You know what really grinds my gears? People that thank Jesus for other peoples hard work, or even their own hard work.
There is one individual in particular that continues to frustrate me every time the spotlight is on him. His name is Trey Canard. He is a professional motocross racer. He has had a fairly successful career, and according to him, when it comes to motocross "this is what the lord made me for". From my understanding, Trey chose #41 as his career racing number, because of the movie Ben-hur. In the movie, slave number 41, has to fight an up hill battle, but meets Jesus, who helps him win a race and save his family. Trey's life isn't too far off the plot in a lot of ways. He has had very, very unfortunate, and unlucky incidents happen during his career. He broke his femur twice, and was involved in the worst racing incident I have ever seen, when another rider landed off a huge jump, directly onto Trey. Trey had spinal damage and had to have three vertebra in his back fused together. Every time Trey has met major adversity, he has fought back with astonishing determination to return better and stronger than before. He believes Jesus wants him to continue racing, so he does.
I have no issue with him worshiping god. Many riders do. What irritates me, is that he puts god above everyone else, even people that have directly influenced his life. When interviewed after winning a race, he always likes to "thank the lord above first and foremost."
First off, there is an incredible group of people that help Trey win races. Without them, he doesn't win, end of story. He has personal trainers that keep him in shape, help him recover from injures, and help him eat right. He has a personal mechanic that modifies, sets up and maintains Treys bikes to be the best they can be. Also, he has an entire team behind him, providing him EVERYTHING needed to partake in racing. They supply a semi trailer and mobile home to every event. His riding gear, bikes, food, and accommodation are all waiting for him at each event. Just so you understand, they don't just get the stuff there, they provide it all to him free of charge, including his race bike, which can be worth upwards of $200,000. Also, Trey gets paid somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000,000 a year to ride his motorcycle. So out of all the sponsors, trainers, mechanics, family, and other support he receives, Trey thinks that god is most deserving of gratitude? Trey seems to be under the impression that all this good stuff happens to him is because it's gods will, when in actual fact, it's the hard work of many individuals acting under free will, including Trey himself. People like to think that the lord controls luck, or chance. Having a motorcycle provided to you is not luck, or chance, it's a teams decision. I guess the luck or chance could come on the race track itself, but in Trey's case, luck has not played in his favour often. He has been on the receiving end of bad luck more times than most riders. Even still, the luck or chance people see on the race track is nothing more than one or more persons carless mistakes. Running out of gas on the last lap of a race isn't bad luck, someone just forgot to top up the tank. Being landed on by another rider, someones bad judgement of speed. Winning the race, hard work, and great skills.
Second, god doesn't care. I am an expert on Jesus Christ. I know every fact about him, which is none. No facts have ever been verified about the existence of a god of any kind, so that makes me as knowledgeable about god as anyone else. And what I know, is god has better shit to do than follow Trey Canards life, or any one persons. So many professional athletes thank god for their success, or pray to god so that they can win the next game or race. Well if both teams are praying to the same god to win, how will he ever decide?! All you can pray for is for is god to keep you safe, and one thing I've learned about professional sports, no one is safe, especially Trey Canard. I saw the leader and head rider of "Team Faith Racing" do a prayer service one morning before the first round of a race series. At the beginning of the very first race, he was involved in a first turn pile up. He was the only person injured, with a broken neck. He did recover though. Thanks Jesus? But really, there are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, natural disaster, and wars. Atrocities happen around the globe every minute of every day. What does gods to do list look like?
1: Prevent major earthquake in Japan
2: Cure Ebola
3: Help Trey Canard with a race
4: Try to remember why I created earthquakes and Ebola
Third, Trey's riding style is sometimes erratic, aggressive and dangerous. This is possibly why he has sustained as many injuries as he has. But more importantly, it has caused him to cause crashes and injure other riders. In the last supercross season, he landed on another rider on two separate occasions. One of the riders suffered a broken collar bone. I believe that Trey rides the way he does because he thinks god will watch over him and keep him safe, or that god wants him to win, even if it means riding dangerously. If you want to believe for yourself, that's fine, but if your belief puts others at risk, that's unacceptable.
Blind faith is exactly that. You're failing to realize the grand scale of things around you. You're giving all your praise to something that hasn't effected you in a single way, when there are people that are much more deserving of your gratitude. You're putting your trust in something that has no bearing in any situation. To be so blinded by faith is to ignore reality, which is disrespectful to the people in your life, which are the real contributing factors. Lets face it, if Treys house caught fire, I bet he wouldn't waste a second praying for the good lord to put it out, he'd phone 911 and let real people do something tangible. The sad thing is, he'd then thank the lord for the fire department, instead of thanking the firemen.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
We are a strange bunch
So I've noticed a trend, that I was going to say was interesting, but it's not, it's just stupid, and very counterintuitive. It's the concept of making sure that the things you like, or at least claim to like, aren't liked by other people, or normal people. Apparently liking common music, common clothes, common cars, common restaurants, etc, is not cool, or "trendy" This doesn't seem very logical to me. You'd think that the most popular places to eat or shop, would be popular because they are the best, and the most downloaded music and best selling shoes would be the most sought after due to the majority of people approving of those things. Unfortunately, the "hipster" mind set is now preventing people from enjoying the things they love.
You can't like mainstream music anymore. The less known an artist is, the trendier they seem to be. You are looked at like an idiot that just "follows the masses" if you admit to liking a band like Nickelback or Eminem, even though literally millions upon millions of people have decided that these artists music is enjoyable.
You can't eat at a chain restaurant anymore. You need to seek out some undiscovered hole in the wall, and report how awesome the atmosphere and ambiance is on Facebook. Sorry, but chain restaurants became chains because of supply and demand. People liked their food and service, they made profit, and opened more restaurants.
I guess I shouldn't mention Facebook. I'm sure that's not acceptable anymore either. Seeing as how everyone is on Facebook, no one will admit to using it, and will mock anyone that does.
Then there's what you are allowed to wear. You can't try to look good. A nice pair of pants, and a collard shirt is out of the question. You need to try your best to look like you don't care, because caring what you look like isn't cool. People will spend hours to look like they put in no effort, rather than a few minutes to look normal.
Even hygiene and self grooming has become a total joke. People will spend time to make it look like they spent no time doing their hair, or will always trim their facial hair to make it look like they haven't shaved in a week. I guess it's cool to not care about shaving, because being clean shaven means you're "working for the man" or "conforming to societies expectations". Does it seem logical to spend the same amount of time to make it look like you haven't shaved as it would take to just shave?
This all reminds me of people that get tattoos of Chinese symbols because it's "different", except it's not different. It's the same as everyone else that got tattoos of Chinese symbols.
If it's trendy to act different, so everyone is trying to not be mainstream, wouldn't that make everyone not cool because they are still all doing the same thing? All they have really done is denied themselves the things they truly like because they weren't "acceptable" to like.
I had a conversation once with a friend of mine, and one of his friends. The topic of rap music came up. My friends friend was talking about how much he liked rap. I said I wasn't much of a rap fan, but I liked Eminem. Both my friend, and his friend went off about how horrible Eminem was and how he had no talent, and he wasn't a real rapper. (Even though I knew my friend liked Eminem, but would never admit it in front of a "true rap fan") It's strange because as one of the best selling rappers of all time, Eminem is clearly enjoyed by far more people than most rappers. So how do you gauge whether someone or something is likeable? The less liked they are, the more likeable they are? I'm going to go with the grain on this one and suggest that maybe people need to accept that things are popular for a reason, and that liking the same thing as someone else, doesn't mean you can't think for yourself. Skinny jean look fucking ridiculous, unknown hippy bands are unknown because they suck, and Sammy J Peppers has awesome steak bites.
Also, liking things that are not mainstream, makes them mainstream, which means you can't like them anymore, thus destroying them. Once it was nice to be able to wear a Fox Racing hat or shirt, then every douche bag started wearing them. Then it was nice to see an Alpinestar hat or FMF hat, but even those became popular, even though the people wearing them had no idea what the companies were! Please, take your John Deere hats off too. You don't live on a farm, you don't own any farm equipment, you don't even own a John Deere ride on lawnmower, but you'll wear the hat like it's the most original piece of clothing ever invented.
It's time to make a decision for yourself, even if it's the same one as the masses.
You can't like mainstream music anymore. The less known an artist is, the trendier they seem to be. You are looked at like an idiot that just "follows the masses" if you admit to liking a band like Nickelback or Eminem, even though literally millions upon millions of people have decided that these artists music is enjoyable.
You can't eat at a chain restaurant anymore. You need to seek out some undiscovered hole in the wall, and report how awesome the atmosphere and ambiance is on Facebook. Sorry, but chain restaurants became chains because of supply and demand. People liked their food and service, they made profit, and opened more restaurants.
I guess I shouldn't mention Facebook. I'm sure that's not acceptable anymore either. Seeing as how everyone is on Facebook, no one will admit to using it, and will mock anyone that does.
Then there's what you are allowed to wear. You can't try to look good. A nice pair of pants, and a collard shirt is out of the question. You need to try your best to look like you don't care, because caring what you look like isn't cool. People will spend hours to look like they put in no effort, rather than a few minutes to look normal.
Even hygiene and self grooming has become a total joke. People will spend time to make it look like they spent no time doing their hair, or will always trim their facial hair to make it look like they haven't shaved in a week. I guess it's cool to not care about shaving, because being clean shaven means you're "working for the man" or "conforming to societies expectations". Does it seem logical to spend the same amount of time to make it look like you haven't shaved as it would take to just shave?
This all reminds me of people that get tattoos of Chinese symbols because it's "different", except it's not different. It's the same as everyone else that got tattoos of Chinese symbols.
If it's trendy to act different, so everyone is trying to not be mainstream, wouldn't that make everyone not cool because they are still all doing the same thing? All they have really done is denied themselves the things they truly like because they weren't "acceptable" to like.
I had a conversation once with a friend of mine, and one of his friends. The topic of rap music came up. My friends friend was talking about how much he liked rap. I said I wasn't much of a rap fan, but I liked Eminem. Both my friend, and his friend went off about how horrible Eminem was and how he had no talent, and he wasn't a real rapper. (Even though I knew my friend liked Eminem, but would never admit it in front of a "true rap fan") It's strange because as one of the best selling rappers of all time, Eminem is clearly enjoyed by far more people than most rappers. So how do you gauge whether someone or something is likeable? The less liked they are, the more likeable they are? I'm going to go with the grain on this one and suggest that maybe people need to accept that things are popular for a reason, and that liking the same thing as someone else, doesn't mean you can't think for yourself. Skinny jean look fucking ridiculous, unknown hippy bands are unknown because they suck, and Sammy J Peppers has awesome steak bites.
Also, liking things that are not mainstream, makes them mainstream, which means you can't like them anymore, thus destroying them. Once it was nice to be able to wear a Fox Racing hat or shirt, then every douche bag started wearing them. Then it was nice to see an Alpinestar hat or FMF hat, but even those became popular, even though the people wearing them had no idea what the companies were! Please, take your John Deere hats off too. You don't live on a farm, you don't own any farm equipment, you don't even own a John Deere ride on lawnmower, but you'll wear the hat like it's the most original piece of clothing ever invented.
It's time to make a decision for yourself, even if it's the same one as the masses.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
The real cost of money is time.
As I'm realizing more and more, old sayings are far closer to the truth than they are given credit for. I guess "time is money" isn't a saying so much as a phrase, but is completely accurate non the less.
I like to view myself as a financially savvy person. Or at least a person that understands money. Not that I'm fantastic at making it, or even keeping it in my bank account, but I have a good concept of how it is used properly, and poorly, everyday, by everybody. A lot of my friends talk to me when they need advice on a big purchase, or need help getting out of debt. The problem is, it seems like none of them seem to take my advice. Is my advice not sound, or is it just that they don't like what they hear? I contemplated writing a self help type book. You know, the ones that go on and on about how awesome you are, and how you deserve anything you want? Except no one would buy mine, because it would be the last thing anyone wanted to hear. People don't want to hear that the best thing you can ever do is stay out of debt, and invest money wisely. People want to hear that they should buy a new car, because they deserve it.
Well I guess I'm going to try one more time here to paint a picture for everyone. It's going to get confusing, so put on your thinking caps and try to keep up.
Time is money. Literally. Keep that in mind.
Everyone makes a wage. It might be a lot or a little. You have your "gross" and your "net" or take home amount. But lets look at it differently. Lets say you have your "gross" your "net" and your "take home". Gross is before tax, simple. Net is after tax. ok. But take home is completely different. Lets say your take home is what you actually take home, at the end of each month, after all your bills are paid. Your "net" income might be lets say $2000. From that you pay $800 for rent, $70 for a phone, $130 for car insurance, $200 for fuel, $100 for cable/internet, $150 gas and electricity and $200 for food. So your actual take home is about $350 a month. This money if for luxuries. Things you want, but don't have to have. Eating out, coffee, going to the bar, new pair of jeans. And lets face it, at the end of the month, the $350 is spent. It doesn't make it into a savings account. When we have money in our pockets, we think that it's because we've done good and we deserve a treat, so we take ourselves out for dinner, or buy a new pair of sunglasses. Now lets take a different person, that has the net income of $3000 a month. That's a third more, so they have way more than $350 in the bank at the end of the month right? Well rent is $1150 because they want to live somewhere a bit nicer, their phone bill is $100 because they wanted the new iPhone. They have a new vehicle, because they can afford it $500. Insurance on a new vehicle is far more money $200. Fuel $200. Faster internet and more HD channels of course $150. Gas/electric $150. $200 for food. So for someone that should have an extra $1000 after all the bills are paid, they actually have the same $350 at the end of the month.
Ever notice that even after you get a raise at work, you never seem to have any more money in the bank at the end of the month?
The question is, what's the game plan? What are you working towards? Ever think about retirement? How much do you need to retire? You work from the time you are 18 until you are 65, and in that time you're supposed to have enough money in the bank, that you can afford to live for the next 30 years without working. Well lets say, you never buy property, and rent your entire life. How much does it cost per month to live when you retire? Well, the same as now I'm guessing. Rent, cable, food, insurance, electricity etc. Those bills won't stop will they? So lets say it's $1650, if you live the cheaper life style. Well you need $600,000 to retire then. We came to the conclusion, that your take home each month, when you are in the 18-65 year range is $350, after all your bills. So even if you put every penny of that $350 in the bank each month, which you don't, it'll take you 140 years to save enough money to retire. That's not good. Unfortunately, I'm noticing that almost all people today, are buying new cars, new phones, expensive sunglasses, going out for dinner, and going on nice holidays. They can't even afford these things, they just finance them. Not only are they not putting $350 in the bank, they are going further in debt every year. They are going backwards, even though, if they were going forwards as fast as they could, it still wouldn't be even close to what they need to be doing.
Now here's what I mean when I say time is money. If you buy a new car, at $50,000. How long does it take to pay that off? I don't mean how long do you make payments on it, I mean, how far back does it set you back finically. If you managed to put $850 a month into a savings account, but instead spend $500 on a new car, and only put it $350 a month, that's 8 years of not putting in the extra $500 a month. If you put the full $850 a month in, after the car is paid off, it'll take you 5 years to get that lost money back in the bank. That's 5 years you are behind. That means retiring at 70 instead of 65.
At the end of the day, the month, the year, we take home very little money. We have so much money we need to pay out every month, just to live. To put money in the bank seems like a near impossible task, and yet every month we spend money on things we don't need. Every thing you buy, costs you time. Your time at work. Time from the 18-65 years. When all you have left at the end of the month is a few hundred dollars, and you spend that on a night out, or a trip to the mall, your spending your entire months wages. You don't take home $2000 or $3500 a month. It takes you all month to bring home $350. You work 160 hours for $350! You're only taking home $2 an hour! You want to buy a pair of fucking sunglasses for $180? That's two weeks worth of work! Everything is paid in time. Don't ask how much something is, ask how much longer you'll have to work to buy it. 140 years and you'll be able to retire, what's 5 more for a new car right?
I like to view myself as a financially savvy person. Or at least a person that understands money. Not that I'm fantastic at making it, or even keeping it in my bank account, but I have a good concept of how it is used properly, and poorly, everyday, by everybody. A lot of my friends talk to me when they need advice on a big purchase, or need help getting out of debt. The problem is, it seems like none of them seem to take my advice. Is my advice not sound, or is it just that they don't like what they hear? I contemplated writing a self help type book. You know, the ones that go on and on about how awesome you are, and how you deserve anything you want? Except no one would buy mine, because it would be the last thing anyone wanted to hear. People don't want to hear that the best thing you can ever do is stay out of debt, and invest money wisely. People want to hear that they should buy a new car, because they deserve it.
Well I guess I'm going to try one more time here to paint a picture for everyone. It's going to get confusing, so put on your thinking caps and try to keep up.
Time is money. Literally. Keep that in mind.
Everyone makes a wage. It might be a lot or a little. You have your "gross" and your "net" or take home amount. But lets look at it differently. Lets say you have your "gross" your "net" and your "take home". Gross is before tax, simple. Net is after tax. ok. But take home is completely different. Lets say your take home is what you actually take home, at the end of each month, after all your bills are paid. Your "net" income might be lets say $2000. From that you pay $800 for rent, $70 for a phone, $130 for car insurance, $200 for fuel, $100 for cable/internet, $150 gas and electricity and $200 for food. So your actual take home is about $350 a month. This money if for luxuries. Things you want, but don't have to have. Eating out, coffee, going to the bar, new pair of jeans. And lets face it, at the end of the month, the $350 is spent. It doesn't make it into a savings account. When we have money in our pockets, we think that it's because we've done good and we deserve a treat, so we take ourselves out for dinner, or buy a new pair of sunglasses. Now lets take a different person, that has the net income of $3000 a month. That's a third more, so they have way more than $350 in the bank at the end of the month right? Well rent is $1150 because they want to live somewhere a bit nicer, their phone bill is $100 because they wanted the new iPhone. They have a new vehicle, because they can afford it $500. Insurance on a new vehicle is far more money $200. Fuel $200. Faster internet and more HD channels of course $150. Gas/electric $150. $200 for food. So for someone that should have an extra $1000 after all the bills are paid, they actually have the same $350 at the end of the month.
Ever notice that even after you get a raise at work, you never seem to have any more money in the bank at the end of the month?
The question is, what's the game plan? What are you working towards? Ever think about retirement? How much do you need to retire? You work from the time you are 18 until you are 65, and in that time you're supposed to have enough money in the bank, that you can afford to live for the next 30 years without working. Well lets say, you never buy property, and rent your entire life. How much does it cost per month to live when you retire? Well, the same as now I'm guessing. Rent, cable, food, insurance, electricity etc. Those bills won't stop will they? So lets say it's $1650, if you live the cheaper life style. Well you need $600,000 to retire then. We came to the conclusion, that your take home each month, when you are in the 18-65 year range is $350, after all your bills. So even if you put every penny of that $350 in the bank each month, which you don't, it'll take you 140 years to save enough money to retire. That's not good. Unfortunately, I'm noticing that almost all people today, are buying new cars, new phones, expensive sunglasses, going out for dinner, and going on nice holidays. They can't even afford these things, they just finance them. Not only are they not putting $350 in the bank, they are going further in debt every year. They are going backwards, even though, if they were going forwards as fast as they could, it still wouldn't be even close to what they need to be doing.
Now here's what I mean when I say time is money. If you buy a new car, at $50,000. How long does it take to pay that off? I don't mean how long do you make payments on it, I mean, how far back does it set you back finically. If you managed to put $850 a month into a savings account, but instead spend $500 on a new car, and only put it $350 a month, that's 8 years of not putting in the extra $500 a month. If you put the full $850 a month in, after the car is paid off, it'll take you 5 years to get that lost money back in the bank. That's 5 years you are behind. That means retiring at 70 instead of 65.
At the end of the day, the month, the year, we take home very little money. We have so much money we need to pay out every month, just to live. To put money in the bank seems like a near impossible task, and yet every month we spend money on things we don't need. Every thing you buy, costs you time. Your time at work. Time from the 18-65 years. When all you have left at the end of the month is a few hundred dollars, and you spend that on a night out, or a trip to the mall, your spending your entire months wages. You don't take home $2000 or $3500 a month. It takes you all month to bring home $350. You work 160 hours for $350! You're only taking home $2 an hour! You want to buy a pair of fucking sunglasses for $180? That's two weeks worth of work! Everything is paid in time. Don't ask how much something is, ask how much longer you'll have to work to buy it. 140 years and you'll be able to retire, what's 5 more for a new car right?
Friday, December 5, 2014
No News is Good News.
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)
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)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)