Monday, May 30, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
I guess Americans do realize that teaching just evolution is a problem.
Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism ALONG WITH evolution in public schools?
Friday, May 13, 2005
So I'm Told
You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian
You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party.
Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel opressed by both.
You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter.
You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything!
What political persuasion are you?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Again, I found myself writing what I would have liked to post here in the comments section of someone else's blog:
Now, a lot of things have a "scientific consensus": the belief that homosexuality is normal, global warming, and evolution. Incidentally, the similarly incredible theories that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it had scientific consensus in their day. The most blatent abuse of "scientific consensus occured in 1977 when a panel of psychologists voted to remove homosexuality from the list of sexual deviations. Not by evidence, but by consensus. That is not science. Especially now, I think what scientists are forgetting is that science is not about voting, it’s about evidence. Evolution is the same way. The evidence is weak, and the logical assumptions that would have to be true for the theory to work, even weaker (for example, for evolution to be valid, you have to contridict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which says basically that every natural system –without intellegent intervention, be it human or divine– eventually moves from order to chaos). To believe in evolution is about as logical as me believing that if I drop a ballpoint pen enough times I will get a space shuttle. I don’t care if every scientist on this planet jumped on the evolution bandwagon, it doesn’t mean the evolution makes any more sense.
And you would say, what about all the “missing-link” evidence for evolution? It’s all been worked backwards. If you believe dogmatically in evolution, like 95% of scientists do, any natural observation you see “proves” evolution. After all, there are many similar species, with one seeming to be less complex than another (a salamander and a lizard, for example). Now, if the only theory scientists have for the origin of species is that of evolution, then they start by assuming that the more complex animal evolved from the less complex one. Then, working the logic backwards, they would then site the existence (or the fossil evidence) of the less complex animal as proof of evolution, stating that it must be the ancestor of the more complex one. Ultimately, if enough scientists follow this logical fallacy, they start believing their own nonsense, and in turn, they make the public believe. How do you think the idea of the earth being the center of the universe came about? Someone figured the earth must be the center, then the greater scientific community pointed to all kinds of “evidence” that it was true, while just ignoring the fact that it was not really logical (but rather driven by dogma, like evolution), and surpressed all evidence to the contrary.
Lastly, how crazy of the theory is creationism really? Don’t worry, most scientifically minded christians don’t believe the earth is 6000 years old. In fact, if you do a small bit of studying, you will see that the bible eludes to this set of species as being the last in a line of creations, each of which were destroyed by some catastrophie (dinosaurs ring a bell?), something that earth's history of periodic mass extinctions seems to show. Additionally, if one thing evolved from another, what are all the fish and other creatures still doing around? If the most fit was going to survive to the exclusion of all others (the less fit) how come we are living on such a diverse planet, stocked with the so-called “less fit” all the way up to the most fit? Most importantly, creationism requires a much more believable logic. Either God created you or he didn’t. You’ve got a 50% chance of being right. For evolution to be logical, every small choice that could have made life more random or more organized has to be put into the equation, making the likelyhood that all those millions of possiblities lined up to reach this point something like 1 in 100 trillion. If I’m going to pick a theory, I’m going to pick that one has a 50% chance of being right, not the one with a 0.000000000001% chance.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Illegal Immigrants and Other Wanted Felons
I posted this on www.theurbangrindblog.com as a comment, but after I wrote it, I realized this problem has been bothering me for a long time, so I'm reposting it here, with some editing for typos and added thoughts.
The illegal immigration problem here in California is spiraling out of control. At this time, I’m trying to buy a house here in South OC, California. It is an already difficult process which is made exponentially more complicated and expensive by the illegal immigrant problem. Sadly, my search has boiled down to hunting for “protected” locations where the property value is so high, or the location so exclusive, that the illegal immigrants can’t move in and ruin the appreciation potential of my property. I usually don’t get angry, but it really pisses me off that these criminals (that’s what all illegal immigrants are, by definition) have to come here and turned many of the once classy and safe downtowns in orange country into slums. You have to pay 650,000 just to get a decent condo in South OC, and after putting so much in your property, you have to worry about a group of disgusting (in their character), disrespectful (of our laws), and often freeloading (off of welfare) criminals from over the border ruining the neighborhood. No only do I not have any sympathy for illegals, I have no sympathy for anyone who criminally hires, harbors, rents an apartment, or gives a bank account to an illegal. The INS needs to get on the ball and start cracking down on everyone suspected to be an illegal, and Americans need to get on the ball and start calling the INS, and start writing your representatives. When you see a group of Spanish speaking only people milling around outside of Home Depot waiting for a sleazy contractor to pick them up, don't just complain about what this country has become, call the INS. That's what they are there for. They may not do something initially, but if enough people complain something will happen. The recent minutemen project has shown that more than police, or even border patrol, illegal immigrants are afraid of angry citizens. It's because they know the people who they are reallying giving the middle finger of disrespect is not the American government, but the American taxpaying public. If you are a citizen or a legal immigrant, they are thumbing their nose at you! If illegal immigrants believe that everyone around them is hostile, and just waiting to see them arrested for the crime they commited, America will not seem like such a good country for them, and they will go home. My theory is if illegals knew that when they walked into Bank of America and tried to get an account with a Mexican consular card, they would be arrested, they would not go to the bank. If they knew that when they took the bus, they would have to show CA id, they would not take the bus. If they knew that to get an apartment for rent, they needed a social security card, they would not rent an apartment. And, most importantly, if they knew that from the second they crossed the border, every citizen from here to Canada would be on their cell to the INS and Border Patrol, reporting their illegal entrance, they wouldn't come here at all.
Ahh, much better.
I would like to finance a tv ad campaign, with captions as such:
“Would you work with a business that hired a wanted felon? Many illegals have come back over the border again and again, even after being deported. Thats a felony. If we would never tolerate a business that employs wanted felons, why do we tolerate them hiring illegal immigrants?”
“Narrator: How would you greet a neighbor who decided break and enter your house without your permission? (Show a homeowner at night pulling a gun on someone sneaking in his kitchen window. The homeowner then yells “Don’t move” and his wife picks up the phone to call the police). Narrator: America is our home, so why do we do nothing to protect it? If you suspect someone is an illegal immigrant, call the INS at (insert number here).”
The last line on the second ad could be replaced by a myriad of other things, such as vote for so-and-so, or go to www.capsweb.org to take action….
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Again, it's www.justfacts.com
Monday, April 04, 2005
Zogby Comes Late
Apparently the media thinks it can tell America how it feels about things, again. It would have been nice if a majority of the country knew that a majority of the country agreed with them. That may have made the difference in saving Terri's life. But by releasing polls that made it seem no one supported keeping Terri alive, major media (with it's agenda) managed to weaken the support for Terri, contributing to her death. It's like the Nov 2004 early exit polls all over again. If you can tell everyone they are losing, maybe it will really happen.
The credibility of the major media has reached a new low. If you had to chose between an alcoholic bum who promised not to spend your donation on liquor or CNN's latest poll, you would be better off believing the bum.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Lying Liberals and the 50 Caliber Boogyman
So lets learn about guns. :) First, what gun was loveline's "political savant" refering to? As you've probably guessed from my title, the 50 caliber bmg. It's a rifle with usually a single shot, five shot, or ten shot capacity that shoots 1/2 inch diameter rounds. The extreme range of such a gun is approximately 1.5 miles (that means unless you are a skilled sniper, good luck hitting anything that far away). I believe the average accurate range of the gun is about 1000 yards. Now in order to shoot down an airliner, how far would the gun have to shoot? Airliners usually fly at about 30,000 feet, which is about 5 1/2 miles up. The fifty caliber rifle on a good day would fall 4 miles short. Oops, can't kill an airliner there. Secondly, lets say someone manages to hit an airliner in flight (because you can't "shoot down" one that's on the ground) they will make a giant 1/2 inch hole in the plane. Yes, as logic would have it, the plane would keep flying. A single 1/2 inch hole just isn't enough to stop a 155 ft long, 41000lb airliner (the size of a 747). Now even if the bullet did penetrate the pressurized cabin, the airliner would have a leak. It would not decompress in a huge fireball like Hollywood wants you to think. The worst thing that would happen is the pilot would have to take the plane down to 10000 ft and fly the rest of the way to the airport. A short quiz: if someone wanted to take down an airliner, would he: A) buy a stinger missile and shoot it at the plane, B) buy a $4000 50 cal rifle and plink at it, C) sneak a bomb on board or, D) either A or C. If you picked A, C, or D, you are correct. The reality of it is you can't shoot down an airliner with a 50 caliber rifle. It only happens in movies, if that. Incidentally, one of the greatest fighters in the history, the F-86 Sabre, was armed with six 50 caliber machine guns, and most of it's pilots considered to be lacking in the firepower department. In fact, many pilots ended up shooting all eighteen hundred rounds of ammunition on board at a single target without scoring a kill. Now if eighteen hundred rounds of 50 caliber ammunition has trouble taking down a Mig-15 (much smaller than a 747), how do you think someone armed with ten 50 caliber rounds is going to fare against an airliner? Only a liberal would be stupid enough to think they have a chance.
So, the next time a liberal tells you about the dangers of 50 caliber rifles to airliners, give him a lecture on the boogyman in his bedroom closet. After all, both subjects are in the same catagory: absurd fantasy.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
1) Assumption: Massive hatecrimes against Muslims. Reality check: there was something like ONE vigilante killing against a Muslim after Sept 11.
2) Assumption: Muslim groups (specifically in the movie, the "anti-defamation league"), despite so-called "discrimination" against them, would largely denounce the terrorist attacks and support our continued war on terror. Reality check: Muslim groups were largely mute (of course there where a few exceptions, the "anti-defamation league" not one of them) and continue to work today to question the validity of the war on terror.
3) Assumption: The American people would call on the president to impliment marshal law after a large attack. Reality check: It didn't happen. And no one even considered it.
4) Assumption: It's more effective to fight terror at home as a police operation than to go abroad and find the instigators. That's right, Hollywood really thinks this. In the movie, during a "meeting" of top cabinet members and senators (what are senators doing in a cabinet meeting anyways?) the idea of finding those responsible abroad was dimissed with the lame excuse of it being "too hard to find out who really responsible". Reality check: OBVIOUSLY this adminstration's policy of decapitating the terrorist leadership has worked well, because despite frankly dismal security here at home (the open border with mexico as an example), we still haven't had another major attack.
5) Assumption: The president would order the military to occupy New York, the military would really follow that order, detain large numbers of people, and summarily execute suspected terrorists. Reality check: not only has it not happened it will not happen in the near future. Who do you think the military is made of? Your neighbor's son, that's who. The military is pretty close to the people, and from the stories I've seen coming out of Iraq and Afganistan it is composed largely of men who hold their duty and honor to protect America, it's people, and their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a much higher regard than many of the people here in America who get to enjoy those rights every day.
Well there you go, Hollywood out of touch again. But I'm sure it's obvious to most. :)
Btw, sorry about the spelling and any gramatical errors. It's late so I'm going to look it over in the morning.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Pongyang's New Communist Paper
Barring the New York Times, this is the more outrageous non-sense I've seen printed in a major newspaper. Excuse me, a "North Korean Businessman"??? Is Mrs. Demick that stupidly naive? A businessman who calls himself "Mr. Anonymous"? His comments were personal? He says this: "We Asians are traditional people," "We prefer to have a benevolent father leader." Yea, let me go knock on my neighbor's door. I'm sure being a "traditional asian" he would prefer a "benevolent father leader" like Kim Jong Il any day over you know, a democratically elected one. You know, it's not like it's possible this "businessman" could you know, could work for the North Korean government... I'm sure all those people in the gulags really agree with him. "Yea, my benevolent father leader executed my son, ordered my wife raped, and condemned the next three generations of my family to life in the gulag. I just really love it here in North Korea..."
And the "businessman" continues : "Is there any country where there is a 100% guarantee of human rights? Certainly not the United States," "There is a question of what is a political prisoner. Maybe these people are not political prisoners but social agitators." Excuse me, but someone really believes this crap? This is communist propaganda right from the horses mouth and the LA times is eating it up like it's mommy's special recipe for apple cream pie.
While Westerners tend to stress the rights of the individual, he said, "we have chosen collective human rights as a nation…. We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and vandalism. The question of our survival as a nation is dangling." Wow. Anyone else here want to be on the "collective rights" boat? Jump right in, I'm sure the LA times will make room.
"There is love. (For the great "father leader") There is hate. (for anyone that speaks against the government) There is fighting. (In the gulags for food) There is charity… (Meaning, the government lets "businessmen" who kiss up to Kim Jong Il live). People marry. They divorce. (When their spouse gets labeled an enemy of the state) They make children (When the power's out for 18 hours a day)," he said.
Anyone who still subscibes to the LA times, now's the day to pick a new paper. The OC Register is an excellent choice for people in this area, or the Wall Street Journal is always an option.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The (International) Red Cross
Interesting thing though, CSPAN's Washington Journal had a New York Times article (they usually do) in this morning's broadcast. I believe the headline reads "Red Cross: Guantanamo Tactics "Tantamount to Torture". Now this is the "International" Red Cross, mind you. Lets see, the organization that visted Hitler's death camps and declared them "humane". They also found the Hanoi Hilton to be "acceptable" in treatment of prisoners. Now, the last time I checked, there weren't any gas chambers down at Guantanamo. So, if they were to be true to their record, the International Red Cross should find Guantanamo humane, even if it WAS one big torture chamber (which it is not). But true to form, this international organization ignored it's own despicable record on exposing the existance of human rights abuse, to accuse the United States of running a torture operation. Do you know why the Red Cross thinks we torture people? Because the doctors at Guantanamo Bay, GOD FORBID, share medical information with a panal of psychologists, who in turn report to the American interrogators. Gee, that's the biggest human rights abuse EVER! Even more than Saddam killing 100,000 Kurds with chemical weapons. Yea. Right. Now the Red Cross is considering "challenging the Bush administration". Maybe they should have considered CHALLENGING HITLER. I mean, it may only have saved a FEW million lives... but what the heck.