Thursday, February 26, 2009

Evolution Is Not A Fact

I found a great video that talks about general scientific theories. The first lady mentions that science classes mess up by telling kids that scientific "laws" are somehow higher than theories. As if a theory would somehow hope to become a law one day. That's not how scientists view theories. They explain the whole thing pretty well. Maybe I should send a copy to Bill o'Reilly.

Evolution isn't a fact. It's a collection of facts. Tested and then generalized to form a larger framework to explain other observations.

The geologist mentions that plate tectonics is a theory. And we're able to use that theory to explain earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Is there a fear that we're going to suddenly realize that it's wrong and start believing that God causes earthquakes in California because of gay marriage?

Guard You Wallets

Ancient Greek culture celebrated, what they called, arete in every aspect of their lives. Arete meant excellence. It meant the uniquely human drive towards full competence in everything that was attempted. Arete was courage and strength in the face of adveristy and it was all that the Greeks aspired to.

The Olympic games were born out of their desire to see masters at their respective crafts. Men used to stand in the city square and debate publicly to see who's use of logic and understanding was the best. The crowd would vote and cheer for the smartest, most well-spoken guy. Plays would be performed publicly as competition that would then be voted on by the crowds. They wanted to see the best--the best in everything. Of all their contributions to the world, I appreciate arete the most.

We generally carry on that tradition today. The Olympics are still held. Award shows abound. Some people still strive for excellence.

But would we say that it's ingrained in our culture? I don't think so. We don't encourage our kids to be the best. We don't instill in them a drive towards perfection. Rather, we don't want to be mean, so we say as long as you've tried, you've won the battle. Bull. You didn't win the battle. You lost the war. While you sat on the couch and ate frootloops, your competition was practicing. You lost because you were not as diligent as your opponent. When was the last time a kid heard that? Why is that so mean, by the way? I find that kind of honesty encouraging. But it's rare.

The panty-waist liberals get most of the balme for it, but the religious right have their own way to stifle excellence. I'll explain with an example.

There was a news story recently about a coach that was fired for beating another team 100 to 0. story For winning, he was fired. They said he shouldn't have won by that much. It's not nice. He made the other team feel uncomfortable, and should have been kinder about his victory. You see what liberalism is doing to this country? Why do I say liberalism? What does the political philosophy of the Left have to do with individual success?

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and their pals believe that the good of the whole should be put before the good of one. If one person succeeds while others don't, their is something seriously wrong in their book. They use words like "equality" and "fairness" to defend their philosophy. And that's why most college kids buy it. It sounds so good. Who could be against kindness? Who could be against equality?

Democrats can't stand the fact that some businesses are better than others--especially when the case involves foreigners. There's a bit of liberal jargon called "anti-dumping." If you can provide a better product at a much cheaper cost than a local competitor, you are not allowed to drop your prices to a level that they can't compete. It wouldn't be nice. They'd go out of business. So local consumers are stuck with the bad product at the higher price because that's the "nice" thing to do. Nice to who?

Democrats HATE Walmart. Walmart is not nice. They don't claim to be. They don't wish to be. Kindness is not in their business plan. They want to get more products to more people at the cheapest price, and make a hell of a lot of money doing it. That's like poison to a liberal. in fact they hope to make that criminal. To them, money is supposed to be made as a whole. The whole society has to make money in order for it to be good.

They hate the C.E.O. The guy who took the risk, came up with the business plan and started the company. Why? Because he makes so much goddamn money. He makes millions while the lowly cashier makes barely a living wage. To them that's injustice. He should be required to pay them enough so that they can pay their bills. You get it? It's HIS responsibility to ensure that they make enough to feed their family. Not theirs. It's not their responsibility to gain enough employable skills to live at the level that they choose. While they were sleeping in math class, he was studying. When they decided to pass on college, he begged and borrowed money to get through school. Now he's successful and they're not. Democrats have a real problem with that.

He should not feel sorry for them. Not one bit. And I'm glad that there are executives that don't feel guilty when there's a family that goes hungry. That is THEIR responsibility. He should pay employees the amount that he thinks there services are worth. Period. If they don't like it, they should seek employment elsewhere. No one owes them a living. They get paid a low wage because that's what their services are worth to the company. They don't have a good insurance plan because those plans are put as incentives to make people want to work there. The lowest workers aren't going anywhere, so why give them a great plan? No one is owed a great health plan.

The president recognized an executive that gave away his bonus to his employees because he didn't feel right taking it. If he truly didn't deserve it, and he knew it--then yea, i'd say fine, give it away to who you think deserves it. But he's a damn fool if he thinks that he has some moral responsibility to give his hard-earned money away. The religious right and the liberals have officially won the battle on that front. The Left and the Church agree that we should all feel guilty for being successful while someone else is not. There isn't even a reason really to fight it anymore. Atheists and Christians agree, you should feel guilty that someone else is struggling while you are not. Kids these days don't hear anything else. There is no debate anymore. The Greek virtue of arete is dead.

It's funny because I never thought I'd ever say that we shouldn't enact a plan to fight poverty. Eliminating poverty seems like the noblest of causes. It's crap. There will always be someone who chooses not to work. As long as there is laziness, there will be poverty. As long as people are able to make a choice to wake up and go to work or sit home and play video games, there will be poverty. Unless the liberals have their way. If it was their choice, we who choose to go to work should and will pay for those that sit home. We will be required by law, and threatened will jail time if we decide to work for ourselves and our loved ones.

Individual rights are fine with democrats until they are not polite anymore. At that point they will hammer down with the full-force of the law to punish un-niceness. They will throw your ass in jail if you don't pay for someone else's mortgage. They will tax (rob) you and give your money away to all your old deadbeat schoolmates that never wanted to apply themselves.

The basketball coach story is the perfect illustration of what the left believes: Do your best. Work hard. Succeed. But if you're too successful. If you make someone else's feelings hurt on your way, not only will you be discouraged from doing so--We Will Fire You! We will take away your livelihood. Forget the adage that you should be nice; you must be nice(!); you are required by law to be kind. And we will define what kind is from now on. We will legislate kindness with the ominous power of the court and prison system. Guard your wallets.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Court Is Now In Session

Enter hallowed halls of the highest court in the United States, The Free-Thinkers Hall of Public Justice. The honorable Pierre "No-I-Don't-Play-Basketball" Lafortune presiding.

Today's case: Don't Hate, I'm A C-H-I-M-P

The defendant, New York Post, published a cartoon showing police shooting a chimpanzee dead; with the caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The plaintiffs, Black America, represented by the Reverend Al Sharpton, claim that the cartoon is a blatant form of racism aimed at ridiculing the first black president and his stimulus plan.

Plaintiffs, you have the floor.

"Your honor, if it may please the court, we are outraged that a prominent newspaper would be so brash, rude, and condescending that they would publish a cartoon featuring chimp getting shot by cops, and saying that we will need someone else to get another plan. This is an obvious reference to our president and his recent attempt to revitalize our struggling nation.

We were referred to as apes, chimps, and monkeys at a dark time in this country's history. We thought those days were behind us. Obviously we were wrong! President Obama is getting enough death threats in the mail already, do we really need irresponsible newspapers adding fuel to the fire of bigotry with blatant disregard for decency and respect?

The New York Post should be found guilty of publishing hate-speech designed to intimidate, and degrade Black America and the president of the United States. We've worked too hard to change the backwards mentality of the past, and have come too far to turn back to prejudice. They think we're chimps? They will soon find out that we're lions, and we're ready to roar. The plaintiffs rest their case, your honor."

The defense may now take the stand.

"Your honor, if it may please the court, this is a terrible misunderstanding. The cartoon is in no way a joke against the president or the black community. The cartoon plays on the recent incident in Connecticutt wherein police officers shot and killed a chimpanzee that was attacking its owner.

That news event coincided with the writing of the stimulus package by members of Congress. The cartoonist placed Congress into the character of the chimp, since they were the authors and editors of the bill. Not the president. The president did not write the bill and in no way is the target of the joke.

Why would we publish a cartoon about the president getting shot? And then make him a chimp for good measure? Do they think we're insane?"

"Order. Go on."

"There is obviously a better explanation. The president didn't even write the bill. The joke is clearly about the writers of the bill. The authors, not the preisdent. Black America understands that we did not aim the cartoon at the president. It is only a small, politically motivated few who have gathered hear today. We do not believe that they have the power to speak for the Black community. And we dismiss their criticism as missplaced and unjust. The defense rests its case."

The honorable judge will consider all points of view and will then rule on the case after a brief recess.

All rise! The judge will now read his ruling on the matter.

"Our newspapers have historically been a source of public comment. The New York Post has a history of publishing provocative headlines and cartoons that push the envelope. Our nation was founded on the principle of free-speech and the court system must protect that right.

That being said, newspapers are printed for the public. And any content, whether substantive or satirical, must not exceed the boundaries established by the Constitution.

This type of humor is crass and reproachful. Any reference to the shooting of a government official is in bad taste. And the news story to which it is allegedly referring to is a sad story about a citizen who almost losing their life and an animal that, unfortunately, did. But having bad taste is not prohibited by law. That is for the consumers of the content to decide.

What is prohibited is hate speech. Which is any speech that is intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence against any person or group that might have any distinction that might be considered to some as a liability. If the cartoon in question made a veiled reference to the assasination of the president, it would be, no doubt, prima facie evidence of hate speech. But this cartoon does not appear to be making that statement. The cartoon appears to be aimed at Congress. On the charge of hate speech, I find the defendant not guilty."

*Yells from the back, mixed with sighs of relief*

"Order in the court. Order.

I hope the defense doesn't think that they are completely innocent regarding this matter. You do not publish your newspapers for yourselves. You cannot be careless about the messages that you are sending. There are racist images that run very deep into the roots of our history. Images that have the power to bring back wounds from a shameful history that our nation struggling daily heal from. You can not pretend to operate outside of that reality. That is why I am ordering you to publish a public apology addressed to anyone who may have been offended or hurt by your distasteful humor. We have come a long way, but we will never move forward by pretending that race does not exist. Remember that the next time you get a bright idea for a piece. Case closed."

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

In Defense of Country Music

How many times have you heard someone say that they like all music EXCEPT country. They always gotta make it clear that they aren't into it. They probably didn't like it when they were young and never listened to it again. Country should get another chance. So I'll defend the genre with two points--not that it needs defending, nor will two points cover the gamut of reasons to enjoy it.

One -- The music is good.

I could find a great country riff for every good pop melody that someone could find. In fact, where did pop music get its format from anyway? Oh yea, good ol' country. And get "Mud on the Tires" going on in your head, and you'll be humming it all night long.

We don't get to hear full bands play much anymore. I know we got the Dave Matthews Band and such, but the pickings are real slim in most genres. Country is the home of the full band. And when I say full, I mean just about every instrument that you can scrap together. Most of the singers can play, and most of the musicians can sing. You want to hear talent, don't skip out on country.

Two - The Message

I defy anyone to try to present to me a genre with more positive music than country, other than religious music. I'd even say that country teaches you more life lessons than gospel music. Sure at church we here "you can make it, cause God's gonna solve your problems for you." But country will teach you that life won't always work out for you(There Goes My Life- Kenny Chesney). And that this moment is all you have, so you better make the best of it (Live Like You Were Dying- Tim McGraw). And listening to "You're Gonna Miss This" by Trace Adkins can put things in perspective for you much better than any tranquility video or anger management course.

Country has always been about real life. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Most of us won't be driving ferraris. We'll probably just have a regular old car that acts up from time to time just to remind us that we're not rich. We don't all need to have our music artists rubbing it in our faces that we aren't as successfull as them. Sometimes you just need to hear the truth about this mysterious life that we're all experiencing.

There are many reasons to choose the type of music you listen to. Don't shut one out just because of what you heard from people or thought when you were eleven. You're older and smarter now. You can appreciate good music when you hear it.

So let's load up the pickup truck, get a few twelve packs, and head out to the middle of nowhere. Cause dammit, it's five o'clock somewhere and I need to make the best of the time I got.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Christian Bale Will Eat You

Christian ripped some guy's ass out on the set of his new Terminator movie. Some poor guy had no idea what he was getting himself into.

He gets so pissed that it gets hard to pinpoint his accent. It starts off American, shifts to Canadian. A little British and Australian gets thrown in. Then it descends into a South African twist. That's what I call anger. My favorite line at 1:02

Here's the dj remix for good measure.

Monday, February 02, 2009

A Billionaire Heiress in My Sights

Mission: Meet an heiress.

I first saw Georgina Bloomberg on the documentary, Born Rich. I thought how cool would it be to chat with her and maybe even romance her Cavalli pants off.

Then I saw her featured in an equestrian magazine. She talked about how she started a charity to help people get riding gear. She seemed like a cool person. Damn I have to meet her. How cool would it be to jet-set with her around the world flying to different events. But those are just pipe dreams, right?

I thought I saw her at the Player's Club last night. I asked a journalist that was standing with us who it was. She confirmed that it was indeed Georgina.

At that point I knew I had to talk to her. There was no way I was going to leave that place and throw away a once-in-a-lifetime chance to meet someone that I half-fantasized about. She was talking to some guy, so I didn't rush in. My buddy thought I was about to chicken out because of nerves. He was right about the nerves, but they weren't about to stop me at that point.

The guy walked away and a girlfriend approached her. I knew it was time. I dove in like Michael Phelps. I said hi, and started talking about the charity. Tractor-beam, sucked me right in. I was nervous, but I was so happy to be doing it. This was someone that I daydreamed about talking to. It felt great to know that I went for it.

Her friend left us to talk alone after she saw that I wasn't a creep.

She put her drink down and we started chatting. It was for me to talk to her. I tried not too be in my head too much. But I found myself thinking that I should look away so I don't get into a staring contest with her. But when I looked away, it felt like I wasn't paying attention. So my brain was turning a bit.

The conversation started to dry up a bit. She shifted into nice interview mode, and I knew the conversation was about over. We said our goodbyes. Then she walked out the door and out my life forever.

After talking to her, I had no problem approaching the other chicas in the club. They all seemed like small change compared to the girl that's worth $11.5 billion.

Jennifer Hudson for Super Bowl MVP

Can a national anthem singer win the trophy? I think we need to consider it.

First off, she was smart enough to have a musical track instead of the idiotic trend of singing acappella. The music was creative, but not too weird. She kept it traditional but added her touch.

And in the midst of pain she's probably feeling because of the recent deaths in her family, she still came out and executed beautifully. I hope my singers were taking notes.

What's with the picture?

I have this picture first on my profile. So of all the pictures I could've picked, why that one?

It best captures my look on human achievement. We started out just like every other animal. Look at what we've been able to accomplish. We've taken this ish over. We've been able to accomplish just about every thing we've put our minds to.

We wanted to live longer; now our life span has nearly tripled. We wanted to communicate with each other better; we developed the alphabet and can now communicate anywhere on earth. We used to attempt to find food as if it was our sole purpose; now we have the technology to barely consider where our next meal will come from.

Whatever we wanted, there was an individual's mind that imagined a solution, and got to work.

We used to have to wait for daylight to do work, and wait for nightfall to be able to rest easy. Now we control the light. One day we might even be able to control the sunrise itself.

A human's finger pushing down on the sun is the perfect way to show how we've been able to use nature to do what we want.

Post script: John Mayer's song goes perfectly with the photo.

Gravity is trying to hold us down. But it wasn't strong to stop us from flying not only into the sky, but even to the moon.

The religious dreamed of going into the sky after they died. Man's imagination said why wait? If heaven is in the clouds above. Let's fly higher than heaven. The religious conveniently switched their belief after they saw that we can accomplish that. Now they say heaven is in another dimension. I wonder where they'll say heaven moved to once we've discovered the other dimensions.

But Why is he Wrong?

I will forward my response to a question about my last post.

The question regarded my support for the banking bonuses in the midst of the economic turmoil.

Pierre's answer:
If there was a man who personally made a trillion dollars last year. And unemployment went up to 50%; foreclosures up to 70%. And he gave no one any money; no assistance, no charity, no help.

And he spent all his money on wild parties, golden toilets, and yachts, I'd be okay with it.

Why? Because it's HIS money.

If a government official came to his home and tried to touch one cent of it, outside of the amount they already plunder through taxes, he should kill that official immediately.

When a company like Goldman Sachs makes good investments and pays its CEO $68 million because he created billions in revenue and shareholder value, I'm happy. I'm excited for them and for him. He would have been paid more if it was my choice. But it's not my choice, it's theirs.

I think Carmello Anthony should be paid less to play basketball. But I support the team's right to make that decision. It's not about what I would do in a situation, it's about someone's right to spend their money on what they think is best. It's not my choice, it's theirs.

I don't think the democrats really agree that it's other people's money. I think the Left really feels like it's partly their money that's being made by everyone. And therefore we as a community, should limit their pay. They think we, as a collective, should decide how much bonus to give them. And that we should decide how the company's money should be spent.

I just want to scream from the mountain tops, "My money is not made for the government, it's not made for the children in Africa, it's not made for anyone but me!"

Obama has no right to decide how much any American gets paid. He has no right to decide what any American should do with their lives; and no authority to decide what any of us should do with our money.

You're Wrong Mr. President

One thing​ I don'​t like about​ Obama​,​ other​ than the fact that he's a liber​al socia​list,​ is that he capit​ulate​s to publi​c opini​on as his m.o.

His lates​t is the banki​ng bonus​ buzz in the midst​ of the bailo​ut bonan​za (​allit​.​ anyon​e?​)​.​ He says it's "​shame​ful"​ that banke​rs got $18 billi​on dolla​rs in bonus​es last year.​

That'​s how they get paid!​ Part salar​y,​ part commi​ssion​,​ part bonus​.​ The bonus​es are part of their​ pay packa​ge.​ Not all of them sell deriv​ative​s,​ sir. If I sold respo​nsibl​e inves​tment​s and made the compa​ny money​,​ I shoul​d get a bonus​,​ perio​d.​

I won'​t give up my pay becau​se the idiot​s downs​tairs​ made bad inves​tment​s.​ And I would​n'​t expec​t a bank to do any diffe​rent.​

The sad part is that he knows​ the truth​.​ It's just an unpop​ular opini​on for a polit​ician​ to have.​ Which​ is exact​ly why I don'​t trust​ him. Q.​E.​D.​