pamela pamela pamela

I've one thing to say to Pamela Anderson:

shut up, shut up, shut up

those fishermen are not endangering the seal population. no matter how cruel they are to the seals, there are far worse things that happen in this world. don't waste your celebrity influence on saving animals that are NOT going to make a difference in people's lives. I don't give a red monkey's ass about those seals; however, I do care about poverty, education, cures for diseases, crimes, wars and discrimination against race, sex and religion. so where are you when it comes to the REAL issues, Pamela? or is being the saviour of cute little seal cubs just something that keeps your face appearing on TV screens and magazines?

who knows, some day scientists might find a cure for hepatitis C in seals' genitals.

Memoirs of a Geisha

Memoirs of a Geisha will play on the big screen tomorrow, and the TV is flooded with its commercials, entertainment news, stars interviews and, especially, critiques.

The foremost critique is that the main characters, which are Japanese Geishas, were played by two Chinese actresses. I couldn't care less about the movie, but the previous critique is completely unjustified; otherwise, all fictional movies will be accused of the same thing: Bruce Willis(played in Die Hard) isn't a real cop, Robin Williams(in Peter Pan) can't really fly, Daniel Radcliffe(in Harry Potter) can't really do magic, etc.

The actors' job is to make their roles believable and to give life to the story through their interpretation of the characters. So let that be the subject of the critiques. Make some sense, people.

god I love scotch, cheers.

Conspiracy theory: London bombings

I have been watching the news all evening. Every news source reports pretty much the same story, about an internet posting by the Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe who's claiming responsibility for the bombings.

When I first heard of the blasts in London I immediately thought al-Qaeda, too. It's become automatic to most of us to associate any terrorist attack to al-Qaeda. While I do not deny the possibility of bin Laden or his followers being behind the attack, there's another person who could benefit from creating such disturbance.

Although there are still suicide bombings in Iraq, there hasn't been any real terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, other than a few rumors and false alarms. Americans' fear of terrorists is wearing off. That fear amongst Americans has been, financially, a driving force for Homeland Security and weapons manufacturers, in which the Bush family has a huge stake. There's one motivation why the U.S. president brings up the "War on Terrorism" in every speech he gives, or why the security alert level in the U.S. keeps changing colour like a broken traffic light. As long as the fear is fueled, there is money to be made. But now, at least until the tragedy in London, more people are questioning the security spendings and the war in Iraq, which causes both money and lives.

Here's my theory: the bombings in London could've been orchestrated by the Bush family.

To be fair, I should state that I have zero supporting evidence for that theory, only conjectures. I see several advantages for Bush to stage this particular terrorist attack:
1. bombings in the U.K. will certainly inspire fear in U.S. citizens
2. it won't make a mess in his own country
3. it won't damage the reputation of US' own security forces

To understand why I think the Bushes might do such a thing, you have to know the Bush family. Here's some material that might help:

The Bush Empire
Fahrenheit 9/11
Corporate Crime
or run this Google Search

More on anti-anti-smoking

The following text is from this URL:
http://schmittysrants.blogspot.com/2005/06/more-anti-smoking-bs.html

Thursday, June 30, 2005

More Anti-Smoking B.S.
The kings of the phony statistic, the CDC, have come up with more absurd statistics about smoking. You see, for years the CDC alleged that smoking was costing our society billions of dollars because of health care costs due to the illnesses of smokers. Of course, this turned out to be another in a long line of colossal miscalculations by the CDC, because the CDC failed to take into account the money saved by smoking, because people die younger. When this factor was finally taken into consideration, an independent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded, "If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care cost."

Well, not one to give up after being completely wrong, the CDC has now concocted new numbers to try to justify its conclusion that smoking is costing our society money. Today, the CDC released a study that proclaimed that smoking causes $92 billion in productivity losses annually (a claim that was mindlessly parroted by the AP and other news organizations).

Unfortunately, the CDC study does not even explain what constitute productivity losses, let alone how the CDC reached such an absurd number. Is that referring to employees that die, leaving employers with no employee to do the work? Is so, then the study completely fails to account for the obvious beneficial factor of increased job availability. If the study is referring to lost wages for an employee because he gets sick or dies, and therefore cannot work, how does that personal wage loss constitute a societal cost? If anything, that is a societal gain, because, again, the employer can hire another employee to do the work.

The truth is smoking does not cost our society anything, in a dollar sense. The only "costs" are the unhealthy personal consequences that come from a decision to smoke. But the CDC and federal government have to be able to justify the billions spent on failed anti-smoking campaigns and frivolous lawsuits against tobacco companies. Look at the last sentence of the article: "[I]increased investments to the levels recommended by CDC are needed to achieve a greater health impact." They want more money, so they try to argue that they are saving society money!!!! But in the end, they really just want to interfere with a person's decision to smoke -- a decision that people need to be free to make for themselves.

# posted by Schmitty @ 12:08 AM

I had a dream...

I had a dream last night. Disappointingly, nothing sexual happened. It was one of those dreams in which you're like half awake. So in this dream I was running for president or governor in the United States (I'm Canadian, btw, eh), and I gave a speech on animal rights. I felt that the people needed a wakeup call on the subject, so I rolled up my sleeves, loosened up my tie and I sat down on the edge of the stage and gave it to them, despite strong objections from my advisors...

... I figured, the votes I'd lose from the animal rights activists, I'd gain in ten folds from people who resent or are confused by the non-sense that is animal rights. So I went:

"I'm a bit confused... but I think protecting animal rights is cool. How could I not be when cool people like Pamela and Bono are badmouthing animal product consumers in every camera opportunity they have. Animals shouldn't subject to the cruelty of skinning, product-testing, sport-hunting or being eaten. After all, those are not the reasons why they exist in this world, right?" [pause]

Saying the previous sentence left a bad taste in my mouth.

"What the hell then are they here for?!, if I dare to ask myself. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the concept of food chain. Why is it ok for animals to eat other animals but not for humans. Testing chemical products on animals is cruel, I agree. However, testing on humans or not thoroughly testing a chemical product at all before releasing to public is even crueler, crueler to the kind of animal that is us. Animals, aside from being cute, contribute greatly to our comfort, entertainment, safety and economies. In short, their sacrifice means our own survival. Will you want a government who takes side with animal rights activists and makes laws that jeopardizes our well-being? My report might seem one-sided; though, I do understand that animal rights need to be protected to a certain extend. I just hope the public will think for themselves on this subject instead of being brainwashed by the mass media, which is oppositely one-sided from my point of view. Democracy is in place to select politicians to run the country the way its people want to run it. It is the voters' duty to make sure what they want is really from their own conscious decision before they cast their votes."

I expected either cheers or boos, but the audience remained silent after the speech to my surprise.

Interview with Carolyn Parrish and Tucker Carlson

sent to me by roy.

BLITZER: He has his work cut out for him. Joining us now from Ottawa is the Canadian parliament member, Carolyn Paris. She was expelled from the Liberal Party for what Prime Minister Martin called "unacceptable behavior," which included a recent stomping of the George W. Bush doll. And here in Washington, Tucker Carlson, he is the Canada-baiting co-host of CNN's "CROSSFIRE." He has suggested that our northern neighbor, in his words, is a third-rate country. We'll get to Tucker in a moment. Let's begin with Carolyn Parrish.
Thanks very much for joining us. We're going to show our viewers that picture of you stomping that George W. Bush doll. What were you trying to prove?

PARRISH: Actually, I was making fun of myself. We have a program up here called "This Hour Has 22 Minutes." And they love to get politicians to do bizarre things, like put rollers in their hair and jump into bed with strange people. And they kept giving me direction and I kept following it.

BLITZER: So, you apologize for that?

PARRISH: Nope.

BLITZER: Why not?

PARRISH: Because I was making fun of myself. It was a parody on me and my anti-Bush position. And if you can't make fun of yourself in this business, then it's time to get out of it.

[continued in comments]

Justice for smokers

Mychoice.ca – "a non-profit organization funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council – is a membership-driven association. It is designed to allow Canada’s adult smokers and others who believe in fair and balanced policy making to use their strength in numbers to have their say and ensure the policy makers pay attention."
[...]
"an on-line smokers’ rights association website dedicated to finally giving adult Canadian smokers a real say and influence in the development of federal, provincial and municipal policies aimed directly at them."
[...]
"This association is not about smoking – it is about the rights and concerns of Canadian adults who choose to smoke. "

Do not underestimate stupid people in large number

	State	Avg. IQ	2004
1	Connecticut	113	Kerry
2	Massachusetts	111	Kerry
3	New Jersey	111	Kerry
4	New York	109	Kerry
5	Rhode Island	107	Kerry
6	Hawaii	106	Kerry
7	Maryland	105	Kerry
8	New Hampshire	105	Kerry
9	Illinois	104	Kerry
10	Delaware	103	Kerry
11	Minnesota	102	Kerry
12	Vermont	102	Kerry
13	Washington	102	Kerry
14	California	101	Kerry
15	Pennsylvania	101	Kerry
16	Maine	100	Kerry
17	Virginia	100	Bush
18	Wisconsin	100	Kerry
19	Colorado	99	Bush
20	Iowa	99	Bush
21	Michigan	99	Kerry
22	Nevada	99	Bush
23	Ohio	99	Bush
24	Oregon	99	Kerry
25	Alaska	98	Bush
26	Florida	98	Bush
27	Missouri	98	Bush
28	Kansas	96	Bush
29	Nebraska	95	Bush
30	Arizona	94	Bush
31	Indiana	94	Bush
32	Tennessee	94	Bush
33	North Carolina	93	Bush
34	West Virginia	93	Bush
35	Arkansas	92	Bush
36	Georgia	92	Bush
37	Kentucky	92	Bush
38	New Mexico	92	Bush
39	North Dakota	92	Bush
40	Texas	92	Bush
41	Alabama	90	Bush
42	Louisiana	90	Bush
43	Montana	90	Bush
44	Oklahoma	90	Bush
45	South Dakota	90	Bush
46	South Carolina	89	Bush
47	Wyoming	89	Bush
48	Idaho	87	Bush
49	Utah	87	Bush
50	Mississippi	85	Bush

here's a picture of the vote distribution

Bush Time

I got the picture off this blog.

Sugar BEFORE the cream

I don't put sugar in my coffee, only cream. But if you put both then, please, put the sugar in first. I just don't think it's right to put sugar into a coffee after pouring in cream or milk. That's all I have to say. :)

Save the Itchy Algae!

Tonight's King of the Hill talks about Bobby joining an environmentalists' (Mr McKay's) fight to protect some garbage water from being drained so the algae can live. As usual, the cartoon pokes fun of the stupidity in modern civilization and the ridiculous rules that humans create. KotH rules!

I'm all for protecting the Earth and its resources so we can maintain the quality of life for ourselves and our future generations. But from what I can see, some people do it without knowing why and what they should protect. I truly believe there are many (not all) who jumped on the bandwagon because:

1. they want to belong to a group
2. they have nothing better to do
3. they want to feel they are doing something important
4. they are looking to do something bold to spice up their autobiography
5. they smoked too much weed during the 70's
6. they want to meet chicks/guys, or
7. all of the above

Some of those people speak in condescending manners about normal people's wasting habits, eating meat or indifference to endangered species. To save our environment? well, yes, but that's only a side effect of their trying to demonstrate to the world that they are superior to the rest of us. I have much respect for true environmentalists. The poseurs try to gain that same status by acting like they're saving the world. But the fact is, the genuine nature-lovers earned our love and respect because they are usually loving, considerate, open and spirited (probably that's what drove them to be environmentalists in the first place), not because they act all crazy and mean to people that they disagree with. What's worse? the government/politicians also hopped on the Green train in order to get a few more votes, resulting in many ridiculous environmental regulations (especially the ones for protecting near extinct species that no one ever heard of or need or care).

To me, the rule of thumb as to what we should protect should be:

1. if the species or environment is beneficial to human kind, or
2. if its protection poses no inconvenience to human kind, or
3. if it is the human species.

The idea is DO only if human kind will end up better off, and absolute DON'T if human kind will end up worse off. "Human kind", in this context, could be loosely defined as the majority of the human population affected. Here are some examples:

Water pollution causes the algae population in certain large body of water to deplete. Should we try to protect them? Answer: yes. Even though algae make the water you like to swim in green or brown or purple and may cause you skin to have allergic reactions, they are important contributors to the world's oxygen supply. If we lost the algae, we would not breathe very easily. In that case, protecting the algae (and our ecosystem) is good, let's move on.

In a not-yet developed construction site of a future commercial establishment, some near-extinct species of flies is discovered. There are fewer than 100 of these flies in the world. They can only survive in the delicate balance provided by this habitat. Should we protect them by prohibiting the land owner from continuing the development? Answer: fucking no. There are too few of them to cause any significant changes in our ecosystem. They will not disturb the food chain because the frogs and spiders will enjoy other kinds of flies just as much (if you're a frog and you're picky about what kind of flies to eat, you deserve to die). The flies probably started disappearing because of natural selection. Why should businesses suffer monetary loss and jobs be ruined and people's lives be crushed just because some biologists like to look at some rare flies!?!??!

Some people might argue that I chose not to protect the flies because they're ugly and disgusting. To be fair, I feel the same way about the young seal cubs in the North. You know why people try to save them? it's just because they look so damn cute! and that's about the only thing they do. If you think about it, there's really no good reason to save those cubs from the natives (who are humans, like us) who need them to survive. This seal cubs saving movement is actually a discrimination against a certain group of humans! And if I'm not mistaken, these seals are causing problems for the rest of us, too, because they are diminishing our supply of cod (and other sorts of fish).

In my not-so-humble opinion, some acts of nature preservation are actually cruelty to our own kind. You have the power to save the Earth, but please exercise that power with intelligence, or at least with common sense.

"Children are the future, today belongs to me."

It's a quote by Ms Naegles from the Simpsons.

This made me think of all the child protection laws we have today. I don't have a kid yet, but no spanking?! how in the world will a parent be able to discipline their child (or to get even with what THEIR parents did to them :)? I believe there are a few parents out there who are capable of bringing up a good child without corporal punishment, but for the rest, it is the most effective and straightforward way to discipline a kid. Not all parents have the time to explain every right and wrong to their child with all the sex and violence and weird things that go on in the world today. Moderate spanking might just be the negative reenforcement a child needs to avoid making the wrong choices early in life. I'm not talking about cruel and usual punishment like kneeling on broken glass or sitting through an entire episode of Oprah, but just enough pain (and perhaps humiliation) to get the point across. I'm sure glad my parents "taught" me the way they did when I was a kid. They helped me make the right choices that I was too young to comprehend, and then I gradually realized why I had to make those choices as I grew up.

Now because of a few bad apples (those who abuse their children), parents' ability to bring up a good child is crippled. At the same time, we see more and more young criminals and delinquents on the streets. Coincidence?