Dying Polar Bears

You see this polar bear?

That polar bear is on his last limbs. And it's all because of you.

No amount of Coca Cola will save him now

But it's not just polar bears that are being affected. No, it's closer to every living organism on this planet. *cue scary music*

Alright, so maybe that was a bit dramatic.

Now for the actual post

Quick! Is global warming a myth?

If you answered "Yes!!!1!11!" then congratulations, you can't science! Climate change (it sounds cooler and makes more sense than "global warming") is a legitimate phenomena. If you don't think so, then you either: A) have your head shoved up your own ass, B) are a member of the Republican party, or C) actually don't know what it is. Oddly enough, that last one applies to most people who deny it. Luckily, your friendly neighborhood Kyle is here to explain and bring you into the light!

Honestly, I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain climate change to people in the last week. It was four, actually, but people still don't seem to get it. So, let's go down the list, shall? First thing's first with everyone's favorite politican:

Al Gore

Holy shit, Al Gore the man whose name is synonymous with really bloody video games -- and global warming. But there's this thing about Al Gore. How do I put this? Well...

He's.

A.

Fucking.

Lunatic.

Simple as that. This is the man who was cereal and invented the internet; he's not to be cited as a professional on anything. But, for one reason or another, deniers love to put him up as the cover girl for all things involving climate change and then insult him (the equivalent of burning a straw man). Absolutely no one who has any sense when it comes to climate change cites Al Gore as a source. Al Gore never was a legitimate source. So can we just drop Al Gore? Where did he even go anyway? Like, he just died off and no one's said anything about him. Strange.

What it actually is (as copied from a post I made) 

Next, let's get down to what the core of climate change theory really says: that humans are having an impact (mostly of the negative variety) on their environment. The majority of this impact is due to the rapid release of carbon (i.e. carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and some others) into the atmosphere.

These gases, it has been shown, trap and absorb heat. Basically, they're molecules that can hold a lot of energy and not radiate it back out as quickly. After all, heat is just molecular movement.

This heat and subsequent rising of global temperature was never stated (or at least isn't now, since more data has been gathered), to rise as much as Al Gore said/might have said. He was just a politician who undoubtedly manipulated the facts to fit his purpose. Before you think that's some sort of pass to hate on Democrats, stop now. One man does not represent a whole group, and it's idiocy to think so.

In fact, the temperature predictions have only shown an increase of a degree or two. The majority of this warming is happening in the ocean, where the majority of carbon is absorbed.

Why it's cold as balls

Pertaining as to why there's so much cold running around like a lunatic with scissors, that can be explained with the phenomenon known as Arctic Osculation. I could go in depth on how that works, but the basics are this: normally the Arctic is an area of low pressure, and -- since air moves toward areas of low pressure -- most air masses/weather stays in the general area. However, occasionally, the Arctic switches to a phase of high pressure. This high pressure pushes all the cold air masses down and into the rest of the northern hemisphere. If there's enough pressure, it could possibly force air masses down into the southern hemisphere. Cold air + precipitation = snow/ice/frozen water.

"But Kyle!" You attempt to retort, "The temperatures are record low! That means global warming must be a myth!"

If we want to talk record temperatures, then I'll point out that the summer of 2009 was tied for the second hottest year on record. Believe it or not, these extremes are actually together.

But of course, something like this can't be validated through such a short term cycle. Large amounts of data over a large period of time are required. Fortunately, ice cores can be taken. These ice cores can tell us just how much carbon was in the atmosphere at the time a layer was created (like I said, water traps carbon). An increase of carbon in a layer designates an increase of carbon in the atmosphere/ocean. These increases correlate with periods we know when significant warming happened.

It's the sun!

Holy shit, I can't believe people actually say that.

Of fucking course the sun plays a part in this! That's where we get the majority of the heat on our planet from. You see that? I didn't even provide a link; that's just how common sens something like this is.

But the sun doesn't have anything to do with increased carbon amounts on our planet, now does it? Not only that, but increased solar activity wouldn't even begin to lead to rising temperatures in the deeper part of the oceans.

It's just a cycle

This is the point where the deniers turn into to downers. As in, they try to play it down as just something that has happened before an that there's no point in caring about it. I mean, mass extinctions have happened before too, but why worry about our own species dying out? Which, according to the movie Pacific Rim, happened because of giant extra-dimensional mounters. So yeah, let's not bother looking out for those.

It's true that there is a cycle; data has shown us that. That point, however, is not disputed among general science. The point of the whole theory is that carbon affects temperatures and that we're pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than ever. Add that to the fact that it's being removed and converted at a slower and slower rate, and we have an exponentially growing problem.

Everything else

I'm sure I missed something on here. Either because I just can't think of any more at the point of writing (which is the past for you, how mind blowing is that?) or because of the stupidity of this article denying pretty much everything contrary to what a lot of studies show and not even providing evidence for it. Here's a tip: if you ever read an article like that linked one where all the refutations are five sentences long and amount to "this is wrong" without providing any other evidence, stare at it, understand how stupid it is to do such a thing, and then burn your house down because nothing is sacred anymore.

Now, if you have any more questions/comments/insults, post them in the comments and I'll do what I can. That or go to this super cool site that answers a lot of questions about climate change and addresses the arguments made against it. There's even a widget that tells you how many nuclear bombs' worth of heat we've put into the atmosphere in the top right corner!

And now you know.

White Power

With the recent death of Nelson Mandela, thoughts of racism and discrimination have been dancing around in my head more than usual. Especially after finding multiple articles claiming the man to be a Communist and a possible racist. On top of that, some evidence points towards him being part of a (still on-going) genocide. Make of those what you will, as some of the evidence is sketchy at best.

Nonetheless, this leads me to a still oft asked question: Does racism exist? 

Well, quite obviously, it does. Black. Hispanic (or Mexican, since - to every racist - they're all Mexican anyway). Asian (see Hispanic, but replace "Mexican" with "Chinese"). All of them are hated by other races.

But what about whites? 

Often considered the majority, white folk were once the standard (before this magical thing call "equality" was thunk up). However, that standard is quickly changing. What it might become, I couldn't tell, but it's changing regardless. I mean, you can call a white guy "cracker" or whatever the kids are using now a days -- they could really come up with something better too. White racial slurs pretty much suck and aren't actually that offensive, except for "negrophiliac", which should really be used more because that sounds hilarious. However, that's racism in its own right. 

On the discrimination side of things, some people point toward the affirmative action laws, which pretty much tell corporations/businesses/universities/anything else that needs people to work that they have to meet certain quotas of minorities OR ELSE. When they were introduced, they made sense: all the white people were extremely racist and they pretty much had to be forced to change so we could reach what we have today. But are they still needed today? Some (white) people say no. They say it unfairly discriminates against them, causing them to be denied certain things simply because of arbitrary details. Honestly, that'd be pathetic if anyone were denied, simply because there's already enough wang or not enough melanin for the quota.

But the best way to tell is to do a survey. So that I shall do. Sorta. Not the full thing here, but consider this a preliminary.

• Do you consider any of the following groups to be discriminated against:
• Whites
• Blacks
• Hispanics (Browns?)
• Asians (Yellows)
• Native American (Reds)
• Other (because I probably forgot someone)
• Do you think discrimination is increasing against the following groups:
• Whites
• Blacks
• Hispanics (Browns)
• Asians (Yellows)
• Native American (Reds)
• Other
•  Optional: Explain your answers

And that's it. 

And just to make sure you don't end up as some imbecile who can't think for themselves because they've been conditioned their whole life, may I point you to my friend Mr. T:

"I pity the fool who disagrees with Kyle."

See? The T said it; you can't argue now. Unless you want your head to be crushed like one of Gallagher's watermelons in those biceps.

Pictured: your future career if you don't stay in school.
Being an aging man smashing fruit, that is. Not the watermelon.
Though you might be the watermelon. Who knows?

"In theory, how an a totalitarian ruler be beneficial to society?"

The premise of this question is entirely flawed; there is no theory to it, it has been historically proven that totalitarian governments work. Ever hear of men like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Richard Nixon, or Doctor Johnny Hunt? They are the kinds of leaders who ooze charisma, poise, and intelligence. And just what do you think the "total" part of "totalitarian" stands for? Totally awesome, that's what.

The main benefit to this system is largely one that favors the general populace: the people don't have to think, just follow. that's right! While the great and mighty leader sacrifices his time, energy, body, mind, soul, and indeed his entire being, the populace can relax knowing they're safe and protected. That's another point: protection. If everyone is told what to do, then there's no room for anyone to do something wrong and hurt others. So very many advantages!

So why haven't we switched to this system yet? Because capitalist swine like Barrack Obama keep us from reaching political Nirvana. Maybe is he put his foot down and dictated -- like a president should -- what was to be done, we'd get somewhere. Just look at the great George W. Bush. He told us what to do, we did it, and we got to fight a decade long war that let us prove just how touch us American are!

God bless America.

Beauty of Life

To begin: yeah, you all thought I was going to rant about life, right? Well check out that ever-so-obvious title. No sarcasm here, that's exactly what I'm going to talk about. You know why? Because the very concept of life is, without and sort of hyperbole or dramatization, amazing.

Let's get something straight right away: you shouldn't be alive right now.

And no, that's not some depressing message. Not some urge or prod telling you that your life isn't worth it and you should just give up. It's a statistical fact. The odds for life to have developed on any one planet are astronomical, so insanely unbelievable that there's really no reason for you to exist at all. As it was explained to me, the likelihood of DNA randomly coming into existence is comparable to the likelihood of taking all the parts to a jet, throwing them into a tornado, and getting a working jet on the other side. Whether you chose to explain this phenomenon as proof of intelligent design or otherwise, it's still a mind boggling occurrence. Life, even in its most basic forms, shouldn't have come into existence; let alone more complex organisms like ourselves. As proof of this, just look up into the skies. How many planets do you think there are? The eight (or nine, if you really wanna count Pluto) in our solar system? A few dozen? Maybe a hundred? Try 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Yea, that's a lot more than you thought, right? And get this: none of them, as far as we know (which isn't a whole lot), have life on them, much less sentient life.

It doesn't just stop their, either. Take a look at yourself, or any other complex organism around you. Think about how that organism works: the organism breaks down to organ systems, those systems to separate organs, those organs to tissues, those tissues to cells, and so on and so forth. Let's focus on the organ systems for now, specifically that of your muscles.

We all take our muscular system for granted; we can move and junk, but it's actually so much more. Muscles are responsible (with the aid of our brains) for our communication, the continuing beats of our heart, digestion, visualization, and pretty much anything else that can move on your body at all. But that's all simple; think harder about it. Through no real effort, you can move your hand. Through no real effort, you're reading this (don't even start me on the eyes). Through no real effort, you can walk.

Oh my God, walking. It's one of the biggest evolutionary steps life has taken as a whole. Ever since the first fish stepped on to land, life was never the same again. Through millennium after millennium, the leg/foot was perfected. Billions of millions of hundreds of thousands of years went into that one appendage. It went from something used to swim and clumsily walk to an appendage capable of careful balance and calibration. 

Try this out: stand up, walk across your room, and come sit back down. Fucking amazing right?

"Not really, Kyle."

You just don't understand. You did something on a semi-conscious level that allowed you to move from one point in space to another. You didn't even have to try that hard, did you? Well, maybe you did. Lazy bum. But if you did do what I asked, it came natural. And that's an amazing gift. The fact that you can travel through space, through no enormous magnitude of your own (unless you were one of the species that perfected walking). Through a complex serious of chemical reactions, where proteins within your cells slide back and forth, you can contract and extend  the muscles in your leg that enable you to walk. Chemical reactions. Your body is a living lab that you didn't even have to put together. How amazing is that?

Then we get to balancing. Oh, how even more wonderful balancing is. The muscles in your legs, minimal input, make acute alterations that keep you upright. Go ahead and try that walking thing again. You literally pole vaulted over one leg, balanced yourself on that one leg, landed on the other, and then shifted your weight so you could repeat the process. And we take that for granted. That shit's amazing.

And to continue with the idea of acute muscle control. We as humans, out of the known living species, are one of the few with opposable thumbs. With those, we can handle and manipulate objects in our environment. Without even extending much effort. I'm sure everyone reading this has a computer or a phone or portable gaming device or something. Through the magic of our hands, we can pick that thing up and just type/press keys and buttons like it's nothing. Through a little bit of practice, just about any human can learn to play the piano -- which, to me, is probably one of the most finger-intensive actions a person can perform (obvious sexual acts aside). Think about it: anytime a person plays the piano, their fingers are having little voluntary seizures that create a pleasing melody. That living chemistry lab is cooking meth or something when this happens; that stuff just happens at a stupidly complex pace.

Alright, maybe this really is turning into a rant, so this'll be my final example my mind explodes with the wonders of life and the universe. 

Your eyes. I mentioned them previously before. Go ahead, check. I did. Don't doubt me again.

Your eyes, through some sort of black magic, brings in light, bounces it around a bit, converts it to electro-chemical signals, then sends it to the brain where the brain translates those signals into a picture. If that doesn't scream "magic!" I don't know what does. What originated as nothing more than a light sensitive cell, your eye developed and evolved into this organ that is able to grab light from the world like some sort of thief, and jam it into your head until your brain makes sense of it. Add that with the muscles involves (those hat allow us to move our eyes around inside our brain casings and the ones making up the iris) and you get some stupefying sums (I'm running out of phrases at this point). 

Slightly unrelated. This is a torn iris; it just contracts and lets in more
light without you even having to care!!!

Even if you think life sucks, it doesn't. The circumstances of your life might suck (that's all subjective, though), but the very concept of life can't suck. Life proves that science is, in fact, magic; but just explained magic. While you might hate what happens in your life, you can't hate life in general. It's just too tremendous of a thing to suck. Please, if you can even begin to rationalize to me just why life in general sucks, do so. I just don't understand how.

After all:

It's been so long...

Wow, I haven't been around here in over a week. It really sucks; I could use a good rant. But of course, other business calls, and I won't be able to rant until tomorrow. So, in lieu of that, anybody who reads this gets to choose what my next rant will be.

The choices are as follows:

Life

or

Political Extremists

And whichever isn't done tomorrow will be done at a later time. Now vote.

Sacred Cattle

Well... It's been quite a while since I've gotten to sit down and rant about something. But that's alright; I've had something simmering for a week or two now.

That topic, you might ask? It's one that always brings peace, love, and happiness to the world. Also genocide, witch hunts, ritual sacrifices, numerous holy. Ya know, happy-fun-time stuff. Can you guess it yet? That's right, folks: religion! This is going to be great, I can already tell.

Now, let's get to specifics here. I don't have anything against religion overall (except for those Scientologists, but they had it coming anyway). No, my beef with religion is how -- as from what I've personally observed -- they all seem to be about salvation or redemption.

"But Kyle," you're already whining because I offended you in some way, "I don't follow <insert belief here> because I want to be saved/redeemed/forgiven/whateverthedevilyoumightwanttocallit, I just do it because I want to be a good person." Hold up there, chief. Look at that last part. "Because I want to be a good person." Do you really need to follow a faith to be a good person? I mean, sure the faith-base might encourage being a better person, but for what reason? Is it just to be a better person? Just so you're a slightly smaller asshole - and even then, only on the weekends? Seriously, you can be a good person without believing in any specific faith. Just like you can be a bad person while being the biggest Jesus-freak around. I mean, look at me. I'm Catholic, but I'm a really, reeeeeaaaaally shitty person. See the correlation? Religion ≠ Good person. 

Got off on a tangent there. Back to the subject. 

The other week (don't ask me which, that wine they have is strong) I was sitting in mass, paying attention or something like that, when the deacon (not the priest... or maybe it was?) began the homily. Normally, it's a 50/50 if the homily will be interesting, so I usually give i a few minutes before I zone out. Anyway, the homily began, and almost immediately, the topic of salvation came up. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're familiar with the basics of Christianity, so I'll spare you the details, but the topic of salvation came up. Salvation seems to be the ultimate end game for Christians; the thing they strive most for in the world. They will do just about anything if they think it'll net them some bonus points with the Big Guy. Seriously. I've seen people flip out over some crumbs on the floor of a social hall. Not something that makes me to proud to be of the same genus, honestly.

So the homily began, salvation brought up, yadda yyadda. Continuing on, the deacon said something along the lines of "salvation is key to our faith. Without salvation, what would be the point."

And Jesus said "Forget everything else I ever said and just ask nicely."
And thus all were saved.

Wait, what? You mean that whole point of Christianity is to just go to Heaven? Not be a good person? Well... I guess whatever that Jesus dude said is pretty null at this point. Despite, you know, him being the whole reason the religion exists. 

Don't get any of this wrong (though I know somebody will anyway), I don't have anything wrong with a person being religion. A lot of great people have had beliefs about something. However, you shouldn't fear the Judging Bearded Man because you just want to live forever. Be a good person for the damned sake of being a good person. There is no reason why you have to exist in fear. Death is a natural occurrence. That is how life moves forward. Think of it this way: every time someone dies, we move forward just a little more toward being a better species. Or maybe that's every time someone is born... Well, every time someone dies, we the gene pool becomes a little clearer. Or something. I'm just going to try and stop with these metaphors.

So yea. Jesus/Buddah/Zoroaster/Whoever was a great person. Sure, he/she might have said something about living eternally. Sure, that might sound like a pretty sweet deal. Should that be your sole motivation for following any one specific belief though? No. Not to mention that pretty much every religion thinks it's the one true religion (especially Catholicism, conceited bastards), so pretty much everyone is screwed in some way. 

Got that? Don't blindly follow because you want to live forever. What would that even be like? Never progressing forward and experiencing change?

Maybe that's why Republicans like it so much...

Obama's Shut Down (As Voted by Republicans)

So we all know about the government shut down, right? The whole thing with the government cutting its funding to anything nonessential. Yea?

Well it's a load of horse shit.

"Buy Kyle, you can't curse until five paragraphs in," you will whine, unhappy about this change. You know who else doesn't like change? Conservatives. More on them in a second. But this image sums everything up nicely:

This makes me giggle.
Source: dixican.files

Anyway, where was I? Not a clue. Let this be a note to not Facebook while ranting about politics.

...Dammit, I did it again. Okay, let's try this one more time.

So, this shut down. It's been causing a load of pain-in-the-ass-itude. Government workers haven't been getting paid, yet are still told to go to work, assuming they're going to work at all. On top of all that, we have asshats running around and saying that furloughed workers (keep in mind, these workers didn't willingly leave and they were' laid off) shouldn't get back pay. Not including the whole hypocrisy in that last link, it's pretty bad for the people who work for the government. Now that I think about it, that's a really weird statement; "people who work for the government." Sounds rather contradictory to the whole principle of the government being for the people. But that has no relevance, right? I mean, the Government is what keeps us together and strong. Big Brother protects me. Big Brother loves me...

But in the wrong ways...

Sure, this hurts the people a lot. But how much does it hurt the politicians? They're the ones fighting for us in the capitol and making sure we have a fair and balanced government, right? No, not really. Really, they can just sit in their ez-chairs and lean back all day. What do they care? They're still getting paid more than what most people do for sitting on their asses and complaining. I know; I've made a whole $2 the past couple months.

But the funniest - no, that's too bland of a word - the most hysterical part of this whole idiotic circle jerk is how the Republicans are blaming Obama (and all other Democrats while they're at it). Their rationale behind it? Just watch this video. Stephen Colbert explains it all nicely.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

If that's the clip I think it is, then you'll notice the half-dozen or so representatives blaming it on Obama and his game. If you watched the full clip (and you really should) then you'll also see Mr. Colbert play an all-too-accurate board game. It's hard to explain, so just watch the video.

"But, Kyle," you'll start complaining as you always do, "it is Obama's fault!" Just... How? I get that you might not support the whole health care reform/Obamacare thing -- that's your own opinion -- but c'mon! Can you see the way the Republicans are acting? They're pouting like fucking children! The reform got passed years ago. Three years ago, to be precise. Isn't it a little late to offer a "compromise".

"But, Kyle," you again whine from your Republican face hole, "compromise is good. Otherwise, one group gets too much power and some other stuff like that." And you have a point. However, when it's a little (i.e. three years) too late to come up with a compromise, the point of doing so is rather moot. Not only that, but the Republican version of compromise involves defunding the one law while changing absolutely nothing. Do you know why the government shut down? I mean, do you really know why?

Not really, no.

It's because Republicans out-right refused to talk about a budget until Obamacare was defunded. No if, ands, or buts. Their way or the highway. And then they go on to complain about the president's administration not wanting to negotiate under those terms. The fucking balls on these guys; I'm not sure if I should respect them for being this adamant about their beliefs, or call them asinine fucktwats. Probably the latter. Almost assuredly the latter.

But about this budget thing. Yea, it only has to do with hitting the debt ceiling and what not. Now, I'm not going to go all economist (because this is the one time I'm not going to pretend to be something I'm not), so I'm not sure if that'd be a good or bad thing. Of course, it was a bad thing if my parents missed the bills, so it's pretty safe to assume that doing it on a far larger scale can be pretty bad too. Of course, that's not what Republicans say, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a public (*cough cough* government funded *cough cough*) schooled teenager who has no sense of self-thought and just follows the  liberal masses. Man, I hate being one of the sheeple.

The most ludicrous point in all of this (and it's pretty hard to beat the stupidity so far) is that the Republicans are blaming Obama for this. The Republicans. The ones who won't negotiate. Until they get their way.

Did I mention all that stuff already? Just wanted to get it through.

In the end, it's not about "dirty liberals won't do this" or "conservative scum did that", it's about not being an idiot and doing what would actually be beneficial. But who am I kidding? Let's see how high we can get this clock to go!

Mean is Good

This will probably be more of a mini-rant, but it's just something I have to throw out the eye before I have to hut my head against the wall thinking  about it. What is it,  you ask? Well,  if you read the title of the post, you'd know. Of course, now you're going back to read it. I'll wait.

Done? Good. Now,  if you didn't get it,  let me explain: there is nothing wrong with being mean. Nothing. Really, the language is too subjective to decide what is and what isn't mean,  but I know someone will argue with me about how I should respect everyone no matter what while disregarding  my own thoughts and opinions.

Honestly, I'm so tired of this that I don't think I could even bring myself to try  and explain. The scary thing is,  I now sympathize with conservatives some (and we all know how I feel about those people). There is no longer the end chance to express a dissenting opinion without  being labeled as something intolerant. Isn't it intolerant to label someone as intolerant? Kinda weird when you think about  it.

Going off of that, how can someone else's opinion be quantified as lore important than mine? It can't really, and personal bias with always make opinion more important to me.

"But Kyle," you begin angrily protesting,  "you can't just be mean. The at hurts people's feelings." On the surface,  try at seems like a good argument, but thinking about it,  it's really not. Couldn't the argument then be made that it hurts my feelings to not be mean? Of course,  most people won't find that acceptable, but at this point I don't really care.

This leads me to one conclusion: to stop caring what everybody - and I do mean everybody - thinks. It'll be tough (what with the biological need to conform and all that) but I can't see any other choice. Of course,  that doesn't mean I'm going to be a giant douche to everyone,  but I doubt anyone bothered to read this last sentence.

Angry Letter

Recently, at my traditional school, they've been trying to make us Early College kids go inside the cafeteria. Of course, I argued back, got myself into some trouble, and wrote this angry letter to tell them off. Also, the man that I was arguing with was was a hat that rests upon the behinds of smelly beasts.

To whom it may concern,

This letter is about the recent, unjustified treatment of the Robeson Early College High School students at Fairmont High School. It is being written because of recent events involving the hostility of a faculty member and for the privilege of standing where we always have.

As stated, the prime complaint is the treatment I received from a faculty member - a man whose name I never learned - the morning of September 24th while standing outside of the cafeteria and waiting for my bus. The man came up to us (I was with other students) and told us that Early College students had to go in the cafeteria. When I asked him why, he just said "Because the assistant principal said so." I told him that that reason didn't make sense, and after some back-and-forth, he accused me of "giving him lip." In my opinion, he was the one growing angry, while I was being as respectful as the situation permitted. After accusing me, he took me to find the assistant principal even though I told him that I had to get on the bus and go to school.

Talking to the assistant principal - who was more respectful and calm - he explained his reason for why Early college students couldn't   stand where we have been for several years: because other, Fairmont, students would think they could also stand outside. While this is a better reason, it is still not a satisfactory one.

For one thing, we had always stood in that spot. Never once, to my knowledge, has an Early College student caused trouble at Fairmont High, yet we are the ones getting punished. Why is that? When one student misbehaves, the whole class shouldn't be punished. That is not only an unjustified action, but an unethical one as well. If we can be told to go outside, why can't other students; those of Fairmont High? And how would sending Early College students inside keep other students from sitting outside?

Another, glaring reason why Early College students shouldn't be forced to go inside of the cafeteria is the fact that we have to wait and watch for out bus that brings us to RCC (which we were late for because of this incident). As is a consequence of being human, the bus drivers can't be ready at the same time every morning of every day. With time being largely important (since we may have college classes that morning) we can't afford to loose precious minutes not knowing if the bus is waiting or not. A minor side effect of this is inconveniencing the bus driver, who'd have to sit and wait for us

While I agree that certain rules can be reasonably imposed upon Early College students - such as things that could reasonably disturb the peace - I do not think that this is one of those situations. As Early College students, we are distinct from Fairmont students, and should be acknowledged as such.

I sincerely hope that this problem does not happen again. If there are any further issues, I request that it be discussed with the student(s) or a representative of the student and, if need be, a representative of the faculty or administration at Robeson Early College High School.

Sincerely,

Kyle Sozanski
ECHS Student

And that's pretty much it. I'm sure we've all had our problems with authority, but there should be no reason why a figure can't acknowledge and accept a teenager as a sentient and intelligent being. 

A Trip to Compton

Compton is, quite simply, the most darling and adorable neighborhood east of the Mississippi. The residents -- the majority of which are African-American and go by the colloquial group title of "gangsta" -- are some of the most eclectic people of all time. Their duplicity is only rivaled by their enmity towards one another. To clarify: each endorses a clique of sorts, which adorns its members in bright and embellished clothing and jewelry to identify one another. Their dogmatic following of their own is a charming and oft emulated throughout the east coast, though to a lesser degree. All in all, when I think of traveling to this elusive Garden of Eden, my spirit is elated in a sea of ecstasy. Sadly, the full experience is elusive, and even when captured, ephemeral.

And that was my trip to Compton.

The whole Shebang

Syria. Right now, it's running rampant on every form of media. Or rather, the events that have occurred within its borders are running rampant; chemical weapons are quite an attention-drawing mechanism, aren't they?

This use of chemical weapons has really gotten everyone's panties in a bunch. Especially our country's. Mostly the president's. Of course, his panty-bunching has caused a domino effect of panty-bunching, so it's pretty safe to say that everyone's panties are in a bunch. Especially mine.

"But Kyle," you're already blurting in, "You don't wear panties, and mine aren't in a bunch." Both of those things are false, you liar. You shouldn't lie; liars go to Hell.

Anyway, a couple days ago, the president walked up "Osama is dead lane" to update all of us on his plan, which used to consist of "carrying out a remote missile strike and then backing out." Why we needed to be updated on a plan as simple as that, I will never know. I mean, even the idiots of this country can get something as simple as that. Apparently, that's not so, thus a speech was needed.

In his speech, Mr. Obama told us several things, of which I took some notes. They are (in bullet form) as follows:

• Ethos and Pathos appeals (attacks, imagery)
• Rules of war violated
• No civil war resolve [on the U.S. part] through force
• gas mask distribution [to regime], rockets launched
• Attacks on key neighborhoods (not military bases)
• Confirmation in government [Syria's] strikes
• [Appeal of] WWI + II gas attacks
• Threaten [U.S.] allies
• 0 tolerance policy with chemical weapons
• Congressional vote [on attacks]
• No boots on ground/no campaigns/no war
• Other means not working
• Russia is in
• Pressuring Asad
• Postponing strike
• Waiting for U.N. investigation
• Chemical reserves
• Slippery slopes: "if we don't act, gas will be used again" + other WMD's

If you don't understand any of that, this will be one of the few times I don't blame you. Just ask for clarification on them somewhere.

The gist of the whole speech is that the strike -- which was supposed to be immediate -- is being postponed for a Congressional vote and to await further U.N. investigations. This is probably because popular opinion pressured him into waiting, since we all know America is filled with a bunch of hippy wimps who just want to make love, not war.

Going based off of what was said in the speech (since I can't research anything offline), it's clear that the Syrian government was the one who initiated the attack. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard for the rebels to manufacture/acquire chemical weapons, but it's unlikely based on the location of the strikes. Unless the rebels are some evil masterminds and they did attack those neighborhoods so that the U.S. would strike the military bases, thus weakening the regime, thus allowing the overthrow the oppressive government! Yes, that's obviously what happened. Don't think beyond that, there's no reason to.

The main argument against a U.S. military strike is, according to popular opinions and plenty of differing polls, is that the American population is tired of war; that they just want to stay out of it and not worry about it. Honestly, I can see where they're coming from in that respect. The second, almost as major, point is that it'll just lead to a war (commonly referred to as World War III) and put boots on the ground. Ya know, contrary to what we were told.

Talk is Cheap

Alright, so I know I haven't posted anything in a while. Mostly because I've been tired as hell, but today's experiences have enraged me enough to get on here.

If there's one thing -- one thing -- I learned (or confirmed, since I've thought this for a while) that people are idiots. Complete and utter morons.

Just once I wish he wasn't.

"But Kyle," you stupidly attempt to argue with me, "I'm people. I am not stupid!" Yes, you are. Sit down; shut up. Read. Maybe you actually are intelligent, but since those kind of people area rare breed, it's pretty safe to assume that you're an idiot. Whether a slightly-below-average idiot or a I-write-my-name-on-my-undies idiot, you're an idiot nonetheless. Or maybe you're not. The hell if I know.

Anyway, as always, I have an example. Evidence to support my claims is always nice, isn't it? I could go off on that, but that's another rant for another time. Today, during an English class, we looked through USA Today's website and check out some pictures of war protesters (y'know, about the Syria thing). The first one to illicit an idiotic reaction was one of a group of protestors... well, protesting.

This one.

And holy shit, can you guess what my classmates did? Go ahead, guess. It shouldn't be too hard.

If you answered "said something intelligent and meaningful in relation to this image," then you'd be dead wrong. However, if you answered "HAHAHA OBAMA = AL... how do I pronounce that word?" Then you are one of those idiots and I hope this offends you enough to write me hate mail. I'm not even going to tell you what Al-Qaeda is, Google it for yourself. There was one person -- a male of the Negro (I can say that, dammit! If you find it to be racist, it's you own fault) variety -- who didn't even know what Al-Qaeda was. Al-Qaeda; the arch-nemesis of this imbecilic "war on terror." The group synonymous with the September 11 attacks. And he didn't know who they were. Holy shit. I'm not sure if he's just that stupid, or the educational system is letting us this far down (to be fair, it's already letting us down pretty far). I mean, sure I watch the news every morning, but you'd think that we, as a country, would know about a rather large terrorist group that dislikes us.

And do you want to know what a good 25% of the rest of the class did? Laugh. Like overgrown children, they laughed. My best guess is because "Al-Qaeda iz ud fonny werd."

And that's not even everything. There was a picture that followed just after that one.

It's this one.

Now what could this possibly mean? Is it about how the newlywed couple were protesting in their own right? Is it about finding happiness even in tough situations? I actually have no clue, because the caption didn't say. But if there was one detail you would notice, what would it be?

Funny enough, that same 25% of my class noticed "the white girl with the phone." And you know what they thought about her? That she was "childish." Please, for the love of all that is holy, please explain to me just how her behavior is childish? She could have been recording the protest (it's happened before). Or perhaps she's taking a picture of the person taking a picture. I'd get pretty hyped if I saw someone from USA Today taking a picture of me. But no, that painfully large percentage of people thought it was childish. Idiots.

There's only one thing worse than an idiot, and that's a loud one. Oh yea, I had to deal with one of those today too. Well, not just one. There are a multitude of them that run rampant around the school. I come in close contact with several every day.

Every single thought they blurt out sounds as if it were ground in a cow's intestines and just about as intelligent. Words can't even describe how unsurpassably dense I find these people. Seriously. I just tried using a thesaurus, and even then there wasn't anything descriptive enough.

I hate things like this, and yet I still feel compelled to use it.

Idiots will be the death of me.

I have a Dream

In honor and reverence for Doctor King, I have written about my own dream, albeit condensed.

I have a dream...

That one day,  people of all creeds, colors, sexualities, opinions, ideas, morals, ethics, values, nationality, ethnicities, and all other factors not otherwise stated will get the right to justify and explain their thoughts and actions in the context of their respective lives. Not just the legal right,  or the Constitutional granting thereof, but the societal  right, acknowledgement, and expectance.

Where personal condemnations, though they be damned with their existence, are not held against the fellow man, but that judgement is based upon personal merit and fitness for the task at hand.

A land where sentience and sapience - subjectivity and objectivity - exist in a blissful balance.

That is my dream.

And I will fight for it.

Republican Wet Dream

Pretext: this is something I've written for class. The subject was about Andrew Jackson's presidency and his policies, namely that of the rights of Native Americans (or lack thereof, in this case). All that being said, you should still take offense to this.

I believe the action (the Indian Removal Act) of the Government is for the good of the people? Why? Because the addition of another group of peoples would only make things more complicated.

First of all, that's another group that demands right. I mean, c'mon! Another one? Women and slaves are bad enough, but another group of people who should justifiably get the same rights and equal treatment; that's so sensical, I can't help but deny it! If we let them keep their land and become actual citizens of these God blessed United States, what's to keep them from getting their fully endowed Constitutional right? Like marriage or voting? They'd already get their right to follow Christianity, and hold it as the ultimate Truth and foundation this country was built on -- but legal recognition? Then we'd get slightly less tax money!

And another thing: they follow their own belief system. Who does that? Not real Americans, that's who! We fought them Brits for the right to do things out own way, and because of that, we have our own country. A country where we do things democratically and everyone (as long as they're white and male and straight) gets an equal voice! A country where we do our own thing. A country so great, everyone should follow its example. I fact, we should go help all those other countries, even if they didn't ask for our help. We love Jesus that much! Imagine if we ever accepted another belief or value as our own? That'd be like the president -- our dear King Jackson -- changing colors or something.

Finally, they're always fighting one another. There's, like, a dozen different tribes. None of them get along. It sounds more like the tagline for a reality show. But here in America, it's a mandatory to get along. That's why they have to be kicked out: they aren't like us, and slightly altering anything so it's mutually beneficial is too much work. No one in the 50 (or about that, what time period is it again?) has ever has a disagreement, discrepancy, debate, dissented, or differed on any issue. Ever. That is a fact. No need to look it up. That whole "Civil War" thing was just over which side toast lands on when dropped. And it wasn't so much of a war as it was a "Nation Wide Tea Party" where all the tea got switched for black powder and the cups switched for rifles. That's all it was.

I support equality. I support Jackson.

God bless America.

No Small Children

Do you know what stem cells are? If your answer was something along the lines of "in between the root and leaf cells" then congratulations, you have no problems with the following rage. If you said something along the lines of "THEY ARE TO NEVER BE USED," "IT IS A SIN," or "we should kill all the babies and harvest them," then you, sir and/or (I don't judge) ma'am, are -- in the kindest words I can muster at this moment -- a fucking twat.

Let's set something straight right now: I am a pro-baby-shooter. That's right, Kyle likes when things live. Go ahead, write that hate comment. I'll wait...

Done? Good. Right about now, maybe half of you are all "Kyle is one of us! Fight the good fight!" and the other half are something like "Are you that stupid and insensitive, Kyle? Why should someone be forced to <insert the line I hear every single time about why I should be pro-bortion>?!" And here's my message to the latter group: Shut up. My message to the former group: Shut up. Just because I support one side more than another means nothing except for that I have the capabilities to make a decision on my own. I could spend a whole rant about why I take the stance that I do, but that's not why we're here today.

Today, we're going to talk about stem cell research. For those of you who don't know what stem cell research is (i.e. the plant analog group), then let me explain it a bit.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. This means that they've yet to take on a specific role; they haven't specialized yet. They're like hopeful actors who've yet to get type-cast and be stuck in a miserable position until they die. Thankfully, they're children will follow in their footsteps and try to fulfill their parent's dream, and which point the process repeats. Anyway, these cells are highly valued because they can become any sort of cell they're placed around. A good amount of bad mojo could be curable with the use of stem cells. There's just one catch:

These cells usually come from unborn fetuses. True, they can also be located in bone marrow, but those stem cells are harder to get to and not as flexible.

Do you see where this is all going? Right along the fiery hell path that leads to baby land. Er... baby lovers versus baby haters? Baby obsessors over realists? Hell, I don't know. Let's put it terms I'm most comfortable with (those being insults): "Anti-choice and Baby Slayer." By the way, if anyone can give me better insults, it would be much appreciated. Anyway, there's the whole debate on whether it's moral or not to harvest said cells for medical research. But, like all great debates, people are too stupid and pig headed to come to a compromise about it.

So let's go with the great equalizer: Myself. Here's the plan: let's not purposefully kill whatever-you-want-to-call-it (I prefer nutrient parasite). However, if the (through whatever reasons, be they natural or otherwise) nutrient parasites weren't making it anyway or were micarried (but the cells still viable) then we can agree it's alright to do.

Side note: we can still get stem cells from developed humans. Even corpses! So really, if everyone stopped being  Jesus freaks/little bitches/whatever might insult you and donated some stem cells, then we might not even need to eradicate the vile womb infester! True, it hurts a lot, but can we all take one for the benefit of our entire fucking species?! You know what, I take the first part of that last statement back; donating stem cells is like giving blood, you little pansies. Just take this in for a moment:

Not a wimp.

This man can do it. Why not you?! There is legitimately not a reason why the general populace can't take a day to go donate something they hardly use so that research on a ground-breaking field of medicine can move further along without any of the moral disagreements that come along with the job. It's a win-win situation; the baby lovers keep their babies (for now) and the fetus abusers get their most holy of holy cells.

Stem cell research is an amazing field of study and one that, while I may not condone where some of the cells come from, it is one that I fully support. The possibilities of it are amazing and shouldn't be passed up just because a few people don't like the idea (which could be a rant of its own). Can we all just figure out how to compromise now?

What might cause others to hesitate, might stimulate others to ejaculate.

As the wise words of Anon have requested, this rant shall be about gay marriage. And I'll be good Guy Kyle and tell you this now: there probably won't be anything here that hasn't already been used in an argument before. And yes, this title was totally stolen from Daniel Tosh.

"So what is your stance on such debauchery, Kyle?" You will ask from your shallow, Republican face-hole. Personally, I think they should be given equal rights.

"Are you sure, Kyle?" You'll tempt like devil-spaw. See below image for just how sure I am.

Just how sure I am.

Message across? Good. Now let's start with actual supporting evidence.

The Constitution.

This is mostly thrown towards American, my home land. I'm not quite sure about other countries (except for Australia, which allows it. Woo Aussies!), so best not to even go there. 

Anyway, the central document of our country says some pretty cool stuff (even thought there are plenty of typos) that lets us -- as legal citizens of the country -- do some pretty cool stuff. Some examples are:

• Not to be killed
• To express your opinion
• To practice your religion
• To pursue happiness, unless you can't be taxed for it
• And a bunch of other things

Now, I've actually found something interesting on that page I linked. I'll quote it here so you don't have to look for it: 

Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.

Quite a mouthful, correct? Not that your moth can fit a lot; as specified before, it's quite shallow and Republican.

"Ha!" You shout at your monitor, thinking you have foiled me once more. "It says in there that the community can regulate marriage!" Congratulations, you're correct!

And congratulations, you don't understand what a community is! It is not, and I can't stress this enough, it is not the government or judicial system. You see how big and bold and italic and underlined that word is? Let is burn itself into your mind for a moment. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Took you long enough. Thoroughly implanted now? Good.

"But just what is a community then, Kyle?" You'll ask me, finally realizing the futility of arguing with me through the internet and my own post. Well, it could be as little as only two persons, as said in that paragraph. Of course, it could also be a neighborhood, or a church or something. "But wait!" Your morale has risen. "Jesus will save us!" And again, you get another point. Damn, you're on a roll today.

A church, no matter how large or small (see those dirty Catholics), does have the right to regulate who marries who within their boundaries. Fair enough, the independent beliefs decide who they wed in a spiritual sense. That all makes good sense. However, religion does not rule law. Or at least not anymore. Thus, though separate belief systems may prohibit homosexual unions, there can be no justifiable reason to discriminate the right to marriage (an extension of "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness") on legal grounds. And yes, religious nut-jobs, a judge can marry you. To another person, that is. Though don't let that stop you from marrying a judge.

Family Matters

Here's another big one: how homosexuality would re-define what a family is. As always, I'll be trusting dictionary.com for all of my definition-y needs:

fam·i·ly

[fam-uh-lee, fam-lee]noun, plural fam·i·lies,adjective

noun

1.

a.

a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not:the traditional family.

b.

a social unit consisting of one or more adults together withthe children they care for: a single-parent family.

2.

the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want alarge family.

3.

the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family onvacation next week.

4.

any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents,children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.

5.

all those persons considered as descendants of a commonprogenitor.

Check out that first one there. Mm. Sure doesn't seem to include anything about heterosexual couples only. But that's not even the tip of the ice berg. Oh no, some people have gone so far to say that "children do better in a heterosexual parent household," to which I just have to drop the science on and prove everyone wrong. That's just what I do.

Another argument on this matter is as thus "Then why can't I marry my dog? I love her a lot, so why can't I?" Not kidding, a friend of mine said that. I pray to Cthulu he was only kidding. But my response is -- and this is earth-shockingly devastating, so I suggest sitting down if you aren't already -- dogs don't have legal standing! That's right, they can't agree to any form of social contract, which marriage is! Mind blowing, right? this also applies to any non-sentient beings and objects.

Finally, people claim that legalization of gay marriage would lead to group marriages, which doesn't really make much sense, and actually commits the slippery slope fallacy.

God said so!

No. No he didn't. In fact, if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bible (which a lot of people seem to do for some reason), we'll get the several verses about homosexuals, a good bit of which seem to actually condone such relationships an encourage them.

And the ones that do talk negatively about the subject, are ever only about gay sex. Big difference between marriage and sex. Pretty sure about that. HIV positive about it.

And the point about how "God made Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" is possibly one of the most ridiculous and idiotic premises I've ever heard. I mean, really? You think the creator of everything ever doesn't know how basic biology works? Seriously? At this point, it's pretty safe to call you a dumbass for saying that. How the hell else were they supposed to reproduce? It's basic fucking math, for Christ's sake! Get that shit right!

Sorry, got a little heated there. Anyway, this was for you Anon. Hope you enjoyed.

Super-powered Freaks

"Let's have a little fun; all favoritism aside, and no partials considered, who is the best superhero of all time?" -Anon

Quite the tall order we have here, asking me to choose the best superhero. that's like asking me to pick the best Pokemon of all time. I mean, do we go by pure numbers, their overall story, or badassery? Of course, you should know by now that I'll be covering all three.

The Numbers!

Thinking about it, there's only one rational choice if we're going based purely based off of the most objective means possible, and that choice is...


*drum roll*

Superman. Yep, you should have seen it coming. The Man of Steel wins out if it's a toe-to-toe fist fight. Not Batman. Not Ironman. Their only superpowers were money, so they can't really count. No, the Kryptonian Crime-buster (if that isn't a nickname yet, it's my copyright) easily wins out. Having more superpowers than should be possible, and only being weak to a rock, it's kinda hard to argue the point. He's virtually indestructible (minus that whole rock thing) and can shoot lazers from his eyes. That's pretty much a winning ticket there.

"But, Kyle!" You begin to riot because you can't handle a differing opinion. "<insert hero's name here> would just get some kryptonite and weaken/kill Superman." Yea, I suppose you're right for once, reader. Only one problem with that logic:

Why would Superman let said person that? Sure, Superman might not kill unless it's absolutely needed, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be willing incapacitate people. Shatter their kneecaps? Depends on what canon you're using.

And don't even get me started on the time Superman became a member of the White Lantern Corps.

For those of you who don't get what I mean, I'm referencing the power rings from the Green Lantern comics. Superman was offered a Green Power Ring at one point too, but Green is nothing compared to White. The list of abilities goes on and on, but just check this out if you want to find out more. Basically, it takes the already god-like Superman and turns him into a god-like being with the ability to create things with your mind, resurrect things, and use his already awesome eye beams with a cool new light beam. That is statistically the best superhero ever.

Story Time!

I actually have no clue about this one. Seriously, there are so many different versions of every single superhero ever, that picking just one would be pretty much useless.

I can, however, say that Spider-Man has a pretty good story going for him. He was the first superhero that people could really connect with; after all, every other superhero at that time was some sort of alien or not-quite-human being. Parker was just an ordinary student in New York City when he happened to be bitten by a radioactive spider. While most of us will never get to experience the painful bliss of unstable spider venom, the vast majority (I hope, anyway) can sympathize with the student role that Peter has to carry on with. Add on the romance plot with Mary Jane (a painfully obvious euphemism for teenager's love for marijuana) and the best-friend-turned-worst-enemy twist, it could relate to teenagers on one level or another.

Badassing Beyond Belief.

This was the one I was looking forward too. I know the perfect man for this job. The Merc with a Mouth, ever an anti-hero, Deadpool himself!

"But, Kyle," you once again dare to interrupt me, "you only like Deadpool because of his game!" And I say nay! I've known of Deadpool for quite a few years now. So stick that in your juice box and suck it.

Deadpool, while not being hopped up on super steroids, still boasts a rather interesting pallet, namely having a version of Wolverine's healing factor. Originally included to cure him of his terminal cancer, the power went a little bit further, essentially making an unkillable, trash talking killer. Come one, the man can't even get drunk! That's how well he heals! Add to that the fact that his brain cells die and regenerate so quickly that he's mentally unstable and has no set fighting style, and you've got yourself a quite ridiculous idea.

But the best thing about Deadpool is his humor. Not only does he seem to get off at killing people (the more violent the better!) but he breaks the fourth wall so often, one wonders why the carpenters bother rebuilding it at all.