Piano Stairs Triamph Over Escalator

Volkswagen’s fun theory

Hello, Facebook Status Update . . . What’s Your Emergency?

Here’s one for the annual Darwin awards.

In early September, two teenagers became trapped in a storm drain in Adelaide, Australia. They had a mobile phone with them. Instead of using it to call emergency services (000 in Australia), they used it to update their Facebook status. → source

Technology in the wrong hands is a dangerous tool. I will now pause while you make your own jokes.

And don’t even think about defending these girls. Yes, I know that it’s better for many to call emergency services rather than only one. I also understand that texting usually uses less battery power than a phone call. Finally, I am well aware that if the girls were kidnapped and couldn’t talk, a Facebook update may have been more appropriate.

I’m betting it was none of the above. Considering that girls generally mature earlier than boys, long-term prospect for humanity frightens me. We’ve all done stupid things, but come on!

On a related note, I’d love to become a fan of “teenage girls trapped in a storm drain for an eternity, OMG OMG”, but can’t find the fan page.

This reminds me of a Steven Wright joke:

The other day at Macy’s the power went out. Fifty people were stuck on the escalator for half an hour.

Either these two girls are absolute idiots or they are visionary geniuses. Only time will tell. But for now, there’s only one thing to say: use your !@#$%^&* phone!

Stilettos Or Bust

That title ought to boost my traffic after a 4-month absence.

A wacky new thing is brewing in the UK. Unions and Podiatrists (now that’s a winning combination) are considering banning heels in the workplace. → source

Podiatrists state that wearing high heels can “cause blisters, corns, calluses, damaged joints, knee and back pain”. Gee, thanks for that penis-shrinking image. Also according to the article:

Some women argue that stiletto heels give them a power advantage in male-dominated workplaces because the shoes make them appear taller and enhance their sex appeal. Others consider the shoes demeaning and symbolic of the sexist subjugation of women and their health to satisfy male whims and fantasies.

I have news for those of you who think power and sex appeal come to women who wear high heels at work. It’s time to throw away your Snow White videos. You live in a fantasy world. The only men you gain power over are precisely the ones who see women as sexual objects in the first place. All you’re doing is fueling their fantasies. Duh!

I also have news for those of you who think heels subjugate and demean women. Wow, I applaud your misplaced sense of self-esteem! All those self-help, positive-affirmation books you’ve read have clearly given you a false sense of sexuality. It’s obvious that you think waaay too highly of yourselves. Trust me when I tell you that more than half of women in heels are not sexually appealing to males who do not use zit medication before being dropped of at High School. It’s time to get over yourselves.

Here’s another news flash. Why are high heels only about women? What about men? Have you ever thought about how wearing sexy heels may tease men? Aren’t you women, in a way, victimizing men? Think about it.

Why is there a debate? Why is wearing heels not the decision of each individual woman?

Heels or not, I personally don’t really care either way. I only have one request. Please refrain from wearing high heels with shorts under any and all circumstances. That’s not sexy in the least bit. Get a clue.

And as a parting gift, since I’ve alienated both men and women already, here’s a Yo Mamma joke:

Yo Mamma is so fat, she left the house in the morning in Stilettos and came back in the evening in sandals.

And no! That joke is not demeaning to women. It’s just a joke. If you disagree, then tell me how all the TV commercials depicting men as complete idiots and women as brains of humanity are not demeaning to men. See?!

Most Shocking Healthy Foods – This Is Why We Are An Overweight Nation

Macaroni Grill’s Parmesan-Crusted Sole

Yahoo Health published an article yesterday titled ‘The Most Shocking “Healthy” Foods! (And What You Should Eat Instead!)‘. It’s totally worth a glance.

These are some signature dishes at famous restaurant chains. According to the article, the worst of them was Macaroni Grill’s Parmesan-Crusted Sole (see picture): 2,190 calories; 141 g fat (58 g saturated); 2,980 mg sodium; 145 g carbs.

That’s your entire day’s allowance for calories. Enjoy.

Christian Hypocricy In Light Of Obama’s Notre Dame Commencement Address

Obama At Notre Dame

 

By now, we all know about President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. It was filled with controversy for Christians and especially for Catholics. Please! Get real! I have 2 quick observations:

First, I find it fascinating that the Republican party – the party that prides itself on less regulation and more personal responsibility – is so determined to pursue Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage and abortion. Whatever happened to leaving regulations to the States? Whatever happened to leaving personal matters to individuals’ decisions? Clearly, all that big talk apply only if they agree with your religious views and political agendas.

Second, let’s assume abortion is killing a living baby. I can truly accept and, in a way, believe that. Now, some one tell me how abortion can be viewed as a much worse act than killing a living person. Remember the 10 Commandments? Remember the sixth one: thou shalt not murder? No where does it say thou shalt not murder only the unborn. 

I find it absolutely hypocritical that most Christians who are so against abortion are precisely the same individuals whose core ideology is the same as that of Rush Limbaugh’s and Dick Cheney’s. The same ideology that merits we (the U.S.) are the king of the world, we should govern the world and protect ourselves at any cost, and if some innocent lives are lost in the process, so be it. Every time we drop bombs and rockets to kill terrorists, we inevitably kill some innocent by-standards in the process. Some of those innocent souls are children, newborns and even unborn. Therefore, we are violating the sixth commandment. Where’s the outrage? Where are the protests? 

In no way am I suggesting that we should not fiercely protect ourselves or avoid pre-emptive strikes. And I’m not so naive to think that we can do all that with no non-military casualties. But then I don’t have an existential crisis, and I’m not hypocritically against abortion while practically supporting the deaths of unborn and pregnant women in war. That is not for me to resolve. Those of you Christians who are against abortion and thought Obama’s visit to Notre Dame was an abomination must work this out between yourselves and your God. And be careful what conclusion you reach. If you believe that God agrees with your views and supports your plan, you have reached the wrong conclusion. It should be exactly the opposite!

Eternal damnation is not just for those who support or perform abortion. It is also for those who violate the sixth commandment. That could be you. Think about it.

Eating Bricks And Rocks For Breakfast. Yum, Yum

Parents, don’t let your kids grow up to eat anything they want. You should be firm: if you don’t eat your veggies, you can’t have any bricks for dessert.

Texas Board of Education Votes On Age Of Universe – Lying For Jesus, I See!

Here’s a new one from the “I know God agrees with me” files.

The Texas School Board recently held a meeting in which board member Barbara Cargill argued for improving Earth Science standard by replacing the phrase “the concept of an expanding universe that originated 14 billion years ago” with wording that “leaves it up to [students and teachers] to discuss how many billions of years“.

This is what happens when we humans futilely pretend to understand the true intention of the scripture, and attempt to awkwardly fit everything we know into what we believe the scripture says. Here are my observations:

• Everything we know, everything we observe, the amount of time it takes for the light of Sun to reach Earth, the gravitational models of stars, the orbits of planets, observed behavior of galaxies, carbon dating, etc. are all consistent with a universe that is about 14 billion years old. If you believe the age of the universe is only 6,000 years, then God must be personally sending your phone signals to cell phone towers, because those signals behave differently and have different speeds in a 6,000 year-old universe than ours.
• Can science explain everything? Of course not. There are major holes in all theories. Here’s the point. Gravity existed long before Newton worked on his gravitational theory. Similarly, the nature of gravity was unchanged when Einstein modified Newtonian gravity in his 3 dimensional representation of astronomical objects. Theory does not mean untrue.
• Contrary to what Ms. Cargill claims, there are not different estimates of the age of the universe. From a scientific perspective, the estimates are 13.7 billion years plus and minus about 200 million years. That’s an uncertainty of 1.5% which, by itself, does not constitute a different estimate. It’s a long way from 13.7 billion down to 6,000.
• From the “I know that literal interpretation of the Genesis is right and I’m sticking to it” perspective, the universe was created 1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue! If Jesus was around, he would reach out and slap you, followed by saying ‘if you’re not going to use the intelligence I’ve given you, then here’s your sign’.
• Don’t get me started on the idea of “God created an aged universe”. You’re only fooling yourself, not God. Again, all you’re doing is making a futile attempt at fitting everything within the model of what you think the scripture says. Wow, God sure seems like a very impatient fellow if he had to fast forward the age of the universe. I wonder what remote control model  he’s got? I want one.

Proof For Evolution – Testing A Bullet Proof Vest

This dude has balls. I’ll give him that. But balls alone do not propagate our species. Heeeeere’s your sign.

BTW, I saw no recoil when the gun was shot, so it’s possible this was staged.

Learn To Get What You Want Through Mutual Respect Rather Than With Force

There are 2 ways of getting what you want:

1. With force, rules and a heavy hand
2. With respect, love and affection, and mutual understanding

The art of negotiation requires education, information, experience, awareness, and an arsenal of tools. I’m not an expert in this area but, more often than not, I seem to be able to get what I want. And my approach, more often than not, in achieving persuasion is with a soft touch and through reaching mutual trust. 

Case in point: Police vs bicyclists without helmets

Religion Determines Which Side of Climate Change Debate You’re On

Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.

Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do.  We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.

That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.

In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.

If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.

If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.

Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.

Am I wrong?