STEVE IRWIN

Steve Irwin, AKA the "Crocodile Hunter," has died. =-(

R.I.P., Mr. Irwin.

IN LINE AT SUBWAY

If you have a job that allows you to go out for lunch, you’ve no doubt gone to Subway at least 87 million times for your mid-day meal. I go to Subway for lunch just about every other day. One thing that I always end up doing at Subway—while standing in a line 3,000 people long—is listening to the patrons in front of me place their order and customize their subs. If you go to a Subway for lunch that’s near a business or industrial park, the patrons are all business, and can rattle off what kind of sub they want, what bread they want it on, how long they want it, and what they want on it in less that four seconds. It’s like watching a well-oiled machine operate. Henry Ford would be proud. However, if you go to a Subway late in the afternoon, say, around 3:00 PM or so, the patronage is completely different. Take today, for example. I rolled in to the local Subway around 3:30 PM, and there was only one other person in front of me as opposed to the usual half-million around lunch time. The lady had ordered two salads (first of all, who goes to a sub place to get a salad???) and was already at the “toppings/dressing” portion of the counter, so I thought that she would be done fairly quickly—like in the next 0.5 seconds. But no, not this lady. Her instructions to the poor Subway employee that was serving her went something like this:

Put lots of spinach in that one. Yeah, just like grab a handful… A little more than that, please, on the second one. No! Not that much! Take some off! Oh, and I want tomatoes, too, but can you, like, cut each tomato slice into fourths? Oh, and I’ll have some, umm… provolone cheese. But just on the first one, not on the second one. And cucumbers too. And can you cut those into fourths also?

Okay, so by this time, I had already told the guy making my sandwich what I wanted and was headed past this lady and on my way to the cash register to pay and leave. She was still nit-picking about her f***ing salad. I felt so bad for the lady that was making the stupid salads. She was trying her best to do everything that this b**** of a customer wanted. I seriously wanted to smack the woman—like Rick James/Charlie Murphy-style. She was definitely a capital “B”. And her attitude… Geez! Though the woman was quite attractive, any male that had a modicum of sense wouldn’t get involved with her even if she were the last woman on Earth!

I think I need to get a job at a Subway. I would be like the Soup Nazi in that famous episode of Seinfeld. “No sub for you!”

WHAT ARE WE BECOMING?

Babies Aborted For Not Being Perfect

All right, ladies... All right... So you don't "pluck" your eye lashes. I obviously had the wrong verb. I don't know what you guys cut, shave, wax, trim, or pluck. =-P So what is it that you all do to your eye lashes then? Brush? Stroke? Elongate? Enlighten me, you cosmetic mavens! =-P

TOO LONG WITHOUT A POST

Wow... 60 days without a post. That's entirely too long. I must get better!

DAMN NATURAL SELECTION!!!

I was at a bar recently with a group of my male friends when I first keenly became aware of a problem with Darwin’s proposed “natural selection” process as it pertains to humans.

My friends and I were laughing, talking, and having a good time at said bar when one of my friends noticed what he thought was an extremely attractive young woman walking into the bar. He pointed her out to the rest of us, and we all turned and looked at what was indeed a very appealing female specimen. It was at this point when I looked around the rest of the bar and noticed that all of the other males in the bar were looking at her as well. The band continued to play, the food continued to arrive, and the drinks continued to be served, but all the men in this bar could have cared less about their frosted mugs, greasy foods, and loud music. They were all captivated by this woman.

Put succinctly, every man in that bar wanted to have sex with that woman—myself included.

From Wikipedia on Natural Selection:

“Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive output for functional reasons, i.e., when differences in reproduction follow from the fact that individuals differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their internal biology and by the biological and physical environment. This ability is a function of the physical structures (traits) of life forms and of how these structures affect their ability to tackle the aforementioned challenges.

Natural selection results in adaptive evolution when traits that enhance organismic abilities and thus the reproductive output of individuals that display them, are heritable. Such traits are expected to become more frequent over the generations.”

I have told a couple of my friends that there are ultimately only two objectives for living organisms: to metabolize and to reproduce. (Comic relief: Homer Simpson would agree, as evidenced by this sound clip from The Simpsons – Tree house of Horror XIII):

http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season14/thohm25.mp3

(The quote in the clip above: “You guys are nuts! All you can do is eat, and sleep, and mate, and roll around in your own filth, and mate, and eat—where do I sign up?”)

So, if you subscribe to Mr. Darwin’s proposed natural selection process (and I do), and you also agree with the following statements:

• I want to mate with an attractive person,

• I want the best for my offspring,

then certain problems arise.

For the sake of argument, let us imagine a large group of male and female human beings with quantity x members.

Let us say that 0.5x are male and 0.5x are female.

Let us also assume an equal distribution of unattractive, average, and attractive males and females throughout the group.

Darwin’s process of natural selection tells us that organisms (in this case, humans), are instinctively inclined to mate with other humans that contain positive reproductive “traits” that likely will filter down into offspring that will in turn possess said traits that enhance “organismic abilities” and “reproductive output”. That is why every man in that bar found that woman so attractive. The “traits” that the woman possessed were: large breasts (to feed offspring), wide hips (wide birth canal), a slim figure (suggests good health), long legs (height implies strength/power), and a symmetric face (studies suggest men and women find symmetry in one another as an appealing trait)—everything a man could want (physically) in a mate.

So, let us jump back to our hypothetical group, x.

The problem with natural selection is basic economics—supply and demand.

All men and women in group x—attractive, average, and unattractive—instinctively want to mate with the “attractive” members. Therefore, there is a large demand for attractive mates. However, there is a limited supply of attractive mates (1/3 of 0.5x). Therefore, the “attractive” members can afford to be selective and are more likely to choose an “attractive” mate of the opposite gender. Assuming a goodly portion of the attractive males in group x mate with a goodly portion of the attractive females in group x, then the “average” and “unattractive” males and females only have one another to choose from. Since, regardless of their attractiveness, members of both:

• want to mate with an attractive person,

And

• want the best for their offspring.

“Average” males will most likely end up with their “average” female counterparts, and lastly, “unattractive” males will most likely end up with their “unattractive” female counterparts.

Obviously, we know that things are not that cut and dry. Other factors, like money, power, personality, etc. enter the equation and muddy the water. However, I would like to see more people admit to the fact that the first type of attraction, at least at a subconscious level, is purely physical/sexual—“This man/woman will give me strong, healthy offspring.”

Why do you think that all of these dating/social networks request pictures of their subscribers??? Why do you think that most of these subscribers (particularly women) post such sexually suggestive pictures?

So, in conclusion, we’re all superficial, at least upon first glance at one another. ;-) This is why (most) women wear make-up, go to the beauty salon, pluck their eyelashes, get their nails done, etc., and why men go to the gym—it’s all about appearing reproductively superior to those in your gender that you compete against for mates of the opposite gender.

Think about it...

RIGHT TO CHOOSE

I stumbled across this article today:

A Man's Right To Choose

I'm still forming some opinions about it.

What do you think???

WARM!

Holy crap! It’s 77 degrees outside!!! =-D Let’s just freeze time right now. It ought to be criminal to be kept inside on a day like today!

PORTS DEAL SCUTTLED – POST #2

Don’t you love it when another person succinctly and eloquently transcribes the jumbled thoughts that you have in your head? Well, Stephen E. Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and a port security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, did just that for me today.

Some members of Congress recently proposed legislation that would require that U.S. companies take over terminal management operations at U.S. ports from foreign firms. Logistically, that would be possible, according to Bob Watters, a vice president at SSA Marine of Seattle, the largest U.S.-owned terminal management company, but Mr. Flynn pointed out the financial obstacle to doing so that I think few too people are recognizing or admitting.

In Virginia, for example, the port authority has estimated that it will need about $10 billion to expand its ports over the next few years.

Here’s what Mr. Flynn said in response:

"If you do this as a state enterprise, you have to go to the good people of Virginia and say, 'We need $10 billion.' How is that going to work, with all the needs to deal with traffic jams and education? Or, you can turn to a U.S. company. Well, this is a very capital-intensive industry… If we want to own all the infrastructure, I'm not sure where that capital comes from. Americans don't want to save. And they don't want to pay taxes."

The last two sentences sum it all up.

I’m out.

PORTS DEAL SCUTTLED

Well, a deal that was once purely-economic in nature has been dashed to pieces thanks to our Congress. Dubai Ports World, a UAE state-owned company that had planned to purchase and operate six U.S. ports from British firm P&O for approximately $6.8 billion, is—due to overwhelming pressure from the U.S. Congress—turning over management of the ports to any U.S. “business or entity”.

I am very disappointed that this deal did not go through. Congress turned what was once a commonplace, free trade/market proposition between two businesses into a political football the size of Washington, D.C. itself.

In my humble opinion, this deal should have gone through by all accounts. On paper, Dubai Ports World is just as good as apple-pie-coolin’-on-the-window-sill General Electric, and very, very few people seemed to dispute that. This deal was axed for two ENTIRELY POLITICAL reasons and one thinly-veiled racial one: (1) the president’s plunging approval ratings, (2) upcoming congressional elections, and (3) DPW is an Arab company.

The president’s approval rating is hovering around 40%, and since many congressmen are up for re-election this year, they all want to avoid the currently-unpopular president at all costs. For democrats, this issue was like a political gift basket. It gave them an opportunity to show the U.S. that “Democrats can be tough on terror, too!” However, not wanting to be beaten at their own game, the GOP members that usually stand stalwart at Bush’s side quickly distanced themselves from him so that they, too, could say, “See? We’re just as tough on terror as we’ve always been! Who says we’re getting soft?!?”

Regarding reason number three, very few people should dispute that because recent polls suggest that approximately 46% of Americans have a negative view of Islam. 46%!!! And unfortunately, too many people connect “Islam” with “Arabic”.

* * * THIS JUST IN * * *

If you want to buy a sandwich from Subway, Congress must approve the transaction, “for security reasons,” and Hillary Clinton must have the opportunity to put a “Hillary ‘08” flag in it.

Definitely in need of a banana cognac.

FUNERAL PROTESTERS

I am sure that you have heard or read about the members of a Kansas-based church, Westboro Baptist Church, that have been traveling across the country to the funerals of fallen soldiers to protest. The members of this so-called “church” believe that God is punishing the U.S. for its tolerance of homosexuals by sending home U.S. soldiers in “body bags”. Recently, these protesters protested at the funeral for a fallen soldier at Meadowood Baptist Church in Midwest City, Oklahoma. Some of the members of Meadowood made note of some of the things that were on the protesters placards on posted them on their website. Some of the things that the protesters signs’ said are below.

• Thank God for Dead Soldiers

• You're Going to Hell

• Fags Doom Nations

• America is Doomed

• God is America's Terror

•Don't Worship the Dead

• Soldier Fag in Hell

Now, I recognize the importance of the First Amendment, but I think that actions such as these, in circumstances such as these, are really toeing the line of the protections granted by the First Amendment. I also feel that what this group of people is doing is utterly despicable.

But the protesters see it differently:

“We are delivering a message. God is punishing this nation and he is using the IED as his weapon of choice.”

14 states are considering measures to ban demonstrations outside of funeral services. When asked if they will be deterred by legislation, one protestor said:

“It's all good. It's not going to stop us. We have the moral high ground.”

Hmm… “The moral high ground…”

I am at a loss for words… I seriously am… I am so astonished by this groups’ logic that my brain literally cannot process it.

If this group is not careful, they will most likely be on the receiving end of a violent retaliation. It is not wise to provoke those that are grieving. Should retaliation occur, I will not shed a single tear. I will not bat an eye lash. To me, they are the same as the dust beneath my feet, and should they return to the ground from whence they came, my heart will not ache.

SCORCHED EARTH

When I read the headline “God has cursed us,” I had to read the article.

CNN correspondent Jeff Koinange has been covering draught conditions in Africa for six months. Within that period of time, Jeff, a native of Kenya, says that he has covered three droughts in Africa. His latest story from Africa in CNN’s Behind the Scenes series takes place in Garissa, Kenya. In his story, Jeff shadows a Kenyan family, the Ousmans, and walks five miles with them to and from a food distribution center in northern Kenya. He tells of the hardships that the current draught has brought to the Ousman family. You can read Jeff’s story by clicking here.

My favorite quote from the article is this one:

Salat squats beside his animal as thick tears run down its long face. Salat is devastated. His herd is thinning quickly, and all he can do is stand by helplessly.

"God has cursed us," he says, looking toward the sky. "Why else are we allowed to suffer for so long? What have we done wrong?"

When Salat looks up, all he sees is a relentless sun beating down on his country. There's not a cloud in sight. Forecasters confirm Salat's worst fears -- little or no rain is expected in the coming weeks.

When I read that, I was very, very sad…nearly at the point of tears. I too wonder why God has seemingly “cursed” Africa’s land. Why Africa, I wonder? Why not the U.S., or Canada, or Great Britain, or another world power that has much more than it needs? Africans have next to nothing. Destroying their livestock and their crops through a draught is like stealing the tattered rags off of a homeless man’s back.

Where is the unconditional, infinite love? I struggle to see it when I read stories like these.