After an hour – long conversation with the HR department of a state university,  I have reached a single conclusion: immediate and total privatization of everything is urgently needed. What I have seen today can only be described as evil. HR departments are horrible and useless in private companies,  as well,  but they don’t even remotely rise to this level of inhuman insanity.

After I recover from the trauma, I will offer some details of the experience.

“I have to do it, I have to take care of everyone. I can’t say no when people need me to take care of them. But I never have time to take care of me,” a young woman announces proudly later in the show.

There is no law that can legislate this away.

Just to illustrate the real cause of the problem that Affirmative Consent laws are trying to address.

A mother on Dr. Phil admits that she abuses and beats her 13 – year – old daughter.

“What does she needs to do for you to stop treating her this way?” Dr. Phil asks.

“She should do what I tell her and stop saying ‘no’ to me,” the mother announces brightly.

Ten years from now,  this girl will be posting online an essay about how she wanted to say no but couldn’t get herself heard.

Good news! Google+ is dying. Google tried herding people into their stupid social network so aggressively that even the use of gmail became too complex and drama-ridden.

Here is also a link to Google Graveyard, a list of all the idiotic initiatives Google tried to implement that turned out to be a complete waste of time. Of course, nobody minded Google’s strange experimenting until the company grew desperate an started trying to force or trick people into using its bizarre inventions.

I have never seen the meaningless expression “to wear down” used as many times as it is in the following article: Why “Affirmative Consent” Laws Are Needed http://amptoons.com/blog/2014/10/14/why-affirmative-consent-laws-are-needed/

A hint for aspiring writers: if your entire argument rests on an obsessive use of a single expression,  there is a problem with the argument. Especially if the expression in question is a meaningless colloquialism.

If you do follow the link, I warn you that it is written by a sexist woman-hater of the first order.  What I find extremely bizarre is that such people seem to believe in all earnestness that they are doing something progressive and even feminist. Tell them that they are promoting one of the more vicious tenets of patriarchy and they will pucker their narrow foreheads in extreme confusion.

As much as I hate to pile on anybody on the spectrum, I have to say, what a weird lady:

I’m always creeped out by people who engage in public persecutory manias in such an insistent way.

The reason why I’m publishing the video is because I’m hoping to reassure this person that the string of trivialities she perceives as shocking and censored doesn’t really bother anybody.

So if the rearview mirror is not the window you have in the back of the car but, counter-intuitively, the thing you have sticking in front of you, what is the correct name for the window in the back?

I have also just discovered that when people say, “Great car! Is this a 4 or a 6?”, the answer of “I bought it used” is not what they are expecting.

What do you call a person who wants to offer governmental handouts to unmarried men in order to improve their personal lives? Right you are, a Conservative! Here is an excerpt from an interview with Ross Douthat:

There’s increasing interest on both sides of the aisle in criminal justice reform, wage supports for unmarried men, and other ideas that might make a difference to couples or would-be couples on the margins. But that consensus won’t hold if the policy drift is just toward a kind of open-ended support for single parents. There has to be a specific focus on making men marriageable, and making it easier to be married to them, and that focus has to cash out (literally) in whatever policy choices we make.

Talking about big government and Big Brother, governmental policy aimed at investing public money to improve the dating lives of a few of society’s members seems scarily intrusive and authoritarian. I thought that Conservatives should be fleeing in horror from such ideas. Yet here is Douthat, super comfortable with the idea of costly governmental intrusions into the private lives of citizens. I’m also kind of surprised to see such an open contempt for men that doesn’t even attempt to disguise itself. According to Douthat, the only way of making men attractive as marriage partners is by giving them cash. Of course, Douthat is projecting here and offending all men while doing so.

But Douthat doesn’t stop here in his fantasy of governmental intrusion into the private lives of citizens. He also supports

waiting periods and counseling for divorcing couples (especially couples with children), preferential treatment in court for spouses who are being divorced against their will (in the absence of evidence of abuse).

He isn’t suggesting giving governmental handouts to people in order to prevent them from divorcing but I’m sure he will get there soon enough. Maybe Douthat’s plan consists of bribing every citizen into living the lifestyle that doesn’t make Douthat uncomfortable. It’s looking like relieving Douthat’s angst at the sight of people who are enjoying “adult freedom. . . in a society organized around adult desire” (Douthat’s own words) will be a costly project for us as a society. Maybe we should give him a governmental handout to seek a mental health specialist? In the long run, treating Douthat will turn out cheaper than remaking the world to fit Douthat’s fantasy.

“Can a woman be president of Russia?”
“According to the constitution yes, but in reality no.”
“Why not?”
“Because Putin is not a woman.”
__________________
Putin brought back the Soviet anthem,  the mandatory school uniforms,  the food shortages, and Stalin’s fitness norms. All that’s left for him to do is ban sex.
__________________
It makes sense to give Putin the Nobel Peace Prize. Or he will just come and take it.
__________________
A defense of rights and freedoms is the best excuse for eliminating dissidents.