Fox News and Bias

I am so sick and tired of hearing how Fox News has a conservative bias. That is a load of the cow crap I had to smell yesterday while watching my brothers' football scrimmage. Fox News isn't conservatively biased; it is actually the less liberally biased of the news networks. So you can understand what I mean, imagine political orientation as a number line (and yes, I know libertarians will be pissed at me for saying that, but I would remind them that CNN and MSNBC ain't in favor of libertarian's beliefs either). Now, if a real conservative is 100 and a real liberal is 0 and an objective, non-partisan is 50, then CNN would be about a 7. Fox News would be closer to a 42 or so. Does that make Fox News conservative? Actually, no. But compared to the left-wing CNN, yes it does. This experiment can be understood in another way, as those of us in Michigan can attest to. 50 degrees outside doesn't sound that warm, but after 8 months of below freezing, it is warm enough to wear shorts.

So the next time someone complains about Fox's supposed bias, ignore 'em. In the real world, we call those people the un-enlightened fools. And whatever you do, DO NOT let them touch your money. Liberals cannot be trusted with money.

This reminds me of another lie perpetuated by liberals. They say Republicans give tax cuts to the rich, which actually isn't a lie because since the poor don't pay taxes, they can't really get a tax cut, now can they? Now, is it better to give money to a corporation that is gonna hire someone or to a celebrity so they can "feel" the pain of poverty and hold a concert (which only really accomplishes garnering publicity and to sell more records, of which, generally no money goes to the impoverished). So the next time someone asks you to give money to the poor, make sure the money is going to the poor, and not some extremely rich celebrity thinking about the poor.

Theory of Relative Punishment

So the other day, a 3 year old drowned while swimming at a beach. Sad, yes. However, if you get focused on the sadness, you miss the burning question. What the hell is a 3 year old kid doing swimming at a beach without a parent right next to them? Was this like the Tiger Woods of swimming? Did the kid's folks drop 'em off and say, "That kid will never be the next Greg Louganis if water ain't in his blood?" What the hell. In response, everybody was up in arms about warning people of the danger of allowing kids to swim by themselves. Ok, so before this story aired, there was one about a man who beat his wife and kids with a baseball bat. This is very sad as well. (It wasn't a great night of the news, but then again, it never is.) This man was accused of attempted homicide and child neglect or abuse I don't remember which exactly, as he should have been.

Ok, now that we got the info, here is the issue as I see it. A man who beat his kids, almost to death but they are still alive, was accused of child abuse or neglect. I totally agree with this. At the same time, a parent that left their kid alone to drown got exactly what? Well, other than the loss of a child, no legal issues at all. Now, for the guy whose kids are still alive, he's going to jail; the person with the dead child, they are walking among us. What message does that send to people? "Um...Yeah, if you want to kill your kids, just take 'em to the beach and let them drown cause if you hit them, you are going to jail, but if they 'accidentally' drown, that is ok by us." Just friggin' great.

Global Warming is Crap!

A scientist is supposed to run experiments to test hypothesis, as any educated high school or even middle school student will tell you. However, too often scientists decide to stake a position, no matter what the data or experiment says, and the media follows along. I wonder, if the Earth is warming, comparatively, how much data has been collected? The Earth has been here, what, how many millions or billions of years, and we are trying to base political policy on what, research since the 1970s? Didn't scientists have to take a statistics class? Don't they know how skewed the data could be just because they have so friggin little of it? Probably not. It doesn't fit their political agenda. And of course, liberals have never listened or accepted evidence very well, as their reasoning behind some beliefs clearly illustrates. (For example, gun laws that would send a person convicted to jail clearly deter gun crimes, yet the death penalty doesn't work one bit in deterring criminals? Yeah, that sure makes total sense.)

For the article this rant is based on (and to whose discussion board which I posted this) is here through this appropriately titled Global Warming Link.

Some random thoughts about myself

So I have come to realize, although most people would probably see me as outgoing and very extroverted, I actually think I am more of an introvert. I usually am really shy and nervous in strange situations and although lonely, I tend to spend a majority of my time by myself, keeping random hours and doing whatever I must to fill my time. I would say, the reason I appear to be outgoing is that I have found a way to connect with people, even if some may criticize me for it. I am talking about complaining. I have found, if you ever want or need an opening to start a conversation with a stranger, find something to complain about, like how slow an elevator is for example. While it is true flattery will win a person over, in cases where not enough information is known to attempt flattery, the mere act of trying to identify with someone through a mutual complaint can accomplish much the same thing as flattery without the appearance of trying to flatter someone. Anyways, those are my random thoughts this, well whatever it is, day night I have lost all track of the differences. I can only assume since the sun is rising as I write this that that is what time of day it is. Have a good whatevers it might be to you as you read this.

That whole Native American Mascot thing

Here's the deal. If Native Americans want universities to stop using mascots based on them, then all they need to do is give up one thing. Here in Michigan at least, if you have a certain percentage of Native American in you, you pretty much get a full ride to college. So, if they agree to be equal to the rest of us, and give up that extra benefit, I will gladly support them in stopping the use of the mascots.

I would also like to talk about two other issues where Native Americans need to address before they will have equality, well before everyone else gets equal treatment. First, have you ever noticed they are the only ones who can open a casino without a lot of difficulty? Why should they be allowed to be exempt from gambling laws? The second, they need to give back all reservation land. Now, I don't mean they can't own it; just that it will be considered just like the property anyone else owns. This will force them to pay taxes and estate taxes when they pass the land on to heirs, just like the rest of us.

We will never have MLK Jr.'s version of equality if we have legally allowed differences, or even group enforced ones. That means that by having BET, blacks aren't equal to whites, by having parades celebrating being gay, homosexuals will never be the same as heterosexuals, and by having reservations, Native Americans will always be separated from everyone else.

TV Commercial Complaint

So I was TV today and saw an ad for a female skin care project, Aveeno I think it was. The lady in the ad talks about how she doesn't want a moisturizer for one day, but for life. However, in the ad, it says to be used daily. Therefore, really what is the point of having a "for life" moisturizer versus one for a day? Think about it. You could use a day one everyday for the rest of your life and it would become a lifelong thing. I would expect that a "for life" one would only need to be used once. And this is why, guys shouldn't mess with this kinda crap.

Romantic Question

So I read an article today and decided I want to ask this question for the ladies just because I am curious. When dating a guy, would you prefer he gave you diamonds or took you on a horse-drawn carriage ride to the opera (or something similar to that if you are like me and would fall asleep at an opera)? The reason I ask is because a mathematical study has found "women" prefer gifts with no intrinsic, or resale, value. (I put women in quotes because no actual women were consulted, just math simulations and since we always hear how women aren't represented in the field of mathematics, who knows how accurate the models could be. Just think "male math dorks" if you don't believe me.) Anywho, I have had two private responses, one agreeing with the study, and the other agreeing in part.

Ending Unemployment

I have come up with the bestest plan ever to end unemployment in Michigan. How many of you have seen the Domino's "Two times Tuesday" ad with the guy looking for a "Hoo ha?" Have you noticed how many employees that store has? There are like 20 of 'em. Honestly, I have no clue how the hell they all fit in the store. So, all we need is to give Domino's a tax break to open more stores like that and bye bye unemployment. So, yeah, I'm a friggin' genius.

The True Questions in Life

Question mostly for women. How exactly does shouting out the names of female genitalia make women as a whole stronger? Now, don't peg me as a sexist, but frankly, with men, the guy who shouts "penis" the loudest doesn't come to power. I have never been in an argument with a guy, yelled penis, and he goes "well, s***, the bastard just used the penis power card." Hell, only women call men penises, come to think of it. Is that it? You tried calling men penises and it didn't work so now you will try to yell out women parts to gain power? (By the way, if two women fight, is the winner the first one to say "vagina?" Just wondering.)

Isn't it funny that the people who slam "Reaganomics," or supply-side economic policy, are the same people, when trying to get a business to come to their state or city, usually offer tax-incentives to come (ie. bring your business here and don't pay property taxes, etc.)? However, to be true to their demand-side, or Keynesian economics, tax benefits for corporations should never return positive results. So, therefore, why is it that cities and states offer these benefits?

Question I have never understood. If the death penalty does not have any effect as a deterrent, as liberals all tend to claim, exactly how do ads talking about sending someone to jail for a gun crime work? Maybe it is me, but I would think someone would be more concerned with dying than going to jail, especially in light of the fact that even if they aren't put on death row, they are still locked up for decades. Once again, the liberal mind has no grasp of logic. And they wonder why they aren't taken very seriously.

Some Great Quotes

"The ants are fascinated by the nipples on the caterpillar. Of course, I can't blame the ants."
- My former roommate Ben

"As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander-in-chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror. So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier."
- former Congressman Zell Miller

"Thank God for President George W. Bush, a man of the people."
- A caller on Newstalk 580 WTCM's Radio Graffiti out of Traverse City who calls in every day.