There are a number of problems present in our world today, and that is a very large number. However, we can write up a top X list of some of the worst. Some favourites may be:
i) There is too much CO2 going into the air, resulting in increased global warming, melting of the ice caps, asthma, flood and storms, and the destruction of the human species.
ii) By burning petroleum at an increased rate we are depleting our petroluem stocks rabidly. This is resulting in increased atmospheric CO2 (see i) as well as increasing the price of gas. Not only will it be unaffordable to drive a car and huff gasoline, it will also be impractical for industry to create huge amounts of non-biodegradable plastics.
iii) Yadda yadda yadda. Yaddas reproducing in triplicate is a terrible crime, and soon we will all be drowing in useless nothings representative of anythings. A fate worse than life.
At any rate, humanity can be saved easily (although not cheaply). A scheme for this is already available, devised by an insane genius with too much time on his hands (mostly due to poor time management) and too little electro-shock therapy. This scheme has several important parts, subparts, division, curricula, compartments and subtituents. The most important of which will be described below:
Part 1, section iii, division A23bravo: The Source
The majority of the problem rests entirely with petroleum, which is to say, it is entirely underground. Now, a mere literal interpretation of such a statement is likely to cause befuddlement, but an interpretation resulting in comprehension of the intrinsic meaning might be useful at some temporal location. The problem, namly, is that petroleum is the buffer from which we drag our energy. The energy stored in petroleum was dragged forcefully, kicking and screaming, which is why it was buried in the first place -- to dampen the noise, from trees and other plant vegetation. Or at least, that's how the pseudo-scientific untestable and non-predictive theory goes. Right. Now, there is the more scientific and less pseudo theory which is not really predictive but almost testable, which... describes the absorption of stuff called radiation (although it never responds to that name) by those very trees and plant vegetation which I was already discussing. As you know, have three whichs together makes a coven, and it is important to burn whichs, which is the historic process of causing our now-realized mass consumption of petroleum. Note that it is realised in Britain as opposed to North America. This so-called radiation is supplied by the Sun, which we blame entirely for its poor raising and lack of response when called.
Instead of allowing this ill-begotten and poorly behaved radiation to trickle to us through a complex array of pain, burial, and cremation, we can instead harness it directly. Harnesses are best used young, and in fact can be used to train young elephants not to leave, as well as human children in shopping malls. Harnesses, best used young, can be used on new and young radiation directly coming from the sun. Of course, entering the world distinctly ages people, and why should we expect it to be different for anyone else? Thus, we can clearly see how important it is to harness this radiation while it is still flying straight and true outside the world.
For this task I recommend a satel. Of course, in order for a satel to get off the ground, it would have to be very light, so from now on I'll refer to this specific satel as a satellite. This satellite must be able to bring young and wild radiation into order, and as we all know, spanking is the best way to do that. For that reason I recommend large paddles be attached to the satellite capable of slapping the radiation coming from the sun silly. Or at least into a good humour. All that energy is going to be tiring, so we'd best cover the paddles with solar cells so that our good little discipliner doesn't give up.
Of course, once we have harnessed all this radiation, we need to set it to some important, preferably world-saving, task. As well all know, idle hands are the devil's workshop. I don't know when the last time he got into outer space is, but I don't want him doing any woodwork above my head -- he might drop something. So, we could have our radiation do something important like wash all our cars, but we still need to direct its attention somehow. Now, when you shine a laser pointer on the wall or floor, you get the attention and activity of any nearby dog or cat or human. Indeed, many university professors use this to their advantage whenever they run out of things to say. They just point a laser at the wall and wave it back and forth and watch in amusement as all the humans (Professors aren't human, they are android computers with evil intentions and a bent for the cruel) move their heads back and forth following the laser dot. Therefore, the best way to get the radiation to get to work is to shine a big laser pointer at the Earth wherever you want it to go. So, I figure a big laser pointed at the Earth will get all the radiation going to one spot. Of course, you don't want to blow a hole in the Earth or all the water will drain out of the oceans like a big bathtub. By that illogic, we definated need a big dish to catch the laser. Why a dish? Well, we use dishes to hold just about anything, and they prevent splashing, too. Besides, they look so sci-fi.
Well, now that we're catching a huge laser at the Earth, we need to DO something with it. I figure we'll just do what we do with everything else that is useless, and mass produce it for sale. In this case, we'll just claim that it's worth a lot, and sell a piece at a time. Hopefully this would be worthwhile enough that we can make enough money to take over the world, or at least save it.
Not only that, but we can sell pieces of our laser to special plants. Some plants like to eat flies, some like to eat radiation. Hopefully we can convince a really big one to reduce our CO2(g) to C(s). I mean, graphite is really slippery, so we naturally want to make a really big graphite mountain so that we can go skiing. Ironically this will remove a lot of CO2 from our air and save us from certain death.
Of course, with all this energy we'll have we will be able to electrolyze water or reduce Boron in order to run many vehicles without having to burn any petrol. And you know what? That means we can have polymer couches with polymer beerhats and polymer dogs (no feeding!) and polymer people that are always smiling. Three cheers for plastic surgery!
March 21, 2007
Carnivores
Carnivores seem to have a set of contradictory beliefs. By Carnivores I'm referring to people that like meat.... I meant really like meat. Some people like meat so much that it is the only thing they would eat if they could afford it. The only problem with this is that eating only meat is not healthy. Typically, people that eat a lot of meat believe things like:
i) Meat tastes good
ii) It is natural and normal for humans to eat meat
iii) Humans are omnivores, capable of eating virtually anything.
iv) Innards are disgusting, intestines (and their contents) are not meant to be eaten, but the flesh is good to eat.
The only problem with a belief set like this is that it leads to other beliefs which are plain wrong. The problem is that meat does not contain all the nutrients required for health for almost any animal, including humans. If you look at Bears, you will find they are omnivores, and the North American Grizzly Bear, a close "relative" to the Bruin, or European Brown Bear, is very hungry when it comes out of hibernation. What's the first thing that these brutes eat? Grass shoots! Now, I have my own theory that they are restocking their digestive tract with lactobacteria (which are found in huge qunatities on grass, which is why they're so present in milk) so that they can digest properly again after months of not eating, but that's not the point. If you look at a true carnivore, such as a wolf, you will notice that the wolf eats the innards - all of them. That also means the "offal" which includes the intenstines and the contents. That's how wolves get the various things that they need to survive that are not contained in simply the muscle of the animal. Essentially, they piggyback their digestion onto their prey's digestive system.
So next time the carnivore in your family is hungry, recommend a good blood sausage made of out already-full intestines. No doubt they'll be thrilled at the prospect.
i) Meat tastes good
ii) It is natural and normal for humans to eat meat
iii) Humans are omnivores, capable of eating virtually anything.
iv) Innards are disgusting, intestines (and their contents) are not meant to be eaten, but the flesh is good to eat.
The only problem with a belief set like this is that it leads to other beliefs which are plain wrong. The problem is that meat does not contain all the nutrients required for health for almost any animal, including humans. If you look at Bears, you will find they are omnivores, and the North American Grizzly Bear, a close "relative" to the Bruin, or European Brown Bear, is very hungry when it comes out of hibernation. What's the first thing that these brutes eat? Grass shoots! Now, I have my own theory that they are restocking their digestive tract with lactobacteria (which are found in huge qunatities on grass, which is why they're so present in milk) so that they can digest properly again after months of not eating, but that's not the point. If you look at a true carnivore, such as a wolf, you will notice that the wolf eats the innards - all of them. That also means the "offal" which includes the intenstines and the contents. That's how wolves get the various things that they need to survive that are not contained in simply the muscle of the animal. Essentially, they piggyback their digestion onto their prey's digestive system.
So next time the carnivore in your family is hungry, recommend a good blood sausage made of out already-full intestines. No doubt they'll be thrilled at the prospect.
March 06, 2007
Why Feminists Supporting Insulting Women
The other day when I went to check my mail… the real stuff, not the electronic variety, I heard the radio and the voices were discussing a comment that someone male had made to Violet someone-or-other, who happens to be the only female referee in the NBA. As it turns out, this fellow told her to, or said that she should, “go back to/into the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs.” Naturally the voices on the radio are in the public sector, and thus must toe the public sector party line. That means supporting politically correct speech and ALL sensitivities including feminist ones. Of course, I actually thought the comment was funny, and even a bit extra funny because the fellow who made it had the nickname “Cornbread.”
At any rate, you might think that supporting a comment like this makes me a cad, and you’d be right, but not because I support this comment, and here’s why:
The statement made is an insult. Insults are important to our society, and we use them to communicate, often in regards to jostling our social rankings. Between men, this means we can figure out who’s got the bigger cojones without dragging our pants down and can figure out who is top dog without fighting to the death or splattering blood on the office walls. In case you still don’t agree with me that insults are important, watch some movies… and I mean watch them carefully. In movies, you will see scenes such as, the “some backstabber gets what’s coming to him, and then the “backstabee” gets a good burn on the backstabber to rub it in” scenario, which we all silently cheer to. We all like justice, or in this case, justice plus. Another scenario is one where jostling on the office hierarchical ladder is communicated through carefully placed and veiled snide comments. Naturally this prompts our insulted hero to avenge him/herself by retaliating, which is often either accompanied or synonymous with elevating him/herself above the snide commenter on the social ladder through extreme measures.
At any rate, insults are an important communication mechanism, and to deny this mechanism with women, simply because they are women, are to simply funnel confrontation into other pathways, many of which could perhaps be more harmful. Furthermore, what is called “Affirmative Action” in the US, and “Reverse Discrimination” in the UK, means that women should be protected from being insulted, according to some ways of thinking. However I object to this as bizarre and irrational: if women are not allowed to be insulted, that there is an implicit statement that women are too weak to defend themselves, or even to survive! This is clearly unacceptable because even a hard-core chauvinist, such as myself, will agree that women are fully capable of surviving insults and giving “what-for” verbally. If anything, I would say that men are less capable than women to defend themselves verbally from insults.
Clearly, feminists have to stand up for the right for women to be insulted, less they suffer prejudice and discrimination in having an implicit statement broadcasted through public sector media.
At any rate, you might think that supporting a comment like this makes me a cad, and you’d be right, but not because I support this comment, and here’s why:
The statement made is an insult. Insults are important to our society, and we use them to communicate, often in regards to jostling our social rankings. Between men, this means we can figure out who’s got the bigger cojones without dragging our pants down and can figure out who is top dog without fighting to the death or splattering blood on the office walls. In case you still don’t agree with me that insults are important, watch some movies… and I mean watch them carefully. In movies, you will see scenes such as, the “some backstabber gets what’s coming to him, and then the “backstabee” gets a good burn on the backstabber to rub it in” scenario, which we all silently cheer to. We all like justice, or in this case, justice plus. Another scenario is one where jostling on the office hierarchical ladder is communicated through carefully placed and veiled snide comments. Naturally this prompts our insulted hero to avenge him/herself by retaliating, which is often either accompanied or synonymous with elevating him/herself above the snide commenter on the social ladder through extreme measures.
At any rate, insults are an important communication mechanism, and to deny this mechanism with women, simply because they are women, are to simply funnel confrontation into other pathways, many of which could perhaps be more harmful. Furthermore, what is called “Affirmative Action” in the US, and “Reverse Discrimination” in the UK, means that women should be protected from being insulted, according to some ways of thinking. However I object to this as bizarre and irrational: if women are not allowed to be insulted, that there is an implicit statement that women are too weak to defend themselves, or even to survive! This is clearly unacceptable because even a hard-core chauvinist, such as myself, will agree that women are fully capable of surviving insults and giving “what-for” verbally. If anything, I would say that men are less capable than women to defend themselves verbally from insults.
Clearly, feminists have to stand up for the right for women to be insulted, less they suffer prejudice and discrimination in having an implicit statement broadcasted through public sector media.