Showing posts with label lemmings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lemmings. Show all posts
2009/08/02
2009/05/26
Best advice I've heard in a long time...
If you hear that the world is ending and the Messiah has arrived, first plant a tree, and then see if the story is true.
2009/04/29
2009/03/02
NAIS is a scam.
NAIS was designed by NIAA (the National Institute of Animal
Agriculture), a corporate consortium consisting of Monsanto,
industrial meat producers such as Cargill and Tyson, and surveillance
companies such Viatrace, AgInfoLink, and Digital Angel. The NAIS
scheme fits agribusiness, biotech, and surveillance companies to a T:
1) They are already computerized, and they engineered a corporate
loophole: If an entity owns a vertically integrated, birth-to-death
factory system with thousands of animals (as the Cargills and Tysons
do), it does not have to tag and track each one but instead a herd is
given a single lot number.
2). NAIS will only be burdensome and costly (fees, tags, computer
equipment, time) to small farmers which helps push them out of
business, thus leaving more market to giant agribusiness.
3) Agribusiness wants to reassure export customers that the US meat
industry is finally cleaning up its widespread contamination. NAIS
would give that appearance ... without incurring the cost of a real
cleanup.
4) NAIS will allow total control over the competition: Owners of even
a single chicken would be required to register private information,
the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their 'premise'
and if any animal leaves its 'premise', the owner will be required to
obtain an ID number for it and have the animal microchipped. All
information, including 24 hour GPS surveillance would be fed into a
vast corporate data bank, allowing for ease of false slaughter to
hide true problems or to substitute biotech's genetically engineered
animals.
5) NAIS may allow plundering of farmers through required DNA samples:
DNA samples would be invaluable to Monsanto and biotech corporations
genetically engineering animals. Farmers who raise heritage breeds
would have no say in how their distinct DNA would be used and to the
sole profit of biotech companies.
6) The advantage for the surveillance companies is obvious:
Compulsory tagging of 6 million sheep, 7 million horses, 63 million
hogs, 97 million cows, 260 million turkeys, 300 million laying hens,
9 billion chickens, and untold numbers of bison, alpaca, quail, and
other animals -- and new animals being born, means a massive
self-perpetuating market.
Please take action now to stop this insanity. Our health and our
lives depend on it.
Stop NAIS Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum942.php
Agriculture), a corporate consortium consisting of Monsanto,
industrial meat producers such as Cargill and Tyson, and surveillance
companies such Viatrace, AgInfoLink, and Digital Angel. The NAIS
scheme fits agribusiness, biotech, and surveillance companies to a T:
1) They are already computerized, and they engineered a corporate
loophole: If an entity owns a vertically integrated, birth-to-death
factory system with thousands of animals (as the Cargills and Tysons
do), it does not have to tag and track each one but instead a herd is
given a single lot number.
2). NAIS will only be burdensome and costly (fees, tags, computer
equipment, time) to small farmers which helps push them out of
business, thus leaving more market to giant agribusiness.
3) Agribusiness wants to reassure export customers that the US meat
industry is finally cleaning up its widespread contamination. NAIS
would give that appearance ... without incurring the cost of a real
cleanup.
4) NAIS will allow total control over the competition: Owners of even
a single chicken would be required to register private information,
the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their 'premise'
and if any animal leaves its 'premise', the owner will be required to
obtain an ID number for it and have the animal microchipped. All
information, including 24 hour GPS surveillance would be fed into a
vast corporate data bank, allowing for ease of false slaughter to
hide true problems or to substitute biotech's genetically engineered
animals.
5) NAIS may allow plundering of farmers through required DNA samples:
DNA samples would be invaluable to Monsanto and biotech corporations
genetically engineering animals. Farmers who raise heritage breeds
would have no say in how their distinct DNA would be used and to the
sole profit of biotech companies.
6) The advantage for the surveillance companies is obvious:
Compulsory tagging of 6 million sheep, 7 million horses, 63 million
hogs, 97 million cows, 260 million turkeys, 300 million laying hens,
9 billion chickens, and untold numbers of bison, alpaca, quail, and
other animals -- and new animals being born, means a massive
self-perpetuating market.
Please take action now to stop this insanity. Our health and our
lives depend on it.
Stop NAIS Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum942.php
2009/02/10
What HAVE seniors done for the new generation?
I got this email from the stogies about a young man complaining to a senior that old folks can't understand because they grew up in a world without all the modern tech that has shaped our new generation; and how the old guy says (in less pleasant words) "yeah, we didn't have those things, so we invented them; what are you going to do for the next generation?"
That is only half of the story...
Young people today are:
- Dying in wars our senior citizens started in countries that have never lifted a finger against us. How did you vote? When did you last attend an anti war rally?
- Dealing with the environmental, health, and economic impact of the “I care for nothing but profit” industries our seniors have left behind. Do you have solar panels on your home? Planted a fruit tree? Feed your kids organic foods? Taken a bus or train instead of driving?
- Going to jail in numbers unmatched by any country in the world, which I blame to a large degree on the selfish lack of involvement of seniors with needy kids in our neighborhoods. How many kids have you tutored after school? Donated to your local library? Boys and girls club? Anything?
- Trying to figure out what hope they have of paying off the mind-numbing national debt all of those issues have caused. Add up the minutes you've spent thinking about your retirement and compare it to the minutes you've spent thinking about what kind of life is left for your children.
I personally will be amazed if our young people are able to even sustain what we currently have for the next generation. I will be proud of my kids if they survive.
That is only half of the story...
Young people today are:
- Dying in wars our senior citizens started in countries that have never lifted a finger against us. How did you vote? When did you last attend an anti war rally?
- Dealing with the environmental, health, and economic impact of the “I care for nothing but profit” industries our seniors have left behind. Do you have solar panels on your home? Planted a fruit tree? Feed your kids organic foods? Taken a bus or train instead of driving?
- Going to jail in numbers unmatched by any country in the world, which I blame to a large degree on the selfish lack of involvement of seniors with needy kids in our neighborhoods. How many kids have you tutored after school? Donated to your local library? Boys and girls club? Anything?
- Trying to figure out what hope they have of paying off the mind-numbing national debt all of those issues have caused. Add up the minutes you've spent thinking about your retirement and compare it to the minutes you've spent thinking about what kind of life is left for your children.
I personally will be amazed if our young people are able to even sustain what we currently have for the next generation. I will be proud of my kids if they survive.
2009/01/06
Women shave legs and appear to be little girls.
When children grow, at a certain age, they start to grow more hair all over. We always have hair all over, but at some age, we grow thicker, stronger, more noticeable hair. This age is the age of puberty, when our bodies change. In the USA, the normal age for puberty is between 8 and 13^. At that age, girls and boys start to grow more noticeable hair on their legs. It is almost always before the age of 18.
So, when a women of 20 or 30 or so on, in order to appear more attractive, as our society defines attractiveness^, shaves her legs, what age is she attempting to appear to be? She is NOT attempting to appear to be 18. She is not thinking about what age she is attempting to appear to be at all, but she is attempting to appear to be 13 or so.
Why does our society, here in the USA, want women to appear to be 13?
My first thought was that it must be a marketing campaign designed to sell razors. And there does seem to be some proof of that. The first mention I can find of women removing hair for any reason started in May, 1915 with a fashion spread in Harpers Baazar showing a women in a sleeveless gown with bare armpits. Under it is an ad for a hair removal powder.
See also:
So, when a women of 20 or 30 or so on, in order to appear more attractive, as our society defines attractiveness^, shaves her legs, what age is she attempting to appear to be? She is NOT attempting to appear to be 18. She is not thinking about what age she is attempting to appear to be at all, but she is attempting to appear to be 13 or so.
Why does our society, here in the USA, want women to appear to be 13?
My first thought was that it must be a marketing campaign designed to sell razors. And there does seem to be some proof of that. The first mention I can find of women removing hair for any reason started in May, 1915 with a fashion spread in Harpers Baazar showing a women in a sleeveless gown with bare armpits. Under it is an ad for a hair removal powder. Razors for women didn't appear anywhere until 1917 and in the Sears and Roebuck catalog until 1922.^
Leg shaving seems to have started soon after that, but really became popular around WWII with rising hemlines and pinup girls "to inspire our boys."
Leg shaving seems to have started soon after that, but really became popular around WWII with rising hemlines and pinup girls "to inspire our boys."
At the start of the war, nylon stockings were popular, but the nylon was needed for the war effort, so believe it or not, some women would shave their legs, then draw a line up the back of the leg to imitate the seam that was always present in stockings of that time. This does not, however, seem to be the start of leg shaving; hair under stocking is uncomfortable and shows so the shaving of legs started first, nylons came after.
It has been said that leg shaving was promoted by a razor company reeling from the lack of men buying razors since so many where "over there" fighting WWI^
Women in europe didn't start shaving until years later. After WWII one woman I spoke to came to the USA from Holland. She first noticed that American women had "weak" legs. They looked thin and frail to her. It was pointed out to her that her legs looked "stronger" because they were hairy and the women here were shaving. Her friend said she shaved because if she didn't, she would "look like an ape." My friend from Holland wasn't going to be a slave to fasion, but while at the denstist office, in the chair, she noticed that he kept lookin at her legs, and she thought: "He thinks I look like an Ape!" That's all it took; she started shaving her legs that night.
Leg shaving happens in Brazil, North America, Australia, Middle East, and Europe. Women in Europe, while they do shave their legs (even in France!) are not as religious about it as they are in the USA. It does not happen in Asia
Could it be simply related to the age old desire for women to look different from men? Since women generally have less hair than men, making a women have less hair, makes her less like a man and, supposedly, more womanly. There are certainly many examples of this, and not just since breast implants and high heels took hold; ancient peoples did everything from lopping off little girls toes (women have smaller feet) to stretching out necks (women have thinner necks). This tendancy for each sex to try to look less like the other is called artifical sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism is very common, and there isn't anything wrong with helping it along. The problem is that in leg shaving, we have picked something that is not only makes women look less like men, it makes them look more like little girls.
As shaved legs became the standard of beauty in the USA, men became trained to find them attractive. As a result, men are no longer sexually attracted to the naturally hairly legs of mature women, but instead are attracted to a version of legs that are naturally found on underage girls. This doesn't excuse the actions of molesters, but it is one more small step in the wrong direction.
See also:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1280795/origin_of_pantyhose_why_women_shave_their_legs/ the video shows some of the pictures of the original ads and photos.
2008/11/21
We. Do. Not. Need. To. Invade. Iran.
There is another "invade Iran" eamil going around. It says:
Although the email provides no references, it seem to be quoting this report:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf
My response:
No references. Hear-say. Fear mongering. I smell FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The standard means of manipulating the public into an action that benefits the authors).
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country" -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII. (This is true: check snopes: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm )
As it happens, every country with about a square mile of dirt has “enough fissionable material to develop a nuclear weapon”. That isn’t the question. The question is: do they have the technology to extract and purify the fissionable material from that dirt to the point that it would actually fission… err… go boom. And then, do they have a way of delivering that bomb to a target. What they have now is LEU or Low Enrichment Uranium. It’s good for nuke power plants, useless for A-Bombs. Moving it to weapons grade material is quite the trick.
These links are as close as I could find to the stuff they say in the email,
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf seems to be what this email is referencing at the end. And what they say IS scary. But who are “they”? I couldn’t find anything about their funding on their actual site, but I did find this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Science_and_International_Security and for the most part, that funding looks pretty good. A lot of it does, however, have ties to the dreaded "Military Industrial Complex"... The people who scare us into paying them to build better weapons, and then into sacrificing our kids into using those weapons so they can get paid to build more.
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/nuclear-faq/ is a very informative document from the same I.S.I.S. outfit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran is an even better document that tells both sides of the history. Very much worth the read.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml is the International Atomic Energy Agency but I couldn’t find any mention of 630 Kilograms of ANYTHING on their site:
http://www.iaea.org/googleResult.html?cx=004828748078731094376%3Am_jpm98tdns&cof=FORID%3A11&q=IRAN+%22630+kg%22+OR+%22630+kilograms%22+&sitesearch=IAEA.org#241
I did, eventually find a document at I.S.I.S. that says it is from the IAEA and quotes the 630 KG figure:
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/Iran_Report_11-19-08.pdf Note that just after that figure it says “All nuclear material at FEP, as well as all installed cascades, remain under Agency containment and surveillance.” So the IAEA is right there watching and holding on to that material. If Iran starts trying to turn it into weapons grade material, the IAEA will know.
And if we wanted to, our Tomahawks could easily hit the processing facility and remove that threat. In any case, and this is the important part, there is NO need for us to invade Iran as we did with Iraq. WE, and not they, have the technology for war at a distance. There is NO NEED for our boys to risk life and limb in Iran… other than to justify the increased funding of the Military industrial complex.
We own the air. We own space. We own the planet. There is NO NEED for us to set foot on every part of it. We have the aircraft carriers, the ICBM’s, the F117’s, the Patriots, and so on and so on. We already paid for all that. Asking us to pay with our children is monstrous.
In the end, the key point is that there is NOTHING wrong with Iran having nuke power and having LEU to run it. The fact that they now have enough LEU to make the weapons grade material for one bomb does not mean that they will. They don’t even have the equipment to do it, as far as I can tell. If they did pull all their LEU and put it into a new facility for making weapons grade material, we would know in advance and could easily stop it. Even if we didn’t stop it and they did make a bomb, there is no evidence that they would use it. Iran has never committed any terrorist act against US or our allies. The idea that they would hand over a bomb to a terrorist or allow a terrorist to steal it is… unlikely. If terrorists wanted a bomb, there are lots of other places to steal one; security in Russia isn’t exactly stellar right now. On one seems to be freaked out that Pakistan, another militant Islamic country, already has the A-Bomb. If we are going to invade Iran, why didn’t we invade Pakistan? They have more ties to terrorists than Iran ever has. And again, even if all the very worst is true. We can just blow up their enrichment facility. It isn’t like you can hide that sort of a plant…
We. Do. Not. Need. To. Invade. Iran.
"While Iran's low-enriched uranium is not quite weapons-grade, the Institute for Science and International Security, after reviewing the IAEA report, estimated that the further enrichment necessary could be done "within a few months."
That would give Iran a nuke right around Inauguration Day. "
Although the email provides no references, it seem to be quoting this report:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf
My response:
No references. Hear-say. Fear mongering. I smell FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The standard means of manipulating the public into an action that benefits the authors).
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country" -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII. (This is true: check snopes: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm )
As it happens, every country with about a square mile of dirt has “enough fissionable material to develop a nuclear weapon”. That isn’t the question. The question is: do they have the technology to extract and purify the fissionable material from that dirt to the point that it would actually fission… err… go boom. And then, do they have a way of delivering that bomb to a target. What they have now is LEU or Low Enrichment Uranium. It’s good for nuke power plants, useless for A-Bombs. Moving it to weapons grade material is quite the trick.
These links are as close as I could find to the stuff they say in the email,
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf seems to be what this email is referencing at the end. And what they say IS scary. But who are “they”? I couldn’t find anything about their funding on their actual site, but I did find this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Science_and_International_Security and for the most part, that funding looks pretty good. A lot of it does, however, have ties to the dreaded "Military Industrial Complex"... The people who scare us into paying them to build better weapons, and then into sacrificing our kids into using those weapons so they can get paid to build more.
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/nuclear-faq/ is a very informative document from the same I.S.I.S. outfit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran is an even better document that tells both sides of the history. Very much worth the read.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml is the International Atomic Energy Agency but I couldn’t find any mention of 630 Kilograms of ANYTHING on their site:
http://www.iaea.org/googleResult.html?cx=004828748078731094376%3Am_jpm98tdns&cof=FORID%3A11&q=IRAN+%22630+kg%22+OR+%22630+kilograms%22+&sitesearch=IAEA.org#241
I did, eventually find a document at I.S.I.S. that says it is from the IAEA and quotes the 630 KG figure:
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/Iran_Report_11-19-08.pdf Note that just after that figure it says “All nuclear material at FEP, as well as all installed cascades, remain under Agency containment and surveillance.” So the IAEA is right there watching and holding on to that material. If Iran starts trying to turn it into weapons grade material, the IAEA will know.
And if we wanted to, our Tomahawks could easily hit the processing facility and remove that threat. In any case, and this is the important part, there is NO need for us to invade Iran as we did with Iraq. WE, and not they, have the technology for war at a distance. There is NO NEED for our boys to risk life and limb in Iran… other than to justify the increased funding of the Military industrial complex.
We own the air. We own space. We own the planet. There is NO NEED for us to set foot on every part of it. We have the aircraft carriers, the ICBM’s, the F117’s, the Patriots, and so on and so on. We already paid for all that. Asking us to pay with our children is monstrous.
In the end, the key point is that there is NOTHING wrong with Iran having nuke power and having LEU to run it. The fact that they now have enough LEU to make the weapons grade material for one bomb does not mean that they will. They don’t even have the equipment to do it, as far as I can tell. If they did pull all their LEU and put it into a new facility for making weapons grade material, we would know in advance and could easily stop it. Even if we didn’t stop it and they did make a bomb, there is no evidence that they would use it. Iran has never committed any terrorist act against US or our allies. The idea that they would hand over a bomb to a terrorist or allow a terrorist to steal it is… unlikely. If terrorists wanted a bomb, there are lots of other places to steal one; security in Russia isn’t exactly stellar right now. On one seems to be freaked out that Pakistan, another militant Islamic country, already has the A-Bomb. If we are going to invade Iran, why didn’t we invade Pakistan? They have more ties to terrorists than Iran ever has. And again, even if all the very worst is true. We can just blow up their enrichment facility. It isn’t like you can hide that sort of a plant…
We. Do. Not. Need. To. Invade. Iran.
2008/11/14
A friend of mine sent me one of those emails that circulate every veterans day where they show pictures of our boys and talk about how good we have it and how they are suffering to ensure our freedom.
I was totally with it until this one:
"You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting."
And that is a total load of crap.
1. While war does solve problems (in the least competent, most violent, way) I strongly question what the hell this war was supposed to solve. It SURE as hell wasn’t about preventing the torture and killing of innocents. All we did was trade our own boys lives for the lives of forigners. No WMD’s, No Nukes, No terrorist support. We were, at best, missinformed, and at worse, LIED to. And if we are all about preventing torture and killing of innocents, why did we do nothing in Darfur? Sudan? Congo?
2. Anyone who tells me I should criticize my government needs to pull their head out of there ass. And using our boys to justify that should be a crime. The American Sheeple have been manipulated into giving over more power to the government than ever before by shear terror mongering on the part of the American Wolverment. Go check this out:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm Really worth hearing. The USA is using the same tactics the Nazis (and every other government) used on it’s people. Hearing it from Hitlers Reich-Marshal has an impact, though.
3. Yeah, those boys need an excuse to keep going everyday. I used that excuse in the first Gulf War:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/incompetence.htm It was a lie. I lie I told to myself. There should have been better solutions. We are part of the problem.
4. If you just really get off on war pictures, see this:
http://techref.massmind.org/images/member/jmn-efp-786/war/index.htm
Damn it… Send this to the people you sent those pictures too…
And how about this last thought?
SUPPORT OUR TROUPS!
BRING… THEM… HOME!
I was totally with it until this one:
"You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting."
And that is a total load of crap.
1. While war does solve problems (in the least competent, most violent, way) I strongly question what the hell this war was supposed to solve. It SURE as hell wasn’t about preventing the torture and killing of innocents. All we did was trade our own boys lives for the lives of forigners. No WMD’s, No Nukes, No terrorist support. We were, at best, missinformed, and at worse, LIED to. And if we are all about preventing torture and killing of innocents, why did we do nothing in Darfur? Sudan? Congo?
2. Anyone who tells me I should criticize my government needs to pull their head out of there ass. And using our boys to justify that should be a crime. The American Sheeple have been manipulated into giving over more power to the government than ever before by shear terror mongering on the part of the American Wolverment. Go check this out:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm Really worth hearing. The USA is using the same tactics the Nazis (and every other government) used on it’s people. Hearing it from Hitlers Reich-Marshal has an impact, though.
3. Yeah, those boys need an excuse to keep going everyday. I used that excuse in the first Gulf War:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/incompetence.htm It was a lie. I lie I told to myself. There should have been better solutions. We are part of the problem.
4. If you just really get off on war pictures, see this:
http://techref.massmind.org/images/member/jmn-efp-786/war/index.htm
Damn it… Send this to the people you sent those pictures too…
And how about this last thought?
SUPPORT OUR TROUPS!
BRING… THEM… HOME!
2008/10/16
Face it: This election is, in part, a race war.
First, let me say that I'm no fan of Howard Stern. Although I would never seek to censor him, he is crude, self serving, and generally does our culture great harm. I blame the people who listen to him more than I do him. He is just serving their lack of taste.
However, there is some value in his lack of restraint: At times, he reports the cold honest truth when no one else would dare to. This is a good example:
Howard Stern Show - 1/10/2008 - Sal Interviews "Obama Supporters" in Harlem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
In this clip, "Sal" asks a series of black people if they support Obama just because he is black or because of his stance on the issues. They all reply that it doesn't matter to him that he is black. Sal then asks them to confirm that they support the issues by reading a few, but he actually reads off points from the McCain campaign platform which Obama directly opposes. He even asks if they have any concern that Sarah Palin will become the vice president under Obama. They all report being perfectly happy supporting "Obamas" "right to life", "stay the course in Iraq" and "Sarah Palin" platform.
Not only are they supporting Obama only because he is black, they are also totally unaware of the issues and which candidate supports which issue. Black racism against whites, however it may be justified, is very real. I don't blame them. But not knowing the issues is inexcusable.
Was it racist of Stern to report this and of me to mention it here? Perhaps. Probably even. But in my mind the point is this: The blue blood, blue hair, little old ladies would do exactly the same thing if you asked them why they supported McCain; "oh no, not because he's white and Obama is black, I strongly feel that women should have the right to choose, we should get out of Iraq, and Joe Biden will make a great Vice President"
We've already seen this sort of disconnection in the women who called Obama an Arab and those who shouted "Kill Obama" and racial slurs at McCain rallies. The whites are scared to death of a black man in the white house. Who will protect the interns?
Sad huh?
The difference in this election will be who votes. If the blacks actually go out and vote, Obama will win. If the young white people, who were not raised with the same hatred and fears now carried by most older people, actually go and vote, Obama will win. If the progressives and liberals, young or old, like myself, who actively try to suppress racism, actually go and vote, Obama will win. The problem is that few of those people have bothered to vote historically. Young people, "minorities" (not so minor), and mild liberals quite often don't bother.
The blue hair set ALWAYS votes. They are just as racist, just as unaware of the issues, and just as incapable of making a good decision, but they always vote.
Despite the polls, and despite my most fervent wishes and hopes, I'm still predicting McCain will win.
However, there is some value in his lack of restraint: At times, he reports the cold honest truth when no one else would dare to. This is a good example:
Howard Stern Show - 1/10/2008 - Sal Interviews "Obama Supporters" in Harlem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg
In this clip, "Sal" asks a series of black people if they support Obama just because he is black or because of his stance on the issues. They all reply that it doesn't matter to him that he is black. Sal then asks them to confirm that they support the issues by reading a few, but he actually reads off points from the McCain campaign platform which Obama directly opposes. He even asks if they have any concern that Sarah Palin will become the vice president under Obama. They all report being perfectly happy supporting "Obamas" "right to life", "stay the course in Iraq" and "Sarah Palin" platform.
Not only are they supporting Obama only because he is black, they are also totally unaware of the issues and which candidate supports which issue. Black racism against whites, however it may be justified, is very real. I don't blame them. But not knowing the issues is inexcusable.
Was it racist of Stern to report this and of me to mention it here? Perhaps. Probably even. But in my mind the point is this: The blue blood, blue hair, little old ladies would do exactly the same thing if you asked them why they supported McCain; "oh no, not because he's white and Obama is black, I strongly feel that women should have the right to choose, we should get out of Iraq, and Joe Biden will make a great Vice President"
We've already seen this sort of disconnection in the women who called Obama an Arab and those who shouted "Kill Obama" and racial slurs at McCain rallies. The whites are scared to death of a black man in the white house. Who will protect the interns?
Sad huh?
The difference in this election will be who votes. If the blacks actually go out and vote, Obama will win. If the young white people, who were not raised with the same hatred and fears now carried by most older people, actually go and vote, Obama will win. If the progressives and liberals, young or old, like myself, who actively try to suppress racism, actually go and vote, Obama will win. The problem is that few of those people have bothered to vote historically. Young people, "minorities" (not so minor), and mild liberals quite often don't bother.
The blue hair set ALWAYS votes. They are just as racist, just as unaware of the issues, and just as incapable of making a good decision, but they always vote.
Despite the polls, and despite my most fervent wishes and hopes, I'm still predicting McCain will win.
2008/10/06
Sick, sad, world. Shaved legs molest girls.
Women abhor pedophiles, and rightfully so, yet they continue to shave their legs and wear lipstick, blush, and false eyelashes.
*pause for a moment to let the apparent disconnect in that statement settle in with the confused reader*
The average age where a young woman's leg hair becomes visible is between 12 and 18 depending on hair color, genetics, etc...
What other reason is there for shaving ones legs, besides wanting to appear to be jail bait?
*pause to really allow the increasingly shocked reader to think hard about that*
Take your average 13 year old girl and stand her next to a 30 year old women while neither is wearing makeup. Notice that the 13 year old has ruby red lips, blushed cheeks, and strong dark eyelashes. The 30 year old has pale lips, sallow cheeks and thinning eyelashes. Now ask the 30 year old to go put on her make up. Compare again and feel slightly sick to your stomach. Don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.
*hurries on to reassure the now outraged reader of the limits of my insanity*
Please note, I am not blaming women for this, I am trying to point out how sick our society is. I am not saying that women are knowingly encouraging men to look at jail bait, nor am I saying that men are knowingly pressuring women to look like jail bait in order to be attractive. I am also not attempting to excuse the actions of your local neighborhood child molester. We are all responsible for our actions, and must pay the consequences, no matter to what bad influences we are exposed. I am also NOT saying that I am sexually attracted to girls, just on the off chance that someone is getting worried here... I'm all about the MILF and specifically, my wife.
But something is wrong here. Very, very wrong. In Europe, or at least in the non-westernized parts of Europe, women do not feel a compulsion to do these things.
It may be that the problem is an unintended consequence of the advertising engine that must needs accompany each industry in our consumer driven economy. I once saw an interview where an experienced older man who had lived through the 60's and remembered it was asked why "blonds have more fun?" His answer was surprising to me: He said "Well, originally it was to sell hair care products." Apparently that saying was started by ads placed for a company that had come up with a new non-bleach hair coloring product and who wanted to create a greater demand. By convincing women that they would have more fun as a blond, they created a feedback loop where the women who wanted more fun, perhaps unknowingly advertised the fact by dying their hair. Men then saw dark eyebrows and blond hair, knew that the woman wanted to have "more fun" and so were more likely to ask her out. It was a self fulfilling prophecy.
I think the same sort of thing may have happened in the makeup industry. Makeup has several functions, including accentuating the difference between men and women, or sending that same "I want to have fun" signal, but mostly it is designed to mask the effects of aging. When an older lady caked on the powder to hid a few wrinkles or age spots, she was perhaps returning her appearance to that of a healthy 30 year old. No problem there. But how to sell lipstick, for instance, when the lips of a 30 year old are really no more red than those of a 50 year old? And why sell only to 50 year olds?
By presenting the women of the USA with an idealized, sexuallized, version of a younger than legal Brooke Shields or Kate Moss, companies could then push the sale of more lipstick. And so enlist the women who buy it in the consequence of training the men to be pedophiles. Please note that I am in NO way attempting to excuse men who molest children. This idea that men have no control over their actions is insulting and disempowering. Men (everyone) are responsible for their actions, in any case.
Face it, or tell my why I'm wrong in an unemotional, rational, and logical argument backed up with references and facts. Hysterical rants, unsupported denials, and blame deflecting accusations will be deleted.
I'm tired of just accepting the sickness.
2008/07/29
It wasn't a suicide! It was Lemming MURDER!
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
It's amazing the things you find on snopes... I had no idea... Apparently they don't all get together and decide to take a long walk off a short pier...
Unless Disney makes them.
Just amazing.
It's amazing the things you find on snopes... I had no idea... Apparently they don't all get together and decide to take a long walk off a short pier...
Unless Disney makes them.
Just amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
