The Truth? Not Exactly.
Friday, December 23, 2005
I'm sick and tired of all of these "The Truth" ads that you see on T.V. They feature a bunch of whiny, pretentious teenagers with nothing better to do than protest something that has no real bearing or importance on the world.
Go check out their site. It's www.thetruth.com. Although what is advertised is far from what you get.
In particular, there is one part of the site that bugs me to no end. The Facts.
This section is chock full of small tidbits of info. However, the site developers seem to have left out one major part of facts: sources. There is no citation of these "facts" anywhere on their site. They never mention any of the tobacco companies by name. Is this because they are afraid of being sued for libel because they take things out of context? Who knows?
Besides, most of these "facts" are just statistics. Anyone who has been through a basic statistical analysis course will know not to trust stats that are displayed to back up an argument because more than likely the stats are worded or arranged to say what the quoter wants them to say.
It's an old saying in stats that whenever someone asks you what the statistics say, you respond "What do you want me to make them say?"
But citation and statistics aside, do you know what the major flaw with the whole premise of their crusade is? The fact that smokers choose to smoke. No one holds agun up to their head and makes them smoke cigarettes. It always has been and always will be a personal choice.
The other problem that I have with them is that they criticize the tobacco companies when they try to help out:
On its website, one tobacco company lists “cancer services” as one of the community programs they support. Yet they continue to make a product that leads to 339 deaths from lung cancer each day.If a tobacco company wants to provide cancer services, then let them. Next you will probably hear them complaining that tobacco companies provide smoking cessation support.
With all that is going on in the world that needs time and devotion to aleviate, such as world hunger or homelessness, I refuse to listen to a bunch of people whining about other peoples choices. These are the same people who, if they had their way, would make it illegal to smoke outdoors or in your own home. These people are almost worse than the environmentalist wackos at Greenpeace or EarthFirst! or the ELF.
Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 10:23 PM
Walk the Line
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Earlier this week I went to go see Walk the Line with some of my friends. For those of you who don't know, this movie is about the life of Johnny Cash. He sang songs like "Ring of Fire," "I Walk the Line," "Boy Named Sue," and others. Johnny Cash was played by Joaquin Phoenix and June Carter was played by Reese Witherspoon.
I have to say that this is the best movie that I've seen this year. This movie definitely deserves a lot of awards. Joaquin and Reese are to be commended as well for singing the songs themselves.
The movie chronicles the hardships that Cash went through, from his drunk and abusive father, his brothers death, through Johnny's battles with drugs and alcohol. The acting is simply amazing.
I give this movie 5 stars. Go see it.
[* * * * *]
Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 2:22 PM
I hate PETA...
Thursday, December 08, 2005
I know that I have already covered this subject before, but I feel passionately about it.
To anyone who has seen the site Meat.org, let me say "I'm sorry." I'm sorry that you had to witness that tripe from a group of terrorist harbingers. I know that sounds like a harsh indictment, but its true.
PETA members are involved in direct action campaigns (read: terrorist activities) every year. The people that throw paint on fur coats and hand out comic books that say "Your Mommy kills animals" are terrorists.
Terrorism isn't necessarily about violence for the sake of violence. It is very direct and very controlled violence. It is violence with a purpose. Although the violence may be direct at one group of people, that group may not be the intended recipient of the terrorism. The violence is designed to instill fear in the rest of us.
The activities that I described earlier have one desired effect: to make people afraid of reprisals if they wear fur or animal products.
What's more is that these people want you to be vegetarians for moral reasons.
Here is a screenshot of PETA's goveg.com website. (Emphasis added).
Point 1:At the top of the page, Paul McCartney is quoted as saying
"If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is just stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you can do."
No, Paul, not eating meat will not save the planet. Nothing will save the planet. It is physically impossible to save the planet. The planet is very old and has gone through several climate changes already. Nothing the human race can do will "Save the planet." Why? Because the planet will adapt no matter what. That and time is on the side of the planet. As it was said on Fight Club "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." You are not saving the planet, you are saving the humans.
Point 2:PETA is trying to claim that a vegetarian diet is the most humane diet there is. This rips that idea to shreds.
Point 3:While people like Paul McCartney, Alec Baldwin, and Alicia Silverstone sit around and preach that we shoudl save the animals, thousands of people in America go hungry. Thousands of people don't have enough food to feed their families. All of the money and effort designed to get people to switch to "alternative diets" could be better spent on feeding the poor. I have no sympathy for a group who wastes money on trivial issues like whether people eat meat or not.
If you really want to help animals, join a respectable group like the A.S.P.C.A. (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Don't let PETA's shock tactics fool you.
Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 8:13 PM
The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act of Video Games.
Friday, December 02, 2005
I know that I have already posted on this, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and let the government intrude on what kinds of video games that I can play. I, personally, like and prefer violent video games. They are cathartic, especially after dealing with rush hour traffic. According to an article over at Gamespot.com, junior Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, both Democrats, have authored a bill that could possibly have some devastating effects on the video game industry.
In what amounts to the equivalent of the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act for video games, this legislation would give the government unprecedented powers of regulation over the industry. What is interesting is that the ratings that the government wants to make law are those same self-imposed ratings that the industry came up with on its own.
If we already have a rating system in place that people are already abiding by, then why do we need to make it a law?
Senator Clinton has made some interesting remarks about why they authored this bill:
"video game content is getting more and more violent and sexually explicit."In my opinion, it isn't the violence that is bothering them, rather it is the sexual content. Violence has been a part of video games ever since you could shoot down airplanes on your Atari system. What I'm having a problem understanding is how two Democrats could have a problem with the freedom of expression inherent in these video games. Wasn't it the democrats who were supportive of the artist who displayed a picture of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant feces and dead farm animals in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum of Arts? I know that I am painting with broad strokes here, but in this case the generalization supports the point that typically it is the Democrats who are more liberal and allow more "controversial" stuff into the public arena because it broadens our minds.
Why is it that the left preaches that we should be tolerant of all beliefs, except for those that the right hold?
Another interesting quote from Senator Clinton is:
"A majority of parents are feeling increasingly victimized by a culture of violence that makes it difficult to protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate,"Isn't this the same thing that Christians everywhere are trying to do? "Protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate?" We can't teach Creationism or even Intelligent Design as alternatives to Evolution? What about the influences that are already out there that parents don't want their children exposed to? Ex: Will & Grace, The L word, etc.
As is to be expected, the pissing match has already begun.
As the shirt says:
Shirt available for purchase here.
Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 10:58 PM
I wrote another post on this, but it was too wordy and mainly for my own benefit. So, here is the boiled down version:
I got dumped on Sunday November 26th by a woman that I cared a lot for.
It hurts...a lot.
Listening to the version of "Wicked Game" by HIM helps a little bit.
I don't really know why she dumped me.
It hurts...a lot.
Posted byJ. R. Guinness at 7:00 PM