I often hear people complain in dismay about the state of the world today as though today was so much worse than in the past. Either these people don’t know rudimentary history or they’ve been shielded from reality. Our fictional horror flicks are nothing compared to the carnage found in history. People have devised ways of torture and murder that will make you vomit. It’s enough to make you ashamed of your species. I once heard an atheist say he thinks people are basically good. No. Humans are basically evil. History is our report card. It is drenched in blood and gore and there is simply no way to rationalize it.
Even from an overview standpoint, recorded history reveals a perpetual state of violence. Sometimes we call it war. Sometimes we call it raids. Sometimes people call it domestic abuse. When we’re involved we use terms like military engagement or conflict or the extermination of manifest destiny. We can’t study war without the lens of propaganda.
I can only surmise that something is inherently wrong with humans. What possesses a person to look at their neighbor (whether village or nation) and think “yea, I’m going to go over there, kill the man, rape the woman and take the kids, house, land and any other resources for myself?” What kind of person even considers such a thing? Apparently the majority from around the globe. It’s bad enough that this has been the norm for thousands of years but it continues to this very day. Are we diseased in our souls?
People talk and write about “great” civilizations. What determines the greatness of a civilization? Is it really their architecture and engineering and size or scope of their empire? Or is it their compassion? Is the Roman Coliseum impressive because of its engineering or a disgrace because of the barbarism that occurred within? Is a military “genius” still a genius if his military campaign was to conquer? Are civilizations really great when they are built via slavery, oppressive taxes and military domination? Is winning at all costs truly victory? Does this describe only historical empires and other nations or the U.S. as well? You know we’re busted.
Humans tend to have this universal psychosis that whatever group they’re born into is somehow superior to others, deliberately ignoring the fact that they could have been born at any time and place into any group because it’s not something anyone can control. Isn’t that just self-evident? How can there be racism, or sexism, or ultra nationalism? How can a country founded on the belief of inalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have treated the Native Americans as they did (and still do), build itself on the back of slavery and indentured servitude, not give women the right to vote until the 20th century, and have millions of abortions performed on demand? Anyone who claims to respect the Bible should remember Numbers 35:33 "… bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.” Sounds like a general rule to me. But, of course, the last thing most people really want to hear is that they are guilty of atrocious behavior and accountable to their Creator who can destroy their soul. Nope, don’t want to think about that. Many self-proclaimed religious people in the U.S. don’t want to even give up the SUV to save a polar bear.
I think property taxes should be greatly reduced but I do think that a percentage of those taxes nationwide should go to Native Americans. I think every Native American with the desire and intellect to do so should have full scholarship to any public university they choose. We owe them. We owe them big time. We took their homes and their livelihoods. Many live in destitution because we took what was theirs. As far as possible public lands should be given back to the tribes to which they traditionally belonged at the time of conquest. (Yes, conquest.) I’ve actually heard supposedly intelligent people say that the Native Americans weren’t “doing” anything with the land so somehow that makes it ok for us to cheat them out of it or that the coast to coast subjection and dominion was inevitable. How would people like it if the Chinese came over and said they didn’t agree with what we were doing with the land and began genocide? It’s not like we aren’t outnumbered or anything, right?
We excuse our own behavior. We elevate hypocrisy to stratospheric heights. We need to decide what our values are and stand by them. No, we don’t like that. We are a nation that developed atomic weapons, used them (the testing at the Bikini islands remains a national sin) and entered a nuclear arms race with another Superpower but we think we have some moral right to prohibit other nations from doing the same. Do we think we are “good enough” to be responsible with nuclear weapons but no one else is? The U.S. did the same thing when Native Americans were prohibited from owning guns. Do we really believe that we are so superior that the rest of the world requires our supervision? We can’t even balance a budget. Isn’t that a basic level of responsibility? Isn’t that what is expected of every child given an allowance? People profit from war and debt and death and therefore it continues.
Any “vanilla” person who thinks slavery doesn’t still strongly affect race relations to this day has their head up their ass. Virtually every “white” person said Obama’s election had nothing to do with race while the “black” people obviously saw the opposite. And they STILL don’t get it. The same thing goes for those who think the war in Iraq isn’t over oil. We’re running low on fuel so we’ve got to take someone else’s because that’s the way of the world. History is a stuck record and we’re apparently too stupid to see it. What happened to every major world power in history that had diminishing resources, ballooning debt and military overreach? They fell. Hard.
When it comes to abortion it’s not really about whether or not it is legal or illegal although that is a basal moral temperature of our culture (we’re on life support). The real problem is why are there millions of unwanted pregnancies in the first place and why are there millions of women who are willing to kill their babies? They’ll do it whether it is legal or not. Is an orgasm worth killing for? That’s the root question but no one wants to face it because we don’t like the answer. But we will face it one way or another. The message that abortion on demand sends is that people are disposable if they get in your way. Doesn’t anyone notice that school shootings became more common once the Roe vs. Wade generation’s youngest children started to reach high school age? The same message is reflected in youth suicide. Death is perceived as an answer. According to history it always has been. Can’t we embrace life and birth control? Can’t we learn the difference between self-defense and aggression? Can’t we respect others as much as we respect ourselves? Is it really not humanly possible or is it just that the people who can often end up as fodder for those who can’t?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
If you have to ask Stacy and Clinton you’ll never know
I was researching schools and came across a charter school’s dress code. Apparently their dress code is precious to them – they ranted on about it more than academics. It goes a little something like this:
“Hair must be clean, neat and styled traditionally. Only natural colors are allowed. No unusual or radical hairstyles. Boy’s hair should not touch the shoulder or hang in the eyes. No facial hair is allowed. No more than two necklaces may be worn at one time. No more than two bracelets may be worn on each wrist (for girls). (One bracelet per wrist for boys.) No more than two rings may be worn on each hand (for girls). (One ring per hand for boys.) Earrings will be limited to two per ear and must not be oversized (for girls). (Boys could not wear earrings.) Makeup must look natural (girls only). Black, brown, or dark blue nail polish and lipstick are not acceptable. No tank tops.Hooded sweatshirts may be worn to school (as an outer garment), but not in school. The cuff of the pants may not touch the ground, but must touch the top of the shoe. Shirts must have collars. Tailored dress shirts must be tucked in. No writing on shoes. Shoelaces must match.”
Do you think they police belly button lint or halitosis? There’s your visual on the dress code of the sheeple. Only someone willing to sell their soul could agree to such a wing clipping. “If you can't get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?” – General George S. Patton.
Dress codes have nothing to do with learning. Dress codes are about control and conformity. It states “whatever you do… don’t think for yourself.” Dress codes are yet one more common practice that gives the finger to the Golden Rule.
“The Fashion Police” is a show where beautiful people with (often) beautiful clothes are critiqued by people who are not. How does that work? Can’t Joan Rivers find a better outlet for her acerbic wit? There’s plenty in this world that needs some criticism. Joan is talented and looks pretty (artificially) good until she opens her mouth on that show and then suddenly she looks like a bitter old crone. No plastic surgery can fix that.
It’s like the show “What Not to Wear.” You can watch two shows and you’ve seen it all. You can check that off your list. It’s the same shit over and over. The only thing that changes is the mannequin. The “after” pictures all say “Even though I said at the beginning of the show I want to be different and express myself, I’m more comfortable dressing like everyone else. I do what I’m told because otherwise I couldn’t be on TV.” I think they’ve been brainwashed by $5,000 and two fashion slaves. I haven’t seen anything original in fashion for over 20 years (at least). The fashion industry is a dog chasing its own tail and they think we don’t know. Their “seasons” are about as surprising as nature’s seasons. It’s like a twenty-something criticizing some out-of-favor fashion from the 80s when she’s standing there looking like a Marsha Brady clone.
Ok, here’s my wake-the-hell-up speech to Stacy and Clinton:
* Most floral prints look like bed sheets. No one wants to look like a walking mattress.
* Flip flops are not half as ugly as most of those pointy pumps you tell just about every woman is flattering.
* Most people’s flannel Wal-Mart pajamas are better looking than the majority of the things you two wear. (Especially Clinton – sorry dude, but argyle sweater vests are for girls.) As long as people are covered, clean and comfy who gives a shit if they wear their pajamas out in public? They’re just clothes. Is your underwire push-up bra and butt-floss thongs bothering you so much that you just can’t stand to see someone comfortable in public? A fit body looks good in almost anything. An un-fit body doesn’t look good in anything. I don’t care how much money you wrap it in.
* Small fitted jackets look good only on very small/thin people (like elementary kids). Stop putting women in them. They look like they stuffed themselves into something they outgrew 30 years ago.
* Princess cuts are cute on toddlers and pregnant women. No one else. No, it’s not sexy.
* If “everybody” is wearing a particular style then it’s not cool. So all those people on your show striving (usually unsuccessfully) to look cool obviously fail miserably when you put them in the same flavor crapola you put the last 50 people in.
Here’s some basic, universal fashion sense: If a body part is not beautiful – cover it up. If it jiggles cover it up. Men, unless you are ripped, hot, and lean (like Duff [http://www.myspace.com/duffsmckagan]) then don’t say a word about a woman needing to lose weight. Some of you guys run around with your “awnings” and have the nerve to talk about a woman’s cellulite. I don’t think so. Go critique your convex self in the three-way. And what is it about our culture that thinks women should show off their bodies while men are covered and generally comfortable? Women, take a hint – no tits and ass revelation at work unless you are willing to do the boss and then we’re all clear on that. Women aren’t considered well dressed unless they are showing off their bodies. (If they are beautiful that’s inspirational and you go girl, but most are not.) Bulges, bulges everywhere waving at us through fitted fabrics! It’s one thing to have them, it’s another thing to let us all in on your little muffin-top secret. I don’t want to see cleavage. I have my own, thank you. I’m not impressed with yours. If you don’t have visible quads then you don’t have nice legs … cover them up. And women with their sky high, pointy, screw-me pumps. Geez! Really? Save it for a special occasion like an awards ceremony or a pole dance on Valentine’s Day. They’re the modern equivalent of corsets … except corsets look better. Why are women willing to be in pain half the day in an attempt to look attractive but your average guy would scoff at the very idea? If you want to be in pain to look good channel that effort into something that works. (It requires sweating and persistent self-denial.)
Men’s suits: How is it that men get away with wearing something that literally has been around for centuries and yet be considered well dressed? A tie is a cross between a bib and a leash. They only look good if they're not taken seriously. (Check out Tommy: http://rws-blog.rhapsody.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/25/motleycrue_4.jpg) If you have a dominatrix fetish put your tie/leash in the same box as her do-me pumps and keep it to yourself. And why are men afraid of color? You walk into a men’s clothing department and you see white, brown, khaki, blue, grey and black. Is there something about your one-legged chromosome that lends toward Chromophobia?
Why do many men bitch and whine about losing their hair but keep it cut super pubic-hair short even when they have a head full? If you like it … let it grow a bit; if you don’t … let it go. Personally, I think head hair is one of the potentially attractive things about humans. It’s a mystery as to why only women and some creative types grasp that. Men, that’s a clue.
As we are constantly reminded, you can’t regulate taste. You can make dress codes in exhaustive detail and some people will still look boring and shabby even when they try to follow the fashion experts’ seasonal advice. (How can a color be “new” this season?) That’s the problem though. Creative, independent people don’t follow. Naughty wolves.
In the words of Keith Richards regarding cool: “It just is, or you ain’t.” (Rolling Stone May 31, 2007) Wolf.
“Hair must be clean, neat and styled traditionally. Only natural colors are allowed. No unusual or radical hairstyles. Boy’s hair should not touch the shoulder or hang in the eyes. No facial hair is allowed. No more than two necklaces may be worn at one time. No more than two bracelets may be worn on each wrist (for girls). (One bracelet per wrist for boys.) No more than two rings may be worn on each hand (for girls). (One ring per hand for boys.) Earrings will be limited to two per ear and must not be oversized (for girls). (Boys could not wear earrings.) Makeup must look natural (girls only). Black, brown, or dark blue nail polish and lipstick are not acceptable. No tank tops.Hooded sweatshirts may be worn to school (as an outer garment), but not in school. The cuff of the pants may not touch the ground, but must touch the top of the shoe. Shirts must have collars. Tailored dress shirts must be tucked in. No writing on shoes. Shoelaces must match.”
Do you think they police belly button lint or halitosis? There’s your visual on the dress code of the sheeple. Only someone willing to sell their soul could agree to such a wing clipping. “If you can't get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?” – General George S. Patton.
Dress codes have nothing to do with learning. Dress codes are about control and conformity. It states “whatever you do… don’t think for yourself.” Dress codes are yet one more common practice that gives the finger to the Golden Rule.
“The Fashion Police” is a show where beautiful people with (often) beautiful clothes are critiqued by people who are not. How does that work? Can’t Joan Rivers find a better outlet for her acerbic wit? There’s plenty in this world that needs some criticism. Joan is talented and looks pretty (artificially) good until she opens her mouth on that show and then suddenly she looks like a bitter old crone. No plastic surgery can fix that.
It’s like the show “What Not to Wear.” You can watch two shows and you’ve seen it all. You can check that off your list. It’s the same shit over and over. The only thing that changes is the mannequin. The “after” pictures all say “Even though I said at the beginning of the show I want to be different and express myself, I’m more comfortable dressing like everyone else. I do what I’m told because otherwise I couldn’t be on TV.” I think they’ve been brainwashed by $5,000 and two fashion slaves. I haven’t seen anything original in fashion for over 20 years (at least). The fashion industry is a dog chasing its own tail and they think we don’t know. Their “seasons” are about as surprising as nature’s seasons. It’s like a twenty-something criticizing some out-of-favor fashion from the 80s when she’s standing there looking like a Marsha Brady clone.
Ok, here’s my wake-the-hell-up speech to Stacy and Clinton:
* Most floral prints look like bed sheets. No one wants to look like a walking mattress.
* Flip flops are not half as ugly as most of those pointy pumps you tell just about every woman is flattering.
* Most people’s flannel Wal-Mart pajamas are better looking than the majority of the things you two wear. (Especially Clinton – sorry dude, but argyle sweater vests are for girls.) As long as people are covered, clean and comfy who gives a shit if they wear their pajamas out in public? They’re just clothes. Is your underwire push-up bra and butt-floss thongs bothering you so much that you just can’t stand to see someone comfortable in public? A fit body looks good in almost anything. An un-fit body doesn’t look good in anything. I don’t care how much money you wrap it in.
* Small fitted jackets look good only on very small/thin people (like elementary kids). Stop putting women in them. They look like they stuffed themselves into something they outgrew 30 years ago.
* Princess cuts are cute on toddlers and pregnant women. No one else. No, it’s not sexy.
* If “everybody” is wearing a particular style then it’s not cool. So all those people on your show striving (usually unsuccessfully) to look cool obviously fail miserably when you put them in the same flavor crapola you put the last 50 people in.
Here’s some basic, universal fashion sense: If a body part is not beautiful – cover it up. If it jiggles cover it up. Men, unless you are ripped, hot, and lean (like Duff [http://www.myspace.com/duffsmckagan]) then don’t say a word about a woman needing to lose weight. Some of you guys run around with your “awnings” and have the nerve to talk about a woman’s cellulite. I don’t think so. Go critique your convex self in the three-way. And what is it about our culture that thinks women should show off their bodies while men are covered and generally comfortable? Women, take a hint – no tits and ass revelation at work unless you are willing to do the boss and then we’re all clear on that. Women aren’t considered well dressed unless they are showing off their bodies. (If they are beautiful that’s inspirational and you go girl, but most are not.) Bulges, bulges everywhere waving at us through fitted fabrics! It’s one thing to have them, it’s another thing to let us all in on your little muffin-top secret. I don’t want to see cleavage. I have my own, thank you. I’m not impressed with yours. If you don’t have visible quads then you don’t have nice legs … cover them up. And women with their sky high, pointy, screw-me pumps. Geez! Really? Save it for a special occasion like an awards ceremony or a pole dance on Valentine’s Day. They’re the modern equivalent of corsets … except corsets look better. Why are women willing to be in pain half the day in an attempt to look attractive but your average guy would scoff at the very idea? If you want to be in pain to look good channel that effort into something that works. (It requires sweating and persistent self-denial.)
Men’s suits: How is it that men get away with wearing something that literally has been around for centuries and yet be considered well dressed? A tie is a cross between a bib and a leash. They only look good if they're not taken seriously. (Check out Tommy: http://rws-blog.rhapsody.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/25/motleycrue_4.jpg) If you have a dominatrix fetish put your tie/leash in the same box as her do-me pumps and keep it to yourself. And why are men afraid of color? You walk into a men’s clothing department and you see white, brown, khaki, blue, grey and black. Is there something about your one-legged chromosome that lends toward Chromophobia?
Why do many men bitch and whine about losing their hair but keep it cut super pubic-hair short even when they have a head full? If you like it … let it grow a bit; if you don’t … let it go. Personally, I think head hair is one of the potentially attractive things about humans. It’s a mystery as to why only women and some creative types grasp that. Men, that’s a clue.
As we are constantly reminded, you can’t regulate taste. You can make dress codes in exhaustive detail and some people will still look boring and shabby even when they try to follow the fashion experts’ seasonal advice. (How can a color be “new” this season?) That’s the problem though. Creative, independent people don’t follow. Naughty wolves.
In the words of Keith Richards regarding cool: “It just is, or you ain’t.” (Rolling Stone May 31, 2007) Wolf.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Recording industry specializes in boring with a capitol Z
I was looking at a top 10 list of music. As has been the case for about 20 years I don’t find any of it vaguely interesting. I’m not faulting the people who actually like that music. Yay, you. But there is a virtually ignored market of millions of people who are not being reached by the record companies. So they, as middlemen, have become obsolete. Good riddance.
Most of those millions of people who bought hard rock and heavy metal albums in the late 70s and 80s and filled the stadiums for concerts are still here and we’ve reproduced a new generation that likes much of the same type of music. Think "exponential."
A little elementary research revealed that an estimated combined 1.66 trillion albums were sold by some of my favorite bands which are all rock, hard rock and heavy metal. I do not, nor will I ever, own a Celine Dion, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Madonna, Garth Brooks, Barbara Streisand, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carrey, pick your pop princess, wake-me-up-when-it’s-over-even-this-list-is-boring ….CD. Yes, I know they have talent as do thousands or possibly millions of undiscovered people. They can do chromatic vocal runs… zzzz. No, I do not find them entertaining. Ever.
What I see is predictable, artificially-(i.e. Disney) created pop stars. Figured out a formula, have you? Got a cycle planned? A little T&A, a little sickly sweet, and then when they want to announce themselves grown up they put on a televised bump and grind (dance pole optional). Wow, didn’t see that coming… yet…again. Lame with a capitol suck. It’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Little Debbie snack cakes.
Where is the adrenaline? Where is the testosterone? Oh yea, they’re touring the smaller venues because the recording industry is run by neutered morons.
Do the record company suits not like our money or maybe they can’t quite figure out the new paradigm? They talk about needing big star money to find new talent when they’re ignoring what is right under their noses. Do they think that 40- and 50- or even 60-somethings are not appealing as rock stars to people who love hard rock music? Joe Perry, Slash, Duff, Tommy Lee, Nikki Sixx, Phil Lewis et al are infinitely cooler and rock harder than most others regardless of age. Keith Richards, even at 66, is the epitome of cool. As a business how do you turn your back on people who’ve bought 1.66 trillion albums and are wanting more?
The demise started with Nirvana. I actually liked Nirvana but I still can’t figure out what it was about them that prompted an industry-wide head-up-ass response by the recording industry. When I bought “Nevermind” I didn’t stop liking Motley Crue or L.A. Guns or Guns ‘N Roses or Def Leppard or Skid Row or Cinderella or Ozzy or Metallica. (Would they freak at being clustered in the same sentence?)
Once Nirvana hit we were inundated by posers copying the Nirvana bi-polar formula (starting out soft and them slamming you with the heavy follow up). You know what? That worked for, oh, maybe a decade … let’s move on, shall we? And what’s with the whining – OMG. STFU already!
You know what I’ve been listening to lately? “Waking the Dead” by L.A. Guns released in 2002. It kicks ass. I’m also very impatiently waiting for a new Velvet Revolver or Buckcherry CD. If I could find more music like this I’d buy it and I’d keep buying it and then I’d buy it some more. Is there an MBA out there in some record company who remembers the basics? Do the math.
I guess what is going to happen is the hard rock musicians and fans will just have to go around record companies treat them like the obsolete pieces of shit they once treated us. Thanks to the Internet we can just buzz market and buy online.
Izzy, I’m on my way with my debit card.
Most of those millions of people who bought hard rock and heavy metal albums in the late 70s and 80s and filled the stadiums for concerts are still here and we’ve reproduced a new generation that likes much of the same type of music. Think "exponential."
A little elementary research revealed that an estimated combined 1.66 trillion albums were sold by some of my favorite bands which are all rock, hard rock and heavy metal. I do not, nor will I ever, own a Celine Dion, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Madonna, Garth Brooks, Barbara Streisand, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carrey, pick your pop princess, wake-me-up-when-it’s-over-even-this-list-is-boring ….CD. Yes, I know they have talent as do thousands or possibly millions of undiscovered people. They can do chromatic vocal runs… zzzz. No, I do not find them entertaining. Ever.
What I see is predictable, artificially-(i.e. Disney) created pop stars. Figured out a formula, have you? Got a cycle planned? A little T&A, a little sickly sweet, and then when they want to announce themselves grown up they put on a televised bump and grind (dance pole optional). Wow, didn’t see that coming… yet…again. Lame with a capitol suck. It’s like an all-you-can-eat buffet of Little Debbie snack cakes.
Where is the adrenaline? Where is the testosterone? Oh yea, they’re touring the smaller venues because the recording industry is run by neutered morons.
Do the record company suits not like our money or maybe they can’t quite figure out the new paradigm? They talk about needing big star money to find new talent when they’re ignoring what is right under their noses. Do they think that 40- and 50- or even 60-somethings are not appealing as rock stars to people who love hard rock music? Joe Perry, Slash, Duff, Tommy Lee, Nikki Sixx, Phil Lewis et al are infinitely cooler and rock harder than most others regardless of age. Keith Richards, even at 66, is the epitome of cool. As a business how do you turn your back on people who’ve bought 1.66 trillion albums and are wanting more?
The demise started with Nirvana. I actually liked Nirvana but I still can’t figure out what it was about them that prompted an industry-wide head-up-ass response by the recording industry. When I bought “Nevermind” I didn’t stop liking Motley Crue or L.A. Guns or Guns ‘N Roses or Def Leppard or Skid Row or Cinderella or Ozzy or Metallica. (Would they freak at being clustered in the same sentence?)
Once Nirvana hit we were inundated by posers copying the Nirvana bi-polar formula (starting out soft and them slamming you with the heavy follow up). You know what? That worked for, oh, maybe a decade … let’s move on, shall we? And what’s with the whining – OMG. STFU already!
You know what I’ve been listening to lately? “Waking the Dead” by L.A. Guns released in 2002. It kicks ass. I’m also very impatiently waiting for a new Velvet Revolver or Buckcherry CD. If I could find more music like this I’d buy it and I’d keep buying it and then I’d buy it some more. Is there an MBA out there in some record company who remembers the basics? Do the math.
I guess what is going to happen is the hard rock musicians and fans will just have to go around record companies treat them like the obsolete pieces of shit they once treated us. Thanks to the Internet we can just buzz market and buy online.
Izzy, I’m on my way with my debit card.
Sheeple, gotta love 'em; but they need a bitch slap from the wolves
Anyone who reads my blog knows that I continuously bemoan the stupidity of people. It’s expected that some find this offensive. Obviously if you make a blanket statement to a room full of people it will be only the people to which the statement actually applies who will be offended. The great reveal so to speak.
It’s not that I think most people are born with a deficient brain. I think that every human born has great potential and great worth – every single one of them. The problem is that people are not using their brains. They are not thinking clearly and are not being honest even with themselves. They continue through pre-programmed motions and as long as there is not a major disaster in their lives nothing changes. They need a reality bitch-slap because we’re all in this sinking ship together.
Our species is so spiritually handicapped that most of our decisions and behaviors are directly influenced by artificial marketing and PR. The real priorities of love, health, peace and compassion are not forces reckoned with. Instead, our lives are directed by and entrenched in the materialistic and superficial and we think that’s ok, because we’re ok. Some think they’re even exceptional.
While we are all aware that we are inundated with marketing messages most of us don’t realize the extent to which it influences us.
* Why do certain people get hired while others don’t? Marketing.
* Why do people go to college? Marketing/PR.
* Why do people date and marry the people they do? Marketing.
* Why do people drive the cars they drive, buy the houses they live in or the clothes they wear? Marketing/PR.
* Why do people get the credit cards they use, pick the banks they choose, eat the food they eat, and shop where they shop? Marketing.
* Even the non-profits you contribute to reach you through marketing.
* You watch the TV programs you do primarily because of marketing. Including buzz.
Big deal?
The people who are successful are good at marketing. The ones who are super successful not only have a talent for marketing and hire the accomplished in marketing but have flexible ethics and morals. They’ll play dirty if it means more leverage for them. Human laws are not the yardstick for right and wrong. The 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule are. You don’t have to be religious to see how they so succinctly state universally accepted good behavior. Quite in contrast to a single 20,000 page bill before Congress. (More proof that people are stupid.)
Some common samples of legal but wrong acts:
* Underpaying employees because you can get away with it is wrong.
* Tripling the price on something because other people are either a) undercharging you because of desperation, or b) overpaying you because of stupidity, ignorance, or lack of a fair alternative is wrong.
* Selling people GMO grain doused in sugar and chemicals with virtually no nutritional value that’s worth a few cents packaged in an over-inked pressboard box for $4 and proclaiming it a healthy breakfast is wrong.
* Overfishing the ocean because you think you have a right to or that your family has done it for ___ generations is wrong.
* The system that requires spending millions of dollars to get elected to public office is wrong. It's an incestuous career for the wealthy.
* Charging people bankruptcy-inducing, home foreclosure amounts when they have a serious injury or illness is wrong.
* Foreclosing on someone’s home when they are three months late on payments after paying on time for a decade is wrong.
* Charging someone a $39 overdraft fee or late fee on a credit card is wrong.
* Giving someone a ticket for going 10 miles over the already artificially low speed limit is wrong.
* Basing public financial assistance on charts that don’t consider financial reality is wrong.
* Lack of competition for local electricity, gas, phone, water, etc. is wrong.
* Putting cell phone towers every fucking where without getting permission from the people who live and work in that area affected is wrong.
* The oil industry suppressing inventions that would either greatly reduce or eliminate the need for gas in cars is wrong. The technology has been available for decades.
* The cosmetic/cologne industries legal use of literally hundreds of known toxic chemicals that soak right through skin is wrong.
* The use of chlorine and fluoride in public drinking water is obviously wrong.
* That there are dirty, cold, hungry, homeless people in a nation full of expensive churches, sprawling malls and dumpsters full of untouched food is a disgrace.
* That those who care for and teach children are some of the lowest paid and least respected people in our culture is wrong.
* The blatant double standards between men and women are wrong.
* That medications are patented and vaccines pushed with the sole goal of enormous financial reward is wrong.
* That natural remedies are demonized by the FDA and allopathic medicine is wrong.
* That your long distance bill is $14 and you didn’t even make a phone call is wrong. (And every other bill that consists of fees and taxes.)
* That murderers, rapists, and child molesters ever hurt a second person is a national failing.
* That CEOs of American companies are rewarded with millions of dollars while taking jobs away from American workers is wrong. Daniel Pink wrote in “A Whole New Mind” that in one decade an estimated $136 billion in American wages is expected to shift overseas. If you can't make an American business profitable in the U.S. then you are a failure as a CEO.
It’s all legal. They get away with it because the sheeple are brainwashed by marketing, PR, custom and tradition – none of which requires thinking. Thanks in large part to public schools and institutional religion.
Here’s a brief national I.Q. test: 1) Were you surprised by Katrina’s damage to New Orleans? 2) Were you surprised by 9/11? If you said yes to either question you have failed the test and you are not using your brain.
#1. I am a Louisiana native. When I was 12 years old and taking a Louisiana History course I remember reading that New Orleans was built below sea level right smack on the coast. I vividly remember realizing right then and there (an “oh, shit!” moment) that one day a massive hurricane would one day devastate New Orleans. And if they rebuild it another hurricane will eventually destroy it. Yea, I know that being below sea level is not the primary cause of Katrina’s destruction. I know it’s because the levee broke. Just believing that you can build a man-made whatever that will protect your below sea level, coastal city indefinitely from nature is ludicrous. I used to live close to a levee. Anyone with any sense knows you just have to cross your fingers and if you get any hint of a hurricane you get your ass out. Anyone who lives in a coastal city needs to look reality in the face and KNOW that there is the strong possibility – maybe it is even inevitable – that nature may kick your cleverly engineered ass. And don’t be an idiot and use the last century as your gauge of what will or will not happen. It’s not personal. It’s nature. It’s not negotiable. I’m not saying coastal cities should be deserted. People will live where they want no matter what; but please have the intelligence to not play chicken with a hurricane and the dignity to refrain from whining about the end result especially on television.
#2. My surprise at 9/11 was zero. Yes, it was a tragedy. Yes, it pissed me off. But no, it was not surprising. The U.S. is like an old lady (perceiving herself to be a self-righteous matriarch) who loves to gossip and manipulate – just can’t keep her nose out of everybody else’s business. That pisses people off – some more than others. If you keep pissing people off someone will eventually give you a bloody nose. It’s inevitable. What’s with the shocked expressions? Were the Twin Towers not previously targeted? Hello? What do we need? A singing telegram? And how can people be so horrified at the deaths of 2973 innocent people but yet casually rationalize the deaths of millions of innocent people at our own hands? The FDA approved Vioxx that killed about 50,000 innocent people. 50,000 dead people (with families who loved them just as much as the people in the World Trade Center) in the name of profit with the federal government’s nod of assent. Are you horrified? Crying over the loss of innocent American lives? There’s much more where that came from. Doctors in the U.S. cause about 225,000 deaths per year. (See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx) Just imagine what that number will look like with national health care. (Ever been to a veterans’ hospital?) Are you disturbed? Shall we start a victims' fund? What about the near-genocide of the Native Americans? (The Native Americans were the source for many of the ideas of liberty in the Constitution. Our treatment of them inspired Hitler’s death camps.) Everybody feeling ok with that? How exceptional are we? And then there’s the estimated 50 million babies (and counting) killed by abortion. But some people are disposable – just as long as they didn’t work in the World Trade Center, right? Maybe they were large enough to matter. Is it the TV cameras that make a difference? “There’s no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” – Howard Zinn, American Historian.
It’s not about what’s legal or illegal. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about reaping and sowing. It’s not about artificial marketing messages. It’s about whether you and your loved ones deserve respect and liberty and if you/they do (and I believe they do) then so does everyone else on this planet. God bless Earth.
It’s not that I think most people are born with a deficient brain. I think that every human born has great potential and great worth – every single one of them. The problem is that people are not using their brains. They are not thinking clearly and are not being honest even with themselves. They continue through pre-programmed motions and as long as there is not a major disaster in their lives nothing changes. They need a reality bitch-slap because we’re all in this sinking ship together.
Our species is so spiritually handicapped that most of our decisions and behaviors are directly influenced by artificial marketing and PR. The real priorities of love, health, peace and compassion are not forces reckoned with. Instead, our lives are directed by and entrenched in the materialistic and superficial and we think that’s ok, because we’re ok. Some think they’re even exceptional.
While we are all aware that we are inundated with marketing messages most of us don’t realize the extent to which it influences us.
* Why do certain people get hired while others don’t? Marketing.
* Why do people go to college? Marketing/PR.
* Why do people date and marry the people they do? Marketing.
* Why do people drive the cars they drive, buy the houses they live in or the clothes they wear? Marketing/PR.
* Why do people get the credit cards they use, pick the banks they choose, eat the food they eat, and shop where they shop? Marketing.
* Even the non-profits you contribute to reach you through marketing.
* You watch the TV programs you do primarily because of marketing. Including buzz.
Big deal?
The people who are successful are good at marketing. The ones who are super successful not only have a talent for marketing and hire the accomplished in marketing but have flexible ethics and morals. They’ll play dirty if it means more leverage for them. Human laws are not the yardstick for right and wrong. The 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule are. You don’t have to be religious to see how they so succinctly state universally accepted good behavior. Quite in contrast to a single 20,000 page bill before Congress. (More proof that people are stupid.)
Some common samples of legal but wrong acts:
* Underpaying employees because you can get away with it is wrong.
* Tripling the price on something because other people are either a) undercharging you because of desperation, or b) overpaying you because of stupidity, ignorance, or lack of a fair alternative is wrong.
* Selling people GMO grain doused in sugar and chemicals with virtually no nutritional value that’s worth a few cents packaged in an over-inked pressboard box for $4 and proclaiming it a healthy breakfast is wrong.
* Overfishing the ocean because you think you have a right to or that your family has done it for ___ generations is wrong.
* The system that requires spending millions of dollars to get elected to public office is wrong. It's an incestuous career for the wealthy.
* Charging people bankruptcy-inducing, home foreclosure amounts when they have a serious injury or illness is wrong.
* Foreclosing on someone’s home when they are three months late on payments after paying on time for a decade is wrong.
* Charging someone a $39 overdraft fee or late fee on a credit card is wrong.
* Giving someone a ticket for going 10 miles over the already artificially low speed limit is wrong.
* Basing public financial assistance on charts that don’t consider financial reality is wrong.
* Lack of competition for local electricity, gas, phone, water, etc. is wrong.
* Putting cell phone towers every fucking where without getting permission from the people who live and work in that area affected is wrong.
* The oil industry suppressing inventions that would either greatly reduce or eliminate the need for gas in cars is wrong. The technology has been available for decades.
* The cosmetic/cologne industries legal use of literally hundreds of known toxic chemicals that soak right through skin is wrong.
* The use of chlorine and fluoride in public drinking water is obviously wrong.
* That there are dirty, cold, hungry, homeless people in a nation full of expensive churches, sprawling malls and dumpsters full of untouched food is a disgrace.
* That those who care for and teach children are some of the lowest paid and least respected people in our culture is wrong.
* The blatant double standards between men and women are wrong.
* That medications are patented and vaccines pushed with the sole goal of enormous financial reward is wrong.
* That natural remedies are demonized by the FDA and allopathic medicine is wrong.
* That your long distance bill is $14 and you didn’t even make a phone call is wrong. (And every other bill that consists of fees and taxes.)
* That murderers, rapists, and child molesters ever hurt a second person is a national failing.
* That CEOs of American companies are rewarded with millions of dollars while taking jobs away from American workers is wrong. Daniel Pink wrote in “A Whole New Mind” that in one decade an estimated $136 billion in American wages is expected to shift overseas. If you can't make an American business profitable in the U.S. then you are a failure as a CEO.
It’s all legal. They get away with it because the sheeple are brainwashed by marketing, PR, custom and tradition – none of which requires thinking. Thanks in large part to public schools and institutional religion.
Here’s a brief national I.Q. test: 1) Were you surprised by Katrina’s damage to New Orleans? 2) Were you surprised by 9/11? If you said yes to either question you have failed the test and you are not using your brain.
#1. I am a Louisiana native. When I was 12 years old and taking a Louisiana History course I remember reading that New Orleans was built below sea level right smack on the coast. I vividly remember realizing right then and there (an “oh, shit!” moment) that one day a massive hurricane would one day devastate New Orleans. And if they rebuild it another hurricane will eventually destroy it. Yea, I know that being below sea level is not the primary cause of Katrina’s destruction. I know it’s because the levee broke. Just believing that you can build a man-made whatever that will protect your below sea level, coastal city indefinitely from nature is ludicrous. I used to live close to a levee. Anyone with any sense knows you just have to cross your fingers and if you get any hint of a hurricane you get your ass out. Anyone who lives in a coastal city needs to look reality in the face and KNOW that there is the strong possibility – maybe it is even inevitable – that nature may kick your cleverly engineered ass. And don’t be an idiot and use the last century as your gauge of what will or will not happen. It’s not personal. It’s nature. It’s not negotiable. I’m not saying coastal cities should be deserted. People will live where they want no matter what; but please have the intelligence to not play chicken with a hurricane and the dignity to refrain from whining about the end result especially on television.
#2. My surprise at 9/11 was zero. Yes, it was a tragedy. Yes, it pissed me off. But no, it was not surprising. The U.S. is like an old lady (perceiving herself to be a self-righteous matriarch) who loves to gossip and manipulate – just can’t keep her nose out of everybody else’s business. That pisses people off – some more than others. If you keep pissing people off someone will eventually give you a bloody nose. It’s inevitable. What’s with the shocked expressions? Were the Twin Towers not previously targeted? Hello? What do we need? A singing telegram? And how can people be so horrified at the deaths of 2973 innocent people but yet casually rationalize the deaths of millions of innocent people at our own hands? The FDA approved Vioxx that killed about 50,000 innocent people. 50,000 dead people (with families who loved them just as much as the people in the World Trade Center) in the name of profit with the federal government’s nod of assent. Are you horrified? Crying over the loss of innocent American lives? There’s much more where that came from. Doctors in the U.S. cause about 225,000 deaths per year. (See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx) Just imagine what that number will look like with national health care. (Ever been to a veterans’ hospital?) Are you disturbed? Shall we start a victims' fund? What about the near-genocide of the Native Americans? (The Native Americans were the source for many of the ideas of liberty in the Constitution. Our treatment of them inspired Hitler’s death camps.) Everybody feeling ok with that? How exceptional are we? And then there’s the estimated 50 million babies (and counting) killed by abortion. But some people are disposable – just as long as they didn’t work in the World Trade Center, right? Maybe they were large enough to matter. Is it the TV cameras that make a difference? “There’s no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” – Howard Zinn, American Historian.
It’s not about what’s legal or illegal. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about reaping and sowing. It’s not about artificial marketing messages. It’s about whether you and your loved ones deserve respect and liberty and if you/they do (and I believe they do) then so does everyone else on this planet. God bless Earth.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Prompt and proctology are really good friends
People distract themselves from the genuine priorities in life by industriously making mountains out of mole hills. While this is a ubiquitous characteristic of human behavior (pedicure, anyone?) the mainstream reverence for punctuality is one excellent example. Many people read into punctuality (or lack thereof) everything but what it actually is: “arriving exactly at the time appointed.” That’s all it is. It’s not respect, or commitment, or loyalty, or intelligence, or quality, or deadlines. People say those things because they’ve had it beaten into their heads by the establishment -- regurgitating a non-thought.
Punctuality is important only when someone else is relying on you in order to do what they need to do. Reasonable examples are appointed meetings, opening a business to customers, medical appointments, airline employees, etc. If others can just as easily carry on without your prompt arrival then punctuality is irrelevant and only becomes yet another method of control.
We got along quite productively for centuries without a clock tracking the minutes in the day. I think our micromanaging was born in the Industrial Revolution. News Flash: we don’t work that way anymore. If you’re watching the clock (especially if you’re looking for someone else to arrive) you’re wasting time. Maybe you should actually focus on your own work.
Here’s a random quote from the Internet showing how many people perceive being late and punctuality: “If you have problems being on time, you'll already feel bad about appearing sloppy, lazy, unprofessional, selfish or undisciplined due to poor time-keeping. Being punctual shows respect and consideration for others. Punctuality also shows you have self-discipline and organizational ability.” Wow. Sounds like a professional analysis, huh? Sounds like a load or horse shit to me. Let’s take a look-see and bring our brains this time, shall we?
Being late does not mean you are sloppy. You might be an anal-retentive cross-the-t-dot-the-i person who wanted everything to be just so before you left home. Pathetic, yes. Sloppy, no.
Being late does not mean you are lazy. You might want to have gotten in that full five-mile-run before heading to work.
Being late does not mean you are unprofessional. That depends on your profession. I’ve found many “professionals” to be highly unprofessional even with the habit of punctuality.
Being late does not mean you are selfish. Maybe you were helping your kid find a misplaced algebra book before school. Or maybe you were helping your neighbor with a flat tire.
Being late does not mean you are undisciplined. Maybe you were late because you were studying for college finals while holding down a full-time job and you are battling exhaustion and adrenal burnout.
Being punctual does not mean you are organized. I’ve known brilliant, hard-working people who are extremely unorganized (to the point of hoarding) and yet are predictably punctual.
And the granddaddy of them all: Being punctual (when others are not delayed by your absence) has nothing to do with respect. Depending on the situation, it may have something to do with fear. Not the same thing. But it’s the idea of respect that the business world connects most often with punctuality.
Ironically, many business people who revere punctuality would actually prefer you to be early. Which, of course, is not punctual… it’s early. It’s a symptom of needing a life outside of work. (I personally find it infuriating when someone arrives to an appointment early. I’ve got things to do and you weren’t penciled into that slot. You’re trespassing.) They say it boils down to money – that businesses lose money when employees are late. (If that’s true, then they conversely earn more money if you are early but they don’t mention that and certainly don’t pass it on to you. Silly peon.) If the employee is paid hourly that is not true. If an hourly employee is 10 minutes late then they don’t get paid for those 10 minutes. Big honking deal. Of course, they should stay 10 minutes late or cut into lunch. Oh yea, but they want you to do that anyway. A business has no right to bitch about you being 10 minutes late unless you get to bitch about having to stay 10 minutes late which of course is frowned upon. The idea that employers should be allowed to freely encroach on the rest of your scheduled life is archaic as is the idea of loyalty. We all know that companies are not loyal to employees. We’ve all seen that employees are disposable. Therefore, employees do not owe loyalty to their employers (beyond what is ethical) and they, too, are disposable.
If you are on salary as long as you are working your agreed-upon number of hours what difference does it make if you are five minutes late in the morning? Haven’t we all worked through lunches, stayed late into the night, answered trouble-shooting phone calls in the middle of the night, worked weekends when necessary? Anyone writing business articles about that crossing the business-etiquette line of respect? I haven’t seen one. But again, your time is disposable.
The ability to arrive on time also has nothing to do with meeting a deadline. Any self-employed artist/writer can tell you that. Doing a high-quality job that meets deadline doesn’t naturally translate into early riser, clock watcher behavior.
On a related note you often hear businesses bitch about losing money because of coffee-breaks or idle chit chat or whatever in the morning. This may truly be a problem if taken to excess but they also don’t seem to consider the employment-related work most people do when not on the job such as research, study, or making business-related contacts. Many people take work home. Our lives are not so clearly or easily compartmentalized. So a profitable employer-employee relationship is really a give-and-take of mutual respect and trust unless you have complete losers working for you. In that case, it’s your fault for hiring them. Click “undo” and figure out how to do a revealing interview. Here’s a snippet on what not to do: I read a book written by some hiring “expert” who wrote (I paraphrase) ‘if you’re not 15 minutes early for an interview then you’re late.’ That dude needs a remedial math course pronto regarding the number line and integers. Here’s the positive to his idiot negative thinking: ‘if I’m 10 minutes late and you’re 15 minutes late then I’m early.’ Brilliant. It should be on a pre-interview test for businesses who value independent and clever employees.
Punctuality is important only when someone else is relying on you in order to do what they need to do. Reasonable examples are appointed meetings, opening a business to customers, medical appointments, airline employees, etc. If others can just as easily carry on without your prompt arrival then punctuality is irrelevant and only becomes yet another method of control.
We got along quite productively for centuries without a clock tracking the minutes in the day. I think our micromanaging was born in the Industrial Revolution. News Flash: we don’t work that way anymore. If you’re watching the clock (especially if you’re looking for someone else to arrive) you’re wasting time. Maybe you should actually focus on your own work.
Here’s a random quote from the Internet showing how many people perceive being late and punctuality: “If you have problems being on time, you'll already feel bad about appearing sloppy, lazy, unprofessional, selfish or undisciplined due to poor time-keeping. Being punctual shows respect and consideration for others. Punctuality also shows you have self-discipline and organizational ability.” Wow. Sounds like a professional analysis, huh? Sounds like a load or horse shit to me. Let’s take a look-see and bring our brains this time, shall we?
Being late does not mean you are sloppy. You might be an anal-retentive cross-the-t-dot-the-i person who wanted everything to be just so before you left home. Pathetic, yes. Sloppy, no.
Being late does not mean you are lazy. You might want to have gotten in that full five-mile-run before heading to work.
Being late does not mean you are unprofessional. That depends on your profession. I’ve found many “professionals” to be highly unprofessional even with the habit of punctuality.
Being late does not mean you are selfish. Maybe you were helping your kid find a misplaced algebra book before school. Or maybe you were helping your neighbor with a flat tire.
Being late does not mean you are undisciplined. Maybe you were late because you were studying for college finals while holding down a full-time job and you are battling exhaustion and adrenal burnout.
Being punctual does not mean you are organized. I’ve known brilliant, hard-working people who are extremely unorganized (to the point of hoarding) and yet are predictably punctual.
And the granddaddy of them all: Being punctual (when others are not delayed by your absence) has nothing to do with respect. Depending on the situation, it may have something to do with fear. Not the same thing. But it’s the idea of respect that the business world connects most often with punctuality.
Ironically, many business people who revere punctuality would actually prefer you to be early. Which, of course, is not punctual… it’s early. It’s a symptom of needing a life outside of work. (I personally find it infuriating when someone arrives to an appointment early. I’ve got things to do and you weren’t penciled into that slot. You’re trespassing.) They say it boils down to money – that businesses lose money when employees are late. (If that’s true, then they conversely earn more money if you are early but they don’t mention that and certainly don’t pass it on to you. Silly peon.) If the employee is paid hourly that is not true. If an hourly employee is 10 minutes late then they don’t get paid for those 10 minutes. Big honking deal. Of course, they should stay 10 minutes late or cut into lunch. Oh yea, but they want you to do that anyway. A business has no right to bitch about you being 10 minutes late unless you get to bitch about having to stay 10 minutes late which of course is frowned upon. The idea that employers should be allowed to freely encroach on the rest of your scheduled life is archaic as is the idea of loyalty. We all know that companies are not loyal to employees. We’ve all seen that employees are disposable. Therefore, employees do not owe loyalty to their employers (beyond what is ethical) and they, too, are disposable.
If you are on salary as long as you are working your agreed-upon number of hours what difference does it make if you are five minutes late in the morning? Haven’t we all worked through lunches, stayed late into the night, answered trouble-shooting phone calls in the middle of the night, worked weekends when necessary? Anyone writing business articles about that crossing the business-etiquette line of respect? I haven’t seen one. But again, your time is disposable.
The ability to arrive on time also has nothing to do with meeting a deadline. Any self-employed artist/writer can tell you that. Doing a high-quality job that meets deadline doesn’t naturally translate into early riser, clock watcher behavior.
On a related note you often hear businesses bitch about losing money because of coffee-breaks or idle chit chat or whatever in the morning. This may truly be a problem if taken to excess but they also don’t seem to consider the employment-related work most people do when not on the job such as research, study, or making business-related contacts. Many people take work home. Our lives are not so clearly or easily compartmentalized. So a profitable employer-employee relationship is really a give-and-take of mutual respect and trust unless you have complete losers working for you. In that case, it’s your fault for hiring them. Click “undo” and figure out how to do a revealing interview. Here’s a snippet on what not to do: I read a book written by some hiring “expert” who wrote (I paraphrase) ‘if you’re not 15 minutes early for an interview then you’re late.’ That dude needs a remedial math course pronto regarding the number line and integers. Here’s the positive to his idiot negative thinking: ‘if I’m 10 minutes late and you’re 15 minutes late then I’m early.’ Brilliant. It should be on a pre-interview test for businesses who value independent and clever employees.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Gratuitous butt-kissing: disease or fetish?
Have you seen the notice on the White House web site that states “The President and the First Lady strongly encourage all Americans to consider sending contributions to their favorite charities in lieu of gifts to the First Family.” ? Really people? Really?
Masses from the herd are inundating the First Family with gifts? Have you all completely lost your minds? People are losing their jobs, their homes, their families and their life savings. Tent cities of homeless are sprouting up like never before. Species are going extinct. Children are sick, injured, naked, hungry, abused and afraid all over the world. And you people are sending gifts to a wealthy family? You should be ashamed!
If you want to tell the First Family you care for and support them then write a note or send an email. It means more anyway. Do you honestly think they want your trinkets? Have you ever been on the receiving end in such a situation? It’s quite uncomfortable. What does one do with such things? A bonfire would be embarassing.
Wherever you are if you have the desire to give something GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT which would actually include the majority of Earth’s population.
It’s not just the First Family that this happens to. The rich and famous are often given all kinds of stuff including expensive sports cars … free. How about those gift bags (misnomer) given out at the Oscars? Companies give thousands of dollars worth of free stuff to celebrities in the hopes of increasing sales. Do they give them to the fans (who are literally the reason that movies are big business) lined of for a glimpse of Hollywood’s plastic royalty? There’s a captive audience for a business to market to. Do they even give them water? I wouldn’t know. I quit watching decades ago. It’s just so … zzzzzzz.
I was listening to the radio once when Aerosmith was in town. This woman called in to tell the D.J. that she saw Steven Tyler and Joe Perry at a (very expensive) local restaurant. She and her friend went over and BOUGHT THEM DINNER. She was so excited. What a fucking idiot. (A point not lost to the D.J.) These men are multimillionaires and Ms. Monday-through-Friday-9-to-5 buys them dinner because she is star struck and then is so stupid she announces it on the radio. She had to pass the homeless and hungry just to get home. They wouldn’t even get a doggy bag.
I guess I have to state the obvious in that I don’t hold this against the First Family or Steven Tyler or Joe Perry (who kicks butt BTW) or any other wealthy person in this position. I think if a person makes their fortune in an honest way (a rare thing indeed) then congratulations to them. I wish every human on the planet was wealthy. It’s the star-struck gift giving that is nauseating.
Another example: I sometimes watch or listen to broadcasts out of curiosity – not because I necessarily like or agree with them. One morning I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the radio. She had an interview with some federal-level politician that she liked very much and was predictably butt-kissing throughout the interview. At the end she tried to give him a free package that she was promoting that she sent out with donations. (I think it was the Freedom Czar stuff.) The politician said no, he couldn’t and wouldn’t take it but thanks anyway. She tried several times to GIVE IT TO HIM. Not happening. (Well done, Mr. Politician.) Then later she took a call from someone who did not agree with her but seemed open minded so Laura did her little prosecuting-attorney skit they all like to do (ask leading and loaded questions, interrupt the person they are talking to, turn their words against them, try to make them look like simpletons, never just shut up and listen to an opposing view… it’s all quite predictable, disgusting and self-defeating). So the guy ended up in a neutral position saying he saw her point, that it was something he would consider, etc. He then asked if he could have one of her packages that she just tried to GIVE to a politician. She laughed him to scorn for even asking. Oh, hell no, he had to send in money for that. So she’ll give her marketing crap to someone who already agrees with her but she won’t give it to someone who was actually in a position to influence people who didn’t agree with her. It was a typical example of someone who apparently over-educated a fast brain but apparently has zero wisdom. That’s something you might want to keep to yourself and not display on national radio. Talk radio is like a 24-hour pep rally of self-congratulating repetition. They antagonize rather than influence the opposition. How’s that working for the country? Is divisive a good thing?
So, please be generous … to the needy. And now a final word from Aerosmith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jdd26HZW34
If you want to give them something… buy a CD.
Masses from the herd are inundating the First Family with gifts? Have you all completely lost your minds? People are losing their jobs, their homes, their families and their life savings. Tent cities of homeless are sprouting up like never before. Species are going extinct. Children are sick, injured, naked, hungry, abused and afraid all over the world. And you people are sending gifts to a wealthy family? You should be ashamed!
If you want to tell the First Family you care for and support them then write a note or send an email. It means more anyway. Do you honestly think they want your trinkets? Have you ever been on the receiving end in such a situation? It’s quite uncomfortable. What does one do with such things? A bonfire would be embarassing.
Wherever you are if you have the desire to give something GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO NEED IT which would actually include the majority of Earth’s population.
It’s not just the First Family that this happens to. The rich and famous are often given all kinds of stuff including expensive sports cars … free. How about those gift bags (misnomer) given out at the Oscars? Companies give thousands of dollars worth of free stuff to celebrities in the hopes of increasing sales. Do they give them to the fans (who are literally the reason that movies are big business) lined of for a glimpse of Hollywood’s plastic royalty? There’s a captive audience for a business to market to. Do they even give them water? I wouldn’t know. I quit watching decades ago. It’s just so … zzzzzzz.
I was listening to the radio once when Aerosmith was in town. This woman called in to tell the D.J. that she saw Steven Tyler and Joe Perry at a (very expensive) local restaurant. She and her friend went over and BOUGHT THEM DINNER. She was so excited. What a fucking idiot. (A point not lost to the D.J.) These men are multimillionaires and Ms. Monday-through-Friday-9-to-5 buys them dinner because she is star struck and then is so stupid she announces it on the radio. She had to pass the homeless and hungry just to get home. They wouldn’t even get a doggy bag.
I guess I have to state the obvious in that I don’t hold this against the First Family or Steven Tyler or Joe Perry (who kicks butt BTW) or any other wealthy person in this position. I think if a person makes their fortune in an honest way (a rare thing indeed) then congratulations to them. I wish every human on the planet was wealthy. It’s the star-struck gift giving that is nauseating.
Another example: I sometimes watch or listen to broadcasts out of curiosity – not because I necessarily like or agree with them. One morning I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the radio. She had an interview with some federal-level politician that she liked very much and was predictably butt-kissing throughout the interview. At the end she tried to give him a free package that she was promoting that she sent out with donations. (I think it was the Freedom Czar stuff.) The politician said no, he couldn’t and wouldn’t take it but thanks anyway. She tried several times to GIVE IT TO HIM. Not happening. (Well done, Mr. Politician.) Then later she took a call from someone who did not agree with her but seemed open minded so Laura did her little prosecuting-attorney skit they all like to do (ask leading and loaded questions, interrupt the person they are talking to, turn their words against them, try to make them look like simpletons, never just shut up and listen to an opposing view… it’s all quite predictable, disgusting and self-defeating). So the guy ended up in a neutral position saying he saw her point, that it was something he would consider, etc. He then asked if he could have one of her packages that she just tried to GIVE to a politician. She laughed him to scorn for even asking. Oh, hell no, he had to send in money for that. So she’ll give her marketing crap to someone who already agrees with her but she won’t give it to someone who was actually in a position to influence people who didn’t agree with her. It was a typical example of someone who apparently over-educated a fast brain but apparently has zero wisdom. That’s something you might want to keep to yourself and not display on national radio. Talk radio is like a 24-hour pep rally of self-congratulating repetition. They antagonize rather than influence the opposition. How’s that working for the country? Is divisive a good thing?
So, please be generous … to the needy. And now a final word from Aerosmith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jdd26HZW34
If you want to give them something… buy a CD.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Pleasure on a plate: step away or get a room
Is there a word for oft-repeated, widely accepted nonsense? Bullshit with an agent?
Do you ever read fat-loss or healthy eating advice that says to only eat when you are truly hungry and to eat slowly “savoring” every bite? I’m sure I can’t be the only person who finds this advice to be bizarre.
First, where in fact is the “truly hungry” line? I’ve known people to whine about starving when they haven’t eaten in four hours. I’ve known people who go days without eating and still say they’re not hungry. There are two basic definitions of hunger: a) A strong desire or need for food and b) The discomfort, weakness, or pain caused by a prolonged lack of food. I would say that the whiner’s hunger definition is “a” and the faster’s definition is “b.” So which definition do the “eat only when hungry” advisors refer to? Maybe something in between? I’ve heard some people say you’re hungry when your stomach growls. Well, I must have one confused stomach – it’s been known to growl just after eating and yet it doesn’t growl when I’m on the verge of fainting from lack of food. Maybe it just surrendered. As far as I’m concerned if you’re not slightly weak or dizzy you’re not really hungry. Just sayin’.
Now about that savor bit.
I find that while a lot of healthy food tastes good it’s not delicious. Delicious is an adjective I normally reserve for vice foods: Pan pizza with maximum cheese or fudgy hot brownies or (hell yea) cookie dough. If I’m eating healthy food (which is the norm) I really just want to get it over with so therefore I eat too fast. It’s not exactly entertaining. If I’m eating unhealthy delicious food (which usually is accompanied by a large side-order of guilt and a strong premonition of a larger ass in the a.m.) then that might be the moment to “savor every bite.” However, unless you live alone, if you fart around with your savor moments you’ll be out of luck if you want more. You finally had something worth savoring and… it’s gone. Sucka! Instinctively, we eat faster when food is delicious so we’ll get more – yea, it’s greed, it’s primal, it’s why wolves fight over the kill but cows don’t fight over pasture – it’s nosh but it ain’t going anywhere.
And doesn’t it seem that it’s always the vice food that seduces you to overeat? Most people aren’t tempted to go back and fight over a third plate of broccoli. It’s the grains, white potatoes, and sugars that beckon you back for more. Brownies don’t last 12 hours in a house with a family. The only way to avoid overeating is to not buy the foods that make you want to overeat.
I think the advice in question reflects our sick relationship with food. You need to show it who’s boss. Sounds silly, I know, but you should always be able to turn down food. If you ever go 40 days without food then maybe you will become acquainted with real hunger. It’s a revelation in itself and puts food in perspective.
Do you ever read fat-loss or healthy eating advice that says to only eat when you are truly hungry and to eat slowly “savoring” every bite? I’m sure I can’t be the only person who finds this advice to be bizarre.
First, where in fact is the “truly hungry” line? I’ve known people to whine about starving when they haven’t eaten in four hours. I’ve known people who go days without eating and still say they’re not hungry. There are two basic definitions of hunger: a) A strong desire or need for food and b) The discomfort, weakness, or pain caused by a prolonged lack of food. I would say that the whiner’s hunger definition is “a” and the faster’s definition is “b.” So which definition do the “eat only when hungry” advisors refer to? Maybe something in between? I’ve heard some people say you’re hungry when your stomach growls. Well, I must have one confused stomach – it’s been known to growl just after eating and yet it doesn’t growl when I’m on the verge of fainting from lack of food. Maybe it just surrendered. As far as I’m concerned if you’re not slightly weak or dizzy you’re not really hungry. Just sayin’.
Now about that savor bit.
I find that while a lot of healthy food tastes good it’s not delicious. Delicious is an adjective I normally reserve for vice foods: Pan pizza with maximum cheese or fudgy hot brownies or (hell yea) cookie dough. If I’m eating healthy food (which is the norm) I really just want to get it over with so therefore I eat too fast. It’s not exactly entertaining. If I’m eating unhealthy delicious food (which usually is accompanied by a large side-order of guilt and a strong premonition of a larger ass in the a.m.) then that might be the moment to “savor every bite.” However, unless you live alone, if you fart around with your savor moments you’ll be out of luck if you want more. You finally had something worth savoring and… it’s gone. Sucka! Instinctively, we eat faster when food is delicious so we’ll get more – yea, it’s greed, it’s primal, it’s why wolves fight over the kill but cows don’t fight over pasture – it’s nosh but it ain’t going anywhere.
And doesn’t it seem that it’s always the vice food that seduces you to overeat? Most people aren’t tempted to go back and fight over a third plate of broccoli. It’s the grains, white potatoes, and sugars that beckon you back for more. Brownies don’t last 12 hours in a house with a family. The only way to avoid overeating is to not buy the foods that make you want to overeat.
I think the advice in question reflects our sick relationship with food. You need to show it who’s boss. Sounds silly, I know, but you should always be able to turn down food. If you ever go 40 days without food then maybe you will become acquainted with real hunger. It’s a revelation in itself and puts food in perspective.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Ron Paul is right
I’ve just finished reading “The Revolution – A Manifesto” by Ron Paul. I highly recommend it to everyone no matter who or where you are. Ron Paul is the only politician I’ve heard/read who has a clue. Not only does he have a clue the man is brilliant. It’s encouraging (and shocking) to find a politician with whom I agree with on point after point. It’s even more encouraging to find out that there are millions and millions of Americans who agree and always have. There is hope for America yet.
From what I’ve seen the rest of politicians seem to be deluded. They seem to think that their primary job is to get re-elected and second to pretend to try to solve problems by making more laws and spending more money whilst telling us how hard they are working and how big the problems are blah, blah, blah. Any problems solved? No. Problems exacerbated? Yep. Deliberate? Probably. Job security and all that. A parallel is going to a typical doctor who prescribes drugs that mask one problem and cause another for which you return to the doctor to get more drugs. He has a perpetual job while not solving the problem while you get bled dry and sicker.
If anyone is more clueless than most politicians it’s the media who reports on (or sucks up to or ignores) them. To be fair, I know that some of them (a minority) are extremely intelligent – smart enough to be keenly aware that the media is first and foremost a business. In addition many are rude. I guess that’s good for ratings and readership. Simon Cowell of American Idol is proof positive of a ratings-magnet jerk. Honesty is one thing, cruelty is another. But who cares about people, right? It’s all about the money. Broadcast journalists invite someone they disagree with on their program under the pretense of discussing an issue but only give them two or three minutes on air during which they talk over them, ask leading questions and ridicule them. If they agree with their guest it’s just three minutes of gratuitous butt kissing. Pathetic. Why do people agree to go on those shows? Self-loathing? Why do people watch those shows? Masochism? Ignorance? Nothing else on the other 200 channels?
Doing the right thing takes courage – apparently that’s not something most people have. It requires the honesty and humility to admit to wrongs and failures. It requires putting an end to systems that we have become comfortable with. It requires making amends to people we have wronged. It requires giving up things we can’t afford. It requires confronting the mega wealthy and powerful who have profited at our demise. Toe to toe, nose to nose – somebody’s going down. We love to watch it depicted in movies but no-fucking-way will your average person emulate heroic behavior.
We are a country of hypocrites. We frown on and punish physical retaliation in our culture. If two kids get in a fight at school both of them are punished – not just the one who started it. Schools preach some BS such as “Might doesn’t make right.” Well, somebody needs to alert the U.S. Government to that bit of clever poetry. We especially like movies where the good guy is a real maverick who gives a finger to the neutered establishment so he can go out and thoroughly kick some bad guy ass – the more drawn out the better. Oh, yea! We love that! We can talk the talk, baby. Our mouths and our bumper stickers. We send our troops overseas to 130 foreign countries, for what? To bankrupt the U.S. and make enemies around the world who resort to terrorism because they are majorly pissed off because WE ARE TRESPASSING. How fucking stupid can we be? It’s about money and power (Iraq = oil, Afghanistan = heroin) but not yours and mine. When it hits the fan it’s going to bury the poor and middle class first not the decision makers in suits and the plastic people in the media. Just like it’s the soldiers with modest backgrounds most likely to come home in body bags not the son of a Senator.
Here’s a micro dose of common sense to begin to avert the impending disaster:
1. Return to the Constitution. (One of my major pet peeves is when I hear someone say “If you don’t like it you can leave” as if they are so special they have the right to draw that line in the sand and you are an inferior ingrate. It’s such an arrogant cop out they should be deported for a year. Well I think if any non Native [non Indian] American doesn’t like the Constitution they can leave because unlike most silly ass arguments the Constitution is the foundation of our country.)
2.End pseudo wars such as the “war on drugs” and the “war against terrorism.” They are not legitimate wars. They are people-eating propaganda. They are not winnable. You can’t go to war against a tactic or a vice.
3. Bring home all American troops from overseas.
4. End the income tax and dissolve the IRS.
5. End the Federal Reserve and return to gold/silver standard.
6. End the FDA.
7. End the Department of Education.
8. End/reverse all “executive orders.” We have a Congress for a very good reason.
9. End all foreign aid. Individual Americans should decide for themselves who they want to give money to.
10. Balance the budget. (Duh.)
From what I’ve seen the rest of politicians seem to be deluded. They seem to think that their primary job is to get re-elected and second to pretend to try to solve problems by making more laws and spending more money whilst telling us how hard they are working and how big the problems are blah, blah, blah. Any problems solved? No. Problems exacerbated? Yep. Deliberate? Probably. Job security and all that. A parallel is going to a typical doctor who prescribes drugs that mask one problem and cause another for which you return to the doctor to get more drugs. He has a perpetual job while not solving the problem while you get bled dry and sicker.
If anyone is more clueless than most politicians it’s the media who reports on (or sucks up to or ignores) them. To be fair, I know that some of them (a minority) are extremely intelligent – smart enough to be keenly aware that the media is first and foremost a business. In addition many are rude. I guess that’s good for ratings and readership. Simon Cowell of American Idol is proof positive of a ratings-magnet jerk. Honesty is one thing, cruelty is another. But who cares about people, right? It’s all about the money. Broadcast journalists invite someone they disagree with on their program under the pretense of discussing an issue but only give them two or three minutes on air during which they talk over them, ask leading questions and ridicule them. If they agree with their guest it’s just three minutes of gratuitous butt kissing. Pathetic. Why do people agree to go on those shows? Self-loathing? Why do people watch those shows? Masochism? Ignorance? Nothing else on the other 200 channels?
Doing the right thing takes courage – apparently that’s not something most people have. It requires the honesty and humility to admit to wrongs and failures. It requires putting an end to systems that we have become comfortable with. It requires making amends to people we have wronged. It requires giving up things we can’t afford. It requires confronting the mega wealthy and powerful who have profited at our demise. Toe to toe, nose to nose – somebody’s going down. We love to watch it depicted in movies but no-fucking-way will your average person emulate heroic behavior.
We are a country of hypocrites. We frown on and punish physical retaliation in our culture. If two kids get in a fight at school both of them are punished – not just the one who started it. Schools preach some BS such as “Might doesn’t make right.” Well, somebody needs to alert the U.S. Government to that bit of clever poetry. We especially like movies where the good guy is a real maverick who gives a finger to the neutered establishment so he can go out and thoroughly kick some bad guy ass – the more drawn out the better. Oh, yea! We love that! We can talk the talk, baby. Our mouths and our bumper stickers. We send our troops overseas to 130 foreign countries, for what? To bankrupt the U.S. and make enemies around the world who resort to terrorism because they are majorly pissed off because WE ARE TRESPASSING. How fucking stupid can we be? It’s about money and power (Iraq = oil, Afghanistan = heroin) but not yours and mine. When it hits the fan it’s going to bury the poor and middle class first not the decision makers in suits and the plastic people in the media. Just like it’s the soldiers with modest backgrounds most likely to come home in body bags not the son of a Senator.
Here’s a micro dose of common sense to begin to avert the impending disaster:
1. Return to the Constitution. (One of my major pet peeves is when I hear someone say “If you don’t like it you can leave” as if they are so special they have the right to draw that line in the sand and you are an inferior ingrate. It’s such an arrogant cop out they should be deported for a year. Well I think if any non Native [non Indian] American doesn’t like the Constitution they can leave because unlike most silly ass arguments the Constitution is the foundation of our country.)
2.End pseudo wars such as the “war on drugs” and the “war against terrorism.” They are not legitimate wars. They are people-eating propaganda. They are not winnable. You can’t go to war against a tactic or a vice.
3. Bring home all American troops from overseas.
4. End the income tax and dissolve the IRS.
5. End the Federal Reserve and return to gold/silver standard.
6. End the FDA.
7. End the Department of Education.
8. End/reverse all “executive orders.” We have a Congress for a very good reason.
9. End all foreign aid. Individual Americans should decide for themselves who they want to give money to.
10. Balance the budget. (Duh.)
Laws, law enforcement and a crux approach to crime.
I was reading forums on the Internet. One person said she was going to throw away the census and not fill it out. It was her form of non-violent protest. Many of the responses she received stated that she shouldn’t do that because it was a crime. That was their argument. Profound, huh?
There seems to be two polar points of popular opinion when it comes to laws: 1) if something is illegal it must be bad and as such committing that crime makes you deserving of punishment; or 2) some laws are stupid and a free thinking person should understandably participate in peaceful disobedience when necessary (the intelligent do so in stealth).
Many of those in group one actually self-righteously profess to have never broken a law in their lives. I’m confident that if we pulled out the law books and followed them around we could find them breaking a law – most likely in ignorance. Can they confirm they’ve never gone 1 mph over the speed limit? Never? Not if they are human and drive. Check out some of the stupid laws at www.idiotlaws.com. Did you know it is illegal to dance between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. in Des Moines, Iowa? It’s illegal in Louisiana to intentionally make a written or oral statement known to be false. (I actually like that one.) Soooo, I’d say group one have broken that law.
We need to get rid of all stupid laws which would probably be the majority of laws. Basically, if it is not a law against something that hurts someone else then it should go. And we all know that the speed limits are artificially low except in bad weather or unusual situations (like driving a loaded U-Haul pulling a car on a trailer down a curvy mountain pass). There are wide open highways with virtually nothing around that have speed limits of 40 or 50 mph. Honestly if that’s your safe limit you are woefully inept and should not be driving at all. It’s just a way to “legally” yet unethically get money for government. And cops wonder why many people don’t like them.
Someone once said to me “Cops will only come after you if you are doing something wrong.” Another citizen of Oz I suspect. My experience has consistently been this: when I desperately need a cop’s help I can’t get one. When I’m trying to get to work or a child to the doctor that’s when they show up. Can’t they go after people who have actually hurt someone? Can’t they look for missing children and stolen cars? My husband’s new car was stolen two weeks after he bought it. We called the police (repeatedly). They said they couldn’t find his car and they were doing all they could. A YEAR LATER he got a notice from the POLICE IMPOUND LOT that he owed storage fees for having his stolen car there for a year. I could go on ad nauseam. I could tell you about death threats that weren’t taken seriously and cops who caused traffic accidents they later lied about leaving wounded people no legal recourse, and the cop who hit two sisters crossing the street trying to get on a school bus and killed both and NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM. Any other person would have been destroyed. These are not anomalies. The least they could do is not hurt people or “legally” plunder people trying to get to work because they have some sort of traffic ticket quota. Where is justice? Where the fuck is Robin Hood?
Cops should be required to have at least two years of training. (Don’t believe the “rigorous training” stories you read on the Internet. I’ve interviewed police officers and asked how much training they were required to have: some as little as six weeks with the maximum being six months.) As it stands, they have more responsibility than most other professions yet they have less training. Although it is said they are screened for mental health almost every one I’ve met had a chip on their shoulder the size of the Luxor and seemed a bit… off. Basically, the public story paints a wholesome picture while the reality is more like what you would find under a rock.
Only violent people (including those who abuse animals) should be put in prison. They should also be separated by crimes committed. Non-violent crimes should be punished in other ways. (For example a thief should have to pay back at least twice what he stole via garnished wages to the victim, not the government. If he doesn’t have a job the government can find him one even if it is picking up trash.) Murderers should be isolated from everyone including other prisoners. If there is DNA evidence or they have confessed to murder they should be quickly executed. Televise it on the execution station. There are murderers who have confessed to multiple murders with lawyers taking them through multiple appeals taking years and wasting enormous amounts of money that victims and potential victims pay for. It’s insane.
When there is strong evidence (DNA plus) rapists should be castrated. Yea, I know, “it’s not a sexual crime.” However you don’t let a murderer keep a gun so a rapist shouldn’t keep his penis and testicles. It would also make them less violent. Rapists should be imprisoned only with other rapists.
Child molesters should never be free. They should never have access to another child.
Women who kill abusive husbands should receive counseling and no punishment – not even a slap on the wrist (as long as there is clear evidence that the husband was abusive.) If they were protected in the first place the point would be moot.
Prisoners should have zero luxuries: no television, no Internet, no porn, no meat, no drinks other than water, no music, no movies, no cigarettes. Of course, each one should work. Touching each other should be forbidden and earn a broken hand. I don’t think prisoners should be abused a la the chain gang but I also don’t think they should be allowed to abuse each other or access to any new victims.
Prisons would be far less crowded if we’d drop the pretense of a war on drugs. The whole war on drugs mantra is nonsense. Marijuana should be legal. Drug use should be legal. It’s really ridiculous when we are inundated with ads for prescription and OTC drugs to simultaneously have the “just say no” bullshit motto to illegal drugs. For the most part, drug use is destructive and stupid but you can’t make self-destructive behavior a legal issue otherwise we’d have to arrest couch potatoes and junk food eaters. The war on drugs has just created more and intensified violence. As long as there is a market, there will be drug use. It’s a no-brainer. Punishing an addict does no good whatsoever.
And while I’m on a soap box about the law somebody please give me a pie-chart on why lawyers deserve $200-$1000+/hr. Why is it that only the wealthy can afford a lawyer? We should turn the tables on them: “Oh, you’re a lawyer. Well haircuts for lawyers start at $100.” Don’t tell me they charge more because they have so much education or the cases are difficult or they have experience. Many people spend a lot of money and time in higher education, have difficult work, and/or lots of experience and don’t get away with charging that much. Legal websites are a good thing, yes indeed.
There seems to be two polar points of popular opinion when it comes to laws: 1) if something is illegal it must be bad and as such committing that crime makes you deserving of punishment; or 2) some laws are stupid and a free thinking person should understandably participate in peaceful disobedience when necessary (the intelligent do so in stealth).
Many of those in group one actually self-righteously profess to have never broken a law in their lives. I’m confident that if we pulled out the law books and followed them around we could find them breaking a law – most likely in ignorance. Can they confirm they’ve never gone 1 mph over the speed limit? Never? Not if they are human and drive. Check out some of the stupid laws at www.idiotlaws.com. Did you know it is illegal to dance between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. in Des Moines, Iowa? It’s illegal in Louisiana to intentionally make a written or oral statement known to be false. (I actually like that one.) Soooo, I’d say group one have broken that law.
We need to get rid of all stupid laws which would probably be the majority of laws. Basically, if it is not a law against something that hurts someone else then it should go. And we all know that the speed limits are artificially low except in bad weather or unusual situations (like driving a loaded U-Haul pulling a car on a trailer down a curvy mountain pass). There are wide open highways with virtually nothing around that have speed limits of 40 or 50 mph. Honestly if that’s your safe limit you are woefully inept and should not be driving at all. It’s just a way to “legally” yet unethically get money for government. And cops wonder why many people don’t like them.
Someone once said to me “Cops will only come after you if you are doing something wrong.” Another citizen of Oz I suspect. My experience has consistently been this: when I desperately need a cop’s help I can’t get one. When I’m trying to get to work or a child to the doctor that’s when they show up. Can’t they go after people who have actually hurt someone? Can’t they look for missing children and stolen cars? My husband’s new car was stolen two weeks after he bought it. We called the police (repeatedly). They said they couldn’t find his car and they were doing all they could. A YEAR LATER he got a notice from the POLICE IMPOUND LOT that he owed storage fees for having his stolen car there for a year. I could go on ad nauseam. I could tell you about death threats that weren’t taken seriously and cops who caused traffic accidents they later lied about leaving wounded people no legal recourse, and the cop who hit two sisters crossing the street trying to get on a school bus and killed both and NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM. Any other person would have been destroyed. These are not anomalies. The least they could do is not hurt people or “legally” plunder people trying to get to work because they have some sort of traffic ticket quota. Where is justice? Where the fuck is Robin Hood?
Cops should be required to have at least two years of training. (Don’t believe the “rigorous training” stories you read on the Internet. I’ve interviewed police officers and asked how much training they were required to have: some as little as six weeks with the maximum being six months.) As it stands, they have more responsibility than most other professions yet they have less training. Although it is said they are screened for mental health almost every one I’ve met had a chip on their shoulder the size of the Luxor and seemed a bit… off. Basically, the public story paints a wholesome picture while the reality is more like what you would find under a rock.
Only violent people (including those who abuse animals) should be put in prison. They should also be separated by crimes committed. Non-violent crimes should be punished in other ways. (For example a thief should have to pay back at least twice what he stole via garnished wages to the victim, not the government. If he doesn’t have a job the government can find him one even if it is picking up trash.) Murderers should be isolated from everyone including other prisoners. If there is DNA evidence or they have confessed to murder they should be quickly executed. Televise it on the execution station. There are murderers who have confessed to multiple murders with lawyers taking them through multiple appeals taking years and wasting enormous amounts of money that victims and potential victims pay for. It’s insane.
When there is strong evidence (DNA plus) rapists should be castrated. Yea, I know, “it’s not a sexual crime.” However you don’t let a murderer keep a gun so a rapist shouldn’t keep his penis and testicles. It would also make them less violent. Rapists should be imprisoned only with other rapists.
Child molesters should never be free. They should never have access to another child.
Women who kill abusive husbands should receive counseling and no punishment – not even a slap on the wrist (as long as there is clear evidence that the husband was abusive.) If they were protected in the first place the point would be moot.
Prisoners should have zero luxuries: no television, no Internet, no porn, no meat, no drinks other than water, no music, no movies, no cigarettes. Of course, each one should work. Touching each other should be forbidden and earn a broken hand. I don’t think prisoners should be abused a la the chain gang but I also don’t think they should be allowed to abuse each other or access to any new victims.
Prisons would be far less crowded if we’d drop the pretense of a war on drugs. The whole war on drugs mantra is nonsense. Marijuana should be legal. Drug use should be legal. It’s really ridiculous when we are inundated with ads for prescription and OTC drugs to simultaneously have the “just say no” bullshit motto to illegal drugs. For the most part, drug use is destructive and stupid but you can’t make self-destructive behavior a legal issue otherwise we’d have to arrest couch potatoes and junk food eaters. The war on drugs has just created more and intensified violence. As long as there is a market, there will be drug use. It’s a no-brainer. Punishing an addict does no good whatsoever.
And while I’m on a soap box about the law somebody please give me a pie-chart on why lawyers deserve $200-$1000+/hr. Why is it that only the wealthy can afford a lawyer? We should turn the tables on them: “Oh, you’re a lawyer. Well haircuts for lawyers start at $100.” Don’t tell me they charge more because they have so much education or the cases are difficult or they have experience. Many people spend a lot of money and time in higher education, have difficult work, and/or lots of experience and don’t get away with charging that much. Legal websites are a good thing, yes indeed.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Mate shopping and baby making
Life is hard. Being a parent is harder. Being married is the hardest of all.
I know that when hormones, passions, eye-candy, crushes and love are in the mix reason is victim number one; however maybe if people would set their own goals early maybe disaster could be averted rather than regretted.
Since dating is, in reality, shopping for a mate no one under 18 should be dating. What good does it do? If you go out with someone and there’s no chemistry then you blow it off as a waste of time – good riddance. It’s not really about “being friends” (guys at least get that and girls need to learn it). If there is chemistry then it’s just a matter of time before nature takes its course. I know it’s true. You know it’s true. And when nature takes its course so do unwanted pregnancies and STDs and then begins the incessant whining and moaning and bitching and crying. STFU. You signed up for this. It’s Biology 101.
The least people can do is wait until they would actually stand some chance of dealing with the consequences.
People should date (not live together) for two years before making it official (in any way – sex, cohabitation, engagement, marriage whatever). Please know this: whatever you see in them that you don’t like during dating you need to realize THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT TRAIT. People rarely change and when they do it takes monumental effort on their part (and the grace of God). Nothing you do or say is going to change them. It’s not about understanding or talking it out or reasoning or love or whatever. So if they annoy you on date number one with bad table manners they will annoy you 20 years later with bad table manners and 40 years later and 60 years later. Picture that: elbows on the table – the whole nine yards. Maybe they’re rude. Maybe they don’t like to cook. Maybe they don’t like to clean the house. Maybe they are bad with money. Maybe they spend too much time watching football. Maybe they have a tendency towards being superficial and self-centered or materialistic. Whatever it is it’s probably there to stay. Accept it or end it. Don’t rationalize it.
No one should get married until they have all their education completed for whatever career they choose. Marriage is distracting. Parenthood makes continuing education very difficult. It’s not your kid’s fault you didn’t keep the horse in front of the cart.
Tradition is crashing headlong into modern expectations in relationships. Often people will say they believe in modern 50-50 roles but will subconsciously hold more traditional expectations such as women marrying for financial security and men expecting their wives to also be house wives. They may not realize the double standard themselves until it’s in their faces.
Since rent and mortgages suck the life out of everyone, people (especially young women) should live at home with their parent(s) if it is possible until they save enough money to pay cash for a house. It won’t take that long and they’ll be free. It should go without saying that every woman should be able to financially support herself. Who wouldn’t want to anyway?
Men should not get married until their careers are well underway and they are independent enough to do all their own housework, bill paying, clothes shopping/washing and cooking, etc. He doesn’t have to be a neat freak but he shouldn’t be expecting his wife to act like a maid or his mom. I’ve heard women say “The way to keep a man is to be a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom.” Probably true; but it’s completely off the wretched scale. A man who can’t take care of himself is not ready for marriage and certainly not vaguely attractive to any self-respecting woman.
And then (maybe) comes baby.
Like it or not a child needs a full-time mother the first year of his/her life. A child needs a full-time parent the first three years of life (mom and/or dad in years two and three). A child needs to be with family or those who are like family the first five years of life. (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, close family friends are ok in years four and five.) This means for virtually 24/7 a young child needs these people around to care for him/her the first five years not some person grossing minimum wage. Children should be adored full time. They need that. It’s a requirement for a healthy human. If you cannot provide that then don’t have kids. It’s really simple. Pregnancy is not a mystery. You can have your orgasms without procreating. The entire Earth population of 6+ billion people doesn’t need to reproduce anyway. Let’s go for quality rather than quantity. Otherwise it’s species suicide.
I know some really nice people who have 4, 5, 6, and 7 kids. There’s only two ways to look at it: 1) they are saying “screw the planet,” there are enough resources for me and mine tough rocks for you, or 2) my kids don’t really need individual attention, I can shepherd them like a herd in my Suburban. Newsflash: you CANNOT BE A GOOD PARENT TO MORE THAN FOUR KIDS. Mom has 24 hours minus at least 12 for sleeping, bathing, eating, exercising, etc. That leaves 12 hours for one child, six hours per child for two, four hours per child for three, three hours for four, less than 2½ hours for five, two hours for six and less than two hours for seven. Of course, the younger they are the more hands-on time they need which robs the older ones of their measly two or three hours and who, in exchange for childhood, get to play pseudo parent. This is assuming mom does nothing else which applies to zero women I know. If you want a career you might want to limit yourself to one child unless you can be really flexible. Having a herd of kids is selfish just like having kids “so someone will take care of you when you’re old.”
I’ve been told by some people, “We decided to have as many kids as God would give us.” (Translation: birth control sucks and I love babies.) That’s like never checking the street before you cross it because “We decided God will protect us.” God gave you a brain and I’m confident he expects you to use it… first.
I know this is a buzz kill for the starry-eyed. I also know a lot of people will be offended at the “unrealistic” standards but I am sick of dealing with other people’s default decisions. The world is crawling with fucked up disregarded people and we can’t afford any more. Where do they come from? Idiots who forced upon them crappy childhoods that look like this: a bottle full of formula in a nursery down the hall, day care or nannies, bullies and bitches, public or boarding school, mom’s exhausted, dad’s distracted and turn that shit down.
I am absolutely certain that if every child had a quality childhood immense amounts of misery would have been and will be avoided.
I know that when hormones, passions, eye-candy, crushes and love are in the mix reason is victim number one; however maybe if people would set their own goals early maybe disaster could be averted rather than regretted.
Since dating is, in reality, shopping for a mate no one under 18 should be dating. What good does it do? If you go out with someone and there’s no chemistry then you blow it off as a waste of time – good riddance. It’s not really about “being friends” (guys at least get that and girls need to learn it). If there is chemistry then it’s just a matter of time before nature takes its course. I know it’s true. You know it’s true. And when nature takes its course so do unwanted pregnancies and STDs and then begins the incessant whining and moaning and bitching and crying. STFU. You signed up for this. It’s Biology 101.
The least people can do is wait until they would actually stand some chance of dealing with the consequences.
People should date (not live together) for two years before making it official (in any way – sex, cohabitation, engagement, marriage whatever). Please know this: whatever you see in them that you don’t like during dating you need to realize THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT TRAIT. People rarely change and when they do it takes monumental effort on their part (and the grace of God). Nothing you do or say is going to change them. It’s not about understanding or talking it out or reasoning or love or whatever. So if they annoy you on date number one with bad table manners they will annoy you 20 years later with bad table manners and 40 years later and 60 years later. Picture that: elbows on the table – the whole nine yards. Maybe they’re rude. Maybe they don’t like to cook. Maybe they don’t like to clean the house. Maybe they are bad with money. Maybe they spend too much time watching football. Maybe they have a tendency towards being superficial and self-centered or materialistic. Whatever it is it’s probably there to stay. Accept it or end it. Don’t rationalize it.
No one should get married until they have all their education completed for whatever career they choose. Marriage is distracting. Parenthood makes continuing education very difficult. It’s not your kid’s fault you didn’t keep the horse in front of the cart.
Tradition is crashing headlong into modern expectations in relationships. Often people will say they believe in modern 50-50 roles but will subconsciously hold more traditional expectations such as women marrying for financial security and men expecting their wives to also be house wives. They may not realize the double standard themselves until it’s in their faces.
Since rent and mortgages suck the life out of everyone, people (especially young women) should live at home with their parent(s) if it is possible until they save enough money to pay cash for a house. It won’t take that long and they’ll be free. It should go without saying that every woman should be able to financially support herself. Who wouldn’t want to anyway?
Men should not get married until their careers are well underway and they are independent enough to do all their own housework, bill paying, clothes shopping/washing and cooking, etc. He doesn’t have to be a neat freak but he shouldn’t be expecting his wife to act like a maid or his mom. I’ve heard women say “The way to keep a man is to be a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom.” Probably true; but it’s completely off the wretched scale. A man who can’t take care of himself is not ready for marriage and certainly not vaguely attractive to any self-respecting woman.
And then (maybe) comes baby.
Like it or not a child needs a full-time mother the first year of his/her life. A child needs a full-time parent the first three years of life (mom and/or dad in years two and three). A child needs to be with family or those who are like family the first five years of life. (Grandparents, aunts, uncles, close family friends are ok in years four and five.) This means for virtually 24/7 a young child needs these people around to care for him/her the first five years not some person grossing minimum wage. Children should be adored full time. They need that. It’s a requirement for a healthy human. If you cannot provide that then don’t have kids. It’s really simple. Pregnancy is not a mystery. You can have your orgasms without procreating. The entire Earth population of 6+ billion people doesn’t need to reproduce anyway. Let’s go for quality rather than quantity. Otherwise it’s species suicide.
I know some really nice people who have 4, 5, 6, and 7 kids. There’s only two ways to look at it: 1) they are saying “screw the planet,” there are enough resources for me and mine tough rocks for you, or 2) my kids don’t really need individual attention, I can shepherd them like a herd in my Suburban. Newsflash: you CANNOT BE A GOOD PARENT TO MORE THAN FOUR KIDS. Mom has 24 hours minus at least 12 for sleeping, bathing, eating, exercising, etc. That leaves 12 hours for one child, six hours per child for two, four hours per child for three, three hours for four, less than 2½ hours for five, two hours for six and less than two hours for seven. Of course, the younger they are the more hands-on time they need which robs the older ones of their measly two or three hours and who, in exchange for childhood, get to play pseudo parent. This is assuming mom does nothing else which applies to zero women I know. If you want a career you might want to limit yourself to one child unless you can be really flexible. Having a herd of kids is selfish just like having kids “so someone will take care of you when you’re old.”
I’ve been told by some people, “We decided to have as many kids as God would give us.” (Translation: birth control sucks and I love babies.) That’s like never checking the street before you cross it because “We decided God will protect us.” God gave you a brain and I’m confident he expects you to use it… first.
I know this is a buzz kill for the starry-eyed. I also know a lot of people will be offended at the “unrealistic” standards but I am sick of dealing with other people’s default decisions. The world is crawling with fucked up disregarded people and we can’t afford any more. Where do they come from? Idiots who forced upon them crappy childhoods that look like this: a bottle full of formula in a nursery down the hall, day care or nannies, bullies and bitches, public or boarding school, mom’s exhausted, dad’s distracted and turn that shit down.
I am absolutely certain that if every child had a quality childhood immense amounts of misery would have been and will be avoided.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Sheeple Illustrated
I was reading a book on buzz marketing. The author was making sense until I arrived at the statement “the media has credibility.” Wha? Surely he can’t be serious. He actually wrote, “A reporter has no incentive to make up false claims…” What suburb of Oz does this dude live in? (I’ve worked in newspapers and this simply isn’t true. Big advertisers have a lot of pull – especially when print is struggling.) Then I remembered he stated that his father was a journalist that later owned newspapers. Yea. Don’t believe everything daddy says. How embarrassing.
An average of only 25 percent of people generally believe what they read and hear from the news media.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/08/19/media-credibility-plummets-most-trusted-cnn-believed-just-30
It looks like at least a few of the sheeple are waking up. One can only hope. I’ve had some basic statistics in my head for quite a long time. Just the result of basic observation: About 10-15% of people just aren’t equipped to actively participate, probably through no fault of their own. They were damaged in some way. About 10-15% of people are awake and aware and actively use their brains. It doesn’t mean they are right about everything and it most certainly doesn’t mean they are good. But the gray matter is active. Then there’s the remaining 70-80% who are just grazing with their heads down and following the sheeple path before them. I’ve been coming across statistics in seemingly unrelated areas that continue to match the percentage breakdowns of these three main groups. (Obviously this is not a scientific double blind study -- just something to ponder in the pasture.)
One example is a person’s response to the news that they have cancer. I think I read this in a book by Bernie Siegel. About 10-15% immediately accept defeat and are ready to die. About 10-15% fight it tooth and nail, self-educating themselves and defying traditional medicine if they think it will benefit them (a.k.a. survivors.) The rest do what they are told by the medical establishment.
Emanuel Rosen in his book “The Anatomy of Buzz” gave some statistics on how people adopt innovations: About 2.5 percent are called innovators – people willing to take risks. They are followed by 13.5 percent called early adopters. Together they make up about 16 percent of the population who basically aren’t waiting around for the herd. Then 34 percent are called an early majority and another 34 percent are called the late majority. I call this 68 percent the super majority – the mainstream – Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Then the last 16 percent to adopt an innovation are called the laggards.
Also, about one third of the American population is registered Democrat. About another third is registered Republican. A total of about 66% of the population = that majority sheeple = that majority herd that decides elections of national and international import. Despite “the land of the free, home of the brave” bravado they are not exactly the independent sort. The other third is apparently made up of people who simply don’t or can’t give a damn and the enlightened rebels.
An estimated 16 percent of people have an I.Q. below 85 (affectionately known as the room-temperature crowd.) About another 16% have an I.Q. above 115. The remaining majority of people (68%) have I.Q.s between 85 -115. I suspect, yet again, most are these are sheeple.
Just take a look at the top five television shows (according to TV Guide): NCIS, Dancing with the Stars, The Game, The Biggest Loser and American Idol. (Ok, I’ve never watched The Game so I can’t say anything about that one.) Massive quantities of caffeine couldn’t keep me awake through the other four. How are they interesting? Pie chart, please. DWTS is cheesy. It reminds me of Love Boat casting all B list celebrities. I know they need to work and I don’t fault them for that; but honestly I can’t find it entertaining. It’s just sad. And those grins that people wear when they are dancing are downright nightmare-inducing. The Biggest Loser is tragic. No one involved seems to give a shit about the health of the contestants. They dehydrate themselves (and whatever else they can get away with – enema anyone?) to hit those big numbers of weight loss. All of us mortals know fat loss doesn’t happen that way. And being a devious asshole should earn one an automatic ticket home in any reality show. Then there’s American Idol with its karaoke-tired songs and Simon who is about as pleasant as a raging yeast infection. Paula might want to not sit so close to him. It’s just a matter of time before his crop comes in. I know his cruelty means ratings but what does that say about the popular American psyche. Maybe we should just televise executions. At least there’s a hint of justice.
I glanced down the list of the rest of the top 100 shows -- pretty lame for the most part. If an estimated 11 percent of the population watches American Idol I’m sure that most of those viewers of top 100 shows make up that 66% herd of sheeple. I’m not saying that empty entertainment has no place but it’s like living (or slowly dying) on a steady diet of junk food.
Here’s a little tv-related statistic illustrating stupidity: 25 percent of TV air time is commercials. 92 percent of those commercials are ignored thanks to viewer muting, changing channels, TVO, taking a piss … whatever. Yet … it continues. Hello? Sheeple advertisers. Please get your heads out of your asses and either make commercials entertaining (see Geico or Real California Happy Cow commercials for inspiration) or stop interrupting our collective grazing. (Don't forget that we all pay for the commercials. The advertisers should just give their employees a raise and skip the commercial money pit.)
This one’s sad but … it is said that at a world population of 2 billion we humans could all live our lives to western standards. At 4 billion we could all eat and drink. With a population over 4 billion there is starvation and misery in general. We are currently at 6.7 billion. It ain’t looking good for the Earth team. Do the percentages ring a bell? I don’t think the human powers-that-be are going to let the sheeple sink their earth ship. Wake up. Wake up.
An average of only 25 percent of people generally believe what they read and hear from the news media.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/08/19/media-credibility-plummets-most-trusted-cnn-believed-just-30
It looks like at least a few of the sheeple are waking up. One can only hope. I’ve had some basic statistics in my head for quite a long time. Just the result of basic observation: About 10-15% of people just aren’t equipped to actively participate, probably through no fault of their own. They were damaged in some way. About 10-15% of people are awake and aware and actively use their brains. It doesn’t mean they are right about everything and it most certainly doesn’t mean they are good. But the gray matter is active. Then there’s the remaining 70-80% who are just grazing with their heads down and following the sheeple path before them. I’ve been coming across statistics in seemingly unrelated areas that continue to match the percentage breakdowns of these three main groups. (Obviously this is not a scientific double blind study -- just something to ponder in the pasture.)
One example is a person’s response to the news that they have cancer. I think I read this in a book by Bernie Siegel. About 10-15% immediately accept defeat and are ready to die. About 10-15% fight it tooth and nail, self-educating themselves and defying traditional medicine if they think it will benefit them (a.k.a. survivors.) The rest do what they are told by the medical establishment.
Emanuel Rosen in his book “The Anatomy of Buzz” gave some statistics on how people adopt innovations: About 2.5 percent are called innovators – people willing to take risks. They are followed by 13.5 percent called early adopters. Together they make up about 16 percent of the population who basically aren’t waiting around for the herd. Then 34 percent are called an early majority and another 34 percent are called the late majority. I call this 68 percent the super majority – the mainstream – Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Then the last 16 percent to adopt an innovation are called the laggards.
Also, about one third of the American population is registered Democrat. About another third is registered Republican. A total of about 66% of the population = that majority sheeple = that majority herd that decides elections of national and international import. Despite “the land of the free, home of the brave” bravado they are not exactly the independent sort. The other third is apparently made up of people who simply don’t or can’t give a damn and the enlightened rebels.
An estimated 16 percent of people have an I.Q. below 85 (affectionately known as the room-temperature crowd.) About another 16% have an I.Q. above 115. The remaining majority of people (68%) have I.Q.s between 85 -115. I suspect, yet again, most are these are sheeple.
Just take a look at the top five television shows (according to TV Guide): NCIS, Dancing with the Stars, The Game, The Biggest Loser and American Idol. (Ok, I’ve never watched The Game so I can’t say anything about that one.) Massive quantities of caffeine couldn’t keep me awake through the other four. How are they interesting? Pie chart, please. DWTS is cheesy. It reminds me of Love Boat casting all B list celebrities. I know they need to work and I don’t fault them for that; but honestly I can’t find it entertaining. It’s just sad. And those grins that people wear when they are dancing are downright nightmare-inducing. The Biggest Loser is tragic. No one involved seems to give a shit about the health of the contestants. They dehydrate themselves (and whatever else they can get away with – enema anyone?) to hit those big numbers of weight loss. All of us mortals know fat loss doesn’t happen that way. And being a devious asshole should earn one an automatic ticket home in any reality show. Then there’s American Idol with its karaoke-tired songs and Simon who is about as pleasant as a raging yeast infection. Paula might want to not sit so close to him. It’s just a matter of time before his crop comes in. I know his cruelty means ratings but what does that say about the popular American psyche. Maybe we should just televise executions. At least there’s a hint of justice.
I glanced down the list of the rest of the top 100 shows -- pretty lame for the most part. If an estimated 11 percent of the population watches American Idol I’m sure that most of those viewers of top 100 shows make up that 66% herd of sheeple. I’m not saying that empty entertainment has no place but it’s like living (or slowly dying) on a steady diet of junk food.
Here’s a little tv-related statistic illustrating stupidity: 25 percent of TV air time is commercials. 92 percent of those commercials are ignored thanks to viewer muting, changing channels, TVO, taking a piss … whatever. Yet … it continues. Hello? Sheeple advertisers. Please get your heads out of your asses and either make commercials entertaining (see Geico or Real California Happy Cow commercials for inspiration) or stop interrupting our collective grazing. (Don't forget that we all pay for the commercials. The advertisers should just give their employees a raise and skip the commercial money pit.)
This one’s sad but … it is said that at a world population of 2 billion we humans could all live our lives to western standards. At 4 billion we could all eat and drink. With a population over 4 billion there is starvation and misery in general. We are currently at 6.7 billion. It ain’t looking good for the Earth team. Do the percentages ring a bell? I don’t think the human powers-that-be are going to let the sheeple sink their earth ship. Wake up. Wake up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
