Why Do You Drink?

Welp, I did it. I drank a 12 pack to celebrate the ending of dry January and I feel like shit.

You remember that old country song that goes something like:

Tell me Hank, why do you drink?

That was a real banger back in the day, wasn't it?

I can remember being in those Texas honky-tonks getting drunk and listening to music like this.

Y'all probably don't know nothing about honky-tonks. 

It's just another word for a country bar. 

I've pissed-out a pretty penny in many a honky-tonk listening to some country music.

Country music is the best. It's music for the soul. It's mostly about getting drunk over some woman. Who can't relate?

Remember this one?

You don't know nothing about no David Allan Coe. 

He was drunk the day his momma got out of prison.

I should be drunk while I'm writing this. Then I'd have an excuse for the poor content. It's pretty pathetic to crank out this kind of crap and admit that you're sober.

If you're still reading at this point, you definitely don't have ADHD. Maybe OCD. Or an elevated BAC. But, like, OMG! Who is your PCP? Do they prescribe TRT? Do they accept BTC?

See what I did there?

Pure genius.

I'm just rambling now. That's the cool thing about the autonomy of blogging. You can just type whatever you want. It's like your fingers have a mind of their own. 

Pure improve, I say.

I wonder if I was a rapper in a past life.

BRB.

Oh yea, I knew there was something I was getting at.

Why do you drink?

Bloggin for the Noggin

It's the last day of January. 

I'm sitting here drinking coffee at 6 in the evening. But, since January is over, that means I can drink something much stronger than coffee.

Dry January was OK. Nothing eventful happened. I did a lot of chess puzzles. I always do a lot of chess puzzles. 

Have I told you that I'm really good at chess?

I mean, objectively good at chess, not just thinking I'm good at chess. 

I was determined to be "good" at chess, therefore I concluded via objective reasoning that 1800 Elo was the criteria for one to claim that they are "good" at chess.

Your boy is 1900.

Your boy is good at chess.

Check out the game below if you want to destroy the King's Indian Defense.

I'm looking forward to drinking beer again. But it's weird. Because as much as I like to drink beer, I don't like the fact that it's a vice.

Everyone has vices. 

What's your vice?

Mine is obsessive chess and cold beer.

I suppose those vices could be much worse. Imagine if smoking meth was your vice? Or eating your boogers? Or blowing one of those whistles at ICE agents.

Those vices would suck.

I knew a dude in high school who admitted to me that his vice was sniffing women's dirty panties. He would literally sneak in their laundry room and look for the dirty panties and sniff them.

I've heard that some women make money selling their worn panties online.

Anyway, good for them. 

If I could sell my worn boxers for money, I sure would.

Beer time.

Cheers!

Why Are Leftists Obsessed With Anarchy?

Another anarchist recently got killed "peacefully protesting." This one had a pistol.

I don't think anyone supports people being killed by authorities. 

I also think that everyone supports citizen's right to protest. There's nothing wrong with that. But it seems so ironic to use the laws of a nation to protest the very law that makes it a nation: a border.

Without a border, what's a nation?

Anarchists are true believers, I'll give them that. They hate law and order so much they're willing to die for it. That's some serious devotion.

I think we all are subject to the biases of perception. But my perception is fueled by the question: How is the United States a better and safer place to live with millions of illegal criminals residing within it's borders?

Every other country on the planet has borders, with laws to the enforce them. That's the world we live in. Someday that might change, but for now the nation-state is the way of the world.

I recently wrote a philosophical piece titled Is The Search for Meaning Meaningless? The premise can be assumed from the title. 

These anarchists, who are mostly paid agent provocateurs, don't have any meaning in their life. Most of us can relate. The status quo is efficient at dulling the soul. This is why we need God.

Our desire for meaning is God's way of calling his sheep.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

These poor anarchists are mostly overweight, unattractive, single white females and homosexual men.

They have no meaning in their lives. And they seek to fill that void by taking on the struggles of the oppressed. On the surface, this is a noble cause. They are doing what they believe is right, while consequently adding meaning to their life.

In my piece on meaning, I briefly discussed the philosophy of Camus:

Camus concluded that struggle itself providing the meaning to live. That we should accept that life is meaningless and revolt against it.

So our meaning becomes: struggle until you die.

Sadly, our societies have devolved to the point that the youth want to lay down their lives protesting the rule of law. 

These women should be at home, married with children. Smiling and happy. Sad and struggling. Living life as God meant it to be lived.

These homosexual men should be married. Repenting. Working. Struggling to provide. Being a positive example for his children.

It's easy to be divisive, and look at people and pass judgement. 

These anarchists are sad and lonely, desperately looking for a reason to keep on living. Looking for meaning in their life.

They've turned their backs on God. 

It's not my place to speak for the Lord. But maybe God has reciprocated. 

Not everyone will be saved. In fact, most won't be: 

Matthew 22:14: For many are invited, but few are chosen.

We don't choose God; God chooses us:

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you...

It's not a coincidence that most of these anarchists are coincidentalists. They don't believe in God. In fact, most hate God:

John 15:18–19 If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Scripture has all the answers you're looking for: 

Matthew 7:7–8 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 

Don't think for a second that we aren't in the midst of a spiritual war. Satan has an immense legion of minions.

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Put on the armor of God:

Ephesians 6:11 & 13 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes... so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.

May God have mercy on your soul.

All Glory to the Truth!

UFC 324 Recap: Paddy vs Gaethje

The Paramount+ era has officially begun for the UFC.

Doing away with the PPV model is long overdue. 

$100 to watch 5 fights was always a ripoff. Besides, in the digital age anyone who wants to watch something for free will just find a bootleg stream anyway. I'm not sure what kind of money and resources the UFC put into fighting PPV piracy, but I doubt it was free.

Paramount+ is like $9 a month, or $90 a year. If you're an avid UFC fan, and the UFC will put out quality cards every week, that's not a bad deal. 

Speaking of quality, if you didn't watch it, the Paddy vs Gaethje fight was a real banger. It'll be a fight of the year candidate come December. 

Pimblett came in as a 2-to-1 favorite. I think most people thought Paddy would walk through an aging Gaethje, mostly based on what Pimblett did to Chandler. But he didn't. It was a very close, violent and entertaining fight. 

If you have a chance to rewatch the fight, you should.

Gaethje is aging (37), and has been in a ton of wars. I wonder how "punch drunk" he will be a decade from now. 

Have you heard Chuck Liddell talk recently? I think he might be the poster child for retired fighters staying retired. Luke Rockhold, I'm talking to you.

Nonetheless, Gaethje was in great shape and took it to the younger Englishman. 

Paddy battered Gaethje's with 48 body shots and 25 legs kicks, but they never seemed to take a toll on Justin later in the fight like I thought they would. That was surprising to me.

I remember when Paddy first came on the scene, I couldn't stand him and thought he was way overrated. I thought he lost the fight with Jared Gordon.

I think Pimblett has proven to be quite a bit better than everyone expected.

One has to wonder what the future holds for Gaethje as the interim champion. I didn't think he would beat Paddy. I thought he would look old. But, he obviously has quite a bit left in the tank. That being said, I just don't see him beating Ilia or Arman. 

But he was a 2-to-1 dog to Pimblett. And I think he is 8-3 as the underdog. 

I'm not a gambler, but if I was I wouldn't bet against Gaethje against either of them. In fact, the oddmakers will probably have Gaethje at least a 3-to-1 dog against either of those two. 

I'll leave you with this advice: if Justin fights Ilia or Arman on the White House card and is a big dog (at least 3-to-1), put a few shekels on Gaethje. When you win big, don't forget me. My BTC address is in the sidebar :)

Unillama Piñatasaurus

Most writing today is artificial. I'm one of the few writers left who use real intelligence, instead of synthetic.

There's nothing wrong with AI as a tool. If you're lazy, have writer's block and can't think of anything to say, just type something random into AI (or even just say it, you don't even have to use your fingers). 

My contemporaries could care less. They will say, "I write all my own stuff, too. I just use AI to help me brainstorm." 

But that's not actually true. Run "their" writing through an AI checker and you'll see. Whoever your favorite "writers" are most likely use AI for some, if not most, of their material.

I recently wrote a piece titled, Social Engineers Want AI to Think for You. It's decent. You should read it. It's certainly better than any generic AI slop that you read on your other bookmarked sites.

It doesn't seem like a hard thing to comprehend as to why AI "thinking" and "making decisions" for people would be a bad thing.

But then again, I'm sure most people 20 years ago thought, "Staring at these smart phones all day can't end well for the human condition."

I've often said that knowing is half the battle. The other half is behavior.

It doesn't take "the science" to tell people about the potential downside to staring at a phone all day. Just like it doesn't take geniuses like yours truly to tell you that "artificial" intelligence actively replacing human intelligence probably isn't going to turn out well. 

Well, assuming who you are, I suppose.

Remember, "artificial" just means "man-made." 

It's not like AI is some kind of organic, independent operating system of intelligence. It's been programmed by Man.

Go talk to AI about any controversial social issues and see what it says.

Try to get it to say "bad" words. Not curse words. Of course it will say those. But "offensive" words, that might hurt people's feelings. Maybe not "words," but get AI to discuss the ideas that represent those words. That's probably a better way of putting it.

AI is programmed to indoctrinate you, by thinking for you. It is slowly replacing the modern education system. 

AI is Orwell's Big Brother. He is watching.

To be frank, me writing this is just a waste of time. I mean, not really. I'm a writer, I write. But, from the perspective of people reading this and then deciding that AI is bad and they aren't going to use it, that's not going to happen. 

I'm not an influencer. I just know the answers.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I write for the future. For my legacy. And for my family tree. 

Writers like me are relics. We are a dying breed. Appreciate us while we are still here. 

Is the Search for Meaning Meaningless?

"When man first developed the ability to reason, he walked down to the river and killed himself."

It weird what you remember from your time reading, and what you don't.

I remember that quote from several years ago. 

I have no idea what the context was, or who said it, but it stuck with me.

There are a lot of things that "stuck with me" over my years of reading, but a lot more that didn't.

Like a lot of men throughout history, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life. I have read a lot on the subject. But nothing has ever satisfied that curiosity. 

Sure, I remember some quotes here and there. But, I wonder if anyone ever actually read a philosophical book on "the meaning of life" and discovered the answer they were seeking.

There are so many books that people read, then recommend. Books like Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," come to mind.

I read the book. I think I might have even read it twice, because it is a book that comes up in recommendation lists perpetually. Aside from the suffering he describes (I wonder if the narrative plays into the popularity of the book), nothing about that book is memorable for me. 

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

I remember this quote from when I was reading Camus. It was his way of asking man's most important question: is life worth living?

Camus concluded that struggle itself providing the meaning to live. That we should accept that life is meaningless and revolt against it.

So our meaning becomes: struggle until you die.

Maybe that's the kind of meaning you're looking for, but it doesn't provide the meaning I'm looking for. 

"Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom."

Schopenhauer believed life didn't have any meaning. He believed the idea of "meaning" was just a way to mask the will, which was the essence of reality. 

We are either stuck in the pains of desire, or the inevitable boredom after the fulfillment of those desires. 

Once we get what we want, we want something else. 

As a Christian, I find meaning in the belief that God created me. Not just my body, but my consciousness and spirit. Unlike The Atheist, I find the idea that the order of the universe is some kind of random chance to be beyond absurd.

For a Christian, meaning is to be known by God.

If God chose to have grace upon you before the beginning of time, would we suffer from an existential crisis?

Perhaps God creates the desire for meaning within his elect as a way of calling his sheep.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Meaning could be an illusion of the will, as Schopenhauer says. 

Maybe it's revolting against the meaningless of life by embracing the struggle, as Camus said.

Or our desire for meaning could be God's way of calling his sheep.

Ecclesiastes 1:2 Vanity of vanities; all is vanity

Social Engineers Want AI to Think for You

I’m late to the game, because I’ve always been a procrastinator. 

So writing about AI’s artificial “intelligence” might be an antiquated subject at this point.

Nonetheless, here’s my take:

So, I’ve recently got into the whole “AI” thing. I’m trying to be trendy, while simultaneously doing my best to use it to my benefit like everybody else is. I have friends who are like, "I use AI like a personal assistant."

That’s the entire concept of technology; to use it and not let it use you.

The biggest problem with the rapid advancement of technology has been it’s ability to corrupt the human condition. This isn’t to say it’s “innately” motivated, or been programmed to do such (while the latter is certainly up for debate), it’s just to say that the human condition acts as a vacuum and technology has overwhelmingly filled that void.

I have solicited AI’s opinion on a number of things over the last few weeks. From financial advice to updating this blog to image creation.

It’s very odd to me that I can have dialogue with a specific AI (Gemini, for example) and get what I consider to be some pretty decent analysis or advice, then the next day use the same AI to revisit the information, and it’s like I’m talking to something/someone completely different. The responses are totally different.

It reminds me of “tech support” from the early 00s. You know, when you had a problem with something and you called the toll free number associated with the American company and a barely-fluent Indian answers after 30 minutes on hold. You spend the next 10 minutes asking the question like they are 5, only to finally get “I understand. Hold on one minute while I transfer you to that department.” This continues for however long you are willing to play the game, before you finally hang up.

For the most part AI just seems like a more personable version of a search engine.

Honestly, the only difference to me is that AI gives specific answers or recommendations as opposed to the selections that require autonomy that the search engine provides (pre-censorship Google was probably superior to modern Gemini in practicality and efficiency). It’s like AI takes the thinking out of it, and relieves any analysis paralysis.

Allowing AI to think for us is certainly an area for concern. Particularly when we know that AI is indoctrinated.

For example, yesterday I was writing a piece on MLK, and I wanted an image of MLK waking up from a nightmare. Gemini refused to make the image. When it finally agreed, it presented an image of MLK looking as if he was startled in his bed with a caption over his head that read “I have a dream!” It refused to create an image of him waking up from an obvious nightmare.

How weird, right?

I guess MLK isn’t allowed to have nightmares in cyberspace? Or AI is “smart” enough to know what I was getting at, and refused to participate in thought-crime.

Btw, if you’re curious of what I was “getting at,” MLK’s “Dream” was a Nightmare! is the piece in reference.

If you check it out, let me know what you think.

Nonetheless, I started thinking about what AI actually is, as opposed to what we tend to think it is. Or, more specifically, the common perception of what the average person has about AI. Now, maybe I’m projecting some here, but I think we have this idea that AI is some super-duper “brain” that someday might take over the world because it’s a superior version of human intelligence.

Did artificial sweetener replace sugar? 

Did artificial grass replace grass?

Is there anything artificial that is better than the real thing?

It’s funny because I actually just typed that question into my search engine (I didn’t want to ask AI), and the only thing it came up with was... you guessed it, AI:

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Efficiency: AI can process information, generate content, and make decisions faster and more consistently than humans in specific tasks like data analysis, language translation, or image generation.

Scalability: AI systems can scale to handle millions of tasks simultaneously—something impossible for humans.

AI hasn’t done anything for me that a basic search engine couldn’t do. I take that back, the AI Suno created a few songs for me. That was pretty cool.

But, if Artificial Intelligence is objectively better than Human Intelligence, it will be the first conquest for artificial superiority.

What say you?