Laws of Corporate American Profiteering

(While these "laws" are basically unsung, they are quite valid, and can be observed on a regular basis.)

Law of Deliberate Inadequacy
Never completely fix, repair, cure, heal, replenish, fulfill, or replace anything. Always leave some measure of incompleteness that will require your customer to spend more money to fix, repair, cure, heal, replenish, fulfill, or replace the incomplete thing, which (unbeknownst to the unwary customer) would only lead to yet another incomplete thing that will require even more of their money. If you cannot find anything that would be left incomplete after you finish the task, then secretly create something that is incomplete, i.e. secretly find something to sabotage and then sabotage it before approaching the customer with the completed task. An ideal product or task would be one that creates at least as many new problems for the customer as the original problems it solved. And ideally, these inherently flawed products or tasks would be the only ones available to the customer throughout the entire society.

Law of Deceptive Advertisement
Never tell the whole truth about any product or task that you intend to sell to your customers. Always tell them what they want to hear, i.e. always take advantage of their base, carnal desires and lusts, and always appeal to their own self-interests and selfish vanity. At the same time, if you must use morality, then give them a false sense of morality by feeding them parts of the truth; besides, they're usually too lazy to tell the difference anyway. Nevertheless, also omit those parts of the truth that could damage any or all acceptance of the product or task. All you care about is selling massive quantities of the product or task. It is not your job to question the validity or righteousness of that product or task. So if selling massive quantities of the product or task requires that you lie, conceal part of the truth or all of the truth, distort the facts, or any combination of the aforementioned, then that is how you advertise the product or task.

Law of Private Membership
The best way to persuade a society to accept your agenda and purchase vast amounts of your product or task is to first persuade that society's leadership. And the best way to persuade that society's leadership is by becoming those leaders, and then by preventing anyone contrary to your agenda from attaining the same leadership office. Once you and your team have secured crucial leadership offices throughout society, you then secretly rewrite every last law and procedure throughout society, granting you and your team vast amounts of exclusive power and control while making it that much more difficult for anyone contrary to your agenda to even survive in your "New World Order." At the same time, you and your team create secret and exclusive yet "all-powerful" elite leadership positions that only you and your team know about and occupy. That way, you and your team will always win the game before it even begins, simply because you and your team already own the game outright.

Law of Covert Operations
Since you really don't want prying eyes to expose the dishonest plots and operations behind your products or tasks, enshroud everything you do with secrecy. Never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. From start to finish, every product or task developed for sale must be developed behind closed doors. And only you and your team know about the product or task until it is actually released to the market for sale. That way, you can employ whatever methods you desire to manufacture and mass-produce the product or task as inexpensively as possible, even if those same methods are harmful or fatal to your blue-collar employees, to your end-customers, to the environment, or even to society as a whole. Furthermore, secrecy will allow you and your team to carry out whatever dirty work needs to be done to keep your corporation on top.

Law of Orchestrated Catastrophe
If your product or task would stand a far better chance on the market after the occurrence of a violent disaster, an act of war, a terrorist attack, or any other horrible event that would threaten or claim numerous innocent lives, but there is very little opportunity for that event to take place, then you secretly create the event and unleash it onto an unwary public. Afterwards, as if it were a godsend, you then release your product or task to the market, reap massive profits, and achieve savior-like status overnight. Unless someone really does his or her homework, no one will even suspect that you or your team had anything to do with that horrible event in the first place.

Law of Prefabricated Necessity
If you have a product or task that would greatly fulfill a specific need, but that need barely exists or doesn't exist at all, then you and your team must secretly create that need throughout all of society, either by deceptive persuasion or by covert physical activity. Even if the creation of that need is harmful or fatal to your blue-collar employees, to your end-customers, to the environment, or even to society as a whole, it doesn't matter; only the success of your product or task matters, only the subsequent profits generated by your product or task matter, and only the continued success of your corporation matters.

Law of Hostile Persuasion
Some people just get in the way. You and your team will, at some point in time, encounter some sort of threat to your profits. It could be a whistle-blower who is about to expose your corporation's most sensitive vulnerabilities, or any fraudulent information your corporation fabricated, or your corporation's corruption and dirty work, or the actual inadequacy of your product or task. It could be a renegade former-member of your "inner-circle" who is bent on destroying your corporation. It could even be a competitor who is about to release a product or task that is actually superior to yours in every way. First, you do everything possible to discredit the threat so that nothing originating from that threat has any merit. As such, no matter how valid the threat's claims against your corporation may be, everyone will simply ignore those claims. If, however, the claims originating from the threat will be far too potent to ignore, then more drastic measures must be taken. Depending on the long-term expenses of each covert operation, you will either have to bribe the threat with millions of dollars (even billions of dollars) in hush-money or corporate buy-outs, or the threat will have "met with a sudden fatal misfortune." Regardless of how it is done, and regardless of how many innocent people "mysteriously" wind up dead, the threat must be silenced, and the competition mercilessly crushed, once and for all.

Law of Limited Liability
No matter what happens, never claim responsibility for any fatality, loss, damage, or misfortune resulting from the use of your product or task. When advertising or selling the product or task, write a contract, in fine print, that severely limits your liability should any such disaster take place subsequent to the use of your product or task. If you are required by law to list the inherent dangers and risks associated with using your product or task, then list them in fine print as well. It is a known fact that the general public at large always ignores the fine print. So, since you "did your best" to warn the people "in good faith," any disaster they suffer from purchasing and using your product or task is entirely their problem, not yours. Let them walk away with the misery (that is, if they're still alive to walk away!) while you in turn walk away with billions of dollars (even trillions of dollars) in profits.


Copyright (c) 2007, All Rights Reserved

African-American Relationships

A good number of African-American women have voiced concern about African-American men on two fronts, the first of which is that they don't want their men to "stray into the camps of the other women," and the second of which is that they are tired of their men acting like dogs and abusing them. Oddly enough, both fronts have the same origin, namely, that a good number of modern African-American families lack the cohesive structure required to endure the trials of this world. And this lack of cohesive structure is based on a lasting identity crisis that African-Americans have been struggling with for decades, even centuries. The crisis can be summed up in this statement, namely, that the men are not learning how to be gentlemen, and the women are not learning how to be ladies. The problem is indeed that simple, and nothing happens in a vacuum. The strife that exists between the African-American man and the African-American woman damages the family, which in turn damages the community, which in turn damages the race as a whole. Listed below are some mandates for how such strife between the man and the woman must be dealt with and eliminated once and for all.

First, African-American men must learn how to be gentlemen. A man who is led by his carnal desires (i.e. {1} to live a lifestyle of ignorance and laziness to the point of refusing a decent job, {2} to spew forth profanity as though it were some badge of honor, {3} to get drunk or high all the time, {4} to have sex with numerous women (none of whom are his wife) and sire scores of illegitimate children by them, {5} to verbally and physically treat women with contempt and abuse, {6} to sell narcotics and other vices that destroy a community, and {7} to engage in ruthless, senseless violence against others) is both a coward and a fool, and is not a man at all. It takes a real man to learn how to live the right way, to get an education, to learn how to run a legitimate business, to support his own community, to uphold the law, and to care for his wife and children with his very own life. It takes a real man to forgive other people their faults, to seek peace instead of war, and to build friendships instead of hostilities. It takes a real man to pursue virtue instead of vice, to take the long and narrow road of righteousness (which leads to life) instead of the short and wide road of selfish pleasures (which leads to death). It takes a real man to love instead of hate, to carry himself with dignity and self-worth instead of shameful posturing and disrespectful ignorance. And a real man fully realizes that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to carrying himself with respect, respect for himself and respect for others.

Second, if an African-American man were really a gentleman, he would have no problem attracting genuine ladies and repelling ill-mannered women, simply because characters who love darkness cannot stand people who walk in the Light. A real gentleman who is dealing with an ill-mannered woman never sinks down to her level. He simply leaves her, without any animosity and without any hostility. He does not cheat on her behind her back with her closest female friends, nor does he shout any obscenities at her, nor does he beat her to the ground. He simply leaves her, quietly shakes the dirt from his feet, and goes on with his life. Much more can be accomplished by withdrawing one's presence from an offending individual than by saying or doing spiteful things against that individual. And a gentleman who learns how to speak and behave without hostility has become a gentleman indeed. Loving someone does not mean you have to endure abuse from that someone. One should always remember that abuse is hatred; abuse is never love. The moment anyone abuses anyone else, verbally or otherwise, the love is dead, and hatred has taken its place. No man should ever have to endure a woman whose tongue repeatedly and viciously grinds his ego to powder. That kind of spiritual abuse is utterly intolerable. This matter will now be continued in the third point below.

Third, African-American women must learn how to be ladies, not sluts, whores, female dogs (i.e. the "B"-word), materialistic gold-diggers, viper-tongued egomaniacs, ill-mannered shrews, or snarling amazons. African-American women have hurled numerous complaints against African-American men for chasing after women from other races (or, most notably, after Caucasian women). Maybe it wouldn't hurt for African-American women to learn what those other women have taught each other and practiced on an ongoing basis in order to make themselves more desirable. To begin with, women from other races have learned how to be more feminine and submissive towards their man (i.e. {1} respecting the man and allowing him to properly govern the family, {2} listening attentively to every noteworthy thing he has to say, {3} lovingly cherishing his most noble thoughts, and {4} joyfully nurturing him and caring for his needs without question). A gentleman who is loved and supported by this kind of woman would definitely feel obligated to do good for her and value her in return, caring for her every need, and defending her honor in all arenas of life. (The word "gentleman" above is emphasized because only a gentleman will properly care for a woman.) Unfortunately, most African-American women have not been taught these virtues of femininity and submissiveness, nor do a good number of these women feel that such virtues are of any value. These women instead feel that it is their duty to "put the man in his place" (i.e. {1} to belligerently question everything he does, no matter how right it is, {2} to sharply criticize everything he has to say, in some cases not even letting him get a word in edgewise, {3} to belittle every last one of his thoughts if they don't "sound right," and {4} to angrily tell him that he can take care of his own "darned" self, and that if he were really any measure of a man, he would take care of the woman's needs first). Most of these women have already had hostile encounters with an ill-mannered man who did not deserve their company in the first place. But instead of simply leaving that man when he first abused them, they chose to stay with him and love him anyway. As stated above, abuse is hatred. Abuse is not love at all. Just as no woman can abuse a man and call it "love," neither can any man abuse a woman and get away with the same thing. The first time a man abuses a woman, verbally or otherwise, should be the last, and that woman should leave immediately without ever looking back. And just as a true gentleman would simply leave an abusive woman without any hostility on his part, likewise a true lady should also leave an abusive man without any hostility on her part. It is no great mystery that women who stay in long-term abusive relationships have a greater probability of internalizing those same abusive traits as a defense mechanism. Unfortunately, when the abusive man is finally long-gone, those internalized abusive traits can and do remain embedded within the woman's character, and oftentimes, without provocation, she will behave in an abusive manner without even knowing that she is. Ultimately, no one can ever hope to overcome past abuses until he or she accepts the reality that abuse has no place in healthy relationships. Until this acceptance takes place on the most intrinsic level (i.e. on the same level as dignity and self-respect), one can only hope to go from one abusive relationship to another, where he or she will either be the victim or the assailant.

Ultimately, African-American men and women have to make a daily conscious commitment to improve their own relationships with one another, regardless of how the other gender may behave. Personal growth must occur independent of how one treats you, otherwise you will always be at the mercy of the other person's whims. You cannot expect your partner to behave like a lady or a gentleman before you decide to behave like a gentleman or a lady. The initiative must always begin with you. So long as the African-American man waits for the African-American woman to become a lady, while the woman is waiting for the man to become a gentleman, nothing will ever change, and the African-American race as a whole will continue on its downward spiral into oblivion.


Copyright (c) 2007, All Rights Reserved

Marriage and Unconditional Love

Just because a woman loves a man unconditionally does not automatically make her the right woman for that man, even as a man who loves a woman unconditionally is not necessarily the right man for that woman. To assume that any man can marry any woman based on unconditional love alone is to assume that all men are interchangeable with all other men, and that all women are interchangeable with all other women. Such assumptions are entirely erroneous. Even with arranged marriages, parents have to select which young adult should marry their own young adult. If all men and women were truly interchangeable, then even that selection process would have been completely unnecessary: just slap any two kids together and call it a deal! No, unconditional love is not the only factor that should motivate one's selection of a spouse, even though it is the noblest factor for any such selection process. All men and women have the ability to love unconditionally, but there is much more to a person's character than whether or not he or she regularly exercises (or claims to regularly exercise) the ability to love unconditionally. And indeed, some of those character traits will actually determine the true probability of such a person really exercising that ability.

To begin with, there are several elements in a person's character that absolutely run contrary to unconditional love (or to any love, for that matter). First, if a person's "love" for you is based on neediness or desperation (or both), then that is not love at all. That is neediness or desperation (or both), plain and simple. Second, if you have to debate whether or not the person who "loves" you really belongs in your life, then that person does NOT belong in your life. Love and uncertainty do not mix. Both parties have to be certain that their marriage is worth working for, otherwise they are only fooling themselves. Third, if the person who "loves" you is trying to rush you through the relationship and up to the wedding altar for any reason, whether it be money, sexual compatibility, family coercion, outright desperation, or anything else, then that person is hardly serious about love. Love is always patient. Fourth, if the person's "love" for you is entirely based on how much money you gave to that person, or how much clothing or jewelry you gave to that person, or how many fancy cars you gave to that person, or how many orgasms you gave to that person, or how sexy you look, or how well you dress, or how popular you are, then that person is both a materialistic parasite and a complete fool. Love has absolutely nothing to do with materialism, and such miscreants simply do not belong in your life. Fifth, if the person who "loves" you expects you to continue pampering him or her and caring about his or her feelings, while he or she continues to criticize you for everything and reduce your feelings to so many pounds of chopped liver, then that person is selfish. Such a selfish person is so introverted, he or she is utterly incapable of any kind of love, least of all unconditional love. Sixth, if the person who "loves" you is smothering, manipulative, domineering, or abusive in any way towards you, then that person actually hates you. Unconditional love requires mutual respect between two equals. Any love without respect is no better than hate. Seventh, if the person "loves" you more than you "love" him or her, or you "love" him or her more than he or she "loves" you, then that is not love at all. The individual who "loves" too much is too desperate and needy to see love for what it really is, while the individual who "loves" too little (but keeps the relationship going) is actually an emotional parasite who thrives on "the desperation and neediness of inferiors." The person who "loves" too much is better off giving up on the relationship altogether, ceasing to love the other person once and for all. And the person who "loves" too little needs to stop leading the other person on, be mature, and let the other person go. Any imbalanced relationship or marriage is utterly unhealthy. Eighth, if the person who "loves" you constantly expects you to fulfill a set of requirements that only God can fulfill, then both the relationship and the marriage are doomed to absolute failure. No human being on this Earth is perfect. Anyone who is in dire need of deep Healing and absolute Nurture can only receive such Healing and Nurture from God, and not from any human being. No flesh-and-blood person should ever be used to try and fill one's Spiritual Core, the Seat of God. Ninth, if the person who "loves" you repeatedly and blatantly assumes that he or she knows everything there is to know about you and your needs, without ever actually communicating with you, then that person is both fearful and vain. He or she is afraid of dealing with the truth, namely, that there is much more to you than his or her shallow assumptions would permit. And at the same time, he or she is both vain and condescending, thinking that he or she doesn't have to really give you the time of day in order to know you better. Such ridiculous qualities are as far away from unconditional love as the east is from the west. And tenth, if the person who "loves" you is on a purpose-driven life-path that merely crossed yours, then that person was never meant to remain in your life. Life-paths driven by purpose are straight, and as such, paths that once converged towards the crossing will inevitably diverge after the crossing. In order for a marriage to be successful, the life-paths of both the man and the woman must have the same Ultimate Destination within God, in which case the life-paths of both husband and wife will always be converging. Nevertheless, each and every Ultimate Destination is as unique as the person headed towards that Destination. That is why no two men are interchangeable, and no two women are interchangeable, when it comes to marriage.

Aside from the social, emotional, mental, and spiritual criteria necessary for selecting a spouse, one should not in any way ignore the physical criteria that are also necessary for the same selection process. Although the inner spirit always carries more weight than the physical body when it comes to unconditional love, the fact is that men are men and women are women because of their physical bodies, and not because of their inner spirits. Eliminate the physical body, and the marriage is null and void, hence the term "'Til death do us part" in the average wedding vow. In any marriage, there are elements that absolutely require the physical body in order to be fulfilled. The inner spirit alone is simply inadequate. For example, physical affection, sensuality, and copulation cannot take place without the physical bodies of both the man and the woman. Only the physical body can give and receive sexual fulfillment while copulating. Only a man's physical body can get a woman's physical body pregnant. And only a woman's physical body can give birth to children and breast-feed them. All of the above-mentioned elements are primary and central to all marriages, and all of those elements require physical bodies. As such, anyone searching for a spouse must now factor in the following physical criterion. First, do you plan on having children when you get married? If the answer is "yes," then you do not want to marry a person who is infertile or sterile. If the answer is "no," then you do not want to marry a person who has not had any children yet, and might possibly want children in the future. Second, what kind of sexual expectations do you have with regards to the other person? And do your expectations mesh with those of the person you desire? If there are any sexual incompatibilities, how hard are the two of you willing to work at resolving them? And what amount of sexual incompatibility would you consider unreasonable? One of the greatest enemies of any marriage is adultery. (The other greatest enemies are abject poverty and communication breakdown.) Nevertheless, the need for sexual fulfillment is a valid need that must be dealt with, no matter how unyielding the situation. Better still is the avoidance of any marital commitment fraught with sexual dysfunction. In other words, if the person's ability to sexually fulfill you is utterly doubtful, then do not marry that person. Third, what is your outlook on domestic roles? And what is your partner's outlook on domestic roles? With regards to these outlooks, who makes the money and who decides how it's spent? Do you expect the man to be the head of the house and the sole breadwinner, while the woman is the faithful housewife who bears the children and guides the home? Or do you expect the woman to be career-oriented while the man stays at home and takes up the role of "Mr. Mom?" Or do you expect both the man and the woman to have careers? Or do you expect them both to work from home while maintaining the family? It is absolutely essential that both you and your partner share the same outlook on domestic roles. There can be no gray areas on either side. Not only does this outlook determine how the married couple manages its financial affairs, but it also determines who does what in the home. If you harbor any kind of disagreement with your partner when it comes to this outlook, then you should not marry the person at all. Such disagreement is a potent recipe for marital failure.

Ultimately, when it comes to choosing a spouse, unconditional love was never meant to supersede compatibility. If anything, unconditional love is a manifestation of compatibility, and is enhanced by compatibility. Now at this point one may argue that what was mentioned above is no longer unconditional love, but rather, conditional love, because it is now based on compatibility. Nevertheless, anyone who loves indiscriminately is no better than a fool who casts pearls before swine, which then proceed to trample said pearls underfoot and then turn to lacerate and eviscerate the fool. This is not to say that unconditional love is wrong. It is perfectly right to love your partner without reserve, so long as that partner is the right partner. Otherwise, you are only wasting both your time and your heart.


Copyright (c) 2007, All Rights Reserved

Marriage and the State

Marriage is a religious and spiritual matter, not a state matter. The separation of religion and state (not "church and state," since the word "church" is Christian-biased) should also recognize the separation between marriage and state, since diverse religions already define marriage quite diversely. Not only have American governments passed laws defining appropriate marriages, but the same laws also favor a Judeo-Christian marital ethic, namely, marriages that are monogamous and heterosexual. And yet if America is supposed to favor freedom of religion, why then do her governments pass laws promoting one religion's freedoms at the expense of another? In Islam, a man having up to four wives at the same time is considered properly married, but the laws in America call such polygamy illegal. Some religions promote homosexual marriages, but again, the laws in America fiercely oppose them. Does America champion freedom of religion or not? And if she does claim to champion freedom of religion, why then does she uphold and continue to pass laws against certain religions by passing laws against their marital practices, even if those marital practices do not injure or kill any other citizen? Either America should allow people to truly have freedom of religion, honoring whatever type of marriage desired, or America should simply throw the First Amendment and freedom of religion into the trash in favor of her obvious Judeo-Christian bent. After all, American government calls it "separation of church and state," not "separation of religion and state," remember?

There will always be a problem when defending the freedoms of one American citizen whenever those freedoms offend the sensibilities of another. How do you defend two lifestyles that are radically opposed to each other on practically every front? Some fundamentalist religious groups have been at war with each other for centuries, long before America was even born. And while some nations have embraced homosexuals for centuries, others have put homosexuals to death for centuries, simply for being homosexual. Although the concept of Democracy is as old as the Ancient Greeks, its actual practice as a foundation for civil and human rights is still quite recent and, at best, quite a challenge to implement on a daily basis. Who ultimately gets the last word on right and wrong?


Copyright (c) 2004, All Rights Reserved

Relationships versus Games

Relationships and games are like oil and water, in that they simply do not mix. Only a fool would try to have an honest relationship with a game-player, and only a fool would play the game in an honest relationship. That is because relationships and games serve two entirely different purposes that seldom see eye to eye. People get involved in relationships for the sake of steady friendship, companionship, faithfulness, trust, nurture, generosity, honesty, personal growth, family, affection, intimacy, and love. But people play the game in order to beat their opponent (if any) and win all the prizes at stake, be they money, land, power, control, or something else of worldly value. The only thing that matters to a game-player is winning, even if it requires you becoming one of his or her casualties in the process. And even though a game-player may endure short-term losses, he or she will still draw from those experiences and strive even harder for the long-term win. Anyone who says that how you play the game is more important than winning or losing isn't really a game-player, but is instead more suited for the stability and reliability of the relationship, since relationships are more focused on how well you treat others, while game-playing is always focused on the goal of winning. As such, the life of one dedicated to relationships is largely task-oriented (i.e. how you treat others), while the life of one dedicated to game-playing is largely goal-oriented (i.e. winning).

Typical relationships involve family relatives, close friends, spouses, lovers, special-interest group members, or fellow worshippers in a certain religion. These people share a common bond with each other, enhanced by how well they treat each other, and totally independent of any worldly gain or loss. Because people often make mistakes or misbehave from time to time, a good relationship allows for mercy and forgiveness towards the stumbling individual. Anyone who appreciates and builds good relationships deserves mercy and forgiveness for his or her human errors. But the same mercy and forgiveness towards a hard-core game-player are utterly inappropriate. That is because game-players only respond to force, not mercy. Whenever you show mercy towards a game-player, he or she will look upon it as weakness, then he or she will proceed to use you until you are of no further use, or simply beat you down and walk all over you while continuing to play for the big win. Nothing personal. With a game-player, the only thing that really matters in life is the big win, not you, not family, not friends, not love, not even GOD. And no matter how long the game takes, the game-player will not ever stop playing until he or she has won big-time. And even then, repeatedly playing the game and going for the big win may very well be the ultimate reward in itself for the truly hard-core game-player, who will only stop playing the game when he or she is in the grave.

Is the game-player void of any kind of human bonding? Not necessarily, but it all depends upon the type of game being played. There are three different elements that determine the nature of all games: {1} the team-players, {2} the opponent, and {3} the resources available to the game-player. A game-player may or may not have a team and may or may not have an opponent. But a game-player will always need resources that will help him or her play the game and win. So if you are neither a team-player nor an opponent (in other words, if you yourself are not a game-player), then you will always be categorized as a usable resource by the game-player, no matter how intimate and personal things may appear. As a resource, your only true purpose in the game-player's life is to give him or her what is needed to win big-time. The moment you can no longer fulfill that purpose in any way, shape, form, dimension, or capacity is the moment you are then discarded, plain and simple. Now if you yourself do happen to be a game-player and you are involved with another game-player, then you are either a team-player or an opponent. If you are an opponent, then you will always be that game-player's enemy, and it will always be his or her obligation to crush and destroy you totally, no matter how intimate and personal things may appear. If you are a team-player, then you are the closest thing to a relationship that he or she will ever have. Nevertheless, such bonds between two game-players who are on the same team are still extremely conditional. A game-player usually never likes to share his or her winnings with anyone. If he or she does, then it's because such sharing will benefit the outcomes of future games in his or her favor. Otherwise, even team alliances between game-players can still be extremely uneasy at best. The moment another game-player ceases to be a beneficial ally, then he or she goes from being a team-player to being an opponent, and how opponents are treated has already been explained above. Ultimately, the only reason a game-player shares anything with another game-player is because he or she has to, and not because he or she wants to. Any game-player who has enough power to surpass accountability for his or her own actions does not have to be nice to anyone, share his or her winnings with anyone, or form alliances with any other game-player.

Nevertheless, an accomplished game-player's life can actually be a lonely existence, especially since the worldly possessions he or she has acquired will only attract predators and parasites instead of true friends. That is why some game-players do their best to attract decent relationships. Unfortunately, a game-player who has dedicated his or her entire life to playing the game does not have the ability to maintain a decent relationship, let alone appreciate it. To the game-player, anyone involved in the relationship is just another mark, and the relationship itself is only another game that must be won by any means necessary, even if those means include dishonesty, deceit, intrusion, coercion, theft, pressure-tactics, manipulation, temptation, enticement, intimidation, extortion, and outright hostility. That is why any non-game-player who discovers that he or she has been deceived into having a relationship with a game-player must use any and all available force necessary to get the game-player out of his or her life as soon as possible. (Remember, game-players only respond to force, not mercy.) There is absolutely no place in any relationship for games. Neither should a game-player ever hope to have a decent relationship while still playing the game. And that is why every game-player will eventually have to face this reality, namely, that winning any game is never more important than the most noble action of all relationships, love.


Copyright (c) 2005, All Rights Reserved

Digital Diapers (a Short Story)

Too much computer technology is falling into the hands of too many hardheaded employees who personally refuse to know or learn anything about it. As an Information Technology Support person, you just want to keep the computers away from those individuals before they foolishly destroy their own information infrastructure. Unfortunately, most of these individuals have what's called power, or their sympathetic superiors have this power, and they want these computers they have absolutely no knowledge about, and they want them now.

One middle-aged executive said he wanted two new critical network fileservers. Then he changed his mind and said he needed only one, after the shipment had already arrived, been unpacked, and then fully assembled and connected to the network. Then he changed his mind again and said he needed five more, after the extra one had been repacked and shipped back. You should've seen the dirty looks on Procurement's faces. Now that this idiot executive has finally settled on three critical fileservers, I've finally been able to load the Operating System.

Now the Novell NetWare OS on our fileservers allows IT Support people like myself to set powerful security restrictions on user login accounts, restrictions that would prevent stupid users from doing stupid things, like deleting the core OS programs on the fileserver. And under normal circumstances, I get no opposition from anyone when it comes to setting such restrictions. But with this same boneheaded executive, there are no normal circumstances. A week after these critical fileservers are in place, the guy hires his nineteen-year-old deadbeat son, and then demands that I give this son's new login account unconditional access to all the fileservers and applications in the company, including the critical ones. Now this brat barely learned what a mouse was for, and once thought that a floppy was something on his grandma's chest. But you'd better believe he knows absolutely everything about Pot, Heroin, Acid, Cocaine, LSD, PCP, Magic Mushrooms, and let's not forget Crystal Meth. And if Daddy wants him to have access to everything, including our most critical applications and fileservers, then by golly he'd better get it, or there'd be hell to pay, and I'd have to pay it with the termination of my job. I'll never forget the day that little miscreant almost destroyed the entire corporate network by playing a bootlegged X-rated porno game on his office computer, a game that was infected with several lethal viruses known to attack Novell fileservers and network computers through unconditional-access login accounts like his. And every time I've tried to install Antivirus network-software, the same executive moron refuses, insisting that he knows all his important files would be mistaken for viruses, then deleted. (Of course, any IT Support person knows that's pure fiction, but try telling that to our executive friend.) Then he turns and blames me instead of his son, insisting that if I had done a better job, there would've been no virus outbreak in the first place.

Almost a week later, all the fileservers finally crashed. I come to find out that the cause of the crashes wasn't the executive, nor was it his son, but rather, his son's girlfriend, who was "desk-cleaning" for her boyfriend using his unconditional-access login account, and thought that it would help remove the clutter if she permanently deleted all the EXE and DLL and NLM programs that were taking up so much disk space in the Core System Areas of all the fileservers. (Remember those core OS programs I mentioned earlier?) Now I would've restored the fileservers from tape backups, but this same bimbo also thought that there were just too many labeled tapes cluttering up the locked cabinet, and so she unlocks the cabinet, takes all the labeled tapes, and throws them all out with the day's garbage pickup. (I keep saying the tapes were labeled, yes, labeled, because it's quite obvious that this airhead can't read worth squat.)

Well, to make a long story short, my job was terminated for what that executive creep called gross negligence on my part. Even after I was long gone, he threatened to press charges against me for the downtime and profit loss the corporation suffered, but he couldn't find anything to substantiate his claims. I didn't know whether to be upset for getting fired, or to be overjoyed. But I could rejoice in knowing that the soiled digital diapers worn by those users from hell would now have to be changed by someone else.


Copyright (c) 2002, All Rights Reserved