Via the 'book feed come thoughts I feel worth mulling:
"Out of curiosity, how many of you value money more than you value life itself? Seems pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet our entire economic model is built to reward behavior that puts profit before human life & resources..."
I doubt many here would choose money over life in a literal sense. Perhaps our daily decisions and actions show us prioritizing money or material goods over our health and well-being (mental and/or physical), however.
"It is time to choose something different. The "God of Economics" which we started worshiping with Adam Smith's declaration that the "Marketplace" is led by an "Invisible hand," is the most bloodthirsty of all man-made myths! Today 16,000 children will die of starvation because, though we have plenty of food to feed them, they cannot afford to play the game to which we made up the rules!"
I don't think it's just children who are getting the raw end of "free" market economic theory anymore (arguably the rawest, yes, but not the only casualty of an indifferent and inherently unequal system.)
"Efficiency, sustainability, and preservation are the enemies of our economic system. Hmmm, should I take sides? That darn sustainability is a real drag.. how dare it get in the way of my addiction to "profit"!"
Again, arguably overstated but the truth underlying it is on point. What kind of logic is there in an economic system that undercuts the basis of its existence? Clearly the current philosophy of reckless consumption inheres an identifiable end point where resources will be tapped out and economies and thereby civilization will fail, so our wager is against our future - hoping its not in our lifetime that the bill comes due.
"There is literally enough wealth and there are literally enough resources on our planet for each and every person to live a life of abundance. When base human needs are met, people behave very differently than in a world which justifies killing for money."
What is this idea that some are entitled to wealth while others aren't? Have you ever stopped to really think about that? IS possession 9/10ths of the law? If so, is that law helpful or hindering to civilization in the long-term? If property is the basis of wealth and the goal of this little game we've created is to amass as much wealth/property for oneself as possible, isn't it conceivable that someday someone will?
I don't mean to sound as though I know the answer(s). I don't. But I think it's important to ask the questions. What is beneficial about individuals having billions of dollars? What's detrimental about that? What would have been the outcome had the government bailed out Americans instead of the banks? Was the only reason it didn't do so, a philosophical one (i.e. - No one can appreciate what isn't earned. Yet, if that's true, why doesn't it apply to banks - or at least the individuals who run them - as well?)?
Regardless of where you line-up on the issue of wealth, property, entitlement...the conversation we should be having in this day and age is what will be most workable and beneficial to all - even the ungrateful and ne'er-do-well - going forward. Old solutions conceivably won't work on the scale at which they must be employed today. What are new ones with which we can replace them?
Sadly, it seems that in the absence of vision regarding these issues on the part of leaders with populist tendencies, leaders with conservative/elitist (because I'm sorry, dumb as a box of bricks or not, Republicans represent a very elite interest in the incredibly incredibly wealthy. The absurdity of their party claiming to be that of the people is legion.) tendencies are busily reshaping the law to further benefit the haves. Certainly this isn't news, but it should be the impetus for the conversation, no?
Photo via
Given the giant reaction to the whole GRIDTo thing and that it's Pride Month, why not try to address the question that's being begged, i.e. - What is gay? Some argue it's a relic of a bygone era when homosexuality was a covert activity and dire circumstances created a palpable culture that could be referred to, shorthand, as gay. Others claim it's an ongoing identity, a chosen status as outcast that will endure for as long as we continue choosing it. For me, the question remains unanswered, as I resist adopting an identity solely based on symbols and arguably common interests, yet I understand the problematic aspect of defining myself "in opposition to" anything, or of refusing to belong solely for the sake of refusal.
I aim to write a series of posts, then, in which I explore some of the ideas I have about what gay is, in the hopes that some of you will provide feedback or offer your submissions of your own conceptions of gay and that a healthy dialogue will occur, allowing us to continue honing our understanding of ourselves as gays, wo/men and humans.
So...let's evolve, kids!
Poster via FYF Friend Paul Vitale and Sissydude
An FYF friend submits the above picture to our learned and expert audience for analysis.
It's an "armchair" (though I think that's a gross over or understatement depending on your sexual orientation/preference!?) made for British King Edward VII, who was purportedly a connoisseur of cunnilingus...or at least that's the most plausible explanation I can propose for the particular structure and organization of the chair.
How do you think it was used?
Additional details and clues here and here. The thought is this ride was made for three?
Tangentially, Edward (below) was kind of an archetypal bear...at least in look (he just licked the ladies, though, so far as anyone knows.).
Photo of Edward via
Oh child. You're too young to be gracing a "library" card and serving as figurehead for readings.
Still, endorsing and encouraging "cultural" education? Brava! (Although - as opposed to...?)
Now...set the example by educating your monsters on your references and artistic pedigree. And if you haven't delved into them yourself, get on it!
We'll be over here, studying our worn old Webster's.
The Situationist International movement of the 1950s and 60s culminated philosophically in the publication of Guy Debord's "Society of the Spectacle" (Google Books has it here.) in 1967, and politically in the May '68 uprisings in France.
The ideas that informed the movement have never been more relevant (I mean, come ON! Society of the SPECTACLE!? Just the name alone...! How many "bold-faced" names flashed through your head when you read "spectacle"? ...EXACTLY!) and Benrik, a Situationist-styled performance art duo, aim to mass-market (ironically?) the construction of situations via a somewhat anarchistic app, available now.
Read more here (Please!).
Via I Think I'm Paranoid who muses, "Remember the days when you could show a cross-dressing satan lobster on a children’s cartoon show without parents bitching about it?"
In keeping with our reputation for being service-y, FYF extends the opportunity to all readers to submit a classified ad in commemoration of St. Valentine, to be posted on his day. "Wanted"s, "Now Hiring"'s and "M4M 4 ____" (or W4W's)all accepted (also anonymous letters to crushes, haikus, etc.).
If you're a 9-to-5er, hopefully we've caught you on your lunch break to say: we're not that far into the new year, so there's still plenty of time to make use of this good piece of advice from Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet's investment partner and Co-Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway...particularly in light of the impending collapse of the dollar (though it's pretty good advice regardless of whether the dollar/yen/pound/euro collapses, you own multiple gold bars or are a Rockefeller.).
And now excuse me? I've just racked up some hours to bill for...
Photo via
Not only can you not go on Manhunt via McDonald's free wifi, you also can't go to that hotbed of porn and sex, The Advocate. Oh, wait. Careful reading now alerts me to the fact that this is in New Zealand. There is nothing in the article regarding access in the U.S., but after having found the art above, I have to run this. Any volunteers to go to a local McDonald's and check this out?
Image via chan4chan
