One Last Word

This will be my last post on this blog.  FYI, my first post at my other blog is up.  So, go there and follow my new blog.

One more thing: I have written some posts here that I consider to be better than others, and I intend to re-post some of them (at my new blog) whenever I don’t feel like writing new posts, or something.  This is Mike‘s idea, so he gets credit (well, at least his blog is where I got the idea from).

Introspection and My New Blog

As I announced in my last post, I am creating a new blog.  This will be my new primary blog.  In fact, I will eventually make this blog private, and if possible, I will have a link on the page that redirects the visitor to my new blog.  My new blog is up, but there is nothing there right now.  This will most likely be my last post on this blog, though, so please follow my new blog if you are following this one.  This one is about to become dead.  The URL for my new blog is 
http://rattlesnakepit.wordpress.com/
.

Part of the reason I decided to start a new blog is that I feel like I have lost focus on what is important with this blog.  Instead of doing this for myself, I tried to make some sort of impact.  Obviously, that was futile.  A good example of what I am talking about is this post.  In case you couldn’t tell, I was quite angry when I wrote that.  My actual argument was reasonable, but the way I argued it wasn’t.  And there really wasn’t any point in being so angry, because regardless of how angry I was and how much I wanted to do something, there really wasn’t anything I could have done.  I tried to think of something, but the best thing I could think of was to send a letter to my member of parliament.  I’m sure that wouldn’t have done anything, especially since what I was upset with was the supreme court.  And I’m not nearly charismatic enough to persuade people in person (that is one thing I like about the internet; my completely non-existent personality doesn’t really come through).

Patience really isn’t something I have a lot of.  And the sheer futility of making any sort of impact is frustrating, and is one of the things that caused me to take a break.  And I realized that what I should be doing is not trying to persuade people, but it is trying to learn things and improve my critical thinking ability.  As much as I like to think of myself as mature, I am still only 21 and I’m really quite immature.  I don’t really know anything, and I need to remember that.  All I can do is try to figure out what the objective reality is, and try to stick to my principles (while acknowledging that I will sometimes fail).

Hello

If you read my blog regularly, you might have noticed that I haven’t posted anything in almost two months.  Nor have I posted anything to Twitter.  In fact, I have completely shut myself off from politics and blogs since then.  One day, I just got fed up (with a bunch of things, mostly myself) and decided to focus my attention on other things (school, mostly) for a while.  And I enjoyed my break from blogging, but I’m starting to miss it again.

I’ve been thinking a lot over my blog-free period.  One thing I’ve decided is that I need to start over.  I guess I occasionally get into a rut where I lose perspective on what is important.  So, I intend on starting a new blog (and replacing this one with the new one).  It will be pretty much the same as this one, although I think it will be different in some areas.  I’m not really sure at this point.  Furthermore, I quite like my moniker “Rattlesnake.”  So, I’m keeping it.  The “Canadian” is going, though.  Why I named this blog “Canadian Rattlesnake” in the first place was because I supported the Tea Party, which uses the Gadsden Flag as a symbol.  But, I’m Canadian, so what the title meant was that I was a supporter of the Tea Party, but Canadian.  I think the effect that has had, though, is reducing myself to my nationality (at least in the eyes of anyone who might have only encountered my blog for the first time).  Since principles are universal and not limited to one country, my nationality won’t be nearly as prominent in my next blog.

I’m not really sure when this new blog will be up, or even how often I am going to be posting.

Self-Loathing Homosexuals

There are certain homosexuals who appear to have such little self-respect that they don’t even believe homosexuals are intelligent enough to think for themselves.  Furthermore, they must hate every other aspect of themselves because they don’t appear to be anything but homosexual.  They are completely one-dimensional.  Their homosexuality is the entirety of their identity.  Furthermore, they are incredibly dumb.  For example, they believe that the right is universally hostile to homosexuality.  In general, it isn’t.  Yes, there is a certain element of it that is, but who cares?  Believing in conservative principles has nothing to do with other people’s opinions.  Why would any intelligent person let the latter affect the former?  These self-hating gay leftists like to invoke “human rights” to denigrate gay conservatives by saying that gay conservatives think homosexuals are “second-class citizens.”  Again, this is absurd, because conservatives believe in individual rights that are equally applied to all people.  No-one is a second-class citizen, unless they make themselves one.

Most gay conservatives are probably familiar with the kind of person I am talking about here.  The gay left is inhabited principally by imbeciles who are not only dumb, but are also disgusting people.  One such person is Evan Hurst.  This thing at a website called “Wonkette” isn’t the worst thing he has ever written.

There are two kinds of “gay conservatives.” There are the ones who really aren’t all that political, but they have really white skin and really big bank accounts and they value their privilege far more than they care about any sort of “little people” cause like, you know, basic civil rights. They vote for Republicans, because they’re kind of selfish, but they are also a bit embarrassed about it. Then there are the oh my god, just as racist as any Free Republic-reading mouthbreather, self-loathing, faux-masculine, tinfoil-hat-wearing, misogynistic “think of de unborn babiezzz!” gay wingnuts.

At first glance, Wonkette appears to be a satire site, but I don’t think it is.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure these people who spend their time insulting others are just projecting their own insecurity and self-loathing onto others.  I guess that makes them feel better about themselves, or something.

While I am talking about leftists, I might as well say something else.  I would wager every single thing every leftist has ever said is a superciliously smug projection of his or her own misery in the form of an insult that contains some sort of misrepresentation of the right (or things rightists support, such as capitalism or success) as well as an appeal to emotion, envy, and a mention of skin colour (it is either pointed out that someone is white or that they are motivated by a desire to subjugate black people).  Their comments are usually also vulgar.

Gay Patriot for Senate

Bruce Carroll, one of my favourite bloggers, announced that he is seriously considering challenging Lindsey Graham in the 2014 Republican primary for senator of South Carolina in the U.S. Senate. Normally, someone announcing that they might run for Senate wouldn’t be noteworthy enough to me to write a post about, but this is different.

For about 2 years now, I have been reading GayPatriot, the blog that Mr. Carroll founded (which I highly recommend).  As I’ve said before, his blog helped me through a difficult period.  That was around the time that I was coming to grips with my homosexuality.  Back then, I was mixed up on this issue, but, back then, I didn’t think you could be both gay and conservative, so I picked being conservative (it certainly was the easier option).  Then, I found his blog (after searching on Google to see if there were any other gay conservatives out there), and I began to feel better about myself.  Also, the second person to blog at GayPatriot, B. Daniel Blatt, offered his personal support to me. He also inspired me to start blogging myself, and he even sent some traffic to my new blog, getting me a small readership (which, for a new blogger, is a big deal.  My blog hasn’t grown a whole lot in terms of readership since then, but I’m happy with it).  So, I am very grateful to both Mr. Carroll and Mr. Blatt.  However, Mr. Carroll is the one considering a run for Senate, so this is about him.

I have read a lot of Mr. Carroll’s posts.  He is a solid conservative, and I think he would be a good voice for liberty in the Senate. Furthermore, he is a blogger and an activist.  I would say that that means he has a lot more fight in him than most members of Congress.

Then, there is the matter of him being gay.  That is probably a plus, because it is odd (a gay Republican running for Senate in heavily Southern Baptist South Carolina).  It should, therefore, draw some media attention (which it already has).  Furthermore, if Mr. Carroll were to be elected, he would be serving alongside a black conservative (Tim Scott).  It would certainly be a sign of progress if one U.S. Senators from South Carolina, which is the state that, in 1860, became the first state to secede from the United States in order to preserve slavery, was a black conservative Republican, and the other a gay conservative Republican.  Of course, that would be the sort of progress that “progressives” don’t like, which would make me happy.  Ultimately, though, him being gay doesn’t matter.  I also have a feeling that it would be a non-issue among most people in South Carolina.

Describe How You Feel (It Will Be on the Exam)

This is ridiculous (h/t Iowahawk).

Eccentric children — including those on the autism spectrum — often have unique academic abilities. But today’s teaching philosophies are making hard for them to shine.

Children have long been graded not just for academics, but also for elements of “character” — particularly behavior and emotional maturity. However, in the last few decades, socially eccentric children have seen their awkwardness or aloofness factored into their grades in math, language arts, and social studies.

This sort of thing isn’t limited to American schools, but it is one example of how schools have become worth little by taking the emphasis off of academics.

Reading that article brought back a lot of memories from elementary and high school (there was no middle school where I went to school). I hated working in groups, which is something I had to do quite often. I have always worked better on my own than I have with other people. I never had to do anything like analyze that “citizenship skills” assignment, and I’m very glad I didn’t have to, because I have no idea what is supposed to be going on there, even now that I am 21 (and I don’t even have actual autism).

I can also remember always having to do presentations.  I speak quietly and my voice is very monotonous.  I have difficulty projecting it across a room.  I’m just not good at standing in front of a room of people and saying things.  So, I lost a lot of marks on my presentations, even though I generally did well on the content part.

Take a look at that rubric in that article.  I don’t remember there being such a large emphasis placed on presentation, but that is supposedly something that is popular for science presentations.  The content is worth 35 points, while the presentation is worth 50 points.  But look at how the content is broken down; only 10 points for the presentation containing (which they spell wrong, by the way) scientifically accurate material.  That should be the main focus of a science presentation, but, no it’s only worth 10%.  So, if not the actual content, what else makes up the content?  Well, an “obvious conclusion” is worth 10 points “attention-getting indroduction that establishes the speaker’s credibility” is 5 points.  Yes, because “attention-getting introductions” are so important to science.  Then there is 10 points for having your scientific terms be “appropriate for the target audience” (so I guess students with advanced vocabularies are punished for having advanced vocabularies.  That’s just brilliant).

As for the actual presentation, students are punished for not maintaining eye contact with the audience, for not speaking loudly enough that people in the back in the room can clearly hear it, and for not maintaining good posture.  Again, that is what science is all about. And the presentation must also be “artistically pleasing.”  So, this is apparently an art class as well.

In summary, using this particular rubric, which is apparently popular, only ten percent of the mark on a science presentation actually has to do with the content of the report.  The other 90 percent is at best tangential to the material, even though most of it is completely irrelevant.

While I had trouble on presentations, it usually didn’t have that drastic of an effect on my marks in science or social studies.  However, I didn’t need presentations to depress the marks I got in English.  I was awful at that class.  Well, I was good at the grammar part, but not literary analysis (or worse, analysis of poetry).  Allegory is almost incomprehensible to someone like me (not all people with Asperger’s are the same, but I have to figure this characteristic is at least representative of a significant portion of people with Asperger’s). Considering I was destined to pursue a science-related career even in high school, it is absurd that someone like me would even have to do anything like that to graduate.  What does that have to do with science?  Nothing.  You might say it facilitates critical thinking skills, or something, but it doesn’t.  Critical thinking involves logic, but, unless there is some sort of obscure neurosceintific explanation, analyzing allegory in literature or poetry (or a painting or something) doesn’t involve logic.  It is an emotional (or “intuitive”) form of analysis.  So, it doesn’t have anything to do with science.  In fact, it doesn’t have anything to do with the vast majority of careers.

And the entire subjects of phys. ed. and all art-related subjects can probably be dropped from the curriculum.  I mean, they are fine as electives, but shouldn’t be required (if I was bad at English, I was absolutely abysmal at art.  I have the artistic ability of a box.  I was fortunate that I never had to take in high school because I had the option of joining the band instead, which I enjoyed even though I’m not musically skilled either).

And now that I’ve talked about things that shouldn’t be part of curricula, I will talk about things that should be on them.  First of all, subjects in general could stand to be more challenging (elementary and secondary education are so easy that college or university comes as a shock).  I also think accounting and economics should be mandatory.  And there is one branch of science that has become incredibly important, but isn’t well integrated into curricula (at least not where I went to school), and that is computer science.

Education, particularly in the United States, but also elsewhere, has become a farce.  I don’t see what is so terrible about expecting students to do straightforward math problems, write straightforward reports (without having to present them) just to demonstrate that their knowledge of a subject is adequate, and writing straightforward exams.  Education is about academics, not about developing social skills (which isn’t needed by socially adept students and which doesn’t help socially inept students).  And this is one flaw education systems have.  Don’t get me started on the left-wing indoctrination, inept teachers whose jobs are protected because of unions, all the wasted funding that goes into education, or general dismal efficacy (but I’m sure this has something to do with that) (h/t Amy Mousepants).

Canada, the Totalitarian State

If you think you have the right to free speech in Canada, you are a fucking dumbass.  Or, at least, that is what the Supreme Court says. No, Canadians’ freedom of speech is not protected.  Well, Canadians still have the right to free speech, regardless of what the fucking government says.  So, I’m going to take advantage of that right liberally in this post.  As a note, I don’t normally condone this sort of language (such as “faggot”), but it is necessary to use it in this situation.

Some fucking Christian fundamentalist nutjob thinks sodomites (note: you are not allowed to use the word sodomite.  Only we may use it, or something) are disgusting, or something.  While he is a fucking idiot, he has the right to be a fucking idiot.  Just like I have the fucking right to call him a fucking idiot.  I also have the right to call homosexuals sodomites, faggots, queers, or whatever the hell I want.  So do you, even if you are not a homosexual.  Homosexuals/sodomites/faggots like me do not have the fucking right not to be fucking offended, nor does anyone else.  We’re not so fucking fragile that a single fucking word is going to drive us into fucking suicidal depression.  Well, I guess some faggots are.  But who gives a shit about their fucking pansy asses?  They need to fucking suck it up like men (notice I said “men,” which is sexist because it implies women are fragile and have the tendency to go into a suicidal depression).

This decision by the Supreme Court is really fucking gay.  Yes, I used “gay” as a synonym for “stupid.”  Because saying that I can’t is fucking bullshit.  With this dumbass decision, Canada is inching closer to totalitarianism.  Yes, Canadians are still mostly free, but any limiting of any fundamental right is tantamount to totalitarianism.  That is because it sets the bullshit precedent that the government can arbitrarily decide which rights are valid and which aren’t.  These kinds of decisions will keep accumulating until, before you know it, you live in a fucking totalitarian dictatorship.

So, fuck you Supreme Court.  FUCK YOU.  Canadians are not about to tolerate this fucking bullshit, you fucking cunts.  Here is a picture of Muhammad with a bomb on his head:

 

My Personal War on Women

First, I have to say that not all women fit the following characterization (and a lot of males probably fit it).  In most cases when I say “women” it would be appropriate to modify that with “in general.”  However, the majority of females I know fits it to some extent.

With that said, I have come to the conclusion that I am sort of glad I am a homosexual.  Frankly, women are difficult.  My parents separated when I was about 10, and I lived with my dad between then and when I moved out to go to college.  He dated several women during that time (and he also had several female friends), and, while I really wasn’t interested in the dynamics of his relationships, I couldn’t help but observe several things (furthermore, he would often complain to me about his girlfriends or women in general).

Also, being a person, I have interacted with females on my own.  I have a mother and a sister.  I also have an aunt who I am very close with.  Those three women do not generally fit this characterization I am making about women, which is why I like being around all of them. My aunt, for example, is a former business executive.  She is incredibly rational.  Most women, however, don’t seem to be.  I have been around many other women, and most seem to be rather difficult.

What I have concluded from my various interactions with females and from observing other people’s interactions with females is that they often communicate in a very subtle manner, and that other people not picking up on this subtlety is what often causes the “drama” they are known for.  Not only do they communicate in this manner, but they expect everyone else to do so as well, and if you fail to do so, there is Hell Toupée.

So, here is why I am happy not to have to have relationships with women.  Most normal men seem to have trouble understanding what women are thinking, because they have trouble picking up subtleties. However, I have trouble picking up some things that would be obvious to most men.  When it comes to social cues, I am often entirely oblivious.  Furthermore, I am stubborn.  Not only do I not pick up many social cues, but I utterly refuse to care about them.  And if you give me a hard time about it, I will give you a hard time back.  You might be able to see why I might not be able to have a successful relationship with a woman.  Also, women often think emotionally (to a greater extent than men do, in general).  I’ve had many arguments with my dad, who isn’t an exceptionally emotional person, that resulted from him refusing to be sufficiently logical, and from myself refusing to relent my logicality.

In general, people who understand me and how I think (most of the time, my dad and my aunt fit this description, and my mom is so mild mannered that it is never even issue with her) get along with me perfectly, but those who don’t often have uncomfortable or strained relationships with me.  In addition, people are often put off by my tactlessness.  Being someone who doesn’t like drama, I have learned to be more tactful in some cases, but this also results in bottled up frustration which has a tendency to cause me to explode (in rage).

I don’t deal with this subtlety shit (I also don’t tolerate manipulation or passive-aggressiveness, which are other things women often do).  I simply don’t have relationships (friendships included) with people who are like that.  So, I’m probably more likely to find a guy who is level-headed and more likely to get along with me than I am a woman. Anyway, that is one way you can look at being gay.

Thinking About Evolution

I am surprised to discover that many people apparently still don’t believe in evolution and that they instead believe in creationism.  I’m not a biologist, so I’m not going to go very far into the merits of the theory of evolution.  What I will say, though, is that there is enough scientific evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is a real phenomenon.  It might not be that Darwin’s proposed mechanism is the one that drives evolution, but evolution certainly does exist.

The real flaw with creationists’ arguments is that, while their criticisms of evolutionary theory may have merit, what they offer as an alternative (i.e. intelligent design) has absolutely no scientific merit. Religion might be a good vehicle for the propagation of morality, but it doesn’t offer any explanation for natural phenomena.

This isn’t necessarily limited to evolution.  Many religious people think in the following way: something cannot be conclusively explained by the current body of scientific knowledge, so it therefore must only be explainable by the existence of God (or something like that).  That is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking, because the latter premise has no basis in evidence.  And chances are that the religious person making that argument is doing so in the context of whatever religion they happened to be raised in.  Why is Christianity more correct than Hinduism, or vice versa?  The religious people’s beliefs on this matter do not have any solid basis.

You might not think this is a relevant issue and you might be wondering why I am spending the time writing about it.  Well, it is an important issue, especially on the right.  It demonstrates a failure in critical thinking ability, which is a problem.

Finally, I am not attacking religion here.  I am simply making a fact-based argument.  If you took this post as an attack, you probably need to be less sensitive.

Dennis Rodman has Become an Important Geopolitical Figure

If you don’t know who Dennis Rodman is, this is Dennis Rodman.  Here is another picture.  We’re all doomed.

Dennis Rodman recently traveled to North Korea, the world’s strangest and most secretive country.  The country whose leader, Kim Jong Un, claims to be a god and lives in opulence while its people starve.  The very same leader who Rodman has become “friends” with.  At least Rodman’s friendship with Kim Jong Un opens a line of communication between North Korea and the United States.  Again, we’re all doomed.

Rodman has the following message for Obama from Kim:

In his first interview since returning to the U.S. from an unprecedented visit to North Korea last week, former NBA star Dennis Rodman said he bears a message for President Obama from the country’s oppressive leader, Kim Jong Un.

“He wants Obama to do one thing: Call him.”

…

The young leader has defied U.N. sanctions by continuing to develop North Korea’s nuclear arms and missile program, which he says is aimed at the U.S. Kim is often regarded as one of the world’s most oppressive leaders, presiding over prison camps and allowing millions of his own people to starve. Rodman likely now has more firsthand impressions of Kim than any other American. He offered some insight to Kim’s personality this morning. “He loves power. He loves control,” Rodman said, of his new “friend.” “But guess what? He doesn’t want war. That’s one thing he doesn’t want.”

Kim Jong Un doesn’t want war.  I’m sure that is why he is developing nuclear weapons.  And for some reason, I’m guessing Obama is going to take Rodman seriously.  Perhaps he will even use this opportunity to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea and appoint Rodman as the ambassador.  I mean, that is what Kim wants, right?  Yes, because that certainly doesn’t threaten his power, so, clearly, all he wants is a dialogue.  And this is the person who singlehandedly prevented a nuclear war with his deft diplomacy and immense geopolitical insight.  We’re all doomed.

ALTERNATE TITLE FOR THIS POST: Kim Jong Un to Obama: Call Me Maybe