Archive for the ‘General’ Category

Up in Smoke

Friday, May 11th, 2007

The Safety Nazi’s are at it again. Their target this time, images of smoking in the movies. Yes, smoking in the movies is important enough for the MPAA to wave their golf gloves in the air for attention and some San Francisco based do-gooders to take up the oppressive moral challenge of removing images of smoking from the movies altogether.

The MPAA is quoted as saying, ‘”all smoking will be considered and depictions that glamorize smoking or … feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context” could warrant a more prohibitive rating.’ Frankly, who cares what the MPAA says. The MPAA long ago made their lack of any valid moral stance known, when they ruled that you can’t show a bare woman’s breast to children, but decapitations are fine and and dandy.

This is the crap that pisses me off: The San Francisco-based center Smoke Free Movies claims that movies are responsible for 5,000 smoking-related deaths a month that might have been prevented by an R rating. The group also says movies are responsible half of the 800,000 children a year who start smoking. (Full article here.)

Where are they getting this data? What studies have been done to prove these numbers? What is the criteria being used to determine whether or not children start smoking do to the “responsibility” of movies? How have they shown that giving a film an R rating, prevents any children from smoking?

When is the last time you actually saw someone smoking a cigarette in a movie? That’s a fairly rare event these days. “Kill Bill” is about the only one which comes to my mind’s recollection, with Samuel L. Jackson smoking at the church organ, but that’s hardly a kiddy flick. If you go to their own Web page showing which of the movies out right now have smoking depicted in them, (see the page here,) the count is a bit deceptive. As of April 30th, 2007, when I took a gander, there were four of eight that have an R rating, which doesn’t qualify as a kid’s movie. Isn’t this group the one weeping over the fact that films with smoking need an R rating? Why even put those films in this list of movies? They already qualify for their goal. Three of the remaining are PG-13 and one G, which are supposed to be the most objectionable films to these folk. In all of this, you’ll have to take their word for it being a film which, “promotes smoking”. My guess, is that if it doesn’t show someone dying from it, they qualify it as “promoting smoking”. Their inclusion of R rated movies in their list shows their ultimate goal as well – the complete banning of any depiction of smoking in the movies, no matter what the ratings.

In short: this is blatant propaganda, so full of shit that you could use it to fertilize your garden! They have no studies to prove their claims. They have no studies to even support their notions! They’ve pulled some numbers out of their ass and spout it as if they are an authority. Am I supposed to believe that the Smoke Free Movies organization is an unbiased source of information?

Organizations like this come off appealing to “common sense”, but their goals are never that low. They want to control you, as much as the tobacco companies dream they could. They want to determine what is right for you, what you should be able to see, or read or think. They are controlling fascists, who ought to be stamped out, hard, like a crusty cigarette butt.

I’ll tell you who’s responsible for 5,000 smoking-related deaths a month – the 5,000 people making the decision to smoke. No one forced them to do it. No one put a gun to their head and a cigarette in their mouth.

If you want to debate the issues of peer pressure and other nonsense, let me counter with a quick rebuttal: If you haven’t taught your children to have self respect, based on a solid foundation of moral principals and steadfast self determination, able to resist any and all peer pressure – then you have failed as a parent!

I’ll add that your failure as a parent in this regard, has more striking ramifications than your children picking up bad habits. If your child is at the whim of their peers, you have sown the seeds of tyranny, by producing progeny that will goose step along with those who would rule by force over others. Dictators cannot rule, unless they can encourage the common man to enable their evil plans, to push their vile agenda – through peer pressure.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Save the Planet – Cut Down a Tree

Monday, April 23rd, 2007

I can’t stop laughing at this. We’re not satisfied until we’ve screwed up every portion of the ecosystem that we can possibly screw up. We’re not satisfied until we control the uncontrollable.

I’ve ranted about the Church of Global Warming before, with no end of their dogmatic, unsupported stupidity in sight; but this just might take the crown for the moment. The problem is, too many trees may increase global warming!

You can read all about the bad, bad trees for yourself.

The gist of this latest assault on intelligence: trees may take in CO2, but they emit methane at a staggering rate, accounting for a third of the atmospheric methane – which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Coupled with cow farts, we must be doomed!

I have some hope. Someday, one of these worried eggheads my actually look up into the sky, see that large hydrogen explosion being held in check by it’s own gravity, and realize that it might have something more to do with climate changes than we do. At 3.86e33 ergs per second or 386 billion billion megawatts per second, even a 1% change in energy output is absolutely staggering at our orbital distance. After all, if it wasn’t for our magnetic field, we might as well be sitting in a microwave oven – all life as we know it would die. Even the atmosphere itself would be stripped off of the planet by solar wind, as has been happening to Mars since it lost it’s magnetic field.

Speaking of the Earth’s magnetic field, hasn’t it been dropping in strength over the last 100 years, in a pattern fitting the next magnetic pole flip? Far be it for me to suggest that a weakening magnetic field could have any play in our warming up.

Or what about this study? Or this one?

My point; we don’t understand all that drives our climate, from “greenhouse” gases to the sun itself. Since we don’t have all the variables at hand, our computer models are simply wrong.

Not that it matters. Even if I had absolute proof that the CO2 scare is all hype, the IPCC wouldn’t listen.

Perhaps IPCC should stand for International Paranoid Climate Crackpots?

Addendum: Sheryl Crow is promoting global warming by protecting trees in the call for limiting use of toilet paper. Bad, bad Sheryl Crow!

The Write Stuff

Wednesday, April 4th, 2007

Does anyone write anymore?

My drivel is utter garbage, with enough punctuation, grammatical and spelling errors to make my High School English teacher warm up her cattle prod. (I wish she had warmed up her cattle prod back then, but such is a lurid fantasy best kept under wraps these decades later.) It seems to me that what passes for “well written” these days is beyond abysmal.

Take for example, my eldest stepson. He’s a nice young man, rather intelligent and finishing his BS in genetic biology. I had the honor (read as “maggot choking misfortune”) of being begged to proofread the final submission for his thesis. Personally, I don’t know a damned thing about yFAST complexes and Mec1 relations to the ATR mechanism, but I do know that when your sentence changes tense three times – with none of these tenses matching – you have a serious problem. Irony holds that it’s probably genetic.

Sending the boy to a geeky engineering college likely didn’t help matters. They stress the sciences and ignore the more banal issues of life, such as personal hygiene and eating. Sending him to public school in Utah most certainly did not help. The public school system here is very low grade. I may be biased in that my schooling in the 70′s and early 80′s was in Minnesota, a state which has always prided itself in funding education. This also helps to explain the draconian tax rates in this winter wonderland, but that is another issue.

Whereas I should continue with a story about walking the thirty miles to school each day in twenty feet of snow, with my dad strapping bacon to my ass to make the wolves chase me faster when I was running late; I will instead resort to a snide comment on how little work I’ve seen issued in school to foster functional writing skills. My youngest stepson, about to graduate from High School, has only written a handful of papers for senior Advanced Placement (AP) English. Perhaps my memory has been skewed with the advent of age and the languishing effects of nearly three decades of computer monitor radiation, but I seem to recall having to write a lot more than that.

I also don’t see the need for assignments which seem a little childish, or otherwise saccharine – especially when they’re aimed at me, rather than my child. My youngest came home with a sheet from English class a few weeks ago, which asked for parental participation in their reading assignment of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. In the letter, the teacher asked that the parents write a short note with sweet words of wisdom, gentle advice to give their child in preparation for life’s wonderful journey ahead; as Hamlet’s father had given to him. This reasoning, it was stated, was an attempt to “pull the child into the sentiment of the work”. That is a paraphrase. I don’t recall the actual wording, but it is fair to say that my insulin levels needed to be checked afterward.

My message was quick and easy to write and not wanting to kill a tree for it, I gave it to him verbally.

“Trust no one.”

What examples I have seen of his written assignments have been horrid. It is obvious that I did not watch his education carefully enough and did not step in to correct the situation in time. The frightening part is that his papers earn good grades. If I had a time machine, I might have been able to help at the correct point. As it is, I’m encouraging him to concentrate on his writing skills when he heads off to a liberal arts college – even if it seems to be a futile gesture. Some of it will sink in.

Either that, or he’ll end up writing crap like this his whole life.

O’Really?

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

If you want to catch sparks in the wind these days, you need look no further than watching the cripple-fight between Rosie O’Donnell and Bill O’Reilly. I say cripple fight in the terms that if you were to mark the handicapped symbol on their car’s permit with red ink to indicate their malfunction, their heads would be a bright crimson dot.

On one side of this circus, you have Bill O’Reilly. Seriously, if anyone can find a better poster child for the type of intolerant horseshit that the far right represents, please tell me. I thought Rush Limbaugh was bad, but O’Reilly simply takes the cake for spewing nonsense with the air of authority. Add into that delightful mix; cutting the mic off from anyone he’s personally declared to be a terrorist sympathizer, or “America hater” because they don’t agree with him, yelling over the top of people as if being louder means that you’re correct, and parroting the same regurgitated spew every other far right monologue has uttered for weeks as if it was an O’riginal thought – and you get one ugly cake mix of pure bad. He’s also an arrogant son of a bitch, but that really dozen’t set him apart.

On the other side of this media maelstrom is Rosie O’Donnell. If anyone can find a better poster child of self-exalting blowhard, let me know. She’s loud, generally obnoxious and also likes to yell over the top of people as if being louder means that you’re correct. She likes to parrot the left wing regurgitation as much as O’Reilly does the right. She an arrogant daughter of a bitch…

But you get the picture. It’s deja vu, all over again.

The big controversy: Rosie O’Donnell has come out calling for “9/11 Truth”. This can mean a lot of things, but in her case she seems to be at least convinced that the government is not coming clean in telling everything it knows about 9/11 – to the point that she infers that they had something to do with it. Then she makes the predictable mistake of blathering about George Bush being Hitler’s evil twin, ad nausium.

O’Reilly, predictably, doesn’t see it this way and because Rosie has the audacity to say such a thing, she should be sent to Gitmo for the holiday season special. We’ll supply the batteries.

First thing: I don’t like Rosie. I don’t like Bill. They both suck rancid canal water and I could go the rest of my life without ever hearing their voices again. However, I have to give Bill an extra kick in the groin on this one, because even if you don’t agree with Rosie, she should have the right to say whatever she wants – and let the facts come out to show whether she was right or wrong. Calling for someone to be silenced because you don’t like what they’re saying, is not the American way. Something about a First Amendment?

Furthermore, the one thing that the far right has not done with Rosie O’Donnell, or Martin Sheen, or Dr. Steven E. Jones of Bringham Young University, and many, many others; is actually address their questions. Every effort is made to demonize them for even considering the idea that the official 9/11 report was a shoddy piece of bird cage lining, to calling them names, to hold them up as examples of Bad American’s(tm) – but not one tiny bit of effort goes into responding to some pretty fucking serious questions.

How does a steel building fail from fire, when the burning temperature of jet fuel is less than half of the melting point of steel? (Office furniture burns at an even lower temperature, for that matter.)

How does a steel building suffering core structural damage do so in such a way that it collapses just slightly longer in time than free fall?

How is it that Tower Seven, which wasn’t hit by any aircraft, falls the same way as the two which were?

How is it that similar, even worse, fires in the past have never produced any of these behaviors?

That’s just the tip of the iceberg…

I like that Rosie is stirring people up enough to start asking questions that some of us have had since the day the attack happened, but I would really, really like to have a better spokesperson for the job. I wonder if Clint Eastwood has any misgivings?

The subject is ultimately a serious one and deserves serious attention. You can find a slew of sites with a Google search for “9/11 truth”, which will have everything from reasoned timelines to conspiracy theories that space aliens used it as a distraction to try to kidnap Tom Cruise onto a Xenu slave barge.

I like to take the scientific route.

Start here and here. There are physicists and engineers, probing the problem with scientific analysis.

If you have eight months free, work your way up to visiting the most complete 9/11 time line on the net.

Others have said it, and I’ll repeat it: the idea that 19 Arabs, none with enough piloting skills to fly a Piper Cub, managed to high-jack four planes and properly navigate the aircraft to three of their targets; is the biggest conspiracy theory I’ve heard yet.