My mother is a supply teacher in the elementary school system. Sometimes she would teach at my school. So when I was young I had to listen to my fellow students trashing my mother. Mostly the big, dumb students who’d been held back at least a year, but I digress. My father taught at my high school. So when I went to high school, I had to listen to those most assuredly bound for jail or permanent welfare trashing him.
Then Mike Harris came along. And for the last fifteen or twenty years, I’ve had to listen to everybody trash my parents and thousands of other decent, hard-working professionals whose goal in life was to educate the young and prepare them for life.
It astounds me that I’m still hearing right-wing, conservative-supporting dittoheads using the same lies and deceit the Harris government used all those years ago in the war they waged against education.
Let us begin with the All Powerful Imperial Greedy Teacher’s Union. Yes, you know the one. Governments quake and tremble with fear in awe of their might, falling quickly to their knees. Yes, it was the All Powerful Union that let Bob Rae take five percent of their pay. It was the same Greedy Union that let Mike Harris outlaw their collective bargaining. The same Evil Union that let its teachers’ salaries be frozen for years, not even hedged against inflation. It was the same union that let the provincial government use millions of taxpayers’ dollars to trash them with deceitful television ads and then take away their retirement benefits.
That Union? I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s the one that makes it impossible to ever, ever, ever fire a single bad teacher. Ever.
Whatever. Your union-bashing lies are just that: lies. I’m tired of hearing them. Get some new ones.
What’s next? How about those teachers and their summer vacations? They get two months off, don’t they?
Here’s an idea. Go to Teacher’s College and become a teacher. You know those brats you’re raising? You know how you’re so happy when school starts again because you can get rid of them? Some poor bastard has to deal with 30 of them all day long while you’re at work. If it’s high school, they deal with 90 of them, maybe more if we can’t quite keep up with teacher hiring. After teaching them for 10 months, tell me you don’t need two months to regain your sanity.
You know what happens to the teachers that don’t really like to teach but get in to teaching for the summer vacation? They get to their first summer vacation and then they quit, because they can’t hack it. One of those teachers was Mike Harris. Yeah, the very same politician who set out to destroy the public education system or, as his Minister of Education put it, “Get the government out of the education business.” Coincidence?
Let’s move on to a few lies. There was the lie they told that Ontario’s education was the most expensive in the nation on a cost-per-student basis. Why was it a lie? Because they concocted their numbers by including private school tuitions in his average. Would you call that lying? I would. How about that bit about how making every teacher do an extra class per year was only “asking for fifteen minutes a day”? News flash. A teacher with a four hour teaching schedule puts in more than an eight hour day marking and preparing for classes. If you think that the only time a teacher spends working is in the classroom with the full class present, you’re both stupid and naïve and I’ve had enough of catering to your naïveté and walking on eggshells around your stupidity.
There was a time when I wanted to be teacher. It’s a tradition in my family, going back a couple of generations. But then I learned that my employer, the government, would bizarrely be permitted to purchase television ad time to tell people that I’m lazy, overpaid and greedy while implying that I don’t care about the children I teach. Can you imagine the hatred I feel for a government – and any people who support its lies – that used my tax dollars to take out television ads to publicly trash my parents?
I’m tired of being kind to you people. I’m tired of mincing words. You’re stupid. You’ve allowed yourself to be led in to ignorance. You need to be shaken out of your comfortable, arrogant, talking-point parroting shell and told to shut up. And if you’re going to repeat those lazy, conceited, twenty-year old arguments to me? I’m going to shut you up myself.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
You're Way Too Fat
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Kind of offensive, isn't it?
What if I sat next to you in a cafeteria, presuming us to be previously acquainted, and told you that you were too fat, that you were eating too much unhealthy food? What if I told you that the sight of you was so revolting that you should immediately lay off the bacon and the salad dressing? What if I started counting the rolls of fat on your stomach or the number of your chins? What if wrinkled my nose at you and told you to get some exercise?
I think we could all agree that every one of those statements would be considered offensive in our society. For whatever reason, much like the 1970s era taboo against telling smokers to frak off, we’re supposed to dance around fat people as if there’s nothing wrong with them.
But not skinny people.
You can say whatever you want about skinny people, especially children, especially if you’re related to them. Try these out for size.
“You’re too skinny. Eat more food.”
“Oh my goodness! You poor thing. Do they feed you at home? You look sick. Eat some more.”
“Look at you! I can count your ribs.”
“He’s so tiny. Have you taken him to the doctor?”
“Someone should pour fertilizer in your shoes, little guy.”
Not nearly as taboo, are they? Why is it you can ‘count my ribs’ but not your own rolls of fat? Where do we get this assumption that fat people have fragile egos and we need to dance around them? Where do we get this idea that skinny kids are expected to suck up all of the insults and destruction of their self esteem? Oh, don’t let the fat, unhealthy people have negative self images, but let’s all go to town on the healthy, skinny kid. You can trash his emotions all you want. Drive him right in to the ground.
You know what? The next person who insults a skinny kid is getting an earful from me.
Kind of offensive, isn't it?
What if I sat next to you in a cafeteria, presuming us to be previously acquainted, and told you that you were too fat, that you were eating too much unhealthy food? What if I told you that the sight of you was so revolting that you should immediately lay off the bacon and the salad dressing? What if I started counting the rolls of fat on your stomach or the number of your chins? What if wrinkled my nose at you and told you to get some exercise?
I think we could all agree that every one of those statements would be considered offensive in our society. For whatever reason, much like the 1970s era taboo against telling smokers to frak off, we’re supposed to dance around fat people as if there’s nothing wrong with them.
But not skinny people.
You can say whatever you want about skinny people, especially children, especially if you’re related to them. Try these out for size.
“You’re too skinny. Eat more food.”
“Oh my goodness! You poor thing. Do they feed you at home? You look sick. Eat some more.”
“Look at you! I can count your ribs.”
“He’s so tiny. Have you taken him to the doctor?”
“Someone should pour fertilizer in your shoes, little guy.”
Not nearly as taboo, are they? Why is it you can ‘count my ribs’ but not your own rolls of fat? Where do we get this assumption that fat people have fragile egos and we need to dance around them? Where do we get this idea that skinny kids are expected to suck up all of the insults and destruction of their self esteem? Oh, don’t let the fat, unhealthy people have negative self images, but let’s all go to town on the healthy, skinny kid. You can trash his emotions all you want. Drive him right in to the ground.
You know what? The next person who insults a skinny kid is getting an earful from me.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
If You Seek Amy
I never, ever, ever thought that I would use this blog to defend Britney Spears. Seriously. It's fine music to bop along to but I always took her for an airhead pop-star with an electronically altered voice.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
But David Hasselhoff flies at his own expense around the world for Make-a-Wish to be with kids who regard him as a hero.
And Ricki Martin runs a foundation that gets kids off the streets of Thailand.
And now Britney ...
So she wrote a song. Or somebody wrote it for her. I don't care. She sang it and it got on the radio before anyone noticed a damn thing wrong with it. It's a song, apparently about a girl named Amy, who does drugs and is otherwise attractive to both girls and boys of her age. Okay, cool. A drug-smoking, bisexual teenager. Britney is in a dance club looking for her.
Love me hate me
Say what you want about me
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
Love me hate me
But can't you see what I see
All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to
If You Seek Amy
That's not perfectly grammatical, is it? There's a lot of license taken by song writers in attempting to match a concept to a rhythm. Listen to Alanis Morissette sometime. I could easily argue that there are two sentences there:
But all of the boys and all of the girls are begging too.
"Too". Meaning "also". You could end a sentence there, if you wanted to. Everyone else is begging for Amy. They're begging, too.
The line following is then finishing the thought, putting the thing they're begging for after the word "too", which is weird. The only people who can talk like that are poets and 900 year old Jedi Masters.
Many are seeking this too, if you seek the Force.
But really, if you listen closely, you can hear what she actually meant to say. As clearly as any priest speeding along to the part of the bible where it tells you to pay him money, she gets to the chorus and you know you're not hearing "If you seek Amy" but four letters and a word.
And you know what. I just gotta respect that. Dunno why. I just do.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Oh, no! Not Marijuana!
How can it be? How can it be!
I didn't want to believe it, but he admitted to it! The world's favourite 23-year-old swimming superstar now outed as a heavy drug user when a picture came out on the interwebs of him using ...
What?
Marijuana?
Omigod, people, get a grip.
I suppose we should expect Americans to explode this way, after the way they exploded when they Janet Jackson's breast appeared on television for some fraction of a second. But really. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
The last time a Canadian Olympian got caught green-handed, remember that? Rebagliatti? Marijuana in his urine? Our whole country was up in arms demanding that he keep his gold medal because a) marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug and b) it's marijuana, not crack.
Sheesh, people. He's human. And 23. And a superstar. You should be happy it's only weed.
I didn't want to believe it, but he admitted to it! The world's favourite 23-year-old swimming superstar now outed as a heavy drug user when a picture came out on the interwebs of him using ...
What?
Marijuana?
Omigod, people, get a grip.
I suppose we should expect Americans to explode this way, after the way they exploded when they Janet Jackson's breast appeared on television for some fraction of a second. But really. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
The last time a Canadian Olympian got caught green-handed, remember that? Rebagliatti? Marijuana in his urine? Our whole country was up in arms demanding that he keep his gold medal because a) marijuana isn't a performance enhancing drug and b) it's marijuana, not crack.
Sheesh, people. He's human. And 23. And a superstar. You should be happy it's only weed.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Middle East Needs An Adult
I'm getting sick and tired of all of the petulant, childish whining. Most of the stuff I hear is pro-Israel but the pro-Hamas crap is annoying too.
Look, I'm sure you're all confident that your god told you to go and kill the other guys.
I mean, hell, if you're a Jewish fundamentalist you might think that he promised you the whole country as long as you remember to cut off the ends of your sons' penises. I'd find it annoying if someone traded me my foreskin for a promise and never kept it, but that's something you should be taking up with your Rabbi, not with the poor olive farmer living on the land that you think your god said is yours. Bulldozing the guy's olive farm and taking over his land? That's not going to make anything better, I don't care what you think god told you.
If you're a fundamentalist Muslim living in the Middle East, I'm sure you're pissed off at the misery the Palestinians have been through. I'm sure you think that your god wants you to go off and kill people and drive Israel off the map. But you know what? Running in to a crowded mall and blowing up random Jewish people is not helping. It's not bringing peace. It's not going to change the minds of the Israeli government. In fact, it just gives them an excuse to treat your family and your people even more harshly and it makes it ever more difficult to demonstrate any proper claim you might have.
Yes, it's very colourful and exciting I'm sure. I remember feeling that way about things when I was a teenager. Oooh, look! Here's a chance to get angry and get my testosterone flowing! Fight, fight! We're programmed for that. Evolution can't help but make us want to strut our stuff to attract mates.
But I grew up. I'm an adult now. Part of being an adult is looking back at the stupid things you were taught or incidentally learnt while growing up and realizing that some of them were wrong.
Here. I'll start by making a list of some of the things I was taught that I later realized were wrong:
a) Santa Claus exists
b) women can't do math
c) men are victims of reverse discrimination
d) god hates masturbation
e) the wine really turns in to blood
f) god exists
There, now you go make a list. Start with all of the unevidenced, unsupported claims made by your Imam or Rabbi. Especially examine the ones that make Jews or Muslims sound like mindless animals bent on eating your babies or raping your daughters.
It's time for all of you to grow up. The world doesn't need any more cheerleaders for ignorance.
Look, I'm sure you're all confident that your god told you to go and kill the other guys.
I mean, hell, if you're a Jewish fundamentalist you might think that he promised you the whole country as long as you remember to cut off the ends of your sons' penises. I'd find it annoying if someone traded me my foreskin for a promise and never kept it, but that's something you should be taking up with your Rabbi, not with the poor olive farmer living on the land that you think your god said is yours. Bulldozing the guy's olive farm and taking over his land? That's not going to make anything better, I don't care what you think god told you.
If you're a fundamentalist Muslim living in the Middle East, I'm sure you're pissed off at the misery the Palestinians have been through. I'm sure you think that your god wants you to go off and kill people and drive Israel off the map. But you know what? Running in to a crowded mall and blowing up random Jewish people is not helping. It's not bringing peace. It's not going to change the minds of the Israeli government. In fact, it just gives them an excuse to treat your family and your people even more harshly and it makes it ever more difficult to demonstrate any proper claim you might have.
Yes, it's very colourful and exciting I'm sure. I remember feeling that way about things when I was a teenager. Oooh, look! Here's a chance to get angry and get my testosterone flowing! Fight, fight! We're programmed for that. Evolution can't help but make us want to strut our stuff to attract mates.
But I grew up. I'm an adult now. Part of being an adult is looking back at the stupid things you were taught or incidentally learnt while growing up and realizing that some of them were wrong.
Here. I'll start by making a list of some of the things I was taught that I later realized were wrong:
a) Santa Claus exists
b) women can't do math
c) men are victims of reverse discrimination
d) god hates masturbation
e) the wine really turns in to blood
f) god exists
There, now you go make a list. Start with all of the unevidenced, unsupported claims made by your Imam or Rabbi. Especially examine the ones that make Jews or Muslims sound like mindless animals bent on eating your babies or raping your daughters.
It's time for all of you to grow up. The world doesn't need any more cheerleaders for ignorance.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The Left Wing Needs to Grow a Pair
Seriously.
I'm getting tired of this sort of nonsense. The Conservatives are now blaming the Liberals for the Listeria outbreak. That's right. They claim that deficiencies were known a year before the Conservatives came in to power, therefore it's the Liberals fault.
Give me a break. Why do the Liberals sit on this? The Conservatives, following their "government sucks at everything" philosophy, privatized food inspection.
And then 16 people fricking died.
Where are the Liberals? Where are the NDP? Where is anybody beating the Conservatives over the head with the fact that their philosophy kills people?
The Conservatives don't hesitate. They don't question for a moment whether or not they should lie, deceive, prevaricate and defecate on the Liberals. Anything for a moment of a surge in the polls.
And I realize what the problem is. The people leading the progressive and liberal political groups have no balls (or "Thatchers" for that matter).
Look at the U.S. presidential campaigns. Why isn't Barack Obama hitting McCain over the head with the fact that he's lying through his teeth and he can't remember how many houses he has? Wouldn't that spell "out of touch" even to the lower class base of the Republican party?
Look at Ontario when Mike Harris was using tax dollars to advertise insults on television agaisnt his own employees (teachers). What did the teacher's union do? Did they tear up his absolute lies about how much extra work he was making them do without pay? Did they tear in to his lies averaging private school funding in to the "cost of education"?
No. They produced terrible, stupid commercials where teachers appeared in front of the camera and were asked, "Did you know Mike Harris was once a teacher?". And the teachers would say, "No, I can't believe it."
Cowardice. Absolute, rank cowardice.
I want leaders on the left that show some spine. Somebody find me one and get these lying, warring, corporate-welfare Conservatives out of my damned government.
I'm getting tired of this sort of nonsense. The Conservatives are now blaming the Liberals for the Listeria outbreak. That's right. They claim that deficiencies were known a year before the Conservatives came in to power, therefore it's the Liberals fault.
The Conservative leader insisted his government has already taken action by modernizing the inspection system
Give me a break. Why do the Liberals sit on this? The Conservatives, following their "government sucks at everything" philosophy, privatized food inspection.
And then 16 people fricking died.
Where are the Liberals? Where are the NDP? Where is anybody beating the Conservatives over the head with the fact that their philosophy kills people?
The Conservatives don't hesitate. They don't question for a moment whether or not they should lie, deceive, prevaricate and defecate on the Liberals. Anything for a moment of a surge in the polls.
And I realize what the problem is. The people leading the progressive and liberal political groups have no balls (or "Thatchers" for that matter).
Look at the U.S. presidential campaigns. Why isn't Barack Obama hitting McCain over the head with the fact that he's lying through his teeth and he can't remember how many houses he has? Wouldn't that spell "out of touch" even to the lower class base of the Republican party?
Look at Ontario when Mike Harris was using tax dollars to advertise insults on television agaisnt his own employees (teachers). What did the teacher's union do? Did they tear up his absolute lies about how much extra work he was making them do without pay? Did they tear in to his lies averaging private school funding in to the "cost of education"?
No. They produced terrible, stupid commercials where teachers appeared in front of the camera and were asked, "Did you know Mike Harris was once a teacher?". And the teachers would say, "No, I can't believe it."
Cowardice. Absolute, rank cowardice.
I want leaders on the left that show some spine. Somebody find me one and get these lying, warring, corporate-welfare Conservatives out of my damned government.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Olympian Cheating
No, this isn't a rant about steroids or doping or whatever they're using this time around. I'm sure they're using it, but I'm talking about something else.
I just watched China vs U.S.A. basketball (which CBC had to show 90 times today, in its entirety). Is there anything to basketball anymore? Apparently a guy carrying the ball can just physically run over any defenceman in his path and it's the defenceman's fault for standing there. As well, travelling is just fine. Go ahead, take three, even four steps. No one will call you. I never liked basketball, with its pointlessly high scores. Now I just think its stupid. Can you even call it cheating if you just get rid of all the rules to turn the game in to a show-off slam dunk festival?
Then I watched water polo. What the ... ? The game seems to be predicated on two facts: the referee can't look under water for fouls; you should do your best to drown your opponents without getting caught. Seriously. The referee's whistle was blowing approximately every three or four seconds for a "minor" foul (drowning an opponent a little) and sending someone off every minute for a "major foul" (really drowning an opponent).
I'd rather watch swimming. At least you can't cheat at that ... well ... except for the drugs. But since I can't see the drugs, it doesn't bother me so much.
I just watched China vs U.S.A. basketball (which CBC had to show 90 times today, in its entirety). Is there anything to basketball anymore? Apparently a guy carrying the ball can just physically run over any defenceman in his path and it's the defenceman's fault for standing there. As well, travelling is just fine. Go ahead, take three, even four steps. No one will call you. I never liked basketball, with its pointlessly high scores. Now I just think its stupid. Can you even call it cheating if you just get rid of all the rules to turn the game in to a show-off slam dunk festival?
Then I watched water polo. What the ... ? The game seems to be predicated on two facts: the referee can't look under water for fouls; you should do your best to drown your opponents without getting caught. Seriously. The referee's whistle was blowing approximately every three or four seconds for a "minor" foul (drowning an opponent a little) and sending someone off every minute for a "major foul" (really drowning an opponent).
I'd rather watch swimming. At least you can't cheat at that ... well ... except for the drugs. But since I can't see the drugs, it doesn't bother me so much.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I kissed a girl, and I liked it.
But then I'm a heterosexual male, so there's nothing surprising there.
I'd like to take a moment from my general political and religious ranting to rant a little more vaguely. There are a few things I'm upset about and they've been bothering me for a while. Basically, I've missed out on a few things.
First off, there was a lesbian kissing episode of Degrassi. Nobody told me about it. This indicates a general breakdown of a large communication network. I can get the CBC. I could have seen that episode. The only reason I found out was that I was looking around the youtube for the "I kissed a girl" video and found a Degrassi montage that someone had assembled and scored with the same song.
As well, my elementary and high schools didn't offer school buses for those students living as close as I did. So apparently I missed out on all of the oral sex that was happening on school buses. Maybe I should have gone to the local catholic school. My friends there seemed to be having more fun than I did in public school. Maybe I should have lived in "Beaver" County.
Apparently there was a Miss Universe pageant recently. While I'm glad to see that the world's love affair with dyed-blonde hair is over, I'm a little disappointed. Is it obvious enough now that the definition of beauty is getting really, really narrow? Isn't there already enough pressure on little girls to conform? Do we have to be such absolute jerks about it?
I'll get back to my regularly scheduled ranting ...
I'd like to take a moment from my general political and religious ranting to rant a little more vaguely. There are a few things I'm upset about and they've been bothering me for a while. Basically, I've missed out on a few things.
First off, there was a lesbian kissing episode of Degrassi. Nobody told me about it. This indicates a general breakdown of a large communication network. I can get the CBC. I could have seen that episode. The only reason I found out was that I was looking around the youtube for the "I kissed a girl" video and found a Degrassi montage that someone had assembled and scored with the same song.
As well, my elementary and high schools didn't offer school buses for those students living as close as I did. So apparently I missed out on all of the oral sex that was happening on school buses. Maybe I should have gone to the local catholic school. My friends there seemed to be having more fun than I did in public school. Maybe I should have lived in "Beaver" County.
Apparently there was a Miss Universe pageant recently. While I'm glad to see that the world's love affair with dyed-blonde hair is over, I'm a little disappointed. Is it obvious enough now that the definition of beauty is getting really, really narrow? Isn't there already enough pressure on little girls to conform? Do we have to be such absolute jerks about it?
I'll get back to my regularly scheduled ranting ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
There's no Indigo in the Rainbow
There's something I have to get off my chest. It's been bugging me since 1988 or so when it came up as a trivia question in grade 8.
There is no indigo in the rainbow.
The grade 8 trivia question, with a Twix bar on the line, was: "How many colours are present in a rainbow?"
If we were to discuss the number of colours present in the rainbow, we would have to set some kind of standard for how precisely we want to define a colour. In reality, we have to admit that for all practical purposes there are an infinite number of colours present in the rainbow.
So we need to set a limit.
We could argue that the limit is "primary colours", in which case we have 3: red; yellow; blue. All other colours can be defined by mixing these three together. Your monitor, of course, use three different colours: red; green; blue.
Now we could also argue that we ought to count secondary colours as there are enough obvious colour changes for the human eye to pick up. In that case we have: red; orange; yellow; green; blue; purple (sometime called violet for no really good reason).
Fine. That makes six colours and I could completely understand that.
But SEVEN colours? What would the seventh be?
Indigo.
Indigo? Are you on crack? Indigo is just a colour defined halfway between purple and blue. Why on earth would you count that?
If you're going to argue that purply-blue (indigo) counts, then I would have to argue that bluey-green (teal?) should count. How about reddy-orange (peach?) or yellowy-green (puke green).
Indigo is a crock. Indigo is a scam. Drop it from the official colours of the rainbow forever and never look back.
All I'm saying is that someone owes me a Twix bar with two decades of interest.
There is no indigo in the rainbow.
The grade 8 trivia question, with a Twix bar on the line, was: "How many colours are present in a rainbow?"
If we were to discuss the number of colours present in the rainbow, we would have to set some kind of standard for how precisely we want to define a colour. In reality, we have to admit that for all practical purposes there are an infinite number of colours present in the rainbow.
So we need to set a limit.
We could argue that the limit is "primary colours", in which case we have 3: red; yellow; blue. All other colours can be defined by mixing these three together. Your monitor, of course, use three different colours: red; green; blue.
Now we could also argue that we ought to count secondary colours as there are enough obvious colour changes for the human eye to pick up. In that case we have: red; orange; yellow; green; blue; purple (sometime called violet for no really good reason).
Fine. That makes six colours and I could completely understand that.
But SEVEN colours? What would the seventh be?
Indigo.
Indigo? Are you on crack? Indigo is just a colour defined halfway between purple and blue. Why on earth would you count that?
If you're going to argue that purply-blue (indigo) counts, then I would have to argue that bluey-green (teal?) should count. How about reddy-orange (peach?) or yellowy-green (puke green).
Indigo is a crock. Indigo is a scam. Drop it from the official colours of the rainbow forever and never look back.
All I'm saying is that someone owes me a Twix bar with two decades of interest.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Earth is Flat
The Earth is flat and I can prove it as follows:
1. The Colonial British and Spanish believed the Earth was spherical. On the basis of this "Spherical-Earth" theory, they sent explorers "around" the world. These explorers were responsible for the subjugation and destruction of any number of Native American cultures. Spherical-Earth Theory is therefore a necessary condition for the cruel treatment and destruction of numerous cultures.
2. People believed for a long period of time that the Earth was flat, much longer than people have believed it is spherical.
3. Ferdinand Magellan said, "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." This demonstrates not only the discriminatingly anti-religious tone of S-E theorists but also the absurd ignorance on which Spherical-Earth theory is based. The only thing evidenced by this shadow is that the Earth is circular, not that it is spherical.
4. Countless historians have noted that Hitler and Stalin both used Mercator projection maps to plan their conquests. This enabled them to use "Great Circle" routes for their planes when sending them on bombing runs. Without Spherical-Earth Theory, these Great Circle routes would not exist!
5. If the Earth were spherical, we would have to presuppose some type of force that keeps the people on the other side from falling off. And even if this force existed, television programs from the "other side" should show up upside down on our television sets!
6. S-E theorists tell us they have pictures from "outer space". Never mind the impossibility of this "orbit" thing they talk about (don't get me started on the Theory of Gravity and its use in the manufacture of ballistic missiles!), those surely faked "satellite" pictures show that the Earth is circular, not spherical. They're as bad as Magellan!
7. Do you feel like you're moving? S-E theorists posit that, except for people at the "poles", along the "axis" of the Earth, the rest of are spinning around at speeds of up to 1667 kilometers per hour. I certainly don't feel like I'm moving that fast, do you?
No, these Spherical Earth theorists are a menace to our society. It's time we kicked them out of our schools and taught our children the proper, true and noble belief of the Flat Earth.
1. The Colonial British and Spanish believed the Earth was spherical. On the basis of this "Spherical-Earth" theory, they sent explorers "around" the world. These explorers were responsible for the subjugation and destruction of any number of Native American cultures. Spherical-Earth Theory is therefore a necessary condition for the cruel treatment and destruction of numerous cultures.
2. People believed for a long period of time that the Earth was flat, much longer than people have believed it is spherical.
3. Ferdinand Magellan said, "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." This demonstrates not only the discriminatingly anti-religious tone of S-E theorists but also the absurd ignorance on which Spherical-Earth theory is based. The only thing evidenced by this shadow is that the Earth is circular, not that it is spherical.
4. Countless historians have noted that Hitler and Stalin both used Mercator projection maps to plan their conquests. This enabled them to use "Great Circle" routes for their planes when sending them on bombing runs. Without Spherical-Earth Theory, these Great Circle routes would not exist!
5. If the Earth were spherical, we would have to presuppose some type of force that keeps the people on the other side from falling off. And even if this force existed, television programs from the "other side" should show up upside down on our television sets!
6. S-E theorists tell us they have pictures from "outer space". Never mind the impossibility of this "orbit" thing they talk about (don't get me started on the Theory of Gravity and its use in the manufacture of ballistic missiles!), those surely faked "satellite" pictures show that the Earth is circular, not spherical. They're as bad as Magellan!
7. Do you feel like you're moving? S-E theorists posit that, except for people at the "poles", along the "axis" of the Earth, the rest of are spinning around at speeds of up to 1667 kilometers per hour. I certainly don't feel like I'm moving that fast, do you?
No, these Spherical Earth theorists are a menace to our society. It's time we kicked them out of our schools and taught our children the proper, true and noble belief of the Flat Earth.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This Week in Trains
This week, a rant of personal greed and selfishness.
Passenger train service needs to cheaper. Think about it. Trains are, by far, the most efficient way to move large numbers of people. Less fuel is consumed. Less pollution is produced. Yes, it will take longer than using an airplane for cross-country hops, but for most short hops it's actually shorter after you factor in all of the nonsense that goes with getting to an airport, checking your baggage, yada yada yada.
Still, train fare for two people is generally more expensive than taking a car, even if you account for wear and tear on the car, insurance, gas and everything.
If the train is such an efficient method of transportation, why is this so?
It's because you don't, up front, pay the true cost of driving your car.
You see, in order to drive a car, you need a series of smooth surfaces over which to drive it. These are often referred to as "roads" or "highways". Highways have overpasses, true marvels of engineering, and cloverleafs, on-ramps, off-ramps, girders, embankments, ditches, lights, digital signs, traffic cops, accidents, ambulances. In fact, a whole lot of the cost of driving your car is hidden away from you and kept quite indirect.
Your taxes dollars are subsidizing the driving of your car.
Imagine if your tax dollars equally subsidized efficient public transportation. How many billions of dollars would be involved there? Some astronomical figure, for certain. Now buses still need roads, but they wouldn't have nearly as many accidents, nor put as much mass on the road. Trains have tracks that need maintenance and have their own digital signs, but those they use quite efficiently and are easier to maintain than a giant network of highways. People would also have to spend at least some their days walking around, which would likely save us some health care dollars.
So, in summary, we ought to be subsidizing public transportation a lot more than we do. As well, we should stop complaining that VIA Rail and other outfits like it "aren't profitable". Neither is the highway system, so what's your point?
Passenger train service needs to cheaper. Think about it. Trains are, by far, the most efficient way to move large numbers of people. Less fuel is consumed. Less pollution is produced. Yes, it will take longer than using an airplane for cross-country hops, but for most short hops it's actually shorter after you factor in all of the nonsense that goes with getting to an airport, checking your baggage, yada yada yada.
Still, train fare for two people is generally more expensive than taking a car, even if you account for wear and tear on the car, insurance, gas and everything.
If the train is such an efficient method of transportation, why is this so?
It's because you don't, up front, pay the true cost of driving your car.
You see, in order to drive a car, you need a series of smooth surfaces over which to drive it. These are often referred to as "roads" or "highways". Highways have overpasses, true marvels of engineering, and cloverleafs, on-ramps, off-ramps, girders, embankments, ditches, lights, digital signs, traffic cops, accidents, ambulances. In fact, a whole lot of the cost of driving your car is hidden away from you and kept quite indirect.
Your taxes dollars are subsidizing the driving of your car.
Imagine if your tax dollars equally subsidized efficient public transportation. How many billions of dollars would be involved there? Some astronomical figure, for certain. Now buses still need roads, but they wouldn't have nearly as many accidents, nor put as much mass on the road. Trains have tracks that need maintenance and have their own digital signs, but those they use quite efficiently and are easier to maintain than a giant network of highways. People would also have to spend at least some their days walking around, which would likely save us some health care dollars.
So, in summary, we ought to be subsidizing public transportation a lot more than we do. As well, we should stop complaining that VIA Rail and other outfits like it "aren't profitable". Neither is the highway system, so what's your point?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)