Comedians

In a free society, speech can't be regulated. Once it becomes subject to regulation, it never stops- opportunistic politicians will use certain groups in the society to impose their will on the public under the guise of protecting someone's precious feelings. Political correctness was invented by socialists whose only goal is to tear people apart and make them hostile towards one another so they can have their way by picking sides. The political left has been very vigilant against any outbrakes of actual community cohesion. Stop the madness already.

http://www.youtube.com/user/drinkingwithbob?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/0/7b7-YlUKfEc - It's not about comedians, but it shows well, that political correctness is unnecessary and dumb.

Reply to post 3.

My reply to this blog: http://aruge.blogspot.com/

In my case it was the other way around. First, it was me who was being bullied, Then I was the bully- but I tried to be soft on my victims. I kinda figured, that being bullied had tought me how to deal with jerks, who find it entartaining to make someone else's life unpleasant. And once I've learned more about it, the bullying stopped. Then, I figured that it wouldn't hurt anybody too much if I did some pushing around myself to see what it feels like. It quickly became clear that I wasn't much into it- bullying just wasn't my thing. But it was kinda fun at first- I gotta say. So, I don't blame the guys who bullied me:) (It wasn't traumatic in any way- just mild pushing around. We're buddies now)

Firearms

The right of the people to own guns is what truly indicates that a certain society is a free society. In the United States- the land of the (mostly) free, there's a heated debate over where to set the limit to the constitutional amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. The obvious answer should be; it's in the bill of rights, there should be no limit. And, indeed, in most states, people are allowed to carry concealed weapons (outside some big cities). However, in some densely populated areas, gun-free zones have been imposed- as always, to protect the people. It's those gun-free zones where a vast majority (probably all of them, but I'm not sure) of shoot-outs take place. Criminals and crazies don't care about gun-free zones. They're going to carry a gun in anyway. Now, let's look at facts that the antis would rather sweep under the carped- Cities and states that allow concealed carry have less gun violence than those that don't. The State of Vermont has no laws concerning firearms (which means, that you can buy as many as you like and when you feel like it). It has 13 times less gun violence than the United Kingdom, where you're not allowed to own a gun at all.
Gun bans only take guns away from the law-abiding citizens. Criminals will keep their guns.
In my mind, had the teachers or security guards been armed when Columbine, Winnenden or Dunblane (the latter two in Europe) happened, many lives would have been saved, if any would have been lost at all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=related

The second amendment wasn't included in the constitution just to guarantee people's right to hunt rabbits. It was to ensure that if, at some point, the government became corrupt to the point of being a threat, the people would have means to overthrow it and restore constitutional values. All of the worlds dictators have disarmed their nations right after gaining power.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest' -Mahatma Gandhi

Greed (??)

This is to all you socialists out there who like to bring up corporate greed in your rants against capitalism.

Some people say that greed involves possessing more money or goods than "required", while others have much less of those goods.
-Let me see if I get this right. They think, that everybody should only have as much money/cars/Lego blocks/other nice things, as they deem "required"? Who are they to decide how much is the required quantity/number for an individual? I guess they could also relate to this quote: "From each according to his means to each according to his needs", right? I'm sorry, but that's socialism. Socialism is what creates poverty- it makes everybody equally poor. Now, capitalism has given countless people jobs, it's cut poverty in India by half in the last 20 years, and has given you countless cars, computers and mp3 players to choose from. It's also given you a chance to be successful if you work hard enough. That's right, if you come up with a great idea, like Bill Gates did, and you serve your fellow men by turning that idea into a good they can aquire and it makes their lives better/easier, why shouldn't you be paid a lot for that? Profit is essiential in the market. "Profits signal to the producer what the economy needs the most at the time. It prevents misallocation of recources in the economy" (I paraphrased Lee Doren, chair of the Bureaucrash istitute). Therefore, if a company gets big profit, that means that they've served their fellow men and they deserve that profit.

I'm NOT talking about the government subsidizing an industry or obtaining money through fraud. Subsidizing by the government excludes competition from the market. And it's competition that improves the quality of goods and lowers their price.

Now, let's say you tax Microsoft through the roof to "redistribute their wealth"-as a result they lay people off, the price of software goes up to the point where you can no longer afford it, the company moves out of your country and other businesses follow suit and lay people off too, so they don't get taxed as well. A lot of people don't realize that being wealthy (thanks to the free marker) does not equal being greedy- it's called being successful- and everybody can have a shot at success.

The nonsense of "corporate greed" is somewhat addressed in this great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNx3jT_-IWI

It's an American video, but the message could (more or less) apply to all western countries nowadays.

Bullying

I think everybody has either experienced, witnessed bullying or bullied somebody him/herself. It's something that can't be quite avoided in school. Of course, when it involves violence, teachers and parents should by all means strive to solve the problem. However, one might think, that mild verbal attacks and mocking can toughen a person up, rather than screw them up for life- as it's implied by various "experts" on the subject. From my experience, victims of bullying are usually naive and have a weak personality. I know, that they could as well be very smart or very good at doing something which provokes envy in some people. Nevertheless, 80% of those bullied, IN MY OPINION belong to the first category. I think, that sheltering them from the world, by trying to curb mild bullying that they're subjected to, is doing them more harm than good. For, where are they going to learn to survive in a group- sometimes a demanding group, if not in school? After that it might only get tougher- life can be demanding and tough at times. As I said, as long as violence is not involved (as well as very strong verbal abuse), students should be given an opportunity to learn to stand their ground in the face of various adversities at school.

Sheltering kids from bullying, may result in them being unprepared for life at work, where they're on their own and there's nobody there to help them.

http://www.govanlc.com/bullying.htm

"If the Council agree, you may be able to arrange to be educated at home"- I hope that solution is reserved for when there is evidence, that you might get killed or seriously injured by staying in school.

Masturbation

Masturbation used to be percieved as a sin and a grave insult to society. Now, times have changed- There are still those who think it's a sin, but under the law, it's no longer illegal. Governments have stopped criminalizing "masturbators"- for the time being, while they're busy trying to get people to stop smoking and eating fatty foods. Maybe they'll get back to regulating people's sexuality later. I can't see why anybody should worry about what other people do when they're alone. They don't do it out in the open (most of them don't), so why worry about it? Masturbation belongs to the private sphere of life. Just like you don't usually talk about your sexual life (to me, doing so is inapropriate), you keep your experience with masturbation to yourself. On the other hand, masturbation does not usually involve another person, so by talking about it, you don't expose somebody else's private life- just yours. So I don't see anything wrong about bringing the subject up in a conversation to have a good laugh with your buddies.

These guys don't quite share my opinion on the subject. There are certain parts in their advice that might make you fat, lonely and crazy... but at least you won't masturbate!

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/overcoming_masturbation.html

There's useful stuff there, too. Like when they talk about exercising and self-improvement through thinking in a certain way- it all works. I think, though that you'll be much better off using these techniques towards achieving something worthwhile, like learning to play an instrument, or making friends, rather than trying to stop masturbating.

Drugs

Drugs are a very controvercial subject, because... I don't know the answer to be frank with you. Why isn't anybody making a big fuss about alkohol? If you don’t like drugs, don't do them. You're not in the position (nobody is) to decide what's good or bad for anybody except yourself. A lot of people, when you ask them if they would do drugs if they were legalized? are like: "no, never, but someone else just might, so I have to protect that person from him/herself". Drugs are dangerous, alright. But so is alkohol- it, too can lead to destruction of families and wasted lives. Let's leave up it to personal responsibility and choice. Making drugs illegal helps nobody except the criminals who get rich by selling a product that nobody else has (just like the Al Capones during the prohibition- an abject failure and mistake that nobody learned on). Those guys don't care who they sell it to, so it makes it more available to kids. If drugs were legalized, the drug smuggling and violence by gangs that benefit from the ban wouldn't be a problem anymore (unless, of course the government started taxing the the hell out of drugs, and invite smuggling back, as it happened with cigarettes). Besides, there are countries where pot (and not only pot) is legal and, as far as I know, there is no more crime there than in other countries.

Here's a website that tells about prohibition and the results of it. In my opinion, most of the things they want done when it comes to drugs makes a lot of sense.

http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/

Here's a gentelman who's a doctor and talks about his experience with drug-addicts during his practise

http://www.youtube.com/user/MBChB1961#p/u/43/bXLX7pIfVtw

I invite you to watch all of his videos. He has a very refreshing and sensible approach to a lot of issues.

shop-lifting, stalking and prostitution

Now, there's three activities that are widely recognized as rather undesirable. Shop-lifting is a crime- no doubt about that. It's depriving somebody of their property, and therefore is undoubtly punishable by law. I realize that occasional theft of a chocolate bar is not very harmful, and it's understandable that some people just can't help themselves. The thrill is unresistable. Nevertheless, it's a crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477596.stm -a little paranoia by the media for you:
"shop-lifting, a gateway crime"... - the sky is falling, people.

Stalking can take many different forms- if a 14-year old is following his class mate home after school, it's only natural. It can be creepy for the "victim" of such behaviour, but it's a non-issue.

It becomes a real problem when obsession is present. Or when a stalker isn't exactly well-intended. But I don't think that stalking in itself is a crime (I may very well be wrong about this). And even if it is, it's virtually impossible to prove someone "guilty" of stalking.

Here's a song, that everybody knows that is about a stalker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOGaugKpzs

Prostitution is banned in many countries. Frankly, I don't know why anybody would restrict people's right to do what they please with their own body. In a free society, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they don't infringe on other people's rights (common sense is required to know when you are and when you're not). That kind of freedom, people tend to be very quick to surrender, because it doesn't concern them. There will come a time, however when they realize that if they chop freedom to pieces and support it only when it suits them, it's not really freedom. It is not my intention to condone prostitution, but it's non of my business what adult people do with their life. I know what you're saying: "We gotta protect people from diseases!". NO, people know the risk. Let them decide.

And yes, exploitation is a crime, and is unaccaptable. I'm only talking about adults deciding for themselves to get into prostitution.

Reply to a blog 2.

My reply to this blog: http://voice-in-order.blogspot.com/

mkocot said...
Sure, Why not go a step further. Let our dear government who always knows better than we do what's best for us, screen women for their daily intake of fatty foods, soft drinks, coffee and fruits (fertilizers), all of whom POTENTIALLY dangerous for them and their children. Let's make sure they don't strain themselves too much, and fine them if they do. And God forbid should they get on a crowded bus and contract some infectious disease that might result in birth defects- We have to put the government in charge of this. Coming to a town near you!

Why not let people make these kind of choices for themselves. Whenever the government start playing mommy and daddy, they never stop. Until the people rise up against it. People have an inalienable right to private life.

Besides, as with every case regarding smoking, the evidence is quite flimsy when you really look at it.

"Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette."<1>
<1> http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518

http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2060

http://www.smokescreens.org/chapter10.htm

(I'm not saying it's ok to smoke during pregnancy. In my opinion they shouldn't. I just think the government should stay out of people's lives )

Reply to a blog.

My reply to this blog: http://clairemcareebeingbad.blogspot.com

mkocot said...
Those lungs could easly belong to a non-smoker with cancer. Otherwise, Smoeker's lungs are no different from those of a non-smoker.

http://www.smokescreens.org/chapter1.htm

My intention is by no means to challenge your personal experience. I'd just like to offer a counterargument to the politically correct opinion on smoking. According to statistics, smoking does not elevate the risk of lung cancer, since the percentage of smokers among cancer patients equals the percentage of smokers in the population. At least, in Australia, and the UK, although I've heard that these figures are repeated worldwide:
I don't know what to reference to, but he does:

http://www.youtube.com/user/HairyChestnuts#p/u/106/6JkInmc-dBk

http://www.youtube.com/user/HairyChestnuts#p/u/16/-4EBaKgkkf8

Lying tips. tip2

Pay attention to your facial expression- that is not much of an issue when you’re defending yourself from accusations (well, it's easier, but in that case you're less likely to burst out laughing etc..). It is, though when you are trying to keep a straight face while telling somebody they look great when in fact they aren’t, or when you’re trying to stop yourself from telling somebody that their interior design is tasteless. Lying is an art- don’t abuse it and it will reward you. Follow these little tips and you’ll be fine, or your money back.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Facial-Expressions---Lying-Signs---How-to-Spot-a-Liar&id=2943383

Lying tips, tip 1

One of the most important things to keep in mind when you intend to lie on a regular is to develop and outstanding memory- you’re going to seriously need it. Whenever you twist the facts or plainly invent them, in order to remain a credible liar, you have to stick to the primal version. Facts get memorized and stay in your head automaticly. You have to keep the lies there by yourself. If you’ve a seasoned liar you’ve probably developed a special routine that you abide by. If you haven’t, here’s what you should never forget; Whenever you’re in the middle of a conversation, you watch yourself. Your memory may eventually fool you into denying whatever you had said beforehand. And we don't want that to happen, do we? Here is what inspired me to write this:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O90-ALIARoughttohaveagoodmmry.html

Passive Smoking. Popular misconceptions

We know that in recent years, governments begun to increasingly take care for us against our will. The first notable example of such behaviour are smoking bans popping up all over the world, that hurt the business and ruin many people's social lives. The excuse for imposing the bans was to protect people (in many cases against their will) from the dangers of passive smoke. But is passive smoking really a risk ? Well, let me start with linking to a "Health and Savety Report". Please, check out paragraph 9 and you'll realize why the report has been removed from the internet after (I think) 3 days of being available to the public. http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/255_15.pdf. Clearly, the report did not provide the government with results that would justify the smoking ban, so i had to be cenzored. but I'll let this gentelman discuss the matter for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8mz7nOsqSE. Let's just say that the results don't matter, if they don't support the certain agenda. If the goal of the government is to regulate people's behaviour and that of "big pharma" is to make the nicotine patches the only legal source of nicotine for smokers (because that's the goal), they'll cling to every peace of junk science to only achieve their ends.

"Public Health" vs. Property Rights

These days governments around the world are going to great lengths to make sure, we-little people don't do anything that they think is bad for us. The smoking ban was implemented to save "thousands of lives" by removing smokers from buildings. Did it save any lives? No, the cancer rates are climbing, and the steady drop in heart diseases we've seen over the years has in many cases turned into a rise; http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html (If it doesn't work, just copy and paste the link). Most of all, the antis said that the ban would not affect the business of bar-owners. That was a lie and they don't seem to care to acknoledge it. I link to a list of SOME of the businesses in the United States and Canada that have suffered due to smoking bans. http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm. In the UK, there have been 300-year old pubs that closed as a direct result of the smoking ban. Some stories are quite devastating ;http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=1076. Simply put, many smokers would rather sit at home, have a beer from a supermarket and a cigarette, rather than pay a higher price and be forced to go outside whenever they feel like a smoke.

This is a serious issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that passive smoking is in fact dangerous (see the next post). Even then, in a free society the government should have no say regarding the way property owners run their business. I have no problem with a pub owner who decides to make his/her pub smoke free, because he considers it good for their business- that I can get behind. But the government telling people that they can't allow smoking in their own pub is downright criminal. Folks who decide to enjoy a cigarette in smoky environments should be allowed to do so. Non-smokers who don't like smoke can go somewhere else- smoke is not an issue unless you enter an establishment and make it one. That's how the free market works. If there was a demand for a "smoke-free Britain", pubs would go smoke-free on their own, without the government intervening. You might think, "why should I care. I don't smoke, so it doesn't affect me". Not today, not tomorrow, but after the government gets away with regulations that only alienate certain minorities, it will switch to other sorts of control. It's already started,

-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece- I don't know about you, but that's pretty scary to me. A result of yet another scientific hoax

-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/4214024/Dont-throw-away-leftovers-warn-food-police.html- Sorry, I don't want anybody to tell me what to do with my food.

-http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm- Nobody makes you eat that stuff.

-http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-george-orwell-big-brother-is-watching-your-house.do-... That's quite funny actually, but it's yet another step towards more government control.

And it's only going to get worse if we don't wake up and start protecting each other's freedoms.

open to suggestions

I'm afraid I don't know any "bad" places in the neighbourhood. Wolverhampton is a small town and apart from a few sex-shops and tattoo studios it doens't have much to offer to somebody who's not a student and wants to go bad for a while (As far as I know). Ok, there are pubs, but they've lost a lot of charm since the smoking ban (This isn't only my opinion). We could go to a supermarket, buy lots of liqour, get boozed up and spend the night in the street singing and dancing. That would be fun. I'm open to suggestions.

http://www.wolverhamptoncity.co.uk/content.php?c=5&cp=page/category.php&content_id=517049870110827 -or maybe there is a lot to do here after all. I don't know.