Today's post will be a quickie, and hopefully very light and enjoyable, as the previous two posts have been somewhat solemn.
All the evolutionists say that we are descended from monkeys, right? Well, here's something funny you can do that will completely destroy the way you look at society: imagine everyone around as actual monkeys. Picture them not as the people you know, but pretend you are Jane Goodall and are studying monkey behavior and as such, mentally take notes on people's behavior. Sometimes if you look at someone's facial profile, you can even see a monkey in there.
I personally do not support straight-up evolution as defined by scientists, I'm more of a creationist. I solemnly believe that we are of divine heritage. But, I do not dispute that we have some general similarities. The biggest difference, or at least one of them, is that we are so conceited. We feel driven to make our mark on the world and be remembered.
Argh! I am going off on a tangent; one that I did not intend to go off on this time. Maybe next time...
Friday, January 30, 2009
Celebrities vs. Journalists
For the last couple of days, I have been stewing over an issue, one that I partially addressed earlier; celebrities' political/social commentary clashing with journalists.
I guess there is only one thing to say about this; if you are not a journalist, or at least very well informed, don't try and beat them at their game. The clearest example is this: let's say that the celebrity is a baseball pitch and the journalist is a football player, specifically a linebacker. It would be downright stupid for the pitcher to attempt to take on the linebacker in a football game. Suicide in its most pure form.
To most, this example is pretty cut-and-dry. Why then, do people, celebrities in particular, feel the need to assert their views by using star power to manipulate fans to accomplish their own personal agendas?
I remember one of the scariest things I ever saw on the news was a young woman who, when asked which, if any, celebrity influenced their vote in then 2008 elections, responded that Paris Hilton helped her decide who to vote for.
If this is the state of the union, where celebrities, whose occupation is to entertain, become influential political figures, we could be in for some serious trouble. No one would have gone to Picasso for help with science homework, not when there was Einstein. America has a plethora of journalists, analysts, economists, news syndicates, and information routes. To ignore all that and listen to a celebrity, not to mention one noted for airheaded-ness, is just dumb. There is no other word for it. Dumb.
I guess there is only one thing to say about this; if you are not a journalist, or at least very well informed, don't try and beat them at their game. The clearest example is this: let's say that the celebrity is a baseball pitch and the journalist is a football player, specifically a linebacker. It would be downright stupid for the pitcher to attempt to take on the linebacker in a football game. Suicide in its most pure form.
To most, this example is pretty cut-and-dry. Why then, do people, celebrities in particular, feel the need to assert their views by using star power to manipulate fans to accomplish their own personal agendas?
I remember one of the scariest things I ever saw on the news was a young woman who, when asked which, if any, celebrity influenced their vote in then 2008 elections, responded that Paris Hilton helped her decide who to vote for.
If this is the state of the union, where celebrities, whose occupation is to entertain, become influential political figures, we could be in for some serious trouble. No one would have gone to Picasso for help with science homework, not when there was Einstein. America has a plethora of journalists, analysts, economists, news syndicates, and information routes. To ignore all that and listen to a celebrity, not to mention one noted for airheaded-ness, is just dumb. There is no other word for it. Dumb.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
25 to Life, just 3 payments of $19.99!
A little while ago, I was reading the paper in Salt Lake City and there was an article about the government trying to make cuts in correctional facilities spending. It was reported they were going to accomplish this by reducing the number of convicts who had to report to parole officers, and change the sentence severity of what could be considered to be "minor" crimes. Doing this would give something like 17,000 criminals more leniency.
I was floored, to say the least, and immediately began brainstorming alternative methods to cut back costs. One way, inspired by a sketch from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie," would be to privatize the system. We already do it with military tech development and diplomatic security, why not have companies bid for contracts to enforce the U.S. penal codes? Adam Smith would suggest that doing so would show everyone how to most effectively punish criminals.
It would completely erase the smaller overhead costs of running a prison, plus it would make life much more miserable for the people who are being punished for making the rest of us miserable. Criminals foreited their liberties when they infringed upon ours. It may seem harsh, but they deserve no better treatment than the men and women voluntarily serving our nation overseas in the Armed Forces. We could feed the convicts K-rations, have them do laborous tasks in hot environments, and in doing so, they would learn marketable skills to help them actually contribute to society.
Oh, and the legal fees and other administrative costs would also have to be paid for by the criminal.
Of course, all this would come at a cost, though not for the regular tax payer. The criminals would have to pay for the time they spent in prison, through their work, that other companies could contract out to the prison companies. The different jobs would also pay at different rates, so if a convict spends more time doing a more skilled job, he/she would be able to put money in the bank for when they are out, to start a new life. If a criminal was not able to pay his/her confinement fees, they would be indentured servants to the prison corporation until they could square their fees.
All of this would allow America to reflect upon the justice system, its efficacy, and how we really regard those who infringe upon rights of law-abiding citizens, which in my opinion is out-of-whack. Maybe then crime rates would drop and people would learn that crime really doesn't pay.
Sorry this one wasn't as funny, but I do hope it was insightful. Hopefully someone somewhere will take this idea and run for it.
Until next time...
I was floored, to say the least, and immediately began brainstorming alternative methods to cut back costs. One way, inspired by a sketch from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie," would be to privatize the system. We already do it with military tech development and diplomatic security, why not have companies bid for contracts to enforce the U.S. penal codes? Adam Smith would suggest that doing so would show everyone how to most effectively punish criminals.
It would completely erase the smaller overhead costs of running a prison, plus it would make life much more miserable for the people who are being punished for making the rest of us miserable. Criminals foreited their liberties when they infringed upon ours. It may seem harsh, but they deserve no better treatment than the men and women voluntarily serving our nation overseas in the Armed Forces. We could feed the convicts K-rations, have them do laborous tasks in hot environments, and in doing so, they would learn marketable skills to help them actually contribute to society.
Oh, and the legal fees and other administrative costs would also have to be paid for by the criminal.
Of course, all this would come at a cost, though not for the regular tax payer. The criminals would have to pay for the time they spent in prison, through their work, that other companies could contract out to the prison companies. The different jobs would also pay at different rates, so if a convict spends more time doing a more skilled job, he/she would be able to put money in the bank for when they are out, to start a new life. If a criminal was not able to pay his/her confinement fees, they would be indentured servants to the prison corporation until they could square their fees.
All of this would allow America to reflect upon the justice system, its efficacy, and how we really regard those who infringe upon rights of law-abiding citizens, which in my opinion is out-of-whack. Maybe then crime rates would drop and people would learn that crime really doesn't pay.
Sorry this one wasn't as funny, but I do hope it was insightful. Hopefully someone somewhere will take this idea and run for it.
Until next time...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Completely Legitimate Get-Rich-Quick Scheme...
Last night was Chinese New Year's "Chu-San" (third day) and my family and I, plus some friends went out for Chinese Hot Pot for dinner. It was there that I had an astonishing revelation: Hot Pot restaurants are a complete racket!
Think about it, this is a strip-down description of a restaurant: you have people come pay to sit in your restaurant and cook their own food. And the kicker? They do this willingly, and in some places, pay outrageous prices for huge banquents that they get to cook themself!
Call me crazy, but that's just crazy!
Well, that's all for this little post.
Until next time...
Think about it, this is a strip-down description of a restaurant: you have people come pay to sit in your restaurant and cook their own food. And the kicker? They do this willingly, and in some places, pay outrageous prices for huge banquents that they get to cook themself!
Call me crazy, but that's just crazy!
Well, that's all for this little post.
Until next time...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On Celebrities
I was just reading an article on Yahoo! news about Jessica Alba and the apparently "neutral" country in WWII, the one where all the fleeing Europeans went to... Sweden.
I find it vaguely, if not completely and engrossingly entertaining to watch celebrities attempt to justify their importance with political statements, factual arguments with journalists, and activism. I think they realize that in truth, celebrities are unnecessary. Superfluous, if I may. They are a by-product of a luxury economy. We can't eat them, can't drink them, can't breathe them, they provide no real use to us except to occupy our minds while we waste time.
I think it very funny that they try to go toe-to-toe with experienced journalists; people who know what they're doing and bother to do the research; people who serve a purpose and have an oath to provide the People with accurate facts, if a little slanted in the process.
I am not a journalist, but from what I can tell, the bottom line is: don't mess with the pros.
I find it vaguely, if not completely and engrossingly entertaining to watch celebrities attempt to justify their importance with political statements, factual arguments with journalists, and activism. I think they realize that in truth, celebrities are unnecessary. Superfluous, if I may. They are a by-product of a luxury economy. We can't eat them, can't drink them, can't breathe them, they provide no real use to us except to occupy our minds while we waste time.
I think it very funny that they try to go toe-to-toe with experienced journalists; people who know what they're doing and bother to do the research; people who serve a purpose and have an oath to provide the People with accurate facts, if a little slanted in the process.
I am not a journalist, but from what I can tell, the bottom line is: don't mess with the pros.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Python's Philosophies Manifesto
Greetings to all you readers out there,
Following suit with "Citizen" Charles Foster Kane, I thought it prudent to put forth a manifesto to delineate exactly what it is I plan on doing with this blog.
My objectives are two-an-a-half-fold:
1)To entertain
If you do not laugh at least once during the course of any given blog, I am not doing my job right.
2)To be insightful
2.5) In all likelihood, the insight will be of a political, philosophical, or social nature.
Well, this wraps up the first of hopefully many long, but not too long, and happy posts.
Without further ado, I give you...
The Python's Philosophies!
Enjoy!
Following suit with "Citizen" Charles Foster Kane, I thought it prudent to put forth a manifesto to delineate exactly what it is I plan on doing with this blog.
My objectives are two-an-a-half-fold:
1)To entertain
If you do not laugh at least once during the course of any given blog, I am not doing my job right.
2)To be insightful
2.5) In all likelihood, the insight will be of a political, philosophical, or social nature.
Well, this wraps up the first of hopefully many long, but not too long, and happy posts.
Without further ado, I give you...
The Python's Philosophies!
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)