Color Blind

I hate the idea of race, the use of race is a separator is an un-evolved rational. It’s an antiquated method of social grouping that was at one time during our evolution was required for our very survival. I can’t stand it, and it makes me very upset. I was us to evolve; I want Color Blindness to become the next social epidemic that plagues the minds humanity that is predisposed racial separation.
In high school I was introduced to implicit test. I recently just re-took the test with a score of “Little to no automatic preference between Black and White people,” this score is by about 17% of the population that took this test. I have scored the same thing throughout the years, except for once if memory serves where I received a “slight preference for Black” assessment. I have taken this test at least 5 times in my life over the years. Here is the link to the test should you want to take it as well. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/featuredtasks/relg2009/fdirect.htm
This test made me think in high school, what exactly did this mean in the real world? I had always knew that I really didn’t care about the color of your skin but how come others did? What made them have an automatic predisposition to one race or another? This test isn’t an answer to any of these; in all honesty I think it’s a test to see how cultural influences impact your response to visual stimuli.
Rather than spend and eternity defining the method for which man evolved a sense of racial prejudice, I will simply state, its woven into our minds. You and I have a genetic predisposition to separate and group with people that are like me. Much like the animals in the pound, who under close observation group with similar animals; we human beings evolved to stick alongside those like us. Like the dogs, it was probably out of concern for one’s own safety and wellbeing, you different than us, and you may be a threat. This is a thread in the fabric of our existence, weaved into the core of the reptilian brain we all possess.
This “animal instinct” or learned behavior stored in the memory of out generations past has tempted our cerebral cortex to continue the tradition and pass along this redundant information to those following us. We have learned to cope with these behaviors such as rape and brutality; we have evolved a social structure that looks upon these savage acts as beyond humanity, even though it is literally at our core. We have grown up, and most of us have moved beyond these primal urges that we continue to see in the wild in less evolved creatures. However, racism is still the one abstract we cannot seem to shake.
Ask a blind man what race he prefers is like asking a deaf man what music he likes, there will be no cohesive answer because (had he not been born with sight/ hearing) he would not know the context of the question. Racism cannot exist in a man that sees no color; this animal inheritance is muted and discarded by the upper levels of the brain. If we were all so lucky to have that autonomous mental faculty turn recessive, racism and separatism would disappear. Being color blind would bring the end racial preference, ignoring the fact that one is black and the other is white is as simple as ignoring the color of another eyes, as that color too is perpetuated by distribution of melanin. Tell me, what is the color of the eyes of the person you see mostly every day at work or school? Few would answer this question correctly even about their loved ones. We are blind to the color of others eyes because we did not evolved looking at the color of the eyes of potential enemies, only the color of their skin was clear enough to see before our ancestors began to run, or fight. Just like our forefathers, if we do not see the color we do not register it as a threat, therefor we have no problem with communal relations with those of different color eyes.
Be color blind, stop noticing the difference and accept we all have melanin, mute the part of your mind that sees melanin of the skin as anything different than the melanin of the eyes.

Read the Bible is not a good answer…

My friends and family have a wide variety of beliefs; I for one have an “interesting” set of beliefs myself. This post is not about my ever changing and growing “spiritual” philosophy or ideas because the moment I post any such thing, the next day I may have learned a new bit of info, or seen a new truth in person that would alter or annihilate the previous days writing. Today, I will write about the answer I get from most Christians “read the bible.” As if they assume, once I tell them I am an agnostic who lives his day to day as if I were an atheist, that I have never read the bible (or any religions text) and that I must be too heretical to heed the word of god.
**Let me clarify something, I am agnostic as that definition is the closest to my beliefs based on my logic, which like any logic of man can and probably is faulted. I am an atheist in my day to day life style as I do not pray, request of even consider god in my life decisions and actions. For all intents and purposes I am atheist, but due to the nature of a higher power being unknowable at this time, I am classified agnostic. That is all you will hear about my philosophy at this moment.**
First I will state a truth; I have read the bible 4 times in my life, granted they were different versions. I first read the King James Bible in middle school, as that was what was given to me at my Lutheran baptism when I was a baby. Next was the English Standard Version in the first year of high school, as that seemed to be more contemporary and easier to read kind of English because let’s face it, KJV is just as bad as Shakespeare at times. Next in 11th and 12th grade was Young's Literal Translation (revised) because I personally don’t speak any ancient language and when I read “literal translation” I figured “hey, this is about as close as I’ll get right!?” And finally about 5 years ago I read through Thomas Jefferson’s bible, I grant you that counting this is a bit of a cheat but I think this gives a very good basis for the philosophy that the New Testament tries to convey, so I do count it among my 4. To be honest, it’s my favorite of all of them!
So, I have read the bible a few times even if you don’t count the Jefferson Bible.
Now, on to my contention: Saying “read the bible it will answer (insert question here), and you will understand” is assuming that first of all I am lazy and do not do my research before asking questions, I take that as an insult. But let’s just say that you don’t mean to insult but are just trying to convey that the answer is in this book, just in case I wasn’t aware, still no; the answers are not all in there because my questions were derived from that very book you are referring me back to. Questions like, if Jesus died for all our sins of the past, present and future (Hebrews 10:12-14) how come original sin is not included in that forgiveness? How come once he died we didn’t get a blank slate and all revert to the way Adam and Eve were without shame, pain and labor of childbirth, seemingly endless life, and without the knowing that came from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since that’s what lead eventually the first murder by Canaan? If you can find the answer to that question in the bible, not some parable about how humans need to learn how to come close to god because we have free will and choose faith, but an actual logical answer then I will admit that my studious reading of the bible, and the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha, bore no fruit and I should try again. I’ve waiting for that answer since 8th grade by the way; it was one of my first legitimate questions. I say legitimate because like all young men, I was/ am an idiot and sometimes asked ridiculous questions just to prompt the expression of exasperation that seemed to please my pride as I too suffer from its ill effects. Proverbs 29:23 makes my point here; I wish to retain my honor and thus, my first legitimate question is just that, I have yet to hear an answer beyond “read the bible.”
Next was a question that came to me in a dream once. I was about 16 and I wondered how come there is a bible in the first place? Is it a book of history, parables and educational tales, a book of premonitions or is it the word of god? I asked a Christian friend this question this was her answer to the best of my memory “it’s all of those, it is god’s word that tells the history of man, teaches him how to live a good life and get into heaven and tell the future of humanity so we know the god does have a plan.” The next few days were a blur in school, I only thought of her answer; geometry and English class took a back seat to this mental debacle. I thought about what I had read in the bible, what I had seen in life and noticed a stark contrast in the main point about it being god’s word. Why try to tell the prophets, who wrote god’s word, anything if we as human beings can never understand gods plan? Why give us mere mortals who now know of both good and evil reason a taste of further understanding and yet create us with a lack of ability to comprehend it all? Finally (its sort of a three part question) why create man with the ability to comprehend imperfection if it wasn’t expected of them to stay that way? Again, there pare parables in the bible about man being unequal to angels which may have the potential for understanding, but that’s still leaves me wanting in the sense that why make man, give him a book and never expect him to truly understand until they are in heaven when they no longer needs its lessons since heaven itself is perfection? You may say it’s not for us to know gods reason for this just like it’s not for the lower level employee to question and know what the board of directors and CEO are doing, fair answer sure but how come it’s not for us as mortal humans to know, especially when you give us an “answer” in the bible but are intentionally vague about it? That’s like the CEO giving out books to all the workers knowing that they would never understand it. The bible will not answer this question either, please cite this answer if it does...

I am not an ass

I’m not an ass.

You know, I hate re-registering to vote. Every time I check that “democrat” box next to party affiliation I feel like I am committing a felony, knowingly lying on a federal document. Every year since high school, I have consistently grew father and father apart from both the democrats and republicans. I am an equidistant from every party there, and any party that I ascribed to would be in part a lie.

I am not a democrat, I do not think that welfare should be easy to hold on to and I think it should be contingent on a persons will to better themselves and the life of their families.  I also hate the fact that democrats have no balls to get what they want, they are the party of politically correct, the ones that take offence to everything and offed no one. Get your hands dirty you jack asses.

I am not a republican, I do not think that welfare should be easy to hold on to and I think it should be contingent of a companies will to better the lives to their employees and the employees’ family. I hate the fact that Republicans consistently manipulate the facts to suit their argument, and whether they are “in the end” correct they had to make people believe in it through fallacies and political rallying off mindless troupes. I hate the mix of religious jargon in the majority of their underlying message and neglect to acknowledge that America is a secular nation.

I am not a libertarian, I think there should be some welfare to encourage and help people get back up on their feet to a reasonable point where they can afford to enjoy a vacation once a year and to buy their family and loved ones gifts at the holidays. If the government didn’t help these people, not many would. Celebrities and the wealthy do contribute to good causes, but a good cause isn’t a good solution. A good solution is a good cause and only the government will actually provide it since they are the ones supposed to take no profit and are hired to do what we ask them. I also think that drugs with the ability to instantly kill someone due to accidental overdose should not be unregulated.

I am not an independent; I actually like my right to vote for people in an office before I am left with the lesser of two idiots evils. I am not inclined to give up my voting liberties and electorate impact for the title of being a free thinking person with no allegiance to a philosophy.

I am not an ass; I do not have a trunk, nor does an arrow through and initialized “There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" inspire many good feelings. I am a party of one, of nothing, of no party separation, no label and no symbol evoking patriotism and illogical attachment to people I’d wish were like-minded but simply play a role to fit their agenda. I am person, not a corporation, not a partisan snob or an all knowing all understanding member of the electorate. I do not want a television 30 second spot, a pamphlet or brochure to be able to summarize my ever evolving educated philosophy. I am member of the humanity party, my philosophy is to help those in need and see that those who can help are not too greedy (because let’s face it, a little greed can be good). I am the lone ranger who lies on a government form every time I change zip codes just so I can keep my rights as a citizen to vote for someone better than the not as bad as the other guy candidate. Call me an ass on paper, I’ll never be an ass.

The fish out of water

Last week was my first week at my new job. It started out as expected, the first day was pretty boring, the second a little less and 3rd….you catch my drift. By the end of the week, I had done a personal favor for one of the employees (hacked into the root account on a Mac) and been invited to lunch (free!!) by one of the sales guys for the radio station. So you would think, hey sounds great right! Not so fast…
I work for Salem Communications, a for-profit Christian/ Conservative communications company specializing in Radio, publishing and spreading the “good word.” I took the job because all I do here is fix computer, domain and network problems…no need for a religious creed to do that right? I mean, I figured that since I am going corporate, I would probably dislike much of what any corporation would be doing so what’s the difference between working for a Christian radio company verses some PR firm Red Bull or Real Estate broker who made millions on the housing bubble. It’s all the same to me in that respect. So I took the job, decent pay, benefits and the people seemed nice enough…no complaints
Then on Friday, the sales man invited me to lunch. I was a bit turned off by his demeanor but figured this is how you get liked at a new job; you go to lunch with the veterans. Like all great sales men, he waited till I had said yes to tell me it’s at a church about 45 minutes away, there will be a speaker (there’s at least 30 more minutes at this thing) and then the 45 minute ride back. The whole thing ate 2.5 hours out of my day, got to love a Christian sales man. The food wasn’t anything to write home about, or even here for that matter. But let’s not dwell on such matters let’s focus our attention on the man who spoke, a man named Edward M. Kobel, President and COO of DeBartolo Development; he likes to be called “Ed” by his flock at Calvary Chapel in St. Pete.
First let me tell you the ride over there was the sales guy talking about how he started in business, how much he made doing that and how much money he has right now. I tell you, this guy liked talking about money. Then we got there, we walked in, and again the idea of money struck me none the less due to the 45 minutes of “this is how I became rich enough to live on a golf course in one of the 3 wealthiest zip codes in central Florida.” It was very nice inside, marble floors, a play area for the kiddies, a resting area with wall jacks for laptops, a nice statue… Then we walked up to the sign-in area, where I got a name tag, was asked for my business card and proceeded to fill out a survey. The survey had three questions; I lied about all of them. We sat, we ate and then Ed took the floor.
Ed seemed like a smart guy, energetic but not overbearing, well-spoken but not scripted clean cut but still realistic looking. He seemed like a genuine guy, who just happened to have a lot of money. Nothing to hate the guy for, so he is successful go him! My issue comes with how he got there, the message he delivered and the portrayal of the Christian he says he is.
Ed is the son of Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr. who was pretty much the guy who invented your local shopping mall. I suppose that is a lot to live up to! But his life was estranged from his father; he grew up with his mother, a life that was not easy from the way he made it sound. In fact, it seemed like he and I had something’s in common about how we grew up. He joined the military, he left the military, started working for his former Colonel…and then he branched out on his own. He got into real estate using his GI money to get an initial investment property which he and his military buddies fixed up cheap and flipped in, in his words, a month later for a large profit…this seemed to be his game and he was a self-admitted shallow and greedy slum lord. He met his wife, and at the behest of buddies in the real estate business, he became a Christian, lost a large sum of money and faced bankruptcy, he struggles through it (an admirable quality) and began to rebuild. He then re-united with his father’s other son, who gave him the keys to DeBartolo Development. And that ladies in gentlemen, is how a millionaire is born.
It may shock you that I take some issue with this situation I was in, and this man that was speaking. But let me illuminate my particular view point. I was in this grandiose church, surrounded by a bunch of networking Christian business men and women listening to a guy who says he’s a Christian, is a millionaire, has a lesbian daughter that he says “turned her back on G-d,” and gives to the Christian based charities.
First of all, have you ever been the only person in a room surrounded by a bunch of people that have the same delusions about mythical supernatural beings? I can now say that I have. I was the only atheist in that room. I was a total fish out of water, which I found ironic. Ed told a joke, about his early days in with the other real estate fellows before he was a Christian. He said he used to come up with excuses why he didn’t want to go to church, and one of the things was that he was “caught up on the whole Darwin thing.” Everyone, I mean every single delusional soul, laughed at that one. For a minute there, I thought that Dave Chappell had shown up based on how loud these people got.  Of course, I didn’t get the joke at all, completely over my head. I felt like I was missing out on something really funny having to do with Darwin, I know the Beagle is a funny word but couldn’t account for the laughter I was surrounded by. So, I sat there dumbstruck…I later came to conclusion, they must think that Darwin is as crazy as I think they are!
He talked a little about being a slumlord, and that’s how he got his foot in the financial world. It was like; everyone around me instantly forgave him for how he must have treated his tenants or what kind of code breaking, cheap repaired P.O.S. he sold to some sucker looking to get ahead himself. They instantly looked past the fact that he was a total sleaze who got ahead doing questionable legal and certainly immoral things.
You know, I am not one to judge, I have done things in my past I am not proud of. I should have been in prison a couple times by my count. However, I do not go around portraying myself as a self-righteous business man whose prayers have been answered by the invisible man sitting on a cloud. I am not the one who is granted passage through the pearly gates of life (of course there are not gates in death) because of hypocritical judges who become rich even though their precious bible rich will not go to heaven. Just sayin’…

Government trends... Fairy tales are not real even on Capitol Hill...

I don't get why there is a debate over the debit ceiling. The U.S. took in less money from the nation’s wealth in 2000 instead of paying off debt with the surplus. Now the nation needs money or it will go broke. If this were me, I would go back to the type of budget I had when I got to the surplus! To make this into an analogy, I had a job that was paying great, told my employer that I would like to take a pay cut, and then wasted all my savings on maintaining my current lifestyle. If it were me, I would get my old pay back either by telling my employer to give me a raise (remove tax cuts), or find a new job. Being this is a country, and we can't exactly just get a new job, the only option is to remove the tax cuts.

Now you can say that when we gave the tax cuts for the wealth and corporations in the early 2000s, it created jobs and you wouldn’t be lying per say. Over the span of 8 years (2000-2008) roughly 3.5 million private jobs and 1.7 million government jobs were created.  So you would think that cutting the taxes for the nation’s wealth increases the amount of money the government can take in since more people are working and wages can go up etc. This would be true if the economy worked as imaginations in Washington thinks it does. Unfortunately this is not Wonderland, Snow White is working in the mines with Dopey and Cinderella is on welfare.

If we limit our scope here to just the figures above it would look like we are doing great. However, during that same span of time, the country lost about 3.2 million jobs in the goods producing, wealth creating jobs but increased in the service providing jobs, which is where those first two numbers came from. What this means is the jobs that earn money and fund the government went down, and the things that sap money and cost the government went up. While at the same time we cut our revenue by creating wealthy tax cuts. To sum this section up, we increase our spending, while lowering or ability to generate income and also giving tax breaks to the most likely people to afford it the sudden paradigm shift.

Let’s look at it from a historical point of view rather than strictly a numbers game, since as we all know number can be manipulated. For this exercise let’s first look at Reagan’s era. In the early 80s, Reagan got elected based off his movie start good looks, charismatic delivery of his script and an astonishing ability to convince people not to look at facts. He rode his way to the white house on a cloud of a make believe budget crisis claiming that debit was out of control. The fact was that the national debt, compared to national income, was the lowest in 50 years. Here is a graph. Clearly, the debt percentage Vs  GDP (basically the measure of our national income) when Reagan got elected was fantastic. The previous administration (Carter) helped nominally in lowering the debt but not enough to say that he was influential in the trend the last 40 years had given him. To be fair, he had taken office during a national energy crisis which he tackled with domestic deregulation, and the tail end of recession unemployment’s trend was getting higher and through all the opposition in congress he arguably did very little either way for the nation.  So we can say without any bias that what happened after Reagan took office were his own administrations doing. Over his 8 year term, he increased the national debt over %20, when it had been its lowest since WW2. His first year policies namely the tax cuts for the wealthy, lead to the worst year in 40+ years, as far as the debt was concerned.  By the time the 1^st Bush took office, debt was in an upswing, and his policies only continue that trend adding over 13% debt during his tenure.

Any trend in life carries momentum, which help propel the trend. At this point Bush contributed to the trend and then left office. Bill Clinton took the reins with over a $3.4 Trillion debt with mounting interest. He not only had to stop the current trend but reverse it. In his first term, he managed to halt the growing debt trend, though interest was still a problem, and even managed to squeak by a small (<1%) decrease in debt. In his second term he managed to create a surplus which and lowering debt by 9%, had this trend continued it could have helped pay off the debts accrued from Reagan and Bush #1.

You see the theories at work in all of this is that, if you lower wealthy taxes, it will give the incentive for the wealthy to work harder themselves to make more money, give pay raises to employees (help the middle class ect.) so they produce more and investing. Thus everyone would be paying more taxes cumulatively, even though the rates are low. For all the years this theory was put into practice, it never worked. As Clinton said in his campaign, “It’s the economy stupid!” Remove the tax cuts enacted by the second Bush, this will increase revenue. Once that is done, balancing the budget will be easier since the income level will be up again and paying bills will be easier. As far as raising the debt ceiling, sure raise it without being able to gain funds to pay for it and allow the country to lose its credit status. Yes that sounds like a plan that will work! Let’s teach our children that the key to having good credit is to not have the money to pay for you ever increasing amount of debt.

Healthcare: the next generation

It is the year 2011. Humanity has come a long way in just the last 2000 years. On this day 2 millennia ago (wow sounds epic when you say it that way huh!) the romans were a dominant force, the west has hanging off the edge of the earth and the moon was always white and not that sometimes ugly brown color we see in the modern era. At that time, the idea of human rights was in its infancy; Aristotle had presented a general idea or civil rights about 350 years before Common Era, but universal human rights were just a speck of thought amongst that revolutionary philosophy. It would be about 1800 years or so before Human rights in the sense we can relate to today would be outlined in the Twelve Articles, in the early 1500s.

At that time, the idea of a doctor was someone who may have put leaches on you to cure an illness. You would hire a man who castrates pigs to perform a caesarean on your wife. Obviously healthcare was not something that was sanitary, proactive or effectively efficient. The way I see it, if you had to go to a doctor in the 1500s, might as well make you next errand a stop at the mortician to provide your measurements.

Naturally anything that happened between 1500s and 70 years ago, with respect to healthcare, was minimal and probably overlooked because a doctor was little more than the man selling snake oil out of a taco bus. Today, that is vastly different, we have over the counter medicines that help prevent symptoms of the flu, relieve head aches and even help prevent unwanted pregnancy…none of this was even imagined less than two hundred years ago. The last 70 years has enriched our knowledge of humanities illnesses and health dilemmas; as the healthcare field becomes more mature, our view at what is a right to humanity should be considered. At the very least the definition of civil rights should be amended to include preventative health care.

The Declaration of Independence, the second section has the phrase common knowledge to everyone but whose meaning is often skewed and turns into a punch line for American politicians:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Had the pen masters and architects of the American way of life foreseen the advancements of medicine, I assure you most certainly that they would have said that explicitly as well. The premise of life is health, in this I mean that life cannot exist with you first being born with some form of health. You do not need to be perfectly healthy (ex. 10 fingers/toes) to be alive, but you do have to be able to pass oxygen to your cells and convert food into useful energy for your body to use to continue to live. Had the procedure and the methods used to ensure basic health been performed in the 1700s It is indisputable that the founder would have included healthcare with life since they do obviously want us to live with liberty and have the ability to pursue happiness, having poor health would make it more difficult, and sometimes impossible to obtain liberty and freely pursue happiness. Of course, making healthcare a right would not alleviate these difficulties for some, but they would make some of those who would otherwise be on an unequal playing field from the start more able to achieve these goals. A simple example would be a child born with a malady that prevents speaking, healthcare being a right would have the malady corrected and able to speak throughout their life rather than being a mute who has ambitions of being a singer but because they only have a right to live and not to healthcare, and thus are not able to pursue their happiness i.e. to sing.

I am basically saying that had they known that we can cure disease with a shot, solve birth defects with a scalpel and give the sick medicines that made them well, the architects would have included it. They not included it because at the time, medicine was leaches, fixing defects was cutting it off which may have led to more problems and probably death, and giving someone medicine was tantamount to getting them drunk enough so they don’t feel the thing that hurts. Would you include in that famous phrase “life, liberty, plenty of leeches, and pursuit of happiness.” Probably not, and that’s why they didn’t!

Android is finally on its way to the top....

Ecosystem chaos in the Android operating system, being open source, gives so much freedom to hardware makers. The only thing that Google can do is make it so that certain apps show up in your market when you try to find something and not show up in your friends because of the hardware divergence. Not to mention the fact that vendors do stupid shit like with the Dell Streak, which launched with a ridiculously old version of android, and then loading unstable crapware? The fact that the hardware makers are seeing this issue and being responsible about it is only going to help android sales, since we know that the number of apps is what sells these kinds of devices. With a streamlining of form factors in general (ie. evo and thunderbolt are relatively similar in form factor), then improve the quality of internals as they become available (ie CPU, Ram amount/size, battery technology, lte/ wimax, dual band, camera, gyro ect...) but keeping the same basic design will lead to app devs to be able to write one version of the app that will work on all devices with such and such minimum specs (just too weed out extremely old tech like the htc touch), rather than writing for things with this exact screen size and resolution, or only a rear facing camera and not a front. Little things like that that drives people like me up a wall. The idea that devs like having to always be coding on one app and not move on to another app idea is ridiculous. Luckily, because of diversity, the newest 2.2/2.3 sdks have made functions that help alleviate this issue with, but unfortunately some small annoyances remain. HTC and Moto have finally stopped releasing devices that significantly differ and this eases tension put on app devs to quickly, effectively, and smoothly develop the app, get it out of beta and advertise the public launches.

Android apps are projected to surpass apple in the coming year and it is in no small way due to the manufactures finally sticking with an idea that works and building on that.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/05/android-to-surpass-apples-app-store-in-size-in-august-2011-report-exclusive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Brainwashing pisses me off...whether its democratic, republican or socialist...

I am the first to admit that I don't have the answers to, well, anything. I do not claim exasperated hours researching and creatively finding solutions to the country's (or worlds) problems. However I do have a brain. And with that brain I hope that I can shed some light to those who are ignorant, or have been persuaded to trust bullshit lines from con artists.

I am a registered voter, a democrat so it says on my nice little card hidden in one of the folds of my wallet. The thing is, I don't always agree with that party. True, I am a social liberal, I think everyone should have equality (plug for gay rights), a womans right to her body (go figure!) and the rights or immigrants to enter the country to work and raise their child in a country where some sort of education is some what possible. Personally I wouldn't choose America to teach my kid, but that big pond to Europe is a bit too far and its easier to jump a fence.

Back to the topic...

Lets take something that is huge here in Florida, or was for a while. A few years back the state decided to put on paper a plan to create a bullet train to help alleviate a number of concerns ranging from environmental to traffic congestion. I will first list the reasons why I at first thought this was a great idea. It would help tourism, people come to Florida for Miami and Disney. So when you can fly into MIA, vacation a bit on South Beach and then take a 2 and a half hour (the amount of time estimated to travel) train ride to get to Disney and visit Mickey with your kids, it sounds like a good method to invite northern tourists to Florida, spend their money on tourist stuff rather than gas and a rental car to get from A to B. This way they don't have to limit their trip this time to save money and they get to experience the entire state! Great idea! Also, there is the working force; I live in Tampa, and I know people take I-4 to Lakeland and Orlando for work every day! A bullet train would make their commute easier, less dangerous (crashes!! I mean you can text in a train, but not in your car!) and I thought (as figures projected at the time) cheaper! Another bonus for the idea!

Then a few things happened between roughly 2001 and 2011. The country went into recession, the state had some crappy governors, a few natural disasters and costs were higher than expected ten years ago which was probably due to the recession but I don't want to speculate that was the only issue. The new Governor Rick Scott, recently essentially vetoed the idea, and at the same time rejected lots of money from the feds that would have HELPED pay the costs to build the train. When I tell democrats that I felt this was a good move of Scotty's part (not how he did it but what he did! There is a difference) they call me republican and think I love the bald headed Lex Luther cut out! I want to profess, this guy is a dick, a fraud, a criminal and he bought himself an election based on ignorance, the same kind of ignorance I wish I could correct. Now I will tell you why I agreed with this asshole...

It is 2011, the couple of billion dollars provided by the Feds would have only covered a fraction of the building costs, none of the maintenance and wouldn't subsidize the costs. Not only that but the plan was structured to build the train in stages. Now, stages are a great idea! Only problem is we are in a recession and stages would make current costs to build the thing, and later to ride it, artificially inflated! Meaning, it would cost too much to do right now! Not that it shouldn't be done ever but not right now. But mu democrat friends, whom I great respect, admire and even at time revere, didn't hearing facts like round trips were projected (recently) to cost 60 bucks, and the first phase was going to take about 2-4 years to finish and would only go from Tampa to Orlando...for 60! thats more than it would cost to drive, granted about 30 minutes faster, but not something that many people here could do at that price! Don't take my word for it, do some digging! Yet the democrats have the people completely brainwashed into thinking this was a god thing to do right now. Wat I was asking for was, let us take that money the feds were offering and help out the public transit already in existence here in Florida, which sucks! Alas, a good idea always falls on deaf ears that just hear what they don't want to believe in just to hold on to their anger about something the wanted instead of something they needed!

Bullet train idea, please don't die, just come back after the recession!

This is just one of the many things I find that my logical deduction of the situation has put me at odds with my “brethren.” Then there are the fuckers who this Rush Limbaugh is a demigod here to save the world from abortionists and progressive equality people! They forget that he is addicted to prescription drugs, openly makes questionably bigoted statements and re-enacments of paralyzed, insulted American troops because they had a mind of their own (but still followed orders as their commission demanded) and not unlike others in media, twists facts regularly to suit his own points yet presents these ideas as factual statements. I am not one for condemning a man for one transgression, or even two...but there is a point where I just look at a person and ask myself “how immoral is this ass?”

Yet people revere him and other like Beck and that ilk. Not only that but fact checking and correcting these pricks seems to have no impact on their followers. This kind of brainwashing pisses me off just as much as democratic brainwashing. I an biased, I admit, I want freedom, peace and equality. I want the government to help those who need it, the rich to contribute more proportionally to the government to aid these programs to help the poor, I want wars to be the absolute last resort and not something that America is known for.

Fuck, I must be a brainwashed fool to think that people could see reason, have patience and be kind and just to each other. Ok, time to return you to your normally broad casted life, continue to think that the president isn't american, continue to think that the bible is gods written word and please feel free to think that global warming isn't something we should try to avoid, whether or not it is actually happening or not. All in all proceed to have your intellect erased and your thinking patterns assimilated.

A post I saw about why someone is a republican...

Saw this on a blog and jsut had to say something...




Top 30 reasons why I vote republican


1.I have full confidence in myself and my ability to make decisions, I don't need the media, or MTV to influence me
Yet Glen beck had most of the lot out on the lawn saying Obama wasn't born an American and that a "Health Czar" is not in keeping with American politics.


2. Before every time of peace, there was a prior war.
Because people like you keep wanting to stop the peace and create the next war...

3. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, who…or what created matter
First of all, that is a law of thermo dynamics you are misquoting there. In the law of conservation of energy it says ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed. Energy is the only things that existed as far as our current level of technological observation can tell going back to seconds after the big bang. So in answer to your question, energy created matter. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles all the time, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles a.k.a matter! Read a book!


4. I believe women and ethnic minorities are smart enough and capable enough to make it on their own; they do not need the government to help them
Later down this list you say you don't accept handouts except from family. What if your family wasn't willing to give you a hand or you have no family to help? Not to mention people are racist and sexist, so with some many of these people the only chance to make it is to get some help to get on your feet and bypass the idiots with the problems.


5. The long run always out-weights the short run
And do we have to wait until the second coming of Christ for this long run to grant us benefits? We have to think in both worlds what will help us now and will continue to help in the future. no tunnel vision, open up to progressive ideas that help here and then.


6. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
Then do you need a gun for, just use his car...


7. I believe if you want to come to this country you should play by our rules. That is how it is in every other nation of the world
And the first rule in America is freedom!
8. How many times have you ever been hired full-time by a poor person?????
How many times has a homeless person been hired full time by a wealthy person?


9. Except for family, I don't take handouts
Again, what if you have no family to help you?


10. I believe it is wrong to cheat on your wife (or spouse)
Then why do republicans do it as often as democrats? Being a dick does not follow party lines.


11. I believe immigrants are good hard working citizens, but without learning the language, accepting our culture and traditions, and PAYING TAXES, they will always be looked down upon. It is for their own benefit to do this
I agree, they want to work here learn the language that will certainly help! as far as culture, American culture is so diverse, my culture wouldn't mesh well with someone from another state even! Paying taxes are very important, if only it didn’t take 10 years of not paying taxes because you are waiting for citizenship and getting paid a third of minimum wage to survive.


12. Texas has the death penalty and the lowest crime rate. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two?
Where did you get your stats? I just looked at the stats and the average for the country Texas was higher than the national average for violent crime.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html


13. Arizona and North Carolina have low taxes, and high job growth. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two?
Ok, douche, .4% lower than national average is nothing to be proud about. If the unemployment was like 3-5% lower than nat. average then I would agree.
14. California has the highest number of immigrants using the healthcare and education systems. Cali also has the largest deficit. I wonder if there is a correlation between the two.
Easy solution, Legalize marijuana, tax and regulate it like alcohol or cigarettes and that will spike revenue. As far as not helping, this country is founded by immigrants you fucktard, it is un-American to not help them.
15. New York and California have the highest Corporate taxes. I wonder why that is why companies form those states are downsizing, outsourcing, or just plain leaving.
New York has a huge corporate standing, and paying the CEOs and CFOs loads. It’s the labor jobs being outsourced, the jobs that are given to people who aren’t wearing a suit to work. Outsource the CEO that will lower the cost to run the company!
16.When it comes to voting Gay rights, Abortion, and Separation of Church and State are important issues to me, but not as important as Monetary, Moral, and Military issues.
Monetary is so complex that I am not sure you or I understand it fully, Morality is subjective and you cannot hold others to your standard of morality. If I did that to you, I would say you are immoral for not wanting to help immigrants.  Military, I agree that is huge, so are you for or against helping them get an education after serving or is that too much for the government to do the men in service can fend for themselves?
17. I believe Defense, Police, Firefighters, Healthcare, Education, and Roads/Public Transportation should be the bulk of Government spending.
Then how come those are the first things your party cuts when figuring a budget?
18. A country who forgets about its defenders, will also soon be forgotten
Too true!
19. I believe in finding a solution to a problem, not protesting about a problem
If I didn’t protest about an issue that didn’t affect you how would people know it was hurting me.
20. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was the same democrats that cried over Separation of church and state when republicans tried to institute prayer in public Schools. So explain to me how democrats are trying to force a law on the church, (or any religious institution) forcing them to marry gays, is consistent. Isn’t Church and state supposed to be separate? I thought we could not impose laws on Religious institutions? But hey…Gays should be unionized somehow!!! I believe They should have the same rights as married couples such as taxes, etc.
Marriage is not a religious affair, it is a legal matter, you get a marriage license form the state not a church you dip shit! Separation is still upheld, the government is not doing anything with the church. The church can choose to be bigots all they want, but the government cannot do that and by granting marriage licenses to GLBT community, they are providing what your said was ok, a unionization and being given equal rights. That whole separate but equal shit does not fly anymore bud.


21. Under a republican president, the rich still pay the highest amount in taxes. So what is everyone crying about?
The top 1% are paying the bulk of the money, but not proportional to their income. Lower tax brackets are paying more in proportion than the top 1% even if more physical cash comes from the top…
 22. Pharmaceutical companies are not evil corporations that mark-up their prices for fun. They have something called overhead. It cost millions of dollars to get a drug out on the market. That is if it is approved by the FDA of course.
Then how come they have the biggest profit margins ever, R&D costs granted, marketing granted, but how can they have so much liquid cash if they are bumping the prices well above needed?
23. People complain about the price of gas, but they don't want companies to drill in Alaska. This would only double or own supply, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and cut prices in half. Supply and Demand people.
Environment!!!! Look at the gulf incident! Instead of fighting for drill baby drill, why aren’t we pushing for wind turbines? Or take advantage of ocean currents? These “green” methods will create the same about of energy as your oil and not killing the earth for a non-renewable resource that simultaneously kills the planet.
24. American Troops should be allowed to shoot to kill, because that is what the enemy does.
Yes because an eye for an eye is a great policy. Sun Tzu would be so proud…
25. Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything
War only had to end slavery because people like you wouldn’t move past a stupid set of ideas. I will give you the end of the Nazi regime, there was no way out of that because there is no talking reason to an irrational person, much less an irrational brainwashed countries populous.
26. I believe marijuana is a gateway drug, and that has also been proven.
Only because the people you get the weed from now are also selling other things and possibly lacing the product to get you hooked on other things. Regulation would end that now to mention the fact that when I was smoking weed, I was also a consumer of alcohol, so your jack daniels is a gateway drug too in that sense!
27. Paying people by commission increases total revenue, and productivity
That does work in some business models, like Ponzi schemes.
28. The more you sue McDonalds, the more they will raise their prices
The more you eat McDonalds the higher you push healthcare prices...now I am gonna sue you!!!!
29. I believe everyone is equal, and when it comes to opportunity the more you put in, the more you get out.
Everyone is equal in the “Animal Farm” sense or in the “separate but equal” sense?
 30. I believe America is the land of opportunity, and freedom, (move to North Korea and tell me how free you are) but freedom is not free.
And freedom isn’t what your think it means, at least not in America these days….Oh you are free to say whatever you want, just don’t do it in an Airport, in front of the cops, on the radio…you now those kind of places.

Non-Kosher Beef Part II...What if the lobster is circumcised?

Of course I speak in hyperbole, I do not think that Moses, or Hitler, made those decisions based on morals, divinely inspired or not.

Moving on, I would like to correct the good rabbi on his misconception of evolution and racism. No, the theory of evolution does not support racism. It is widely known, and scholarly accepted, that human variants (races) are recent occurrence. Genetically speaking the differences between races are superficial and minor; there are no biologically "favored races." Cultural interpretations are the basis for perceived natural biological distinctions of races, not on biology. True, when looking at the whole of a species, there are characteristics that separate certain groups into races. Statistical averages of members of different races may have (statistically averaged) better capability at certain traits like high endurance, strength, higher capacity of learning, or better ability to handle climate changes ect… However, to say all members of said race are better at given ability over all members of another race is ridiculous and ignorant, thus no “superior race.” The only way you could have a “superior race” would be if some group evolved into and became the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens (X-Men!!!!!), in which case it would become a superior species, separated significantly from our own through genetic mutations.

My turn! Since you are a rabbi, I will stick to the Old Testament/ Torah. Let’s go with the story of Noah, post-flood. One night, after partying hard and “winning,” Noah got real drunk and passed out, with a bottle in one hand and his clothes nowhere to be seen. Yes, he was inebriated and naked the next morning when his son Ham found him in his tent. (GEN 9:20-27) After “seeing his father’s nakedness” and then, rather than cloth his father with a sheet he went and told his brothers, probably out of jest as in “hey, dad drank way too much look!!” The brothers, without looking on their dad (and I suppose the moral is to be more respectful of a drunk naked old guy) they covered him. He woke up, and discovered what Ham had done, and instead of punishing Ham, he went for Canaan (Hams 4^th and youngest son) and cursed him to be a servant.

Now, I do not see anything really racist in this picture. In fact I think it is one of the funnies stories in the whole bible! I mean, your dad is drunk off his ass naked in a tent…gotta crack a smirk! But, the implications of this story, and others told in other Jewish text like The Talmud, have implied racial undertones. Granted, many have been disputed citing other biblical references, but this only shows the discord amongst believers and how basically no group of said believe can get one story and stick to it….a topic for another blog post. However, it is not important what the bible says exactly as much as what the readers tend to think it says. We can see what people thought things meant by looking at other historical records. People believe that Ham is the Father of the Africans (via Cush), and this Curse of Ham was the justification for African Slavery, making his descendants slaves seems to be a pretty good curse right? Again, nowhere does it explicitly say anything racial, in fact it was Canaan (Hams 4^th and youngest son) who was directly cursed by Noah to be a servant, not Cush. Yet, there may be some cultural reasons to take some liberties with the story. Thus supporting my earlier remarks that, it is not biology that supports racial prejudice, it is cultural ignorance. Again, it’s not what the book actually says, like your reading of Darwin; we are just read it how we think we want to… And so, racial prejudice and general ignorance was born.

my non kosher beef with a rabbi...

Rabbi Adam Jacobs, WTF!

Ok, so the argument that is being refered to in his article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/atheisms-odd-relationship_b_839352.html) is the classic is morality granted from divinity or not, and if not where does the human sense of morality come from?
First of all, he mentions a talk on TED by Sam Harris, author (among other works) of the Moral landscape, in February 2010. I found this talk entertaining and very eloquent in his ability to put into simple language such a complex idea.

In the First half of the talk a point was brought up from Proverbs regarding beating a child to teach obedience. I wonder if the rabbi agrees with such a statement that you should beat your children into obedience (Proverbs 23:13). I can tell you from my experience, I loved it when my mother tried to beat me, as I got older and older it hurt her more and more to try and hurt me. Once she swung kitchen spoon at me hitting my blocking arm (less the spoon would hit my face) and it vibrated so much just from my block it ended up hurting her. Yet she still as I grew tried as she might to try and hurt me. The last time, as my memory serves I was about 14 and she balled up her fist and hit me in the chest and instantly, grabbed her hand and ran away. I had nothing more than a tender spot for about an hour. So years went by, trying to hit me, and she never learned her lesson…stop trying to hurt the boy you will only hurt yourself. So at about 12 I realized, obviously hurting someone does not teach them a damn thing, much less obedience. Had she learned anything she would have learned, get my dad mad at me as that is the only way I would come close to “behaving” myself until I turned about 15 anyways. There have been many philosophical and psychological debates over the years and you know what? Beating a child does not teach obedience, it only teaches the kid to grow up and hit children as adults!
Obviously I think it is immoral to beat a child, I also admit (because of my own raising) that I may one day hit my own child out of anger. Even typing the words I am ashamed of myself for conceptually being capable of such an act. Those how take proverbs at their words, bible literalists and the like, would not be so morally troubled by beating their child. Now how can my morality and their morality on this one issue both are divinely inspired? If my morality truly came from the a god(s), Bible, Koran or Bhagavad Gita ect… then I would not feel so bad for thinking I may one day be capable of an act that I consider completely heinous.
Morality is subjective in more ways than one. If the 1950’s on television, you would never see a man and woman in the same bed as one another. In fact, I clearly remember most of the time there was some sort of night stand with a small lamp on it separating two twin beds! Today however, it is not morally questionable (to the general population) to show to the public a man and woman (sometimes more than one or the other or both!) in the same bed. This is a clear paradigm shift in the American concept of morality on television.
Morality is so diverse depending on where you grow up, what era you are a part of, what side of the tracks you are on ect… With morality varying so much, amongst people of the same line of thinking (i.e. One Christians morality is not like the other) whether it be religious or not, how can it possibly come from a single source!
Now we can all say something like “it is morally wrong to kill.” And I think that, with just that statement, most people of any line of thinking would agree in principle. However, among those who would say it is wrong to kill, many would agree with the death penalty. Possibly they would exclaim that there are times when war is needed to settle a resolution and thus people will be killed/ murdered. I am sure I can make more scenarios where murder would be something that evens those who would valiantly fight to say killing is morally wrong would agree in that one circumstance, killing was the “ONLY” way to resolve the situation. Not only that but every day, if you are a believer of the god of Abraham, god kills! You never hear “Thank god that man down the street died, he was such a nice man.” But if you are a believer, how can you deny that it was god who killed that man? Is then your god moral? What about Moses, I mean he freed the Jews, gave us the Ten Commandments which were passed down from god to him directly! Surely he has got to be a moral man. But let me paint a scenario for you that some of you may or may not recognize. A man with +/- 500 followers is walking in the desert. They just fought for their own lives, freedom and rights to worship their god and not a pharaoh who acts as if he were a god. They stumble across a small nation, full of people with different beliefs who worship gods of a different color. They kill all of them! Is that moral? If so Hitler really may have been divinely inspired to make the holocaust! As we all know he went for the Jews, and god has shit on the Jews himself quite a few times for breaking the Abrahamic Covenant, maybe this time god use Hitler to do some of his dirty work! Is Hitler now moral?

to be continued...