Stupid People at Work

ENVIRONMENT - Ever had an argument with a stupid person?

You know, the kind of people who ignore the laws of physics?

For this example I am referring to people who ignore the laws of thermodynamics... and in particular greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat inside the earth's atmosphere. Its a proven fact.

Its a bit like ignoring other laws of physics... like gravity! Laws of motion, acceleration, relativity, quantum laws, electromagnetic laws, etc.

Thus when arguing with a stupid person who refuses to acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics and how greenhouse gases can be a frustrating task. The stupid person you are arguing with lacks the basic knowledge to make a coherent argument. Instead they use half logic, make up numbers, use information that is besides the point.

I recently had an argument with a deranged man named Willie McDonald from Houston, Texas. He kept fussing and claiming sun irradiation was the cause of global warming. He used made up numbers and links to conspiracy theory websites.

Sun irradiation (heat) has gone up 0.05% per decade since 1980 during quiet sunspot activity. So approximately 0.15%. The heat from the sun does fluctuate from time to time, but 0.15% is not enough to explain the temperature increases and global warming on Earth. Its too small a number. (Note, this increase is only a measurement during quiet sunspot activity... and thus is besides the point and further made irrelevant when you consider that the Earth's atmosphere both deflects and traps heat.)

Especially when you ignore how greenhouse gases work.

The Earth absorbs heat from the sun, yes, but the Earth also gives off heat back into space. The amount of heat given off into space depends on the percentage of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

The Earth's atmosphere also reflects heat. Thus the Earth's contained heat remains a relative constant, and the Earth's atmosphere is the single biggest contributor to global warming.

Greenhouse gases work like insulation. Once the heat gets inside the Earth's atmosphere it becomes more difficult for heat to escape. If you fill a box with greenhouse gases and provide a heat source, the box will heat up easily. If you fill it up with regular air, the box will still heat up, but it will give off heat more.

The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. How well these trap heat are even measurable. See the IPCC list of greenhouse gases for more details.

And so forth...

Try explaining all this to a stupid person (especially a conspiracy theorist) who refuses to admit that the Laws of Physics are called LAWS for a reason.

I blame the education system in North America. In this particular case, the man Willie McDonald from Texas has been failed by whatever passes for "science" in Texas high schools.

Worse, these uneducated morons cloud up poorly researched journalism and TV programs with their theories about the 'real cause of global warming', or worse, they deny that global warming and climate change are even happening.

It makes me wonder if and when the worst effects of climate change comes to pass what society will do with these morons. I think they will likely either learn to shut their mouths and follow sheepishly along, or somebody else will shut it for them...

Why? Because if the worst does come to pass we're talking about rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, droughts, desertification of the wheat belt, shortages of food and clean water, wars over food and resources. By that time the patience of people will be worn thin. Naysayer politicians will be beaten bloody in the streets by angry hordes and the non-famous naysayers will suddenly lose their tongues.

I think there will come a time when the effects of climate change become so dire that people will have lost their patience with leaders, oil executives and the coal industry. There will be no more room for arguments about the effects of climate change and what is causing it. The effects will be violent and bloody.

Why will it be bloody? Because stupid people don't have the patience to learn from their mistakes. They answer with action.

The social effects of climate change in the USA will be like watching a Jerry Springer episode. Stupid people killing other stupid people.

The smart people, like Noah and his Ark, will have foreseen what is coming and all moved further inland and found arable land unaffected by climate change or rising sea levels.

FYI: Land in Detroit is really cheap right now.

Gold Diggers at Work

Earlier today I went on a first date (you know, a coffee date) with a girl I met via online personals. She was Russian, very attractive, but when it came time to pay the bill she apparently thought I was treating her (despite the fact that it her idea to have drinks together).

She was apparently so traditional that this was the sole reason why we did not schedule a 2nd date. She didn't provide any other reason...

Thus I am forced to conclude either she was:

A. Honest and just very traditional and used to men who pay for everything.

B. Lying and there was some other reason why she didn't like me.

C. A gold digger.

Now I would like to hope it was A, just because I don't like it when people lie to me, but there is the distinct chance it was C, she is a gold digger and just looking for someone to pay for her way through life.

I should point out that most men hate gold diggers. They just feel used and betrayed if a woman is using them for money.

HOWEVER, I should point out that some men also like gold diggers... but I should note these men are same type who get trophy wives and like prostitutes.

As an artist / writer I am fortunate enough to know that any gold diggers will be sorely disappointed with my finances. Artists / writers aren't exactly known for being wealthy and usually need a second career to make ends meet.

Thus while it would be nice to be rich enough to buy girlfriends expensive $3,000 puppies for their birthdays (ie. Toronto Maltese Puppies are really cute) the fact of the matter is I don't want a lazy girlfriend or wife who is dependent on me... nor is it practical.

Lets imagine you have a high paying executive career. You marry a gold digger. You get in a car accident and are unable to work. Your finances start to run low. Does the gold digger stick with you, through sickness and in health, til death do you part? No, the gold digger divorces your sorry butt, she gets nothing because frankly you aren't working any more due to health reasons and don't have any money to take, and then she is left with no career of her own to fall back on.

Thus marrying a gold digger simply isn't practical, for either of you. Oh sure, she could sell any jewelry you gave her (like the Marilyn Monroe song "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"), but the end result is she is back at square one.



Madonna's "Material Girl" pays homage to the Marilyn Monroe song, but with an important difference. In the music video she ends up going out with the guy who brought her handpicked daisies.



Part of the whole gold digger phenomenon we could blame on tradition. Traditionally men were the bread winners and women didn't need to have their own career. In modern society its now considered to be more practical if both men and women have their own careers, their own money and they aren't financially beholden to their spouse.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer to go the handpicked daisy route. Not because its cheaper on my wallet, but because at least then I know the woman is being honest, realistic and practical.

Diamonds may be a Girl's Best Friend, but Diamonds won't buy you True Love.

Disciplining your Kids at Work (Part II)

See the older post: Disciplining your Kids at Work to learn more about physical discipline (ie. spanking, ear tugging, etc).

Now regardless of whether you believe in physical discipline (I firmly believe that as a child I needed it and I am thankful my parents used ear tugging and spankings at an early age to get their point across that tomfoolery will not go unpunished).

However at a certain age these kinds of punishments don't work any more. This is something every parent knows.

Thus begins a period of "being grounded", being denied dessert after dinner, not being allowed to watch TV, play on the computer, no talking on the phone, etc. At least these were the punishments I was familiar with being grounded during the 1980s and 1990s.

These days being grounded means being sent to their room where many kids now have their own TV, laptop, cell phone, so "being grounded" isn't really much of a punishment unless the parents also take away those electronic devices. I would argue however that the cell phone is an emergency device and should never be taken away. (But you might start handing the bill to the teenager and let them pay for it so they learn to cut back on their rampant usage.)

I remember once wracking up a huge $1,500 phone bill back in August 1997. Thankfully I was working and could pay for it, but in retrospect that money could have been spent on something else. I learned to discipline my phone usage after that incident.

The thing is self-discipline is a rare thing amongst children. Most children will simply run amok (like the kids in Lord of the Flies) if there is no one to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Case in point.

When I was 14 there was an incident at a gathering of neighbours outside the old Salem School and Church. It was basically a community BBQ and I noticed a bunch of kids bullying another kid, running around hitting each other with sticks. So being one of the older (and therefore more responsible) kids I took their sticks away and threw them over the fence.

Two of the boys went to complain to their father, claiming I had bullied them and/or hit them. The father came over to talk to me, telling me to leave his kids alone and threatening me. (I don't remember the exact words, it was 18 years ago.)

"All I did was take their sticks away and throw them over the fence. If you would discipline your kids this wouldn't be a problem."

At which point he threatened me some more and claimed his kids were perfectly disciplined.

To which I believe my response was "Bullshit. You're not even watching them." and basically berated him about the finer points of discipline, a fact which no doubt embarrassed him in front of his neighbours and he realized there was nothing he could do about it so he made one last threat and stormed away.

And THIS is why people should discipline their kids (whatever your methodology, providing its legal), so that your kids don't embarrass you in public, run amok beating up other kids, burning down churches and/or eventually becoming mass murderers. (Everyone blames the parents when the mass murderer strikes. Sometimes the mass murderer also kills their parents.)

Children should be encouraged to enjoy sports, express their creativity, to read, to show off their ability to learn and their intellect... and discouraged from bad behaviour which will cause trouble and mayhem both in the present and the future.

A neglectful parent is not a proper parent at all. Parenting requires you to actually pay attention to your children. Not paying attention and you reap the consequences.

Colombiana = A Heir to Kill Bill

ENTERTAINMENT - If you loved Kill Bill (I adored both Kill Bill films)you're probably going to enjoy this one:

Colombiana: Zoe Saldana plays a young woman who, after witnessing her parents’ murder as a child in Bogotá, grows up to be a stone-cold assassin. She works for her uncle as a hitman by day, but her personal time is spent engaging in vigilante murders that she hopes will lead her to her ultimate target: the monster responsible for her parents' death.

It doesn't say it in the trailer, but they also hint that he raped her.

Films where women are physically or metaphorically raped and then go on a killing spree (essentially because they've been traumatized) are really kind of a warning to never underestimate the vengeance of a woman.

Hell hath no fury like a vengeful woman.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

Fantasy Authors at Work

ENTERTAINMENT - Is fantasy just something for men?

No, evidently not. Not when you consider fantasy authors like Anne McCaffrey, Ursula K. Le Guin and J.K. Rowling, just for starters. There is also Marion Zimmer Bradley, Margaret Weis and many more.

As male fantasy authors go there is Robert E. Howard, George R.R. Martin, Tolkien, Guy Gabriel Kay, Troy Denning, Tracy Hickman, David Eddings, Dave Duncan and many others.

The major difference between male and female fantasy authors however seems to be the number of films / TV shows based off their work. Male authors have way more movies and TV shows... Conan, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings and so forth.

For female fantasy authors its a very short list... Harry Potter.

And I don't think it is any lack of quality of the imagination of the authors. ie. Anne McCaffrey's "Dragon Riders of Pern" would make a great film if given an opportunity. Same goes with the Dragonlance Trilogy, co-written by both Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman.

When it comes to being a fantasy author you really have to measure success by whether its made into a film.

Which begs the question, would it be beneficial for female fantasy authors to publish their works under a male pseudonym just so they're taken more seriously?

Maybe. But I think personal charisma and the likeability of characters makes a huge difference. Harry Potter, Conan and characters like Frodo / Gandalf deserve to be recognized in film... but again you may have noticed many of them are male characters.

Could we assume this is because more men read fantasy in the first place? Maybe. Its difficult to say the exact reason.