Faulty Logic: “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution I”

Guys, it’s been a while, I know. My summer has been wild, and I have not had time/gotten around to posting like I used to. But enough of that. Today I will be addressing one of my biggest annoyances: Creation Science, and specifically, the media “creation scientists” cling to as support of their argument, in this case, the popular “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution.”

I would like to say to start that Creation Science is an oxymoron. Science and creationism does not mix. Whatever your beliefs are, you plainly cannot support the Bible’s stories with science, it just isn’t compatible. Not hating on anyone’s beliefs here, but to take the Bible literally is to reject proven science, and to understand science is to reject the literal translation of the Bible. You cannot possibly take both.

This little video here tries to disprove evolution using primarily examples from the natural world as its evidence. This would be an incredible, ground breaking film, if it weren’t complete lies. What I have next is a play-by-play of sorts debating the “facts” put forth in the video. I would like to start by saying I am just a kid entering his freshmen year in college, and I certainly am no scientific scholar of any sort, so most of what I have written is personal conjecture. However, it will be a logical and simple guide to why this video is bullshit. Enjoy.

Here is one of the videos. Enjoy, for free. The play-by-play will be below. http://vimeo.com/22493796

The narrator starts in a field of beautiful flowers, and harks their beauty. He seems to disregard that those flowers were engineered by humans and are at an evolutionary disadvantage the way they are, with too many petals and no access to their pollen. He also seems to disregard all of the hideous creatures (look up the lamprey for kicks) like parasites (tapeworm ring a bell?) that thrive on earth.

00:26 “we are going to take a look at some animals, and shatter that very idea [that those animals developed through evolution]” Challenge Accepted, mate.

1:00 “he has been a college professor, and a dentist.” Already this is a poor source. He’s a dentist, and he teaches dentistry classes. He is no authority on evolution. The fact that he served on a presidential dentist crew does not have anything to do with how informed he is on this matter.

They keep referring to Dr. Martin’s scientific and medical background. He’s not a scientist, he’s a dentist. His medical background is unrelated. He is not an authority on the matter.

1:26 He starts to explain the big bang, which is not directly associated with the theory of evolution. This is a horribly simplistic, and wrong explanation. Certainly hydrogen gas cannot simply just “turn to dust.” Hydrogen is hydrogen, I know not of a “dust” element. “Volcanic activity produced the water.” That’s kind of a stupid thing to say. Water cannot simply appear because of a volcano erupting, spilling out rock. Water probably came to earth through a number of asteroids containing water crashing into earth. “Zapped by some kind of x-ray…” I wonder if this guy is serious. X-rays? Just in, Curie goes back in time, creates life! It was probably a lighting strike that caused chemicals to bond together to form the first cell. “Speck of light.” What the heck is he talking about? “That cell became beautiful you.” Well, that escalated quickly.

2:46 “I hadn’t even heard of it.” You call yourself a professor and have never heard of creation science? Wait, did he say that was in 1971? So… more than 40 years ago. Times have changed. Go back to dental college to educate yourself on astrology why don’t you.

3:25 He says assumptions, but does not specify the assumptions made, except for “rocks are very old” Going by his own big bang speech, which tells us that volcanoes were erupting before the onset of life, it is possible to assume that rocks are very old. A two year old could figure that out.

3:35 he starts talking about the bombardier beetle. He claims that the bombardier beetle could not have possibly evolved all of those features to create a one perfect beetle. I don’t see this. The evolution Bombardier beetles can easily be explained. Here is an explanation that may or may not be true, but follows the theory of evolution, and yes, Dr. Martin, the theory of punctuated equilibrium. There are plenty of noxious, non-exploding beetles, that leak or give off poisons or deterrents. Would it be too difficult to say that those chemicals were an evolutionary accident? A non-toxic beetle develops wax on its outer shell to keep water in or out. This trait gives this beetle an evolutionary advantage, and eventually, through generations, this trait becomes the norm for beetles. Then a beetle’s DNA is changed through mutation, the wax becomes more dense, and distasteful to predators. They eat his fellow beetles but avoid him, this beetle has many many baby beetles, the trait eventually becomes the norm again. ANOTHER beetle has a mutation it its DNA, the wax becomes very noxious through a mixing of naturally produced chemicals in the digestive tract, natural selection happens again, many baby beetles, becomes the norm. Mutation again, the beetle produces a catalyst that when a leg is pinched, the chemical explodes, sending away predators, the beetle lives, natural selection. As the mutation and natural selection happen again and again, the beetle refines its method of delivering the explosions, eventually making that brilliant turret we see on it today. See? You may have mulled over how this beetle was formed for years, but I created a reasonable explantation in five minutes! This is not intelligent design, and can be explained. For more information, look up the beetle, and you’ll find a legitimate and complicated explanation.

7:15 Martin starts to explain his thoughts on the giraffe. Wait wait wait. Did he just say evolutionists can’t explain how a giraffe knows the difference between a lion and a zebra? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? A zebra goes like this, “clomp clomp clomp.” A lion goes like this, “—- —- ROAR padpadpadpad.” A giraffe has ears. It can HEAR the lion versus the zebra. It has a nose. it can SMELL the difference between a pack of zebras and a lone lion. It has eyes, it can SEE the difference between a lion and a zebra. Get the point? Evolutionists don’t need to explain that, it’s painfully obvious.

Giraffes are one of evolution’s pride and joys, their necks are just long enough to eat from the native trees, which co-evolved as the trees shrank upward to avoid the giraffe’s bites, and the giraffes grew taller to eat it. Their mouths grew hard to be able to bite down on the thorns, and their pattens hid them from predators.

He seems to disregard the fact that giraffes did not start their evolution with their long necks. Of course, as the necks got longer, wouldn’t the ones with the better blood supply lines already in place be better off to defend predators? When their neck was just about as long as a common horse say, and the trees they ate from were just about that high, there were giraffes that perhaps had some of these mutations already in place. It wasn’t necessarily beneficial, it might have been a trait that didn’t help or harm, perhaps like your blonde hair, sir. But as their necks got longer, the giraffes with these traits in place would have already been in place. Right now, having blonde hair would not be a disadvantage or advantage. But let’s say alligators had a boom year, and millions were born all over the united states. Due to blonde hair’s light reflecting effects, alligators avoided attacking blondes. Other haired individuals would be on the run. You were not designed to be a lesser target for alligators and so have a better chance at survival, you were accidentally born with blonde hair that did no help or harm, and that trait eventually became an advantage. Eventually, everyone would be blonde. Do you see now? Plus, wouldn’t God just create a shorter necked giraffe and shorter trees in the first place, so that all of this extra energy wouldn’t be wasted, pushing blood flow to the head? Wouldn’t that design be more perfect? He is using the “all the perfect parts couldn’t have evolved to work perfectly together like this” argument, which probably has a better name. But indeed, wouldn’t a better design be to have one single vein that pumps blood up and down if necessary to the brain by magic? A set of parts is actually inconvenient and can easily have evolved one at a time, or partially together.

9:42 he then goes on to talk about the world’s tallest giraffe. Wouldn’t that be an example of a mutation that did not benefit the giraffe, supporting the theory of evolution? He also claims giraffes have no vocal chords, which is false. Giraffes have vocal chords, they just rarely use them. Baby and youth giraffes have been know to cry out in duress. Perhaps that is one of those hidden mutations that do no help or harm?

10:15 He begins to describe the woodpecker. He AGAIN uses the same argument to say how not all of these parts could have possible evolved together. That simply, is not true, as explained earlier, each feature could have evolved independently. Woodpeckers would blow their brains out or starve, originally, as his argument goes, as they dig into tough trees. However, weak, soft trees would be teeming with bugs, and a hardy bird could make a nice meal out of it. As it continually pecked at the trees, it evolved a tougher skull and beak to support itself. He uses an example of the European Green Woodpecker, and how its tongue is unique, and the reason for this was an intelligent design to challenge future evolutionists, which is a laughable concept. Since I sensed he was not giving out the full story, I did a little research on my own. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html here is a wonderful, in depth description of how this may have evolved. The short version: the tongue is mostly made of hard material, allowing it to function as both support, and to allow the tongue to protrude much farther into the wood than a normal bird’s, a great advantage, from what I gather. You may do a bit of research on your own to support this, if you want. Science is rarely left with an unexplainable phenomenon, and when there is, explanations eventually appear.

14:55 His statement about holding back evidence is at the utmost irony here. Science is 100% based on evidence. Creationism is based 100% on faith. That is not evidence, my friend.

16:00 he starts to speak about the Australian Incubator Bird. “Impossible, impossible!” Sir, this bird laying eggs that weigh a 1/2 pound is possible. That’s because it happens. Are you rejecting evidence? Do I have to refer you to Romans? 19:20 “The birds somehow know, I gotta get out of here.” No shit. If I was hungry and in a pile of leaves, I would want to get the fuck out of there too. Apparently it’s a miracle that the bird knows how to create a pile of leaves even though he wasn’t taught by his parents. OK seems reasonable, until you think about some human behaviors. Babies learn to walk without being taught, right? Even if no one had taught you or your partner, you would know how to reproduce. These are instincts, not miracles. We are born with this knowledge like we are born with the knowledge of how to move our eyes or fingers. That’s why salmon swim upstream to their birthplaces, why birds migrate, and why bears hibernate. It’s the same concept. How could this bird evolve you ask? Very easily, especially in comparison the other examples, which were more tricky to explain. The birds that exhibited some or all of these behaviors had a better chance of survival than those who didn’t. This bird looks like it could evolve further, having the eggs be more insulated and more resistant to temperature. Perhaps this evolution is happening right now. But you won’t see it in your lifetime, and your children’s children’s children’s children’s children won’t see it either. It’s just such a slow process, evolution.

20:32 “here’s something we pull out of the icebox every morning.” Icebox? I have a fridge. Maybe this just shows how backward this whole video is.

20:40 he begins to explain how eggs develop. I don’t really see his argument here. He is saying that because the process of a developing egg is so precise and perfect, it must have been made by God. This makes no sense to me. Eggs have been around since before the dinosaurs, you can see the variation in snake and reptile eggs today, you’d think by now they would have perfected the process through evolution, which, by the looks of that process in this video, that has almost happened. The thing is, baby chicks die all the time before emerging from their eggs, that’s why we find pushed out eggs from nests in our neighborhoods, they just weren’t able to develop. The ones that do survive, and pass their strong genes down to their offspring, further improving the process. Evolution, bitch.

24:50 the narrator claims there was a very prolific chicken at a university. Perhaps if that chicken were to be mated, it would pass those genes down to its offspring and have many more eggs than normal. Alas, a mutation, again confirming evolution in the same source trying to disprove it.

27:00 Dr. Martin claims there is no explanation for how the beaver can pull the branch across a river. In fact, there is: a beaver is very strong. They evolved to be able to pull that branch because better, drier houses mean more babies. More babies mean survival of those genes. God is not an explanation, it is an excuse for ignorance in this case. Learn the other opinions and stop blindly accepting, and you may find there IS an evolutionary explanation.

28:00 He describes the platypus, but does not explain how it defies evolution, in fact everything he said supports the theory of evolution. I don’t really know what to sy here.

29:15 Black and Yellow Garden Spider. He wonders how the spider would be able to manufacture their web factory. Well the answer to that is no different than why a spider evolved a hard exoskeleton, the spider with the better webs caught more food and was able to better their chances at survival. The “praising God” method of studying is ridiculous. Scientists come from all faiths and beliefs and it would be highly insulting, in addition to being completely immoral, unethical and an impediment to science to study organisms this way.

34:17 the Gecko Lizard: the questions he asks: Why would the lizard evolve tiny suction cups? Well, the answer is obvious, to stick to things to escape predation. How would it evolve these? Well, like any other trait, through a beneficial genetic mutation that is naturally selected. Note: Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest.” That was coined by Social Darwinists. How would it evolve feet to perfectly fit the suction cups? Well, not all similar lizards have the same feet. If it were because of intelligent design, God would have designed the feet identically, and perfectly, instead of the variety and imperfection that exists. How? Perhaps the feet that the lizard had originally were adequate enough to move around with, and as the generations passed, the better equipped lizards survived more often, eventually producing better feet. Perhaps the feet evolved first, the suction cups improved later, making the foot ideal. I don’t know exactly, but my point is that there are many logical options to how these creatures evolved, and one simply has to do a little critical thinking, which Dr. Martin seems to not be doing.

≈36:00 The other lizard, I’m not sure how to spell it. This is certainly a remarkable creature. But, the qualities that make it are not unexplainable by evolution. The “sneezes” that expel salt are not entirely unique. Every creature in the desert has its own way of desalinizing its blood, many by solid urine, or uric acid. This is simply a different way of solving the same problem, and shows truly the variety of the biosphere and the remarkable ways multiple creatures have solved their problems. This is not a testament to creationism but merely a display of evolution’s marvels.

39:10: Oh goodness, people. This is going to be good. He addresses the ear, which is indeed a marvelous organ. “How could this marvel evolve?” he asks. Well, through millions of years of changes and variation. First off, there are many many many creatures with less developed ears than humans. These provide clues as to when our ancestors evolved variations on the ear and split off towards different evolutionary paths. Our ear is not as developed as the cat’s, and their ear can distinguish between small sounds we cannot even detect. Our ear is not perfect. He questions how our eyes might evolve. Look at the snail, those eyes can barely distinguish between light and dark. Just like the ear, it evolved piece by piece until it is what it is today. Also, the eye is not perfect, in fact, it is inefficient. There are parts of the eye that obscure light from the receiving neurons, which the brain is forced to adjust for. There is a blind spot where the optic nerve gets in the way of vision and the brain must compensate. The image is recorded upside down before the brain is forced to flip it. The eye is inefficient, and is not perfect. Perhaps we are still evolving, and those issues will be ironed out over many many years.

He finishes by saying that these creatures have defied evolution in every single way. Haven’t we proved otherwise? He ends on the same thought he started with, that the world is beautiful, and that’s because God made it that way. Personally, I think people are pretty ugly myself.

Again, I’m not a scientist, I’m a kid. Don’t take my explanations too seriously, they are just a demonstration of critical thinking that I found to be lacking in this video.

Please contribute to the conversation, I would love to hear your opinion on either side of the debate, and I’ll respond and check your blog out. You can follow me if you like, the posts will be sporadic.

And yeah, fuck those carbon dating debaters too. They’re dumber than this guy.

Stay confident. Stay happy.

My Opinion on Gay Marriage

Recently, Obama announced his support of marriage for same sex couples, which is great and all, but really changes nothing, aside from the symbolic factor.

But what I’m appalled at is the amount of anti-gay marriage sentiment that has sprung up because of it.

Here’s a breakdown of my opinion, (I’m straight, by the way) summarized. I could go on for hours on the subject, but here’s a Reader’s Digest version:

1.) Christians cannot accurately cite the Bible on this one. Where does Jesus mention gay marriage? NOWHERE. The bible only briefly mentions gay intercourse in its entirety. But it also mentions in Deuteronomy (I’ve read most of the old testament) that under certain conditions, a woman must marry her rapist. Do we follow or consider that rule to be morally right? NO. It’s all bigotry and misinformity.

2.) Gay people can’t choose to be straight. Can you choose to be gay? I dare you, one month, one YEAR try to be gay. I can guarantee that at the end of the 365 day you will not suddenly feel turned on by a man taking his shirt off at the beach. Don’t you think that many gay people would choose to be straight, rather than “abnormal?” Why can’t they marry?

3.) Why the hell do you care? If two people find love, and they happen to have similar sex chromosomes, how does that affect you? Will your marriage be destroyed? No. Will people start marrying rocks and deer? No! Rick Santorum is a douchebag for claiming that homosexual intercourse is akin to bestiality. The difference between marrying an antelope and gay marriage is that both partners in the second relationship both are choosing to dedicate themselves to their partner. The antelope marriage? Only one party in this situation has the willpower to decide to marry.

It’s wrong to deny two people the universal right to marry, no matter what gender they are. It is time to quell the misinformation and bigotry that pervades this topic. It is time to let our gays marry.

Remember, like, follow, and comment on this post. Maybe I’ll follow you back.

Stay Confident, Stay Happy.

Here’s a link to the goddess Jenna Marbles talking about gay marriage. Truly a pleasure to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F_ZZEuVLaw

Why Ultimate Frisbee is a Sport

Whenever I tell people that I’m the captain of our school’s Ultimate Frisbee team, usually their first reaction is “Uhhh that’s not a sport. Ultimate Frisbee’s stupid.” Are you fucking kidding me? First off, it’s rude to tell a player (let alone the captain) that his activity is not worth doing. Second, Ultimate Frisbee is a lot more of a sport than most other socially acceptable “sports.” Dictionary.com defines sport as:

“An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing etc.”

As we can see, the definition of sport is relatively vague. Racing (essentially driving a car), Fishing (essentially sitting down), and bowling (why don’t we include ski-ball or air hockey as sports, if bowling is?) are in the definition of a sport. I’m not out to bash other “sports.” But I am out to prove that Ultimate Frisbee fulfills all of those qualifications, plus more.

I think a lot of the hate for Ultimate Frisbee comes from 1.) its name (come on, they couldn’t have picked a name with a little more umph, like simply “Disc?”) and 2.) ignorance surrounding how the sport is played. I’ll tell you a little about the rules of the game, think about me as an educator.

It’s kind of like American football or even handball… no wait, more like basketball… Actually, it’s really its own animal. The size of the field is thinner than a soccer field, but just as long, with deep end zones. The game starts with a “Pull” kind of like a kickoff. One player launches the disc to the other team of seven players, standing on the end line. The team moves the disc up the field and a point is scored when the disc is caught in the end zone and tapped on the ground. The game is usually to 15 points, win by two. However, when catching the disc, you put your pivot foot down, and that doesn’t move. The only way for you to move the disc upfield is to pass it. Possession of the disc is overturned at the specific spot where the disc hits the ground, or goes out of bounds, if it does. When scoring, the team pulls to the other team. Of course, there are more rules (fouls, stalling, etc.) but those are the basics.

It requires a ridiculous amount of running, athleticism, technical skill, and strength, all of which fit nicely under the sport definition, while other “legitimate” sports simply don’t have. There’s even a professional Ultimate Frisbee League that sometimes is shown on ESPN. Your school probably has a team, why don’t you see for yourself how much of a “sport” it is. To call Ultimate Frisbee anything otherwise is just wrong.

ANNOUNCEMENT: I’m sorry about this, but I simply have run out of time and things to get mad about on a daily basis. However, I will not stop posting, they’ll just be a more manageable once a week on Fridays. If you’re bored and want more check out http://www.baggerproblems.wordpress.com for posts about your local bagger.

As usual, if you comment on, follow, or like my blog, I’ll check out yours! If it’s something I’m interested in, I’ll follow you up!

If you don’t have a wordpress account, and are just tagging along, click follow on the sidebar to get my stuff in your inbox every friday!

Soccer Moms: Not Who You Think They Are.

When Sarah Palin or any other celebrity talks about being a soccer mom, it sounds homey, like they really care for their kids and are truly good and involved in their family.

In reality, soccer somehow brings out the rabid dog in people. And when you have two teams full of them on the sidelines, it creates two opposing snarling, growling, and howling wolf packs, who are unequivocally set against the referee and sometimes each other. How do I know this? I am a referee.

I was twelve years old, and I was refereeing my first game. The kids I was refereeing were about six, and they clearly had never played the game before this season. The field was about as big as my front yard. This was a league so young they didn’t even differenciate between boys and girls and all of them tried to flop and kick the soccer ball as much as possible in a mob pf players with the ball in the middle. Inevitably, one would fall or bump into another and would sprawl out on the grass. There was this one guy who was yelling at me to call a penalty for his daughter who had tripped over another player.

First of all, I would just like to point out that tripping itself is not a foul. It has to be a malingnant or disadvantageous action against another player and in this case it was neither. Second, THEY’RE SIX YEAR OLDS. I don’t need to call a pushing foul when clearly they are just trying to have fun! Third, how wrong is it to yell at a 12 year old in general, especially a referee?

Now, as I referee more intense 14 year old players, the intensity of the spectators has dramatically increased. The parents on the field treat each play as if each it were a life or death situation, and if their 13 year old soccer star won’t get to the pros if they do not get one tripping call. I’m sorry not sorry but, your kid from little suburban town is not going to play professional soccer. They’re not even good enough to score against the slightly larger town nearby. Also, do they think that this game actually matters? Again, your kid is 13. This game, let alone this play, will mean nothing a week after the season ends. For some reason, if they feel their kid has been personally humiliated or tarnished trivially on the field, they feel the same. Which is ridiculous.

I also would like to mention that I have attended at least one five hour referee class a year since I was 12 years old. Why do parents feel they know the game better than I do? They don’t just know less than I do, they know nearly nothing. They are absolutely clueless in some cases and protest vehemently against something that they don’t even know the rules that surround the situation. Just because someone falls doesn’t mean there’s a penalty. There are penalties like dangerous play or offsides that are not readily obvious to a spectator who has never even touched a soccer ball besides pulling it out of the giant bins of mass produced balls before paying overprice for it at Dick’s.

Plus, yelling at me to call something is not going to change how I call it. I call the game like I see it.

Even the players, egged on by their obnoxious parents get in on the act. They argue the most obvious fouls, and the ones that don’t exist. They persist for the entirety of the game, especially as they’re losing, and afterward blame the referees for their loss. It is almost never the referee’s fault. Maybe you should have scored more legitimate goals instead of blaming the referee for a questionable offsides call made by a linesman referee.

That’s why I gave up soccer (playing, not refereeing, I make too much dough to give it up) for Ultimate Frisbee. There are no referees, and calling fouls is at the hands of the players who abide by the “spirit of the game” surprisingly fairly.

Thanks for reading, have a good day, and stay happy and stay confident.

Remember to like, or comment for me to check out your blog and follow me if you want me to follow you. (It’s not a gaurantee, I don’t necessarily want to recieve emails fron posts I don’t like but I’ll certainly consider it.) For you non-wordies, click follow on the side to recieve awesome posts in your email when I post. It’s worth it.

www.baggerproblems.wordpress.com

Why we don’t need a 4/20

We don’t have a 7/13 for vodka day. We don’t have a 8/30 for heroin. We don’t have a Ñ@/þÌË day for LSD. Why do we have a 4/20?

I don’t understand why we have a designated holiday for such a trivial thing. It seems to me it’s a day for a bunch of stoner teenagers and adults who can’t find a job/still live in their parent’s basements to smoke weed at the same time. Huh? Why does there need to be a holiday for something you would do anyway?

I am simultaneously amazed and shaking my head at how this could be such a national phenomenon. I laugh when I see the prideful facebook statuses boasting about their consumption of marijuana. How can you boast about something that’s so easy! Smoking weed? I could get a joint in less than fifteen minutes if I wanted to! Plus, you look like a complete tool, but we’re not even going to go into that.

So. I invite you to celebrate 5/20 with me. It is a day when we will be inhaling a different kind of gas, one that the withdrawal is so severe it can result in quick death. I’m talking about oxygen. That’s right. I’m going to celebrate 5/20 with all my friends, kick back and “getin crunk tonite hmu” “dude gona blow a whole tank tonight lol. Oxygen tank.” “dude check out all my glass. Got it lined up for the big night 5/20″ 

I would be breathing on 5/20 anyway. Why not get together and celebrate the fact that we are? Join the cause today. Join me on 5/20.

WAIT. Don’t stop reading yet! Since I have at least 100 views on my blog, I decided to introduce a new feature. If you like, comment on, or follow my blog, I’ll look at your blog, if you have one. Maybe I’ll like it and comment on it. If you really like this post, share it with friends.

Stay happy, stay confident.

check out my main blog: www.baggerproblems.wordpress.com

You are What You Wear

OK, I’ve been noticing a trend lately: girls who wear pants are are so ridiculously high that the pockets themselves go lower than the actual legs of the pants. When I first saw this, I laughed. I didn’t think that anyone could wear pants that were so small and still be considered pants! But now I see them everywhere.

Our high school has a relatively lenient dress code, I would say. It bans, wait for it… the 6 B’s: as in (quoted from the student handbook) Bellies, Bottoms, Breasts, Bras, Boxers, or Backs. First off, I want to quickly giggle at how one of the B’s is not Butts, but Bottoms. Second, I want to say how this dress code (except for the boxers) is almost completely targeted at girls.

It’s a really easy dress code to follow. In fact, it looks like it’s primarily restating laws about indecent exposure. However, girls’ clothing nowadays is always just kind of dancing right up to the edge of if they’re allowed or not.

It’s not even attractive! Well, I can’t speak for the douche bags, who seem to love that sh**. But scientific research has proven that women who show about 40% of their bodies are more attractive. I’m seeing about 70% sometimes. Honestly, it isn’t attractive. At all. I’m sorry to say this, but when your pockets are lower than your pants, you look like a slut. And you do to people that matter, such as teachers and bosses.

Ok, stay happy, stay confident, and like and share this post UP. Comment what you want to hear about next! What pisses you off?

And, these posts are not going to be once a day anymore… I’m kind of running out of things to be pissed about on a daily basis. So, follow me through email, to get one every time I post! Or just keep checking up every day. Fine by me.

www.baggerproblems.wordpress.com

Texting in the Theater

I finally went out and saw the Hunger Games yesterday. First off, Katniss, what a boss. I hadn’t read the book(s), but considering the amount of holds on the series at the library and how long the movie probably had left in the theater, I thought what the heck, and went and saw it. It was really well done, and I enjoyed it very much.

What I noticed however, was the amount of people playing with their phones during the movie. Katniss is seconds away from near certain death, I’m on the edge of my seat with anticipation, fingernails planted firmly in mouth when I look over and see a kid with his iphone, reading his texts. The light from the device is already ridiculously bright, and to bring it into a dark movie theater? Not cool.

It’s rude and it’s distracting. What is the point of going to the movies if you are just going to text people who aren’t with you? Talking during a movie is one thing, it’s just as annoying, but I often find myself talking with friends when I attend movies with them and I guess it’s kind of something that we just can’t help sometimes. But texting? During a movie? That’s inexcusable. Why go to a movie and text when you could text anywhere else?

I just can’t see how someone can text during a movie. I get so engrossed in the story in some of these movies that I can’t think of anything else but the characters on the screen and the story line it follows. There is nothing more sobering than looking over and seeing a phone open during the climax of a movie.

Here’s what I present: the conversations can wait. If you really can’t help but check your phone during a movie, turn it off or leave it at home leave it at home. Then maybe you’ll actually enjoy the movie. That’s unless it’s a Twilight movie, then bring a strobe. Block as much of that s*it out as you can.

It causes seizures anyway. Nothing to worry about.

Stay happy, stay confident. Follow me through email, so you can get a notification when I post. Like and share through all of the buttons below.

Check out Bagger Problems if you’re wondering how it is to be a bagger at your supermarket.