Wow, this thing is still alive???

I might have to start posting again. But people will actually have to come look.

Merry Christmas...or my new ultra PC seasonal greeting...

"Hope your December 25th doesn't suck!"

Medical Miracle

So there is this product advertising on the local radio station called SkinZinc. Some type of skin lotion. Fine. And they are following the trend of your basic weight loss/quit smoking ad where they use fake recordings of people supposedly calling in to praise the product.

So one clown they have calling in for SkinZinc says he tried EVERYTHING to get rid of the dry, flaky skin on his arms, but nothing worked. That is, until he found SkinZinc. Then he says

"It is really the closest thing to a medical miracle."

Really? The closest thing to a medical miracle? Wow! Well I did a quick google search, let's have a look at how this compares to some other breakthroughs.

1. Penicillin, 1929 - The discovery of this antibiotic has quite possibly saved more lives since its introduction than any other single medical advancement. The ability fight infection after combat wounds alone will probably help cement Penicillin's status in history.

But, it will not get dry, flaky shit off your elbows, so no dice penicillin. You lose.

2. Vaccinations - In the past, people were regularly killed or permanently effected by Small Pox, Mumps, Measles etc... then the science of developing and distributing vaccinations comes along. Major infectious diseases are wiped out entirely or controlled significantly.

However, no vaccine yet for dry flaky shit. At least not on your arms. Score another for SkinZinc!

3. Animal to Human Organ Transplants - Baby Fae was the most notable of these procedures, living for 20 days after being given a baboon's heart in 1984. Other strides have since been made, like transplanting arteries, veins or livers out of pigs. Soon, it will be possible to genetically engineer an animal fetus to develop with a fully human organ so the transplant will be human to human but cultivated on an animal host.

Great, but what is the point of living if you just end up with dry, flaky shit on your arms? Without SkinZinc, such life saving advancements are truly meaningless.

4. Artificial Organs/Pacemakers - In 1952 the first cardiac Pacemaker is invented, forever changing the survivability of people with heart conditions. In 1982 the Jarvik-7 artificial heart is implanted into Barney Clark, he lived for 112 days with no human heart to move his blood.

Hello??? He died! SkinZinc never killed anybody. And now people with pacemakers do not have to live out there scientifically extended years on Earth with dry, flaky shit on their elbows.

5. Dobelle Artificial Vision System - Take a blind person, drill holes in their head, insert electrodes to directly stimulate the vision centers of the brain, hook the wires to a digital camera inside a pair of sunglasses and bingo! Like Jesus before him, Dobelle uses this Star Trek type technology to give sight to the blind. Granted, they see the world like they are looking at an animated scoreboard at a baseball stadium, but they can see. And what do they see?

Dry, flaky shit on their elbows, that's what! Without SkinZinc, these assholes might as well still be blind.

There are other medical advancements that can all be found lacking when given the SkinZinc litmus test.

Anesthesia? Crap!
Microscope? Worthless!
X-Rays? Not even close!
Mapping the human genetic code? Child's play!
Robotic limbs controlled by nerve impulses? PUHHHHlease!

Nope, I have to say that SKinZinc is absolutely correct. The closest thing to a medical miracle. One woman caller said she can even wear shorts now, thanks to SkinZinc! How can living nerve transplants that restore function to the paralyzed even be considered in the same breath with that? We are talking about dry, flaky skin here people. Thank God this will no longer be something we have to live in fear of.

As Terri Schiavo enters her final hours

I have endeavored so far to avoid serious topics here at Doodles, but I feel the need to make my rant about the Terri Schiavo case.

This circus is very troubling to me. And it is more troubling that there are others that do not see it. First, let me just state that in my opinion none of this would be going on if the situation here was reversed. If all the circumstances were exactly the same except that it was a healthy Terri Schiavo petitioning to have her husband Michael’s feeding tube removed, none of us would even know about the story. It would be no story.

Why? Because we would never question that a woman was not trying her best to look out for her stricken husband. We would never doubt for a minute that it is what the husband would want. Even in the absence of a living will. If she said “He told me he would not want to live like this.” That would be enough for us.

We would not hold it against her if she allowed her husband to be kept alive for an extra seven years to help win a malpractice suit that would help solidify her future and gain some justice for him.

We would not take her to task for finding companionship in the arms of another man while her husband still lingered. Or that she started a family with him. We would recognize that she was young, with her whole life ahead of her and know that even her husband would want her to try to find happiness in her life.

No, if the situation was reversed the story would not be told. Except as a Lifetime channel movie of the week, starring Meredith Baxter Burney, celebrating this woman’s strength at overcoming adversity and the horrible, emotional tests she faced. Even if some of the speculations that exist with Michael were there, like maybe she did something to put him in this state, we would not believe it. We would sweep it away as speculation and rumor and not interfere with her right to pursue her husband’s wishes. Or we would enhance it with speculation that he was abusive to her so she fought back and he ended up like this. Now she is even more of a saint for caring for him.

I have no living will, but have made my wishes known to my family. I will make them clear here as well. If I ever end up in a state like Terri Schiavo, mentally unable to interact with my family, no hope of recovery, and needing a machine to carry out basic functions like eating, I want to be allowed to die. Period. If I am in a coma and the doctors say I will never come out of it, I want to die. If they say I might come out of it, I want to live until such a time as they decide that such likelihood is gone and THEN I want to die.

If ignoring my wishes and keeping me around will help my family receive a large sum of money that will help secure their needs, my kid’s education etc…then by all means keep me around. It is the last thing I can do to provide for my family before I go. When it is all settled, I want to die.

I want my wife to be happy. I want my son to have another father figure in his life that can teach and advise him on the things when I will not be there for him. Even if I am still alive, and we are still married, my wife is free to seek comfort or companionship whenever she is ready. I would not want to be a vegetable-ized parachute always creating drag when she tries to move forward as the living should do.

These are my wishes. These wishes probably match those of the majority of people in this country. I believe that Terri is at least as good a person as I am, probably better. I believe that she would have wanted these same things for her husband as I want for my wife. Shame on anyone that does not think Terri would be noble enough, selfless enough or caring enough for that. And if you think she was, then step back and let her finally be at peace.

You're My Hero!

For many years now I have noticed the word hero getting over-used. In our wishy-washy, touchy-feely, weak on self-confidence and self-reliance, make-up-a-new-word-to-make-a-bad-concept-sound-better- society everyone was becoming a hero. Then 9/11 came along and we started hearing about "the real heros" that are around everyday and people stopped using the hero reference for any little thing but automatically assigned hero status to all firefighters, police and military personel.

This lasted a little while and then we were back to everyone being a hero in their own little way. Doesn't take much to be a hero really. Teachers are heros. Single mothers are heros. If you used to be a crackhead but now you have a job you are a hero. Give something to a charity? Hero. It has gotten ridiculous. The rare occurance when a person does something truly heroic is diluted and lost among oceans of self-important grandstanding about "Everyday Heros" by people who thought they had an ability to spot a "real hero" when everyone else could not.

Bullshit.

The word hero is overused to the point it is almost meaningless.

"I jumped on a live grenade to save my buddies."

"Really, I once helped someone jumpstart their car in Wal-mart parking lot, so I guess those are a wash."

So, I decided it was time to create a clear definition of hero and when it is allowed to be used. This little checklist will help you decide if a person is truly a hero or not.

1. Heros must have risked death or severe injury solely for the well-being of another in similar danger.

Unless your act of heroism put you directly into a dangerous situation that you could have avoided had you not been selfless enough to help another, you are not a hero. This leaves out teachers, coaches, single-mothers, and anyone who ever "saved" someone by calling 911. I hate when I see a news story like this.

"And the hero of this story is Chuckles Farkwarth who saw flames coming out of the house across the street and called 911."

SO WHAT! You can do that without leaving your Lazy-boy. You only risk missing a little of whatever TV show you are watching and that is only if you did not wait for a commercial to call 911. Sorry, not a hero.

Both of the next two criteria for heroism are a little more harsh, but I think they are necessary requirements that need met to arrive at Hero status.

2. You have to SUCCEED in your objective.

This sounds like I am being to tough, I know, but I think it is important. Heros save people. Without that successful outcome it is difficult for me to award hero-statis. This does not lessen the sacrifice or courage of the individual in any way. It is just an important distinction.

To illustrate this one simply lets look at a hypothetical scenario. A building is on fire and a woman, already safe on the street, tells you her kid is still in there. Feeling heroic, you run into the building to save the kid. You have now met requirement one for heroism and are a far better and more courageous person than the vast majority. Now, while you are inside, the roof collapses and you and the child both die. Sorry, but this little twist of fate robbed you of hero status. What you get is "he died trying to be a hero." This is an honorable achievement. It lets the world know that you had the guts and the selflessness to be a hero. You just didn't get it done. Your efforts were heroic, but the outcome was tragic. To be a hero, you have to get the kid out alive. You can then die and still be a hero. If you get the kid to a window and get him out just before the roof collapses on you, then you are a hero.

3. You have to put yourself into a dangerous situation for which you could not be expected to be prepared.

This probably the most controversial of my criteria. This speaks directly to the "all firefighters, police and military are heros" idea. No they are not. Many of the above can go (and have gone) an entire career without being in a situation of true mortal danger. Especially police and military. Many, and it is probably safe to even say most, throughout history served and retired without a real legitimate threat to life. That is not to say that they would not have risen to the occasion had it presented itself, but for most, thankfully, the situation never came up. Firefighters are a little bit different, but I think the requirement should stand as follows;

The nature of these professions carries with it inherent risks which are known, studied and trained for. They each have equipment to better prepare them for such situations and much training based on centuries of experience to best prepare them for their job. That being said, the act of carrying out the specific job for which they are trained and equipped does not make them a hero. Here is the hypothetical scenario:

A building is on fire and the fire department arrives. Firefighters execute their routine of getting a hydrant live and getting water going. They enter the building wearing fire and heat retardant gear and boots, hardhat, oxygen mask, radio, axe and all of their cummalative knowledge of fires, and they have each other for backup. While there can be surprises, these individuals are trained in all the specifics of fires, using their gear to keep themselves alive, how fires spread, when structural damage is becoming to great, etc... Because this is what the job entails it prevents the use of hero being assigned when lives are saved through the execution of the job.

So can a firefighter be a hero? Absolutely. Going into a building after it is known that the structural damage is too great and the commander on scene has ordered the fire-fighters out would be heroic. An off-duty fireman without his backup or gear that risks his life is a hero. There would still be any number of situations that "hero" comes into play. Firemen would know when a certain act leaps beyond the call of duty into the heroic. The point is that over the years there have been many Firemen that were heros. But there were many more that just did the job, weren't a huge asset to the department, made mistakes, or were lazy. People that were always hesitant to take too great a risk and the first ones out of a building when the time came. Firemen know who they would want next to them when the shit hit the fan, and can name other firemen that they would not want to have in there with them. How can they all be heros? They can't. How could you ever be a heroic fireman if every swinging dick that ever rode a truck is a hero by default?

The military is a bit of a conundrum as well. Theoretically they are trained for what they face, and equipped as well, to give them the best chance at life. So not every guy that ever fought or died in combat is a hero. Some were. Beyond the call of duty comes into play on this one as well. Again, the veterans of combat situations know who were heros and who were not. But most were not. Example, you were drafted against your will. You determine that you are going to live no matter what. When the time comes for a major offensive, you let your platoon attack, but you then lay back out of the thick of it. Suddenly, a misplaced piece of "friendly fire" lands a tank shell right on your ass. You are NOT a hero! Yes, you died in combat for our country. Still, NOT a hero. You failed to meet either requirement 1 or 2. You did not knowlingly put yourself in danger for another. The guy that takes it upon himself to attack an enemy position alone to give his pinned-down buddies the opportunity to escape did that. You also did not succeed at anything. Not a hero.

One last point here. I want it known that I do not consider any of these jobs to be easy or routine. They are all filled with the potential for danger and require self sacrifice as a default because of the relatively low wages we pay all of our firemen, police and military. But they do not need a special word for that. No additional word is necessary to command my respect. If you sacrifice money and time with your family waiting around for the opportunity to save my sorry ass, it does not take a word like "hero" to make that meaningful. They already have a word for it that should let everyone know that they are dealing with someone who puts themself on the line for others and should be respected. They are looking at a fire-fighter or soldier or police officer, and those words are good enough for me.

So, sorry to all ex-crackheads that now go to schools and tell kids not to use crack. You are not heros.

Sorry for the lack of new posts

Between being out of town and the "create new post" function bombing out I have not gotten anything fresh out here for several days. I have ideas for posts stacking up though, just need to get them down.

In the meantime you can help save the world. It seems that a group of euro-whackos, inspired by some bored professor, have determined that if 600,000,000 people all jumped in the air at the same moment on one hemisphere we could move the earth out to a higher orbit and end global warming forever! The amazing thing is that according to their website, they have 78,000,000 that already agreed to jump.

So, if you are bored and want to see if you could help start the next ice-age, give it a shot.

For Sale: A Devil's food cake that looks like Jesus!

Everytime you turn around some headcase has found the likeness of some biblical figure in a mudane object. As we speak some whackjob has an Ebay auction for a peanut that "resembles the virgin Mary cradling Jesus." We have had pretzels that look like Mary, grilled-cheese sandwiches too.

And bigger nutjobs will PAY for this crap. Like God is just this bored. He's clowning around. He could have a crucifix-shaped comet skywrite "I AM PISSED!" across the night sky, but no. No, he is making late night visits to Keebler and putting his message in a mishapen Ritz Bitz cracker. Whatever.

But let's analyze this a minute. Keep in mind that food is not exactly an ideal medium for very detailed reliefs of any image. So, if the cheese sandwich, or pretzel or peanut "looks like the virgin Mary" then I would contend that, at best, it resembles any woman. Or any woman cradling any baby. Or a botched penile extension operation. But it cannot be said that it specifically resembles the virgin Mary.

Why?

Because nobody knows exactly what she looked like. Keep in mind that the Polaroid camera was not invented until, like, the time of the pilgrims or something. We really don't know what she looked like. She might have looked like Gilda Radner, or Tyne Daly. In fact, we don't even know what Joseph liked in his women. I mean, was he a leg man? A breast man? Did he go for ass over anything else? Maybe he liked large women. Is there a Bible verse that discusses this? Maybe a time when he and Jesus were having "the talk"

Puberotomy 1:12

And Lo, did Joseph say unto Jesus
Worry not about her hair, for it grays
Worry not for her eyes, for they should be averted to thee
Worry not for gigantic ta-tas, for they wilst sag unto the dust of the earth
The question, my son, is always thus...
Doeseth baby got back?

So, maybe your cheese sandwich does look like the virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus. But then, it also looks like Bette Midler cradling a ham.

Our Atheists suck!

Where did we get such crappy atheists in this country? We have had atheists suing to keep prayer out of the inauguration. Atheists suing to get "Under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. It goes on and on. The first problem is that atheists think that their beliefs are somehow protected. The problem is, they have no belief, so the argument falls apart. How can something that is non-existant be protected by anything? But they kid themselves into thinking they actually have a belief. Their belief is that they don't believe. Or they don't believe that they believe. Or they cannot believe that someone else believes.

First of all, the only intellectually viable religious philosophy is that of the agnostic. Everyone else is just kidding themselves. But the atheists don't understand that. Atheists are basing their whole theory on the same lack of facts that their counterparts, the theists, do. It is taken on faith.

What was that? Atheism is based on Faith?

Absolutely.

You see, theists believe that there is a supreme being, and that their supreme being is the only supreme being, and everyone else with a different supreme being, or no supreme being, should die, or at least suffer for eternity when they do die, which the theists hope is pretty soon. Atheists BELIEVE that there is no supreme power at all. But there is zero factual, concrete evidence to support either assertion. While there is no proof that any form of God actually exists, there is likewise no proof that no God exists. So atheists believe that there is no god, and have FAITH that they are right about that, though they have no proof.

But, despite the fact that both theists and atheists have unsupportable positions and are just silly, the theists act like one would expect them to act. But the atheists just suck! They don't get it. If you really don't believe, than why on Hallowed's green earth would you care if someone prays in front of you? Or asks you to pray with them? You of all people should be glad to play along because you are convinced that it has no more meaning than praying to a tree, or a volcano, or a dog's nutsack. You should see it as quaint and cute and say "sure I'll pray too...what the Hell, right!"

The real kicker is that our atheists just don't like Christianity. They should just admit it. If any of these lawsuit happy whackos ever got an opportunity to go to some off-the-map South American village, and meet some primitive tribal folks, and those folks asked them to participate in their little dance ritual to Aztotl the rain god, and wear some silly headdress, the atheist would do so. And they would come back and tell all their athiests friends about how intimatley they got to experience this tribe's religious culture and how interesting it was. But if the next day someone at work wants to say grace before lunch, they call the frickin' ACLU and start a lawsuit.

So, only agnostics subscribe to an intellectually feasible philosophy. Atheists and theists alike are all off-base. But the atheists are the worst because they don't even really know where they stand.

Stupid, silly atheists!