I am so excited it's hard to even type this. I don't know how, or why, but I am about to be a very rich man. Mr. Song Le Li, the credit officer at Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong, just emailed me with a very profitable business proposal. I am stoked.
To be honest, I have no idea how Mr. Song Le Li got my email address. But i'm sure glad he did. He wants to transfer $19.5 million into an offshore account, with my assistance. For my trouble, I get to keep 30%. I'm not a math major, but by my calculation thats like $26 million!! I can't wait.
Needless to say, I couldn't email Mr. Song my bank account info fast enough. I mean, i'm not stupid!
Now i'm just waiting for my money, and thinking of ways to spend it. Let me know if you have any ideas. It's gonna be sweet.
Well it's been a year and some change since I last posted here. I log on somtimes as a lurker, but have not felt the urge to write, which seems odd as I am studying to be a writer. Anyway, I am blogging this semester for one of my classes, and I decided I will post my updates here as well. It is a political blog. I know, shocking. Anyway, if this sort of thing floats your boat, you might enjoy it, if not, you should probably move along. Without further adieu:
Evolution: The War on Rational Thought
Thank God for Senator Ronda Storms. The Florida state senator has drafted a bill that will protect teachers who present alternative theories to evolution. I only pray that the Florida legislature will have the wherewithal to see this bill through to passage. It is long overdue that the freedom this country enjoys is extended to the realm of academia.
Academics have long argued that education should not be restricted to a narrow range of ideas. We should not emphasize capitalism over socialism. We should not show favoritism to Judeo-Christian ideals. We should offer all valid points of view and let the students decide which merit their approval, and which do not. This has long been advocated in academic circles under the blanket-term “academic freedom.”
In case you've been hiding under a rock for the last 50 years, academic freedom does not apply to the study of science. When it comes to science, totalitarian tactics are used to ensure only consensus is allowed in the classroom. There are many examples of this academic intolerance, but the most poignant is the case of evolution.
To hear a modern science teacher tell it, you would think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution, was the Law of Evolution. It is treated as a scientific law in all but its name. It is taught exclusively as the origin of modern species. Science textbooks speak in no uncertain terms of the merits of evolution. It is as if the theory has been unquestionably proven.
I recall an encounter I once had with a biology professor during my freshman year at Sam Houston. He claimed that evolution was, quite frankly, a fact. I raised my hand high. “Isn't it the theory of evolution?” “Yes,” he replied, “But a scientific theory is basically a fact. To be classified as a theory, it has to have been tested thousands of times and never proven wrong. So in effect, it is a fact.”
My understanding of the word “fact” is that it is something that is proven to be true, rather than something that is not disproved. By that standard, biblical creationism is also a fact. It is a theory that has survived for thousands of years and never disproved. Therefore it is a fact. This creates a unique paradox as biblical creationism is opposed to evolution. As two “facts” cannot be in conflict, this has to be fallacious reasoning.
The most convenient aspect of the Theory of Evolution is that it cannot be proven untrue. Since it is explained in terms of millions and billions of years, hundreds of generations must pass before it can be disproved. This is most advantageous for the scientists who insist on its accuracy as they will be both dead and long since forgotten by the time their theory is exposed as hogwash.
The most aggravating part about being fed this garbage for the better part of my education, is that it insults the very fabric or reason. Creatures are said to evolve by way of completely random mutations over extraordinarily long periods of time. The only thing that determines what mutations catch on and which don't is whether or not they are advantageous to the survival of a species. There are two inherent flaws in this explanation.
First, if the mutations are completely random, there should be far more unsuccessful ones than successful. There should be literally thousands of random mutations, for every one that proves advantageous. If this were the case, we should find an inordinate number of “freak” fossils. Fossils showing a mutant trend should be the exception, not the rule. However, we rarely find a fossil outside of the norm.
Secondly, the million-plus year time frame required to make evolution possible, also proves to be its undoing. Mutations allegedly happen gradually, over many generations. For instance, a creature without a foot would not have offspring with a foot. Its offspring would have a nub, theirs would have a slightly larger nub. The cycle repeats itself until the nub develops into a foot. But how advantageous is a nub? It isn't. Therefore the nub would never “catch on” long enough to develop into a foot.
The most egregious example of this is the human eye. No scientist can begin to tell you how such a complex organ evolved. The human eye would require no less than 200 separate mutations. Of these, none would be advantageous by themselves. Therefore the eye concept would have died after its first generation. The human eye virtually proves intelligent design.
The theory of evolution has had such success because opposition to it brings ridicule, denial of tenure, and restricted access to scientific journals. This is how “consensus” is achieved in modern science. David Gibbs, of the Christian Law Association, had this to say:
“We are contacted frequently by teachers and school administrators who have either been threatened or, more commonly, are running scared...'If I say anything, if I discuss this, what will happen? If a child raised her hand and asked about creationism or intelligent design, a panic went into my heart. How do I even answer this question? Or could this cost me my job?'”
The saying certainly holds true, “where there is consensus, there is no science.” I would add, “where consensus is imposed, there is no academic freedom.”
i interviewed and tested for Reynolds & Reynolds today. i was there for roughly 5 hours. i took a survey that basically says i dont agree with stealing from the company. i had an interview. i took a much bigger survey. a personality test. an aptitude test. again, basically assuring the company i did not agree with stealing. oh, and doing drugs. I then had another interview, with the same woman. then it was on to another interview, with the head of my particular department. then i had to do a quick phone interview. then i got a reprieve. tomorrow i will take a drug test (cant imagine why, i already told them i dont do drugs!). then i have to call them again, and wait for the results of my drug test (fingers crossed!). all of you who work there already, i now feel your pain. I suppose that is an effective hiring strategy. if you make it through the hiring gauntlet you almost have to stay there awhile to make it worth it. touche R&R, you are a shrewed negotiator.
put in my two-week notice today, it felt good. that is all.
I have been at my job for over a year, and i havn't recieved a raise. Normaly i'm not one to complain; and until recently I just thought i worked for a sheisty company. But it has occured to me recently that i'm virtually the only person in the company that hasnt gotten a raise since i'v been there. A kid thats been there 4 months got a raise and he's missed at least 5 days without calling in. He missed again this week and they told him to take a week off. I'm doing his job while he's gone, but when he gets back from his "time-out" he'll go back to making more money than me while doing whatever he wants to do. You'd think I'd be mad, and I was at first. But then I remembered the words of Peter from Office Space. "I have no incentive to work any harder. If I bust my butt and the company makes a few more dollars, i dont see another dime. So that really only motivates me to work just hard enough not to get fired." With that in mind, I began my quiet rebellion. Now I no longer try to please anyone. In fact, I am constantly on the lookout for ways to irritate my supervisor. A sampling:
1. My boss likes all of the job tickets placed the same way in the rack. that way he can see all the job numbers in the top right corner. I put mine in the exact opposite way. Then I laugh.
2. I come it at least 5 minutes late every day. If he hasnt fired me yet for it, he's not gonna. and as long as he's giving raises for not showing up, he can keep expecting me at 8:05, and liking it.
3. we have huge bins and dozens of trash cans that are meant for paper only. we collect all the paper we throw away and recycle it and get money. I throw everyting in there; and I do mean EVERYTHING. enjoy.
4. Whenever we are really busy, my boss gets really irritated when i take a bathroom break. He always comes up to me and reiterates that he's gonna need me to stay posted today. but i dont get payed enough to hold it. so I go every time i even think i feel the need. And i walk SLOW all the way.
5. The next step in my plan i am anxiously awaiting. I have ordered a custom t-shirt which say's "I work just hard enough not to get fired". I can't wait to wear it to work!
Anyone have any ideas? i'll try it. I really have nothing to lose.