Saturday, May 17, 2003
Posted 12:10 AM by Erik:
Very Kind, Indeed
I'd like to thank Ms. Roberta Smith for being the second person (as far as I'm aware) to link me on their blog.
Posted 12:07 AM by Erik:
Not Robert Stack!
It would seem that Robert Stack died today. That's not cool at all, man. I'll miss his chilling, ominous demeanor. Even though I haven't seen an episode of Unsolved Mysteries in... well, a long time.
Friday, May 16, 2003
Posted 11:04 AM by Erik:
An Atlas Shrugged Movie?
Looks like it. If it does in fact actually get turned into a movie, I'll be lined up with my per-ordered tickets like all of those nerds were yesterday to see The Matrix. The only thing I'm concerned about is how much content is cut in translating a 1,000+ page book into a few hour-long movie. I'm sure it'll still be worth the twenty dollars it'll cost to see it by the time it's released.
The link's courtesy of Drizz.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Posted 10:16 PM by Erik:
I don't have much to complain about today. That sucks, because it would seem that my traffic has gone from a whopping nine hits a day to an infinitesimal seven hits a day. There has to be some way to cheat and get a lot of people to check out the site without having to work very hard for it. There has to be!
As of a few weeks ago, I decided not to post anything that had to do with my life, because it struck me as a bad method of getting content. However, I've decided that I won't exempt talking about myself if it leads to humorous posts. I'd like to go for a mix of serious political/social commentary, and hilarity. You know, the kind that only a clown can provide.
On the topic of amusing stories, earlier today I recalled an instance in the glory days, also known as back when I was a little kid, when I pulled down my brother's pants and laughed at the sight of his ass. My dad wasn't amused, and made us stand in the bathroom, staring at our asses in the mirror. I ended up looking at that pasty white slab of sexiness for about 45 minutes.
The point of the whole post being: I'm really desperate for content, dammit! I apologize that there's not much, but I'm trying to fix it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Posted 1:14 PM by Erik:
It's the Damn FCC Again
Media ownership rule debated
Unfortunately, the web-posted version isn't accompanied by the subtitle that appeared in the San Antonio Express-News. The subtitle said: "Most execs favor change, but critics cite threat to democracy." There weren't any specific references to the threat to democracy in the article, but I'm sure they were made. Whoever argued that the free-market system is a threat to democracy has to be an idiot. There's nothing more properly democratic than letting people use their money to purchase the goods and services which they prefer. In fact, the free-market system is the only instance in which unlimited majority rule may be practiced without it being tyranny by the biggest gang. Though, according to said critics, the market is more free and democratic if the government controls the amount of business that may be done among consenting parties.
Frank Blethen, publisher of the Seattle Times, told senators there is no business reason for lifting the restrictions.
"Just wait for the monopolization feeding frenzy if cross-ownership is repealed," he said.
Mr. Blethen obviously hasn't thought about how beneficial to business the repealing of government regulations really is. By repealing the government's various regulations on how good a business is allowed to be, you help services improve and expand, by allowing them to reach their real maximum potential. Rules set out to protect us from the "dangers" of monopolies are in fact just methods of protecting the stagnation of people who just don't work as well as others.
Monday, May 12, 2003
Posted 10:16 PM by Erik:
Fatassery Quelled With Bans
I saw this story on the CBS Evening News earlier tonight. Terrible- just terrible. This issue has been discussed a lot before, but I don't think I realized how bad it was until today. Once again, opponents of responsibility are trying to ban things.
Soda, candy and junky snacks, all sold from machines right on school grounds.
Oh shit! NO! That's just horrible.
A recent national survey showed vending machines in 43 percent of elementary schools, 74 percent of middle schools, and 98 percent of high schools.
"We realize we're in a crisis situation," said health teacher Jacqueline Domac, who led the drive at California's Venice High to ban sales of soda.
"This is a captive audience that we have here. And it's not fair to push all these unhealthy things upon our students," she said.
Not fair? In what way? Ms. Domac fails to elaborate.
First of all, excess amounts of soda and junk food being consumed in schools hardly constitutes a crisis. The last time I checked, excess food consumption was just an unhealthy behavior that some people choose to partake in with their own bodies. The presence of the junk food doesn't necessitate the eating of the junk food. Not a single one of those kids was coerced into buying anything unhealthy. They could have brought a lunch from home, or perhaps skipped a meal, both safe, healthy, and easily accomplished alternatives. But they didn't, because they want junk food. If they want to eat it, then let them do it, because the adverse health effects take place in their bodies alone.
"I've cut down on soda. Totally cut down on soda," said Venice High freshman Salsabil Elmagr.
Clearly, it's not impossible to watch what you take in.
The school administrations seem to think that there are only two alternatives: nothing but junk food, or nothing but healthy food. Not once in the article did I see them suggest that the school provide both alternatives, allowing kids to eat some healthy food, and some junk food. People can eat junk food in moderation and still be fine. Even the healthiest of foods can lead to obesity if you eat in excess. The problem isn't as much about what kids eat, but instead about how much of it they eat.
Anyway, while slacking off before writing this, I stumbled upon this on Drizz's blog. It's just a busy day for people looking to ban junk food. Oreos, like all foods, aren't unhealthy if consumed in moderation. I had an Oreo the other day, and I'm still standing. The fact that almost everyone pushing for a ban on certain foods ignores is that fat people are fat because they eat too damn much. Granted, there are some extreme situations, but almost every fat person could be thin if they worked on it. I would know, I used to be pretty fat myself. I was about 5'4-5'5 or so, and I weighed about 180 pounds. These days, I'm about 5'8 or 5'9 without shoes, and I weigh 140.
The argument most fat people come up with is that they just can't help it because their genes are different, and their metabolism is slower. In that case, I'd repeat, "fat people are fat because they eat too much." Being able to lose weight doesn't mean being able to gorge yourself on the same foods as everyone else and look the same way. Some people do have better metabolism, yes. You balance that out by eating less. Everyone should be responsible for knowing how much they can eat, and knowing what they are eating. Not to mention, getting some exercise every once in a while.
The point of this long, somewhat drawn-out post is that everyone is responsible for their own actions, and their own bodies, and they have a right to be fat if they want to.
Sunday, May 11, 2003
Posted 1:39 AM by Erik:
Pft, of course not. Though, it's not quite so axiomatic for others. Earlier, I was having a conversation with my mom on the way back home from the book store, when she said that popular, unreasonable phrase that's always in fashion: "Everything's relative." If I had been the one driving, I would have slammed on the brakes. You know, for effect. Anyway, we started debating about it, and after proving my point, my argument was greeted with "You just find comfort in your whole absolutism of reality deal." Not well thought-out at all. Consider the necessary implications of this argument. If that proved the falsity of my stance, then the unavoidable fact of the matter would be that the truth must be painful and disheartening, and the truth shouldn't be something to feel good about knowing. It argues that it's not in man's best interest emotionally to know the truth, because it would make him feel bad. There shouldn't be too much of a problem seeing why this line of reasoning is so obviously flawed.
The argument here fails to make the distinction between believing something because it gives you comfort, and believing something that happens to give you comfort. Of course, the former is in no way a valid means of cognition, but since when did the notion that the truth is our enemy become so popular?
Well, I'll have you know that I set her straight. It can be considered my Mother's Day gift now, since I'm such a cheapass.