Politics
So You're Scared of the Swine Flu?
05/04/09 02:39 PM Filed in: Media | Indiscriminate
President Obama,
Long time fan, first time writer.
With all due respect, and I don’t want this to come across as harsh or anything because I’m totally down with having you in office, but what’s the deal with you incorporating the Swine Flu “situation” into your First 100 speech? I just really don’t think medical affairs, especially ones as insignificant as the Swine Flu really is, should be addressed by the President of the United States. Why? Because when the President talks about things, people listen. I understand this new disease is a scary and unknown thing.
I’m fully aware that people have died from the Swine Flu, a strain of the H1N1 Influenza A virus, and that there isn’t a cure or treatment available for it at this time. Even still, it’s really not as big of a deal as you’re making it out to be, and you getting on national news and alerting the public that the government is getting involved, labeling it a “serious situation,” and calling it a huge risk to the American public is just the perfect set up for fear breeding in our fair country.
It doesn’t really matter if you directly follow your comments with reassuring statements of how to avoid getting the infection (instructions that sound scarily similar to what we’re told in every doctor’s office to avoid any infection: wash your hands, don’t take public transit, skip school, etc.), that there’s no need to panic, and that you’ve requested $1.5 billion from Congress to help fight this new strain of the flu. The issue lies with the naivety of the American public and how much they look up to you. I think you’re failing to understand that when you issue a press release about an incurable disease and using big words like “pandemic,” people are going to stark freaking, even if you tell them not to.
In order to calm the American public on this issue and to heighten their awareness of real world issues, I have retrieved a few statistics and facts of my own in order to illustrate how big of a deal the Swine Flu is not. First let’s start with a few definitions for our own understanding:
pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population.
epidemic: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionally large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.
plague: an epidemic disease causing a high rate of mortality.
By these definitions, and as it is being portrayed by President Obama and the Mainstream Media, Swine Flu is a pandemic as there are confirmed cases worldwide. But the Swine Flu doesn’t actually fit to any of the above definitions, and in the following paragraphs I will illustrate why.
After one confirmed death in the United States, you called this a “serious situation.” Really, Obama? One death renders a situation serious? If that’s the case, we have a lot of serious situations on our hands. Why aren’t you asking Congress for billions of dollars to throw at those problems? Since you like to throw monetary numbers at situations you deem serious and can’t (but still want to) control, I’ll throw a few of my own numbers around. Numbers of things that actually are serious situations but are completely overlooked by most of America and the world.
According to the CDC, in the United States alone:
-Heart disease kills about 650,000 people annually.
-Cancer is responsible for nearly 560,000 deaths annually.
-Strokes, respiratory disease, and accidents cause over 350,000 fatalities annually.
-Around 75,000 lives are taken by diabetes annually.
Malnutrition is either directly or indirectly responsible for more than 5 million painful deaths in the world every year. Over 300,000 of those deaths are in children under the age of five.
More than 50% of Africans suffer from water-related diseases. This could be resolved if more countries had access to clean water.
Statistically, a child dies every three seconds either directly or indirectly from HIV/AIDS, usually before their fifth birthday. It’s horrible that we should have to call these children “statistics.”
Many countries in Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe for example, reported in 2003 that over 30% of the population was infected with HIV/AIDS.
When it was popular, the Black Plague, one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, caused 75 million deaths worldwide.
There are 200,000 estimated cases of Yellow Fever every year in the world, 30,000 of which will result in death annually.
Seasonal Influenza infects nearly five million humans annually worldwide and causes between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths each year.
I realize comparing something as miniscule as the Swine Flu to something as huge as the Black Plague is highly disproportionate, but with the hype it’s getting, some might actually buy that comparison. I did almost forget to provide the startling statistics from the Swine Flu infections and deaths, didn’t I? According to WHO (World Health Organization), there are nearly 1,500 confirmed cases of the Swine Flu with exactly 30 confirmed deaths. I’m not meaning to demean the value of human life. I am, however, trying to illustrate how ludicrous it is that our country is blowing an infection of such miniscule proportions to such a grand size. Thus far, Swine Flu, a strain of Influenza A, is responsible for 0.006% as many deaths as Influenza is annually.
My point is not to mock those who have been infected or died due to the Swine Flu. I just wonder why our government is involved in something this small, something the WHO is handling, when there are clearly people dying every second because they have no funds to purchase clean water and food. They have no money. And we’re throwing $1.5 billion at something that a confirmed thirty people have died from worldwide, only two of which have been in our own country. I’m sorry, but something just doesn’t seem right about this, President Obama. Why don’t we take our wealthy government’s money and put it to a good, responsible, non-selfish, practical use. Why don’t we stop talking about this Swine Flu, which can’t be a pandemic since it is not affecting a “large proportion of the population,” and start talking about how we can help countries less fortunate than our own, or how we can make our own country healthier and safer so millions don’t die from heart disease, cancer, strokes, and accidents. Millions, President Obama.
Why are you getting on TV and talking about something that is slaughtering less than 0.0006% as many people as malnutrition is children in Africa every year? The WHO’s job is to research and administer treatment to sick people. Heck, they have the word right in their title: “health.” You, however, do not.
Respectfully,
Your Loyal, Tax-Paying Citizen
Alex
Long time fan, first time writer.
With all due respect, and I don’t want this to come across as harsh or anything because I’m totally down with having you in office, but what’s the deal with you incorporating the Swine Flu “situation” into your First 100 speech? I just really don’t think medical affairs, especially ones as insignificant as the Swine Flu really is, should be addressed by the President of the United States. Why? Because when the President talks about things, people listen. I understand this new disease is a scary and unknown thing.
I’m fully aware that people have died from the Swine Flu, a strain of the H1N1 Influenza A virus, and that there isn’t a cure or treatment available for it at this time. Even still, it’s really not as big of a deal as you’re making it out to be, and you getting on national news and alerting the public that the government is getting involved, labeling it a “serious situation,” and calling it a huge risk to the American public is just the perfect set up for fear breeding in our fair country.
It doesn’t really matter if you directly follow your comments with reassuring statements of how to avoid getting the infection (instructions that sound scarily similar to what we’re told in every doctor’s office to avoid any infection: wash your hands, don’t take public transit, skip school, etc.), that there’s no need to panic, and that you’ve requested $1.5 billion from Congress to help fight this new strain of the flu. The issue lies with the naivety of the American public and how much they look up to you. I think you’re failing to understand that when you issue a press release about an incurable disease and using big words like “pandemic,” people are going to stark freaking, even if you tell them not to.
In order to calm the American public on this issue and to heighten their awareness of real world issues, I have retrieved a few statistics and facts of my own in order to illustrate how big of a deal the Swine Flu is not. First let’s start with a few definitions for our own understanding:
pandemic: occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population.
epidemic: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionally large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time.
plague: an epidemic disease causing a high rate of mortality.
By these definitions, and as it is being portrayed by President Obama and the Mainstream Media, Swine Flu is a pandemic as there are confirmed cases worldwide. But the Swine Flu doesn’t actually fit to any of the above definitions, and in the following paragraphs I will illustrate why.
After one confirmed death in the United States, you called this a “serious situation.” Really, Obama? One death renders a situation serious? If that’s the case, we have a lot of serious situations on our hands. Why aren’t you asking Congress for billions of dollars to throw at those problems? Since you like to throw monetary numbers at situations you deem serious and can’t (but still want to) control, I’ll throw a few of my own numbers around. Numbers of things that actually are serious situations but are completely overlooked by most of America and the world.
According to the CDC, in the United States alone:
-Heart disease kills about 650,000 people annually.
-Cancer is responsible for nearly 560,000 deaths annually.
-Strokes, respiratory disease, and accidents cause over 350,000 fatalities annually.
-Around 75,000 lives are taken by diabetes annually.
Malnutrition is either directly or indirectly responsible for more than 5 million painful deaths in the world every year. Over 300,000 of those deaths are in children under the age of five.
More than 50% of Africans suffer from water-related diseases. This could be resolved if more countries had access to clean water.
Statistically, a child dies every three seconds either directly or indirectly from HIV/AIDS, usually before their fifth birthday. It’s horrible that we should have to call these children “statistics.”
Many countries in Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe for example, reported in 2003 that over 30% of the population was infected with HIV/AIDS.
When it was popular, the Black Plague, one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, caused 75 million deaths worldwide.
There are 200,000 estimated cases of Yellow Fever every year in the world, 30,000 of which will result in death annually.
Seasonal Influenza infects nearly five million humans annually worldwide and causes between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths each year.
I realize comparing something as miniscule as the Swine Flu to something as huge as the Black Plague is highly disproportionate, but with the hype it’s getting, some might actually buy that comparison. I did almost forget to provide the startling statistics from the Swine Flu infections and deaths, didn’t I? According to WHO (World Health Organization), there are nearly 1,500 confirmed cases of the Swine Flu with exactly 30 confirmed deaths. I’m not meaning to demean the value of human life. I am, however, trying to illustrate how ludicrous it is that our country is blowing an infection of such miniscule proportions to such a grand size. Thus far, Swine Flu, a strain of Influenza A, is responsible for 0.006% as many deaths as Influenza is annually.
My point is not to mock those who have been infected or died due to the Swine Flu. I just wonder why our government is involved in something this small, something the WHO is handling, when there are clearly people dying every second because they have no funds to purchase clean water and food. They have no money. And we’re throwing $1.5 billion at something that a confirmed thirty people have died from worldwide, only two of which have been in our own country. I’m sorry, but something just doesn’t seem right about this, President Obama. Why don’t we take our wealthy government’s money and put it to a good, responsible, non-selfish, practical use. Why don’t we stop talking about this Swine Flu, which can’t be a pandemic since it is not affecting a “large proportion of the population,” and start talking about how we can help countries less fortunate than our own, or how we can make our own country healthier and safer so millions don’t die from heart disease, cancer, strokes, and accidents. Millions, President Obama.
Why are you getting on TV and talking about something that is slaughtering less than 0.0006% as many people as malnutrition is children in Africa every year? The WHO’s job is to research and administer treatment to sick people. Heck, they have the word right in their title: “health.” You, however, do not.
Respectfully,
Your Loyal, Tax-Paying Citizen
Alex
|
Pungent Thoughts, One Blood, and Barack Obama
01/29/09 10:24 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Two roads diverged
in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference in the world
It's certainly not scripture, but we can still learn a valuable lesson from the closing line of Frost's poem, “The Road Not Taken.” Something that has always jumped out at me. He didn't come to the crossroads and say, "I stood there waiting indefinitely or at least until someone else made a decision for me."
How can it be that people remain indecisive about such pertinant matters? I can understand when you struggle to decide which sandwich to eat, or whether or not to attend a concert, but how can people idly sit by and let a decision that effects nearly every aspect of their life be left to life's circumstances? In the matter of voting, a lot of people think that their vote won’t matter because they aren’t in a swing state, or they can’t decide between the two candidates so they’d rather just let someone else make a choice for them. The first reason is no excuse, and I’m a little more prone to accept the second if and only if I don’t hear a complaint or praise out of your mouth over the decision for the next four years. If you don’t like something Obama does (or, really, even if you do) in the next four years but you didn’t vote for or against him, you gave up your right to have an opinion. Now, annoyingly, America still gives you that right, and I still have to put up with it.
The thing about indecision is, you think you're taking control by distancing yourself, but in reality you're giving control to everyone else around you. You've been given an amazing freedom and an amazing right in this country, and it bothers me how little people care about that. Whether you like it or not, your inability to make a decision is essentially you consigning your life to everyone else in the world. For you, the wonderful thing about America is that you have just as much of a right not to vote as you do to vote. A vote that someone in a communist country may have given their life for.
I guess I should touch on the “one blood” part of this rant. Ryan a book of that title in which it is proposed that all humans are of one blood. As in, we’re all from Adam and Eve at some point. True story, but the book continues to go on and argue that there’s no such thing as race, and that we’re all exactly alike because we’re from one blood. There’s only one race, and that is the human race. I’ve heard this proposition a few times from speakers in our chapel and in other Christian circles, and this thought really bothers me.
Those attempting to adhere to the fact that there is only one race and ethnicity is irrelevant are living in the past. Maybe in the 1800s that’s what the word “race” meant, but definitions change. You can’t just decide your definition of a word isn’t going to change with the culture. If you’re going to play that game, try to say “faggot” or “gay” in front of a homosexual and see how far that gets you.
Definitions change. Currently, “race” means “each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.” That’s the definition. So why would you write an entire book trying to argue a definition? Write about a book about racism, write a book about being counter-cultural, but a book arguing that a definition is wrong is just silly. There are people with darker skin from other parts of the world. There are people with different noses, different eyes, and different hair, and that’s wonderful!
I love the old-school Michael W. Smith song “Color Blind,” but I disagree with its message. It wouldn’t be better if we could all be color blind. We’re all of the humankind, yes, but we’re many of us of a different race, and that’s the beauty of God’s creation. Kristi is short and from the Philippines, and I wouldn’t have her any other way, dark-skin, long black hair and all. If she was any other way, she wouldn’t be Kristi.
All races are equal, I completely believe that, and that’s one of the points Ken Ham is trying to get across on some level, but the extent to which he goes to say this, and the fact that he’s arguing with an indisputable fact (that someone from Ethiopia, by definition, is a different race than me) just doesn’t work for me. That, and I don’t agree with half the examples he uses. And he’s barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn’t race. Race is just another way for God to display his creativity and beauty. The issue is hatred, jealousy, and ultimately sin.
Transitioning very rapidly to a slightly different subject, I found it special, and something that I had previously taken for granted, that the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated was the day after Martin Luther Kind Day. Whether you voted for Obama, agree with his policies, or think he’s the devil himself (yes, someone told me that in seriousness), you still have to give credit to the significance of having our first African American president. Many of our parents and grandparents can clearly remember the days when black people were not allowed to walk beside white people or drink out of the same drinking fountain. Today, equality rules the nation, and where millions of black people were beaten, tortured, and not even considered human, there now stands an African American who is ruling our great nation.
Then there’s those of you who would say we don’t have a great nation. After all, how could a great nation vote such a stark, black liberal into office? (And some of you are offended by that sentence. Good. That’s the proper reaction.) Some of you think that a great nation couldn’t vote someone into office that so quickly signed FOCA and who’s party is for the advancement of choice in defining marriage. I think it’s for those reasons that we’re a great country.
Allow me to elaborate. I am utterly against homosexuality and the mass murder of unborn babies. Not because I’m against you as a person if you agree with those things, but because I believe, in alignment with my relationship with Jesus Christ, that homosexuality and abortion are morally wrong. But this is where it becomes difficult for me. America is not a Christian nation. America never was a Christian nation. It was founded on moral principles by deists and freemasons. And to this begs the philosophical question, “What is morality?” Is it something defined by an all-powerful, all-loving God who’s character is impeccable? Or is it defined by a society and what it chooses to be right and wrong? Well, I know what I believe, but what I believe is not the belief of this country. This country is free. Though the country was founded on moral principles and many of the founding fathers were deists, the country was founded on the principles of freedom. So, tell me, in the name of freedom, religion and morality aside, do you have a choice to marry who you want? Do you have a choice to rid yourself of that baby?
Now, I love babies. Sadly, babies don’t love me. And it saddens me that millions upon millions of babies are killed every year. I believe life starts at conception. There’s no doubt in my mind that abortion is murder. But what if the vast majority of our country rules that, even if life is at conception, taking the life of an unborn infant should be the choice of the mother? Should we allow her that choice? If morality for a non-religious person truly is determined by society, this would be a perfectly natural and free turn for America to make.
I don’t like talking about unborn babies so flippantly, but that and the decision of homosexual marriage do bring interesting thoughts to my mind when I realize I don’t live in a Christian nation. What would happen if these things did happen? How would I feel about it? I would be saddened by it and I would try to protect the lives of unborn babies. They have just as much of a right to live as anyone else. But not everyone else believes the same as me. And I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible God telling me to live in a world surrounded by those who have the same ideals, morals, and beliefs as myself. I’m blessed to live in a free country, a country where you have a right to choose your lifestyle, and that blessing comes with heavy potential burdens attached to it.
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference in the world
It's certainly not scripture, but we can still learn a valuable lesson from the closing line of Frost's poem, “The Road Not Taken.” Something that has always jumped out at me. He didn't come to the crossroads and say, "I stood there waiting indefinitely or at least until someone else made a decision for me."
How can it be that people remain indecisive about such pertinant matters? I can understand when you struggle to decide which sandwich to eat, or whether or not to attend a concert, but how can people idly sit by and let a decision that effects nearly every aspect of their life be left to life's circumstances? In the matter of voting, a lot of people think that their vote won’t matter because they aren’t in a swing state, or they can’t decide between the two candidates so they’d rather just let someone else make a choice for them. The first reason is no excuse, and I’m a little more prone to accept the second if and only if I don’t hear a complaint or praise out of your mouth over the decision for the next four years. If you don’t like something Obama does (or, really, even if you do) in the next four years but you didn’t vote for or against him, you gave up your right to have an opinion. Now, annoyingly, America still gives you that right, and I still have to put up with it.
The thing about indecision is, you think you're taking control by distancing yourself, but in reality you're giving control to everyone else around you. You've been given an amazing freedom and an amazing right in this country, and it bothers me how little people care about that. Whether you like it or not, your inability to make a decision is essentially you consigning your life to everyone else in the world. For you, the wonderful thing about America is that you have just as much of a right not to vote as you do to vote. A vote that someone in a communist country may have given their life for.
I guess I should touch on the “one blood” part of this rant. Ryan a book of that title in which it is proposed that all humans are of one blood. As in, we’re all from Adam and Eve at some point. True story, but the book continues to go on and argue that there’s no such thing as race, and that we’re all exactly alike because we’re from one blood. There’s only one race, and that is the human race. I’ve heard this proposition a few times from speakers in our chapel and in other Christian circles, and this thought really bothers me.
Those attempting to adhere to the fact that there is only one race and ethnicity is irrelevant are living in the past. Maybe in the 1800s that’s what the word “race” meant, but definitions change. You can’t just decide your definition of a word isn’t going to change with the culture. If you’re going to play that game, try to say “faggot” or “gay” in front of a homosexual and see how far that gets you.
Definitions change. Currently, “race” means “each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.” That’s the definition. So why would you write an entire book trying to argue a definition? Write about a book about racism, write a book about being counter-cultural, but a book arguing that a definition is wrong is just silly. There are people with darker skin from other parts of the world. There are people with different noses, different eyes, and different hair, and that’s wonderful!
I love the old-school Michael W. Smith song “Color Blind,” but I disagree with its message. It wouldn’t be better if we could all be color blind. We’re all of the humankind, yes, but we’re many of us of a different race, and that’s the beauty of God’s creation. Kristi is short and from the Philippines, and I wouldn’t have her any other way, dark-skin, long black hair and all. If she was any other way, she wouldn’t be Kristi.
All races are equal, I completely believe that, and that’s one of the points Ken Ham is trying to get across on some level, but the extent to which he goes to say this, and the fact that he’s arguing with an indisputable fact (that someone from Ethiopia, by definition, is a different race than me) just doesn’t work for me. That, and I don’t agree with half the examples he uses. And he’s barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn’t race. Race is just another way for God to display his creativity and beauty. The issue is hatred, jealousy, and ultimately sin.
Transitioning very rapidly to a slightly different subject, I found it special, and something that I had previously taken for granted, that the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated was the day after Martin Luther Kind Day. Whether you voted for Obama, agree with his policies, or think he’s the devil himself (yes, someone told me that in seriousness), you still have to give credit to the significance of having our first African American president. Many of our parents and grandparents can clearly remember the days when black people were not allowed to walk beside white people or drink out of the same drinking fountain. Today, equality rules the nation, and where millions of black people were beaten, tortured, and not even considered human, there now stands an African American who is ruling our great nation.
Then there’s those of you who would say we don’t have a great nation. After all, how could a great nation vote such a stark, black liberal into office? (And some of you are offended by that sentence. Good. That’s the proper reaction.) Some of you think that a great nation couldn’t vote someone into office that so quickly signed FOCA and who’s party is for the advancement of choice in defining marriage. I think it’s for those reasons that we’re a great country.
Allow me to elaborate. I am utterly against homosexuality and the mass murder of unborn babies. Not because I’m against you as a person if you agree with those things, but because I believe, in alignment with my relationship with Jesus Christ, that homosexuality and abortion are morally wrong. But this is where it becomes difficult for me. America is not a Christian nation. America never was a Christian nation. It was founded on moral principles by deists and freemasons. And to this begs the philosophical question, “What is morality?” Is it something defined by an all-powerful, all-loving God who’s character is impeccable? Or is it defined by a society and what it chooses to be right and wrong? Well, I know what I believe, but what I believe is not the belief of this country. This country is free. Though the country was founded on moral principles and many of the founding fathers were deists, the country was founded on the principles of freedom. So, tell me, in the name of freedom, religion and morality aside, do you have a choice to marry who you want? Do you have a choice to rid yourself of that baby?
Now, I love babies. Sadly, babies don’t love me. And it saddens me that millions upon millions of babies are killed every year. I believe life starts at conception. There’s no doubt in my mind that abortion is murder. But what if the vast majority of our country rules that, even if life is at conception, taking the life of an unborn infant should be the choice of the mother? Should we allow her that choice? If morality for a non-religious person truly is determined by society, this would be a perfectly natural and free turn for America to make.
I don’t like talking about unborn babies so flippantly, but that and the decision of homosexual marriage do bring interesting thoughts to my mind when I realize I don’t live in a Christian nation. What would happen if these things did happen? How would I feel about it? I would be saddened by it and I would try to protect the lives of unborn babies. They have just as much of a right to live as anyone else. But not everyone else believes the same as me. And I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible God telling me to live in a world surrounded by those who have the same ideals, morals, and beliefs as myself. I’m blessed to live in a free country, a country where you have a right to choose your lifestyle, and that blessing comes with heavy potential burdens attached to it.
New Posts On Dave and Alex's Happy Fun-Time Blog
11/13/08 09:50 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Since I have yet to
take the time to route the Dave and Alex’s Happy
Fun-Time Blog RSS feed into this blog, I’ll just have
to include links to my most recent posts on the blog.
Here you go.
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 3
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 4
Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2
Read up. I strongly suggest Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2, which relates to recent ridiculous comments on the election. Gotta love ‘em!
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 3
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 4
Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2
Read up. I strongly suggest Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2, which relates to recent ridiculous comments on the election. Gotta love ‘em!
The 2008 Election Is Over ... Finally
11/05/08 08:55 AM Filed in: Indiscriminate
It looks like
we will finally have a new President come
January, and quite a bit of change to come with
that!
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
Politicians and Elections
10/22/08 11:33 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
The days of honest
politics are far behind us, unfortunately. Which is
frustrating. Seems you can’t just find out what a
candidate actually
stands for these days,
all you can find out is how horribly terrible of a
candidate the other candidate is. And, trust me, he’s horrible. The
things he did as a teen ...
So, what’s the deal with politicians literally just making up crap about their opponent? Well, according to a fairly unreliable source (Mom, don’t read that article), the first election who’s advertising campaign was built solely on tearing the opponent down was in 1800, in the election between Jefferson and Adams. Believe it or not, people actually debated about prevalent issues of society before the 1800 election. Crazy to think about, I know.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s rather fed up with misleading (and flat out lying) campaign ads. Look, I know you think my generation is stupid, and, quite honestly, my generation and the up-and-coming generation are probably the stupidest America has yet to see, but ... Give us a little credit. One campaign ad comes on, discrediting the candidates opponent, saying things about them that sound absolutely horrible ... How could you vote for such a person?! But wait, there’s more. The very next commercial you see is an ad for the opposing candidate, first addressing all the “lies” of the previous ad, and then telling you the real story ... Turns out the candidate you thought was so good was actually caught up in a dishonest canal scheme back in his prime. And you thought that only happened in Oscar Wilde plays.
So, who am I supposed to believe? You both flat out contradict each other. You both accuse the other of horrendous acts that I clearly wouldn’t support. But, according to the other one, these accusations are just completely made up. Apparently both parties are just making up crap about the other candidate ... Or so the other candidate claims. It’s a vicious circle.
Every once in a while a candidate may actually claim he stands for some political viewpoint. Ironically, this claim may change, depending on how the public reacts to their opponents claims, or what’s popular. But the vast majority of their campaign money is spent simply tearing the other candidate down.
Oh, also, when they finally do get around to telling you views/strategies, they won’t make any sense. Not because you’re too stupid to understand them, but because they’re actually too outlandish for anyone, President or not, to accomplish. Fact: The President doesn’t even have enough power to do 90% of what his campaign ads claim. (The percentage isn’t really a fact, but the rest of the statement is.)
I would like to see a 1796 election again, where candidates actually talked about pressing issues in society, told us what they stood for, and told us what they were planning (like, for real, not some ridiculous statement that sounds good but is impossible to perform) to do about current events that needed attention. Honestly, why is it Fox even has to hold the “Fact Check” (or whatever it’s called) after each debate to see which “facts” one candidate said about another that wasn’t actually true. Or, why the moderator at the Vice Presidential Debate even had to ask the question, “What have your candidates campaign ads promised the American public that they can’t actually deliver?” Honestly, what annoys me the most is that the next leader of our country, the man whom we should all revere, can’t even adequately or properly explain his own viewpoints, let alone accurately portray his opponents. Worse, he flat out lies about his opponent. And we want him running our country?
The annoying thing is, an honest election will never happen. Because we’re on a roll, in a vicious cycle, that probably can’t be broken without some law being passed. Something about slander or libel being illegal, I don’t know. So, I guess we’re doomed to never actually have an honest election again. And if a candidate even tried, there’s no way his opponent would honor that ... They would just rip him apart like the innocent pup he would be.
So, what’s the deal with politicians literally just making up crap about their opponent? Well, according to a fairly unreliable source (Mom, don’t read that article), the first election who’s advertising campaign was built solely on tearing the opponent down was in 1800, in the election between Jefferson and Adams. Believe it or not, people actually debated about prevalent issues of society before the 1800 election. Crazy to think about, I know.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s rather fed up with misleading (and flat out lying) campaign ads. Look, I know you think my generation is stupid, and, quite honestly, my generation and the up-and-coming generation are probably the stupidest America has yet to see, but ... Give us a little credit. One campaign ad comes on, discrediting the candidates opponent, saying things about them that sound absolutely horrible ... How could you vote for such a person?! But wait, there’s more. The very next commercial you see is an ad for the opposing candidate, first addressing all the “lies” of the previous ad, and then telling you the real story ... Turns out the candidate you thought was so good was actually caught up in a dishonest canal scheme back in his prime. And you thought that only happened in Oscar Wilde plays.
So, who am I supposed to believe? You both flat out contradict each other. You both accuse the other of horrendous acts that I clearly wouldn’t support. But, according to the other one, these accusations are just completely made up. Apparently both parties are just making up crap about the other candidate ... Or so the other candidate claims. It’s a vicious circle.
Every once in a while a candidate may actually claim he stands for some political viewpoint. Ironically, this claim may change, depending on how the public reacts to their opponents claims, or what’s popular. But the vast majority of their campaign money is spent simply tearing the other candidate down.
Oh, also, when they finally do get around to telling you views/strategies, they won’t make any sense. Not because you’re too stupid to understand them, but because they’re actually too outlandish for anyone, President or not, to accomplish. Fact: The President doesn’t even have enough power to do 90% of what his campaign ads claim. (The percentage isn’t really a fact, but the rest of the statement is.)
I would like to see a 1796 election again, where candidates actually talked about pressing issues in society, told us what they stood for, and told us what they were planning (like, for real, not some ridiculous statement that sounds good but is impossible to perform) to do about current events that needed attention. Honestly, why is it Fox even has to hold the “Fact Check” (or whatever it’s called) after each debate to see which “facts” one candidate said about another that wasn’t actually true. Or, why the moderator at the Vice Presidential Debate even had to ask the question, “What have your candidates campaign ads promised the American public that they can’t actually deliver?” Honestly, what annoys me the most is that the next leader of our country, the man whom we should all revere, can’t even adequately or properly explain his own viewpoints, let alone accurately portray his opponents. Worse, he flat out lies about his opponent. And we want him running our country?
The annoying thing is, an honest election will never happen. Because we’re on a roll, in a vicious cycle, that probably can’t be broken without some law being passed. Something about slander or libel being illegal, I don’t know. So, I guess we’re doomed to never actually have an honest election again. And if a candidate even tried, there’s no way his opponent would honor that ... They would just rip him apart like the innocent pup he would be.
What the Media Refuses to Admit About Gas Prices
05/26/08 07:08 PM Filed in: Media | Indiscriminate
Ah, summer. A time for
good and bad things to start happening again, like
they do every year. A time for flowers and trees to
start blooming, for grass to start growing, and farms
to be planted. A time when new music starts to be
released, both good
and
absolutely
horrible (has music lost all intelligence
... and clarity?) music. The time of the year when
far too many girls realize they can again dress
like skanks and still remain warm (could you
possible wear any less threads?). People start
camping and fishing, the smell of freshly mowed
grass is wherever you go, the gnats and bugs
become killer, you can finally feel good about
eating ice cream, multiple summer blockbusters are
opening every weekend (especially in June), and
the price of gas continues to relentless soar.
The media does a fantastic job of blaming the Bush administration; everyone wants to make sure the next president is going to do something about the outrageous treatment of our friends in the Middle East so they'll lower the price of oil. Obviously, if the war was over gas prices would go down, since we're fighting in oil-sensative zones, right? And let's not forget those "don't buy gas" days we all keep getting Facebook invitations to.
Sorry. That's not going to work. And unless our next president can get our economy fixed up, canceling a war won't fix the gas prices either. This is because the war isn't actually going on in oil-sensative zones anymore, despite what the media continues to say. I know we all became paranoid about gas prices and terrorism in 2001 and have associated gas prices with terrorism from that point on, but, for the most part, they're unrelated these days.
In 2002, the US dollar was equivalent to the Euro, one for one. In 2008, one USD will buy you 0.63 Euros. For a fancy graph, check out this Wall Street Journal article which will explain this all better than I ever could. Foreign oil prices are up a bit, but the majority of the fault lies with our decaying economy and especially the dollar.
So, while people complain (and the media continues to do it it's job: Misinforming the public) about the Bush administration doing an awful job, and the war in the Middle East driving our gas prices higher and higher, you now know the real reason for our high gas prices. And, next time you're filling up your tank and subsequently emptying your bank account, just think how fortunate you are. After all, unless you live in California, the vast majority of other countries still pays far more for one gallon of gas than you do. Europe pays over 8 dollars (5 Euros) for a gallon of gas, and they aren't even panicking over there.
News Flash: Boycotting gas prices? Participating in those "Don't Buy Gas" days? That's only going to drive the price of gasoline higher. If a successful boycott were actually carried out (most successfully on a single distributor), the result would be less competition for the remaining companies, thus driving the price UP not DOWN because they would have less reason to price competitively. More than likely, however, a successful boycott is near impossible since one day of sales won't hurt a gasoline retailer; the customers will simply buy it all back the next day. We all have to get to work, right? (As a side note, I have yet to find a Facebook group that actually spells boycott correctly. There are two t's. My generation is going down the pitiful ...)
You want gas prices to go back down? Cut up your credit cards and purchase things up front, like you actually have money for them, not on credit.
The media does a fantastic job of blaming the Bush administration; everyone wants to make sure the next president is going to do something about the outrageous treatment of our friends in the Middle East so they'll lower the price of oil. Obviously, if the war was over gas prices would go down, since we're fighting in oil-sensative zones, right? And let's not forget those "don't buy gas" days we all keep getting Facebook invitations to.
Sorry. That's not going to work. And unless our next president can get our economy fixed up, canceling a war won't fix the gas prices either. This is because the war isn't actually going on in oil-sensative zones anymore, despite what the media continues to say. I know we all became paranoid about gas prices and terrorism in 2001 and have associated gas prices with terrorism from that point on, but, for the most part, they're unrelated these days.
In 2002, the US dollar was equivalent to the Euro, one for one. In 2008, one USD will buy you 0.63 Euros. For a fancy graph, check out this Wall Street Journal article which will explain this all better than I ever could. Foreign oil prices are up a bit, but the majority of the fault lies with our decaying economy and especially the dollar.
So, while people complain (and the media continues to do it it's job: Misinforming the public) about the Bush administration doing an awful job, and the war in the Middle East driving our gas prices higher and higher, you now know the real reason for our high gas prices. And, next time you're filling up your tank and subsequently emptying your bank account, just think how fortunate you are. After all, unless you live in California, the vast majority of other countries still pays far more for one gallon of gas than you do. Europe pays over 8 dollars (5 Euros) for a gallon of gas, and they aren't even panicking over there.
News Flash: Boycotting gas prices? Participating in those "Don't Buy Gas" days? That's only going to drive the price of gasoline higher. If a successful boycott were actually carried out (most successfully on a single distributor), the result would be less competition for the remaining companies, thus driving the price UP not DOWN because they would have less reason to price competitively. More than likely, however, a successful boycott is near impossible since one day of sales won't hurt a gasoline retailer; the customers will simply buy it all back the next day. We all have to get to work, right? (As a side note, I have yet to find a Facebook group that actually spells boycott correctly. There are two t's. My generation is going down the pitiful ...)
You want gas prices to go back down? Cut up your credit cards and purchase things up front, like you actually have money for them, not on credit.
Vote for Me
04/09/08 12:09 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Nah, I'm not running
for any political office here at Cedarville. However,
I am currently attempting to get more votes than
Barack Obama and John McCain (I'm not even worried
about Hillary) on a poll, so you should go vote for
me! It'll take two seconds.
Just click here and cast your vote on the right! That's all there is to it :).
Just click here and cast your vote on the right! That's all there is to it :).
Does My Implied Right to Privacy Cover Mental Privacy?
03/26/08 05:07 PM Filed in: Technology
| Indiscriminate
The Constitution
doesn't explicitly give Americans a "Right to
Privacy." However, The Courts have upheld the fact
that the right is implied by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
and 9th amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."