Trouble with PETA

From PETA’s mission statement,

“PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.”

Although I do agree that humans must take responsibility for our treatment of animals, I disagree with PETA’s stand and many of their characterizations of how animals are treated by people. PETA has undertook good activities, but bringing to light some serious mistreatment, such as in the fur farms. But they’ve also overplayed their position on many occasions.

I remember listening on TV to one individual complaining about California cheese ads with the slogan, “Real cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California.” He was going on about how the ads are misleading and how bad cows are really treated on a daily basis. From his description, one would assume conditions resembled those of WWII concentration camps. His description may have worked on someone who spent their life in New York City and has never seen open land.  However, I grew up in a region that has a lot of farms here in California. I’ve seen just how cows are treated first hand. His description is misleading. Beyond that, the ads are obviously funny and not meant to be taken literally. I do understand they aren’t treated as one would treat people, but they aren’t people. They are a source of food.

This brings me to a second point: animals as food. I’ve seen pro-vegetarian literature written from both Eastern and Western perspectives. Unfounded statements generally fill pages with arguments against the eating of meat. The underlining goal is to convince the reader that humans are not meant to eat meat. This effort is complemented by some moral or ethical reasons. I just have to laugh when I see these arguments. One argument compares the human intestine to that of a wolf. Of course, the argument never makes a similar comparison to truly vegetarian animals, such as cows. That’s because the human digestive system doesn’t resemble that of either carnivores or herbivores.

In fact, our digestive system has specifically evolved to eat something that no other animal on the face of this planet ever has before. Our digestive system has evolved to take advantage of cooked meat! Even our close cousin, the Neanderthal didn’t make that evolutionary leap. 80% of their diet was raw meat, making it likely that their intestine actual did more closely resemble that of a wolf.

A third point is that all flora and fauna have the same origin. Plants, animals and fungi all have a common ancestor. From a truly unemotional perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between munching on a head of lettuce and munching on strip of bacon. Actually, there may be a difference. The bacon is already dead when we eat it. The lettuce is still alive! Experiments from the 20th Century proved that plants experienced rudimentary reactions to things happening to them (such as leaves being trimmed).  The responses may be interpreted as emotional in nature, such as fear. More recently, it's been discovered that plants actually scream (Plants Really Do 'Scream' Out Loud; backup link).  Should we stop eating plants now too?

How far are we supposed to go to protect other live forms? Our bodies may be invaded by parasites, such as tape worm or malaria. These are also animals. Is it wrong for our bodies to defend themselves against these invaders?

Is it ok to kill bacteria? Our body kills millions (maybe billions or trillions) of bacteria throughout our lives. Are we to take a moral stand against that as well?

Bottom line, all life feeds off of other life to sustain itself. The only reason why members of groups like PETA try to protect certain types of life forms is because we as humans tend to identify with them. If a person makes a personal choice to not use other animals for any purpose (food, clothes or otherwise), that is their choice. However, they should not try to enforce their own beliefs on to others, especially when those beliefs are based on emotion instead of fact. PETA often reminds me of a religious cult whose god is the idea that animals are somehow more special than other life forms.

My own personal belief is that we should use animals to fulfill our needs. This should be balanced with some level of humane treatment to avoid unnecessary suffering. Additionally, I believe that humans are responsible for the proper care of animals we have domesticated for co-habitation (pets or labor animals), whether born as such or feral. But how far we go in these areas should not be determined by self-righteous organizations that do not have a clear foundation for their reasoning.

Sci-Fi Tipping

I read a book one time that illustrated just how complex the math gets when figuring out a split dinner bill. In this book, calculating each person’s portions of a dinner bill was used as the drive for an interstellar space craft. Apparently, the math is so complicated that simply trying to figure it out is all it takes to move a ship thru space at ludicrous speeds. I forget which book exactly, but it is one of them in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series.

I’m going into this because I got an email originally written by a former waitress that mentioned how to tip. Of course, being by a former waitress, it was complete nonsense. I replied with more correct rules for tipping. When I proofread my reply, it was so complex that it reminded me of that scene from Hitchhiker book. It goes something like this:

Statement: “4. For the love of GOD, leave a freakin’ decent tip. Look at your bill. The total bill including tax. Move the decimal point one place to the left and double that. There's your tip. Servers work very hard and get paid very little. Plus a lot of the cooler places pool tips which means what you leave goes in a big bucket and is divided between servers, bartenders, bussers, etc. You need to make up for the jerk wad who left $6 on his $50 bill.”

My reply: “Nope. This list must’ve been written by a waiter. Tip varies from place to place. $6 is a lot for a $50 bill in some areas (that’s well over 10%, which is common for many areas). In Silicon Valley, great or impressive service is 20%, and does NOT include the tax portion of the bill. Not-so-good to normal service is 15% of the dinner bill. Bad service is 5 to 10%, depending on just how bad. Service that is extensively rude or outright insulting is 0 to 5%, even if the meal is comp’d by the manager. However, the tip is based on service, not the food itself. Don’t punish the wait staff for the cook’s mistakes. Also, 15% of the wait staff’s tips often go to the bussers and greeters. Some people get lazy and multiply the sales tax by two to make that the tip, and this is fine too, but it depends on the area. The base CA rate is 6%, which means in some areas, doubling the tax is 12%. If the tip rate is 10% in that area, it’s fine, but if it’s 15%, that’s a bogus tip. Additionally, if the meal is comp’d or discounted, you tip based on what the full price would’ve been.”

Just as a side note, here was another person’s response: “Yes I remember working in the business and you get compensated for what you do. If you are stupid/forgetful/drunk (as most of us were in college) you get a crappy tip. Stop complaining and give good service, its your job. Oh yeah and when I was a cook, these bastards [on the wait staff] rarely split a sufficient amount of the tip. I just made the food right? It was they who carried it to a table 15 feet.”

LOL

Sufficiently confusing?

Evolution meets reality

The Theory of Evolution doesn’t exist as a counter to the bible or belief in gods.  It is founded upon geology, paleontology, archeology, biology, chemistry, etc.  It exists to provide common-sense, factual explanations of the evidence, as a result of using the principles upon which it stands, based on scientific discoveries made throughout the 17th to 21st Centuries.

In particular, discoveries in geology forced scientist to recognize that Earth is far older than stated by common interpretations of the bible.  These discoveries are summed up in a series of geological principles. Andrew MacRae of TalkOrigins states, “Most of these principles were formally proposed by Nicolaus Steno (Niels Steensen, Danish), in 1669, although some have an even older heritage that extends as far back as the authors of the Bible.  An early summary of them is found in Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, published in 1830-32, and does not differ greatly from a modern formulation.”

The principles are as follows:

1. Principle of Superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.  This is more commonly called "Law of Superposition" nowadays.
2. Principle of Original Horizontality - rock layers were originally deposited close to horizontal.
3. Principle of Lateral Continuity - A rock unit continues laterally unless there is a structure or change to prevent its extension.
4. Principle of Cross-cutting Relationships - a structure that cuts another is younger than the structure that is cut.
5. Law of Included Fragments - a structure that is included in another is older than the including structure.
6. The principle of "uniformitarianism" - processes operating in the past were constrained by the same "laws of physics" as operate today.  This particular principle is not longer viewed as a necessary factor of modern science, but was important for those who lived in a time when most people considered ancient myths as fact.

In science, a principle (or law) is a description of a phenomenon in a particular situation without considering the cause based on evidence.  Laws are commonly retested just as everything is in science.  If a scientist comes across evidence that seems to contradict a known principle or law, that scientist understands that the principle needs retesting to determine how their new data fits into the overall collection of observations.  For example, the principle of original horizontality basically says that sedimentary layers of rock in the ground must be laid horizontality.  However, many rock formations are made up of sedimentary layers that are nearly vertical.  Is the original horizontality wrong?  No.  The layers where originally laid horizontally. Shifts in the Earth’s crust caused the layers to be moved into a nearly vertical position long after they were laid.  This particular observation was a factor in allowing scientists to eventually discover Plate Tectonics.

What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?  Even before radioactive dating, these geological principles forced scientists to realize that the Earth must be at least millions of years old.  Further, fossils of life forms are present in various layers of rock.  The fossil record shows a progressive change in life forms on Earth over time.  There is no period in which every species (particularly plants and animal) exist at the same time.  This led curious minds to ask, what is the process for bringing about new species over time?  Creationism said that all creatures were created in the beginning, but the fossil record shows that species come into existence and died out over different and vast periods of time.

Enter Darwin’s exploration.  He studied modern examples of plants and animals, and understood the fossil record.  His research and publication led to the discoveries of evolution and natural selection.  Why does life change over time?  It evolves.  What is the main driving force of evolution?  It is natural selection.

Darwin didn’t actually create the Theory of Evolution.  A theory cannot be made by one person.  A theory is the working explanation for repeatable observations and predictions in nature that are supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers via peer review processes.  To briefly paraphrase Karl Popper, scientific theories must have testability (ability to test the theory), falsifiability (test if the theory is false), or refutability (test if the theory is refutable).

Evidence collected and verified by this process throughout the 20th Century did nothing but continue to reinforce the Theory of Evolution.  The fossil record became more complete and understanding of genetics improved.  Richard Lenski states, “Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related.  In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits.  The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor.”

In the 21st Century, new discoveries in biology are not only further proving evolution; they are actually using knowledge of evolution to make new discoveries, particularly in areas of battling diseases, as mentioned in the article “Antibiotics in Action” at Pharmaceutical Achievers.  In other words, the Theory of Evolution is practical science benefiting humankind directly.  This puts the Theory of Evolution in the same league as Universal Law of Gravitation, Music Theory, theories within Mathematics, and General Relativity.

So, why is this important?  The key difference between notions based on Creationism such as Intelligent Design and actual theories such as Evolution is in their value to science.  Intelligent Design is the end of knowledge. It cannot be tested. It leads to no further discoveries.  It does not improve our understanding of the world around us.  On the other hand, Theory of Evolution is the beginning of knowledge. It is a model of science being used in practical ways. It also leads to more discoveries with endless possibilities.  The value of Theory of Evolution is that is expands our knowledge.  Just as geology opened the door to discovering Evolution, Theory of Evolution is opening the doors to many other sciences involving biology, biotechnology, infectious diseases, genetics, environmentalism, farming, etc.  It leads to a better understanding of the world around us as a logical result of the many observations we make of that world.

References:
Andrew MacRae
Karl Popper
Richard Lenski
Antibiotics in Action

California Props 2006 (quick note)

My main problem with the California propositions this year (2006) is that most of them are trying to sneak something by the voters. I've commented on some of this on a previous entry.

Getting wet in Capitola, CA

Here's Miriam about to get soaked up to her butt.

Capitola, CA

After many attempts and many negotiations of time, Miriam and I finally got to go on a get-away Friday. We headed to Capitola for the day. We started by having lunch on the waterfront at Margeritavilla (not the Jimmy Buffet one). Neither of us have been this portion of Capitola before. We didn't even know it was here. It's a very charming area with 4 million dollar waterfront condos. The day was perfect.
At lunch, these two young girls were sat at a table near us. We couldn't help but over hearing their conversation. I coulda swore they were filming the MTV show Laguna Beach right there! To break up the "fun", a pigeon flew in and demanded attention from the girls. The little blonde started feeding it tortilla chip crumbs right out of her hand. The moment got a bit tainted cuz them the other girl was trying to get her to take a picture of it, followed by Miriam trying to do the same too.
Afterwards, we relaxes on the small pier, then got some towels and relaxed on the beach. Of course, it wasn't long before she wanted to chase the crashing waves. Neither of us were dressed for such beach activities, and getting soaked meant staying soaked, which happened to here. I was a bit more cautious, but it didn't save my pant legs.
It was a very relaxing afternoon, but we had to get back. I'll definitely be coming back, maybe with Allie for an overnight stay at the $200 novelty hotel made to look like tiny Spanish villas.

Friday's Afternoon

I took off early from work last Friday in order to get a bunch of stuff done. I got home to make myself a lunch a relax for a little while. I then headed down to the Voter Registrar to update my address and get the Nov 2006 California Ballot (see my previous entry about this). I was a bit surprised to find it was two sheets long. I was prepared on the Props, but didn’t have a clue about the local elections, so I took it home with me.
I did my additional research and completed the ballot.
I think had to find my old cable modem to return to the cable company to remove $100 from my final bill. Once in hand, I headed to the cable company local center to drop it off. Then, I headed to DMV to pick up their change of address form. On my way back, I dropped off my ballot at the Voter Registrar.
I filled out the DMV change of address form and prepared it for mailing. I think contacted the company that made my company mother board in order to get a RMA to return it for replacement or fixing. It turns out they had to mail me a form first. ::rolling my eyes::
It took all afternoon, but it’s all done. Just in time to figure out where I’m going to find time to do this weeks errands.

Watch not Watch

Much like the telegraph, male brimmed formal hats, milk delivery men, and other faded cultural norms of the past, the wrist watch is no longer needed and is losing popularity. I remember when I was growing up; it seemed almost alien to be without a watch. My mother and I had discussions about the different ways to wear them. Lefties usually wear their watch on the right hand; right handed people wear theirs on the left. Some people had the clock face on the top of the wrist, and others wear it to the inside of the wrist. The watch could be worn high on the wrist or dangling against the hand.
If you look at any old photo of me that shows my arms, you’ll see the signature small clock with band wrapped around my wrist. Sometime in my early to mid twenties (in the mid 1990’s) I began feeling as though I was walking around with too much gadgetry. I got rid of my cell phone, stopped carrying a pager, stopped trying to use a planner, stopped wear belts unless I really needed it, and slowly, I stopped wearing watches. I vowed to myself that I would wait until all-in-one electronic devices came out before I’d considered carrying or wearing any of that stuff again. I enjoyed the new freedom. I didn’t really need a watch because almost everywhere I go; I can get the time just by looking around for a couple of seconds.
Over time, I’ve developed the habit of specifically making it a point not to wear watches. I still might wear one to a special event for fashion, but I’ve never think about it when such events come up, so it never happens.
It seems for whatever reasons; watches are fading in popularity across our culture. I’m personally glad to see the watch go. It really serves very little purpose now. Some watch makers are trying to increase the value of their watches by adding functions to them, such as compasses or calendars. But it’s a gadget that’s time as past. Good riddens (or riddance if you are so inclined).

Trouble with Its Trouble

Despite my best intentions, it appears I've only achieved an evil factor of 31% Phoowie!

California Proposition Nov 2006

Prop 83 - Known as Jessica's Law. This law is extremely unrealistic. Some of the provisions of the law are good, but many are simply ludicrous. The one thing that I find completely insane in the requirement for people tagged as "sex offenders" to wear a GPS tracking device for life. WTF? Not only is that completely pointless, it is a complete waste of public funds to maintain a system that has to keep track of these people. It is the first step to requiring more and more minor offenses to also have this GPS requirement limiting their freedoms. Sure, none of us like sex offenders, but I also don't like the fact that society feels it has the right to tell an undefined segment that it can go here, but can't go there, for LIFE! This is a slippery slop to totalitarianism. First it was repeat offender drunk drivers, now this nebulous class of sex offenders, then terrorist, then supposed gangbangers, then violent criminals, then any criminal, then any group who's views don't fit the social order. One day, it will be political opponents, and maybe the general population. Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Just take a look at the end result just this kind of control over the population in North Korea! Already, the term "sex offender" has been expanded to include people that might be a bit surprising to many. It even has been applied to people that have never been convicted of a crime! How's that possible?! Imagine such limitations being applied to someone that has never been convicted of anything! It will happen. I'm reminded of the book 1984. Another fact that makes this prop just silly is that only 7% sexual assults are committed by registered sex offenders. Most incidents are perpetrated by someone that the victim knows from within their family or circle of friends. Should we next put GPS devices on everyone to prevent the other 93% of incidents? Jessica's law is far too broad. It needs to be more well thought out, and limited to increasing law enforcement's ability to catch perpetrators, increase of prison time, and increase of parole terms. It should also make medical treatment more dominate during and after prison terms. Anything else should be scrapped as unworkable or just ridiculous. NO! 

Prop 84 - Proposition to protect and improve our water and natural resources infrastructure. I'm marginally yes. I don't have a strong opinion about this one though. Yes. 

  Prop 85 - This proposition seeks to establish a waiting period and Parental Notification before a minor can have an abortion. The previously rejected proposition for this same purpose attempted to define when life began in a first step to completely outlaw any abortions. I am in favor of requiring parental notification for any medical activity for a minor, but I'm against the attempts to erode away at a woman's right to choose. So, NO! 

Prop 86 - Tax on cigarettes. One issue that hasn't been addressed is the fact that this proposition does remove some level of accountability by Hospitals. Why would a simple tax want to have any say in how Hospitals operate? It is very suspicious. No. 

Prop 87 - This is a tax on California oil to fund Alternative Energy research, production and incentives. This is a very good idea. We need to pay for this now or later, and it is always more expensive later. Right now, Texas and Alaska get paid for the oil pumped from their states, but California does not. In fact, even though much of the oil we use is from our own state, we have traditionally paid much more for gas than any other state! We need to kick this oil habit, and this proposition is a big and correct step in the right direction to that goal. It will decrease our dependency on all oil (not just foreign). It takes money from oil company profits (billions of dollars) that should be paid to California anyway. For too long, the oil companies have been taking or oil, making too much money from us by selling it to us at the highest rates in the country. I'm voting Yes. 

Prop 88 - I don't have a strong position on this one. So, since it is a tax without any strong purpose for me, I am voting no. (BTW, it's something to do with Education funding). 

Prop 89 - It's called Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contributions and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute. It seeks to regulate public financing for campaigns, especially for all these propositions. However, it does go way to far. I like the idea of limiting corporation financing of political campaigns, but I'm against many of the other provisions, including taxing corporations to pay for public funding of political campaigns. I don't see the value in this. It would be much better to require TV and radio stations to provide certain amounts of free airtime dedicated to the political campaigns. This would go much farther to evening the playing field between the rich and powerful with grass roots. The more support one has by the people, the more airtime earned. So, while limiting corporations in their funding of pthingcal campaigns (a very good thang), this proposition is over reaching by forcing the bulk of all funding to come from the government. This can be used to eventually silence the minor or grass roots instead of helping them. In my opinion, this Prop is nothing more than a power grab attempt by particular unions. NO! 

Prop 90 - This proposition seeks to limit State and Local government use of eminent domain for any other purpose other than public use. It also narrowly defines public use. It does a few other things too, which make the proposal a bit more palatable. I'm pretty much dead set against this proposition. In an attempt to limit government powers regarding eminent domain, it in fact opens the door for developers to do pretty much whatever they want, increasing urban sprawl, while allowing inner city degradation. Cities must develop both by expanding at reasonable rates and by urban renewal. Taking away a government's authority to carry out its responsibility to the people to keep our cities vital, this proposition tries to pull us back to a period in which cities expanded without regard, ignoring their interiors without any an organized overall plan. It puts communities at the mercy of large land owners and developer by taking away the public's right to have any say in the process. It will cost money strapped communities millions to revitalize city interiors, and open them up to unlimited lawsuits regarding any move towards urban renewal. Someone thought, "hey, it would be a good idea to limit government power." But what this proposition really does is limit the people's power to determine the course of their community's future. This is libertarianism taken to an unrealistic and poorly executed extreme. NO! Prop 1A - This proposition strengthens Prop 42 on how sales tax revenue can be used for transportation purposes. Limiting government's power to fund projects is normally well intentioned, but usually has consequences. A marginal No from me. 

Props 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E or all much needed bond measures. I'm marginally Yes on these.

Sharing spaces

I’ve been living with my fiancé for about a month or so now. She was already living in the place I moved into, so it was kinda like me moving into her space. It’s taken her a bit to realize just what’s involved to share space with another person, but physically and emotionally. But for the most part, everything is going pretty well. Not much else on this topic to talk about. :)

Metaphors of Religion

What are my religious views? Metaphors are created to explain what is currently unknowable. Religion is formalization of those metaphors into a belief system that often involves the necessity for particular practices. Far too often, religion takes their metaphors as fact. When knowledge is increased and what was previously unknowable is finally discovered, a religion will often cling to their metaphors. They may reinterpret them to conform to the new knowledge, or may oppose the new knowledge.
Imagine a person who has never seen or heard of a banana. Now imagine that person is hungry. A kind stranger walks along and hands that person a banana and tells them that it is food. The person tries to taste it without peeling it, but really doesn’t know what to do with it. All they know is that they’ve been told is that they can eat it. So, another kind stranger walks along seeing this hungry person looking at the banana. That stranger walks up and peels the banana for the hungry person. But now imagine that instead of eating the newly exposed banana flesh, the person throws the flesh aside and continues to grasp the peel as though the peel well feed them somehow.
This is kinda how religion tends to respond to new knowledge. When the metaphor is found to no longer be useful (peeled away to reveal knowledge), a religious system will often still hold on to it instead of taking in the newly discovered knowledge.
To break free from this, a person must realize that the metaphor has its place, not as factual representation of knowledge, but as a way to explain what is currently unknown. If one can admit that they do not know something, then the metaphor can be used effectively until such knowledge is obtained. This can be an empowering position.

Lorono

[The following is outdated]

Lorono is one of those surnames that is just hard to figure out. Does it have a meaning? Where is it really from? Anyone remotely famous that can remotely be associated with the name?  Clues are few and far between. 

Family hearsay suggests some origin in the northern area of Spain normally associated with Castile. However, I was contacted a few years ago by someone who had some sort of familiarity with the name Lorono. That person provided a digital copy of an old regional map which showed the location of a little populated area that bore the name. What was interesting is that he associated the name with the Basque population in the area (north central coast of Spain, near France).

More recently, I did some digging online to find another little populated area that also bore the same name, but in Galicia (north western tip of Spain). I found that the name is listed as being of native origin in Galicia. This is kinda stunning. It’s not a commonly known fact that the people of Galicia are Gaelic. At this point, I'm not sure If the name Lorono has its origin in Galicia, there’s a good chance it may have Gaelic origins.

Since the name also appears in the area associated with the Basque peoples in Pias Vasco, the suggestion might be that there is some link between the use of Lorono there and with Galicia.
The Gaelic link intrigues me because I am also part Irish. (Ireland is the only independent Gaelic country in the world.) It means that my heritage has some very interesting twists and turns, and may have yet to reveal some very surprising links across the three continents that my family tree derives from: Europe, Asia and North America.

Other forms: Logroños, Loroños, Loronos, Loroño.
References: Source 1, Source 3, Source 4, and Source 5.

Interviewed by the Devil?

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: No. I believe in things that are tangible or that can be proven.

Q: Do you have a car?
A: Do I have a car? Yeah, sure.

Q: What make is it?
A: What make? It’s a Ford.

Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Well, yeah. the company Ford.

Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. (This statement is sometimes followed by a biblical reference). [Note: Normally, this isn’t actually a question, but a preaching point to link to the next topic, which is usually started before the interviewee can reply.]

Q: Are you a good person?
A: Sure, yeah, I’m a good person.

Q: Have you ever lied?
A: Sure, who hasn’t?

Q: What does that make you?
A: A liar.

Q: Have you ever stolen anything?
A: Sure, I guess.

Q: What does that make you?
A: A thief?

Q: Have you ever looked at or lusted after a woman?
A: Well, yeah, kind of, I guess.

Q: The bible says if someone looks at a woman with lust, they have already committed adultery in their heart. [No pause or opportunity is usually allowed before the next question is asked.]

Q: Have you every used God’s name in vain?
A: Sure.

Q: That’s blasphemy. The bible says that sinners are going to hell. Given your sins, where does the bible says you are going once you die?
A: Well, I don’t believe in the bible, but I guess if you believe in such things, it says you are going to hell. But do you think hell is a reasonable expectation for such minor things. I’m a good person and always do what I’m supposed to do. I’ve never been punished for anything I’ve done by the law, nor have I intentionally tried to hurt anyone. Do you think someone like that should go to hell?

Q: The bible only offers only one way out from going to hell. That is through our Lord Jesus Christ who came down and did something amazing for us. Do you know what he did?
A: Well, again, if you believe in such things, he died for us.

Q: He suffered for us on the Cross to pay for all of our sins and buy our way to heaven. Only by accept him can we escape hell… [At this point, it turns pretty much in to a preaching session. The interviewee is usually left a little confused and frustrated at the fact they just allowed them-self to be preached to by some thickheaded bible thumping dumb ass. If the interviewee iterates being an atheist or brings up any further counterpoints, the interviewer will excuse them-self and abruptly cut the interview short, often iterating comment about going to hell.]

The important thing to note is that the interviewer is employing conversation and thought manipulation. If the person were weak minded (or even just undereducated), they may be influenced into accepting the preached message (even if it’s just a little bit), leaving that person open to being controlled by further suggestions.

Even experienced and educated persons will be trapped in this conversation. There is no real point to this interview other than to find someone who is impressionable or to make the audience feel justified in their belief system by harassing what they consider to be willful unbelievers.

One way to engage in the conversation and make it two-sided is to break up the rote pattern that is being used by the interviewer. Force them to acknowledge answers to their questions instead of just running through a list of questions culminated with a preaching service. Bring them into the conversation by holding them accountable for their questions and answers to your questions. If they are inexperienced, they will be suckered into a pointless point for point debate that they cannot win. If they are experienced, they will excuse them-self and move on to the next hapless victim. This will prevent them from using the interview in their sermons later on. Of course, avoiding the interview altogether is the best choice, but how much fun is that?

So, how about if the interview went something like this?

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. The existence of a god cannot be proven.

Q: Do you have a car?
A: Sure. It’s a Ford.

Q: So Ford made your car?
A: Yup. In a manner of speaking.

Q: So your car had a maker? That maker was Ford. Your house has a maker too, just as everything must have a maker. [Interrupt them at this point.]
A: Do you have a psychology degree with a license to practice?

Q: No. I’m asking you if it is reasonable to say that your car had a maker, but not the Universe, because…[Interrupt them again at this point.]
A: No, you are using psychology conversational tools used to direct one’s thought. But instead of using it to help someone, you are using it as a brainwashing technique. That is wrong, and in your terms, it is sinful to try to control someone’s mind. If your god was real, he wouldn’t need mind tricks to try to con people into being followers. Trust me, if there is an afterlife, you are going be held more accountable for your mind control deeds than any one else you claim is a sinner only because they don’t know Christ. You know what? I’m going to report you to the authorities for practicing psychology without a license. What is your name again?

Of course, it doesn't matter whether anything you say make 100% sense, or is even true (I'm sure there aren't any laws linking flawed arguments with "practicing psychology".  The point is to take up their time so they can't harass anyone else, and to maybe scare them a bit so they think twice before continuing to practice their technique on unwitting people.

Another method is to take the line of rote questions away from them.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Nope. I find it hard to believe in something that can't be proven. I mean, that's the difference between a car, which has a known maker, and the Universe. You can see that a car was made by humans because it is assembled to fulfill a particular role. But you don't see that in nature. In nature, everything is random. Cars and houses don't just come into being by themselves. If this Universe was created by a nurturing and caring god, one of the main things we should expect is that all of our corporeal needs are directly addressed. For example, people who raise animals feed that animal, groom it, raise it, protect it, and even clean up after its dirty business. Imagine what would happen if a cat owner didn't clean the litter box. Yuk! Yet, this Universe doesn't do any of that for us. We have to find our own food. We have to cook our own meals. We have to build the houses we live in and the cars we drive in. We even have to wipe our own asses. [At this point, the interviewer should be pretty red in the face and trying to cut the interview short. Bate them as long as possible into a pointless argument to keep them from pouncing on some other unwitting victim.]

Yet another way to ask for an insane amount of detail to explain their questions, then use their answers to prove they are not the true religion. This requires some knowledge of the bible, but can be particularly fun.

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Which god?

Q: The God of the bible.
A: Which god in the bible. There’s several mentioned. Elohim, Yahweh, Jesus is referred to as a god, and Jesus himself calls Satan a god.

Q: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That is the only true God.
A: Oh, the Trinity. Which type? Do you believe in three persons, one god? Or is it one god with three facets?

Q: God is three persons and one God. [Of course, the answer doesn’t matter cuz either way, this is the answer:]
A: That's odd, I thought you said you believe in the god of the bible. There’s no mention of that god in the bible. When the bible goes into talking about the nature of god, it only mentions one person. Well, OK. You are a sinner and a blasphemer. I'm sorry. It's against my faith to talk to you about the bible. Christ makes it clear not to associate with bad apples.

Q: [If they are dumb enough to try to argue your points, let them have it.]
A: Nope, I'm sorry. You are the devil appearing as an angel of light. You use god's name, but you do not know him. Get away from me, Satan! Only by accepting the true god can you be saved. Repent now, SINNER!

Any other ideas? :) 

I figured out what ACURA stands for

ACURA stands for A Car Under Repair Always. OMG, this is crazy. I was taking my car in the dealership for routine service, and on my way there, the transmission broke down. This is the third transmission to break down on my car since I got it back in 2003. Very annoying.

Bought House and Home in Santa Clara, CA

Alice and I bought a new home and moved to Santa Clara, CA.  (Original post/backup link)

Tap the Top of a Soda can

I used to be one of those people that laughed at people who tapped the top of a recently jostled soda can in order to prevent it from fizzing wildly when opening it (as opposed to just letting it take the time to settle down on its own)

We've all dropped our soda can or been the victim of someone shaking it before giving it to us or something similar. The desire is to not let that slow us down from enjoying the tasty beverage contained within the soda can.

So, I one time, I saw someone tapping the top of his soda can after dropping it, and I was like, "What are you doing?" I mean, how does that have anything to do with the released carbon dioxide from creating pressure in the can, right?

Everything "official" I've found on the topic also says that it doesn't work. This person or that person supposedly did this or that test which never shows any difference between tapped and nontapped shook soda cans. But that doesn't change the fact that it does work. Remember, I used to laugh at people who did this. With basic cola like Pepsi and Coke, I've never had overflowing fizz blow out of the can if I tapped it. Since I started using this technique myself, I have amazed others with full on demonstrations.

Of course, there are others who are proponents (backup link) of this technique.

So basically, I've had nothing but success using this method on regular colas. (I've seen results with A&W Root Beer, and me own experience says that no trick works with it cuz it is designed to foam and foam it does!)

Urbandictionary.com

In case you've not heard of it, there's a great place to find out the meaning of the newest words or phrases being used, called Urban Dictionary. Fellow users frequently update the Urban Dictionary with new words and definitions, including yours truly. So far, I have added 6 words that have been accepted, 5 of which have been met with significant thumbs up peer approval.
I'm also a frequent user of Dictionary.com too, which has recently improved its site content.
Oh, and also, on many online searches I do nowadays, I follow up the search text with "wiki" to make sure wikipedia entries show up, as these are often more concise and useful than traditional news or database sources.

Google

Google or Yahoo? Well, I use both, but mostly Yahoo for immediately available content. There, there's also Clusty that organizes my search results. That's all.

Unusual attention on an old post

Sometime last year, I posted a light-hearted commentary on the idea of viewing human history in human-centric terms titled Something about Evolution Just Occured to Me. What's odd is that this posting has just recently provoked a healthy array of comment responses.

Al-Qaida must be scratching their heads

Recently Al-Qaida leadership has offered a hand out to Americans to join the Muslim faith. Then days later, they go about making more threats against us. I say it now, truly, if every American was a Muslim, Al-Qaida would still be a terrorist organization fighting against us. They are so hypocritical, that it is just ludicrous. One has to wonder why they haven't figured out why 1.2 million Muslims within the U.S. haven't stooped to join their cause. America isn't a place that people live so much as it is an idea we hold valuable. Freedom isn't a sin. It is God's gift to those who are willing to give trust to a system that at least tries to treat everyone with equality, even if we do fall short of that goal in reality. What does Al-Qaida offer? Freedom from freedom? Laughable. America isn't a superpower because strove to be. We did not seek this out. It was thrust upon us. And, history will show, we have acted most responsibility amongst any other nation that has held this position in any time in history. Al-Qaida is nothing more than a power lusting organization that is covering over their sins under the banner of jihad. Watching them work is like watching a mediocre online RTS game play out. It's as though they got their world strategy by playing Command and Conquer. Seriously, if you've play any of those games, you can see the pattern. There will always be a yin and a yang, with two opposing sides. But Al-Qaida has done nothing except make the U.S. more powerful and drove us to become an even greater superpower. ::sigh:: I've never seen the U.S. be able to wield so much force with so little effort. We are waging two wars at the same time on a peacetime economy! Imagine what would happen should America convert our economy over to wartime again (as we did in WWII). This is not the direction we should be taking the world in. Yet, it is Al-Qaida which is driving the America to become such a force. As much as the Japanese underestimated America in the 40's, Al-Qaida is underestimating us much much worse now. The Japanese awoke a sleeping dragon. Al-Qaida has sharpen that same dragon's claws and given it steroids.

Buzy buzy week.

nuf' said.

So, a bit more on Pluto's demotion

It is appropriate that their are already scientists that are rebuffing the recent supposed demotion of Pluto as a planet. I mentioned there would be embarrassment on this decision within 20 years. Well, one week is certainly within 20 years. lol

Reuters reports:

"The IAU can say the sky is green all day long and that doesn't make it so," said Stern, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. "The IAU created a definition which is technically flawed, linguistically flawed and scientifically embarrassing," Stern said in a phone interview.

This is pretty funny and pretty much matches the point I made previously. These people don't own our solar system and they don't own the English language.

Fact of the matter is, the new definitions of "planet" actually are poorly worded to specifically exclude both Ceres and Pluto as planets.

A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

Furthermore, these rules fail to recognize the differences between the accepted planets. Gas Giants like Jupiter or Saturn have very little in common with Terrestrials like Earth or Venus. Instead of playing political games with how words are used, these scientist should be working to create meaningful classifications of planets that describe their general make-up and origins.

Once we start exploring other solar systems, I think we will find the familiar order of our own solar system is quite rare, and that our current understanding of what a planet is not resemble its future definition. There will be planets that share orbits in one fashion or another. There will be protoplanets larger than Earth, but residing within an Asteroid field. There will be double planets that are similar in size and that orbit either other. There will smashed planets, rogue planets, comet tail planets, double Gas Giants, heavy element planets, obround planets the size of Mars, empty planets, planets that look like the Virgin Mary or Abraham Lincoln, hard surface planets bigger than Neptune, and planets where it really is easy being green. All of this makes the current politically motivated discussion, of what deserves to be called a planet, all very silly.

So, on Pluto's demotion

Lame. Astronomers are so lame. They don't have a clear definition amongst themselves regarding what is a planet and what is not, yet they are so arrogant that they imagine they have some sort of magically authority or ownership over our solar system and the English language.

The redefinition of Pluto from planet to "dwarf" is going to go down as one of the biggest moves by any group of scientists in our times. The fact is, they are making this weird decision at a time when it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no single description to suit all sizeable bodies that orbit a star. Earth has less in common with Saturn that it does with Pluto. Well, we call Saturn a "Gas Giant" planet. Funny, so it's not the same type of planet as Earth? This is where the artificially imposed definition of the word planet is going to seem really stupid in a couple of decades. There's all sorts of bodies of all sorts of shapes orbiting all sorts of stars. Some will be called planets and some won't because of their location in their respective solar systems? I think we are going to find out that the variety of how solar systems are organized is going to make that practice absolutely silly.

It's going to look every more silly cuz all they educated astronomers can't stand the fact that Pluto was discovered by an amateur, an outsider to their world. This is jealousy if nothing else. Again, they've got this strange almost religious belief that they are somehow empowered to have authority over our perception of our Universe. Umm, yeah, No. With the same authority they use to speak of the solar system, I used here to speak of them now. I hereby declare them lame and without any authority over our solar system or the English language.

Trouble with personal responsibility

Personal responsibility seems to be elusive to some people. It's like, there's individuals that don't really understand or choose to ignore just how their actions directly impact those around them, and their own lives.
If you cut someone off in traffic, you screwed up. Don't go flipping off the person cuz they were so scared they didn't know how to respond. In fact, let me make this broader. The Today show did a segment today where they talked about how parents are feeding their daughters self confidence, like they can do they want, but then don't give them the tool necessary to handle the empowering properly. They aren't taught how to handle failure, or that others need respecting as well. They aren't taught the consequences of their actions. They aren't taught how to take responsibility for themselves when the do something detrimental, such as drugs are teen sex. I think it is because my general (who's having and raising all these brats), took these lessons for granted. How we learned them, without realizing them is somewhat of a mystery. It means that my generation isn't doing a good job of passing this knowledge. The knowledge of personal responsibility. Society doesn't owe us anything other than thangs that make society good, like roads and schools and local police, etc. We are responsible for ourselves. I'm not just talking about in this society, but also Karmically. If you hurt someone in spite, that will come back on you somehow, so don't be all butthurt about it when it does. Anyways, people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. Many people need to realized just how their own actions directly and indirectly affect themselves. Ok, 'nuf ranting on this topic.

That asshole Nick (the first one)!

This letter was such a raw and straightforward stream of conscience, that I'd thought it would make a good read, even though it's not about me, personally. I'm posting this with Kristin's permission.

Matt, Matt, Matt....do I have an interesting weekend to tell you about :) Hope all has been well with you. I will be sure to read that page you sent me this week so I can keep myself up to date about what's going on with you...oh and I will definitely give you a heads up for when I come to San Jose b/c I didn't get to do any sightseeing and here's why:

Michelle & I got together at the Olive Garden on Friday when I came into the Central Valley. I've never eaten there. We ate soo much! It was so great seeing her again! We headed over to the mall and walked around. This is the night I dealt with scumbucket Nick who I was supposed to see in San Jose on Sunday, which I was very excited about.

Nick told me to call on Saturday to get our plans worked out for Sunday. I waited 6 hours on Saturday for a phone call in return to mine, then I ended up calling, put thru to voicemail. Called from Michelle's cell phone b/c she was with me at the Mall and he picked up. Found out that he was "Deeply involved in a baseball game" and that's why he didn't pick up for me....(((yet he's picking up for a number he doesn't know))) He promises to call me back in 30 mins, and he does.

I find out he was at the Giants/Dodgers game that I had dreamed of going to and he knew that I wanted to go. He could have waited a day so that I could go. I told him "I waited 6 hours for a call back about plans for tomorrow and I drove 300 miles to see my friends here, on top of that, make a trip out of my way out-of-town to see you, and you can't even extend a common courtesy call to make our plans official?? I believe I deserve an apology." He told me "You think I owe an apology to someone I don't even know?" Then, here's the kicker. A girl in the car gets on Nick's phone and says "There's a really cute, hot guy sittin' next to me and if you don't flirt with him, I will. Oh yeah, and for someone he doesn't even know to expect an apology from him...just get over it!" She hung up on me. He never called back. I ended up going out to the club with Michelle after this to do something productive so I wasn't thinking about it.

So Sunday was actually spent watching "Before Sunset" with Eric's roommate & brother Neal (Eric is who I was staying with, a friend of mine). I went with Neal & his roommate Jacob to see "Snakes on A Plane"....don't see it, its a rental. Then I hung out with my best friend Nick (different from the one above) by going to see "Accepted" followed by going to Frozen Yogurt. Monday was spent going to lunch with my best friend Claudia, eating frozen yogurt, listening to new music for hours, and watching "Before Sunset" the sequel to "Before Sunrise." On Tuesday, I had lunch w/my best bud Nick, then met up with Michelle at the Mall b/c she was killin' time waitin' for her boy alex to get done with football practice. She was really supportive with the whole Nick thing b/c she was practically there when it went down.

That's about it...in a nutshell....LOL. Oh and if you want to give Nick a piece of your mind, you can do so at his myspace page: http:.//www.myspace.com/lizardking33

~Kristin

Sankes on a Plane

Man, I don't understand what people have against the movie Snakes on a Plane. I know it sounds crazy, but Snake on a Plane could very well be the best movie of the year, so go see it! After all, it is snakes and they are on a plane. What's there not to like? Think about it. Snakes, on a plane. Do miss out!

Orientate your orient

I got a co-worker that's all, "There's no such word as orientate. It's orient." and I'm all, "Orientate is the root word of orientation, so how's it not a word?" Of course, the truth is actually ::HERE:: Of course, everyone has their own opinion. :)

Horrors of Kerioki!

If you know what's good for your, you will avoid this click of three guys with accents from around the globe singing "The Women in Me". Shania Twain, eat your heart out!

I finally received my Microsoft voucher

It finally came. My voucher from Microsoft to buy anything I want for my computer use. The question is now this. Do I support the economy and buy something new with this voucher, or do I apply this voucher to a purchase I've recently made?

Updated Post, September 15, 2016

Microsoft Settlement Refund...umm, wow Part 2

Previous Post, September 30, 2003

Microsoft Settlement Refund...umm, wow [Part 1].

I went hiking a couple of weekends ago with Allie, her friend Wendi and a couple of their friends up at Rancho San Antonio park. We hiked up an up and up and up. The day was hot, but fortunately, the heatwave that had been plaguing the Bay Area had already pasted, so it wasn't so bad. Did I mention we hiked up? There's some good trails at this park, where you hike up. Also some great views of the South Bay once you get up the hills. At one place, we could pick out the Shoreline Amphitheater, Moffett Field and the north end of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. From our viewing angle, the whole region appeared to be covered with trees. After hiking up all those hills, we ended the hike going down hill through this one covered trail next to a stream with a lot of little quaint bridges.

Infant Memories...

I've heard it said that we are blank slates at birth. My own memories from the womb involve self aware thoughts and feelings. I do not have sensory memories per se, just mostly emotional. We've been so conditioned to believe we don't remember anything from our earliest ages that most of us believe it, but it's not true. I even remember having the conversation with my mom at a young age asking her why I didn't remember anything. The answer she gave me lead me to believe it was true. "No body remembers anything from when they are an babies." Well, that was wrong. Most of us just don't recognize what the early memories are. It is true that I don't have may well defined memories from before 3, but I do have some, mostly in the form emotions, without much sensory relationship to them. We don't have much in the way of sensory memories because our brain isn't yet developed enough to fully experience the the physical senses. So how is the brain going to to record such events? It would be like holding your finger over a tape recorder's mic while recording. I think much of the confusion on this topic comes from not understand this simple fact. Yes, we don't have many memories of physical events, but we do have the memories of the emotions that those events caused. We carry those memories our entire lives without realizing them and what they are. My memories of that period are not recovered. I've had them all along. It just took me a long time to realize what they were in the context of my own experience. From what I remember, I most definately had a well developed personality just waiting for a chance to express itself. But that's a different topic.

Pix from the Kimi, Miriam and Jenn nite

Here's a photo of Kimi, Miriam, and Jenn at Buddha Lounge a couple Fridays ago. The quality of the pix is directly related to the person holding the camera phote, and the strength of the flash on said phone. Also, in this particular case, I took the picture by accident while trying to show some drunk-ass how to take the photo for us that included all of us.

I actually made it into the next photo. :) It took forever for the fellow random bar patron to figure it out. I'm actually surprized it came out as good as it did. Below is Jenn and Miriam growling at each other. I don't think I remember any real growling, but it kinda looks like that in the photo. grrrr hehe

Actually, what was going on there? A picture says a 1000 words, but are any of the words spoken by this photo saying anything meaning full or representitive of our evening? grrr. grrr. hehe

And finally here I am. I was trying to go for a sweet smile, but I think this photo is telling in other ways. :) Special thanks to Kimi for providing this pix!

Tidepooling

A couple of Saturdays ago, Allie and I meet up with some friends of hers at the Moss Beach Distillery for lunch, and a hike down to the Beach to wade through the tidepools. There was like 20 of us that showed up.
At the Distillery, Allie asked me to accompany her down to the restrooms. As I waited outside, she appearently heard laughing. It was the same sequence repeated. When she came out, she was asking if I had been laughing as a joke on her. Umm, no. So she was a little freaked out until she figured out that it was a recording meant to add a little playful fun to the experience of visiting the Blue Lady's haunt.
After lunch, we all embarked on a brief hike to the shore. Down there, we had fun just milling around the tidepools, finding little critters crawling around. There where a bunch of enemities like the one in the picture. We also found a bunch of sea snails and hermit crabs (in their own sea snail shells).
Afterwards we just all relaxed. The heatwave was in full effect back inland, so the shoreline was perfect for once. Usually, the Central and Northern California coasts are foggy, cloudy or just plan cold year around, but that day as perfect.

Mixed Universes

Friday night ended up being a lot of fun. I made plans with Kimi for dinner, and then invited Miriam. I picked Kimi up around 5:45pm and headed up to a Mexican rest'rant in downtown Mountain View called Fiesta del Mar Too.
Miriam showed up on her own, but a bit late, for various legit reasons. This is the first time in awhile that I've mixed my Universes between friends of different groups. It didn't take long to get thangs warmed up. Before long, Miriam starts into some infamous stories about us, and Kimi fit right into dynamics between me and Miriam.
After dinner, we end up at the Budda Lounge for some drinks. At first, both Kimi and Miriam though they where going to have an early night, but as thangs progressed, we all lost track of time. We took over a group of sofas and started up our own little party. I feel sorry for Kimi a bit cuz Miriam kept spilling her drinks over Kimi's legs.
I had called Jenn earlier in the day to see if she'd be interested in coming out too, and well, she found her way down to the club too.
There was this one random guy at the bar that started acting like Miriam's best friend. We were all, "what's up with that guy?" Anyways, it turns out he was on a short leash cuz his g/f came up and claimed him a few times. Weird.
So, when it was time to take Kimi home, I asked Miriam to get her her new "best friend" to take a group camera phone photo for us. So she goes up to the bar, talks to him and then gets another drink from some other random guy. After a fews minutes I go up to see what happened. She forgot all about the photo. lol
Finally she gets the guy to take the photo, but he can't figure out how to push the button. After a few very lame attempts, I got up to show him. He's all, "That's what I was doing!". Lame. Anyways, we finally got our photo on Kimi's phone. I just realized she's still gots to email to me. ok, anyway.
I took Kimi home and then returned to the club to fine Miriam drunk beyond belief, and Jenn getting ready to take off with some other random guy. lol I'm like thinking to my self, "what the help happened when I was gone?".
We see Jenn off, then go dancing for a little bit. I figure out that Miriam is just way to drunk, so I take her home myself, leaving her car in Mountain View. I get her home and then head home myself. Sep for the little bit of babysitting at the end it was a great night.

Just when you think it's safe

Wow, what the hell was he thinking? I mean, Bush just doesn't stop being an embarrassment! Check here: HERE! Freaky!

Toyota problems

"Toyota Motor Corp. said Tuesday it was recalling about 420,000 vehicles globally, including some Echo and Prius models sold in the U.S., over a faulty engine part.
The faulty part is the latest in a string of problems requiring recalls by Toyota, raising doubts over whether the automaker can maintain quality standards amid booming sales." --AP

It's a myth that anything as complex as a car will meet a high level of quality for a long period of time. Toyota (and Japanese brand cars in general) are no exception. They've done a good job with marketing over the past two decades to create the perception of quality, but at the end of the day, they are like every other manufacturing company on the planet in that they much ship product, and deal with supply lines where they actually have very little control. Granted, the effort to produce better quality produces does help prevent a complete decline, but it doesn't prevent it completely. There's nothing magical about Toyota. They've actually been having issues for years with quality, but have gone unnoticed by the general populous because of their overall reputation. Acura used to have a similar reputation. They produced high quality product for a good price. But gremlins will always creep into any system. In the case of Acura, very big ones popped up out of seemingly nowhere. Don't even get me started about European cars. lol The public bias towards Japanese and European cars seems bizarre given what's actually going on right now. Qualitywise, Japanese and American automakers are about on par with each other in quality, and European automakers have fallen substantially behind.

Homer

Ok, so here's the movies I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the year (and into next year): Click here. I've just noticed that most of the movies on my list are action or thrillers (non-horror) of some sort. It was just a few of years ago when there was a lot of good movies out in other genres, even documentaries. Last year, most movies either completely sucked or just weren't up to par. I've enjoyed movie going this year a bit more, but it does seem that many movies just don't have the same story quality as years past. It is as though fewer people know how to write a movie anymore. Or many that so many movies are being made these days, the quality writers are getting lost in the sea of crappy writers. Producers and directors used to blame the studios are hacking movies up, causing them ruin. These days, I think many movies are just crappy from the start. I think this is why Action movies are still holding their own, for now. There's not much writing involved.

What is desecration of the U.S. Flag?

What is desecration of the U.S. Flag?
Is marking over the flag with felt tip pin?
Is sneezing over a flag?
Is not saluting the flag?
Is standing with one’s back turned to the flag?
Is printing an image of the flag on paper, then throwing it out?
Is wearing flag colors as underwear?
Is soiling a flag with dirt?
Is walking upon a sidewalk with the flag painted upon it?
Is dying ones hair with the stars and stripes, then later getting a hair cut?
Is using a flag like handkerchief to wipe one’s brow of sweat?
Is throwing a shoe at the TV while the flag is displayed?
Is using the flag as a backdrop for another symbol?
What is a flag?
There is no law that defines what a U.S. Flag is besides the general dimensions for the different color fields, and placement of the stars.
How is one to know when one is handling a flag, or simply an image of the flag?
Does printing out the stars and strips on one’s printer constitution the creation of a flag? Does painting on the side of one’s truck?
Does having a cloth of the right size and color fields, but no stars?
Does using alternative colors for the color fields?
Does a photo of a flag?
Does a tattoo of the flag?

As a citizen, the flag represents my country and for which we all stand. I’m proud of my country and know that the desecration of my flag is wrong. But to make laws concerning such matters is about as un-American as one can be. To hold a piece of cloth that happens to be of a certain shape and design over the rights of our citizens to freely express themselves is abhorrent. The flag amendment being discussed by our Congress is a desecration upon our Constitution, and the rights for which the flag represents.

The Classic Restaurant Experience

Granville Entertainment District 

Dave, Little Miriam, Alice and I visited Vancouver a few months ago. On our Saturday evening, we were on the hunt for a good restaurant that suited everyone’s mood. We found this one place that we agreed on. It had an atmosphere similar to an Elephant Bar, but a little more upscale. The menu was classic meat and potatoes. The experience was, well, check this out.

So we put our name down at the front and let the hostess know that we will be in the bar. At the bar, I order a Long Island. The bartender asks if I’d like to make it a double for just on dollar more. I’m like, “sure!” Dave orders a Coke with no ice. They don’t have Coke, but have Pepsi. He’s fine with that. I was a little critical about having Pepsi at a bar.  So the bartender brings me my Long Island Ice Tea and Dave’s Pepsi, with ice. She immediate walks way to serve other customers. Dave gets her attention and gives the drink back to get a Pepsi without ice. As for my Long Island, it tasted like crappy lemon juice. That part about ordering a double? It was only one extra shoot in the drink. I’m not convinced there was more than just that one shoot in the drink. It was not good and didn’t have hardly any alcoholic content. When the girls joined us, they ordered some sweet and blue girly drink. It worked for them.

The hostess came to the bar to take us to our table. She started gathering our drinks from the bar. She had a tray in one hand, and was picking up the drinks with her other. She picked up the girly drinks and my “Long Island”. Then she went for Dave’s Pepsi. There were bar chairs blocking her from reaching his drink. Instead of moving the chairs or going between them, she walks into the chairs and bounces off of them, repeatedly. It reminded me of a robot that was out of control walking into a wall over and over. I’m not exaggerating. So after a few times of this, Dave and I move the chairs for her so she can reach the drink. Honestly, we would’ve been happy carrying the drinks ourselves. The one redeeming point is at least she was trying hard to assist us, even if her efforts where a bit inefficient. Her blonde roots apparently ran deep.

At the table, we wait for the waitress to come. OK. We continued to wait. Umm… still waiting. Finally, she comes and takes our drink order. She was Chinese, and I kinda felt like I was in Hong Kong because of the attitude she exuded. We waited long enough to know what we wanted for our meal, so we just ordered it all at once.

After some time, we got our drinks. I finished my Long Island and a Pepsi too in the time it took for the meal to come after.

Finally the dinner plates showed up. The food looks delicious. I cut into my pork shank and took a bite. It was tasty. I started looking at the presentation of the food on the plate. Noticing some unusual looking garnish on the meat, I took my fork and pulled at it. It turned out to be a long hair cooked in with the food. Dear lord! We spend about 5 minutes trying to get the waitress’ attention. She finally come over and we showed her the…before I finished talking, she noticed the hair herself and apologized. She took the plate back, and that was the last we saw of her for 15 minutes.

The manager comes over and squats down next to me. She apologized again and offered a few comps on our dinners, including a dessert and some quick appetizer. To replace my plate would’ve apparently taken an additional 20 minutes. (It appeared the waitress didn’t immediately put in the replacement order.) The manager also gave me a 50 dollar gift certificate. I’m like, “We don’t live here and aren’t likely to come back to Vancouver for some time.” She still forced it upon me. Anyways, I ordered the chicken strips, and some brownie fudge thing, with the ice cream on the side. Chicken strips did come pretty quickly and where pretty good. Then the dessert came. The ice cream was not only not on the side, it was under all the brownie stuff. Dave is sensitive to dairy. That is why we ordered the ice cream on the side. So, we flagged the waitress down again and asked for our correct order. We got it after a bit longer.

I determined that I should pay the bill. The small tip should come from me, since I was the one that had such a delightful evening. The bill only included Dave’s, Miriam’s and Allie’s actual dinners. Nothing else. Well, OK. I left a 3% tip on the bill, but thought about the hostess. Hostesses usually get their tips from the wait staff. Even if she was a ditz, she did make a sincere effort help us out. So Dave left her a 2 dollar coin on our way out.

I gave the gift certificate to Little Miriam since there was a slightly better chance for her and Dave to use it than I. She looked at the certificate and read the expiration date. “6/31/05”. Because Little Miriam is an accountant; she immediately picks up yet another error by the rest’rant. It’s a comical conclusion to the most annoying and least satisfactory dinner of my life.

Primitive Man Never Existed, and the Stone Age Never Happened?

I came across a website that has some pretty amazing claims. I’m going to entertain myself by posting it here for journalistic purposes for rebuttal. The source for this article is here, but I don't necessarily recommend visiting it because of pop-ups.

“Did you know that 700,000 years ago, people were sailing the oceans in very well-constructed ships?” Umm, yeah, this is the opening statement and it’s hella random. 700,000 is long before modern humans walked the Earth.^FH  Our ancient ancestors in that time knew how to make fire and hunt. (Yup, the use of fire wasn't even invented by modern humans.)^FF  The advent of advanced world wide sailing actually consists of well documented events. Do the names Columbus and Magellan come to mind?

“Or have you ever heard that the people described as “primitive cavemen” possessed an artistic ability and understanding just as refined as those of modern artists? “ Umm, again, hella random.  First of all, artistic ability is in the eye of the beholder.  However, artistic ability can be judged in terms of complexity and the ability to create the desired results as accurately as possible.^AA  This statement is literally comparing the Mona Lisa with finger painted stick figures, and calling them both equal.

“Did you know that the Neanderthals, who lived 80,000 years ago and whom evolutionists portrayed as “ape-men,” made musical instruments, took pleasure from clothing and accessories, and walked over painfully hot sands with molded sandals?” Painfully hot sands in Europe during the Ice Age?  LOL  Seriously, Neanderthal was adapted for Europe,^EU not the Northern Sahara.  It isn’t likely very many Neanderthal often encountered hot sands. Besides that, no modern consideration of Neanderthals describes them as "ape-men".  They were human and very likely contributed to modern human lineage outside of Africa.^NH

“In all probability you may never have heard any of these facts.  On the contrary, you may have been handed the mistaken impression that these people were half-ape and half-human, unable to stand fully upright, lacking the ability to speak words and producing only strange grunting noises.  That is because this entire falsehood has been imposed on people like yourself for the last 150 years.”  This paragraph uses a common literary technique that attempts to accuse the reader of holding on to an incorrect view point, but through no fault of their own.  No one likes to be accused of ignorance.  Perhaps this article intentionally targets supposed weak-minded individuals?  This method involves numerous logical fallacies.^LF

“The motive behind it is to keep alive materialist philosophy, which denies the existence of a Creator. According to this view, which distorts any fact that stands in its way, the universe and matter are eternal.  In other words they had no beginning, and thus have no Creator. Then how did life come to be?  The supposedly scientific explanation is the theory of evolution.” These statements are just plan lies. “Materialist Philosophy”^MP is a term that often is misused as general accusation against anyone that doesn’t blindly accept a particular viewpoint about a creator.  Beyond that, no where in modern science will you see any statement that suggests our Universe as no beginning.^BB  That’s just nonsense.  Then the paragraph goes on to ask stupid questions that are meant to direct the reader’s thinking (getting them to think they are starting to realize some secret that the “establishment” has been hiding from them). Again, continuation of numerous logical fallacies.

“Because since materialists claim that the universe has no Creator, they must provide their own explanation for how the life and myriad species on Earth came into being.  The theory of evolution is the scenario they employed for that purpose.  According to this theory, all the order and life in the universe came about spontaneously and by chance.  Certain inanimate substances in the primeval world combined by accident to give rise to the first living cell.  As a result of millions of years of similar coincidences, organisms came into existence.  And finally came human beings, as the final stage of this evolutionary chain.” Actually, I’ve written about this before.  Evolution didn’t come about to prove anything about a creator.  It came about because evidence from geology was contradicting long held beliefs that were derived by taking the Christian bible too literally.  That’s it.  Facts contradicted beliefs, so the facts won and our understanding of biological evolution was discovered because of this.^DE

“The early history of mankind—which is alleged to have come into being as the result of millions of accidental mutations, each more impossible than the last—has been distorted to fit in with this scenario.  According to the evolutionists’ account, which is totally lacking in any proof, the history of mankind is as follows: In the same way that life forms progressed from a primitive organism up to man, the most highly developed of all, so mankind’s history must have advanced from the most primitive community to the most advanced urban society.  But this assumption is completely devoid of any supporting evidence.  It also represents the history of mankind prepared in line with the claims of materialist philosophy and the theory of evolution.” Again, that “materialist philosophy” accusation is present.  This paragraph also declares an opposing view as an assumption with no evidence, but of course, the opposing view is no assumption, and is based on facts.  This continues to employ logical fallacies.

"Evolutionist scientists—in order to account for the supposed evolutionary process that they claim extends from a single cell to multi-celled organisms, and then from apes to man, —have rewritten the history of mankind.  To that end they have invented imaginary eras such as “The Cave-Man Age” and “The Stone Age” to describe the lifestyle of “primitive Man.”  Evolutionists, supporting the falsehood that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor, have embarked on a new search in order to prove their claims.  They now interpret every stone, or arrowhead or bowl unearthed during archaeological excavations in that light.  Yet the pictures and dioramas of half-ape, half-man creatures sitting in a dark cave, dressed in furs, and lacking the facility of speech are all fictitious.  Primitive man never existed, and there never was a Stone Age.  They are nothing more than deceptive scenarios produced by evolutionists with the help of one section of the media.”

Well, this is a long paragraph full of falsehoods and, in my opinion, intentional misdirection (lies).  First of all, this paragraph argues against points that simply don’t exist.  No facts support the idea of a half-man/half-ape being, and no serious person supports this idea as fact.  Who are these “evolutionist scientists” that this paragraph is referring too?  No one.  They don’t exist since no true scientist of evolution or otherwise would say such things.  They are as imagery as the half-man/half-ape being mentioned.  Humans are apes and evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes.^HS  Furthermore, this paragraph talks about points in anthropology, not evolution.  Such confusion is common place for such literature.  One more point, the Stone Age is a well studied period.^SA

“These concepts are all deceptions because recent advances in science—particularly in the fields of biology, paleontology, microbiology and genetics—have totally demolished the claims of evolution. That the idea that living species evolved and transformed into “later” versions of each other has been deemed invalid.” Well, this appears to be a direct lie.  All of the sciences mentioned here grow more and more dependent on our understanding of evolution as more is learned in each of their fields of study.  The foundation of evolutionary studies is not the will to prove a creator doesn’t exist.  The foundation of evolutionary studies is several principles of geology, as mentioned by me above.  However, since the principles within geology are ironclad, they are never mentioned by such articles. Writers of such articles intentionally hide any references to geological principles because any mention of them would destroy their arguments outright.

“In the same way, human beings did not evolve from ape-like creatures.  Human beings have been human since the day they came into existence, and have possessed a sophisticated culture from that day to this. Therefore, “the evolution of history” never happened, either.” This statement is thrown into to make it seem as though the article proved the existence of a creator.  However, the article never even addresses any points that prove such a position; more logical fallacies.

“This book reveals scientific proofs that the “evolution of human history” concept is a falsehood, and we shall show how the fact of creation is now supported by the latest scientific findings.  Mankind came into the world not through evolution, but by the flawless creation of God, the Almighty and Omniscient. In this site, you can read the scientific and historical proofs of this.” This is a common redirection used by many people trying to promote highly questionable notions.  The paragraph assumes the reader was convinced of the writer’s message and offers more “enlightenment” (often for a fee).  Well, I’m not going to charge my readers anything!

Newport OC

I'm visiting Newport in the OC. This is a cool like haven in LA where there's interesting people, but not too many of them. Kinda a sleepy place with like a hypersmall Conie Island area nessled in a smallass harbor. There's a rest'rant here called Newport Landing Restaurant that's got a bartender named Mike who's appeared in some show called The Real OC Desparate House Wives on Bravo...along with this girl Lindsey who appears in the scenes where the girls sit around drinking. Funny. I might try to catch it just to see this shit. I only came here on a whim and it took forever to get here from Industry, but I'm glad I did. Anudder guy Lawerance was local and was a Raiders fan, so we had a few sports stories to exchange.

As I sit out on the quiet misty evening looking on the harbor, I'm relaxed. The noises of the rest'rant are now behind me as I'm outsite in a vacant seating area. A small touring boat is sneaking around the docked boats, though I don't know why. The night air is light, damp and sprinkling me extremely lightly. Distant lights reflect serenely off the water's calm surface. It's only 11pm and this sleepy noke is almost completely shut down now. ::Breath of crisp air:: I just might come back here soon.
___
Sent with SnapperMail
www.snappermail.com

I think I've written about all the X-Men movies in my blog

X-Men: The Last Stand is dramatic in its violence and willful disregard for the sacred nature of franchise characters. In this, the movie is well done. The plot is thin, and it jumps quickly from one setting to the next, but this is expected for an action flick, and this really is an action flick, much more so than the previous two X-Men movies. But what this allows for the franchise is something that has been missing...the massive mutant on mutant battle were an outnumbered force of good faces off with massive forces of evil. Why am I discussing the movie in this manner? Cuz there's a crap load of hardcore X-Men fans that will hate this movie, not for its qualities or perceived lack thereof, but for the fact that this movie takes the story of the X-Men to a place that their precious comic books could not. This movie goes for broke with the characters, exploring their dark sides with no remorse. This makes the movie all the more fun, and brings life to the characters despite the movie's very simple plot. Yes, the movie coulda fleshed out the X-Men characters more, but it doesn't really need to. If you are into the comic books, then you know the characters already. If you aren't, then the characters are taken at face value when they fulfill their purpose in the story. This is a fun movie that moves the X-Men franchise forward. How does a "final installment" move a franchise forward? hmmm. :)

Busy

I can't remember when I started being really really busy in my daily life. I seems it started sometime late in 2004 and hasn't let up. It's nice to have stuff to do; stuff that isn't just something to do. Just sometimes it does start to wear one down. I was looking over my Outlook calendar the other day. A long time ago, I didn't even have use for it. Now, I'm glad to have a day here or there that is free from appointments, duties, scheduled fun time, etc. Some people are hella busier than me. I'm glad I'm not too busy.