Saturday, March 6, 2010
Kyle tries to refence his own crap as a reliable source.
Careful folks Kyle is at it again. He thinks because he wrote a book he can reference it as a source.
The original story. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240325
Evolutionary scientists claim humans and dinosaurs could not possibly have co-existed.
That's right Kyle they make that claim because it's true.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7102-worlds-oldest-biped-skeleton-unearthed.html
The oldest biped skeleton is around 4 million years old. The dinosaur era ended 65 million years ago. Now this is the tough part for Kyle we will do some math.
65 million - 4 million = 61 million year difference. That is a big difference.
They insist that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived on the scene. Yet the available historical and physical evidence proves that dinosaurs and humans lived together only a few thousand years ago (see Lyons and Butt, 2008).
Ahhh look he is citing the book he wrote as a reference. Sorry Kyle you fail. Your book is crap.
One proof of this fact is the abundance of "dragon legends." These legends, from all over the world, describe creatures that match many of the dinosaurs and flying reptiles in the fossil record (pp. 13-45).
Wait, so I am suppose to believe that humans and dinosaurs exist at the same time because people believed in dragons? This is the difference with science it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. You have no evidence and no facts.
The evolutionary attempts to explain away the similarities between dinosaurs and the creatures historically labeled as "dragons" fail completely. For example, in the Zhucheng, China area, over 50 metric tons of fossils have been collected, with thousands more fossils still in the ground (Cha, 2010).
And not one of them was a dragon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503035.html
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/90873/6899106.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/thousands-of-dinosaur-footprints-reported-found-in-china/1
Dinosaur fossils are so plentiful that paleontologist Xu Xing said they "can even be found in some farmers' private courtyard areas next to their houses" (2010). Local residents have been "digging up 'flying dragon' bones for use in medicinal concoctions for generations" (2010, emp. added). Residents have long associated the dinosaur fossils with the ancient creatures known as "flying dragons."
Please note he says he is finding Dinosaur fossils. That the term flying dragon is a quote for what some of the local residents may refer to them as. There has been not one shred of evidence to support the idea that any of these were dragons in any way shape or form.
It is no mere coincidence that descriptions of dinosaurs and flying reptiles match the ancient descriptions of dragons. As Daniel Cohen stated: "No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs. Like the dragons, dinosaurs were huge reptiles.... It sounds as though the dragon legend could have begun with dinosaurs" (1975, pp. 104,106).
Daniel Cohen also wrote about the possibilities of Bigfoot, the Kracken, and other legends. He states that it "sounds as though" but he offers no proof.
The Bible clearly states that God created all creatures, both flying reptiles and dinosaurs, as well as humans, on days five and six of Creation. The repeated references to dinosaur fossils being connected to dragon legends adds historic evidence to the convincing case that dinosaurs and humans co-existed in the past and were not separated by millions of years.
The bible does not use the word dinosaur. Considering the term Dinosaur wasn't coined until 1842. Also looking through Genesis not once on the day four or five of the biblical creation time line does it say Dinosaurs or Dragons. So now you are misquoting and misinterpreting the bible.
Posted by understudy @ 05:33 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Monday, March 1, 2010
Biology Today 1975 Second Edition
I am now the proud owner of a used copy of Biology Today (Second Edition) 1975
Creationist quote miners lose.
Kyle Butts and other creationist have been using this book to try and disprove evolution. After I had email exchange with the author David Kirk I decided to try and find an actual copy. I found a used copy that cost about $2.00 plus a few dollars for S&H. It arrived in the mail today. I read through it to see the actual quote. It is amazing when you read what is discussed in the chapter how wrong the the creationist actually are. The lies are deplorable.
Attention creationist. I now have an actual copy of this book. The author is aware of your misdeeds. You lose.
Also while this book is 35 years old and may not hold the latest and greatest in scientific information it is a fascinating book. There is still so much of this book that can impart such wonderful information. I am glad to have a copy.
Posted by understudy @ 10:36 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Friday, February 26, 2010
Kyle Butts Says New Scientific Discovery Proves Creationism. Hey Kyle do you even have a clue?
Kyle Butts once again tries to show how scientific discovery means that creationism is right and well science is just inconvenient when it comes to God.
The original article from Kyle Butts. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240319
For 80 years-two generations-the majority of biology textbooks have propagated the lie that life spontaneously arose in a "primordial soup" near the surface of the ocean.
Oh here we go again. Abiogensis talks about the creation of life and it was anything but spontaneous.
Creationists who have not been duped by the evolutionary hype have pointed out for just as long that not only is the spontaneous generation of life biologically impossible, but the "chemical soup" theory is demonstrably false.
Wrong again. Why do you persist in promoting falsehoods? The scientist who have also attempted the Miller-Urey experiment have shown there was a flaw with the original experiment that instead of producing 5 amino acids it produced 22 amino acids. Creationists are not being duped they are being stubborn. They refuse to accept the facts. The truth doesn't matter no matter how much evidence there is.
Finally, after almost a century, the scientific community has admitted that the chemical soup theory cannot be correct. Nick Lane, from University College London, stated: "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all" (as quoted in "New Research...," 2010, emp. added).
Hey Kyle, this does not contradict Abiogenesis. It merely offers an addition to the Miller-Urey experiment. Nick is also a firm believer in evolution and a premiere biologist. In talking about his book Life Ascending. He states this:
It was a world on which life emerged, 3,800 million years ago....
Whoops I guess that fits right into a creationist view on the age of the earth. Also the hydrothermal vents were a great break throiugh for science because they show how life can exist without light or UV radiation. There are several experiments that have been done in regards to what conditions life could have been created under. What is great about those experiments is they show complex organisims arise under a large variety of conditions.
In 1929, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that UV radiation "provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However, critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist" (2010). So, with a simple wave of the hand, 80 years of evolutionary indoctrination is dismissed without so much as tinge of guilt about misleading two generations of children and adults. What is even more remarkable, and heartbreaking, is that the "primordial soup" idea is being replaced with another scenario that is equally flawed and biologically impossible. According to the "latest research," life arose in deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. Yet the "hydrothermal vent" theory has just as many defects and errors inherent in it as the "primordial soup" idea.
Abiogenesis is a work in progress. There is more information to be discovered. In 1929 the idea of life without light was a foreign concept. This is not done with a simple wave of the hand. Also so it is clear Abipgenesis is not evolution. You cannot seem to get that concept through your head.
If history is any indication of what will happen, we can expect to see the "primordial soup" idea remain in textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next several decades, it will be replaced with the "hydrothermal vent" theory (or some other that might pop up). After years of indoctrination, the vent theory will be replaced by another, equally implausible scenario that allegedly explains how life spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This perpetual cycle of theory replacing theory will continue ad nauseam. The only thing that can stop this vicious, destructive cycle is for the scientific community to admit that spontaneous generation is biologically impossible-a fact that has been verified by every relevant biological experiment for the past 160 years (Lyons, 2009).
Sorry but using Eric Lyons as a source is a boatload of fail. Eric is not a biologist. The term of indoctrination is a interesting one. Considering that is exactly what the members of religion do to their followers. Science doesn't indoctrinate. Science educates. The idea that things can change and be updated in science textbooks is a good thing. As our knowledge in matters increases we need to improve the educational materials to our students. The bible hasn't taken much of an update lately has it?
Yet, if they admit this truth, they are faced with the reality that George Wald so concisely stated more than 50 years ago, when he said that the only alternative to spontaneous generation is "to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position" (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). How many times must the evolutionary community admit to indoctrinating millions of children for decades with false ideas before we demand that they be held accountable?
The biggie quote out of context. Read what George Wald actually said and the intent behind it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
The best part is science is accountable. It does hold to the rigor of the scientific method. It does make scientist retract that which does not hold up.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is a statement that has been preserved for 3,500 years. To this date not a single scientific discovery has invalidated the statement. How high must the stack of outdated, error-laden, evolutionary-based science textbooks reach before society returns to truths found in the only book that "shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31)?
You are delusional if you believe that. The scientific evidence has shown that the Universe and the Earth and their creation and existence do not fit with the story of Genesis. Also the creation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You keep trying to throw garbage into your articles. The planet earth is not here because of Evolution.
I had several people point out to me that Kyle does this for a living. He is paid by other churches to come out and lecture on the bible and creationism. The problem is if he stopped being deceitful he would be out of a job. Kyle will resort to nothing more than circular reasoning or try to go off topic. This is the worst kind of deceit and indoctrination. He claims that science is guilty of this but science has evidence. Kyle should have a mirror.
References:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404
http://www.nick-lane.net/About Life Ascending.htm
http://www.nick-lane.net/Life Ascending Chapter 1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Posted by understudy @ 10:23 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Kyle Butts lies in the name of God.
Okay first and foremost let me say this. I have gone through several email exchanges with Kyle Butts over an absolutely insane article he wrote on killing people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
This article of insanity is here. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2309
Kyle Butts (yes, that is his real name as far as I can tell) is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, which is a school that is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Kyle lists in biography a double major...in Bible and communications and New Testament. Not biology or mechanics. He is also an editor of Discovery magazine, which you have to look at the articles to grasp how bad this magazine actually is. http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html
Here is Kyle Butt's staff page. http://www.apologeticspress.org/staff/kb
Now while I don't mind people having faith. I mind when they feel their faith gives you the right to kill people for picking up sticks in your yard.
However that is not enough for Kyle. he feels the education he has on the bible gives him the expertise to speak out on evolution also. Yup you got it Kyle is a creationist.
So here is a link to Kyle Butt's latest piece of dribble. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2778
Here is is his article with responses I have made. Kyle is in italics.
As modern science has acquired the ability to see deeper and deeper into the natural world, problems with the waning theory of evolution continue to plague its proponents.
Wrong, the theory is not waning. More information and facts continue to come to light and the theory continues to improve. This statement about the theory waning is an outright lie.
A multiplicity of natural, biological systems exhibit complexity that could not have arisen through natural, evolutionary processes.
Yes, they could and did. Natural selection has been shown to produce the variations, adaptations, and diversification.
In response to these findings, the Intelligent Design movement has begun to gain major footholds in academic circles. In a nutshell, intelligent design suggests that many natural systems are too complex to have evolved.
Yes it attempts through dishonest means to place itself in schools where it does not belong.
In an attempt to discredit intelligent design, supporters of evolution have made and repeated one primary line of attack. They posit that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. The writings of those who bring this accusation against intelligent design are legion.
It has no peer reviewed articles. They hypothesis put forth have been tested and shown to be false. Yet ID continues to espouse them as if though they were fact. The legion you speak of is the scientific community at large in the fields of biology, geology, taxonomy, genetics, and many more. It is not an attempt to discredit ID. It is pointing out the outright lies used by ID.
In an article titled, "UNLV Teachers Dismiss 'Design' Theory," the author quotes Stanley Smith, professor of the Department of Biological Sciences, as saying: "[S]cience includes hypotheses that must be tested and proved or discarded." Smith then stated: "All science follows the scientific method, in which we make observations in nature, create testable hypotheses as to why we see patterns that we do and then conduct experiments that test those hypotheses" (as quoted in Thomas, 2005). Smith further quipped that intelligent design does not meet this criterion. Associate professor of biological sciences, Steven de Belle, commented on intelligent design as well. He stated: "'It is not science. The defining feature of the scientific method is lacking in ID,' which includes making observations and testing hypotheses" (Thomas, 2005).
The article also says this quote from deBelle:
"Many scientists are truly spiritual people with faith in some higher power," de Belle said. "Their science does not make them unfaithful and their spirituality does not interfere with their ability to be good scientists."
Hey Kyle, that means there are people who have faith and accept evolution. Maybe because they don't believe in a deceptive god.
In an article describing the University of Kansas decision to teach a course on intelligent design as religious myth, Paul Mirecki, the chair of KU's religious studies department, and teacher of the new course, commented on intelligent design in this way: "Creationism is mythology.... Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not" (Gendall, 2005).
In his article titled "Scientific Theories More Than Guesses," Jonathan Hoffman wrote: "Thomas Harrington correctly pointed out that a scientific theory is testable and falsifiable. What he failed to state, however, is that 'intelligent design' does not meet these criteria" (2005).
Here, then, is the alleged situation. Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and confirmed. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not scientific because it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified, and therefore should not be viewed as science. In order to sort this out, it would be appropriate to see just how testable and falsifiable the theory of organic evolution really is.
Stand back people Kyle is going to attempt to do science. Watch the train wreck.
Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals.
No! evolution only explains the diversity of life not it's origins.
This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is a testable idea.
Wrong again. The origins of life are referred to as Abiogensis. Which is not evolution.
Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.
Still wrong and still not evolution. Again the word is Abiogensis and your statement is also incorrect. However we are here to discuss evolution. So try to stick with the topic at hand.
This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald wrote in Biological Sciences: "If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life-that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation" (1963, p. 42).
George Wald was a Nobel Prize winner who supported evolution. This is a quote mine and taken out of context.
You can see here that creationists like to take George Wald out of context because they completely misunderstand what he was talking about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/creationist.html bottom of the page
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
David Kirk noted: "By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum 'All life from preexisting life' became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent" (1975, p. 7).
And the quote mining continues. That was the nineteenth century. We also didn't believe in doing heart surgery at that time also. David Kirk is now aware of this quote mining as I emailed him on it. David was kind enough to respond.
Dear Brendhan,
Thanks for your interest, and for bringing this matter to my attention.
There are a number of different things I might say about the context of that
quote:
First, the most important aspect of the context within which that quote
should be understood is actually included within it, in the phrase "...under
conditions that now exist upon our planet....." As I'm sure you realize,
there is compelling evidence that conditions on our planet have been very
different at various times in the past than they are today.
Second, another aspect of the context is found when one turns the page:
On page 9 (first complete paragraph) it is stated that "It may be years
before further confirmation of the mechanistic view is obtained through the
complete synthesis of a simple living creature from inorganic materials, but
few biologists today doubt that such a synthesis is ultimately possible.
(And remember that that statement was published 33 years ago, in what many
of us now refer to as "the pre-molecular era of biology." And as you may or
may not have heard, in just the last few years there has developed an
exciting and vibrant new field of experimental science known as "synthetic
biology.")
Third, another way to think about the context is that the entire book
provides the context. And in the next chapter (page 20, bottom of the first
column) it is stated that "The principle of evolution is reinforced by
analysis at all levels of organization in nature. That is why the principle
of evolution is the major unifying theme of this textbook."
Nurture your inquisitive nature, And let me know if there are additional
ways that you think I might be able to help.
Best regards,
Dave Kirk
And Martin Moe stated:
A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).
Again another quote mine. Just a load of fail. As a matter of fact I went to the source and ask
the author of this quote what the story behind it was. Here is what martin Moe wrote me:
Hi Brendhan,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is really a "blast from the past" as the saying goes. I did write that article and that quote is from the article. It is interesting to see how one's words can be taken completely out of context to support a polemic that has nothing at all to do with the concept of the original article. In this case the quote was intended to show that through long application of the elements of observation, analysis, and the scientific method, that life did not and does not arise from supernatural sources or from spontaneous generation, such as worms from horsehairs. There was no implication that life was created de novo by a supernatural entity, in fact, just the opposite.
I wrote that article, "Genes on Ice", to introduce the concept of a book that I had written (Project Phoenix, 1981, still available on Amazon) to a larger audience on the concept of saving an individuals genetic code and life history for future generations. This seems like a much more functional and meaningful way of recording a life than the then and current practice of interring human remains underground for lengthy decay or immediate disintegration by cremation. The premise was (is) that individuals alive today may, through the preservation of their genetic code, become part once again of a human community, and through preservation of their life history, they would know who they were and what they did in a far distant past. It would also be a permanent record of a human life and corporal body accessible to future generations that carry that genetic line. Also, it is possible that if humanity survives its infancy (somewhat doubtful at this point), that we will become a species with a peaceful and stable population that can exist within the confines of Spaceship Earth. But we may still be driven to expand out existence to other worlds, and that case, the genetic codes of individuals with a free and aggressive spirit who have lived and contributed to the development of humanity when these traits were necessary, may be essential to the establishment and expansion of humanity. These preserved individual genetic codes may be extremely valuable to the future of humanity. The book Project Phoenix, explores the philosophy and possibilities of such a venture.
Martin
According, then, to every piece of experimental data that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals.
Wrong, and just so we are clear evolution is about the diversity of life not the creation of life.
Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verifies this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). And yet, the general population is being led to believe that evolution is scientific because it is experimentally testable and falsifiable?
And peer reviewed, you forgot that part.
If, by scientific, it is meant that, regardless of the outcome of the experiments, the theory will be maintained, then by all means evolution is scientific. In reality, the origin of life according to organic evolution has been tested and disproved.
You just keep repeating the same stupid stuff over and over. Let repeat this for you. The origin of life is not evolution.
Therefore, if the foremost precept of organic evolution is untestable (at the least) and has been satisfactorily disproved (at the most), how can its advocates maintain that it alone belongs in the science classroom?
Because the thousands of scientist and experiments have tested the evidence and hold consensus on evolution.
Is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified?
No and no.
In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. Basically, millions of dollars were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other "fundamental laws" would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in biological systems such as DNA and living organisms (see Butt, 2005).
SETI is your example? What color is the sky in your world? This attempt at misinformation is laughable. It confirms a lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills. The possibility of life on other planets has nada to do with evolution on this one. Also citing yourself as a reference? Are you kidding?
Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically. Countless tests have been designed to assess the amount of intelligence possessed by individuals. Web sites that discuss such testing often use words and terms for their tests such as "scientifically valid," "intelligence testing," "developed by Ph.D.s," etc. (see IQtest Home Page). From such admissions, it can be inferred that intelligence is measurable and testable. If a person could take the different aspects of IQ tests that verify intelligence and apply them to things that are studied in the natural world, then intelligence could be tested and verified. In essence, that is exactly what has been done in intelligent design books such as Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and William Dembski's Intelligent Design.
Yeah, the IQ test again has nothing to do with evolution. Intelligence itself may be a factor in evolution but so are many other things. Also quoting Behe and Dembski is a lose lose since neither of them are credible.
W.R. Thompson, in his introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, stated it perfectly when he said:
It is...right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (p. xxii).
You must love quote mining. You do a lot of it. Here is where Thompson was talking about new evidence on evolution. we must remember that Darwin's Origin of Species was written more than 150 years ago. We have learned a lot since them. Some things Darwin was wrong on. However the basic idea of evolution is still true and reinforced.
In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism. Furthermore, they know that evolution cannot be tested nor is it any more scientific than intelligent design; in fact, it is less so. Therefore, in order for them to keep it ensconced in textbooks, they must suppress criticism of it and not allow its varied and numerous flaws to be considered critically. The situation that has arisen due to this irrational adherence to evolution is nothing short of "abnormal and undesirable in science." The next time someone demands that evolution is testable, ask for the experimental evidence that confirms that life came from non-life and observe the tell-tale silence that speaks the truth.
You must enjoy lying because this one is pretty bold and outlandish. How about ID comes up with something that is credible? They can't because they don't deal with reality.
References:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter4.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2005-12-02.htm
Posted by understudy @ 12:55 AM EST [Link] [1 Comment]
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
When did the truth stop mattering?
Okay so it is a bit late here. I made dinner which was very good. Janel and I shared a bottle of wine. Which made for an enjoyable evening. Near the end of the night a show called The Colony comes on. I find this show to be little better than having to swim through a leech infested cess pool. However my wife likes it and I will be a good husband and let her watch it. I have had a few glasses of wine so the fact that this brain drain of a show is on will get a small indulgence from me due to the wine I have consumed.
During the course of the show there is a point in which they are robbed of some bread from an out stove they have in the yard surrounding their facility. They are robbed by a person who was part of a team that had done them wrong in a previous episode. Just after the robbery the Amy (I think) wonders just past the barrier of the structure they use as a base. Joey in trying to protect from danger because they are not sure they are in the clear grabs her by the arm and pulls her in to protect her. He is angry because food rations are low he warned her not to go outside because of the threat and she did so anyway and they got robbed and she insists on going outside again as she crosses over he yanks her back in. I see this as akin to prevent a child from crossing the road when the child has not looked to see if the road is cleared.
Now I understand for this reality show(I use that term loosely) that everyone is suppose to be tired, hungry and stressed. So how does Joey get thanked for protecting her? Allison accuses him of hitting Amy. To top it all off she lies and says she saw him hit her. She proceeds to chew him up one side and down the other. Now I am good to go with a couple of glasses of wine. I am ballistic. Allison is a lying bitch who doesn't care about the truth I want to throw a brick through the TV and then to make it worse Joey later apologizes.
However it gets worse at home. My loving intelligent wife who is a master at being diplomatic thinks I am being obnoxious. And to a certain extent she is right. She says she sees both sides and the team is hungry and stressed. I do not feel that is an excuse for false accusations of beatings. So now I am shit because I stood up for the truth and felt Joey should have told them to stuff it. She thinks I should be more understanding. I am thinking of what false accusations? If the child nearly gets run over after you have told them to look and be careful and they don't listen I can see a parent getting frustrated. I am not saying this is a parent child relationship on the show. It's an analogy people.
So now I am dick(according to the wife) for believing that truth is a important factor.
I am often referred to as a tank or a bull in a china shop for my diplomatic means and I won't disagree but I feel that truth is the important virtue. Sure you may not want to tell your wife her butt looks big in that dress or similar. However truth should not be the sacrificial lamb to the lion of diplomacy. This is how creationist have a foothold in schools. It is how the environmental movement has taken such a step back. It is how civil rights gets left behind.
Now this one reality show incident is not going to cause the downfall of society it is a symptom of the disease. Truth be dammed make sure you are nice to everyone and hear their side no matter how full of crap it is.
Sorry but that is not a boat I will sail on.
During the second season of the MTV's Real World. Which took place in Los Angeles. A cast member David was accused of rape by another cast member. David was made to leave. At the reunion show the woman who accused him of it admitted that in looking back it wasn't rape. That was a day late and a dollar short in my book.
Abusively beating on women and rape are completely unacceptable to me. However so are false accusations of the same because of the stigma that comes with them.
Posted by understudy @ 12:09 AM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Jet Blue Rules!!! The TSA just drools.
So here I am at CLT airport. I have been bouncing around for a bit and because of the new luggage charges each airline has I now try to make a small carry on that has my clothes and toiletries in it. No big deal.
Not quite. I shave with a straight blade. A definite no no on planes. I have no problem with that part. I never really thought about it but I have been bouncing with that in the carry on for a bit now. Today some smarter than the average mensa reject that the TSA normally has working for it, caught my razor.
Okay I understand it's no no. I don't give them a hard time. I even manage to think I was being introduced to a new nicer TSA when they offered to mail it home for me. Yes, it would cost $10 but hey I will get it when I get home.
WRONG!
The mailing service is some ridiculous private contractor and it will take 3-4 weeks for my razor to get home. I explain to the TSA I am not giving that up and that I am not shipping it with a real snail mail. Understandably this means I am not getting on the plane just yet. Fortunately I arrived about 3 hours early. I walk back to the Jet Blue counter and Mike who checked me in hears my tale of woe regarding the razor and the TSA. He takes my razor and runs down to the luggage area in the lower deck. He finds my bag and puts my razor in it. I don't have to pay a second bag fee. I tip Mike $20 and tell corporate I was really pleased with his service.
I go back to TSA screening all of whom recognize me. They see I have not checked my clothes bag. It runs through x ray and they spend an extra few minutes trying to find my razor. They look very disappointed that they cannot. One them askes me what did you do with the razor. I refuse to answer. They look at the x ray again and finally because it is causing a back up release my carry on.
Well the TSA can continue to suck it. Jet Blue has once again for me shown how awesome an airline can be.
Posted by understudy @ 02:58 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sin Tax
So the Sun Sentinel ran an article on a snack food tax.
Now the article is not bad. It brings up some data, and points of view on the matter and wraps it up with a little bow. It is a nice story that is about as boring as it can get. No major celebrities in a scandal, no political corruption. An article that does it's best to remain neutral. That is not what I am going to do here. The simple fact is that obesity in the US is a problem. A big fat one. [1][2] We did not get fat because we were eating apples and oranges and having salads. The obesity problem happened because we ate Frito's instead of an apple. And we did from the comfort of our couch and the the remote control in the other hand and a bottle of Coke on the coffee table in front of us.
So the article mentions the good, bad and undecided in how a sin tax affects areas and people. Let me make a few points. Taxing cigarettes works. [3]. Now it is not just taxing but a general public attitude in a negative manner toward smoking. However we have gone a bit to far on the taxing of cigarettes to the point where those who want to smoke are creating a black market for it. [4]. If we create the image of making smoking an underground activity we will return to the days of prohibition and backdoor smoking establishments. But the tax has helped cut down on smoking. A tax on Twinkies and Ho Ho's and similar items would do the same. However is that enough? No, of course not. When you shop look at the price of organic foods and hormone free milk. It costs more. In a bizarre manner healthy foods cost more. Also they don't taste as good as some of the packaged junk foods. look if you had a choice between brussel sprouts and double stuffed Oreos most are going for the Oreos. That is because we like taste of Oreos better. I am also one of those. Broccoli has no place in my home. I can't stand the stuff. It tastes nasty. Sure it's good for me but that is not enough for me to suppress my gag reflex.
Now when you get to that basic a level as to what tastes good you begin to understand why someone will get their lunch at McDonald's 5 days a week. We eat what we like. So why should we go for a sin tax? Because so many of us have turned our brains off. We stuff our face with four bags of Salt & Vinegar chips and don't realize that this is not a good thing. Programs like Overeaters Anonymous didn't come about because people used the reasoning side of their brain. They came about because we listened to our brain tells us we were hungry and we need to deal with this now. Snack foods do a great job of dealing with that issue. They don't do a great job of supplying our body with nutrients our body needs.
So when it comes to eating many of us are stupid. So should we arrest them? Unlike what many think it is a crime to be stupid in Florida. It is called culpable negligence.[5]. No, because then we would fill the prisons with fat unhealthy people. So we tax the foods they eat. Then we make sure the prices on things like fruits and veggies(except broccoli) aren't cost prohibitive. A bag of chips should not be cheaper than a good granny smith apple. A bottle of lemonade should not cost twice as much as a bottle of coke.
I am not saying that we should eliminate junk food. I want junk food. I like junk food. However I am smart enough to realize that I should not eat Arby's Beef and Cheddar 5 times a week. That I need to get off my arse and ride my bike more. However I can easily do 40 miles on a bike and spend an hour do a winery tour and continue to ride with a bottle of wine in one hand. I may not ever be a GQ model but my cholesterol level is way below 200. I may hate broccoli but I make my own homemade healthy foods. I still eat the porterhouse but I lift 50 lbs beehive boxes on a regular basis. So if you want to tax my Twinkies and Ho Hos, go for it. Just make the price of my organic lemons a little cheaper.
Posted by understudy @ 10:03 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]
