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.

"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.

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 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.