The Wolf's Den

Random Thoughts 2

2009-10-12T02:36:00.000-07:00

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?

Tanzi Hoover

2009-07-02T02:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Grad '09

2009-06-25T05:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Weird.

Death

2009-05-10T00:14:00.000-07:00

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.

The traits of a failing democracy

2009-03-23T14:24:00.000-07:00

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.

It had to happen eventually...

2009-02-24T23:38:00.000-08:00

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.

Raccoons and Minks

2009-02-18T04:33:00.000-08:00

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.

Anger.

More Anger

You gon get raped.

I guess being made into coats is not fun.

Random Thoughts 1

2009-02-09T15:46:00.000-08:00

I woke up very cheerful this morning. Yup, cheerful. On a Monday. In the morning. That in itself is strange, but even stranger is the fact that fact that I was reading Jack till three in the morning. If you don't know what Jack is, you suck. It's a really depressing webcomic the grim reaper, a baby who was never born, an angel who lost her wings, and death. Did that affect me when I woke up? Nope. I think my brain is broken.

I want to start a Dream Journal. I like dreams. They're fun. TThe problem is that I don't remember many of them once I wake up. Apparently, this is because our brains are trained not to remember them, because society deems them to be unimportant. If you start to keep a dream journal, your brain is supposed to put more importance on remembering dreams, so you do. I'm going to do that.

My Grandma is now 90 years old. I know she doesn't read this (I am not sure she even knows how to turn a computer on), but I thought it is an important event to acknowledge. She has had many great experiences in life, and is actually a great, great grandma. That's not an easy thing to accomplish while you are still alive. So, happy birthday! I really respect you and your wisdom, and hope you have many more years. At least ten. You can't acheive this much and not make a century, so don't die yet. Kay?

Pie.

That is all.

Effective Advertising?

2009-02-06T23:28:00.000-08:00

I realized today that I am messed up.

I wanted to start smoking cigarettes. That's right, not I wanted to smoke a cigarette, I wanted to start smoking cigarettes. I actually wanted to become addicted to something that would kill me. But that's not the thing that got to me, it was the reason that I wanted to start. Not because I would look cool (and don't deny it, some people simply do look cooler when they're smoking), not from peer pressure, nothing like that. I wanted to get addicted to smoking, just so I could quit.

Yeah, I'm that fucked up.

Obviously this got me thinking about myself. Why did I want to start smoking just so I could quit? Well, I know I like knowledge, so it didn't take me long to figure out that I just wanted to go through the experience of quitting. That might have been good enough for some people, but no, not me. We are constantly bombarded with PSAs and ads telling us that quitting smoking is one of the hardest, experiences you can go through, and is very, very far from fun. So why the flaming fuck would I want to go through such a hard, horrible experience? It had me stumped for a while, but I think I finally came up with an answer: Because it earns respect, and I think subconsciously I want that respect. Talk about subliminal advertising, even if it is unintended.

Think about it. If you quit smoking (as long as you don't become a pretentious snob about it) you earn a certain respect that not many other people have. If someone says, "Yeah, I smoked for 10 years, but I quit and haven't touched one in eighteen months!" How do people respond? "Oh, wow, congratulations! that must have been tough!". Sure it would encourage people who already smoke to quit, but what else does it say? Maybe instead of congratulating them we should be saying something along the lines of, "What? You smoked? That is disgusting. You damn well better have quit."

The problem about this is that I thought that if I figured out what was making me want to do it, the urge would go away, and sure, I could say it has, but since this is my journal, I'm not going to lie to myself or anyone reading this. It hasn't. And that is starting to scare me.

I thought I was going to be able to resist the advertisements, resist the pressure, and avoid smoking all together, but now I'm not so sure. What if I can't quit? I know for a fact that quitting is one of the hardest things to do in life. Unfortunately for me, not only do I like knowledge, I like challenges too. Fuck me.

So now it seems to be a battle between two different parts of my brain. The part that is going, "Hey, come on! It will be an adventure!" And the part that it going, "No it won't. It will kill you, you dumb fuck." The classic devil and angle scenario.

So basically what I am saying is this: If I do start smoking (which I hope I don't) and die from it (which I really hope I don't), know that I knew the risks going in and will come back from the grave to punch any fucker who feels bad for me in the teeth.

On a completely unrelated side note, I've noticed how all travelers from the US seem to say how friendly the culture is, no matter where they are visiting. So my thought to you is this. Perhaps it's not the other cultures that are friendly, maybe it's your culture that is unfriendly.

(Though it sounds like it, I have no real personal connection with this. Just pondering.)

Wolf out.

Am I God?

2009-02-04T21:39:00.000-08:00

Holy crap! Two posts in as many days? What the hell is going on? Well I've decided that I'm going to use this thing a little more often. Starting now.

Something I read today about humans "playing God" got me thinking. What is a god? Most people would describe it as an all powerful being, and I would agree, but what does "all powerful" mean? "All powerful" is kind of abstract. I mean I've never really heard a good definition of what it means. So, what is a god? If you asked a religious person, they would say a god is something that affects, or at least has the power to affect everything in everyday life. A god can create and destroy life as it pleases. A god has limitless knowledge.

Now, maybe I'm going to go to hell for saying this, but by our own definition, wouldn't we as humans be considered gods when compared to anything else on Earth? Let's go through the list shall we?

-We have the power, and really do, affect everything on Earth. Global warming, wars, clearing vast swathes of land to create farms and suburbs, etc.

-We can create life through cloning and other bio-sciences.

-We could kill anything (or even everything if we wanted to) in apocalyptic ways. Look at the nuclear bomb.

-To any animal we would seem to have unlimited, incomprehensible knowledge. You would never in a million years be able to make, say, a dog understand quantum physics, or even more basic sciences such as forces or where babies come from.

That all seems fairly god-like to me. Hell, we even have the technology to create planets! We don't have the resources, and it would take a lot more than seven days, but theoretically we could do it.

I dunno. Just a random, useless thought I had.

Face Eating

2009-02-03T13:45:00.000-08:00

I guess this isn't a huge issue, so I'm not going to blow the world up about this, but all the same, I think the world would be a much more livable place if this just stopped. So, since I am bored and have absolutely nothing better to right now, I'm going to bitch.

PDA's. That's public displays of affection. I've had enough of them, they are gross, and they need to stop. Now, I'm not saying everything you do in public with your mate is gross, I don't mind holding hands, hugging, or a quick peck if one is coming or leaving, in fact those things can be quite cute. The thing that has been pissing me off is the heavy, steamy, my-parents-are-out-of-town-for-the-weekend-type stuff that people will do as if there is no one else around.

What got me started on this was something that happened yesterday morning. I was walking through the mall, minding my own business, when suddenly in front of me there was a couple that was just going at it. Right in the middle of the mall with people everywhere! And when I say going at it, I don't mean they were just making out, I mean they were going at it. They were lying on a bench in each other's arms, trying to swallow the other's head, moaning, and, like--writhing. There is a line, people, as to what is acceptable in public with your mate. If we were in an airport, the line would be at security. These guys were in fucking red China. I don't want to see it, and I doubt many people would disagree with me. Save it for the bedroom.

Plus on top of it, when I gave them a funny look, the guy noticed and got all defensive about it. Apparently what he does with his girlfriend is not anyone else's business. Listen, if you are going to break the rules of social behavior, than you give up all rights you have to get pissy and offended when someone happens to agree with said rules. What you do in private is your own damn buisness and I couldn't care less, but once you bring it into public it does become my business, and everyone else's who happens to be there. If you don't like that, Hefner, then that's too bad, but it's the way the world works. Get over it.

Listen, people! I don't care what your gender, orientation, age, race, whatever is, sexually stimulating your partner in public is just plain gross.

So stop it already.

Gawd.

Woot

2009-01-20T12:54:00.000-08:00

He's gone! Out of office forever! Joy.

Elections in Canadia

2008-10-15T09:00:00.000-07:00

Can someone please explain the point of the election that we just had up here, because I am lost.
Let's see...what has changed? Well the Conservatives won a minori-no wait, nothing new there...uh...oh! The Liberals came in secon-nope, never mind. That's still the same...Quebecers are clinging to their separatist party and should just stop whining and leav-ah, right. That has been going on for years. What changed in this election exactly?
We just spent $300 Million, that's $300,000,000 on an election that ultimately changed absolutely nothing. That's a lot of zeros to spend on nothing. Let me put this into perspective. Here is a list of useful things we could have spent the money on:

428 CAT Scanners to provide quicker diagnosis of cancer and other diseases, and improve the quality of health care in Canada--Cost: $299.6 million

5400 Affordable housing units to help fight poverty and reduce homelessness--Cost: about $292 million

Offset 2.1 billion kg of CO2 emissions (742 million liters of oil)--Cost: $294,258,310.63

7 Euros to help stimulate the economy--Cost: $298.5 million

1 medium pizza (3 toppings max) for every person who actually voted (Lowest turnout for a Canadian general election ever-58%) It would help to fight hunger--Cost: about $250 million

There. All the election issues, and what could have happened if the money was spent there. But, no. The government couldn't spend money on the issues that Canadians want them to, they use it to take a month off work and fly around the country. Hey, it's a free vacation at the taxpayers expense! Where's the problem there? Fuckers.

The election also sets the stage for another issue that has been bugging me, and a lot of people in the country: The way the government is set up. Everyone claims that this is such a fair system of government, and oh look at how great democracy is! All right Mr. Patriot, explain to me how a party that gets 8% of the votes in the country gets 50 seats in the government, while a party that gets 6% gets none. Show me the fairness in that. The BQ, a party that doesn't even have anybody running for MP outside of Quebec, gets about 8% of the popular vote in Canada, and they get 50 seats. The Green Party, who actually has someone running for election in every riding gets 6.6% of the votes in the country, but because they didn't come in first in any of the ridings, they don't get any say in the government. This is complete bullshit. Everyone is griping about only 58% voter turnout, but what do you expect? The majority of the ballots cast don't even count. If your ballot is not going to count, then what is the point of even voting?

All this may just be because I live in a riding full of idiots. They elected the biggest asshole running for MP. It's not just because he's Conservative, the party which I particularly dislike, that I'm griping about him, it's the fact that the guy is a dick. He is, as a person, quite simply a incompetent, untrustworthy jerk. His whole campaign was run based on cheap shots at other candidates, kissing Harper's ass, and telling downright lies. Plus he just looks like a murderer. He's all wiry and squinty-eyed. I have a really bad feeling about him.

It might well be a very long 8 months until the next election.

Global Warming

2008-08-31T06:41:00.000-07:00

All right, I've got to say something about this; this one, oh-so-important topic, the one that the news media has just been eating up over the past while: the weather. That's right, the weather. Now, it's a fairly normal day here, actually quite nice, but it seems that "quite nice" is becoming more rare these days. All over the planet weather is becoming more severe. Long, droughts, harsher winters, stronger hurricanes; People are dying because of lack of rainfall in one place, while too much is flooding towns somewhere else. By now you've probably guessed what I'm going on about. Yes, I want to talk about climate change: Global fucking warming.

Now if you don't know what this global warming thing is, obviously the rock you've been living under has air conditioning. To put it simply, the world is heating up, so polar bears are going to drown, cities will be under water, and everyone is going to fucking die.

Today there is pretty much a consensus that global warming is real. It would be hard to find someone who doesn't agree that things are changing. The one thing that absolutely no one can seem to agree upon is the cause of climate change. It's all the oil companies' fault, it's China and India, it's just a cycle of the Earth; everything causes global warming. Everything but you. That is the one thing about the issue that is common with everyone, and no one seems to realize it. The whole issue of global warming just fucking reeks of this, what will be humanity's fatal flaw, and what we are best at: laziness.

You people bitch, and moan, and whine, and blame everything and it's dog for causing global warming, but you do it all from the nice comfy seats of your goddamn hummers! I hope that $60,000 shoebox was worth it, I really do, because you're driving it off a cliff, and I'm tied and gagged in the back seat. You must realize that once we reach a certain point it will be impossible to turn around, and yet you absolutely refuse to steer away. I have met an extremely small number of people in my life who have actually changed-and I don't mean do the bare minimum and buy a different type of light bulb. There is no easy and convenient way to save the world. Unfortunately, you're going to have to break a sweat.

Now, I obviously feel that Global Warming is man-made, and I can already hear the "This is all natural" people gearing up to try and shoot down my theories, and you know what? Go ahead. You can give me your facts and data, and I'll listen; I?d be the first one to admit that my theory is just that, a theory. I don't really have any numbers to back me up. What I have is but one question, and the only one I would pose to you. What if you're wrong? This planet is our home, and the only one we have. There is nowhere else to go if something happens to Earth. In other words, we very well may be facing our extinction here. Maybe if we change, it will be futile. Maybe this planet has had enough of us and wants us gone, but if our survival is at stake, where's the harm in trying? If you're wrong and we don't do anything, we die. If I'm wrong, honestly what is the worst that could happen? A horizon in Beijing? Rainforests that aren't completely bulldozed?

From the past, we can see that people never act to prevent something until it already has happened. In this case that is not an option. We are facing an ultimatum here: Get off your ass, stop being lazy and stop being so god damn destructive toward this planet or die. It is that black and white. The end will have to be one of those two options, whether you like it or not. So, I ask you, which one do you choose?

Furry

2008-06-30T04:27:00.000-07:00

Often, it's stuff like this that makes being a furry so much damn fun.

Vegetarians

2008-05-30T15:40:00.000-07:00

So, my brother is a vegetarian. I don't see how anyone could refuse to eat meat, but I get it. I know why he would do it. He does it because he doesn't want some animal dying because of him. I can understand that. I think it's stupid, and don't really see the difference between killing a plant and an animal (In the words of 2 the Ranting Gryphon, "Taking the life of a plant is no different from taking the life of an animal. Just because it can't yelp when you pluck it doesn't mean you're not killing it.") but I can sort of see why he doesn't want to be a part of the death of that animal. But he did something the other day that really confused me.

I made mac and cheese for dinner, and as usual I grated (grote?) up some cheese to put in with the powdered shit that call cheese in the box. When I served it my bother looked at it, turned his nose up at it, and then threw it away. Apparently the cheese I added contained calf stomach lining or something, and he refused to eat, and would rather throw that food away and starve than eat it.

Now, he can starve, I don't care about that, but what I didn't get is why he would throw that food in the garbage. It is one thing to not want a animal to die because of you, but as soon as that animal is already dead and on a plate, throwing it away is, from my point of view, much worse. By throwing it away you are not preventing that animal from dying, it's already dead; All you're doing is making it so that that cow in your burger died in vain. The thing is though, that this isn't just my brother. I bet you you could not find a "devout" vegetarian who would not do the exact same thing. By throwing it away, you are taking a death that would have at least gone to giving you nutrition and energy to let you live, and taking even that away from it. While refusing to let an animal be killed to feed you, you just made that animal die for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Good job. You are now just slightly less hypocritical than Jerry Falwell if he opened a gay bar.

Drugs are bad

2008-04-16T05:53:00.000-07:00

omfg this is addicting. I swear it's the crack of the internet.

http://playfreeonlinegames.eu/playonline/typethealphabet.html

My high score is 3.73 seconds.

Polish Fried Chicken

2008-04-01T04:28:00.000-07:00

I hate the media right now. I don't care what anyone else says, the whole Polish guy getting tasered thing is being completely sensationalized. They're still talking about it, like, six months later. I mean come on when was it? October? And now they just had an article in the Vancouver Sun today.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can pick sides in this, the news has not, and probably never will get the whole story. They have completely covered the Polish guy's side of the story, I mean they dug years into his past, they interviewed his roommate and all his friends, and yet the best they can do for the police's side of the story is have one single interview with the police chief. They have not interviewed the police officers involved and to the best of my knowledge have made absolutely no attempt to try. And I've heard people say that, "Well the RCMP tells it's officers not to talk." This is such a bullshit response! To get the victim's side of the story they will find names, arrange dates for interviews, and if no date can be arranged, they'll go right to their house, shove a camera into their face when they answer the door and then interview them on the front porch. In this case they traveled all the way to Poland for a few interviews! But when it comes to the RCMP they won't even bother phoning the officers involved.
Of course, money is the only reason they do it, and don't tell me otherwise. They want to make the Polish guy to look like he was completely innocent and the cops to be the big mean bad guys, for one simple reason: so they can drag the story out for as long as possible. Think about it. If they took the cops side of this and said that it was justified and not excessive force, that would have been it. There is no where to go with the story. However, if they get the Polish guy's side they will cause anger, which will cause controversy, which will increase ratings. Plus with this controversy they can make every insignificant detail, like his past, into a huge 10 minute long piece, which will cause more anger, and thus even more ratings. (From the sound of the piece they did on his past it sounded like he was a criminal anyway, even though they did try to sugar coat it.) Don't believe me? Guess what the article in the Sun was about. It was talking about how the customs guy thought he was calm when he was checking in to Canada. That stupid, insignificant article, that held no answers as to what actually happened when the police encountered him, made front page. No joke.

And before I get a bunch of negative replies from the imaginary people who view my page saying that I condone murder, etc. just shut up and read the above paragraph again. I'm not saying the death is justified, and yes, it's tragic that he died, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't choose sides based on biased news coverage and a minute long, low quality video on Youtube.

Story

2008-02-16T03:10:00.000-08:00

This story will have a moral that will apply to my experiences today. Now sit and listen.

One time there was a little lobster. His name was McHenry. Now, McHenry was a lobster and he was also little. He lived in the ocean, and McHenry was a little lobster, who lived in the ocean. In the ocean lived a little lobster, named McHenry, who lived in the ocean and was a lobster. McHenry was small, so the ocean, which he lived in, was large to him, him being McHenry, a small lobster who lived in the ocean.

Now McHenry, this lobster who lived in the ocean was small. He felt small because he was little, and his best friend was a shark. The thing was this shark was very large, and also had to be constantly moving, or else his gills would not work and he would die. This made McHenry

No, no, stop the story.

I just noticed that whenever I push the apostrophe key, I get the same results as inputting CRTL+F would normally get me. Hold on, let me try it again.

Yeah... yeah.

Oh, now Im just in no mood... to...

See, it didn

DAMNIT!

What kind of disgusting world do we live in, where I can

...where I cannot use proper grammatical punctuation? No wonder the youth of today cannot speak properly anymore.

Oh, and this story was going to go into gay lobster-shark sex, and now you arenAPOSTROPHEt getting any.

Also I cannot do a backslash here either.

Hiaku

2008-02-03T03:54:00.000-08:00

I like eating food

Babies go well with steak sauce

They are very nom.