (which, according to Brown v. Board of Education should be illegal). The people decided that it was just because of a plethora of reasons--many of which boil down to bigotry. The courts notice that the people support separate but equal, and continually rule accordingly. Don't you love it when the justice system is so just?

There is no sense of populism that should be derived from democracy. By consenting to democracy, you are therefore giving up some individual sovereignty. You are saying: "My vote counts as much as yours; thus, you and I have equal say in how I live my life, and upon who governs me." How can you empower the individual by allowing everybody else in the fucking country decide how he or she lives their life?

I honestly don't see the difference between a tyrannical dictator telling me what to do, and 51 percent of people allowing a body of morons to tell me what to do.

Prop 19 bull shit

2010-08-29T14:28:00.000-07:00

Everybody who isn't living under a rock knows that California is having a democratic vote on whether or not people should be allowed to use marijuana for recreational purposes. Obviously, it's fucking stupid to oppose such a legislation.

Exhibit A: http://www.mydesert.com/article/20100829/COLUMNS26/8290343/No-Legalizing-marijuana-would-cause-more-problems-than-it-would-cure
All of the claims made in this article are extremely ludicrous and intentionally misleading. However, there is one that stands alone:

Marijuana is a dangerous drug. It may have treatment value for some conditions, but as with most pharmaceuticals, dangerous side-effects are possible.

The fourth-leading cause of death in America today results from reaction to prescription drugs. Recreational use of marijuana will make this situation worse.

What an idiot. Claiming that marijuana is a pharmaceutical--with dangerous side-effects nonetheless--is completely insane. Marijuana is a plant; just like corn and wheat. Following the author's logic, since soup has medical benefits. Therefore, if we legalize it, we will have additional deaths from soup since pharmaceuticals (since soup has medical benefits it therefore is a pharmaceutical) can cause death.

Besides, marijuana doesn't even have deadly side effects.

However, There is some evidence from human studies that long-term marijuana use
can have adverse effects, although it seems that the spectrum of these
effects is narrower than previously thought and mainly centers around
cognitive (intellectual) function.

A paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) vol.
287 No. 9, March 6, 2002, pp. 1123-1131) found that long-term cannabis
users performed less well than shorter-term users and controls (people
who didn’t use cannabis) in tests of memory and attention. The
long-term users averaged 23.9 years of use, compared with 10.2 years
in the shorter-term users. You can find an abstract at the American
Medical Association web site:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/abs/joc11416.html , but access
to the full text requires subscription to the journal. Note that the
comments associated with the article (links to them are underneath the
abstract) indicate that some other investigators do not agree with
this conclusion.

Another study published in a Canadian medical journal (CMAJ 2002 Apr
2;166(7):887-91 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11949984&dopt=Abstract)
found that: “Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ
score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A
negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously
been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude
that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global
intelligence.” This study compared IQ scores of individuals aged 9-12
years before they started using cannabis, with their scores at 17-20
years. Light users, former users and non-users showed a gain in IQ
over the same period.

One reason for the decreased IQ and memory in consistent heavy users
could be the fact that long-term cannabis use has been found to
decrease blood flow to the front areas of the brain (Neurotoxicology
and Teratology 2001 Sep-Oct; vol 23 pp. 437-43 Frontal lobe
dysfunction in long-term cannabis users by Lundqvist T, Jonsson S,
Warkentin S. of the Division of Medical Neurochemistry, Lund
University Hospital, 221 85, Lund, Sweden
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11711246&dopt=Abstract

A study published in Public Health and Nutrition, June 2001, vol. 4
pp. 781-786 (Dietary intake and nutritional status of US adult
marijuana users: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey. By Smit E, Crespo CJ. of the Department of Social
and Preventive Medicine, SUNY School of Medicine, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11415485&dopt=Abstract
) found that marijuana users have lower levels of carotenoids in the
serum. The authors concluded this was associated with different
dietary habits: “We found higher cigarette-smoking rates and higher
consumption of sodas and alcohol, specifically beer, among marijuana
users than among non-current marijuana users. Marijuana users also
consumed more sodium, fewer fruits, and more pork, cheese, and salty
snacks.” Carotenoids are important anti-oxidants which help to
prevent cancer and other diseases. An increased risk of these
diseases might be due not so much to marijuana use itself as to the
lifestyle led by many who use it. Better attention to nutrition, in
order to ensure a good intake of fresh fruit and vegetables,
particularly the red, yellow and orange ones, will help to boost
antioxidant status (see below)

A review of various studies came to the conclusion that: “Regular
marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in
the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially
predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer.” Alveolar
macrophages are cells in the lungs that help clear away debris and
bacteria. (Current Opinions in Pulmonary Medicine, March 2001, vol 7
pp 43-61, Airway effects of marijuana, cocaine, and other inhaled
illicit agents. by Tashkin DP of the Division of Pulmonary and
Critical Care Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles,
California 90095-1690
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11224724&dopt=Abstract
) Again, to counteract these effects, a diet high in antioxidants
would be helpful.

Obviously, marijuana smoked as joints and mixed with tobacco could
carry all the health risks associated with cigarette smoking. The use
of marijuana alone might be implicated in cancer. However, one review
concluded that: “While there is no doubt that marijuana smoke contains
carcinogens, an increase in cancer among users has thus far been
anecdotal. Because of the long latent period between cancer induction
and initiation of cigarette smoking, the full story is yet to be
told.” (International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, July 1998,
vol. 1 pp 71-80, Health aspects of cannabis: revisited. by Hollister
LE. of Harris County Psychiatric Center, University of Texas-Houston,
Houston, TX http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11281947&dopt=Abstract
) In support of this statement, I only found one recent paper in
Medline describing a case of cancer in one marijuana user. This in
itself is not absolute proof.

L E Hollister also concluded that: “Many older concerns about adverse
effects on health (chromosomal damage, 'cannabinol psychosis',
endocrine abnormalities, cardiac events, impaired immunity) no longer
seem to elicit much interest. Continuing concerns about the adverse
cognitive effects of chronic use indicate that these can be
demonstrated by proper testing; some studies suggest that they may be
long-lasting. Although cannabis does not produce a specific psychosis,
the possibility exists that it may exacerbate schizophrenia in persons
predisposed to that disorder.” i.e. the effects tend to be more on
brain function than on other diseases, and it could worsen the status
of people who have a tendency to schizophrenia.

I have not found anything specific about diet in relation to marijuana
use. However, a diet rich in antioxidants will tend to counteract the
effect of many toxins and thus would probably be helpful against the
toxic effects of marijuana. This is a diet rich in fresh fruit and
vegetables, with perhaps additional (although not extreme) intake of
vitamins A, C and E. Red wine is also high in antioxidants :) and so
is green tea.

Tl;dr It's well worth the risk

LASTLY, even if this cunt had been right, so what? He is clearly assuming that its government's job to regulate safety. If that's so, why does government allow us to live in populated cities? Or own guns, or go rock climbing on our vacations?

eviscerated.

Random Labor theory of value rant

2010-08-29T11:27:00.001-07:00

the labor theory of value states that the only source of value is labor, by which is meant that it alone can add more value than it had itself. Marx called that difference between the value embodied in labor and the value that labor added to production 'surplus value', and saw it as the only way profit is made.

He gave two proofs of this, one "negative" proof by process of elimination of the unique characteristics of labor, and one" positive" based on a general theory of commodities; the negative proof is by far the most widely known and used, and it's the one I'm going to talk about.

It follows that labor is unique among commodities, in that what's sold isn't the laborers themsleves (excepting the case of slavery, obviously), but their capacity to work, a commodity Marx referred to as "labor-power", the value of which was the means of subsistence (what's required to reproduce labor power), ie it might take four hours of labor a day to produce the goods needed to keep a worker alive.

What a factory owner, for example, receives in exchange for paying for that labor-power isn't the labor-power itself, however, but actual work. If you produce the means of subsistence in four hours and you work an eight-hour shift, you've worked twice as long as it takes to produce the value of your labor-power and the extra four hours of work is "surplus labor", which accrues to the factory owner and provides the basis for his profits. Since there isn't any commodity other than labor where you can distinguish the commodity itself from its "commodity power", every other commodity consumed in production transfers its value to the product, and labor is the only source of profit.

This also means that the rate of profit is directly related to the rate of surplus value, where the rate of surplus value is defined by the ratio of the labor time required to secure the means of subsistence to the labor time actually performed, eg in my factory example the ratio is 1:1, four hours of necessary labor to four hours of surplus labor. The rate of profit is defined as the ratio of surplus (hereafter "s") to the sum of the inputs required to generate a surplus, those inputs being necessary labor and the means of production. Necessary labor he called "variable capital" (hereafter "v") because it could increase value, and the means of production he called constant capital (hereafter "c") because it couldn't.

The rate of surplus value (s/v) is assumed to be constant across time and industries, as well as that the competitive forces of markets will lead to the replacement of labor with machinery (c). So for any production process c becomes larger with time, thereby decreasing the ratio of s to c+v, thus reducing the rate of profit. This means that, regardless of the efforts of capitalists, the rate of profit inevitably falls; to which their response would be to lower wages, eventually leading to revolution and a communist society.

That's the theory, anyway, but if you look a little closer you see some major inconsistencies. For one thing, there's no reason in practice that a rise in c couldn't result in an increase in s/v so that the rate of profit doesn't fall over time.

Another is what's called the "transformation problem", which arises from the fact that it's the rate of profit rather than the rate of surplus that motivates capitalists: if labor is the only source of surplus value and rates surplus value are constant across industries, industries with a higher than average ratio of labor to capital should have a higher rate of profit. But in a competitive capitalist economy, this can't apply in equilibrium since lower rates of profit in capital-intensive industries should lead to companies moving out of them and into labor intensive ones in order to maximize their rate of profit. His solution was to assume that capitalism is a "joint enterprise", such that capitalists earned profits proportional to their investments regardless of what industry they invested in. However, he never explained why perhaps the most competitive social system ever developed should wind up behaving so cooperatively, with capitalists sharing a uniform amount of profit.

There's also the fact that all non-labor inputs have to have been produced at some time in the past: even raw materials have been extracted using a combination direct labor as well as commodity inputs, and those inputs also reduce to a combination of direct labor and commodity inputs. You can do this indefinitely, but no matter how far back you go you can never eliminate commodities entirely, except maybe if you allow for the possibility of magic. Therefore, if value is in some sense the essence of a commodity, it can't be derived from labor alone. Both labor and commodities are the source of value.

So even though it's used as an attack on capitalism as well as a prediction of its downfall, it fails to even provide a coherent model of capitalism, much less any reason why it will inevitably fail and be replaced by communism. What's so bad about the labor theory of value is that it's a failure, basically.

First post.

2010-08-29T11:19:00.000-07:00

I wrote this a few weeks ago, and I wasnt sure what to do with it, or perhaps what to make of myself. This looks like the place. Here you go, I present my arguments, in bullet form, why Spongebob Square pants is the perfect girl.

1. Hes low maintenance. No matter what happens to him, he never needs validation from anyone, for anything. He never asks Patrick to tell him who he is, never uses his friction with Squidward to bolster his own ego. All his energy is focused outward, albeit usually with mixed (and hilarious) results. He never complains about those results either, just trudges ahead with blind, infectious optimism.

2. Hes a good cook. In fact, he makes unquestionably the best burger in Bikini Bottom. People come from everywhere to the Crab Shack for one of his Crabby Patties. How rare is a girl who can cook, and enjoys it?

3. He lives in a pineapple. Imagine having crazy sex in a giant pineapple. All that gooey, sweet, sugary awesomeness providing both full body lubrication and a certain fun kinkiness. Sex inside almost anything else wouldnt be anywhere as much fun. An orange would sting. A tomato would stain. While were on the subject, do you want variety in your lovin? Hes got HUNDREDS of holes, and hes not shy about himself or hung up in any way. He also plays dress up. Weekly. And usually twice on Saturday mornings.

4. Hes comfortable with his job. Mr. Crab pays him shit and he cares, never bitches. Never comes home and says to his pet snail if that dude Squidward dont get off my ass, Im gonna kill him! The pineapple is a harmonious place because Spongebob checks that shit at the door.

5. He manages his emotions. Weve all seen Spongebob flip out. Weve all seen chicks flip out. The difference is that Spongebob Squarepants STAYS FOCUSED. He may explode. His eyes may shrivel up like raisins. He might pull off his own legs and arms and beat himself with them in total panic and frustration. He never loses sight of what hes flipping out ABOUT, though. Every girl Ive ever met starts out being mad about the dish I just broke, or the amount of beer I may have drunk at her family reunion (we all need help through the hard times, my Lord, my Lord) but 15 minutes later its why havent we bought a house yet, why arent I home more, why arent I home less, why arent I more communicative, and what about those boobs I was staring at back in May of 2002. Do ya feel me, boys?

6. Hes devoted. Patrick is an idiot, but he finds a way to relate and have fun. Mr. Crabs is a jerk, but he gets past it and has a healthy work ethic. Hes maintained a healthy platonic relationship with a displaced female squirrel. Even Squidward, despite all his efforts to the contrary, has a neighbor he can count on any time day or night. (Aside: Squidward is a douche bag for not recognizing this)

7. He knows how to have a good time. Boy does he ever. He likes eating contests, farts, TV, singing, hiking, playing with his body, sports (did you see the snail race? better than Hoosiers), and just generally acting stupid and laughing about it. im telling you, hes got to be totally awesome to hang out with.

8. Hes comfortable with his body. So hes not the ideal shape. Hes a square. But he never complains. Youll never hear the phrase height-weight proportional uttered from those yellow lips (anyway his height-weight proportion is geometrically perfect, a fact which I am sure can be proven mathematically). He dont give a shit. He just buys the right clothes (square) and looks great and thats the end of it. No endless questioning about why the universe shaped him the way he is. No internal battles. Just a simple square man with a healthy simple outlook.

9. Hes a virgin (Id bet). You say experience means everything? I say bullshit. Comfort and communication trump experience every time. Working at your sex life is only possible in a situation dominated by these two traits and amplified by a sense of adventure. Spongebob has always demonstrated these characteristics. Now, what do you want? A willing accomplice or the trick somebody else taught?

10. He doesnt drink, smoke or do drugs. Actually, I do enjoy the occasional cocktail or cigarette, and as you may have guessed, I have been known to puff it down a little and watch shows like, say, Spongebob Squarepants (WTF, what did you do this morning that was so important, Mr. Smartypants?), but the thing about our man Bob is that theses things dont rule his life, and couldnt you just imagine that first date at a bar? Somehow the idea of kicking two shots of Makers Mark back with Spongebob Squarepants is totally mesmerizing. You think hed sit there and bitch about his exes? No way. Hes much more a load up the jukebox and kick up his heels on the bar kind of guy. Hell take his lumps for it (case in point, the Motorhead bar in the movie, where the fascist biker dudes kick his ass but he comes out grinning) but I bet the night would be hilarious. Imagine him pulling in a big drag and blowing it out all his orifices. Imagine him talking to that drunken barfly you always see and making that old bitch laugh. Youd get to do all this shit with him for the first time.

11. He demonstrates good parenting skills. Did you see the episode where Spongebob and Patrick find a lost baby scallop and decide to raise it as their own? No?!? Well, allow me to elucidate. Patrick takes on the male role and he sucks at it. He sneaks off all day and night to watch TV at home while Spongebob, as the mother figure (complete with apron and heels), holds the family together. He does all the cooking, cleaning and baby-raising, all the while carrying an admittedly strained smile on his face. Not to say Im looking for a wife to do it all and let me watch TV (um, hmm), its just that he demonstrates such strength and good humor. The episode ends with a happy, well-adjusted scallop flying off (?) into the sea-sky and a presumably happy well-adjusted scallop life. Its not that Spongebob might make a good mom. Spongebob is a good mom.

Im sure you all are going to think I am a pedophile (why? Because I happen to be a little bit in love with a 6 year old boy cartoon character?) Im sure youll all write me and tell me what a misogynistic jerk I am (just substitute the words girl for boy and boy for girl throughout and Im sure my argument applies cross-genderally. There. Feel better, huge bull dykes with nothing better to do?) Im sure Ive sabotaged my e-mail account, but I wanted to do it. Im in love, and people in love do and say stupid shit.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/798916222.html
<3 craigslist