In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Orwell said that shit.

Kyle

Last Updated:
Aug 28, 2008

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: In a Relationship
Age: 28
City: Boise
State: Idaho
Country: US

Signup Date: 10/03/04

My Subscriptions
Sh'Hizzle
angie
Saucy Little Minx
Loomis Goobersmooch
Commodore Taco
redban
Ayn's Closet - Ron Paul '08!
Casey
Molly J.
ambeast
SuzAnarchy
Ady
rbprime
Tyler
Jung Radical
Chris
Janelle
Chyikhun!
Nicole
Johnson
Whack
nine inch nails
Drool
Clay
The Gnome
Mark
∴ Rachel ∴
Free Talk Live
Josh
The Missing Member of Apollonia 6
Tara
PsychoStacy
Xenith
Joe Rogan
Doug Stanhope
carly
Ira
Jesse Joyce
YACHT ROCK
Sarah
~Der~
Horn Star
Chuck
Free State Project
Mikey
Andy Andrist
Shane
B-Money
Dancing Pirate
This profile has moved
Frank
Brenna
Nate
Jonny Wat
Juan Don
Lee
SayNoToGod.org
Kari
INGEST THIS!
STOP the SMOKING BAN
Natural Satellite
ronjambo
Jenny
Kristi
Eldridge Deldritch: International Man of Mystery
Free Minds TV
Katie Jo
Gas Pains

Blog Archive
Older     Newer ]


Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Let the Romance Begin!

How to win a woman over, by Dimitri:
1)Quickly "get the heck out of the area" after getting her phone number.

2)Give the lady a very special "second chance" by threatening to delete her phone number, and accusing her of mental/personal problems.

Oh! and remember not to
mention once being a doctor who lost your medical license after being convicted for the sexual assault of your female patients.

3) Find a cute intimate coffee shop and let the romance begin! 

12:18 PM - 7 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Help me fight global warming.
Category: Goals, Plans, Hopes

Part of what I like to do on myspace is inform people about things that I really need.

One of the newest things I really need, is something that I will use when Zombageddon approaches. You see, dear reader, I really, really, really need one of these:

The International CXT: the largest production pickup on the open market. Modeled after actual trucker's trucks! Yet as I understand, it's just under the weight limit that requires you to have a commercial drivers license (aka trucker license).

If you help me raise the $115,000+(any additional customization costs), I need to buy this sweet baby. I totally promise to protect you from zombies during the Zombageddon. I will run them over, or use one of the many gun/flame turrets I would have installed, to slay them from a comfortable distance all while listening to the incredibly smoove music of one Micheal McDonald, Steely Dan, or even the Doobie Brothers on the CXT's premium audio package.

Please call now to make your pledge-donation, our operators are standing by.

8:00 PM - 10 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

What they don’t teach you in journalism school.
Current mood: giggly
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

How to eat flys.

Just what the red "on air" light indicates.

And how not to not be an arrogant douche bag.

11:56 AM - 5 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment

Monday, June 23, 2008

STOP SHITTING ON MY PAGE! PAGE SHITTER!

Why is this woman shitting on my page with her face that is smelling shit.
This is not sexy:

I will not go to singlesnet dot com, because that woman's shit sniffing face haunts my otherwise shit-free dreams.
Does anyone find that shit sniffer sexy?
Am I crazy?
Is shit-sniffing the new craze?
Is shit sexy?
Comments? Suggestions?

9:13 PM - 6 Comments - 5 Kudos - Add Comment

Monday, May 05, 2008

Kyle’s Quick Movie Kapsule Revue: Family Guy: Blue Harvest
Current mood: betrayed
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Just watch Spaceballs instead.

12:18 PM - 11 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

A dose of humility.
Current mood: embarrassed
Category: News and Politics

I think an important component to being a loudmouthed self-proclaimed know-it-all is acknowledging when it is that you're wrong.

I was writing a long response to one of Garrett's comments in my review of Sicko today, and it got me thinking about hypocrisy and the importance of turning the searing light of my magnifying-glass-of-criticism upon myself.

Which sparked me into thinking about humility.

When I think about humility, what first comes to mind is having the courage to admit your own faults, acknowledging when you were wrong about something. I think this is an important quality for a person who is looking for "truth." If you're really so gung-ho about truth, then you have to admit when you claimed to know truth but were wrong.

It seems to me that this is a quality people look for in people when they are deciding to trust them or not.

In modern American politics humility is something that is being pushed damn near every day. Be it the recent apology of New York's former governor Eliot Spitzer for being a huge-hypocrite-douche-bag whore-banging/whore-banning asshole, or Barack Obama's apologies for his association with a radical pastor, or Hillary's apologies for her "mis-remember-speaking" about sniper fire in Bosnia, or McCain's apologies for endorsing the Confederate flag/ openly hating "the gooks"/ supporting universities that openly ban gays and denies pregnant students the right to seek abortion/ voting against establishing MLK day as a federal holiday/ his use of the term "tar baby"/ and of course his infamous botching of a pretty damned good Beach Boy's Tune.

But all of these politicans' apologies always seem to ring empty for me.  I think it's because the politicians usually have something at stake. The apology usually comes after a huge media expose of a "scandal" and it's when their reputations/careers/or future offices are at stake that we find them approaching a podium hat in hand.

Real humility, in my opinion is when you have nothing at stake but your own integrity.

So with that in mind, I'd like to apologize for being wrong.

I was fucking dead wrong about supporting Ron Paul.

It's one of those strange things, where I don't know if I would have realized my fault here if his candidacy would have been successful, and so in a way I'm really glad he failed because it allowed me to see the fault of my own ways.

Man I was wrong.

I apologize for supporting the dude at all or ever trying to convince anyone else that he was "the candidate" to vote for.

Only after applying my own philosophy more consistently and rigorously, really examining the execution of my own principals, has this come to light for me.

I had thought that voting for Ron Paul was a vote for the candidate that was the closest to my own political views and that was therefore the "right" thing to do. I agreed pretty much across the line with Ron on issues like foreign policy, taxation, monetary policy, social programs, and so on. There was however (at least) one policy I disagreed with the man on. I've blogged about "illegal immigration" in the past (two times?). So my position on the issue should be pretty clear.

So the breaking point has been realizing that Ron Paul would like to erect a fucking wall on the southern border, and Ron Paul would like to round up the "illegals" and deport them back to their countries of origin. A process that would be completely financed at the taxpayer's expense.

So voting for Ron Paul isn't voting for someone who exactly mimics my own beliefs but more accurately would be voting for a lesser of two evils. Sure his evil would be significantly less than the comparative evils. But when voting for a candidate in a lesser of two evils scenario how could the candidate you vote for possibly know which of their issues you support and which you find repugnant? It's an impossible task. The candidate therefore has to assume that the public supports them across the board on every issue. And so by voting for Ron Paul I'd be in effect giving him a go-ahead on every position he takes. Including his stance on immigration that I find completely morally irreprehensible.

So I was wrong.

And I'd like to amend all of my previous endorsements and ask for your forgiveness dear readers. I'm truly sorry, I was misguided and I now see the errors of my ways. Mistakes were made.

So now I'll put my hat back on.


8:19 PM - 17 Comments - 13 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Inconvenient brainwashing Pt. 2
Current mood: drunk
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Hey it's back kids! My lampooning of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

If you think way back, you may remember my first entry on cajoling people against this film.

And because I'm both the king of topical (Funny how this global warming kick has already massively fizzled out of pop-culture's short term memory eh?) and a completist to the core, the discussion continues!


In this photo there are two really important things worth noting.

First, There is no y-axis shown. Scale is an important thing to note, and the distortion of it is easy, and without any shown scale, we have no relation for this data. It could be raising a thousandth of a degree or hundreds of degrees. This is left out, and the end effect is spurious at best and obviously emotive.

Second, note that the line is in red. And it is at a serious 45-degree angle. Now this is both what I want my dick to look like in the throws of passion, and what every CEO wants to see on a profit chart presented to his shareholders, as it represents a raging blood-engorged hard on.


Now here's the same chart with the y-axis on it that I ganked from the internets, the notable difference is that it actually shows the scale that it is on. The measurements are in parts per million, so from the top at 380 parts per 1,000,000 to the bottom 310 parts per 1,000,000 there is a difference of 70 parts per 1,000,000.  Or as I like to put it: a 0.0007% change in CO2 values. And that's over roughly 44 years. So we could also put it as 0.000016% increase per year. I don't mean to drown you in the numbers, I only mean to point out how the number can be distorted and manipulated to look more drastic than they perhaps really are. Because 0.000016% is really fucking small. And one could easily manipulate their scaleless graph to represent the same change as a flat line. And that would still, technically, still be an "Inconvenient Truth.

Second, note the zigzags in the line. Now to Gore's credit he actually explains these. The spike up are when plants are absorbing CO2 in the northern hemisphere during summer/spring months, the decline is when plants are dying and releasing CO2 during the winter/fall months. This illustrates an important point that is otherwise completely untouched as a possible contributing factor for global warming: Plants have a big fucking impact on CO2 levels. Yet Al Gore completely sidesteps any questions this must stir up. Why is this? Could an increase/decrease in our consumption, perhaps even the increased growth of plants be the cause of some of the temperature rise? Gore glosses over this and any other plant related questions. How convenient!

Which brings me to the next point.

Mount Kilimanjaro

This is a great example of Gore's emotive persuasion.


Jenny Craig Before.


Jenny Craig After.

Here, Gore's point is that a drastic amount of ice has melted off of Kilimanjaro, which empirically (from the photos) is quite obvious. And Gore's point by extension is that this is clearly a result of man made global warming.

Well hold up Gore! Because there are other scientists who actually believe it is because of deforestation (which by the way I think is ALSO empirically evident in Gores two contrasting photos, probably coincidence, but certainly effective in illustrating my point) or also possibly by a decrease in rainfall. Both possibilities outright ignored by Gore, no mention whatsoever. Book closed. "Consensus" of his "facts" duly noted, other claims outright ignored and passed off.

What IS important to note, is that at this portion of the film Gore is bombarding the viewer with these drastic before and after photos, and stunning melting glacier videos. And so okay, I'm ready to concede that ice is melting. I'm no stubborn curmudgeon! Hell I'm even willing to entertain the supposition that temperatures have raised six tenths of a degree Celsius! And technically that's global warming!

Fuck it's exactly the same as the global warming that's occurring on the surface of mars!

But let's not start talking about Solar Flares! That's not anthropomorphically caused!

The problem however, is that this is all cart before the horse.

He's showing us the effect, BEFORE he fully has stated his case for the CAUSE. Any astute viewer should be thinking one thing: WHAT THE FUCK?

I feel this is clearly a manipulative trick. Because this visual, emotive imagery it is designed to stir you in with its extremes. And this is done, BEFORE the explanation is posited, which serves to clutter the mind with a fucking cart full of emotion before the horse of rational reasoned query is even allowed to enter the picture.

Now to the skeptic of my point, you may be thinking: Wait a minute here Kyle! Gore showed us all those graphs of Carbon Dioxide increasing millionths of percentages over years and years! To which I would say: "Yes! Yes! Dear indoctrinated one! BUT! He has not shown us any connection between these two phenomenon that is conclusive, or scientific in linking them, he has ONLY shown us that the two events SEEM to run in tandem. He has not shown us AT ALL HOW one causes the other. Rather he has only shown us that the two events coexist simultaneously." 

So the manipulation is in first convincing the viewer that there unquestionably is a problem, to stoke the fires of human curiosity through emotive thinking, and to then when your mind aches to be fed a reason why this is happening… well lucky for you! Good old Al is right there coifed, primed, rehearsed, more than willing and ready to spoon feed you his explanation as though it's undeniable "truth." And now mind you that his point is not just, that CO2 is causing global warming. It is that WE are causing CO2, and THAT is causing Global warming. Or in the more common short hand: everything is fucked because we burn gasoline.


"Dude! I just cored the fuck out of that glacier! I hope it doesn't dramatically collapse now!"

One of the most obvious questions that should pop into the mind of anyone who isn't a complete vegetable, while watching this is; "How the hell do we know what CO2 values were thousands of years ago?" The answer from Gore is: via Antarctic Ice cores. And it's interesting, and I have to assume the science behind it is sound. I'm giving that one to Gore. High fives buddy! But the ONLY thing we can deduce from all this ice "corn-holing" is that both CO2 values, and temperatures AT ANTARTICA are "rising."

Even though I got a C in college statistics, even I immediately fucking wonder: Does this one origin of sample data equate to a representative sample FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING GLOBE?

Al Gore does not explain how it does.

All he bothers with is noting is his bullshit supposition that his congressional "clean air act" has led to effects that are now visible in the ice core. This my friends, is pure egoism at its finest hours.

I think for anyone to really critically examine this film, they have to have an understanding of the phenomena of correlation without causation. This is critical to comprehend. As it is the crux of Al Gore's argument, and for that matter the crux of, most Global Warming theorist's argument for an anthropomorphic cause.

"Correlation without causation" simply put is the notion that: just because two things are running in parallel with one another, does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other to run in tandem with it.

My favorite analogy of correlation without causation has to be that Slim Fast Shakes and Obesity:

Now imagine me saying the following in the voice of a shitty Al Gore impression:

It is almost exclusively obese people who drink Slim Fast shakes. Our data show that less than 1% of skinny people drink Slim Fast shakes. Obesity runs in an exact parallel with slim fast shake consumption.

Therefore consumption of Slim Fast shakes must lead to obesity. Now, given that obesity is a huge cause of death in America, anyone confronted with this data will find that it is a moral imperative that we restrict the sale of Slim Fast shakes to prevent obesity. As much as we all love Slim Fast shakes it's just an inconvenient truth that they kill people, just look at Anna Nicole Smith.


"CAUSALITY DEATH FRIDGE!"

That example is great because it is so clearly false. We all know Anna died from months and months of ingesting large quantities of ephedrine from Trim Spa pills!

Yet it is exactly upon this line of "deductive" reasoning that we find Al Gore operating for his main claims in An Inconvenient Truth. He shows CO2 running in a similar progression as global temperatures, and then jumps to the conclusion that CO2 must be causing the rise in temperatures. This quite simply is not good enough, let alone resembles anything that could be called scientific deduction.

To find out if there is actually a SCIENTIFIC correlation between two variables, you have to run a control sample. This is physically impossible given the Earth's enormous complexity, and our complete lack of an identical Earth that has a constant CO2 level, with which we can compare temperature changes to our own Earth over time. That is impossible. And so we cannot solely rely upon this parallel to draw such drastic conclusions as Al Gore is positing. TO DO THIS IS WILDY UNSCIENTIFIC. NOT WORK THAT SHOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF CONCENSUS, ESPECIALLY AMOUNG SO CALLED "SCIENTISTS.".

And yet Al Gore bullies us into thinking this is "scientific" again when he falls back to his childhood classmate's query about transcontinental drift as an example of how ridiculous it would be to think anything other than that these two lines are intimately related. And he sneers and arrogantly scoffs at the mere POSSIBILITY that just PERHAPS, these two lines do not "fit together" in a CAUSUAL sense. That is to say that just because they run in tandem does not imply one is causing the other. This is an infuriating example of correlation without causation and certainly UN-SCIENTIFIC THINKING. 

Here Gore begins the attacks against ANY opposition. Time and time again in the film we will see Al Gore attack opposition, instead of proving them wrong with the truthful ascertains of his position. He resorts to mere Ad Hominem attacks, rather than letting his evidence prove its forthrightness as it stands in the face of opposition. He takes the low road, and I for one say fuck Al Gore in his stupid smelly face for that.


9:13 PM - 12 Comments - 10 Kudos - Add Comment

Kyle’s Quick Movie Kapsule Revue: Sicko
Current mood: annoyed
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

Ah Michael Moore, I’ve said for a while that Mike is one of the best social critics out there when it comes to pointing out a problem in society. He does it in a very persuasive manner, and his films are concisely tight in their execution-type examination of what ever he sets his sights on. The thing is, his solutions, egad! the solutions are the sticking point, I strike issue with.

So here is what I realized while watching "Sicko." Mike hates explicit violence. That is what "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9-11" were essentially all about. Both of those films were damning convictions of explicit violence. And who could disagree, explicit violence is awful, it’s in your face wretchedness and that’s very hard to stomach, let alone defend.

It’s easy to condemn explicit violence.

What Mike loves, though, what "Sicko" is all about is condoning implicit violence. Implicit violence, is very difficult to identify. I think that’s what Mike loves, he loves how the violence is obfuscated, how it is carefully hidden. This of course is what makes implicit violence much more insidious than explicit violence. He clearly takes the stance that if you do not agree with implicit violence, you are a bad person. This is the main theme of "Sicko." Violence is good if it is sufficiently hidden. 

That is what is meant every time the word "Free" is used in "Sicko" just replace it with: "Violence is good if it is sufficiently hidden."

The word "Free" is not magical.
It is not a spell that can be cast to make everything alright.

Once uttered, it does not dissolve the violence behind socialized/nationalized medicine.

Because nothing is "Free" there is a cost behind every service, behind every pill, behind every building. Just because you don’t have doctors directly present a bill to patients does not mean that the service is free. Just because a pharmacist has a set "low" rate (or no rate for the income eligible) for every drug behind the counter, does not mean those drugs are now free. The costs are simply funded by taxes. This is obfuscation, Mike.

So what happens if people don’t pay their taxes? Well then they are asked to court. But what if people do not want to go to court? Well then men in black uniforms come knocking at their door to put them in shackles and take them to a cage called prison. But what if the people resist the men in black uniforms carrying shackles on their belts? If they physically refuse they will be punched, kicked, strangled, stunned, or pepper sprayed until they submit. If they resist, by using the same firearms that the black clad men more than willingly point at them, they will be shot. Shot with lethal force.

And so every sob story that is in "Sicko" Mike has a solution for, that solution is: kill people if they refuse to pay for it. Nothing is "free," Mike.

These kinds of solutions appeal to two kinds of people:

1) the completely uneducated.
2) people that have been educated (for at least 12 years) during their formative years by the government. Weird!

Just because this violence is hidden, does not mean it is right. I don’t care if it’s in Canada, France, Cuba, or the UK.

12:03 AM - 23 Comments - 10 Kudos - Add Comment

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

I LOVE Drew Carey!
Current mood: aroused
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

His free video show from reason magazine is great!
Even though it’s kinda minarchistic, it still get’s many of the right ideas across.
And it kind of reminds me of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! which I also love.
Enjoy!

12:19 PM - 3 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Thursday, March 27, 2008

You’ll come for the cranberries, but you’ll stay for the malaria!
Category: Life

Lifted from cracked.com:

By Adam Brown

Fear is our national pastime. As a society, we have a long history of getting whipped into a collective frenzy over threats to our health or children that are nearly (or completely) non-existent. No danger is too small or remote to be exaggerated and screamed from the headlines.

For example:

5.
Three Mile Island

On March 28, 1979, what should have been a minor plumbing problem somehow escalated into a reactor fuel meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station in Pennsylvania. Within five days, the Governor had ordered the evacuation of all children and pregnant women (fuck you, dad!) within a five-mile radius of the area. Since that time, the name Three Mile Island has been synonymous with nuclear disaster. Hooters even named one of their hottest (and most delicious) wing sauces after it!

But unlike other nuclear disasters, Chernobyl for example, which caused at least 4,000 eventual deaths, Three Mile Island was responsible for a whopping zero fatalities. In fact, there weren’t even any injuries. Later tests revealed that the level of radiation people were exposed to in the five-mile radius was equivalent to the amount of radiation a person is exposed to while flying on a commercial airliner. In other words, the danger was nil.

So why all the ruckus? Much like that restraining order Catherine Zeta-Jones slapped us with a few years back, we blame Michael Douglas for this.

Just 12 days prior to the incident at TMI, The China Syndrome premiered. In the film, Michael Douglas plays a television news reporter who surreptitiously films a nuclear power plant crew as a near meltdown is taking place. As luck would have it, the events depicted in the movie almost perfectly mirrored what occurred at TMI. With the movie stirring public debate about the safety of nuclear power, there was no way the incident at TMI occurring just days later would do anything less than scare the ever-loving shit out of people. And that’s exactly what it did.


"Hi, I’m a giant asshole."

In 1979, Three Mile Island killed fewer people than ...

Robot attacks. Ford factory worker Robert Williams was killed when a robot hit him in the head, thus outranking Three Mile Island’s death toll, 1-0.

 

4.
Artificial Sweeteners, Circa the ’60s

In the 1960s, cyclamates (salts of cyclamic acid) were the artificial sweetener of choice for health conscious consumers everywhere. Although initially only intended for use by the obese and diabetics, they quickly gained popularity among those who wanted to eat like the obese without becoming diabetics.

This all changed in 1969 when FDA scientist, Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, went on the NBC Nightly News to tell the world that baby chick embryos injected with cyclamates suffered from severe birth defects. And she had pictures of the deformed birds to back her claim up! When it comes to putting an entire nation off of non-caloric sweets, few things are as effective a picture of a grotesquely malformed bird. Here’s one we made ...

... maybe that’s a bad example, because that was kind of awesome. But you get the idea.

At any rate, there’s a reason the FDA likes its scientists to run the results of their wacky lab experiments past their peers before they take to national television to share them with the world. In this case, Dr. Verrett’s peers were quick to point out that, while the results of her experiment were troubling, most humans didn’t get their artificial sweeteners by way of in-the-womb injections and therefore may not be affected in the same way.

But when tests performed a few days later showed that cyclamates caused bladder cancer in 8 out of 240 rats when consumed in an also-real-world-applicable dosage equaling 350 cans of diet soda per day, the deal was sealed. Cyclamates were banned in America.

In the years since the ban, tests on cyclamates have continued but none of them have been able to duplicate the results of the 1969 tests. The World Health Organization along with several other research groups has gone so far as to publicly declare that the evidence shows no link between cyclamates and cancer. Nevertheless, subsequent appeals of the initial cyclamate ban have all been rejected and cyclamates are still unavailable in the United States.

But don’t lose too much sleep over it, our team of scientists have conducted some studies of their own and 4 out of 5 of them agree, even if cyclamates were available, most of us would still be lard asses anyway.

In 1969, Cyclamates killed fewer people than ...

... were killed by Moose attacks.

.. 

3.
The Cranberry Scare of 1959

When it comes to breaking bad news to people, timing is everything. For instance, if at all possible, you’d prefer that your girlfriend not tell you she’s leaving while she’s banging your best friend. In a similar vein, it may have not been the best timing ever when on November 9, 1959, just 15 days before Thanksgiving, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Arthur Fleming announced that a shipment of cranberries from Oregon was found to be contaminated with aminotriazole, a weed killer that had been shown to cause thyroid cancer in rats.

As if making the announcement just weeks ahead of the one day of the year when some people do actually eat cranberries wasn’t bad enough, Fleming leaned a little too heavily on the "Holy shit we’re all going to die!" technique when it came to getting information to the public. Even though tests of cranberries from several other states showed no signs of contamination, when asked how a housewife could be sure the berries she buys are safe, Fleming replied "To be on the safe side, she doesn’t buy. Also, he might as well have gone on to say, ’If you’ve eaten any cranberries in the last 24 hours, make your peace with the Lord.’

In a matter of days, grocery stores across the country were pulling products containing cranberries from their shelves.

Better safe than sorry, right? Well, there was something Fleming failed to mention. For a human to match the cancer causing aminotriazole dosage fed to the lab rats, they would have to consume 15,000 pounds of berries. Daily. For years. As these photos of a plate of cranberry sauce before and after a recent Thanksgiving celebration show, Americans don’t eat nearly that amount.

Officials familiar with these minor details grew increasingly wary of the damage that Fleming’s comments may have on the cranberry industry and began to distance themselves from the scare. After Presidential candidates Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy both ate cranberries at a campaign stop in Wisconsin, the nation slowly came to their collective senses. By Thanksgiving, cranberries were back on grocery store shelves and back to being universally ignored on Thanksgiving dinner tables nationwide.

In 1959, cranberries killed fewer people than ...

... were killed flying in a plane with Buddy Holly.

.. 

2.
Asbestos in New York City Public Schools

Few environmental hazards strike more fear in our terrified little hearts than asbestos. Tell someone they have asbestos in their house and you might as well tell them they have a chainsaw wielding serial killer in their house. Actually, given the exorbitant costs involved with removing asbestos from a house, most people would prefer the serial killer.

So when it was revealed in 1993 that an independent contractor hired by the New York City Board of Education to inspect schools for asbestos had failed to perform the inspections properly, nobody was surprised by Mayor David Dinkins decision to not allow kids to return to classes until proper inspections could be performed. Granted, the decision kept over one million kids out of school for two weeks, threw the plans of their working families into chaos, and panicked the shit out of countless parents who thought they had been sending their kids off to get cancer on a daily basis, but it had to be done to keep the kids safe, right?

So what’s the problem? For starters, the type of asbestos that was typically found in schools, including those in New York City, was not the monster-under-the-bed type that tends to kill people. No, when you absolutely, positively must kill every *** in the room, crocidolite or amosite is what you need. Chrysotile asbestos, the kind present in the NYC schools, on the other hand, is easily expelled from the lungs and therefore far less dangerous.

The risk of death was in the range of .009 deaths per million. And while you may say that any risk is too much, dammit, you should keep in mind that a child is a thousand times more likely to die playing high school football.

Also, in other schools, botched asbestos removal jobs had actually left the buildings with higher levels of asbestos in the air than if they’d done nothing. But why let that get in the way of a good panic?

In 1993, asbestos in New York schools killed Fewer People Than ...

... were killed in hot air balloon crashes.

.. 

1.
DDT

If you’re looking for another reason to hate that hippie friend of yours that won’t shut up about the plight of every plant, animal and insect in danger of extinction, DDT is a good place to start.

Widely considered the first major victory of the environmentalist movement, DDT was banned from use in most applications thanks to a series of insanely half-assed scientific experiments and a book about birds. That book, Silent Spring, was released in 1962 and argued that DDT was not only a carcinogen, but also damaging to wildlife and, especially, certain birds. The public, upon hearing about the possibility of having to live in a world without peregrine falcons and ospreys, did what it does best in situations like this--they lost their shit without a second thought.


The single most important bird on the planet.

Soon, pesticides were the cause du jour for environmentalists and average folks that believe whatever the hell they read, and DDT was banned in 1972. The problem was, the science quoted in the book was all kinds of faulty. One scientific study that purported to show that DDT exposure led to a higher incidence of leukemia in mice was later proven to be more than a little tainted. Turns out, the mice in the experiment were fed moldy food that contained aflatoxin, a known carcinogen. When the test was repeated minus the rancid food, the test results were exactly the same, except without all of the leukemia and stuff.

As for the birds, Audubon Society studies showed that 26 different kinds of birds actually increased in population during DDT’s heyday. In cases where bird populations did decline, it was revealed that in most cases the decline began either well before widespread use of DDT began or years after it was banned. Environmentalists dispute the findings, but on the other hand ... who gives a fuck about the damn birds? Especially considering ...

In 1972, DDT killed fewer people than ...

Fucking malaria.

See, what many people don’t know about DDT is that the person who discovered that it could be used as a pesticide actually won a Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because it was kind of effective in fighting malaria. When spraying of DDT stopped in Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka), malaria cases rose from 17 in 1963 to 2.5 goddamn million in 1969, an increase of approximately a bajillion fofillion percent. And to this day, the mosquito remains the deadliest killer Mother Nature has to offer, with a confirmed 2 million kills per year.

But, hey at least there’s a lot more ospreys around.

Currently listening :
Sound of Silver
By LCD Soundsystem
Release date: 20 March, 2007

12:23 PM - 15 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment


About  |  FAQ  |  Terms  |  Privacy  |  Safety Tips  |  Contact MySpace  |  Promote!  |  Advertise  |  MySpace Shop

©2003-2008 MySpace.com. All Rights Reserved.