FEMA's Revenge

So FEMA's credibility was annihilated in 2005. They became the laughing stock of the world. Their ability to do anything useful was more than called into question.

Now, I see they are getting their revenge.


I'm sure FEMA has been plotting this for years, but it is only now about to come to fruition. Mandatory flood insurance, for any and all property owners who have even a 1% chance of a flood each year(known as a 100 year flood, because if you have 1%/year, it would be 100 years before there would statistically be 1 flood).

100 years!

Why not go all out, and require continental shift insurance (aka earthquake insurance) if there's a 1% chance per year for a minor earthquake, require hurricane insurance, lightning insurance, tornado insurace? Hell, Obama wants to make breathing insurance mandatory (aka forced health insurance for all who breathe), why not just make every property owner in America just hand over their fucking paychecks to the government? If they can't pay, make the land public, then give it to drug dealers and prostitutes, and make those left with private property pay for that too.



In case anyone is wondering what the hell I'm ranting about, here is a link to a map that shows all the houses that need mandatory flood insurance in my area. It's most of the City of Stockton, the map covers San Joaquin County.

http://www.sjmap.org/floodzoneviewer/Disclaimer.htm

Terrorism

Remember back in 2001, when everyone was coming up with scenarios where "the terrorists win". It was a curious social meme.

"If we don't keep living out normal lives, the terrorists win".

I think that's an important one. It's the only one that seems to explain America's blind ignorant stumbling from 2001-until now.

We haven't had any more terrorist attacks in the United States. This is true. But we have had many attempts. It isn't for lack of effort that no one has attacked.

And September 11, 2001 wasn't anywhere near the first attempted attack, nor the first successful attack.

I think it is amazing, that people can so easily disregard attempted attacks, and take successful ones so seriously.

Intent to cause harm was present in either case. It is usually not a failure of the terrorists that they got caught, but rather a success of security, at some point along the way.

The British have saved us from a huge attack. Our border security stopped a huge attack, the FBI has stopped huge attacks. Even regular people stopped the 'shoe bomber' when all measures of security failed.

Right now, we have suspects in custody, who may have been planning to bomb New York. This has not ended.

Do not let people tell you the threats are long since over.

Cups

What the hell is wrong with cups?

First, why do any cups, let alone most disposable cups expand from bottom to top? I can't buy a soda from a fast food restaurant or from a festival, or I don't know Dixie, without it having a diameter at the bottom maybe 1/2 of the top. I mean, isn't that the definition of 'top heavy'?

Also, with all the business at the top end of the cup, you'd think it were a conspiracy. If you get your soda filled up for you, the top end, which is the most voluminous, will be mostly fizz. It also makes it more 'open' for shit to fall into it, and for it to spill. Never mind the durability, I mean, if you squeeze the cup, just a little, that big honking top pops the plastic cover right off and all the soda just waiting up there spills out.

I assume the pro argument would be that with an increasing circumference from bottom to top, it better allows for a cup to fit any cup holder, but who the hell cares about that shit? Cup holders are pretty much standardized at this point (<- except whatever that is). Oh, and apparently from this amazing online infomercial, factory cup holders cause drinks to spill anyway.

If I haven't put enough emphasis on the overall failure of modern cup technology yet, let me then fall down to the bottom of the cup. That weak, pathetic bottom. Why is it, that with most paper cups, the bottom is the weakest part? The bottom is under the most pressure, it should be the strongest! And if this were only a relative comparison, and not a fatal flaw, I wouldn't mind it. But the simple truth is, if you use a paper cup, the bottom will get wet, and it will collapse. It's like a timer for anyone wanting a cool drink... how long do I have to drink this delicious drink, before the bottom starts buckling under the massive weight of several ounces?

Imagine if you will, some scenario where people have gathered out in a remote location, maybe miles from a water fountain, and said people have chosen to bring a big cooler of water, and paper cups for quenching natural thirst. Now, use your thinking noggin to imagine what its like, on this hot dry day, as the cups begin breaking from reuse. Sure, it's just some cheap paper cup, there's plenty. But they wear down. More and more people want water, and more and more cups are used up. Eventually, your stuck with using two or three breached cups, hoping you can down the life giving water faster than it can leak its way out onto the unappreciative ground. This very horrid scenario is actually based on a true story. I was stuck collecting other people's used, and ruined cups and putting them under my tiny cup, to get sips of life giving water, while moored out in Tokyo Bay during a 5 hour deck watch. The horror. The horror.

All I'm talking about here is paper, or plastic, holding liquid for a day, at best. Are we really so pathetic a species, that we can't hold some water for a day? I've seen plants do a better job!

Lessons Learned:

1. Do not google image search "McDonald's cup" with safe search off. Then again, if you roll without "safe search", you've probably seen worse.

2. Blogger spell check says "location" is spelled wrong. It suggests (no joke) "lo cat ion".

3. I swear I had more complaints about cups, but this blog took a lot longer than I imagined. The later at night it gets, the slower and dumber I get.

eBay and GM

uugggh, remember when everything had to have the letter e put in front of it? Holy crap was that annoying. I think email is the only one to really stick, besides the few websites that survived the big "dot com" burst of 2000.

It reminds me of that new show "Tosh 2.0" which has a horribly out of date name, for a show about the internet. The whole "2.0" joke was old before the internet was even popular. People who are adults now, weren't even born when 2.0 was old. Yeah. It's that old. I'm that old for thinking this.

Anyway, eBay has managed to not only stay relevant, it is still one of the best used item sources on the internet. I would say Craigslist is a great contender, but Craigslist and eBay do not entirely overlap. Where eBay won't even allow you to sell a fucking pocket knife, Craigslist has whores listed 24/7 365, every city in America.

Note I said eBay is one of the best used item sellers. New stuff is usually better served at a source. It's the auction that doesn't align correctly. An auction presumes some measure of scarcity. Having a room full of people bid on something usually implies that the entire room can't have it. Something that is new, and still in production can most certainly be sold to an entire room, so there's no buyer or seller advantage to auction.

Enter GM and eBay. I found out about their little experiment mere minutes before it went "online" so to speak. Now weeks have passed, and I think there's a pertinent assessment to be made (that's right folks, you won't read about this anywhere else).

If you haven't heard about this, here is a summary:

GM is experimenting with selling new cars "through" eBay. The cars are listed directly by each individual dealership, the GM overlords aren't doing any of the actual selling. This is only available in California right now.

The first thing I noticed was that eBay gave GM special privilege that they wouldn't give any other seller on their website. They granted GM "Power Seller" status before the first cars had even been put on sale. Being an eBay Power Seller is supposed to be an accolade, it shows one has made many business transactions over eBay, and remains in good standing. It also affords the seller special privileges and advantages against other sellers and buyers.

Next I noticed that the account "yourgmdealer" was listed as being from back in Dec. 2007. The page shows an automated notice that the account had actually changed its name on August 3 (a few days before they went online) from bighouse0001, to yourgmdealer. There's a term for this in the internet world but I can't remember it right now. What GM was doing was trying to give themselves "e cred"(lol) by making it look like they've had that account for 2 years.

Most importantly, is the matter of the auctions themselves. They are not, as one might think from the ads, or the fact that this is on eBay, open auctions. These are actually a version of "closed auctions" that only people like "Power Sellers" are allowed to perform. Basically you can't get into a bidding war, nor can you get a great deal.

These closed bids are specifically tailored to guarantee that the cars will not be sold for less than a secret amount, but buyers can foolishly overbid and have to pay. I actually bid $100, then $1,000 for a new Impala, and I was automatically rejected both times.

From what I've read, the listed "Buy it now" prices are on average 2% above normal sticker price at a dealership. But the website claims the "Buy it Now" prices are a couple thousand under MSRP. I'm not really sure if that's a conflict though. The secret bid minimums are actually automated. That is, if you make a bid under their secret minimum bid, it will automatically reject your offer. If you make a bid above their minimum, you will be put on hold. In the mean time the dealer can wait for better offers to come in. If they don't get a better offer, they can still chose whether or not to accept your offer. So, in this context, the buyer actually has no advantage whatsoever on the pricing of the car.

This is where it gets all bullshitty. Up until this point, I've pointed out minor crap, but what I think is newsworthy (and isn't being reported anywhere) is how fundamentally screwed up this scheme is, and how it isn't panning out.

1. No one's using it (this is news on its own). When I say no one, I mean there are 8 feedback comments on GM's page. I have 16 feedback comments on my account. And I've only very casually used eBay throughout the past 7 years. Everyone is compelled to leave feedback. It's not something people forget, because eBay won't let you. Any regular user would leave feedback. So I would have to see numbers showing in this one instance people aren't leaving feedback (but for such a huge purchase, it would be counter-intuitive).

2. The few people that have purchased through eBay, haven't been the happiest eBayers. Right now, with 8 people, 6 are positive, 2 are negative. This gives GM a rating of 47%, which is horrible for a seller. I have a 100% rating. Sell enough, buy enough, you will get negative reviews, but most good eBayers will stay in the 99% range. None would have a 47%. Hell, as far as I can gather, the bad rating has forced GM out of the special "Power Seller" status. They currently have a cumulative "2" (which statistically weighs positive against negative), you have to make 10 just to get to the first tier in the eBay "star" scale.

3. You still have to deal with a dealer. This is the only news that should ever have been reported. Ultimately, there is fundamentally no advantage to the buyer to go through eBay. Imagining that a buyer manages not to bid too high, but still high enough to be "worthy" of a sale, assuming the buyer isn't already paying more than if he had just walked into the showroom and been robbed blind, this isn't a clean win for the buyer. You see, as soon as you make a deal for a price, the dealer will try to raise it. The eBay "win" in this case means absolutely nothing. You still have to negotiate for the car, negotiate for options, negotiate for all the shit people negotiate for in person. Then you have to show up in person at the dealership, and at this point, the deal still isn't "done".

Like some disgusting hybrid, where you "win" a bid on eBay, then have to meet the seller in person a la Craigslist, only to have the seller change the deal on the spot. In fact, a better analogy would be to stick to what this is, just another scam by car salesmen to get you in the door. Considering nothing you do before they get you in meant anything, this is in effect, a big ass publicity stunt, with one purpose, tricking semi serious buyers to go to the dealership.

One of the negative comments made this glaringly obvious, even its ungrammatical brevity. "BAIT AND SWITCH. POST BIN RAISED PRICE BY 950 FOR "TRUE COAT" ALA FARGO."

If GM would deal directly through eBay, not through dealerships and eBay, this might have worked. If eBay had actually used an open auction, this might have worked (for the buyer anyway).

I think this issue is doubly important considering we are part owners in this company, and we shouldn't be putting up with these shenanigans.

Kim Jong Ill

Ok so I was thinking of having the title "Earth Sucks" but I think I'll save that one for another day.



(stole this photo from another blog)



I don't think this photo does justice as to how disgustingly old King Kim has aged since last time he made an appearance. He's reminding me of the movie "Forever Young", which by the way was a really ironic name for a movie about a guy who gets frozen and then ages to become like 80 years old when he's mentally only in his late 20s, or early 30s. How is that "forever"? HE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO BE YOUNG FOR AS LONG AS MOST PEOPLE!


Here's a better one I just stole from the AP off YouTube:




Here's the problem. Kim is not simply a dictator, he's a monarch. There will be nothing to rejoice about when he dies, because you can bet his son won't be any better.


Kim did nothing to ascend into power. That was pops, Kim Il Sung, famous tool of one of the worst humans in the 20th century, Josef Stalin.

Worse yet, like in the book 1984, there doesn't really need to be an actual "big brother" to keep people in line. If Kim dies and his son isn't quite ready, the henchmen that Jong Il has surrounded himself with will do well enough to keep North Korea in its permanent state of ruination until grandson Kim is evil enough to ascend to full power.

Why does this matter? It's just a piece of the overall reason why Earth (particularly humans) suck right now.


Back in the day, there'd be revolution over taxes. There'd be usurpations over arguments. There'd be world wars over one man's death.

That was back when people didn't live and die like pathetic lumps of meat.

What do we have now? Terrorism. THE BIGGEST SCAM IN GLOBAL HISTORY.

Terrorism NEVER ACCOMPLISHES GOVERNMENT COLLAPSE. Terrorism only strengthens governments. It only gives leaders resolve, and carte blanche to become dictators. Maybe that's exactly what they want, for surely they too promote a totalitarian government. Seriously, let's look at some famous incidents of terrorism.

Northern Ireland. Dominated mostly by Limeys due to the British's method of conquest (similar to the American method used in western states) Ulster chose to remain a part of Britain when Ireland became independent. That's right, CHOSE. What the Irish attempted (and still attempt) would be akin to Native Americans trying to terrorize Americans into handing back their land. Wait. That did happen. How did that work out? It didn't. Curiously enough I was just watching a show about it on the History Channel. When Andrew Jackson told the Cherokee to get off their land to make way for more Americans, the Cherokee sued him! And they won! The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that President Jackson had no right to force Cherokee off their land. What was Jackson's response? "Try and stop me." Thus began what became known as the "Trail of Tears". That's right, one of the most violent, heartless evil things the United States has ever done was done by a president directly violating the United States Supreme Court. He should have been fired for that, but I'll get back to this.

Another good example of terrorism is in Israel. Muslims blow themselves up all the time, and what does Israel do? KILL THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND LOCK THEM UP IN A GIANT PROVINCE SIZED PRISON. Didn't quite work out for you, did it Palestinians?

Or how about the terrorists in Pakistan, there, for once, they are all the same religion, still terrorists were blowing up Pakistani buildings and killing people. What did Pakistan do? ALLOW AMERICA TO COME IN MORE OFTEN AND KILL MORE. Didn't quite work out for them either.


Terrorism is worthless. It could easily be a scheme by big governments to guarantee big governments if it didn't involve such devout brave idiots. Politicians, especially totalitarians are usually the exact opposite, devout to nothing, cowards at the core, but crafty like foxes.

So Earth, we have plenty of terrorism. That's old news, but it's getting worse, so it's still news.

Next up: Rebellion

Used to be, when a people rebelled, it was for a purpose, or if it wasn't, it became one, and they didn't let it slip away, they made something of it, they'd knock down a government, or at least get something to change. America is full of stories of protesters changing the country. We were founded on rebellion. Nations would rise and fall like the tides. Lately it seems no one is allowed to topple countries.

Don't you know the preamble to the US Constitution "in order to form a more perfect union"? Bottom line, lots of nations around the word need to be toppled before humanity finds a better union.

Nations rising and falling was as natural as businesses rising and falling. That's how ethnicities came to be separate from nationalities. The people didn't go anywhere, but the governments did.

Now we have humorous efforts at revolution. Iran is the primo example. All these poor Iranians; marching and protesting like they aren't going to be executed or dragged off in the middle of the night from their homes, never to be seen again.

Many of them were anti-Muslim authority. That blew my mind. But whether they were the against the government whole, or simply the farce election, they didn't do anything worthwhile. They didn't storm the government buildings. They didn't go on strike and halt the system. I don't think they tried anything but yelling in the streets. It can be just as bloody, with absolutely nothing for it.



And finally: Self Determinism

America, especially now, is effectively enemy #1 to any nation trying to do its own thing. One such issue for me, is the right to bear arms. And if people can bear arms, and a nation exists to serve and protect people, then how can you say a nation can't bear arms? How can you say a nation can't have nukes? I hate Iran's government, but we most definitely do not need another war. America, THE ONLY NATION IN HISTORY TO NUKE PEOPLE, has no footing to demand other nations disarm.


South Ossetia is an ancient land. It has its own people. Its own language, and its own culture. It had enjoyed freedom for many centuries until recently, gobbled up by empires and the USSR. When the USSR fell, South Ossetia immediately petitioned for independence, but to no avail. South Ossetia was gobbled up again; this time by the horrible government of Georgia. South Ossetia has spent over a decade peacefully trying to get independence, but every once in a while, Georgia picks a fight. Most recently Georgia invaded South Ossetia. Russia, being the only nation on earth that recognizes South Ossetian independence, went in and protected them. What was Americas response? "Georgia invaded by Russia". America, not having a clue about the politics in Ossetia condemned Russia, and sent in the UN for a fight. Excuse me good sirs, but where were you when talks were taking place? Where were you when Ossetia begged for reason and court? You have no trouble sending Americans, French, English, Brazilian, Japanese, whoever is available, in to fight and die against Russians, but you find it impossible to consider a peaceful option? You'll kill and die to preserve union's hold on a people. For what purpose? If Georgia were a decent nation, I might agree, but Georgia sucks. They are weak, they provide no good to their people. The only reason they are supported by America, is because they don't like Russia. That may be the only reason Russia supports South Ossetia. But wars shouldn't be fought on the premise of preventing wars. It's evil, and it's all America has been doing since Vietnam.

With a few exceptions. The majority of Americans who have died in combat from now back to Vietnam, were dying to prevent a war. It makes no sense. Vietnam was fought to stop the commie spread, why? Because we assumed if we had to fight the commies one day, we wanted more allies than them. The Iraq war was started because Iraq was a "threat", it might have attacked us. That was the only justification. The whole "WMD" issue stemmed from that. If it were Britain with the WMDs, it wouldn't have been an issue.

So we come to Honduras. 2/3rds of the Honduran government determined to fire the president. By their constitution, they have that authority. here is a link to the Honduras Supreme Court's official ruling against their president: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/87E2BFFC-AF4D-44EA-BFC5-D93730D8D81C/2413/ExpedienteJudicial1.pdf.

Honduras's Congress also decided against the president, and appointed a new president, who is a member of the SAME POLITICAL PARTY as the fired president.

According to the left wing media, Hugo Chavez, and Obama, this was a Coup D’état. The media refuses to even acknowledge that everyone but the president is still in the government. The definition of a Coup "is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military".

Here is what I need you to consider. President Zelaya is not, and never was "THE" government of Honduras. In fact, the people who fired him are also a part of the government. It is fundamentally impossible to define a coup as a majority of government firing a minority.

The media reports over and over that the military took him out of power. This is a lie. The military took him out of the country. Constitutional authority by the government of Honduras took Zelaya out of power. The military just did the foot work. Which makes sense to me.

How can you call it a coup, when the only change is one employee? The firing might be determined "unjust", maybe. It might be determined unlawful. It might even be overturned. But it was not a coup, for the "government" wasn't removed, the employee was, not even his political party! Come on. Seriously. If the U.S. Congress impeached Obama, then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Obama to be removed from power as well, and Joe Biden was put in his place, WOULD YOU CALL THAT A COUP??????????????????????


And despite what Hugo Chavez, and Obama think about presidential authority, they are not the overlords of humanity, they have no say in the self determinism of the nation of Honduras.

No American should die fighting to preserve this would-be dictator's authority. The fact that Obama and Chavez are blood brothers on this issue scares me.

It's all fun and games until Obama gets up and is like "Ha ha, you knew who I was and you still elected me, you have no chance to survive make your time. I really don't know how to even begin to argue against these policies. The Founding Fathers intentionally, and very specifically tailored the US government to make the president as weak as possible. They were so certain that the president would be weak, and that congress would be the true seat of power, that they tried to put on extra restrictions to congress to prevent imbalance. If you want a good read check out the speeches made by the founding fathers while the constitution was still still being written, they reveal much of the attitudes of the day. The president isn't supposed to be a king. The president isn't supposed to be a god, and in America, the president isn't supposed to be able to do what Obama and Bush and Clinton and Bush (I could go on for awhile) etc. have done.





I'm disappointed. That's pretty much it. People are still dying. People are still being oppressed, ruined, destroyed, enslaved. But humans have taken on this attitude where despite this, the nation must be preserved. The president must be worshipped. And the only people who do topple nations, do it with an insane reasoning to prevent other wars.

Great reply?

Every once in a while I visit a website called Shortnews.com. It's a place where people try their best to post news that they are simultaneously required to gather from a source, but in no way plagiarize the source. So it's news from real news sites, repeated by a bunch of chumps, and everyone else gets to comment on it. Hilarity ensues.

99% of the people on this website are hardcore liberals. They come from all over the world, lots of British, some Germans, many south Americans, etc. Needless to say, my opinion is often contentious.

So I went on today and there was an article titled “Arizona Goes Back to the Wild Wild West” http://shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=79448

Of course, being the liberals they are, this wasn’t some performance, or some spike in crime, or change in police style. Nope. It’s an article about concealed guns being allowed in bars.

So there of course was comment after comment of these liberal assholes talking about how they were ashamed to be human, ashamed of America, disgusted by the NRA blah blah blah because the Second Amendment was being supported. Of course most other nations have outright banned gun ownership, so a moderate from England or Australia would sound like an anti-gun psycho in America, but these people aren’t even moderates in their own country.

This was my response:


I am a man who believes if something is truly right, its status as right or wrong should not hinge on the failures of men. That if one truly believes in something, they may die for that belief, without compromise, and they would have lived a good and honorable life. After all, every human will die. This isn't important. How a person lives is what matters.


I know that for a rational and reasonable society to exist, every individual needs to have the right to personal property, and the right to protect themselves. This is fundamentally critical. For if we cannot value the rights of others to keep themselves, then we are essentially ascribing them to be slaves of society.

Society is merely a collection of individuals. As soon as you try to put some "value" of a "people" over an individual, the "people" are no longer free.

I believe it is a great injustice when a majority (or a minority in power) forces its will upon individuals in manners that only apply to personal livelihood.

This transcends "parties" or whatever people try to lump together in politics. This is a fundamental respect of the individual's right to exist by their standards, so long as they do not harm others.

Examples of this are all over in politics, and I find the political system to be a joke because of this. For how can you support one binding, and not another?

Some examples would be:

A woman's right to control her body, to have an abortion if she desires.

A human's right to get high, get drunk, kill themselves, have assisted suicide, anything unhealthy but entirely personal.

An adult's right to have a relationship with another consenting adult, or multitudes of consenting adults, and to engage in their relationship(s) in any manner they agree upon.

And another example would be for a person to be able to carry a gun.

I see these as fundamental rights. Whether or not a woman kills her children or leaves them in dumpsters is not a case against abortion. Whether or not a man gets drunk and kills another man, or ODs, or has their suicide taped and released are not arguments against a person's right to be healthy or unhealthy.

Whether or not a gay man will go to hell, or if a polygamist will take all the hot chicks in town are not arguments against adult relationships.

Taking one thing (an individual's right to chose their path in life) then adding on a criminal act (where a person may hurt someone else, or show disregard for life and put others or even their property in danger) are completely separate issues.

Either we are free to act on our own accord, as free humans we should be, or we are slaves to opinion and emotion. There is a rational boundary, if you hurt another person through reckless or malicious behavior, if you cause damage, these are overt acts that ARE explicitly matters for society. The boundaries are easy to draw, if you get drunk or high, then you cannot drive. If you choose to have a child, then you may not harm them, if you want to have sex with multiple partners, you can't be giving them the clap on purpose. And should you choose to be ask ever so nicely to be judged by a sheriff in your county, to be permitted by the United States Government to be able to simply carry a weapon which is your personal right to do so, then you may not just start shooting things or people.

Taking responsibility from the individual, is literally removing their rights as well. With rights come responsibilities, and you cannot have it both ways. You cannot tell someone they are simultaneously responsible and unable to act. Every law that is passed taking responsibilities from people, and giving them to the police, and the courts, is a little bit less freedom.

It is a very clear cut philosophy. Freedom or slavery. But you people somehow manage to pick and choose which laws you want enforced to suit your life, your mind, your circumstance. And it is this attitude, that the majority of humans possess, that is the ultimate failing of humanity. You want freedom, by your personal opinionated standard, and when enough opinions come together, no one is free.

Now I'm Pissed

So I was recently told about the University of the Pacific having its own REAL police force. And I found out that the Stockton Unified School District has its own REAL police force, and my college, Delta, has its own REAL police department. Right now Stockton is shitting itself because they have no money, and the federal government is giving the city up to and including NOTHING.

That's right, Stockton CA, #1 most miserable city in America, official center of the housing collapse, highest unemployment in the the most broke state in the union will receive ---->$0<----- dollars from the federal government in their big "bail out". Stockton, completely ignored by Obama, is going to fire about 55 police officers.

Everyone can't stop talking about all the cops that are getting fired.

A Stocktonian promised that if they do get fired, he'll start a city militia, which made national news.

I'm wondering, how many fucking cops do we really have?

We have the Stockton PD, and everyone is crying because some are getting fired. Sure, 55 out of 441 cops is signifcant, but if they just shift their desk jobs around a little, it will be like nothing happened, but let's pretend it is a bad thing.

We also have in Stockton:

Stockton Unified School District Police Department
University of the Pacific Police Department
Delta College Police Department
California Highway Patrol
San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department
Various branches of the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE
FBI
Department of Justice
I won't list all the specialty enforcers like fish and wildlife or IRS or things like that because it would take forever.

And btw, finding out the cops on campus at Delta are REAL certified law enforcement, I'm now backwards pissed for 9/11/01, the day my stereo was stolen from my car at Delta. A cop (apparently a REAL cop) witnessed the event, saw the little hoodlum bitches, and didn't even chase them. I know this, because I talked to him afterwards and he was like "dems the breaks".

So with all this police, I don't know what people are bitching about. I don't think Stockton's problem is that we don't have enough cops. I think the problem is, Stockton is full of fucking criminals.

I don't think they grew up here either. It just doesn't make sense logistically.

The reason I'm posting this is because I was looking around SUSDPD's website and I noticed a link to the Megan's Law database.

FYI:

# of Convicted Sex offenders

San Francisco: 573, population: 808,000

Oakland: 595, Population: 397,000

Stockton: 775, Population: 290,000

San Diego: 947, Population: 1,354,000

Sacramento: 1599, Population: 1,394,000


San Francisco, and Oakland have significantly MORE people, yet far FEWER sex offenders. San Diego and Sacramento have fantastically more people, (San Diego 4.6X and 4.8X respectively) with hardly any more sex offenders (1.22X and 2.06X).

I'm not made of infinite research here, I don't mean to be deceptive, but I haven't found a city with more rapists and child fuckers per capita than Stockton, and the only
way to beat out Stockton in sheer numbers appears to require at least 4 times the population to work with.


America doesn't track any other criminals the way they do sex criminals, I don't think Stockton has an inordinately higher percentage of sex criminals compared to others, so I will without any further evidence conclude Stockton simply has more criminals overall per capita than anywhere else in this state.

Why does Stockton have more criminals? Are we truly a dumping ground? Are other cities simply meaner to criminals? Does Stockton do too much to welcome them? Is Stockton simply homegowing all these criminals?

These questions and many more can only be answered by Actual research. Which is something I'm not willing to do with 2 readers and negative $ output from this blog.

Somebody get on this. It's a true story, Why is the most miserable city in America so fucked up? Seriously, right now, while bad places and economies is the "in" thing, a book about Stockton might sell like Michael Jackson albums. <--- short term joke.

Valencia Oranges

We all know California is the greatest country on Earth, and by the grace of God it shall never fall or be torn asunder.

But did you know California is responsible for the greatest oranges on Earth?

In the 1800s a Californian, and Hero of the people, William Wolfskill created the Valencia orange, the greatest orange ever, on his ranch in Santa Ana California. He named it after Valencia Spain, a land rich in oranges.

The Valencia Orange was a success, and spread across the globe. The California orange industry was born, and Orange County got its name.

Eventually Sunkist, the greatest orange soda ever, was born as an offshoot of the Valencia orange company.

Years later lots of rich assholes from around America moved into Orange County, thinking that by moving to the greatest land on Earth their souls would be lifted.

Unfortunately as the assholes came in droves, they pushed out the groves. Land in heaven became too expensive for the heavenly fruit. So it was outsourced to Florida, which wasn't doing anything anyway.

So now, 50% of all Florida oranges, are actually Valencia oranges. But don't take my word for it. Florida admits they are California's backyard.

Yay, do I wish upon this world that all lands bear the fruits of the Republic.
Florida is doing its part. What about your state(country)?

I think I should write a big ass coffee table book called "California: Why it just nailed your sister and bought up your debts." or maybe "California: Better than you"
I'm just going to keep listing books that need to be written.

"California: Why your life means nothing without it"
"California: The only place that matters"
"California: Can't Hear You Over All Its Awesomeness"
"Cool Places That Aren't California: Just Kidding"
"California: The only place that filthy bums and the disgustingly rich flock to"
"California: Put Some Stuff In The Soil, Or Pull Some Out, Either Way, It's Gold."
"California: Everything good "America" ever made was invented here."
"California: Why everyone who sucks needs to GTFO and go back to the east coast."
"California: Fuck You, Well Take Baja Back Before We Split."
Someone get on this. I'm busy.

World Premier of Dave Brubeck's newest music "Ansel Adams: America"

World famous Jazz Musician Dave Brubeck and Chris Brubeck Premiered their symphonic tribute to Ansel Adams at my college in Stockton. Chris Brubeck was there, as well as the family of Ansel Adams, but Dave was sick in a hospital so he couldn't come. The piece was performed by the Stockton Symphony accompanied by photographs by Adams that alternated with the music perfectly.I got to see it!

You might wonder why Dave Brubeck would choose Stockton, it's because he was born in Concord and went to the University of the Pacific here when he was a teenager. It was here in Stockton at college that he decided to become a professional musician. He has since performed in Stockton many times.

Dave was scheduled to perform his album "Time Out" in its entirety (the first time ever fully performed live)50 years after releasing it, including the most awesome "Take Five". Hopefully he'll get well.

I first learned about Dave Brubeck through his song "Take Five". I was at Kadena Air Force base in Okinawa and a recording of a Dave Brubeck concert was being used as the demo for the TVs for sale. When "Take Five" played I recognized the song and told my friend it has always been my absolute favorite jazz song, I just had no idea what it was called or who was playing it. Months later my friend went home to Illinois and was able to find out through his dad what the song was. It wasn't until I came back to Stockton out of the Navy that I found out Dave Brubeck was one of my grandfather's favorite musicians growing up, and my dad and brother both had some of his albums.

There's a street named after him a few blocks from my house that runs along UOP and the Dave Brubeck Jazz Festival put on by the Dave Brubeck Institute was held around the corner from my house last weekend.

lol.

Just to put icing on the "music near my house" cake, Street Scene in San Diego, that was nearing bankruptcy because they stopped actually doing the concerts in San Diego, finally went back downtown. Local San Diegans know that it was entirely because of the Street Scene concert that downtown and the Gas Lamp were revitalized. When Street Scene first held its concerts on 5th avenue, all the businesses were rundown, there were crackheads on every corner, nothing but slum. The concerts brought people back to the center of San Dog and money came with them, a couple decades later downtown San Diego has become one of the biggest tourist attractions on Earth. I lobbied hard a few years ago when Street Scene left San Diego. I wrote to whoever I could contact that was a part of Street Scene. Back then every idiot in charge, and the general public had this attitude that Street Scene was "too big" and "in the way" of downtown. Well once the "too big" Street Scene moved out of the city it nearly went bankrupt, and the A - list performers stopped coming. I thought it was a tragedy that the concert that made Gas Lamp what it was, was being driven away and killed. Well, either my lobbying helped, or they just came to their senses, because Street Scene last year went back to downtown, not only that, it was held literally one block from where I used to live. Unfortunately I was here in Stockton, but I'm comforted just by its return. San Diego may be a city full of smug douchebags, but I like it anyway, it's beautiful, it has anything you want, it is California at its finest.

Yay California. Made from the best stuff on Earth.

What it is

So when I started this blog profile, I had just come back to Yokosuka, Japan from 4 months in San Diego. Before Japan (back in 2003) I had been in Florida, before that, Illinois (2002), before that, my hometown of Stockton CA. So from 2004-2006 I lived in Japan. I had a nice house, I did what I did. In the meantime I was able to see many other places including Hong Kong, pretty much all of Korea, Australia, Guam, Saipan. In 2006 I went back to San Diego and lived in a super awesome brand new apartment right on Market street downtown. I lived in San Diego until about March 2008, then I moved back to my hometown of Stockton CA, where I currently occupy space. 

 So I need to update my profile a bit. 

The Stockton Armed Militia

A man in stockton declared a few months ago that if the police get fired, he's going to activate a militia to patrol the city. Well, 55 cops are being fired. Through technicalities, not all will end up "fired" but rather "early retired" but the figures will be the same. Stockton only has about 400 police as is.

The idea of a militia sparked liberal bitching across the country. The epitome of ignorance "wonkette" had around 100 comments describing Stockton in every derogatory manner they could imagine, having absolutely no knowledge of where Stockton even is, or pretty much anything else, some even confusing it with Stockholm. They still managed to declare everything cliche' white trash, kkk, nazi, they could imagine, and I pretty much almost cried at how fucking stupid these people are.

I like the idea of a citizen force picking up the cop's slack. But there's no room for reason in this issue it seems.

On the one side, you have all the dumbshits who think no one but the police should be allowed to have weapons, including our own fucking mayor. On the other hand, you have hundreds of untrained people who might be missing the point, but will all go out shooting if necessary.
Where's the informed middleground? I'm thinking I need to fucking talk to this guy before something tragic happens.

Let me lay this out. I am 100% pro gun. I think babies should be allowed to own machine guns. I don't mince words. I think Iran should be allowed to point nukes at us and talk shit. I think people should be allowed to work on death rays. I think every human should be allowed as many weapons of global destruction as they want, until they prove they aren't responsible enough to possess them. I had to make that clear.

That being said, I don't trust these guys to do proper law enforcement. It's one thing to have a gun to protect yourself, or people around you. It's a whole different realm to go out looking for shit to get into. Bad training can kill as much as any gun can.

I'm not a police officer, I don't feel qualified to patrol the streets in a law enforcement capacity. Yet I have worn a badge that said "police" on it. I have been trained in many aspects of law enforcement. I am an expert with several weapons, including the 9mm and the expandable baton. I am well trained an experienced with verbal commands, detaining suspects (handcuffing), arm bar techniques, the levels of force, and the circumstances for deadly force. For the small piece of land I patrolled as a military law enforcement, I was experienced, I knew what I could and could not do. But this is Stockton, and the rules are different.

That's the problem. There are so many dynamics to law enforcement. Security (and self protection) is easy, you protect something, you know what you're protecting. Law enforcement means getting involved in really confusing shit that you might not have any right to diffuse.

I won't feel comfortable about this Stockton Armed Militia unless they have positive support from the police, as well as training. I think if Stockton has a militia, it should serve in an official capacity, and it should break down like a volunteer branch of the police department. Volunteer, because the only reason Stockton might need a militia, there's no money to pay police.

I also think they need to take focus away from the guns. I can appreciate good citizens armed, but if that's the militia's only goal, to be an armed presence, they won't help 1/100th of the problems of not having police. If they only spring to action in a gun fight, they won't be springing to action very often. Cops are needed for so much more than that.

Imagine a scenario where the militia witnesses a man beating up a woman, so they swoop in, but they have no training for anything but gun play. What can they do? Pull out their guns. Great, someone's not going home that night.

Cops have "levels of force" at least in the utopia version of law enforcement I was trained into we did. Militia need to consider carrying more than guns, like pepper spray, batons, handcuffs, tasers, basically things that can solve a problem with no one dying.

Definition Is Only The Beginning

"Bad Words"

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel on this subject. Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Showtime covered the issue thoroughly, and I think others have as well (though not South Park, I think their episode on 'curse words' was contradictory).

I will summarize; words have meaning because they are given meaning. A word is “bad” through intent. Ultimately it is the ideas of the people, and their ability to transfer them to other humans that is the gauge. And if a word can become “bad”, it is not necessarily a bad thing, or at least in usage.

If I say “Well fuckity shit.” I have used the two “worst” words in the English language. I do actually say this sometimes. Although I’m using the two worst words, the transliteration could be “Gee golly”, or simply “oh” (with particular inflection to designate disappointment in the surprise).

Half of our spoken language is inflection. The same words, or sentences can have multiple meanings based on how the words are pronounced.

This complexity leads to some interesting truths about the society. Some words become “bad”, not by their definition, not by their intent, but by what the word is describing. That is, if people hold “bad” or degrading ideas about the actual concept or idea, or whatever the word applies to, the word itself becomes “bad”.

Best example:

Hostess/Stewardess/Flight Attendant – (safety instructor and service attendant on a plane)

It is the odd nature of trying to regain prestige through verbiage that causes words to be tossed and new ones put in. Hostess (in common understanding, and original intention) is a term for a woman who is the package deal of friendliness and accommodation welcoming guests to her place. The male version ‘host’ has the same implication. So I can see it was with great honor to give the title hostess to women who gave people pillows on airplanes. But the word became sour, and eventually offensive to the women, so it was changed to Stewardess.

Steward/stewardess is an ancient word applying to the highest level of service the surname ‘Stewart’ came from Scottish Stewards. Stewards worked for royalty, often lords, they were the keepers of the land, conceptually the same as a lieutenant to a military, one who is capable and called upon to act in full authority but is only doing so while the superior ranked person is incapable. Basically the steward is the person who does all the work, has all the knowledge, and controls all the assets, but gets very little credit. Like a modern day Assistant Manager, or Vice Principal. Suffice it to say, hostess to stewardess is a step up. It’s going from welcoming someone to a home, to welcoming someone to a lordship. But even this word too fell into “profanity”.

Thus came “flight attendant”. The child of modern political correctness and corporate efficiency, it no longer seeks to inflate the implication, but rather take it to its lowest common denominator (how much higher could you go from Stewardess anyway? Lord? Queen?). Flight Attendant denotes no sex (hence pc) and defines the job, not the person (business minded). But even this word is becoming “bad”, or perhaps I should say, derogatory.

The reason is because the job sucks. It involves bitching at people, and listening to people bitch. It involves telling idiots how to put on a seat belt, and giving people pillows and soda. It is the lowest level of work possible that still serves people, and is legal in all 50 states (I’m looking at you Nevada). The shitty job will always have shitty connotations. No matter how much you polish it with uniforms and sweet titles, you’re still resolving issues of fat people taking up two seats, and inconsiderate people with crying babies (DRUG THE BABY) or sleeping on other people. No matter what word you give that job, it will become “insulting”. The job is bad, so the word that applies to it will become “bad”.

Another much more controversial example:

Nigger/Negro/Black/African American – (I don’t know what it means actually. Maybe people who are from certain loosely defined areas of Africa, or are descended from such people, maybe, or simply have dark skin, but know for certain they aren’t Indian but possibly Australian)?

Nigger/Negro/Black all meant black or was implying the color ‘black’ originally. Like Flight Attendants, but on a much worse scale. Men held captive indefinitely, not as humans, but as objects. The worst treatment of an individual possible, thus the word itself has become the worst thing you can directly call someone. Each time the word was changed to try to drop all the baggage of the previous treatment. The first word applied to slaves. The second word applied to victims of segregation. The third word applied to people subjected to continued racism.

African-American is the most recent, and most PC of them, but it doesn’t possess the “corporate-minded technical accuracy” of ‘Flight Attendant”. First it has some built-in issues. If someone is called ‘African-American’ to replace the word ‘black’, then it can’t apply to 1/100th the number of people. Someone born in Africa isn’t ‘African-American’ for example, but they probably would have fallen under the previous word ‘black’. I say probably because there’s so much more to this knot. Someone who is Egyptian is most definitely African, but probably not black, yet if an Egyptian descendant is born in America, they are “African-American” (though they would probably be labeled ‘Middle-Eastern’. Australian Aborigines are black, but not African, and they are descended from Indians who are still black but once again not African.

The real problem is that people who aren’t rich white Christian men get the ‘bad’ end of the language stick, and the descendants of their slaves are in a bad position culturally. As long as there are rifts in culture, practice or thought, the words applied will express that.

Something Penn mentioned I found out on my own in writing this, there are more words to describe “bad” words, then there are “bad” words. But when I went to look up the definitions, I found something more interesting.

I argued that many “bad” words weren’t themselves intended to be bad; they became bad as a result of the culture around their usage. That is, they weren’t meant to belittle or degrade, and they were neutral. By the definition of ‘derogatory’ these words do not apply. A derogatory word is one that belittles, or “lessens the merits or reputation”. There are other words that I thought meant “bad” but have a completely different definition.

Profane- Dictionary.com gives 5 definitions:

1.
characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2.
not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred ).
3.
unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4.
not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5.
common or vulgar.

Of these 5 definitions only the 5th shows any promise of something other than me! But let’s pick that apart next. Definitions 1-4 basically reveal that the intent of the word “profane” is to describe that which goes against Christianity (I know it doesn’t specifically mention Christianity, but come on, this is English).

By definitions 1-4 I am profane. Not just by words, but by breath. Being Atheist means 100% of everything I say and do will be profane. Just thought I’d like to put that into perspective. If I help an old lady cross the street, I’m being profane. So the word means absolutely nothing to me, and in fact is just an insult to my existence. So profane is even more of a “bad” word to me than what people would define as ‘profanity’.

Definition 5 gave some hope that there was a deeper meaning to ‘profane’ than simply “not doing what the lord tells you.’ “common or vulgar”. Common is common, it means being average is profane. Literally. And we’ll see more of that when I get into vulgar, which sadly means the same thing, but with more hatred of the poor.

Vulgar- Dictionary.com gives 7 definitions for vulgar, hopefully that will be enough to break free from Christ and commonality (one might hope).

1.
characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2.
indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3.
crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
4.
of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5.
current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
6.
spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular: vulgar tongue.
7.
lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary: a vulgar painting.

There we go, ignorance, indecent, obscene, lewd, crude, popular, current, spoken by the people generally, wait what? Vulgar is both ignorance and popularity? They’re the same thing? Obscene and common? Unrefined and ordinary? WHAT THE HELL? Vulgar is basically anything not a part of rich people’s lives? Vulgarity is synonymous with common speech?

This is amazingly offensive in itself. The word vulgar presupposes that the “common” man is inherently ignorant, obscene, unrefined, without charm or distinction. This is straight out of aristocratic Europe! I thought we killed the English for less than this! I am completely offended by both the words ‘vulgar’ and ‘profane’! These words define me as lacking anything of value and possessing so many negative traits BECAUSE I am a poor Atheist. By these word's definitions everything I say or do is evil and ignorant and corrupt and without value. And they both say ‘common’. Essentially they apply to the majority of all humans. How can we hope to heal old wounds when our very language defines the “truth eternal” the rich white Christian man is in control, and he will always be in control.

Obviously that is an amalgam, giving that Obama is only rich, half white, Christian, male, and it was HISTORIC that ANYONE got elected while missing a PORTION of the criteria. The same would have been said if Clinton had won, being rich, white, Christian, Female. HISTORIC!

That’s where we’re at. Language is honest, people are not. Look at the words. They tell you what’s really going on. They reflect perfectly the underlying truths of this society.

Some words will always have a negative connotation as long as the word describes something perceived as negative. And other words will continue to be oppressive as they represent a fundamental ignorance in their usage. forget about worrying what to call the man or woman getting you a pillow, just appreciate that the job is necessary, and that a person can take pride in anything they do, if what they do is beneficial. I think flight crew (most recent term that has already started replacing 'flight attendant') workers are doing a necessary job. It is ignorant to try to "look down" on them personally, but if you don't know why, that would take me pages to explain logically. And stop looking to find an "acceptable word for "black" or African-American" people. They are simply people. As long as people are categorized by arbitrary means, the ignorance will not cease. As long as a concept of "black" and "white" exist, racism will exist. This is why "celebrating diversity" and other liberal fucktardery are the most racist ideals of them all. WE ARE INDIVIDUALS. NO PERSON SHOULD OR CAN BE DEFINED BY ARBITRARY METHODS THAT GROUP UNNATURALLY. There is no such thing as black. There is no such thing as African American. Any words that come to replace those words will be just as inherently wrong.
There really is so much more that could be written about this, I didn’t even get into fundamental sexism (male - feMALE, man - woMAN and especially Mr. - MRs.) but even there might lie a fundamental truth about humans (XY - XX!). I didn't cover allegory, and I’ve left all the issues Penn and Teller covered completely out of this. But I’ve definitely written enough for now. Communication has a rule of diminishing returns. Twitter really is for the people. Vulgar and Profane alike.

Capitalism and Evolution

Stephen Jay Gould argued that Darwin choose a "middle road" in his development of the theory of natural selection and evolution. He contended that Darwin neither blindly gathered facts, nor had a perfect "Eureka!" moment, rather he worked for two years on developing a picture. One of the books Darwin credited to helping him develop the idea of Natural Selection was written by Dugald Stewart, who was praising and explaining the ramifications of Adam Smith's idea of Capitalism. I want to quote the quote because I find the prospect fascinating: "The most effective plan for advancing people... is by allowing every man, as long as he observes the rule of justice, to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and his capital into the freest competition with those of his fellow citizens. Every system of policy which endeavors... to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than would naturally go to it... is, in reality, subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote." In development, Capitalism was a parent of the theory of Natural Selection. Darwin wasn't the first person to come up with the idea of evolution, the word was already commonly understood, he realized the how. Competition. All of nature, humanity, and the universe operates as a system of individual entities in conflict, bringing about a greater stability. It is elements formed, planets formed, solar systems formed, cycles formed from the chaos, the order brought more order, life being order's highest level, order able to reorder. And from life came humans, life's highest level, not only capable of intentionally maintaining order, but able to create new order that had never existed.

The Tea Parties

So there has been a lot of reporting on the tea parties. Fox had been hyping it non-stop, and MSNBC had been deriding it just as much. I spent most April 15 getting ready for the Fleet Foxes concert Joel and I worked at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, but the brief chance I had I tried to watch anything about it on tv, funny thing, Fox wasn't reporting anything on it, and MSNBC was.

As usual there's two sides to an issue reported by the media, and they are usually both wrong. The detractors (namely all of MSNBC) argued two points 1. It isn't grass roots because some rich people got involved, thus invalidating it. 2. "Where were they during the Bush years?"

Sparing you the explanation as to how these are both childish and ignorant arguments, I'll just leave it at that.

The other side (Fox, and for God's sake, Sean Hannity)is promoting it as a great rebellion and some sort of reawakening.

Here's the truth, the people doing these tea parties, regardless of their wealth, are Bush lovers who probably voted for Bush 2.0, aka McCain. They're all butthurt about losing, but they're dumb, so they couldn't come up with anything better.

Simultaneously, all the nay saying about the events, declaring them hypocritical, that no "conservatives" did during the Bush administration is just another slap in the face.

Here's what both sides are missing.

Ron Paul was doing this shit back when it mattered.

For the love of God watch this video. Not only does it show true conservatives rejecting the Bush way, it has Ron Paul predicting the economic collapse that would occur a year later.

Ron Paul was called an extremist. He was called insane. He was called every insult under the sun by the likes of Fox News and ESPECIALLY Sean Hannity. I don't want to put up all the videos, just search them if you want.

Few listened to Ron Paul. Most outright insulted him on air for almost 2 years. Who disagrees with him now? His economic policies are all anyone (but the Bush/Obama fail team)is promoting now. His foreign policies mirrored Obama's.

I tried to tell you people back in 2007. Ron Paul was the only shot Republicans had to win the election, but they chose to fucking crucify him.

Please just watch this video, and think about what you were doing in 2007. Think about who the leading candidates were back then (Giuliani and Clinton). You know who you were supporting. As they spat in Ron Paul's face. You had your chance America. There's no turning back. You elected fail for another 4 years. But you won't realize it. You have no idea what's happening, or why it's entirely your fault. You will not learn. The Democrats and Republicans will continue to control you. You don't deserve any better than a Democrat elected on "Change" doing exactly what Bush did, and Republicans who piss on Ron Paul, pretending to care about taxes with their silly tea parties only after ruining their chances at actually changing things. Remember this, everyone who said Ron Paul was "unelectable" also said Giuliani and Clinton were impossible to beat. Things could have been different.



Ron Paul's Tea Party included events across America, including a full re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party at Boston Harbor. It raised over $6 million by pure grassroots efforts. And was relatively ignored by the media.

XXX again, XYY, X, XXY, XXXY and who knows what else

Having the Y chromosome makes you a male, for the most part. No matter how many Xs you have. But if you happen to have two or three Xs, and a Y, you have Klinefelter syndrome. About 1 in 1000 people have this. Humans with Klinefelter syndrome tend to have learning disabilities, especially with language. But this is something they usually grow out of. At puberty other affects are revealed, tallness, small testicles, breast development, female body contours, and sparse body hair. Most of this from lower levels of testosterone. Sperm counts are also low because the body has trouble processing all the extra Xs, so without technology, they are usually infertile.

A Person with no Ys is a female for the most part. If she has only 1 X, she has Turner syndrome. This affects 1 in 4,000 people. Having only one X prevents full "female" development. The girl may not go through puberty, may never develop ovaries, won't grow tall, won't grow breasts, basically without technology will live to be a permanent child.

Having lots of Xs like XXX is known as Triple-X syndrome. It affects 1 in 2000 births. People with this may have cognitive deficits and low fertility. Otherwise they are mostly unremarkable.

Finally there's XYY syndrome. Having one Y makes you a man. Having more just screws you up. Men with 2 Ys are shown to be lower in intelligence than average, have low fertility, and some have genital anomalies. Studies have shown that men with XYY are more likely to be criminals, possibly because of the lower intelligence.

Instances where incomplete or compromised Xs and Ys can result in other mixtures of the sexes. Hermaphrodites are my example of choice.

One thing I want to get clear, South Park is completely wrong, and so is 99% of people's concept of a "True Hermaphrodite". There is no such thing as a person with male and female sex parts capable of becoming pregnant, and making others pregnant. Hermaphrodites develop partially male sex organs, and partially female. The extreme majority are completely incapable of reproducing. Only one hermaphrodite has ever been known to father a child, and only several have become pregnant. This only becomes possible if enough of the sex organs develop, which is unusual, and never completely male and female. Usually a deformed hybrid of gonads and female external genitalia develops. People with ambiguous sexuality are "intersex".

Obviously human development isn't perfect. It is a whole lot of things mostly going right, and some going wrong that make up most people. Sometimes the part that goes wrong is minute, but catastrophic. Sometimes it may never be noticed. Considering that the very idea of there being only MAN and WOMAN is flawed, that we are indeed one species that usually goes to those poles, but finds room in between and off to the sides, how can you in good moral conscious condemn these people?

A man who thinks he is a woman, a woman who thinks she is a man, often times on a genetic level truly are what they think they are, to an extent. There are so many variants, so many issues. Can you righteously declare that their birth is subhuman? Should they die for their existence? Is their natural and common development a sin?

Can you justify on ANY grounds that declaring a woman is a sinner if she desires other women, even when A WOMAN CAN BE CAPABLE OF MAKING ANOTHER WOMAN PREGNANT? Can you justify punishing BY THE WORD OF GOD a man for loving another man, when man is capable of becoming a woman, growing breasts, taking female form, growing ovaries, and becoming pregnant? All by their very birth, handed down to them by God or by nature?

I say to you that there is only the individual. Race, sexuality, sexual development, gender are justifications for oppression, punishment, or barrier in a land of the "free"? How free can man be, when it is illegal to be born for some, but not for others? How can birth be the descent into sin for some, but not for others?

I say to you that it does not matter if two men can reproduce with each other. They are individuals, and aught be righted at birth, not wronged by your faith. But that a man and a woman who cannot become pregnant is proof of your hatred and hypocrisy. That a man CAN make another man pregnant, by RIGHT OF NATURE, you would still deny REALTY and cast them off as FREAKS deserving only pity or scorn depending on what side of the church door you stand.

1 in 1,000. 1 in 1,000 your government doesn't consider a human, just a sinner from birth. 1 in 1,000 your god forsakes in his book as a crime against him worthy of only death. 1 in 1,000 is in every crowd you have ever seen. 1,000 is fewer than you see in a day, but you would STOMP 1:1000 to the ground with your vile words, making them hate themselves for existing.

But if we added up all the numbers. All the people who are less, who don't count, I'm sure the odds would be a bit higher, to this government most of Earth's populace is "Un-American" and deserving a turned back, or a full metal jacket in the guts. Most of Earth's populace has been condemned to eternal hell by your God, as all who do not believe, or have sinned, or have been born and have never heard.

These are not exaggerations. You condemn HUMANITY in your mind before you set foot out your door. You demand HELL WITH A BULLET for almost all of humanity. Except for the few. The precious few. Depending on who exactly you are, they may be anyone, usually XY, they may be anywhere, usually your country, they may believe anything, usually your religion.

What's stopping you from acting? Fear. Fear of reality. Fear of failure. This whole of Earth, held together by fear of retribution by the whole of Earth. Some bonding glue we have no?

Is it breaking apart? Do you feel the old bonds cracking in the dry sun? Will humans need to die?

XXX

The movie xXx came out in 2002. I remember watching it in Pensacola with Michael. The character's name was Xander, so that alone could explain the tattoo which in course explains the movie title, but the movie tried to make it deeper, and mysterious. I remember someone saying Vin Diesel was becoming the American 007. But Vin Skipped out on the sequel, and seems to have skipped out on every other franchise (though with Riddick, the new Fast and Furious, and a potential xxx3 it seems he might just like waiting a really long time between sequels.).





So Ice Cube played the starring role in xxx2:State of the Union , uugggh. In xXx, Xander (Diesel) had XXX as a nickname. the Sequel without him makes no sense. Even worse, the line "You're the new XXX" was uttered, and the movie actually tried to turn "XXX" into an equivalent of "007". That's fucking stupid. I'm not going to mince words on that.





But did Ice Cube really steal the name from Vin? I submit to you new evidence that has been brought to my attention (only by mental connection). In the 1998 song "Children of the Korn" by Korn, the line "generation XXX" can be clearly heard. What's the significance? Ice Cube recorded with Korn on that song.





This shows that 4 years before Vin dabbled in spy work, Korn and Ice Cube professed to be a part of an entire generation "XXX". So I guess there's a little XXX in all of us.

But what is XXX? First thing to come to my mind is the jugs of liquor in old Warner Bros. Cartoons.



I'd look up the history of XXX on jugs but the INTERNET IS FOR PORN. Which brings me to the second idea of XXX.


Back in the ancient times, before the internet, porn could only be watched via tapes, or in theaters. Because of the nature of porn (independent, low budget, specific adult audience) porn movies usually didn't have MPAA ratings. The original rating "X" was innocuous and applied to any movie that was especially graphic. In the 70s, porn took over the rating, as it was never an official rating, and made it a signature of the industry. In a game of oneupmanship promoters began giving their movie more xs to signify more extreme content, this is where the XXX-rated movie came from. Though it was never official, and the internet has made ratings (especially for porn) completely pointless the term still remains prominent. You can't do a Google search for "XXX" in any capacity without porn as the chief result. My image search for "XXX bottle" got 90% porn and one or two actual bottles with XXX on them. XXX has become so casually related to porn that one of the results for "XXX bottle" was someone on a website saying they had played a "XXX game of spin the bottle" apparently in this context, XXX didn't even have a remote application to a loosely defined rating of actors in a movie engaging in sex, only that the spin the bottle game involved nudity, not sex, not filmed nudity for distribution, just flashing friends. I'd call that Pg-13, R at best.

Mental Trappings

"consider a situation in which a father and his son are driving down the road. The car collides with a tree and the father is killed. The boy is rushed to the nearest hospital where he is prepared for emergency surgery. On entering the surgery suite, the surgeon says, "I can't operate on this boy. He's my son."
The apparent paradox is caused by a hasty generalization. The reader, upon seeing the word surgeon, applies a poll of their knowledge of surgeons (regardless of its depth) and reasons that since the majority of surgeons are male, the surgeon is a man, hence the contradiction: the father of the child, a man, was killed in the crash."

- Wikipedia

This is a common one, it goes around claiming to be "proof" that we're sexist and assume only men are surgeons. So sexist in fact, that even faced with the (supposed) choice of the surgeon either being a mother or the same man from the crash, we assume it's impossible.

But I don't think so. I think it's just a trick question. Assume if you can, that a person has a neutral view of the sexuality of most surgeons going into the story. Then faced with 4 sentences, altogether containing the words 'father' twice, 'son' twice, 'he' twice, and 'boy' twice. With no other sexuality mentioned. That's 8 references to males, and zero to women in 4 sentences. This trick can be used in many different ways, to subtly suggest that the wrong answer. If you've ever heard a person ask you "Say "10" ten times." You say it. "Ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten." You'll probably use your fingers to count (I'm psychic) and then the person asks "What's an aluminum can made out of?" Then more often than not, the response is "tin". The person is persuaded to the answer "tin" even though not only is the real answer obvious, it's GIVEN in the question! Are we then to assume, by the logic of those who claim sexism, that people who say "tin" thought in their minds all the aluminum cans they've seen and concluded objectively that most of them were made of tin? The truth is, you don't think the surgeon can't be the mother, you simply have been led into a mental trap of only male options.

I only posted this rant because I read this crap on Wikipedia in the article about paradoxes. It's bullshit. Wikipedia isn't hard fact, it's collective opinion. I would like to point out, the first time I heard this riddle, was in a game aptly called "Mind Trap". Then I saw it in "Tin Cup" where the woman asserts the men are sexist for thinking the surgeon was a man, and apparently that's what Wikipedia thinks too. That and people think aluminum cans are made of tin.

My Bad Japanese Teacher

Normally I wouldn't knock anyone. I might bitch about things, but I keep my shit talking to a minimum and usually don't begin conversations by trashing people. Caveats aside, I will be an asshole here and rip on my Japanese teacher.

The story begins about half an hour ago when I was reading Time's "50 best websites of 2008". One of the websites was "ratemyprofessors.com" which simply enough lets people bitch about their teachers. So I immediately thought of my Japanese teacher and looked her up. She was on there. She was on there for 2 colleges. And both colleges had 6 pages of negative comments from students. According to the website's boasting, there's an average of 8 comments per listed professor, my teacher had somewhere around 30 comments total, I don't know I lost count. Almost every comment was the same, the same issues I had with her. I'm not even sure if I should list the issues, because I'm sure no one who isn't actually in her class, or going to be, or is thinking about taking Japanese in Stockton would care at all. I'll just say she classically sucks. All the classiclly bad things a teacher could do to make sure a student not only hates the class, but fails or drops out and never takes it again, is her forte'.

I remember by mid term she was bragging about how many students had dropped out. She'd drop people out even when they were still there. She was about to drop me, just because she didn't see me behind someone one day. Not one thing I ever learned actually living in Japan helped me out in this Chinese woman's class.

Just amazed that whenever I'd say my Japanese teacher sucked, my family wouldn't believe me. Just checking out this site proves that my opinion is actually astoundingly on the mark for this website.

As a control I checked out some of my other teachers

Econ Teacher - negative shit storm. I didn't have much of an opinion of his teaching ability one way or the other beause I find his notes entirely useful and I had the highest grade in the class almost the whole time.

English Teacher - generally positive reviews. He was my favorite of the bunch even though he graded me like I was retarded. Definitely lost all hope in becoming a writer taking his class. If I can't impress everyone, then I'll impress no one. But I loved his spirit, he was smart and dove deep into the material.

So things seem to be about even. I imagine most people who go on that site do it to complain so it should be tough to get mostly positive reviews. Amazing how many Delta students have already been to that site.

Maybe online college isn't a bad way to go.

Iraq

When everyone knew America was going to Iraq by the summer of 2002, I knew it was a farce. Simply by the fact that you're not supposed to know 8 months ahead of time that Iraq would "violate" this or that and justify their invasion.

I was pissed. I said, "Fine, if America is going to invade Iraq, I want cameramen to be there, to film every human die. Show every dead baby. Show everything." - paraphrased. Michael is my witness on this "early" resolve.

If you believe people have the right to bear arms, then you have no justification for war with Iraq. The only reason, the only reason in the world Bush used, was that they were armed. Certainly there were better reasons, but they weren't Bush's reasons. You could rationalize in your mind that the other reasons justified the invasion, but because those reasons were not the invaders reason, they would never be respected.

Let me give you an example that I believe is fair, but won't elicit any patriotic knee jerk. Imagine if the president decides that drug dealers shouldn't have guns. Certainly that seems to fall in line with just reasoning, and American law. But who are the drug dealers? If they are already known, shouldn't they be in prison, or already served time, or at least counseled? You would think to yourself, they could justifiably be arrested because they are drug dealers. BUT, that isn't what the president's goal is, that's your "justification". So federal police begin kicking in the doors, and shooting the dogs of every known or suspected drug dealers in America, but after awhile, the waters are murky, things are rushed, the goal of the president isn't to prosecute drug dealers, it's to take guns. In that respect, he won't need proof the person is a drug dealer, just suspicion, so fairly soon, the police are just kicking in the doors of anyone that's ever done anything. Parking ticket holders will have their doors kicked in, and their dogs shot. Sure, some people will get killed trying to defend themselves, but such anarchy is all the more justification to keep kicking in doors, and shooting dogs, and taking the guns. Soon enough drug dealers will find a way to continue their deeds without being the subject of a door kicking-in and a dog killing, they'll go underground, but the feds will continue kicking in doors, regardless of whose doors. While the Feds are wasting tax payer money killing tax payer dogs, the drug dealing will continue, and the fear generated from the invasion will cause drug dealers to kill more. The point is you have to look at the true goal, not your hope of what will come of the goals of others.

Invading Iraq, because they have weapons was an evil enterprise. Iraq has more weapons than it did before, and the fact that the U.S. military went in and took all the weapons from law abiding individuals has only made things worse. The U.S. military has no trouble disarming the good citizens, so the criminals are the only ones who are armed.

Often people say that Iraq was better off with Saddam. I can't agree with that, at least now they have a chance. Not a great chance, but a chance. The problem is that America's intentions are making it harder for things to get better. Weapons aren't the problem. Conflict is the problem, and Americans are the conflict now.

There's a saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I'm not arguing that. I'm literally saying the intentions were wrong, they made hell on purpose. People bought into it for peripheral benefits, but those benefits haven't come to fruition, and they never will.

I've talked a long time with an Objectivist, and one of the issues was the morality of intention. Does it matter why a person acts? Is the reason for a good action important? And we both agreed that it absolutely matters. Even if an outsider could only guess to the reasoning, the reasoning will always matter. Iraq is a perfect example. Even if you saw the invasion as a good thing, because the reasoning behind it was different, the outcome won't be the same, because at some point there will be a fork in the road, where you would go one direction, the person with the alterior motives will choose the other. The fork was long ago.

Sometimes kicking in a door is necessary, but if your thinking it's good because there's a criminal on the other side, and the government thinks it's good, because there's an armed man on the other side, eventually there will be a conflict. Not all armed men are criminals, and the government will not care. That is Iraq. That is pretty much all the current conflicts in America, maybe even humanity.

People see this need to categorize people. Whether it's "liberal" vs. "Conservative" or "American" vs. "other" or "white" vs. "other" it really doesn't matter. The borders are artificial. Once the intention of the borders becomes altered, the border can become an evil in itself. For example, if you categorize people by American or other, it makes sense when talking about taxes, or laws, or participation in government, but when it becomes an issue about a person's rights to themselves, that's when it becomes evil. To assert that only Americans should bear arms in Iraq is one example. To assert that all Africans should be slaves is another example. "white" vs. "other" could be applied to learning genealogy, studying language, or custom, or history makes sense, but to use it to imprison Jew or Japanese descendants is wrong. People take things to extremes, and fight it out in these corners, either we have genetic variations, and we should kill those who aren't us, or there are no genetic variations and everyone is exactly the same. Both positions are wrong, yet those become the lines. The conflicts of man seem to be childish in this regard. These absolutes where both parties are wrong. Intention is a factor. If you intend to distinguish nationality, or national purposes, that's logical, but if you distinguish nationality to opress one group, or help another, that's evil. Unfortunately not enough people regard intentions, and seem to only respect action. Never the 'why', only the 'what'. 'Why' distinguish nationality, sex, religion, isn't asked. Only an abosolutist, 'what' sex, either no difference, or one must be superior, no nationalities, unless one is superior to the other. That's not how reality works, and that's why people die. War is not inevitable, but as long as people demand absolutes that are lies, there will be war. There will be death. That is the immediate result to their immorality. It is swift. Immorality isn't just, and neither is the punishment for it. War will never be just in this regard. As long as conflict is for lies.

I could rant all day.

Fast Food

Little Caesars used to give you two pizzas for the price of one, in one big box. Also I only remember the square pizzas, all throughout the 80s and 90s the big box of square pizzas was the only thing I know of or thought of about Little Caesars. After coming back to Stockton this I realized they got rid of them. But they did have the $5 large one topping for awhile, but now that's gone too, though Pepperonies down the street has $5 large one toppings and they are better quality.

Round Table has the highest quality pizzas for a big chain, but Stockton has better places like Michael's. Recently ads for CiCi's pizza have been showing up in California, which shocked me at first because I thought CiCi's was only in Pensacola Florida. CiCi's has average quality, but for $5 it's all you can eat/drink including a nice salad bar and dessert pizzas. Round Table has started their own affordable lunch buffet but the one near my house sucks and any other time round table is expensive enough to make a man cry.

So. Since my having no money has run long I've been following Joel's path of shooting right for the dollar menu at fast food places. It's like we're cheating them. I can't believe some of that stuff is a dollar, while they charge 3 or 4 dollars for something slightly fancier. A good example is Wendy's, you can get a double bacon cheeseburger for $1, but a freaking mushroom cheeseburger is $4. You can get a small soda for a $1, you can get a 5 piece nuggets for $1 (and those nuggets kick McDonald's ass) I can't even believe how good Wendy's nuggets are, spiced, juicy, crunchy. You could get a small soda, small fries and 2 sandwhiches for $4! Meanwhile one 2 patty cheeseburger meal will run you into the $6 range.

Taco Bell has a few good things on their ".79 .89 .99" menu. Depending on the location, prices vary, but you can get a "Cheesy Double Beef Burrito" for under $1 or a "Half Pound Bean and Cheese Burrito", and they're both filling. The triple layer nachos (the 3 layers are hot sauce, cheese, and beans) are good themselves and are usually the cheapest thing on the menu. Though the sodas will kill you. Jack in the box has a few good $1 items, the chicken sandwhich, two tacos, or a Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger. Though once again the soda is ridiculous. Sodas at fast food restaurants are straight up scams. They make more profit on the soda than anything else. It's the cheapest to provide, and costs the most. I'm just glad in the 90s restaurants started allowing free refills. Although there are still some places that won't do refills, like the McDonald's on the corner of Haight Street next to the Golden Gate Park, because 3 in every 4 people there is a filthy bum, really really filthy bum and they all want their McDonald's cups refilled.

For a while in the 21 century soda machines in California dropped prices and you could get a .35 can of Coke (unlike the 90s and 80s where they were .60 and above), but I think they've risen again, all the soda prices have risen back to their inconvenient prices, seriously, I haven't seen a good $5 24 pack price in a couple years. Is corn to blame? Maybe they should go back to using real sugar. I'm getting tired of $5 12 packs and $2.79 2 liters. 2 liters SHOULD BE .99!!!!

Why is it that with increased farming technology, increased storage and transport technology, and increased wealth, the quality of food has gone to shit? Seriously. Why can't food use real ingredients anymore. I don't care how much growth hormones you use, I just want real natural ingredients. WHEN THE HELL DID EATING REAL FOOD BECOME A SOCIALIST IDEA??????????? All the real ingredients have been replaced with chemicals and manufacturing. Why do only hippies and vegetarians shopping at Trader Joe's get grains in their fucking bread and cereal? Milk and cream in their ice cream? Why is bread bleached? EVER? IT'S DISGUSTING. Bland bland bland. Almost every fast food place uses bleached bread for buns. Thank God Subway EVENTUALLY started offering breads that weren't completely void of nature. Whole grain crunchy flaky bread tastes 100 times better than bleached starched whatevered white bread. I'm not a hippy for thinking this. I'm not even someone who cares about eating healthy, and I agree with the health nuts. This food we call American sucks. Why has "Capitalism" eliminated variety? Why do all sodas have the same ingredients? Why is there only 1 variety of cow and chicken used in all meat products in America? Why is there only one milk cow? Why is milk only from cows? There are litterally thousands of kinds of delicious sea life we could eat, but instead we eat 1 lobster, maybe 2 or 3 kinds of crab, 3 or 4 clam type creatures, and maybe 4 kinds of fish for 300 Million people. Why don't Americans eat anything more than chicken cow and pig??????? Goat, Lamb, Deer, Buffalo, Giraffe, Monkey, Dog, Cat, Turtle, WE COULD HAVE ANYTHING. WE COULD FARM ANYTHING. Instead everything everywhere tastes the same. Every city in America serves the same food, from the animals, and probably the same supplier. Washing away all variety is the hallmark of the 20th and 21st Century for America.

Cheese butter cream are replaced with oil
sugar in all its delicious variants, glucose, fructose, sucrose, etc. all replaced with high fructose corn syrup.
Nothing is flavored anymore, cherry flavoring, is high fructose corn syrup, and chemicals. Strawberry flavoring, high fructose corn syup, and some more chemicals. Apple, banana, watermelon, orange, lime, grapefruit, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP AND CHEMICALS. WHY WHY WHY CAN'T THEY JUST USE THE REAL THING? FOR GOD'S SAKE IF THEY HAD IT IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY CAN'T WE HAVE IT NOW????

I don't want to go to another country. I don't want to go to a place where they have yet to spread the ideas of refridgeration, or safe handling, or cooking food thoroughly. This place. Here. America is suppose to be the best.

I recently watched this ad battle take place on TV. Progresso took a shot at Campbell's because Campbell's had some number of soups with MSG and Progresso had some number of soups without. Campbell's came back with an ad showing they had more soups without MSG than Progresso did, and that Progresso has MSG too, and they promised to remove MSG in all their soups. Progresso ran an ad where a woman taste tested two soups and said one was MSG (Campbell's) and the other was all natural, so Campbell's ran THE SAME FREAKING AD with a woman taste testing soup and saying Progresso's was full of MSG and when she tasted the Campbell's she identified what fucking farm the vegetables where from. My only question is WHY THE FUCK IS THERE MSG IN ANY GOD DAMN SOUP IN AMERICA???? I THOUGHT THAT SHIT WAS ILLEGAL! MSG chemicaly melts a few layers off your tongue, making your tongue more receptive to flavor, making good food taste better, but it also goes into your stomach and melts away your stomach lining, which can give you an ulcer and kill you. THE BIGGEST SOUP COMPANIES IN AMERICA ARE MELTING YOUR FUCKING STOMACH LINING TO BOOST SALES. FOR SHIT FUCKS SAKE WHY WOULD THEY ONLY BE CALLING EACH OTHER OUT ON IT NOW? FOR THAT MATTER, WHY DID IT TAKE THEMSELVES TO DO IT? HOW MANY DECADES HAVE THEY BEEN POISONING US???? HOW MANY OTHER PRODUCTS USE MSG? Old people eat soup. Old people have weak stomach lining, and are more prone to ulcer. Soup is full of ulcer causing MSG. Campbell's is mm mm KILLS OLD PEOPLE. I just looked into it and found that yep. Pretty much everything uses MSG except Chinese food now-a-days. I'm not old enough to remember a time when Chinese food restaurants didn't advertise "no MSG" so the fact that they still advertise it seems really odd by comparison, oh those evil Chinese, they were doing the same thing Doritos is STILL DOING, but they stopped 30 years ago and are still paying the consequences while all your chips are dripping with ulcer powder.

That's my rant.


If I could have a restaurant, I would serve shit you couldn't get anywhere else in town. Then I'd go out of business.


Just as a little bonus tidbit, I looked up MSG on Wikipedia, the first company to market MSG was Aji No Moto in Japan in 1909. The asians pioneered MSG use in cooking long before that by extracting it from seaweed, but Aji No Moto were the first to purify it and sell it. When I was in Japan I bought a bottle of Aji No Moto brand MSG thinking it was salt. It tasted horrible by itself, but I found that when it was mixed into some rice it made the rice taste great. I didn't realize it was MSG until a couple years later when I learned what MSG looked like. Aji no Moto means "essence of taste" and the company was completely founded on selling MSG.

MSG does occur naturally too, which all the more disturbed me in my researching reading people's forum discussions about how they ALWAYS use MSG and if they leave it out, they add extra natural formations of MSG to make up for it. Come on now. If there's to be one product in the entire universe that you would want in all your food all the time, wouldn't you want it to be at least inert? Or maybe beneficial to your body? Seriously, some people are fucked up, MSG all the way in American food. And it isn't inert, and it provides nothing beneficial.