Brain Rot

GOLD COAST - Research reveals there is an epidemic of Brain Rot sweeping the civilized western world, and only a few individuals are immune to its contagious effects.

According to Life Scientist Michael Ross, a noted researcher in the field, what makes this affliction so bad is its insidious nature. "You don't even know you're being effected by it" he said. "It slowly eats away your mind. Bit by bit. Until there is no distinguishable trace of the individual left."

Symptoms you are beginning to be effected include, standing around the water cooler at work talking about what happened on the latest "reality" TV show, wondering what will happen next to Bo and Hope on Days of Our Lives, knowing the start times of Bold and The Beautiful, choosing to watch Jerry Springer and Jenny Jones on purpose, thinking Oprah is a demi-god, being able to repeat ads verbatim, and asking people to be quiet while "your show" is on.

"These shows have no truly redeeming qualities. Almost none of them can teach you anything. And when you have finished watching them, you don't come away a more knowledgeable or better person." scientist Ross adds.

Is there a cure? Can we end Brain Rot and regain our abilities to think independently? Mr. Ross, the eminent scientist whose research led to the discovery of Brain Rot, thinks so, "It's real simple. Turn off the box. Even when your favorite show is on, and more specifically, precisely when your show is on. Then grab a "how to" book - not a fiction book. It might be a book on how to plant petunias, or how to catch flies, or whatever. It needs to be a "how to" book on something you DO - not a self-improvement how-to book designed to make you a better person spiritually. And if no such book is at hand, and the library is not an option, then grab a dictionary and slowly go through it looking for words you don't know - it's amazing what you find. And if that is not an option, then go to a park and just sit in silence - as much silence as our modern world allows - and talk to no-one. Or sit down and write an entry in your blog - and if you don't have a blog, start one. - The act of writing out your thoughts actually causes you to begin to think."

The whole purpose of doing this, says Mr Ross, is to get the brain back in operational mode so it can start thinking again. Otherwise, he warns, we will all end up like mindless automaton droids.

Dick The Hypocrite

Years ago a young entrepreneur had an idea. He gathered products from far and wide (locally and overseas) and opened his store. To help get people into his store he ran ads. But not normal ads. His ads were upside-down.

One thing led to another. His store prospered enabling him to open more stores. Until he had stores right across the nation.

His name is Dick Smith and he owned the Dick Smith Electronics stores.

Recently, I called the phone number in a Tandy catalog (Tandy is owned by Radio Shack - an American company). The message I got thanked me for calling the Dick Smith Information Line.

I chucked because I had already noticed how Tandy and Dick Smith catalogs came out within days of each other, and they each had the same products for the same prices. Obviously they are owned by the same company.

Anyway. Dick Smith has ventured into the food market. And I consider it a smart move because food stuffs are consumed and the buying public needs to buy more - thus spending more money more often. I might only buy one transistor but will repeatedly buy packets of choc chip cookies, for example.

But now that Dick has gone into food he has become a hypocrite. He wants legislation passed to force companies to say which country owns the brand. For instance: The brand "Billy Tea" would have to have "English Owned" on the label. The chocolate biscuit "Tim Tam" would have to have "American Owned" on the label. He wants this because... it will stop our money going overseas, will keep it in Australia and that will mean more jobs for Australians. Of course, if it will also increase sales of his "Australian Owned" products then I suppose that will just be a coincidental bonus, right Dick?

What makes him so hypocritical is that hardly anything he stocked in his Dick Smith stores was "made in Australia." Almost all of it came from overseas.

When you realize this, you immediately see he has no compunction for keeping money or jobs in Australia. All he cares about is increasing sales of HIS products on supermarket shelves. If he can get some free publicity by whining about the big bad overseas companies who own the products we all know and love, and that leads to a few extra sales for him, then his "let's keep Australia's money in Australia so it can help create Australian jobs" spiel was worth it. Complete bullshit, but worth it.

As an entrepreneur - a true entrepreneur - he knows the "keep jobs within Australia" thing doesn't ring true. And that increasing a company's profits, leads to expansion and THAT is what creates jobs. He knows that for every job created overseas, two jobs are created locally as a by-product of increased profits leading to expansion. He knows this to be true because it is the very same formula HE used to get rich.

If he had his way, he would see a company like Kraft lose sales - thus putting his precious Australian workers out of work - so he could sell a few more of his product. And it would happen because even though Kraft might be "owned" by an overseas company, it doesn't import all the goods it sells here - many are made within Australia using Australian workers.

He is also ignoring the fact that overseas money comes into the country for these companies. So someone else is taking risks and sending money into Australia. Also bringing in their business acumen to help grow the company which would leads to even more jobs.

Of course, he cannot admit any of this economic truth because it would reveal he has a hidden agenda. An agenda which is not as caring as he wants us to believe. An agenda which is only about HIM making more money.

He wants us to boycott products owned by overseas companies - but - as far as I am concerned, his misleading hypocritical tactics suggest it is HIS products we should boycott.

Lifting Latham

AUSTRALIA - Opposition leader Mark Latham has committed another blunder, proving yet again how unfit he is to hold the highest office in the land.

In what amounts to a great deal of stupidness, he has lifted portions of former United States President Bill Clinton's state of the union address, and used them in his own policy speech.

He denies the plagiarism, of course. And then tried to turn the spotlight off his silly blunder by pointing out that Prime Minister Howard used a single sentence from a book when he was describing Iraq, and that he failed to acknowledge the source of that sentence. As if a single sentence used to describe a regime can be compared to a policy speech which is a rip-off of a speech from another leader in another country.

What Latham failed to realize is, by pointing out what Howard did, he revealed that he had already researched it to find out about it so he could use it when his own plagiarism was revealed. Proving that his pathetic excuse of the policies and wording being the same was just a coincidence, is a bold faced lie. Because if he hadn't realized his speech was such a rip-off of Bill Clinton's, why then did he do research to find something to use to divert attention away from his rip-off when it was discovered?

In other silliness from Latham, he is now trying to win votes by playing the "Let's make Australia a republic" card. From "bring the troops home" to "let's become a republic" it is quite evident Latham will say anything if he thinks it can win him some votes. And the public are also recognizing his flippant ways. With some people even vowing to move to another country if he is elected!

Political experts say it should be quite entertaining to see what other items he comes up with over the coming weeks and months in an effort to find out what he can use as a platform to base his campaign on.

The Menace Of The Underman

In Kosovo recently, a UN guy went nuts and shot the heck out of his fellow UN guys. Instant reaction is, "chalk another piece of insanity up to yet another Muslim," "just your typical Muslim thing," "can't they live in peace?" and so on.

Something I have noticed coming out of the media:

Some terrorists are called terrorists.
Some terrorists are called militants.
Some terrorists are called insurgents.
Some terrorists are called resistance fighters.
Some terrorists are called liberation fighters.
Some terrorists are called freedom fighters.
Some terrorists are called rebels.

And it all depends on WHO the terrorists attack at the time.

Also, many have the added labels of "Muslim" and/or "Extremist." As in "Muslim Terrorists," Or "The extremist militant group XXX". And as with the "labels" just mentioned, whether the additional bit is added or not depends on WHO is being attacked.

What I'd like to know is: "Why have the media NEVER called the IRA "Christian Terrorists"?

In WWII the bane of Hitler's supply line was The French Resistance. They would do "hit and run" attacks on convey lines. Basically trying to make life hell for the German troops.

What is the difference between what the French resistance was doing over 50 years ago, and what the "insurgents" are doing in Iraq today?

What is so different between people of other nationalities joining the French resistance in WWII and "fighters" from Iran, Syria and other nations joining the resistance in Iraq today?

I am not condoning it. Merely pointing out that is essentially the same. A small group of people "resisting" the new controlling force, in the hopes of eventually overthrowing it so the old ruling style can be re-implemented. (A power struggle.) With a variation in methods.

We can ask why the Iraqi people don't rise up against the "insurgents". And could likewise have asked why the French people didn't rise up against the French resistance to curry favor from the Germans.

And we can wonder why the French people didn't all join the French resistance, as we can wonder that if the Iraqis don't like us as much as the leftist media would have us believe, why they don't join the "insurgents" in the fight to get rid of us.

The fact is, people just don't want to get involved. They want to be left alone to go about their business. They are cynical of any governing body in the midst of military turmoil while fighting goes on outside their front door - so trust no one. And prefer to just get by, and to get by unnoticed if possible. (The worst thing that would happen is to pick a side, and that side end up losing!)

Whether someone is a terrorist, insurgent, resistance fighter or whatnot, all depends on your point of view. Which side of the fight you are on.

To us good guys, the French fighters were resistance fighters. To the Germans they were insurgents and terrorists.

In Kosovo we called the rebels a Liberation Army. From Yugoslavia's point of view, they were terrorists trying to overthrow the governing body. And they kept up their campaign until outside help arrived to tip the balance in their favor.

In Iraq, those same types are also continuing their campaign in the hopes it will draw others into the fight and tip the balance in their favor.

The thing to realize with these types is (and especially ones who want to halt progress which leads to freedom), civilization is NOT for them. They are what is known as UNDERMEN.

Civilization is a burden and they are revolting against it. It's not personal with them, as such. They don't hate America, or the West per se - even if the U.S. and the West do feel the brunt of their angst. What they hate is civilization. So any country which embodies the civilization they hate, will bear the brunt of their hatred... will become the focal point of their hatred. Any country which is diametrically opposed to their anti-civilization ways will also feel their wrath.

And anyone who likewise hates civilization as they do, becomes an ally.

These undermen will use any tool to help achieve their goals. If that tool is doing something in the name of religion, then so be it. If it is to convince someone of a certain religion to perform a certain task, then so be it. The undermen don't believe in religion, they just use it as a tool to help achieve a collapse of civilization.

People unlike them, mean nothing to them.

Our big mistake is to project our sensibilities onto these people. We might be aghast at "Muslims" blowing up "Fellow Muslims" and wonder why other "Muslims" don't speak out in outrage. But that is how WE would react. We would be outraged. We would speak out. But we haven't been repressed for decades under brutal dictatorships where any outspoken words could result in your death. Where a simple "rally" will see you thrown in jail.

Because most civilized people follow some brand of Judaic/Christian philosophy/religion, we tend to project our ways of thinking onto them and end up viewing it as an Islam vs Christianity thing. (Just as the undermen want it.)

Undermen are not religious. They do not believe in a higher power of any kind. They don't care for anyone. And they hate civilization. We thus cannot expect them to care about blowing up people who WE would label as the same kind/race/religion as them.

We can only win this war by fully understanding the enemy is not a group of religious fanatics who want to impose their religion on everyone. The enemy is a group of people - sometimes extremely intelligent while feeling disenfranchised - who hate civilization and are revolting against it and want to replace it with what they can "handle" - with them at the top, of course, to make sure it stays that way.

This "Revolt Against Civilization" is an event which has repeatedly played out throughout our human history. Countless times advanced civilizations have collapsed due to the weight of these undermen (the Russian Revolution last century being a good example). As their numbers became more, the props we placed to maintain the civilization (police, armies, etc.) eventually break under the strain. The undermen revolt. Bad replaces good. Intelligence is a threat so is removed.

Think of civilization like an upside-down pyramid with the few productive and civilized members of society at the bottom (the pointy bit) supporting the multitude and unproductive undermen class at the top, with the whole structure being supported and balanced by beams off to each side (the beams are the police, etc.).

The underman incites others (useful idiots) to do his bidding. Waging a war on those who do his bidding is next to useless. If we are to win, we MUST - without any exception for political correctness and evolved sensibilities - take out the undermen. These undermen are the leaders. Follow Israel's lead. Screw what the rest of the world think. The rest of the world are dorks who will let the underman take over only realizing the truth of the threat when it is too late. We must go in guns a blaze'n and take the leaders out. Anything else is a waste of time. (Wars of all kinds are won and lost only when leaders fall - because there are always grunts and useful idiots at the ready to do what they are told. This is a fundamental of combat.)

Sure it is nice Iraq may get some freedom. And even Iran might feel the strain and do likewise. And we may even see a miracle of miracles and witness Saudi Arabia follow suit (highly unlikely but you ever know). But none of that will get rid of the menace of the underman. His presence needs to be removed from the planet. Only then will we have a semblance of peace. And I say a semblance because you can never fully get rid of the underman - there will always be others to take his place. But you can gain a bit of a respite until his numbers build back up again and he tries to collapse society one more time, as he has done throughout history.

Point, Point, You're Dead

A funny thing happened today. And it shines an even brighter light on what happened yesterday.

Today, a man was arrested for "attempted assault" on our leader, Prime Minister John Howard.

Was PM Howard hurt? No. But the intention of the man, led to his arrest.

Yesterday, some Aboriginals "pointed the bone" at PM Howard. They believe, pointing the bone will bring harm (even death) to the person they pointed the bone at. So as far as they are concerned, the curse they have thrown will result in Howard's demise.

Isn't this the same as assault - or even attempted murder?

Think about it. If I "intend" to do you harm and come at you with a knife, I will get done for attempted assault even if I don't touch you. If I "intend" to do you harm and come at you with a gun, I will also get done for attempted assault - maybe even attempted murder seeing it is a gun - even if I don't touch you.

Why should someone who believes throwing a curse will kill you, and whose curse-throwing thus dictates they intend harm on you, not be arrested for attempted assault, or even attempted murder? After all, the only difference is the weapon used.

To us people with a brain, pointing a bone at someone is silly and laughable as a method of attack - BUT - to the person using that method of attack, it is not silly. It is entirely legitimate. So if the person believes their actions will result in the harm/death of another person, why isn't it attempted assault?

Just because their actions don't result in any harm actually coming to the person - as the episode today shows - doesn't excuse the person.

Those Aboriginals should be tracked down and likewise arrested for attempted assault. It's not like they can deny it - they did it on national TV (and international TV as it also aired on Fox News in the U.S.).

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Hire A Casual

The Australian Labor Party wants to plunge Australia into a depression and control all business.

Big claim?

Sure. But it's what will happen if they get elected later this year, if their recently released plans come into effect.

Their plans revolve around Australia's 2.2 million casual workers.

In a nutshell, Labor wants to create legislation that:

1. Enables the casual worker to ask to be put on as a permanent. "Labor will assist regular, long-term casuals who want to request conversion to permanent employment. We will introduce legislation to support the inclusion of such provisions in awards and agreements..."

2. Allow the employer to reject request if unreasonable - but - employer doesn't decide if it is unreasonable! "Employers can refuse the request if it is unreasonable for their business... In determining reasonableness, regard will be had for workplace realities such as the size and nature of the business - recognizing the greater capacity of larger businesses than small businesses to accommodate such requests."

3. Remove all private employer/employee contracts. (AWA - Australian Workplace Agreement) "Labor will abolish legislated individual contracts - Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)"

4. Replace the AWAs with common law agreements and union agreements. "but employees will be able to negotiate individual common law agreements and collective union and non-union and agreements."

5. Thus allowing unions to do the negotiating on behalf of an individual. "Labor will restore the right of all working Australians to bargain collectively, by restoring the right of employees to be represented be a union in collective bargaining if they so choose."

6. Remove the "right of refusal" of the employer to negotiate with a union! "...we will remove the present capacity of employers to refuse to negotiate with the union."

7. Re-instate the wide ranging powers of the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) to enforce their new laws and oversee disputes created by the above 6 points. "Labor will re-empower the independent umpire - the Australian Industrial Relations Commission - to adjudicate on intractable disputes when the parties cannot resolve them."

Their full proposal can be read on their website here.

So what does it all mean?

It means to the employers... your casual staff member can ask to be made permanent. If you say "no", they can take you to the IRC and you will be forced to make them permanent. If you say "Yes" but want to negotiate privately, they can have a union representative do the negotiating for them and you cannot refuse that. If you do, off to the IRC. Effectively removing your say as an employer over how you hire/fire your staff.

Why is this Labor Party proposal bad?

Because employers don't want to be forced into a position whereby they have no power over their own hiring, firing and staff needs. So when a casual staff member gets close to being employed for the length of time that entitles them to ask for permanent work, the employer will get rid of them. Labor's proposal will see an INCREASE in staff turnover like never before.

In their proposal they talk about the high rate of casual staff and try to blame this on the current government. It's not the current government that created the high casual workforce conditions. The Labor Party created the high casual workforce conditions when they introduced their "Unfair Dismissal" policy. A policy which effectively prevented an employer from firing anyone. And which saw employers being taken to court if the employee thought they had been unfairly dismissed.

Here's the kind of thing that has happened under the Unfair Dismissal law: A "detailer" at a new-car car yard, hopped into the just serviced car, floored the accelerator spinning the wheels, did a couple of circuits around the building and workshop, entered the workshop area again, lost control of the car and smashed it into a workbench - squashing a fellow employee between the car and the workbench, resulting in the employee going to hospital to fix his crushed legs and undergo six months of rehabilitation.

The employer rightly dismissed the reckless employee, who subsequently took them to court for unfair dismissal... and WON $30,000 compensation!?

The fact the employee destroyed another person's property (car) didn't matter. The fact the employee destroyed company property didn't matter. The fact the employee injured another employee and put that employee in hospital didn't matter. Nor did it matter that the conditions of employment stated instant dismissal for property damage. All that mattered was that the employee had not been given a warning after the incident telling them it was wrong to do that. Without that warning, the dismissal was deemed unfair. What was determined should have happened was: employee causes damage as happened, is given warning that if it happens again they are out, and if it happened again THEN it would be okay to dismiss them.

It is this kind of lack-of-common-sense bullshit which has run rampant since the introduction of the Unfair Dismissal law. And why employers have opted to employ casual staff only.

The Labor Party proposal would see employers being forced to put their casual staff onto permanent status. And once permanent, those staff would be protected by the unfair dismissal law. Thus negating the very reason the employer has hired casuals in the first place.

This will result in employers getting rid of long term casuals - to avoid being forced to make them permanent and thus being put in a position which will prevent them from dismissing them. The "problem" of many casuals in the workforce will be worsened by their policy.

It could also result in some businesses staying small - to avoid employing casuals in the first place in case they can never get rid of them. As well as result in businesses only employing subcontractors or using staff from "temp" agencies.

Labor cites a casual employee's difficulty to get a home loan as one reason for their policy, "As a result they are considered a poor credit risk and find it very difficult to get home loans and other bank loans."

Fact is, the housing and banking sectors are reporting 70% home ownership - a percentage which has been fairly consistent for some forty odd years within Australia. So obviously the "increase" in people moving to casual employment has NOT effected the rate of home ownership. So their reasoning is wrong.

If this home ownership number changes, it is due to interest rate changes and not the type of employment people undertake.

Labor's proposal will also force increased costs onto businesses. With casuals the pay rate is higher - something the casuals enjoy (and which can see a casual make a full-time wage for less work and while getting a three day weekend every week). But with permanents, the employer will have to provide sick leave, holiday pay, and superannuation contributions. Many businesses hire casuals because they cannot afford all these extra monies. They will either be forced into lower profits and ultimately closure if forced to put their staff onto permanent status - or - they will get rid of staff nearing the time when they can ask to be made permanent, which would force the employer to put them on thanks to the legislation.

Labor will also legislate so women who have children can decide not to work full time anymore and to only be part time - regardless of how this effects the employer. "Labor will assist parents wishing to return to work after parental leave on a part-time basis, by supporting measures in awards that facilitate such requests...This will enable the pursuit through awards and agreements of a right of parents to request a return to work on a part-time basis."

With the protection of unfair dismissal, the employer is thus forced to accept this and have an employee who only turns up part time. If the employer wants to maintain the same level of production they will now have to put on another part-timer, or casual who could force them into making them permanent at some point. To avoid this headache the employer can cut back production instead - making it impossible for the "mother" to even go back to full-time later because production doesn't warrant it.

With nothing to say about the employers "right" to have a reliable full-time staff member, and not be forced to spend more time and money hiring and training other people to fill a position just because someone only wants to go "part-time".

Labor claims their proposals are Fair and Flexible when in reality Labor's proposals are NOT fair, NOT flexible in any way, and will create an even more un-secure workforce and higher staff turnovers.

It is only because of the flexibility of Australia's casual workforce that the economy has weathered the storm so well and we have seen such a housing boom - which filters back through the rest of the economy.

What Labor is proposing is a nail in the coffin of the Australian economy and is another small step closer to their socialist ideal - total control of all business.

I can see there might be some objection to what I have outlined as the outcome of Labor's proposal. So let me give you a case study of a real company that uses casuals...

The company is called "Clean Event" and they take care of the cleaning of sporting arenas and stadiums.

As a casual employee, you will work before the game (preparing the stadium for the crowd), during the game (emptying trash cans, picking up trash and keeping toilets clean), and after the game (cleaning the stadium from the trash, cleaning toilets, etc.). And you might be asked to do this on two stadiums within a city on the same week.

For your casual hourly rate you will earn $18.96 an hour! And only doing 25 hours a week (say Friday, Saturday and Sunday) will see you earn $474 a week ($24,648 a year) and have four days off per week. You will earn full-time money for only working half a week. It will be like having six months off each year.

Labor's proposal would see you become permanent. Your hourly rate will drop to $12 an hour (or even less, depending on which "award" the company opts to follow) but you will get sick leave (as if you needed any more time off than the four days a week you were getting) and holiday time and pay. To earn the same amount of money you had been earning, you will now have to work 39.5 hours instead of 25. And will have to do so over the standard five day work week. As the staff member you will be working more and getting less time off, for the same result. Your only plus is, if you don't go to work because you are sick you will still get paid.

A company like Clean Event cannot put on their casuals to permanents. What if there is only one stadium that week instead of two? What if the stadium is not used for three or four months because the "season" of that sport has ended? Tough luck to them. They will still have to pay their now-permanent staff even though they have no revenue coming in. (They, of course, will not do so, and will get rid of their formerly-loyal casuals who are close to going permanent.)

And this is what Labor calls fair and flexible.

Granted, not all companies are like Clean Event. But the same principles apply. Workers will have to work longer hours for the same money. Reducing their own flexibility and time with family.

Think of a restaurant. Or a cleaning business. Both of whose client numbers and profits can rise and fall with the state of the economy - as can any business'. Any downturn would see them put out of business while they try to pay wages of permanent staff they have no work for. And Labor wants to somehow still enable those staff to get paid after their plan leads to business' closure, "Labor's plan to guarantee the payment of 100 per cent of employee entitlements in the event of a corporate insolvency".

The only people their proposal is fair for are them, because they get more control. As you can see, what Labor is proposing is a nail in the coffin of the Australian economy and is another small step closer to their socialist ideal - total control of all business.

Ready, S.E.T.I., Go. But Why?

The "Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence" (SETI) listens in on the quietest frequency range there is. Their logic is, other intelligent species would know this was the most quiet frequency range and if they sent a message it would most likely be in the quiet range - to avoid any chance of it not being heard or picked up.

Does SETI likewise send a message out along this frequency range?

Of course not. That would be a waste of time. Because of the distances of space, by the time a message was sent and a reply received by us, it could take hundreds of years. And it is not practical to communicate in such a fashion.

What, pray tell, thus makes SETI think that the other intelligent beings would send a message when faced with the same impracticality of it? Following their own reasoning, we could have a universe full of intelligent life-forms, all of which are nestled snuggly in their listening posts, listening for communications that no-one is sending because its not practical.

Projecting other thoughts onto E.T., if I was sufficiently intelligent and only wanted to communicate with likewise beings, I would send a message which required likewise intelligence to receive. Thus, I would send the message somewhere within the noisy range. A sufficiently intelligent species should be able to pick up my message from amongst the noise.

Think of the movie Star Trek First Contact. The Vulcans only made contact after they picked up the signature of the warp drive ship. In other words, THEY made contact only after it was evident we were sufficiently advanced.

We also have another oddity about the SETI thing. Frequencies we used to broadcast on in the 1920s, are not broadcast on today or even listened to. So E.T.s could have picked up our early radio broadcasts and sent back a message. But because no-one is listening to that frequency anymore, their message has gone unheard.

What SETI does in six months of active searching is the equivalent of going to the beach, obtaining one small teaspoon full of sand and searching some of it for life. With that kind of searching, it's no wonder nothing has been found.

And when combined with their "listen only" logic, it's unlikely anything will be found.

So SETI has made rules under which it operates that are so restrictive, if anything is ever picked up it will be a fluke. They can perpetuate their mission and continue to drain money out of their supporters - without ever showing any results.

And what if they do pick something up? Boy oh boy, the funding will pour in to help them listen more, or decipher the snow-like hissing noise which was concluded to be a transmission. SETI will thus self-perpetuate without producing anything of value to us. More received messages will require more funding so we can find more messages. And while we search, we need funds even if we find nothing.

If SETI finds something, how will life on Earth change?

Those who "just knew" will be smug telling everyone how they always knew there was life other than Earth. But it won't lower their mortgage payments or reduce the price of fruit and vegetables. For the normal person, life won't change.

Those who never thought there was ET life, will find justification that the received signal is not from an intelligent source. Even if such justification is far fetched.

In short, those who believe in the existence of ETs always will. Those who don't always won't. And no amount of evidence either way will sway their opinions. Life will continue on as if nothing has happened.

The receiving of a signal won't usher in world peace. Won't free the world of poverty or dictators. Won't remove the divide between socialist and capitalist. Communication with them will be impractical so no message will be sent back by way of reply, and no "exchange of ideas" will take place. Thus, nothing will change.

If nothing will change, and there is no direct or long term benefit from SETI's actions, SETI doesn't really have a beneficial purpose, and no need for existing. Unless you call the curiosity-factor a need with a benefit.

Amazon's Reply Spin

Amazon sent a reply to my letter from the other day. Here it is followed by some comments...

Thank you for writing to Amazon.com with your concern.

Let me assure you, Amazon.com does not endorse this book. Simply because we sell a title does not mean we agree with the ideas it contains.

If you will look at our site, you will see that we have posted a review of the book by one of our editors which is highly critical of the ideas expressed in Mr. Riegel's book. Please know that, contrary to rumors that have been circulating around the Internet, this book is not a "how-to" manual for molesting children.

We believe that people have the right to choose their own reading material. Our goal is to support freedom of expression and provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any title they might be seeking. That selection includes some titles which most people, including employees of Amazon.com, may find distasteful or otherwise objectionable. However, Amazon.com believes it is censorship to make a publication unavailable to our customers because we believe its message to be
repugnant.

While we do not censor items from our web site, I wanted to reassure you that Amazon.com does not promote these kinds of titles.

We value all feedback from our customers, and I thank you again for taking the time to send us your comments about this issue.

Best regards,

Amit Pandita
Amazon.com Customer Service
http://www.amazon.com

There are some flawed logic statements within their reply...

"Amazon.com does not endorse this book."

The fact they sell it implies endorsement, for you do not sell that which you do not endorse.

"Simply because we sell a title does not mean we agree with the ideas it contains."

Fine. There is nothing wrong with this as it is. But it is not a fair argument to use when talking about a book which encourages child molesting. Otherwise the same argument could be used for any number of things... simply because we sell illegal drugs doesn't mean we agree with using them; simply because we sell alcohol to minors doesn't mean we agree with drinking; and so on. It is a weak argument.

"...you will see that we have posted a review of the book by one of our editors which is highly critical of the ideas expressed in Mr. Riegel's book"

Oh. This is supposed to make me feel better? One of their editors is critical of a book which say men having sex with boys (children) is ok. And that criticism makes selling the book a-okay?

This too is a weak argument. Oh sure, we don't think taking drugs is good and we don't condone it or anything, we just sell the drugs.

Then we get into Amazon's masking of the issue. Masking it within certain rights...

"We believe that people have the right to choose their own reading material."

No-one is suggesting to take this right away. It has nothing to do with Amazon's stocking of the Work.

"Our goal is to support freedom of expression and provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any title they might be seeking."

No-one is suggesting that freedom of expression be removed either. That was never the issue with the Work. This is Amazon's attempt at trying to hide their actions within the boundaries of rights.

"That selection includes some titles which most people, including employees of Amazon.com, may find distasteful or otherwise objectionable."

This point is likewise not being argued against. After all, cat lovers would fine books on the wonders of dog ownership to be objectionable. But we aren't talking about such titles. We are talking about a book which tries to legitimise molesting children. THAT should be objectionable to everyone.

"However, Amazon.com believes it is censorship to make a publication unavailable to our customers because we believe its message to be repugnant."

Here is where Amazon gets real nit-picky. Amazon is NOT the government. They are a company. So any Works they do or do not stock are NOT censorship. Using their argument would see toy stores selling hardcore pornography under the guise of "we don't believe in censorship."

"While we do not censor items from our web site, I wanted to reassure you that Amazon.com does not promote these kinds of titles."

The fact that Amazon sells the title automatically means they promote it. As stated previously, that argument is weak and, if applied across the board, would see the most vile acts being conducted under the argument of "not promoting it." As in, we don't censor pornographic films or promote them, we just sell them. Obviously, to any normal person, if you sell an item you are, by association, condoning it.

I find their reasons for selling this book to be rather weak. And it shows they will sell anything - even stuff that tries to make right, the illegal and morally wrong act of molesting children - as long as it can make them a buck or two.

Put yourself in the shoes of any respectable author. Would you want a store who sells your book to also sell books which promote child molesting? (I wouldn't.)

The issue is not one of infringing upon anyone's right of freedom of expression. These sick muthas can have all the freedom to express their sickness all they like. And they can print it too. No one is trying to prevent them from doing anything. The issue in question is Amazon's stocking of the Work. And Amazon's reply skirts that issue with Spin.

I've already removed all Amazon links from this website and have placed Amazon on my personal boycott list.

Liberal Mass Media Mourns As We Strike Another Bad Guy Off The List

WORLD WIDE - Today, the liberal elite mass media mourned the loss of another one of their heroes, the new HAMAS (Homicidal And Moronic Angry Splodeydopes) leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi.

Following the deadly accurate missile attack launched by the highly-skilled and fierce Israeli defense force, the liberal elite media in an effort to downplay the enemy of our western way of life, called HAMAS a "militant group" instead of what they really are, a TERRORIST group.

And in what can only be thought of as "bloody typical", UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has condemned the attack.

Even though no-one recalls Kofi condemning the attack on the World Trade Center back on September 11, 2001, and it being a couple of days before he said anything on that horrifying, unjustified attack, with this he is condemning it within hours after it happened.

Kofi called on the Israeli government to "immediately end" the practice of "extrajudicial killings," though he has never called on HAMAS to "immediately end" its attacks. And in what can only be described as the epitome of hypocrisy and arrogance, he said such killings "are violations of international law."

As with his lack of outrage at the 9/11 attacks, no-one can ever recall Mr Kofi condemning any suicide bombings carried out by the terrorist group HAMAS - even when those attacks blow up school buses full of innocent children just trying to get an education.

Insiders say this is just another example of the depravity of the UN and its support of terrorism around the globe.

The Dangers Of Getting An MBA Or Any Degree

The reasons why an MBA, or any degree, may be bad for you include:

1. It keeps you within the socialist confines of the university environment longer than is healthy. Fact is, you cannot be a socialist and an entrepreneur at the same time. The two are anathema to each other.

An entrepreneur is about being productive, creating values and making money.

A socialist is about taking money from value producers and giving to unproductive people.

They have different cores which are incompatible. Any socialist who tries to be in business will sabotage their own effort because being successful goes against their fundamental core. And if they are successful, then they weren't really a socialist in the first place and were just lying about it - even if they didn't know they were lying.

Subjecting yourself to such a socialist environment for years is not good for your wealth. The influence can be overcome. But why put yourself in jeopardy?

2. It costs you money. By the time you come out with your MBA or other degree, you will owe many thousands of dollars. This debt will need to be paid back with after tax dollars. And starting life in debt is the worst way to start.

Your parents will pay? Lovely. They work all their life and now you expect them to fund you? Just one small step, which leads to bigger steps, along the "mom and dad will save us with their money" road. Financial outpatient care. Also bad for your wealth. Does not teach you to be financially responsible.

3. You will be qualified to work for someone else. If that is all you want to do, then fine, go to university and get your degree, pay off your student loan debt over many years, and continue being a sheep. But if you have designs on NOT working for someone else, then avoid uni like the plague. The time and money spent at uni would be Better spent in entrepreneurial pursuits.

Think about it: Four years and maybe $40,000 ($10,000 a year). Do you think you could have a nice little business going after four years and $40,000 invested?

4. You will be removing yourself from income streams for many years. This can set you back decades. Let me show you...

Person A: Does NOT go to university and gets a job instead earning $25,000 a year.

Person B: Does go to university and takes 4 years to get a degree.

By the time Person B has graduated, Person A has earned $100,000 in income.

If Person B's degree means they can get a $30,000 a year job, they are making $5,000 a year more than Person A.

If their incomes never change, then it will take Person B 20 years, making $5,000 a year more, to make up for the $100,000 they didn't earn while they were at university.

20 Years!

After 20 years, Person A and Person B will have earned the same amount of money in total. It is at this point Person B will start to pull ahead.

If we now apply Ben and Arthur Invest, we see that Person A, who had started investing $2,000 a year from the beginning and who did so for a short number of years, can NEVER be caught up by Person B investing $2,000 for the rest of his working life.

5. Your only backup will be MBA related and that doesn't mean you will get an MBA related job as a backup if you need it.

We all know the stories of people who get degrees - even advanced ones - and end up working behind the make-up counter in department stores because they can't get a job with their degree. And these are the Majority, not the minority. It is only after years of study that they discover their degree didn't mean as much as they thought it did.

If you want a backup, it is prudent to get one that doesn't take four years to get and which you wouldn't be able to use as a backup many years later anyway - because any employer would be looking for a person with the latest degree and not an old outdated degree.

If you are willing - and that is a big IF - there is Always money to be made without a degree. And money to be made FAST. Same day fast. It might not be glam - but who are you trying to impress? Other academic snobs? Other sheeple?

You can pull MBA examples out of the air and show how they are earning six figures, while ignoring all the MBAs who aren't earning six figures and who are working in menial jobs. And that'd be selective exampling.

Likewise, us entrepreneurs can show examples of very successful entrepreneurs who never obtained a degree - or whose degree had nothing to do with the road they took to their fortune.

Examples become meaningless as a way to prove a point in such a debate. But I will say, any MBA you can show who makes six figures already has what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur because it took entrepreneurial skills to be able to become a six figure MBA. - They may just need a little nudge for them to discover this truth (such as losing their corporate job, only to go on to start a company - not the kind of thing you generally hear when a process worker loses their job).

An MBA Degree is just a piece of paper. It, by itself, can do and means nothing. It is the person behind the paper that counts. And they don't need a piece of paper to do what they want to do. (They would achieve what they want to achieve whether they had the piece of paper or not.)

All this being the case, when you think about it, it does not make sense (financial or other) to waste four years of income producing time, put yourself in debt or place financial burden on someone else, and be 20 years behind financially, just for a piece of paper which guarantees nothing.

It makes more sense to be as productive as you can be, as soon as you can be, and to invest while avoiding debt.