Wednesday, December 31, 2014
That's just the requirement for the surgery, society here has no respect for the transgender, when they realize you are one. I am considered 100% passable by the medical industry and supporters, even after getting to know me it is impossible to tell I am transgendered without seeing me nude, or seeing my birth certificate.
This produces a very hostile and dangerous situation, not only do my own alienate me without knowing it, I cannot take the chance of making any local friends lest they find out and kill me, which is legal in the USA in all states except California. Even in California the law is useless to the person who is dead, they were erased from the planet just because society is unwilling to accept some very basic facts.
The first fact is this: we exist. Get over it, deal with your own insecurities and stop taking them out on us.
Second fact: we have no choice, but you do. It takes a conscious effort to hate someone, and we have a genetic predisposition to be us, one which is largely ignored and misunderstood by all but real biologists.
Third fact: your comfort is no more important than ours, stop pretending like you are the center of the universe. We all have to live on this over populated world because straight cis breeders won't take responsibility for their own actions, yet we are the one being blamed for doing the world and our own species a favor by reducing the chances of increasing that population beyond the breaking point. Don't blame us for your stupidity.
Fourth fact: removing or modifying the genitals not only has health benefits, it is a billion times safer than a tattoo. Not that tattoos are wrong, some are awesome, but put some damned perspective into your head for once.
Fifth fact: it costs the public more to care for transgendered people for one year prior to surgery than the surgery costs. You pay for it, in all cases, because your hatred of us is what makes us unable to find jobs. You could hire us for actual jobs, instead of ridiculing us after you discover what we are. You were our friend for years before I told you, nothing changed except you.
There's the biggest problem, cishet change their perspective of us when they find out, even though there was no chance they'd get into a sexual relationship. They suddenly invent some slight that never truly existed, only because of their invented fear of the unknown.
The fact you could not tell is not because we lied, it's because we are the gender you mistook us for. You lie to yourself when you say otherwise, you are the one pretending to care about people but place such shallow conditions on your friendship and love, you are the reason we die horrible deaths.
The term cognitive dissonance comes to mind, because we shatter your idiotic and invented notions of what reality is so you become violent to defend your fantasy world, and we pay the price for you being unable to deal with reality. This is your fault, not ours.
We owe no one anything, for we do no harm to anyone else and often seek safe medical help but end up becoming the toys of a cruel psychiatrist for our efforts. Psychiatrists who are given legal rights to kill their patients under the false pretense of science.
This is your fault, cishet, because you made us then turn your back on us just because we are different from what you thought you were making. Ironically this is not the end of our problems.
Almost all transgendered people have fought for gay rights, against racism, for animal rights, and even for women rights. But the only ones who stand with us when we really need it are not the ones we fought for, the small percentage of cishet who are intelligent and/or caring.
We get harassed and publicly executed by black folks, gay people turn their backs when we ask for help, women deny we exist, and the animals that are not human have no power to change us. Which makes it almost everyone's fault that the transgendered are slaughtered in horrible ways, slaughtered even in the USA.
So when you try to sleep at night, know this, one transgendered person in the USA is being tortured to death somewhere because you don't care.
The reason is less obvious than the fact, it has to do with our social need to belong. This social trait, selected because a single organism is more likely to survive if the species knows as much about it as possible.
The problem is that the human species has become spoiled by the illusion offered by our manufactured caves, walls we build between us and the rest of the world. Eventually these walls are built in our own minds as well, the mind always reflects the world around it.
This creates an illusion of privacy, while we ultimately share everything when we think there is anonymity. This illusion is shattered by the internet, now we see just how much of our lives is truly public knowledge, and it frightens many people.
The intelligent people just enjoy riding the wave of reason and accept these facts as revelations granted by it. These are the people I want to address today; I know, talking about the silver lining is not my usual style. But hey, it's New Year's Eve.
When you realize that privacy is an illusion you will see that every detail of our lives is public knowledge, because we shared it with them. It requires no spying, snooping, breaking into computer servers, because we posted that information somewhere or filled out a questionnaire somewhere else.
Today kids are less obsessed with the illusion of privacy, they grow up no longer wasting energy worrying about such things and embracing the reason why we should not worry about it. By sharing our life, our details, the real us, we ultimately offer a way for other humans to know what we need and one of them may be able to actually help.
Islands are eventually swallowed by the sea, but a continent will last for a very long time and always leave traces of it's existence. For this reason we need to bind together, those who embrace reality, to stand against the ocean of deluded human minds who fear losing what they never truly had, the ones that want to hide behind delusion and mythology.
The effect of this discarding of illusions, delusions, and childish fairytales is that we all live longer. When an advance made by one who accepts reality is made, it benefits us all, no matter the age of the one who develops this advance.
For this reason alone we now stand firm against the destruction of childrens' brains, done by religious parents. The cure for death may reside in a brain lost in a fog of delusion, worshiping death only because their parents made them too afraid of reality.
We would all benefit from such a cure, so use this new tool called the internet to find those poor children and protect them from the delusion called god. The last thing the older generations can offer in return for what children are advancing today is a chance to advance even more.
Friday, December 26, 2014
You can easily guess how we were taught this, so let's look at what I mean in more detail. Often there is a news story, or talk show "expert," which mentions some finding or discovery that has little to no evidence involved.
Another common story us the misrepresentation of the facts, when a mistake is made they ignore the correction and just run with it as some sort of miracle or mystery. Ultimately these stories ruin the wonder and beauty of the world by keeling people from asking more questions about it.
The reason this is done by media is to placate the masses, to prevent them from asking the questions allows the media to, essentially, control what people think and thus engineer their personalities and behaviors. Rather beneficial to those who are running things, as conspiratorial as this sounds, we know this has been happening for a while now.
Now the part about engineering society this way may sound farfetched to those unfamiliar with psychology and neurology. What we know and remember defines how we respond to stimuli, these are what influence the neural pathways in the difference engine portions of our brain, in other words, the personality.
When information is handed to us without any any external stimuli, it becomes a null pathway, meaning your brain will produce less emotion and use less logic when a similar bit of information or memory is presented. Essentially, you ignore it.
Until an emotional response is tied to information it is dead weight, preventing us from exploring it further, preventing us from growing and experiencing the world. We require actually experiencing the information to begin to ask questions again, thus tragedy rarely evoked an emotional response until it affected us directly.
This is also why science requires lab time when studying any subject, you must experience the tests and experiments to associate emotional responses that permit, and encourage, further exploration. Leading us back to the topic at hand, why so many people in the USA are so complacent and unwilling to even verify the sources, much less the actual evidence.
By quelling our curiosity in this manner, people will recite "studies" or "cases" they hear about in media without realizing they are either misrepresenting the data, or lacking most of the important information. This creates a black hole of knowledge as they condition their children to do the same simply by not accepting when the child just happens to have more information than they do.
Today children are exposed to an excess of information, and, in a trail by fire fashion, they are forced to learn how to verify sources, information, even tests and experiments. Skills their parents see as dangerous or evil, so the kids pretend to be like the parents until they move out.
This is the great effect of the Information Age, our youth are measurably more intelligent than all of us before them, and only because they learn this one ability and use it without hesitation. The benefit is that us older folks have a bright future as our children thrust us into the future, the drawback is that it's scary in spite of how much fun it is.
So my challenge to all adults today, let your kids learn and explore the world, then let those kids teach you. I have learned a lot by observing the behavior of children in the last decade, and what I have witnessed fills me with hope for our future, which I will be able to see because those same kids are now solving the problems my generation refused to even acknowledge.
Monday, December 22, 2014
The sad fact is that no religious person truly grasps the concept of forever, much less infinite in any amount. Even Einstein, a deist, was hard pressed to comprehend it, thus why he was afraid of things like quantum physics.
It is easy to see how little they grasp about the concept of infinity, as they talk about "forever" as casually as if they are talking about tomorrow. This limited view keeps them from facing the most scary notion to a planet bound organism, that we float endlessly for all eternity through an infinite vast emptiness.
It also protects then from fearing their own myth, by not comprehending the notion of infinity, the "after life" becomes nothing more than a pleasant weekend getaway, instead of the truly horrific monotonous form of torture that it would actually be. Consider the vastness of the universe, and living as long as it would take to get from one side to the opposite if the universe stopped expanding today, using current space travel technology and an infinite source of energy.
Less than one percent of the way through the voyage you would have read every book ever written to date, including all alternatives, and all languages they have been printed in. Yes, you would even actually finish War and Peace, and every word of every scientific paper published and unpublished.
After two percent of the trip you'd have done every scientific test in the scientific papers you read, and verified them with several repeated tests. You would have the scientific understanding of a god at this point, nothing would be a mystery to you because of our inherent ability of inference.
Now we're just nearing the fourth or fifth galaxy of this trip, at three percent. Your tops scores on every video game ever written would be perfect, impossible for anyone to score higher. You would have ever race track memorized, every glitch mastered, ever combination perfected, every letter of every script known.
Any psychologically healthy human would have been insane three fold at this point, and there is still 97% of the universe left. You would have lived a thousand lifetimes just to get to the next galaxy, eaten more than a billion tons of food.
Food would literally be tasteless after only a few hundred years of thus trip, your taste buds would be unable to distinguish one flavor from the next out, because the repetition would would eventually cause the neurons in your brain to be flatlined in sensory input, all valences would be neutral.
Hallucinations, a combination of memory and imagination, would haunt you after only five hundred years because of the monotony. This is less than a hundredth of a percent of your trip too.
Adding more people to the trip would increase the degradation of sanity, after a few hundred years everyone would be paranoid of each other with violent consequences. This is not because of a biological flaw.
There's the catch, religious people will likely claim it's a biological flaw in our brain or body that would be removed after death, but this is not an effect of biology. The boredom is an effect of memory.
Unique memories always stand out to us, because they are easy to identify in the crowd. When no memories stand out we begin to lose focus, we call this phenomenon boredom.
The progressive insanity and delusion is an effect of logic, once all that is possible is known to a single logic center, it will make up new things to explore because curiosity is an inherent trait of logic, the need to explore. Religion seeks to destroy the curiosity, which always results in psychological instability because the logic engine of the intellect becomes damaged.
This can cause many things, almost always the loss of curiosity results in hallucinations of various degrees. You often hear religious people describing a relatively mundane event as "spiritual," even mentioning voices or visions.
These are hallucinations cause by logic methods being imbalanced. Much like a painter with only three colors, the picture is incomplete because there us no curiosity asking the important questions, so the gaps are filled in with random nonsense.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
One area that this fear has affected most is technology and science. When humans first learned the Earth was not flat, anyone who stated it was not flat were tortured to death simply for stating the possibility of some other curvature.
In the Dark Ages, any form of technology was met with hatred and violence, the inventor and user were tortured to death, accused of witchcraft and deals with an imaginary adversary. Even today, with the resistance against clean energy and modern genetic modifications, people are fighting hard to prevent this new technology, even going so far as to start wars to slow progress.
The world of religion is the greatest weight against modern technology and scientific advancement, many even oppose some necessary scientific theories, responsible for their survival, out of fear of change. Others are more straight forward, attacking and killing those claiming the new technology is a sign of their imaginary adversary.
However, this is not limited to religion, there are those who oppose change because someone in an obsolete industry told them it's bad. Genetic modification is a method of producing food which we can eat, and grow, that has been used for thousands of years.
Yet people oppose the more modern methods, they often cite studies that are not only fraudulent or fallacious, but often outright lies. The new technique simply takes the margin of error to a minimum, crossbreeding is very prone to error, just ask a cow.
Another such group, which is aptly named anti-vaxxers, oppose modern medicine in place of ancient herbology and other such woo woo. Synthetic medicines and chemicals never add anything, but they do remove other chemicals that can cause harm.
Herbs are the same as drinking a glass of unfiltered water just because there's one drop of lemon juice in it, homeopathy is a gallon of filtered water for the same. Lemons, citrus fruits in general, is a great example of the difference.
Citrus fruits will prevent an illness that plagued sailors, known as scurvy. Scurvy is rare today, we often do jot even hear of it, because we discovered the reason citrus helped prevent it and, using modern chemistry, we started putting it into all of our foods. We also sell this chemical in pill form and tasty candies.
Vitamin C, a chemical that citrus fruits contain high amounts of, is found to be an essential vitamin we have lost the ability to produce, as a genus. Homo species have to get this vitamin through consumption of foods that contain large amounts, this is why all of us apes love fruit, especially citrus fruits.
The problem lies in the quantity required for certain environments, humans have learned to live in all environments so this affects us most. Urban regions are most likely to spread scurvy, as well as other illnesses that vitamin C helps combat, so the vast majority of us need lots of vitamin C to keep healthy.
The fruit is tasty, so eating enough won't be a problem, until you notice the enamel on your teeth vanishing. All fruits that contain vitamin C contain acids as well, citric acid and ascorbic acid are both very corrosive. This means you will lose your teeth eating enough fruits to stay healthy.
The alternative, a process call refining or synthesizing. This allows us to take the essential vitamin from the rest of the chemicals, or produce it, then we can safely consume as much as we need without worrying about the ill effects.
This is what modern medicine is, those against it are paid for by those who would prefer you get sick, or buy their product and live with no teeth. There are many such groups, selling either "organic" and the mythical "all natural" or herbs and woo woo.
The easy way to make them stumble is to ask for the evidence, when they pull up some study look for the scientific journal it was published and verify it. Most likely, it was not even published, often it will be a misrepresentation of the actual paper (common for anti-GMO nuts).
This fear of new needs to end for our species to ever improve beyond today with any pace worthy of our great ape ancestry. This means we must be rid of our superstitions of old, end the delusion called religion, and stop listening to big corporations just because they support dark aged methods.
I love living in the future, but I want to see tomorrow, and will fight all junk science and mythology to increase my chances of this.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
The problem is in the thinking that homeless people are inherently lazy, or unwilling to work at all. This is a stereotype started by the media, if you have been paying attention then you know the media is controlled by the wealthiest people, the very people who pay no taxes at all and collect welfare masked as "subsidies."
In the eighties, and most of the nineties, the media controlled all the information, they literally controlled how society thought. Today they still control the majority, who are delusionally ignorant, but are slowly losing their poisonous influence in information. This is thanks to the internet.
So now they still decry poor people, in other words the very people who listen and obey the media, owning anything beyond old technology. Anyone with half a brain knows why this is a very stupid stereotype, anyone who has had to pull themselves out of the gutter knows why this is a dangerous one.
First, again I ask, without a phone of any sort how are homeless and poor people going to get calls for jobs? A homeless person has to have a mobile phone, they don't have a home for the cables required for a landline!
The poor person is forced to run through appointments, almost daily, just to keep their home and feed themselves, spending little time at home as it is, then if they are going to interviews they have less time at home. Most often they cannot afford a car, so they have to walk or take the bus, both are very time consuming. Essentially, being poor is a full tine job which pays less than liveable wages and has zero chance of promotions.
Okay, that was the basic logic of the situation, and now the part that shows why media, Republicans, inbred hillbillies, and most religious people, are total idiots. The numbers.
I had a landline with internet access, internet is now required to apply for most jobs today, so it is as essential as a phone, perhaps more so as many businesses worth their name allow for email communication. The total I was paying, when I finally got fed up with the ever increasing cost, was almost 80 USD.
I found offers online for unlimited data, voice, and the nearly obsolete text, starting at 30 USD per month, prepaid. You could pay for that with change from your couch, but what about the phones, those must be expensive, right?
Wrong, so very wrong. The prices of technology have been effect by a very rare phenomenon, and inversion of value. Due to the false nostalgia and novelty of the old phones, I have seen phones that were considered junk in the 80s on sale, yes on sale, for 100+ USD. Most poor people cannot afford that, without saving up for a few months, even today.
The inversion effect made modern technology cheaper, smartphones for 100 USD were comparable to desktop computers costing 500 USD, and many times you could sign up for service and get the phone for free, or in small payments. My smartphone, I got to see if I wanted to even bother with the transition, cost me 15 USD and was delivered in three days at no additional charge.
My smartphone is not top of the line, but it's only last year's model so it's not an antique yet either. My unlimited plan is 55 USD for 2gb at 4g and the rest at 2g per month, that includes taxes.
Now let all that sink in a moment, wireless is becoming more affordable than the landlines for one important reason, one that neither the Democrats nor Republicans like. Lack of regulation and a huge amount of competition is keeping wireless services at prices everyone can afford, and allow homeless people a chance to drag themselves out of the gutters they have been swept to by a society which cares only about appearances.
The so called conservatives in the USA often say too much regulation stifles competition, which is correct, but then they vote for the ban (ie regulation) happy Republicans. Republicans are not conservatives, they are right wing liberals, they prefer government control based on an archaic ideology.
Democrats are becoming more conservative these days, as they vote against many bans, though a single party government is a bad idea. The problem is that there is no opposition, the third parties are often too specialized to be viable replacements for the Republicans, and we cannot afford to keep the Republicans any longer.
Personally, this seems almost orchestrated, in the same manner that the media was controlling information before the internet. What scares me is: if this is orchestrated then the very people who are openly pulling the string of the Republican puppets are the ones who want people to vote Democrat.
To close, the ignorance enforced by religion has allowed our society to be manipulated so easily as to make everything appear to be a conspiracy, even the mundane things like the price of a cup of coffee. But when you are in a mudslide, you have little choice but to grasp the nearest root and cling to it in hopes of not being washed away again.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Both use science without ever truly understanding it, the difference is that doctors are less inclined to deny scientific advances. Not that doctors are all intelligent or better than creationists, just those in countries where religion is not an acceptable reason for allowing a patient to suffer and die, like they are allowed to do in the USA.
The creationists keep reciting the same tired, debunked, and ignorant arguments that use to be hilarious. Now they are just sad and pitiful. The reason is because none of them seem to have learned anything after 1983.
That was the last year any respectable scientists ever claimed that mutations are all detrimental. The reason being, we have discovered many mutations in many species that have resulted in them being more fit for their environment, including us.
In 1998 they discovered a specific sequence of genes responsible for HIV resistance in some human populations. In 1997 we discovered that blue eye and blond hair is caused by a rare mutation in the human genome, rare because it is even less likely to pass to offspring.
From the discovery of nylonase to algae capable of absorbing toxic waste produced only by humans, the list of recently discovered genetic mutations with hugely beneficial effects is continually growing.
So the creationists attempt to dismiss these by calling them adaptation instead of evolution, which is just sad. Adaptation is the result of natural selection acting on the phenomenon of evolution, in other words, adaptation is the result of evolution.
But here's a challenge to creationists, I have no reward to offer other than to agree with you should you succeed in this task. Provide evidence of any species willfully altering their genetic make up, resulting in a specific adaptation to a specific and known environmental change.
Now this challenge is twofold, though I doubt you will succeed at either step. I know creationists have a problem with sequential problem solving and the very definition of evidence, so I will describe the two steps more clearly.
The first step requires you provide evidence, meaning facts that require no interpretation which suggest the phenomenon. The word "phenomenon" is really a catch all in science, it describes and event, occurrence, object, person, fact, law, or basically any noun that is within our reality.
Thus you must show how the organism is aware of the change and able to discern what the change is and what is required to better fit the change. If you cannot present evidence suggesting this, you cannot have failed the challenge, without this recognition there can be no intent and thus no possible way the organism can adapt without random mutations.
Now, given the unlikely event that you have succeeded at the first step, the second step is one that biology has proven cannot occur a very long time ago, but I grant the benefit of doubt. You must provide evidence than any organism can alter their DNA at will, and that the changes will affect the organism immediately, prior to their demise.
Now the catch, you must also provide evidence that the theory of evolution does not, in any way, predict this phenomenon. I know none of you will ever succeed at this challenge, as it requires you to study actual science before presenting anything, and the catch means you must study the theory of evolution completely, or you will miss the explanation.
Should a creationist take this challenge and succeed, I will concede that the theory of evolution is incomplete. The fun fact is this: it does not mean your religious myths are any more correct as there are many such myths just as credible and other scientific explanations that are far more credible than creationism.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
The problem is jot that they disagree with a notion mentioned by the people who research these things, it's that neither know what they are even opposing yet present their opposition as if it's a well thought out argument. The reality is that these so called arguments are less than laughable, they are an embarrassment to the entire animal kingdom that we are part of.
Now, there are some climate change supporters who are also completely clueless, but that is another topic. The climate change is not itself a crisis, but when the media mentions it they are neglecting the rest of what they are truly attempting, and failing, to report on.
The problem that climatologists have noticed is an erratic and unexplainable variation of the expected climate change. One which correlates to human population growth increases caused by industrialization.
In other words, after eliminating the impossible, the most probable cause is our species, no matter how much we deny it. Industrialization was a great thing, it has allowed us to live much longer before, but like all good things, we must be careful when using it and work to avoid problems caused by the benefits.
Typically correlation does not equal causation, this is why the climatologists are still making certain they have eliminated all possible causes before announcing one as being definitive. A fact both sides ignore.
Catastrophic climate change deniers are the easy one to address, the morons who deny evolution are more complex, and thus I will be unable to address every point in one post. Denying evolution happens is denying a fact, unless you can present a better word for "a change in allele frequencies within a population over generations."
The core problem with those who deny evolution is that none of them even know what evolution is and often describe some caricaturization fed to them by scammers out to make a profit on their stupidity and laziness. The vast majority will cite religion as an alternative, the religion they have been sold to them by atheists who have so little empathy that they are willing to take advantage of those who are too lazy to learn anything, most often we call these scammers preachers or priests.
A perfect example of such a scammer is Kent Hovind, he even has the police record to prove it. Go ahead, look it up, this article is going nowehere.
Evolution deniers will often ask for "missing links," and when they do you can rest assured that they know nothing about evolution or biology, and less about genetics than a high school student in any civilized country. Asking for punctuations in a spectrum where there are no inherent boundaries with which to define such is extremely dishonest, and precisely what these poor fools have been told to ask for because the scammers who are taking their money know you cannot provide what never existed.
This idea of links and punctuations in biology lead then to think evolution is some form of cartoonish morphing or some other nonsense that would actually challenge the all theories of biology, including evolution. This is another tactic used by the scammers we call priests, ask for something that would destroy a theory as proof of said theory as a means of ensuring that if said evidence were presented they could then point out that the theory was wrong because of it.
Another very common spoonfed tactic is to redefine words used by others so as to make them appear to contradict the facts. If this tactic is used it is certain you are dealing with a scammer themselves, keep them talking if it's on a public forum as eventually even the least intelligent person will begin to see the dishonesty of the scammer.
The truly sad fact that deniers illustrate is that scammers are correct, there is a fool born every second, a wise person born only once a month. Take pity on them, but do not expect much for they are really just insecure and lonely, and so they seek out the popular clubs to forget how hollow and empty their lives truly are.
Monday, December 1, 2014
There is a hidden problem with joining the future that I rarely discuss, because it's not a problem inherent in technology. The lag of upgrades.
Technology is a sink or swim endeavor, not something that can be done willy nilly or half assed. The most important thing an organization must do is how decent IT personnel.
To better understand this I will use Washington state as an example of how to do it wrong. The specific point of interest is the Department of Social and Human Services.
This organization is notoriously a mess, the majority of workers are lazy and callous. Visiting in person was always the best method to take care of issues, however, visiting in person has an inherent issue with convenience.
The Moyer traditional method is to call by phone, which should have very few problems. This office ha's average wait times of 60 minutes, even if no one if being helped.
So it was great to hear that they finally have an online method available. That is, until you visit their website.
The Washington state DSHS website is designed as poorly as those old Altavista websites designed for people's parrots and gerbils in the 80s. The Lansing page is bland and login links are obfuscated, and none of it is mobile friendly.
When you manage to find the link to create an account they demand you choose a password based on insane criteria, like including a special symbol. This ensures that you will forget the password in the future.
So you sludge through their poorly conceived login system, but you still have no access to what they want you to complete.
For that, there is another account system you have to find, yes, it is also obfuscated. Then you create a second passcode.
Okay, now you're ready to begin the rebel process, if you can figure out which text word you're suppose to click on. Instead of obvious menus or links, they bury the correct links in the actual text that drones on about different languages and how to get help if you can't read this page in English.
Ladies and gentlemen, the stupid of that one page alone is a threat to the sanctity of the internet. We have not reached the end of our misadventure yet.
Once you start filling out the forms, you glance at the URL and notice, it now looks like a document on its own. The session ID is probably about 1k of data on it's own, excessive barely covers it.
Assuming your browser and connection are both perfect, in which case you don't need DSHS anyway, you get through and just wait for the letter telling you their decision.
If you are a poor person who needs this service, you load the browser back up an navigate to the page again. Instead of your application, you are greeted with a warning that you have to wait 30 minutes for the other session to expire.
Alright, 8 hours later you manage to get this all done and now you can rest easy knowing you have renewed your much needed benefits. Then you get the letter explaining that you no longer get any benefits.
You have to call them anyway, wait more than an hour on the phone listening to the annoying voice telling you that it's better to use the system that just screwed it all up in the first place. This is not how you join the future, or save the planet, this is the result of bad hiring practices that result in nerds working positions where geeks should be.
I type this after being on the phone for 55 minutes, my second time trying to call to figure out why my medical renewal was denied in spite of no major changes. I am still waiting for an operator, and I was using my cheap $15 phone's keyboard.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Marriage licenses, as the bans are written, are based on the gender on the identification card, since that can be altered with a psychological referral inmost states it becomes inconsequential to those who are transgendered. (Hint to gay people, get your partner to be declared as the opposite gender on their state ID to flip off the idiotic bigots opposing equality, it would make me happy yo see.)
The reason for this may be selfish, we are the most ignored and abused minorities on the planet, in order to get attention we need the others to get their equality first because of that. If you asserted this as the reason I would not argue, it is perfectly logical and, in spite of the possible slippery slope fallacy it fuels, it benefits everyone. This is, however, not the case.
The real supporters of transgendered rights, whether transgendered or not, have a much more altruistic reason, empathy. We have been there, no minority on the planet can claim any mistreatment that we have not endured, and still endure, a hundred times over. The end result is that we can feel your pain when you are discriminated, and that bothers us, a lot.
When we hear of injustice in the world, we are reminded of the problems we face every day, even in the countries claiming to be more civilized. A few countries seek to reduce our suffering, all in Europe, and for that we must be grateful, however it only alleviates the suffering caused by society and idiotic stereotypes created by religion, and fueled by psychiatry, supported by bigotry.
So minorities who are facing adversity, look for us in your protests, spreading the facts online, and showing our support in constructive ways. We do understand, because you treat us the same every day, yet we still stand with you. So the next time you see a transgendered person suffering, remember that we stood by you when you faced the same.
We care, because we do not want you to suffer the way you make us suffer. We seek to improve society, not for our own benefit but because we feel the pain and indignation that society causes when it turns on one group because of fallacious notions fueling hatred. We reach out a hand in friendship to those in their moments of weakness, because we know, we are always there. You all have the privilege of seeing the light, we do not.
The other fallacious notion common, especially among those who are paid to actually assist us, is that we don't want to work. Many people have this idiotic notion that disabled people are as lazy as they are. This is demonstrably fallacious due to the fact that most of us are disabled because we were over worked and under paid prior to the disability.
Yet when we seek to change our situation we are greeted with contempt and hatred from everyone. Well, almost everyone, oddly the scientific community is mostly generous and easily the least judgmental portion of society. It is important to note that one does not need to work in a lab to be scientific, one must only comprehend the scientific method and not be a total idiot who asks "why are there still monkeys?"
Back to the topic at hand, disability is mistakenly thought as an inability or lack of desire to work, when it is actually lacking the ability to do a specific set of tasks due to a physical or psychological difference, making the person unable to function the same as others of their species. Fore example, Stephen Hawking, a genius who is unable to utilize most of our tools, you do not expect to make him flip burgers, but someone with arthritis of the hands is often called to do just that.
The flaw in society here is the definition of contribution, most incorrectly consider a contribution to be a marketable act for profit. Most of the greatest contributions to society offered absolutely no profit to those who have made them, and quite often resulted in their ridicule, discouragement, and even murders.
Many years after society has essentially destroyed them, removing the possibility of them offering more contributions that could benefit society as a whole, do we discover that not only were they correct, they just saved the lives of billions of their own species and never asked for more than food on the table and the right to live a healthy life. This is the legacy our species gives our offspring, even today.
As a species, are are fundamentally insane, for we create demons in the darkness because we fear lighting that candle called science we created to illuminate that cavern called life that we must all walk through. Instead we cling to the blindfold called religion finding a false comfort in the lack of answers offered by following the blind leaders who are looking only where we have already stepped.
To progress as a species we must now discard our notions of the importance of profit and excess, we must understand the true value of all contributions before we lose the sources for more. Look at those who face chronic illness, pain, disabilities of any sort, look closely as what we have to say, what we build and create, and what we discover in this ever darkened cavern called life.
I promise you, the cure for cancer lies in the minds of one who suffers from arthritis, they merely need someone to listen to them.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
The Republicans are easy to see, they are willing to sacrifice their own voters' lives in order to demonstrate that they are sore losers, and their supporters are so ignorant they blame the Democrats for it. The racism, misogyny, homophobia, and even hatred of asexuality is very evident in their policies and actions.
The Democrats are more subtle, and their supporters are not as easily fooled. The problem is that with the alternative being so horrible, even those of us who see the corruption in the Democrats have no choice but to continue supporting them.
Case in point, the DSHS of Seattle, the ones responsible for making sure everyone is insurable and has food on the table, which the tax payers have voted for and even give them increases at their own expense. Conservatives do it to keep the costs low, collection fees of unpaid medical bills can cost the state more than triple the actual medical bills, delayed treatment can increase the final costs by more than ten times the original costs.
So this system was supported unilaterally by everyone, only the morons and heartless disagreed. In order for the system to work every one who is dependent on it must be treated for all ailments in a manner that allows and encourages a return to the workforce. This is not what is happening.
Instead doctors are seeing this as a blank check, one to he milked until the money is gone, and the state encourages them to do just that. Medical costs are considered for coverage based on the costs of a single visit, not over all costs. Thus means if there is a procedure that will result in a person being capable of working but is over the price of a procedure that is the bare minimum for survival, the state prefers the bare minimum.
The end result is that patients are left with chronic illness and nonthreatening injuries that prevent work, trust me, almost every disabled person would prefer and even enjoy working, going to doctor appointments is tedious and wastes a lot of time as well as costs the tax payer a fortune.
The solution is simple, easy, and cost effective. Pay for what is needed to ensure the patient is healthy and not suffering so they can repay the system in taxes by working. Democrats do not want this anymore than Republicans, both parties profit from suffering and death.
The difference is found because of the supporters, the fact that even the religious Democrats are difficult to fool now means the politicians must tread more cautiously. Neither party wants a healthy country, because in all the healthy countries the masses are not as gullible, the government does not get away with as much, and the people have more power.
This is why the Democrats are attempting to wrest control of information, passing policies under the table while touting battles against inconsequential policies like Net Neutrality. If you don't get that statement, Google SOPA and PIPA, passed without any publicity, under the table, by president Obama himself. Net neutrality as you are told it is never existed anyway.
Back to medicine. Democrats are using insurance as a cover for the real issue, doctors who are abusing the patients for their own profits. Not all doctors are like this, a few will mention that the ACA is doing nothing to help, but the private club mentality prevents many from actually voicing, or even recognizing, the true problem.
Seattle is the perfect example of how this is all failing, and I am now a case study for this. I had severe pain in my side, for those who don't know, I am an eccedentesiast. I hide pain, even from myself, and have an atypically high tolerance to it. My old doctor, who I miss a lot, has been the only person alive who could see past the smile I wear.
For more than four visits to the emergency room, each time right after eating something fatty, they did not diagnose the gallstones that were tearing my gallbladder apart. The reason, as I discovered by the only doctor honest enough to care, was because gallstones are not typical for someone who is not an obese female.
Yep, plain old discrimination caused this diagnosis to be missed, but that is only the beginning. The reason the state wound up paying tens of thousands more, and will be paying millions more now, is because the state discouraged multiple tests. They utilized only one test, the least expensive and least comprehensive one, which is unlikely to spot most ailments, all because the state would be less likely to cover the others if they did not help in diagnosis.
Thus I was forced to return many times over the years, several thousand dollars used for an ambulance each time, then hospital fees of nearly one thousand just for a failed diagnosis. When the tax payers could have instead paid about five thousand total for the initial visit if the doctors were encouraged to get an accurate diagnosis.
This us the corruption caused by the Democrats, the feel good doctors' lobby is what convinced them to enact the conservative ACA, after removing the points that addressed medical malpractice and doctor reapinsibilities.
Currently, DSHS of Seattle is just as corrupt, finding ways to take the tax payers' money and avoid using it on those who need it. They pocket most of it, offering themselves raises and paying employees who rarely do any actual work, then complaining they need more money while not paying for preventative measures.
Welcome to the USA, please deposit your brain in the wastebasket and collect your "hunting" rifle if you're white, if you are not white we have these lovely matching iron bracelets for you. Either way, the government does not want you to think about it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The result is that most asexuals are more well versed, more knowledgeable, in sexual matters of all sorts. Thus often catches others off guard, and we tend to be marginalized even more as a result. The failed notion that a person simply cannot lack sexual pleasure or desire has caused the spread of the genetic traits for asexuality, and other non-reproductive tendencies.
By convincing those who have these genetic traits that they don't exist, or that they are lying, they are often pressured into breeding, passing these traits onto even more people in the populations. This creates a slow but steady increase in the occurrence of said traits. In essence, the growing population of homosexuals, transgendered, and even asexuals, is the fault of the heterosexual population pressuring us to deny what we are.
Another problem created is that those who deny what they are become hypersexual, they are desperate to find something considered acceptable to society that pleases them, so they try everything, with anyone willing, or even unwilling. This hypersexuality spills into society creating a severe conflict in the way people think, this conflict leads to violence and self destruction, even suicide.
The standard occurrence of the traits causing non-reproduction in humans should be a total of no more than 10%, due to the fact that they should not be spreading into the population. But the actual rate for our species has exceeded 10%, sucks to be heterosexual in the future.
But then, straight people are to blame for this explosion in the appearance of these traits, you made your bed now you must lay in it. On the bright side, we do have a problem with the population being too high, allowing people to be themselves at this point will correct that problem enough that we will not have to begin forced sterilization of population segments.
So all you who hate gay people, those who deny the existence of asexual humans, the ones who attack transgendered folks, remember, you are the reason we even exist.
Monday, October 20, 2014
In the past the chances of a patient surviving were very low, so doctors adopted this emotional wall between them and the patients they will likely see alive only a couple times, then attend their funeral soon after. This kept them saner, force sociopathic tendencies are inherently not sane but losing too many people you care for can cause more severe psychological problems.
The result was workable, at the time, allowing medical professionals to continue to work to the best of their ability and ultimately heal more than harm. However, times are changing, as they always do, and like many old methods this has become obsolete to the point of causing more harm than benefits.
Today it is quite common for patients and doctors to share death beds, not literally, but in the same hospital room even. This is thanks to our medical sciences advances far beyond what we had ever dreamed possible, allowing humans to live 120 years now.
However this emotional divide allows doctors to become relaxed, even clumsily so, in their treatment of patients. The forced sociopathic tendencies also result in doctors becoming actual sociopaths quite often. We see this effect in many cases, doctors misdiagnosing patients to move them through the system as quickly as possible resulting in the patients' deaths soon after or long term complications to a procedure that should have been routine.
The doctors who save the lives of patients are the ones the patients associate outside of the office more often than not. They are the doctors who are invested in caring for said patients. These are the doctors of celebrities and the super rich, but not anyone else. So why the difference?
The wealthy patients are their bread and butter, they pay the most, and medical care is all about the profit. Greed is the driving force to encourage the doctors to break down that emotional wall and draw close to their patients, for it is easier to understand someone you know as well as yourself.
The key to a successful diagnosis is just that, understanding what the patient describes. A patient with a huge cultural difference will be difficult to understand, their adjective usage will seem alien to the doctor, resulting in poor diagnosis. This also often leads to the patient being declared incompetent even if said patient understands the problems better than the doctor.
To over come cultural boundaries, and other such problems, the doctor must become friends and form an attachment to the patient, the sociopathic wall must be taken down. Once invested in the patients' well being emotionally, the doctor is able to understand complaints better and pinpoint problems that are often missed in any mechanical examination.
This attachment offers further benefits in that the doctor is also more likely to understand the emotional state of the patient and know how it plays into their complaints. Emotions play a huge role in how we perceive things, my doctor recently discovered lumps in the area of my colon and all I can think about is "what if it's cancer?"
Because of this I am likely to forget to mention many other sensations associated with this problem, resulting in a missed diagnosis. A doctor who knows me well would know how afraid of surgery I am as well as how extremely high my pain tolerance is and prod for more information, while others will assume I have offered all the pertinent information.
This could be the difference between life and death, undiagnosed problems in the colon do kill patients quite often, even though a false positive for cancer can also be beneficial. So I have to figure out, on my own, what information is valid and what belongs to the other problem that has been ignored by doctors for a long time. The result is that I am under extremely high amounts of stress now.
This is a common result as well, patients go through a lot of anxiety when faced with a stranger for a doctor, even if they have seen this face several times before. This is not without a price, doctors will have to learn to govern their emotions like everyone else, not allowing one's anger or disgust get in the way of their activities.
Doctors will have to learn to avoid becoming violent when angry, like everyone else, and how to actually cope with loss and disappointment. The costs may seem high, but the rest of us have learned to do this, we can help doctors experience emotional attachments in a healthy way as well.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Cities across the country are banning breeds based on one reported statistic, a statistic that changes every few years. If they were smart they'd look at the trends, a dog with the highest reported incidents of bites gets banned one year, a few years later it's a different dog. The previous dog bans are lifted and behold, that dog does not go back to the top spot again.
If breed had any real impact on it the bans would only have an effect when enacted, but we see that, in reality, they do not. Someone once said that when you observe something, the act of observing it alters it. This is the most probable reason the statistics keep changing.
Let's use an example we can all understand, the occurrence of autism. Autism was thought to be very rare in the past, due to a lack of attention on the subject only a small portion of the population knew much about it and the symptoms are usually difficult to spot.
So everyone just thought it was as rare as a human born with a tail. Medical scientists raised the awareness of autism as an attempt to garner more funds for research, suddenly almost everyone knew the disease existed, and the research got funding.
With the extra funding methods for diagnosing it improved drastically, combined with the now heightened awareness, more people with the illness were discovered. It was reported, and thus recorded, far more than before. A bunch of jerks then used this increased reporting as a scare tactic to gain money and fame.
It worked because people are panicky when they don't know the facts, and when in a panic they are easily swayed by pretty faces. Dog breed bans have also had the same kind of leeches, feeding on the panic they create by using a very simple phenomenon to create the appearance of a problem which does not really exist.
Statistics, for the most part, should only be read by scientists until the general population learns what confirmation bias means, and the media is banned from reporting false causes. Any animal, even the human animal, can be dangerous if they feel threatened. Any animal, even a rodent, can seriously harm the perceived threat.
Every dog is a pit bull, and every human is a pit bull as well. You just need to slant the statistics by altering the perception of the general public in a way to change what they notice.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
There is a reason they shift the burden like this, it allows them to rationalize the rather idiotic notions and protect their delicate and precarious ideologies from doubt. It is the same reason none of them read their religious books honestly, or at all. Most christians have not once read the bible, no more than what's reprinted in a leaflet handed to them by their preachers.
If they did read it completely and honestly they would have to face just how ridiculous the stories are, and how much the claims contradict rather easily understood facts of reality. It is a pitiful state, and one that is only perpetuated by the christians salesmen, sorry, I mean preachers.
Religion is often described as a snake oil, the adage is very apt. Like snake oil, religion is a cure for an imaginary ailment, and like snake oil, religion never actually cures the ailment it claims to. So the salesmen can continually profit from those poor saps who are so easily fooled by offering a cure for an ailment that cannot be cured due to it's lack of existence.
Consider if someone told you have colisticopitus and they had this medicine made of dragon scales. If you take this medicine and believe it will work you will be cured of this horrible disease, but only this salesman can tell if it's been cured, no doctors or technology can detect or even diagnose it.
You ask what the symptoms are and you are told they are the most horrible things you can imagine, you will experience them many decades from now, but if you don't take the medicine now you will regret it. You ask how you catch it and the salesman says everyone is born with it, this disease is why you have to east food and sleep.
So you hand the salesman your credit card and let him keep charging you every week for a dose of this miracle cure for this horrible ailment that will cause horrible things to you someday in the distant future. You have just joined a religion.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
This particular law was so intrusive that it opened the doors for many frivolous lawsuits, from people with disabilities, like me. This created a fear in companies, so they started not hiring disabled people as often, using things like credit scores as an excuse. Anyone disabled for a long time will have a horrible credit score, it comes with the disability.
The ADA was never a conservative policy, it was a Republican one. This act alone has caused a lot of USA citizens to fall through the cracks and vanish, even today many still cannot find any real help, and most of us do want to work but this deadly label hangs on us regardless of what we do. Republican supporters love living on the government dole though, it is an art form to them, attack what they enjoy doing to make themselves look superior.
The ADA is just one of many examples, several examples fit into one category; oppressive copyrights. Many voters here are under the misconception that cheaper labor costs are what have made China our source for products. This is not true, those labor costs are balanced out by the expensive shipping costs to get it to the USA.
What makes China appealing for companies is that they don't have the excessively strict copyright laws the USA has. Now both parties are guilty of supporting the laws in the USA that make it impossible to make key components or use vital procedures to make products here, but the Republicans are the ones who should be fighting to balance out these laws and keep them sane.
Conservatives know that oppressive copyrights can destroy an economy, and all true conservatives will oppose copyrights to balance out the liberal desires to protect a person's right to be paid for their work. The Republicans do not do this, because they are funded by some corporations in the USA that produce entertainment.
Yep, Disney and FOX, for example, are two corporations constantly pushing for stricter copyrights. Most music labels and Hollywood do as well. So what damage does this do?
Consider someone finds and formulates a cure for cancer that depends on a particular method of refinement. Getting their money for research back was a good way to encourage such research, so the basic copyright law of a few years was helpful in encouraging advancement. After those few years other companies can produce it and the cost will fall as the supply increases.
That was the idea behind copyright laws, but with the changes made by our government that one company has exclusive rights for that procedure forever. This means that those who need a cure for cancer must pay the company whatever price they decide to charge, for as long as that company exists. Apple and Microsoft take advantage of these copyright laws as well, thus the price hike before Google came up with a marketing strategy for Linux that broke their monopolies.
The Republican funders have a vested interest in copyright laws, they can now produce unpopular garbage and still get paid for the prime entertainment they produced several decades ago.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Here it is, an end to the lies and rumors, I will define what biological evolution is and give away the greatest secret scientists have been keeping from the general public. But first, let's look at what biological evolution is not.
Biological evolution is not morphing, one species does not turn into another species in any way. If such a thing did happen most biological theories would have to be radically altered to account for something which defies even the theory of evolution.
Many series of fiction use evolution to describe morphing, usually because the creators did not know better or it just had better response from the target audience. Such a genetic change in an organism would cause the body to be overtaken by cancerous tumors, the physiology would be so chaotic that organs would fail and poisons would be produced instead of the necessary chemicals.
Transitional forms do not look like one organism with the traits of two distinct organisms. I say "look" to mean appear, most small changes would have no change in the organism's appearance. A small change in the DNA is up to several hundred genetic changes, compound/colony species such as humans can and will have more than single celled animals.
In human DNA, upwards of five hundred changes in the DNA will result in less than 0.001% difference in the genetic make up. Each offspring has several hundred mutations in their DNA, most have absolutely no effect either because those markers are "switched off" or the new chemical produced has no effect on the cells.
When a marker or chromosome is "switched off" it means the DNA has a chemical bound to that location which prevents it from acting as a template for other chemicals. DNA is actually pretty simple to understand, it's like a chemical template, that attracts other chemicals in a sequence that causes them to bond then separate and react with other chemicals. The effects of these chemicals are the complex part of genetics, one that we are still working out.
Biological evolution is not one species giving birth to another completely different species. The number of changes required for this would result in a cancerous tumor instead of an offspring. We're talking about at least 1% of the DNA changing before an organism can even be almost another species, many species are separated by more than a 2% difference and can still breed with each other.
What actually defines the species barrier is virtually arbitrary, it depends on the species and how many different single celled organisms make it's whole. The chemicals produced by the DNA interactions determine the compatibility for producing offspring, not the DNA itself. Each cell is made up of chemicals produced by DNA, and incompatible cells, ie chemicals, cannot mingle.
Now, for the moment you have all been reading for, I shall unveil the true definition of biological evolution that is used by the highest levels of academia and scientific research. Be ready to make note of this momentous occasion for you may not likely ever read it again.
Biological Evolution: the change of frequencies of allele within in population.
The latest police misconduct stories have demonstrated that it does still exist, and is fueled by stereotyping. The problem is deeper though, as a culture we tolerate stereotyping "as long as it's not about me." This is giving them permission to stereotype you as well, if one form is valid all forms are seen as valid.
One such example is our worshiping of the opinions of psychiatrists, a profession built on enforcing stereotypes into the population. Psychiatrists are the biggest problem, if you don't fit the stereotype then they get you medicated until you do fit the stereotype. This has caused most people think these stereotypes are accurate as well as perpetuate discrimination of all types.
The police are feeling the full weight of this now, most cops are not bad and many are just as outraged by the actions of those in less advanced locales. But these officers who are outraged are ignored and silenced because they don't fit the stereotype the general public holds.
To end racism, one famous actor said we just need to stop talking about it. This is actually a good idea, but not on the surface. We must continue to talk about the effects of racism to keep our eyes open to it, but we must end all stereotypes for everyone.
That includes stereotypes for gay, transgender, black, white, cop, soldier, actor, everyone. For when one stereotype if acceptable, they all become acceptable. End the discussion by eliminating the source, yes, be rid of psychiatry.
Psychology is science based, psychiatry is woo woo. Psychiatrists are only interested in engineering our society to fit their stereotypes, the very stereotypes that give excuse to cops shooting unarmed black kids, the very stereotypes that give excuse to a group of teens killing a gay man, the very stereotypes that give excuse to consider actors as less intelligent.
Friday, August 8, 2014
First they often cite chimp or gorilla behavior, the often violent reactions to perceived invaders. There, I just explained why they kill each other without even touching on the science and why this example is not valid. But I'll continue anyway.
Every species has evolved a certain set of traits that help it's survival, not as individuals but as an entire species. Territoriality is one of those very effective traits to help a species, even humans have this trait but I'll get into that at the end. It is a method of ensuring there are enough resources for the group, often maintained by closer relatives and any others who threaten the resources are seen as enemies.
Us failing to see a valid reason for these behaviors is not proof that there is no valid reason. We anthropomorphize far too often, and in doing so we attempt to apply human logic to actions which are often instinctive.
A better example would be how the gorillas treat kittens when there is plenty of resources and security, many videos and stories of this type permeate the internet now. They are kind and gentle, even forgiving to a fault. Remove the instincts and they behave much more humane than most humans.
The second example are male lions killing cubs, another instinctive behavior. Again, that alone demonstrates that it is necessary, they do not have the social structure that allows the luxury of any other behavior, unlike humans. Male lions also do not kill them all, their instinct even has limits.
This behavior allows them to strengthen the pride and keep it stronger. It is a trait resulting in thousands of years of natural selection, because it works to help with their social structure. When placed in a situation which lacks the pressures of the wild, the instinct rarely kicks in, their environment is different and favors different traits.
So yes, both of those examples are not relatable to human logic and human caused suffering. They are both instinctive and cause by environment, by altering the environment the instinct is not triggered and they do not harm others without reasons easier for humans to comprehend. So stop anthropomorphizing before coming up with some counter argument.
The third, and I saved the best for last, is the domestic felines' tendency to play with their prey. Another example of anthropomorphizing, and one that is regularly misused. The "toying" is actually caused by a suppressed instinct to hunt, we selectively bred them like this so it's our own fault anyway.
When in the wild, felines have to battle for food, they have to chase and strategize to capture their meals. We selected the most playful felines for hundreds of years, playful being how we viewed this instinct, and bred them to a point in which this instinct is no longer bound to the need for food.
Yes, we made domestic felines sadistic to suit our own desires. We altered an instinct that was refined by natural selection without considering the long term consequences of this genetic engineering. There are many more examples of this problem in other domestic species and even ourselves.
So thus is not an example of animals killing needlessly, it is an example of why genetic engineering needs to be more scientific than it once was.
As humans we have one rare trait, seen in only a few other animals, it is the ability to alter our own instincts through knowledge, understanding, and willpower. We have no excuse to harm any other animal without a good reason, none. This us very important because of our population growth, too many humans causing unnecessary harm will destroy the ecosystems and make the planet uninhabitable for our own species.
We needs these other animals to survive, plain and simple. Nature needs the diversity to ensure the survival of these other animals. Our interference in any way will always cause more harm than good.
We have engineered some species for our food supply, there is not need to hunt the wild species now. So yes, humans are the only animal that causes unnecessary harm.
Yes, all of the chemicals we use in medicine are found in various other organisms, primarily plants. These chemicals rarely manufactured for pharmaceuticals, a claim I often hear from homeopaths, yet even if they were manufactured there would be no difference from those found in plants.
There is a huge difference in the compounds though, and this difference is why homeopathic medicines have, at least, twice the number of side effects. The processed chemicals are mixed only with inert agents, to preserve the chemical structures when stored in pill forms. These inert agents have no side effects, and are most often sugar.
For a plant with the same chemical you have at least three or four additional active ingredients, in pill form you still have the inert agents processed chemicals have as well. These additional active ingredients offer more side effects and a larger risk of drug interaction.
Now here's the real problem, the manufactured dosage is scientifically determined based on body mass and physiology, very little guess work done. The homeopathic remedies are miniscule dosages of the desired chemical, and not scientifically tested nor managed, mostly guess work.
Most homeopathic remedies have less then 100th of a percent of the desired active ingredient, the majority is a collection of undesired (often unknown) active ingredients that can alter you physiology in unpredictable ways. This is only the beginning of the problems, mind you.
Many homeopaths will tell you to take something that has no actual benefits to your ailment as well. They will cite studies that were either inconclusive or incorrectly reported as supportive evidence to convince you it's a good idea. This is your cue to ask for a real doctor.
Now, back to the processed pharmaceuticals. Most often they process the plants and remove all the undesired chemicals, leaving only the active ingredient you need. Lately we have been improving our chemical technologies and are manufacturing many of the chemicals from scratch.
Now, the manufactured ones are no different from the processed or unprocessed chemicals, they all have the same atoms. The manufactured ones have a huge benefit, less risk of an unwanted active ingredient getting into the mix.
The reason I mentioned anti-GMO in the beginning is because this is the same thing they do for pesticides and herbicides that are demonized, the pesticides and herbicides labeled as "organic" are actually worse, they are indiscriminate poisons with a lot of undesired active ingredients. The manufactured pesticides and herbicides are targeted poisons, they only kill what is needed and leave the rest unharmed.
The next time some quack or nut tells you that "big pharma" is out for a profit, ask them how much they paid for their Russian roulette style medicine, chances are they paid three to ten times what a processed medicine costs. Then ask them to list off the possible side effects for laughs.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
So what good is sharing cat photos, posting what you are eating, or just saying hi? A lot more than one may think. Any successful business person will tell you that it is not what you know, but who you know, that determines your success. What you know only determines how much you can potentially contribute to your species and society.
While I was growing up we were constantly reminded of this, one teacher I had even explained that one should learn for the sake of learning, but socialize with the goal of succeeding. I only recently discovered that this was the key to being influential.
The big problem was, when I was in high school, we had no way to connect outside of our neighborhood, and thus became victims of circumstance. Needless to say, I was never very successful.
Today we have an excess of contacts now, people from across the globe and in different societies connecting in ways we never dreamed possible in the past. I have also admitted we have a problem of information overload many times, the next generations are becoming far more capable of adapting to this though.
The benefits really do outweigh the flaws, and a few select people cannot stand the benefits. The largest group are religious leaders, who only stay wealthy when people are ignorant. These religious leaders are even willing to make, and maintain, hundreds of fake follower accounts to spread misinformation. With how much followers pay these con men for working only one day a year, they have plenty of time.
Many in the governments do not like this connection to information either, now everyone in the USA knows the USA is not the best country, and many of the troglodytes in power were only able to keep power so long as we didn't know any better. So they do everything they can to undermine the flow of information, even restricting those who have access to the internet.
The mainstream media and many outdated corporations are also against this freedom of information, competition they can't compete against. These dinosaurs are dying fast though, and soon they shall be extinct.
So why all the hatred for social media specifically? Activism. Yes, activism has become stronger by social media, and the proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Since activists started utilizing social media, our societies are changing for the better at an unfathomable of rate. Sane environmentalism has cleaned up much of the environment, from better innovations because of more minds working on problems, to demonstrating what information is bad. Even China is now seeing the need to change their ways, and that was a huge stumbling block for a long time.
People wrongly prosecuted or persecuted are getting aid that they need to fight back, like an atheist wrongly placed into a psychiatric hospital for being an atheist or the transgendered teen wrongfully imprisoned. These are but two of the successes I have seen in the last three months, yes, in less than three months we saw justice for these two when in the past it would take years.
The trick of it is to hit corporations and leaders where it hurts, their pocket books. Someone recently asked what good petitions are, they were trying to justify their own bloodlust and desire for war, but the answer is simple, political activism creates lasting effects while violence merely perpetuates violence.
Sea World is one of the recent targets of social media, and the results are encouraging. People are telling companies that support the business of nonhuman species being used for entertainment that their customers won't use their products or services if they do not stop. Many major corporations are pulling support for Sea World now.
With social media we are enacting long term changes without violence or destruction of the very things we want to protect. This is the greatest achievement of humanity to date, organizing our information and choosing our leaders instead of blindly following those we have been told to follow. We get information that would otherwise be hidden from us, from science to business records.
So the next time you hear or see anyone claiming social media is a bad thing, ask them what they have to hide.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Now, you may be asking what is wrong with them, like Greenpeace, they ignore the forest for the tree, forgetting that the very thing they are trying to save needs a clean environment to survive in. Unlike Greenpeace, "Sea Shepherds" also use the fight for animal rights to wage wars, yes, actually destroying ships at sea.
A ship in operation releases a ton of pollution, and companies are seeking alternatives to reduce this. A sunken ship releases even more pollution into the oceans for longer, and more steady, periods of time.
Any marine biologist can attest to this, a sunken ship also disrupts currents and alters delicate sea environs. So what these so called Sea Shepherds are doing is guaranteeing there is no future for the very animals they claim to be saving.
The idiocy does not stop there, they show no concern about the animals we have in jails for our entertainment either. Something many of us animal rights activists are fighting against, and have been battling for a very long time, and making progress on thanks to social media.
Yep, social media is causing more change than any act of violence has ever effected. The reason, overlooked by the terrorist type activists, is that businesses will do what earns a profit, even if it means buying more ships and defending themselves more violently. With social media we destroy the value of what they sell, forcing them to look into more sane products.
So the so called Sea Shepherds' claim that petitions from Greenpeace have no effect are not only baseless, but complete lies. Petitions, combined with social media campaigns, causes long lasting changes for the better. The old adage of "hit 'em where it hurts" illustrates this.
So I have essentially come to the conclusion that these so called Sea Shepherds merely want war, and that is something we do not need as a planet. Yes, as a planet.
The entire ecosystem is as important, not any one single species is necessary for the whole, but the whole is necessary for any individual species. This is why fighting for a better environment is more important than fighting for one species at this time, and why destroying the environment for one species is just plain evil.
There, I said it, the so called Sea Shepherds are evil to the core. Selfish and arrogant, thinking only of themselves and looking for an excuse to harm another animal just for the sake of looking cool.
This does not mean I endorse Greenpeace, but between the two, Greenpeace does some actual good.
Monday, August 4, 2014
The first one, if any species ever evolved more human traits it would still not be a homosapien, it would be a completely different species from us. This is also assuming that our set of traits is always beneficial for all species in all environs, and that is laughable at best.
Evolution has no direction, none, humans are not the goal. Our particular set of traits contain a lot of vestigial traits and many flaws. It is only by our intelligence that we have over come these flaws before we were driven extinct, and then many still plague us. The real advantage we have is the combination of traits, all our individual traits appear in other species in varying degrees.
Your first hurdle with the argument of why nothing else evolves into humans is that you have to demonstrate evolution is directional. The whale demonstrates how lacking in direction evolution is, so you have a lot of work to do before you can convince anyone you have a point.
The second one is so ignorant I feel pity for those who ask why there are still monkeys. This argument is the same as asking why you have aunts, uncles, cousins, and distant relatives. Yes, monkeys are very distant relatives, chimps are closer, and other apes are practically the same family.
This leads me to the third idiotic argument, sorry religious nuts, we are apes. We are animals, because our traits are what we use to define such things. Evolution has nothing to do with us being apes or animals, this is just basic biology.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
The reasons for this are because of how our brains learn. Typically described as a difference engine, the brain learns more from mistakes and errors than from being correct. Because of this, we tend to notice the flaws before we notice the advantages.
I recently read that they were working on "spray on" solar cells, to make it possible for any surface to be made into a solar panel. I love this idea, and it is the solution to why I don't like solar or wind farms. Spraying the outside of all the buildings is a perfect way to avoid claiming more land space.
To find such solutions, a person must rewire their brains to focus more on possible solutions, enter the inventor. Inventors are capable of learning from their mistakes, as well as able to see successes. They either have a rare trait, or have broken free of the reptile brain more than others.
So we return to the difference engine, the reason we have an easier time seeing what is wrong instead of what is right. When we make a mistake, the brain notices that the result was not desirable, so it alters the neural pathway values so the next time it encounters that same event a slightly different response is generated.
The structure of the brain results in similar inputs following similar paths, so when one is adjusted it effects the outcomes of other stimuli. But what happens when an outcome is desirable? Well, there is an increase in the chance of that same response happening. This means that there is a larger number of possible "bad" pathways for any stimuli recorded than good.
Think of it this way, when facing five doors and no one tells you what is behind them you open the first and see a pile of trash blocking the way. The next one you open you find a bunch of alligators. Then the third one you try opens to a place you feel safe.
The next time you come to these same doors you are more likely to open the one you know leads to a safe place than to try one of the two you don't know yet. This demonstrates the difference engine's effect on our perception on the world.
This also explains the sad state of affairs in the world today. We see many people simply unwilling to alter their behaviors, remaining with what they see as working out safe enough for them. We need to, as a species, break away from this pattern of comfort, to break away from the difference engine, and learn to make ourselves uncomfortable for the sake of advancement and learning.
So every month, try to find something you have always been afraid to do, something which has a small risk of hurting you or making you uncomfortable. Seek out the new things, new ideas, and new frontiers to explore. Expand your mind so it no longer dwells on the flaws and failures.
I have been taking this adventure since the beginning of the year, seeking out new things to try every month. Because of it I have found many new foods, friends, and experiences that make my life better. Post your stories in a blog, or record them on camera, encourage our future generations.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
They do work off tips, sometimes product sales as well ranging from CDs to paintings. With the modern world they give out business card or flyers with their website addresses to purchase downloads. This is their job, and many enjoy it a lot. They are not "bums" and most have homes.
Their competition are the beggars, who provide nothing but expect people to give them money. The beggars will often make it difficult for the buskers in many ways, taking up space they could use and depleting the chances of garnering a tip when a passerby gives their cash to the beggar first.
Another huge, and often overlooked difference is that beggars are aggressive in most areas. Offer them what they claim the money is for and most often they turn it down. The reason is that many beggars are professionals, they beg for a living and often have homes, and food, even cars. It would not be bad if they were all honest and did not syphon money from those more deserving.
The buskers are almost always polite as well, while the desperate beggar can often be rude, even offensive. The beggar that actually is not wealthy is also typically one who is dishonest in how they spend the money, making beggars, as a whole, undeserving of your cash, save it for the buskers.
In Seattle, we have an alternative to the busker, they sell a newspaper that publishes stories written by homeless people, for one dollar you can learn more about the homeless in your area while you enjoy your coffee or lunch. The paper is called Real Change, and it is a very good program which allows people in need, usually unable to work in any other job, a way to pay rent and buy needs.
If you do want to help those in need and don't have buskers or paper sellers, donate directly to charities. There are many great charities in the developed countries, do some research and help out in a way that works.
So the next time you see a street performer and have some time or cash to spare, enjoy their work and offer a tip in return for their hard work. Please do be kind to them, I have known many in my life and they are great people just trying to get by with a skill they worked hard at. Thanks.
Visit my friend Eido's site for an example of a busker who works for the city at http://poodlepublishing.com/
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
The first requirement is no family. Those with their own children should not try to slay trolls, leave it to us who do not have such a target for them. The nasty troll will go after family, even very young children, in ways you cannot foresee or defend against. Protect your kids by not engaging the troll at all.
You must have a career that is immune to rumors. This one is often overlooked until it is too late. If your company is picky about your online life, you should change companies, and not engage a troll until you have done so. No matter how well you avoid the connection, the nasty troll will always find it and make your life worse.
Political ties are fuel for the troll. No matter your political ideology, you must be able to laugh about it. The nasty troll will use this as a weak point if you take your political views too seriously. If you hide your political views they will merely make it up anyway.
You must laugh at all your flaws, and also be willing to make some flaws up. Preempt their mockery by cracking jokes using topics most people would be insulted by. Cracking jokes about how fat your mother is often confuses the nasty troll, it steals their thunder. When they use an insult just use the smile and nod technique, adding in a humorous bit to your reply will destroy their insult completely. Your skin must be made of steel.
Patience is important, remember, the nasty troll is persistent. It may go on for days, but while they are distracted with you they will leave others alone, and that is what makes you a troll slayer. Their brains are not complex or large enough to handle more than one target at a time. You include also incorporate some of your allies, which will make the nasty troll slip up a lot.
As you can see, being a troll slayer is more about the circumstances of your life than about skill. If everyone who can safely engage a troll does so in such a way, they will eventually go extinct, unable to get the reactions they want and always being drawn away from targets they can actually hurt will reduce the damage they do, and frustrate them to a point of exasperation.