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!

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.

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.

One for All; Screw the Rest

Have you ever been in an debate where a person/party will point to a specific case/example, and use it as a generalization of their entire argument?

On the surface, that makes sense. We often take anecdotal evidence as one of the best kinds. Worse yet, we accept eyewitness testimony as concrete and absolute, even though it's been proven to be pretty unreliable. As long as you don't dig too deep or don't think too hard, then that sort of support and evidence makes sense.

"But Kyle," you retort, "if such scenario really happened, then how can it not be a good example?" excellent question, reader. Just why don't such things work as well as we all think they should? Because of Logic. The crusher of hopes and dreams. The destroyer of all that once was, and all that will be.

The problem with cherry picking one example and using it as a blanket statement is that it leads to a little fallacy called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Wikipedia describes it as "No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."  Basically, it's using one example, and denouncing the counterexample as not being true to the original example. See the problem there? It's even worse when both parties are committing the fallacy, and using it against each other like some sort of logic braking, horribly argued, orgy.

Back to the subject. I'm sure you've all been pestered (or have done the pestering) about the Zimmerman trial. Now, before you being shouting your opinions about it, let's set something clear: we're not going to talk about the outcomes, or whether this man did this with his gun, or whether Florida really is some sort of bastardized combination of a gun and penis (it is); just using the trial as an example. I know, that sounds contradictory to my last paragraph, but just roll with me.

People have been using the Zimmerman trial as an example for the whole legal system. "It's all corrupt," they say. "Everything's about race," they chant. "Florida's gun laws are stupid and unfair!" (See above penis joke.) The point is that they take this even, being that it's recent, and slap it on like some sort of judicial concealer, hiding every other case that could be used to make some hollow point in an argument that amounts to vast nothingness.

It's not just court cases either. Go back and read a previous post of mine. Their are plenty of examples in which one example is used as the catch all. The only problem is, this goes a step further. Suddenly, one example becomes the only viable. And daring to counter-argue the point makes you the bad guy. Because presenting a counter point is obviously the wrong thing to do in an argument.

But where can all of this be seen? In everything. Notably those with (or have the illusion of) power. The argument goes as such.

Person with power (The Man): "Drones and advanced CIA reconnaissance are the reasons why we were able to locate person-of-special-interest."
Man who dares to point out obvious flaw: "But what about the numerous times when no such person was apprehended and innocent people were injured."
The Man: "Sacrifices have to be made to accomplish our goals."

You see that? That total bullshit excuse there? How one case justifies everything else done? Now let's fast forward a year.

The Man: (getting ready for more drone strikes) "Past missions have proven these measures to be highly effective in accomplishing our goals. As such, we'll be putting more drones onto the battlefield to better help our troops." 

Now how did that change? It didn't over time, it just became the standard. Because X happened, X is now the standard, despite countering Y and/or Z. It just makes no damn sense. 

Giving and Taking

"Hey, its anon, whaddup. How does Kyle feel about cheating? Whether its infidelity or in school, is it normal to cheat sometimes?" -Anon

Cheating. A broad subject, like Anon described. You have your "boom-boom buddy" sort of cheating and your "what do any of these Spanish words mean?" sort of cheating. Of course, there are other sorts of cheating, but since this blog is meant for teenagers, we'll focus on the two most common types among them.

Necking it

Being predictable as I am, I'll start off with the first type listed; that being the "pimpin' it" type. First thing's first: both males and females are capable of cheating on their significant (though, if they're cheating, that term is to be used loosely) other(s). That's right; it's not just the scum bag men who go around and play genital peek-a-boo. Women can set the ol' minnow trap too. True, there may be some statistical difference in the numbers, but that's not the point. Both sexes of our species can engage in extra-relationshipal (is that even a word?) affairs. Of course, women are more likely to commit to emotional affairs, but that's harder to write jokes about.

I'm sure we've all read Facebook statuses or tweets about "Mi man b cheetin on mi wit sum ho. W/e byy boo." Or "Mane, i saw mi gurl cheatin on me wit sum other guy. He gonna git his ass beet." Of course, those sound like extremely ridiculous examples, but the point stands that there are people who just throw their junk all around, both male and female.

"Get to the point, Kyle." Fine, but no more comedy gold for you.

Is all of this unfaithfulness and infidelity morally wrong? It's generally agreed that it is.

"Of course!" You shout at me, through your monitor. "Why wouldn't it be? Stop being such an idiot, Kyle."

But is it biologically wrong, or even irregular? Well, it can be argued that it isn't, especially for males. Among the other mammalian species on this planet, many males attempt to spread their genes as far and wide as they can. Survival of the fittest, right?

"Stop trying to give an excuse for what stupid men do!" The feminist in you will rage. Well, feminist, I have something for you: I'M NOT. Just because humans are -- to an extent -- biologically driven animals lusting for only the most basic of needs, we are far more intelligent than other species; even if that point can be argued based on the few people each of us know. Not just do we have a higher intelligence, but we have the marvelous gift of sentience; where we are self aware and acknowledge that other people have thoughts and feelings of their own.

What's all this mean? That biological urges are no excuse for any sort of infidelity that could happen. As higher organisms, we must acknowledge that we have the capabilities to control our bodies and manipulate them in such ways as to avoid insulting and muddying the mutually agreed upon, give-take interactions that you originally formed with one other organism. In lay man's terms: don't ruin your relationship by going all James Bond of every women you see, males. And females, don't blindly follow your hearts because "it just feels like it was meant to be." You wanna know the results of either scenario? I'll give you a hint, the twist at the end isn't like the ones in romantic comedies.

Paper Peeking

Now we're at the more ambiguous part of the post: cheating in school. Is it really bad to cheat in school. Is failing a course, but being able to say "hey, at least I didn't cheat" really worth whatever amount of pride one might derive from the statement? Or is it better to cut corners and maybe take a peek at that page you ripped out of the book (yea, I've heard of that happening), pass the class, and not look like a failure and disappointment to whoever might be glaring at you judgmentally, just waiting for you to slip up.

The ever-chivalrous knight in me doth declare "Thine honor is thou life! Thous musn't ever forfeit it!" Of course, there's also the more "rouge-ish" character who abides by "Hey, if you can get away with it and everyone is happy, how could it be so bad?" And both of them are right.

As far as I see it, there's only one stipulation: if you, through your own effort, could pass the tests and class without cheating. If you're cheating just out of sheer laziness, then I personally will pity your pathetic mortal frame, akin to how Sauron gazed upon Frodo. If there was no way in all of Hell for you to pass that class without glancing at those words inked on your hand, then maybe my unforgiving eye will look the other way. That's just how I roll.

Of course, the factor of sentience can be brought in. If we know we're doing something that we consider wrong, should we still do it?

With this sort of school system, what's it matter anyway? I mean, you really only have to do decently well, then pass the final at the end of the class. Don't even get me started on if it's a standardized test. Then again, you probably shouldn't cheat on those...

The fact of the matter is, it's normal to cheat. The temptation is too strong sometimes, and glancing over at the really-smart-kid's paper for the answer to number five is the easiest and smartest way out. Like many matters, this one's a real gray (or grey) area for me. Sure, I've cheated in school before. Always in Spanish, but I've still cheated before. Does that mean I always cheat? No. Most of the time, I do pretty well, and when I need a little boost, I'll open up the book or grab a buddy with which to study.

At the end of it all, it's really up to you to decide. Decide to follow my opinions, that is!

I kid. Be sentient, dammit!

Give Hugs

"Perhaps next time you could rant about the teenagers who use drugs. Maybe do a versus on the teens who do it to be 'cool', and those who use it as a coping method and the pros (however few) and cons of each." -Anon

Quite the request you have there, Anon. This'll probably be really biased, but let's see how this goes.

Let's get this out of the way: I do not condone the use of drugs (as in illegal and controlled substances) in any form or fashion. Nor do I condone the abuse of legal drugs. I'm not going to sugar-coat any of that, and feel free to dissent with me. I'll try to explain why in this post.

Let's go with the first group: teens who do it for funsies. Or to be cool. Or whatever those crazy kids are doing these days. If any one reading this happens to fall into this category, let me tell you something: you better get the hell out of that stuff. Seriously, you may be "cool" and "hip" and "radilicious" now, but 10 years down the road, when you're hooked (if you aren't already) on the crap and doing back alley favors for your next fix, it won't be so cool. In fact, people will look down on you. Maybe in pity, maybe in contempt, maybe even as a sort of joke. TO most people, addicts are some of the worst in society. This may stem from the natural infatuation we have with our free will. When you get addicted to something, it's almost like you're giving up a piece of yourself -- a piece of your free will -- to some inanimate object. What shouldn't have power over you does, and as sentient beings, we look at that in a rather negative light.

"What could possibly be the pros of that, Kyle?" Well, honestly, it's hard to say. I can really only come up with one reason: to be socially accepted. I'm pretty sure in my last post, I talked about social acceptance and the tendency to conform, but just in case, I'll talk some more about it.

As a species, we thrive on social interactions. We've evolved to need other humans in our lives, and because of that, we have a tendency to crave others' acceptance.

So, if you're friends or those popular kids are doing drugs, and you think that they'll like you more for doing said drugs, you just might to be accepted. That's a normal tendency in humans. What isn't normal is using a chemical synthetic (sometimes it's natural, but still applies) to change the chemistry of your brain. I could go on and on about all the things that happen in your brain, but that'd be going off on a tangent, and I do that enough as it is.

The possible cons? Check four paragraphs back. I'm pretty sure that covers the negative aspects of wanting to be cool.

Now, to the second group of teens: the kind who do it to cope. This part will probably sound a bit more sympathetic, but don't get me wrong; it's still not cool and really unhealthy. Possibly more-so than doing it to be cool.

We'll mix it up a bit. let's do the pros of this kind first.

Chemicals are a great way to change your mood and brain chemistry. Many drugs have a chemical structure similar to a natural compound called dopamine. The drug molecules bind to the dopamine receptors in your brain (which normally function as a reward system) and make you feel better. Chemically feel better. In text, it sounds like magic.

"A way to instantly change your mood? Sign me up!" I won't. Mostly because I don't have a sign-up sheet. Wait. You shouldn't want to do drugs!

But still, if as a coping method, drugs technically one of the best options. Add to their rather quick acting effects, and you've got yourself happy juice in a needle.

"But, Kyle." You'll say as you always do when you want to ask me a question or contradict me. "How could any of that be bad?" As always, I have an answer for you.

We can all agree that you can get addicted to drugs, right? Right. If you don't, then you probably don't understand how much of anything works. Now, what happens when you become chemically addicted to the junk, AND psychologically addicted to it? You've got one hell of a mess, that's what.

See, you'll become dependent of that stuff whenever you need to feel better. Grandmother die? Didn't get that one job you really needed? Your favorite mechanical pencil ran out of graphite?  No amount of natural mouring and time will heal you; your body can't feel good without that fix. It's like a lazy eye: if something else is doing the work, your body will stop working properly.

Your body is like a bid who can fly a plane. "What's the point of flying with my wings if I can just use that big machine?" Your body will ask to itself. "Nothing," it'll reply, because it's a little insane and talks to itself.

But how about the versus part of the suggestion? Well, I suppose it's all subjective. But, in my humble opinion, the latter group -- the ones who cope -- could actually have a more serious problem. While their condition is infinitely more pitiable, it could lead to more serious and detrimental effects. They begin doing drugs for an unhealthy reason and develop compounds of consequences because of it.

This was a really tough matter for me to comprehend, so what I've said here is a little rough at best. Maybe it's because I've been stressed about a broken computer (the reason why this post is so late), maybe it's because I'm sitting at my desk at 2:30 in the morning. In the dark. In my underwear. Either way, the topic of drug use is something I'll have to come back to at some point and give it a lot of thought.

All that being said, drugs are still a poor way to accomplish whatever goals you aim for. If you're trying to fit in with the cool kids, then screw them! Buy a bag of chips and I'll come bum with you for a while. If you're trying to cope, then go with a much healthier activity. Do some exercise. I can vouch for that one working. You'll feel like a champ afterward. Like you could take on Lance Armstrong. Who did steroids and lost everything. Don't be like Lance Armstrong.  Follow the old adage that's been running around in my head since I began typing this: Don't do drugs, give hugs!

Angsty Teens; part 2

"Rant about how some teenagers see themselves, and how other teenagers and society perceives them. How their distorted sense of things can lead to a shock once they get into the real world, etc." -Anon

Now to finish up this quote. See that second sentence? That's what we'll be talking about today.

As late and great Albert Einstein (I've heard he was pretty smart) once said "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." And Hell if that doesn't apply especially to teenagers.

Don't get me wrong, teenagers can be intelligent also. I could think of a handful of males and females at my school -- or even the district -- that I could confidently call intelligent. To put that in perspective, there are a lot more than "a handful" of people in the school district. The majority of them, to me, qualify as complete and utter idiots. Offended? Check out this post.

That being said, even those intelligent are adolescent. "But, Kyle," you'll say as you always do when you want to contradict me, "that has nothing to do with being smart or not." To which I will tell you that you are wrong. Plain wrong. In fact, you're so wrong, it's kosher.

Let's get some fact straight: teenagers' brains are developing. Everything is getting all funky -- hormones bouncing around, body parts randomly swelling, grey matter just sorta leaving -- and the teenager doesn't know what to do. On one end, their peers and the rest of society is looking at them and urging them into one direction, while on the other, their own body is like "LET ME FORNICATE WITH EVERY THING I CAN GET MY GENITALS ON!" This all become the biologically equivalent of letting a kitten play with a ball of string for a few hours.

"What does all of this mean, Kyle?!" Fear not. I will guide you. You are safe inside my virtual arms.

This means that the developing human has no clue as to what s/he should be doing. It's like a second birth, but with more acne. The adolescent has absolutely no idea which side to follow. Luckily, their body does. It's sure of itself, so its argument is a bit more persuasive in the ears of the teen. They'll be more inclined to follow its ways. Some will resist partially, others with throw it off, but most won't.

Just what is their body telling them? That they are a damn Superman, but from Earth. If they could, they'd be shooting lasers and flying around everywhere. I know I would. And I'm a teenager. Point made.

Now then, time for a little math. Take one delusional human being, add natural parental sheltering, and through in a pinch of noticeable-scarcity-of-any-educational-system-teaching-them-generally-useful-skills, and you've just made the perfect equation for a disgustingly colored streak on the back of society's tighty whities.

As far as teenagers know, someone will always be around to pick them up when they fall. Here's a nice little example:

Math teacher: "Oh, you failed that test? Don't worry; I have some make-up work that you can do. You'll pass next time.
Police officer: "Oh, you failed that test. Looks like you're going to jail for driving under the influence. Maybe next time you'll pass."

See the problem here? Throughout their lives, teenagers are coddled (even when threatened otherwise) and they just don't know what to do when they emerge from the second womb.

Of course, the only way to know is through experience, so it's really a vicious circle.

Either way, teenagers have no clue what they're doing. Though it can be slowly taught, it isn't. Shame on everyone.

Angsty Teens; part 1

"Rant about how some teenagers see themselves, and how other teenagers and society perceives them. How their distorted sense of things can lead to a shock once they get into the real world, etc." -Anon

The wise words of Anon have been said, and who am I to disobey them?

I am Kyle, that's who. But hey, why put down a good suggestion? This is the first of a mini-series of posts about teenagers. And what better than the blog of an angsty teen? Come on, it's right in the name!

Anywho, this one's going to be about how teenagers view themselves; which is sort of like trying to describe a color: not impossible, but it requires a lot of thought and understanding. Warning: there may be some content mentioned on here, so if you see something you're uncomfortable with, then please skip over it.

First, let's ask ourselves: "How do teenagers view themselves? The words that can be used to describe what are essentially hormone bags full of lustful fluids aren't easy to pick out. Add to it the fact that many a teen's average day involves mental symptoms that would land any adult in a mental institution. And to think, that's just and average day for them.

To put an answer to a question, we'll have to think of how teenagers group themselves; the cliques as they are. There are your jocks, popular girls (not the ones on YouTube), religious nut jobs (or "Jesus Freaks"), misunderstood (i.e emo and goths), nerds, and those who look like the messiah. Maybe that last one's just me. Anyway, I know this list is about as fulfilling as Earing Magic Ken, but there are just so many individual cliques that vary from region to region that's it's near impossible to list them all in one post without it being ridiculously long. Foregoing tracking down a list and talking about each and every one of them, I'll just talk about how I understand the world. Feel free to share your own experiences. Thought I was going to talk about all of those people? Yea, so did I. And then it didn't turn out so good.

Getting the first point out of the way: adults. Adults never fully understand teenagers.

"But, Kyle!" You shout. "Adults were teenagers at one time!" Yea, they were. But how long ago was that? 10 years? 25? 50? The very concept of "adults know what teenagers are" is slightly flawed. Sure, there are many things that adults and teens can relate to: peer perception, social problems (religious, political, etc.) and maybe eve something a bit more saddening like depression. But society moves forward (despite what political groups say) and things evolve (also despite what political groups say). My parents, much less my grandparents, had to deal with cyber-bullying (I've never been cyber-bullied, nor am I thoroughly convinced of its legitimacy, but there are those who have). How could an adult fully sympathize with something like that? Sure, they could try the usual "it gets better" but for some people, that just doesn't work.

There are people who having eating disorders. That's a fact none of us can dispute. There are multiple reasons why these disorders can occur, but many people cite society as the reason why. Society's emphasis on being slim and sexy (both subjective words, the kind I dislike the most) is what causes individuals to develop a disorder like anorexia or bulimia. The people think of themselves as "fat" and "unattractive" when they aren't, in reality. This pushes them down into a state where they want to conform (which, despite what some will tell you, is a good thing at times) and be one of another group. The problem with this is that they're going about it in an unhealthy manner, which could drive itself into a vicious circle or problems. Anyway, how could an adult sympathize with this unless they also suffered from an eating disorder as some point in their lives.

Connecting with some of the last paragraph, we have conformity.

Conformity is something we all do, whether we know it or not. Most people think of it as a bad thing, but when was the last time that driving on the wrong side of the road a generally good idea. But many people have drilled it into our heads that conforming is a bad thing; always be yourself.

Teenagers always think they're being themselves; to an extent, they should be. Be themselves, that is. Individuality is a great thing to have, but the hive should not be considered pure evil. Conformity can make a species thrive.

Also on this there is an "over individuality." Take a person who likes to express themselves with full body tattoos and piercings everywhere. Not to slam on them or anything, but are they really expressing themselves, or just conforming to a different group? My opinion is the latter. Many ideas that pop into our heads are often sparked by an outside force.

This happens to me all the time. I'll be going around all the internet, reading things, and I'll be all "Why don't I make a place where I can share my own opinions?" Then BAM, this blog is created and I'm typing out an essay every couple of days. Am I expressing my individuality? To an extent, yes. But is everything my idea? Not everything, no. It might have a spin on it, but I can't express ideas that I don't have a basis for, right?

Time for some controversy: depression.

I said there'd be some stuff you might want to skip over, and this is it.

Depression is existent. And, at risk of making some people upset, I'll say something: I don't think all of depression is something that just happens. Parts of it are/can be a person's own fault, and that they can make a difference. Though this is less clinical depression and more of a sadness. More on that later, though.

That being said, there's also how depression that can't be helped. A imbalance, or scarcity, of dopamine and serotonin in the brain leads a person to feeling unfulfilled, simply because their brain ins't receiving the reward signal that leads to happiness. So while they may be doing something that was enjoyable at one time, they just don't feel like it is anymore because their brain isn't getting the chemical signal that says it is.

This lack of pleasure can lead to a worsening and worsening condition, possibly brought on by the blessing (or curse) that is self-awareness. We know we exist, and that other people know we exist (whether they acknowledge it or not) and crave happiness and pleasure. When we can't, or don't want, to physically receive this pleasure, we feel as if it's all hopeless and that nothing cares for us. That's to the contrary though, because you've made it this far into this post, and for that you deserve a hug.

With the depression, feelings of loneliness, and self loathing, suicidal thoughts can become common place. Sometimes, these thoughts become urges, and these urges manage to express themselves. Sadly, this happens. And too often for my taste. It's sad that a person has been driven to the point where they feel that there's no way out but by the ceasing of their heart and lungs.

If you've felt like this at any point int your life, especially if you currently do, read this: There are better ways. I know, I said just earlier in this post that "it gets better" doesn't always work. But from one person to another -- albeit through a screen -- it does get better. This moment in your life is just that: a moment. It can be turned around. Changed. Morphed. Though it may not seem like it, your life is clay in your hands. If you want to be a dragon, then dammit, be the best damn dragon you can be. Grab some latex and make a a few teeth, because what kind of dragon doesn't decimate small villages in his/her free time? But I digress. Don't give up. Never stop pushing forward. An a runner can't win if he stops in the middle of the race. Just ask Charlie Spedding. So, in the wise words of Journey. DON'T STOP. BELIEVIN'.

Now to end on a happy note.

Your life is yours. Treat it like a Thai prostitute. Whatever that means. I don't condone the beating of women, but hey, if you paid and she consents, have at it.

You want to be happy? Go find something that makes you happy. Carve wood, play card games, taste test doughnuts, exercise, whatever makes you happy. Just remember to keep it within the realms of health. You'll be even happier if you do.

According to the Science channel, even smiling can make you happy. And it can make others happy to, which only leads me to one logical conclusion: to walk around with a dorkish grin on my face for the rest of my life to ensure that I am a happy and enjoyable person. This can't freak anyone out ever, right? Better yet, why not be a clown. They make everyone happy, especially small children.

The Generalization of Extremes

After my long and involuntary absence, I've come back today to discus something I like to call the "association of extreme to average" or "the generalization of extremes."

What do I mean by this? It's quite simple, really. I just like using fancy sounding names like that because it makes this look sophisticated. The generalization of extremes is where a radical group is thought up as the example of the whole population. Another word for this would be the stereotype, though I like to think my principal goes much deeper than any stereotype.

See, stereotypes nowadays are, in my experience, little more than petty prejudices that have no real influence other than the fueling of one person's ignorance. I like to go deeper than that, and really dig into how we view populations.

Let's use an example; those always help us understand concepts, right? Right.

Take any group you know. Let's say... Muslims. What image popped into your head when you read that? I'd be willing to be at least some of you had the image of a terrorist. Others of you, particularly feminists, might have thought about a woman in the traditional clothing of the faith (whose name escapes me at this moment). Her face could possibly be wrapped up, showing only her eyes. She's quite repressed, right?

Wrong. Well, maybe it's right. I have the tendency to not be a Muslim woman.

But anyway, ask yourself why that image came to mind. I did, and that's the precise reason why I'm writing this.

It's because Muslims and Islam have become synonymous with terrorism and oppression. And that's the basis of the generalization of extremes: that a small, extremist group becomes the generalization of the entire group. I know, I already said something like that in the second paragraph, but I like reiterating myself; it gives this a nice length and makes it look like I know what I'm talking about.

Containing on, we'll use another example. This time politics -- oh, how I do enjoy using politics. Think of any political party you hate or dislike. Got it? Were your initial thoughts something like "dirty Liberals" or "stupid Conservatives"?  If they were: than congratulations, my friend! You've proved what this whole post is about! if they weren't: then you should stop lying to your computer. It's not nice and doesn't appreciate the bad juju.

Either way, you're probably waiting for me to get back on the subject and actually explain more of what I'm talking about. I know I am.

Back on subject now. Right. Got it. We can do this. Push it to the limit. Eye of the tiger. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Bob and weave. To and fro. Alright. Here we go.

There's a reason this process occurs: because we, as humans, accept the generalization and spread it. It may not be all of us -- I doubt Liberals go around spreading the dirty liberal  (they might though!) -- but we still do it. It happens without us even realizing it too! It's like we're all drones who just accept what other people tell us!

Well, in essence, we are. That's how a species who operates in groups, be they large or small, survives and continues to live on and not end up as some alpha-predator's dung pile. So you can blame evolution (or whatever you believe brought about our existence) for your being a bad and generalizing person!

"But, Kyle. We have to follow how we were made. It's the only thing we can do."

On some degree, I do agree with that. Biologically, I can only do what I've evolved to do. Of course, there's one little problem with that: I, and I'm hoping the rest of everyone else, are conscious beings. That means we have the ability to rise above what we've been "programmed" to do and consciously change how we act and think.

So it's all up to you. No matter what people tell you, one person CAN make a difference. Unfortunately, that hasn't always worked out too well, so to be safe, you should sit back down and go back to eating your Doritos. I know I am.

Politically Incorrect

Let's get something out of the way first: that was probably the most cliche title ever. I mean "Politically Incorrect?" I'm pretty much telling you what you're going to read before you even read it. God, I should work on my creativity more.

Anyway, to the point of this post (and it's not my horrible titles). It's just how pathetic politics is getting.

Start from the beginning. Political parties were pretty much nonexistent. Socioeconomic status was pretty much the only political group you ever needed. The surfs stuck with the surfs. The nobles with the nobles. What class you were born into was what you stuck with, and generally, things went as they did (French revolution aside).

Then this whole "democracy" thing came along. And I don't mean the ancient Greek democracy where everyone gets a chance to vote. I mean the good ol' 'Murrican version of it, guns and abortions included. Now everyone thinks they're entitled to speaking out. My mother. Your little sibling. Even your Great-Aunt Susie. Everyone gets what they think of as a say, and quite honestly, they shouldn't.

I know, you're reply will be something along the lines of "But Kyle, you're always pro-voiceyourownopinion. So why are you trying to choke slam yourself?" You want to know why? Well, do ya?

It's because most people in this world cannot use their opinion effectively. There's a simple experiment you can perform to do this. I'll outline it for you (aren't I being generous?):

Step 1) Walk into any room with a nice diversity of people. Make sure you have a helmet.
Step 2) Say one of the following words or phrases: abortion, gun control, global warming, immigration, economy, homosexuals, <current president's name>. Any of them, or any other "controversial" word you can think of.
Note: if those don't work, voice some sort of opinion about them.
Step 3) Duck and cover, because what will ensue is the verbal equivalent of an elementary school food fight.
Step 4) Ask yourself if any of this arguing and bickering is really changing anything. If your answer is "no," then congratulations! You're on the right track. If your answer was anything other than "no," then go back and ask yourself again. Repeat until your answer is "no."

These people, while they are allowed an opinion, should not necessarily speak it. Why? Because nothing they ever do with those opinions will amount to much positive change.

Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't voice your opinion. Hell, I'm doing it right now. Just who do I think I am? What I am saying (or at least trying to), is that you should voice your opinion in a reasonable and understandable way.

I've sat down with guys who have vastly differing opinions from me, and you know what we did? We discussed them, and I can honestly say that I've learned a thing or two from those discussions (and not just that I hate tofu).

But rarely will people ever do that. Instead, they'll hurtle their thoughts around like Kim Jong Un threatens with missiles after he misses his nap. Accomplishing nothing except stupid destruction.

And that's were we've gotten in politics; the point where all we care about is beating down the other person until they submit to our blind rage. But does that really solve anything?

You should know the answer to that.

Now go home and really think about what you believe.

It's only offensive if you make it offensive.

Have you ever noticed how people get offended? I have. In fact, it happens to me a lot. Every day.

Now have you noticed like people care that you offended them? "Hey!" They'll shout. "That's offensive!" To which I respond, "Why should I care?"

And why should I? The only possible reason why I would care is because it makes me a generally annoying and ill-wanted person if I'm offensive. The goodness of a person's heart is the ONLY reason why that person wouldn't say something offensive.

Now, I know you're like "But Kyle, what about <insert social factor here>?" And I'll agree with you, that factor could be considered important. But here's the flaw with social factors: there is never a unanimous opinion on them. If Politician A says something that offends Group B, then Group B might get uppity and talk-out about Politician A.

The equation for this is Group B's offensiveness >/= Politician A's offensiveness. Rather ironic, isn't it? The very people who complained about someone being offensive are the ones being more offensive.

Now let's say there's a Group C; people who agree with Politician A. Those people will defend Politician A, and, in reaction to Group B's higher offensiveness, will be greater than of more offensive.

So, what we have is Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Politician A's offensiveness. It's like three levels of stupidity!

"But Kyle, you can't tell people they're stupid!"
"I don't care."

Normally I don't call out stupidity for these kinds of things, because people DO have a right to be offended. But when it's handled in a way that only breeds more hate, then it's grounds for stupidity.

And in the words of the late Billy May: "But wait! There's more!" That's right, folks, the equation doesn't end. It never does! Just check it out:

Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Group C's offensiveness >/= Group B's Offensiveness >/= Politician A's offensiveness. And so on and so forth.

Do you see what I mean?! It's stupid! It's an infinite loop of imbecilic arguing and wasted breath. It's like if Satan had the IQ of an unborn fetus, cloned himself about 40,000 times, and then all those Satans had a massive orgy, the likes of which only the depths of Hell could hold!

At this point, I've kinda lost where I was going. So, I think I'll just wrap it up.

No, I do not care if I offend you in any manner. And don't go around thinking that shouting "That's offensive!" is going to make me change either. If you really want to do something about it just be chill. "Hey, Kyle. It's not cool what you said about my mother. She has cancer." To which I would reply "Sorry, bro. Wanna go eat some food?" because I am always willing to split a bag of chips and some sandwiches.
Please note this doesn't mean I'll always suffer from diarrhea of the mouth (and at that, the excessively stinky kind). I do, and you may want to sit down for this, have the gift of sentience and am self-aware of what I'm saying (that might be a good rant topic...). If the situation arises, I know when to sit down and shut up. But until then: "Nobody has ever loved you."