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.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)