November 11 is tomorrow, and for me, it's the only holiday that has any real meaning. Christmas is to celebrate someone I don't believe ever existed. Easter, death of said person. Canada day...yes, I live in a country, I guess that's worth celebrating. Victoria day? I think the monarchy is a joke to be honest. Thanksgiving, any reason to eat turkey is good for me, but what's it really about? The only day that I view as anything more than just a day off, is Remembrance Day. Unfortunately, it has left a bitter taste in my mouth this year.
I heard on the radio, that several donation boxes have been stolen by thieves. This really sums up society today, doesn't it? People take what they think they deserve, and no one with hold them to the flame for it.
The money collected for veterans, is to support the heros that gave up everything, to fight oppression, fear, and genocide, so that we can live in a safe, prosperous, democratic country. The veterans gave up their hopes, their dreams, their youth, their families, their health, their friends and their lives, so that we can live the amazing lives we are blessed with. Everything we have, we have because of the veterans courage, honor and bravery. And yet, some animals out there have decided that they are more deserving of charity than the veterans. What type of person would logically think that their crack habit is more deserving than the well being of an old man, who could use a little help getting through his day, due to some injury he sustained saving the world.
Can you imagine, being 18, or 19 years old, and being shipped to a part of the world you knew little about, and spending the next few YEARS of you life, living in horrid, filthy conditions, with little food, no place to call home, no bed to sleep in, no family members to comfort you and being shot at and bombed regularly. Sounds like the worst thing that could ever happen to a person, and yet, this wasn't some sort of punishment, they did this by choice, because they knew it was the right thing to do, because they were brave, because they had honor. They endured hell, for all of us, and now some dog thinks it's right to steel from them. Humans go to jail, dogs get put down.
To every person that sacrificed anything and everything, to lead us to where we are, thank you. I salute you on Remembrance Day and every other day of the year.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Show? Really?
With the Vancouver International Motorcycle Show coming up soon, I've been reminded of something that really grinds my gears. First off, all of the Vancouver RV shows, Vancouver Boat shows, Vancouver home shows etc, are all held in Abbotsford. Why can't Abbotsford take any credit for hosting these shows, some of which get hundreds of thousand of people, per day? But that is not what pisses me off. It's the shows themselves. They aren't shows, they are showrooms.
Once upon a time, shows had something to show. A form of entertainment, or something unique, or different, that people might want to see. If the show was good enough people might actually pay to see it. Think of an old car show. Hundreds of old, unique, custom, and interesting cars. People would spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars modifying and restoring their cars, to make them one of a kind. Once they were done, being proud of what they had accomplished, with all their blood, sweat and tears, they decided to put them on display, so people could enjoy their works of art. Sometimes, if the cars were really special, they would charge a small entry fee to view the cars. That would usually help cover the costs of putting on the show, and maybe give a couple of awards to the people who had the most impressive cars.
A couple years ago, I went to the Vancouver International Motorcycle Show. I had never been before, or to any major show like it. I was excited. There was literally hundreds of thousands of people that attended each day of the event. It was $12 to get in, which I thought was a bit steep, but the show would be amazing, right? When I got inside, I felt lost. I kept looking for the rest of the show, but never found it. The main buildings were all filled with the local motorcycle dealers. Each dealer had huge displays of all of their current models of bikes. Kawasaki was there with their brand new ZX-10, KX250F, and KLR650. Honda had their CBR600, Shadow and CRF450F setup etc. All the major manufactures had huge floor space tied up with, bone stock, new motorcycles, that you could walk into any dealership and view...for free. The smaller booths setup at the show, were smaller companies, trying to sell you everything from motorcycle riding gear, to motorcycle tools, to food, to motorcycle DVDs. Some stuff was being sold at a bit of a discount, for the "motorcycle show pricing" which was usually 10-20% off. But there was no deals on any of the bikes for sale. I think in total there was 4 or 5 "custom" bikes at the show. The rest could have been viewed at any dealership, any day of the week, free of charge. Why was I paying $12 to look at bikes I can see for free?
The following year, I went back. Not by choice, and I didn't pay to get in. I was working in a booth at the show. One of the Riding clubs I ride in, had a small booth in the back, and was also putting on a show at the event. Our club go the go ahead to hold a couple small races outside, to entertain the crowd, and get some publicity for out club. We were not paid to put on the shows, and we did have to pay a large fee to have a booth at the show.
So whoever is running the event, is collecting huge money from all of the vendors, that want to setup displays, which can have anything in it, even if it doesn't have anything to do with motorcycles. They also collect $12 from hundreds of thousands of people to view these displays. And yet the person putting on the event, doesn't have to put on a show, they just get people to do a couple of lame demos, for free.
If you want to me go view all the new motorcycles, in hopes that I buy one, you should pay me, or at least let me do it for free. Also if you are going to collect millions of dollars, from people wanting to see a show, shouldn't you be paying the people putting on the show?
And all the shows are the same. They have home shows, RV shows, boat shows, womens shows, christmas shows, etc, etc, and every single one is full of vendors trying to sell you their shit. Shit you can see in their stores for free.
I mean cudos to the smart son of bitch that thought this jem up. Have a "show" where people pay to get in, to view shit that the vendors pay you to display. Well done, but I want my $12 back.
Once upon a time, shows had something to show. A form of entertainment, or something unique, or different, that people might want to see. If the show was good enough people might actually pay to see it. Think of an old car show. Hundreds of old, unique, custom, and interesting cars. People would spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars modifying and restoring their cars, to make them one of a kind. Once they were done, being proud of what they had accomplished, with all their blood, sweat and tears, they decided to put them on display, so people could enjoy their works of art. Sometimes, if the cars were really special, they would charge a small entry fee to view the cars. That would usually help cover the costs of putting on the show, and maybe give a couple of awards to the people who had the most impressive cars.
A couple years ago, I went to the Vancouver International Motorcycle Show. I had never been before, or to any major show like it. I was excited. There was literally hundreds of thousands of people that attended each day of the event. It was $12 to get in, which I thought was a bit steep, but the show would be amazing, right? When I got inside, I felt lost. I kept looking for the rest of the show, but never found it. The main buildings were all filled with the local motorcycle dealers. Each dealer had huge displays of all of their current models of bikes. Kawasaki was there with their brand new ZX-10, KX250F, and KLR650. Honda had their CBR600, Shadow and CRF450F setup etc. All the major manufactures had huge floor space tied up with, bone stock, new motorcycles, that you could walk into any dealership and view...for free. The smaller booths setup at the show, were smaller companies, trying to sell you everything from motorcycle riding gear, to motorcycle tools, to food, to motorcycle DVDs. Some stuff was being sold at a bit of a discount, for the "motorcycle show pricing" which was usually 10-20% off. But there was no deals on any of the bikes for sale. I think in total there was 4 or 5 "custom" bikes at the show. The rest could have been viewed at any dealership, any day of the week, free of charge. Why was I paying $12 to look at bikes I can see for free?
The following year, I went back. Not by choice, and I didn't pay to get in. I was working in a booth at the show. One of the Riding clubs I ride in, had a small booth in the back, and was also putting on a show at the event. Our club go the go ahead to hold a couple small races outside, to entertain the crowd, and get some publicity for out club. We were not paid to put on the shows, and we did have to pay a large fee to have a booth at the show.
So whoever is running the event, is collecting huge money from all of the vendors, that want to setup displays, which can have anything in it, even if it doesn't have anything to do with motorcycles. They also collect $12 from hundreds of thousands of people to view these displays. And yet the person putting on the event, doesn't have to put on a show, they just get people to do a couple of lame demos, for free.
If you want to me go view all the new motorcycles, in hopes that I buy one, you should pay me, or at least let me do it for free. Also if you are going to collect millions of dollars, from people wanting to see a show, shouldn't you be paying the people putting on the show?
And all the shows are the same. They have home shows, RV shows, boat shows, womens shows, christmas shows, etc, etc, and every single one is full of vendors trying to sell you their shit. Shit you can see in their stores for free.
I mean cudos to the smart son of bitch that thought this jem up. Have a "show" where people pay to get in, to view shit that the vendors pay you to display. Well done, but I want my $12 back.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Impressive
You know what really grinds my gears? People that make asses of themselves in an attempt to impress the general populous. This rant is somewhat of a continuation of my previous blog "You Get What You Pay For...". In that rant, I talked about people that are obsessed with buying things simply because it has a logo on it, that will get them noticed.
I heard about a study that was done, while I was listening to the radio. In this study, they took two groups of women, (I'm sure this type of study could be applied to men as well) both groups were given some very expensive clothing accessories, like purses, shoes and sunglasses. The thing was, the accessories were well made, knock offs. One group of women were told they were not the real thing, and the other group of women were left to believe that they did had been given very expensive shoes, glasses and purses. The women were left to go about their daily lives for a few weeks and then answer some questions. The women who were not told that the very expensive items they had, were not the real thing, claimed higher confidence, and self esteem. They even claimed to be happier. The women that knew the items were knock offs claimed they felt cheap, and somewhat embarrassed. So even though both groups were given the same items, the women that thought the items were far more expensive than they were, seemed to like their items more. Why? Simple, we don't care about what we wear, or what we drive, or how we look, or where we eat, we only care about what other people think of us.
We spend so much of our lives trying to convince our piers that we are smarter, richer, more sophisticated, or somehow better than the people around us. We want to be at the top of the social latter, even if we have to pretend that we belong there. The problem is, the things that most people do, to try to impress strangers, are working against them, more than for them.
I was driving along a busy highway a few weeks ago, and had a motorcycle pull in front of me. It was a Harley Davidson, a brand of motorcycle known to be very expensive, and unreliable with poor performance, but also know as the bad boy motorcycle. It had no mufflers, so it was extremely loud. Even though the bike had turn signals, the rider insisted on using his hand signals any chance he could, flailing his arm around vigorously. The bike also had "suicide shift" which means instead of the shifting being done safely, and easily with his left foot, he needed to take his left hand, off the handlebars, reach behind his left leg, and shift gears manually with a lever. It's a dangerous and impractical setup, with no benefits. So as I watched him ride, revving the very loud engine, swinging his arm around to indicate a lane change, and constantly reaching behind himself to change gears, I realized something. He's not doing all these things because it's comfortable, or enjoyable, or practical, he is doing it because it's attracting a lot of attention. It's just a desperate "look at me!" He wanted everyone to look at what he was doing, and to be impressed by it. But what he didn't realize was, no one was impressed. Most people looked at him, and thought, there is something broken on his bike. Or they listened to the obnoxiously loud exhaust and thought, "what an inconsiderate prick". Instead of impressing people, he was irritating, distracting, and even making people feel sorry for him and his clearly, low tech, broken bike, that he can't afford to fix. Maybe other Harley owners would have been impressed, but what percent of the population owns a Harley?
Every day I see people trying their hardest to look important, and 95% of them are failing. I hear people driving around in their cars, with music that they think is cool, blaring out of their stereos, with the clear intention, that the people they pass on the street with be convinced of their coolness, but most people don't share the same music interests, so instead of impressing, they are irritating people. Or I see people driving huge, expensive SUVS convinced that the more money their vehicle is worth, the higher they must be on the social latter. But a large percentage of the population view vehicles like that as environmentally disastrous, penis extensions. A $5000 Rolex, cool, or just a far too expensive way to tell time? Everyone knows what their view of cool, or trendy, or important is. So they act in a manner to fit that image. But everyones image of cool, is different. Do you drink fancy wines, and read complicated books, because cool people are smart and sophisticated in your eyes? Do you drive an Escalade, and eat in expensive restaurants because you think cool people are rich? Do you eat granola and own a Mac because you think cool people are hippies that think outside the box?
The money and effort that is put forward by people, to convince others of their popularity, is not only a lost cause, but it's more than likely hurting their image, more than helping. Driving an Escalade might impress 25% of the population, but the other 75% think you are a pretentious, arrogant, douche bag, with an undeserving sense of accomplishment. If you just buy a Honda Accord, you might not impress anyone, but at least, you wont have 75% of the people that see you, loath you.
There are two messages to this rant:
1: Stop buying stuff, wearing stuff, listening to stuff, eating stuff and doing stuff to impress people. No one cares what you think is cool. Do what you enjoy. Who cares if it's something you don't view as cool. Doing something, just because it's cool, makes it not cool. Stop caring what people think. If you want to listen to Britney Spears, eat at Burger King, drink cheap beer, and drive a Ford Pinto, do it. Isn't enjoying your life, more important than trying to convince people you are someone you're not? The social latter is in your head. You are where ever you think you are on it.
2: If you really want to impress people, and have people think you are cool. Just be nice. It's free, or at least cheap. Open a door for someone. Give someone 25 cents if they come up short in line at the grocery store. Volunteer to help, the old, the mentally challenged, the needy or the helpless. Lend a hand to anyone that needs it, whether they ask for it or not. I think you'll find 95% of the population thinks those things are cool.
I heard about a study that was done, while I was listening to the radio. In this study, they took two groups of women, (I'm sure this type of study could be applied to men as well) both groups were given some very expensive clothing accessories, like purses, shoes and sunglasses. The thing was, the accessories were well made, knock offs. One group of women were told they were not the real thing, and the other group of women were left to believe that they did had been given very expensive shoes, glasses and purses. The women were left to go about their daily lives for a few weeks and then answer some questions. The women who were not told that the very expensive items they had, were not the real thing, claimed higher confidence, and self esteem. They even claimed to be happier. The women that knew the items were knock offs claimed they felt cheap, and somewhat embarrassed. So even though both groups were given the same items, the women that thought the items were far more expensive than they were, seemed to like their items more. Why? Simple, we don't care about what we wear, or what we drive, or how we look, or where we eat, we only care about what other people think of us.
We spend so much of our lives trying to convince our piers that we are smarter, richer, more sophisticated, or somehow better than the people around us. We want to be at the top of the social latter, even if we have to pretend that we belong there. The problem is, the things that most people do, to try to impress strangers, are working against them, more than for them.
I was driving along a busy highway a few weeks ago, and had a motorcycle pull in front of me. It was a Harley Davidson, a brand of motorcycle known to be very expensive, and unreliable with poor performance, but also know as the bad boy motorcycle. It had no mufflers, so it was extremely loud. Even though the bike had turn signals, the rider insisted on using his hand signals any chance he could, flailing his arm around vigorously. The bike also had "suicide shift" which means instead of the shifting being done safely, and easily with his left foot, he needed to take his left hand, off the handlebars, reach behind his left leg, and shift gears manually with a lever. It's a dangerous and impractical setup, with no benefits. So as I watched him ride, revving the very loud engine, swinging his arm around to indicate a lane change, and constantly reaching behind himself to change gears, I realized something. He's not doing all these things because it's comfortable, or enjoyable, or practical, he is doing it because it's attracting a lot of attention. It's just a desperate "look at me!" He wanted everyone to look at what he was doing, and to be impressed by it. But what he didn't realize was, no one was impressed. Most people looked at him, and thought, there is something broken on his bike. Or they listened to the obnoxiously loud exhaust and thought, "what an inconsiderate prick". Instead of impressing people, he was irritating, distracting, and even making people feel sorry for him and his clearly, low tech, broken bike, that he can't afford to fix. Maybe other Harley owners would have been impressed, but what percent of the population owns a Harley?
Every day I see people trying their hardest to look important, and 95% of them are failing. I hear people driving around in their cars, with music that they think is cool, blaring out of their stereos, with the clear intention, that the people they pass on the street with be convinced of their coolness, but most people don't share the same music interests, so instead of impressing, they are irritating people. Or I see people driving huge, expensive SUVS convinced that the more money their vehicle is worth, the higher they must be on the social latter. But a large percentage of the population view vehicles like that as environmentally disastrous, penis extensions. A $5000 Rolex, cool, or just a far too expensive way to tell time? Everyone knows what their view of cool, or trendy, or important is. So they act in a manner to fit that image. But everyones image of cool, is different. Do you drink fancy wines, and read complicated books, because cool people are smart and sophisticated in your eyes? Do you drive an Escalade, and eat in expensive restaurants because you think cool people are rich? Do you eat granola and own a Mac because you think cool people are hippies that think outside the box?
The money and effort that is put forward by people, to convince others of their popularity, is not only a lost cause, but it's more than likely hurting their image, more than helping. Driving an Escalade might impress 25% of the population, but the other 75% think you are a pretentious, arrogant, douche bag, with an undeserving sense of accomplishment. If you just buy a Honda Accord, you might not impress anyone, but at least, you wont have 75% of the people that see you, loath you.
There are two messages to this rant:
1: Stop buying stuff, wearing stuff, listening to stuff, eating stuff and doing stuff to impress people. No one cares what you think is cool. Do what you enjoy. Who cares if it's something you don't view as cool. Doing something, just because it's cool, makes it not cool. Stop caring what people think. If you want to listen to Britney Spears, eat at Burger King, drink cheap beer, and drive a Ford Pinto, do it. Isn't enjoying your life, more important than trying to convince people you are someone you're not? The social latter is in your head. You are where ever you think you are on it.
2: If you really want to impress people, and have people think you are cool. Just be nice. It's free, or at least cheap. Open a door for someone. Give someone 25 cents if they come up short in line at the grocery store. Volunteer to help, the old, the mentally challenged, the needy or the helpless. Lend a hand to anyone that needs it, whether they ask for it or not. I think you'll find 95% of the population thinks those things are cool.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
What we need is aliens.
Something that has really been grinding my gears recently, and seems worse that I thought the more I look at it, is the complete lack of humanity we have.We are horrible to each other. We are so concerned with winning at the game of life, that we will do anything to other human beings to get to the top. It really is dog eat dog, but it's not just at work, or in sporting events, it's in every day life. We are so full of ambition, we miss the big picture. Everyone wants to be at the top, and have the biggest house, and newest car, and the best job, and the smartest kid. We are all preprogramed to be ambitious, I guess because when we were all cavemen, you either had the most food, and the best furs to wear, and the warmest cave, or you died. Evolution has made us behave this way, but is it a habbit we should break? Matthew Good has a great line in his song "21st Century Living" "Around here our ambition hurts more than it helps. Around here our ambition throws a non-perishable item in a donation bin a Christmas. Then pats it's self on the fucking back because it thinks it's done something decent"
I am just as bad as everyone else. I like to think I'm a nice guy, but if you look at my actions, I am a horrible person.
I couple of months ago, I was getting fuel at the local gas station. As I finished filling up, a young woman pulled in in a Chevrolet Cavalier. She got out, and closed her door, but instead of closing, it bounced back open. She looked at the door, and again tried to close the door, but it wouldn't close. Working on cars for a huge part of my life, I knew exactly what was wrong. Cavaliers are notorious for having bad door hinges. Long story short, the latch that holds her door closed, had latched itself in the closed position. Without being opened back up, the door would never latch closed again. The fix for this is very simple. You hold the door handle open, and flick the latch to the open position. It takes 3 seconds, and requires no tools. I saw the young lady make a call on her cell phone. Probably to a friend or family member, that would need to come from where ever they are, to help her fix the door latch. My instant thought as I watched this unfold was "haha, sucks to be you" I got in my vehicle and started out of the parking lot. I then started thinking, maybe I could help her. By the time I figured maybe I should help, I was out of the parking lot, and wasn't willing to turn around and go back. Why was my automatic reaction, the typical, "sure glad that wasn't me" Why do we laugh at others misfortunes? Do we like to see other humans fail, or have a hard time? Are we so caught up in the game of life, that when we see someones misfortune, it seems like a gift to us? Like we just got a ahead a little bit somehow? Why do we not instinctively want to help? We see a car accident, or someone drop their groceries, or get a flat tire on their car and all we can think is, I've been there, it sucks, see ya. Imagine if something un desirable were to happen to you, and intead of everyone looking on and laughing, everyone did their best to help you. Picked up your groceries, helped you change your flat, or told you that you've dropped your wallet. Wouldn't that be a better world? Don't get me wrong, there are good samaritans out there, that do good every day, but it seems like the rest of us are only looking out for number 1.
It seems like we always want a compition. A way to scale ourselves, to see that we are doing well at life. These people aren't fellow human beings to us, they are opponents that are in our way, in our quest to be the winner. Matthew Good has another great line, and I think it's true. "Nothing shy of war, or death, or money will ever fuckin change a man" People can act different, but they are always the same person deep down, unless one of those three things effects them. In war time, people put their petty differences aside, and unite for the good of their nation. Who cares about the little things, where there is something far more important going on. War gives a sense of unity within the country. People are more willing to help each other because they are on the same side, fighting for the same cause. But what we really need is an alien attack. Imagine the entire world putting to rest their pointless squables, to come together for a greater good. No more fights over religion, or oil, or holy lands, or money, just the entire world working as one unit. Think of the efficency, and the knowledge that would be pooled. It would be amazing what could be accomplished if we could work together, instead of against each other.
Don't we all prosper when we help each other? Doesn't the future look brighter, when you can count on someone to pick you up if you fall? Now ask yourself, why do we need a war, or and alien invation to accomplish that?
I am just as bad as everyone else. I like to think I'm a nice guy, but if you look at my actions, I am a horrible person.
I couple of months ago, I was getting fuel at the local gas station. As I finished filling up, a young woman pulled in in a Chevrolet Cavalier. She got out, and closed her door, but instead of closing, it bounced back open. She looked at the door, and again tried to close the door, but it wouldn't close. Working on cars for a huge part of my life, I knew exactly what was wrong. Cavaliers are notorious for having bad door hinges. Long story short, the latch that holds her door closed, had latched itself in the closed position. Without being opened back up, the door would never latch closed again. The fix for this is very simple. You hold the door handle open, and flick the latch to the open position. It takes 3 seconds, and requires no tools. I saw the young lady make a call on her cell phone. Probably to a friend or family member, that would need to come from where ever they are, to help her fix the door latch. My instant thought as I watched this unfold was "haha, sucks to be you" I got in my vehicle and started out of the parking lot. I then started thinking, maybe I could help her. By the time I figured maybe I should help, I was out of the parking lot, and wasn't willing to turn around and go back. Why was my automatic reaction, the typical, "sure glad that wasn't me" Why do we laugh at others misfortunes? Do we like to see other humans fail, or have a hard time? Are we so caught up in the game of life, that when we see someones misfortune, it seems like a gift to us? Like we just got a ahead a little bit somehow? Why do we not instinctively want to help? We see a car accident, or someone drop their groceries, or get a flat tire on their car and all we can think is, I've been there, it sucks, see ya. Imagine if something un desirable were to happen to you, and intead of everyone looking on and laughing, everyone did their best to help you. Picked up your groceries, helped you change your flat, or told you that you've dropped your wallet. Wouldn't that be a better world? Don't get me wrong, there are good samaritans out there, that do good every day, but it seems like the rest of us are only looking out for number 1.
It seems like we always want a compition. A way to scale ourselves, to see that we are doing well at life. These people aren't fellow human beings to us, they are opponents that are in our way, in our quest to be the winner. Matthew Good has another great line, and I think it's true. "Nothing shy of war, or death, or money will ever fuckin change a man" People can act different, but they are always the same person deep down, unless one of those three things effects them. In war time, people put their petty differences aside, and unite for the good of their nation. Who cares about the little things, where there is something far more important going on. War gives a sense of unity within the country. People are more willing to help each other because they are on the same side, fighting for the same cause. But what we really need is an alien attack. Imagine the entire world putting to rest their pointless squables, to come together for a greater good. No more fights over religion, or oil, or holy lands, or money, just the entire world working as one unit. Think of the efficency, and the knowledge that would be pooled. It would be amazing what could be accomplished if we could work together, instead of against each other.
Don't we all prosper when we help each other? Doesn't the future look brighter, when you can count on someone to pick you up if you fall? Now ask yourself, why do we need a war, or and alien invation to accomplish that?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
In it to Win it?
You know another thing that grinds my gears? Actually maybe it doesn't grind my gears as much as me just not really understanding it. People that are only concerned with winning. Granted, at work, and other situations, being number 1 is important. Having the top marks in your class means you will land a better job. Being the best employee means you'll move up through the ranks faster. Being the most trained soldier, might mean you live, when others might not. Striving to be the best is in our nature, but there are times where being number 1 doesn't really help what you are doing.
Take sports. Now being the best could be a very good thing. The best players in most sports are celebrities, and make a lot of money. Being the best means, more money and more fame, so being the best is very important, and something to try to achieve. But lets face it, most of us are not going to make money at the sports we do. As a matter of fact, most of us pay money, sometimes a lot of money to partake in our sports. Being the fastest, or strongest, or best in your sport gets you what? A bigger trophy? More thumbs up from the other players? Something to brag about? There are no real gains to winning, aside from it feeling good, which is important, but how important?
A friend of mine, and myself both race motorcycles. The sport is very expencive. We both pay large sums of money to buy bikes, tires, fuel, safety gear, liceneces and pay sign up fees. There is no money to be won at the races we attend. All you get for winning is a piece of paper, saying that you won. My friend, wants to win, at all costs. He spends more money on performance parts for his bike. He sometimes crashes trying to run the pace of the leaders. He puts a lot of pressure on himself to win and gets frustrated and agitated when he doesn't do well at a race. How much he enjoys a weekend of riding, is directly based on how well he does in his races. He doesn't seem to enjoy the sport itself, just doing well at it. I on the other hand, am the total opposite. I love the sport for what it is. The people involved are some of the nicest people I've ever met. The racing is fast paced and extremely intense. There are many types of challenges, from handling the bike in different situations, to battling with the other riders. For me, the best part of racing, is when I am battling with someone the same speed and skill as myself. It pushes me to ride a fast as possible. It's the thrill of the chase. It requires intense concentration and super quick reflexes. The question is, does it make it any less fun if you are battling for last place, instead of first place? For me, no. For my friend, yes.
At one of the first ever race events I attended, I was in a qualifying race. During that race I battled back and forth with another rider for first place. She and I were of the same skill level and we pushed each other to go faster than we had ever gone before. It was the most exciting and memorable race I've ever had. I won, but only by a very small margine. After the race I couldn't calm down. It was everything I wanted the sport to be. Later in the day, I ran the main race, against the same riders, including the girl I battled so hard against in the qualifier. I was really looking forward to racing against her again. Even the crowd was excited, knowing another tight race was going to take place. At the start of the race, the girl stalled her bike. By the time she got it started, the rest of the field and myself were a long way ahead of her. Most of the other riders in the race were not the same speed as me, and I ended up winning by a very large margine. It was a very unexciting race. No intensity. I told my friend, when I got off the track, that I wished the other rider hadn't stalled. Even if she had beat me, I would have preferred it, as long as the race was as intense as the qualifier. My friend looked at me like I was crazy. He couldn't understand why I had just won a race, and was wishing I had got second.
How many people are paying money and investing their time into a sport or hobby they don't enjoy? And it crosses over to being a fan too. Living in the Vancouver area, I was happy to see the Vancouver Canucks go all the way to the Stanley Cup final. However, unlike everyone else, I don't care that they didn't win. Why? Because it doesn't matter. They made it to the final round and went to game 7. It was all about the run for the cup, not the cup itself. Were the goals they scored along the way any less amazing because they didn't win the cup? Were the hits not as big? Were the saves not as important? If next year, the Canucks went to the final round again, but the team they were supposed to play, decieded to forfeit before the final round began, would you be happy? You wouldn't get to watch the most exciting round of the playoffs. There wouldn't be any nail biting penelty kills, or jump out of your seat short handed goals, or yell at the top of your lungs fantastic saves. No coming together with your fellow fans. No cars honking their horns and people partying in the streets. Just the cup. Sorry, but without the battle, the cup is worthless. I'd rather enjoy the battle, win or lose.
So next time you are doing the hobby or sport you love, try to remember why you love it, and why you spend all your spare time and money doing it. It's not about what you get at the end, it's about what you get during. I see too many people angry at teammates, and themselves. And too many parents yelling at their kids to be better at their sport. Why are you paying money to be there if you don't want to be there? If your hobbies or sports don't make you smile from ear to ear, why are you doing it?
Take sports. Now being the best could be a very good thing. The best players in most sports are celebrities, and make a lot of money. Being the best means, more money and more fame, so being the best is very important, and something to try to achieve. But lets face it, most of us are not going to make money at the sports we do. As a matter of fact, most of us pay money, sometimes a lot of money to partake in our sports. Being the fastest, or strongest, or best in your sport gets you what? A bigger trophy? More thumbs up from the other players? Something to brag about? There are no real gains to winning, aside from it feeling good, which is important, but how important?
A friend of mine, and myself both race motorcycles. The sport is very expencive. We both pay large sums of money to buy bikes, tires, fuel, safety gear, liceneces and pay sign up fees. There is no money to be won at the races we attend. All you get for winning is a piece of paper, saying that you won. My friend, wants to win, at all costs. He spends more money on performance parts for his bike. He sometimes crashes trying to run the pace of the leaders. He puts a lot of pressure on himself to win and gets frustrated and agitated when he doesn't do well at a race. How much he enjoys a weekend of riding, is directly based on how well he does in his races. He doesn't seem to enjoy the sport itself, just doing well at it. I on the other hand, am the total opposite. I love the sport for what it is. The people involved are some of the nicest people I've ever met. The racing is fast paced and extremely intense. There are many types of challenges, from handling the bike in different situations, to battling with the other riders. For me, the best part of racing, is when I am battling with someone the same speed and skill as myself. It pushes me to ride a fast as possible. It's the thrill of the chase. It requires intense concentration and super quick reflexes. The question is, does it make it any less fun if you are battling for last place, instead of first place? For me, no. For my friend, yes.
At one of the first ever race events I attended, I was in a qualifying race. During that race I battled back and forth with another rider for first place. She and I were of the same skill level and we pushed each other to go faster than we had ever gone before. It was the most exciting and memorable race I've ever had. I won, but only by a very small margine. After the race I couldn't calm down. It was everything I wanted the sport to be. Later in the day, I ran the main race, against the same riders, including the girl I battled so hard against in the qualifier. I was really looking forward to racing against her again. Even the crowd was excited, knowing another tight race was going to take place. At the start of the race, the girl stalled her bike. By the time she got it started, the rest of the field and myself were a long way ahead of her. Most of the other riders in the race were not the same speed as me, and I ended up winning by a very large margine. It was a very unexciting race. No intensity. I told my friend, when I got off the track, that I wished the other rider hadn't stalled. Even if she had beat me, I would have preferred it, as long as the race was as intense as the qualifier. My friend looked at me like I was crazy. He couldn't understand why I had just won a race, and was wishing I had got second.
How many people are paying money and investing their time into a sport or hobby they don't enjoy? And it crosses over to being a fan too. Living in the Vancouver area, I was happy to see the Vancouver Canucks go all the way to the Stanley Cup final. However, unlike everyone else, I don't care that they didn't win. Why? Because it doesn't matter. They made it to the final round and went to game 7. It was all about the run for the cup, not the cup itself. Were the goals they scored along the way any less amazing because they didn't win the cup? Were the hits not as big? Were the saves not as important? If next year, the Canucks went to the final round again, but the team they were supposed to play, decieded to forfeit before the final round began, would you be happy? You wouldn't get to watch the most exciting round of the playoffs. There wouldn't be any nail biting penelty kills, or jump out of your seat short handed goals, or yell at the top of your lungs fantastic saves. No coming together with your fellow fans. No cars honking their horns and people partying in the streets. Just the cup. Sorry, but without the battle, the cup is worthless. I'd rather enjoy the battle, win or lose.
So next time you are doing the hobby or sport you love, try to remember why you love it, and why you spend all your spare time and money doing it. It's not about what you get at the end, it's about what you get during. I see too many people angry at teammates, and themselves. And too many parents yelling at their kids to be better at their sport. Why are you paying money to be there if you don't want to be there? If your hobbies or sports don't make you smile from ear to ear, why are you doing it?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Steeped in tradition, or BS?
One thing that grinds my gears is weddings. It's a tradition that has gone from a religious meaning, to a means of controling someone. There are not a lot of traditions left in our society, and I think it is important to hold onto any we have, unless they have lost all meaning. Christmas for a lot of people, has nothing to do with Christs birth. It's a day that has been turned into a means for corporations to dig deep into your pockets, so you can show how much you love someone, by how much money you can spend. Don't get me wrong, I love Christmas. It's a couple days off work so I can get together with family, which doesn't happen enough. But does it have to be Dec 25th? No, for me, that day has no real meaning. Marriage to has lost it's meaning for most people. It's supposed to be a union of two people, under the eye of God. But what does that mean to todays happy couple? Most couples are having sex before marriage, or even kids. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. A huge number of married people cheat on their partners. So what's the point? These couples are willing to "live in sin", so why follow along with getting married if not for the religious aspect of it? Well a lot of people that are getting married, like a couple of my friends, are actualy athiest, so it's clearly not because they are scared of going to hell. So why bother? "Because it's a commitment to the other person that you will stay with them." Again, divorce? Infidelity? Marriage is no more permanent than any other relationship. I would think that owning a house together, or having a child together is more of a deterrent to breaking up than marriage. Again, so what's the point?
Then there's the cost. The "average" wedding is over $20,000 now. You can do it cheaper, but you're not getting a real "wedding" for less then $10,000. So for $10-$20 K, you get one day. One day that isn't even that much fun. Most people getting married are younger, so can you think of a way a young couple could spend that kind of cash, that might have a better outcome than one day of "tradition"? Maybe a down payment on a place to live? Or maybe one of them needs a new car? Or maybe one of them could go to school and get a better career?
Weddings are always a day for the bride. It's the women that wants the wedding and the big day. It's usually the women that pushes to get married in the first place. A friend of mine has just ended a 4 year relationship with a women. He got along with her fairly well, and they had a lot of good times together. Recently she said, "our relationship isn't going forward, I want to get married, or we're splitting up." My friend dumped her. What does that mean? Marry me, or I'm leaving. Why can't you just enjoy the relationship for what it is? Are you enjoying the relationship? Are you happy with your partner? If you liked where you worked, and who you worked for, and who you worked with and how much you got paid, would you tell your boss "unless you sign a contract keeping me here forever, I'm leaving"? You'd have to be stupid. Enjoy the job as long as you can, and if you are a good worker, you might be there forever. But I suspect there is a darker side to this.
It's funny because it's always the guys that are unwilling to commit. Guys are rarely gung ho to tie the knot. They want to be 100% sure before they get married. Why? Because they have more to lose. Even though women have their own carrers now, and can make a living for themselves, it's still men that make the most money. Like it or not, it's true. When a couple break from a common law relationship, you usually leave the relationship with what you came into it with. Anything you bought together, is split, but as soon as you're married, everything is getting split 50/50, regardless what each person put in. Not only that, but if one person worked, and made $500,000 a year, and the other person didn't work, the person making the big money will be paying the other person $250,000 a year for the rest of their lives. So who's interest is it in to get married? We all know there are gold diggers out there, but I'm not talking about those. It can be much more innocent than that. If a couple are together, and the guy makes say $25,000 a year more than the women, it might not be that she is after him for his money, she just wants security. She might love him, but incase something goes sideways, she packs on 50lbs and he decides to leave her, or he cheats on her, or they just don't get along anymore, if they are married, he will either stay because he doesn't want to pay alimony, or he will leave, but she will get money for the rest of her life. It's win win for her. So can you see why she wants to get married, and he might not? Getting married takes power away from the person with more to lose. If you enter a relationship, and already own a house, and get married, you don't want the relationship to end, because it will cost you half your house. However, the person that didn't own the house, might not want the relationship to end, but if it does, it's not all bad, they get half a house. If you have a relationship without marriage, either person can end the relationship without penalty. If a person wants out of a relationship, shouldn't they have that option, without having to pay a penalty? But you can always get a prenup right? Yeah right. The person with less money isn't going to want a prenup, so they'll play the "you don't trust me?" card. "That not romantic". Seriously, we've been over the fact that you're not getting married for religious reasons, and you can always just get a divorce, so what's the real reason for getting married? If it's for the "commitment" why do you have a problem signing a prenup? Oh, by commitment you mean, you're going to hold on to half my shit, so I stay commited. Gotcha.
I know I sound very bitter on marriage, and a lot of people do it for religious reasons or good reasons. I guess gold diggers have wrewened it for people in it for other reasons. I just don't understand the point of it, if it's for tradition. It's a legal contract. There's nothing romantic about that to me. It's one really expencive day, that really means nothing if you aren't religious. I've seen a lot of friends get burned by their exwives. I'm a rational person. If you are in a good relationship, and you love your partner, why isn't that enough? You can't just enjoy it for what it is? What do married people benifit from, that non-married people dont? If it's not money, or religion that you are after, why would you want to get married? Just for the sake of it? Just to say you are married? Because everyone else is doing it? Or maybe it's turned into Christmas. I love you so much, I'm willing to spend $5000 on a ring, $20,000 on a wedding, and half of all my other wealth, just to show you how much you mean to me...finacially.
Then there's the cost. The "average" wedding is over $20,000 now. You can do it cheaper, but you're not getting a real "wedding" for less then $10,000. So for $10-$20 K, you get one day. One day that isn't even that much fun. Most people getting married are younger, so can you think of a way a young couple could spend that kind of cash, that might have a better outcome than one day of "tradition"? Maybe a down payment on a place to live? Or maybe one of them needs a new car? Or maybe one of them could go to school and get a better career?
Weddings are always a day for the bride. It's the women that wants the wedding and the big day. It's usually the women that pushes to get married in the first place. A friend of mine has just ended a 4 year relationship with a women. He got along with her fairly well, and they had a lot of good times together. Recently she said, "our relationship isn't going forward, I want to get married, or we're splitting up." My friend dumped her. What does that mean? Marry me, or I'm leaving. Why can't you just enjoy the relationship for what it is? Are you enjoying the relationship? Are you happy with your partner? If you liked where you worked, and who you worked for, and who you worked with and how much you got paid, would you tell your boss "unless you sign a contract keeping me here forever, I'm leaving"? You'd have to be stupid. Enjoy the job as long as you can, and if you are a good worker, you might be there forever. But I suspect there is a darker side to this.
It's funny because it's always the guys that are unwilling to commit. Guys are rarely gung ho to tie the knot. They want to be 100% sure before they get married. Why? Because they have more to lose. Even though women have their own carrers now, and can make a living for themselves, it's still men that make the most money. Like it or not, it's true. When a couple break from a common law relationship, you usually leave the relationship with what you came into it with. Anything you bought together, is split, but as soon as you're married, everything is getting split 50/50, regardless what each person put in. Not only that, but if one person worked, and made $500,000 a year, and the other person didn't work, the person making the big money will be paying the other person $250,000 a year for the rest of their lives. So who's interest is it in to get married? We all know there are gold diggers out there, but I'm not talking about those. It can be much more innocent than that. If a couple are together, and the guy makes say $25,000 a year more than the women, it might not be that she is after him for his money, she just wants security. She might love him, but incase something goes sideways, she packs on 50lbs and he decides to leave her, or he cheats on her, or they just don't get along anymore, if they are married, he will either stay because he doesn't want to pay alimony, or he will leave, but she will get money for the rest of her life. It's win win for her. So can you see why she wants to get married, and he might not? Getting married takes power away from the person with more to lose. If you enter a relationship, and already own a house, and get married, you don't want the relationship to end, because it will cost you half your house. However, the person that didn't own the house, might not want the relationship to end, but if it does, it's not all bad, they get half a house. If you have a relationship without marriage, either person can end the relationship without penalty. If a person wants out of a relationship, shouldn't they have that option, without having to pay a penalty? But you can always get a prenup right? Yeah right. The person with less money isn't going to want a prenup, so they'll play the "you don't trust me?" card. "That not romantic". Seriously, we've been over the fact that you're not getting married for religious reasons, and you can always just get a divorce, so what's the real reason for getting married? If it's for the "commitment" why do you have a problem signing a prenup? Oh, by commitment you mean, you're going to hold on to half my shit, so I stay commited. Gotcha.
I know I sound very bitter on marriage, and a lot of people do it for religious reasons or good reasons. I guess gold diggers have wrewened it for people in it for other reasons. I just don't understand the point of it, if it's for tradition. It's a legal contract. There's nothing romantic about that to me. It's one really expencive day, that really means nothing if you aren't religious. I've seen a lot of friends get burned by their exwives. I'm a rational person. If you are in a good relationship, and you love your partner, why isn't that enough? You can't just enjoy it for what it is? What do married people benifit from, that non-married people dont? If it's not money, or religion that you are after, why would you want to get married? Just for the sake of it? Just to say you are married? Because everyone else is doing it? Or maybe it's turned into Christmas. I love you so much, I'm willing to spend $5000 on a ring, $20,000 on a wedding, and half of all my other wealth, just to show you how much you mean to me...finacially.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monkey Fights
One thing I can't full understand is how mixed martial arts is being excepted in todays, anti-violent, civilized society. The UFC (ultimate fighting championship) or monkey fights as I like to refer to them as, is the largest, most watched organization to host these events (at least in North America). For anyone that hasn't watched any of these fights, they are extremely violent, ruthless, and as far as I am concerned, unnessesary.
I have several problems with MMA being televised. My first is just the simple fact that it is more extreme violence on TV. We see enough. People become desensitized when they see something too often. If you see fist fights on TV regularly, you are going to be less shocked to see one in real life. Younger, more impressionable people might even become comfortable enough watching fights on TV and at events, that they see it as a valid outcome to a tense situation. I believe that we, as humans, have evolved to the point that communication, and having the ability to make rationale decisions has greatly reduced the need to resort to a fist fight with another person. We don't need to fight to defend our tribe, or food, or home. We now have a justice system (though flawed) that prevents us from having to fight for any reason.
My second problem is moral. Why would you fight someone for money? I can understand, that in life, there might be a situation where you want to attack, or fight someone. You witness an attack on a helpless person or catch someone breaking into your car. You could choose to call the police, but I fully understand wanting to attack the person. But to fight a random person, you may have never met before, for money? You're taking cash, to get in a ring, infront of thousnads of people, to do your best to cause as much physical harm as possible to a person, you have no grudge against. "I don't know you, but I'm going to do my best to give you a concussion, because someone paid me to." That sounds like something someone working for the mob, or a gang would say. What type of moral standards do you have, when you are basically a hired goon? What message does that send? It's ok to beat someone senseless, if you get paid enough?
Speaking of hired goons, a large percent of these guys are. Here's some MMA fighter stats. Harold Howard attacked his nephew with the claw end of a hammer. Harolds sister try to stop him, so he attacked her with the hammer too. Joe Son gang raped and sodomized a girl in the back of a car at gun point. Charles Bennett has over 30 arrests, ranging from grand theft, burglary and multiple drug charges to battery upon a pregnant woman, kidnapping and tampering with a witness. War Machine (yes his legal name) attacked his agent, porn star girlfriend and several other people at a porn industry party. Jeremy Jackson, forcible rape, kidnapping, burglary, assault with a firearm, dissuading a witness by threat of force, criminal threats and sexual assault. Justin Levens killed his wife, and then himself. There are more, but the best is Jarred Wyatt, who cut his friends heart out, while he was alive and threw it in a fire, cut out his tongue, cooked some of his organs, and had cut off most of his face by the time the police showed up, because his friend "had the devil in him". These people are violent people. People that like to fight and hurt people, so we put them in a ring, and pay them to do it. You want impressionable people watching these criminals and thinking, maybe if I get good at fighting, I can hurt people for money too?
Which brings me to my last problem with MMA. What message does it send to our youth? You have bullies in schools, that have something to strive for now. A bully should have no support. They should feel like they are losers, and will never amount to anything in life, but now, they have a new hope. These uneducated, delinquent, douche bags, that pick on people and make peoples lives hell, are going nowhere in life. They are shunned in the real world and will never amount to anything. The ability to take a punch, and cause pain will get them nowhere. Now these bullies are making large sums of cash, and are idolized, thanks to the UFC.
Now the defence I have heard for the fighters is that they aren't all goons. A lot of them are extremely skilled athletes. They train for endless hours, study their opponents, and are trained in countless types of martial arts, including wrestling. I agree. I think there are fighters like JSP, that is very intellegent, trains as hard as any athlete, and views fights as a competiition between two trained athletes. Karate, and wrestling, and countless other martial art, have been around for many years. The combatants are discipline, and respect each other. But it seems to me that the UFC has attracted some discipline, hounorable fighter, and some ruthless thugs. Why are criminals aloud to fight? Why are the combatants aloud to smack talk each other? Why are dirty fighter aloud back to fight? In karate, or wrestling or other martial arts, the thugs and goons would be shunned, not celibrated. When you allow these types of fighters, you attract a different type of croud. The typical UFC fan doesn't go to watch two professional athletes compete in a strategy based duel. They want to see someone hurt someone else. They want blood. You don't watch a karate fight or wrestling match for blood.
Are there fighters that are in the sport for the strategy, comradery, hounor and respect of their fellow fighters? Yes. But there are far too many fighters and fans that only want carnage and blood shed. I've been in bars when UFC fights have been on. It was disturbing to me the hear the people in the bar cheer when someone was kneed in the face, or kicked in the side of the head. Why is that something to cheer about?
I mentioned in an earlier blog about guns, and how a very very tiny amout of gun owners are a threat. 99.9% take firearms far too seriously to think about even pointing them at another human being. But that 0.1% wrecks it for the rest of gun owners. The thing with UFC is that it's not 0.1% that are bad apples. I'd say it's far higher. 25%, 30%, 50%? Far too high. And regardless if the fighters are respectful and hounorable, or are just out to hurt people. They are still taking money, to get in a ring and harm another person and I don't think that is something society needs. Why give uneducated, violent, blood thirsty thugs, something to cheer about, or get paid to do?
I have several problems with MMA being televised. My first is just the simple fact that it is more extreme violence on TV. We see enough. People become desensitized when they see something too often. If you see fist fights on TV regularly, you are going to be less shocked to see one in real life. Younger, more impressionable people might even become comfortable enough watching fights on TV and at events, that they see it as a valid outcome to a tense situation. I believe that we, as humans, have evolved to the point that communication, and having the ability to make rationale decisions has greatly reduced the need to resort to a fist fight with another person. We don't need to fight to defend our tribe, or food, or home. We now have a justice system (though flawed) that prevents us from having to fight for any reason.
My second problem is moral. Why would you fight someone for money? I can understand, that in life, there might be a situation where you want to attack, or fight someone. You witness an attack on a helpless person or catch someone breaking into your car. You could choose to call the police, but I fully understand wanting to attack the person. But to fight a random person, you may have never met before, for money? You're taking cash, to get in a ring, infront of thousnads of people, to do your best to cause as much physical harm as possible to a person, you have no grudge against. "I don't know you, but I'm going to do my best to give you a concussion, because someone paid me to." That sounds like something someone working for the mob, or a gang would say. What type of moral standards do you have, when you are basically a hired goon? What message does that send? It's ok to beat someone senseless, if you get paid enough?
Speaking of hired goons, a large percent of these guys are. Here's some MMA fighter stats. Harold Howard attacked his nephew with the claw end of a hammer. Harolds sister try to stop him, so he attacked her with the hammer too. Joe Son gang raped and sodomized a girl in the back of a car at gun point. Charles Bennett has over 30 arrests, ranging from grand theft, burglary and multiple drug charges to battery upon a pregnant woman, kidnapping and tampering with a witness. War Machine (yes his legal name) attacked his agent, porn star girlfriend and several other people at a porn industry party. Jeremy Jackson, forcible rape, kidnapping, burglary, assault with a firearm, dissuading a witness by threat of force, criminal threats and sexual assault. Justin Levens killed his wife, and then himself. There are more, but the best is Jarred Wyatt, who cut his friends heart out, while he was alive and threw it in a fire, cut out his tongue, cooked some of his organs, and had cut off most of his face by the time the police showed up, because his friend "had the devil in him". These people are violent people. People that like to fight and hurt people, so we put them in a ring, and pay them to do it. You want impressionable people watching these criminals and thinking, maybe if I get good at fighting, I can hurt people for money too?
Which brings me to my last problem with MMA. What message does it send to our youth? You have bullies in schools, that have something to strive for now. A bully should have no support. They should feel like they are losers, and will never amount to anything in life, but now, they have a new hope. These uneducated, delinquent, douche bags, that pick on people and make peoples lives hell, are going nowhere in life. They are shunned in the real world and will never amount to anything. The ability to take a punch, and cause pain will get them nowhere. Now these bullies are making large sums of cash, and are idolized, thanks to the UFC.
Now the defence I have heard for the fighters is that they aren't all goons. A lot of them are extremely skilled athletes. They train for endless hours, study their opponents, and are trained in countless types of martial arts, including wrestling. I agree. I think there are fighters like JSP, that is very intellegent, trains as hard as any athlete, and views fights as a competiition between two trained athletes. Karate, and wrestling, and countless other martial art, have been around for many years. The combatants are discipline, and respect each other. But it seems to me that the UFC has attracted some discipline, hounorable fighter, and some ruthless thugs. Why are criminals aloud to fight? Why are the combatants aloud to smack talk each other? Why are dirty fighter aloud back to fight? In karate, or wrestling or other martial arts, the thugs and goons would be shunned, not celibrated. When you allow these types of fighters, you attract a different type of croud. The typical UFC fan doesn't go to watch two professional athletes compete in a strategy based duel. They want to see someone hurt someone else. They want blood. You don't watch a karate fight or wrestling match for blood.
Are there fighters that are in the sport for the strategy, comradery, hounor and respect of their fellow fighters? Yes. But there are far too many fighters and fans that only want carnage and blood shed. I've been in bars when UFC fights have been on. It was disturbing to me the hear the people in the bar cheer when someone was kneed in the face, or kicked in the side of the head. Why is that something to cheer about?
I mentioned in an earlier blog about guns, and how a very very tiny amout of gun owners are a threat. 99.9% take firearms far too seriously to think about even pointing them at another human being. But that 0.1% wrecks it for the rest of gun owners. The thing with UFC is that it's not 0.1% that are bad apples. I'd say it's far higher. 25%, 30%, 50%? Far too high. And regardless if the fighters are respectful and hounorable, or are just out to hurt people. They are still taking money, to get in a ring and harm another person and I don't think that is something society needs. Why give uneducated, violent, blood thirsty thugs, something to cheer about, or get paid to do?
Friday, April 22, 2011
With a 90% Chance of Drama.
Chris Rock said something in one of his stand up comedy acts, that stuck with me, and from what I can see, is true. He stated that in a relationship, "you are either happy and bored, or miserable and loving it".
If you think of all the relationships you know of, every one falls into one of those categories. It seems like it's either an up again, down again, rollercoaster, full of drama, heartache and tears, or it's bland, rational, monotone and quiet. Every romantic movie every made is one or the other aswell. You have movies like "Date Night" where a couple is great together, and seem to get along with no confrontation, but want more excitment in their relationship, or you have the typical, boy meets girl, boy leaves girl, boy and girl hate each other, boy and girl get back together drama. (usually a chick flick)
So why are there these two main types of relationships? I think, in part, is has to do with the fact that, as humans, we were not designed to be monogamous. Experts figure we are designed to fall passionatly in love with someone, mate, raise a child through infantcy, and by then, the love wears out, and we move on. MRIs have shown dopamine is produced in the brain, for about the first 7 months of a relationship, when a person is shown a picture of there partner. Serotonin also drops 40%, giving you the "love sickness", which can make you do odd things and give you new viggor. People with OCD also have about 40% lower serotonin levels than the average person. Some traits of being in love seem to match those of OCD, don't you think?
The point is, the passion, or lust if you will, wears out, and when it's gone, you either start fighting, or you become friends. The couples that always argue, and leave each other, only to make up and get back together, like the intensity of the relationship. The constant drama keeps it exciting. Never knowing what the next day will bring. Hate and anger, are intense feelings and some people would rather feel those emotions, than none at all. The Eminem/Rihanna song "Love the way you lie" sums up this type of relationship best.
"As long as the wrong feels right
It's like I'm in flight
High of a love
Drunk from the hate
It's like I'm huffing paint
And I love it the more that I suffer."
On the other end of it, you have the couples that just seem to jive. No raising their voices, no kicking each other out of the house, they just get along. There's no drama, and if you were to put it into a movie, it would be a very boring movie.
For some, their day to day life, is all they need for excitment, drama, and stress. Work might be intense, and stressful. Maybe bills, and other finacial problems create enough drama. Maybe the intensity of some of their hobbies, is more than enough to keep them feeling alive. Maybe being best friends with their partner is the perfect balence in their life. Something stable, and calming to come home to every day.
For the others, maybe their job is boring, and everything in their life is very grey. They need something emotional to feel alive, even if it's a stressful emotion. Sometimes getting into an intense debate can be very exhilarating, and just what someone needs to bring them back to life.
Both types of relationship have their pros and cons, and suit different people for different reasons. My only concern is the effects a "miserable and loving it" relationship might have on children. I think raising children in an environment where the parents fight often, can have major adverse effects.
Either way you look at it, it's very strange that monogamy is forced upon us by society. When did we start becoming monogamous? I'm guessing it came with the invention of religion, and with it, marrage. I believe that in todays society, we must be monogamous if we choose to have children. The burden of raising a child on your own, with the demands of todays world, is too much to ask of one person.
I hope anyone reading this, can help make sence of their own relationships, and decied for themselves, do you want to be happy and bored, or miserable and loving it?
If you think of all the relationships you know of, every one falls into one of those categories. It seems like it's either an up again, down again, rollercoaster, full of drama, heartache and tears, or it's bland, rational, monotone and quiet. Every romantic movie every made is one or the other aswell. You have movies like "Date Night" where a couple is great together, and seem to get along with no confrontation, but want more excitment in their relationship, or you have the typical, boy meets girl, boy leaves girl, boy and girl hate each other, boy and girl get back together drama. (usually a chick flick)
So why are there these two main types of relationships? I think, in part, is has to do with the fact that, as humans, we were not designed to be monogamous. Experts figure we are designed to fall passionatly in love with someone, mate, raise a child through infantcy, and by then, the love wears out, and we move on. MRIs have shown dopamine is produced in the brain, for about the first 7 months of a relationship, when a person is shown a picture of there partner. Serotonin also drops 40%, giving you the "love sickness", which can make you do odd things and give you new viggor. People with OCD also have about 40% lower serotonin levels than the average person. Some traits of being in love seem to match those of OCD, don't you think?
The point is, the passion, or lust if you will, wears out, and when it's gone, you either start fighting, or you become friends. The couples that always argue, and leave each other, only to make up and get back together, like the intensity of the relationship. The constant drama keeps it exciting. Never knowing what the next day will bring. Hate and anger, are intense feelings and some people would rather feel those emotions, than none at all. The Eminem/Rihanna song "Love the way you lie" sums up this type of relationship best.
"As long as the wrong feels right
It's like I'm in flight
High of a love
Drunk from the hate
It's like I'm huffing paint
And I love it the more that I suffer."
On the other end of it, you have the couples that just seem to jive. No raising their voices, no kicking each other out of the house, they just get along. There's no drama, and if you were to put it into a movie, it would be a very boring movie.
For some, their day to day life, is all they need for excitment, drama, and stress. Work might be intense, and stressful. Maybe bills, and other finacial problems create enough drama. Maybe the intensity of some of their hobbies, is more than enough to keep them feeling alive. Maybe being best friends with their partner is the perfect balence in their life. Something stable, and calming to come home to every day.
For the others, maybe their job is boring, and everything in their life is very grey. They need something emotional to feel alive, even if it's a stressful emotion. Sometimes getting into an intense debate can be very exhilarating, and just what someone needs to bring them back to life.
Both types of relationship have their pros and cons, and suit different people for different reasons. My only concern is the effects a "miserable and loving it" relationship might have on children. I think raising children in an environment where the parents fight often, can have major adverse effects.
Either way you look at it, it's very strange that monogamy is forced upon us by society. When did we start becoming monogamous? I'm guessing it came with the invention of religion, and with it, marrage. I believe that in todays society, we must be monogamous if we choose to have children. The burden of raising a child on your own, with the demands of todays world, is too much to ask of one person.
I hope anyone reading this, can help make sence of their own relationships, and decied for themselves, do you want to be happy and bored, or miserable and loving it?
Friday, April 1, 2011
Election time, why bother?
So it looks like there's another federal election coming to Canada. They only happen every four years, so I guess it's due, right? What do you mean it's only been two and a half years? And the one before that was only two and a half years aswell? You see, in Canada, we have a whole bunch of different parties, and at any time, they can get together and call an election for any reason they want really, and lets face it, for $300,000,000, why wouldn't you call an election?
The Canadian parties, are much like the American parties, they like to fight each other. Even if they might agree with the other party, they will never admit it, because by arguing and fighting, you turn the public against the current running party. Ever notice that all add campains are about how horrible the other parties are? It's never "we are the best suited leaders, and here's why..." instead it's "here's the reasons to not vote for the other party..." It's easier to shock someone into not liking a party, than it is to win them over with good intentions.
This current election is being called because the opposing parties, didn't like the budget that the Conservatives came up with, or so they say. Did they even look at the budget? It was voted down in very little time. I think it could have been the best budget possible, and we would still be having an election. Why? Simple, if the opposing parties think they have a chance at doing slightly better in an election, then they did in the last one, they will call one. What's stopping them? If they call too many elections, the public will get angry with the party calling the election, so they need to be careful to not call them too often.
All of the main parties are the same. They say exactly what the majority of the population wants to hear, so they get elected, and then do none of what they promised. If 51% of voters want to kill and eat babies, then you can garentee, the main parties will be preaching "we need to get these babies killed, so we can get eating!" But the funny thing is, they wont come out and say anything in black and white, because you will offend some of the population, so they would word it something like this "If the general public sees fit to kill and eat babies, then that is something we will need to consider in future deliberations" That way they didn't offend the 49% that don't want to kill and eat babies, because it's "open for deliberation" The fact of the matter is, they don't care. As a politician, you never speek your mind, unless your opinion is the same as the bulk of the population. They are all a bunch of liers, saying exactly what it will take to get themselves in power, whether they believe in what they say or not.
The parties spend so much time and effort fighting each other, they have no time, energy, or resources to accomplish anything useful. When is the last time you heard an opposing party say "yeah, that other party has a really great idea, and I think we should all get behind it." Instead, the leading party is always fighting an uphill battle, even if they are trying to do the right thing. It's amazing that in America right now, they have a president that is honestly trying to fight the good fight and do what is best for the USA. He is honest, intelegent, and seems to actually give a damn about the counrty and it's people. The vice presedent is on the same boat, speaking his mind, and trying to do what is right. Even Hillary is an outstanding person, doing outstanding work. Together, they might be the best team of leaders the USA has seen in decades, and yet the Republicans fight them every step of the way. The Republicans are out to destroy the Democrats, even though they are trying their best to clean up the shit that George Dubya left behind.
When you go to the polls this year, and for christs sake, go to the polls, make your voice heard. You the tax payer are paying $300 million dollars, so that you can have a voice. Don't vote for who you hate least. Don't vote for who slings the most mud at the opposing parties. Vote for who you want to represent you. If you vote for party A, just because you'd rather them, than party B, you are still voting for party A. If you hate party A, but just a bit less than party B, why are you still voting for them? All party A knows is that you voted for them, and all the lies, and BS, and screw ups in the past are ok, because they still got your vote. Never again will I vote for "the lesser of two evils" It's time to send a message. Reward the party you like most with your vote, as a pat on the back, and to let them know you support what they are fighting for. And let the other parties know that you are sick of their BS, and they need to earn your vote with honesty and follow through. It's time for someone to spank these spoiled brats. Your chance is on election day.
The Canadian parties, are much like the American parties, they like to fight each other. Even if they might agree with the other party, they will never admit it, because by arguing and fighting, you turn the public against the current running party. Ever notice that all add campains are about how horrible the other parties are? It's never "we are the best suited leaders, and here's why..." instead it's "here's the reasons to not vote for the other party..." It's easier to shock someone into not liking a party, than it is to win them over with good intentions.
This current election is being called because the opposing parties, didn't like the budget that the Conservatives came up with, or so they say. Did they even look at the budget? It was voted down in very little time. I think it could have been the best budget possible, and we would still be having an election. Why? Simple, if the opposing parties think they have a chance at doing slightly better in an election, then they did in the last one, they will call one. What's stopping them? If they call too many elections, the public will get angry with the party calling the election, so they need to be careful to not call them too often.
All of the main parties are the same. They say exactly what the majority of the population wants to hear, so they get elected, and then do none of what they promised. If 51% of voters want to kill and eat babies, then you can garentee, the main parties will be preaching "we need to get these babies killed, so we can get eating!" But the funny thing is, they wont come out and say anything in black and white, because you will offend some of the population, so they would word it something like this "If the general public sees fit to kill and eat babies, then that is something we will need to consider in future deliberations" That way they didn't offend the 49% that don't want to kill and eat babies, because it's "open for deliberation" The fact of the matter is, they don't care. As a politician, you never speek your mind, unless your opinion is the same as the bulk of the population. They are all a bunch of liers, saying exactly what it will take to get themselves in power, whether they believe in what they say or not.
The parties spend so much time and effort fighting each other, they have no time, energy, or resources to accomplish anything useful. When is the last time you heard an opposing party say "yeah, that other party has a really great idea, and I think we should all get behind it." Instead, the leading party is always fighting an uphill battle, even if they are trying to do the right thing. It's amazing that in America right now, they have a president that is honestly trying to fight the good fight and do what is best for the USA. He is honest, intelegent, and seems to actually give a damn about the counrty and it's people. The vice presedent is on the same boat, speaking his mind, and trying to do what is right. Even Hillary is an outstanding person, doing outstanding work. Together, they might be the best team of leaders the USA has seen in decades, and yet the Republicans fight them every step of the way. The Republicans are out to destroy the Democrats, even though they are trying their best to clean up the shit that George Dubya left behind.
When you go to the polls this year, and for christs sake, go to the polls, make your voice heard. You the tax payer are paying $300 million dollars, so that you can have a voice. Don't vote for who you hate least. Don't vote for who slings the most mud at the opposing parties. Vote for who you want to represent you. If you vote for party A, just because you'd rather them, than party B, you are still voting for party A. If you hate party A, but just a bit less than party B, why are you still voting for them? All party A knows is that you voted for them, and all the lies, and BS, and screw ups in the past are ok, because they still got your vote. Never again will I vote for "the lesser of two evils" It's time to send a message. Reward the party you like most with your vote, as a pat on the back, and to let them know you support what they are fighting for. And let the other parties know that you are sick of their BS, and they need to earn your vote with honesty and follow through. It's time for someone to spank these spoiled brats. Your chance is on election day.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Guns? I'm here for the zombies!
I recently took the Canadian Restricted Firearms Saftey Course (CRFSC). The course is designed to teach you enough about firearms to pass a government issed test, that you need to pass before you can apply for your Possession and Acquisition licence (PAL). For anyone that does not know the laws on guns in Canada, you need to have a PAL in order to own, or aquire firearms. To get a PAL, you need to prove you understand how to handle, and operate most types of firearms, in a safe fashion, and that you understand firearm saftey. Once you apply for a PAL, a criminal background check is done. You must also have your current spouse, and past spouses give the ok. You then need 2 people you have known for at least 3 years to sign off on you getting the PAL. The government makes phone calls to these people to confirm they are ok with you owning firearms. No one in your household can have a criminal record, in order to get your PAL.
For anyone that knows me, you might be a bit suprised that I am trying to get my PAL. I'm a bit on the anti-gun side of the fence. But I have learned a lot from the course I took, and might not be as anti-gun as I once was. Different people want to own guns for many different reasons. Some people like to collect old historic guns. Guns have a lot of history behind them. They have changed our way of life in many aspects, and therefore have a huge chapter in the history books. I can see why history buffs would collect guns. Some people own guns for hunting. Canada is a huge country, with lots of bush country and roaming animals. I am 100% for hunting, as long as you use what you kill. If you want to hunt, kill, and eat an animal, I have total respect for that. Most of us buy our meat at the store. If you want to work for your meat, and do the dirty work, you are going to have more repect for what you are eating. Some people like sport shooting. Shooting targets is fun and challenging. There are gun clubs, that host shooting tournaments. People have different hobbies, and for some people, they spend their spare time and money on sport shooting. No different than playing on a sports team, or building model cars. Some people need to own guns for their jobs. Cops, border patrol, armoured transport gaurds, people working far in the bush, with cougars and bears. Some people want to own guns so they can shoot people. And that is the reason guns have a bad name.
But think about it, the people that own guns to shoot people, are owning guns to do something illegal. Do you think they took the safety course and have their PAL? No. Do you think the guns they own are legal in Canada? No. If you put a ban on all guns, will the gang members and other people out to kill, still have guns? Yes. Those people don't legally own their guns, so making those guns illegal is pointless, they already are. Don't let a few bad apples make you think every gun owner is dangerous. Legitamate gun owners, take guns very seriously. Their guns are locked up, very securely, and they would never think about pointing a gun at another human being, in any situation. There are many thousands of gun owners in Canada, and many thousands of guns. Some stats: In 2002 there was 816 gun related deaths in Canada, 80% of which were sucides. So that's about 160 homicides with firearms. There are about 1500-1700 drunk driving related deaths in Canada a year. You are 10 times more likely to get killed by a drunk driver, than a gun. But keep in mind, a huge percentage of gun related homicides, are gang related, so if you aren't in a gang, your chances of getting shot drop even further. It's estimated that up to 25% or Canadians own a gun. There are somewhere between 7,000,000 and 11,000,000 registered guns in Canada. It's hard to find a stat on what percentage of homicides are commited with a legally registered firearm, but I'm guessing very low.
I don't like pitbulls. I think they are a dangerous breed of dog. You are 4 times more likely to be attacked by a pitbull, than your average dog. They have been banned in Ontario. Now my question is, what percent of pitbulls bite people? If a pitbull is raised well and disciplined, and not beaten and neglected, would it still be as likely to bite? Drug dealers and jackasses like the dogs because they can be made into an aggressive dog, and they want the image of having a dog that can hurt people. Now I'm sure there are people that love pitbulls, more than any other breed of dog, and would train their dog to be as safe as any other dog. So instead of banning pitbulls, what if you needed to take a course about pitbull safety, and prove you are going to train the dog properly, and make sure it's safe. You could then apply for a licence to own one. Do you think the douchebag drug dealers would go through all that, just to own a pitbull? Probably not, but the people that love that breed of dog for legitimate reasons, probably would.
My point is, the people that take the safety course, register their guns, and have a licence, aren't killing people with their guns. Banning guns, will not get guns out of the hands of the gangs and other violent offenders, because those guns are already owned illegally. Knives kill more people than guns. Should we ban those?
When I took my saftey course, some of the people in the course, were a bit...strange. Some were a bit hill billy, red neck for me. The on going joke was that we were there to get our licence, so we can defend ourselves from zombies. A lot of legal gun owners, are, in a word, simple. They like things that make loud noises, and put big holes in shit. Holding something that can make a really loud bang, and destroy any given target, gets them very excited. But are they dangerous people? No. Registered gun owners don't view guns as something you would point at another human being. I would feel safer, knocking on a registered gun owners door, at 3am, then I would getting in a car with a drunk driver, or in a cage with a pitbull.
Taking a gun safety course is not a bad idea, even if you don't intend on ever owning, or firing a gun. It's good to know how to handle a firearm, and disarm it if you ever needed to. Guns are not as scary, if you understand them, and feel comfortable handling them.
Not to mention, when the zombies come, how are you going to need to defend yourself?
Anyone wanting info about the course, feel free to contact me. I am currently seeking approval to post the companys and instructors names in this blog.
For anyone that knows me, you might be a bit suprised that I am trying to get my PAL. I'm a bit on the anti-gun side of the fence. But I have learned a lot from the course I took, and might not be as anti-gun as I once was. Different people want to own guns for many different reasons. Some people like to collect old historic guns. Guns have a lot of history behind them. They have changed our way of life in many aspects, and therefore have a huge chapter in the history books. I can see why history buffs would collect guns. Some people own guns for hunting. Canada is a huge country, with lots of bush country and roaming animals. I am 100% for hunting, as long as you use what you kill. If you want to hunt, kill, and eat an animal, I have total respect for that. Most of us buy our meat at the store. If you want to work for your meat, and do the dirty work, you are going to have more repect for what you are eating. Some people like sport shooting. Shooting targets is fun and challenging. There are gun clubs, that host shooting tournaments. People have different hobbies, and for some people, they spend their spare time and money on sport shooting. No different than playing on a sports team, or building model cars. Some people need to own guns for their jobs. Cops, border patrol, armoured transport gaurds, people working far in the bush, with cougars and bears. Some people want to own guns so they can shoot people. And that is the reason guns have a bad name.
But think about it, the people that own guns to shoot people, are owning guns to do something illegal. Do you think they took the safety course and have their PAL? No. Do you think the guns they own are legal in Canada? No. If you put a ban on all guns, will the gang members and other people out to kill, still have guns? Yes. Those people don't legally own their guns, so making those guns illegal is pointless, they already are. Don't let a few bad apples make you think every gun owner is dangerous. Legitamate gun owners, take guns very seriously. Their guns are locked up, very securely, and they would never think about pointing a gun at another human being, in any situation. There are many thousands of gun owners in Canada, and many thousands of guns. Some stats: In 2002 there was 816 gun related deaths in Canada, 80% of which were sucides. So that's about 160 homicides with firearms. There are about 1500-1700 drunk driving related deaths in Canada a year. You are 10 times more likely to get killed by a drunk driver, than a gun. But keep in mind, a huge percentage of gun related homicides, are gang related, so if you aren't in a gang, your chances of getting shot drop even further. It's estimated that up to 25% or Canadians own a gun. There are somewhere between 7,000,000 and 11,000,000 registered guns in Canada. It's hard to find a stat on what percentage of homicides are commited with a legally registered firearm, but I'm guessing very low.
I don't like pitbulls. I think they are a dangerous breed of dog. You are 4 times more likely to be attacked by a pitbull, than your average dog. They have been banned in Ontario. Now my question is, what percent of pitbulls bite people? If a pitbull is raised well and disciplined, and not beaten and neglected, would it still be as likely to bite? Drug dealers and jackasses like the dogs because they can be made into an aggressive dog, and they want the image of having a dog that can hurt people. Now I'm sure there are people that love pitbulls, more than any other breed of dog, and would train their dog to be as safe as any other dog. So instead of banning pitbulls, what if you needed to take a course about pitbull safety, and prove you are going to train the dog properly, and make sure it's safe. You could then apply for a licence to own one. Do you think the douchebag drug dealers would go through all that, just to own a pitbull? Probably not, but the people that love that breed of dog for legitimate reasons, probably would.
My point is, the people that take the safety course, register their guns, and have a licence, aren't killing people with their guns. Banning guns, will not get guns out of the hands of the gangs and other violent offenders, because those guns are already owned illegally. Knives kill more people than guns. Should we ban those?
When I took my saftey course, some of the people in the course, were a bit...strange. Some were a bit hill billy, red neck for me. The on going joke was that we were there to get our licence, so we can defend ourselves from zombies. A lot of legal gun owners, are, in a word, simple. They like things that make loud noises, and put big holes in shit. Holding something that can make a really loud bang, and destroy any given target, gets them very excited. But are they dangerous people? No. Registered gun owners don't view guns as something you would point at another human being. I would feel safer, knocking on a registered gun owners door, at 3am, then I would getting in a car with a drunk driver, or in a cage with a pitbull.
Taking a gun safety course is not a bad idea, even if you don't intend on ever owning, or firing a gun. It's good to know how to handle a firearm, and disarm it if you ever needed to. Guns are not as scary, if you understand them, and feel comfortable handling them.
Not to mention, when the zombies come, how are you going to need to defend yourself?
Anyone wanting info about the course, feel free to contact me. I am currently seeking approval to post the companys and instructors names in this blog.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Give credit where credit is due.
It seems to me like it's getting harder and harder to know who to pat on the back for a job well done, in the entertainment industry. You can hear a song, or see a movie, or watch a TV show, and even thought you see or hear a name, taking credit for it, do you know who really produced what you are enjoying?
I'm currently burning all of my CDs to my MP3 player. I have a lot of CDs, so it's taking a long time, but one thing I have noticed is that the software informs me of the composer of every song. It's interesting to see the bands that write their own songs and the ones that don't. Now, unfortunatly, I don't own any Britney Spears CDs, so I had to google who writes her songs. I knew it wasn't her, but just wanted to make sure before I slam her for not writing anything she sings. So when it comes to Britney, or any artist that has nothing to do with the music they perform, how can the songs be called Britney Spears songs? Someone wrote the lyrics, someone put them to a beat, someone edited and mixed it to sound good, and someone sang the words. Who did most of the work? Who put in most of the effort? Most popular Britney songs are written by one guy. If he simply got someone else to sing the words (someone that could sing better would be nice) Britney would be nobody. So the songs would manage without Britney, but not visa versa, and yet they are Britney songs? On the other end of the scale you have artists that are 100% in control of what they make. Take Mattew Good. On his Avalanche CD, he wrote the lyrics for every song, he played guitar, piano, keyboards, and percussion on every song, he sang every song and even though the strings were played by the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, they were written and arranged by Matt Good. Oviously he had some help on the CD. I'm sure it was edited and mixed by other people, but Matt was probably there to guide them where he wanted to go with it. So when you hear a Matt Good song, you know it was his creation. It's something he made, from start to finish.
Movies and TV shows are even more of a grey area. If you watch a Spike Lee movie, or and producers movie, how much of the movie is theirs? Sometimes you have people like Mike Myers, that write, produce, and star in their movies. Austin Powers is a Mike Myers movie, start to finish. Now a movie can be written by one person, directed by another, produced by another, and starred in by many, not to mention the countless people involved in costumes, stunts, music, location selection, casting, etc, etc. But it seems like it's usually one or two people that get credit for the movie. If the movie wins an award, everyone that made the movie what it was, doesn't get credit. What was it that made the movie great? The acting? The directing? The plot?
The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes the people that deserve credit, never seem to get it, and sometimes, produced puppets, like Britney Spears, who had nothing to do with her success, are made out to be gods. I"ve come to learn to respect and enjoy talented artists, regardless of they type of music they make. I'm not a fan of Hip Hop/Rap/R&B type music, but artists like Pharrell Williams, that write songs for other artists (including Britney Spears) as well as songs for himself to perform, show major talent, and it comes through in their performances.
You may think that the Katy Perrys and Britney Spears of the world are talentless hacks, because of "their" music. But just because they are in the same genre of music doesn't mean they are the same produced, type of person. Katy Perry writes, or at least co-writes all of her songs. Britney does not.
The next time you see a movie you enjoy, try to notice what it was you enjoyed the most. If it was the good acting, watch other movies with the same actors. If it is the producing, or directing, try watching movies with the same producers or directors. Look to see who writes the music you like. Maybe they write for other people too. I have found, when you trace back the main contributing factors, to something you like, it can lead you to find other things you will enjoy. You will find that fimiliar names have contributed to a large vierety of things.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. Just because you don't care for something doesn't make it bad, or mean that the artist has no talent, but also be aware, that the things you might enjoy most, may have nothing to do with the person performing them.
I'm currently burning all of my CDs to my MP3 player. I have a lot of CDs, so it's taking a long time, but one thing I have noticed is that the software informs me of the composer of every song. It's interesting to see the bands that write their own songs and the ones that don't. Now, unfortunatly, I don't own any Britney Spears CDs, so I had to google who writes her songs. I knew it wasn't her, but just wanted to make sure before I slam her for not writing anything she sings. So when it comes to Britney, or any artist that has nothing to do with the music they perform, how can the songs be called Britney Spears songs? Someone wrote the lyrics, someone put them to a beat, someone edited and mixed it to sound good, and someone sang the words. Who did most of the work? Who put in most of the effort? Most popular Britney songs are written by one guy. If he simply got someone else to sing the words (someone that could sing better would be nice) Britney would be nobody. So the songs would manage without Britney, but not visa versa, and yet they are Britney songs? On the other end of the scale you have artists that are 100% in control of what they make. Take Mattew Good. On his Avalanche CD, he wrote the lyrics for every song, he played guitar, piano, keyboards, and percussion on every song, he sang every song and even though the strings were played by the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, they were written and arranged by Matt Good. Oviously he had some help on the CD. I'm sure it was edited and mixed by other people, but Matt was probably there to guide them where he wanted to go with it. So when you hear a Matt Good song, you know it was his creation. It's something he made, from start to finish.
Movies and TV shows are even more of a grey area. If you watch a Spike Lee movie, or and producers movie, how much of the movie is theirs? Sometimes you have people like Mike Myers, that write, produce, and star in their movies. Austin Powers is a Mike Myers movie, start to finish. Now a movie can be written by one person, directed by another, produced by another, and starred in by many, not to mention the countless people involved in costumes, stunts, music, location selection, casting, etc, etc. But it seems like it's usually one or two people that get credit for the movie. If the movie wins an award, everyone that made the movie what it was, doesn't get credit. What was it that made the movie great? The acting? The directing? The plot?
The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes the people that deserve credit, never seem to get it, and sometimes, produced puppets, like Britney Spears, who had nothing to do with her success, are made out to be gods. I"ve come to learn to respect and enjoy talented artists, regardless of they type of music they make. I'm not a fan of Hip Hop/Rap/R&B type music, but artists like Pharrell Williams, that write songs for other artists (including Britney Spears) as well as songs for himself to perform, show major talent, and it comes through in their performances.
You may think that the Katy Perrys and Britney Spears of the world are talentless hacks, because of "their" music. But just because they are in the same genre of music doesn't mean they are the same produced, type of person. Katy Perry writes, or at least co-writes all of her songs. Britney does not.
The next time you see a movie you enjoy, try to notice what it was you enjoyed the most. If it was the good acting, watch other movies with the same actors. If it is the producing, or directing, try watching movies with the same producers or directors. Look to see who writes the music you like. Maybe they write for other people too. I have found, when you trace back the main contributing factors, to something you like, it can lead you to find other things you will enjoy. You will find that fimiliar names have contributed to a large vierety of things.
Don't judge a book by it's cover. Just because you don't care for something doesn't make it bad, or mean that the artist has no talent, but also be aware, that the things you might enjoy most, may have nothing to do with the person performing them.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Are we the final stop?
I'm currently reading a Richard Dawkins book called "The Blind Watchmaker". It is a long, wordy book, that goes into very deep detail about evolution, and how it works. The term Blind Watchmaker comes from the fact that evolution has no set course. There is no final dirrection in which it is heading. It's simply following natural selection. A quick example of this would be a giraffe. Many, many years ago, giraffes legs and necks were not as long as they are today. As all the other animals, that giraffes cohabitated with, ate the leaves and new gowth off of the trees, they left the only eatable food high on the trees, out of reach of most animals. Now a girrafe that was a little bit taller than the other giraffes might have been able to reach further up the trees and get the eatable food. So the taller giraffes ate, while the shorter ones starved to death. The tall giraffes matted with other tall giraffes, which caused the "taller" genes to getted passed along, while the "shorter" genes died out. Over thousands of years, this cycle compounded and caused giraffes to be the freakishly tall animals they are today. The giraffe didn't get taller by thinking about it, or telling it's children to be taller. The short ones died. The tall ones ate the food at the tops of the trees and lived. It wasn't preplanned, it was blind evolution.
What is the point of my little evolution, natural selection story? After fully understanding how it works, I thought of a major problem. As humans, we have stopped evolution. Think about it. Evolution and natural selection have always allowed the smartest, fastest, stongest, best equiped to carry on, breed and pass on their genes. That no longer happens in the civilized human species. You have out of shape, dumb, unhealthy and lazy people having 12 children, and the fit, active, smart, contributing people having 1.5 kids. We are propping up the weak. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just saying, because of that, we have stopped evolution. We might even be going bcakwards. I already covered how we support criminals in my previous blogs. Those low life, lazy, dumbasses breed. In caveman days, they died off, leaving the tribe stronger.
This is the first time in billions of years, that natural selection, in a species, has stopped. We have got to the point, that we have enough control over the worlds resources, that we can make sure that even the weak can survive. The weak usually fell victom to preditor, disease, or hunger. In the civilized world we no longer have any real preditors to worry about, we have medicine to help fight most disease, and we have so much food, most of it ends up in the garbage. We've made it very easy to survive, meaning anyone can do it. I'm not saying this is really a bad thing, it just makes you think.
Is this the end of the line? Have we brought an end to change?
What is the point of my little evolution, natural selection story? After fully understanding how it works, I thought of a major problem. As humans, we have stopped evolution. Think about it. Evolution and natural selection have always allowed the smartest, fastest, stongest, best equiped to carry on, breed and pass on their genes. That no longer happens in the civilized human species. You have out of shape, dumb, unhealthy and lazy people having 12 children, and the fit, active, smart, contributing people having 1.5 kids. We are propping up the weak. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just saying, because of that, we have stopped evolution. We might even be going bcakwards. I already covered how we support criminals in my previous blogs. Those low life, lazy, dumbasses breed. In caveman days, they died off, leaving the tribe stronger.
This is the first time in billions of years, that natural selection, in a species, has stopped. We have got to the point, that we have enough control over the worlds resources, that we can make sure that even the weak can survive. The weak usually fell victom to preditor, disease, or hunger. In the civilized world we no longer have any real preditors to worry about, we have medicine to help fight most disease, and we have so much food, most of it ends up in the garbage. We've made it very easy to survive, meaning anyone can do it. I'm not saying this is really a bad thing, it just makes you think.
Is this the end of the line? Have we brought an end to change?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The cost of social media.
You know what really grinds my gears? People that live their lives checking twitter, updating facebook and texting. It seems like people don't have time to deal with the real world anymore. They are too busy updating as many people as they can about their current happenings. Can't it wait? Or better yet, not be done at all?
There are many ways now to let your family and friends know what you are currently doing, or plan to do, your current mood, or what you ate for lunch. You can text, which seemed to do the job, but why text different people, when you can spam all your family and friends by putting it on facebook, or tweeting it, or blogging it.
I don't fully understand the point of it all. I can understand in some circumstances sending a mass text to all your friends that you are hosting a party tonight, or blogging while you are on a trip, to update all your family and friends on your current status, without having to make a bunch of phone calls. There are practical uses for it, but for the most part, it's nothing of importance. There is a line I heard in a show called The Boondocks, that summed it up best "Nothing typed with your thumbs has ever been worth reading". It's true.
If something is of importance, don't you want to talk to someone? If I break my leg, and need help, am I going to text someone? When i buy or sell something on craigslist, people insist on texting back and forth for 15 minutes. Can't I call, ask about the item for sale, when I can come see it, and where it is located? Do I really need to send text messages back and forth? You can find out more information in a 30 second phone call that you can in 5 minutes of texting. My time is important, lets speed this up a bit.
So really texting and twitter and facebook is about nothing. It's a constant back and forth of where you are, what you are doing, who you are doing it with, what you plan to do later, blah, blah, blah. It's what's going on in your daily life. Who cares? Seriously, you think your life is so important that you need to consatantly update everyone on every exciting minute? I have my own life to deal with, and the funny thing is, it is far more exciting than yours. You know how I know? Because I don't have the time to update anyone about it! What I'm doing is probably fun, exhilarating, fast paced and requires concentration. I don't have time to type what I'm doing with my thumbs, nor do I have time to read what you ate for lunch.
Now maybe it seems I'm getting worked up about nothing, I can just choose to not partake. But the problem is, it effects intereactions in the real world. If I am having conversation with someone, in person, and that persons concentration is constantly interupted by text messages, it detracts from the conversation. It breaks your chain of thoughts. If you are face to face with a real, live person, and you are responding to text messages, what signal does that send to the person you are talking to? Sorry, but someone just texted me that they bought a new pair of shoes, and that is more important to me than what we are talking about. I presented this concept to a friend. His rebuttal was that it might be an emergency. Someone might be hurt or dead. If someone is seriously hurt, or dead, is the news going to come in the form of a text? You don't think you might get a phone call instead? Nothing of immediate importance comes in the form of a text, or twitter update, so you are going to stop a conversation, with a person, in the same room as you, to respond to a text about nothing? You don't think you owe it to the person in the room to give them priority over someone oviously doing something very uninteresting and texting about it? I went to a restaurant this weekend, and noticed a family of 6 or 7 people all sitting down for a nice dinner. At least half of them had their faces burried in their phones, texting, or updating, or checking out youtube etc. Those things can't get put on hold for an hour, so that you can talk to your family and see what's going on in their lives? Does everyone have attention deficit disorder? You can't focus on any one person for more than a minute? You need a constant outside stimulus to keep you awake? I like the beer commercial that says "this beer is for Steve, that thinks that if you are going to talk to someone in a bar, they should actually be in the bar". Another friend of mine, has a lot of female friends, most of which have a bit too much drama in their lives. He is constantly recieving texts from these girls. Each one will ask what he is going to do today, how he is feeling, etc, etc. He gets to the point that he wants to just throw his phone out the window because it wont stop beeping at him. It consumes a lot of his time to have to respond to endless texts about nothing. He says he wants them to stop, but doesn't know how to do it without "being rude". I suggest just calling them everytime they send a text. If it is important enough to text me, you must want to talk about something. After a while I'm sure the texters will realize, what they are typing is not of importance, and if it's not worth interupting someone with a phone call, it isn't worth interupting them with a text.
I'd also like to point out, the bulk of text messages involve at least one female. It's a girl sending a girl a text, or it's between a guy and a girl. For the most part guys don't text guys. If it's important, a guy will phone a guy. If it's not important, a guy wont bother contacting another guy. Girls like to talk, about nothing. A phone call is too invasive, so they just text. That way they can make it last all day, and they know the person on the other end is thinking about them all day, whether they want to or not.
I honestly think this will come full circle. It was so cool to be seen with a cellphone. You must be important if you had a cellphone! Now it's texting. Sorry, but your so important you can't talk to the people infront of you because other people need to know what color your new purse is!
Well guess what. I'm so important, and my time is so valuble, I don't have time to read your texts. You people are all slaves to your social media. You're lives must be very bland if you need to constantly be stimulated by nothing. Sorry, but the new cool thing is to be too imortant for any of that. Everyone can waste their time, with their faces burried in tiny little screens. Me, I've got a life to live.
There are many ways now to let your family and friends know what you are currently doing, or plan to do, your current mood, or what you ate for lunch. You can text, which seemed to do the job, but why text different people, when you can spam all your family and friends by putting it on facebook, or tweeting it, or blogging it.
I don't fully understand the point of it all. I can understand in some circumstances sending a mass text to all your friends that you are hosting a party tonight, or blogging while you are on a trip, to update all your family and friends on your current status, without having to make a bunch of phone calls. There are practical uses for it, but for the most part, it's nothing of importance. There is a line I heard in a show called The Boondocks, that summed it up best "Nothing typed with your thumbs has ever been worth reading". It's true.
If something is of importance, don't you want to talk to someone? If I break my leg, and need help, am I going to text someone? When i buy or sell something on craigslist, people insist on texting back and forth for 15 minutes. Can't I call, ask about the item for sale, when I can come see it, and where it is located? Do I really need to send text messages back and forth? You can find out more information in a 30 second phone call that you can in 5 minutes of texting. My time is important, lets speed this up a bit.
So really texting and twitter and facebook is about nothing. It's a constant back and forth of where you are, what you are doing, who you are doing it with, what you plan to do later, blah, blah, blah. It's what's going on in your daily life. Who cares? Seriously, you think your life is so important that you need to consatantly update everyone on every exciting minute? I have my own life to deal with, and the funny thing is, it is far more exciting than yours. You know how I know? Because I don't have the time to update anyone about it! What I'm doing is probably fun, exhilarating, fast paced and requires concentration. I don't have time to type what I'm doing with my thumbs, nor do I have time to read what you ate for lunch.
Now maybe it seems I'm getting worked up about nothing, I can just choose to not partake. But the problem is, it effects intereactions in the real world. If I am having conversation with someone, in person, and that persons concentration is constantly interupted by text messages, it detracts from the conversation. It breaks your chain of thoughts. If you are face to face with a real, live person, and you are responding to text messages, what signal does that send to the person you are talking to? Sorry, but someone just texted me that they bought a new pair of shoes, and that is more important to me than what we are talking about. I presented this concept to a friend. His rebuttal was that it might be an emergency. Someone might be hurt or dead. If someone is seriously hurt, or dead, is the news going to come in the form of a text? You don't think you might get a phone call instead? Nothing of immediate importance comes in the form of a text, or twitter update, so you are going to stop a conversation, with a person, in the same room as you, to respond to a text about nothing? You don't think you owe it to the person in the room to give them priority over someone oviously doing something very uninteresting and texting about it? I went to a restaurant this weekend, and noticed a family of 6 or 7 people all sitting down for a nice dinner. At least half of them had their faces burried in their phones, texting, or updating, or checking out youtube etc. Those things can't get put on hold for an hour, so that you can talk to your family and see what's going on in their lives? Does everyone have attention deficit disorder? You can't focus on any one person for more than a minute? You need a constant outside stimulus to keep you awake? I like the beer commercial that says "this beer is for Steve, that thinks that if you are going to talk to someone in a bar, they should actually be in the bar". Another friend of mine, has a lot of female friends, most of which have a bit too much drama in their lives. He is constantly recieving texts from these girls. Each one will ask what he is going to do today, how he is feeling, etc, etc. He gets to the point that he wants to just throw his phone out the window because it wont stop beeping at him. It consumes a lot of his time to have to respond to endless texts about nothing. He says he wants them to stop, but doesn't know how to do it without "being rude". I suggest just calling them everytime they send a text. If it is important enough to text me, you must want to talk about something. After a while I'm sure the texters will realize, what they are typing is not of importance, and if it's not worth interupting someone with a phone call, it isn't worth interupting them with a text.
I'd also like to point out, the bulk of text messages involve at least one female. It's a girl sending a girl a text, or it's between a guy and a girl. For the most part guys don't text guys. If it's important, a guy will phone a guy. If it's not important, a guy wont bother contacting another guy. Girls like to talk, about nothing. A phone call is too invasive, so they just text. That way they can make it last all day, and they know the person on the other end is thinking about them all day, whether they want to or not.
I honestly think this will come full circle. It was so cool to be seen with a cellphone. You must be important if you had a cellphone! Now it's texting. Sorry, but your so important you can't talk to the people infront of you because other people need to know what color your new purse is!
Well guess what. I'm so important, and my time is so valuble, I don't have time to read your texts. You people are all slaves to your social media. You're lives must be very bland if you need to constantly be stimulated by nothing. Sorry, but the new cool thing is to be too imortant for any of that. Everyone can waste their time, with their faces burried in tiny little screens. Me, I've got a life to live.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
It's knot my falt eye kant spel.
My rant today has nothing to do with politics, or moral standards, good vs evil or anything of importance really. Just an observation I've made about how poorly designed the english langauge is. I am by no means a expert on langauges, but that hasn't stopped me from finding far too many flaws in the english langauge.
I'm a math and science kind of person. I understand physics. It all makes rational sence to me. If you arange the numbers from 1-10 and explain that each number is an increase by one unit, math is easy to understand. If 3+4=7 then 3+5=8. There are rules. If you give someone a math problem, there is one correct answer, because the rules are always true. There is no reasoning, or curcumtances when numbers can be different than what they are. That is why I understand it. It's black and white.
English on the other hand is full of grey areas. If you read the title of this blog, out loud, to another person, they wouldn't know that there are 5 spelling errors in it. So then why is it wrong? You got the point of what I was trying to say. Lets play with some words, starting with the word read. What word did I just type. The word that sounds like reed, or the word that sounds like red? Who knows? Shouldn't you be able to look at a word and know how to pronouce it? If the rule that "ea" makes the same sound as "ee" you can only pronouce the word one way, but for some reason read can be pronouced the same way as red. How does that make sence? Making matters more confusing, the word read is past tense of the word read. Why is the past tense of read, read? The past tense of feed is fed. Why not make red the past tense of read? Oviously because that would be confusing, because red is a color dummy! We have three ways to spell two, too, to, only one of witch, if you sound it out, sounds like the word too. No I didn't just misspell a word because you still said which in your head, so it was spelled right! But it's ok, because we have rules that help us spell the words right! Rite? Like I before E except after C, or sounding like A, like neighbor or weigh. It's weird that an ancient species like us haven't put policies in place to improve the efficiency of these "rules", because I just broke the rule five times in one sentence. Oneiromancies breaks the rule twice in one word. Of all the words in the english dictionary that contain either CIE or CEI, 66% break the rule! What type of rule is wrong two thirds of the time? So when you have words like right and rite, how do you know witch (I did it again, just for you!) one to use? If EE makes the same sound as EA and SION and TION sound the same at the end of a word, and their and there are two different words that sound the same, and saw and saw are different words, that look the same, and adding a K and a W to a word like no (know) doesn't change it's sound and malt is a word, but falt needs a U (fault) in it for some reason to sound the same way, how the hell are you supposed to know how to spell anything? You want me to memorize how to spell every word in english dictionary? That's why I like math. If I know 2+2=4, 2+3 must =5, but just because I can spell malt and salt, doesn't mean I have any idea how to spell fault.
Todays society (broke it again) forces everything to be spelled correctly. If you spell something wrong on your resume, you wont get the job. You misspell something on your blog, people will point it out the next time they see you. Everything gets spell checked. Reports for companies have to be perfect. For some reason, you are looked at like an idiot if you can't spell. Spelling requires no common sence. It doesn't require problem solving skills. It doesn't follow any rules, or make any rational sence. I requires people to memorize every word you'd ever want to spell. Where is the logic in that? I can't spell. I use google a lot to find spelling for words. I guess I'm dumb. Why the fuck is there a B on the end of dumb anyhow? But I'd rather be good at stuff that matters. Things that make sence. Things I can use in the real world, like math, and physics, and science (broke it again).
Next time you are reading my blog and find I have misspelled a word, understand that the point I was trying to make is no less valid. You still understood what the word was intended to be. Isn't the idea of laugauge to be able to communicate? So we can express our thoughts, and feelings? If a word is spelled wrong or used in the wrong context, does that mean we failed to communicate? The english langauge is full of flaws and yet we demand our skills using it to be flawless. If I want to say "majoritally, people that correct grammer are pinheads" why can't I? You wouldn't say "The collection of people that correct..." you would say "Collectively, people that correct..." Majoritally is not a real word, but you understand what it means, so why not use it? People make mistakes when it comes to words. I'd rther yu forgt a leter in the speling of a wrd than frget to ad a zero on my pay check. Sorry pay cheque.
I'm a math and science kind of person. I understand physics. It all makes rational sence to me. If you arange the numbers from 1-10 and explain that each number is an increase by one unit, math is easy to understand. If 3+4=7 then 3+5=8. There are rules. If you give someone a math problem, there is one correct answer, because the rules are always true. There is no reasoning, or curcumtances when numbers can be different than what they are. That is why I understand it. It's black and white.
English on the other hand is full of grey areas. If you read the title of this blog, out loud, to another person, they wouldn't know that there are 5 spelling errors in it. So then why is it wrong? You got the point of what I was trying to say. Lets play with some words, starting with the word read. What word did I just type. The word that sounds like reed, or the word that sounds like red? Who knows? Shouldn't you be able to look at a word and know how to pronouce it? If the rule that "ea" makes the same sound as "ee" you can only pronouce the word one way, but for some reason read can be pronouced the same way as red. How does that make sence? Making matters more confusing, the word read is past tense of the word read. Why is the past tense of read, read? The past tense of feed is fed. Why not make red the past tense of read? Oviously because that would be confusing, because red is a color dummy! We have three ways to spell two, too, to, only one of witch, if you sound it out, sounds like the word too. No I didn't just misspell a word because you still said which in your head, so it was spelled right! But it's ok, because we have rules that help us spell the words right! Rite? Like I before E except after C, or sounding like A, like neighbor or weigh. It's weird that an ancient species like us haven't put policies in place to improve the efficiency of these "rules", because I just broke the rule five times in one sentence. Oneiromancies breaks the rule twice in one word. Of all the words in the english dictionary that contain either CIE or CEI, 66% break the rule! What type of rule is wrong two thirds of the time? So when you have words like right and rite, how do you know witch (I did it again, just for you!) one to use? If EE makes the same sound as EA and SION and TION sound the same at the end of a word, and their and there are two different words that sound the same, and saw and saw are different words, that look the same, and adding a K and a W to a word like no (know) doesn't change it's sound and malt is a word, but falt needs a U (fault) in it for some reason to sound the same way, how the hell are you supposed to know how to spell anything? You want me to memorize how to spell every word in english dictionary? That's why I like math. If I know 2+2=4, 2+3 must =5, but just because I can spell malt and salt, doesn't mean I have any idea how to spell fault.
Todays society (broke it again) forces everything to be spelled correctly. If you spell something wrong on your resume, you wont get the job. You misspell something on your blog, people will point it out the next time they see you. Everything gets spell checked. Reports for companies have to be perfect. For some reason, you are looked at like an idiot if you can't spell. Spelling requires no common sence. It doesn't require problem solving skills. It doesn't follow any rules, or make any rational sence. I requires people to memorize every word you'd ever want to spell. Where is the logic in that? I can't spell. I use google a lot to find spelling for words. I guess I'm dumb. Why the fuck is there a B on the end of dumb anyhow? But I'd rather be good at stuff that matters. Things that make sence. Things I can use in the real world, like math, and physics, and science (broke it again).
Next time you are reading my blog and find I have misspelled a word, understand that the point I was trying to make is no less valid. You still understood what the word was intended to be. Isn't the idea of laugauge to be able to communicate? So we can express our thoughts, and feelings? If a word is spelled wrong or used in the wrong context, does that mean we failed to communicate? The english langauge is full of flaws and yet we demand our skills using it to be flawless. If I want to say "majoritally, people that correct grammer are pinheads" why can't I? You wouldn't say "The collection of people that correct..." you would say "Collectively, people that correct..." Majoritally is not a real word, but you understand what it means, so why not use it? People make mistakes when it comes to words. I'd rther yu forgt a leter in the speling of a wrd than frget to ad a zero on my pay check. Sorry pay cheque.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The cost of going green.
Here we go again, with another thing that grinds my gears. People that are destroying the planet by going green. I know the concept behind going green is to help the planet, but we've been sold out. It's a corporate ploy to get us to buy more stuff in the name of the environment, even though it's doing harm.
Do you ever research the "green" products you buy? You can buy a million different products that claim to be green, or environmentally friendly, but are they? What standards do you need to meet to be "green"?
I'll give you some examples of why going green is harmful to our planet:
Energy efficient light bulbs. You know the ones that use 14 watts instead of 60. Everyone buys these now, because they are using less electricity, therefore polluting the environment less. Right? No. There are many problems with these bulbs. One is the fact that they all contain mercury. Mercury is REALLY bad for the environment. 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 20 acre lake. The mercury in a energy saving light bulb is in gas form. When it breaks, the gas is released and goes into the air, and then into our lakes and oceans. Airborne mercury is why all the fish in our lakes and oceans are contaminated. Problem 2, incandescent light bulbs generate a lot of heat. Energy efficient bulbs don't. In colder climates incandescent bulbs are actually helping to heat homes, meaning less natural gas burnt. "If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO2 emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles." Problem 3, how to get rid of them? They contain mercury and plastic. Meaning not only are they harmful to produce, but harmful to dispose of. They are supposed to get recycled, but how many of them do?
Another problem is hybrid cars. I've read many reports on hybrids. Most of them conclude that producing a hybrid car produces more pollution than a large SUV. This is probably made up for by consuming less fuel throughout the life of the hybrid, but what if you compair a hybrid car, to a non-hybrid car? On Top Gear, the British TV show, they drove a Prius at top speed, for ten laps around a test track, followed by a 350 hoursepower BMW M3 going the same speed as the Prius. The M3 got much better mileage than the Prius because the M3 wasn't working nearly as hard. If you want a bit of speed out of your car, you might consume a lot more fuel driving an under powered car.
The sad thing is, the government claims to be going green, but is pushing us in the other direction. They have programs like "recycle your ride". By recycle, they mean melt down the metal and send all the plastic, foam, rubber, mercury, fabric and fibreglass to the landfuil. The deal is, the government will send you money if you send your 15 year old, or older car to the scrap yard, and buy a new car. The theory is that, old cars put out more emisions than new cars, so why not take the old cars off the road? Countless studdies have proven that the greenhouse gases produced to make a new vehicle far outweigh the gases put out by an older car. So why did the government put this rediculous offer in place? To help bail out the car manufacturers. I heard countless adds on the radio of how you were harming the environment by driving an older model car. What does it say about where this planet is heading when our own government is spending our tax dollars, to play adds, guilting us into polluting? How many people traded in a perfectly good car, that they might only drive once a week, that was only polluting 10% more than a brand new car? Oh, and lets not forget the fact that the government collected lot of tax on that new car! Probably a lot more than they had to pay the person for taking part in the "recycling program".
I'm not even going to get into the BS that is "carbon credits". My point is that there is a lot of corruption when it comes to going green. We are lied to by corporations, producers and even our governments. Going green is just a new way to market things. The best way to go green is to stop buying new things. It used to be, Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. Now it's "buy more shit". How does buying anything help the environment? Recycle what you can, Reuse something if possible, but most of all Reduce the amout of stuff you buy. It takes energy and creates pollution to produce everything, and uses more energy and creates more pollution to get rid of it all. If you must buy something, don't assume it's green because it says it is. Do your homework. Buy things with less packaging. Buy things that will last longer. Use common sence, because if you rely on the manufacturer, or the government for info, they will sell you whatever you want to hear.
Do you ever research the "green" products you buy? You can buy a million different products that claim to be green, or environmentally friendly, but are they? What standards do you need to meet to be "green"?
I'll give you some examples of why going green is harmful to our planet:
Energy efficient light bulbs. You know the ones that use 14 watts instead of 60. Everyone buys these now, because they are using less electricity, therefore polluting the environment less. Right? No. There are many problems with these bulbs. One is the fact that they all contain mercury. Mercury is REALLY bad for the environment. 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 20 acre lake. The mercury in a energy saving light bulb is in gas form. When it breaks, the gas is released and goes into the air, and then into our lakes and oceans. Airborne mercury is why all the fish in our lakes and oceans are contaminated. Problem 2, incandescent light bulbs generate a lot of heat. Energy efficient bulbs don't. In colder climates incandescent bulbs are actually helping to heat homes, meaning less natural gas burnt. "If all homes in Quebec were required to switch from (incandescent) bulbs to CFLs, there would be an increase of almost 220,000 tonnes in CO2 emissions in the province, equivalent to the annual emissions from more than 40,000 automobiles." Problem 3, how to get rid of them? They contain mercury and plastic. Meaning not only are they harmful to produce, but harmful to dispose of. They are supposed to get recycled, but how many of them do?
Another problem is hybrid cars. I've read many reports on hybrids. Most of them conclude that producing a hybrid car produces more pollution than a large SUV. This is probably made up for by consuming less fuel throughout the life of the hybrid, but what if you compair a hybrid car, to a non-hybrid car? On Top Gear, the British TV show, they drove a Prius at top speed, for ten laps around a test track, followed by a 350 hoursepower BMW M3 going the same speed as the Prius. The M3 got much better mileage than the Prius because the M3 wasn't working nearly as hard. If you want a bit of speed out of your car, you might consume a lot more fuel driving an under powered car.
The sad thing is, the government claims to be going green, but is pushing us in the other direction. They have programs like "recycle your ride". By recycle, they mean melt down the metal and send all the plastic, foam, rubber, mercury, fabric and fibreglass to the landfuil. The deal is, the government will send you money if you send your 15 year old, or older car to the scrap yard, and buy a new car. The theory is that, old cars put out more emisions than new cars, so why not take the old cars off the road? Countless studdies have proven that the greenhouse gases produced to make a new vehicle far outweigh the gases put out by an older car. So why did the government put this rediculous offer in place? To help bail out the car manufacturers. I heard countless adds on the radio of how you were harming the environment by driving an older model car. What does it say about where this planet is heading when our own government is spending our tax dollars, to play adds, guilting us into polluting? How many people traded in a perfectly good car, that they might only drive once a week, that was only polluting 10% more than a brand new car? Oh, and lets not forget the fact that the government collected lot of tax on that new car! Probably a lot more than they had to pay the person for taking part in the "recycling program".
I'm not even going to get into the BS that is "carbon credits". My point is that there is a lot of corruption when it comes to going green. We are lied to by corporations, producers and even our governments. Going green is just a new way to market things. The best way to go green is to stop buying new things. It used to be, Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. Now it's "buy more shit". How does buying anything help the environment? Recycle what you can, Reuse something if possible, but most of all Reduce the amout of stuff you buy. It takes energy and creates pollution to produce everything, and uses more energy and creates more pollution to get rid of it all. If you must buy something, don't assume it's green because it says it is. Do your homework. Buy things with less packaging. Buy things that will last longer. Use common sence, because if you rely on the manufacturer, or the government for info, they will sell you whatever you want to hear.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Do onto Others...
You know what really grinds my gears? Thieves. I don't really like any type of criminal, but thieves really piss me off.
I work for a living. I spend 40 hours a week at my job. Between driving to and from work, making lunch for work, putting gas in my vehicle to get to work, and actually being at work, I spend almost 50% of my waking life, doing work related stuff. But that's the cost of living right? I have a house, and hobbies and food, and everything costs money, so I need to work. But wait! There is an easier way! Let other people go to work, and bust their ass all day long, and then, when that person buys something, with their hard earned money, just take it from them! So much less work!
See the problem is, thieves are psychopaths, literally. A psychopath is someone with an "abnormal lack of empathy". So basically, they don't care. When you see something you want, that someone else owns, what is stopping you from taking it? Maybe you don't want to get caught. Maybe you don't want to break the law. But are those the real reasons? Maybe you realize that that person worked hard for that item, and taking it is wrong, and will cause that person stress, anger, depression, hate and every other negative emosion we can feel. Maybe you realize that if you just start taking things from people, things will start getting taken from you.
The thing is, thieves don't have a conscience. They don't think about the people that will be hurt if they steal. Thieves have dicieded that they are more deserving than anyone else. The world had done them wrong, so screw it, they'll just take what they want.
I have had something of major value stolen from me. I worked very hard for it. I worked hundreds of hours to afford it. A thief decieded he wanted more than I did, and took it. Who let him make that decision? Who gave him the right to say "I didn't work for this, but I deserve to have it anyway"?
And what ever happens to the stolen goods? I gets joy riden, torched, sold for pennies on the dollar, or maybe just thrown into a ditch. People steal cars for transportation. Too cheap to call a taxi, take transit, or call a friend, they will break into your car, break your ignition and drive your car to where ever they are headed. Now you have a $300 deductable to pay, IF you have theft insurance. So you are out at least $300 because they didn't want to pay $50 for a taxi. Or maybe they smash your window out, to take $5.00 in change they see in the center console. Or maybe they kick in the front door to you house, to steal your $1500 TV because they know they can get $100 for it. Do they ever think twice? Hey, I'm going to cost a random person hundreds, or thousands of dollars, so I can make $50, or get a free ride somewhere. No they don't. They are psychopaths.
Now there are some people that are addicted to drugs, and need the $5.00 in your car, to buy some more crack, and I guess I'm supposed to feel sorry for that person, but that's the problem. We are all bleeding hearts. When we watch the nature channel and see a lion kill and animal for food, we're sad. We wanted the animal to escape death and live happily ever after, but if we were to see the lion starving to death, we would also be sad, and wish he had something to eat. We are all bleeding hearts. We want the lion to have food, but we want the prey to escape at the same time. Bad news, this is the real world. Evolution has made sure that the strongest, smartest, and fastest move on and the rest fall behind. It's how we became what we are. We are the top of the food chain because the weak links died, and the strong moved on. Back in the caveman days, if you were lazy, slow, dumb, or weak, you died. I know it's harsh, but that's how evolution works. Fast forward to North America today, and the lazy, slow, dumb and weak are propped up by society. These lesser beings are allowed to run around stealing cars, breaking into houses and being constant drains on society, because no one wants to see the the lion (contributing members of society) eat the lamb (thieves). The problem is, we are going to starve. We constantly have to pay out of our pockets so these thieves can have their day in court, steel our goods, cost us extra for insurance pemuims, have stores up prices to compensate for stolen goods, have our taxes go up to pay for extra police, etc, etc. These thieves cost us countless dollars, and what do they give back? We are a species that claims to be so civilized, and intelligent, and yet we let ourselves be handicapped, and brought down by our weakest links. I understand wanting to help out your fellow human, and I agree with that. If you see someone in need, help them. We support our mentally and physically handicapped, and I think that says something about us as humans. We are happy to help someone in need, that is a step forward in evolution as I see it, but why do we continue to help people that CHOOSE to be drains on society, like thieves? A lot of handicapped people have jobs, and contribute to us moving forward as a society, but criminals are intentionally doing things that hold us back.
The majority of thieves have no need to steal. They do it for fun, for entertainment, for the thrill. I know a fair amout of thieves. Not really by choice, but by ascoiation. They all came from good homes. None of them are addicted to drugs. None of them have habbits, or mental problems (aside from being psychopaths). They steal cars, dirtbikes, stereos and anything else not bolted down. I know they steal cars for "fun". They steal motorcycles to ride for a bit and make a couple hundred bucks on. They steal stereos, so they can sell them for $100 and buy some new Nikes. They aren't starving. They have a roof over their heads. They have no valid reason to steal, and they don't give a shit about anyone they hurt, how much damage they do, or how much it costs us as tax payers.
There are two problems with these people. One, because they lack the ability to see or care about the harm they are doing to everyone, they wont stop. Why would they? They have no moral compass to say, what you are doing is wrong. Two, the justice system is a joke. I doesn't help these inconsiderate douchetards understand what they are doing is bad. What message does it send, when you get slapped on the wrist for stealing a car? Well if all I get is a slap on the wrist, the damage I've done must not be that severe. The criminals are always the victims. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them because they don't know right and wrong? While they do, they just don't care.
We are forced to deal with the outcomes of thieves in our day to day lives. Someone I know just got her stolen car recovered. It was used for tranportation, and so someone could help themselves to her belongings. The things in her car, like her cds and her amp and sub were stolen, and aren't covered by insurance. She has been making trips to the rental car company, and the insurance company. She had to deal with the police. The long and short of it, it will cost her $300 for a deductable, $250 for a new amp and sub, replacing her cds, her time, and her stress. This is what we have to live with. This is acceptable. I'm sure the thief is "know to police", has stolen many cars, and will steal many more.
Now I think that these criminals aren't my problem, but people would argue and say that thieves are everyones problem, because we are all effected by them. Yes we are all effected by them, but they aren't my problem, because I can't do anything about them. If it was my problem, I could fix it. I can't arrest them. I can't send them to jail. I can't cut their hand off when I catch them stealing my stuff. I have to hope that the justice system takes care of them, and sets them straight, and look how well that's working. While my friend was at the insurance building, looking at her car, the adjuster to her that 90% of the vehicles in the building, were stolen recoveries. 90%. The justice system has failed, horribly. But what can I do about it? I can put an anti-theft device on my car, and HOPE someone doesn't smash my window out anyhow, for the shiny nickel I forgot on my seat.
There are good people and bad people in our society. I think we all need to support our fellow good people more. Lend a hand to someone in need. As for the bad people, there isn't much we are allowed to do. You used to be able to shoot a man for stealing a horse, but nowadays we've lost our balls. Stop being a bleeding heart for those that don't deserve it.
I'm going to watch the nature channel now. Maybe I can catch the part where the lion sinks it's teeth into it's preys jugular, I love that part.
I work for a living. I spend 40 hours a week at my job. Between driving to and from work, making lunch for work, putting gas in my vehicle to get to work, and actually being at work, I spend almost 50% of my waking life, doing work related stuff. But that's the cost of living right? I have a house, and hobbies and food, and everything costs money, so I need to work. But wait! There is an easier way! Let other people go to work, and bust their ass all day long, and then, when that person buys something, with their hard earned money, just take it from them! So much less work!
See the problem is, thieves are psychopaths, literally. A psychopath is someone with an "abnormal lack of empathy". So basically, they don't care. When you see something you want, that someone else owns, what is stopping you from taking it? Maybe you don't want to get caught. Maybe you don't want to break the law. But are those the real reasons? Maybe you realize that that person worked hard for that item, and taking it is wrong, and will cause that person stress, anger, depression, hate and every other negative emosion we can feel. Maybe you realize that if you just start taking things from people, things will start getting taken from you.
The thing is, thieves don't have a conscience. They don't think about the people that will be hurt if they steal. Thieves have dicieded that they are more deserving than anyone else. The world had done them wrong, so screw it, they'll just take what they want.
I have had something of major value stolen from me. I worked very hard for it. I worked hundreds of hours to afford it. A thief decieded he wanted more than I did, and took it. Who let him make that decision? Who gave him the right to say "I didn't work for this, but I deserve to have it anyway"?
And what ever happens to the stolen goods? I gets joy riden, torched, sold for pennies on the dollar, or maybe just thrown into a ditch. People steal cars for transportation. Too cheap to call a taxi, take transit, or call a friend, they will break into your car, break your ignition and drive your car to where ever they are headed. Now you have a $300 deductable to pay, IF you have theft insurance. So you are out at least $300 because they didn't want to pay $50 for a taxi. Or maybe they smash your window out, to take $5.00 in change they see in the center console. Or maybe they kick in the front door to you house, to steal your $1500 TV because they know they can get $100 for it. Do they ever think twice? Hey, I'm going to cost a random person hundreds, or thousands of dollars, so I can make $50, or get a free ride somewhere. No they don't. They are psychopaths.
Now there are some people that are addicted to drugs, and need the $5.00 in your car, to buy some more crack, and I guess I'm supposed to feel sorry for that person, but that's the problem. We are all bleeding hearts. When we watch the nature channel and see a lion kill and animal for food, we're sad. We wanted the animal to escape death and live happily ever after, but if we were to see the lion starving to death, we would also be sad, and wish he had something to eat. We are all bleeding hearts. We want the lion to have food, but we want the prey to escape at the same time. Bad news, this is the real world. Evolution has made sure that the strongest, smartest, and fastest move on and the rest fall behind. It's how we became what we are. We are the top of the food chain because the weak links died, and the strong moved on. Back in the caveman days, if you were lazy, slow, dumb, or weak, you died. I know it's harsh, but that's how evolution works. Fast forward to North America today, and the lazy, slow, dumb and weak are propped up by society. These lesser beings are allowed to run around stealing cars, breaking into houses and being constant drains on society, because no one wants to see the the lion (contributing members of society) eat the lamb (thieves). The problem is, we are going to starve. We constantly have to pay out of our pockets so these thieves can have their day in court, steel our goods, cost us extra for insurance pemuims, have stores up prices to compensate for stolen goods, have our taxes go up to pay for extra police, etc, etc. These thieves cost us countless dollars, and what do they give back? We are a species that claims to be so civilized, and intelligent, and yet we let ourselves be handicapped, and brought down by our weakest links. I understand wanting to help out your fellow human, and I agree with that. If you see someone in need, help them. We support our mentally and physically handicapped, and I think that says something about us as humans. We are happy to help someone in need, that is a step forward in evolution as I see it, but why do we continue to help people that CHOOSE to be drains on society, like thieves? A lot of handicapped people have jobs, and contribute to us moving forward as a society, but criminals are intentionally doing things that hold us back.
The majority of thieves have no need to steal. They do it for fun, for entertainment, for the thrill. I know a fair amout of thieves. Not really by choice, but by ascoiation. They all came from good homes. None of them are addicted to drugs. None of them have habbits, or mental problems (aside from being psychopaths). They steal cars, dirtbikes, stereos and anything else not bolted down. I know they steal cars for "fun". They steal motorcycles to ride for a bit and make a couple hundred bucks on. They steal stereos, so they can sell them for $100 and buy some new Nikes. They aren't starving. They have a roof over their heads. They have no valid reason to steal, and they don't give a shit about anyone they hurt, how much damage they do, or how much it costs us as tax payers.
There are two problems with these people. One, because they lack the ability to see or care about the harm they are doing to everyone, they wont stop. Why would they? They have no moral compass to say, what you are doing is wrong. Two, the justice system is a joke. I doesn't help these inconsiderate douchetards understand what they are doing is bad. What message does it send, when you get slapped on the wrist for stealing a car? Well if all I get is a slap on the wrist, the damage I've done must not be that severe. The criminals are always the victims. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them because they don't know right and wrong? While they do, they just don't care.
We are forced to deal with the outcomes of thieves in our day to day lives. Someone I know just got her stolen car recovered. It was used for tranportation, and so someone could help themselves to her belongings. The things in her car, like her cds and her amp and sub were stolen, and aren't covered by insurance. She has been making trips to the rental car company, and the insurance company. She had to deal with the police. The long and short of it, it will cost her $300 for a deductable, $250 for a new amp and sub, replacing her cds, her time, and her stress. This is what we have to live with. This is acceptable. I'm sure the thief is "know to police", has stolen many cars, and will steal many more.
Now I think that these criminals aren't my problem, but people would argue and say that thieves are everyones problem, because we are all effected by them. Yes we are all effected by them, but they aren't my problem, because I can't do anything about them. If it was my problem, I could fix it. I can't arrest them. I can't send them to jail. I can't cut their hand off when I catch them stealing my stuff. I have to hope that the justice system takes care of them, and sets them straight, and look how well that's working. While my friend was at the insurance building, looking at her car, the adjuster to her that 90% of the vehicles in the building, were stolen recoveries. 90%. The justice system has failed, horribly. But what can I do about it? I can put an anti-theft device on my car, and HOPE someone doesn't smash my window out anyhow, for the shiny nickel I forgot on my seat.
There are good people and bad people in our society. I think we all need to support our fellow good people more. Lend a hand to someone in need. As for the bad people, there isn't much we are allowed to do. You used to be able to shoot a man for stealing a horse, but nowadays we've lost our balls. Stop being a bleeding heart for those that don't deserve it.
I'm going to watch the nature channel now. Maybe I can catch the part where the lion sinks it's teeth into it's preys jugular, I love that part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)