What is the Egg/Chicken Conundrum? (In Which We Throw Our Thesaurus Out a Window)

     So I found another disappointing news article. Let's chat, shall we?
     In Winnipeg, studies have shown that people who text more and more frequently are more and more likely to be more shallow and apparently even racist. But, just for the sake of an argument, I'm going to say they've got it the wrong way around.

An Asshole with a phone. Notice the faux-hawk
 and wide open gap surrounded by teeth

     Maybe, instead of people who text a lot becoming shallow, maybe shallow people just develop crazy texting habits because they need to tell everyone about their amazing shopping trip or new car that their dad bought for them. In my experience, people who are shallow, racist or immoral generally don't know when to shut their mouths. I maintain that, as a general rule, one can assume that people won't shut up.
     In my opinion, racism, immorality and shallow behavior can generally be grouped under the category of "Asshole". It's a good way to
classify people and it's helped me through many a struggle in my life.
     So, do we assume that texting a lot can make you an Asshole, or do we postulate that maybe assholes just shouldn't have phones? That right there is the crux of the Egg/Chicken Conundrum. We live in a world of cause and effect. Which though, is the cause and which is the effect? Well thank goodness I'm here, otherwise we'd never sort these kinds of things out.

Unbeknownst to Rick Moranis, this was to be
the title of my autobiography

     Let's start with the general behavior of an Asshole. Assholes are what make the world a worse place. Where humanity is carried forward on the backs of those who work as a team, Assholes make attempts to only further their own purposes and goals. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy is always lost. So, if you're not doing good, you're doing it wrong.
     Next, let's quickly go over the short and long term effects of constant texting. There are health issues that may be related, but no studies have actually been conclusive on that subject yet, because it needs more long-term observation but let's talk psychology. It might not seem so bad at first, when you've got this phone and you're so excited to text people back whenever you get a message, but I don't think it becomes a dependence unless you've already got some predisposition towards the whole concept.
     Essentially I think that what the survey would consider shallow, immoral or racist just makes someone an Asshole, and Assholes have a habit of talking a lot. Are we surprised that they've been using this new and improved method of talking to do what they always do?

"Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural    stupidity"       -Unknown             

What Makes Something Worth Blogging About? (In Which We Discuss How Bi-Polar I'm Not)

     So this is what I was worried about from the get-go. I've made my blog and done what I could with it, but I'm more than 10 posts short and completely out of ideas. So, to salvage this credit, if nothing else, I've been paneling my pals to see if they have any ideas for a rant on this subject or that, and they always ask me the same, disappointingly reasonable question: What do you blog about?

A picture of my fans

     Well I certainly don't know. Isn't that for my legions of fans and critics to argue about? Nope, I need some sort of setup, so why not get something out of it?
     To start, I think it's pretty obvious that every post of mine is just an snippet of my opinion, and that it's not generally a positive one. I have more trouble complementing things than I do taking them down a peg, don't judge me for it. But more specifically, what kind of subject isn't going to flop, but will actually make a blog post to be content with?
     Well that depends entirely on my own opinion and capacity for humour. So much for my friends' contribution, I guess. Well, let's talk about my opinion, or all too often, my lack thereof.
     I'm a man of polarities.
     That's less politically correct than it sounded in my head. Huh.
     Anyway, I find that if I don't take a strong opinion on something, I'm entirely apathetic on the subject. It's a deadly condition called "Weird". Self-diagnosed, of course.
    So, unless I find an item in the news or just a subject that I have a strong enough opinion that I can pump out a page of anger, I'm really at a loss as for content.

When Jim Carrey needed to look like he'd built up
momentum while answering prayers on his laptop,
in Bruce Almighty, he came to me. True story.

    Then there's the momentum factor. I seldom write one of these posts over the course of several days, adding thoughts as they come to me. Every post is the result of sitting at a computer for an hour or so, maybe saving and finishing later, but the bulk of the content is generally all done at once. Ironically, I'm currently sitting at a computer, completely at a loss for what to say, because this particular post has been saved and re-opened a handful of times over the past couple of days.
     So now we know what drives me to do more talking than anyone with an internet connection ever should. I don't honestly have any particularly profound thought or question to leave you with, but if my blog really is what keeps you going, you've probably got bigger problems.

Whatever Happened to Pipe Organ Solos?

     Ever heard The House of the Rising Sun by The Animals? Damn right you have. The organ solo in that song is some of the finest ivory improv I've ever seen. Or heard. Anyway, I haven't a reasonable segue but today's topic is diminishing musical meaning.
     While I do admit that any old fart can say they miss the good old days, and white girls will continue to tweet that they were born in the wrong generation, I do admit that there is considerable musical talent to be seen in today's music, even--dare I say it--on the top 40 radio stations. But, I maintain that there is a difference between a talented person writing a catchy song that'll sell and someone writing a song that actually means something.
     Today, people have gotten so good at doing things that everyone's looking for the next high score. They're so intent on beating the old record that nobody wants to set a new one. The musical talent of today focuses way too much on the performance. It's about the singer's mind-boggling belt, or the rapper's swag rhythm, rather than the songwriting talent, or the band's journey through the Himalayas looking for enlightenment while they write their album.
     The songs we're listening are all about the same thing, directed at the same people because it results in the same thing: revenue. Every song is a love song where the love is sex and so is the singer and everything is sex and drugs. I think we're beginning to give sex and drugs a bad name...
     Elton John wrote a song once titled "Someone Saved my Life Tonight". The story behind the song damn near brought me to tears when I heard it, too.

Long John Baldry

     The year was 1975, and Elton John was engaged to be married to a Linda Woodrow. Now, it's pretty common knowledge that Elton John is a gay man, and his imminent marriage was getting him down. A lot. He was contemplating suicide and found refuge in his friends, namely one "Long" John Baldry, a successful musician himself. John convinced him to call off his marriage and salvage his career. The course of history was undoubtedly changed that day, and to thank his friend, Elton, along with Bernie Taupin wrote a song for John, referring to him as the "somebody" in the title and even "Sugar Bear" at one point.
     Now I don't know about you, but after having heard that story, I can't convince myself that there's really that kind of depth in today's music. There's a reason it's referred to as the music industry.

Is Anyone Really Offensive?

"The purpose of life is to fight maturity." -Dick Werthimer

     An acquaintance of mine's Twitter page is allegedly being investigated for one reason or another. Apparently his knack for pushing the envelope out the window is a problem, but is pushing the envelope any worse than chastising these ne'er-do-goods?
     I know for a fact that I've offended a lot of people a lot of times, but not nearly so much as several of my friends do, and if there's one thing I've noticed, it's that they're a lot more fun to be around than the people who take offense at the things they say.
     And that right there's the crux of the matter. These guys will make an (arguably) offensive joke, not directed at anyone in particular so much as its concept offends someone. Now, who's really at fault here? Is it the guy who wants to be funny and means no offense, or the guy who decides to take offense, regardless of whether the joke was directed at them.
     I don't know about you, But I, personally, dream of a world where no one insults or offends another with an offhand statement or particularly rude yet funny joke. However, I don't think this will ever happen because people just shut up. As a general rule, assume that people won't shut up.
     Instead, I think our search for the beautiful tomorrow should be focused more on the tough skin than blunting the tasteless edge of every asshole's dagger. A world where nobody offends anyone else isn't a world of the impeccably polite, but one of people who just don't give a damn.
     If a person doesn't want to be offended, their best bet is more than likely to not take offense at things, not tell someone that they have deliberately decided to be ess happy because of something someone else said.
     I have a distinct memory of a bright February morning in grade 10, working on an assignment that had something or other to do with Black History Month, and in response to a teacher's question someone turned to their neighbour and asked, "Am I allowed to say black?"
     I was aghast of course, but I damn near shat myself when their friend just said, "I dunno." Is it really getting to the point where people are so afraid of offending people they won't even go so far as to state something that is fact. When has a black person ever gotten mad at someone for calling them  black?
     Basically, I hope we can get over ourselves before everyone's boring and polite.

Is This Whole Religion/Atheism Business Still A Thing?

     A school in Ohio was recently forced to take down a painting of Jesus when threatened with legal action by several parents and, according to the article, a student as well. This is of course a middle school, so I have a hard time believing this anonymous preteen had any actual part in this, compared to The Freedom From Religion Foundation's tasteless contribution.

I don't know which "Head of Christ" was actually at
the school, but I've grown fond of this one.

     I'm don't really subscribe to any faith, but I'm not a big fan of this whole "Atheist" thing either. The word doesn't describe what it is you believe, but what you don't believe. If someone at a bar asks you what you want to drink, you tell them what particular poison you're partial to. You don't say, "I don't want cranberry juice." Atheists are, by definition, anti-theism, and that's why they're worse than religion, which can get pretty bad itself. If you don't believe me, scroll through that article's comments until you hate the world.
     You won't even miss your lunch.
     These kids in this middle school are probably hearing no end to the frustration and turmoil from this dispute, and I can't be too sure, but I think people are angry that they're being pressured to change their beliefs based on a painting. Of course, hearing their parents get all worked up on the matter is totally not going to affect their views.
     At that age, you either believe what your parents do, or you believe the exact opposite. I can't remember a single occasion in middle school when I had a damn clue what I was talking about, either. What a person believes at that age just isn't relevant.
     Also, I'm getting sick of the "separation of church and state" thing. Not that it isn't a good concept, but too many people are adopting it as their political mantra and using it in every religious debate they can get themselves into. If you want the church and state to remain separate, stop bringing them up in the conversation. Studies have (allegedly) shown that people who smoke a cigarette while they have a coffee is more likely to become dependent on both substances respectively because of the habit. You're having a coffee so you want a smoke, or you're having a comically large cigar and you feel like a cup of Job. This analogy might be reaching a bit far, but every time someone mentions church, we think state and vice versa.

So do we wait for everyone to come to a
agreement on this whole "religion" business?

"YOU left wing socialists are about a decibel higher than these homegrown muslim terrorists. Go out and protest in front of a mosque if you really have these beliefs, however you do not have the balls so you pick on middle schools and the likes. Cowards." -Patty203's contribution to the article's comment section

Whatever Happened to "Survival of the Fittest"?

     I recently came across an article in National Geographic about science's new-found capability to genetically engineer animals long-extinct, like mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers and the like. However, as one might expect, people are at odds over our right to "play God" with extinct species.

Herbert Spencer, the man who actually
coined the term "survival of the fittest".

     Everyone knows Charles Darwin's (arguably) controversial theory of natural selection where advantageous genetic traits are passed down through the generations and those with more useful traits thrive while those without will fail to endure.
     What I find more interesting is how "survival of the fittest", the phrase coined not by Darwin, but his colleague, Herbert Spencer, is apparently no longer relevant in the real world. With every new tidbit of medical ingenuity, we deny nature's attempts to thin the herd. The elderly live longer, the sick heal and so on, to no real end.
     I think we've also played God in much more subtle ways that seem to escape these people, and I'm a little miffed that as soon as it involves something cool (who doesn't like mammoths?) people immediately jump in and act like we haven't been fiddling with the natural order of things since we figured out we could. I may risk sounding like a tool, but I honestly think that if the unfit were being thinned from the majority, there would be a lot less stupid people.

Apparently there aren't any non-political cartoons
about stupid people. This fits the bill well enough

     As it is, whenever an idiot does something they shouldn't, they're rushed to a hospital, given free treatment and sent on their way without so much as a stern word.
     Contrarily, there's an obvious moral obligation to help a person where we can, and I've seen my fair share of free trips to a hospital. Everyone deserves to live right? Is our determination to do what's right eventually going to overpower the natural balance of things? Today, the world deals with overpopulation because we don't let people die. Forests are being cut down to make room for these people, and greenhouse gases are belched into the atmosphere from every corner of the Earth so we can produce enough stuff for everyone based on our determination to give everyone their fair share. But what is a person's fair share?

"[Medicine is] a collection of uncertain prescriptions the results of which, taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind."  -Napoleon Bonaparte