misanthropist

dear top 40 radio

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:45:01 -0400

Top 40 Radio station,

I have been meaning to send you an email, since I have been suffering endlessly to your station on a daily basis and came up with a few suggestions as to make your station better.

Now, I understand I do not have to listen but at times there are situations in life where people may have no choice in the matter. Such as working, in a waiting room, or possibly getting tortured by someone for fun. I also understand most people, well, the general public find your station enjoyable, but I have a feeling I am not the only one who does not want to listen to horrible music.

Anyway, here are my suggestions, as follows:

1) Playing the same song 5 times in a span of 6-8 hours is not at all cool. I realize some people tune in at different times, but how many times can you handle hearing that awful "American Boy" song, or better yet, some bad singer sounding like she's crying the lyrics "take me away".

2) Lose the ads for condoms.. it's just creepy.

3) I had no idea radio "noises and sounds" were still around, "BAM, BLAM, SQUEEEKK, BASH BOOM MIX 95.6-six-six-ix". Gross. Make your theme song sound like you're killing someone, which is what you are doing to me.

4) When you happen to use the word 'variety' to describe your station, it has to have some sort of actual variety. Throwing in an old Michael Jackson song (a bad one), or Madonna song (also bad) doesn't cut it.

5) Everytime you play the song "I kissed a girl and I liked it" God kills a baby.

What is put out there are music these days is really terrible. I don't think lazier lyrics have been written in another point in time.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

redbull or coffee, that is the question

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:19:12 -0400

So I had my first Redbull the other day. Now I know what you're thinking, you haven't tried one until NOW? Honestly I thought energy drinks tasted like ass and that nothing would be as delicious or remotely satisfying as coffee. However, the coffee at my work isn't that great so when I was offered half a Redbull before I could even have my first morning coffee, I didn't turn it down.

Half a can made me feel amazing, like I had added the extra 3 hours of sleep I missed that night. I felt awake, on the ball, and focused. I really didn't think half a can would do much since I abuse caffeine on a daily basis.

Today I grabbed a whole can on my break and consumed it. 10 minutes later I literally felt a jolt of weirdness which even caused me to stop what I was doing for a moment. Right after that I had the same feelings again, this time it included this feeling of being content.

I googled a bunch of the ingredients in a Redbull when I got home and to my surprise, it doesn't really contain as much sketchy things as I thought it would. Not many disclaimers, aside from the caffeine content which is apparently not that comparable to a cup of coffee, and I consume too much of that already. So then why the 'suggested' limit of 2 per day? My cafe doesn't cut me off after 3 coffees and they don't have to put warnings on the beans.

Then I read it - "no warnings appear on the Food and Drug Administration website regarding its potential to cause brain tumors or other maladies".

Anyone else not trust the FDA? That's a whole other rant and I'll just point out that they allow cloned animals to be sold as food, without any special labelling and that's just the tip of that gigantic iceburg. I will probably not pick up another Redbull again since I don't really understand the need for them as people should do one of the following instead:
1) get more sleep
2) have a delicious cup of (preferrably) fair trade coffee, or
3) get addicted to crack

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

you're on facebook forever

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:07:37 -0400

So a while ago I decided to delete my facebook account after much consideration. While doing this, I was talking to my friend who pointed this article out which I found to be hilarious. I already knew it used the word "deactivate" and since I am slightly dramatic and have deleted more than once, I never really had a problem with that since it would save me trouble when I decided to go back to it. The thing I'm not understanding really is why people are worried about privacy when it comes to social networking websites.

That's right, it's the INTERNET. You can barely be guaranteed that noone will steal your credit card information yet people are worried that facebook is quietly collecting your religious status, how you like walks in the rain, rap music, and bad television; things even your friends don't even care about. My thoughts are this: everything I ever decide to type or put out on the internet, wherever, is not safe and never will be. Sure, I'll take a chance that someone might decide to max out my great grand maximum 500 dollar Visa. But man, make sure noone but my 'friends' know that I love smoking weed.

I've always found networking sites to be very interesting, especially how some people manage to have over a hundred contacts. I've always been a person of a handful of good friends and don't get into the habit of befriending people who only seem to add me for the sake of keeping up with my life on a continual basis. I compare this to people's interest in celebrity lives; the thrill of peering in on a strangers life, except with facebook these are people you see around. I find this incredibly creepy and think it distracts people from doing something more fulfilling with their time.

Wait a second - people doing something fulfilling with their time? Err.. anyway.

Social networking sites can be helpful and we all know being social is important to us as a species. However, it creates an online addiction. Socializing on the internet does not compare to real life. On the other hand, it can sometimes help people to get out there and join a ring of new friends. It general it may seem relatively harmless but I can't decide if it does more harm than good.

Either way, if you spend hours on end 'lurking' you and I both know you have a problem.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

ice on mars!

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:18:49 -0400

PH2008062003314

BAM! BAM! BAM! AND BAM!

Anyone else think this is awesome? One step closer to the diminishing of our egos. Like so many others, I've always known that the logical assumption about life on other planets is that there would have to be. Considering how big the universe is, it's improbable that we would be the only 'intelligent beings'. I've always been a been advocate of SETI ( even used to have dreams of working for them..) and think it's important that we find life on other planets and make contact, as it would change the human race, for what I believe would be for the better.

There would be so many questions. What about religion? Would other races have their own Gods? They would certainly be more evolved, since we are so young. Maybe it would fill a void that we all have, the feeling of being alone. Realizing we aren't so special has so many implications. It's always been something personal to me, to wish that I would still be alive if and when we make first contact. I would certainly die a happy person.

I also keep up with when scientists find planets that may be habitable in different solar systems, that are similar to ours. I can't help but speculate though that there must be different FORMS of life other than us. Such as, life that could handle very different environmental situations other than ours. I know that our knowledge of the basis of life is all that we know, and for us to emerge is very very rare. But who knows. I hope I'm alive to find out.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

if anyone is interested..

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:28:58 -0400

I write poetry and prose.. and started a place to put them. Some of it will be old, but I've been writing some new things. The summer is inspiring me.

Colourblind.vox.com

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I think I'm starting to like Americans

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:05:42 -0400

AWESOME!!

Yeah, yeah.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

wrap it up!

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:16:11 -0400

WOO HOO

Just wanted to link that and talk about nothing. I've been suffering endlessly from migranes.

That's all from me!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

feminism and my opinion

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:47:47 -0400

More than a few times I've made posts here on Vox and other places where I've criticized a feminist blogger's stance on an 'issue', or made inarticulate comments about it (for jokes, I try not to take everything too seriously). More than a few times I've had to have the same argument justifying why I disagree with the majority of modern feminists. I like to think for myself and find that the majority of feminists whose blogs I read or come across seem to yell "sexism" at the most out of context, ridiculous things instead of focusing on real issues.

The election going on has fueled a lot of opinions that the media, Obama, journalists, just about everyone is sexist, and their evidence and justification for such an opinion always seems to be based on a comment or situation that could be taken out of context or are blown-up by an overreaction. Such as the article I most recently posted about Obama referring a woman as 'sweetie'. Apparently there are female Hillary supporters who are willing to vote for McCain if Obama wins, is that not an overreaction? Not to mention, absurd.

Here are some great examples. One of my favourite journalists Matt Taibbi got attacked and called sexist in this article by this obviously confused feminist because he said Hillary had flabby arms. Meanwhile, he responds with a list of other criticisms he has made to male politicians, which seems to make his flabby arms comment not so significant. It's just one example of how some feminists decide to spend their time talking about 'issues'. Do I even need to go on about how she is promoting inequality by being intolerant of the criticism of Hillary Clinton yet criticizing male politicians herself? No.

I gladly agree with quite a lot of feminists on a variety of issues, reproductive rights, anti-discrimination, but from what I see when I hit the women's studies section in a bookstore or read articles, I don't find much of it about real equality. The feminists I do enjoy such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia are labelled 'anti-feminists' just because they are challenging. As I've said in my comments section before: if your definition of feminism is "a person for the equality of women", then you could call me a feminist, but I am also a person for equality of all people, what is the official "term" for that?

Many of the feminists who are active today seem to prioritize the cause of women above all others, beyond what I feel is reasonable and rational, and do so in a knee-jerk fashion to issues that don't actually have any relevance to the equality of women; especially in relation to the more pressing and serious issues faced by women elsewhere in the world. This is the kind of feminism I try to distance myself from and I choose not to use such a term to refer to myself because I don't agree with the stances of most modern feminists.

My comments are a criticism of those in the media and blogging community who distort the concepts of feminism in an attempt to attack or label someone as sexist. In the case of Hillary versus Obama, it appears feminist bloggers promoting Hillary are calling Obama sexist for the purpose of promoting Hillary's campaign even though Obama is not actually sexist. This is an abuse of the concepts of feminism for political gain. This is what I do not agree with. We should all be able to question, challenge and approach things rationally. That is, not to respond to criticism defensively in a politically correct, knee-jerk fashion.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

16 percent of US "science" teachers are creationists

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Thu, 22 May 2008 21:31:24 -0400

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals.

I got this from reading the article on HuffPo. Apparently it's a valid science to some people. Appauling.

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".

A scientific alternative? Personally I wouldn't consider these people to be science teachers. No wonder the majority of people are so ignorant.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

sexism and politics

nobody@vox.com(misanthropist) — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:46:51 -0400

America makes me feel nauseous sometimes. I love to keep up with politics, read blogs and articles. I always love to keep up with the feminists too because sometimes the stuff they bitch about is mostly always hilarious. I recently found this article about Obama and him apparently calling some female reporter "sweetie". OH SAY IT 'AINT SO! With how many stupid feminists jumped all over that within minutes, it's as if he called her a cunt or something. Oh wait - didn't McCain call his wife a cunt? It took me longer to hear about that one then this Obama 'issue'.

So let me just get this straight. I've been called 'sweetie' by other women, so does that mean I should be pissed? Obama even called her to apologize. Does Obama barely do anything wrong that you have to watch his every move and take what you can get? Talk about desperate. Even Clinton has said or implied worse things. There are real issues to talk about.

Arianna Huffington posted this great article about Hillary Clinton. Arianna being the one woman I've followed the past while who has looked as Clinton as a person and not wanting to vote for her just because she's a woman. It's sites like this one that make me realize I prefer people who aren't into politics at all and never vote, to people who are going to go out and vote just to have a female in charge. I find it absolutely hilarious that most women I know that aren't for the war, fail to recognize that Clinton voted to authorize it. Does this not matter? I'm for equality and think we live in an age of equality where we can pick candidates on their merits not have to vote for a woman just as a symbol.

There's also the issue with Clinton being advised to drop out, which makes perfectly logical sense. But apparently saying that is 'offensive' and 'sexist'. What about when Romney or Huckabee were pressured to drop? This is politics, and politics is rough.

You'd think that females could wank it, with all the wanking that goes on with these bloggers.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend