There are no poets
without toothaches
and a cigarette
and a drink

In pain

Afraid of dying
but not of death.

If you have a toothache
Get drunk
until the daylight
when the dentist opens

Wait politely for your turn
No one likes the imposers
that show up
to the emergency rooms
even if they’re dying.

Don’t be a hassle
Be a drunk.


The breeze hurts my soul

I want to be surrounded by people
without the pain of loneliness
Without the anger of a rape victim
I feel raped
when people walk past me

I want to walk in public
without getting pissed
at the breeze
people send at me
when they walk past

I want to hate feminists
but I can’t
because I’m half feminist
and half misogynist

I hate the people
that walk past me
And the breeze
they send at me

But I love the cat
that sleeps on my lap
as I type this

Am I a loser
That’s not a good noun
Am I alone
That’s better
But it’s an adjective

I want to be in public
and alone
An empty coffee shop
after a zombie apocalypse

An empty supermarket
after a nuclear attack

I want to be alone
but in public.

Why people commit suicide

What drives a man to suicide

it’s not a cheating wife

it’s not the death of a family member

it’s not the loss of faith

in humanity

or in god

it’s not any deep personal or philosophical reason

It’s the mild toothache that drives him

the last straw

the browned chip in a bag of chips

it’s the last time he forgot his keys

it’s the last electricity bill that he can’t afford

Suicide is the smallest suffering

that falls upon the heaviest man’s pile.

A falling feather that sets on a mountain.

Suicide is the heat of a summer day

in an uninsulated apartment.

Suicide is finding out the milk is spoiled

after pouring a bowl of cereal.

And suicide is the dishes being all dirty

with no money to eat out.

It’s not the tragedies that drive a man to suicide

it’s the minor inconveniences and


The late paycheck

and the cat that ignores you

even though it’s the only love you’ve got.


Socrates calls me naive
Aristotle calls me a beast
But the latter was a fool
who worshiped the ontological.

Socrates calls me an optimist
Aristotle calls me a God
But the former was a coward
who hid behind obscurity.

Gaon calls me reclusive
Heidegger calls me a rebel
But they were both zealous
and liked to flatter themselves.

Labels are useless
and Sartre was ugly.


Maybe I’m just a naive, reclusive fool, hoping to be different enough to not fit into the models. Or maybe I’m a rebellious god, who really doesn’t.

This Isn’t A Gem (why don’t we capitalize the A?)

Sprouting ores
and occasionally a fine gem

my c key doesn’t work
cause i spilled a drink on my keyboard
Bukowski was right
everything burns
being unable to capitalize the letter c
without stealing someone elses’ capitalized c
it burns like the hot edge of a pan
that you accidentally touch
making a french toast sandwich

having to copy and paste a c
using the mouse
because ctrl-c requires the c key.

you forget to turn off the gas
a fact you neglect to realize
while enjoying your french toast
just the perfect amount of butter
and cheese

almost good enough to make you
forget you’ll have to wash the pan.
a cigarette out of the pack
that wonderful post-meal cigarette
you flick your lighter

an apartment burning
it spreads slowly
to the other units
then faster
as the tenants die inhaling too much smoke
I thank god I smoke

Are scientists really humble?

The question invokes psychological concepts of our cognitive bias. It’s easy to imagine that scientists do share our biases, but we are supposed to take comfort in the fact that science is incorruptible and that its methodologies are shielded from human bias – in the same way that computers, despite being a human creation, does not share human biases. However, it is important to recognize that science (and computers) are tools, that can be used by any scientist.

So if the scientific community, being made up of people, shares collective biases and institutions, which are created through isomorphisms that arise as a result of concepts like intellectual reputation, intellectual conformity, personal pride, and other human susceptibilities, then the aforementioned tools will be used predominantly to affirm the beliefs of the scientific community. [excuse the run-on]

Neil deGrasse Tyson claims that Newton invoked intelligent design at the limits of his knowledge, and that we all have a tendency to do so at that point. I propose the reason for that and the lesson to be learned from it. A person working at the frontier of human knowledge, literally pushing our intellectual boundaries, has a much better understanding of the ignorance of man. This is an example of intellectual, hyperopic humility exhibited by many enlightened giants, from Einstein who expressed infuriation when he was used in religious or anti-religious arguments. Socrates, when accused of hubris for his condescension, proclaimed that his wisdom is “knowing that he knew nothing”. I would like to stress that most people would not be able to imagine the alteration of perspective that extraordinary intelligence can cause. It is within human capacity to imagine and understand a universe with no God, just as easily as it is to imagine one with a God. However, the universe is not obligated to appeal to common sense or intuition. The problem with the increasing idolization of rationality and its integration into science is that it holds in it the assumption that the universe(s) is/are rational, axiomatically negating any possibility of its validity. In summation:

  • Less intelligent people are more prone to a belief in God.
  • More intelligent people are more prone to a lack of belief in God.
  • Extraordinarily intelligent people are more prone to sit on the fence or retreat altogether from the issue.

Imagine for example a world of absolutes and statistics in which exists a single religion in the world (for simplicity), called Mumbo-Jumboism. By Gaussian distribution, 50% of people (those below average intelligence) remain Mumbo-Jumboists, but only 49% of people (those of higher intelligence) become atheists (in the sense of a conviction that God does not exist), or agnostics, who are mostly atheists that are trying to bypass the technicality that they cannot disprove God (i.e, stating that they are not 100% sure God doesn’t exist, but only 99% sure). The last 1%, those of extraordinary intelligence (e.g. Einstein and Newton) will either become true agnostics (a 50/50 chance of God’s existence; God not being limited to the Abrahamic, personal archetype), or retreat from the issue all together, both in their personal life and publicly/professionally.

The message to take is that despite how often certain icons masquerading as humble scientists (e.g. Richard Dawkins and friends) proclaim the ridiculousness of religion and fringe science, until the tools of scientific method are employed in these regards, they are as valid as any hypothesis. That statement does require some qualification, however, in that fallacies and other rhetoric cannot qualify as  hypotheses. The reason for this is that until (if ever) scientific knowledge is sufficient to allow further investigation into them, they are not testable, and are cursed to be mere beliefs. Furthermore, it is necessary for science to distance itself from individuals that go around posturing as adherents to the scientific method and as the epitome of rationality.  These individuals (some of them not even scientists) aim to turn science into a movement of sorts that prepositions rationality before inquiry and humility (i.e., if not rational, then not deserving of inquiry, and warranting ridicule), as though the universe is obliged to behave in a way that is fully discernible to our rationality, senses and the senses of our scientific instruments in their present state. The danger in adulating scientific icons is that is that they begin to possess excessive influence on public opinion, having the power to declare valid hypotheses that do not comply with their reality tunnel as invalid, without consulting and employing the scientific method.

Not all drugs are made equal

There really is an urgent need to distinguish between escapist chemicals, whose original and medical purpose is to tranquilize and sedate, such as heroin, benzodiazepines, and even alcohol, and the mind-expanding substances such as LSD, psilocybin, salvia, and DMT. Until that distinction is made, people will continue to perceive the crimes and deaths caused by the former as dangers of the entire spectrum of drugs. It doesn’t take a Nobel laureate to see that the message widely gained from psychedelic use is that of peace, unity, and love. A look back at the recent history of the 60s and 70s will show that the anti-war movement was driven by the same people who were experimenting with psychedelics. The media used this as nothing more than a tactic to suppress chemicals that had the potential to give birth to a population that speaks up demanding change. Media is a neotenizing force that has successfully subdued our imagination of potential possibilities.  We were waking up and getting off the hamster wheel, frightening authorities in the process. It’s much easier to control and manipulate people when they are in an alcohol-induced stupor. I’m not saying the government does this deliberately with intent, but it is a manifestation of its intentions and goals, as a sort of governmental subconscious desire.

And so caffeine continues to be sold to turn us into more productive cogwheels and make us jittery with anxiousness. Alcohol to dull our senses and brains when it all gets too much. They have designed a fenced playground of substances for us to play with, but they closed us off from the swing-set and the slides and left us in here with knives and artillery.