Bob here. Quick question. You think Imus still gets fired this week, when the obvious media attention is somewhere else? Read more...‎

"You don't want the king of England coming here and pushing you around, do you?"

Rob here...

I think Jim is out making some tamales and Chris is out making some tomato sauce. But I wanted to chime in here about the recent school shooting. Right now they're saying that over 30 people are confirmed dead from this new shooting.



The Austine massacre was before my time. The Columbine shooting was during my sophomore year of college. And I remember my Macroeconomics professor at the time, a Nobel laureate, was distraught because of the events. He said, "what's the point? what's the point of me teaching you, you working hard to get the house in the burbs, and to have your kids come out to become homicidal maniacs?" I'm not sure why his reaction was so strong, but we spent 3 hours talking about it during our class time.

The ease of getting a gun in America is astounding. I know the NRA and the like will say that the guns used to commit crimes aren't legal weapons, but if no one had them (by theory), it should decrease the incidence of such events.

Also, I don't know about you, but there's a bit of an attenuated effect related to this shooting. As if it were just another news story.


Chris, checking in...just finished shoving in my sausage and my meatballs...

I say this happens anyway...guns are simply a means...if not an assault weapon a homemade bomb...if not a bomb, a fire in the middle of the night. Nothing can get in the way of a truly determined individual. 9/11? Boxcutters.

Access to guns is not that issue that disturbs me those most here. How much sympathy will be espoused over this? How much of it is real? How many students at VT will embrace this as some sort of self-aggrandizing 15-minute fame opp? Seriously, would you go on camera? It's just vulgar...what's the point? Some kid saying "hey, yeah, we were already saying this is like a college columbine" Gee, come up with that on your own Tolstoy?

War, what is it good for?

The word tragedy begins to lose it's meaning when applied to every death in public view. Is this shooting? Yes, of course, many innocent kids had their lives snuffed out...but is it any more tragic than most of the other 152,000 deaths that occurred yesterday? I know too well the pain these students' families will feel for the rest of their lives, but it's no greater than the profound loss thousands of others will feel for their loved-ones who died today. All death, whether sudden or prolonged, seems senseless and beyond comprehension. Is it not an affront to the memories and lives of those not fortunate enough to have caught the media's attention to have such a public outpouring of emotion for people who happened to die in a unique, certainly stunning manner? What is it about high-profile deaths that provokes these rare expressions of sympathy? Why as the same society are we able to walk into a super-gluttonous supermarket and not be pained by the millions of people, mostly children, who are starving while we load our carts with doritos, bacon, and ice cream? Who will actually take time to PERSONALLY reflect on this event, rather than patronize themselves and their acquaintances with exagerrated claims of sympathy and heartache?

If 9/11 couldn't change us, why should this? We surround and insulate ourselves in these impenetrable bubbles of self-importance and influence, and sadly, only personal tragedy has any lasting effect.


Read more...‎

Cats and Dogs Living Together...Mass Hysteria.

Jim: Imus, Imus, Imus. Forget Imus, people should unite against oversized umbrellas...

Chris: It is all a bit dizzying, but umbrellas? You think people want to read about umbrellas? I don’t see the issue...oh, oh, oh, I know...everything about Americans has to be big and bad and status boosting; is that your issue?

Jim: Yes, look at our super bowl halftimes, our cars, our TVs, our houses…always gaudy. We are a shallow people; we are about flash and ostentatiousness with little soul.

Chris: I don’t disagree. But I think it’s hardwired...it's only our intellects that enable us, some of us, to overcome that craving. What you’re talking about is human nature. Supersized everything and Ray Kroc is the devil.

Jim: Don't try to analyze this from a biological standpoint.

Chris: Not biological, psychological. I’m simply highlighting the age-old characteristic of public perception driving almost everything we do. But I don't think status is an American novelty, and I don’t think you can pin the tail on the American donkey alone. I’ll humor you and talk about America, but I know myself, I’m not very disciplined, I’m going to wander...and don't forget about the Brits, the only difference being their smaller cars and foreskins...

Jim: Let me go grab some water then, because I feel you’re about to suck all of the air out of this virtual room.

Chris: You know me so well...

Jim: It's not out of concern for me, it's our readers...

Chris: All three of them? This is good stuff, keep reading...

With the global marketplace and borderless media, there is much more transparency to titillate and tantalize. Fifty years ago you were competing with the people on your block...now, not only is bling more affordable, but you're competing with the global community!

And here I go...this is not new, it’s only more rampant...Hell, the bible, and the words attributed to Jesus in the good book, address is it. A formerly good genuflecting Catholic boy yourself, growing up I'm sure your madre sat you and your 15 brothers and sisters down at Easter to watch Charlton Heston overact his way through the ‘Ten Commandments’..."How do you like your messiah NOW?" the pharaoh taunted, twisting the knife of class warfare that separated the Egyptians from the Jews. Remember the golden idol? The debauchery? Society is a never-ending, continuous loop of status struggle, like the gibberish track embedded in the center groove of the "Sgt. Pepper" album after "A Day in the Life"...

Jim: “Well, since you brought my "madre" into this, the price is now 71 and a half” (Wall Street)...I don't understand how you moved into Jesus and the bible when all I'm talking about is that, as Americans, greed is a national pastime that has consumed our ambitions and makes us look hypocritical to the rest of the world. We have as good a case now against the War in Iraq as we did against the Vietnam War and where are the mass demonstrations as occurred in the 60's? I'll tell you where: out at Wal-Mart securing a 10 gallon vat of Mayonnaise or at Circuit City buying a 50" flat screen, the price for which could feed a small village in Bangladesh or arm an African warlord for a year.

Chris: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. But you’re acting like greed is a modern development. The only thing that separates us from the rest of the world is MEANS. Plant a group of Pygmies in an environment where they're rich in money instead of sand, and slowly they will grow into a community of heathens just like us. As far back as the the bible man has demonstrated himself to be greedy and slothful by nature. Look at Dubai today...shit if they're not running circles around us.

Jim: You mentioned Easter. Easter, the time when Christians are celebrating the "proof" of Jesus' divinity, has become just another excuse to run out and shove processed cacao and high-fructose corn syrup down our kids’ throats. Christmas is even more of a hyper-commercialized clusterfuck, although I can at least rationalize that the gifts I give to people are in a genuine attempt to make them happy, as much as materialistic consumer goods made in China can, anyway...

And I’m asking you why? Poor upbringing? As a side note, Pygmies dwell in the jungles.

Chris: They’re nomads and they live on a continent full of sand. Forgive me amigo. I’m saying the answer is universal. Greed and means to feed that greed. There is your simple, straightforward answer. Whether it’s America today, Florence during the Renaissance, South Central LA during a riot, etc, etc. We are the richest people to have ever lived. There’s still plenty of suffering, but there’s more affluence and prosperity now than at any time in history. A financially unsavvy mass who think’s there’s skill in ‘Deal or No Deal’ is bound to squander it all.

This can’t last much longer. We are riding the wave of unsecured debt. Our economy has thrived on the debt of those who have leveraged their futures to keep up with the Joneses and the Imuses of the world. Debt is a very useful investment vehicle as long as it is properly invested...but consumer goods are not assets, so in essence, this is junk debt. Paging Ivan Boesky....

You want to know what big umbrellas really signify? Society as we know it is headed for a collapse of biblical proportions.

Jim: What do you mean biblical???

Chris: Old Testament, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.

Jim: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... ??

Chris: The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – MASS HYSTERIA.

Money only makes obvious our tragic human flaws…Robert Kiyosaki said that.

Jim: Did you get that off the back cover?

Chris: No, I read the first 100 pages of ‘Rich Dad/Poor Dad’.

Seriously, technology and the internet are transforming our society in many ways, not all of them good. Some of them, in fact, are downright cancerous to the productivity and prosperity of this nation. Ok, that might sound a bit melodramatic, but the transparency and access to information that so many people have heralded as the next great revolution carry with them deeply-rooted and disturbing consequences.

I read an article a while back from Caleb Carr. I think it was promoting his last novel, but whatever, I believe his words will prove prophetic. He said:

And lest anyone waste a free moment worrying about this dilemma, information technology bombards us so constantly with entertainment and marketing that quiet, objective consideration of our fate often becomes impossible. This leads to a society in which each member is increasingly concerned with the satisfaction of his or her own material appetites, and less and less concerned with the philosophical problems and principles that underlie the successful creation and maintenance of a civil society. The result? A downward spiral into a very uncivil state, one in which the public interest takes a distinct back seat to public diversion.

We have the internet breeding laziness amongst the proles. We have the internet cultivating a level of status consciousness that is unparalled in history. We have the internet making readily accessible information that can be consumed without understanding. We have the internet providing rampant MISinformation (and if anyone thinks this doesn't reach far beyond the internet, one only need to consider the haste with which the 2000 election or the recent mining accident were handled.) Worst of all, information, right or wrong, is not knowledge. This creates a lower-middle class that becomes lazier, less motivated, less educated, with a higher sense of entitlement.

What are the ultimate ramifications? I'm just a guy with a couple of bachelor degrees who wishes he could be Superman, what do I know...I haven't really gotten that far...but this isn't good for the ditch-diggers of the world nor the people who rely upon them.

Jim: If the 70's were the "Me" decade, and the 80's were the "yuppie" decade and the 90's were the "dot.com boom" decade, what are the 2000's? the "even more about me" decade or the "I got mine, you get yours" decade or the "f u decade?

Chris: Bling decade. It' all get rich quick, American idol style.

Jim: Good one.

Chris: The work ethic in this country is eroding; we are doomed. I say that with a straight face. It’s eroding faster than the glaciers and the ice caps and Al Gore’s hairline.

Jim: Time to go home…have fun in your Mercedes.

Chris: Ah, the Germans, God’s gift to man kind. Maybe you can follow me in your BMW.

Jim: Touche.

Chris: We might as well enjoy the spoils of our labor before we go and blow up the whole god damn thing.

Jim: You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! How the hell did we get from beefed up umbrellas to the fall of Rome?

Chris: This is a blog, there's no room for coherence.

Jim: How 'bout those Mets?

Read more...‎

"My best friend is black"

Rob, checking in...

Following on the heels of Mr. Fortuna, I'll argue the race thing in America is hard to deal with, because I think while about 90% of people will agree that racism is a bad thing, 90% of our interactions with members of other races only tend to reinforce old stereotypes.

Then you'll intellectualize the struggle, and reason out how an oppressed people came to be the way they are by decades of overt and subversive racism, etc. or you'll see some inspirational movie about their history, and what they've overcome. You'll think you understand them. And then you get lambasted by a black guy on the subway for being a bad driver.

ad nauseam. Read more...‎

"She's prejudiced against Italians; can you believe it?"

"You goddamn guineas really make me laugh..." - Moe Greene, The Godfather

Chris here...Jim's out picking tomatoes and Rob's out on his "Daily Worker' delivery route...

Now that every last blogger has weighed in on Imus--I think I even saw a few postings from Guantanamo Bay detainees--and the NY Times has put the story on the front page, allow me to indulge...I'm encouraged to see many--most--people responding with level heads; that while insulting, "God's other son" Don Imus' comments weren't overtly racist...besides which, prejudice, not racism, would be a more appropriate representation...I don't think the I-man was advocating segregation, after all, and the word racist is so inflammatory that it's the first phrase to be flung for effect.

Haven't we been through this before? Doesn't anyone ever get tired of it? Didn't Spike Lee break down the walls of racism with his rant in 'Do the Right Thing' twenty years ago? To wit...

"Dago, garlic-breath, guinea, pizza-slingin', spaghetti-bendin', Vic Damone, Perry Como, Luciano Pavarotti, Sole Mio, nonsingin' motherfucker."

"You gold-teeth-gold-chain-wearin', fried-chicken-and-biscuit-eatin', monkey, ape, baboon, big thigh, fast-runnin', three-hundred-sixty-degree-basketball-dunkin' spade, moulignon."

Wasn't 'Borat' hailed as a cultural awakening from our old bigoted ways? It seems as long as there are profits and prestige in "fighting" racism, even the most benign offenses won't go unnoticed. So we can all comfortably laugh at 'genuine chocolate-face' in the context of a comedy, but get too carried away in your descriptive riffing, and watch out, Mr. Hymie-town himself, Jesse Jackson, and his lovable sidekick Al Sharpton will come a-knockin'.

But there's an even wider issue...a double-standard: socially acceptable prejudice. I don't want to sound too sensitive, but it seems like people can get away with saying anything they want when it comes to gooks, jesus-freaks, uuh, sorry, to Asians, christians, Italians, or any of the old-wave immigrants...the two big no-no's are blacks and Jews...why is that? Michael Richards gets lambasted for saying nigger and Mad Mel blackballed for drunkenly asking someone if they're "a jew"...

A perfect example is the esteemed Hollywood gossip/insider movie site Hollywood Elsewhere, where the blogger Jeff Wells regularly degrades and mocks Italians...what other respected online publication would repeatedly print the word "guinea" or "goomba"?

Italians may no longer be oppressed in this country and opportunities may not be denied to me because my name ends in a vowel (except the presidency)...but then the -bergs and -wiczes aren't very disadvantaged either, and I don't recall any tolerance when God's chosen people are concerned. Is it their history of persecution? If we're keeping this discussion confined to the US, then the Japanese have more of a beef than our kosher brethren.

I would never promote bigotry, but if words like kike or, I don't know, spic were up for grabs we'd at least be living in a society of equal-opportunity offenders.

I think Joe Pesci said it best in 'Goodfellas' "...prejudiced against Italians. Can you believe it? In this day and age being prejudiced against Italians?"

In this day and age...and that was supposed to be 30 years ago. Prejudice will never be stamped out until it is an equal offense regardless of race. To be fair, the northeast is filled with its share of stereotypical Italians--I cringe at my 7th grade photo with gold chains and a sweatsuit--but then every ethnicity has its stereotypical contingent...that's how stereotypes are born.

I'm afraid most people would feel safe saying or even printing "guinea", "goomba", and "wop" without fear of serious reprisal. As a person of Italian heritage I can tell you these words are hardly stinging, but they are extremely narrow-minded and promote an atmosphere of bigotry that has very soft boundaries...one false word and it's curtains...Imus is learning that the hard way and when, if, Jeff Wells ever reaches mainstream, he will too.

With regards to these Rutgers ho's, er, basketball players, what's left to be said? Their appearances were mocked and they were denigrated. Take away the fact that these words originated with a crusty, white mummified brute--albeit a pretty smart and funny one--and most people would still be offended, but only because the essence of the comment insulted their appearance. Akin to being called ugly, it should be their egos that are bruised, not their pride or self-worth.

But do I give a shit? No. We often joke inappropriately with close friends, and I think anyone like Imus who has been on radio for, what, 80 years, forgets there's even an audience listening sometimes. When the sun grows to become a red giant and engulfs the earth in a few billions years, or the ice caps melt and we're all drowned by flailing polar bears (whichever happens first) no one will remember...ambulance chasers and opportunists like Sharpton will never go away; the rest of us should maintain some perspective.

Read more...‎

Edward R. Murrow is Rolling in His Grave...

Smoking bans are gaining traction and it’s only a matter of time before every state (or "commonwealth" if, like me, you're in a state clinging to its past) in this country adopts the same statutes that many cities have; smoking will be prohibited in most public places…we’re both nonsmokers, but I know we have differing views on this. I hate to debate another civil liberties issue, but oh well, I watch the same episode of ‘Seinfeld’ 25 times, no harm in discussing something similar with a slightly different twist…

What is your position?

Rob: I don't care for smoking, but I'm totally against laws that curtail it.

Chris: So, to be clear, you disagree with my contention that curbing smoking actually protects the civil liberties of non-smokers?

Rob: Ok, I’m confused. How is not having a smoking ban a violation of civil rights? Or how is having a smoking ban protecting them?

Chris: Let’s make it clear up front…the only thing in the bill of rights that relates to this is the part of the 5th Amendment that says “no man…shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property.” And this is a matter of liberty because your right to kill yourself 25 cents at a time infringes upon my right to not smell like a stomped out cigarette on a NYC subway platform. You can not exercise your "civil rights" without involving me as a participant…For the sake of argument, I’ll even throw out second hand smoke (the "life" issue), I hate the STINK. Who knows, could be the first Supreme Court case to address malodorous behavior...

Rob: You think those old Justices smell good? Old-spice and talcum powder under those hot, unvented robes? It would be an open and shut case. So, it's a civil rights issue, not a health issue?

Chris: It doesn't even need to be a health issue…

Rob: Why not ban obesity because I don't want to be smushed into a subway seat like I’m in the backseat of a car with three other people taking a turn at 80 mph? Or public flatulence? If it's about odor?...Come on. Ground-control to Major Tom...

Chris: No, Bobby, a person's body is their own private domain, they should be free to do with it as they wish…as long as it doesn't involve me. Granted, I don't enjoy inhaling particles from inside other people's asses, but it's a natural function that usually can not be avoided. Anyway, how often do you get a seat on the subway? Sundays and holidays? Otherwise you’re gripping that greasy, sweaty, filthy metal rod right after some guy just finished rubbing his, uh, eye.

Rob: Thank god for Purell….but there's a social cost to everything. Let me say this....I'm for private healthcare....and no smoking ban…there should be a consequence to your action....the burden shouldn't be paid by society…has to be both…or else it's socialism.

Chris: I'm not talking about banning cigarettes...I'm talking about a ban on cigarettes in public places. I'm entirely against the idea of a nanny state…trans fats, keep em, let people decide, but that's personal and solitary, it does not include me as an unwilling participant; I can choose to avoid transfats. On the rare occasions I visit a McDonald’s, say, the whale main-lining fry grease into his veins in no way affects my HDL's or LDL's. Conversely, there is no way to avoid your cigarette smoke.

Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, all of the socially conscious statutes have no place, in my mind...but, unfortunately, there needs to be laws maintaining a certain modicum of courtesy, because people are assholes; i.e. no lawn mower before 8 AM. Suck ‘em down like coca cola, just don't blow your diseased smoke in my hair and face. I pick up my dog's shit and I don't take up two spaces when I park my car, why is it so much to ask for fresh, odorless air?

Rob: What's a public place? Yankee stadium a public place? Moe Green's casino a public place? The Korean massage parlor that I frequent? Where does it end? It’s just more regulation, more government regulation in the pockets of people…I'm against it.

Chris: I understand that, you know I’m a small government guy. Next to my Michael Jackson poster growing up was a Ronald Reagan portrait...I'm saying do away with the nanny laws…but a smoking ban is one that actually protects the civil rights of people who do not wish to reap the collateral damage of the passive-aggressive suicide of others. You can smoke, but keep your tarry death breath out of my pink and elastic lungs, or off my olive-oil skin if we're keeping this entirely superficial.

Rob: What about drunk driving?

Chris: What about drunk driving? What, are we playing Jeopardy? I’ll take “Self-destructive Behavior” for $600, Alex. The answer is: Billy Joel.

There’s a clear distinction between drinking and smoking. Our bodies have a certain tolerance for alcohol. I can drink responsibly (but why would I want to) without disturbing anyone or anything around me.

According to your logic drunk-driving should be legal, but again, it supports my stand that behavior that adversely affects, or causes a nuisance to, your fellow man should not be tolerated. You can not drive drunk without threatening another persons life...period...therefore in order for you to exercise your rights, I am forced to compromise mine. Unacceptable. Similarly, you can not smoke in a confined area without making me smell like shag carpeting on the floor of the Tropicana. You hear me Marlboro Man?

Rob: Smelling of smoke and getting rammed by a 2 ton car isn't the same thing…

Chris: You should know, you’re the Asian driver.

In the vein that they both disturb me, yes they are, and when you compound smoking with the deleterious effects of second-hand smoke, it's a slam dunk.

Rob: Aaahhh haaa…so it IS a health issue. And my people ride bicycles, we didn’t need cars to deliver pizzas like your people.

Chris: Well of course it is, but it need not be to make a convincing case against it...it's an issue of your civil liberties infringing on mine, we don’t need to complicate it with thoughts of bloody sputum, black lungs, emphysema, birth-defects, and all those little heart-warming side-effects.

Rob: It's not civil rights…if you said, health...then ok…because if you start to equate health and civil rights...then you're talking about universal healthcare.

Chris: Look, Hillary, it doesn't need to be that complicated…I believe we should be able to do whatever we like...smoke dope, snort coke, shoot heroin, have consensual sex with animals (how can an animal consent...nevermind)...but once your behavior begins to impact me directly, you are essentially forcing me to compromise my right to something, whether it be clean lungs or clean clothes.

Christ, who am I, Timothy Leary?? Anyway…

You’re big on the analogies, so here’s one…You can eat an apple, but you can't throw the core in my face. You can eat an apple in front of me; the apple core remains; what you choose to do with that core will affect me in different ways. You can dispose of it in the trash (where some bum from the Reagan era will chow down on the core) or you can take aim for my eye and throw it at me. An apple core itself in an inert object and you can control its final destination. Unfortunately cigarettes do not afford that same luxury; you can not stop the equivalent of that core from hitting me in the eye…the smoke goes where it goes.

Rob: You aren't entitled to have clean air, Mr. Nader.

Chris: Not explicitly, but I'm entitled to liberty…You can not force me to participate in your activities, unless you’re the IRS…when you do so, you violate my liberty.

Rob: Those people who live near bus depots....are their civil rights being violated? It's the same thing.

Chris: You call yourself a salesman you sonofabitch? No it's not. At all…This is not about clean air, it's about your freedom of choice robbing me of mine!!

Rob: Well...then the bus company is robbing some one's freedom.

Chris: I would agree IF the bus company moves in after someone has lived there…otherwise you're getting into the wider issue of eminent domain; does the benefit to the greater good outweigh the costs to the few…and if you choose to live by the depot, f you.

Rob: Oh, so it’s ok for poor people who have no choice to have a perpetual carbon-monoxide induced headache?

Chris: Natural selection, broseph…go read my discussion with Jimbino and call me in the morning. Kidding, kidding…If you argue this smoking thing from a health standpoint there's no debate left to be had. Like those hideously obvious notes on UK cigarettes, SMOKING KILLS.

Rob: Well...smoking only increases the utility of the smokers, and maybe the tobacco farmer. On that basis, smoking should probably be banned, because there are a lot of negative externalities, infringement of civil rights not being one of them.

Chris: You're big on utility…is that to compensate for the lack of utility of your…

Rob: Who are you, Kevin Smith? Everything’s a dick joke with you…

Chris: Love those dick and fart jokes, man. Love ‘em. But I digress…when your freedom of choice robs me of mine, it IS civil liberties.

Rob: Ok, last example…I choose go to to Stanford… there's one spot left and we are competing…you don’t get it. Civil rights?

Chris: Only one way that happens…I was ranked higher and scored better on the SATs, but my name ends in a vowel; I knew you checked the Asian demographic box…cheater!

This just highlights the weakness of your argument...you need to keep throwing these hypothetical examples at me because you can't argue against the cigarette ban on its own merits.That's a ridiculous analogy anyway...in any competitive environment there will be winners and losers…we live in a zero-sum world.

Rob: Just like smoking.

Read more...‎

Darwin didn't wear deodorant.

Chris: My friend, as a rational individual, I have a hard time reconciling Darwinism with humanism. Being the emotive and emotional lovable liberal that you are, I was hoping you might shed some light on the subject. You wanna get nuts? Let’s get nuts!

Jim: Oh, you want to get heavy? Humanism? More like "creationism."

Chris: No no, let me be clear that I'm not an Evolution denier, we're not in Kansas...I mean humanism defined as humanitarian concerns and efforts...human intervention in events that could be considered "natural selection". Surely such a topic is not beyond the grasp of pseudo-intellectuals such as ourselves. Or perhaps we're more suited to ponder about how badly that beard smelled after two days with sea turtles.

Jim: I'm from San Antonio my friend...I know from sweat...But humans are part of the natural selection process...we are merely animals.

Chris: Making no judgment, my contention is that evolution has essentially ceased at the hands of humanism...or for the sake of "humanity" in the emotive sense...

Africa is an example...and I don't mean to make this about color (I'm not Don Zaluchi from 'The Godfather'; "I don't want it near schools -- I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people -- the colored. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls...") ...but if people can not rise above poverty on their own, then by natural selection and their inability to adapt to their environment or survive their condition, they should NOT be contributing their genes to future generations.

That's the way evolution works: the weak die, the strong proliferate…black, white, or brown…But through human intervention and outreach efforts, we are prolonging and proliferating the lives of people who would otherwise NATURALLY die and as a result their genes are removed from the gene pool.

Jim: But that assumes that there are no man made external forces bearing down to squelch that, though evolution may allow a species to adapt. So taking Africa, man-made (western) economies and biases have contributed to the struggle of these people ... I bet you Darwin didn't factor that in…

Chris: But it's survival of the fittest, no? Surely animals compete with other animals, they don't coexist peacefully. Ok, forget Africa, it was just a starting point and what sparked my interest in this topic…medical advances prolong life and drain society as well, even for the economically advantaged...we pass on genes that without human intellect and innovation would not be present...vaccines, medical procedures, et al, that save lives that otherwise would succumb to their inherent "weaknesses." Between you, me, and Justin Timberlake, one of us should have died by the age of 12...god willing...

Jim: He brought sexy back, give the little monkey his due. So maybe Darwin theorized only about the animal kingdom?

Chris: Prides of lions compete with one another, etc, etc...not much different from economic subjugation or man waging war.

Jim: So maybe man is flawed with a gene to self actualize and feel empathy.

Chris: In this sense, humanism, or what you call empathy, is in direct conflict with--is diametrically opposed to-- Darwinism…our intellect, our ethics oppose evolution. I’m not judging humanism…I’m saying we have come to the end of the line for human advancement.

Jim: Maybe on the surface, but can you really fool mother nature? She always finds a way to compensate...e.g., mutated virus that is unaffected by vaccines.

Chris: Yes that will happen...but then man steps in and changes the natural course…let’s use the Big Easy as an example… Economically disadvantaged people with the inability to adapt on their own without government intervention...humanity thwarting natural selection.

Jim: How the hell is a flood affecting mostly poor people natural selection ?

Chris: Their environment was disrupted...left to their own devices many more would have died...fewer people remain to contribute to the gene pool.

Jim: There are quite a few smart people who don't have money to live on high ground (and therefore adapt), I don't want to kill off those smart people.

Chris: yes, it's called the eastern seaboard...now now, I shouldn't be so provincial...I'm sure there are plenty of smart southerners Jimbino...Anyway, it’s not an economic issue so much as an issue of meritocracy. The smart and industrious should ideally rise above their economic origins. Money does not necessarily correlate to ideal human traits or good stock…look at the British Royal Family for chrissakes…bunch of inbred pod-people…money only buys better health and improves the odds of perpetuation.

I guess what makes it an interesting topic is that in this country evolution is contested by the radical religious right and the under-educated (and the politicians who prey on them) buy into the creationist fervor...on the left you have a more objective view of evolution that is in direct conflict with the socialist ideal that the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens…How does one reconcile the two?

Jim: I’ll give YOU an example…A mother bear sees her cub flailing in danger of drowning, instead of jumping in, she knocks a branch into the river for her cub to grab hold of ... under your thinking, there should be no external intervention to save lives...if your genes don't allow you on your own to survive a perilous situation, then "f" you

Chris: That's one smart mama bear...and with opposable thumbs no less...but to address your example: no, not individually...on a mass scale, yes...animals do not have the capacity to think outside of their herd or beyond their nuclear "family”…and your example involves the same gene pool…a bear protecting its own genes in the form of its offspring. Only humans protect the genes of others.

Jim: Very good distinction but what about the case of animals that care for another’s young?...monkeys are know to do that .

Chris: Let’s not go down a rabbit hole…I’m not impugning humanism...evolution is not a conscious process...but we are consciously eschewing it...2 BILLION people lack ready access to potable water...think about that...and through intervention these people not only survive but thrive...and on that basis poverty survives...instead of thwarting it, our efforts feed poverty. The alternative--to let them die--is ethically deplorable...so what do we do?

Jim: So, what you are saying is that if humans are animals subject to the forces of natural selection but man is able to revise, adapt or amend those forces, then the theory of natural selection is bunk?

Chris: It has become obsolete to the human condition…and I don't pretend for a moment that I'm not riding the coattails of much greater men than myself...put me in the middle of the woods and I'd be weeping as soon as the sun went down…as we say, being born in America is like winning the lottery.

Jim: Nonsense!! Man's brain grew because of the evolutionary process...the inventions or interventions of man are part of the process...who's to say that compassion was not the next major step of evolution that leads to ...?

Chris: Man has "improved" his situation through technology and knowledge...but have we evolved much in the past 10,000 years? Caligula appointed his horse a senator two thousand years ago…two millenia later men are having their colons perforated by horses…nothing has changed.

Jim: Other than the fact that most people smell better and crap indoors, I have to agree.

Chris: 10,000 years is a nanosecond on the cosmic scale, but in terms of human evolution, I think it's a mighty long stagnation. Let us not confuse prosperity with evolution.

Jim: I'd say more on a down slope as evidenced by the relatively recent introduction of reality TV and Donald Trump.

Chris: Don’t forget Texas.

Jim: Ouch.

Chris: So what are we talking about here? Seems like a bunch of malarkey…I guess it boils down to the idea that we are living at the pinnacle of man…surely there are more Einsteins and Tesslas waiting to be born, but this is as good as it gets…it is high noon and Lee Van Cleef is waiting with a six-shooter. Cue the Ennio Morricone score…

Read more...‎

Fly or invisible?

Chris: ok, profound question time...if you had to choose between the ability to fly or the ability to make yourself invisible, which one would you pick?

Rob: invisible…you've seen hollow man

Chris: FLY! You can go anywhere, see anything, do anything

Rob: i can feed into my depraved voyeuristic fantasies

Chris: let's explore this invisible desire…

Rob: and you know, get answers to the LSATS and other standardized tests

Chris: ah ha…ok…but here's the rub…you have no control over your invisibility

that's a good point...of course that would be cheating and that wouldn't make you much of a superhero

Rob: look at the genesis of silver surfer…was bad…then reformed

Chris: oh lord

Rob: i figured i'd do much of the same

Chris: silver surfer? Come on…you're almost 30…grow up...everyone knows it's all about Superman

Rob: nevertheless....the inability of the power would certainly diminish its utility....there's still some usefulness
silver surfer EATS planets

Chris: but still, choosing sporadic invisibility over FLYING? You don't have to wear a cape, you know.

Like your father…i know he's very fond of capes…it's good cape weather

Rob: well...if the choice is intermittent invisibility and complete control of flying, no contest

Chris: flying?

Rob: yeah

Chris: ok...say there's a limit on your flying abilities...say you could only hover like a foot off the ground
which then?

so it's hovering or uncontrollable invisibility

Rob: good magic trick…probably could make some money…but both are pretty useless

Chris: and you wouldn't get caught watching the girls go #1

Rob: i'd still stick with invisibility…i'd just wait by the bathroom door…until i went invisible

Chris: what, and just hope for the best? so you're walking around, clothes on...BAM, invisible...your clothes are still seen by everyone...so you take them off...45 seconds later...BOOM, visible...and naked

a chinaman naked in public? probably not a good thing

maybe if you were Italian...

Rob: my clothes don't go invisible too?

Chris: no no, of course not...invisible clothes? now you're being ridiculous.

Read more...‎

Bong hits 4 Jesus

Chris: Welcome to the layer cake.

'Bong Hits for Jesus'...have you heard?

So the case went before the Supreme Court last week regarding the student who unfurled a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign at the 2002 Olympics while on a class outing. The punk was subsequently suspended for 10 days and is now crying foul, saying his civil rights were violated. For the sake of objectivity, let's remove Jesus from the equation

This shouldn't be about religion or Jesus...it's about a student's right to say, apparently, whatever he wants without repercussions

Rob: freedom of speech man...

Chris: Let's use you as an example, because I never got an F in my life...but say you're unhappy with a grade for a paper or a test...should you have the right to say "FUCK YOU" to your teacher because you believe it is your god-given right?

There are two bases on which the Supreme Court should uphold this suspension: he was suspended from "school," there is no constitutional RIGHT to an education…so if a teacher or whomever deems his actions as insubordinate, they should hold the power to suspend him

Rob: the dialectical thinking of the right is humorous. we push every issue to the extreme to refute it. i.e., 3rd trimester abortions. this case should be judged on it's subjective merit. was the student causing harm, as if he would shout "Fire" in a movie theater?

Chris: I'll get to the second reason in a moment...but you're wrong...speech is not protected on the basis of harmlessness… it must have merit… it must have value…not some inane sophomoric cry for attention

Rob: what merits a suspension? what in his action warrants a suspension?

Chris: that's irrelevant...he embarrassed himself, his teacher, his school, not just by pulling a dumb prank, but by promoting illegal behavior…it's not criminal, per se, but the school should reserve the right to hold him to a standard of behavior

Rob: what if he were a star athlete? same treatment? i don't know much of his background

Chris: saying FUCK YOU to my teacher wouldn't be illegal either, but would you not agree that warrants disciplinary action?

Rob: it's not the equivalent…and saying fuck you to a teacher would probably violate some school rules about respecting teachers

Chris: both are a matter of speech and neither is illegal

Rob: schools aren't sovereign places…they have to be held accountable to the law of the land

Chris: of course, but do you think there is a rule that explicitly states "thou shalt not say 'fuck you' to your teacher"?

no, it's all subjective

My point is that this is NOT a civil rights issue and that it should not have even reached this level
there's room for debate about his suspension, but as a violation of his civil rights?? NO. There is no right to an education AND speech is only protected when it is meaningful or within the confines of the generally accepted code of conduct for a particular establishment. Forget yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...incessantly talking and disturbing others would be grounds for ejection, no? Clearly society sets groundrules for acceptable speech...

A school is a place for learning, and the first amendment should protect speech that is relevant to that objective.

Are we clear? ARE WE CLEAR?

Rob: I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Bong hits for life!

Chris: I want the truth!

Rob: You can't handle the truth. Read more...‎