Would you buy a Michael Vick jersey?

Vote Below

Do We Really Need The Humane Society?

In the light of the Humane Society's recent support of Michael Vick, one can't help but think: how exactly is the Humane Society being useful in the effort of humane treatment of animals?
They are actually a nationwide euthanizing operation. The shelter functions they provide are just PR to create positive image and recruit kind-hearted people to volunteer. Their goal is not caring for the animals, they just want them off the streets. If someone adopts them - fine, it'll save them the cost of getting rid of them, if not, well we know what happens. They use their PR image to recruit free labor and keep the euthanasia costs down. Helping Michael Vick is just another PR stunt for them. By doing that they are giving hope to all other despicable soulless murderous "businessmen", that they can keep on killing, and torturing animals - what's the worst that can happen - you go to jail for couple of years, and as long as you say "I'm sorry" the Humane Society makes you a hero and boom - you are back in business making money.
Vick is only sorry for what happened to his life and career, he is not sorry for the terror, pain and suffering he inflicted upon those poor dogs. Judging by what he says, it seems like he still does not comprehend "what the big deal is" about all this. He only knows that doing it sent him to jail and makes people upset - not him - other people.
Why don't the Humane Society recruit the thousands of devastated pet owners, who had their dogs stolen by dog bunchers (look it up) and sold as bait and training aide to the dog-fighting rings - the Michael Vicks of the world. They have the shocking stories and the pictures and the broken hearts that will never heal. Is that not hip and edgy enough for the Humane Society? Is that the reason why instead they are helping this murderer regain his celebrity and fat income again!
D I S G U S T I N G !!!
There are other organizations and pet rescue groups out there, who don't kill the pets and don't recruit despicable murderers for their PR campaigns. In this day and age, and all the options available, the Humane Society should only be considered "humane" in North Korea.

Brits: And by "better food" you mean...?

Reuters: "Organic food not healthier, study finds."Click on the story to show/hide the source

I have to apologize up front, because I post this mostly to be sarcastic about how of all people Brits are the ones to say that difference between good and bad food is negligible. According to this Reuters' story found on Yahoo! News, British researchers have concluded that organically grown food have no significant health benefits over its conventionally grown analogs. What the story failed to mention is that the research only included Brits in Britain.
It's understandable how Brits don't see the difference. They can eat and digest deep fried tree bark and consider it good enough - not being particularly keen on flavor, texture and all that rubbish.
Lesser species, on the other hand, get all kinds of indigestion, cancer, kidney, liver, and immune system deficiencies from eating heavily treated and overly processed "traditional" food.
Hope that wasn't too mean.
Cheerio!
Pea Soup

The "Conservative" Label

This morning on one of the morning news shows I heard a report that, in response to one of Faux News' shock jock's statement that the President is a racist, the President's spokesman said that the cable channel is deliberately trying to create controversies to attract conservative viewers.
Although I understand and agree with the core of this statement, I disagree with the used terminology. In my book, a conservative is someone who has traditional values like solid moral core, close family ties, respect for elders, and good work ethic. The audience Faux's shock jocks appeal to are either far right radicals, antisocial loons, or less than bright individuals, incapable of forming their own opinion or distinguishing truth from fabrication and news reporting from agenda-driven spin. This audience has no values and ideas of their own and can hate or love anyone and anything, depending on what the current shock-jock agenda is. These are not conservatives, they just believe they are, because in their mind listening to Faux makes them that. They can worship someone today and call for his or hers death tomorrow if that's what Faux is telling them is right. Those are the same people that read newspapers like "Weekly World News" and believe the stories there are true. Much like Faux's "Fair and balanced", the Weekly World News' slogan "The world's only reliable newspaper" is the complete opposite of what it actually is...
You know what the shock jocks are going to say before you even tune in - republicans are good and decent, democrats are stupid and corrupted, liberals are evil crybabies and if you disagree with the shock jocks (it does not matter on what) you are a communist. It does not matter what the situation is or even what are the true affiliations of the people involved, the shock jocks slap whatever label they want to anyone and anything they want and always spin the facts to support their current agenda. They loudly support causes they don't really care for like abortion prohibition and exclusive heterosexual marriage only to persuade the true supporters of those causes to vote for who- and whatever Faux tells them when the time comes. That's why there are so many ridiculous contradictions in what the shock jocks say today and what they have said in the past. Sometimes they even do it in the same sentence. It's hard to be consistent when you bend the truth all the time. What Faux is doing is not journalism but propaganda. Which would have been alright if they were honest about it instead of calling it names like "news", "truth", "what's right", and "fair and balanced".

So please, everyone, stop insulting the the meaning of the term "conservative" by labeling antisocial self-righteous radicals with it. Call them what they are: loony ego-maniacs, bent on defying all laws and decency, if they are not getting their way 100% of the time.

The Dumbest Conversation Heard On Radio - Kansas City 96.5 "The Buzz"

This morning I've heard what I think is the dumbest conversation on the Radio. I was changing stations, searching for some morning talk show and that's how I got to "The Buzz" on Kansas City 96.5 FM - I am not sure what the name of the station is.
I listened for only about 10 minutes - the last 8, purely out of astonishment how idiotic the conversation was and how ignorant the participants were acting.
Immediately, just from the jargon use, you can tell that the show is geared towards young audience, but I wonder why the producers automatically assume that young and cool equals dumb.
For some unknown reason, at some point one of the hosts (apparently the only one not on drugs at the moment) started a foreign news discussions about the presidential elections in Iran. After a brief debate whether Iran has "like a" king, a prime minister, or a woman [for a head of state] the one host who did not sound drugged or lobotomized announced that Ahmadinejad is a "very bad man", which was unanimously accepted by the rest and the hosts gladly moved on to less knowledge and attention intensive topics.
Once they got out of the deep foreign news waters the conversation was lively. The topic was some news about a major social networking website. The hosts competed to show off their savvy-ness with the "technology". Turns out, on "The Buzz", the ability to put together an intelligible sentence is less important than having online social networking "skills" to brag with. Another proof that online social networking is evil and an excellent tool for idiotizing young people.
The last thing I've heard was a discussion of a report about a local woman, who asked the city to limit the number of days for shooting fireworks. The apparently sober host led a contest for coming up with insults for that woman.
When I finally changed the channel, they were still competing to come up with ever more clever insults, which were dull at best - the toppers were "she has no friends" and "she probably lives with her 9 cats". Not surprising lack of originality, considering the hosts' heavy use of online social networking. It's like a f***ing kindergarten - once something is said it gets repeated by all the brainwashed zombies until the sun explodes. Makes you wanna scream.
So there you have it - dumb is cool on "The Buzz", 96.5FM, Kansas City, where being a moron is perfectly fine, as long as you say a lot of "uhm"-s, "like"-s, and "whatever"-s, have a social networking website account, and are willing to plug that into any conversation.
This is officially the dumbest conversation I've ever heard on radio.
Congratulations!

The meaning of "Car Culture"

"... there are many auto-industry executives who maintain that the [electric cars] hype has gotten well ahead of reality. There is no infrastructure, in the form of battery-charging stations, to support pure electric models ..." (times.com)

The skeptical opinions towards the market's readiness for electric cars (and new technology in general) all have a major problem: they all assume that driving patterns and people's needs will stay the same as they have been for the last 50-60 years. While nobody can also predict the opposite, the past suggests some conclusions about people’s attitudes towards new technologies.

Let's think about the meaning of the term "Car Culture". During the last 100 or so years, people have created a lifestyle around the availability of a new technology (cars). When the internal combustion powered cars were still a novelty, only the geeks, eccentrics, and adventurers were excited about them. The traditional view was that they are dirty, noisy, dangerous, and with limited application. And they had a point - back then life was different. For a while horse-drawn buggies and cars shared the roads until people decided they prefer noisy, dirty, and dangerous cars than a horse which was considered mainstream and most suitable for the existing lifestyle. Putting everybody in cars probably seemed pretty far-fetched.

Now, just like then, we have a brand new technology available, which is somewhat of a novelty and does not quite fit our traditional lifestyle. Today's skeptics, just like the ones 100 or so years ago just can't imagine that lifestyles and consumer culture change faster than expected. Newspapers are going away, smoking is not popular anymore, online social networking was not even invented few years ago and now people are making expensive business decisions and planning their careers based on its specifics.

The only concern car makers should have is building and selling a product with what's available today at a reasonable price. Let the market decide if they like it and how to use it.

And enough with the charging stations nonsense argument - electricity is available everywhere. The same goes for "experts" saying that the grid won't handle the load. The only expertise that goes into a statement like that is in short sight. How did the grid successfully adjust to handle the inventions of the electric dryers, freezers, and air-conditioners, and why is charging a battery any bigger challenge than that?