In-Depth Opinion Piece: Joke Theft

I've been reading a lot about the concept of "Joke Theft" recently, it's a fairly interesting thing to think about.

I don't know if anyone's ever read the "Author's Info" or whatever in the Index Section of this blog-ee-oh-lee before but in that description of myself (which is mostly STOLEN verbatim from words Beetlejuice has said over the years)...I say something along the lines of "if you read something you like in this blog you can steal it if you want, I don't care" and then I stated a joke to finish that section off which went "If I was President I'd legalize stealing!" which is of course something I STOLE verbatim from a Rudy Ray Moore joke off of the album "Dolemite for President."

So yeah, I have an open attitude towards stealing of read-words by readers, or the stealing of heard-words by listeners, I'm not super offended by the whole idea of something I thought out and wrote being read and said/wrote by someone else. Why? Because that's what humans do.

I hope people understand by now that we evolved from monkeys and the saying "Monkey See - Monkey Do" really rings true for our kind. We learn from observing and we try things for ourselves through the act of mimicking things we've seen/heard/etc before. Stealing things we observe is literally what Humans do...that's the reason why we're the top species on earth is because we're really good at emulating and learning from each other.

There's no way around the stealing of "bits" or "jokes" or "concepts" or "ideas" because that's what we do. That's the cold hard facts.

Even though this isn't a popular publication I have goin' over here, have I ever been sorta angry when I've seen something I've wrote...100% verbatim....re-produced on some other medium...and sometimes on a BIG medium? Yeah, I guess. I mean, I do think some people  rip stuff off from this shitty obscure blog from time to time and some are pretty fucking famous to be honest....but even then...there's this sort of feeling of "WOW, that person reads this shit!? Cool" that goes on too. I'd say, all in all, seeing my ideas absorbed and re-vomitted back through another brain isn't that offensive to me.

I will say this:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ABSORB THE CONCEPTS/IDEAS YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF TO.

If you grew up in the jungle away from any other humans and never learned to read/write and speak/understand any language then you'd be able to create without influence. Even then your creations would be based on things you've seen monkeys or wolves or something do in the wild. You'd make like bone-carvings out of animals you ate that look like trees or bugs you saw. Even a jungle-boy/jungle-girl, when you think about it, couldn't free themselves from outside influence.

What about a cave person? A child who grew up in a dark dark Patmos-style cave of some sort? You know, like a Poor Little Blind Girl, you know? A cave so dark she never learned to see, a cave so quiet that the poor girl never learned to hear? She eats mud and dirt and stuff. She knows "nothing about everything" but "everything about nothing"? Could she live an influence-free life? Yeah, maybe.

But us? Regular non-FacelessMay and non-N.Senada brand of humans? Can we live influence free lifestyles? NO! Us regulation non-cave-isolated humans have to abide by the laws of Monkey See and Monkey Do.....so get used to it.

If something works? We use it. If someone thinks up a good way to pick meat out of teeth, or get olives down from olive trees, or how to get from point a to point b faster....everyone will start doing it that way. Why? Because it's the best way to do it....and it works.

Look, I understand in the artistic world that intellectual property rights and identity exist and am not 100% for theft but I just want to show how hard it is not be a thief and many who accuse others of theft should think about how much shit they've stolen.

As a person who loves history, it's SUPER RARE that I can watch something and not say to myself...."oh that's like what whats-their-name does." A lot of things that "work" in show business are used for that reason...they work. You can get to the root of a lot of things that "work" and find out that these methods have been done for centuries.


Extreme Cases

I'd say I side with the defendant in about 70% of joke-theft cases. Due to the laws of Monkey See and Monkey Do...and knowing how hard it is not to be influenced by the world around you...I usually give the defendant leeway when reading about these cases and trying to form an opinion on it.

Sometimes, the case is so extreme that it's just ludicrous though. About 30% of theft cases are too effronterous to accept. I'm gonna throw out a few examples.

Jerry Lewis was A HUGE ACT back in the day and he had copy cats galore but none to the level of Sammy Petrillo who copied his voice, mannerisms, facial contorts, and hairstyle. Observe:

Petrillo, Bela Lugosi, and a Gorilla star in......oh boy.

I watched this movie the other day and it's actually pretty fucking good....but if I was Jerry Lewis....I'm sure I'd be fucking pissed that Petrillo is basically trying to pass himself off as being Jerry Lewis. It's not just a little theft here and little nip there....it's like ALL of his STUFF being ripped off.

Mitch

Another case that I find offensive was young comic Mitch Mullany (who I first saw as "White Mike" on Wayans Brothers). Mitch died in 2008 and then the very next year a guy showed up and did Mitch's act in clubs....WORD FOR WORD....and ACTION FOR ACTION. Literally stealing the whole thing under the pretense of "oh well, he's dead, he doesn't need this act anymore." Because of the untimely death of the 39 year old Mullany...this theft that I read about really stood out as being extreme and fucking stupid. It's the blatant disrespect for the young man's death.

Even though I'm usually okay with borrowing, learning, adapting, and outright stealing material....there's some extreme cases where obviously it went WAY too far.

Yet on the opposite end....


Accusers Actin' the Fool

For someone to claim theft they must first claim to own whatever was stolen...and I've seen over the years people claim ownership to things that have made me think...."Really? you OWN that? How?"

I heard an interview once where, I think it was Jim Breuer, telling a story about how on SNL....the host was Matthew Perry and Perry was working on a bit with Norm MacDonald. Apparently, Perry wanted the bit to center around something he INVENTED called "Chandler-Speak" and Norm asked him what that was and after hearing Perry's explanation....witnesses claim Norm's response was....."Oh, you mean sarcasm?"

Yeah, it's pretty grandiose and...let's face it....retarded for Matthew Perry to claim to have invented sarcasm. That's beyond the pale. It really is beyond the pale.


Another one that got me scratching my head was a feud between Louis C.K. and Dane Cook. Now look, I know in comedy circles Dane Cook is like public enemy number one...but his target audience is a female audience and he works pretty well with that. I'm male (aged 25-35) and thus he's not my thing but I don't necessarily hate on the dude. I don't find him funny but I don't really dislike him as much as C.K., I mean with C.K.....this guy's bits are mostly penis-stuff, gross-out stuff, and other mundane shit that's standard fare....and yet somehow....Louis C.K. fans seem to think he invented penis jokes and things like that. I'm not sure a person can claim intellectual property patents on "My Ass Itches. Oh my god, my ass itches!" or "you're a penis-face!" or "I want to masturbate!" or "I wanna name my kid something funny!"

Naming your kid something funny? Wow that's original ass shit there Louis n' Dane. You both stole it.

Can you imagine a patent court setting and the plaintiff walks up and says..."Your honor, the defendant STOLE the concept of naming children funny names...and then had the nerve to talk about having an itchy butt!!" Yeah, okay there.

Speaking of Beavis and Butthead, Mike Judge once said people saying the words "[something] sucks" are ripping him off but I've seen that said in movies back in the 60s even. A good example that everyone's seen is GhostBusters where Bill Murray says something sucks a minimum of twice in the film. I like Mike Judge, and consider Beavis and Butthead to maybe be the greatest show of all time, but he did NOT invent the term of "[something] sucks." No way, Jose.

I can't find the clip from G-Bustas so here's him in Scrooged (circa 1988) using the term as well...

"Oh my gosh...does that suck."

The point of this section is....if someone is accusing someone of stealing then they are thus claiming ownership of a concept and claiming to literally OWN sarcasm, something sucking, itchy anuses, and other mundane things is pretty absurd to say the least.

It's naive too, I mean how can Perry for example really believe he invented sarcasm? What kind of an idiot can he be? Could he be any more of an idiot?

Rising to the Top

I don't want to hurt nobody's feelings or nothing, but it's safe to say that people at the top are not necessarily the most talented...but the most expert of thieves. Ninjas, even, if you will.

Word to the wise....just steal from more obscure sources and you should be safe from heat. Steal from weird-ass blogs, shit your co-workers say, guys from bars or the street...those are safe ass sources, g. No doubt.

I was watching that "Last Comic Standing" the other day and this Indian chick's opening joke was taken from the stupid "Epic Beard Man" video of that drunken maniac assaulting people on a bus. That video has been seen by millions of people....do you really think that's an obscure enough source to rob material from? Are you fucking stupid?

I watched an episode of a really shit Canadian show called "The Air Farce" once where they literally robbed a bit from SNL about Elton John almost 100% verbatim. Stealing from SNL is going to make a lot of people go..."wait a sec, I've seen this before...gimme a break." It's not a very hard to trace source.

You think the pros steal from things millions and millions of people are familiar with? NO! They get their "influences" from stuff maybe like 10-1000 people are familiar with...those 10-1000 people get mad that they recognize the bit-theft but there's still millions and millions of other viewers who don't get mad....those millions think it's wicked cool.

Conclusion

Basically, we have two choices....

A) Play off each other, learn from each other, share concepts with each other...and sadly...STEAL from each other. 

or....

  

B) Live in a cave like N. Senada or that poor poor little blind girl from that Nomeansno song "Faceless May" and never be influenced by anything other than the feeling of cold on our sightless, audio-less, smell-less bodies.

I don't know 'bout you but I'm not going to live in some fucking cave. Fuck that shit.



(END NOTE: If everyone tries to have no influences all we'll have is surreal/absurdist comedy like the Williams Street people make. I like those shows but I wouldn't rank absurdist humor at the top of the list of comedy, to be honest. Wackiness can get old fast, the format is usually like 10 minute shows with the Williams cartoons. You can't work topical, or have a message with absurdist/surreal humor. Tim and Eric work over-the-top absurdist and it's original that's for sure but it wouldn't hurt them to have like a bit of structure. That "Bag Boy" of Steve Brule's show which had a story to it and thus some structure was one of the best things they've ever made, by far.

To achieve super-originality through absurdity and nonsense is often really really funny and it's unlikely someone will say "I've seen that before" while watching it...but it's like abstract art a bit...it's just whacky shit everywhere with no rhythm or reason. )


(END NOTE 2: Conan is in the news for being sued for joke theft and the guy wants 600K, i don't know what value jokes have, I know Rodney and old timers paid the kids in the hall of clubs money for jokes, and I know Jackie Martling devised some joke-value system with Rodney that is not very scientific sounding ("I borrowed 1000 bucks from [Rodney] but I paid it back in JOKES").

That guy suing Conan, I don't know how someone can put something into the public sphere for everyone to absorb and then want 600K from people. If you wanted that joke to be TOP SECRET...THEN DON'T FUCKING TWEET IT, FUCK! If it's secret data worth 600K to you then why put it in the public for EVERYONE to see? Why not keep that six hundred thousand dollars worth of jokes under lock and key at the bottom of the sea...where no one can take it from you?

Also that dude "Fat Jew" guy is getting hype from joke theft, there's so much buzz around him and I'm pretty sure he paid for the buzz. Why everyone is helping him get buzz by talking about him endlessly is beyond me. They don't like him but they are giving him all the attention humanly possible.)


(Amendment: I re-found and re-read that datum where Mike Judge claims to have invented stuff sucking...and it seems to maybe be a joke. I'm unsure but decide for yourself: (John K. interviews Mike J.)

Do Young Canadians have to Care about Politics?

Election season is in full swing up here in the "coolest" (literally the coldest) nation on earth....Canada.

The leaders are debating the big issues on the television screens, such as their official stances on "TV Shows" and "Movies" and other fascinating topics....

Golly gee whiz....I love TV Shows too!

This is what we get in Canada, so all you people hating on Trump down there in the states....try and imagine how Howdy Doody our election is. You Americans should be grateful for the entertainment value and debates surrounding your elections. You don't want what we have, we have people with the intelligence of five years olds debating each other up over here.

"Golly gee...Do you love TV Shows Mr. Prime Minister of Canada?"

"Well howdidly doodidly ms. Reporter, oh yes, I most certainly do love Movies and TV Shows. Thanks you kindly for asking me that."

I would love to have the media circus of an American election in Canada, believe me, your shit is so much better than our shit...so don't take it for granted. Believe me, you'll miss the circus if it ever leaves town, even though you don't appreciate it now.

If one day the media circus surrounding the American election disappeared and was replaced with Trump telling you what his favorite kind of jam is and how much he loves going ice skating on the lake up near his house...believe you me....you'll be angry. You'll wonder why the circus left town and was replaced with this boring obnoxious drivel.

The thing that gets my goat the most about the lame-wad Canadian election is that people get on my case for not taking this boring garbage seriously. I've never voted in my life, when I turned 18 I felt like I should vote but when I did go to vote I'd end up writing in old Expos baseball players on the ballot when I got to the booth because I didn't know what else to do.

When I tell people that I don't vote, especially old folks, they tend to get bent out of shape over that. They look at me like I'm some sort of social pariah with no brains for not caring about Canada's lame-wad political farce. I'm not even a "young voter" anymore and don't vote so it's like a double-faux-pas apparently, but I'm a chronic non-voter and I doubt anything will ever change that.

Alrighty so, I'm gonna harness the power of statistics in this opinion piece to try and show why the fuck I don't need to give a fuck about these dumbass leckshuns at all.


Young Canadians...Does your vote even Matter? 

Ok, first off we need to look at Canada's age demographics before we talk about anything else. This next link shows out of the 35.5 million dudes/chick/n' trannies that live in golly-gee jolly-gosh Canada what age group they are:

Stats (bad as) Can: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm


Young voters I will classify as being 18 to 30. Let's take a nice round number like 7 million to quantify "young voters" okay?

Now how many "old voters" are there? People from 31 to Soylent Green years old? Let's round it to a nice number like around 22 million.

Let's say 29 million people are voting age in Canada and young voters are 7 million of them. How is that on a pie graph? Let's take a look-see:

Beauty graph eh?

Now, it seems Young Jabronies are a pretty small piece of the votin' pie. It looks like Soylent Greeners are actually a big green Pac-Man like creature that is devouring Young Jabronies according to the data.

If you aren't familiar with statistics and sample-size and things like that... this might not have an effect on your young mind. I don't want be bursting bubbles up in here but this data is suffice to say that for every 1 vote the young people demo have...oldoes have 3 votes. 

Soylent Greeners have 3x more voting power than Young Jabronies do.

Speaking in realistic terms, young voters are a niche market that's barely even worth catering to for someone trying to win an election. From a strategic standpoint that's the reason why the Red Party (Liberals) have sunk down to third place in the polls. They are trying to get young voters to vote for them and young voters is a niche market not even worth investing any time in to try and cajole.

When Justin Bieber or Justin Timberlake or Justin Trudeau or whatever the fuck his name is...goes on TV and talks about smokin' blunts and takes his shirt off to do boxing promos...all it does is turn off almost 75% of voters in order to cajole less than 25% of voters. It's a horrible strategy, whoever the Liberal strategist is...that person should be let go and fast.

From the data we can clearly see that Young People's voting power is not enough for anyone to take seriously and thus when Young Jabronies pretend they are important it's just annoying and dumb.

A Four Hundred Million Dollar Boring-Ass Dog and Pony Show

Next off, let's rap loose a little bit about money. This election as everyone knows is the most boring, howdy-doody, offensively condescending, loser-filled, freak fest LOAD OF NONSENSE on the face of the planet that no one with half a brain would pay any interest in...

....and yet...

Experts and members of Elections Canada predict this election will cost tax payers 400 million at the least. Now, American readers have to remember that Canada isn't a big deal like the states is and maybe that number doesn't seem large but if we look at population and GDP, we can see that Canada is such a miniscule region that this amount of money is a pretty large sum.

USA Population:  320 million

Canada Population: 35 million

USA GDP: 17 trillion

Canada GDP: 2 trillion

Canada is not a big Juggernaut of a nation by any stretch of the word yet its Elections cost their citizens 400 million dollars each time they engage in these shenanigans. It's not big enough of a Country to have such a long and circus-esque election season.

On top of it all, the 400 million price-tagged show payed by tax payers... IS NOT EVEN ENTERTAINING AT ALL! It's lamer than fuck. It's more boring than shit. It's something only the most mentally-neglected loser could find entertainment value in. It's atrociously boring.

It's an atrociously boring 400 million dollar rinky-dinkin' Dog an Pony show that tax payers have to pay for. It's offensive by all accounts.

Conclusion

Look Young Jabronies of Canada, for you people to invest even one iota of care into these election proceedings is a gigantic mis-use of your time. For every second of care you're currently investing into politics...please take that time and invest into learning a skill, learning a trade, advancing your understanding of mathematics, read a book, write a book, go visit your grandma in the hospital or old folks home, join a rock and roll band, write a rap, preform some rap, learn how cook, etc. etc. etc.

Basically anything you do with your time, Young People, is better than wasting your time caring about politics and this lamewad of an election. There's serious problems in the world today, you can change things. You can become inventors and tech experts. You can become doctors. You can volunteer and feed the hungry n' thirsty kids of the world. You can do shit that actually isn't stupid. Your time has value.

For a young person to convince themselves to care about politics is the corruption of a young brain. It is the waste of a young person's brain power and its time here on earth...it really fucking is. If any Soylent Greener calls you dumb or uneducated or socially unresponsible because you don't vote...next time...tell that Soylent Greener to go take a bath because they smell like an old person and are disgusting. 

And, as for Americans angry over the media circus of their elections and wanting it to be toned down. Be careful what you wish for, guys. Be careful what you wish for. Put yourselves in a Canadian's boots and just try to picture for one second the topics our 400 million dollar freak show covers....

"Mr. Leader what is your favorite kind of Tim Horton's Donut?"

"Honorable Member of Parliament...what kind of ice cream do you like?"

"Prime Minsiter of Canada...what color in the Smarties box tastes the best in your opinion?"

"What is your official stance on Movies and TV Shows?"

If you Americans had to be in our boots for even 5 seconds of this you'd literally kill yourselves. You wouldn't be able to handle this level of howdy doody, you wouldn't. Believe you me....you'd go crazy having to listen to this shit, man. No joke.



End Note: I think the template media-character the Canadian politicians go with is the "innocent retarded child" character. Good examples of this are Andy Merrill's "Brak" character or John C. Reilly's "Steve Brule" character. It's un-comprehensible to me how Canadian politicians go with this as their default image. Apparently the minds of Canadians is comparable to a mind of a 4 year old if these are the personas our politicians think we will relate to.

Re-Defining the Concept of "God"

I was listening to a Jesuit on the Neil Tyson show the other day,  that show does some pretty interesting segments sometimes, for sure. One part of that Jesuit show that was interesting was the priest talking about how Einstein often used the word "God" and Tyson tried to explain to the priest that science's concept of "God" is not what you think it is.

This essay will use three instances of popularizers of science and try to further explain what Tyson was trying to explain to the priest. The popularizers of modern science will be A) Buck Fuller, B) Carl Sagan, and C) Albert Einstein.

We'll do Einstein last to talk about his definition of "God" after the other two popularizers are explained to help delve into what Einstein's concept of "God" was.

Alright so first my boy Fulla...


Buck Fuller on "God"

I've read most of what Buck's written and there's a lot to work with in using his texts to try and explain how people of science view the concept of God, but, one clear-cut easy to work with example is Buck's re-writing or "re-thinking" rather of the "Lord's Prayer" which was composed in 1979 and reads as follows:

To be satisfactory to science
all definitions
must be stated
in terms of experience

I define Universe as
all of humanity’s
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.

In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.

Firstly I mean: —

Those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicted upon past successions
of unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what theretofore had been misassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that

scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is: —

all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time —

Secondly I mean: —
The individual’s memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehensions
of an interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance —
the meaning —
of all experiences.

Thirdly, I mean:–
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically statable
family
of generalized principles —
cosmic laws–
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tunable
micro and macro-Universe events.

Fourthly, I mean: —
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never-ending
cosmic scenario serials

With these four meanings I now directly address God.

“Our God —
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest: —
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do

Yours, Dear God,
is the only and complete glory.

By Glory I mean
the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but nonunitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potential
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation’s entropic, redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity’s nonredundant
syntropic integrating

Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
it is interceptible, separatist, and biasable —
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;

Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is nonfocusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative
all of which characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.

You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvements, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous

omnirigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe

Your eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally intercomplementary
totally intertransforming
nonsimultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but nonunitarily
nonsimultaneously conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.

Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.

To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.

Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen.
(Buck)

 (video version of an older version of Buck Fulla's "Lord's Prayer": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJKLs6zEU8g&t=2m8s)
 

B.U.C.K.

Here in this prayer he is in total "Synergetics" mode which is kind of like some super-autistic language he made up. In English, Buck is basically saying that the concept of "God" is a direct synonym to the word "Universe". Everything that exists and can be understood by humans is defined as our Universe and our Universe is our God. Buck, just like Nelson Dwight Sickels, never put the word "the" in front of Universe...to him that was a form of blasphemy. It is "Universe" not "The Universe"...just like a religious person wouldn't say "The God" like "I'm praying to The God today" they would just say "I'm praying to God". Similarly with Buck, who believes Universe IS God, he never referred to Universe as "The Universe."

This, I think, is a good intro into understanding how people who deal with science view the concept of "God" and even though Buck mentions God in his prayer....he is not invoking the same concept as a religious person is when they use that term. God to Buck is simply Universe....nothing more and nothing less. God to him is "a series of integral truths which are a combined plurality of generalized principles."


Carl Sagan on how Spiritual this "Universe" is

Ok, so in trying to explain this rational yet spiritual view of "God" we are going to continue on with the definition of "Universe" to be a synonym of "God." If Universe is deified to represent "God" can people thus have spiritual experiences from this plurality of integral truths known as Universe?

Sagan has a book, I think it was a post-humous printing of talks he gave, which is called Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God.

Since this essay is trying to show that Universe can be spiritual in itself this book is a good place to go to next. The topic of spirituality derived from the beauty of the "Cosmos," on the radio show the other day where Neil Tyson debates a Jesuit priest he does cover this. At one point Tyson stated that while looking off a tall mountain and seeing the world under you and the clouds under you....a person can feel this sense of awe inspiring emotion from the beauty of the world. The beauty of Universe itself can surely be a spiritual experience in and of itself without the need for deities.

A guest on the radio show was also Richard Dawkins, a evolutionary biologist, who once described Sagan's book Varieties of Scientific Experience as....

"Was Carl Sagan a religious man? He was so much more. He left behind the petty, parochial, medieval world of the conventionally religious, left the theologains, priests, and mullahs wallowing in their small-minded spiritual poverty. He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze-Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the Universe." -Dawkins

First off, I don't know why he refers to Universe as "the" Universe...it looks really odd that "the" there. What he's saying makes sense though. I mean why when you're looking off a mountain enjoying how awesome your world is should you need to thank some voodoo "god" or stone-age deity for it? Why can't you just enjoy it? Not only enjoy it but let it invoke a sense of wonder about it that urges you to study it and understand it?

Who needs those "Bronze-Age" myths and texts anyway? There's parts of those books that are not very uplifting for today's society. A good chunk of the christ book is on how to properly punish sinners that's rife with eye plucking and terrible terrible burning, there's parts of the muslim book on what's the proper procedure for having relations with a child slave, there's parts of the jew book about what a jew isn't allowed to do and what you need to force "goyim sub-humans" to do that stuff for you. These old religious texts are ATROCIOUS and FUCKED UP. They don't instill a sense of wonder or awe in me....the bible, talmud, quran, etc. are super-duper depressing! I wouldn't allow children to read these books....they are 100 times worse than today's most violent movies and video games.

Not to burst your bubble but people like Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson are MORE religious than conventional religious people. These Bronze-Age myths aren't edifying or awe-inspiring in the least...there's nothing spiritual about them. They are just offensive and gross. Sagan and Tyson and others, can enjoy the beauty of Universe without the bull-doo-doo that goes with organized religion.

Since we're laying out the quotes hard up in here...we'll throw down a Sagan one too:

In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind. - Sagan

Science is all of humans' combined understanding of the "Cosmos" (which thanks to Tyson has become a popular word again.) Science is thus a "meta-mind", an all encompassing log of all humans' opinions/thoughts/feelings/generalizations/principles over all of trans-generational time.

"Cosmos" is a pretty good synonym for God too. I'm not so crazy about "Nature" anymore because over the last decade that word has been bastardized and ruined by the "organic food" and "organic medicine" people. "Natural" is quickly becoming a word solely used by jabronies in modern times so "Nature" with no "the" isn't a good go-to word for "God" these days.

Cosmos is written with a "the" so it can't be the best replacement word for "God"....it seems "Universe" with no "the" is still the coolest word at this point, I think.

Einstein and his Concept of "God"

So, coming back around to the main point, where the priest on the Tyson show claimed Einstein believes in God and Einstein is like the smartest guy so therefore smart people believe in God. As we can see from the previous two popularizers of science/rationality it is unlikely that this claim is gonna hold true. Einstein's concept of "God" is much more like Buck's concept of "Universe" and Sagan's concept of the "Cosmos."

Here is Einstein on religion:

"Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

-Einstein

From these words it's not hard to deduce that yes he was a religious guy and did believe in "God" yet after reading Fuller's concept of "God" and Sagan's concept of "God" can you maybe begin to suspect that Einstein is more in that area as well?


The final statement is him saying that, yes, he is religious but not in the "naive" sense of reading the bible/quran/talmud and praying to voodoo gods in the sky for a plentiful harvest this year or to make it rain. His belief in "God" is of a "special sort" which is based on the "laws of nature."

His view of God is an amalgamation of the laws of nature....the combination of all generalized principles in Universe and the trans-generational meta-data of the Cosmos....nothing more and nothing less. Yes he uses the word "God" but that doesn't mean he thought he's going to "Heaven" when he dies or that he can ask a magic man in the sky to give him a thousand bucks if he thinks really hard to him...no....he believes "God" is a set of natural laws.



Conclusion

The views of rational thinkers on religion and spirituality is not that much different than that of non-rational thinkers. Rational dudes/chicks just cut away the bull crap to get to the good part.

It's like chipping away at a rock until you are left with the diamond stuck in the center. Rational thinkers cut away all the silly crap associated with spiritualness....they cut away all the silly passages from books written two thousand years ago about floods n' slaves n' castration n' flying human-faced donkeys who kill entire armies of infidels...they throw ALL that GARBAGE away and focus on the meaty part of spirituality....the ever-invoking awe and wonder of the cool-cool world around us.

They find comfort in how cool the Natural Laws are that govern the Cosmos of our Scenario called Universe. You know what I mean?


End note: I'm not always sure Carl Sagan was that less naive than conventional religous-types as Dawkins was saying. With Sagan's alien bull-doo-doo, he did believe that there was a force "out there somewhere" that we can talk to and entrust our hopes and dreams to and this force in space would end up being our salvation.

His views on finding Aliens with radio signals really is a conventional religious experience, no doubt. The yearning for science people like Sagan, Hawking, SETI Institute and others to search for these "aliens" is definitely a replacement for religion for them. Sagan recorded messages for these Aliens which, I dunno 'bout you, but listening to them...it pretty much sounds like he's "praying" to these alien deities "out there." The alien stuff might be a very conventional religion for the non-religious types to use as a replacement for their discarded religions.

The Diarrhea Tree

The other week I experimented with a form of writing called "Screen Play Ritin'" and it was fun. It was a projected-film called "The Rick Cerone Story".

Read that article here: http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2015/05/punchin-up-some-scripts.html

Punchin' up scripts is pretty fun, I must say. I'm gonna try another one, this next movie I've been thinking about lately is called "The Diarrhea Tree."

I can't think about this movie at work or in public because I start to laugh and people think I'm weird because I laugh for no reason. I only think about this movie while I'm at home, usually.

Since I'm gonna try and shop this script to movie houses to try and get it optioned, I won't be putting the whole script in here, just a synopsis, a brief a character list, and a few choice dialogue samples.


The Diarrhea Tree

This movie will have a point, it won't just be literally about a diarrhea tree. There's three points/messages that will be not-secret but two of the main points of this film will be left to the viewer to devise themselves.

Brief List:

Main Character: Dr. Delphinius Lorimar (phd)
Villain:  The Diarrhea Tree
Other Characters: Art faction, Religious faction, Hippie faction, other factions.

Main Themes: Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover, Aesthetic Values are Over-Rated, Science is Good, and two secret themes which won't be divulged.
Secondary Themes: Toilet Humor, Swearing

Setting: Earth in the Modern Times

Synopsis: One day a beautiful tree grows to be big, strong, and picture-esque-ingly beautiful. It is described by any who see it as "The Most Majestic Tree of All Time."

It is by all standards the most largest and by far most beautiful tree that has ever blossomed on earth. Long oak trunk, gorgeous multi-color leaves, various fruits and flowers bloom from its branches....it is the most incredible tree by a far and wide margin.

People come from all around the world to partake in gazing upon its majestic beauty with their humble eyes. It brings about feelings of euphoria by simply looking at this wondrous tree. It's so beautiful, my gosh.

People start to write poems about its beauty...and scholars attempt to understand the Tree. Everyone seems to have a different theory as to where it came from, what it means/represents, and what its purpose on this planet is. All sorts of factions of humans develop theories on the origins and importance of the Tree.

The religious community sees it as a gift from God, a bountiful Tree sent to earth by God to nourish and feed God's children.

The artistic community views its aesthetic qualities as being the greatest work of art of all time, they gush and rave about the aesthetic virtues of the Tree.

The Hippie community views the Tree as "Mother Earth" herself...the protector of all Earth...they name it "Yggdrasil" and vow to protect this Tree for it is their God.

Yet one man simply cannot wrap his head around how everyone is losin' their shit over this one dumb ol' tree. This man is Doctor Delphinius Lorimar....a man of the science. He takes it upon himself to study this natural wonder and what he finds is a shock to both himself and the audience....

...the Tree is a god damn Diarrhea Tree!

The tree consumes the fruit it produces and also consumes small animals who nest/habitat in it. The inside of the tree is a biological intestine which converts what it consumes into....the most pungent and horrific waste by-product ever seen/smelt. The Tree is infinitely growing, consuming, and shitting TONS and GALLONS of dairrhea into the earth under it. An underground RIVER of DIARRHEA is brewing and roiling in the depths of the earth as the roots of the Tree pour diarrhea deep into the earth's crust....turning planet earth into some sort of giant septic tank.

Delphinius Lorimar predicts that if the gigantic Tree continues to grow, consume, and shit at this rate...It will drown the earth in a deluge of Diarrhea. Raging torrents of shit covering the entire earth and drowning all human and animal life. Not even fish will survive the Diarrhea Deluge...all life except for stupid bugs and e-coli will DIE.

Our hero tries to warn the world leaders and all the factions... he implores them to destroy the Tree but it is viewed as a symbol of hope and comfort by all of the humans of earth by this point. Delphinius Lorimar is the only man who has a negative view of the Diarrhea Tree....and thus....is sentenced to life in prison.

There are two possible endings to this film:

A) When the Diarrhea Deluge occurs, the world leaders of all the factions come to Lorimar's cell and beg him to stop the shit flood....but Delphinius is adamant about letting humanity reap what it deserves. Their stupidity and love of aesthetic values will be the death of all humans...and for locking him up in that cold cell...Lorimar is happy to watch all of life (including himself) perish. I call this "The I Told You So" ending.

B) All the world faction leaders come to Delphinius Lorimar's cell and implore him to stop the Diarrhea Deluge caused by the Tree....and he busts out of the cell....grabs a rocket launcher and single handedly destroys that god damned fucking Diarrhea Tree ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!! I call this the "Bad Ass Ending".


Delphinius Lorimar

If we go with the crappier I Told You So ending I think some straight-laced guy should play this role, like a William Hurt or a Ray Walston-type would be good....someone like that.

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar

If we go with the much cooler Bad Ass ending...then the person best suited to play Delphinius Lorimar is Terry Crews....he'd make a great Diarrhea Tree Killing Machine.

I doubt this film will ever get optioned and made by someone...but I actually think Terry Crews would get the Oscar for this role. I know it sounds weird and stupid...but it's actually a very deep and symbolic film.

Note: Since the two names of this character aren't standard first or last names they can be reciprocated if need be. The character could be called Dr. Lorimar Delphinius as well...which ever one sounds better, really.


Sample Dialogue

-Sample 1: 

This scene is Lorimar trying to convince one of the factions, the hippie faction, that this tree is gross and stupid...

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: That Tree 'aint no GOD! That's a mother fucking DIARRHEA TREE, BITCH!

Soleil Moon-Wagon: Excuse me? Don't talk about me or Yggdrasil in that fashion...it is a hate crime.

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: You wanna know what a real hate-crime is?

Soleil Moon-Wagon: What?

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: An unquenchable roaring storm of diarrhea raining down on the earth!

Soleil Moon-Wagon: This is making me sick! Go away you vulgar man!

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: Damn it! All our lives depend on DESTROYING THAT MUTHA FUCKING DIARRHEA TREEEEEE!

Soleil Moon-Wagon: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



-Sample 2:

In this sample scene, the leader of the religious faction comes to tell the tree that Delphinius has been sentenced to life in prison for hatin' on the tree. Yet the jokes on him as he takes a fruit and eats it....

Reverend Wilson Brand: Oh bountiful gift from god...I have come to inform you that the horrible man who blashpemed against you has finally been silenced. His hateful words will no longer spoil your majestic reverence...oh tree of trees.

Tree: .....

Reverend Wilson Brand: You giveth us this day, our daily bread. We thank God for giving you to us. Your fruit....your nourishment. You are truly a saving grace, tree.

Tree: ....

Reverend Wilson Brand: I feel silly talking to a tree....yet I know you are a message from God, and I know through you....tree...God can hear my prayers for the dead and for the living.

Tree: ....

Reverend Wilson Brand: Grace be to you...please God, let me taste your bountiful goodness. Let your sheep, your child, taste the fruit of your benevolent love, my Lord.

Tree: ....

Reverend Wilson Brand (takes apple): Such perfect red hue on this apple, Oh lord. Your creations are perfection. Thanks be to thee. Let me take a bite of your benevolent and reverent sustenance.

Tree: ...

Reverend Wilson Brand (bites apple): GRRrrrhgrhrghrgrhgrhr. Pew, pew! YUCK! This apple! This apple.....this apple.....

Tree: ....

Reverend Wilson Brand: THIS APPLE TASTES LIKE SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IT!



-Sample 3:
This is a short dialogue from the Bad Ass Ending where Terry Crews....I mean Delphinius Lorimar is let out of his prison cell at last.

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: Well, well, well...if it isn't the President himself. Come to laugh and ridicule me as I rot in this cell? 


President Archibald Amsterdam: No Doctor, we need you.

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: Need me? Lemme guess...that son-of-a-bitch Diarrhea Tree is diarrhea-ing all over your fucking place isn't it?


President Archibald Amsterdam: .....................Yes. 

Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: HAHAHA! Now gimme one good reason why I should help you bitch ass pieces of garbage after all y'all mother fucking bitch ass fuckers locked me up in here AND THREW AWAY THE KEY!!!


President Archibald Amsterdam: Please Doc, I'm sorry, we were wrong to shun you....you were right....right about everything...the floods of Diarrhea...the rains and rains of unending Diarrhea....Diarrhea is.....everywhere.  


Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: Good! YOU ALL DESERVE IT! YOU ALL DESERVE TO DROWN IN THAT DIARRHEA YOU DUMB FUCKING ASSHOLES!


President Archibald Amsterdam: Doc, I know we doubted you and laughed at you....and even put you in prison for blasphemy against the Tree....but we were wrong...that thing is nothing but a god forsaken Diarrhea hemorrhaging shit tree. You're the only one who knows the biology of that Diarrhea Tree....you're the only one who can stop it.


Dr. Delphinius Lorimar: Get me my rocket launcher.....before I slap you in your stupid mouth. I gotta Diarrhea Tree to take out and a Death Wish, Mr. President.


President Archibald Amsterdam: Del, thank you.


Conclusion

After thoroughly weakening that no-good Diarrhea Tree with an array of deadly missiles from his rocket launcher, Delphinius is shocked to see it still standing. With his last bit of strength after giving it his all to destroy that piece of shit Tree....he grabs it by the trunk, and similar to Lu Da in Outlaws of the Marsh when Lu uproots the willow tree....Delphinius uproots the Diarrhea Tree and TEARS IT OUT FROM THE GROUND SCREAMING AND CURSING AS HE THROWS IT LIKE A CABER TOSS!!!!!!!!!!

....The world is saved. See you in hell you fucking Diarrhea Tree!

Up-Rootin' Trees with your Bare Hands is Cool....

Re-Visting QPE

Back in 2011, I composed a silly essay called "The Science Behind Why Bad Movies are Good"...

You can read that here: (http://writtting-d.blogspot.ca/2011/09/science-behind-why-bad-movies-are-good.html)

The QPE stat tried to derive the enjoyability level of a film by the simple metric of Quality - Pretentiousness = Enjoyability. It's a silly essay but I was dead serious about that algorithm and I still am dead serious about that movie-rating metric.

O-K, I am going to present a new graph now to try and further understand why Bad Movies are Good. I call this the Hooked-U graph, observe it, and then read my rationalizations behind it below.

The "Hooked U" Diagram

The X-Axis is how STUPID a movie is and the Y-axis is how GOOD a movie is. As you'll notice the non-stupid movies are good and then as the STUPIDNESS increases the GOODNESS gradually is reduced...yet wait....it seems as a film gets very stupid the GOODNESS starts to Re-Increase. But how? But why?

The following numbers represent the following films on the graph:

1. Citizen Kane
2. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen
3. Street Fighter: The Movie (Starring Raul Julia as M.Bison)
4. Dolemite: The Human Tornado
5. ? Theoretical Greatest Movie of All Time ?

Do the plotting of the 5 example movies help you to understand? Basically a movie is good until it gets stupid....BUT....if it gets VERY VERY VERY STUPID....then it starts to rule. Going from left to right on the graph: Citizen Kane is a great film and isn't stupid, Transformers 2 sucks and is stupid, Raul Julia's masterpiece Street Fighter: The Movie, as you can see, is starting to get so stupid that it's actually kind of cool....then Human Tornado, as you can plainly see, is a better movie than Citizen Kane....and then finally comes the mysterious "5!".

The fish-hook at the end of the U is the legendary fish-hook which theoretically represents the greatest movie of all time. This is only theoretical and no movie has EVER claimed the top pinnacle of the fish hook which extends off the U-graph.

The fish hook pinnacle was thought to be only theoretical....but.........Is it really just an unachievable benchmark?

....Or is there someone out there who can make a movie so Cool that it hooks onto the 5-slot fish hook on that U-Graph?


Girl, We Need Some Action!

Dominos falling,
Riots in the streets,
baby this time there's no retreat,
there's no surrender

A devil is rising,
a shadow from the past,
feeding the flames,
the fire on the edge of fury

Out of time,
running in and out of time,
hear the ticking on the countdown clock tonight

Girl we need some, Girl we need some

Action, if we gonna make it like a true survivor
We need some action,
if we wanna take our love away from here
We need a - living passion,
to believe in, burning hearts and a brand new feeling

Calling from the ashes
The phoenix rises again
Fighting for life, for good,
For all that we believe in

Girl we need some, Girl we need some

Action, if we gonna make it like a true survivor
We need some action,
if we wanna take our love away from here
We need a - living passion,
to believe in, burning hearts and a brand new feeling

The hero stands alone
When all is said and done
The enemies are falling one by one
 
Out of time,
running in and out of time,
hear the ticking on the countdown clock tonight

Girl we need some, Girl we need some

Actiiiiioooooooooooooooooooooooon!

Action!

Action, if we gonna make it like a true survivor
We need some action,
if we wanna take our love away from here
We need a - living passion,
to believe in, burning hearts and a brand new feeling

if we gonna make it like a true survivor...

YEAAAAAAAAH!

Kung Fury: The Chosen One?

Everyone in movie circles knows the hook-on-the-u five-slot is just a myth, nothing more, nothing less. People at the American Film Institute have even literally confirmed that the 5-slot on the U-Graph is just a bench mark that is not actually achievable and it just exists to help young film makers aspire for an unattainable greatness to keep people motivated to seek a career in the arts.

Yeah fucking right!

Everyone in "movie circles" sucks bums and the AFI is stupid n' dumb. The 5-slot is attainable...and you know why.....?

.....Because some Swedish guy just attained it....THAT'S WHY! 

YES! YES! YES! YES! YEEEEEEES! YEAAAAAH!

Kung Fury is the King of Movies as it sits on the absolute pinnacle of the hook on the U in the Hooked-U graph looking down at other movies and wondering why they suck so much....there's no IFS ANDS ORS BUTS OR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

The Greatest Movie of All Time isn't a myth anymore...it's a reality...so get fucking used to it.

Conclusion

YES!

YES!


I WANT A LIVING PASSION 2 BELIEVE IN!
I WANNA BRAND NEW FEEEEELIN' !!!!!

The Race to Become the First-Ever Female Human to play Major League Baseball....The Heat Shall be ON.

Out of all the major North American sports, baseball, is by far the most gentlemanly of the bunch. Just to be sure let's list the concussion rates for all the sports. (concussion rates from the CDC).

These rates are per 1000 "athletic exposures" which I assume means a "game" basically.


1. Football (American): 64-79 concussions
2. Hockey: ~54 concussions
3. Soccer/Football (Euro-Style): ~20
4. Basketball: 16-20
5. Baseball: 4-5

So, out of the big deal sports....baseball only generates 4-5 concussions per 1000 games. Now, I can only think of a few situations where massive contact happens in baseball and it's mainly catcher-runovers, fielder collisions, fastballs up-and-in, and a few other situations.

For good measure let's put the concussion rate recorded for Cheerleading (the sexy womens who bounce around and flop around at football games and stuff)....

Cheer Leading: 11-15

Cheer leading, when they throw those chicks around and they land on their skulls and this and that...actually causes more concussions than baseball does.

Where am I going with this, you ask...well, if you haven't divined it from the title of the article yet....I'm going to suggest that baseball might be the only major sport ever that will at some point have a female human playing on the same field with male humans.

All the other sports are very combative, full contact, and highly physical events. However, baseball is very individualistic, pitcher vs. batter, a non-contact game that only in very rare circumstances becomes mano-y-mano and dangerous.

The BIGGEST hang-up for women entering baseball to occur really has to do with pitching inside. Pitchers and batters constantly battle over who owns the inside portion of the plate. Batters may lean in like that Carl Everett used to do and willingly get hit by a pitch....and pitchers will "brush back" the hitters to regain control of that meaty part of the strike zone. This war over the inside portion of home plate leads to most if not ALL the bench clearing ultra-violent brawls in Major League Baseball.

Now, look...say a woman pitcher hits a heavy-leanin' Carl Everett type hitter to brush him off...and this will likely occur....what would happen? A player uses the "charge the mound" technique to let a pitcher know not to throw so close to him next time he's up....so....what if a batter charges a female pitcher? This becomes murky waters now and really causes problems. No man would want to be known as the guy who charged and tried to punch a chick in the face.....so yeah, this is a big problem.

Similarly, if a female is hitting and the male pitcher wants to declare or re-declare the inside portion of the plate and whips one inside...now let's say the female hitter gets incensed and charges the male pitcher. What is the man gonna do just stand there and let her punch him? No, he would have to defend himself. People got on Pedro's case for example when that old 70+ year old Gerbil charged him...but what was Pedro gonna do? Just let Zimmer punch him in the face? No, that's crazy.

For this women in baseball situation to work, the one thing MLB would have to do is declare a NO BRAWLS rule whilst a female is batting and/or pitching and if a brawl does break out both players will be suspended for a complete season...the man and the woman. Thus, chances are this situation would never take place in a future circumstance.

Okay......so, technically with one rule change....yes a female baseball player at the MLB level could feasibly exist without issue at some point in the future.


History
The lady that struck out Babe Ruth

Jackie Mitchell (right)

Legend has it that at an exhibition-style event in the olden times....a lady named Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth. So, due to this feat women in baseball have some history to work with, I'd say. How gimmicky this event was cannot be determined, was it a gag? A show? A shtick....or was it a serious event? Who knows...but it is recorded in history, legend or not, that one Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and maybe Lou Gehrig too.

I'm not sure what Mitchell threw, what kind of pitches, and how fast....but at least this event stands as a sort of point of historical departure...and thusly....makes nay-sayers find that this idea isn't all that crazy.

Obviously, olden time baseball was pretty gimmicky. Everyone knows about Bill Veeck, for instance, sneaking a midget past league officials onto his roster and getting that midget Eddie Gaedel in to pinch hit in an official game. This Jackie Mitchell exhibition was likely pretty gimmicky as well and shouldn't be taken super seriously.


...But Seriously
Can a female in the present and near-future era become a Major League Baseball Player?

Gimmicks aside, is there a woman who is skilled enough at baseball to compete, 100% not gimmickly, with male humans at the most elite of human levels?

For a pitcher you'd need someone with enough arm strength to powerfully supinate thousands of arm motions per year. The only people who can do this are masochists, literally, that's the only people who can supinate vigorous arm motions constantly...total masochists. Not to be sexist...but are there that many women out there who can handle a major league pitcher's life style? I'm not so sure.

Eri Yoshida - Oneesan

In an article a long time ago I mentioned that Eri Yoshida would be a good candidate because she throws knuckle balls and those pitches don't strain the arm. Knuckle ballers in the big league cruise around well past their early thirties and have way less arm trouble than conventional pitching styles. Hoyt Wilhelm for example threw those junk balls in the majors (in the pre-steroid era) until he was 49 years old. Knuckle balls are a technique pitch that break 1.5 times making it difficult for hitters to adjust. If a woman could master the knuckle ball, like Eri Yoshida was attempting, then I think they could bypass the arm damage problem entirely.

Another idea to bypass arm damage could be instead of training young female pitchers to supinate their arm release action pitches...they should be trained to powerfully pronate their arm release action as suggested by Mike Marshall.

What is supination and pronation? Take your right hand, turn your thumb all the way to the right, and now punch your arm forward with that right thumb pointing as hard you can to the right. How did it feel? Now, take your arm back, turn that same thumb down this time towards yourself and point it to the ground and punch fastly forward again. Which punch felt more normal? When the thumb was out or in?

Basically the first punch with the thumb "out" was Supination....the second punch with the thumb "in" was Pronation. So what is pronation? It's a simple technique to not destroy your elbow and shoulder while you throw baseballs a multitude of times ad nauseam (amongst other things).

If a young female can be taught pronation pitches....I believe that woman could theoretically throw a series of elite-caliber pitches without causing excess damage to her body.

Mo "Money" Ne Davis

Personally, I think this is very feasible. Take someone right now with EXTREME talent, say, Mo'Ne Ikea Davis (that girl who was smokin' kids at the Little League World Series). Take someone with that Soul Intensity, Desire to Win, and Talent....and teach that kid a minimum of 3 pronation pitches to add to her arsenal and I believe she can develop into a major league pitcher. I'm soundly convinced of that...but only if she adds pronation pitches to her arsenal and uses those 80-90% of the throws she makes.

Look, there's very few knuckle ballers who can master that pitch to the point where they can have good ERAs at the Major League level. A more conventional pitcher like Mo'Ne may have better odds to make it. I think it would be a good idea for her coaches to experiment with pronation style pitches to maximize her development.

France's Melissa Mayeux

What about hitters and fielders? Maybe the first woman player can be someone who doesn't have to deal with the rigorous lifestyle of a pitcher. The main candidate at this point for the most developed hitting and fielding prospect is, as everyone knows right now, France's phenom Melissa Mayeux who is the first female ever in history to be added into the scouts master database and is legally allowed to sign a professional contract at the Major League level.

She's not big, she looks like a female version of Dustin Pedroia, short but athletic build, good fielder, good contact hitter.

In this post-steroid era we are going to see a return to center where a lot of the massive bodies are gonna slow down and we're gonna see a game more like the old days again.

I remember guys like the Craig Grebecks, the Jeff Reboulets, the Mike "Mad Dog" Mordecais, Andy Stankiewitzes, John Cangelosi types and guys like that...guys who were like 160 pounds (at the most) having spots on major league rosters. There's quite a few woman athletes who are bigger than those guys so it's not far fetched that the benches of the future could be filled with slick fielding chicks and slap hitting womens.

There's room for about 6 or 7 reserves on a Major League bench...you want players on your bench who have good fundamentals and a variety of tools you can use situationally. Even if a player excels in only ONE of the FIVE tools a player needs they can find a bench job. Can you run fast? You can be a pinch runner like a Larry Lintz. Can you field a difficult position like shortstop well? Then you can find a job on a bench somewhere. Can you get hits or walks or bunt? That's a skill managers need on their bench.

I'm sure there's females out there who can either run, field, or hit at a level where they could be very useful in a reserve role. Mentioning Pedroia before....even if you're 170 pounds you can become an All-Star like he did if you hone your fundamentals correctly.

Who Will it Be?

Will it be a junky-style Knuckle Baller like Eri Yoshida? I heard she's training with Tim Wakefield to further master the pitch.

Will it be a highly talented pitcher like Mo'Ne Davis? With the right coaches teaching her pitches that won't kill her small frame...it's possible.

Will it be a role-player type slick fielder, pinch hitter, pinch runner type? A kind of Munenori Kawaski style player? Could be, I don't see why not....some of the builds of baseball players over the years who've made major league rosters thanks to hard work and skill honing have been very small. Craig Grebeck was listed as 5'8 and 160 pounds in the media books and those are always 2 inches over and 10 pounds more...so he was likely 5 foot 6 and 150 pounds that Craig Grebeck...no doubt. You don't need to be a behemoth to make a roster in MLB. It could be someone like Melissa Mayeux who I heard is honing her skills with Baseball Masters such as Barry Larkin, Steve Finley, and Steve Jeltz.

I think Mo'Ne would be interesting because she was such a huge news item. Her coaches should be in correspondence with Mike Marshall if I were them....asking what kind of pronation pitches would be ideal for her frame to work with.

Conclusion

Out of all sports, due to baseball's low concussion rates, it is the only sport which may be infiltrated by females and the year it'll happen is drawing closer....2020? Could be.

Bees

Everybody these days is talking about bees all the time. Everything is "bees this" and then "bees that" everybody is up in the club talking bees like there's no tomorrow. Are they going extinct? Can we live without bees? Will they sting us?

I've been readin' so much about bees these last few weeks, I better commit my thoughts on Bees to text before I forget all the shit I read about those little stingy bastards.

The sections of this aritcle will be the following:

1. What are Bees?
2. My experiences in my lifetime with Bees
3. Are Bees going extinct?
4. Can we live without the Bees?

Okay, let's go.

What are Bees?

Closest-packed Hexagonal Structure

Bees are an insect society with a hierarchy. There's a Queen bee and then there's worker bees. Bees deal a lot in flowers and dig pollen. They carry pollen around on themselves and pollinate flowers. Flowers need pollen to reproduce and bees buzzin' around going from flower to flower pollinates them up good.

Many fruit bearing trees and vegetables rely on pollination to produce edible foodstuffs for humans. So we should be thankful that bees buzz around helping flowers mate and make edible products for us to consume.

Bees also hang out in cool Hives. These hives are serieses of closest-packed hexagons which in tandem with each other create literal domes where they habitat themselves. Bees don't have mathematic or geometric axioms to draw from...they just create these hexagonal dome-like structures from instinct which is pretty cool actually. Humans deal mostly in squares and cubes when building structures and rarely build with the same architectural ingenuity as Bees do. Their structures are brilliant designs and Bees just make them by instinct alone...they've never read a math book, geometry book, or architect book....they just do the do. I respect that shit a lot.

In these hives they produce a sugar-substance known as honey...humans love this shit too. Lots of bee keepers who have hives harvest the bee sugar to sell it.

I see a lot of Naturo-Bozo-Clowns saying honey is super healthy compared to table sugar...but they are retarded. For every 100 grams of honey there's 82 grams of sugar in it. People are like "but it's natural sugar tho!" and those people are mentally crippled of any intelligence and should go fuck themselves. I hate people who think honey is a healthy alternative to sugar...it's got 82 grams of sugar per 100 grams! Can you fuckers fucking read!? What the fuck?

Bees have a natural defense spear on their ass that sting the fuck outta you too.

Bottom line on these spear-assed disco-sadistic suckers: They are great architects, who help flowers mate, and their goop can be eaten because it's sweet and tasty.


My Experiences with Bees

I'm not scared of these little sons-of-bitches. I respect the shit out of the mother fuckers and their closest-packed hexagonal dome-like structures yet if these whores try to sting me in the face or in the nose or in the ass...they are gonna get fucked up hard-core.

I don't really care about getting stunged, it's not like I'm allergic but if they come near me looking like they wanna sting me up the nose...I pull karate-kid moves on them...and smush them between my index/middle finger and thumb. Sometimes they sting my thumb on the way out but fuck them for fucking with me, man.

Get that thing away from me you dumb bee!

If they just flying around and chilling then fine but if they start buzzing around and trying to sting me then all bets are off, you Bees. I 'aint playing'...I 'aint even playin'.

I never clap to kill 'em just chopstick 'em with my index-middle and thumb fingers because it looks and feels cooler.

Other than the dumb ones...I love and respect the Bees. Most Bees are helpful and respectful members of society...but the ones who go around flailing that ass-spear like it's a god-damn switch-blade can honestly go eat shit and die.



Are Bees Going Extinct?

With climate temperatures changing, possibly some pesticides, and viral infections...many speculate that Bees are going extinct.

People who study bees are actually finding that their numbers are not exactly dropping. It was just one study which didn't take into account new members being born in the hives that fed erroneous data into a lot of articles written about bees these days. The lifespan of a Bee is 6 month to 2 years on average....so yeah...if the guy tagged a bunch of bees and they all died then yes the numbers would appear to go down. You have to measure the population of the Hive and not the Bees individually because their life spans are not long enough to go the individual route. Babies are born in the Hives to replace the Bees that die...so most studies are not showing a decline in Bees populations....but only the dumb one that didn't count baby bees born in the Hives.

The three factors that can kill bees should be taken seriously though. Altering temperatures seems to always have an impact on animal and insect life. Secondly, pesticides can kill bees....and thirdly when Hivers take their hives to California for the big pollination season viruses can spread. All over the North America people fly their bee hives to California for the pollination season for big bucks and yes viruses do spread at these big pollination parties.

As of this moment, Bees seem to be okay. If temperatures alter big time, a new pesticide isn't bee friendly, or a viral infection takes hold big-time then the bees will be in for trouble but data for now shows that Bees are pretty much okay.

Conspiracy theorists and certain more Naturo-Bozo themed sites seem to think not only are Bees going extinct but they will take us down with them. Well, no....not exactly, or well, not at all really....


Can We Live Without The Bees?

Conspiracy and "Natural" themed sites are predicting apocalypse for a Bee-less future....yet is that true? Yes bees do pollinate flowers and some flowers do produce fruit. Does that mean without Bees that we couldn't eat? No it doesn't.

List: What foods are pollinated by Bees

In that list we see that many of these crops are in the "cash crop" domain and not the sustenance domain. Rice is not in that list and rice is the foodstuff which feeds the most people on earth on this moment.

Even if Bees did go extinct from climate change, a mass virus, or a wickedly negligent pesticide...would we lose apples n' walnuts and other foods for ever and ever? No, we wouldn't.

China for instance doesn't pollinate with bees...they pollinate their flowers by hand. Similar to what this guy is doing, Observe:

You can take a q-tip or tooth brush and pollinate flowers no problem. Not to be rude to bees, I love and respect those honey-making geodesic dome makin' bastards, but they are actually pretty bad at pollination. They do it by accident mainly when they go from flower to flower...it's not like they have a memo from humans telling them which flowers to pollinate. Humans on the other hand know exactly which flowers they want to pollinate and they do it. This actually creates jobs for people and leads to HIGHER crop yields.

Why? Because it turns out humans are better at pollinating then those jabroni Bees are at it. Go figure....it's 100% true though.

Conclusion

So are Bees going extinct? No, climate change is their biggest threat BY FAR and it is possible for climate change to alter bees lifestyle to the point of destruction...but even in that worst case scenario apples and other foods would NOT go extinct with them due to humans being able to pollinate crops at better efficiency than Bees can anyway.

Bees are very cool, they are great at building things, making sweet goop to eat, and helping flowers bloom....but let's not go over-board with these Bee-Spiracies okay?

Death of Bees ≠ Death of Humans

Also as it stands right now, Bee populations are not dropping as many people seem to be claiming. In fact most studies claim to show Bees population increasing.

Ok, that's enough about Bees.