I recently cleaned out some of my old hard drives and found something I wrote a while ago but never shared.  A little something to think about when things get you down, moonbats drive you nuts, or you are fed up with everything.  

A Simple Analysis of 20th Century Thought:

• Capitalism, he who dies owns the most toys wins.
• Hari Krishna, he who plays with the most toys wins.
• Catholicism, he who denies himself the most toys and little boys wins.
• Anglican, the boys were our toys first.
• Atheism, there is no toy or boy maker.
• Polytheism, there are many toy or boy makers.
• Evolutionism, the toys made themselves.
• Church of Christian Scientist, we are the toys.
• Communism, everyone gets the same number of toys and you are in big trouble if we catch you selling your toys or playing with them.
• B’hai, all your toys and are fine by us.
• Amish, toys with batteries are surely a sin.
• Protesting Moonbatism, war toys are evil.
• Good Ole Lefty, toys that are violent are to be rounded up and put into camps in order to become nonviolent toys.
• Taoism, the stuffed rabbit is as important as the dump truck.
• Mormonism, every boy can have as many toys as he wants.
• Voodoo, let me borrow that doll for a while.
• Hinduism, he who plays with plastic farm animals loses.
• Seventh Day Adventist, he who plays with toys on Saturday loses.
• Southern Baptist, if your toy is Disney product, you have a one-way ticket to hell.
• Jehovah’s Witness, he who sells the most toys door to door wins.
• Pentecostalism, he whose toys can speak wins.
• Existentialism, toys are a figment of your imagination.
• Confucianism, once a toy is dipped in the water, it is no longer dry.
• Non-Denominationalism, we don’t care where the toys come from lets just play with them.
• Agnosticism, it is not possible to know whether the toys make a bit of difference.
• Unitarian Universalism, we still have not decided if the toys exist, much less how, where, or who made them.

Isn’t that nice?

As I looked on, a master of blogitude.com was pulling my strings (the ever-changing logo), and I thought “some people share differently than others.” This thought of course sparked out of yet another wonderful conversation. Someone told me, “I don’t wanna read your blog if its not talking about your life.”  In response I say “Fine! Take my blog and shove it.” Maybe if these silly people would actually take the time to read what others had to say they might have a clue.

People like these, no matter how successful they may be, are missing something. Doctors call it “bedside manner;” Buddhists call it “compassion;” the lefty movement calls it “caring;” and a majority of people call it “taking a (pick any or a series of expletives of your choice) interest” in the person you are talking to.   After all, it would only be the right thing to do when you consider them a friend.

They obviously are a little too far into their own reality sometimes.  Although I am a strong support of the, “I reject your reality and insert my own,” movement, I can also see how that can be taken a little too far.

Hey, if they bother to take the time to read this, more power to them.  So I talk differently about what is going on in the world and don’t give specifics about how my life is going… So what? I try to make life interesting. Besides, it is sometimes very easy to get lost in the details.  So, I’ll just keep on keepin’ on…

Now it is quite simple to figure out what is going on in case of emergency by knowing a series of little codes. I remembered this while I was at one of my contracts as a “Code Blue”, warning was issued over the public address system. A code blue is a BOMB threat. I lost about two and half, if not three, hours of my day where I could have been doing something useful. Unfortunately, I had to wait anyway; I couldn’t leave without my equipment. 

To my surprise, the bomb was really just a hoax and did not go off and reduce my equipment and the building to mere rubble. Instead, the Chattanooga Bomb Squad destroyed the “object.”

I am glad I remembered the meaning since the a majority of the staff did not, though the codes are mentioned in the required the Universal Precautions Safety Course for school staff. Going back through the materials of the course myself, I feel the need to mention some of the other codes: White = Accident, Red = Fire, Black = Inclement Weather, Green = Hostage, Orange = Chemical Spill, ADAM = Missing Child, Brown = Shooting.

Looking at these codes I can’t help but think that for the most part these codes where put together to keep the general public from going into a panic. I can’t help but to think that a few of these are a little redundant. Couldn’t a shooting, fire, chemical spill also be an accident? I realize that the other modifier might weigh a little more, but wouldn’t it also be nice to know that Bob the hunter shot the clerk because the clerk was too stupid to realize a shell was in the shotgun Bob was “testing out,” or the building was about to burn down because little Johnny Pyro lit the trash on fire emptying the ashtray in the smokers lounge?

Hmm, fire, that brings up another good point: what do you call over the public address if there is a multiple chemical spill which combusts? Better yet what code do you call if someone doesn’t pay attention and throws empty chemical containers in a trash compactor and the containers combust? What then, why even bother with the codes since the meaning should be common knowledge. Why hide the truth? After all, with a little research you can find just about anything.

Today, on my way back to my office I happened to catch National Public Radio’s Evening Edition. The story was about a new web reference source in response to Wikipedia. Evidently there are a group of individuals who believe Wikipedia to be too liberal. I am not saying that this group of individuals is wrong, but they came to this conclusion based on the statistics of a poll by Wikipedia editors.

There are several bits of flawed logic with this idea. The assumption that the editors of Wikipedia aren’t human because as a straight set of data this poll would leave no room for human error or a lack of honesty. These facts are statistics. Statistics by nature can be used to sway one way or another. If not lawyers wouldn’t be so profitable. However, the major problem with consevapedia.com, is the misuse of the word conservative.

The main example can be shown by comparing the definitions of the word kangaroo on both sites: Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Okay, I am fine with either of them until I get to the Origins section of the Conservapedia definition. The first thing listed is a creationist theory explanation. That in itself was fishy enough for me to check the dictionary for the definition.

The Oxford dictionary (I would have used Merriam-Webster, but the link wouldn’t pull up) states that a conservative is “(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.” If this is the case then where does interjecting religious beliefs into the origin of a species come into play? A true conservative world should not include religion. Religion is much more defined either one way or another.

Conservapedia.com even goes on to say “A conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.” Where does this give them the right to inteject a secular religious viewpoint, much less stake a claim of moral virtue? If they are truly conservative should they not list the scientific information first?

With that in mind I would like to propose a new web address for this website: severelyscrewypedia.com