The WikiLeaks controversy has been increasing as of late. So I decided to give about 3 people my unsolicited opinion.
1. People say shutting down WikiLeaks is a violation of free speech (not in constitutional terms, just with regard to censorship of the internet in general). No it isn't. Why?
a. Let's translate leaked documents into another plane. Leaked documents are like stolen property, right? I'd say so. So shutting down an operation whose business is the resale of stolen goods would be totally logical.
2. WikiLeaks has EVERY RIGHT to publish these documents! The government shouldn't be keeping secrets from the people!
a. Whoever really believes this is a total idiot who should be wearing a helmet at all times and be living in a padded home with no sharp corners. Honestly. I mean, if military protocol was public knowledge to US Citizens, the world would know it. If any such protocol was public knowledge to US Citizens, the world would know it. It's impossible to keep such material quiet if it's publicized at all. I mean, just look at this whole WikiLeaks issue. It's happening because there are those who are privy to information that they obviously shouldn't be.
b. Once you accept that certain information should remain secret, then who the fuck are you to decide what documents should be public knowledge? Because if the wrong people get their hands on certain documents that other people think the American people are entitled to, such as emergency response protocol, then that could be used against us. Some things seem so simple and black and white to us individuals, like government transparency. BUT WE DON'T SEE THE BIG PICTURE!
AND THIS IS A PROBLEM INHERENT IN THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT! THERE IS A BIG PICTURE WHICH WE CAN'T SEE! THERE CAN BE NO REAL TRANSPARENCY IF A GOVERNMENT IN THE REAL WORLD WISHES TO BE EFFECTIVE!
As a people, we don't really want to know the truth. We just don't want to find the truth out from someone else. Much like parents. Parents don't really want to know if their kids have smoked pot or stolen something or cheated on a test or had sex (until a certain age, of course). As long as they can't tell, they're perfectly well off assuming the best. That is, until they catch their 14 daughter in their bed having sex with her 19 year old boyfriend while smoking a joint using stolen birth control.
I see the necessity of black ops programs and intelligence agencies without too much oversight. I think these agencies should each have one Senator, or someone else who keeps secrets and lies for a living, to oversee them, without having to submit documentation after confirmation. But then I also believe the entire political and judicial system should be overhauled, so what the hell.
3. Amazon and PayPal were wrong to sever ties with WikiLeaks!
a. Nah, not really. They really did violate user agreements. PayPal says that users may not be doing anything that could cause illegal activity. And Amazon says that users may not being using someone else's shit.
b. Now, people are saying, "Amazon folded under pressure from the government! Joe Lieberman visits Jeff Bezos and Amazon gives WikiLeaks the boot? And what about all of the other people that use that service and violate the agreement?!"
Well, jackass, WikiLeaks DOES violate user policy. Amazon doesn't prescreen applicants. But if they catch you, they kick you off. There are hundreds of thousands of accounts here. Amazon can't look at all of them. but if the US Government brings something up, you can be damn sure Amazon OR ANY OTHER WEBSITE IN THE WORLD is at least going to review the case. So Amazon discovered violations and kicked them off. What's wrong with that?
WIKILEAKS HAS ENDANGERED PEOPLE. THE FOUNDER IS A NARCISSIST WITH A GOD COMPLEX. HE BELIEVES HE HAS THE RIGHT AND POWER AND KNOWLEDGE TO PUBLICIZE SENSITIVE INFORMATION. HE MUST BE STOPPED. I HOPE HIS "SUICIDE" IS DISCOVERED SOON.
I'm tired now, so I'll stop here. I probably won't finish this because I don't finish things, so leave a comment. I may have answered it in the next unpublished section, but don't be afraid to talk to me.
So why do I love the place so much? It's not only because their waitresses are all hot chicks wearing almost nothing, but it's because they're honest. They're saying, "Fuck health, this shit's delicious." And they're completely upfront about it. There are so many unhealthy things out there masquerading as health foods that it makes me sick.
These guys say, "Yeah, we're unhealthy. But face it, you know you want us in your mouths." And I like that. It's blunt, it's brash, but it's upfront.
Many people are saying, "Places like this should not be allowed to operate! It's ridiculous!"
Yeah? What about places that don't tell you that the "salad" you're about to eat contains about 6,000 calories? You can't really see or taste what goes into something until you've smelled or tasted it. Hell, nobody is going into the Heart Attack Grill under any illusions. I can understand *barely* if you're complaining about fast food places advertising certain menu items of theirs as health foods. But complaining that this place exists?
We live in a somewhat free country where we are allowed to make choices. The government is allowed to tell us what substances we put in our body, which is how certain drugs are illegal. But let me ask you a question. When heart disease or other fat-related diseases kill more people a year than all the drugs in the world (and all other drug related activities) and food is most certainly addictive and causes a high, why oh why does food remain as unregulated as it is?
I honestly cannot tell you the answer to that question, but as long as it is relatively unregulated, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET PEOPLE EAT THEIR GODDAMN CHEESEBURGERS!
The only time I really talk about how bad food is for you is when idiots I know spout bullshit they learned from D.A.R.E. in 5th grade. Which happened recently.
So getting back to my question, food is very addictive. And something that makes it more addictive than it naturally is, is that people don't recognize it as a drug, which is what it is. Many substances are "drugs" in one form or another, because they elicit neural responses in some way. Lots of heavy food (Thanksgiving meal) makes me sleepy just like the right amount of booze does. Smelling and tasting something delicious enough can give me a high and a rush like other drugs.
Just because food is legal doesn't mean it's less dangerous than illegal drugs. For example, there are many drugs out there that are legal that will fuck you up way more than any weed or illegal psychotropics or hallucinogens or coke or heroin. And I've tried some of them. Many of these can be purchased at convenience stores. Almost all convenience stores near my college sell them. Banzai, JWH, Spice, Space, K2, Blue Chill, etc. are all synthetic drugs that are legal. And all are stronger than weed. And probably worse for you. But I'm not sure, because I'm not a doctor and haven't examined these substances.
I think weed should be legalized, as I'll be posting in a subsequent blog very soon. And not because, "Well, man, it, um, like, feels good, man. And it's really, like um, not that bad for you, man." Because that's not a logical reason. No, I was thinking about it and came up with something I'd never heard before. So my question is, if food--something unquestionably worse for you than weed--is unregulated, shouldn't weed be?
No. It shouldn't. That's a stupid argument, many will say, because there are billions of people out there who eat and yet are not fat. Eating doesn't result in fat, eating unhealthy without adequate exercise results in fat. Yeah. Right. The first thing you do to lose weight is diet adjustment. I don't care how much you work out, you will not be losing much weight and living a more heart-healthy life if you eat several Big Macs a day. Diet is the most important part to maintaining health. Well, breathing and water are pretty important too. Plus, people don't crash cars and kill people on food.
Correct. Weed should be regulated. But tell me: when someone is in a car and they go into cardiac arrest because their arteries are blocked and they start swerving or lose consciousness, is that so different from people who are affected by their drug (be it weed, booze, etc.) getting into accidents? Both are experiencing the negative effects of their substance that caused the accident. And unless the guy's genetics blocked his arteries and he only ate lettuce, chickpeas, and mangoes and ran 16 miles every day, you won't convince me that his heart attack was not his fault.
I just read an interesting article that was about the separation of church and state. And it didn't involve Christine O'Donnell.
The article was about a small town in North Carolina called King. It has about 6,000 residents, restaurants, parks, everything most towns have. And a war memorial. And recently, an Afghan War vet complained because there was a Christian flag on the memorial. And the memorial is owned by the government.
And now, most of the residents of King are up in arms about this, as they feel that they are being stripped of their rights.
I agree. Separation of church and state, as explained by James Madison in the Federalist Papers (yes, I actually read them. No, I did not just go on Wikipedia and presume to be an expert) is the theory (and one I subscribe to) that government will run better when religion is not involved. And that's pretty simple and straightforward.
However, while most people know that much, they overestimate how much Madison thought it should affect and how much it Constitutionally affects.
For example, it is LEGAL to learn religion in public school. After all, history and religion are inextricably intertwined, and learning about religion academically further serves to understand the world around us. Americans (and to clarify, I'm not saying JUST Americans, I'm simply referring to a study done recently in America) are woefully ignorant about religion while most actually claim to subscribe to a religion's belief system.
Also, the Constitution states that the government shall not pass any laws in favor of one religion. I fail to see how this affects the memorial. In no way does a Christian flag indicate that the government supports Christianity over any other religion or creed. The flag is there to show the Church's support for the soldiers (don't take me out of context and think I'm saying the war, because I'm not going there) and their sorrow for their deaths. And that's it. The Christian flag was invented by a pastor. It isn't from the Bible or the Vatican or anything official. It isn't even a symbol for Jesus and Mary and the Holy Ghost and Joseph and anything remotely Christian. It's an unofficial flag with little real meaning that is meant to represent Christianity because one pastor decided would represent that.
But how does this affect how the government runs our country? This isn't a law that favors any religion. This is a statement by the people of that town-not even the Church! If democracy, which comes from the Greek words demos and demokratia which mean rule by common people and rule by people, respectively, is the government of choice, and if the people of the town support it, hold a vote. Allow the people to choose for themselves whether or not they can support their troops in a completely unofficial manner that pertains to Christianity.
After all, if hanging an unofficially Christian flag at a fucking war memorial is too religion-y for you, why do we swear on Bibles in court? Using an official, no, the official book of a religion that is sanctioned by the court is more unsavory to me than the flag business.
Please comment with your thoughts.
PS I am an agnostic with more atheist leanings (if I had to specify) who really doesn't value religion. So factor that into your understanding of my opinion.
Net neutrality is currently a hot-button and very important issue. For the four of you who have been living under a rock for the past... while, I'll explain what it is. Net neutrality is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should have no right to restrict the internet.
Now, most people are totally for net neutrality; however, the main reason for this is because they haven't really thought it through. Net neutrality=unfettered access to internet=free porn for life. Thus, most people who use the internet are totally for it. After all, what else is there to look at besides porn?
But if you look past your own preferences, you can see that the issue isn't as cut and dried as you think.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of the issue, let's define the current battle. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has undisputed control over all wired methods of communications, such as phone lines and wired internet. So the only thing being disputed right now is wireless internet, and by "wireless" I do not mean WiFi. I mean 3G and 4G. ISPs want to be able to regulate the content, and potentially restrict said content.
Moving on. ISPs are a BUSINESS in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY. They aren't a charity organization dedicated to giving the internet deprived as much content as possible for as little as possible. They exist to get as much profit as they can. ISPs aren't people, they're companies. This is basic capitalism, so if you can't wrap your head around this part, then you should leave America. Go to China; I hear they have good egg rolls.
Since we've established ISPs as corporations/businesses in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, what is their product? Oh, that's right! Internet!
They sell internet. Now, think about a carpenter. His name happens to be Leslie. But leave him alone. He's gotten too much crap about his name over the years AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY MORE!! Um, I mean, he won't. So Leslie makes tables. And he has this standard dining room table. But then he thinks to himself, I'm going to carve a little wood off the corners. And raise the price. But I'll tell my consumers about it, so that they'll be appraised of the situation. Would you say Leslie (DON'T LAUGH) has the right to do that?
If you said no, you don't believe in capitalism.
If you said yes, why is that different from the net neutrality battle? After all, both BUSINESSES exist to make money in a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, and they both want to change the product they sell to the masses.
Here are some questions you may ask (and ones I've been asked):
1. But if ISPs can restrict internet, those big corporations can gain monopolies through advertisement 'n' shit!
2. The FCC can regulate all methods of communication!
3. Eliminating net neutrality would result in massive price hikes for the consumer!
4. ISPs all already almost monopolies in different regions. Take away net neutrality, and you'll fuck shit up!
Here are some answer to those questions:
1. Gaining an advantage in advertisement is a part of capitalism. And I'm sure the FCC would pass something to prevent ISPs from wantonly blocking websites OR being paid to block specific sites.
2. No they can't.
3. Only people who don't understand basic economics would say that. In a FREE MARKET ECONOMY, there's something called "price elasticity." It's the quantification of how consumers respond to price changes. In an elastic economy, with an elastic good, price increases result in a decrease of revenue. And in a situation like this, where wireless internet (not WiFi, just 3G or 4G et al) is a luxury good with many cheaper substitutes such as the newer MiFis and good ol' fashioned WiFi, major price increases are a BAD idea. Businesses like these know this. So I don't really think they will raise the prices that much, if at all.
4. Not really. In my town, TWC is the only available option, so they're already monopolies. They could raise prices if they wanted. But they know they can't. Also, there are no monopolies on the 3G network by region. So the question doesn't even make sense.
However, many of you probably have noticed by now that there is one substantial question, the most important, and the root of the situation, that I've left out. And that is censorship. Restricting the information flow is a bad thing. It brings us one step closer to countries like China and North Korea.
But remember, WiFi is still regulated by the FCC, so the internet as we know it wouldn't change that much at all. MiFi sales will go up, depending on how much the 3G networks change in price and product, but the internet will remain an unrestricted flow of information.
Please, give me your thoughts on this issue. Has this blog given you some new thoughts or a better understanding of the issues? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Many of you have heard of Al Sharpton. But for those that
have not, I’ll give you a little background information.
Al Sharpton is a 54 (55 on Oct. 3) year old black male who
leeches off of society, “discovers” issues present in America (by which I mean
creates problems where there are none), lies, discriminates, cheats, steals,
has caused the death of numerous amounts of people, as well as prolonging
racism in America.
What’s more, I’ll actually prove all of this, as well as adding
my own editorial and views.
Al Sharpton makes his living by convincing people to give
him money. He makes a comfortable living by convincing others the money will be
well used. Also, there is some suspicion that the organization he created—the
National Action Network—may actually be something he uses to launder money. He
takes people’s money and does nothing good with it (I’ll explain this later, in
the opinion section). He also, as many of you may not know, accepts donations
to NOT boycott or raise hell about certain things. Anheuser Busch, for one, has
donated thousands to avoid Sharpton’s allegations. If he was a real activist,
he’d raise the issues and mere money would not stop him from making it right.
Al Sharpton also lies in order to get what he wants, and
then lies or cheats his way out of trouble. There was a case in 1987, when a
girl (black of course) was discovered covered in shit with racial slurs written
on her body. She alleged that 6 white men, including a few cops, raped her.
Sharpton, of course, supported her in her claims, and brought forward a
witness, who was found to have been lying and claimed to have been “encouraged”
to tell his story by Sharpton. After looking at medical records, as well as
looking at police records, and listening to all the testimony, the grand jury
found that Tawana Brawley had made up her story and done everything to herself,
including smearing shit on herself. She had not been raped, as the medical
records showed that the vaginal area was undisturbed and there were no signs of
her having been in a scuffle, other than her ripped clothing.
Sharpton then called the prosecutor a racist and a rapist,
and accused him of being one of the men who raped her. He was sued and found
guilty of slander. He had to pay $345,000 in damages, but refused to pay
because “I disagreed with the grand jury on Brawley. I believed there was enough evidence to
go to trial. Grand jury said there wasn’t. Okay, fine. Do I have a right to
disagree with the grand jury? Many Americans believe O.J. Simpson was guilty. A
jury said he wasn’t. So I have as much right to question a jury as they do.
Does it make somebody a racist? No! They just disagreed with the jury. So did
I." However, this statement makes little sense, as OJ Simpson followed the
verdict. He’s saying the law is the law, and people are allowed to disagree.
But are people allowed to violate the ruling of the courts? No.
Al Sharpton is also a racist and a homophobe, despite his
claims that he supports gays. He has been quoted on more than one occasion using
unacceptable words for gays. One such quote is: “White folks was [sic] in caves while we
was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics
before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”
He is also anti-semitic and anti-white and has caused people’s
deaths. These are quite connected. There are two such events that transpired
that I will note here, many more I will not.
In the mid 90s, there was a white, Jewish owned store called
Freddie’s. The owner, a dude named Fred, was asked by his landlord (a black Pentecostal
church lol) to evict Fred’s subtenant, a black-owned store. He did, and
Sharpton said, “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so
that some white interloper can expand his business.”
Now, apart from him having used the word white multiple times in his
speech as a bad thing and apart from him calling a legal tenant—who was the
landlord in this case—an “interloper”, he called for action against a white for
no reason. How is it racism against blacks if a black church is trying to evict
a black person? I don’t know, but maybe Al Sharpton knows better than I do.
After all, he did notice this GLARINGLY OBVIOUS bit of racism. (Note: the
eviction wasn’t to expand his business.)
Now, rather than harassing Fred like he does to most others, he
actually started riots. And more than that, he told his followers they should
get rid of the interloper’s business. Hmm… a call to arms, perhaps?
A day after his rousing speech, one of Al’s closest
friends/followers/slaves went into Freddie’s with a few tanks of gasoline and a
gun. He shot a few people, killing them instantly, lit the place on fire, and
then shot himself.
Now, to be fair, there is absolutely no concrete proof that Al
Sharpton told this man to do what he did. But let’s look at it logically:
1.Al Sharpton is a radical who has caused riots
and demanded penalties before.
2.He has caused much trouble.
3.He has a radical following.
4.He’s an idiot.
5.He hates Jews and whites.
6.He had just been calling for actions to be taken
7.One of his
sycophants/confidants/followers/whatever did it.
Now, even if you do not think Sharpton directly spoke to his
follower and ordered him to commit those murders, he still caused them by
inciting this man with his talk of action and his riots. So whether it was
direct or indirect only matters in terms of sentencing. Al Sharpton caused the
deaths of almost ten people in this one incident.
The next incident is also quite a bad one. On August 19, 1991, a Jew
was driving an right behind him was an unmarked cop car. The two cars went
through an intersection and the Jewish driver was T-boned by another car.
(Witnesses couldn’t agree whether the light was yellow or red) Unfortunately, a
7 year old boy named Gavin Cato and his cousin Angela were hit. Gavin lay
pinned under the car, and he was dead. His cousin was also hurt. The policeman
called for an ambulance, and a PRIVATE ambulance came and was instructed by the
cop to take the Jew away because he was worried about him (he was uninjured).
Very soon after, the city ambulance arrived to take away the Catos. Gavin was
dead; Angela survived. This all is very upsetting, but what does this have to
do with Al Sharpton?
Well, Sharpton began claiming that the private ambulance refused to
treat Cato, which caused his death. Now, other than that being patently untrue,
it was also inflammatory. Blacks rioted for days, looting stores, destroying
others, beating Jews (even killing several, one of which was visiting from
Australia) all the while shouting things like, “KILL THE JEW!” Sharpton himself
marched, being seen shouting, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin
their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." He also, as a way of
inciting the people called the Jews, “Diamond merchants” and chanted during the
march, “Whose streets? Our streets! No justice, no peace!”
His “activists” were nothing more than petty criminals using this
death to their advantage. They stole, assaulted, and ruined people’s lives, all
in the name of “justice”. I call bullshit. They’re like him, using unfortunate
circumstances to further themselves. He doesn’t help, he hurts. Treating the
word “lynch” as a racist word, defending a large minority while insulting other
minorities, etc. is not a good thing. It’s the mark of a selfish asshole doing
what he can to make his name known, and to increase his fortune.
And anyone caught telling him off is labeled a racist, rather than
someone who cuts through bullshit. He needs to be in jail. Why isn’t he? Why
has he gotten off so lightly for the countless smear campaigns, tax evasion
attempts, and money laundering, etc. he has done? Because if he was arrested,
the shit would hit the fan. The justice system can’t do its job correctly
because he has taken control of too many minds.
People are fucking retarded. I swear, the way society is these days, people are so brainwashed into believing idiocy.
Occasionally, I'll have a cigarette. Not a pack, but maybe 2-3. And occasionally here means once every 4 months. So it's a very rare occurrence. And yet this guy I know sees me doing it and very seriously, obnoxiously, and caustically "informs" me of the dangers of cigarettes. I told him that I know they can cause health issues, as well as lung cancer and emphysema. But, if you think about it, having a couple every 4 months really won't do too much.
And he continues to say (getting more and more angry at the fact I am defying his irrefutable logic ) how I'll die one day from smoking, because my 2 cigarettes are leading me, right now, to a hopeless addiction.
So I just got pissed off, and here is what I said (not EXACT wording, but very close):
"Listen fatass (note: this guy is MASSIVELY obese. He's about 5.5 feet tall and weighs about 350)! What do you think is more likely to kill you?! Fatty foods or cigarettes? Fatty food! Why? Because it also affects your entire health, you keep doing it, and since you don't even think of it as an "addiction" you continue stuffing your fucking face with pound after pound of McDonalds! You're going to die before you turn 45 from heart failure, or some shit like that. And you know what? I won't laugh, because that would be a dick move, but I will haunt you motherfucker!"
He walked away. And I'd like to expound on what I said now, in this blog. Addiction can be very dangerous, and often is, yet the world is brainwashed by stupid people trying to control you. And I am not a conspiracy nut.
Back in the day (up until the 60s-70s) the cigarette companies would market virtually exclusively towards kids. It tried to make them think smoking was cool. So people would get hooked because they started as kids with one cigarette, but since it was "cool" they kept doing it. And that's what caused the addiction, not the fact that they smoked one cigarette. Repeated use is the harbinger of addiction.
These days, that is illegal. People don't get addicted from having one cigarette, or even 2-3 every 4 months. Yet people are so brainwashed by others who are trying to starve the tobacco companies that they believe that all you need is one cigarette to get you hopelessly addicted. That isn't true with ANYTHING! It's impossible to get addicted with one use. You may say to yourself, "Hey, that was a great sensation! I'll do that again!" but that is not addiction. There is still an element of choice and control, and that is important.
Granted, the more extended the usage of said substance is, the more likely addiction is to occur, but addiction isn't brought on by one usage.
And besides, people think cigarettes are bad for you, guess the discrepancy between people who died from eating unhealthily and not working out as opposed to people who died from smoking. It's LARGE. And yet eating unhealthy food is completely acceptable. I have never seen anyone go to someone else and yell at them about the dangers of french fries. And why? Because people don't think you can be addicted to food.
WRONG. (and that makes it all the more dangerous)
Anyone ever see Supersize Me? No? You should. It wasn't great, but it really did help me fully understand the addiction of food. He got addicted to McDonalds after a few days. Morgan Spurlock said that he would get really depressed during the day, and the only thing that would cheer him up was his next meal from McDonalds. If that isn't addiction, I don't know what it.
And yet people don't take it seriously.... I've tried weed a bunch of times. I liked it. I've gotten drunk a bunch of times. I liked it. And yet I'm not addicted. Even when I drink/smoke, I know when to stop. Why? Because there is still the element of choice and control. And that is an important concept to understand. When you can choose when and how you do it, and you can control your intake, that is NOT an addiction (assuming you are not choosing to do it all the time, and damn the consequences).
This guy I'm somewhat friendly with (very bright guy, which is why this shocked me) is VERY against smoking of all kinds. Yet for lunch, he consumes 2 footlong fried chicken cutlet subs with a weird fatty sauce. For lunch. For breakfast he usually has a bagel with cream cheese and a soda. I was too scared to ask what he has for dinner. Is this not one of the grossest forms of hypocrisy out there? And it is widely practiced and accepted.
Fuck stupid people
I know I could have said this a lot better, but I'm tired so I don't give a fuck.
I am now trying to transcribe Giuseppe Tartini's The Devil's Trill into tab. It is enormously complicated, difficult, and will take me a long time. And I have school. So it's going to take a while. I'm not sure why I'm blogging about this, but I am.
First things first, I want to explain I love animals. I'm not a huge nature crunchy granola, nonshowering person, but ever since I was four, and up until I was 12, I read ZooBooks and National Geographic. I loved being in nature, but not all the time.
Dogs are really kind animals that love without cause. They are very kind animals and are very friendly. And then there are those that beat them. That kill them. That are cruel to them.
And that's genuinely disgusting. What Michael Vick did is awful. Maiming dogs, starving them, making them fight each other, etc. is terrible.
But how terrible is it? Is beating a dog worse than beating a spouse? Is it worse than rape? Is it worse than beating a human? I don't think so. In my mind, humans will always be more important than animals. If I had to put a dog down to save a life, I would view it as doing something good. Unfortunate, but good. I wouldn't kill it for no reason, but if I had to, there wouldn't be any regret.
Humans override animals, IMHO. That's why I am not a vegan. Anyone that thinks they are a crusader for animals while eating their flesh that was taken from their dead carcasses for their consumption is an idiot. I think animals should be treated well. But since I am more important than them, I am willing to have a cow killed so I can have a steak.
Yet some meat-eaters are angry at Michael Vick. I am too. He was wrong. But should his life be over for beating and killing dogs? Rapists, child molesters, and sometimes even murderers get additional opportunities in life. And the liberal community decries that they deserve another chance.
So why do people say Vick shouldn't get another chance? It doesn't make sense to me. He committed the crime, and did the time. He paid for his mistake. He lost his $122 million contract, his homes, his name, and definitely a large portion of his future. So he doesn't deserve another chance? That's idiotic.
Another thing that I don't get is giving money to animal charities, like the ASPCA. I understand that abused animals need money, and I'd be willing to throw them a few bucks every now and then. But exclusively giving money to these agencies doesn't make the giver a humanitarian. It makes them an animal lover. I heard someone telling her friend about how she gives all her charity to those poor animals she sees on TV commercials.
What the fuck happened to the homeless/poor/starving people in America?! Are they gone?! The reason people don't give as much to them is because they're dirty and not cute! If there were commercials about helping homeless people that made them look cute, people would jump to help them! But they just don't get the same sense of fulfillment from helping someone dirty and unkempt that they do from helping a cute little puppy.
You know what would make this country better? If the amount of pets allowed was decreased. If there were less dogs, cats, etc. in circulation. And there was a limit on the amount of pets people could have. That way only the people who really wanted pets could get them, and they'd be more expensive, so only those who could afford to take care of them could have them. Plus, the crazy people with fifty pets wouldn't exist. This may sound cruel to not let poorer people have pets, but the reality is that most of the animals rescued are either from places where they are beaten, or places they just aren't fed. Not necessarily out of cruelty, but out of a lack of funds. And those who had them would take better care of their investment! So if a poorer family wanted one, they'd have to really save up for it. This would essentially eliminate the need for an organization like the ASPCA.
And it would also prevent a lot of dogfighting. Dogs are cheap now, but if they were expensive, the cost of dogfighting would be astronomical. So people wouldn't want to do it.
In fact, if you disagree with my idea, you aren't an animal lover. After all, doesn't the welfare of thousands of animals override your desire to own one? (unless you dispute the effectiveness of this system)
So, in my mind, either do something to PREVENT cruelty to animals rather than being reactionary, or whoever gives their money to the ASPCA is flushing their money down the toilet. After all, since there are so many animals around, there will always be people beating them. I would give money to something PREVENTIONARY, but not REACTIONARY.
Please comment with your thoughts. Is giving money to the ASPCA a waste? Why or why not? And should the system be changed?
Ah! Time to discuss the race/gender/etc. card. This is one of my favorite bullshit topics!
Time and time again, we have heard idiots claim that they missed out on something because they are a woman/minority/gay. We have heard idiots like Al Sharpton (I'll post a blog about him very soon, don't fret ) and Jesse Jackson raise hell over innocuous speech or terminology. We have heard the "you don't know what it's like to be a woman in this world!!!" speech.
I can't speak for you, but I think it's all dumb. After slaves were freed about 165 years ago, they still weren't really free. The last thing that made blacks fully, 100% equal to whites was (if memory serves) the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which made the real estate market integrated.
So for 52 years, blacks have been 100% equal. Now, sure, there is racism, but it's been steadily declining. The KKK (or Ku Klux Klan, for those who don't know) was once one of the largest social organizations in America. What's more, it was once one of the most respected. Now, it's a joke and there are so few members that they couldn't burn a cross on a black man's lawn if they really tried. Or a lower case "t" to signify that it's time to leave.
In reality (not the fantasy world Sharpton lives in where he gets to extort endless amounts of money from endless amounts of racism) racism is almost dead. What revives it is idiots who get other idiots to decry racism about nothing.
(Side note: I am 100% willing to bet that most anyone feels most at home with their own race. Not to say that people are uncomfortable around other races, but people feel more comfortable when they are around people just like them. Gated communities tend to have the same kind of people, same architecture, same everything because it makes people feel safe. When people are the same, they're comfortable. That isn't racism, it's a fact. But that won't change, and it really doesn't affect matters too much.)
These days, people aren't not hired because of what they look like, or if they're concave or convex. Of course there are isolated incidents, and there will never not be those incidents, but I maintain that racism is virtually dead in America. (Except in the places where there are no minorities)
Claiming that you weren't hired because of what you look like is an escape route to prevent people from bettering themselves. Whenever people are rejected, they go through stages, just like in a breakup. But they always get to a point where they recognize that either the job wasn't right for them, or they weren't qualified. And that helps them improve. Self-awareness is crucial. But when you claim that you deserved the job but lost it because of your skin, you deny yourself a chance at maturing and self-improvement. And you make a fool out of yourself when the interviewer says, "Sir, you have a GED and a criminal record while the man we hired has a diploma from Yale University and an MBA."
There are organizations dedicated towards getting different minorities into government office.
Racism? No! It's progress!
And in my opinion, the fact that statistics show that the unemployment rate among minorities is higher than with white means nothing.
Now, women who claim they are treated unfairly are also being dumb. There will always be guys who make sexual comments. That's no reason to assume you aren't respected. A sexual joke is not tantamount to objectification, and those who are hypersensitive enough to be so offended by one so as to sue the company, the person, and everyone within ten blocks of Ground Zero do not belong in the business world where you need nerves, intelligence, and perspective.
I find nothing wrong with the ideals of feminism. Really, women should be equal to men. But they are... so feminism is now obsolete. The only reason there hasn't been a female president is because not many have run. And those that have haven't been good! There are several organizations dedicated purely to getting a woman elected president. It's bipartisan, and exists for the sole purpose of getting a woman in office.
Even ignoring the pure stupidity of the organization, consider that if a man did that, that would be sexism, but since women are doing it, it's "feminism." There are all-women's colleges that have been defended by feminists as "necessary" while those same women rail against the existence of all-male colleges. But when a man tries to do this, he gets called a sexist. Feminists are liberators, while sexists are slavers.
Have you heard of the "Take Back the Night" bullshit?
Women claiming that they can't walk the streets are full of shit. Walking in a crime infested area is stupid.... And the only difference between a woman walking the streets of a city full of crime is that rather than just getting robbed by a man (like men would), she could get raped by him too, seeing as he is more likely to be attracted to women than men. What women need to do to be more equal is to put more female criminals on the street to rob and rape guys. That would make everyone equally unsafe.
And have you noticed how women aren't demanding more jobs in the lower paying sector? I haven't noticed many demands by women to become garbagemen.... They seem to try an force themselves into good situations only. They are hypocrites, full of shit, and should be ignored. These idiotic feminists make women seem dumber.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying all/most women are like this. But there are many women who do join these organizations and actually believe they aren't equal.
And I think that's idiotic.
Guys, this blog is all my opinion, which I believe to be fact Please comment with your thoughts on this, but keep it civil, and keep it logical.