There is a tragedy in the making recently that has not received the attention that it warrants. While much has been made of the cost of gas or our failing economy or global warming, little has been said of the plight of our nation's bees.
Our bees are disappearing at an alarming rate. According to one news article, bee populations are dropping at frightening pace of approximately 30% per year. Soon, we will have no bees. It is time to put an end to this.
But what is the cause of this phenomenon?
Our bees have finally succumbed to the same malady the rest of us have.
Low morals and an inability to follow through on their commitments.
According to Wikipedia, these disappearances demonstrate a "complete absence of adult bees in colonies, with little or no build-up of dead bees in or around the colonies", yet the queen is still present and there remain adequate food stores.
These bees are not dying. They are leaving.
Why are they leaving?
Because they are men and men are, as they say, pigs.
In a bee hive, the vast majority of the bees are male and are expected to do the work needed to maintain the hive. The lone female is the queen. She does nothing other than lay eggs and eat.
In our society today, there are few men who would tolerate such a situation. Why should we expect bees to act otherwise?
I blame our men.
Men in our society have lost the ability to do anything but satisfy their selfish desires. Have fun! Find an attractive female and perform recurring sexual acts with her! Our men have fallen for the media promulgated image of feminine beauty which rewards the petite. Queen bees are enormous. What else can we expect of a male bee under these conditions?
In order to stop this problem, our men must set an example. Work harder. Settle down. Eschew pleasure. Find a fertile woman willing to allow repeated impregnation. It is not enough that the Mormons are already doing this. The rest of us must do our part as well.
Think about it.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
On Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, Health Care Costs & Getting To Know Your Neighbors
The problem with the politicians in Washington is that the only solutions they seem to be able to come up with are more complicated and cause more problems than those they are intended to solve. The typical bill introduced to congress weighs more than the average newborn, and is just as intelligible.
Our representatives in Washington have lost the ability or the will to think.
It requires an effort to create an elegant solution to a problem. It requires thinking to find a simple solution to a problem.
As Blaise Pascal once wrote, "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter."
Our politicians lack the time to make their bills shorter.
I do not. I intend to devote lots of time to doing very little.
I have plenty to time to devote to writing bills that are simple, to the point, and fix a myriad of problems. If elected I will see to it that fewer bills are passed and those that are passed are short. Perhaps even tiny.
For example, I will introduce legislation that makes it a crime to live in an area without mature trees. That's it. This simple law will make a better America. Better than a thousand complex bills could ever do.
Why would anyone want to live in a place without trees? Take Texas, you might say. I won't. I won't take Texas and no person should ever have to. No person should have to live without trees. It is unnatural.
By requiring that people only live in areas where there are plenty of large trees, we effectively stop the destruction of nature for new developments. Builders would be motivated to save trees rather than cutting them down, as they would not be able to sell their homes otherwise. Urban sprawl would come to an end as it would take decades to grow trees of sufficient size to make new areas habitable. Global warming would be reduced as we planted trees to allow new neighborhoods. Trees reduce the need for air conditioning and the energy consumption resulting from it. People would find it pleasant to walk around their neighborhoods, getting exercise and reducing health care costs. And while walking they would meet their neighbors and they could chat about things that people chat about. Such as trees. I understand that many people do that.
Joyce Kilmer may have said it best when he said, "I think that I shall never see, a poem as lovely as a tree". Joyce went on to say a number of things about trees, mostly of an erotic and disturbing nature, referring to their bosoms and mouths on breasts, but that is beside the point. Even though Joyce had an unhealthy attraction to our leafy friends, it is still true that a single tree can solve a multitude of problems. Not the kind of psychological problems that Joyce apparently suffered, but problems nevertheless. By mandating that trees be available to all, we ensure a better future for everyone.
Think about it.
Our representatives in Washington have lost the ability or the will to think.
It requires an effort to create an elegant solution to a problem. It requires thinking to find a simple solution to a problem.
As Blaise Pascal once wrote, "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter."
Our politicians lack the time to make their bills shorter.
I do not. I intend to devote lots of time to doing very little.
I have plenty to time to devote to writing bills that are simple, to the point, and fix a myriad of problems. If elected I will see to it that fewer bills are passed and those that are passed are short. Perhaps even tiny.
For example, I will introduce legislation that makes it a crime to live in an area without mature trees. That's it. This simple law will make a better America. Better than a thousand complex bills could ever do.
Why would anyone want to live in a place without trees? Take Texas, you might say. I won't. I won't take Texas and no person should ever have to. No person should have to live without trees. It is unnatural.
By requiring that people only live in areas where there are plenty of large trees, we effectively stop the destruction of nature for new developments. Builders would be motivated to save trees rather than cutting them down, as they would not be able to sell their homes otherwise. Urban sprawl would come to an end as it would take decades to grow trees of sufficient size to make new areas habitable. Global warming would be reduced as we planted trees to allow new neighborhoods. Trees reduce the need for air conditioning and the energy consumption resulting from it. People would find it pleasant to walk around their neighborhoods, getting exercise and reducing health care costs. And while walking they would meet their neighbors and they could chat about things that people chat about. Such as trees. I understand that many people do that.
Joyce Kilmer may have said it best when he said, "I think that I shall never see, a poem as lovely as a tree". Joyce went on to say a number of things about trees, mostly of an erotic and disturbing nature, referring to their bosoms and mouths on breasts, but that is beside the point. Even though Joyce had an unhealthy attraction to our leafy friends, it is still true that a single tree can solve a multitude of problems. Not the kind of psychological problems that Joyce apparently suffered, but problems nevertheless. By mandating that trees be available to all, we ensure a better future for everyone.
Think about it.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
On The Price Of Gas
I hear a lot of complaints lately about the price of gas. I suppose that if I drove a car myself, I would be more familiar with this issue, but that does not mean that I don't have a solution to it.
I do.
Theoretically, nothing ever costs too much money. If something gets to be more than it is worth, people begin to use less of it, or find an alternative. Economies are cyclical. Prices rise and fall in response to demand, which itself rises and falls in response to price. There is a natural interaction between these things which tends to fix problems and make things work.
Unless something unnatural prevents it.
There was a time when monopolies were allowed to flourish and they interfered with the natural flow of the economy. But steps were taken to prevent them.
Yet we still find that some things, such as gas or homes, continue to rise in price and become unaffordable to the common man.
So there must be some other unnatural thing that is preventing these things from cycling back.
What could that be? I will tell you.
Rich People.
Rich people are unnatural. If a caveman, say, accumulated significantly more wealth (whatever wealth means to a caveman) the other cavemen would eventually kill and eat him and distribute his possessions fairly amongst themselves. That is natural.
If there were nobody around who could afford gas at its current price, then its current price would fall. That is natural.
Rich people can afford things that the rest of us cannot. Rich people make it possible for items to reach prices which are unnatural. Rich people make life more costly for the rest of us by enabling these unnatural prices. Rich people cause more problems than they are worth.
Once I am in office, I will rid this country of the wealthy. Not by killing and eating them (which would result in various other problems that could actually be worse) but by my proposed tax scheme which would increase the tax rate to 100% for excessive income (over 10 times the median income).
Imagine, if you will, a world where everyone is just like you. That is, if you happen to be much like me. If you are, it will be a wonderful world where people are nice to you and do not snigger behind your back because you don't have enough money or dress well enough or lack the social confidence to order for yourself in a restaurant rather than having your assistant do it for you. That is the sort of world I want to live in. If you are not like me, then perhaps you should attempt to be more like me in order to fit in to this future world better. For your own sake.
Think about it.
I do.
Theoretically, nothing ever costs too much money. If something gets to be more than it is worth, people begin to use less of it, or find an alternative. Economies are cyclical. Prices rise and fall in response to demand, which itself rises and falls in response to price. There is a natural interaction between these things which tends to fix problems and make things work.
Unless something unnatural prevents it.
There was a time when monopolies were allowed to flourish and they interfered with the natural flow of the economy. But steps were taken to prevent them.
Yet we still find that some things, such as gas or homes, continue to rise in price and become unaffordable to the common man.
So there must be some other unnatural thing that is preventing these things from cycling back.
What could that be? I will tell you.
Rich People.
Rich people are unnatural. If a caveman, say, accumulated significantly more wealth (whatever wealth means to a caveman) the other cavemen would eventually kill and eat him and distribute his possessions fairly amongst themselves. That is natural.
If there were nobody around who could afford gas at its current price, then its current price would fall. That is natural.
Rich people can afford things that the rest of us cannot. Rich people make it possible for items to reach prices which are unnatural. Rich people make life more costly for the rest of us by enabling these unnatural prices. Rich people cause more problems than they are worth.
Once I am in office, I will rid this country of the wealthy. Not by killing and eating them (which would result in various other problems that could actually be worse) but by my proposed tax scheme which would increase the tax rate to 100% for excessive income (over 10 times the median income).
Imagine, if you will, a world where everyone is just like you. That is, if you happen to be much like me. If you are, it will be a wonderful world where people are nice to you and do not snigger behind your back because you don't have enough money or dress well enough or lack the social confidence to order for yourself in a restaurant rather than having your assistant do it for you. That is the sort of world I want to live in. If you are not like me, then perhaps you should attempt to be more like me in order to fit in to this future world better. For your own sake.
Think about it.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Why You Are So Stupid
Perhaps I should clarify a bit.
Not all of you are stupid. Just the vast majority of you. And it is not that you are extremely stupid, although some of you are. And it isn't entirely your fault that you are stupid, although you must take a good share of the blame.
Advertising causes stupidity.
You have been trained, over time, to be stupid, by advertising. Advertising trains you to have a short attention span, to not question what you are told, and to rely on your feelings when making decisions, rather than your mind. In short, it trains you to not think.
If one hundred years ago you were to offer a product that contained nothing but water, sugar, flavor and bubbles and charged 100 times what the cost of the ingredients were, you would, at best, be laughed out of town. More likely, you would have been shot.
If ten years ago you were to offer a similar product that left out the sugar, flavor and bubbles, leaving nothing but water, yet still charged the same amount, you would, again, most likely be hurt very, very badly.
You are not only stupid, but you are becoming more stupid at an alarming rate.
It is in your power to reverse this trend and become less stupid.
I, myself, am not stupid. I do not view advertising. I do not watch television. I do not read newspapers or magazines. I do not use the internet. I do not watch movies. And when outside of my home, I generally keep my eyes closed. It takes a bit of effort, but it is worth it. I am smarter than you.
For those of you too weak to avoid these temptations, I propose a ban on all "pushed" advertising. I have no problem with advertising that people seek out. If a person wants to know which beverage will cause them to be more attractive, popular, outrageous or centered, they should be able to do so. But I would ban all advertising that simply accompanies other information. Advertisements could only appear on shopping channels and all other television channels would be advertisement free. Of course, television would no longer be free and you would have to pay an exorbitant fee to watch your "Gilligan's Island" reruns, but it would be worth it.
Think about it (if you can).
Not all of you are stupid. Just the vast majority of you. And it is not that you are extremely stupid, although some of you are. And it isn't entirely your fault that you are stupid, although you must take a good share of the blame.
Advertising causes stupidity.
You have been trained, over time, to be stupid, by advertising. Advertising trains you to have a short attention span, to not question what you are told, and to rely on your feelings when making decisions, rather than your mind. In short, it trains you to not think.
If one hundred years ago you were to offer a product that contained nothing but water, sugar, flavor and bubbles and charged 100 times what the cost of the ingredients were, you would, at best, be laughed out of town. More likely, you would have been shot.
If ten years ago you were to offer a similar product that left out the sugar, flavor and bubbles, leaving nothing but water, yet still charged the same amount, you would, again, most likely be hurt very, very badly.
You are not only stupid, but you are becoming more stupid at an alarming rate.
It is in your power to reverse this trend and become less stupid.
I, myself, am not stupid. I do not view advertising. I do not watch television. I do not read newspapers or magazines. I do not use the internet. I do not watch movies. And when outside of my home, I generally keep my eyes closed. It takes a bit of effort, but it is worth it. I am smarter than you.
For those of you too weak to avoid these temptations, I propose a ban on all "pushed" advertising. I have no problem with advertising that people seek out. If a person wants to know which beverage will cause them to be more attractive, popular, outrageous or centered, they should be able to do so. But I would ban all advertising that simply accompanies other information. Advertisements could only appear on shopping channels and all other television channels would be advertisement free. Of course, television would no longer be free and you would have to pay an exorbitant fee to watch your "Gilligan's Island" reruns, but it would be worth it.
Think about it (if you can).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)