Yeah, it’s an old story, but I need to rant.

We’ve seen countless examples of pure selfishness in recent years, but this one to me, is one of the best examples of why we MUST act to reverse the trend.

Story Link

This is from September of 2014, where a woman takes a ball specifically thrown to a child, while smiling. In Houston, Juan Miranda threw a ball to a child in the stands, but this woman grabbed it and felt nothing wrong with that. I could ALMOST see acting like this were it a foul or a homerun hit into the stands, but this was specifically tossed to the child.

Fast forward and the outrage didn’t stop at the game. Yes, those in the booth held nothing back when discussing the sheer crapiness of this woman, but it’s her reaction that’s just perfect. She harps on how she is the victim. But get this, SHE IS A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST! Yes, this woman went to school to study how to help children with mental issues, only to traumatize a child in public! Next, she complains that “her life was ruined” by people vilifying her for nothing. She claims that the child will have many opportunities while she won’t have as many, she expresses outrage that her belt was called ugly, as she “spent a lot of money so how could it be ugly,” then goes on to be shocked that the people who worked with her have left, and her “career has been ruined” by her simply catching a baseball.

This is just another symptom of society as it’s been for the last 20 years. Children are taught that they have a “right” to pass their classes with good grades, as teachers cannot use red ink or use the word fail. They’re taught they have a “right” to win when those who study and work to win contests are barred from competition for “winning too often,” and they’re taught that they needn’t work to be a better athlete, as coaches are told they can’t cut anyone from the team, and everyone trying out must make the team.

So, how do we fix this? Simply, reverse the trends! Make people who are able to work do just that, rather than living on welfare for decades. Let teachers actually teach, which includes marking those who do not study as having failed. Let those who are hired to coach a team select only those who will be best suited to play, and cut those who later prove they won’t or can’t. But, are we willing to make the hard call? Are we willing to tell people that hurt feelings are a part of life, and stand by that? I know I am, but how many others are?

This one is just too stupid to be fake

It seems now that waiting in an office to meet someone who works there is “harassment,” and thus, reason to have police called. An adviser at Kennesaw State University was accused of harassment by an adviser simply for waiting for them to be free. From the story, the student wasn’t waiting for the person who made the accusation, but she still called campus security.

I’m sorry, I thought Advisers were there to HELP STUDENTS! This story also notes that the student had tried to make an appointment, but was not able to. Having gone to three different colleges, I wonder if this Adviser was unaware that students rarely are able to know an exact time they will be able to (1) get to the Adviser’s office, and (2) have time to have a meeting? Personally, I was rarely able to schedule a time after my third year started, but none of my Advisors had an issue with me waiting for them to be free. In fact, most times there were several students waiting to see them, and no one complained. You see, for the most part, students are going to class, in the library, taking 2 or 3 minutes to grab something at the S.U.B. then eating it as they walk to their next class, and thus, can’t stop in the middle of their day when the Adviser is free, but rather, the Adviser is there to help them when the student can get in. In fact, all but one of my Advisers over the course of my college education were teachers as well, the one other being part time, and working early morning then coming back roughly when the last class of the day was out.

The issue I have here is simple, this is about attitude, that being that the Adviser is “above” those she is to advise, and thus, should not have to see them waiting to see someone. Add to this, that the student in question wasn’t there for her, yet she still complains. Personally, I don’t have any trouble believing the very low graduation numbers from Kennesaw, and I see their enrollment dropping, which means their income in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships dropping. So, I have to wonder, will this “Adviser” have anything done to her? Or will Kennesaw spew platitudes and rhetoric, then be “confused and saddened that students have chosen to leave, or not attend there at all” later down the road?

I’m going to go all geek for a bit

Since Thor first appeared on the big screen, the debate about Mjolnir, his hammer, has raged. Most recently, we’ve seen running jokes about Age of Ultron, Thor: The Dark World, The Avengers, and so much more. But there’s a key part people are missing or ignoring, sentience. In Thor: The Dark World, he hangs Mjolnir (M-yol-near – as two syllables) on a coat rack, and the debate begins.

You see, in Thor, Odin says (and I’m paraphrasing here) “Whosoever holds this hammer, be he worthy, he shall possess the power of Thor.” Basically, Mjolnir can evaluate people, and decide if they should be able to wield a weapon as powerful as one forged in the heart of a dying star and imbued with Odinforce. This brings in the biggest question, how much does the hammer actually weigh? You see, if it was just weight, Thor would have to work out to be physically stronger, but strength doesn’t mean worthiness. We saw that in Captain America: The First Avenger, where the bigger guys were not worthy, as they’d abuse the power if given that boost, while Steve, a scrawny kid was given the power, which gave him strength to use in conjunction with his other powers (morals, mind, etc).

So, in essence, Mjolnir weighs nothing to someone who is worthy, and more than the Earth to one who isn’t. We saw the Ultron trailer where Captain America gets the hammer to wiggle, and Thor doesn’t know how, but only Thor (I won’t spoil Ultron for you, so I’m going with everything up to Thor 2 and Guardians, if you’ve seen Ultron, just respect others and don’t spoil it) can hold the hammer, and only after learning that there are things more important than his own life.

So, Thor could hang Mjolnir on a thumb-tack, and it would stay, but even Halfthor Bjornson (The Mountain from Game of Thrones) couldn’t move it with help from all the tech on Earth.

OK, my geek out is over, anyone else wanna weigh in on this?

It’s Friday, time for a rant

I’ve posted about little more than society and the hypocrisy coming from so called “disenfranchised” groups, for a good while now. Each time I comment or post about this, I generally get little more than what I would expect from a toddler when you tell them candy isn’t good for lunch, or a tantrum to be more precise. Basically, the go to argument is “oh yeah, well you’re an intolerant bigot, so you don’t count” or something similar. If they don’t go to that, they instantly go to challenging everything you said in a way that can’t be done to prove yourself right, or comparing your points to other points so idiotic that they have “proven you to be crazy.” If you don’t believe me, look at my post where I link to a story about an athiest’s response to an article about someone simply suggesting Christ may have lived in a newly discovered home in Nazareth. Their main points are “well, there’s no proof that Mark Twain hired a hooker in the home I now own, but there’s no proof against it,” or “there’s no proof aliens live in my closet at night, but there’s no proof against it.” Basically, they counter anything that they don’t agree with using the most idiotic points, so as to “prove the Christians idiots for even believing in a higher power, when it’s obvious that we atheists are smarter and better.”

So, the point of the rant. If you want to debate, learn how to do it first. You don’t just challenge a point made, you bring logic, researched proof, and stay respectful. I recently commented on a thread about gay marriage. I first asserted that marriage is not a right for anyone, as well as believing that, even if only at a subconscious level, homosexuality is a choice. The only response? “Marriage is a right when the government gives you benefits, and try being gay if it’s a choice.” No logic, just a “you’re stupid so I’m going to reply in a way to make you look stupid” response.

Marriage is not a “right” even if it automatically “grants” anything. Yes, a spouse is assumed to be next of kin, given power of attorney if not otherwise assigned, and so on. Guess what, you can grant those to anyone you choose, and no, it’s not “different because marriage does it.” When you get married, you still have to assign those things to your spouse, you still have to put them on your insurance, and so on. Civil Unions were created not too long ago, but they weren’t accepted because “it wasn’t marriage.” So, to me, this suggests that it’s not the power of attorney or other benefits that the gay marriage lobby wants, they want the WORD marriage.

Consider this, until roughly 500 to 600 years ago, marriage was largely (if not purely) a religious affair. It was only when the government saw they could use it either to control the population or make money, that they got involved. We know that during the Scottish fight for independence which killed William Wallace, the English would use Prima Nocte, in an effort to breed English blood into Scot lines. Others used it as a way to control families or clans. Eventually, it just became a cash machine, in that you had to pay for a license, then you had to get a blood test to “make sure your fiance knew if you had any disease, and to ensure you’re not already related” which you had to pay for. So, it’s not just being able to say that they have a spouse, or life partner, in the sense of insurance and such, it’s the actual word marriage that they want.

I’ve been ridiculed before, and likely will again, for suggesting this is only the first step, and before long a Church will be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple. We’ve already seen a bakery forced to close because the owner, acting on his faith, refused a customer, yet when a bakery owned by a gay man or lesbian turns down a straight customer, or worse, becomes verbally abusive, nothing happens. So, how long will it be before a Church is sued, or worse, a Pastor arrested for “denying the right to marry” to a gay couple? It will happen, it’s just a matter of when.

Finally, my point about choice. Notice my comment had “even at a subconscious level” but that was ignored. So answer me this. You grow up in a small town, surrounded by family who never eat pork, root for only one pro and one college team, and everyone drives only Chevy vehicles. You go to that college, driving a Chevy, have never eaten pork in 18 years, and still watch that pro team every game. Did you “choose” to do any of that? Or, did you grow up having those teams, the dislike of pork, and the preference for Chevy just be all you saw. Well, that’s my point. Kids are growing up today being shown homosexuality in a very different way than even 10 or 20 years ago (where it just wasn’t there on TV or in Movies). Schools are teaching that it’s “natural” for two men or two women to be lovers (and it’s not, as two members of the same sex cannot reproduce, and thus, it’s not natural) and parents who complain are ridiculed and threatened with having CPS called on them. My point is this, we all “choose” things every day that we aren’t even aware of. The natural order of any living being is to stay alive and reproduce. Reproduction requires something from a male and something from a female, so that is “natural.”

So, I’ve ranted, what do you think?

Smokey Out

Two for today

It seems that I am not commenting as much on actual news and politics any more, as I am on people who fully expect the world to do as they demand, while they do as they please, and no one is allowed to question them on it.

The first for today, is once again something from DC, in this case, Harry Reid responding to someone pointing out that he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. During a speech in the summer of 2012 Reid said “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” referring to Romney, accusing him of never paying taxes. Romney, of course, responded, and I believe, made his returns available. Now, having been proven to have lied, and never responded when Romney called him on his statement, his only responses is “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” after being called a “McCartheyite” (referring to Senator McCarthey from the 1950’s). I’m sorry, had a Republican accused Obama of never paying taxes, only to have Obama prove he had, there would have been calls for all but public hanging, yet Reid jokes about ruining a man’s election run, and nothing is done?

I believe there are good people in the House and Senate, but they are in an extreme minority, their voices silenced. Sadly, there is little to be done, as to impose term limits, or have any legal action when our “illustrious leaders” break the very laws they pass, must be put in place by those same people. We are left with but one option, vote someone else into their office. I personally worked on a campaign in Tyler, TX in the 2004 election, where an incumbent Democrat was defeated. For those who don’t know, that area is a largely Democrat part of Texas, and Mr. Sandlin was the incumbent, which in a national election means you normally need to work very little to be re-elected, but he was defeated. So, the question here is simple, is it worth enough to you to work to oust those simply working to keep a cushy job and power, or not?


Next, we move to more of a societal issue, that being the attitude of (most) atheists today. Like any group, it’s not 100% of them believe or act as this next bit demonstrates, but sadly, those who simply want to live their lives are lumped in with the bad apples, and most of the “not bad apples” do little to nothing to correct the view of their group. In a great display of irony, these are the very people who trumpet the “not all XXX are bad” line regarding groups where horrible things are done in group XXX’s name. They say nothing about those members of the group who do those things, just “they’re not all bad, so stop complaining,” but when it comes to a lone Christian making a comment, or a lone wacko doing something terrible who might have been Christian, they jump all over “Christianity did this” completely ignoring their previous mantra of “it was a small percentage of the group” and so on.

In this case, it was an article postulating the possible discovery of the childhood home of Jesus of Nazareth. Note, from the author’s words, no claim that “this is Jesus’ house” was ever made. The question was asked, the evidence presented, and theories presented, that’s it. From there, the “Friendly Atheist” begins to liken this article’s theory to pure lunacy. Yes, I can say that while there is no proof that X happened in my home 100 years ago, there’s no proof it didn’t, so it may have, about anything, and as you can’t prove the negative, well, that’s the point. However, this “friendly” post about the article ridicules Christians and the entire article, all but saying “Jesus is a myth, so to find his home is impossible,” while comments simply spiral out of control attacking the mere fact that there are people who are Christians.

I have personally been called stupid, ignorant, and worse, simply because I am a Christian (also for being a Republican, a Conservative, and simply for being from the American south, but those are topics for a different day) as if this ends all discussion. So, my question is this, why is this even tolerated? The very people screaming that I, as a Christian, must “tolerate” people who believe differently than I do, or who’s “lifestyle choice” (and it’s not a choice either) is not in accordance with my beliefs, but for me to point out the childishness of their words is “attacking them on a personal level.”

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I am not a scientist, so I can’t, and thus, won’t speak on the science behind the origins of life on this planet, or how humans have gotten to the place we are today, based on historical evidence of physical and mental changes. I don’t argue for or against the “big bang” for two reasons, there will never be fool proof evidence without time travel, and as I point out regularly, the physical act of creation could very well have been exactly what is called the big bang, simply caused by God commanding it to happen. I don’t question that humans have changed, or evolved, over time, because we are now on average taller, less hairy, smarter, and so much more, but I do question abiogenisis and the “we just evolved, there is no God” argument. When I do, I often get the “no one alive today was there? Great argument idiot” response, no reasoned discourse, but animosity and hateful attacks.

In a nutshell, you want respect, you earn it, you don’t demand it. I respect the Office of President of the U.S., just not the man in it right now. Second, to claim that “life just appeared and evolved to where we are today,” in my mind, is to boil human life, and all life on the planet, down to a “cosmic accident,” which to me, is just wrong, and often leaves me wanting to slap the living daylights out of the person refusing to act like an adult, then simply say “you’re an accident of the cosmos, so I choose to slap accidents of the cosmos” to simply get them away from me, but I then choose to remain an adult, and let them show themselves for the intellectual infants they are.

I am an educated and, I like to think, intelligent man, and I welcome civil and reasoned debate. However, when you stoop to name calling and emotional attacks on someone, you not only prove to be that same intellectual infant, you take all credibility away from your argument. Research, bring facts, use logic, and remain respectful. You’ll find more often than not, while you and the person you’re arguing with, or debating, but you will be able to part amicably, and continue your debates. Who knows, you both may just learn something, even if neither of you ever convinces the other.

Smokey out

Here we go again

We’ve seen many instances of people being labeled “bigots” or worse simply because they believe differently. I have personally experienced this in a few ways, being told I’m an “intolerant bigot” because I believe homosexuality is not natural. Speaking from a purely biological stance, it’s not. Two men or two women cannot have a child without assistance from the other gender, it’s as simple as that. I’ve been called a bigot and zealot by a total stranger for simply praying over my meal in a restaurant. And the highlight of my life so far, I was actually called an insensitive racist jerk in a debate over Keynesian vs Supply Side economics in a class!

In regards to an Anti-Gay bill

That is a post about a bill in Indiana that would protect business owners who refuse service to someone based on their religious beliefs. Personally, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my mind, does that very thing, but as we’ve seen a baker sued into closing his business because he wouldn’t take someone’s money, and pastors threatened with their sermons being labeled as “hate speech,” so we know that the push for “equality” isn’t above denying the very freedom they scream for to those they disagree with.

But, it’s simpler than that. When a bill comes up that you support or don’t, VOTE or if it’s not on a ballot for you, call your elected official(s) and let your views be known. I’ve seen people screaming that this law or that, which “should be law to protect groups who need tolerance” was “stopped by bigots who hounded the House/Senate,” but when it comes to a law they don’t like, they simply demand their way be the only way. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t demand all laws you like be passed and enforced without question, while demanding all laws you disagree with be stopped without question. If you don’t like what those in power are doing, vote them out! If you don’t like that way the popular vote seems to go each time in your area, sadly, your choices are to move or just deal with it.

Finally, every private business has one right that needs no law, the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. If you don’t like who they aren’t serving, don’t spend your money there, and encourage others like you to do the same. Help a business you do support compete, economics will either force them to change or to go out of business. But, suing and forcing someone to either fold or go away does nothing to strengthen your cause, it just makes you look like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because you couldn’t have more candy.

Smokey out

Welcome to the new world of business

It seems that, recently, Hershey filed a lawsuit due to international candy, some of them at least, having extremely similar packaging/names. This story actually has an image of the British candy, where two of them are almost copies of Hershey brand candies. As a part of this, the story also points out that British candy will no longer be imported to the US, but this is NOT about “squashing competition” but rather, it’s about not importing candy that VIOLATES COPYRIGHT LAW! Let me put it a bit more clearly. You create a product named World’s Best Chocolate Bar, with a specific design on the wrapper. Later, you find a product made in another country with the same design/colors, and named World’s Best Chocolate. You then push to not have it imported, so that your consumers are not confused by the chocolate that mimics yours. Why are you the bad guy? That’s exactly what happened here, as you can see in the image in the story that there are British candies named Maltesers (as opposed to Malteser), KitKat (not even trying now), or Toffee Crisp using a font that is very similar to what’s used for the Reese’s candy bar.

When did the world get to a point where protecting your copyrighted brands is bad? Why are we expected to let anyone do whatever they want, rather than standing up for what is our? I’ll tell you, when students were no longer taught right from wrong, it started. When they were taught that simply trying out for a team means you got on the team, it got worse. When students saw everyone getting a ribbon, and no one being marked as better than others in a competition, it was almost done. But when the idiocy got to a point where you actually have people disqualified from a contest because they win too often, or students being allowed to not study, then successfully say they failed because the teacher hates them, rather than them being lazy, it was over. We now live in a world where we are expected to let others have our stuff, let them do whatever they want with our ideas, and not complain. Personally? I’m tired of it, and I say we start calling out the idiots who demonize a company for doing exactly what they would do if they were in Hershey’s place. I plan to keep buying Hershey products, even if just to spite the idiots who feel anyone should be able to use any name they want and steal ideas that are protected.

Smokey out