The Subjects Of Fat Cat Embezzling CEOs, Wall Street, etc.

I have a confession.  I have very little sympathy for stockholders and investors that lose money. 

Do all these stockholders really think there is a magic formula that makes money materialize out of thin air?  They seriously think that by dint of having some money, they will be rewarded by being given even more money.  that is basically what investing is; it is putting up some money in the hopes that it will get bigger.  What is the possible justification for being this delusional, this greedy, this unrealistic?  It is really no different from gambling in a casino.  Gambling in a casino is probably better because at least that way only a day or two is wasted.

But this is not gambling, some might say.  It is investing in the future of a company, some might say.  There are actual financial formulas for gaining the most investment return and maximizing profit and getting the product out there, marketing to the most likely buyers, some might say.  I say, oh, really?  That sounds like complete crap.

In trying to learn more about these companies and their profiles, I am left wondering, what the hell is it that they sell? I have yet to find a straight answer to this.  Is it actual products or quantifiable services that can actually be seen and gauged for worth, clocked in hours for the amount of time and work needed?  Can you actually name it and describe accurately in ten words or less what it actually is?  If more than ten words are needed to describe the product/service/etc. that the elusive "stock market" metes out to the public, then it is probably a load of hogwash.

Contrasting to software engineering, which in some __bizarre___ opinions may be taken as abstract rather than concrete objects.  it might not be solid, tangible, physical object such as pharmaceuticals or car engines being fixed.  It all mostly exists in a digital virtual world.  Yet by all sane definitions, digital products are still tradeable goods.

Motor Makes And Microsoft

I find it slightly exasperating when government imposes federal regulations onto manufacturers of a product, especially an important product such as motor vehicles.  I might be the only person on the planet who is not a CEO of an automotive corporation who feels this way.

There are all sort of of safety regulations and inspections they have to pass.  The auto manufactures have to pass muster on whatever whim the government thinks up in its fancy to keep itself busy and keep up public perceptions of it being worthy.

For goodness' sake, auto manufacturers are creating a product!  They are already working so hard, so tirelessly and so enthusiastically to deliver a vital resource to the American people.  They are contributing a vital piece of___ for the nation's infrastructure.  They are contributing a commodity that improves the American way of life, that improves standard of living.
for goodness' sake, isn't it enough that they do all this?

This is why this is frustrating to me.  Look at all those engineers, assembly line workers, skilled laborers-- laboring endlessly to deliver an end product that genuinely exists in the tangible world.

Yeah, I know safety regulations are important.  I agree with you there.  Such as anti-lock brakes, seat belts, quality control so that airbags don't spontaneously deploy.  But you notice something?  All those truly important checkpoints that ensure that a finished product is safe for humans --- they have already been covered.  __already been well-established.

Anything else beyond that that might lead to a manufacturer recall on a particular lot number -- is a matter of safety inspections failing.  It is a matter of quality control not doing its job.  Here is what I'm trying to say -- it is a matter of people not adhering to and upholding safety rules and regulations that are <already on the books.>  It is not a matter of there not being enough safety regulations currently in existence.

Do you understand?  The auto manufacturers simply need to make sure the existing laws and regulations are being followed.  It is an idiotic response from the government to say, "oh well they're not following existing regulations, let's punish them by adding more regulations."  If existing regulations are not being followed, what the hell good is it supposed to do if the govmit simply signs additional regulations?

This is what I'm saying.  Do your damn job in the first place.  Uphold all standards.  Standards of production, standards of regulation, standards of each part in the assembly working optimally.

As for the government-mandated air quality controls for vehicles -- enough with that 3h+.  The hippies' agenda is, believe it or not, not everyone else's number one agenda and focus.  The customers don't necessarily care, and the manufacturers don't necessarily care.
environment.  air purity

Like when they tried to break up and disperse Microsoft back a few years ago.  they tried to chop it down into bits and pieces.  This was very aggravating to me; yes, I actually took this as a personal slight to my values and sensibilities.

If govermit **really** wants to help the American public, they need to rein in the goddamn stock market. 

[[[[[credit card companies.]]]]  Talk about a corporation that is useless because it is a figment of the imagination!  all it is, is just a concept in the imagination.  they are making money off of an insubstantial daydream mind-wandering of a bored rich white kid who did not study something useful in college and now has nothing better to do.__]]

Evolution Being Taught In Schools

And with the liberals insisting that evolution keep being taught in schools.  Oh, Christ.  Roll eyes, then sigh.

This incessant whining by the liberals that evolution be taught in schools -- let us be truly honest here.  This evolution is not truly going to help the average American high school kid.  All this is going to accomplish is knocking down their heroes and ___ [role models]] off their pedestals.

It is not going to have any positive or practical effect.  One little evolution course module is probably not going to inspire them to pursue medicine.  It is not necessarily going to impart to them any desire to want to unlock the secrets of the universe.  It is not going to [[inspire]]] any of them to aspire to great heights in lab research or clinical research.

One little sequence in evolution is not enough to prepare them.  They will not magically be ready for the intense demands of any of the college majors that adequately prepare a given student for medical school.  You cannot just keep harping on only one topic in the vast field that is biology without also making sure they have the whole story.  Evolution is only a small part of the picture.  There is also general chemistry, organic chemistry, cell biology, genetics, physiology, biochemistry, plant biology, animal biology, ecology, and a bunch of others that i am forgetting to mention right now.

And those are only the sub-topics of biology alone.  There is a full complement of other subjects that are required of students that want to become scientists.  You pro-evolutionists [[[[  cannot]]]] simply be content with giving them a little bit of knowledge and then think that you have done your job as social activists.

Now, I can tell you right now that the caliber of the majority of students in the United States will not be able to handle this.  With the pathetically below-par education they receive in grade school, and the quality of college students they turn into, most kids will not be able to handle science or technology education in college.  This is training that should be received by someone who has had the proper individually-attended, lifelong training in research and controlled experiment procedures that we know students are supposed to receive in mathematics and science.

Okay, just let me level with you here.  Look at these people.  Look at these idiots.  Do you honestly presume to tell me that these morons could handle biomedical research work?  I'm just being honest and straightforward with you here.

Look, I'm sorry, but with their caliber of *cough* intelligence *snort*, they cannot handle math and science being taught to them.  What are the actual chances that the average American high school kid is going to actually do anything useful with this fountain of knowledge?

Look, none of these dips are going to cure cancer.  They are not going to be attending medical school.  They definitely are not going to go into biomedical research.  Asian kids are going to be doing all of that.

Let me tell you something.  Do you observe where the global economy is going?  Cause it ain't staying here.  If anyone is going to discover a cure for cancer, it will probably be the Asians.  Or the Switzerland people.  One of them.  No American kid is going to cure cancer.  So realistically, what is the harm in letting them choose not to study evolution?

Teaching them evolution is not going to do a damn thing for them.  It is not going to help them at all.  They do not possess the intellectual rigor required to pursue a degree in science or mathematics.  All it will accomplish is making their parents mad.

So what's the harm in letting them continue to go about in their happy little lives thinking creationism or intelligent design or whatever, is the true story?  So for goodness' sake, let them have their happiness.  Let them enjoy their planet that is only 5000 years old.

Evolutionary Psychology And Women Raising Children

Some liberal males still try to insist that even in this ever more complex society, females still have no need to be intelligent and evolved.  They try to shove down people's throats that females only need to be hot sperm receptacles.

So if a baby factory is hot,
is that going to teach your kid manners?  is that going to teach your kid to plan well and to be financially responsible?  financially pragmatic?  Is that going to teach your kid to take care of herself?

Is that going to teach your kid to be a productive member of society?  Is that going to allow your kid to grow into a good human being who contributes positively to society?

The best arrangement for the health and well-being of society is the standard two-parent home, the nuclear family.  In most cultures and societies around the world, the bulk of raising the children and maintaining the household is the responsibility primarily of the mother.  The maternal parent is the one who teaches kids to read and count, teaches them manners and respect, helps them with their homework.  She is also the one who cooks food and maintains everyone's schedules.  The father tends to work a job outside the home to support the family and also has the task of maintaining security, upkeep, and protection of the home.  The family is benefited best if both parents are intelligent and educated.

another argument:
echoed in http://www.audiowebman.org/love/articles/dan_quayle.htm
... that is complete BS to compare a human child to young of another species.  a human child needs immense social rearing and training.  A human child cannot fend for itself, and a human infant certainly cannot.  it cannot arrange its own shelter,

The human brain takes an enormous amt of body's oxygen, nourishment, and blood supply.  I read and learned more about this, and I quickly realized that it makes sense.  Homo sapiens has the largest brain, in proportion to body mass, of any animal on the planet.

We are more evolved.  It makes perfect sense that our brains would require this much sustenance and support.

The pregnant mother cannot handle more than two fetuses at once; maybe at most three fetuses at once.  When there is more than one, each individual fetus suffers.  Each one rarely reaches a birth weight above four pounds.

A similar analogy exists in the instance of a woman constantly getting pregnant one right after another.  The human body cannot feasibly sustain that many pregnancies.  The body needs time to recuperate and replenish its resources.  It also needs time to raise the current born baby, possible through breast-feeding.

There are also basic concerns like simply taking care of the baby.  The mother will not be able to devote the time and attention necessary to growing a first baby if she soon becomes pregnant with another one.  Changing diapers, feeding it, bathing it, getting it to adapt to a sleep schedule, keeping it alive.

This is all common sense.  Humans make a voluntary, willing, conscious effort to do this.  We voluntarily make an effort to invest time in a child if someone brings one into the world -- because that is the right thing to do.

Human parents do not simply make a kid and then cast it out of their minds, setting it out to the wild, letting it roam around and be fed to the wolves.  We are not lower animals. We are Homo sapiens.

This is what I mean as an example among other things, that humans have transcended the basal biological evolution that still rules and dictates animal behavior.  Humans have gained consciousness.  They have gained the ability to consciously decide for themselves whether or not an action is morally right.  Humans know that it is not okay to just stop caring about a biological child once it is born.

Lower animals think that they have fulfilled their biological duties of simply creating an offspring unit.  They think they have fulfilled their roles in this universe.  They merely act on the biological part of continuing the species, with no regard for the life, health, well-being of that offspring once it is hatched.  They simply bring forth offspring into existence on this planet, and they think that is the extent of their responsibility.  Well, to be more accurate, they don't think, at all.  Not about the responsibility of raising children, not about how to raise children, not about the consequences of engaging in the act of physical reproduction.

Human beings are not like lower animals.  They must invest all of that energy, effort, time of growing a baby into one baby at a time.  To create the most optimal offspring.  Create one baby, then invest intelligence, hard work, patience, into turning that one baby into a good person.  Raise that baby into a human being, using human traits that have transcended the basal minimum requirements of mere physical contribution alone.

"The human body is not meant to carry litters."  Interesting analogy.  I feel that this ties in excellently with the fact that humans have to raise each child as an individual human being.

We are a socially-oriented species.  We grow and survive by *learning, not by instinct.  A child cannot reach a few years of age and then suddenly have instinct kick in to be able to hunt down its food.  This learning must be contributed by both the female and male parent.

So if these so-called evolutionary psychologists try to insist that a human male parent can simply sire a child and then skip town and call this "evolution," they are hopelessly ignorant.  Here's a hint:  if dogs and pigs and gorillas do it, then it is probably not evolution.

Human Sexuality vs. Pseudo-Evolution

human sexuality is inextricably linked to emotion and psychological well-being.  it is phenomenally ignorant to claim otherwise.  human sexuality is a complex aspect of humanity.  it is as complex as happiness or love.

atheists and extreme liberals insist foaming at the mouth that s-x is purely a physical act.  that emotions should not be considered, that morality should not be considered, that comfort level should not be considered.  they adamantly maintain that s-x between two people, any two people, should be casual, any time, any place, any how, any why.  that anyone who objects to this is a puritan, religious fundamentalist, s-x-hater.

hogwash.  that is as ridiculous as claiming that the only purpose of s-x is to reproduce.  void of any enjoyment.  if you see that s-x has purposes far beyond procreation, then you must also concede that sex is far too meaningful to do with just anybody.

to say that sex is a purely physical act, with no ties to a person's emotional health or identity, is as supremely ignorant as saying that the only purpose of sex is reproduction.

You are saying that sex is a purely physical act?  You are alleging that it has no emotional connections whatsoever?  in other words, you are making the claim that the only purpose of sesss is to reproduce.   yes, in your own words, se is only physical.  it has no emotional purpose at all.  so why would anyone engage in it except for the express purpose of reproduction?

aha.  so *now* it appears that you are saying it is NOT just physical.  it has an emotional component as well.

well, guess what.  if it can be used for emotional validation some of the way, then it can have an emotional requirement all the way.

if we can acknowledge that sex affects emotion part of the way, then we can acknowledge it all the way.  it is immoral to claim that sex is innately tied in to a person's happiness, and then to NOT claim that because of that, people should be more choosy about whom they choose to have sex with.  if they choose the wrong person to have sex with, yet sex is innately tied with human emotion, then you would be unhappy if you had sex with a bad person.

it is illogical to state that regular sex can lead to better elevated mood levels and general release of tension --and then-- not to state that if this is true, then there might also be more profound emotional effects of sex.

if you can use it for emotional health part of the way, then you can use it for emotional health all of the way.

liberals seem to think that humans were not meant for monogamy.  they think that from an evolutionary perspective, is that humans were meant

well, hell if you are citing the trail of human history as evidence for what humans should and should not do, then humans also were not meant for peace.  humans were not meant for the different races to get along.  humans were not meant for abolishing slavery.
if you are looking to the past for clues on how to react, then go ahead and take your cues.

Externally-Imposed Self-Respect

Since there is no longer an external, imposing, domineering authority figure anymore -- they then simply stopped being moral.

Since no one is lording this concept of morals over you any more, there is no reason to act in a moral manner.

Suuuuurrre.  Certainly not for yourself.  Certainly not because that is the right thing to do.  The healthy, best choice.  Certainly not because the history of facts, statistics, figures, and outcomes have already evidenced as to what the best course of action probably is.

Maybe This Goes Deeper And More Practical Than I Thought (re: Fake Badassery)

Perhaps there is another more profound reason as to why middle class white kids try to be badass in their choice of entertainment.

Perhaps it is not so simple as wanting "approval" from cool liberal hollywood people or cool alternative-indie crowds in the usual sense.  Maybe the real reason has more sinister origins.  (Not sinister on the part of the middle-class whites.  But in fact, what they are responding to is sinister.)

But that fear is still there.

And since they are not allowed to say that they still instinctively are genuinely suspicious of blacks, they still do not trust violent blacks, they would feel uncomfortable being the one white guy in a room fool of low-class, criminally-intent blacks -- they must turn to other sources of comfort.

How can they make themselves feel safe?  How can they reassure themselves that they could defend themselves from violent crime if the need arises?  What if they are just going about their day, and then, through no fault of their own, they are confronted by blacks that feel a collective sense of "vengeance" towards a random white person?  How can they assuage their fear, discomfort, the impending threat of possibly becoming a victim of a violent black?

They could maybe tell themselve3s that they are badass.  They could convince themselves that "they still got it."  They could try to reassure themselves that they are still capable of striking back and fighting back and standing up for themselves.

I think a lot of it is subconscious fear
=> ya know, like... they are scared, they are fearful that they might be overpowered, overtaken.  by a bully.  so in order to dispel any chance of that happening, they try to lodge a pre-emptive strike and fend off bullies at the pass.]]]]  They yearn for the feeling of being in control.

[[[they also yearn for the feeling of being involved in something big that would cause an ((explosion)), bombshell))

 I think what really going on is that you are getting back at society. You are exacting revenge by shocking and horrifying others.

Talking to you directly now.  Hopefully you all know who you are (although in all honesty, you lack the self-awarness to recognize yourself in this description.  Once again, people are not good at assessing themselves.)

You were shocked and sickened, you had your senses violated.  Your own sense of emotions, comfort level, decency, expectation of decency from others, personal space, expectation of psychological morality and people not being disgusting has been broken, demolished pulverized.

So now, you are getting back at the society that hurt you.  Remember my article years ago about complimenting a beautiful artwork or essay by writing something beautiful about it, therefore giving back?

This is a much more cynical, hopeless take.

These fake badass-wannabes tend to say... "ohhh well if you can't reason through your opinion, then it’s not a valid opinion and you have to discard it."  Notwithstanding the fact they evidently think they have a right to tell you how to think, how your cognition should function, what your opinion should be.  They seem to think they have a God-given right to be a thought police to you.

Notice that they insist on everyone else — their designated pre-judged pre-decided opponents — to play nice, behave, be polite, use critical thinking, et cetera.  Everything that they so conveniently never expect from themselves.  They very conveniently do not hold themselves to the same standards.

The funny thing is that they are, between the lines, very painfully acutely keenly aware of the fact that instinct, emotions, gut reactions are very strong driving forces for human beings.  The human reactions recoil and disgust are strong indicators of type of activity that is happening.  Notice that they are simultaneously constantly, consistently trying their damndest to shock and disgust people.

I spent a number of years trying to decode exactly why a person would consciously, voluntarily want to treat other people like this.  Why these sickos want to simply provoke a reaction such as this.  No other discernible purpose other than to simply shock, disgust, anger other human beings.

This is what I've come up with.  These are broken individuals.

Most likely there is a certain resentment residing within them that others are not as broken as they. "Why do I have to be miserable and corrupted while others get to live life on relatively neutral terms?"  So they spend their every waking moment with an obsession to tear down others to their level.

Notice that they are always trying their damndest to insist that their actions are motivated by ‘logic.’  That is a favorite go-to stock argument amongst these types, that their motivations are driven by logic and reasoning, rationality, levelheadedness, ad nauseum.