So I have a fantastic health tip for everyone today. It's free, it's easy, it involves literally no work or effort, and I promise, it will make you a happier, more positive person. Sound too good to be true? Well it's not. Step one: Stop watching the news and reading the news paper. That is all.
The news isn't what it once was. Strange that watching a satyrical comedy made me realize this. I watched Anchorman 2 and came to realization that the news used to be about things you needed to know. Important happenings around the world or in your own neighbourhood. It was things that effected you, things that mattered. But somewhere along the way, the media outlets realized that there are more effective ways to get peoples attention. They found that tapping into stronger emotions gets, and keeps peoples attention more effectively. People don't care about who got elected in a different county, or if the god particle has been discovered in Switzerland. People want drama. So that's what they give us.
The Black Eyed Peas have a great line in their song "Where is the Love"
I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama
Only attracted to the things that will bring you trauma
Are people really addicted to drama? We surely get our fair share of it every day thanks to media. When we get fed drama every day, do we start to need it? Drama gets our stronger emotions going. It gets us angry, it gets us upset, it gets us sad, and it gets us pumped up. When you hear the stories told by the media today, they peak your interest. That's why those things are in the news, to get you roped in. It's not because they are important stories.
Here's the part where I give an example! Todays news according to CBC is as follows: Some guy named Justin Bourque killed a RCMP officer. A 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl assaulted a woman and tried to steal her baby. Some branch of government is going bankrupt, so is planning to charge people more money to look up information. Killer whale J-32 died. 2 carjackings and chases where halted by police. <-This is the same formula the media uses every day to keep you coming back. Take news, add drama, mesmerize millions. It's the same thing every day. Someone got murdered, someone stole something, a politician is corrupt, the worlds getting to warm, there are dangers lurking in your home, and the sky is falling. Don't get me wrong. I believe that all those things happened, and will continue to happen. My problem is, it's the same shit every day. It's not intended to inform you, or protect you. It's designed to scare you, enrage you, provoke you and agitate you. None of these stories matter to you. You didn't get murdered, and if you did, you'd know. You didn't know killer whale J-32. You are shocked an enraged about the corrupt politician, but you will do nothing about it. You're car didn't get carjacked, and again, if it did, you already knew about it. Then they throw some stories into the news to make it feel like you're involved or effected by it, like "dryer lint fires are far more common than we know, are you at risk?" or "Do you have two ears, ten fingers, and 3 or more toes? You have a 4% greater chance of getting cancer!" They make you think something bad might happen to you to invoke fear because lets face it, you're going to have to tune into that to make sure you're going to be ok, but really, are you going to do anything about it? And does it really effect you? Yes there were 15,000 dryer lint fires in the USA last year, but there are 117,500,000 households in the USA, most with dryers, leaving you with a 1 in 8000 chance of having a dryer fire, which probably won't kill you anyhow. The "ebola epidemic" that had every media outlet on high alert, to keep the public safe and informed, was a hoax. 2 people died. It was a great story to get people freaked right out, and keep them glued to their TV for updates, but it was a complete and utter farce. How many people were talking about it? It was the only topic being discussed for days. 10 times more people will die of lightening strikes this year than ebola. While you were stuck to your TV, eating twinkies, watching the "ebola epidemic" you failed to realize, 1 in 150,000,000 people died of ebola, while 1 in 500 died from eating too much shit food and not getting enough exercise.
The news stories are chosen based on what is going to get the most viewers, not what is the most important. The best way to get viewers is to shock, scare, anger and engage them, so that's the media's goal. But what effect does this have on you? Is getting angry, stressed, horrified, and disgusted every day a good thing? I watched a story on the news once, that living with stress can take up to 4 years off your life. Ironic isn't it? Maybe the news media should have a disclaimer at the beginning of all their programs and on the front of the news paper: "Warning: contents known to cause extreme distress, side effects may include, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping."
Wheel of morality, turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn! Todays lesson is: Turn it off. It doesn't effect you, and even if it does, there's nothing you can, or will do about it. What you don't know can't hurt you. I used to completely disagree with that statement, and thought it was extremely important to keep up to date on current happenings. I was wrong. As much a world happenings matter, they aren't worth ruining your life over. I stopped watching the news a few years ago and every now and then, I catch a bit of news from a friend or co-worker, and I remember why I stopped watching. I don't want to be angry, so why subject yourself to something designed to do just that.
The next time you sit down in front of your TV, you could watch a comedy, or the news. Ask yourself, do you want to be happy and laugh, or get angry and frustrated?
(If you caught my Animaniacs reference, you're probably on the right track to being happier, and less stressed already)
Friday, December 5, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
How does this equal rights thing work?
I completely understand the push for equal rights between men and women. It makes sense that a women, that is equally qualified for a job, should be paid the same as a man. A women's opinion should never be taken less seriously than a mans. Women should be provided all the rights and privileges that men have. My question is, when will men get the same rights as women? I can think of many circumstances in which men get the short end of the stick in todays society.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
History is written by the victors, not who's right.
After years of taking news reports, history books, and magazine articles at face value, I've come to realize that everyone has an agenda, and the truth, the real story, is very difficult find. There are two sides to every story, and until you hear both sides, you are a fool to try to determine what the truth is. The problem is, the part of history we read about and see on TV and hear tales of, is our side of the story. Facts are facts, but a good story teller can use those facts to tell whatever story they want.
I'll give you an example. It comes from an event in history that everyone already knows. In world war II, Japan was at war with the united states of America. Why Japan attacked the USA in the first place is another topic, and is irrelevant to the point I'd like to make. The USA knew an all out assault on Japan could take years, and could feasibly be a war they would never win. The death toll was already stacking up, and as the Japanese put it, "the americans don't have the stomach for high casualties". The USA needed a way to win, without losing their own troops. The USA started bombing Japan heavily in 1944. They targeted mainly Tokyo at first, which was one of Japans most densely populated cities. Some of the "targets" were Urban areas, where the main target was civilians. Civilians, who posed no threat to the USA, and who could have been quite possibly against the war. On March 9 1945 over 300 bombers were launched to drop 1700 tonnes of incendiary bombs on Tokyo. 16 square miles were burnt to nothing and over 100,000 people were killed. Later in the year, the USA dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and then another on Nagasaki, killing another 200,000 people in major city centres, one of which had no military relevance.
Now we all know that the Americans saved many lives dropping those bombs. They stopped the war, and there was no more killing. But who gave them the ok to kill 300,000 civilians in order to save some american soldiers? Aren't the soldiers the ones that sign up to fight, knowing about the possibility of death while serving their country? Do the Japanese history books talk of how great the Americans were for testing nuclear weapons on them? Did you know that after the nukes were dropped, it rained. Thousands of people had been without water for many hours and were in dyer need of water, so they drank the rain water, and everyone who did, died of radiation poisoning. And the Americans are good guys? It kind of sounds like America was in a fist fight with someone they might lose to, were in pain from taking a couple of blows, and decided to pull a gun and kill their opponent.
Americans can't handle seeing it's citizens being hurt or killed. They were utterly devastated after sept 11, they continue to be horrified by the 6000+ troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the first thing you hear about when there is a major international disaster is how many Americans were there and lost their lives. But who gives a flying fuck about the 300,000 civilians dead in Japan, or the estimated 150,000 people killed in Iraq thanks to the Americans since 2003. It's nice to see that Americans care so much about their brethren, but disturbing to see they care so little about everyone else.
Would intentionally targeting, and killing thousands of civilians, not be considered an act of terrorism? Funny how when you are convinced you are the good guy, you can do no wrong, and killing thousands of human beings can make you a hero, but anyone that does the same thing, and doesn't share your point of views is a terrorist. Very rarely does one party think they are the bad guy. After years of brainwashing and propaganda, Hitler had millions of people convinced in the "superior being" bullshit and had millions of people killed under his order. The people serving Hitler were convinced they were doing the right thing, and that they were the good guys, in the same way Americans are brainwashed into believing killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians was a good thing. Sometimes people just tell you what you want to hear so they can sell you their story.
Everyone does what they do for a reason. They usually think that reason is just and true. If they were to write history, they would have reasoning and explanations for their logic, but others might see it in a very different way. The only way to know who was right, or to at least try to fully understand the scenario, is to hear both sides. In the western world, we are only given one side. The side written by us. Important facts are left out if they don't conform to our story. Happenings are blown out of proportion, or down played depending how they coincide with our side of the story. The fact of the matter is, millions upon millions of people have been killed because of these stories. There is always only one true story, but it can be told many different ways. It seems like a waste that so many people have lost their lives because two people have a deferring opinion of the same story. I guess it's true that if you say a lie enough times it becomes truth.
Maybe it's time for you to have an opinion for yourself instead of repeating someone else's.
I'll give you an example. It comes from an event in history that everyone already knows. In world war II, Japan was at war with the united states of America. Why Japan attacked the USA in the first place is another topic, and is irrelevant to the point I'd like to make. The USA knew an all out assault on Japan could take years, and could feasibly be a war they would never win. The death toll was already stacking up, and as the Japanese put it, "the americans don't have the stomach for high casualties". The USA needed a way to win, without losing their own troops. The USA started bombing Japan heavily in 1944. They targeted mainly Tokyo at first, which was one of Japans most densely populated cities. Some of the "targets" were Urban areas, where the main target was civilians. Civilians, who posed no threat to the USA, and who could have been quite possibly against the war. On March 9 1945 over 300 bombers were launched to drop 1700 tonnes of incendiary bombs on Tokyo. 16 square miles were burnt to nothing and over 100,000 people were killed. Later in the year, the USA dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and then another on Nagasaki, killing another 200,000 people in major city centres, one of which had no military relevance.
Now we all know that the Americans saved many lives dropping those bombs. They stopped the war, and there was no more killing. But who gave them the ok to kill 300,000 civilians in order to save some american soldiers? Aren't the soldiers the ones that sign up to fight, knowing about the possibility of death while serving their country? Do the Japanese history books talk of how great the Americans were for testing nuclear weapons on them? Did you know that after the nukes were dropped, it rained. Thousands of people had been without water for many hours and were in dyer need of water, so they drank the rain water, and everyone who did, died of radiation poisoning. And the Americans are good guys? It kind of sounds like America was in a fist fight with someone they might lose to, were in pain from taking a couple of blows, and decided to pull a gun and kill their opponent.
Americans can't handle seeing it's citizens being hurt or killed. They were utterly devastated after sept 11, they continue to be horrified by the 6000+ troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the first thing you hear about when there is a major international disaster is how many Americans were there and lost their lives. But who gives a flying fuck about the 300,000 civilians dead in Japan, or the estimated 150,000 people killed in Iraq thanks to the Americans since 2003. It's nice to see that Americans care so much about their brethren, but disturbing to see they care so little about everyone else.
Would intentionally targeting, and killing thousands of civilians, not be considered an act of terrorism? Funny how when you are convinced you are the good guy, you can do no wrong, and killing thousands of human beings can make you a hero, but anyone that does the same thing, and doesn't share your point of views is a terrorist. Very rarely does one party think they are the bad guy. After years of brainwashing and propaganda, Hitler had millions of people convinced in the "superior being" bullshit and had millions of people killed under his order. The people serving Hitler were convinced they were doing the right thing, and that they were the good guys, in the same way Americans are brainwashed into believing killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians was a good thing. Sometimes people just tell you what you want to hear so they can sell you their story.
Everyone does what they do for a reason. They usually think that reason is just and true. If they were to write history, they would have reasoning and explanations for their logic, but others might see it in a very different way. The only way to know who was right, or to at least try to fully understand the scenario, is to hear both sides. In the western world, we are only given one side. The side written by us. Important facts are left out if they don't conform to our story. Happenings are blown out of proportion, or down played depending how they coincide with our side of the story. The fact of the matter is, millions upon millions of people have been killed because of these stories. There is always only one true story, but it can be told many different ways. It seems like a waste that so many people have lost their lives because two people have a deferring opinion of the same story. I guess it's true that if you say a lie enough times it becomes truth.
Maybe it's time for you to have an opinion for yourself instead of repeating someone else's.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
2013 going on 1950
You know what really grinds my gears? The continued intolerance towards gays by the government. In a time where being politically correct is a necessity to be accepted by society, somehow this non politically correctness is still alive and well. I am a firm believer that political correctness has gone too far, and is robbing us of our right to free speech, our individualism, and so many good jokes. In Canada, political correctness even trumps laws now. An east Indian no longer needs to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle on the street. A law that has been in place for many years, designed to save lives. But this law can now be broken if it is against your religion to wear a helmet. God forbid we step on religion for human safety. The point I'm try to make is that the government will do anything and everything, including rewriting laws, to avoid offending anyone. And yet it is still ok to deny homosexuals the same basic rights as heterosexuals?
I've lost track of what the laws are in Canada, but I know in the states there are still places where gays can not marry. I understand the bible thumping, inbreeders objection, that the bible clearly states marriage is the union of a man and a women, and if churches refuse to marry gays, so be it. The KKK still gather to hate everything not white, why can't cultist churches preach what they choose as well? It is a private organization. But the fact that the government still refuses to recognize a gay marriage is baffling. Why not take away their right to vote, and make them ride at the back of the bus? I can see this intolerance back when misinformation was rampant. You had government officials, and news broadcasters stating that African Americans had smaller brains than white people and they were not much more than monkeys. But all that BS was debunked, and people stopped listening to the racists and made a decision for themselves. Now it seems times have gotten better, there's less misinformation, people are more accepting, and it's largely do to the fact that the government has gone towards tolerance and being more politically correct. The government has wised up and realized offending people loses you votes. The thing is, a lot of people listen to their government, some a little too much. If the government says a gay marriage isn't equal to a straight marriage, the simpletons, in the bible belt will believe it. So why is the government still saying it? Well it's simple, there are more red neck, homophobes than there are gays, and they would rather offend less people, so they can get more votes. The problem is, it's a catch 22. The Red necks will never stop hating gays if the government says it's ok to do so.
The only easy solution I can see is to give both sides what they want. Let the child molesting priests, marry the red necks to their cousins "in the name of the lord" and let the gays get married in the name of the government. I can't stand the ignorance and intolerance of religion, so let them have the "in gods eyes" marriage, but allow married gays to have all of the legal right and benefits of a straight married couple.
It's 2013. The fact that there is any one body of people that is discriminated against, or not treated equally by the government baffles me. The people that went through the racism of the 50s and sexism of, well always, look back and shake their heads. The sad thing is, they had an excuse of misinformation. They were lied to by their officials. What's our excuse? We know better. I'm shaking my head now.
I've lost track of what the laws are in Canada, but I know in the states there are still places where gays can not marry. I understand the bible thumping, inbreeders objection, that the bible clearly states marriage is the union of a man and a women, and if churches refuse to marry gays, so be it. The KKK still gather to hate everything not white, why can't cultist churches preach what they choose as well? It is a private organization. But the fact that the government still refuses to recognize a gay marriage is baffling. Why not take away their right to vote, and make them ride at the back of the bus? I can see this intolerance back when misinformation was rampant. You had government officials, and news broadcasters stating that African Americans had smaller brains than white people and they were not much more than monkeys. But all that BS was debunked, and people stopped listening to the racists and made a decision for themselves. Now it seems times have gotten better, there's less misinformation, people are more accepting, and it's largely do to the fact that the government has gone towards tolerance and being more politically correct. The government has wised up and realized offending people loses you votes. The thing is, a lot of people listen to their government, some a little too much. If the government says a gay marriage isn't equal to a straight marriage, the simpletons, in the bible belt will believe it. So why is the government still saying it? Well it's simple, there are more red neck, homophobes than there are gays, and they would rather offend less people, so they can get more votes. The problem is, it's a catch 22. The Red necks will never stop hating gays if the government says it's ok to do so.
The only easy solution I can see is to give both sides what they want. Let the child molesting priests, marry the red necks to their cousins "in the name of the lord" and let the gays get married in the name of the government. I can't stand the ignorance and intolerance of religion, so let them have the "in gods eyes" marriage, but allow married gays to have all of the legal right and benefits of a straight married couple.
It's 2013. The fact that there is any one body of people that is discriminated against, or not treated equally by the government baffles me. The people that went through the racism of the 50s and sexism of, well always, look back and shake their heads. The sad thing is, they had an excuse of misinformation. They were lied to by their officials. What's our excuse? We know better. I'm shaking my head now.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Are we the 1%
So I often think about how the worlds financial situation works. Who has money, who does't, and why. There are lots of talks about how more and more of the worlds wealth is being owned by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. This seems to be of major concern for a lot of people. I guess as the rich get richer, it means they gain more control, and more power over the rest of the people. Well good news! I know how it's happening, why it's happening, who's doing it, and how to stop it!
Why it's happening, is because the 99% are dumb. Who's doing it is you. How it's happening is simple, you are giving your money to the 1% by choice. How to stop it...well that's the thing, you don't want to.
Who are the 1%? The richest of the rich? CEOs of big companies? The big oil tycoons around the world? The owners of the big world banks? Well lets look at those three, and see how they ended up with so much money.
Banks: Lets start with the big wigs at the top of the banking world. We always here how many billions of dollars each big bank makes each quarter. If I was the owner or CEO of one of those banks, those profits would go to me, that's how capitalism works right? Now how did they make so much money? Well back not so many years ago, there were no credit cards, no lines of credit, no financing your new TV, furniture, and 24" rims for your escalade. People saved up and bought stuff. You might have a mortgage, but other than that, you were debt free. People, and by people, I mean you, demanded a way to have shit now. Not in 3 years, when I can afford it, you want it now. So you have a car loan, a line of credit, a credit card, and a loan on pretty much anything you've ever bought that was over $500. And it's great isn't it! You can have all the things you want, as long as you can make your monthly payments! Here's the problem, you are paying 3% on your $30,000 car loan, 7% on your $5000 line of credit, 19% on you $1500 mastercard bill, and 6% on that lovely $3500 living room set, and don't forget your $350,000 mortgage at 3.5%. Now, I don't think this is far fetched. I think a lot of people have 3 credit cards, maxed out, their line of credit tapped out to $25,000, a $50,000 car to make payments on, and a far larger mortgage, but even at those lower numbers, you're paying $7500 a year in interest. $7500 per year, per person...where do the banks get their money? You give it to them. They didn't sell you the new car, or tell you to buy a bigger house, or go on that vacation. You wanted it, and you wanted it now. The bank provided you a way to have it now. Are they evil for doing that? Remember how happy you were when the bank approved you to buy your shit! You loved the bank that day, but hate them when you find out how rich you've made those same people. You don't need most of the stuff you are paying interest on, and yet you are willing to sign a huge part of your pay cheque to the banks each month to have it. Everything comes at a cost, the banks never said it was free or tried to hide the fact that there is a fee to have it now.
CEOs and owners of large companies: Lets take one company, a car company, any one will do. Cars used to be cheaper. I know someone that paid $53,000 for a Hyundai minivan in 2008. $53,000 for a korean minivan, that is now worth probably $15,000. Every year we insist that our cars are a bit roomier, have a bit more power, have a few more gadgets, and are a bit safer. No one wants to buy a car that has been the same for 8 years, they want everyone to know, they have the new model, and yes, it was more expensive! People are constantly buying new cars, and they aren't cheap. Used cars are worth next to nothing, because no one wants last years model, it's not cool. So that mean resale is terrible on the $53,000 minivan you just bought. Could you keep driving your current car longer than you will? Yes, could you due without the park assist, SatNav, leather interior? Yes, but you won't. You don't care about the fact that you are signing $53,000 away to car company, as long as it looks cool, and your neighbours will be envious. Car companies have grown immensely, in the last 30-40 years. Households usually have at least 2 cars now, it used to be one. People want a new car every 4 or 5 years, not 10 or 15 years. And cars are far more complicated, and expensive to make. Again, you demanded the cars, why would the car companies say no? You told them what you want, they provided it, you were more than happy to stuff your money in their pockets.
Big oil: This one is pretty cut and dry. You demand it. You drive large, over powered tanks getting terrible gas mileage. You drive all over the place unnecessarily. You don't think twice about driving 3 blocks, or even just going for a drive for fun, or to get away. You take trips on huge fuel sucking planes. You buy food that came from china. Fuel is cheap, for now. People might say it isn't cheap, but still drive a gas pig. It can't be that bad if 12 MPG isn't a concern to you. When you have to think twice before driving everywhere and anywhere, then gas is at a realistic price. Again, you demand gasoline. You demand the right to drive wherever, whenever you want, and millions upon millions of people do the same every day. The pump at the price is set. You know where the money goes, straight to the 1%, but you don't even think about it, as long as you don't have to give up you car.
It all comes down to supply and demand. You asked for it, they provided exactly what you asked for, and now you hate them for it. Everyone is getting exactly what they want, at least in the western world. We drive $53,000 mini vans, live in huge, overkill houses, pay $6 a day for a coffee, have closets full of clothes, have enough food that we can throw most of it away, have a tv in 3 different rooms of the house, have a different pair of shoes for each occasion, get a new $400 phone every year, and yet complain about everything. If people from 1950s could see they way we live right now, they would think that we are all filthy rich. The amount of wasted money in astounding. The crap that we buy, that we don't need to survive in mind boggling. How would you explain to someone from 1950 that yes, my car was $50,000, yes it has a TV in the dash, and I spend $60 a month so that I can talk on my phone anywhere, but I'm poor.
Sorry 99%, but most of you have nothing to complain about and need to realize, you are the reason for your own complains.
Why it's happening, is because the 99% are dumb. Who's doing it is you. How it's happening is simple, you are giving your money to the 1% by choice. How to stop it...well that's the thing, you don't want to.
Who are the 1%? The richest of the rich? CEOs of big companies? The big oil tycoons around the world? The owners of the big world banks? Well lets look at those three, and see how they ended up with so much money.
Banks: Lets start with the big wigs at the top of the banking world. We always here how many billions of dollars each big bank makes each quarter. If I was the owner or CEO of one of those banks, those profits would go to me, that's how capitalism works right? Now how did they make so much money? Well back not so many years ago, there were no credit cards, no lines of credit, no financing your new TV, furniture, and 24" rims for your escalade. People saved up and bought stuff. You might have a mortgage, but other than that, you were debt free. People, and by people, I mean you, demanded a way to have shit now. Not in 3 years, when I can afford it, you want it now. So you have a car loan, a line of credit, a credit card, and a loan on pretty much anything you've ever bought that was over $500. And it's great isn't it! You can have all the things you want, as long as you can make your monthly payments! Here's the problem, you are paying 3% on your $30,000 car loan, 7% on your $5000 line of credit, 19% on you $1500 mastercard bill, and 6% on that lovely $3500 living room set, and don't forget your $350,000 mortgage at 3.5%. Now, I don't think this is far fetched. I think a lot of people have 3 credit cards, maxed out, their line of credit tapped out to $25,000, a $50,000 car to make payments on, and a far larger mortgage, but even at those lower numbers, you're paying $7500 a year in interest. $7500 per year, per person...where do the banks get their money? You give it to them. They didn't sell you the new car, or tell you to buy a bigger house, or go on that vacation. You wanted it, and you wanted it now. The bank provided you a way to have it now. Are they evil for doing that? Remember how happy you were when the bank approved you to buy your shit! You loved the bank that day, but hate them when you find out how rich you've made those same people. You don't need most of the stuff you are paying interest on, and yet you are willing to sign a huge part of your pay cheque to the banks each month to have it. Everything comes at a cost, the banks never said it was free or tried to hide the fact that there is a fee to have it now.
CEOs and owners of large companies: Lets take one company, a car company, any one will do. Cars used to be cheaper. I know someone that paid $53,000 for a Hyundai minivan in 2008. $53,000 for a korean minivan, that is now worth probably $15,000. Every year we insist that our cars are a bit roomier, have a bit more power, have a few more gadgets, and are a bit safer. No one wants to buy a car that has been the same for 8 years, they want everyone to know, they have the new model, and yes, it was more expensive! People are constantly buying new cars, and they aren't cheap. Used cars are worth next to nothing, because no one wants last years model, it's not cool. So that mean resale is terrible on the $53,000 minivan you just bought. Could you keep driving your current car longer than you will? Yes, could you due without the park assist, SatNav, leather interior? Yes, but you won't. You don't care about the fact that you are signing $53,000 away to car company, as long as it looks cool, and your neighbours will be envious. Car companies have grown immensely, in the last 30-40 years. Households usually have at least 2 cars now, it used to be one. People want a new car every 4 or 5 years, not 10 or 15 years. And cars are far more complicated, and expensive to make. Again, you demanded the cars, why would the car companies say no? You told them what you want, they provided it, you were more than happy to stuff your money in their pockets.
Big oil: This one is pretty cut and dry. You demand it. You drive large, over powered tanks getting terrible gas mileage. You drive all over the place unnecessarily. You don't think twice about driving 3 blocks, or even just going for a drive for fun, or to get away. You take trips on huge fuel sucking planes. You buy food that came from china. Fuel is cheap, for now. People might say it isn't cheap, but still drive a gas pig. It can't be that bad if 12 MPG isn't a concern to you. When you have to think twice before driving everywhere and anywhere, then gas is at a realistic price. Again, you demand gasoline. You demand the right to drive wherever, whenever you want, and millions upon millions of people do the same every day. The pump at the price is set. You know where the money goes, straight to the 1%, but you don't even think about it, as long as you don't have to give up you car.
It all comes down to supply and demand. You asked for it, they provided exactly what you asked for, and now you hate them for it. Everyone is getting exactly what they want, at least in the western world. We drive $53,000 mini vans, live in huge, overkill houses, pay $6 a day for a coffee, have closets full of clothes, have enough food that we can throw most of it away, have a tv in 3 different rooms of the house, have a different pair of shoes for each occasion, get a new $400 phone every year, and yet complain about everything. If people from 1950s could see they way we live right now, they would think that we are all filthy rich. The amount of wasted money in astounding. The crap that we buy, that we don't need to survive in mind boggling. How would you explain to someone from 1950 that yes, my car was $50,000, yes it has a TV in the dash, and I spend $60 a month so that I can talk on my phone anywhere, but I'm poor.
Sorry 99%, but most of you have nothing to complain about and need to realize, you are the reason for your own complains.
You stink
Well I know I said my next post would be about smokers, so I'll just do a quick vent about them before I go on to what I really want to talk about. To all the smokers, the world is not your ashtray. A friend of mine was driving along the freeway last summer, when he noticed a large amount of smoke up ahead. The dry grass, in the centre divider of the freeway was on fire. A good samaritan had pulled over already, and luckily had a fire extinguisher on board. My friend and the good samaritan managed to get the fire out before it became a serious problem. We've all seen the black, torched grass on the sides of highways, and every year we hear on the news about the forest fires that were started by a cigarette.
I'm just trying to get into a smokers head. You're driving down the road, listening to country music, smoking, and your cigarette is almost finished, should you put it in the ashtray, where it belongs, or throw your disgusting, slobber covered butt into the world, for someone else to deal with? Well if you put it in your ashtray, you might have to vacuum it out the next time you clean your car, which sounds like a lot of work. You might as well throw it out the window, maybe you can start a fire, or at the very least have all of the great, healthy toxins from the cigarette, be washed out of the butt the next time it rains, and run into our creaks and streams. Yum.
You are not more important than anyone else in the world. No one wants to pick up your trash, and no one wants to put out your fire. Also no one wants to pay your medical bill when you develop lung, mouth, and throat cancer or any of the other great health problem that come with smoking. No one wants to smell you, at work, on the bus, in the store, or at home. And no one wants to have our tax dollars go to your welfare cheque. Lets face it, smoking isn't cheap, and yet the only people I see smoking are poor people. Maybe they are poor because they smoke, maybe they smoke because they are poor, or maybe, they smoke because they are idiots, which would also explain why they are poor, either way, I bet you could find a better way to spend your money.
I'm just trying to get into a smokers head. You're driving down the road, listening to country music, smoking, and your cigarette is almost finished, should you put it in the ashtray, where it belongs, or throw your disgusting, slobber covered butt into the world, for someone else to deal with? Well if you put it in your ashtray, you might have to vacuum it out the next time you clean your car, which sounds like a lot of work. You might as well throw it out the window, maybe you can start a fire, or at the very least have all of the great, healthy toxins from the cigarette, be washed out of the butt the next time it rains, and run into our creaks and streams. Yum.
You are not more important than anyone else in the world. No one wants to pick up your trash, and no one wants to put out your fire. Also no one wants to pay your medical bill when you develop lung, mouth, and throat cancer or any of the other great health problem that come with smoking. No one wants to smell you, at work, on the bus, in the store, or at home. And no one wants to have our tax dollars go to your welfare cheque. Lets face it, smoking isn't cheap, and yet the only people I see smoking are poor people. Maybe they are poor because they smoke, maybe they smoke because they are poor, or maybe, they smoke because they are idiots, which would also explain why they are poor, either way, I bet you could find a better way to spend your money.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Lets have a toast for the douche bags.
I was going to write this blog about smokers, but that'll have to wait until next time. I need to focus on another topic while it's fresh in my mind, and everyone elses. I want to talk about the nightmare that some teenagers have to endure every day of their lives.
Amanda Todd, a fifteen year old girl from Coquitlam, recently killed herself because she could no longer deal with the daily torture she endured from classmates at school. Think about that for a second. How bad would it have to be, to decide killing yourself, is a better option than dealing with another day? I am so upset and saddened that kids are resorting to suicide due to actions of their classmates. I wish I could just talk to these kids for a minute before they end their life, and explain that high school is a blip on the radar of life, and nothing outside of high school is even remotely like high school. The nightmare ends at graduation.
I'm not sure as to the solution to stop bullying. Normally, I'd suggest cracking some heads, and slapping some parents (the parents of the bullies). But this might not solve anything. I am ashamed and embarrassed to say this, but in high school, I'm sure some people would have said that I was a bully. Maybe not the worst of the worst, but I know I did things to other kids that were cruel and uncalled for. Looking back, I regret my actions deeply, and if I ever run into any of the people I tormented, I've promised myself, I will humbly apologize and explain my actions were unacceptable. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and those kids can't erase those shitty days from their memory, and can't undo the fact that they have lived their life with unjustified, low self esteem.
You know how parents always tell their kids, "you're not invincible". I've talked to many people my age and we all agree, we never thought we were invincible. The problem was, we never thought of consequences. I guess the end result is the same, but the cause is very different. The things I did when I was younger scare me. I'm sure my mom loves to read this. The things I did as a teenager should have got me killed, or at least maimed. Not that I was half as wild as some kids I grew up with, but looking back at the way I drove, the way I worked with dangerous equipment, the dumb ideas I had for stunts etc. I was nuts. The thing is, I'm the same person I was then. I'm actually a very cautious person, so why was I so reckless? It's like young children that like to play in the mud, and get dirty. At some point we don't like getting dirty. We like to keep our clothes clean, and care what we look like. Why at some point were those things not important to us? Just like as teenagers, some of us didn't think of consequence. Not sure why, but we didn't, and that's why kids bully other kids. I know it's a bullshit cop out, but it's true. When I would make a mean comment, or throw a banana peel at another kid, it was to get a laugh out of the other kids, and maybe by making other people laugh, I'd be a bit cooler, or more accepted. You see a group of people doing something as a teenager and if you do what they do, you fit in, and that seems to be what is important at that age. Not once did I feel bad for the person that was getting picked on. I'm not a bad person, and now I feel terrible, but back then, it's not that I didn't feel bad, it's that I didn't think to feel bad. I never once thought of the aftermath. I didn't think about how that kid would feel, or how it felt to not be accepted. I didn't think that that kids life might be agony, and they might hate every morning, and couldn't wait for the bell at the end of the day, so they could escape the torture and reticule.
Don't get me wrong, some people are just assholes. They were in high school and will be forever. The nice thing is, those people go nowhere in life. Their shit isn't tolerated outside of high school. They may still be convinced they are in the "it" crowd, but the "it" crowd gets pretty small after high school, and most of them end up working at Footlocker or tanning salons for the rest of their lives.
A small action to gain a bit respect from your peers can be devastating on the receiving end. I don't know how to get that into someones head that hasn't yet learned to think about anyone but themselves and doesn't understand consequence.
I think Pink does an amazing job of trying to help kids through the hell that is high school. She has a lot of songs about what it is to be the loser at school. It sounds like she had a rough time in high school. Let her be a shining beacon of reality. She went for the butt end of the jokes to super stardom. I hope people listen to her, and I'm sure they do, and maybe Pink has already saved some lives and helped people through hell.
I don't know if we will ever be able to get rid of bullying, but I wish we could get the message out to the kids that are living a nightmare, that it ends, it's bad, but it ends. I hope we find a way to help these kids, or protect them, or stop the bullying, because I can't handle anymore tragic stories of kids, that should be having the time of their life, so depressed, they can't go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocDlOD1Hw9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjVNlG5cZyQ
Amanda Todd, a fifteen year old girl from Coquitlam, recently killed herself because she could no longer deal with the daily torture she endured from classmates at school. Think about that for a second. How bad would it have to be, to decide killing yourself, is a better option than dealing with another day? I am so upset and saddened that kids are resorting to suicide due to actions of their classmates. I wish I could just talk to these kids for a minute before they end their life, and explain that high school is a blip on the radar of life, and nothing outside of high school is even remotely like high school. The nightmare ends at graduation.
I'm not sure as to the solution to stop bullying. Normally, I'd suggest cracking some heads, and slapping some parents (the parents of the bullies). But this might not solve anything. I am ashamed and embarrassed to say this, but in high school, I'm sure some people would have said that I was a bully. Maybe not the worst of the worst, but I know I did things to other kids that were cruel and uncalled for. Looking back, I regret my actions deeply, and if I ever run into any of the people I tormented, I've promised myself, I will humbly apologize and explain my actions were unacceptable. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and those kids can't erase those shitty days from their memory, and can't undo the fact that they have lived their life with unjustified, low self esteem.
You know how parents always tell their kids, "you're not invincible". I've talked to many people my age and we all agree, we never thought we were invincible. The problem was, we never thought of consequences. I guess the end result is the same, but the cause is very different. The things I did when I was younger scare me. I'm sure my mom loves to read this. The things I did as a teenager should have got me killed, or at least maimed. Not that I was half as wild as some kids I grew up with, but looking back at the way I drove, the way I worked with dangerous equipment, the dumb ideas I had for stunts etc. I was nuts. The thing is, I'm the same person I was then. I'm actually a very cautious person, so why was I so reckless? It's like young children that like to play in the mud, and get dirty. At some point we don't like getting dirty. We like to keep our clothes clean, and care what we look like. Why at some point were those things not important to us? Just like as teenagers, some of us didn't think of consequence. Not sure why, but we didn't, and that's why kids bully other kids. I know it's a bullshit cop out, but it's true. When I would make a mean comment, or throw a banana peel at another kid, it was to get a laugh out of the other kids, and maybe by making other people laugh, I'd be a bit cooler, or more accepted. You see a group of people doing something as a teenager and if you do what they do, you fit in, and that seems to be what is important at that age. Not once did I feel bad for the person that was getting picked on. I'm not a bad person, and now I feel terrible, but back then, it's not that I didn't feel bad, it's that I didn't think to feel bad. I never once thought of the aftermath. I didn't think about how that kid would feel, or how it felt to not be accepted. I didn't think that that kids life might be agony, and they might hate every morning, and couldn't wait for the bell at the end of the day, so they could escape the torture and reticule.
Don't get me wrong, some people are just assholes. They were in high school and will be forever. The nice thing is, those people go nowhere in life. Their shit isn't tolerated outside of high school. They may still be convinced they are in the "it" crowd, but the "it" crowd gets pretty small after high school, and most of them end up working at Footlocker or tanning salons for the rest of their lives.
A small action to gain a bit respect from your peers can be devastating on the receiving end. I don't know how to get that into someones head that hasn't yet learned to think about anyone but themselves and doesn't understand consequence.
I think Pink does an amazing job of trying to help kids through the hell that is high school. She has a lot of songs about what it is to be the loser at school. It sounds like she had a rough time in high school. Let her be a shining beacon of reality. She went for the butt end of the jokes to super stardom. I hope people listen to her, and I'm sure they do, and maybe Pink has already saved some lives and helped people through hell.
I don't know if we will ever be able to get rid of bullying, but I wish we could get the message out to the kids that are living a nightmare, that it ends, it's bad, but it ends. I hope we find a way to help these kids, or protect them, or stop the bullying, because I can't handle anymore tragic stories of kids, that should be having the time of their life, so depressed, they can't go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocDlOD1Hw9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjVNlG5cZyQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)