society – Page 2 – Zombies Uncensored

Zombies Fed up with Discrimination

The latest round of race relations being discussed in the news has created a flurry of emails from zombies reminding me of how poorly they are treated in society. Zombies face an abundance of ignorance, intolerance, and hate on a daily basis. This is a summary of the most common racial intolerance zombies face.

Zombies are upset about the insensitive comments made towards how they stink, talk funny, are stupid, and are slow.

Zombies are tired of hearing , “All you zombies talk funny; it’s brains, not ‘braaaaaaaaaaains.’ Get a job, deadbeat zombie. Go back to Hell, where you came from. Kill a zombie for your mommie.” Humans can’t seem to say zombie without saying “stupid zombie.”

Backhanded compliments from humans: “You have nice skin, for a zombie. You are smart, for a braindead zombie. At least you aren’t French.”

There are no laws to protect zombies from discrimination. Zombies are barred from voting, jobs, homes, marrying, education, and police protection. Zombies are only protected while in a grave, and even there they have to defend themselves from necrophiliacs.

There is no double standard in the news where Zombies are concerned because there is only one standard. There aren’t any networks or news shows with a zombie bias. News programs don’t have hours of debate when a human makes a racially charged anti-zombie comment. No one has ever been asked to resign because of an off-color remark about zombies.

Hollywood clearly has an anti-zombie bias. Other undead creatures like ghosts and spirits are treated as heroes. How many love scenes have you seen between a zombie and a human? There are zero romances with zombies, but Vampires get laid all the time.

Zombies are racially profiled without fail. Humans don’t stop and ask themselves before chopping one in half, “Maybe this one isn’t a bad zombie?” If a human dare speak out in defense of zombies, they are quickly labeled a zombie-lover.

Just because they are Life-force challenged is no reason for the unequal treatment zombies receive in society.

I am an Amoral, Self-Serving Bastard

Frequently in the universal health care debate, those opposed are asserted to be selfish. I am one of those amoral, self-serving bastards that would rather see people die than part with any of my money– at least, this is how it’s presented.

“How can anyone of good conscience not be concerned about helping those in need? Aren’t we our brother’s keeper? We all have a moral obligation to care for others.”

Liberty-minded people often respond, “The route suggested to accomplish these good deeds requires coercion and force by government. Robbing to help someone else is still robbery.”

This is a valid argument to me, but will only appeal to those with similar views. Others quickly dismiss the argument as a questionable analogy. Those advocating being our “brother’s keeper” will still be convinced they have the moral high ground, because they are talking about saving lives and we are defending abstract concepts.

For them, the debate between the realities of someone dying vs. an aloof concept of personal freedom is foolish. To them, freedom isn’t a real and tangible thing. I understand. You can’t say, “Here–have a big ol’ cup of freedom on me.” Freedom isn’t something you can roll around in and say, “Damn, this freedom feels good today!” You can’t eat freedom, freedom won’t keep you warm, and it sure won’t heal the sick.

To the liberty-minded, however, freedom is every bit as real as slavery. Unfortunately, it isn’t obvious just how real and vital freedom is until that freedom has been lost. Freedom is a hard sell in a world that isn’t meeting the basic needs of all its inhabitants. When I say, “I don’t believe my needs and wants supersede the rights of others, ” the response is often, “So others have to die so you can have your freedom? Sleep well, you cold-hearted bastard.”

Just because there isn’t a state-run program to solve a given problem doesn’t mean no one cares. We rely on the morality of others every day, simply not realizing how much we depend on this moral capital. We don’t need police everywhere people gather, because only a small percentage of the population steals or harms others. Police don’t create peace; they are there to preserve peace that the group as a whole created spontaneously.

It’s true that relying on the kindness of others doesn’t sound very reliable. A law stating your needs will be taken care of is much more concrete (and comforting) than arguing people might choose to help if they are in the mood. To many, laws and police just force us to be good people. Some seem to believe laws create civility, rather than civil people created laws to protect one another from harm.

Anti-big-government types will point out times the government hasn’t helped at all–when it was people on the spot that saw a need and solved problems. I wholeheartedly agree that immediate needs are best met by free people taking action in the moment– as in the Christmas terrorist plot thwarted by a passenger. It’s a matter of having faith in others. You either do or you don’t. I have faith in others because I experienced their kindness many times in my life, but I know others are rightfully cynical, because they’ve experienced cruelty.

Several countries have a state religion. In some, people are put to death for joining a different faith–that state believes allowing the people to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is courting immorality. To the state, having a state religion that mandates morality makes for moral people.

In reality, you can’t have a moral society without free will. State religions are akin to having someone follow you around your whole life with a gun to your head, telling you to “be good.” Even if you would choose to act morally on your own, you can’t take credit for acts of kindness, because someone else made the decision for you. The people with the most freedom are the most moral people, because their kindness is a choice.

I do believe I have a moral obligation to care about others. I am my brother’s keeper. I draw distinctions between helping others, forcing others to help, and forcing help upon others.

Forcing others to help is immoral, because I would be taking away their right to decide what is caring. I like to think of myself as a caring and giving person, but I know there are others more caring and giving. I strive to be more like them. Striving to become a better person is a basic human right, as important as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Forcing others to act in a caring manner dehumanizes them by robbing them of their own normal and natural development.

Forcing people to wear seat belts has saved lives. Forcing people to get regular checkups would save lives, and forcing people to treat illnesses will save lives. In matters of life and death, is it wrong to use force to save lives? If someone was terminally ill and there was a painful procedure that could prolong their life by a week, would you force the procedure? Where would you draw the line at when force is appropriate? What if the procedure would keep them alive for a month, six months, a year–where is the line between caring and cruelty? A moral obligation to help others doesn’t make it right to force that help upon others.

The moral high ground is in being our brother’s keeper, and with it comes with the moral obligation of defending our brother’s free will.

Its time to drop the H-bomb on Terrorists: Hasselhoff-Bomb

There has been lots of debate the last few days about what motivates a person to become a terrorist. There are two camps on what causes terrorism: the “its all ideology” camp and the “it’s all unintended consequences” camp. Both groups are correct, because either can generate terrorists; I see unintended consequences as the symptom and fundamentalist ideology as the disease.

Terrorism is rooted with an ideology that sees itself in danger of extinction. Yesterday I mentioned the Boko Haram. It’s a militant Islamist group that basically sees western or non-Islamic education as evil. The followers of Boko Haram reject the notion the earth is a sphere. It stands to reason they feel they are being attacked by western science, because science has the innate ability to deal some serious damage to ignorance.

There are several parts of the world that are under “attack” from western science and culture. Baywatch was a popular show around the world and from some people’s perspective just flat-out anit-burqa. In truth, the views and ways of life all around the world are being challenged–but not intentionally challenged–by the west. Most people will speak up in defense when they feel their values are under attack and state the virtues behind their beliefs. Terrorist choose the violent path because they believe there is a sinister plot behind opposing views. They are the ones that see Baywatch as a western plot to destroy their culture. If you thought someone was plotting your demise, you might attack back too.

From the terrorist perspective–they feel that their way of life is under attack and those around them are slowly being corrupted–what should they do? Just follow the anarchy. Pull yourself out of the corrupt society and set up your own pure society. The regions with little or no government control are the best place for terrorists to set up shop. If everyone is armed with rifles to defend themselves, a terrorist won’t stand out. No government to monitor or crack down on their activities. From the protection zone of anarchy, you can start freeing the world from satanic plots. As long as there are regions of anarchy, terrorists will have safe bases of operation.

Dynamics of terrorism – how wars of terrorism are fought on both sides

Side A – declares war on side B but side A has little to no army.

Side B – is the opposing government or ideology of side A

Side A – can’t fight side B on an open battlefield because they would be wiped out and instead picks civilian targets to attack.

For terrorists, the justification for murdering civilians is that the values the terrorists are defending is more important than human life. If you are willing to die for these values then others should be just as willing to die, and if they aren’t willing to die for those values they weren’t a good person to begin with. For governments, the justification of stepping on civil rights is that all your civil rights are gone if a you are killed by a terrorist.

The side that does the most harm to civilians will probably lose hearts and minds. The harm isn’t measured only in causalities. When terrorists cause the public to be afraid of normal day to day activities, they become the bad guys. When governments crack down too hard, as in house-to-house searches, they become the bad guys.

The calculation often overlooked is how people view potential harm differently from real harm. You don’t normally sympathize with someone causing you real harm in order to prevent future harm.

Examples – The current group of terrorist argue their way of life is threatened by the opposing ideology or government. They are arguing that harm will come in the future whereas someone being killed by a bomb is a real and tangible harm. When the terrorists set off a bomb and people die, they represent the real harm.

The government argues for searching people and residences to protect the public from harm. If the government starts strip searches to prevent terrorist from blowing people up, it’s the potential threat of a bomb vs. the reality of having your privacy violated. When governments violate civil rights, they represent the real harm.

Blowback or unintentionally creating terrorists happens when in fighting terrorism the government does more harm to civilians than terrorists have done to civilians. Terrorist set off a bomb that kills 100 people–and while hunting down the terrorist, the government kills 500 people. The terrorists are still jerks; the problem is in doing even more harm, the government has legitimized the terrorists for attacking in the first place. From the uninvolved civilian perspective, the government is now the bad guys; their enemy appears to be the good guys, so where do I sign up?

I’m not empathizing with the terrorists groups, but I have to agree that western civilization is a powerful force and is corrupting civilizations around the world. I’m also very proud of “corrupting the world.” When I heard that Baywatch was a popular show in the Middle East, I felt a sense of American pride. Baywatch is no work of art in a literary sense, but its something to be proud of in that free people produce the things that people around the world want.

I too believe the world is slowly being conquered by western culture and technology. The culture of free societies will always dominate high-control societies for the simple fact we give people just want they want without any regulation. I watch news and documentaries from around the world and I see western clothing and technology everywhere. Hollywood and the media, through the use of technology, have become one of the most powerful forces on the planet.

So far the damage done to these fundamentalist groups ideology has been unintentional. The west has unintentionally created freedom junkies, because once you’ve had a taste of freedom you are hooked for life. I think its time to start intentionally damaging their culture with as much free and open access to information and entertainment as possible. The west is getting blamed for intentionally trying to corrupt other cultures, so why not start actively pursing their “corruption?” It’s time for governments to team up with the tech industry and entertainment industry to plan a bombardment of portable media players and laptops and highspeed internet access to all the information and entertainment deprived areas of the world.

Baywatch ’em back from the Stone Age!

Politics in Star Trek

The NRO has a post that touched a nerve in me – Congratulations to Captain Picard!

This line is the one that set me off “Its (Star Trek) messages are unabashedly liberal ones of the early post-Cold War era – peace, tolerance, due process, progress (as opposed to skepticism about human perfectibility).”

Peace, tolerance, due process, and progress are not the sole possession of liberals. Peace, tolerance, due process, progress are essential for freedom to survive. These principles are very important for free markets to thrive. I’m putting this aside for now because it could easily turn into a book of quotes from the founding fathers supporting all these “liberal” messages.

The “touched a nerve” issue is that Star Trek somehow represents a Socialist or Communist utopia. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard a conservative poo-poo Star Trek as liberal propaganda.

Star Trek was centered on the Federation of Planets. The Federation is very similar to the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America because each member planet retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. There are state-rights conservatives that would love to have the same rights as members of the Federation.

Star Trek had replicators, not socialism – A device which can produce anything you need would have a huge impact on any society. The concept of ownership wouldn’t have the same importance because everything could easily be replaced. Imagine someone walking up and pointing a phaser at someone in the Star Trek universe and demanding their shoes. The victim would probably say “Is your replicator broken? If it is, you can use mine.” Theft would probably be classified as a mental illness, because there would be no need to steal. Once there is a limitless supply of food and clothing, ownership becomes meaningless.

Star Treks biggest, nasty, evil villain was the Borg. The Borg are the embodiment of all things communist. To the Borg individuality was irrelevant and made each person alike. Under Borg control, there was no privacy at all–not even the privacy of your own thoughts. The Borg sought to enslave others and “improve” them by force into a regime of total control.

Star Trek has the Prime Directive – “As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.” I’m fed up with lawmakers interfering with my normal development and culture. I can only wish that some day the United States government adopts this attitude towards its own citizens. A form of governing with a Prime Directive of not meddling in the affairs of others; it seems only possible in science fiction.

Preschool Politics

This Build-A-Scare video might be just a tad bit overboard. Visions of sugar-plums soon to be replaced with “Christmas canceled because Global Warming will be melting the North Pole in two days.” Global warming debate aside–telling kids that Santa’s workshop will be gone in two days is not cool.

They say children are the first victims in any war. As technology has advanced, children are the first victims in the propaganda wars also. The video below is another example of using children to promote propaganda.

Sexual Dislikes are not Chosen

I watched a documentary about pornography – The Price of Pleasure Pornography, Sexuality & Relationships. The film makers claim the film is honest and non-judgmental; to me the main message was to point out that some people find pornography degrading to women. The film used similar arguments used by social conservatives to describe the homosexual agenda, in that cultural acceptance and normalcy of pornography is damaging perceptions about sex and several social problems can be attributed to pornography.

Both the anti-pornography and the anti-homosexual arguments say there is too much pornography or homosexuality promoted or viewed positively in popular culture. The underlying argument seems to be if a certain form of sexuality is promoted, then the sexuality will become more popular or at the least be seen as normal. Several questions come to mind – Who decides what a sexual perversion is? Why is it seen as a sexual perversion? Can sexual perversions be promoted?

I’m starting with the assumption that what people like sexually is not chosen–that sexual preference is biological. If what people like sexually is not chosen, then what people dislike sexually isn’t chosen either. Sexual dislikes can be equal biologically to likes. Example – the “two girls one cup” video was so distasteful that videos were made just showing viewers reaction to the movie. When there were several viewers watching together, usually one person became ill and left the room, while others just sat and watched unaffected by what they were seeing. People that enjoy scat are a very small portion of the population. I imagine they did not choose or seek out enjoying scat. I don’t think anyone who becomes ill upon seeing scat videos chose their physical reaction either.

Over the years, I’ve watched several documentaries about swingers and group sex. In several of the documentaries were statements that if what they were doing didn’t appeal to you, then you were sexually repressed or prudish. I thought calling someone prudish because they didn’t share the same sexual proclivities was unfair; it may not be their cup of tea. Repeating from what I said earlier, sexual likes as well as dislikes are not chosen.

Openly expressing sexual preferences often enough might cause some people to become numb or just not shocked or surprised by it. For others openly expressing sexuality in public might always create a feeling of repulsion. Back to the “two girls one cup” example – I don’t believe I will ever react differently than I do right now and that means with revulsion. I can’t control the urge to vomit; I’m not sexually repressed or prudish. If feces are present, my lunch will soon be present also.

I hope people will not judge others too harshly for their sexually likes and dislikes. As powerful as the media can be, it is not powerful enough to change human sexuality. Please don’t demonize sexual preferences you find repugnant for fear others will be persuaded to participate.

I would also ask you to keep in mind not everyone is comfortable with every form of sexual expression. Just because you can openly express sexuality in public doesn’t mean you should. I’d like to thank all with the scat fetish for keeping it private. I do not wish to see bowel movements become a social movement.

Zombies Angry About Being Drawn into Global Warming Debate

I’ve received many complaints from zombies that they do not wish to be compared to mindless humans. The comparisons are most prevalent in the global warming debate. Statements such as “skeptics are brainwashed mindless zombies” or “AGW believers are alarmist’s cult of zombies” are fueling zombie resentment towards humans.

As one zombie put it – “We have no brains to wash! We are zombies; we don’t know how to organize. Where do humans get off calling us a cult?! The only thing zombies are alarmed about is a brain shortage.”

I asked a zombie for his take on the global warming debate and was surprised by the candid answers.

When asked about graphs showing a rapid increase in global temperatures the zombie had some passionate and unexpected responses.

“Hockey stick bad, hockey stick hurt, hockey stick should be baaaaaaaaanned.”

I then showed graphs showing no change or temperature drops.

“Looks like broken glass. Urgh. Hurts to look; take away.”

Graphs indicating climate change supporting man made climate change or graphs disputing climate change were met with similar pained expressions.

“Make it stop, all look the same. No more graphs, you sadist. I’m just a zombie. How the Hell should I know if the planet is warming?”

I was still curious to find out the zombie perspective on the global warming debate, so I pushed the zombie for more information by threatening to bring the graphs back out if he didn’t answer.

The consensus among humans is that climate change is real and man-made. Is there a consensus among zombies?

“Zombies like humans to argue about climate change because it makes their brains tender. Zombies don’t spend time deciding if something is popular or not, because zombies have never been popular.”

The zombie was very optimistic about climate change based upon the possible scenarios.

If climate change real and man-made

Human leaders develop plan to change human behavior.

Human leaders all agree on same plan. (Zombie chuckles)

All Humans follow the plan. (Zombie laughs up a lung)

Zombies rule!

If climate change real and some man-made

Humans argue and argue about what to do.

Climate warms, more humans die, zombies rule!

If climate change real and not man-made

Most humans not thinking about this. Some humans talk about it; zombies plan to eat their brains.

Zombies rule!

Climate change unknown

If all humans die…zombies die.

“Humans worry more about possibility than probability. There is a possibility life on earth could be destroyed by global warning while the probability over time that life on earth will be wiped out by an asteroid is near 100%.

“Humans could learn from zombie behavior. Once humans discover we have taken over an area, they band together and attack the local zombie hangout. They always forget the natural behavior of zombies is to wander; they forget to look in the cellars and abandoned factories which inevitably leads to a sequel.”

I began to feel a bit sorry after inflicting pain upon the zombie and decided to stop displaying the graphs. There is a strong consensus on the dangers of listening to mindless zombies, so I decided it was time to end the zombie’s pain and cut off his head with a chainsaw.

Stupid mindless zombie won’t get my brain!

Schumer Calls Flight Attendant “B-word”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5mKqYBK_K4

Those laws congress passes…didn’t mean congress had to follow the laws.

DN! Indian Environmentalist Sunita Narain on U.S. Climate Policy

Climate change debate aside, I have to question if the plan for how to fix global warming is realistic.

World leaders develop plan to change human behavior to use less fossil fuels. (Good luck with that “modifying human behavior” thing.)

World leaders all agree on same plan. (Chuckle…they are doing well when they agree to meet at the same place and time.)

All or most humans follow the plan. (Like that other time the planet followed the same plan?)

So what’s plan B?

Intervention or Revolution?

There has been a lot of talk about a second US revolution. I’d like to call for an intervention instead.

Planning the US Intervention

Call an addiction treatment professional.
Make a list of all the key people involved. There are around 300 million people, so this part could take a while.
Meet with the addiction treatment professional to discuss the situation. Decade-long addiction to reckless spending and wars and stealing from the bank account to fund the addiction.
Make a list of the difficulties in seeking help. Mostly apathy and cynicism.
Plan the actual intervention, rehearsing what each person in the group will say to the addict. “Please stop spending money we don’t have; we are broke and you are killing us.”
Schedule the actual intervention at a time when the addicted person will be available and hopefully sober. We can get a lot of people together…but the sober part just ain’t gonna happen.
Confront the addict in a loving but honest manner, letting him know that the addiction is effecting more than just them. “You are making us poor and future generations poor. If you care about us at all, please just stop.” (Burst into uncontrollable tears.)

Sometimes interventions backfire….so everyone come armed just in case.