The State of the World Address: Stephen Harper and His Stupidity

A Coalition...
A Coalition may be coming.

Well, every Canadian who gives a shit about who runs the show and handles the flow of their money and tax dollars should know that a coalition is in the works. Right now, it looks like a coalition may well happen; thanks to Harper. I'm in support of a coalition for a reason; I voted to get that fucking dipshit out of office, along with most of the people who fucking bothered to vote. If, say, at least 75% of the eligible voters in the land of Hockey and Back-Bacon voted, I am sure that the Conservatives would be out of there. But no, that's not how it turned out.

But, in empathy of his informed and uninformed supporters (the latter of which I am sure is the majority), I realize that Harper's been politically suicidal for a while now, so I don't feel sorry for the guy. He's been flip-flopping, ruthlessly attacking other parties, putting into place plans to move for political resolutions like banning public sector workers from striking (I tell you, with some of the resolutions to be in consideration, courtesy of the Tories, they'll have little to no support from the working class citizens of Canada), and even pulling back-stabbing antics like coercing Michaëlle Jean into supporting his party (of all of them) and shutting down parliament to slow down the efforts of the coalition pushers.

The guy's a fucking tool, can't my fellow Canadians see that? It's not surprising that any politician would be an idiot on at least some level, but Harper is so different his idiocy is almost refreshing, just not in a good way. He's also a dullard, but the only instances where he will have any bit of flare is when he's being a huge dick towards other people, namely other politicians; he's been doing that lately. Want to know one of the big reasons why Dion lost in the last election? Because of the Conservative ads attacking his image and character; you remember the one, where they edited a speech he gave about the Carbon Tax plan to make it seem like he wants to tax the majority of the country. And soon after the election, he wanted to take away the ability of other federal parties to get a majority and whatnot.

The idiot brought this coalition onto himself.

Another recent move is his wishes to get more seats in the Ontario riding -- 21 seats. Basically, he lost about 10 seats in Quebec, and is bound to lose more, so now he's trying to compensate in a province that, while literally divided when it comes to support of the Conservatives or the Liberals, gives a huge potential for any party to simply gain more control. This will alienate Western Canada further, and this would be a bad move because of Western Canada's growing influence on the rest of the country, since at least half of the production and economic growth of the country is from those provinces. So there's another self-destructive move orchestrated by Harper and his cronies.

Oh well, we all might be relieved (while some won't) when the coalition goes into place and the Tories boot that idiot's ass out of his position and into something lower (which is standard procedure). While I do not support him at all, which is quite clear in my flamboyant expressive rhetoric, I'd give him some advice; shut the fuck up or fire your current spin-doctors, and hire new ones. If the idiot wants to stay where he's at, he should take some advice from whomever offers it, because what he's doing now is disastrous for him and his party. He'll be marked as an embarrassment to the Tories if he continues his downward spiral.

Heil Harper!

Not.

I'm a Moody Fucking Poet

1) What is your name?
Garrett Alexander Will

2) What is your age?
20 years young.

3) What is the highlight of your day?
I had an interview at the Botsford Esso.

4) How was it?
I think it went good. My experience is not so great, maybe, but I did my best to convince him that I am one to be hired.

5) Do you have any plans tomorrow?
No.

6) Do you have any plans for this week?
Not yet.

7) Have you met anyone new in the past month?
Yes, Cassie.

8) Can you name all of your friends?
Adam, Tyler, Cassie, Sylvie, Gabby, Mark (yes Mark, I still call you a friend), Ryan, Darren

9) Who are your closest friends?
Adam, Cassie, Gabby, and Tyler I guess.

10) What colour are your eyes?
Blue, with a grey tint. Really doesn't mean much unless you shine a suitably-toned light on them to really look.

11) Why are you taking this quiz?
Bored as fuck.

12) How much money do you have in your wallet?
None, but that doesn't mean I don't have some spare change lying around in other places.

13) How tall are you?
I'm about 6 feet, just slightly shorter than my sis.

14) Are you an only child?
No, I have a biological sister and a half-brother.

15) Do you get along with your family?
Yes, I'd say so.

16) Where do you live?
Moncton, NB

17) Is there a village/town/city in which you want to live?
I'd like to live in North Vancouver some day, but that won't come for a while. First, I need the money. Then, I need to know what I will do there. I haven't met either of those yet :P

18) Do you have a talent?
I feel that I am good at writing and playing games. I haven't touched on my talents too much in the last while, which is sad and unfortunate.

19) What is your mood right now?
Better than before; I'm somewhat mellow. Before, I was sort of gloomy, because I noticed that it's the winter season a little too well for my own good. I don't like winter.

20) How many songs do you have in your playlist? And do you have a name for it?
At the moment, there's 317 songs in there. I ripped half a dozen songs earlier, so there'll be approximately 323 songs at the end of the day. I call my playlist "Indulgence in Bearsong Vistas."

21) What are you listening to now?
Relax by Powerman 5000

22) What are/were your most favorite classes in school?
English, Journalism, Biology, Computer Sciences, Visual Arts

23) Are you artistic?
Yes, somewhat.

24) If you are artistic, what kind of art do you do?
Literary art (writing). Some sketching when I actually get to it.

25) Is there anyone you are interested in romantically?
No. However, I am attracted to someone.

26) Does he/she know?
Yes, I think so.

27) What is stopping you?
She broke up recently and is not fully over that. That and she's going through a lot of things, so I want to take things slowly. At the time, we're friends, and I hope, we're good ones.

28) How would you describe your personality?
I'm big-hearted, open-minded, logical, dynamic, moody, somewhat introverted yet slightly extroverted (I'm rather reserved), imaginative, analytical, sexual.

29) Do you have any heroes?
For the record, I'm not a follower (nor am I a leader). However, I do appreciate a number of people and figures in our history. Such include Sigmund Freud, Richard Dawkins, Dana Monteith, Keith Olbermann, and others whom I can't name right now.

30) Do you have a good memory?
Most of the times. However, when I think too hard, I can forget things. Usually these things include words and vocabulary. It just has to come naturally I guess. I still remember some things many years ago, like my various surgeries.

31) Are you a virgin?
No

32) When was your first time?
18; almost 3 years ago.

33) Do you like your job?
I don't have one at the moment. I really need and want one :/

34) Are you serious about politics?
Somewhat. I'm pretty opinionated regarding the parties that call themselves the "bosses" of our country, and of other countries. I support the NDP party at the moment.

35) What country do you live in?
Canada

36) Have you ever been in a fight?
Playfights here and there, but I was slugged across the face once. I think, when I was a bit of a shit at some point, I ticked off some kid with a short temper and he slugged me right there.

37) Do you hurt easily?
What, physically? No.

38) I meant to ask whether you feel emotional pain easily?
Ah, got'cha. I'm somewhat emotional and I do get hurt a little easily. When I get lied to (white lies don't hurt me) or used, I get quite upset.

39) Are you a social person?
I'm not an outgoing guy but I do get along with my tightly-knit circle of friends, at least, I think. As I said before, I'm reserved.

40) Why are you writing this interview?
Bored as hell.

41) Did you know that the bird is the word?
Bi-bi-bi-bird bird bird!

42) Do you play any games online?
Yes. I play Counter-Strike: Source. At some point, I'll start playing L4D. I'll get back to TF2 when another class update comes out. The Heavy update was a little disappointing to me.

43) Have you written any poems?
Yes, several. One of them is called Pandæmonium Fortress.

44) Any stories?
I'm writing one or two. I know I'm a little dedicated to one of them, and it's called Plague of the Wendigo.

45) Werewolves or Vampires?
Werewolves for the fucking win.

46) What is your favorite animal?
The Grizzly Bear. Mountain Gorilla. Humans.

47) Are you a religious person?
Not at all.

48) Is there a God?
So far, there is no convincing evidence of one, let alone the Abrahamic God. And whose to say it has a gender, let alone being a man with a fucking beard?

49) Do you have a pet?
I have a rabbit, which I call Mo.

50) Are you in a relationship?
No.

51) Do you like sex?
You bet.

52) Do you have porn?
Yes, and I get more a couple times a week. Haha.

53) What book are you reading now?
Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" after a long hiatus. I am not so great when it comes to dedication.

54) Are you lazy?
Fairly.

55) How much do you weigh?
I haven't measured in years.

56) Have you ever had surgery?
Yes, plenty of times. They aren't fun but the last several surgeries were for my benefit.

57) Are you in college/university?
No, but I should start college next September.

58) What course?
Computer Desktop Support. I am aiming to become a Hardware Technician to repair and assess/help with computer parts.

59) What time is it right now?
11:57 PM

60) Do you use perspirant or deodorant?
I prefer anti-perspirants to deodorant, since they seem to work better and aren't so much like cologne.

61) Have you talked to anyone in the last day?
Yes, Cassie.

62) Is there anyone you miss?
Adam and Cassie.

63) What is coming up in the next week?
Christmas Parade. I want to go with someone.

64) Do you have any piercings and/or tattoos?
I don't have any of either one.

65) Are you in a good mood right now?
Pretty much neutral.

66) Are you aggressive?
No, and it takes a lot to get me that way.

67) Are you gay, straight, or bisexual/bi-curious?
I'm bisexual, a little more straight than homosexual.

68) Are you a hateful person?
I personally feel that I am not.

69) What do you think of this question number?
I'd like to give that a whirl some day.

70) Are you ever going to raise a family?
I'm not crazy on that idea. I'm not interested in marriage, nor am I interested in spreading my genes.

71) Even Steven or Odd Todd?
Even Steven.

72) If you could be one person for the day, who would you be?
I haven't given that any thought.

73) Do you take drugs or drink alcohol?
No. Only thing I've done is smoke cigarettes

74) What is on the television right now?
Commercials.

75) What kind of music do you listen to?
Just about any, but mostly Metal, Ambient, Dark Ambient, Blues, and Electronica.

76) Do you have a business card?
In fact, I do. It's mostly to help me get a job, though.

77) Do you see a shrink regularly?
No.

78) How long has it taken you to get this far?
About 45 minutes, I think.

79) Do you use the computer often?
Yes, quite often.

80) Do you have a motto?
Mutant Bearman!

81) Do you have any disabilities?
Yes, hearing disabled. Fairly severe, save for having these BAHAs.

82) Do you have account on Myspace? Facebook? Xanga? Other?
Yes to the first two. I have one on Blogger, Youtube, OkCupid, and RedRoom.

83) Do you visit any message boards?
A couple of them. The Richard Dawkins forums, NotYet forums, & Cannibal Corpse forums.

84) Do you feel like yelling or punching anything/anybody?
I feel like venting off some steam, preferably by punching something. I don't want to punch a person though.

85) Are you angry at anybody?
Not as of recent. I was angry at a couple of people for usurping my circle of friends, but I'm over that.

86) Do you "dissect" yourself?
Yes, to understand myself better. It's better than shutting myself off to, well, myself.

87) How smart do you think you are?
Fairly. I won't self-aggrandize myself, however.

88) Do you have pictures of yourself?
Only a few. I don't take pictures of myself often, in fact, I prefer not to (I'm camera shy).

89) Are you soft-spoken?
A little bit. I don't yell at people unless they provoke me to do that.

90) Lastly, what is on your mind right now?
Quite a few things, so it's hard to lay down a few.

91) Thanks for answering my questions. Would you take another interview if I make another?
Yes, I think so. Not a bad way to kill off time.

State of the World Address: Signs from Fucking Heaven! (Oh dear)

The people...
The people are seeing signs from heaven!

(Big fucking el oh el)

For the longest time, humans have been apparently seeing Jesus, Yahweh/Allah, Moses, and other fucking religious icons, in just about anything; clouds, grilled cheese sandwiches, abstract paintings, cheezies, wooden doors, blankets, a natural assortment of rocks, and even a painting (make that a shitload of paintings) claimed to be a sign or signs from fucking God! Holy. Fucking. Shit!

I'm not convinced though, nor do I see these things!

I laugh at these people for seeing such shit in these objects. Perhaps there could be a reason why some of these nutheads see Jesus on a slice of god damn cheese, which could warrant my sympathy (definitely not my empathy, though). On the other hand, I think it's pure wishful thinking. What the fuck is wrong with my fucking species? Are so many of us this fucking crazy?

I am not insulting my own species, which is supposed to be the smartest fucking animal on the planet, but I am often wondering, just how far have we gone? Have we really moved past our instincts that hold us back? I don't think so, when I think of all the people who still believe in a god or a bunch of gods, or think that Jesus' eyes are on a fucking door, or think that some catatonic girl's bedroom full of religious symbols leaks oil as a sign of god. It doesn't fucking stop there. So what happened to all the “looney joints”? Well, I think that the owners of those insane asylums realized how many people are past or near the brink of insanity, and thought that the sum total of hospitable people far surpasses the capacity of said insane asylums; all of them combined.

We are truly a crazy species. All religions pretty much appeal to our base instincts, and our various fears which are truly an obstacle to overcome for many of us. Fear of death, fear of rejection, fear of women or men (usually the former, as unfortunate as it is), fear of loss, and other fears that have been with us since our anatomy formed into what is pretty much identical to what we are now. Instincts are hard to get away from and this is one of the only things that garner my empathy to wishful thinkers and the superstitious. People don't want to lose their loved ones, or be rejected from groups (we are fairly social animals, after all), let alone face the inevitable death; religion, at least in their minds, resolves all of that. Promises of acceptance, of a “watchful eye” over the health and well-being of their family and closest friends, and an ever-lasting life in some “paradise”! Wow, who wouldn't accept that if that's what appeals to most people on this planet!? I don't know, people who accept reality and don't think that some great big peeping Tom in the sky, or warps on a door that are seen as “eyes” are watching over them and thinking, “are they worthy of my love?”

I can't add anything to the equation, there are so many other human beings on this planet that believe in this religious and faithful crap, often for the most batshit crazy fucking reasons, that I don't think I alone would be able to convince a bare sub-fraction of the superstitious population of earth. I do think though, that if we are to truly move on effectively, we've got to break the chains of superstition and base instincts where we fear death to an unbelievable degree. However, if I know anyone who is close to me that sees Jesus on a potato chip, or on the beach obviously etched by humans, I'll put them in a “better” home; the fucking looney bin!

Bearman out,
realistically speaking

State of the World Address: Canadians and the Federal Elections

The Canadians...
The Canadians don't vote

I'm out and out disappointed in many of my fellows who are eligible to vote and refuse to vote. Fuck, 59% of you voted, and I can see the majority of those votes being the ones who give a damn who is placed in power, like the big guys who make six figure wages annually. Because of that disgraceful vote ratio, the Conservatives have been re-elected. The only saving grace here is that they're a minority government, so they don't have full power like that of a majority government.

I do know that people did vote, but for some fucking reason, the majority of you didn't think voting was useful or were too lazy or stubborn to vote. Well, because of you non-voting citizens who can vote, we have that idiot in office once more. He doesn't appeal to the little guy, such as me and you (unless some of you are connected to people making millions a year), and is not doing much of anything good for this country. His party doesn't listen to us concerned average citizens nor does he care. Like me, many of you other average civvies have a gripe with him and the rest of the Tories; unless you are absolutely uninformed about any of the parties, for which I have no hope, voting helps.

If you don't vote, don't fucking bitch. You may believe that we live in a Fascist country but we don't, stop taking in those stupid conspiracy theories and shit to heart and grow up, we have a democracy. It isn't perfect, nor has it ever been or will ever be perfect, but it's still a democracy. Democracies allow the citizens to make informed (haha, yeah right, not quite so for Canada it seems) decisions about political issues -- like voting. Exercise your rights, and speak up. The voting process gives you that right. It's not that parties that are doing everything in their power to screw up the country are always getting in power, it's that not enough of my fellow Canadians are voting! The little guy is fed up with politics completely or knows jack all about the parties and what they stand for, while the big guy wants the Conservatives to win because the Conservatives will grant tax breaks and all that other bureaucratic nonsense to them, ala special fucking treatment.

The Liberals had a chance, for instance, but so many people took their CARBON TAX plan the TOTALLY WRONG WAY! This tax applies to industrial corporations who make billions of dollars in profit a year and who can easily afford a small tax like that. It would cost them just thousands a month. But many voters were turned off from voting for the Liberals because of the word TAX in 'Carbon Tax'. Utterly laughable. However, one thing I can understand about people not voting for the Liberals is that Dion is a bit difficult to understand due to his Francophone accent. While you can understand Harper's monotonous aristocratic Calgarian accent or Jack Layton's charismatic voice clearly, it's a bit of a chore at times to understand just what Dion said. Dion is a smart cookie and he appears to know how to run the government better than the others, but the way he speaks isn't effective nor is he all that charismatic. Harper has as much charisma as that of a sloth, but he got re-elected? He has proven that he can't run the government all that well, but he got re-elected? I was hoping that Layton would take office, he's a much better speaker than the others and his position seems noble, but he didn't have quite a chance anyway, now did he?

Thanks, and no thanks lazy voting-class citizens. You didn't help at all, so if you bitch about the results, you don't have a fucking say. My vote to the NDP was worth it even though it didn't result in them getting elected; but it was worth it for the effort alone. So many people are lazy or stubborn enough to think that voting is a waste of time or whatnot, but these same people have the guts to complain about it after wasting the chance they had to make a difference. Now I know how Greenpeace activists feel, when people aren't doing enough to make a difference in the most vital climate on the planet, the Amazonian rainforest. It's frustrating. I am frustrated.

Canada SHOULD, even though I know it won't any time soon, follow Australia's footsteps. Make it mandatory to vote and make a punishment for not voting. Fine a voting-class citizen and lock them up for a period of time until they pay the fine, which wouldn't be much. Due to this method, 90+% of the people in Australia place their votes, the non-voting citizens who CAN vote get fined and arrested. We should have this, but I know that the Tories wouldn't put it in place now since they like having power so much. They're probably laughing at you and other careless eligible voters for not voting against them (or voting at all), as well as relieved, because I know most of us wouldn't vote for those idiots. At least, I hope so, because those idiots do nothing for the likes of me and others making a fraction of an aeronautics engineer (that's an example). But the big problem is you didn't bother to vote at all when you had the full ability to do so.

You let Canada down. If you don't want to vote again, then keep your fucking mouth shut.

Bearman out.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed In-Depth Review

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

In-Depth, Detailed Review

by Garrett Will

(Edited for clarity and to correct spelling/grammar errors)

Expelled is a real eye-opener, right as soon as the “curtains” unfold to display the first frame of the film. Showing some modified footage of Eastern & Western Berlin during the construction of the Berlin wall, with the names of crew members cleverly integrated into various parts of the environment, there's nothing that serves to form relevance to the topic of the film for the audience. Just what is the point of this intro?

Then, we shift to an auditorium, and are shown clips of proponents of ID and of Evolution, such as P.Z Meyers & Richard Dawkins, and a couple of ID proponents whose names I cannot give at the time of writing. Once in a while in between each clip of the different figures and their arguments, Ben Stein is shown in a dressing room, looking ecstatic and/or to the brink of tears. Immediately after, he begins to walk towards the auditorium, which greets him with loud claps and an almost scripted appearance of glee. Ben Stein talks about the decay of “freedom” in America in both the auditorium and outside of the Washington monument, but because of what, he doesn't get to. He then begins to ponder paranoid thoughts about the scientific establishment doing some suspicious things regarding freedom of inquiry (including such wonderful things as suppression and oppression of differing viewpoints, and other lovely tactics). Unsurprisingly, he doesn't serve anything to support it; this trend overlaps the entirety of the film. This is just a warning from me to you..

So then, the movie jumps to the subject of an allegedly 'expelled' editor for a paper run by the Smithsonian institute, named Richard Sternberg. With the man's life supposedly ruined when he was said to have been fired by the Smithsonian institute for publishing an article by Dr. Stephen Meyer, in which Meyer proposed that Intelligent Design was a possible alternative theory to Evolution. Ben Stein plays along by saying, “you were a bad boy, a bad boy, bad boy”, appearing to draw a scheme of baseless accusations. A flaw in the argument put forth is that it doesn't show us the big picture, nor the real one, regarding Sternberg's tenure as a scientific journalist. It shows us a paper published by Meyers, but it is severely edited, with sections crossed out. It zooms in and sweeps the paper in certain parts; this could suggest a quote-mining method to convey a different point. What the movie should have done is shown the audience the entire paper, unedited, to allow the audience to decide for themselves. That, and it wouldn't have to take long either, thanks to the 'magic' of the pause button so that viewers can read the whole paper themselves. Lastly, Stein sits down with Sternberg who explains his so-called “predicament” and what happened, but it's all very amateurish, almost on-the-spot material; he pauses from time to time. In the process, it shows some cuts from a clip of three men beating on a poor single individual. It seems that the film is trying to equate the Scientific Establishment as the bullying men, with Sternberg serving as the bullied man. Yet it's all baseless without evidence put forth for the audience.

Stein interviews an opinionated man, Michael Shermer, who is a skeptic and has an opinion regarding the credibility of either Evolution or Intelligent design, himself claiming that Intelligent Design is very close to being nonsense. It's a short-lived but ineffective interview.

Another interview of a supposedly “expelled” Caroline Cocker, a teacher at George Mason University, follows. By merely mentioning Intelligent Design (and not teaching it, as she asserts) in her class, she supposedly got fired from the university later on. She also says that she got blacklisted from the academic community. Nothing proves the case, it's all assertion. This interview is disappointing since it doesn't cover the whole picture, not even a fraction of the picture that the first interview with Sternberg surprisingly had. A very short clip from the 30's or 40's is shown of shadowed figures carrying away a lurching, smaller figure off; this is another means from the filmmakers to try to show that the academic arena is suppressing the careers of those who disagree, or seem to anyway.

Another person seems to have been expelled, Dr. Michael Egnore of Columbia University, a neurosurgeon who wrote a medical article putting forth a case that the conscience “couldn't come forth by an accidental origin.” The article put forth that evolution is not needed to explain the origin and elements of the brain that intrigues us to this day. Supposedly, he got so much criticism from what him and the film calls “nasty Darwinists” and others in agreement of the scientific theory, he got silenced. Supposedly, he received “nasty comments”, and vicious accusations; his website which serves as a publicly viewable journal for his research was shut down, so they say. The website address was not supplied in the film. Tricky tactic there, Stein.

Yet another person seems to have been “expelled” from the academic arena, but he's perhaps the most crooked of them all. Without any evidence or any actual argument to base his allegations and ad hominems on, the “10 year, academically safe” Robert J. Marks the 2nd, says that a close-minded ideology formed in the scientific arena is negatively affecting those who do not fully support the current scientific ideas proposed. His website, if there was one, was shut down; again, this is an allegation. Like every other interview in this film, it is supplied by clips from old films, this time from Planet of the Apes, with Charlton Heston's character being sprayed by a jailor ape while in captivity. Again, this is another method of making the scientific arena seem to be the bad guy.

Dr. Guillermo Gonzales is the next up, who is, or was, an astronomist from the University of Washington. It is alleged that he got into a “shootout” from Iowa State university over his book “The Privileged Planet”, in which he puts forth that the universe was intelligently designed. This supposedly put his tenure as an astronomer in jeopardy. Still, nothing to really prove the point, with assertions all around.

Ben Stein says that they got into contact with a number of “scientists” who wished to remain anonymous 'for fear of losing their jobs'. Their argument is that when the academic community even hears anything regarding Intelligent Design, it is equated with creationism, the religious right, etc. Is this really a case of narrow-minded lack of motivation towards investigating the “Intelligent Design theory”, or is it really intended to bend the truth, to make intelligent design seem like a truly scientific theory when it is simply creationism under the guise as a scientific idea?

The film then shows clips of proponents of the scientific method, but uses certain tricks to undermine their arguments. One is the low lighting quality surrounding each interviewee. Whether or not this is a method of demeaning the appearance or even presence of these people is questionable, but it's likely to be just that. They show one proponent's rather poor 'argument' that ID is “boring, boring, boring”, which doesn't do any good for the scientific argument, but the film deliberately goes in-depth on his argument above the others, even P.Z Meyers who receives around 12 seconds of footage in this part.

Stein goes to the Discovery Institute, the same institute that wouldn't defend ID under oath during the Dover vs. ID case (several prominent members of the 'institute' went AWOL during the case to avoid the case, for what reason, is not known to this day). Ben Stein then finds his nerdy-looking self in the Bible Belt of Los Angeles, California, with “Your own personal Jesus” playing in the background. He finds himself at Biola University. A member is lectured on what his profession may be (Gee, Stein, shouldn't you at least know about your interview interests before taking them on?), and asks whether he was a pastor, minister, youth minister, or supported the prominent figures of creation like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson financially through donations. “No” is the answer to them all. Then, Intelligent Design is alleged to be the “study of patterns in nature best explained with intelligence.” This throws off the contemporary definitions of ID completely, but is perhaps just this one man's opinion of it. Ben Stein leaves and says, “he doesn't sound like a crazy person...” Funny guy, right?

(no)

Another member of the Discovery Institute, in fact a member that avoided the Dover case back in '05! He says that Darwinism was an attempt to paint the entire picture of a branch of science (obviously bound to be Biology) with the idea of Natural Selection. He says that “Newton was Physics” (even though Newton explained motion, not the entire subject of physics. D'oh!), however, this argument is null since it's a blatant generalization that seems to aim to demean scientific theorists, especially Charles Darwin.

Jonathan Wells, a fellow of the Discovery Institute yet again, is sought. This man says that Darwinism “corrupts the evidence – distorts the evidence.” Otherwise, the arguments are nothing new, where Wells says that he “loves Science.” Stein then narrates, “was Darwinism really that baaaaad?” It's a poor attempt at humoring the audience into staying interested to hear what Ben Stein and his future interviewees have to say about the ID vs. Evolution debate.

Another person is interviewed. He asserts that Evolution is “such a mess', so filled with holes, so distorted, that he compares it to a “room full of smoke.” It, in his opinion, has none of the rigor of other established scientific ideas, and is a drop in the meter of intelligibility. He says that “we don't even know what a species is!” My question is, is this man credible enough to be taken seriously? Richard Dawkins is shown briefly giving his opinions, to which Stein displays him as a heavy contender against ID. Stein then says that each previous interviewee aside from Shermer was a “highly credented scientist.” (Funny, it might not be relevant, but my internet browser's integrated dictionary could not recognize 'credented' as a certified term)

However, the film's point fails when it deliberately misconstrues the point of Evolution, when he says that it was meant to explain the origin of life. One can read the definition of the word 'Evolution' to understand the very purpose of the scientific theory.

In trying to further undermine the theory, he shows clips of one pro-Evolution film that asserts that life may have formed by a stroke of lightning on “primordial ooze.” He interviews a scientist who supports the evolutionary theory, who gives a possible explanation for the origin as “forming on the backs of crystals” (which follows with a short, old clip of a magic crystal, oddly enough). Stein deliberately misunderstands the proponent's case, to which the interviewee shows minor frustration.

Dr. Walter Bradley is shown saying that the 250 proteins forming the simplest forms of life couldn't have happened through “simple steps.” A short film about the chances of those 250 proteins being arranged to cause that simple organism to form; it asserts that in order for this to happen, those proteins have to be placed or organized in the right order 250 times, perfectly, in order for that simple organism to even form. Two scientists are shown saying that the probability of a natural origin of life is one in a “trillion-trillion-trillio

n-trillion-trillion-trillion!” There is no basis for this outlandish “chance” ratio being conceived of in either case. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are guilty of using this strange argumentative method to convey the improbability of something they think was impossible. One of the interviewees says that “nature has to be skewed for it to work.” All baseless with no evidence to support the arguments. Another failed attempt at debunking the scientific method, and for any clear-headed, thinking watchers, this wouldn't help for Ben Stein's favor.

Rather under-developed ideas of the natural origin of life, such as alien intervention or the “backs of crystals” idea put forth from a previous interviewee seem to be asserted as the strongest arguments for the natural origin of life. More weak arguments and quote-mining.

A recycled argument is put forth that the cause of the origin of life, the formation and intricate elements of DNA, and other still intriguing subjects are so complex, that the best explanation as the cause of these things is an intelligent designer. Stein questions about the possibility of Darwinian Evolution even capable of producing the cell. To him, they're too complex to be a result of long-term natural processes. It perpetuates the decades-old escapist argument that “it's too complex to know, so God did it.” Simple as that, and that's why the Scientific Community doesn't take ID or Creationism seriously.

Another falling point of the film, and the interviewees within, is that the ideas put forth by Darwin are the be-all, end-all of the scientific method explaining the gradual change of life on Earth. After all, Ben, and your fellow compatriots, scientific ideas constantly change; Evolution is far from an exception, as it is one of the most robust theories due to the countless amount of new information added to it, and the revisions of previous ideas in the theory to keep it in coherence with natural explanations of the universe, and other current scientific ideas of different and related fields. So far, the theory of Evolution has withstood the test of time, the sheer amount of skeptic inquiry and investigation in the academic arena, and came out in spades. Next time, if there is another time for Stein, he should study at least a little bit on the subject before tackling it and its credibility.

A dire case is developed, and it had been throughout the entire film so far, that the scientific community is impeding on the academic freedom, by silencing the “other view.” While it is true that Science does not involve a Democratic process, the proponents of intelligent design shown in this rather heated part of the film try to compare it to a totalitarian agenda to keep ideas that are not supported from being seriously considered. It all lays down that a conspiracy theory is running amok, perpetrated by the scientific community, to silence those who do not put forth generally accepted ideas. Paranoia based on an argument from incredulity. A “fear” of free speech, or new ideas, as Stein says, is supposed to be present in the scientific community.

Hell, it is even called a “gospel”, but for what reason, is not too clear. The only means of possibly supporting this idea is when they show footage of Eugene Scott, a figurehead for the National Science Center for Science Education (whom Stein claims is behind every “controversy” behind Evolution science in the last 25 years. What defines controversial in Stein's mind, in this case?). Stein deliberately misconstrues all of her points. Dawkins is also shown giving his argument on the matter, but even he is misconstrued to be saying that supporting Evolution equates to becoming Atheistic. The case developed here by Stein is that Evolution equals Atheism. Also, he tries to lay the point that the media generally accepts the scientific method rather than the religious method. Journalists were alleged to be silenced and harshly scrutinized by unnamed sources, then claiming the careers of these journalists.

The equation of science to fierce artificial selection continues. Just about every trick in the book is used to try to support this point. However, Stein fails to acknowledge that it was scientific inquiry that was restricted in earlier generations, not religious ideas. Various scientific ideas were frowned upon, sometimes seen as blasphemous by the overtly religious authorities, following a rather theocratic political process. However, that barrier was defeated by acceptance through hard-proof to support the scientific ideas that were once so antagonized by the political and even scientific communities, that it was at times illegal to teach or propose these “bad” scientific ideas and often resulted in judicial discipline. Stein has an agenda here when he deliberately misses this historical fact, and it's thus completely devoid of competence for that reason.

The film carries on for a while in a drab, uninteresting, and completely non-educational way. It continues to portray science as the bad guy. Stein and the interviewees, including a newly introduced Alister McGrath, bend Richard Dawkins' arguments on the ID vs. Evolution debate to say that there is an ideological war between the two different opinions. More deliberation takes place in which they try to say that scientific supporters want you to break away from your religious beliefs in order to further scientific discovery. This is a moot point because Science is itself impartial to religious or ideological inclinations. However, to convey his and the ID proponents' point, they reverse the fact.

Later on, throughout the constant attempt to convey Evolution as an oppressive ideology, and then aftewards, the film really dips to a new low. Evolution is said to be the root inspiration of the Naziistic ideology that practiced Social Darwinism. In giving their point that Evolution leads to Science, coupled with the pushing of Darwinism leading to Social Darwinism, which is a political ideology. He finds himself in Dachau, one of the worst execution camps of the Nazi regime.

The point rings loud and clear with this part of the film; accepting evolution seems to lead to killing people in such sick, twisted ways. However, accepting evolution alone does not equate to any behavior as such. It is only when the concept of “natural selection” is imposed as a societal ideology that outlandish, violent, sadistic behavior that the Nazis and other necessarily evil regimes take place. This forced Darwinist ideology translates into Artificial Selection, essentially a forced system of survival of the fittest. A problem in this ideology is that there is no competition amongst those found in the ideology; the imposer of this ideology has the upper hand by default, and is also the one who decides who is fit to live. There is absolutely nothing scientific about this ideology, but Stein tries to slap the "This is Scientific Practice" label on it, to better his currently lame argument.

Quote-mining takes place again, which isn't surprising, this time taking Darwin's words from his master-work The Origin of the Species way out of context; this is all an attempt to support Stein's tried point that Darwin supported culling the unfit members of our species as we deem them to be. Funny enough, Stein engages in a concentrated vision contest of sorts with the statue of Darwin during his visit to Down House, where he was buried. Whatever mood he was trying to establish with this scene, didn't work for me (as I was annoyed by the film's many glaring flaws at this point).

Soon, Stein finds himself returning to the capital of America, where he quote-mines the words of Thomas Jefferson where he himself talks about the freedom that America was based upon, and to support freedom of inquiry. The overlapping point of the point developed with all this is that the Scientific Method and the community supporting it are entrenched, universally supported suppressors of different views and as Stein claims, freedom of inquiry. Science is portrayed is the wrong side of the wall, while ID supporters (and as Stein and his compatriots basically say) and of freedom of inquiry are the good side of the wall.

Stein interviews Dawkins, but Stein dodges the argument throughout. He also seems to have misunderstood Dawkins completely when he asks who created the earth, and thus the first life on earth. Dawkins admits that to this day, we are not fully sure how the first organism on earth appeared. Also, when Dawkins pointed out that a certain kind of intelligent design may be possible, Stein narrates again and totally changes what Dawkins said to fit his point of view. He then asks the overused questions that Dawkins clearly has encountered one too many times, like, “what if when you die, you run into God?” Or “do you not believe in any God?” If Stein actually filled in on what Dawkins wrote, or let alone had been saying in the interview, he wouldn't have asked him if he believed in any god. It's a deliberate misunderstanding of the opposing view.

So the film ends with Stein finishing his speech that was shown in the beginning of the film, in which he appears as a supporter of freedom, and tries to portray science as the enemy of that very freedom he supposedly champions. The film then closes, and breathed a sigh of relief. I didn't feel relieved in that I deliberately wasted over an hour and a half of my time to review this, but I feel it could help put some leverage on the more reasonable side of the argument in doing so.

I shall summarize this film's pros and cons; strengths and weaknesses below.

• Baseless accusations against the academic community from all the film's supported corners of being oppressive towards differing views, impeding on freedom of inquiry and information, and general methods of antagonizing the scientific methods.

• No evidence is provided in the cases that the pro-ID speakers bring forth. The interviewees in the beginning, who are alleged to have been fired or silenced from their careers in the field of science for merely mentioning Intelligent Design, are especially guilty of this. They were proven to be false through research done by various unpaid individuals.

• Uses recycled and countlessly refuted arguments, such as the Reductio ad Hitlerum (otherwise known as argumentum ad Hitlerum) that tries to tie Evolution directly to the Nazi ideology; also the argument that accepting science leads to militant Atheism.

• Quote-mines and twists the words (spoken or written) of those who do post material or put forth opinions not in agreement with Stein & his compatriots, nor the filmmakers. Victims of this quote-mining method include Darwin himself and Richard Dawkins as notable examples.

• Develops a conspiracy theory in which the scientific community is really a conglomerate organization that suppresses differeing views that are not seen as scientific, ala Big Science. This idea is pushed throughout a large portion of the film and gets very tiresome, albeit with little basis to rely on.

• Interviewed the non-agreeing interviewees (PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, and others) under false pretenses, advertising the film to them as being named “Crossroads: the intersection of science and religion” and being rather impartial to either side of the debate, in comparison with the final, deceptive product. Proof of this deception is here and here.

• The interviews in the beginning portion of the film provide false situations and are deceptive, not to mention not backed by supportive evidence. A statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington backs the claim that Richard Sternberg circumvented the editorial process to ultimately publish the article, which, by some sources, is said to be biased for the article and its author and that Sternberg himself is aligned ideologically with the author's own.

• Deceptive marketing towards the audience, advertising itself as a look at the intelligent design versus evolution debate and offering insight on the matter. Instead, it is a completely one-sided attack on the scientific method.

• Offers no new insight on the matter, from either viewpoint. The film thus wastes the audience's time.

• Misconstrues the points put forth by the scientific method and the academic arena. It deliberately makes the audience misunderstand the scientific idea acceptance process, in how it requires not opinion or faith for the ideas to be acceptable, but evidence and proof to support the ideas and their claims. If the opposite were true, for example, pink unicorns would be accepted as true on the grounds that a contender in the academic arena felt sure that they exist.

• Stein tries to add subtle humor touches, but they are ineffective and do nothing to help the film.

• Uses Jon Lennon's “Imagine”, but in the wrong context. Allegedly, this use was not permissible by the owner, Yoko Ono.

• Also used a short animated segment developed by Harvard University's XVIVO without permission.

• Used a song by The Killers under false pretenses through the band's manager, by misleading him about the film.

Consensus:

Ben Stein's opinionated outing here adds nothing to the debate by way of philosophy or information, other than trying to add a sense of urgent settlement of the debate, preferably to them in favor of the proponents of Intelligent Design (and thus Creationism). Stein and Mathis (the film's main producer) break many rules, and thus portray a self-destructive level of dishonesty. False pretenses, baseless accusations, ad hominems, lack of evidence for the arguments put forth, and other wrongful tactics dominate the majority of the film's duration. Stein does nothing to boost the flavor; he's a dullard in just about every sense of the word: his voice is monochrome, he has a relatively slow-paced gait, and has a poor ability of expression. Many of his narrations in the film are narrow-minded, and during the scenes in which he gives a speech at an auditorium, his message slightly resembles political propaganda. Lastly, the film uses early 1900's footage of the second world war and the social decay that followed it (including a scene where three men push around a single smaller man) to illustrate science as the oppressive figures in each footage.

Critically thinking Christians hoping to get some insight into the matter of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design should look elsewhere, for it offers nothing new or even revised. Supporters of Science, Atheistic or not, should approach this film with a grain of salt at best.

My own expectations were pretty low, thanks to the dozen reviews (out of dozens of others) that almost universally chastised the film for mostly the same reasons as mine; but after watching it for myself, writing this review as it went along, it didn't even meet those already low expectations. Plus, after seeing some politically opinionated footage of Ben Stein where he suggests that the United States Army is both a “super-powered sitting Duck” and that the country should open nuclear war on other countries “for defense”, further cements my low opinion of him as an incompetent political and pseudo-political source.

F grade tripe.

Half a star out of five, and it's barely deserving of that.

State of the World Address: The Misleading and the Misled

The people...

The people are being exploited...

The average person, you and I basically, is rather uneducated regarding political affairs. You can't quite blame yourself for this lack of necessary knowledge, so that should provide some comfort. But, unfortunately, there is a market for the average person with this unjust lack of political knowledge; Conspiracy Theory.

Who are the people running this market? I can name a few names, like David Icke, Alex Jones, the Zeitgeist film producers, 9/11 "Truthers", just to name a few. Sensationalists is all they are, but some are ridiculous crackpots artists, con artists, liars, insane, patronizing...you know the drill. They all have one thing in common; they're scam artists. The Conspiracy Theory movement is a big hoax. It's the reason why no one takes them seriously.

I'm not to say that I'm one of the people these idiots would call "ignorant", I realize that you can't automatically, by default, place all your trust in your government; you have to be aware of their motives and actions. You need to know the hows, whys, whens, and whats to everything they do (well, not necessarily everything, that is unless you're a masochist obsessive paranoid delusional [heh, that's a lot of words meaning one thing]). However, I'm calling them out on trying to exploit my, I admit, relative lack of political knowledge, and I speak the same for others who sadly fall for their bullshit. They make money off of this ignorance, which isn't to say I am patronizing my fellow man and woman, and it needs to stop. It's a crime is what it is, and one day, it will be illegal.

Alex Jones is one of the most outspoken of these Conspiracy Theorist con artists, delving into such subjects as 9/11, the Zionist movement (which he equates to nearly all of the conspiracies he allegedly believes are true), the UN, the EU, RFID chips, Verichips, the Bilderberg group, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and so on. I've watched an entire film from this very man, focused, almost entirely, on the EU (and the alleged North American Union and Asian Union, which isn't a big deal) and the Bilderberg group. However, whether deliberately or not, he displayed his lack of consistency by delving into topics he thinks are linked to the EU. If you are sorrily convinced by his scare tactics, such as dreadful background music, ambient audio clips of people screaming, lots of cynical behavior from interviewees and groups of people on-screen, and completely paranoid delusions, then I am sorry but it'll take some effort to pull you back.

This film is called 'ENDGAME'. Scared enough? Almost two whole fucking hours of drivel, and fear mongering, and paranoid delusion (and sometimes schizophrenia, as one interviewee being shown during the Bilderberg protest segment seems to be an almost pathological liar, which is a symptom of schizophrenia and psychopathy) but no actual points are made. You also have to realize a piece of truthful thinking with regards to the conspiracy theorist movement; if what Alex Jones and his ilk, and all other conspiracy theorists, were telling their audience were true, then why aren't they gone (dead or disappeared)? Last I saw, which was 6 days ago, Alex Jones was alive and well and stupidly enough, was working on another film. So is David Icke, so are the producers of the massively popular film 'Zeitgeist', as painful it is to realize the testament of the aforementioned film's popularity, the time-wasting Bilderberg group protesters, and pretty much all other conspiracy theorists.

And not to mention, these aren't even scientific theories. They're completely layman theories. Remember, the scientific theory and the layman theory are pretty much opposites, noticeably at least because of my own witnessing of the average person's ignorance to their meanings. No one but the gullible man and woman takes them seriously. But you can't blame the gullible man and woman; they haven't been educated on the matter, and these guys manage to convince them with their paranoid delusions of grandeur and persuade them to accept these delusions as fact. It's a market. Books and media have made money, all made by the conspiracy theorist group. One needs to wonder, and let's keep the emboldened statement in mind, whether or not this conspiracy theory market is ultimately controlled by the Big Media? Is this just another conspiracy theory? You be the judge. I'm not asserting this question like the conspiracy theorists do, I'm merely pondering. Since those tin-foilers are alive and well, you'd got to wonder what the real deal is.

What I want to do with this part of this article is persuade people to make up their own minds. The Conspiracy Theorists, as far as I can tell, are at least just one side of the fucking coin. If you go with them simply because they have an almost admirable level of charisma and persuasion power, you're just sticking with one side of the coin. If you go with the opposite, it's the same deal. Instead, with the power of our minds to reason (even though we are irrational creatures, which is where this conspiracy theory delusional thinking comes in) and question with free will, we can make up our own damn decisions. Wake up people; the Zeitgeist film is just another attempt at grabbing an audience. They know damn well that what they're presenting is full of shit, I am firm on that belief, but since it has worked in convincing people otherwise, they'll stick with selling the product.

Make your own damn decisions. Look at the pros and cons of each argument. So far, in with both sides, I've seen fewer pros and more cons. But,What about you?

State of the World Address: The Beggars & the Bitchers

Talk is cheap.

Shut the fuck up about it.

What is "it", you ask? It's about issues that affect our everyday lives which we cannot change without determined action; those that we complain about and wish against. Continue on to see what I mean.

There's no point in talking about things you don't like that you know deep down inside can't change, and hoping in all your verbal/literal disgust that these things change for our benefit. Some of those things include the gas and oil prices, the common stigma of "honesty hurts", various things consumer-based companies take away from their product lists, and among many other things.

As a whole, we are a bunch of fucking babies.

Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words. Remember, we communicate mostly (and by a wide percentage margin) through physical expression; the face, the eyes, our limbs (hands mostly), our movements; it's not our voices that get the message across more, it's our damn bodies and the movements they make. Use your body to talk. DANCE BABY! Quit 'yer bitchin' and dance! Move your ass!

How do you use your body to speak louder, and clearer, than words?

Let's get into the gas & oil price crisis. Many of my friends and myself, that is all of you able to read this note, fall under the 99% population margin of "lower class" citizenry. This crisis affects us the most and will hurt us more and more as it is let on. And since the current price of gas & oil (not entirely synonymous with nor dependent on one another) is huge; it won't stop there. In what I think is a laughable, pitiful, useless reaction, people try to start up petitions, facebook/myspace groups, anecdotal demands, and the like, in hope and determination to persuade the authorities to lower the price. There are at least 4 groups on Facebook, for example, with the glaringly obvious demand of lowering gas prices. God damn babies, shut up and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

The bitching won't do fuck all. In fact, if any of the Big Oil monopoly players were to see one of these Facebook groups for one, this is what I think they may do: laugh right the hell out loud to tears (with some even suffering from strokes, heart attacks, loss of breath, or any kind of illness to the laughter), and then consider amongst themselves (because we know that a Big Oil executive is never alone), "Let's raise the gas & oil prices up to piss them off even more! Hell, they give us a reason to! They buy our damn product all the time, and they're demanding we lower the prices?" You know they could very well do it. And to support this scenario, they'd pay their media connections like Fox, CNN (CNN especially), NBC, and whatever other major news network you can think of, to publish a story intending to somehow lay blame to the Facebook network, perhaps on the grounds that a "terrorist group is operating on Facebook intending to spread bad word about *insert Big Oil company name here* and encourage those to threaten oil supplies." Thus, like many of the issues floating around the big media right now, those like Russia's monopolistic efforts to control the oil trade or the eco-political conflict of invested interests in the Mid-East 'threatening oil trade routes', or even the bullshit "oil supplies are at an all-time low" line which I've heard at least a dozen times in one form or another.

Just wishing, or sending letters of "concern" ain't going to cut any slightest bit of cheese; you've got to do more. To develop on the gas & oil price crisis, if you want things changed, that is, the grossly high prices of those products (early last year, for example, a full heating-tank of oil would cost up to $800; as of now it is at $1,400), you've got to show the Big Oil companies that you are sick of their manipulative bullshit. They're bullshitting, mean sonsabitchez, but you and I, the masses, have numbers on our side. The best you can do is, at least for a week, or even more if you don't mind; stop driving. Stop putting their products into your vehicles and heating systems (you don't need the latter this time of year, unless you're unfortunately living in the Arctic circle, so scrap that in the case of Summer), and you won't be part of the problem. If people really want this madness to stop, they'll stick up for themselves and stop driving for a week. Or are we so far gone in our dependencies that we don't like the thought of walking a mile, 30 minutes, an hour, or what have you and would rather take the easy way out?

Hope is meaningless but in this case, I am sincerely hopeful, and sure, that the masses rise up and show the enemy that enough is enough. Violence isn't necessary at first, only as a last resort, so the simplest (and most powerful) methods would have to come first. Everyone should stop driving for at least a week, some even a month; ride a damn bike. Change your vehicle's system to no longer depend on the products which Big Oil has their gnarly metaphorical hands on. Stop using oil heating, and go to electric, water, or whatever other form of heating there is instead. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Big Oil has their bloodthirsty claws in Hulk-like grasp of the Water industry.

Also, demanding the government to propose a lowering of the prices of these products is futile because A) they don't control the oil market and B) they make MONEY from this market, C) not giving the government a real reason to lower the prices of products from what they universally consider a viable economic profit margin for their pockets, and D) even a lowering of the prices of oil will result in the price of other products being raised to "make up" for the losses! This is why I think that those who waste their time on these literary efforts should stop while they're ahead. It's a pipedream=centered method of communication that won't produce anything but a few laughs from narrow-minded psychotic (read the definition for this word as it is used technically here) bureaucrats or spiteful spikes in prices for products they know the society from whom they're filthy rich depends on.

That is, if you WANT things to escalate in prices, thus bringing your finances ever so closer to doom, be my guest and keep giving the big industrial powers the reason to jack the prices up for no realistic reasons, sugar-coated with childish excuses, sustained by the bureaucratic minds of the share-holders, who expect more and more money at the end of a week or certain time-span in their already bloated wallets and bank accounts. Our society is so damn selfish, dishonest, chickenshit, unrealistic, short-minded, superficial, and self-destructive that it's going to come right back in our faces like one of those massive boxing gloves you feared about in your dreams and drunken stupors. I'm a contributor to few of these issues (not including the gas & oil crises, thankfully), but I could contribute nothing at all if I wanted. What about you?

The moral of this story? Stop bitching, and start doing. If you want something changed, then don't sit there and type out an email, random-useless petition, letter of "concern/request", or whatever some sad folks bother to do, and show the enemy that you're sick and tired of the bullshit. The French Revolution may be on its way again soon; all it takes is a little chain reaction. Will you start that chain reaction?

Survival is Key...

I think it's time to see things straight.

For the longest time in the last 6 years of my life, I've been devoid of aim. I didn't accept myself for who I am, and what I really want for all this time. That will likely change.

Two university/government-certified personality tests, composed with utter professionalism without the sarcasm or error present in those of internet "5-minute quizzes", held the exact same results despite being completely separate tests. They had the same aim as each other, but were composed and presented differently. Yet I got the same results.

Neat 'o.

My personality is that of an Investigative, Realistic, and Artistic person. Key traits are that I would rather work alone, don't like much physical work, would rather do something that utilizes the brain, am creative, perceptive, rather introverted, and spontaneous. Every one of these traits are what I see of myself. The tests didn't involve right or wrong answers; it was all about perception. For example, one such question would ask, "A person is struggling with a very difficult question. You could help, ignore, or recommend someone else to help him/her. What do you choose to do?" There are 6 categories, which include mine; Investigative, Realistic, Artistic, Conventional, Social, & Enterprising.

I have images of a few careers would suit my personality types. My codes are: IAR, IRA, AIR, ARI, RAI, RIA. You can spot them all on each image. A couple of the careers listed, including Biologist and Architect, are actually appealing to me. You can see all of these in the images below.

Oh, and keep mutating.

The N00z from a N00zBear

So...

I think I'll be moving to Calgary within the next couple months. There's nothing here for me so far, so I have to take opportunities that are presented to me. This opportunity is in the form of my sister is offering to let me share a place with her and her "boyfriend", whom I do not appreciate for his injustices to her. Kind of cool indeed, despite that fact that her "boyfriend" will be living there (or will he? Who knows how low he'll stoop).

From there, I can build up my resources twice as fast as I could out here and end up at my destination sooner; beautiful British Columbia. No, I won't move to Rinse Rupert, but I will end up on the wonderful West Coast.

My preferred/desired destination along the coast would be in the area of Vancouver, not the city so-to-speak. I'm thinking rural Vancouver, somewhere generally quiet (but not in the mudslide-prone parts), but I am now thinking that it could cost more to live in the rural areas than it would in the city-adjacent places like Richmond or Burnaby.

I'll very likely have to be resourceful in this scheme and go to Nanaimo. I've read in several places (accuracy or lack thereof aside) that the cost of living is low in B.C terms, though that might be equal to living in Moncton.

So I'm thinking that the earliest time of my leave would be the last week of March. It's likely that it won't happen that early but it depends on the Sis's progress in getting a job (and a place). Not to mention she's gotta do it soon since her benefactors are going to move to Brandon, MA again. I don't think Jus wants to end up in Brandon, what with the lack of apparent opportunity in comparison to Calgary ($12.50 an hour at Tim Horton's should be a clue to how much money is circulating through the stampede city) and it being in an average province. Fuck, I wouldn't want to move to Manitoba myself, so why would my Sis?

Anyway, I look forward to this. The jobs just don't want to come my way even with my efforts to get one (I applied at more than a dozen this month so far), and my landlord is probably losing patience despite knowing that it's hard for me to get a job. All there is in this blasted province is retail and telemarketing/call-centers

, nothing else that I could write home to. It's a neat little province but it's not for me, plus it's not where I want to end up (complete opposite, yargh).

Grizzly out.

Succession/Recession?

The title is a trick question. The answer is already there; Success.

I got laid off from Vito's last week. That kind of sucked, but in more ways than I perhaps realize. It is simple to say that this layoff was a good thing because it presented me the need to find a better opportunity. And how great for this to be true that I may start working for ADT security systems a day or two from now. What I like most about this opportunity is that I can work from home!

When I registered for the position, as required by the job poster, the job description stated that I can make $1,000 in the first week with "little effort." Sounds a bit too good to be true, eh. Not to mention, the position did not require a job experience. My employer will be Apex, a subsidiary of ADT. It is indeed a work from home job. How much better can you get than that? Well, if you have an education and rèsumé to back yourself up, you can get better definitely. Goes without saying, actually.

If this works out, then I may be able to take back the apartment for myself. It'll be such a good thing for myself if I do that, because it's just too noisy and cluttered at the time with so many people coming and going in the house. Too much second-hand smoke, litter, drunkenness, and noise for my taste. It was so much more peaceful and it was much easier when the place was all to myself. I bought my own food and thus consumed it all myself, the house was quiet, I was extremely minimal with electricity use, and the house was relatively clean (other than my room, but if you know guys like me well, then you would understand why). Nowadays though, with so much laziness, noise, and low-life behavior ridding the place, I can't help but feel very anxious for the day that the apartment can be claimed as my own.

Well, the phone interview for the job is tomorrow, when I make it happen anyway. I hope this goes through, because the job makes pretty damn good money. If I succeed, then I can easily claim this apartment as my own in the very near future. Wish me luck, y'all.