Jun 27, 2013

Conspiracy theorist responds!

A while back I wrote about Mike Adams and his lunatic theory thatthe massacre at the Aurora theater was orchestrated by the US government. It was a simple, direct post and my point was clear, there was no evidence in Mike's hypothesis of any wrongdoing by the US, or any government. With the knowledge we have at this time, it appears to be the work of one lone shooter, a madman who destroyed many lives with his evil act.

Of course, this theory isn't just shared by Adams alone, but I used him as an example of how batshit and tasteless it is to drag public employees', or anyone's', names and reputation through the mud in order to try and feel smart, or "having your eyes open" as conspiracy theorists would call it. What is not shocking though about the post is someone decided to respond with an absolute nuttiness. So here's the comment left by reader realeyesre​alizerealli​es, with my comments to such stupidity in red:

"yeah hahaha like there's no such thing as "False Flag Events" nor "State Sponsored Terrorism" I never claimed there are no such things as false flags or state sponsored terrorism, so why you brought that up is a mystery indeed as well as your unnecessary use of quotes. And it’s pretty despicable to think of them as laughing matters. hahaha Why do you type “hahaha" when nothing even remotely funny has occurred? yeah what a dope anyone is for KNOWING THOSE FACTS OF AMERICAN (ROMAN EMPIRE) HISTORY.. I'm not sure exactly what facts you're referring to, or why American and Roman history apply to this post criticizing Mike Adams' lack of evidence, since you conveniently left any and all analogies out, but if your knowledge of history is on par with composing messages in the English language, I'm willing to bet a thousand dollars that your history education is akin to a third graders, and that's being generous. As for former Scientologist Mike Adams' knowledge on matters historical, it's right on par with his knowledge of basic science, which is pitiful at best.
As for Adams..too bad he sold us all out. How? And who’s this “us” you are referring to?

P.S. Get A Real Life, The End. 
Ow wow. You told me to get a real life. That really stings. What life do you think I should be leading oh sagely one? I find it sad that I can't live in the awesome world you inhabit on a daily basis, so please let us know your secret to having a successful existence."

Realeyesre​alizerealli​es then took a pause in his barely literate message to compose another, which is just as on topic as the previous one. I guess when he said “The End” it meant only the beginning:

"seriously though, check this out:
"...the world’s dominant geopolitical powers were on the brink of engaging the last and most dangerous stage of their geopolitical agenda. In the world of chess the Endgame refers to the moves that end the game. 
Still haven't a clue what this has to do with Mike Adams and his lack of evidence to support his inane, tasteless theory, and neither do you. It's interesting how conspiracy theorists never seem to be able to comprehend even the simplest things, nor can stay on topic for more than 30 seconds in any discussion. When they know they're argument is collapsing, they simply move on to baffle people even further.

And what is the game that the world’s dominant powers are playing? We live in a world where civilization as we’ve known it for the last 5000 years has been defined by the quest for empire. It’s a ruthless and savage quest played by the world’s most powerful economic and political entities to acquire ever greater levels of economic and political power. So you mean governments have largely created economic and political empires for most of human history?
Wow, what a shocking revelation to anyone in fifth grade social studies! You're so smart to quote this site, as it saves you the trouble of having to think for yourself. Really you're quite efficient at spreading nonsense.

The imperial process can only work by conning the subject class, those outside the ruling class, into supporting its military adventures. The ruling class gains support for their military agendas by manufacturing adversaries who are accused of posing an existential threat. Adversaries that must be dealt with pre-emptively according to the doctrine of World’s dominant emperium also known as the European-American-Israeli alliance. I’ll refer to this alliance as the TRIAD. 
And this is supposed to roll into the Aurora tragedy how? Have you, or the writers of this ridiculous site, kept up with European - Israeli relations in the past, oh I don't know, 27+ years? Israel and Europe aren't exactly on good terms, so this Triad, as the ill person who coined it, is not going so swimmingly, probably because it doesn't exist. Hell why don't they throw in Australia in this made up alliance?

Readers, don't go to this link, it sucks.

while there is truth in many of mike adams articles, it is not. 
What is not? And by the way, there is little to no truth in Mike Adams articles. He's so incompetent and so dedicated to promoting misinformation that if he wrote a post about how he believed the world is round I'd immediately be skeptical."

Realeyesre​alizerealli​es, who I'm betting thinks they're very clever in coming up with that dumb username, goes on to say:

"oh..gotta finish my thought on Adams No you really don’t. I mean you did type "The End", which one would logically assume this tripe isn't necessary nor warranted...while there is some truth in his articles As stated before, there isn't, and any rational human being who reads his stuff will confirm, he's also imo a sensationalist We agree there, although that can be said for any and all conspiracy theorists; and i am not the only person who believes he is a part of the faction "poking the american people with a stick" hoping to get a violent reaction all the while "warning" everyone to protest in a non-violent way, that is obvious...especially after teaming up with the likes of Alex Jones who is a fear mongerer and sensationalist. If you're all down on Mike Adams, then what exactly is your point? Actually don't answer that, as you've spent too much time already trying to make a point that doesn't exist. Aren't all conspiracy theorists posing as smarter than thou preachers of what they nonsensically refer to as truth, fear mongers? They keep saying they’re in the business of waking people up, but really it’s to incite fear of something, real or imagined (government, vaccines, GMOs, lizard people, Illuminati, etc.) Thank you for entertaining us with your nonsense."

"How much you wanna bet this guy hates Kinder Eggs too?" - WIGSF

Jun 26, 2013

My own theme song

The wife and I are currently residing with my mother in-law while our new house is still being occupied by the former owners. I get to watch a lot of bad television, but I'm happy to do it to spend time with them. When I view horrible shows I try to make the experience fun, like laughing at the douchebags or creating my own theme songs. Since they're fans of the high brow show The Bachelorette, last night, while watching it, I created my own theme song (sung to the tune of the Muppet Show theme):

It's time to view the douchebags,
It's time to watch them fight.
It's time for attention whoring on The Bachlorette tonight.

It's time for eating disorders.
It's time for not being right.
It's time for attention whoring on The Bachlorette tonight.

Why do they always audition?
And sell the souls for scrap?
It's like some kind of torture.
To watch this kind of crap.

It's time to exploit emotions.
It's time to dumb down right.
It's time for attention whoring.
Why are you attention whoring?

It's time for attention whoring on the least sensational, inexcusable, inexplicable, whorentational.
This is what we call The Bachlorette!

"I'm probably the only member of the 'Bachelor' cast without an agent!" - Jake Pavelka

Jun 17, 2013

Stuff Texans like part 4

Now there's hardly an individual you'll find who doesn't care for fried chicken, or any kind of chicken for that matter, but in Texas, the hen dipped in a fryer is not just a food, it's a religion. In the Northwest, we had maybe a few chicken fast food restaurants, such as KFC, one Popeyes, and I'm sure countless small mom and pop places, such as the highly overrated, and favorite of Oprah (yes that Oprah) Ezell's.

In Texas, we have all kinds of restaurants that specialize in cooking the fat bird, such as Chick-fil-A, Church's Chicken, Chicken Express, the previously mentioned KFC and Popeye's, Raisin Cane's (which has delicious sauce), Babe's (my favorite), and many others. Now everyone has their favorite restaurant, but honestly, besides the sauce, I don't find much difference in the frying. It's all artery clogging nightmare of fowl, but it's so tasty many will gladly put their health on hold to grab a seasoned bite.

What differentiates the chains is the spices and sauce, and while some are more appealing than others, the brand loyalty some of their customers have is akin to European nationalism. Now some, such as Babe's, offers a great atmosphere and other delicious food to those who grow tired of taking years off their heart (and they serve RC cola instead of Coke or Pepsi interestingly enough). Still there's little substitute for fried chicken, something Texas takes regional pride in, and no yankee establishment can live up to.

"The food in Europe is pretty disappointing. I like fried chicken. But other than that Europe is great." - Donnie Wahlberg

Jun 10, 2013

This post is watching you

When Bush was in office, he was easy to criticize as the office of the Presidency hadn't yet seen anyone so ignorant, so lacking in charisma, and such an easy target. The corruption was so rampant after a while nary an eyebrow was raised when he did something of extreme incompetence. It was just how the office of the Presidency ran for eight years, and we all just took it in mournful stride.

Then Obama comes, offering change and wisdom and ponies. While he in my opinion hasn't been a particularly bad President, he hasn't been all that effective in my opinion. Wall Street regulations remains the same as it did before the horrible crash of 08, Guantanamo Bay is still open for business, and Obama is having a hell of a time responding to the numerous accusations thrown at him by the GOP. Still, with all the good things he's done, such as health care, DPRK, and other things too numerous to mention here, I'm sort of happy with how he's managed the country.

And then comes the phone tracking data, which no one is happy with. I understand the need to fight terrorism as much as anyone, but never at the expense of our values. As Americans we were outraged to find out torture was used against suspects, and we should feel the same outrage when the government collects our information without a warrant or our consent.

Not only did he come out and try to defend the indefensible, but much like Bush, he seemed to try and talk down to his critics, which is just insane.

Sadly though, nothing will be done about this as the opposition party is still trying to stick him to Benghazi after failing numerous times, and they still have a hard on for Fast and Furious.

When someone criticizes Obama, the knee jerk reaction at this point is to think them a conspiracy theory freak, but soon more people from the left will have to accept that this behavior is not acceptable, and will have to put the blame exactly where it belongs, at the White House.

I'm kind of sad about this as I had high hopes for Obama, but not shockingly he disappointed me/us. Yes I know, you should contain your shock that a politician can be anything but excellent at his job.

“Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?” - Al Gore

Jun 5, 2013

There is no Monsanto Protection Act

A few years back a group of Muslims decided to plan a community center in lower Manhattan. For whatever reason (bigotry) people were upset about this as it brought up painful memories of the 9/11 attacks, and felt that followers of Islam shouldn't have a community center in New York. Mislabeling it as "The Ground Zero Mosque", people wrongly believed a Muslim place of worship was being built across the street from where the World Trade Center once stood, and took offense to that for reasons unclear (bigotry). Most people had no idea the planned community center is about two blocks away, nor really cared because big scary brown people are infiltrating Merica and implementing Sharia Law so severe I can't walk down main street without a guy named Mohammad trying to cut off my wiener, because I don't require a foot washing station at my place of work. Controversy arose, and still does, because of this issue that should've never been one.
Years before that, a landmark study showed that domestic violence was highest during the Super Bowl. Yes women and children were at greater risk of being beaten by some lite beer guzzling jackass who gets their frustrations out by beating up his family over a game. Since all football fans are nothing but wife beating slack-jawed louses, it only made sense, and people the country over believed it.
Problem was, the study never existed, and women and children are at no greater risk for domestic violence during the Super Bowl than any other day of the year. Actually if they're going to get their asses beat, Christmas and Thanksgiving is the most likely day for a whooping. Yes the day we honor the birth of Lord and Savior is one of the highest days for domestic violence.
The truth was told, football fans are no more harmful than anyone else, including hockey, UFC, and even soccer fans, but no one wanted to hear the truth. The fraudulent non-existent study was called out for what it was, and the country collectively said "yeah, but I still think women are more at risk, because I saw a guy get mad at a game once, and he looked like he was going to hit somebody, but he didn't, but people who get mad always smack others around," or something equally as insipid. People wanted to believe that men are nothing but oafish brutes who want nothing more than to hurt females, and those who happen to enjoy the sport of football are the worst of the lot, so everyone remembers this bullshit, while the truth was widely ignored.
Lately I've been hearing a lot about the Monsanto Protection Act, which according to the illiterate sources, is all about protecting Monsanto from being prosecuted for being all evil. Yes Monsanto, the company that makes genetically modified foods that cause cancer, creates toxic chemicals that cause autism, and the company that sues small farmers out of business and takes over their land to grow franken berries that don't taste as good as the ones out of the farmers' market you claim you shop at, but you don't. But I digress...
So what is the Monsanto protection bill according to those who coined the phrase? Well according to groups like Food Democracy Now, the bill protects the biotech agricultural giant from litigation while they continue to grow foods that'll make us all sterile and the human race will die off, because that's what they think Monsanto wants, and killing off the world's population would be such a stellar business model.
So what does the bill actually say? Well pretend you just read the following:
Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
That's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. Well since I'm sure you've read and comprehended everything that was just copied and pasted, I shouldn't have to explain what it means, but I will anyways.
It means that if someone planted a crop with a seed that went through years of approvals and red tape to be able to be put unto the soil, and somehow someone notices the paperwork was poor or that their was some oversight on the government's part, the farmer, whether thay be some big giant monolithic destroy the world corporation, or a simple resident of Hooterville, can petition a judge to allow their once legal crop to not be destroyed until it's deemed legal again.
So let me try to put it another way. You're building a home, and after the nightmare of getting the proper permits together and hassling with all the fees and ridiculous red tap, you start construction. Suddenly someone at the office of "Make Home Builders Die of Combustible Hemmroids" (MHBDCH) sees they missed something on the paperwork, and decided your yet to be completed abode was in violation of the law and God almighty and must be torn down in ceremonious fashion. This bill will allow you to go and front of a judge and explain why you shouldn't suffer because of gross incompetence of underpaid civil servants and get to keep building your home until sufficient evidence arises that should do otherwise. The same would apply if someone is suing you for building your home for whatever reason, and you can plea to the court to not have your place destroyed until the case is settled.
So that's it. Monsanto may be an evil corporation with their ridiculous patent lawsuits and what not, but seriously do you expect a corporation not to wield their muscle in order to make money? I mean it's in their very nature to turn a profit, for obvious reasons. Those entities exist for that reason alone, and if they can use the law to their advantage, well the public (YOU) allow it.
Still this Monsanto Protection Act is nonsense. It's a made up term by anti-Monsanto activists who know nothing about science, who are misguided about their GMO phobias, and who should be safely ignored. For whatever reason, anti-GMO fucktards have entered themselves uninvited into the progressive movement, and need to be removed, forcibly if needed.
Yes Monsanto may be crooked and is out to make a profit, just like every other corporation. No there's no evidence that GMOs are harmful, despite what one fraudulent study may say, and it's still wrong to brand this act as some sort of conspiracy with Obama being in bed with them, especially when it protects everyone. If someone is against the so called Monsanto Protection Act, then they're against all farmers, large and small.
You know what? The GMO Truthers have won, for no one will remember what the Monsanto Protection Act actually does, for instead they'll think big bad Barrack Hussein Obama is in bed with Satan's corporation, and they're out to poison your children. The truth will be swept under the rug, while the misinformation is widely spread thanks to your moronic Facebook friends and misguided and uneducated activists.
"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it’s really a small number. Of these, we’ve proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto’s favor.

A very small number of farmers involved in patent infringement cases with Monsanto have sought publicity around their cases, and have characterized the company’s actions in a negative light. In some other situations, outside parties have portrayed particular cases negatively. We take exception to any misleading allegation of wrong-doing. Our employees and contractors respect our customers and their property" - Monsanto

Jun 4, 2013

Set phasers to geek

Well it's been what is quite possibly the longest abscence I've given this blog since it's inception. So the obvious choice for a post would be a stack ranking of the Star Trek films.

Yes I saw Star Trek: Into Darkness, and since I had a lot of fun drafting the James Bond films after watching Skyfall I figured I'd tackle another long running movie franchise. So yeah, ranking the Star Trek movies from worst to best.

Star Trek: Insurrection: The crew of the Enterprise rebel against their superiors to save a race of people who don't get old or sick after somehow halting the aging process somewhere around 43. I've only seen this movie once, and there's a reason for that. I hated this movie. Hated every goddamn second of the miserable creation. The plot was completely nonsensical and would rank as one of the worst TNG episodes, but for reasons I can't fathom (cocaine), this was given the big screen treatment, and was so terrible I vowed never to see a TNG movie in the theater again.

Star Trek: Generations: Fans were ready to see Kirk and Piccard team together to save a planet who's inhabitants were never seen nor cared about by the audience. It's so easy to not like this movie as the villain's plan to destroy a star to somehow change the trajectory of some happiness space cloud so that he could whisk himself to play time land is absurd enough, but to use this nonsensical plot device to get Kirk and Piccard together in the least climatic way possible was a letdown for even the most forgiving of Star Trek fans. Everything failed in this movie, the attempts at comedy, the misfires when it tried to be tender, and the dissapointment everyone felt when the two greatest captains in the fictional universe joining forces to go fisticuffs with some unmemorable villain was too much to bear.

Star Trek: Nemisis: Piccard and the crew face an adversary so diabolical you won't recall a single thing about him once the credits roll. Now some would say this is the worst Star Trek film, and it's difficult to argue with them, but I don't think it's the worst of the TNG films. It happens to be the only Star Trek film I've never seen in the theatre, which is a dubious honor I know, and I've only seen it once, and if good fortune permits I'll never see it again. After the dismal release of this drek production on another Star Trek film wouldn't happen for many years.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: The original crew of the starship Enterprise take their geriatric asses on a search for the Lord almighty. Oh and Spock's brother appears as a tour guide on the quest. If anyone tells you they like this film, then it's a good sign they're wrong about everything related to cinema. It's not only the worst film featuring all of the original cast, it's one of the worst Star Trek films ever. A failure both critically and commercially, this William Shatner directed bomb would do well to be forgotten as it adds nothing to the series. I've heard many a fan try to make apologies for this miserable drek, but there are none. It is crap, pure unadulterated horse shit.

Star Trek: First Contact: The Enterprise goes back in time to fight the Borg, who are hell bent on taking over pre-24th century Earth. It's not so much that it's a bad film, but it's just disappointing considering that the Borg is a great villain, but didn't have much to do besides emote themselves through a hive queen, which is sillier than it sounds if you can believe it. The humor is so damn corny it just falls flat. The Piccard channeling Ahab subplot almost worked, but if they just toned it down a bit and made it more subtle it could've been compelling. It's the best out of the TNG films for sure, but that's saying very little.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: Admiral Kirk leads his crew to San Fransisco circa the 80s to bring some whales back to the 23rd century to communicate with an alien probe that only speaks humpback and fuck I don't care. Sure, the plot is preposterous, and often times silly, but damn it it if I don't kind of like this film. It has a lot of charm and it's clear the actors are having a lot of fun with the script. Many fans hate this film, and it's not a conventional Star Trek film by any means, but it's fun and never takes itself too seriously.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: The Federation and the Klingons try to make a peace accord, and obviously there has to conspiratorial forces trying to make that not happen. Nicholas Meyer's return to directing a Star Trek film after the crowd pleasing Wrath of Kahn was less than triumphant, but certainly not terrible. Sure this movie wasn't stellar by any means, but it's fun watching Christopher Plummer be a Klingon, and the acting is far superior than the script should've allotted for.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: Admiral Kirk and his associates risk everything to find and resurrect their friend Captain Spock. While I like this movie, it can be a real downer. The cast really started to show their age, and it seemed like it would be the end of the series when I first watched it. With the Enterprise blowing up, Kirk's son getting killed before he could establish a relationship with his father, and the grim locales this movie doesn't really uplift the spirits, but it has some real tension and Christopher Lloyd made a good Klingon.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture: The crew of the Enterprise go in search of a big scary space cloud that threatens Earth. I don't think fans really were screaming for this kind of adventure for Kirk and company in their first big screen outing, but I enjoyed it for a lot of reasons. It's ambitious, interesting, and very thoughtful; however slow and prodding it may be. Sure it could've used a few more action beats, and less long sweeping shots of a space entity and even the Enterprise herself, but it's still a wonder after all these years, and I still find myself enjoying it.

Star Trek: Into Darkness: Kirk goes after an evil man who does evil things, and finds all sorts of evilness lurking about. JJ Abrahms second outing as director for the newly rebooted franchise has been a successful one, and it kept the right balance of action and character development. Sure the third act had more than it's share of lame cop outs, but still it's entertaining as all get out. With a memorable villian and familiar characters that are likable as well as interesting, Star Trek: Into Darkness makes a great addition to this long running series.

Star Trek: After a many years absence from the cinemas, JJ Abrahms rebooted the franchise. Originally met with skepticism, his creation became a solid hit for fans and non alike. Combining elements that made Star Trek so endearing, such as relatable and fun characters, with non-stop action, this movie is fun and engaging. Sure some of the plot elements don't rival Shakespeare, but it does everything it sets out to do incredibly well. The cast and crew did the almost impossible task of pleasing geeks, something I hope they continue to do for years to come.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn: Kahn and his crew seek revenge on Captain Kirk for deserting them many years ago on an almost inhabitable planet. Kahn is one of the greatest villains in not just Star Trek lore, but all of sci-fi, so his return from the original series' episode "Space Seed" was indeed a welcome one. Ricardo Mantoban plays a great villain, and it's one of his finest performances ever. Throwing such themes as the crew accepting their age and giving a tear jerking ending, The Wrath of Kahn will be a tough film to top.

"A man either lives life as it happens to him, meets it head-on and licks it, or he turns his back on it and starts to wither away." - Gene Roddenberry