To serve with honor.

It has never seemed fair to me that women aren't able to serve their country in the same manner as the menfolk. Sure, I know they can join the military these days. But they are still prohibited from experiencing the glory of combat. I just don't see how we can call ourselves an egalitarian nation while we continue to practice such sexism.

But I also realize there is a practical reason for this ban. From a strictly biological perspective, women in general are not as fit for combat as men. Of course, the military could institute physical testing to allow anybody with the necessary strength and stamina to join the warrior class. But I believe there's a simpler way to give women the ability to serve their country with honor and pride.

I hereby propose the creation of the United States Coitus Service. If our young men can serve with honor by laying down their lives for the country then surely our young women can serve with honor by, well, laying down for the nation.

Imagine the parents beaming with pride as their daughters head off to booty camp. And the girls themselves, flush with unbridled enthusiasm. Knowing they are making a noble sacrifice to keep the world safe from blue balls.

The girls would spend weeks conditioning and training. Building the stamina required to suck off an entire bachelor party. They would learn the fine art of manipulating the male genitalia to achieve the maximum results. Just as with their military counterparts, the women of the USCS could take on additional training to become specialists. These cummandos would wear their own insignia to tell the world they were something special.

What a magnificent society it would be. Crime would virtually disappear since most crime is the result of men trying to get laid. With skilled and enthusiastic pussy merely a phone call away there would be no need for men to steal money to buy fancy things in hopes of luring a woman. They could simply dial the local USCS office and have a specialist sent right to their house.

Of course, the USCS wouldn't just operate here at home. It's the American Way to share the American Way with the rest of the world. The USCS would have offices around the world. Our brave young women would travel the globe, meet strange new cultures, and milk their men. Giving real meaning to their motto, “Spreading Joy by Spreading Our Legs”.

Yes, these women would proudly wear their pink miniskirt uniforms. Ready, at a moment's notice, to leap into action and drain the seed from some poor man's swollen testicles. They'd adorn themselves with medals and ribbons to indicate their achievements. Such nobility.

And years down the road, when these proud girls have become proud grandmothers, they will look back with a sense of accomplishment. They'll adjust their “USCS – Retired” ballcaps and smile at their granddaughters. They'll recount amazing stories of adventures in far way lands. Tales of heroism and sacrifice. Harrowing tales of spooge in the eyes and unbathed men. And all across the country little girls will look up at their grandmas with gleams in their eyes. They will wonder what it must be like to swallow a man or to feel his thrusts. And they will dream of the day they can make their grandmas proud by following in their footsteps. Eager to travel the world, moist wipes and lube at hand. Ready to give of themselves, to sacrifice. Ready, to serve with honor.

On sheep and sentience

I've recently come to the realization that sentience is not an inherent human trait. It is quite possible to be biologically human while still lacking the qualities of self-awareness and self-ownership.

This line of thinking began when I first joined Mensa. The first newsletter I received contained an article about a fascinating informal experiment carried out by the author.

With this experiment, the author was trying to determine if there was a correlation between the advertising budgets of large breweries and the relative popularity of their products. The methodology was quite simple. He selected test subjects with proclaimed preferences for one brand or another and had them taste-test several brands without knowing which ones they were drinking. The idea being to see if their actual preference matched their stated preference or whether their stated preference was a product of external influence.

Not surprisingly, he discovered that the subjects' actual preferences did not always fall into line with their stated preferences. This is to be expected. If somebody has always drank the same brand they may be unaware that another brand is more to their liking.

But what was surprising, and what led to my current thinking, was how some of the subjects reacted to the outcome of the test. You would expect a sane person, on discovering they like the taste of A better than B, would then switch to drinking A. But not all of the subjects did. Even after finding their stated preference was less desirable than one of the other options they decided to keep following their original preference. In other words, the brewer was controlling them and getting them to consume the brewer's brand in spite of the fact that the subjects' actually thought another brand was better.

Think about this for a second. If you really like vanilla ice cream, but somebody tells you to eat chocolate instead, would you? When you walk into a restaurant, do you ask the chef what you must eat? That is exactly what some of the subjects of this test did. They knew from their own experience that they liked the taste of one product better than the other. But they insisted on staying loyal to the inferior product.

This caused me to start paying closer attention to the world. I began looking for similar signs of people allowing external control to override their own desires. It was not difficult to find examples. In fact, it's the rule rather than the exception. And it isn't just advertising that causes this peculiarity. Peer pressure and societal taboos are major causes.

I also noticed a similar symptom. People who's actions clearly show their desire for a certain outcome even though their words claim they seek a different outcome. I'm not talking about liars. I'm talking about people who don't even realize they are saying one thing but doing the opposite. A prime example would be people who claim they want to get rich, yet they are spending what money they do have on beer and lottery tickets instead of books or classes that could help them move up the ladder. This is a complete lack of self-awareness.

There are many people who fall into the sub-sentient category. Religious believers controlled by the words of their cleric are hardly fully sentient. Those who turn to government for guidance and support fall short of self-ownership. People who look to celebrities to see how to dress and style their hair are decidedly non-sentient. You can't be self-aware if your entire life is based around somebody else or if you aren't *aware* that your actions are not consistent with your desires.

The good news is that sentience is attainable. Like anything else, you have to first want it. Conveniently enough, the very act of pursuing sentience displays a large degree of sentience. It's a process of introspection and analysis; removing external influences and focusing on your internal motivations.

The catch is that sentience also requires maintenance. You have to be constantly wary of the intrusion of external forces into your psyche. You have to be aware of your self in order to possess self-awareness. That seems like a pointless sentence at first glance, but think about it.

Marxoids

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need". That quote from Karl Marx sums up his philosophy. It has become the rallying cry of his disciples. These people see it as the pinnacle of egalitarianism. These people are blind fools.

Just a simple analysis of the quote should make it's flaws obvious. Instead of making everybody equal, this tyrant's plan divides people into three classes. The first class is the producers. These are the ones with the ability. They are expected to grow the crops, build the roads, and perform all the tasks necessary to maintain a functional society. The second group, readily visible in the quote, is the slackers. These are the people deemed to be unable to provide their own needs. They get to sit at home and do nothing. Their needs will be met by the producers. This is a master/slave relationship. The producers are required to work. The leeches have everything handed to them. How is that egalitarian?

So what about the third class? It may not be obvious in the quote since there seem to be only producers and leeches. But there is a third class, the ruling class. These are the people who decide who is needy and who is able. Somebody has to. Left to their own devices, who would rush to work if they knew they could sit at home and have their needs filled by others? Nobody would. So somebody has to choose who works and who doesn't. And then they have to enforce these decisions.

That's really all anybody needs to know about socialism. It is, by definition, divisive. It sets one group of people above another. Then a third group of people claims dominion over the other two. No matter how the marxoids try to spin it, that is how their beloved system is designed. The alpha, or ruling, class decides who is and is not able. Those deemed able are forced to work. Those deemed unable are spoon fed by the alphas with the fruits of the producers' labor. Some truly are more equal than others.

Whence come rights?

There has been a lot of talk lately about basic human rights. It seems everything except cable TV is considered a basic right. So where do these rights come from? If they truly are basic they must be something we are born with. What, then, are the rights given us by nature itself?

The right to life? Hardly. The universe has a virtually infinite array of ways to kill you. From tiny microbes to storms many miles wide. There are no guarantees you will survive to see the sun set or wake to see it rise.

The right to food and water? A right is something owed to you. If you are stranded on an island, nature is not going to give you a ham sandwich. If you are lost in the desert, nature is not going to provide a bottle of water to sustain you. These are things you will have to provide for yourself.

Health care is the latest item to be declared a basic human right. This assertion is easily debunked. Returning to our hypothetical deserted island; if you fall and break you leg, where does the medical care come from? Is Dr. McCoy going to transport down and patch you up? Of course not. If medical care is a right, it is certainly not a natural one.

Food, clothing, shelter, health, even life itself. None of these things are promised to us by the universe. If rights are a natural thing, inherent from birth, then we have no rights.

So rights, if they exist at all, are purely an artificial construct. They are a way to provide order in society. They are the rules we use to govern our interactions with each other.

Let's return to our deserted island. You wake one morning to find another castaway on the beach. Now there are two humans interacting. That means we can have rights and morality. So what rights do you now have? If the new resident is a carpenter, does that give you the right to demand they build a shelter? Would the presence of a chef grant you the right to food?

In other words, do your rights create an obligation on the part of your neighbor? That would create a paradox. If I am obligated to fulfill your rights, then you are obligated to fulfill mine. Each of us is enslaved to everybody else. At the same time, we are master of everybody else. It is impossible to be master and slave at the same time. That makes it impossible for anything to be considered a right if somebody else is obligated to provide it.

Whether you are the lone person or one in a sea of millions, your rights are the same. They are basic, inherent, unaffected by time or location. If you can produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then it is yours. If you are unwilling or unable to produce it, maintain it, and defend it, then you have no right to demand others do so in your stead. It doesn't matter whether it's a ham sandwich or a life-saving operation. To demand it as a right is to enslave another human and require them to tend your needs.