Since it has been decided by various special interest groups that the globe is warming because of the human race, environmentalists have been thinking up creative ways to reduce the carbon footprint of our species on this planet. It has been said by a leading global warming theorist that in 30 or 40 years “most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals… Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable.” -Ted Turner
Today in some large city, an assembly of the most renowned climatologists gathered at a global
warming convention to try to change the direction of our species. The
convention lasting several days was resolved after long deliberation by discovering
the only reasonable way to stop global warming in its tracks, before our
civilization “breaks down”. It was decided that the only way to save the human
race from global warming is suicide.
They had been for several years taking less severe means of
saving the globe by having things like hybrid cars, vegan lifestyles, metal
water bottles, Al Gore DVD’s,and countless bumperstickers about hugging trees and such, but with only futile efforts. They decided that more severe path needed to be taken. They made a quick press release
to domestic as well as international communities about suicide being the definitive option to save the human race.
They made it a point to mention that it had been decided that they were not actually going to take part in this, stating “someone had to be around to collect the data”, but were urging Hummer owners to be the first to “kick their own bucket”. Rumors of that being discriminatory toward SUV owners were immediately
quieted by the group with this comment, “There is no such thing as discrimination against the guilty, and we all know, those people are largely at fault.”
Follow-up comments were made suggesting that if ridding the earth of Hummer owners, did not affect the global warming situation; it would “at the very least, lower the price of gas”.
I’ll be the first to say that I’m a pretty conservative dresser, and I’m not on the cutting edge of fashion. That’s because, well, I don’t want to be. If this is the cutting edge of fashion, you can count me out.
(Plus, I don’t wear dresses.)
We see all these two second clips of runway models all the time but what are they wearing?
Is that even reasonable?
If I saw some person dressed like that on the streets I would burst out into hysterical laughter. That maybe rude, but I don’t think I could help myself.
Is it all a joke? It looks a lot like Halloween to me, not a fashion show. Even so, there are still so many girls I know, who would just love to be one of these models, especially since America’s Next Top Model came out. I keep trying to tell girls that those models are only relatively pretty. I say relatively because they are very pretty compared to other awkward, long-legged creatures, like gazelles and giraffes, but are, when compared to females of the same species, in my opinion, just average looking skinny girls.
What is the purpose of runway modeling anyway? I think it was originally to advertise clothing. But can’t you reach a bigger audience with something like a … oh, I don’t know… commercial?
As if women aren’t objectified enough in this world, we need to actually have them strut up and down a stage with the sole purpose of being a “clothing holder”, an object much like a coat rack. If we keep up these objectifying principles, maybe I could hire a skinny girl as an ottoman.
The purpose now I think is just money. It all comes down to money and people who have it. It’s those people who have plenty of money to spend on absolutely nothing but either watching these girls strut, or buying these ridiculous clothes. This life is for the pure elitist, the one’s that consider themselves high-class and have a pseudo-need to dress in clothes that will keep them years ahead of the fashion trend.
For the sake of learning from our history, and showing how whimsical our predictions of the fashion trend can really be, I give you a video. It’s a prediction from the 20s about fashion in the year 2000. Let’s just say lady’s aren’t actually wearing electric lightbulbs on their head just yet.
There is apparently some legal discussion in the UK about deaf parents being able to pick deaf embryos over hearing ones. Why this is even a discussion is beyond me.
“Deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos so they can pick a deaf child over one that has all its senses intact, according to the chief executive of the Royal National Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (RNID). Jackie Ballard, a former Liberal Democrat MP, says that although the vast majority of deaf parents would want a child who has normal hearing, a small minority of couples would prefer to create a child who is effectively disabled, to fit in better with the family lifestyle.” Sarah-Kate Templeton, The Times (UK)
This video is an interview with some deaf parents about how they think it’s about discrimination. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/05/19/herriman.deaf.embryo.cnn It all comes down to selfishness. Who are these parents thinking about? Are they thinking about the baby or are they thinking about themselves? Are these people saying that they think their baby would like to be deaf? If so, let him grow up for 12 years with his hearing and if he then decides that he wants to be deaf, then so be it, have him poke out his eardrums.
At the age of 12 he’ll start taking an interest in music and develop his own tastes. He’ll want to be in the band at school. He’ll want to play video games and actually hear the gunshots in Grand Theft Auto VII. If being deaf was so preferred, why don’t more people poke out their eardrums? Or have them surgically removed? No one wants to be deaf. And I think it to be extremely odd that a parent would want that for their child. No one who has ever been able to hear would ever think it was better without their hearing. That’s just plain stupid. And to make a choice like that for another human before he’s even born is just not in his best interest, and shouldn’t that be what it’s about? It’s not just a matter of preferences. This is a real person. It’s not like parents have to pay extra to get a kid with all 5 senses. People typically come with all of their senses included.
They say it would fit better into their lifestyle. How is that true? There is nothing that a deaf person can do that a hearing person can’t. A hearing child can learn sign language and do all the other “deaf community things” just the same as a deaf person would. I find this story troubling because all of the attention is given to the parents and how they think it is discrimination against the deaf community, when in reality it should have nothing to do with anyone but the child. When the child is considered, this argument just falls apart.
Discrimination talk makes me sick. It’s always about trying to be “progressive” and “giving equal rights”. The truth is that we all discriminate and there’s not anything necessarily wrong with that. Nature discriminates. Some trees are tall and some are short, and it’s not based on merit but no one’s complaining. When we point out a difference that isn’t based on merit, that’s discrimination. That’s the true meaning of discrimination. If we just start caring about people and stop selfishly thinking about what we deserve. THAT will be progressive.
Since I’ve convinced you that not everyone should vote, I’d also like to convince you now that not everyone should go to college. It’s ok not to go to college. There are jobs out there and no one should feel bad about not going if they don’t want to. It should be a choice, not an expectation.
It all starts when we’re children and our parents tell us we can do whatever we put our mind to. That’s a lie, and when I was 4, I knew it. I specifically remember thinking “No matter how much mind power I put into lifting my house with my pinky finger, I will never be able to do it.” And the cynicism has continued ever since.
College is one of those things that guidance counselors are paid to tell you to strive for, but what they don’t tell you is that if everyone were to take their advice, finding a job would be a miserable and almost impossible experience.
College is commonly thought to be a place that is attended by a student hoping to learn skills for their future profession. This is just not true. College is actually a place that is attended by a student hoping to get a degree which will in turn set them apart from the average applicant when trying to get a job.
If everyone were to go to college then the people who want to set themselves apart in the job market, have to get more advanced degrees. This is what has been happening over the last 30 years. In the U.S. over 50% of high school graduates are now going to college. That’s not good. Now people like me who want to get a good job have to go another 5 years to get their masters or doctorate, as if 17 years of institutionalized education wasn’t enough. Keep in mind that these degrees have nothing to do with being smart, or having skills, it’s all about the appearance of being smart and having skills. I have to take classes like anthropology and “Legal Environment of Business”. They say it’s to make me a well rounded student, but at over $1,500 a course, we all know what it’s really about.
Since colleges exist to make money, and not to actually train people, it’s easy for colleges to lower their standards so more students can attend.
I have two other problems with college. The first problem is that Wikipedia is free. Doesn’t seem like a problem but it is. It’s a problem because what I’ve learned from 2 years of college so far, I could’ve learned on Wikipedia in about 2 hours. The fact that it is free is a problem because most people have to pay for college. I don’t, but if I did, I would think it to be an even bigger problem.
The second problem is that professors in college don’t like Wikipedia. As progressive as college professors think they are, they still think Wikipedia is some hacker’s thread. They say that they don’t accept Wikipedia as an academic source because anyone can post on it. The reality is that I posted an article this morning that was taken off in less than 3 minutes. This is it:
The fact that this was taken off so quickly is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is trying to show professors that it really isn’t so bad. If Wikipedia was full of hatred and contempt for college professors, which they have a right to be, they would have kept my article up, since it was such an accurate depiction. Despite the accuracy of the article, I didn’t cite any sources, so it Wikipedia took it off. It’s the rule.
Perhaps college professors are jealous of Wikipedia’s accuracy, broad mindedness, and true progressiveness. Or perhaps they are worried that if people knew how much absolute hogwash they spout out every lecture, that they will stop paying them and turn to the free and more available Wikipedia.
So it all boils down to a few things. Colleges should keep high standards so that people who really go to learn don’t have to spend 30 years on their education. If people don’t want to go to college, then they shouldn’t be expected to. And if we ever have the option to choose between going to college or Wikipedia, the answer is Wikipedia. Hands down.
I have very observant friends. I was told about this card the other day. I had to run to K-mart and pick up this card. (They’re still in business? Who knew?)
A Mother’s Day card for fathers? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. Is this K-mart’s lame attempt at being progressive? I’m not certain but I assume it’s aimed at split/gay families with no mother. It’s a shame there’s so much inequality in this world that there’s no opportunity for us to celebrate our fathers. Ya know? I wish there was a Father’s Day so mothers didn’t get all of the caretaking credit. I should make a holiday like that. I would make it an annual holiday on the 3rd Sunday in June.
It’s a funny title indeed. Fueled by two separate situations in the past month, I think it important to explain further using these examples.
This was a comment I saw on a page recently “have never bought into the invisible dude in the sky thingy.”
Despite the obvious problems with capitalization and sentence structure, this is really just an example of how simplistically God can be looked at. “invisible dude in the sky thingy”? I mean, come on.
I don’t know anyone who actually believes there is an “invisible dude in the sky thingy”.
Although, it’s not uncommon at all for people to believe that theists are somehow lacking in cortical activity. That we believe outlandish ideas of a cumulous-clouded heaven with winged harp players worshiping a white bearded old man that resembles a LOTR wizard.
The very fact that you can actually search Google images for “God” with success proves my point exactly.
But why is that view so common? Where did the idea that theists are so dimwitted arise?
Is it because society is truly a bunch of simpletons or has it been programmed to believe it?
I think it’s both, but since there’s nothing I can do about the former, I’ll discuss the latter.
The programming has come about by the complete over-simplification of heaven. Preachers and evangelists have been making some really detrimental errors when describing how much “fun” heaven will be.
Which leads me to my second example:
I was at a church service recently and the pastor said “Turn around and greet three people.” After we were done he said “Great! Now just think. When we get to heaven we will do that for eternity!”
Uh… Woohoo.
No one wants to go to heaven.
No one wants to go to heaven, because it’s assumed to be a place where there are worship services and Benny Hinn marathons all day long…for eternity.
If that’s the case, I don’t know about you, but hell seems like a viable option for me.
I have no idea what the real heaven is like but I guarantee that the creator of the infinitely complex universe in which we live would not think of a place like that as an “upgrade” for His chosen ones. I would suspect he would be a little bit offended for us even thinking that way.
Like I said, I don’t know what the real heaven is like but my thought of heaven is incomprehensible, like a 3 dimensional world for a stick figure drawing.
When America won the revolutionary war we forgot one thing. We took our freedom, we developed an unprecedented constitutional document all our own, and we transferred our loyalties from the Motherland to the new America, but some things didn’t change. The Imperial system of measure was kept to haunt us for the next 233 years and counting.
The Imperial system of measure is the one we Americans use: gallons, pints, quarts, miles, feet, pounds, etc. (fathoms, pecks, grains???)
The Metric system is what everyone else uses: liters, meters, kilometers, grams, kilograms, etc. It’s a base 10 system just like we use to…count.
Smart…Very smart.
There are only three countries not using the Metric system today. United States of America, and two other countries that I just found out exist.
There’s no need of this. We had our chance 200 years ago and missed it. Our own Ben Franklin brought the Metric system to France but was unable to convince the American people that the base 10 metric system was in fact superior to our modified Imperial system. Which is sad since Americans bought the absurdity of Daylight Savings Time (also Franklin’s contribution), but decided against the simplicity of the Metric system.
Just think, we would no longer have to use Google conversion to find out how many inches are in 13 miles. (Not that too many people actually want to know that…I think it’s just the idea.) We could just move the decimal point to find kilometers! Brilliant!
And if finding an easy way to calculate how many inches you get per tank of gas is not convincing enough…
How many women would love to have a weight of only two digits? 100% you say? Well let’s do it. Let’s go on the Metric diet.
200 Imperial weight = 90 Metric weight
The only thing we’re measuring with the Imperial system is our own stubbornness. As if the world doesn’t think we are stubborn enough. But let’s not just switch because “everybody’s doing it” because that’s just giving in to peer pressure, let’s switch because there are 63,360 inches in a mile. And because “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.” But later said he had no idea how much that was. Everyone else confessed the same.
