So stupid...

I like to complain and point out faults/holes in everything.  

That being said, Gail Shea becoming the minister of Fisheries and Oceans is ridiculous.  I've heard the argument that this is great because she 'grew up in a fishing family'.  Oh really?  Wow... that... doesn't matter?  How about someone who is an expert in oceanography, marine biology or even something like the economics of the fishing industry.  All of the cabinet members are just people, not specialized in anything.  I surmise that the reason there aren't highly educated specialists in politics is because highly educated people are too smart to fall into the peanut gallery that is our 'democratic system'.  

In a semi-related story, it seems barely anyone knows what's wrong with the American/Canadian/some European economies.  The problem wasn't mismanagement, or ludicrous salaries (though those are related to the problem): the problem is capitalism.  I'll freely admit that before this economic downturn I didn't pay attention to, nor know anything about economics.  Since this issue is all over the place I've been reading up (and we talk about it constantly in my radical philosophy class).  The more I read, the more I see that capitalism, the way we use the term, is doomed to fail.  Ever increasing productivity (and therefore profit) without ever increasing wages to follow suite causes people to borrow (from the people who are making the excess profit, at that).  These top few make more and more, the rest make the same, or slightly less while their debt grows and grows; doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that this is going to fail.  The problem lies in the workers not having a say in the companies they are a part of; obviously the fate of the worker is not a high priority with the omni-evil board of directors.  The answer is communism; Google does it, many other silicon valley giants do it, hell, my brother's business (silverorange) does it and all these examples show the success of such a system.  

Another cause of this teetering of this poorly engineered giant is the freedom given to the banks; the banks don't have a 100% reserve requirement for the loans they give out... are you fucking kidding me?

This will literally make you lol

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMOdPT7VzQE&eurl=http://subrosabrand.blogspot.com/

Are you jockin' me!?

Pants, jeans... I just want a pair that fits me, is fairly slim, and is stretchy; 30x36 is hard to come by.

Now this is what I'm talking about

Check it

Marx is not a scientist

So far this semester much of my time has been spent debating and trying to define what exactly science is.  This seems like a simple question at a glance, but the more one thinks about it, the more complicated the question at hand becomes.  After some practice the identification of pseudo-scientific theories becomes more simple, and more interesting.  It wasn't long into one of my classes that both Freud and Marx were thrown into the pit-which-is-not-science (I know that they both have many theories, and this is a gross generalization, but it fits them for the most part).  One of the biggest issues with the theories of the aforementioned is that they are (for the most part) non-falsifiable.  This means that no matter what observations are made, or theories created, they cannot disprove the statements of the theories in question.  This may seem as a strong point, but it really shows that the theories say nothing at all.  A Marxist can open any newspaper at any given time through history and find countless examples to 'verify' Marxist theory; the same can be said for a neo-Freudian.  I can't find the actual quote at the moment, but Emile Cioran once wrote something along the lines of: Something written for everyone, can say nothing.  This applies well in this situation; these non-falsifiable theories just point out things that are obvious throughout the world.  If I were to create a theory stating that the sun will set a length of time after it rises I would be 100% correct, but I wouldn't be saying anything; as one of my profs would say, it's true, but uninteresting.  If a theory can absorb and digest any concern thrown at it, or cannot conceivably be disproven (arguable with these cases) than it is not a scientific theory at all.  Something I was recently reading stated that Einstein's theory of relativity is a genuine scientific theory because it can be disproved (if one was to propel an object at a rate higher than that of light, which the LHC has shown to be impossible, therefore backing Einstein's theory).  Also, measurements taken during the 1919 solar eclipse showed that mass does in fact distort space(time).  In summary, theories that allow for everything, prove nothing. 

There are many more reasons for my accusations towards Marx (e.g. his colossal misunderstanding/generalizing of human behavior), but I don't really feel like going in to that at the moment.

DO IT

Everyone needs to go see Bill Mahar's new movie "Religulous" - fantastic flick.  Funny as hell, with a great message.

Fuck frugal

Don't be cheap; people hate cheap people.

Where the hell is my male birth control pill/patch/injection/implant?  It's 2008 and we're using outdated methods of birth control (other than the pill).  I've been doing some reading and it seems the biggest issue with the male pill is whether or not men are interested in it... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!!?  I'll be the first in line, and I think I can say without any worry that all my friends would follow suite.  Most guys my age don't want kids (at our age) just  as much as women our age don't, if not more so.  Frankly I don't want kids period, but don't really want to get a vasectomy (I could change my mind at some point) so a pill/injection/whatever would be FANTASTIC.  Not only would you would not have to worry about the female taking the pill, but you'd now have a second line of defense - goodbye unwanted pregnancy.  Pharmacutical companies, I'm looking at you (call me).