Monday, October 12, 2009

Random Thoughts 2

It's been a while since I posted. I've been working almost full time, and have not had a lot of free time to do much of anything.

People are dicks. Why is it that everyone who walks through the store I work at think I'm their bitch? Why do they feel that the lettuce on the very bottom of the pile is the freshest? Why do they not realize that the nice thing to do would be to straighten the display out a bit after they rip through it, especially since I just set it up five fucking minutes ago? Seriously people, if you are going to shop at a grocery store, please realize that the people working there do not have the time to clean up after your stupid ass. If you are going to tear apart a display, even though all the items in it are quite obviously of the same quality, have the common courtesy to leave it as much the same as you found it as possible. Also, try to realize that there is no entrance exam to work in the fucking produce department at Extra Foods. You really don't need to get angry because I don't know the difference between a number one, and number two russet potato. Seriously. (Also, the lard is by the butter. No, by the butter. Yes, I know what lard is, and it is in the back, by the butter. Over there, in the cooler. By the butter. You know what? You want lard? There seems to be an abundance of it in your fat ass.)

Manners make no sense. How does adding one word to a sentence suddenly change it from rude to nice? "Lick my balls." is rude, but "Please lick my balls." is nice? That's stupid. Is it really required to clarify when we are being nice in today's world? That's messed up. And what about hats? I really don't get why wearing a hat is considered rude. What is it about seeing the top of someone's head makes them respectable? And why your hat, why not your shirt or your shoes?

Being a furry, I tend to hear a lot about animal spirits and such, but what about plants? They're alive too. Do they have spirits? And if so, why is it that a human can be born with another animal's spirit, but never a plant's? What qualifies something to have a spirit? Is it life or consciousness? Then again, who's to say that plants don't have a consciousness? Is there a tree heaven? If plants don't have a spirit, how did they draw the short straw? Where do they go when they die? If you say a plant doesn't have a spirit, how can you say an animal has one? Hmmm?

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Tanzi Hoover

I was going to put this with my random thoughts, but I decided this deserves it's own post.

Now that I am out of school and no meaningful retribution on her part is possible, I am very pleased to tell the world that Ms. Tanzi Hoover is a colossal, two-faced, fickle, bitchy, and all-round evil whore who deserves nothing better than to be the sex-slave of some hairy, hygiene-depraved, redneck hick with a scat fetish. Do the world a favour and drink a bucket of Draino.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Grad '09

This is kind of scary.
For the first time in my life I don't have to go back to school.
I'm an adult.


Sunday, May 10, 2009


Spring is a stupid season. Nothing interesting ever happens in spring, and thus I petition to do away with it completely.

However, since spring is the season of birth, happiness, and bunnies, it got me thinking about death. I have concluded that people are insensitive, selfish morons. You probably have no idea what I'm talking about, so let me explain.

It is a completely selfish, stupid, and useless act to mourn someones death. It is an excuse for people to take some time off work, sit around and feel sorry for themselves. "But Burn, mourning is to feel sorry for the person who died." Shut up and stop lying to yourself. Why should anyone feel bad for a dead person? It is stupid anyway you look at it. Either they are just gone and have no way to be unhappy about their situation, gone to Heaven where they would be much happier than on Earth, or gone to Hell because they were a horrible person in which case they don't deserve your sympathy. What mourning really is is a way for you to get away with being sad because the person that died can't do anything for you anymore. Besides that, what exactly is the point? It's not like there's any chance of them coming back to life if you cry enough. The more I think about it, the less I get it.

And what is all the fuss about respecting the dead? I get this even less. They're dead! It's not like their going to get offended. I honestly want someone to explain to me why I should worship a rotting hunk of meat.

Monday, March 23, 2009

The traits of a failing democracy

Ack, it's been a while since I last posted. It's been a dull, boring month without much inspiration, so you'll have to forgive me. I have just found something to bitch about, though. Yay.

This is a message to all Americans out there. Sure, not all of you do this, but this is a call to arms for you, then, for you need to start aquatinting these people's faces with heavy pieces of logging equipment.

Politics seems to be a very common cause for debate in your country. Debate, when intelligent, is a very good thing, and I encourage it greatly. I love debates when they are intelligent. My friends have told me I can be quite contrary at times, and I too have noticed that I do often play Devil's advocate without realizing it to start an intelligent debate.

Do you see the keyword in the above paragraph? I'll give you a hint: it's not pie.

Intelligence. It is what makes the difference between a pointless argument and a debate. Debates about politics are necessary in a democracy, however in the United States, there are none. All talk about politics has turned into pointless arguments. Calling names and spreading hearsay does not strengthen a democracy, it hurts it, and that is all that I have seen in criticism of the Government of the United States. This does not spread your opinion, it makes you seem like your mother is also your cousin, and her idea of a proper education consisted of sitting you in front of a speak-and-spell and a calculator.

I just watched a Youtube video that claims that "Obama screws up a speech!" Let's just say the video fails to deliver. It was a clip that was about ten seconds long showing Obama rephrasing one sentence of a speech, looped three times. "To say...They say that we should do less instead of more". Certainly no Bushism, and yet when I looked at the comments, I was appalled. There was actually someone calling for his impeachment over this, no joke.

The point of a democracy is that you will win some, but you will also lose some. It is required that both the right and the left have the chance to govern. If just one side had power all the time the country would be driven into the ground. For this to happen people need to be willing to look at all candidates and get informed. Don't vote for somebody just because they are a member of your political party. Consider the needs of everyone in the country, not just yourself, and be willing to sacrifice some of yours for the good of everyone. You may be unhappy with the current government, but you have the chance show it in four years with your vote. You should be happy that you at least have that, which is more than a lot of other countries.

Edit: Dijon Mustard. Obama is getting flak for choosing Dijon mustard because it is "too fancy". If you think this is grounds for deciding who will run the country, you should not be allowed to vote.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

It had to happen eventually...

Well kids, today I want to talk about September 11th, 2001, or more accurately the conspiracy theory that spawned from it.

I just watched a documentary called Loose Change (Link), and it inspired me to post my thoughts on the subject here.

Like most conspiracy documentaries, a lot of the evidence used to back up its argument was very circumstantial, the quotes and interviews often did not have the context attached, and they made a fuss over a lot on insignificant details (which in many cases seems to be lack of common sense and pisses me off more than anything else with this conspiracy. "Oh my God! That window broke as thousands of tons of steel fell on to it! That proves the government did it!"). That being said, however, the movie did make some good points. It raised some questions that made me have to think about where I stand on the issue, and I like it when someone provides an intelligent, contrary argument that does that. However after some thought and research, I have decided that my original opinion still stands; the 9/11 conspiracy is, from the evidence I've seen, not true.

Firstly, I wish to destroy the biggest part of this conspiracy: the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Contest me if you like, but the calculations I have are based on physics and cold hard math. They are as un-biased as I could possibly make them.

Here are few numbers about the two towers that you should keep in mind. The North and South towers were respectively 1,368 and 1,377 feet tall (excluding the antenna on WTC1). When completed in 1972 they were the tallest buildings in the world, a title they held until the completion of the Sears Tower in 1974. The Twin Towers both had 110 stories, 3.8 million sq. feet of floor space. On any given day there were about 50,000 people working at the WTC complex, which covered 16 acres. Basically I'm saying the place was huge. So huge, in fact, that it even had its own zip code (10048, dontchaknow).

Since I wasn't too familiar with how controlled "implosions" of buildings worked I did a little research. I quickly found that there are several aspects that when combined make it near impossible that a controlled explosive demolition occurred at the towers, and they happen to be the same aspects that the theorists are using to back their argument: the steel core of the buildings, the 2000F burning temperature of jet fuel, and the time the towers were standing after the impact of the plane.

Since the building was built with steel support cores, dynamite could not be used. TNT is only effective for demolition when used in concrete cores. For steel cored buildings, demolition companies use a chemical explosive called Cyclotrimethylenetrinitamine, more commonly known as cyclonite or RDX, which is of similar consistency to plastic explosives. It is quite sensitive to impact and friction, and has an ignition temperature of 500F (260C). So basically by saying it was a controlled demolition, you are saying a fairly unstable explosive could withstand an impact of a plane, and then an hour and a half of temperatures four times that of what it takes to ignite it. This is more believable than the idea that the steel support columns just got weakened and buckled? The columns that were already under more weight than they were designed to handle? (A rarely mentioned fact is that the outer walls of the towers were load bearing to take some weight off those steel supports. Yeah, the outer wall that the plane kind of flew into. That one.)

Another problem I have with the demolition theory is the rigging of the towers. Well, I never knew the exact numbers, so I did a little math using stats pulled from the demolition of the Hudson Building, and the conditions set in Loose Change. The Hudson Building, for those who don't know, the largest building ever destroyed in a controlled explosive demolition, both in height and square footage, and, like the Twin Towers, had steel support columns (more here). According to the documentary, security and bomb sniffing dogs were "mysteriously" pulled on September 6, meaning that there was a window of 5 days to rig the towers for demolition. Want to guess how many people it would take to get the job done in that time? Wrong, the answer is 282. It would take a team of almost 300 people, working without being seen, mind you, to rig the building in the time for the 11th, and that's if you did not run the det. wire through the walls, which would need to be done since miles (and it would take miles) of brightly coloured wires running all over the place would attract at least some attention in a building as busy as the WTC. And that 282 is just for the towers, you would need more for WTC7 and any others.

Then there are the other people involved. This is another thing that conspiracy theorists (conveniently) never mention. The act of hijacking a few planes and crashing them into some buildings is fairly easy to plan by itself. I do not hesitate for a second to think that fifteen guys in a cave could come up with a plan to do it, so it is obviously within the capabilities of the US government to do. The thing is, for the government to execute a plan like this on its own people would take a lot more than fifteen guys. On top of the actual hijacking, you would need people to come up with the plan to blame the fifteen guys in the cave, the people willing to give their own lives to kill people of their own country, people to keep the people outside the government who knew about the attack or could talk against the government quiet, (apparently) people to orchestrate the use of a cruise missile on the pentagon, people to "deal" with the people who were on the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon, people to disassemble the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon, and the myriad of other jobs and tasks that would need to get done on the day and in the months and years after the attacks. It would take hundreds of people (plus the 300 man demo team) to pull something like this off. Even on death row, you could not find 10 people who would even consider doing something so rapaciously evil, yet there were apparently 500 or more people involved in this conspiracy, and not one of them have come forward and said that the government did it? I don't think so.

And then, finally, there is the one thing that I have been asking to conspiracy theorists everywhere, and not one has ever given me any answer whatsoever. If the government is capable, and willing to kill almost 3,000 people of it's own country to start a war that will kill many more, and then cover everything up, shut any significant person or expert on the subject up, how are you still here? Do you really think they would let you put up your web documentaries? Do you really think they would let you start message boards and entire websites devoted to the subject? Do you really think they would let it get this far?  If the government did what you are accusing them of doing, you would have been taken away by the big men in black suits a long, long time ago. As long as this goes unanswered I will have very serious doubts about the whole concept.

You probably won't get this from reading that, but I do adamantly think the government is hiding something. That, to me, seems fairly obvious. What they are hiding, I don't know, but I do not think it is anything nearly as big as that they were the masterminds behind the whole thing. (I was also going to mention the fact that Obama, and the new government has not uncovered or mentioned anything, but I know where that would lead and I don't feel like talking about the Illuminati. Not in this post anyways.)

So, in the words of the great gryphon, "That's all I have to say about that."

Wolf out.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Raccoons and Minks

I saved a life last night! Well, I helped save a life. Of an animal. Maybe. Story time.

Me and a couple friends were going to a party. We were walking down the road, and we saw what, at first glance, looked like roadkill: a raccoon laying, unmoving, in the middle of the road. When we saw it, there was the usual "aww, poor thing."s and one of my friends said, and I quote, "Oh, that thing better not be alive." I stopped because I'm a fucking furfag so I'm thus obligated to feel bad and mourn the death of any and all roadkill. It was because of this I noticed that, yes, the raccoon was still breathing. "Um, Brandon? You jinxed it." Said I, "It's still alive." Well, we couldn't just leave it there, but what do you do with a quite possibly rabid or otherwise diseased raccoon with unknown injuries? We figured the first thing we should do is get it off the road before it got hit again. So we sacrificed a T-shirt and using it to protect from bites, we picked it up and moved it off to the side of the road. Great, now what? We still couldn't leave it, it would just die slowly, but considering it was quite definitely alive, and looking like it still had quite a bit of strength left, so we couldn't "put it out of its misery". Well we're not stupid, so we had a solution. There is a Wildlife Rehab center in our town, so we'll call them, but we were nowhere near a phone at the time, so (as usual) Brandon drew the short straw and ran off to find a pay phone. Shortly after this, (and I want to know the odds of this) the Rehab center's van drove past. We flagged it down, and after a quick explanation, they took the raccoon! Yay! I'll have to phone them later and see how the raccoon is doing. It looked like he didn't have much more than a broken shoulder or leg, so I hope he's okay. At worst they were able to make his passing painless. (Oh, and if you're wondering, Brandon ended up spending about half an hour trying to call the center, while and after they were helping the raccoon. When he gave up and came back to us, we convinced him we just through the raccoon in a bush and he wasn't our problem anymore.)

Also, I noticed that minks always seem to look really pissed off. Take a look.


More Anger

You gon get raped.

I guess being made into coats is not fun.