Let's Stop Rewarding Corporate Behaviour and Start Kicking This Bully's Ass!

"We're sure not heading down a very happy road!" David Suzuki





On the left in the white van is the person who ran over the baby girl who wandered into the street in front of him. She didn’t dart. She didn’t sneak. She was moving slowly. And at about 3 or 4 miles an hour the van wasn’t moving much faster. The driver had plenty of time to stop. Even had plenty of room to swerve. Did neither. Not until the little girl was rolled over by the front, left wheel did the driver stop. For about 4 seconds before deciding to run her over with the REAR wheel as well and continue on with his business.

On the right the Tiananmen Square Tank Man. During demonstrations to encourage economic reform and liberalization in 1989 protesters were forcibly removed by the Chinese military. This one-man protest was an iconic photo of the event. The Great Firewall of China is so unbelievably effective that many Chinese people STILL have never seen this picture. I’m sure most of them haven’t seen the video of the baby being run over either. If you have seen the movie associated with this tank photo, the tank tries to avoid the man but he moves so that the tank must mow him down in order to move forward. The tank driver never does run him over.

Changing times in China and the world! The war is not about soldiers, bombs and tanks any more it’s about businessmen, buyouts and corporations. The soldier driving the tank doesn’t think the military’s purpose is important enough to sacrifice the man’s life. But the psychopath in the van thinks HIS time is much more important than the life of that little girl.

Before we get too hung up on the fact that these are both Chinese men and before we even think about putting the blame on Communism, don’t you think there are a LOT of businesspeople who would run this little girl down? Ever seen the movie Wall Street? I could just hear Gordon Gekko on the oversized cell phone now if it were HIM who was driving the white van. “Okay, yeah the little girl thing. My time is just too valuable for this! Get one of my aids to find out how much the parents will settle for out of court. If it’s more than a mil. we'll take them to court. I don’t think I need to tell you this but, please, don’t START at a million. Try to lowball them if you can.” Beep “Now, young, pre-meltdown Charlie Sheen, tell me more about your father and this airline…” But Gordon Gekko is just a fictional character, right? Back to these real men.

Which of these men will be encouraged and which will be corrected? As a more general question, which behaviour is encouraged and which corrected?

If these two men were applying for a job, (a high paying job where you make REAL money and aren’t living paycheck to paycheck like most of the schmucks in the world), in China or practically any country, and had these photos as the first pages of their respective resumes, who do you suppose would be hired?

What will happen to the baby killer if his company sees the video of him driving over a helpless baby in order to deliver the product on time or arrive at a meeting on time or pick up an important client at the airport on time? Will he be fired and turned over to the police? Or will this video be played at the next shareholder’s meeting and used as inspiration for employees to let nothing get in their way of doing a good job? Will this guy who treats a baby human being worse than most people treat a skunk get a RAISE? A promotion? Will he become a highly sought after employee who never has to worry about unemployment again? And will he look back at the incident and someday think it was the BEST thing he ever did?

I think you know what I think are the answers to these questions. I also think you know what the RIGHT answers to these questions are. But in this world where we are marching backwards and calling it progress the WRONG answers are where we are ALL headed. David Suzuki calls it a road that's not very happy. In true Chinese fashion, they have just arrived there ahead of most of us. But then again they have the perfect situation to promote corporate thinking. Huge population and terrible, dollar a day jobs that are at a PREMIUM. People are desperate to do anything to get or to keep a job. Sound familiar?

George Carlin calls the heads of corporations, the rich, the banks and the governments they control our “owners.” The owners know we could all have nice houses, new cars and money in the bank but then they think we wouldn’t have the hungry, go-get-‘em, greed-is-good, profit-at-all-cost, turn-a-baby-into-roadkill corporate attitudes. So they keep us all about one really rainy day away from the poor house. It’s like Roberto Luongo. He’s a millionaire goalie who is good but not great. Some say back in the days when he was young and had the drive to keep his NHL job he was much better. Now most Canuck fans are wondering if we should give Luongo’s job to this kid in the minor leagues called Eddie Lack. He’s young and not rich and playing great because of it. Get the best for the least. This is corporate thinking and we all do it sometimes. But it’s gotten WAAAYYY out of hand!

THIS is what the marches on Wall Street, (MWS), and all over the world are trying to wake us up to. Don’t think we are quite so bad yet? Okay, ask yourself if you were a couple hours late for work would you get in trouble? Maybe get fired? Ask yourself if your boss would accept any excuse, even, “I stopped to help a baby who had been run over by TWO cars.” Okay, maybe your work situation isn’t so bad. Maybe the answers to these questions were both NO. I think they are for ME too. But now ask yourself if one of these wouldn’t be a niggling concern while you came to the aid of that baby. If you waited an hour or two for the ambulance would you check your watch? Would you phone in and tell the boss you will be late before or after the baby was as stabilized as she could be? And then if you WERE fired at some later date, you absolutely KNOW your boss would say, "And then there was that time you were two hours late!" It is courageous, selfless and heroic to help out a baby that has been hit by a car, but it could be held against you at work. Even in Canada. And we know this.

We are preconditioned and socialized, mostly by our owners, to think of money before people. Community and Society are people but Capital is money. Why are Communism and Socialism weighed down in our minds with such heavy negativity? It’s training. Sure Socialist and Communist regimes have committed terrible atrocities but you really should blame the “ists” before the “isms.” And there are two overlooked, but elephant-in-the-room obvious facts here: 1. Capitalism has been the political ideology of a LOT of people who committed a lot of atrocities too. And 2. Good old fashioned, apolitical GREED is the cause of most of the atrocities regardless of which government regime committed them.

How long before Canada will get to the point where we are so concerned about business, keeping our jobs and filthy lucre that 18 people would pass by a dying baby before she gets some help? In Canada we have social programs available that give enough money to ANYone so they can at least have a home and food. For now. Until those are cut to maximize corporate profit. See, a corporation sees “Profit” and “loss” in a very different way than a normal person. If I make 40,000 dollars 10 years in a row I feel like I have had 10 fantastic years. I wish I could just have ONE year like that! A corporation that profits the same two years in a row doesn’t see it as sustained success. They actually see it as LOSS! They MUST profit MORE! And believe it or not if in year two your profit is 10% more than year one, then in year three your profit was 9% more than year two, a corporation will even see THAT as a loss! But it’s important to recognize the corporation NEVER actually loses. They pass all the loss on to the customer and the low level workers. No corporation big wigs EVER take a pay cut. Even in a depression they give themselves healthy raises.

It is also important to note that most governments nowadays are run exactly like corporations. Probably because they are run BY them. That includes Canada. If you think that's not true, when did we vote for the cancellation of corporate capital taxes? It happened federally in 2006 and provincially just last year. The corporations in Canada pay 1/3 of the taxes that regular people pay. And even what they DO pay, that's right, the cost is passed on to the little guy.

Our government has learned from the corporations. When we have a bad year the government raises taxes or government mark-up on food items or inflation or adds another excise tax "for our own good." When will they just axe social programs like welfare or old age pensions? It could happen. If it ever did, in a Canada where possible homelessness and starvation are one mistake at work away, would 18 people walk by a dying baby THEN? I hope we never find out! This is what they’re up against in China. There but for the grace of the Canadian social net could go you and I. And if we continue the way we are indelibly stamped by our owners to proceed, we’re not too far behind the Chinese.

I'll tell you who is right behind China: The U.S. I think the best analogy I’ve ever heard to explain the situation, and the best characters ever created to illustrate it are: the Hershey’s Kiss experiment and the South Park boys. An American teacher, let's say Mr. Mackey, (though he's just the guidance counselor), did an experiment in his classroom. He put 100 Hershey's Kisses in a jar, lined up 20 students and explained that they could take as many Kisses for themselves as they wanted before passing the jar to the next student, mmmkay? When the jar reached the end of the line the Kisses would be doubled and the jar would be passed again as many times as it takes until it's empty, mmmkay? So Kenny takes a few, Stan takes a couple, Kyle takes a few Timmy takes one, Jimmy Vulmer takes a couple and then the jar gets to Eric Cartman with 89 Kisses still left. The other students are pleading with him to only take 2 or 3 so that at the end of the line there are 50 left and the jar will start at 100 again and everybody will have an endless supply of FREE chocolate. But Cartman just can't understand it. He takes the 89 Kisses for himself. And feels just fine about it. The kids say, "But Cartman, we all could have had chocolate for life!" He says, "Yeah but then I wouldn't have been able to do THIS," he shoves all 89 Kisses into his mouth and says, "Nyah nyah, I ha mo oc lit an yeeuu!"

This was an actual experiment done in the States and aparently there are Cartmans in every classroom there. I've done it in some of my classrooms in Korea and even though they are all about money over there I was proud of my students! They caught on and nobody Cartmaned the whole jar. I guess they are a bit behind the States in their corporate training. But which of the South Park kids would you bet your money on becoming the most "successful" in America?

Here's Cartman eating the skin off the KFC him and the gang were going to share. Kyle, Stan and Kenny are helping bring in the rest of the groceries. Cartman doesn't help bring in the groceries, eats the best part off everybody's KFC then goes home. There you have it, the model citizen in modern society. He will be CEO of a huge corporation some day.

My point is we have to stop encouraging antisocial, corporate behaviour in our government and in our societies. And if people refuse to stop thinking of themselves and their money before anything else, they must be corrected. And how about a little bit more reward and encouragement for people who think of other people?

How can we correct a government that has gone corporate? I'm glad I asked that question. The one part of the David Suzuki interview I didn't like was when he was asked for some concrete suggestions and out came that dusty old political panacea, "VOTE!" Well, he's a biologist, give him a break. But I find it really strange how even the smartest people seem to think we have no power in the situation we're in. The media continues to feign confusion or misunderstanding about the concrete issues the MWS protests are about. Well Suzuki nails the issues perfectly in the interview but the act of voting is actually just enabling the corrupted, corporatized system that is messing everything up. What can we dooo? Superman save us!

I think I'm going to draw a cartoon. It'll be a huge, money-eating monster ravaging the cities of Canada and a couple of Canadians saying to each other, "How can we stop this monster?!?" "I don't know, help me feed it this dump truck full of income tax cash, will ya?" Again, it's all about the training. Almost 100 years ago the government incorporated income tax to help in the war effort during WWI. It was a TEMPORARY tax. They have been collecting this tax from us for almost 100 years since the war ended. And that makes up a reported 40% of our government's revenue every year! But we are all well trained to pay our income tax every year. We even pay money to H&R Block to have them figure it out FOR the government. That's like digging our own grave, (or paying the grave digger bill), before being murdered. If we were thinking straight we would realize that our government owes the people of Canada TRILLIONS of dollars in illegally collected backtaxes. Or they should at least be thrown in jail. But it's pretty hard to put all the politicians from the past 100 years in jail.

Now flip that around. If we stopped paying income tax, (like we should have YEARS ago), they couldn't put us all in jail. Of course the government would complain that the 40% cut in their revenue would make their jobs so much more difficult. But would a single MP cancel a vacation, postpone a purchase or go without his/her regular raise? Of course not! They would pass the burden on to... who? Now you're catching on, US. So we would have to kindly request that the government reinstate the corporate taxes they cancelled not so long ago. And then request politely that they add some more taxes on top of them. There are THREE concrete suggestions about what we can do in Canada.

And when they don't work, which they likely won't, THAT'S when things are gonna get REAL all up in this bitch. There are lots of things we can do to take down the corruption at the top. They're soft and we are the workers. There is no way they should be able to bully us. I'm looking forward to kicking this bully's ass.

Dave's Canadian Budget

Yesterday I found "The Shakiest Gun in the West" on Youtube and decided I'd watch it for old time's sake. The last time I saw that things were sure different in Canada! I had a job where I was earning a good living at 10 bucks an hour and if I wanted some midnight munchies I could go out and get a bag of cheese popcorn for less than 2 bucks.

I am earning a SHYTE living now at 10 bucks an hour and I got a bag of cheese popcorn to eat while watching the movie last night. It cost almost 5 bucks! But cheese popcorn isn't the thing that has gone up in price the most since then. Not by a long shot. I was looking at tuition prices for the English program at Lakehead U. That's where I graduated in 1994. In the 17 years since then the price, (and this is only tuition, not books, rent and other essentials while you are studying), has QUADROUPLED!

I am noticing a trend in the news stories they put out nowadays. It's what I like to call "False Flag Journalism." They write a story telling the truth about something like prices going up in Canada or taxes getting worse and try to make it appear like they are concerned about how things are. Then they give statistics and half truths, (and sometimes NON-truths), that totally downplay the situation and make is seem not so bad. One recent article was about the .04% inflation rate in Canada or some crap like that. Well if you figure the inflation rate of my tuition it's damn near 25%. Why don't I see an article written about that? Another example was an article in which the author stated that pajamas, pillows and some other p word, I dunno, pickles were more expensive in Canada than in the States. Hello? McFly? EVERYTHING is more expensive in Canada than in the States. Even things we MAKE in Canada!

I think the big problem here is taxes and since I am now paying them again I have a right to bitch about them. And I'll need to prepare for the beating I'll take this year through taxes so I best make myself a budget. So here goes: a history of Canadian taxes and just a few examples of the greed/corruption that has gone along with them and made Canada such a ridiculously expensive place to live. This WON'T be false flag journalism so if you can't stand anything bad being said about Canada, even if it's the truth, stop reading now.

Before 1867 Canada was a nice place to move to because there weren't any taxes. People from England were showing up to get away from the taxation in their land. But at least at home they had the collection of said taxes under the pretense that God had chosen the royal family to rule Mother England and all the subjects of the royal family should give God his just deserts through His representative family. Or whatever...

Here in Canada did you ever wonder where taxes came from? I'll tell you where they came from. Out of NOwhere, that's where they came from. In 1867 the Constitution Act assigned federal parliament power over "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation." And the provinces received something similar. This was not a price paid for someone new moving to Canada, it was just a bunch of Canadian people who presumed to tell a larger bunch of Canadian people that they HAD to give them a portion of their money because this group called "government" knew how to do exactly that, govern the country and the average person was too stupid to do it him/herself. And maybe they were right because, as has since become our specialty, the large group of Canadian people said, "Oh, well, I dunno, that seems, um not so, oh, um, er, well okay, I guess..."

But it wasn't so bad. About 90% were indirect taxes. Until 1917 when the Borden government introduced a temporary tax called "income tax" that was only a temporary measure to aid in the temporary fighting overseas. Oh and in politcalese "temporary" means "permanent" at least where taxation is concerned. By 1946 with the political advent of WWII, the Canadian government was bold enough to change the taxation system to where less than 40% was now indirect tax. And the Canadian citizens said, "Oh, well, I dunno, I'm kinda tired of fighting after these two wars, not to mention paying for them, so I'll just say, well, um, okay, I guess..."

And nowadays, as I have become abundantly aware since returning to Canada, we, as citizens of this great country, are nothing more than numbered consumers. We're commodities to those few in charge, the rich, the corporate, the banks who all control the government in order to get the highest yield from each of us. All through taxation. If you think I'm being a negative Nancy here, capital tax, which was introduced at the end of the 19th century and is a tax charged on a corporation's taxable capital was eliminated on the federal level on Jan. 1, 2006. Did you know that? Did you vote for that?

On the provincial levels Ontario got rid of this nasty tax on the only people in their provice who could afford it on, (how patriotic!), Canada Day, 2010. I think in B.C. it was axed on a more appropriate day, April 1, 2010 because we are fools to let corporations pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us in Canada! A study, (they had to do a study to figure this out?), done in 2007 found that the richest in Canada pay the lowest rates of tax of all income groups. Last fiscal year the government collected 3 times the amount of personal tax as it did corporate tax. And without capital tax, even lower now. And the rest of Canada said, "Well, um, yeah but, we don't really like, um, er, uh, oh well, okay."

We still have the "temporary" income tax. That makes up about 40% of the government revenue every year. Or so we're told. In a study done in 2005 it was reckoned that the average household making the average Canadian income, (that's gross including social security contributions by employer), paid a personal income tax of 31.6% of his/her wage if he/she was single. Only 21.5% if married with two kids. I've DONE it folks! I have found the one and only GOOD reason to get married and have kids!!! Oh well too late for me.

But don't be fooled. We don't pay only 31.6% of our income, (our GROSS income), on taxes. We should BE so lucky! What if you have a house? Property tax makes up 10% of the government's total tax revenue in Canada. Or so we've been told. A house is one of those things that people HAVE TO have. In economic terms I think these things are called "inelastic" goods because supply and demand doesn't affect them. People always need them. So the government wouldn't be evil and take advantage of people by taxing essentials would they? Well only a little. There is property tax. But don't worry, if you die and leave your house to someone in your will there is no estate tax in Canada! Good news! It was abolished by Trudeau.

Uh, but, um, when a peson dies there IS a "deemed disposition" of all capital property. This includes stocks, bonds, RRSP's and, yes, real estate. What it means is your capital property is treated as sold at fair maket value on the day of your death. Your estate must pay capital gains tax on all that property, which, um, er, CAN be over 50%! We have to pay it when we die but corporations don't have to pay it any more. So if a house is passed on twice, the government gets its full value. Or at least COULD get. If it's passed on from generation to generation the government gets more value from it than you. So I guess they DO take advantage of the Canadian taxpayer on the home.

So that's 31.6% income tax. Add to that the payroll taxes like E.I, C.P.P., Worker's Comp., Employer Health Tax etc., which is about 12% That's 43.6% of our income. Considering the average renter and/or mortgage payer tends to pay 35-40% of his/her wages on their home, (a guy making 10 bucks an hour and living in Victoria pays WAY more than that! Like 60%), we're now up to 78.6. Since the government will gauge us if we try to sell or even GIVE AWAY our houses, let's say 80% shall we?

But what about another essential: food? Surely we all have to eat to survive. Our government isn't going to screw us on THIS front are they? Well this one is complicated. There is, of course, a varying group of sales taxes on food anywhere from the Albertan's 5% to 15.5% in P.E.I. And I remember when certain essentials like food didn't have sales tax I'm sure of it! Nowadays there is supposed to be no G.S.T. charged on food or essentials but we've all seen it. One of the tricks of the proposed H.S.T. was to allow taxation of extra essentials like toilet paper and other things. Who are we kidding, in 10 years it'll all be taxed anyway. Between tariffs, duties, store mark-ups, inflation and who knows what else food already IS hugely taxed. As illustrated with the cheese popcorn, it ain't getting any cheaper! In this study it was figured that the average monthly grocery bill in Canada per person was $244.00 per month. That's about $3000.00 a year. If you take home $30,000 a year these days in Canada you are pretty damn lucky so let's say food is about 10% of our budget.

That puts us up to 90% already! And we're not even through with the essentials! Or at least what I would consider essentials... Let's look at some well known hidden taxes our beloved government charges on us. Excise taxes are sometimes called "Sin" taxes because they are often associated with things that aren't necessary and some people consider bad, like alcohol or cigarettes. It's pretty tough to get actual figures on how much these taxes are. Only the government really knows. But I have it on pretty good authority, (whatever that is), that 67% of cigarette prices are taxes and government mark-up. (That's before sales tax is added to the other two taxes). 48% of the price of gas. For distilled spirits the tax is $11.06 for a 1 litre bottle. I couldn't figure it out for something that is more of a staple than a luxury: beer. But the brewers pay a tax, ($2.30/case), and then the consumers pay too. In 2004 Canadians paid 1.005 billion in GST on booze, 1.221 billion in excise tax and 3.567 billion dollars on government mark-up. They can get away with that because government regulation on alcohol sales creates a monopoly. That's illegal for any other goods but for alcohol, cigarettes, gas, gambling, hydro and lots of other things, it's okay. Cuz they're the government!

Wait a sec! Now we're getting into some things that aren't luxuries! We all have to pay heat, hydro, water, gas, cable, internet and these things we call utilities. This will definitely eat up the other 10% of your budget. So now the average Canadian has spent all of his/her money on tax. Well except for food and utilities, which are mostly tax. Almost 100% tax rate. Oh Canada!

What if we want anything like a car, gas, entertainment, or things that aren't necessary to keep a good consumer, uh, I mean citizen alive? Since we've spent 100% of our money on the essentials, (and don't forget we haven't even included SALES TAX!), we can't afford this other stuff. I guess this is all supposed to be purchased by the rich with the money the government saved them in capital and corporation taxes. So we shouldn't mind if it's taxed a lot. No, don't worry, the government will give you credit to buy the luxuries and then tax the crap out of the money you borrow and call it "interest!" Yes, banks ARE government too, Sparky.

And then there are the cases of double taxation. This, our govenment has told us for years, is something they are trying to make sure NO Canadian has to endure. When I buy a pack of smokes I pay sales tax on my excise tax don't I? Not to mention on the government mark-up. Same with booze. Income tax when not paid immediately accrues interest. That's tax on top of tax. The duty charged on the price of a product made cheaply in China is charged to make local prices more competitive. We pay sales tax on all duty and tariff price hikes, not just the original prices.

These "inelastic" goods that the government taxes include cigarettes and alcohol and things people become addicted to. THAT'S why nothing affects the demand! There are proposed excise taxes to TV, fatty food, internet, cable, even prostitution. A couple guys in Quebec got addicted to gambling between 1996 and 1999. They made some huge bets on some longshots and were lucky enough to cash in to the tune of millions of dollars. The government called them up in 2000 and said they wanted their cut of that since the gambling constituted a business and was subject to taxation. The judge ruled that there was no evidence of a ?system? so the brothers won. So if you gamble with a system, (???), it's a business and they'll try to get THAT too.

Insert your own outrageous Canadian tax story here.

The average Canadian gets battered all year by taxes and then in April he/she gets ass-raped by income tax. AND WE, (with the help of H&R Block), ARE FORCED TO DO IT ALL OURSELVES AT OUR OWN EXPENSE! Now I remember why I went to Korea.

But, I have hockey, er, um, good beer, fresh air, um, er, I dunno, cheese popcorn, humm, humm, Kraft Dinner, haw, haw, I guess I'll do it too, I guess, um, humina humina, er...

Dawkins: The Blind Watch Faker

Won't Richard Dawkins please just go away? His moment in the sun is over. It's sad watching him talk about the origins of the universe acting like he has even an inkling of an idea of what's going on like an audience member at a magic show pretending to understand the magician's tricks by saying, "It's all smoke and mirrors." Dawkins, once known as Darwin's pitbull, IS very much smoke and mirrors and the sad part is not the many fans who have read, or claim to have read his books and support him and the educationally, and societally mandated "MEME" of Darwinist thinking, it's that it's pretty obvious he's a smart enough guy to know he's full of shit. The more he studies, the more he realizes this, but he is so completely invested in his false cause that he can't just change his mind now.

Although, in the spirit of science, which I think he genuinely DOES respect, it would not be out of character to completely flip-flop. Science does it all the time. And scientists constantly disagree. Even though they are always claiming to require hard evidence and uncompromised objectivity as the basis of scientific method. One wonders how these things could happen... Is the Earth flat or round? Are birds related to dinosaurs or not? Are brontosaurus and triceratops just mistakes? Are eggs good for me or not? Is light actually the fastest thing known to man? What the hell happened to Pluto?

I don't think it will be long before this whole wave of Darwinist, evolutionary thinking will be just another famous scientific flip-flop. Evolution happens. That's not what I'm debating. It's the extent that people, most who claim science as their ally, carry it. A scientist I once read defined faith as assumption based on imagination. In the interview above, O'Reilly's very first statement was that it takes more faith to believe in what Dawkins is shovelling, natural selection, than to believe in intelligent design. If people bother to actually READ "The Origin of Species" they'll find a lot of passages where Darwin virtually says he's probably wrong. And if one was to pick up a copy of Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker" he/she would find Dawkins elucidating, in chapter 2, the wonders of bat echolocation and writing the following:

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully
'designed' to have come into existence by chance."

He then spends the rest of the book saying that Darwin and Wallace took a "very large leap of the imagination" but there's no faith, there's no design, there's a much more plausible way that the wonders of cre - (oops I almost typed "creation"), the universe came about. How can a person use words like "plausible" and then claim to be scientific? There's no plausible in science. It is or it isn't. As Dawkins says in this interview, "Somethings got to either be true or not." At least it's supposed to be that way. But when convenient, Dawkins can just flippantly say, "We're working on it." We BELIEVE in it 100% but we're working on it. There goes evidence and there CERTAINLY goes objectivity. How can terms like "natural selection" be used for that matter? If nature, as Darwin, Wallace and Dawkins are constantly telling us, is just an inanimate, non-sentient force, how can it make a selection?

This book, "The Blind Watchmaker," was also the origin of the word, "meme," which I hated long before I knew Dawkins was responsible for it. Could, irony of ironies, everything he writes about and believes be just that? A meme? I think so. But I'm not going to just hypothesize and pass it off as scientific fact. Let's explore this a little bit more and see exactly how "plausible" it is. I'm not inclined to think, "Well the guy wrote a book and he's on T.V., he must know what he's talking about."

Back in 1802, (50 years before The Origin of Species), William Paley used a famous analogy to explain why we believe in a Creator when we see nature. It was called the Watchmaker Argument or Analogy. It was something like if a person who had never seen a watch before found one in the wilderness, he would conclude that it was a product of intelligent design. It had a creator. A watchmaker. The thing most people DON'T know about Paley is that he compiled a staggering catalogue of evidences of intelligent design from mostly the human body but also the animal and plant kingdoms and he said that all of these evidences were much more compelling than the watch in their complexity. Let's not forget that the watchmaker analogy is macroscopic. We know that cells are divided into parts made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, some of which are made of sub-particles. And in 50 years maybe sub-sub particles or sub-sub-SUB particles will be discovered. The irony is that because of scientific knowledge, (which evolutionists are always claiming to support THEM), we know that the watch is actually a watch made of millions of tiny pieces even more complex than watches, which themselves are made of billions of even tinier pieces more complex than watches. And there is undoubtedly MORE going on there that we can't yet see. What kind of person could understand this and not take it as a compelling argument for creation over random happenstance? Someone who has TREMENDOUS faith!

Even though he uses phrases like, "increasingly fewer," talks about seeing Apollo not looking so good, O'Reilly is absolutely right. And Dawkins knows it. Come on!

Also in the same book Dawkins expands on what he calls the more "plausible" explanation of how things come about. He created a program called the Weasel program. It was designed to randomly generate the Shakespearian phrase, "Methinks it is like a weasel," from Hamlet. A parent of randomly generated letters was created and it bred offspring through random mutation. In his own opinion his program would have taken a million, million, million, million, million years to produce the phrase. As further research has shown, he was way off. Monkey typing Shakespeare programs have been tested all over the place and the best they have ever done was in 2005 when the first 24 characters from Henry IV were randomly typed. It only took 2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey years to get it. Whatever the hell that means... Another typed "Valentine Cease to idor:eflpoFrjwK78axzv" the first 19 characters of Two Gentlemen of Verona, and THAT only took 42 billion billion billion monkey years. Considering the age of the earth, the streak of 24 characters, the best ever recorded, would take many billion billion earth ages. The complete works of Shakespeare are about 4.5 million characters. Yet there are people who still believe that a room full of monkeys would eventually bang that out if given enough time. That's just a complete misunderstanding of how random works, which undoubtedly contributes to their belief in evolution. Or it's incredible faith!

Back to the weasel program. Dawkins wanted to randomly generate a phrase of 28 characters with it. As we now know, that just ain't gonna happen. And it didn't. But did that stop Dawkins? No. He then changed to program to CHOOSE the closest progeny to the desired quotation. This, according to Dawkins, "shows" or "demonstrates" the ability of natural SELECTION to generate biological complexity out of random mutations. Well hold on now! These mutations were no longer random. Like I said before, call it choosing or selecting, that's intelligence. All Dawkins has done here is Goded up his Godless program. It's not random any more. But even if you inexplicably believe, as so many did, that this is proof of natural selection, there is a much bigger problem: it took 43 generations.

24 mutations to the same species. 23 useless spandrels that only became useful after the 24th mutation in the 43rd generation. Dawkins was quoted as saying that the probability of a gene mutating is less than one in a million. What then are the odds of something mutating 24 times? Don't make the mistake of thinking it's only one in 24 million. Every mutation raises the odds exponentially. That's what Shakespeare's monkeys showed us. 24 mutations is not gonna happen. Add to this that mutations very rarely make something more attractive or better able to survive. Genetic material is not gained but lost during a mutation. Mutations are often lethal. Some examples we know are cystic fibrosis, sicle cell anemia, Down's syndrom and cancer. We naturally mate with attractive survivors. Mutation almost always makes the mutant less likely to procreate. Anything different is usually scorned. AND, a lot of mutations are recessive. That is they will not be passed on unless BOTH parents have them.

Taking all the SCIENCE into account, this model was insanely inane. But it was lauded as hard scientific evidence of natural selection by a LOT of people. People with a LOT of faith.

In the same book Dawkins uses an eye for an example. He begins with a simple organism capable of only distinguishing between light and dark. Then through a series of what he calls "plausible" minor modifications the organism builds in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant, complex, mammalian eye. This is not science, it's science fiction! Any REAL scientist knows that this is absolutely absurd! Zoologist Pierre Paul Grasse, former president of the French academy of science observed that a single animal or plant would not require 24 but thousands and thousands of these luckily approprate events called mutations.

Another highly respected scientist, Dr. Lee Spetner sat down and figured the odds of developing a single new species through mutation. He multiplied the rate of mutation by the chance of it being advantageous by the chance of mutation spreading through the species by the lowest number of steps required to form a new species. Though he used numbers VERY favourable to the evolutionists, the resulting odds were one in 3.6 x 10 to the power of 2738. That's 36 with 2737 zeroes behind it. The average biologist estimates there to be 15 million species on the Earth. Some say up to 100 million. It has been proposed that 90% of the species on Earth have yet to be identified.

Add to all of this the ecosystems' interdependance, the rotation of the Earth, the wind, water, seasons, volcanic action, rocks, gasses, stars, clouds, rain, lightning and then contemplate that we are just one planet in a HUGE universe that is probably one in a huge number of universes! For all we know everything could be made of an infinity of particles each more microscopic than the last, and the expanse of the universes may be endless as well. Infinity both ways. Infinity: the Achilles heel of the whole Darwinist movement. The only thing more astonishing than the vast miraculous nature of our universe is the incomprehensible FAITH in the unfortunate people out there who either don't see, or pretend not to see any evidence of a Creator here.

Least that's how I see it.

Are we REALLY that sensitive or is it just the media?

I figured I had to say something about the recent scandals in the NHL and God love the media, they're all fired up about hockey starting again, as we all are, (at least those of us full-blooded Canadians with maple syrup running through our poutine-clogged arteries), and all the hockey pundits have so far is this watered down, rookie shinny to report on. But geez, do they have to make stories where there aren't any? The season is just a few days away. We aren't going to have a strike or a lock-out, (touch Sher-wood), and hockey will give you guys plenty to write about then. Just be patient.

Dustin Byfuglien overweight and boating under the alfluence of incahol. First of all, boating while drinking, IN MINNESOTA. That's not a crime, it's a state sport. I think it actually says on their licence plates, "Minnesota: land of 10,000 booze-cruisin' lakes," or something like that. Secondly he was reportedly 286. The talk was that he was a sloppy 40+ lbs overweight. The fact is even in mid-season he stresses the load cells at a crease-filling, teeth-rattling 265. A lot of guys will need to trim 20 pounds or so. For Buffs it'll be easier since it's a much lower percentage of his weight. Just a couple of unimpaired fishing trips ought to do it.

Then Sept. 22nd some jackass threw a banana peel at Wayne Simmonds during an overtime shootout attempt. This was perceived by sensationalist media as a "racially motivated action." Now come on! Banana-->monkey-->black guy? Is that what was really going through his head? Or do you suppose the fact that Simmonds had previously scored the game tying goal to force the shootout had something to do with it. Maybe the fan just threw what was handy hoping to distract him so he didn't also score the game WINNING goal. I mean if it had any underlying message, any metaphorical significance, any allusionary merit, my first thought would be an homage to slapstick comedy's slipping on a banana peel gag. This is going to get graphic here and some of you who have been brought up on the weak, politically correct, "pinko" borsht they are calling public opinion nowadays will not be able to handle it but, for crying out loud if I wanted to make a racist ice toss a banana peel would not be high on the list. Why not a piece of fried chicken, a black-eyed pea, some collared greens, grits or any kind of soul food? Why not some malt liquor or orange Fanta? Hell a banana wouldnt even be number one on the list of racist FRUITS to throw, although a watermelon might present some logistical problems. The fan has been named, caught and charged but only with interfering with the game. Not with any kind of hate crime. I think that's the right thing to do. Reports say he expressed remorse for his action. What they don't say is that he probably doesn't admit to his action being racist in intent. And you have to give him the benefit of the doubt. No matter how much you might want to commit reverse racism, (which is just as bad), and protect all black people against racist behaviour, real or imagined, it just gets a little bit dangerous when the courts start thinking they know what people are thinking. Wayne Simmonds is taking the high road and shrugging the whole incident off. Good for him. I call that class. The race riot-inciting, hyperbolic media who have made this the most over-analyzed piece of fruit since Eve's pear or mango or apple or whatever it was... not so much.

Then, less than a week later the movement to have Wayne Simmonds canonized as a martyr took a solid body check when he reportedly made a "homophobic slur that included a three-letter word that begins with the letter F." In his defence he directed it toward Sean Avery who is a player that everyone with the possible, (but maybe not probable), exception of his teammates, has called much worse. Last year James Wisniewski said, "Blow me" to Avery to the thunderous applause of fans at the game and watching on TV. Earlier in 2010, Avery magnanimously offered to stand by any NHLer who decided to come out of the closet. So I suppose overreaction to the word "fag" was necessary to back up his promise. Anyway, now there's talk of regulating the trashtalk between players on the ice.

Every season there's talk about getting rid of fighting. This year I've heard the idea thrown around that a penalty should be assessed if a player so much as touches the head of another. Are hockey fans REALLY this sensative? HOCKEY FANS? No. In fact this year in NHL '12 one of the most popular additions was the goalie fight. I absolutely have no doubt at all that a hockey broadcast in which the announcers were allowed to swear would be immensely popular!

As is almost ALWAYS the case, I agree with Don Cherry on this.

Nuff said.

Therapeutic Chick Fights

You don't see a lot of physical fights between two girls. And although this is a tragedy to most men, none of us know just how tragic it really is. Women need to fight more. Whether it's in bikinis and chocolate pudding or not, that's up to them, but I reckon the world would be a darn site better with more hair-pulling, eye-scratching, blouse-tearing entertai - uh, girl fighting.

Why, you ask, oh curious onlooker waiting to see how I dig myself out of this hole, (and secretly titillated by the prospect of my actually digging myself deeper into it). Because women are so rarely violent physically, they get BRUTAL verbally. Terribly violent verbally and should you suggest this to most women being starved of physical stress relief as they are, they will argue for hours with you, or AT you. I have known a few women, unBiblically, who, in moments of alcoholically induced unguardedness have admitted it. They ARE like the Mean Girls in Tina Fey's movie. By the way, Tina, if you're reading, I still want to marry you.

I wanted to see how far I could get in this entry without using the simplistic, dismissive, overused term, "bitch" in any of its forms and as it turns out this is how far. Women can be absolute BITCHES to each other. And out of this there arise a few phenomena, one of them being the tomboy. We all know some of these. Girls who are more like guys. They hang out with mostly guys, talk like dudes, dress like them, cuss like them, fix cars, chug beer, pee standing up, fear commitment, understand the blueline trap and, yes, occasionally have a scrap. I think one of the reasons why tomboys prefer the company of men is because they are just tired of verbally violent bitches.

There are also, from what I can see, an increasing number of non-masculine girls who just prefer the company of men as a form of non-sexual, non-commercial, friendly recreation. The "just one of the boys" girls. Some of these gals have little or nothing to do with the ladies. Why would they? Think of what they get. If they are in ANY way attractive, or even not, they have a prolonged first date, job interview, chair pulling, door opening lapdog loyalty that comes from the perception in the hormone-addled brains of the boys, no matter how miniscule the reality might be, that there just might be a chance of tappin' dat!

Now the Sally to that Harry is that there are plenty of married or otherwise unavailable gals and fellas who are in relationships like this. But there's always cheating. For those of you who are naysaying right now, let me be quick to remind you, Harry DID bang Sally in that movie.

But back to the verbal violence. Recent changes all over the world, specifically regarding women in workplaces have been a blast of WD40 to female verbal violence viscosity. Women, either through legislation or merit, have risen to positions in the workplace where traditionally there had always been men. The perception of the public, co-workers, employees, peers and most importantly in the minds of these women, that it wasn't just qualifications that landed them their jobs makes them bound and determined to change that perception. Usually they hammer their workers and/or superiors into shape with the same tactics they use on their girlfriends to prove they are just as tough - FUCK THAT - twice as tough as any dude... thereby possibly undermining any legitimate strategy there might have been to have a woman in the position rather than a man.

I think it's interesting to look at some of the varying tactics, wiles and warfare used by women waging verbal battles on girlfriends, male-friends or co-workers. And these are not exclusive to women, just what I'm noticing in a lot more women.

1. The Bubbler- This is the gal who thinks she can be as Machiavellian as she wants so long as she does it in a sweet, giggly, chipmunk voice. And she's probably right. At least with her male co-workers because we don't leave our libidos at home when we go to work, and some people find the violin squeaking, bagpipe caterwauling voice attractive.

2. The Admitter- This is the chick who thinks we actually forgive her when she says things like, "I have a pretty big ego," "I don't allow other people to disagree with me," or even, "I am a bit of a bitch," and says them with PRIDE! Is there such a thing as genuine self-deprication?

3. The Guilter- Aparently crafted from its infancy to the manipulative collosus it now is by Jewish mothers, the rest of the world now knows about this. And it's perfectly fine if the world doesn't thank them. No they have much more important things to do, the world does. The Jewish mothers completely understand...

4. The BEEATCH- Aparently crafted from its infancy to the manipulative collosus it now is by head-bobbing, stop-sign-brandishing, finger-snapping black women. It's SO effective that you will notice I had to include it AFTER the thing about the Jewish women just so black beeatches don't think I'm singling them out due to their race. Well it's not just the black ladies any more. These women don't just tell you they're bitches, they do all they can to fortify their personal legend of bitchitudinous behaviour. With pride!

5. The Blitzer- Taken from the German military strategy known as the blitzkrieg in which the enemy is overwhelmed by high speed attack. These are the women with whom even non-work-related conversation is nothing but a battle for a short burst of air time. They can respond to the simplest of questions with a 5-minute barrage of verbocity that does nothing to address your concern but leaves you too exhausted to ask again. They will often just increase the volume of their non-stop harangue if they hear or even see hints of an interchange of ideas arising.

6. The Analyst- Due largely to Cosmopolitan magazine, Oprah and Dr. Phil, most women are unpapered psychoanalysts who are very willing to give pro-bono analysis even where it is not requested. They are skilled at psychological warfare and the methods and devices of its practice are well honed through chick flicks, Jane Austen, girls' night outs, pajama parties, sleepovers, pillow fights, sloppy, sexy mud wrestling... uh I digress.

7. And finally, the most dangerous of verbal villains, the Combo Girl. This is actually the norm. There aren't many girls who fall into just one of the above six categories. They like to diversify. The combinations are almost natural.

The problem I always have when I am dealing with these ladies is that I KNOW it's all just carefully studied, mimmicked and perfected behaviour and that they are still just the little sweethearts their parents know them as. The worst thing you can do is make them feel like they are unconvincing in their acts. Then they start getting malicious and subversive. You DON'T want them singling you out and trying to sabotage your career let me tell you! And the worst thing you can do is see through their act if you don't want to encur the wrath of the career woman. They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but I think a woman revealed or debunked is MUCH more furious! I've learned that you're probably safer just to play along.

So to all the bosses, co-workers, and verbally violent women I have known past or present, may your next figurative kick to the crotch fly true and may your next girl fight come sooner than later. Get out and beat up some other bitch. You know you want to. Start a female fight club. Give yourself Tyler Durdenesque assignments like starting and then LOSING a fight. You will thank yourself for the stress it relieves. And everyone around you will benefit.

How The Canucks Can Win The Cup (finally)

With the recent, (and sudden), change in the weather around here I have hockey on the brain. I went for a walk across the road to drop off an application for homestay students at the local schoolboard office and the crisp Vancouver Island air, and the sight of one of the neighbors' hockey nets in the driveway, gave me an uncontrollable itch to bust out the hockey stick and blast a few tennis balls at it. I wonder if they would mind...

For those of you who haven't read this stuff from time to time on one of my many blogs, I think I have a few good strategies that could make the Canucks good enough to win this year. Although they will be without Ehrhoff, Torres, Raymond and Kesler, (the last two indefinitely, the first two via the trade), I think they can do it. I am looking forward to seeing the effect Marco Sturm has on the club. He's got some offensive pop and can put the puck in the net. Should be good for 25 goals. He's very similar to Higgins, who I think will settle in with the new club this year and get 25 goals also. It's going to be a breakout year for Hansen, who will get more ice time with the loss of Kesler and Raymond. I am gonna stay consistant and predict 25 goals from him too. I would like to see a bit more of Hodgson this year. He was a scorer in jrs. and we could use him between Higgins and Hansen for the Triple H line. (Copywright D.MacCannell 2011).

I think we will see a more offensive year from Danny Hamhuis this year since Ehrhoff is gone. More goals and fewer hipchecks. I am making my pick for breakout player of the year to be the young blueliner Chris Tanev. I think he will still be considered a rookie this upcoming season and at 21 he's still a baby but he sure plays some seasoned D out there! It's tough to find defencemen who develop so fast. He's pure gold and he's a Canuck. I'd like to see Bieksa and Hamhuis as the top defence team and Tanev replacing Ehrhoff across the ice from Edler as the second duo.

I think I'm with EVERYBODY else when I say I'd like to see more of Schneider and less of Luongo. If you read my stuff I have NEVER been on the Luongo bandwagon and to all you folks who put all your hopes in him as the franchise player and scoffed at me for many years for saying he was overrated, I told you so. In an interview with Henrik last season he didn't quite say it outright but he hinted at what every Canuck spectator can see: the club plays a more entertaining, more successful, more offensive game in front of Schneider because they aren't worried as much about him letting in a bad goal. It'll be interesting to see how Manny Legace figures into the equation. Will the Canucks take a 5 mil. cap hit and just turf Luongo? Will ANY other team take him? We shall see. But as for those tactics that will enhance the Canucks play enough to win them the cup this year, here we go...

This is no joke, folks. The title should actually say, (or any OTHER team for that matter). But I’m trying to give the Canucks my advice so they can use it and maybe win a Stanley Cup before the rest of the teams in the league start copying them.

The NHL is a constantly changing league and professional hockey has been anything but static throughout its history. It’s only been 80 years or so that hockey players have been allowed to pass the puck forward for crying out loud. There have been all kinds of equipment, style and rule changes during that time too. And they are still happening. The trick is to jump on one of those changes before it becomes a band wagon. That requires some keen observation of the game, which I, ahem, am about to offer.

Goalies are no longer the guys who make saves so much as they are the guys who get into position so they will be in the way of the puck. In that way they can more accurately be called “blockers” nowadays. This is not a new thing. The butterfly style, the big equipment, the big bodies, the paddle down technique, are all methods that help goalies more effectively block shots rather than react to them and make saves. How does a sagacious coach adapt to this? There are a couple of ways that have been used successfully, though in blissful ignorance. What I’m saying is there are success stories out there but people haven’t yet caught on to the real reasons for the success and started employing them regularly.

The best method to beat the blockers is by deflections. The goalie will be in position to stop the original shot but will not have the time, reaction speed or in some cases, even the inclination to adjust and stop the deflection. This is not a new technique. It even worked on the reaction goalies of not so long ago. However, in the whole process of the deflection there is a key element that 90 percent of the teams in the greatest league in the world are doing wrong. That’s right, WRONG. Taking a slap shot from the point in hopes that it will be deflected is wrong for a few reasons and it baffles me that they are not being noticed. 1. The crappy, but expensive sticks that are used these days. Every single game has multiple stick disintegrations whereas 10 years ago you could watch a week of hockey without seeing ONE. I’ve seen these untempered twigs shatter on wrist shots and even passes, but generally the slap shot is the major cause of blue line breakage and the point shot for the deflection is the major use for slap shots. One solution would be to revert to the tried and true wooden stick, if you could find an old timer on a rockin’ chair to whittle one for ye.

My solution is this: wrist shots from the point. Another major way our beloved game is changing is the blocked shot. They didn’t even keep this stat until just recently. And it might as well be called “blocked SLAP shots.” Players don’t block wrist shots. Not on purpose. They can’t. It’s the wind-up of the slap shot that allows the goalie to get set, the defenseman to block and the stick to shatter. Not to mention the cold, hard fact that a wrist shot is going slower enough than the slap shot to make it easier to deflect but not nearly slow enough to render that deflection any less effective than a deflected slap shot. And, not mentioning any names, (Salo), but there are players with really hard slap shots that never seem to end up where they aim them. Wrist shots are much more accurate.

Only a few teams have picked up on this idea and one is the Canucks. They WERE using the point wrist shot to get them to the finals but their pointmen seemed to abandon the wrist shot against the Bruins. I’ll move on.

Staying with the best ways to beat the blockers we have to mention the one-timer. A pass moves faster than any goalie, but especially the burly, equipment-laden blockers of today. If you have the goalie set up for the save and you pass to a guy, he’ll have a completely different angle to shoot and a goalie who is out of position to block the shot, IF he can let it go in a hurry. The one-timer is rare in today’s dump and chase, cycle in the corner style of game. But boy it was fun to watch in the days when players were skating up and down the ice all game long. I have no statistical back-up for this but I’d bet there are less than half the average of rushes down the ice nowadays than there were in the average games of the 80’s. That’s when hockey was FUN! Fun to play for the players and SOOO much more fun to watch. It’s my understanding that “the trap” stopped that but now “the trap” has been legislated away by the league, right? Let’s get back to some scoring on the rush. At least give it a try.

When you think of pure goal scorers what names come to mind? Ovechkin, Selanne, Heatley, Iginla, Daniel Sedin, Cory Perry, Stamkos, Getzlaf, Vanek, Kovalchuk, Gaborik. How many of them are left wingers who shoot right handed? Or right wingers who shoot left handed? You could even throw Crosby’s name in there though he’s a center. But not on the power play. He is a lefty playing the right side. How many of the massive total of goals between these players have been of the one-timer variety? If a guy is playing his “off wing” the puck doesn’t have to cross his body before he can take a one-timer shot. This is such a deadly offensive weapon to have in a team arsenal! Many teams actually have it but don’t use it.

Imagine a line with Ovechkin shooting right on the left side, with Semin shooting left on the right side. With any serviceable centre on that line it should be deadly on the rush. What about Daniel shooting left on the right side, with Henrik playing centre and Kesler shooting right on the left wing? Again, deadly on the rush! But that’s not what they do is it? The Sedins, and the Canucks, would score even MORE if they would cycle less. No question in my mind. All around the league the one-timer is something that seems to have been relegated to power play use only. If that.

My final piece of information won’t actually get the Canucks more goals but it will make the extra goals they get more valuable. It’s not so much about how to beat the goalies, it’s about the goalies themselves. In this time of positional goaltending where, as mentioned, goalies are beefy, bumbling blockers who are just trying to stay in the optimum positions to get in the way of pucks heading to the goal, WHY are they skating out of their nets and handling the puck all the time? Isn’t this the exact opposite of every other strategy they are using? It seems simplistic to say but leaving the net empty is just not a good way to be in a position to block shots at it.

How many games were lost by one goal last season? I don’t know but a LOT. There was a point in the playoffs when excluding empty net goals ALL 13 games played were decided by one goal. I’ve been watching this for a while and I am noticing in ALMOST EVERY game I see a goal caused by one goalie or another straying to stop the puck behind the net, or a bungled pass by a goalie leading to a goal by the other team. Regular occurrences both of them. And in a league where one goal is usually the difference between winning and losing tell the damn goalie to stay in the goal! I love Corey Schneider but his one and only weakness is puck handling. Just don’t do it! How much does it really help when the goalie handles the puck? I know for absolute certain it doesn’t help teams as much as it hurts them. And the Canucks are no exception to this rule.

So there you have it: 1. Wrist shots from the point; 2. Decent lumber; 3. Off-wing one timers; 4. More rushing and less cycling; 5. Stay-at-home goaltending. These combined will get the Canucks a goal a game more, (and maybe save them as many). And in a league where most games are within a goal, this should be enough to get them the cup. As payment I would be willing to accept my name on the cup after the Canucks win it. Thank you very much.

Human Nature

Did you hear about this? Is it a dog's nature to attack humans? How bout EAT one? How bout EAT its owner? Most of the comments I read about this story are from people saying that they hope the dogs won't be put to sleep. It's not their fault. Even that the owner got what he deserved.

I'm not so sure pet neglect should be punishable by death but I wasn't feeling sorry for the guy either. I can't cheer for the Philadelphia Eagles even though they have some players that I like. Michael Vick is a ball-hoggin, overrated, dog-abusing, can't pass, glory hound and I won't cheer for a team he plays for. A person who participates in dogfighting is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is not superior to the dogs at all.

South Koreans hang dogs up and beat them just before killing them so that the adrenalin softens the meat and makes it taste better. This is the reason that, to my knowledge I never ate any poshintang, (dog stew), while I was in Korea, though it was offered to me a few times. Who are the more evolved creatures in this scenario, the dogs or the Korean people who torture and then eat them? And how many of us wish we could hear a story similar to the Indonesian one coming out of the dog farms of Korea?

Who do I like better, those Indonesian dogs or Michael Vick? No contest. Although I'd be a little nervous that they had developed a taste for human flesh, I'd rather play fetch the frisbee with those two dogs any day than hang with Vick playing, I dunno, throw the kittens into the hot oil. I could see Vick's defence for that, "What? I'm not harming any dogs! Make up your minds, people!"

I don't think it's natural for a dog to eat a human any more than I think it's natural for a human to eat a dog. Most of us will forgive the Indonesian dogs for eating their master because he was a douchebag and they were starving because of him. We generally CAN'T forgive Koreans for continuing to farm their soupdogs in the manner that they do because it's just not necessary. In the old days when they were starving, fine, eat what you can get. That can be forgiven. The torture probably developed after dog meat was eaten as a necessity only further illustrating the point I'm making. And here it is: Starving, torturing and killing dogs = pretty much unforgivable right? Unless there is some demonstrable necessity. And there's no way of proving this, but to me it just seems unnatural.

Now, why is it that every time you debate the necessity of the, (sorry for this), dog-eat-dog business environment of today where HUMANS are bought, sold, starved, tortured and killed, (though usually indirectly), by businesses and governments regularly, some good little capitalist will pipe up and say, "It's human nature."

If you throw two starving dogs a steak they might fight to the death over it. That's natural. If you throw two starving humans a hundred dollar bill, the same might occur. Even that could be called natural although being blessed with intellect the two should be smart enough to keep 50 bucks each. What is completely UN-fucking-natural is when people who are not starving, people who are a LONG way from starving, behave like starving dogs. When companies are paying employees 25 cents an hour to sew footballs or something for 12 hours a day every day, then selling them for 75 bucks apiece, calling it human nature is incredibly tolerant of people to my way of thinking. How much worse are the stories we hear all the time of people being impoverished or killed for business purposes?

Even if it were natural. Even if I could stretch my brain far enough to accomodate such an absurdity, so what? It's natural for people to be naked, right? We're born naked so it only makes sense to be naked all the time. What would the world be like if we did everything that was natural? Imagine everyone naked all the time. You go to visit your parents and they come down the stairs to greet you in the buff. Naked parents! I suppose we could get used to that, no? How about GRANDparents in their birthday suits? (shiver)

There'd be no such thing as flashers so that's a good thing isn't it? Of course I'd kinda miss strippers. Where would we keep car keys and spare change? And what if you didn't have a car and had to take the bus. The 500 previous users of the seat you are about to sit in were buck nekkid! I'd say it's over all a good thing that we don't behave naturally on this count though some nudists disagree.

But back to the point, it's sometimes better to behave unnaturally. If we were totally natural all the time women would be getting clubbed over the head and dragged to bedrooms every Saturday night. Forget the wining and dining. That's just not natural. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

And what about the Khmers of Cambodia? What about the Inuit? Native North Americans?I imagine there are tribes out there in the world today who have no concept of ownership. These were very successful societies intellectually, artistically, socially, even technologically, (no, people don't just lay around doing nothing without the motivation of money to keep them inventing shit). In Chinese when they were searching for a superlative for rich they used to say, "As rich as Cambodia." These societies ALL knew stuff that we still can't figure out today. Funny thing though, acquisitive, ownership-based societies tend to have highly developed militaries used for forcefully taking other societies's shit. They tend to be more "successful", but are they more developed, more NATURAL? Absolutely not.

In this day and age where there is WAYYY more than enough stuff for everybody to not only survive but be wealthy, people who run their businesses by the inexplicably almost universally tolerated, (and LEGAL), corporate philosophy of "profit at all cost," are cannibals. They're dog-fighters. They are people who are revered but really should be seen in the same light as the dog torturers, or worse. Let's go back a bit and do some word substitution: A person who participates in dog-fighting, (literal or figurative), is assuming a place of superiority over the beasts, (or employees, or customers, or competitors), that are savagely murdered for his/her pleasure, and by that very action proving that he/she is NOT superior to the dogs, (employees, customers, competitors), at all.

In the documentary, "The Corporation," the corporate ideals that are used for business are examined and a psychological evaluation is done as if that business were a person. The result: psychopath. Antisocial and dangerous deviant. About as far away from NATURAL as the East is from the West.

So, call me a socialist if that tired, old retort still gives you comfort. Call me a dreamer, an optimist, even unrealistic. But please don't tell me lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, torturing and killing over the bazillions of dollars in money and resources on the earth is "human nature" and wanting to share it isn't. These aren't the normal people in the world. THESE are.

Least that's what I reckon.