Monarchy

Let it be said; Princess Kate is just a glorified beauty pagent winner. Her job is to smile a lot, look pretty, promote a charity, and wave to crowds.

Princess Kate (real name Catherine Middleton), should she become queen, will no have actual power; this is because she's called a "queen consort", meaning the wife of a king. The current queen, Queen Elizabeth, took power because she was the king's daughter; this is only because when her father died, there was no son to rule in his place. So this means that as a princess, Kate Middleton is really not important.

I have no particular problem with Kate. It's normal for women to take on the smiling, supportive role, when they have political figures as husbands. The problem I have is with people who worship monarchs (like with the "Royal Wedding"), as well as the institution of the monarchy; it has no place in a civilized world.

Did you know that members of Parliament have to swear an oath to the Queen? Otherwise, they will not be allowed to serve. That's rediculous in this day and age. That would be like members of Congress being required to swear an oath to President. Imagine the sheer insanity of protests in the U.S. if this were ever to happen.

It doesn't stop there either; judges, police officers, and even bishops are required to swear allegiance to the Queen.

Bishops? Really? That would cause riots in the United States, if they had to swear allegiance to the President. We take separation of Church and State very seriously here; however, the British Monarchy is essentially both the State and Church.

A Bishop, before taking his position, must recite this:

"I accept Your Majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal power."

In other words, the Queen is God. Think of all the mad dictators in history who've forced people to say and swear the same thing to them, like Caligula; still think the monarchy is something to go crazy over?

It's amazing that this still goes on in a developed, civilized nation like England. Consider these quotes:

There are shams and shams; there are frauds and frauds, but the transparentest of all is the sceptered one. We see monarchs meet and go through solemn ceremonies, farces, with straight countenances; but it is not possible to imagine them meeting in private and not laughing in each other's faces.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

I wish I might live fifty years longer; I believe I should see the thrones of Europe selling at auction for old iron. I believe I should really see the end of what is surely the grotesquest of all the swindles ever invented by man-- monarchy.
- Letter to Sylvester Baxter of Boston Herald, 1889


I can't think of a worse system of government, than one in which the person in charge doesn't get the position by earning it, but by being born.


What about the lives of monarchs? Can William not be a prince? What if William wanted to be an actor, or professional athlete? Even if he can "resign" or whatever, I'm sure this is an expectation that's been thrusted on him since childhood; he may feel like he has no choice but to take the position, lest he let his family, and his nation down.

And can a prince be gay? If William admitted to being gay, would he be allowed to serve as prince? After all, the monarchy is expected to continue the bloodline, right? Also...can the Prince marry outside his race? What if Prince William married a black woman? Or a Chinese or Indian woman? Would Harry retain his future throne? Would the monarchy allow a gay or a black king?

By the way: how many tax dollars were used on the Royal Wedding? To buy Kate's dress, as well as pay the protection of the police force must have been expensive. Who paid for it? Did the Queen use her own money? If she did, where does "her" money come from?

The British monarchy has a terrible history of violence, rapes and betrayal within it's own walls. Today, forcing high-ranking members of government and churches to swear allegiance to a monarch, just like in a dictatorship. A woman can't have power in the monarchy, unless the king dies. In a world where forward, objective thinking is the ideal, is there really any reason for a monarchy?
Absolutely not.

Get Motivated!

I went to the "Get Motivated" business seminar, which was held yesterday in Rochester. The speakers at this event included NFL legend Terry Bradshaw, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rudy Giuliani (NYC mayor during 9/11), Bill Cosby, Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine) and Erin Brockovich, along with some other big-shot names. Each speaker focused on a different theme; for example, Colin Powell talked about "leadership", and Erin Brockavich talked about "achievement".

I went into this thing thinking this has got to be a scam; the tickets were only about two bucks, and a discount of $9 for a group. Any one of these guys could hold a seminar by themselves for $150, easy. What was really odd was that it was about two bucks in advance, but $225 dollars a person at the door. What?

The Blue Cross Arena, where it was held, could hold about 15,000 people; and if each person payed $2, that still doesn't seem like enough to cover the cost of having all those high-profile people; this would be in addition to paying to use the arena or advertising the event. They even promised to give one person in the audience $10,000; but for some reason, the guy didn't make himself known, and didn't come to claim his prize, though the entire audience was waiting to cheer for him. The emcee said they'd announce another winner if he didn't show; I don't know if anyone ever got it.

But amazingly, everyone that was advertised showed up.

The event opened up with a "Grammy Award Winner", singing the National Anthem, who was absolutely terrible. During one intermission, the guy was basically shouting at the crowd to "make some noise" over the horrendous one he was making. I think his name was "Robbie" or "Robbin" Williams Jr. Apart from that, there was one of those football-stadium style jumbo screens hanging from the ceiling, and some impressive pyrotechnics bursting from the stage, that went on whenever a new speaker entered the stage.

The entire seminar had a religious theme to it. A woman in a glittering, blue mini-skirt, was the emcee. She said that past surveys taken regarding the event, had a high amount of people requesting the speakers to speak more on spirituality. In fact, the emcee mentioned this twice on two different occasions. She repeated herself a few times, to the point where I wasn't sure if she was doing this for emphasis or simply forgot that she mentioned it already.

I first noticed the spiritual theme when I thumbed through the work-book given to people who ordered it in advance. It had different celebrities like George Forman, Mary Lou Retton, Joe Montana and William Shattner. A lot of them talked about their faith in God, like Foreman and Retton. Bill Cosby and Terry Bradshaw and a few others, talked about God and His importance in their success at length. One speaker, Krish Dhanam, basically evangelized and preached to the crowd. In fact, just before Bill Cosby went on, there was even a Christian rapper named KJ-52. I knew he was a Christian rapper from my religious days; I wondered if anyone else in the crowd knew it.

On that subject, did you know that "Christian" artists are white, and "gospel" artists are black? Kinda sad, in a way.



The event kicked off with Rick Belluzo, who had a good, simple message about the basics, like not giving up and being humble. But at one point, Rick Belluzo said that business people should "always maintain intergrity"; and people actually wrote this down, nodding their heads in agreement. It's sad that human beings are so screwed up, that this is something thousands of people feel the need to jot down in their notes.


Here are some of the more noteworthy speakers:







Krish Dhanam went next, and killed; he was hillarious and engaged the crowd beautifully. He started off with the question, "Where does the white go when the snow melts?" He also talked about when he met Mother Teresa. This was because his view of success was more wholistic; he said that your spiritual and family life are the most important things to have in order, if you want to succeed. At one point, he asked the crowd to raise their hand as high as it will go; he then asked the audience to raise their hands a little higher. When the audience did, he said, "Why didn't you raise it that high the first time?"

Dhanam also had a story about the first time he emmigrated to the U.S. He spoke to his wife, and said "We'll be alright"; his wife said "How do you know?" And Dhanam said "These people think they have problems!"






Steve Forbes went next, and talked about returning to the Gold Standard, and said the U.S. has too many taxes (social security, property taxes, endless taxes on phone bills, etc.) He also mentioned that Scottish people have a stereotype of being stingy (he's Scottish). I'd never heard of that stereotype; but it made me understand for the first time, why Scrooge McDuck from "Duck Tails" was a Scottish Character.






Rudy Giuliani followed, and talked about 9/11, being the first Republican Mayor of New York City, and the importance of reading books. He also talked about the importance of learning about computers, and talked about how important computers were with setting up a system to fight crime in New York City, which he said went down 80 percent from time he entered office to today. This made me think of a line in a song from a gangster rapper named Jadakiss, in which he said Gulliani might as well be "murkin" (killing) criminals, because the "time he's handin' out is hurtin'" them. What an honor it must be, that even hardcore rappers acknowledge what a great job you're doing fighting crime.

Rudy was a little tame and restrained, for someone who played an irate cab driver on Saturday Night Live, and once dressed in drag and while Donald Trump fondled his "breasts". However, his imitation of a burly New York City construction worker, bear-hugging George Bush shortly after 9/11, was one of the best moments of the seminar.





Bob Kitell, a business man, talked about how he became a champion pole-vaulter at age 54. He offered to sell a five dollar bill for one dollar, to the first audince member who came up and got it. He then sold a ten dollar bill for five in the same way. Kitell then did this neat little thing where he asked if there was anyone in the audience who needed cheering up; some people apparently nominated this man who seemed to be in his early forties, who Kitell then invited up on stage. Bob Kitell then had the entire audience give him a standing ovation. Kitell joked about selling a hundred-dollar bill earlier, but then gave the forty-year old man the 100 dollar bill. That was awesome.

Kittel was a great speaker, entertaining and funny, with great advise about the stock market; but then, he put a damper on the event by selling seats for a $99 Ameritrade training class on stocks. By this point, I was convinced that these celebs were just trying to do a good thing; but when he started pitching the Ameritrade classes, I was like, "Of course". Bob Kitell mentioned that he was "paid well" to speak, and I was able to see how; he was a killer salesman, who sold a lot of seats, using the old "It's originally $2,000, but I talked to them; I got told them that you guys are motivated, and talked them down to only 99 dollars!"

I thought about leaving after that, but stayed. Only one other guy tried to sell something, and I sort of got over feeling duped.








Terry Bradshaw was one of the best speakers of the night. He was just a natural. Funny and engaging, he talked about his Baptist roots, and frequently talked about God. He talked about how in his day, top NFL players got around 600,000 grand, while top players now are getting 25 million. In a great rant, he talked about how he flew coach on a flight which was long, cramped, delayed, and had to make an emergency stop; on top of that, he had to stay in a cheap motel...all for $1500.

They say great comics take their material from pain; this seems true of Bradshaw, as he talked about his three ex-wives. He jokingly said he "lost everything", in his first divorce, then "lost everything again". He did this in a way that didn't make you feel sorry him, but made you laugh. But his joke about all he went through for $1500, in addition to what he said about divorce, made me wonder just how much pain he's seen.







Bill Cosby was awesome. Starting off by sitting in a chair (like the pic), he seemed completely at home in front of a crowd of thousands. He was one of the most passionate speakers of the night.

Bill ragged on a woman who walked up to the stage and handed him a business card, saying "Why would I--a millionaire--take a business card from you?" He ragged on her for ten minutes straight, staying funny but never coming off as mean. He gave a story about a man asking Jesus to cure him of hypertention, and when Jesus told him to quit salt rather than magically taking it away, the man looked at Jesus and said "I'm disapointed in you"; to which Jesus replied, "Wait 'till you meet my Father."

About a half-hour before Bill Cosby was due to speak, the emcee asked the audience to not mention anything about his birthday; this was because, according to her, Mrs. Cosby asked her to have the crowd sing "Happy Birthday" to him, after he finished speaking. Of course, there was a douchebag in the audience who shouted "Happy Birthday!" The audience gasped, because this douchebag broke the agreement. Cosby bowed his head, almost as if hiding his annoyance; but he politely said "thank you". To the audience's reaction at the douchebag, Cosby said "That's all right; at least he wasn't as bad as the woman with her card."

When Cosby finished, the crowd sang "Happy Birthday", being aided by Robbie Williams, who for the first and only time, actually sounded good. I think even he realized he would've been lynched for messing up Bill Cosby's birthday moment.






Colin Powell spoke after two other men who went after Cosby. He was cool, humorous, and seemed very down-to-earth. He talked about the shock of going from being really important and sought after...to feeling like a nobody, almost instantly; he no longer had bodyguards or his own 747 when his run as Secretary of State was over. He talked about his recent trip to the Sudan, where he took part in signing a peace treaty. He also talked about the importance of public schools, which he attended until starting his military career, and that suburbanites should also be concerned about the inner city, and do something to help.

Colin was surprisingly a gentle speaker, considering he was a former military commander.






Erin Brockavich: She was the last speaker, and I didn't stay to listen. This was mainly because I didn't know much about her, other than that she took down some large, evil company, and had a movie made about her with Julia Roberts, which I saw. I only stayed long enough to see what she looked like, because she was reportedly pretty hot. I felt bad about it afterward, because a LOT of people left after Colin Powell spoke. I could only imagine being invited to speak to a large crowd, preparing your speak, coming all the way to Rochester from wherever she came from, only to witness thousands leaving during your speech. I'm sure she had some important things to say. She even wore a short, tight dress.

If it wasn't for the fact that I left my house at 6:30 AM to get a good parking spot and good seats, and that I was pretty tired when 4:00 PM hit, I would've stayed. I'm sure a lot of other people would've too.


Thinking about it now, I was incalculably lucky to be able to attend this event, especially in light of the insanely cheap price. All the pyrotechnics, and the a performance by the Christian rapper which involved an a dance contest with audience members (the winner getting a free trip to Disney World), and a few thousand beach balls thrown into the crowd just for fun.

It was a great event. It gave me a lot to think about as far as the importance of being motivated, in terms that weren't just cliches. My goal is to be a successful writer; this gave me some much needed fuel.

Dumb Americans

The rest of the world says that Americans are dumb. Well, it's hard to argue against that. Look at Fox News, the Tea Party, Creationists, Birthers...the fact that Jersey Shore is wildly successful...all proof that that Americans are dumb.

So why are Americans so dumb? The answer: we're really not. The top 16 Colleges and Universities in the world, are all in the U.S.


The truth is, the human race as a whole is stupid. The Germans at one time believed that they--blonde, blue-eyed people--were the superior race, and then made a man with brown eyes and brown hair the leader of this "ultimate race." Stupid.
The more humans you have in one area, the more stupid things you'll see. The U.S. has over 300 million people living there. I think China and India are the only other countries on the planet with more people. It's just a matter of odds that the U.S. would have so many dumb people.

But hold on; both Chinese and Indian people have a stereotype of being ultra-smart (especially the Chinese). So does this disprove my point about population and the number of dumb people in a country? No.

The U.S. has been the top-dog for many decades. America has seriously declined in the 2000's, but we're still a great nation. American is still the top trendsetter; people from all over the world can name our top actors, movies, pop stars and songs. What other country can boast that? America is so great, that the Harry Potter franchise re-shot scenes from "The Philosopher's Stone" to have scenes where the "Stone" was refered to as the "Sorcerer's Stone". This is because it was thought that "Philospher's Stone" was too boring a title to catch American interests; yet, the world knows how important it is to release a movie in American, and even the mighty Harry Potter series had to adjust.

The point?

It's because of the wealth and greatness of the U.S., that other countries look at the U.S. with much more scrutiny. Even though China has a reputation for spawning geniuses, they also force their little girls to wrap their feet up so that they will not get big feet when they're older. There are many women who suffer this affliction today, because what they were forced to do when they were little...and that's completely tame compared to how they treat women in India. Being forced to wear Burkas that fully cover them head-to-toe in scorching hot weather? Check. 35% of women being beaten up at home? Check.

Compared to the U.S., the way they treat their women is much more idiotic. Does it matter that they're test scores are higher, if their women would rather live in the U.S.?

Honestly, it's only because the U.S. has such a history of success, influence and power, that Americans are under such a microscope.
Imagine you're at a bar, and there's some drunken guy being loud and obnoxious; most of us would just shake our heads, and continue with our conversations with whoever we're hanging out with. However, imagine that the drunken guy was a huge celebrity; the reactions would be a lot different. People would look at the celebrity with disgust, or even indignation: "Oh, that guy thinks he's all high and mighty because he's famous."

See the difference? The success of the U.S. makes everything an American does, doesn't do, knows or doesn't know, that much more criticized. If Prince William told a dirty joke, that would have serious backlash from the media, verses if some regular bloke told that same dirty joke. And that's how it is for the U.S.: because our success, power and influence, it's that much easier to hate Americans, even for something inconsequential, like not being able to find Iraq on a map.

One thing to consider, is that the United States is made up of people from all over the world, including countries that say we're dumb. This is where the challenge lies, in trying to teach kids in this country. Unlike England or China, there isn't just one culture to learn and adjust to; kids come from many different backgrounds, and trying to control all the little bastards is an impossible job. Black kids in city schools have a horrendous time learning, due to their culture of gangs and violence (a culture which comes from having to struggle due to hundreds of years of horrendous treatment and discrimination from whites). A lot of first-generation hispanic kids from parents who just emmigrated to the U.S. have to struggle with learning the language, adjusting to the culture, and dealing with their own problems at home. True: many nations slaughter U.S. schools in just about every academic category--except gym, I'm sure we'd kick ass in that--but every other country has already discovered their proven system for educating kids.

A country that is such a melting pot as the U.S., on top of being the third most populated nation in the world, will obviously have a monstrous struggle in learning how to aproach teaching kids from such a vast array different cultures.

Are Americans dumb? The high "Jersey Shore" ratings indicate we are. But we're a country with a lot of our own struggles. Being so influencial and successful seems to obscure that for many people. Other countries don't see our problems; they see a country with absolutely no excuse for having citizens which don't meet their standards. Despite having to clash with hundreds of different cultures during the formation of this country, the U.S. is still top-dog; we're on the brink of losing that rank at any given moment...but when you factor everything (average income, size of the average american home, average standard of living, higher learning institutions, potential to become rich, etc.) the U.S. is still the best place to live, when all things are considered.

The United States is the nation that invented the automobile, telephone, airplane and internet. We have the world's top colleges and universities. America was the first to land a man on the moon. We can't be that dumb. It's just that American idiots get a bigger spotlight than idiots from other countries. If other countries step back for a minute and think about it, they have the same frequency of morons as we do.

Princess Kate Hugs A Cancer Patient

This just made my day when I saw this. A six year-old cancer patient gets a hug from a real princess. How many little girls dream of being a princess, and this little girl gets to embrace one.

I never cared about the "Royal Wedding" or any of that. I have a lot of respect for Prince William, who was a soldier, and even spent a cold night sleeping on the streets with homeless people (by himself, meaning without bodyguards or security nearby), so he could better understand their plight. I couldn't care less that he's a prince, but from what I've seen of him, he seems to have really good character.

Kate, I don't know much about. But to her credit, she doesn't seem to be trying to "top" Diana's legacy, or "live up" to it. I wouldn't have seen any of the wedding if it wasn't for my wife watching this at least six different times (in the same day); but from what I did catch of the wedding, it seemed relatively simple. Not much showboating, no riding in a winged-unicorn while William slays a dragon...it was nice and simple for a prince and princesess.

But the subject of this post isn't the couple, it's the little girl; I hope this moment brought some magic into this little girl's life.

Women Are Sex Objects

The phrase "Women should not be thought of as sex objects" is completely wrong. Sure, it's goal is noble: to spread the idea that women shouldn't be mistreated or thought of as lesser human beings. I completely agree. That doesn't change the fact that women are indeed, sex objects.

Let's go back to evolution: man's ancestors have spent millions and millions of years trying to get as many females pregnant as possible, in order to pass on their genes. The more attractive the female was, the more that males wanted to have sex with them. If we look at other apes (our closest ancestors) males may even kill in order to become the Alpha Male, the dude who gets laid the most. And the object of the male's lust? Females; a.k.a., the sex objects.

This continues on today. In less developed nations, women have a second-class status; this needs to change. The fact that women are sex objects doesn't deprive them of equal rights with men. But I know what you're thinking:

"Aren't women treated so poorly in the world because of men who can't get out of the stone age, and NOT look at women as sex objects?"

No. Women are treated poorly in the world because of men who can't look at women as beings who are fully human like they are. Being a sex object doesn't change that status. For example, look at Fabio, Tyson Beckford, Usher Raymond or Johnny Depp. Does anyone look at these guys as second-class citizens? Is there anyone who thinks these guys shouldn't vote, own property or have the right to run for public office? Of course not. When men are sex objects, it's funny how no one dehumanizes them like women who are sex objects.

So if there are men who can be considered sex objects without being seen as less then human, then there's no reason why the same can't be true for women. Right? Of course I'm right.

There'll be a lot of people who say that it's simply our culture which has made women sex objects. That's not correct; culture simply reinforces or exagerates evolutionary roles or differences in the sexes. Men are typically bigger and stronger than women, so our culture expects men to be less emotional, braver and more action-hero like. Women are typically smaller and weaker than women, so it's okay for them to cry anytime they're upset, and okay for them scream at bugs or mice running by.
Culture doesn't "invent" new roles for the sexes; it merely reinforces or exaggerates the roles men and women developed through evolution.





Even a woman's physical make-up shows that she's a sex object. Women have breasts, which serve no other purpose than to feed children. And even though women typically have only one child at a time, women have two breasts; like a double-reminder that women are sex objects (you need sex to have kids). And lets not forget a woman's hour-glass shape, a shape which serves no function other than to show how well she'd be able to bear children.

But that's only getting started.

Let's start with sex: women can enjoy different sensations depending on their position. In addition to different positions, there are many variants to each position, done by moving a woman's legs up, to the side or apart, or having her stand up or bend over, or face a differnt way. However, this doesn't really change how sex feels for men.

Women also have a clitoris; this organ serves no other purpose but to enhance sexual stimulation and enjoyment.
And get this: the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings, compared to 4,000 in the penis; and an erect penis is much larger than an erect clitoris. So this means that women have twice the amount nerve endings, which are concentrated in a much smaller area, highly amplifying the sensations as a result.

And it doesn't stop there, either: women also have a G-Spot, something which does nothing but make sex even more enjoyable for women. But it doesn't stop there; enough stimulation of the G-Spot can result in women ejaculating, which amplifies sex for women even MORE. Female ejaculation also serves no function, other than to make sex more pleasurable for women. And when you consider that women can have two different types of orgasms at the same time (ejaculating and clitoral), while having all these things stimulated at the same time...yeah. Magic.
Highly explosive, intense, immensely pleasurable magic.

And I can go on and on, like by mentioning women typically have larger eyes and higher cheekbones; something which serves no purpose but making them prettier to look at...and on and on...but you should get the point by now: that a woman's entire body just screams "SEX". So many things about a woman are only for sex.
Women shouldn't despise being sex objects; they should embrace it.

The world is becoming more and more liberal, and women are becoming more and more free to express their sexuality, show off their beautiful bodies, and thus, enjoy life more. At the same time, society is making bigger and better strides in the treatment of women, as well as in how society perceives women. A woman running for president and winning isn't such a longshot anymore. Barriers against women are still being shattered.

But in the process, women shouldn't lose what nature gave them that makes them wonderful; their beautiful, wonderful, sexuality.

Intelligent Design Isn't Bad

Intelligent Design isn't bad, misleading, or a cheap wig for creationism. At least, not in of itself.

ID as it is currently, is something that shouldn't be allowed in schools. That's because it's currently nothing more than a tool for Creationists to spread their own religious beliefs. ID evolved when creationism was shot down by the courts as legitimate "science". But what if we aproach ID from a purely objective point of view?

At the heart of ID is the "teleological argument" (argument from design), which was used by philosophers like Descartes and Aristotle. The reason ID fails so miserably when used by Creationists or anyone pushing some sort of religion (not all IDists are Creationists), is because it denies evolution, which is pretty much an undeniable fact.


So what about looking at ID from an objective standpoint? Objectively looked at, some points come up; one of them being, that ID isn't science; it's philosophy. ID is loosely based on science, but in reality, ID isn't the least bit scientific. This needs to be kept in mind at all times; ID is purely philosophical in nature. That said, let's take an objective look at it.

IF the universe is designed--notice I said "if"--then:

a) There is no reason why evolution can't be a part of the design.

The creatures in nature could've just as easily been designed to evolve. After all, even Creationists acknowledge evolution in small steps (they like to call it "micro" evolution; real scientists just call it plain ol' evolution). So that said, there's no reason why a "designer" couldn't include the ability to evolve as part of the designer. For my next point:

b) There's no reason why this "designer" must be "all-powerful".

After all: There've been some awesome designs by humans, who are pretty weak when compared to lots of other animals. Humans often need lots of help and tools in create things. This segues right into the next item:

c) There's no reason why the "designer" has to be one single entity.

When we look at the universe and it's fullness, the idea that one being created it all, becomes more and more rediculous the more we learn about it. It would make more sense that there've been many designers throughout the billions of years our universe has existed. It's no different from everything humans created: was it one single all-powerful human which made all the technology and art on earth? No, it was untold hundreds of billions of humans through out, all playing a part (whether a positive or negative one) in what humans have ended up creating and accomplishing. Likewise, it would make much more sense that there've been hundreds of billions (or even hundreds of trillions) of designers through the beginning of the universe.

d) There's no reason why the designer(s) couldn't have evolved themselves.

There's endless scientific evidence for evolution, and there's no reason why these cosmic "designers" couldn't have evolved into existence themselves; this would solve the old "Where did the designer come from?" question. And for my final point:

e) There's no reason why these designers should still be in existence.

We don't know who made stonehenge; the ancient Mayans did not leave behind people to carry on their civilizations; so therefore, there's no reason to assume that the "designers" still exist. Maybe they do; but since we see no evidence whatsoever of any designer, it's a likely bet that they vanished like some lost human civilization.

There's a reason why the teleological argument was seen as legitimate philosophy, and even taught in colleges and universities in philosophy courses; it provokes thought. If we let this philosophical concept remain pure, there's no reason to ban it from schools.

Casey Anthony

For starters, she's kinda cute:







Now that's an adorable mugshot.

















Okay, so Casey's a bad mom, and everyone's gonna complain that justice wasn't served. To me, based on the the ranting that people like Nancy Grace have done about her for the past three years...I guess she's obviously guilty. Right? I mean, people with T.V. shows can't possibly be wrong.

Despite how "obvious" this case may have seemed to many, a recurring theme by speakers such as Casey Anthony's lawyer were brought up: that the media's opinion doesn't equal truth. Now that seems obvious, right? Maybe a cliche, even? But think for a moment; about a week before the verdict, news papers and T.V. shows kept crying about how she might walk, because the defense had too strong of a case.

Um...yeah. That's how it's supposed to go.

Despite this, Nancy Grace and all her media equivalents constantly kept pushing the idea that she needs to be convicted. Where's the common sense in that?

Now Casey never called the police (her mother did when she stopped seeing her grand-daughter), and she also lied to police repeatedly, even changing her story a few times. Signs of guilt? You betcha. Enough to convict someone and send them on Death Row? Not in the least.

What about the "smell" found in her car? Well, it shows her car was probably used. Do we know Casey was the one responsible? No. The search engine results for "chloroform"? Shows that someone used her computer to search for the same chemical that was used in the murder. Are all of these things enough to convict her? Well, if it is, it would be pretty damn easy to set someone else up for murder.

Casey's behavior, in conjuction with the bits of evidence which do implicate her, just weren't enough to convict her. Yes; they do make her a logical prime suspect, and it's definately enough for a trial. But a conviction? A jury decided no. Does that mean it's the correct answer? Not at all. But it does mean, that there wasn't enough objective evidence to put her away. Sure we say "Oh, it's common sense"; but this is a country full of people who believed Obama had a forged birth-certificate, and was "obviously" born in Kenya.

In short, "common" sense should never be enough to convict someone of murder; only hard, objective evidence, which if examined, leave no reasonable room for doubt. Anything less would truly be unjust.

The Greatness Of Jaleel White

Remembering "Family Matters", it was the flagship show of the old "TGIF" line-up that came on every Friday night. The show "Family Matters" revolved around one man:

Jaleel White. A.K.A.: Ultra-Pimp.

There've been many characters like "Steven Q. Urkel", the character we all remember him as. Other shows had their pale comparisons, like "Screech" from "Saved By The Bell". However, none of them ever came close to being anywhere near as funny or entertaining to watch as Steve Urkel. The "Family Matters" writing staff gave the character some brilliant lines; furthermore, the pratfalls were choreographed in expert and spectacular fashion. But none of this would be possible, if Jaleel wasn't just a great goddamn actor.

Jaleel White's comic timing was superb; his performance was even more amazing when you consider that he was about 12 years old when he first started the show. At a young age, White's ability to do physical comedy was on par with Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton. Few actors on television, regardless of age, could deliver jokes like Jaleel. And absolutely no one on TV could pull off a physical comedy like he could. In fact, how many shows have ever featured someone who was even good at physical comedy, let alone great?

Let's see: there was Bronson Pinchot ("Balkey" from "Perfect Strangers") who was great, but still not as good as Jaleel; though I do have to give credit to his co-star Mark Linn-Baker, who pretty good himself; still not on Jaleel's level.

And then there was this guy:





John Ritter, who was "Jack Tripper" from "Three's Company. (Come to think of it...was Jack "Tripper" a pun because the character was so clumsy?) He's one of the best physical comedians in T.V. history, and could give the Jaleel a run for his money; but that was pretty much it. Dick Van Dyke okay, but nowhere near the level of these guys.

So there we have it: only two peole in T.V. history are anywhere close to Jaleel's level. White's physical talent probaby comes from the fact that he's an athlete; he's a great basketball player, and has even showcased his b-ball talent on the show.

Unfortunately, the character that made Jaleel White famous also made him infamous. The show was such a success, that White stayed playing the same character way beyond the time he should've stopped. As White got taller and bigger, he looked more and more rediculous as Urkel. This is a good lesson about show business: you have to strike while the iron's hot, rather than sit back and be comfortable with a role. Unfortunately, $100,000 per episode is a little too hard to walk away from (and who can blame him; most people have to get a PHD just to make that over the course of year...and most PHD's still don't come close to doing that.)

There's an episode of Family Matters where Urkel is trapped on a fire escape. This was one seriously awesome display of choreography on the part of the show. This scene shows that it wasn't just Jaleel that was great, there were some really inventive minds on the show too.

Jaleel White guest-starred on an episode of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". This was around the time when he started playing a cool, sauve version of the Urkel character, named Stephan. Stephan was a huge hit with the audience, and he was totally believable playing a similarly cool character on "Fresh Prince". This was around the time that Jaleel should've left the show. Had Jaleel left, he could've definately made it big in movies, and no one would see "Urkel" when they see Jaleel White today. Take the star of "Fresh Prince" for example; had Will Smith stayed much longer rather than persue movies, people would still see the goofy, silly character he played, rather than Will Smith: Successful Actor. Will left while the show was still hot; Jaleel, unfortunately, didn't. In my opinion, the last great episode was an awesome one, where the Urkel character turned into Bruce Lee, and kicked some ass. The show should've ended on that high note.

Still, Jaleel White is responsible for one the greatest television characters of all time. All I have to say to this awesome guy is: Thanks for the memories.