I'm not that much of a car guy, but there are some pretty damn big problems with today's average vehicles, folks.
First problem: they're toys. Most cars today have more plastic in them than metal and glass combined, for reasons that I can't understand. Now, sure, plastic looks nice and it don't rust, but if ya ask me, it's a huge design flaw. Because with steel if you get into an accident, your car's dented but it's still roadworthy enough to drive to the repair shop. But let's say you're driving a rice-rocket and you smash into an SUV. Here's what happens: the rice-rocket is completely destroyed. The plastic bends and snaps and the engine gets totaled. Never again will you drive that car, because it's so badly damaged that when you touch it, the doors all fall off. And since it's so compact, when the airbag shoots out it either gives you whiplash or just kills you outright. Metal is tough, plastic is flexible. Which do you want, folks? A strong metal frame that any Jap-crap car will bounce off of, or a weak plastic covering that will mush and quite possibly kill you-but without any of that ugly rusting.
Second problem: they all look the same. Every single car being pumped out these days-except for the really, REALLY expensive ones, look exactly alike in every way. They're all the same buglike, compact, unsafe piles of crap. Driving down the street you can see that one in every twenty cars is unique-the other nineteen are practically indistinguishable, other than, perhaps, their length or their height. Is it just me, or is this a bad idea? I mean, the unique cars are probably going to sell better than the other cars, aren't they? So why not just make each and every car model different in some visible way? Some people can recognize individual cars from the 1960's and 1970's despite the vehicles not being manufactured more than a year apart and being manufactured by the same company. But no one can tell a 1999 PT Cruiser from a 2007 model, now can they?
Third problem: they're too damn complicated. Once-you may find it hard to believe-there was a time when you did not need a PhD in Engineering and Computer Programming to know how to fix a car. As strange as it may sound, if you had engine trouble, all you needed was a toolbox with a ratchet, a few screwdrivers of varying types and sizes, and some wrenches. If you've got a bad carburetor, you either buy a new one or find a matching one somewhere and screw it onto your engine. Next thing you know, your car's working fine and you're cruisin' down the highway.
Nowadays, on the other hand, if the complicated computer that runs your fuel-injected engine has a minor problem, you need to find a way to take it to the car repair shop and have it completely dismantled and put together again. Spending $5000 on this, you then get on the road again only to find that it has another problem, this time not with the computer but with, let's say, the fuel pump. This fuel pump is so well hidden that once more you go to the car repair shop and spend another $5000 dollars on fixing it. Tell me, which of the following cars is superior: the 1964 Impala, or the 2008 Kia? Think about it, folks.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Even more liberal stupidity
More liberal stupidity is botherin' me, folks. Here's the horses**t that they've been spewing for a few years now. Apparently, the war in Iraq is totally illegal and is only being done for the oil and the control of the Persian Gulf.
Alright, here's the first thing I don't like about that statement. I suppose that the war is illegal from the UN's screwy perspective, which is under the impression that no westernized nation is allowed to win a war. Okay, so according to them, the War in Iraq is illegal because it wasn't really provoked the way most would expect it to be. I suppose if we had just waited for Iraq and Iran to set up a coalition with the rest of the Muslim world, destroy Israel and start attacking any non-Muslim country in existence and bring about the deaths of a few million people, then the war in Iraq would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, as George W. Bush has more than two brain cells to rub together, he probably did not want that to happen. So, he instead attacked Iraq and risked losing public support. Now the Muslim threat has been significantly reduced, although we're going to need to stay there until Iran is no longer a problem.
As for the second thing I don't like about that statement, I honestly see no problem with the U.S waging a war for oil. I cannot see a single thing wrong with the United States getting control of the towelhead-I mean Arab-oil. Who would you rather have the oil-the crazy ragheads who will use it to get enough profits to fund the genocide of Kurds and Jews, or the people who honestly couldn't give a damn about someone else's religion or nationality and just want to live good lives. I suppose if we had let Saddam Hussein live and keep control over the oil and use it to pay off all his debts from the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War nothing bad would have happened to us. Nothing bad, that is, until Hussein keeled over, the Iranians conquered the country in a matter of days while the government was still in disarray as it tried to find a successor, and attacked Israel. Nothing bad would have happened until the Iranians, Iraqis and all the other overly religious towelheads in the Middle East decided that they were now not all that weak.
Nothing bad would have happened at all until the Middle East annihilated Israel and started to massacre any non-Muslim man, woman or child. If you ask me-which I know you didn't-the war in Iraq was the single most brilliant preemptive strike ever performed. Think about it, folks.
Alright, here's the first thing I don't like about that statement. I suppose that the war is illegal from the UN's screwy perspective, which is under the impression that no westernized nation is allowed to win a war. Okay, so according to them, the War in Iraq is illegal because it wasn't really provoked the way most would expect it to be. I suppose if we had just waited for Iraq and Iran to set up a coalition with the rest of the Muslim world, destroy Israel and start attacking any non-Muslim country in existence and bring about the deaths of a few million people, then the war in Iraq would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, as George W. Bush has more than two brain cells to rub together, he probably did not want that to happen. So, he instead attacked Iraq and risked losing public support. Now the Muslim threat has been significantly reduced, although we're going to need to stay there until Iran is no longer a problem.
As for the second thing I don't like about that statement, I honestly see no problem with the U.S waging a war for oil. I cannot see a single thing wrong with the United States getting control of the towelhead-I mean Arab-oil. Who would you rather have the oil-the crazy ragheads who will use it to get enough profits to fund the genocide of Kurds and Jews, or the people who honestly couldn't give a damn about someone else's religion or nationality and just want to live good lives. I suppose if we had let Saddam Hussein live and keep control over the oil and use it to pay off all his debts from the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War nothing bad would have happened to us. Nothing bad, that is, until Hussein keeled over, the Iranians conquered the country in a matter of days while the government was still in disarray as it tried to find a successor, and attacked Israel. Nothing bad would have happened until the Iranians, Iraqis and all the other overly religious towelheads in the Middle East decided that they were now not all that weak.
Nothing bad would have happened at all until the Middle East annihilated Israel and started to massacre any non-Muslim man, woman or child. If you ask me-which I know you didn't-the war in Iraq was the single most brilliant preemptive strike ever performed. Think about it, folks.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Reincarnation
Reincarnation. Some say it is the truth, others say it is...well, others say it is what comes out of a Bull's behind. Me? I'm open to the idea, sure. But the existence of reincarnation is not what I'm about to rant on.
Instead, here's the thing. Everyone who says they've been reincarnated claims two things that I think come from the behind of a male cow. First of all, everyone who's been reincarnated used to be someone in the past. This means that every previous life you had happened a long time ago-for example, General George S. Patton claimed to be the reincarnation of one of Napoleon's greatest field marshals. Now, okay, I can understand why a previous life can be in the past. But why can't it be in the future? Since reincarnation is basically a form of time travel, why does it have to go back but not forwards? Who knows, maybe in a previous life Patton was Emperor Zargon of the Glarbonians in the fourth millennium. If it goes backwards then it should damn well be able to go forwards, too. Think about that one, folks.
But here's the second thing that comes right outta the bulls ass. Everyone who has been reincarnated was, in a previous life, a household name. Everybody has to be someone famous or infamous-somebody says that he used to be Ramses II, while somebody else says that she used to be Cleopatra. Apparently, only great people can be reincarnated. Everyone else: to hell with ya!
But it's not a matter of people actually being reincarnated from somebody great, it's a matter of them thinking that they've been reincarnated from somebody great. You weren't Cleopatra, ya nimrod! You were her dog, or her foot-rubber. If reincarnation actually exists, then the vast majority of people who've been reincarnated are actually the reincarnation of someone who history has long since forgotten. Anyone who says they're the reincarnation of someone great is more than likely fulla crap. Personally, I think I was once a very lazy cat that pawed the typewriter every week or so. It sure fits my personality and favorite activity.
At any rate, think about it, folks.
Instead, here's the thing. Everyone who says they've been reincarnated claims two things that I think come from the behind of a male cow. First of all, everyone who's been reincarnated used to be someone in the past. This means that every previous life you had happened a long time ago-for example, General George S. Patton claimed to be the reincarnation of one of Napoleon's greatest field marshals. Now, okay, I can understand why a previous life can be in the past. But why can't it be in the future? Since reincarnation is basically a form of time travel, why does it have to go back but not forwards? Who knows, maybe in a previous life Patton was Emperor Zargon of the Glarbonians in the fourth millennium. If it goes backwards then it should damn well be able to go forwards, too. Think about that one, folks.
But here's the second thing that comes right outta the bulls ass. Everyone who has been reincarnated was, in a previous life, a household name. Everybody has to be someone famous or infamous-somebody says that he used to be Ramses II, while somebody else says that she used to be Cleopatra. Apparently, only great people can be reincarnated. Everyone else: to hell with ya!
But it's not a matter of people actually being reincarnated from somebody great, it's a matter of them thinking that they've been reincarnated from somebody great. You weren't Cleopatra, ya nimrod! You were her dog, or her foot-rubber. If reincarnation actually exists, then the vast majority of people who've been reincarnated are actually the reincarnation of someone who history has long since forgotten. Anyone who says they're the reincarnation of someone great is more than likely fulla crap. Personally, I think I was once a very lazy cat that pawed the typewriter every week or so. It sure fits my personality and favorite activity.
At any rate, think about it, folks.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
News
You're watchin' T.V, folks. You're watching the news, waiting for the story about how nine people were murdered by a seemingly random serial killer in your very neighborhood. But first, you have to wait for the story about a kitten that got stuck in a tree for three hours to finish first.
"And the little kitty stayed up there for three hours. Poor widdle kitty. In other news, a few people were murdered today. Moving on to the story about a riot that almost occurred twenty years ago..."
You're sitting there, perhaps your mouth his hanging open. Nine people are dead, and nobody seems to care. If they do lengthen the story at all, it will actually tell you nothing important. Pay close attention to the news: when somebody gets murdered, the news people either don't know jack about the suspects, or they don't think that's necessary. But, they do know that the families are very sad and that the killer could be anywhere. So they exploit it: if you watch the news,
you'll see that there is a lot of crap about how sad the families are, showing some poor kids' mother cry, rather than telling you to look for the prime suspect. Sure, some television shows will give you the details on the prime suspect and will tell you to phone the cops if you find him. Unfortunately, they will only tell you these important details about ten years after the victim died and not on a news show. It's helpful to have shows like America's Most Wanted, but they only very rarely give us useful information quickly enough.
My point is that the news stations, quite simply, suck. They never tell you anything that you will actually need to know. So far, the only station that will ever give you anything that might be useful on a regular basis is that BBC news channel. Unfortunately, all of the stories involve world politics-which may be interesting and a good thing to know, but they don't tell you about what's going on in your city. You wanna know about that serial killer who just massacred nine people? Here's the gist of the response you'll get from the news people: Too bad, asshole, we don't want to tell you anything important 'til after he kills ya! Think about it, folks.
"And the little kitty stayed up there for three hours. Poor widdle kitty. In other news, a few people were murdered today. Moving on to the story about a riot that almost occurred twenty years ago..."
You're sitting there, perhaps your mouth his hanging open. Nine people are dead, and nobody seems to care. If they do lengthen the story at all, it will actually tell you nothing important. Pay close attention to the news: when somebody gets murdered, the news people either don't know jack about the suspects, or they don't think that's necessary. But, they do know that the families are very sad and that the killer could be anywhere. So they exploit it: if you watch the news,
you'll see that there is a lot of crap about how sad the families are, showing some poor kids' mother cry, rather than telling you to look for the prime suspect. Sure, some television shows will give you the details on the prime suspect and will tell you to phone the cops if you find him. Unfortunately, they will only tell you these important details about ten years after the victim died and not on a news show. It's helpful to have shows like America's Most Wanted, but they only very rarely give us useful information quickly enough.
My point is that the news stations, quite simply, suck. They never tell you anything that you will actually need to know. So far, the only station that will ever give you anything that might be useful on a regular basis is that BBC news channel. Unfortunately, all of the stories involve world politics-which may be interesting and a good thing to know, but they don't tell you about what's going on in your city. You wanna know about that serial killer who just massacred nine people? Here's the gist of the response you'll get from the news people: Too bad, asshole, we don't want to tell you anything important 'til after he kills ya! Think about it, folks.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Humans: a race of know-it-alls
Ya know folks, we humans are a buncha fat, pompous pigs. I mean, really, we honestly do think that we are the most intelligent people in the universe. We think that we are the center of the universe.
What do I mean? Let's take the human genome as an example. When we mapped it out, we could only find out what a tiny percentage of it actually did. Something like 10%. The other 90%, according to self-proclaimed "experts", is completely meaningless. That's right, folks, just because we can't figure out what it is, it obviously doesn't mean anything. We believe that we are so intelligent and so superior, that we actually have the nerve to say that anything we can't explain the purpose of does not have any purpose. Now let's try dark matter as another example. Scientists, presumably astronomers but usually referred to in the media as scientists, claim that there are vast pockets of dark matter. They don't know the properties of this matter, but they're certain that they are all the same and are definitely not just pockets of stuff that we can't see. Dark matter my ass! It's called a crappy telescope. Get a better one.
But we humans are pompous in other, more subtler ways. You see, we use a twisted form of logic that can be understood by anyone. This logic is that all races in the universe must exist only on worlds that are exactly the same as earth-that's what people are saying now. Sure, I can understand looking for planets like earth because, after all, if life formed here, it must be able to form under the same conditions elsewhere. But the real problem is that we are now saying that the only way life can form is under the exact same conditions that happened here on earth a few billion years ago. That's right, folks. The only way life can exist is if there's the highly volatile oxygen gas, the not very common water, and a medium distance from the sun.
What's the problem with that, you might ask? Here's the problem: what about all the other chemicals and gasses? What makes oxygen and water so special? Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised if life formed on a planet with an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium, like Jupiter. I can see life forming there-life that's very resistant to radiation, but it's still possible. In fact, life has formed in highly radioactive conditions. They've actually found life forming in nuclear reactors-and I'm talking about the most radioactive parts of the reactors. If life can form there, than obviously earth-like conditions are not the only possible way to have life-forms.
My point is that we humans are not that special. We can say that we know everything, but if you think about it, up until Einstein came around we thought we had it all figured out. Then he came and pooped everybody's party. Why? Because we did not have it right, even if we believed we did so much. Come to think of it, in another hundred years we could have a completely different view on everything around us. We don't know everything and we should never assume that we do. Think about it, folks.
What do I mean? Let's take the human genome as an example. When we mapped it out, we could only find out what a tiny percentage of it actually did. Something like 10%. The other 90%, according to self-proclaimed "experts", is completely meaningless. That's right, folks, just because we can't figure out what it is, it obviously doesn't mean anything. We believe that we are so intelligent and so superior, that we actually have the nerve to say that anything we can't explain the purpose of does not have any purpose. Now let's try dark matter as another example. Scientists, presumably astronomers but usually referred to in the media as scientists, claim that there are vast pockets of dark matter. They don't know the properties of this matter, but they're certain that they are all the same and are definitely not just pockets of stuff that we can't see. Dark matter my ass! It's called a crappy telescope. Get a better one.
But we humans are pompous in other, more subtler ways. You see, we use a twisted form of logic that can be understood by anyone. This logic is that all races in the universe must exist only on worlds that are exactly the same as earth-that's what people are saying now. Sure, I can understand looking for planets like earth because, after all, if life formed here, it must be able to form under the same conditions elsewhere. But the real problem is that we are now saying that the only way life can form is under the exact same conditions that happened here on earth a few billion years ago. That's right, folks. The only way life can exist is if there's the highly volatile oxygen gas, the not very common water, and a medium distance from the sun.
What's the problem with that, you might ask? Here's the problem: what about all the other chemicals and gasses? What makes oxygen and water so special? Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised if life formed on a planet with an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium, like Jupiter. I can see life forming there-life that's very resistant to radiation, but it's still possible. In fact, life has formed in highly radioactive conditions. They've actually found life forming in nuclear reactors-and I'm talking about the most radioactive parts of the reactors. If life can form there, than obviously earth-like conditions are not the only possible way to have life-forms.
My point is that we humans are not that special. We can say that we know everything, but if you think about it, up until Einstein came around we thought we had it all figured out. Then he came and pooped everybody's party. Why? Because we did not have it right, even if we believed we did so much. Come to think of it, in another hundred years we could have a completely different view on everything around us. We don't know everything and we should never assume that we do. Think about it, folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
