So recently I was looking at my Diet Rockstar energy drink and it said "drink 1 every day as needed, do not exceed 1 can per 24 hour period".
They do that on Dosage with Pills also, take 1-2 Tylenol but do not exceed X.
I always look at that whenever I take more than the recommended Tylenol in the period of time. I always say to myself "well if they did not want me to take more than the recommended dosage, then they wouldn't have given me an entire bottle, so how can it be THAT bad”. Sure this may seem like my logic is faulty, but there is some sense to it.
Drug companies put a whole lot of trust in people. They trust that people will not be totally stupid with the amount of pills they take. They probably put a safety factor that they put on pills; I mean normally it is called the “Safety factor”, but if I was working for a drug company I would probably call it the “Let’s be stupid” factor. The factor would be there for those special people who say “I will take 2 more pills! Take that Advil and your recommended dosage!”. The factor would make the recommended dosage smaller so those risk takers would still get the thrill of “overdosing” without actually doing anything. The drug companies just keep the trust in the drug buyers that they will not take more than necessary. Good for them for thinking that.
I started thinking about this whole “trust the customer” thing, and I remembered something that was posted on someone’s facebook wall.
“New York is not a place you can go on the honor system. This isn’t Canada,” - Maurice Jenkins, union vice president for stations.
I read an article in Canadian Living a few years ago that said a similar thing. A Canadian was telling her American friend about how we give a “thank you” wave when are driving and we let someone go first, or let a pedestrian pass, or when we let someone into traffic. The American said “You let people into traffic?”
Interesting… We all know that Canadians are known for being friendly, but you never realize that little things like the ‘friendly thank-you wave while driving’ is a Canadian thing.
That’s when I starting thinking further: why are us Canadians like this?
The only logical explanation I could think of was, drum roll please, it must be engraved in our history. History will tell me why Canadians and Americans are the way they are!
Here are some Canadian historic facts: Canada’s Confederation was in 1867. However we were still under British influence. In 1982, the Canadian constitution was passed where the British parliament passed an act that ended all remaining dependence of Canada to the UK.
How about the USA’s historic facts: Their Independence Day was July 4th 1776. It is their Independence Day aka they removed all British influence on that day.
Huh. Well that is interesting: the United States had independence 200 years before Canada.
The USA fought with England in order to hold their land. The Spanish and French and English that settled there got tired of being under UK control so they rebelled; started wars and eventually got their independence.
From then on, the USA had wars between land within the country between each other, not British government.
Not as much drama in Canada. There was one time that Canada did fight the USA when they tried to invade Quebec, and we won! So the lesson learned there is we will protect our country from rebels. Good for us. There is just one thing: we never really pushed back on the British.
It is almost like the Ambitious, rebellious, ‘motivated to reach outrageous goals’ settlers went to the United states and the laid back, ok with how things are, push over’s to the British government settled in Canada.
So for 200 more years after the United States declared independence, we were under British Control, not really having the last say in things, not being truly independent. In the meantime, the US has been flourishing, and making their own laws.
Hell, we have still not been able to kick Queen Elizabeth off of our coins yet! This alone shows how we just let British influence affect our lives now. Sure some of our bills have past Prime Ministers, but the queen still dominates as the main figure on our money. Why? Has she actually been that influential? Debatable. The USA have their Presidents on coins. Figures that have been residence of the United States and have made impact in History. We have a queen who sometimes visits. Even though I have only been alive for 24 years, it seems like not much has been done to get rid of this whole queen on the coins thing. What happens when she dies? Is she worth keeping on as a historical figure? Will Prince Charles be on our coins now? Because I am almost certain he will not make decisions for us. Why not Trudeau on our coins? He was influential in our history!
But I have gotten off topic. Nice Canadians. Right.
Personally I think History has said a lot. Canadians were content with the status quo and never really fought the British to get complete independence. “no no no keep the queen on the coin, she may get upset if we take her off it and replace it with John A McDonald”. Lame. The US was totally different. No wonder they are considered to be a mega power; they always have been.
Well, is there a way to turn this around? I mean people can change right? Well the opening and closing ceremonies for the 2010 Olympics did not display Canada as a power that the US should be concerned about.
Maybe we have just dug a hole too big for us to climb out of. Trying to convince an entire world that Canadians are bad ass seems a little unrealistic.
But we may as well start somewhere. Next time someone lets you into traffic, give them the finger instead. Next time a American asks if you live in igloos in Canada, say Fuck you! And Next time that Advil bottle says only take 10 pills in a 24hr period, take the whole bottle!
Common Canada! You with me!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Maturity
So I do not know why I have no blogged on maturity yet, seems so natural since I think about it on a daily basis.
Not on my level of maturity, but on how it has made my views change throughout my life. Some more prominent things that come to mind are Food and clothing choices. I remember those days where I thought stuffing was “gross”. Then one day, I realize, man I really like that! Or the day where I realized that bran flakes, even though they are not covered in sugar and don’t have higher marshmallow to cereal ratio, are delicious!
Now lets look at the next change that maturity brings with it: clothing choices. This whole blog idea started from what I saw on the subway: Catholic High school girls who rolled their kilts so high their bums are pretty much showing. I remembered also in the winter when I saw high school kids in the winter time wearing no coat, no gloves, no hat, and you saw them shivering. Why? Cause it is not cool to wear these things? It is not cool to be warm? While I am in 7 layers, 2 pairs of gloves and a hat, I look at them and I remember those days. The days where you would not wear any of those things, for 2 reasons: you parents told you to, and it was just not “cool”. Thank goodness we all get over that. We finally realize that wearing gloves does not mean you are not cool, it means you are not COLD ;). It means you are dressing for the weather, preventing illness, and just being warm. Silly teenagers, this whole being “cool” thing. It just seems so trivial now.
Let’s reflect back on my Catholic High school kilt experience. It was just not cool to NOT roll your kilt. I am pretty sure I rolled my kilt to a length that was sometimes too high. And at the time, circa the year 2000, hot damn that was what you did! Now. I look at these girls and realize that this looks sloppy! AND the way they are allowed to wear cropped leggings, and runners with their uniform just made it look worse!
I have come to realize that the uniform was not a way to conform us into mind numbing students that are “sheep” and do not have their own views. Uniforms were there to make us look damn good. Having something to wear everyday that consisted of Polo shirts, kilts (at a reasonable length), ruby shirts, dress pants and dress shoes really is just classy. But instead of embracing this look, teens destroy it by rolling their kilts, wearing skater shoes with hot pink shoe laces.
Now don’t get me wrong. I did the same thing when I was in high school. Mostly because it was considered “un cool”; an unrealistic standard dictated by someone who probably graduated 7 years before me. No one at the school refuted these “unwritten rules of the uniform” so everyone continued to do this. Why did no one try and stop this trend? It is because if you fought it, you run the risk of being ridiculed and humiliated. Teens keep this up in order to be accepted in the school.
In that lies the biggest change that maturity installs in everyone: being comfortable with who you are.
When I looked at those girls on the subway, I just thought of “I wonder how far away from home they had to be before they rolled their kilt”. Really, looking back, I would have loved just to not care what other people thought of what I wore to school. I have become more comfortable with who I am, as a person. When we were all in high school, you still are dying to find a way to be accepted and will do what you can in order to try and be accepted. Whether it is change of your clothes or personality, everything done in the teen years is driven by the want to be accepted.
Thank god those days are over. Not completely, but it is a lot better. I wear what I want to wear; I hang out with who I want to hang out with and I not worried about their age, or whether they are “cool”. Everyone hits an age where they go “huh, I really like the way I dress this way, and I am going to rock it”. In essence, the word “cool” should only be used to describe the temperature inside a freezer. Using it to describe people is just silly, since being cool is different for everyone’s perspective.
So really what I have learned about maturity, that I wish I could have told those girls on the subway is: don’t sweat the small stuff, be confident with who you are and roll down your kilt!”
Not on my level of maturity, but on how it has made my views change throughout my life. Some more prominent things that come to mind are Food and clothing choices. I remember those days where I thought stuffing was “gross”. Then one day, I realize, man I really like that! Or the day where I realized that bran flakes, even though they are not covered in sugar and don’t have higher marshmallow to cereal ratio, are delicious!
Now lets look at the next change that maturity brings with it: clothing choices. This whole blog idea started from what I saw on the subway: Catholic High school girls who rolled their kilts so high their bums are pretty much showing. I remembered also in the winter when I saw high school kids in the winter time wearing no coat, no gloves, no hat, and you saw them shivering. Why? Cause it is not cool to wear these things? It is not cool to be warm? While I am in 7 layers, 2 pairs of gloves and a hat, I look at them and I remember those days. The days where you would not wear any of those things, for 2 reasons: you parents told you to, and it was just not “cool”. Thank goodness we all get over that. We finally realize that wearing gloves does not mean you are not cool, it means you are not COLD ;). It means you are dressing for the weather, preventing illness, and just being warm. Silly teenagers, this whole being “cool” thing. It just seems so trivial now.
Let’s reflect back on my Catholic High school kilt experience. It was just not cool to NOT roll your kilt. I am pretty sure I rolled my kilt to a length that was sometimes too high. And at the time, circa the year 2000, hot damn that was what you did! Now. I look at these girls and realize that this looks sloppy! AND the way they are allowed to wear cropped leggings, and runners with their uniform just made it look worse!
I have come to realize that the uniform was not a way to conform us into mind numbing students that are “sheep” and do not have their own views. Uniforms were there to make us look damn good. Having something to wear everyday that consisted of Polo shirts, kilts (at a reasonable length), ruby shirts, dress pants and dress shoes really is just classy. But instead of embracing this look, teens destroy it by rolling their kilts, wearing skater shoes with hot pink shoe laces.
Now don’t get me wrong. I did the same thing when I was in high school. Mostly because it was considered “un cool”; an unrealistic standard dictated by someone who probably graduated 7 years before me. No one at the school refuted these “unwritten rules of the uniform” so everyone continued to do this. Why did no one try and stop this trend? It is because if you fought it, you run the risk of being ridiculed and humiliated. Teens keep this up in order to be accepted in the school.
In that lies the biggest change that maturity installs in everyone: being comfortable with who you are.
When I looked at those girls on the subway, I just thought of “I wonder how far away from home they had to be before they rolled their kilt”. Really, looking back, I would have loved just to not care what other people thought of what I wore to school. I have become more comfortable with who I am, as a person. When we were all in high school, you still are dying to find a way to be accepted and will do what you can in order to try and be accepted. Whether it is change of your clothes or personality, everything done in the teen years is driven by the want to be accepted.
Thank god those days are over. Not completely, but it is a lot better. I wear what I want to wear; I hang out with who I want to hang out with and I not worried about their age, or whether they are “cool”. Everyone hits an age where they go “huh, I really like the way I dress this way, and I am going to rock it”. In essence, the word “cool” should only be used to describe the temperature inside a freezer. Using it to describe people is just silly, since being cool is different for everyone’s perspective.
So really what I have learned about maturity, that I wish I could have told those girls on the subway is: don’t sweat the small stuff, be confident with who you are and roll down your kilt!”
Friday, January 29, 2010
End of and Era
So I quit Rokbar last Thursday. I worked there from May 2009 till, obviously, January 2010.
Here at my other job, at the end of projects, we may have a "Lessons learned" discussion. Why should ending this job be any different? Therefore I feel this job termination REQUIRES a lessons learned discussion.
Lesson 1: Part time jobs unrelated to anything you went to school for are actually a good idea.
Sure, working at a bar does not really make me enough money to sustain a lifestyle that includes a home, car, food or water, but it was really enjoyable to have a job that i went into becuase i think i would enjoy it, and not because oh damn well i learned this in school so i better do it.
Lesson 2: Dressing like a hooker is not as cool as one would think.
So some background here for all of you who are not aware. The rokbar uniform was a kilt the size of a hand napkin, a tank top, fishnet stockings and black high heels. Basically if i walked anywhere in that, i would get hooted at and a get a lot of cat calls. That is outside the bar. Inside the bar is another story. When you work there and you are not behind the bar, dressing like that gives drunk guys the notion that I am there just to appease them. So they think that smacking my ass or blatantly grabbing my boobs is acceptable. The worst part is when you are talking to a guy and after about 30 minutes he asks "so are you here with your friends?".....really?? the fact that all the bartenders are wearing the same thing did not tip you off? just becuase i am not behind the bar sometimes, guys think that girls wear that? I have never worn anything that revealing in my life, and to be honest, I will never do that again. The way that guys look at you like you are a piece of meat, it is insulting! i would rather have guys talk to me when my ass is not showing :) make sense? yeah it does
Lesson 3: Dressing like a hooker = confidence boost
Yeah so I am contradicting the last lesson, but it is true. Sure confidence comes from within also, but when yo dress that way and guys notice you and not that other girl over there, it does make you feel good. Or when a guy tips you $100 just cause. And when girls give you the most disgusted stares cause you look this way. Yeah. Confidence :)
Lesson 4: In the end, keep with what you know
While working there, alot of people said that I was one of the only workers that looked like I did not belong working there. They did not mean it as an insult but as ust a general comment. I knew this was true, but in the end, it was true. I did not really belong there. too many things pissed me off; like how the manager assumed I was a criminal. It made me feel like a worthless employee really.
Anyways, all in all it was a great experience and I will probably work at a bar again. just not one that requires me to look ridiculous and one with a higher age than 19-21 year old boys who still think that slutty girls are the classies girls of all.
Here at my other job, at the end of projects, we may have a "Lessons learned" discussion. Why should ending this job be any different? Therefore I feel this job termination REQUIRES a lessons learned discussion.
Lesson 1: Part time jobs unrelated to anything you went to school for are actually a good idea.
Sure, working at a bar does not really make me enough money to sustain a lifestyle that includes a home, car, food or water, but it was really enjoyable to have a job that i went into becuase i think i would enjoy it, and not because oh damn well i learned this in school so i better do it.
Lesson 2: Dressing like a hooker is not as cool as one would think.
So some background here for all of you who are not aware. The rokbar uniform was a kilt the size of a hand napkin, a tank top, fishnet stockings and black high heels. Basically if i walked anywhere in that, i would get hooted at and a get a lot of cat calls. That is outside the bar. Inside the bar is another story. When you work there and you are not behind the bar, dressing like that gives drunk guys the notion that I am there just to appease them. So they think that smacking my ass or blatantly grabbing my boobs is acceptable. The worst part is when you are talking to a guy and after about 30 minutes he asks "so are you here with your friends?".....really?? the fact that all the bartenders are wearing the same thing did not tip you off? just becuase i am not behind the bar sometimes, guys think that girls wear that? I have never worn anything that revealing in my life, and to be honest, I will never do that again. The way that guys look at you like you are a piece of meat, it is insulting! i would rather have guys talk to me when my ass is not showing :) make sense? yeah it does
Lesson 3: Dressing like a hooker = confidence boost
Yeah so I am contradicting the last lesson, but it is true. Sure confidence comes from within also, but when yo dress that way and guys notice you and not that other girl over there, it does make you feel good. Or when a guy tips you $100 just cause. And when girls give you the most disgusted stares cause you look this way. Yeah. Confidence :)
Lesson 4: In the end, keep with what you know
While working there, alot of people said that I was one of the only workers that looked like I did not belong working there. They did not mean it as an insult but as ust a general comment. I knew this was true, but in the end, it was true. I did not really belong there. too many things pissed me off; like how the manager assumed I was a criminal. It made me feel like a worthless employee really.
Anyways, all in all it was a great experience and I will probably work at a bar again. just not one that requires me to look ridiculous and one with a higher age than 19-21 year old boys who still think that slutty girls are the classies girls of all.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tiger Tiger Tiger Woods y'all
So I really do not want to write about celebrities, but this issue comes up far too often.
So Tiger got a bit promiscuous, okay a lot promiscuous. People get so emotional over something that does not even really effect their lives. It baffles me when people say that he is not a good man, a horrible husband, etc, etc and people have lost respect for him. I can honestly say right now, that not only did Tiger Woods not effect my life before this, he definitely did not effect my life after this. It makes me sad that because of his personal choices he has made, some of the products he has been promoting have dropped him as a sponsor. People have really lost the true meaning of why tiger was famous in the first place. He plays golf, and does it reasonably well. He has broken some records and won some trophies. Does the fact that he slept with an entire whore house effect his golf swing? no. Does the fact that he has horrible taste in women make him choose a driver when really all he needs is a 5 iron. Hardly. Sure his personal life could effect him mentally, but it obviously has not been since he has been cheating on his wife for so long and still has done well at his passion in life; golf. Not sleeping around. Golf.
It is unfortunate that people are so wrapped up in lives that do not even matter to them that they will ruin his career, take away something that he has worked so hard for for so many years.
Am i saying that Tiger was right with what he did. No, but that is not my issue. His personal life does not affect my emotions on a daily basis so why should it? Who it should matter to his is wife and family. That is it.
Unfortunately for him, our society has this infatuation for the upper class society. So Tiger's career is ruined, because everyone else will not watch him play golf cause he slept with some women. Not because he is bad at golf. Nonsense.
Another person that this happened to was Letterman. He cheated on his "wife" (they were dating at the time) like a decade ago. Before it leaked out he came out with it on his night show. After this there were people who said they would not watch his show because of this. My question is why? Did this affair effect how funny he was? no. Did Letterman cheat on them? no. was Letterman on a first name basis with these people? hell no. So if his situation does not effect their lives, and he is still funny, which is his job, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? people have to stop taking things that celebrities do seriously. People have also said they do not want to watch his show because he is not trustworthy anymore. So what they are saying is they trusted him before. Well how much? how much can you trust someone that you have never met and never will meet? all they can be trusted for is to be on the television at the same time every night, and they do not even control that! Their job is to entertain us; that's it. We have no requirement to get personally attached to them, because we will never meet them or be friends with them. Maybe those people think they are making a statement by not watching his show. All you are doing is depriving someone from doing something they love because people believe they should have a say in everything.
My last and final example is Kanye West and Taylor Swift. This one really make me angry. First thing is first: it is rude to interrupt someone no matter what, so it was not right that Kanye did that, and he probably deserved the Boos at the awards ceremony. Kanye did apologize, but now lets fast forward to the concert that Lady GaGa and Kanye was suppose to be doing together. Kayne was dropped from the tour because of low ticket sales and it was speculated to be because of what he did to Taylor Swift. Really people. Really? Not only did he apologize, but stop taking things so personally! Did Kanye interrupt you while you were receiving an award? no. Are you friends with Taylor swift, so much that after you don't buy a ticket you will call her up and tell her? No way.
If you like Kayne's music, he is doing what he is supposed to be doing. He is a rude SOB and everyone knows that. He interrupted Taylor but that is not affecting his ability to make kick ass music! so go watch him perform!
So, what is my conclusion of this post. I guess it is just for people to not be stupid. Stop taking issues that do not concern you so personally. There are so many magazines and shows with all these celebrities that it gives people a false sense of friendship with these people. If I was walking with my friend and pointed out a random person on the street and told my friend that that person cheated on his wife, would my friend care? probably for about 0.5 seconds until something else distracted them. Why is this? because they do not know them. They have no history, and my friend as no attachment to them. It is unfortunate that my friend would essentially know as much about that random person as they know about celebrities. Celebrities are just so much more publicized that there is a imaginary comradery that is created. So really, people of the world: care about the friends you have and come to terms that Tiger Woods will never know your first name; Letterman will never give you a high five and Kayne West will never sing at your birthday party. Stop wasting your energy.
So Tiger got a bit promiscuous, okay a lot promiscuous. People get so emotional over something that does not even really effect their lives. It baffles me when people say that he is not a good man, a horrible husband, etc, etc and people have lost respect for him. I can honestly say right now, that not only did Tiger Woods not effect my life before this, he definitely did not effect my life after this. It makes me sad that because of his personal choices he has made, some of the products he has been promoting have dropped him as a sponsor. People have really lost the true meaning of why tiger was famous in the first place. He plays golf, and does it reasonably well. He has broken some records and won some trophies. Does the fact that he slept with an entire whore house effect his golf swing? no. Does the fact that he has horrible taste in women make him choose a driver when really all he needs is a 5 iron. Hardly. Sure his personal life could effect him mentally, but it obviously has not been since he has been cheating on his wife for so long and still has done well at his passion in life; golf. Not sleeping around. Golf.
It is unfortunate that people are so wrapped up in lives that do not even matter to them that they will ruin his career, take away something that he has worked so hard for for so many years.
Am i saying that Tiger was right with what he did. No, but that is not my issue. His personal life does not affect my emotions on a daily basis so why should it? Who it should matter to his is wife and family. That is it.
Unfortunately for him, our society has this infatuation for the upper class society. So Tiger's career is ruined, because everyone else will not watch him play golf cause he slept with some women. Not because he is bad at golf. Nonsense.
Another person that this happened to was Letterman. He cheated on his "wife" (they were dating at the time) like a decade ago. Before it leaked out he came out with it on his night show. After this there were people who said they would not watch his show because of this. My question is why? Did this affair effect how funny he was? no. Did Letterman cheat on them? no. was Letterman on a first name basis with these people? hell no. So if his situation does not effect their lives, and he is still funny, which is his job, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? people have to stop taking things that celebrities do seriously. People have also said they do not want to watch his show because he is not trustworthy anymore. So what they are saying is they trusted him before. Well how much? how much can you trust someone that you have never met and never will meet? all they can be trusted for is to be on the television at the same time every night, and they do not even control that! Their job is to entertain us; that's it. We have no requirement to get personally attached to them, because we will never meet them or be friends with them. Maybe those people think they are making a statement by not watching his show. All you are doing is depriving someone from doing something they love because people believe they should have a say in everything.
My last and final example is Kanye West and Taylor Swift. This one really make me angry. First thing is first: it is rude to interrupt someone no matter what, so it was not right that Kanye did that, and he probably deserved the Boos at the awards ceremony. Kanye did apologize, but now lets fast forward to the concert that Lady GaGa and Kanye was suppose to be doing together. Kayne was dropped from the tour because of low ticket sales and it was speculated to be because of what he did to Taylor Swift. Really people. Really? Not only did he apologize, but stop taking things so personally! Did Kanye interrupt you while you were receiving an award? no. Are you friends with Taylor swift, so much that after you don't buy a ticket you will call her up and tell her? No way.
If you like Kayne's music, he is doing what he is supposed to be doing. He is a rude SOB and everyone knows that. He interrupted Taylor but that is not affecting his ability to make kick ass music! so go watch him perform!
So, what is my conclusion of this post. I guess it is just for people to not be stupid. Stop taking issues that do not concern you so personally. There are so many magazines and shows with all these celebrities that it gives people a false sense of friendship with these people. If I was walking with my friend and pointed out a random person on the street and told my friend that that person cheated on his wife, would my friend care? probably for about 0.5 seconds until something else distracted them. Why is this? because they do not know them. They have no history, and my friend as no attachment to them. It is unfortunate that my friend would essentially know as much about that random person as they know about celebrities. Celebrities are just so much more publicized that there is a imaginary comradery that is created. So really, people of the world: care about the friends you have and come to terms that Tiger Woods will never know your first name; Letterman will never give you a high five and Kayne West will never sing at your birthday party. Stop wasting your energy.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Evolution
I have so many random thoughts everyday it blows my mind away.
Todays random though is: Evolution; more specifically, the evolution of humans losing hair. Isn't it amazing that other species of humans in the past N million of years have lasted hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years, and our form of human have only been around for thousands? Makes me wonder what part of our appearance will cease to exist next. This thought happened while I was shaving my underarms, so I got thinking, what if it was unneeded hair that was next on the chopping block.
So I hope we can all agree we were once monkeys; as scientific evidence has found, if you do not agree, just humor me for now. When we were monkeys, our entire bodies were covered in hair. As we evolved, we lost hair, lost hair lost hair until here we are today, with hair on certain places but not on others. There are some theories on why we started losing hair, and started looking more like we do now. One theory, is that when became bipeds, we had no need for an excess amount of hair all over our bodies since we do not need it to protect our skin. We have hair on our heads still because we need to protect our skulls from the Sun. Make sense? Good. Millions of years ago, our species needed the hair in order to stay warm while we were hunting and being outside all of the time and to protect our skin. I am going to state the obvious right now: we no longer are outside hunting all the time; hence the obesity rates. We have other ways to control our body temperature these days, so having a personal fur coat is unnecessary. I just had another thought: why do men have more body hair then women? Maybe it is because they are naturally the hunters, so they are assumed to be hunters more than the women are. I am ok with that; I will stay at home and be less hairless.
A second theory on why we lost hair is: we lost hair because hairless = more attractive. When we were in our earlier forms, the uglier babies were basically tossed away and only the prettier ones were kept. As the years past, the ugly genes were just killed away and only the less hairy babies were kept. Really, I can’t make this stuff up. So, if we go on that, we were pretty conceited monkeys. We were concerned about appearances, even millions of years ago. Imagine your mom killing you because you were not pretty enough; thank goodness that does not happen nowadays. Now just have society sublimely telling us every day that we have to look and act a certain way to be socially acceptable.
At this point in my train of thought, I stopped shaving my underarms and I started looking at myself and realized there are very odd placements of hair on our bodies. All humans have hair on their heads, eyebrows, eyelashes, armpit hair, and leg hair. And men have more prominent arm and chest hair. So if you look at theory one, men have more hair because they were prominently the hunters. Now that is a void concept, so does that mean all men will evolve to have no chest or arm hair? And leg hair; we are biped now, and there is no need to keep all that hair there, so maybe that will also cease to exist when we evolve. You may be now thinking why this evolution has not happened yet since we have been biped for a while now. Remember though; the other forms of humans lasted hundreds of thousands of years. Our form of human is still very young, so don’t worry, we got time.
Looking at theory 2, ugly genes will be killed off. Mostly all women shave their leg and underarm hair to look more appealing. Most men also shave their facial hair in order to look more clean cut, and more attractive. So maybe that means if we keep doing it, evolution will eventually kill off that hair growth also.
So there is an obvious glitch with these 2 theories; by following that theory, it assumes that since we are biped and don’t hunt anymore, we will lose our heads of hair soon. Our lifestyles have changed and we are not out in the sun slaving away as we used to, so protecting the skull is not that important. So we will become hairless creatures (that I assume will look like hairless shriveled potatoes) that are so ugly our own mothers will want us dead. Wait a minute! This contradicts the other theory; because if we were all hairless, which may not be considered attractive; no one would want to have sex with anyone else because they are just so ugly! Who would want to continue the human race with a fear of maybe the next thing to go are the fingernails! And since our whole purpose of us living is essentially to procreate, our species will die. Not fun.
So which theory is right? Maybe we should make a hybrid theory. Use the first, for scientific reasons, but maybe with a little bit of the second. So let’s call it Theory 1½ . Our race will evolve to remove unsightly hair due to us now being bipeds and to be more attractive (to avoid the shriveled potato look, as explained above). So women eventually will have no leg hair, no underarm hair and have perfectly sculpted eyebrows. Men will have either no facial hair or a natural scruff or a natural goatee.
What a great time that will be.
Too bad we will all be dead before that happens.
We probably still have a couple hundred thousand years of: men thinking Movember is a great excuse to grow disgusting moustaches, women using billions of razors and estheticians raking in the cash of all the hair removal processes that we endure to make ourselves more attractive.
Why can’t evolution come sooner!
Todays random though is: Evolution; more specifically, the evolution of humans losing hair. Isn't it amazing that other species of humans in the past N million of years have lasted hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years, and our form of human have only been around for thousands? Makes me wonder what part of our appearance will cease to exist next. This thought happened while I was shaving my underarms, so I got thinking, what if it was unneeded hair that was next on the chopping block.
So I hope we can all agree we were once monkeys; as scientific evidence has found, if you do not agree, just humor me for now. When we were monkeys, our entire bodies were covered in hair. As we evolved, we lost hair, lost hair lost hair until here we are today, with hair on certain places but not on others. There are some theories on why we started losing hair, and started looking more like we do now. One theory, is that when became bipeds, we had no need for an excess amount of hair all over our bodies since we do not need it to protect our skin. We have hair on our heads still because we need to protect our skulls from the Sun. Make sense? Good. Millions of years ago, our species needed the hair in order to stay warm while we were hunting and being outside all of the time and to protect our skin. I am going to state the obvious right now: we no longer are outside hunting all the time; hence the obesity rates. We have other ways to control our body temperature these days, so having a personal fur coat is unnecessary. I just had another thought: why do men have more body hair then women? Maybe it is because they are naturally the hunters, so they are assumed to be hunters more than the women are. I am ok with that; I will stay at home and be less hairless.
A second theory on why we lost hair is: we lost hair because hairless = more attractive. When we were in our earlier forms, the uglier babies were basically tossed away and only the prettier ones were kept. As the years past, the ugly genes were just killed away and only the less hairy babies were kept. Really, I can’t make this stuff up. So, if we go on that, we were pretty conceited monkeys. We were concerned about appearances, even millions of years ago. Imagine your mom killing you because you were not pretty enough; thank goodness that does not happen nowadays. Now just have society sublimely telling us every day that we have to look and act a certain way to be socially acceptable.
At this point in my train of thought, I stopped shaving my underarms and I started looking at myself and realized there are very odd placements of hair on our bodies. All humans have hair on their heads, eyebrows, eyelashes, armpit hair, and leg hair. And men have more prominent arm and chest hair. So if you look at theory one, men have more hair because they were prominently the hunters. Now that is a void concept, so does that mean all men will evolve to have no chest or arm hair? And leg hair; we are biped now, and there is no need to keep all that hair there, so maybe that will also cease to exist when we evolve. You may be now thinking why this evolution has not happened yet since we have been biped for a while now. Remember though; the other forms of humans lasted hundreds of thousands of years. Our form of human is still very young, so don’t worry, we got time.
Looking at theory 2, ugly genes will be killed off. Mostly all women shave their leg and underarm hair to look more appealing. Most men also shave their facial hair in order to look more clean cut, and more attractive. So maybe that means if we keep doing it, evolution will eventually kill off that hair growth also.
So there is an obvious glitch with these 2 theories; by following that theory, it assumes that since we are biped and don’t hunt anymore, we will lose our heads of hair soon. Our lifestyles have changed and we are not out in the sun slaving away as we used to, so protecting the skull is not that important. So we will become hairless creatures (that I assume will look like hairless shriveled potatoes) that are so ugly our own mothers will want us dead. Wait a minute! This contradicts the other theory; because if we were all hairless, which may not be considered attractive; no one would want to have sex with anyone else because they are just so ugly! Who would want to continue the human race with a fear of maybe the next thing to go are the fingernails! And since our whole purpose of us living is essentially to procreate, our species will die. Not fun.
So which theory is right? Maybe we should make a hybrid theory. Use the first, for scientific reasons, but maybe with a little bit of the second. So let’s call it Theory 1½ . Our race will evolve to remove unsightly hair due to us now being bipeds and to be more attractive (to avoid the shriveled potato look, as explained above). So women eventually will have no leg hair, no underarm hair and have perfectly sculpted eyebrows. Men will have either no facial hair or a natural scruff or a natural goatee.
What a great time that will be.
Too bad we will all be dead before that happens.
We probably still have a couple hundred thousand years of: men thinking Movember is a great excuse to grow disgusting moustaches, women using billions of razors and estheticians raking in the cash of all the hair removal processes that we endure to make ourselves more attractive.
Why can’t evolution come sooner!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Smoking
So, I am at work. It's December 29th. No one else at any other company is at work either. Therefore, I have nothing to do. I have been talking with the other employees here and we got on the topic of smoking, and how some people use it for weight loss.
This only reminded me of an argument I had with someone recently on how Ontario is suing tobacco companies $50 billion dollars for all of the health care dollars that have been spent on smoking related illnesses. If you want to read the full article, here is the link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2046649
So, side note: stupid people drive me nuts.
What is worse is that Ontario will probably win. Their argument is that tax payers money has been going into funding all this health care for people with these smoking illnesses. One thing people automatically said was, well what about the Billions of dollars that the government gets from the tax they put on the cigarettes?
But lets put all of those money issues aside. Here are my arguments on this, because I have an opinion on everything.
First, what happens when Ontario does get this 50 billion dollars, does that mean that all the other people with smoking related illnesses will just go away? oh well now that we have been paid for the past health care costs, we are OK! no other money will be spent on smoking related illnesses.....well that is just silly to think that. I would like to see that graph that shows the correlation that as the money gained from suing the tobacco company increases, the number of deaths due to smoke and second hand come decreases.
<----this does not exists.
So lets think again about this, If the above graph does not exist, that must mean that smokers do not care about the money when it comes to smoking. Huh, so there will be no decrease in smoking if this money is made, which should be the governments main focus. Don't dwell on the past, look to the future! The people before are already sick or dying, so lets look to trying to get our future potential smokers to not smoke! WHICH is a great lead to my next point. I also think that suing the tobacco companies is silly because I do not see them as responsible. Tobacco companies are not going around to high schools or workplaces, sneak attacking people and shoving lit cigarettes in their mouths. People CHOOSE to smoke. It is unfortunate that cigarettes are addictive, but most smokers know the risks; these risks are clearly on the box. So what Ontario is doing is suing the tobacco companies for all the billions spent in health care money that is spent on smoking, since it was the tax payers money. However, if it is the taxpayers choice to smoke, aren't they then paying for their own health care? So it is a personal choice to start smoking. It is also a personal choice to eat a unhealthy amount of fast food. There are more of obese people these days than ever before, and it is also unhealthy for you to be obese. And on top of that, there are ads everywhere for fast food, but no one is suing burger king for the medical bills that ensues.
Next point: Smoking is a choice: it is not a naturally born urge to start smoking. So why do people start smoking? maybe the parents were smokers, and maybe their parents were smokers, and maybe they started cause they were in the war and it was a way to calm themselves. We were talking at work that some people use smoking as a weight loss tool. huh, that is funny; so if we go on that, it is society's views on what someone should look like that is a part of the problem. So now we are including media that is not even directly related to smoking. OK some people also smoke when they are depressed, as a stress reliever. Why are they stressed? are they stressed cause they know they are going to be in the hospital wasting the hard earned tax payers money when this smoking is catching up to them? hardly. People can be depressed and anxious for more reasons than this blog post can handle.
So what is suing the cigarette company going to prove? is it going to stop the cigarette company from manufacturing cigarettes? No.
Is it going to stop the addicted smokers from stop smoking. No.
Is it going to reduce the debt that Canada is in? Maybe.
So my problem with suing the tobacco company for medical bills from 1955 - now is it proves NOTHING. if they are that concerned with smoking, ban smoking. Sure it will piss people off, but it will me more effective than suing the tobacco company and will actually affect the real problem: PEOPLE.
I guess you can use the same scenario as the National Gun association but for smoking:
Smoking doesn't kill people, People do.
This only reminded me of an argument I had with someone recently on how Ontario is suing tobacco companies $50 billion dollars for all of the health care dollars that have been spent on smoking related illnesses. If you want to read the full article, here is the link:
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2046649
So, side note: stupid people drive me nuts.
What is worse is that Ontario will probably win. Their argument is that tax payers money has been going into funding all this health care for people with these smoking illnesses. One thing people automatically said was, well what about the Billions of dollars that the government gets from the tax they put on the cigarettes?
But lets put all of those money issues aside. Here are my arguments on this, because I have an opinion on everything.
First, what happens when Ontario does get this 50 billion dollars, does that mean that all the other people with smoking related illnesses will just go away? oh well now that we have been paid for the past health care costs, we are OK! no other money will be spent on smoking related illnesses.....well that is just silly to think that. I would like to see that graph that shows the correlation that as the money gained from suing the tobacco company increases, the number of deaths due to smoke and second hand come decreases.
<----this does not exists.So lets think again about this, If the above graph does not exist, that must mean that smokers do not care about the money when it comes to smoking. Huh, so there will be no decrease in smoking if this money is made, which should be the governments main focus. Don't dwell on the past, look to the future! The people before are already sick or dying, so lets look to trying to get our future potential smokers to not smoke! WHICH is a great lead to my next point. I also think that suing the tobacco companies is silly because I do not see them as responsible. Tobacco companies are not going around to high schools or workplaces, sneak attacking people and shoving lit cigarettes in their mouths. People CHOOSE to smoke. It is unfortunate that cigarettes are addictive, but most smokers know the risks; these risks are clearly on the box. So what Ontario is doing is suing the tobacco companies for all the billions spent in health care money that is spent on smoking, since it was the tax payers money. However, if it is the taxpayers choice to smoke, aren't they then paying for their own health care? So it is a personal choice to start smoking. It is also a personal choice to eat a unhealthy amount of fast food. There are more of obese people these days than ever before, and it is also unhealthy for you to be obese. And on top of that, there are ads everywhere for fast food, but no one is suing burger king for the medical bills that ensues.
Next point: Smoking is a choice: it is not a naturally born urge to start smoking. So why do people start smoking? maybe the parents were smokers, and maybe their parents were smokers, and maybe they started cause they were in the war and it was a way to calm themselves. We were talking at work that some people use smoking as a weight loss tool. huh, that is funny; so if we go on that, it is society's views on what someone should look like that is a part of the problem. So now we are including media that is not even directly related to smoking. OK some people also smoke when they are depressed, as a stress reliever. Why are they stressed? are they stressed cause they know they are going to be in the hospital wasting the hard earned tax payers money when this smoking is catching up to them? hardly. People can be depressed and anxious for more reasons than this blog post can handle.
So what is suing the cigarette company going to prove? is it going to stop the cigarette company from manufacturing cigarettes? No.
Is it going to stop the addicted smokers from stop smoking. No.
Is it going to reduce the debt that Canada is in? Maybe.
So my problem with suing the tobacco company for medical bills from 1955 - now is it proves NOTHING. if they are that concerned with smoking, ban smoking. Sure it will piss people off, but it will me more effective than suing the tobacco company and will actually affect the real problem: PEOPLE.
I guess you can use the same scenario as the National Gun association but for smoking:
Smoking doesn't kill people, People do.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Average
So i was reading a magazine while at the gym, I think it was men's health. And it was like cosmopolitan for men,...it had a lot of surveys and random statistics etc. There was one that said 67% of men think that their skills in bed are above average. Immediately I thought that made no sense. An average is "around the middle of a scale of evaluation". the result will give a value that will standardize a set of unequal values. So if 67% of people think they are better than the average; this means that more than half of the people think they are better than the average, or the middle of the evaluation scale. So having this new information, it means that the 67% of men just raised the average to what their skills in bed are. So basically 67% of the male population are average, and the other 33% that once said they were average are now below average and there are no men with extraordinary bedroom skills.
Man that statistic made no sense.
And then it got me thinking; does that make me a nerd for thinking this way? Did I over think that? should I have just read that and thought "Heck yes! this means the odds of me getting a Hercules type man in bed just got better!"
However, right now all I am thinking is I have a 33% chance of getting a guy who is as awkward in bed as a donkey would be at an equestrian show.
Man that statistic made no sense.
And then it got me thinking; does that make me a nerd for thinking this way? Did I over think that? should I have just read that and thought "Heck yes! this means the odds of me getting a Hercules type man in bed just got better!"
However, right now all I am thinking is I have a 33% chance of getting a guy who is as awkward in bed as a donkey would be at an equestrian show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)