Why Is Crime Being Justified?

I've never understood why marijuana is illegal, yet promoting it isn't.  I mean, if it's illegal, you would think that promotion of illegal activities would be just as illegal as the the illegal products themselves. When marijuana is illegal, the last thing that I want to see is a t-shirt or poster or whatever, encouraging people to get high.  It just doesn't make any sense.  I even see people wearing jewelry of the marijuana plant.  What makes this ok?

TV shows are another thing that I just don't get now days.  Most shows on TV now days are raunchy. There is always somebody that's on the "good" side doing something illegal.  At least that's what it seems like to me.

When the TV series Dexter came out, it was popular.  I mean, really popular.  For the life of me, I just can't figure out why.  Here we have a guy who has an obsession.  What's that obsession?  Murder.  I mean he just can't stop murdering people.  If he doesn't murder someone every so often, he's going to go out of his mind.  Oh, but wait, he's not a bad murderer...he's a good murderer.  As if there really is a difference.  You see, Dexter doesn't just kill random people.  Who does he kill?  Other murderers.  That's right.  Dexter works for a police station.  He has access to things that most people don't.  He hides evidence from his colleagues so that they can't find the murderers that they are trying to find.  He makes it so that only he can find them.   He goes out and finds murderers and kills them so that they can't kill again.  He "takes out the trash" so to speak.

Regardless, murder is murder no matter how you look at it.  Whether or not your killing some random person or just killing other murderers.  It's still murder.  I think that the problem is that we twist the story in a way that makes him look good.  We feel sorry for Dexter because he's got an obsession to kill that he can't control, yet we make him out to be a hero because he's killing other murderers so that they can't kill again.  I think that people overlook the bad in Dexter because all they see is that he's doing something good in this world by "making it a safer place to live".  The simple fact is that Dexter is nothing more than a murderer himself.  He's just as guilty as the people that he kills.  It amazes me that people thought that this show was something good to watch.  People thought that this show was so good that it lasted 8 seasons.

Breaking Bad is very similar.  The shows producers make you feel sorry for the guy because he has terminal cancer.  He is in a desperate situation trying to make enough money for his family so that when he dies, they won't be left high and dry.  What's wrong with that, right?  Problem is that in order to make this money, he starts cooking meth.  Oh, but wait.  He's high school chemistry teacher so he can cook a "clean" type of meth.  Not that "dirty" type most meth dealers make.  It's "safer"!  Yeah right.  Come on.  Are you serious?  Meth is meth no mater how you look at it.  It's all bad.  There is no cleaner or safer version than the next.  Why we watch this garbage is beyond me.  Why do we make criminals out to be heroes?  Breaking Bad was so popular it lasted for 5 seasons.

No matter how you look at it, illegal is illegal.  I just don't understand why we make criminals out to be heroes and why we promote illegal drug activity.  It just makes no sense to me and it should be illegal to do so.

Now Hear This...Don't Listen To Critics!

I find it hard to listen to critics. Not because the don't know what they are talking about, but because they are so professional. What I mean is that they are to professional. So what exactly do I mean you ask? Let me explain.

There are tons of critics out there. Some for movies, some for cars, some for products. There are just a ton of them. You can find them just about anywhere. On TV. On YouTube. On commercials. They're everywhere. So what's wrong with them? Nothing...and everything. The way that I see it is that these people, for the most part are professionals. They have a job of reviewing a certain item, for example, like cars. When a new car comes out they review it. They give you their best opinion of that car and tell you whether or not you should buy it. If they review movies, they also give you their best opinion and tell you whether or not you should go and see it. Problem is that most are so professional that we as regular consumers don't have the faintest clue on what they are talking about.

To many critics are to critical on the things that just don't matter to me. However, this is just my opinion. If I am looking at a car for example, I do look at reviews, but I only pay attention to the things that matter to me, because to be honest, the other part of the review really doesn't matter to me. I really don't care if the car has the latest and greatest fuel injection system or not or if is has halogen bulbs or not. I don't care. My concern is whether or not the car will hold up. Will it get me to work and back? Does it have enough power? How good do the brakes work? Stuff like that. I really don't care if it doesn't have the best spark plugs on the market or not. It amazes me when critics give cars bad ratings simply because they don't have the latest and greatest things available on the market. I have seen cars get bad rating and gone out and tested them myself, and thought that they were great!

Movies are another thing. Critics are to picky when it comes to movies. I remember when the movie Pearl Harbor starring Ben Affleck came out. I saw Ebert and Roeper do a review on this movie and they gave it horrible reviews. At least Ebert did. I remember him saying that in the movie, they only used 3 WWII planes for the whole movie. They just used digital copies of the three planes to make it look like there were several hundred planes. He said he could tell and that the digital copies were horrible. I tried my best to see what he was seeing and for the life of me I just couldn't see it, and to be honest, I thought Pearl Harbor was a really good movie.

The website Rotten Tomatoes is a good place to go if you want to get a good review on a movie you want to see. They show you what the critics say about it and the general audience. In most cases, there is a dramatic difference between what the critics think and what the audience thinks. It really shows you the difference between the two.

Simply put, just because a critic says that a car is bad, doesn't mean that it is. Just because a critic, says that a movie is horrible doesn't mean that you shouldn't go see it. It's simply their opinion. The best way, and only way, to find out is to go and see it yourself. That's with anything. Just remember that critics are professional. They see things that may matter to them, but in most cases, not the general public.

A Play On Words

For some people, it's important to them on where they buy their products.  Some people like to keep their purchases local meaning that if they live in a certain country, they like to purchase things that are made in that country.  But the term "made" doesn't always mean that they are actually made in that country.  Rather they can actually be made in one country, but can be built in another.  It's the battle over made vs built, and there is a difference.

Almost everything that we buy has a stamp on it.  The stamp indicates where that product is made.  Let's say that you go buy a new toy car for a child.  They toy will most likely have a stamp on it that says, Made in USA, for example.  However, it doesn't mean that it's actually built in America.  It could be, but maybe it's not.

By definition to make something is to come up with the concept for it like an idea.  The actual definition states that to make something is "to bring into existence by shaping or changing material".  That's why when we have an idea we say that we made it up, because we made it in our heads.  When we produce the parts then we have made them.  When we put it together or we "assemble" it, then it becomes built.  By definition to build something is "to construct (especially something complex) by assembling and joining parts or materials".

Car dealerships use this "play on words" to sometimes mislead their customers so that they can get a sale.  For example, let's say that you walk in to a Mercedes-Benz dealer.  Your friend just bought a new M-Class and you like it and you want one.  The only problem is that you want to buy a car that's made in the United States because that's where you live and you want to keep things local.  You state this to your salesperson and he says, "No problem.  All of our M-Class models are built right here in America in Vance, Alabama".  Wow, you think.  That's awesome.  You go ahead and decide that it's the car for you and buy yourself one.  So were you fooled?  Yes and no.  No in the fact that what the salesperson said was true, but yes in the fact that he only told you half of the story.  While it's true that the Mercedes M-Class is built in America, it's actually made in Germany.  Germany produces all the parts necessary to build the car, then ships those parts to America so that the car is built in America.  Do you see the difference?  Like I said before, many dealerships use this play on words to mislead their customers.  By doing this they can increase their sales all the while being able to honestly say that they never lied to you.  So next time you want to buy a vehicle, keep this in mind, especially if you truly want to keep things local.  Just remember that this isn't exclusive to vehicles, but a ton of other products as well.

The Difference Between A Cross And A Memorial

First of all, this is not a post about religion.  While it may have some religious references in it, as you read it, you will understand that I am not making this out to be a religious debate.  I am not going to sit here and take one side over the other, but rather I am just simply stating what I believe should not be going on between a certain group of people and I want to clarify why I am saying it.  Once again, this is not a religious debate.

A young man is driving home to see his family on a weekend getaway.  He hadn't seen his family in a while so he thought it would be nice to see them.  His trip was to be short as he had to get back to work first thing Monday morning.  He hadn't gotten much sleep and was tired on his way home. He was already behind on his schedule because he wanted to spend every possible minute with his family as he could.  On his way home, he became more and more tired.  He was so tired that on his way home he fell asleep at the wheel.  His car started to drift off the road and suddenly swerved and his a pillar of a bridge and in an instant the young man lie dead.

Saddened by their sons death, the family decides to erect a cross in honer of their son and in the place that he died.  Within a few days of the cross being erected, a group of adversaries opposed the erecting of the cross based on the idea that the family is raising this cross, not in honor of their son, rather on the idea that they want to promote religion.

While the above story is fiction and something I just made up, there are tons of stories just like this all across the nation.  What I want to do is try and distinguish the difference between the two types of crosses that are out there because they are very different.

If you want to get technical, there are three types of crosses in this world today.  The first is a cross used in executions.  Yes, there are still countries today that use crucifixion as a form as capital punishment just like there are countries that still stone people to death.  Second is a cross that is found in churches all across the world.  While these crosses stand for the execution of Jesus Christ, it has a different meaning for the church.  A cross in a church means that the cross is the way to their salvation.  Jesus Christ died on the cross and took away all of mankind's sin away on that cross.  Churches understand that Jesus was crucified on a cross but rather most christians see that cross as a representation of salvation not of death.  This is why some people wear crosses as jewelry.  The third represents death.  Not the death as in executions, but the death of a loved one or the death of a partner such as a police station may have crosses that represent fallen officers.  I want to focus on the last two types of crosses.  Like I said before, these two types of crosses are very different.  I'll make this as brief as I can.

When I drive past a church and that church has a cross on the outside of it, I think of Jesus Christ.  I think that this church believes in Jesus and that he died on the cross as the way to pay for our sins.  This church believes in the cross in that manner.  This is the first type of cross.  It's the one that represents Jesus Christ.  Now, if I am driving down a highway and I see a cross on the side of the road, I, in no way think about Jesus.  I don't turn to my wife and say, "Look, Jesus was right there!"  That's not at all what I think.  In reality, I think that someone died there.  That's the second type of cross.  It's the one that represents death.

There are several ways that people express death or rather several objects that represent it.  One is the cross as we have already discussed.  Some people use flowers.  Some people use stuffed animals.  Another is the wreath.  A wreath is used during Christmas time to symbolize the holiday spirit or holiday cheer.  However, a wreath can also be used to symbolized death.  I have personally seen wreaths on the side of highways to symbolize the death of a loved one. As with the cross, when I do see one, I don't think that Santa was there.  I don't think about Christmas.  I think about death and that someone died there.  Every year the President of the United States presents a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier!  In fact, this is called the wreath ceremony.  Arlington National Cemetery also uses wreaths from time to time.  These wreaths are in no way representing Christmas, but rather the death of a soldier or government official.

In the same way that a wreaths used to describe death instead of Christmas, the same holds true for a cross that represents death instead of Jesus.  Like I said, there are two very different types of crosses. What bothers me is when adversaries cry foul when a cross is erected over the death of a loved one and say that the cross was in fact erected not over the death of a loved one, but rather the spreading of religion.  That's so bogus.  Why would a group do such a thing?  They are only hurting the family of the one who died!  Common sense tells us that these crosses are erected for the dead, not for Jesus.

So that's my issue.  Let's use a little bit more common sense when trying to debate why crosses are really erected.  I think that it's honorable that a cross is erected in honor of those who have died, especially when law enforcement agencies do it.  Remember that not every cross erected represents Jesus.  There are two different types of crosses.  Let's just keep that in mind in the future!

A Small Bit Of Luxury

As you may know, most high end cars now days come with heated front seats.  Some cars only have the drivers seat as a heated seat, while most are putting heaters in the driver and passenger seats.  Even lower end cars are doing this, however in most cases, you must buy the high end version of that car or buy a package that offers the heated seats.  While heated seats are nice, especially in the winter months or times when it's cold, not everybody can afford them.  Heated seats can be pricy, and if they fail, unless they are still under warranty or you have an extended warranty, they can cost a pretty penny to fix.  In some cases the entire seat must be replaced.

However, heated seats for the rich is now becoming a thing of the past.  With a very small investment almost anybody can afford this small bit of luxury.  Almost every auto parts store carries heated seat cushions.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Target also offer these heated seat cushions.  And if you don't have access to these type of stores, you can always look online and find hundreds of different kinds of heated seat cushions that you can use for your vehicle.  The cost of these heated seat cushions is fairly inexpensive.  Wal-Mart offers one for right around $22.  Online they go anywhere from $20-$50.  Rather inexpensive if you ask me.

What makes these seat heaters so different is that most come with a massage function.  Depending on how much your willing to spend also depends on what your going to get.  The $22 one from Wal-Mart offers one heat setting but you can choose whether you want the seat to heat, the back to heat, or both at the same time.  It also offers an upper back massage function and a lower back massage function.  Both functions have a high and a low setting.  This is quite impressive for only $22.  If you get up into the $50 range, most offer a total body massage meaning the entire seat vibrates in one way or another.  There is also more of a heat range and you can control the heat temperature.

My wife drives a Toyota Sienna and it has the heated seats.  While you can control the temperature of the heat, that's all you can do.  It doesn't have a massage function and you don't get the option of seat only or back only.  If it's on, your getting both.  I bought two of these heated seat cushions from Wal-Mart and for a total of around $48 (including tax), and I'd say that I came out on top in this category!

So there you have it.  It's a wonderful addition to any vehicle especially during the winter months.  This product would be ideal for those who drive a vehicle that have leather seats but do not have heated seats.  So what are your thoughts?  Is there any other product that can make a vehicle more luxurious at an inexpensive price?

Something Interesting About Winter Sickness

So it's a common perception that when it's cold outside, especially during the winter months, that people are more prone to get sick than in the summer months.  We've all heard this.  We are always told to "bundle up" because if we don't, we could get sick.  However, did you know that it really doesn't matter how much we bundle up, it's really not the cold weather that makes us sick?  Here's why.  

The flu and common cold are caused by viruses.  People get sick more often in the winter because they are exposed to each other more in the winter than in the summer.  When it's cold outside, people tend to stay inside and are more likely to spread germs to one another.  Also, because school is in session, kids are around each other all day and are not afraid to share their germs.  With so many people in such close contact, the likelihood of passing germs is much higher when it is cold outside than when it is warm and people are outdoors.  There is also evidence now that viruses spread more easily through dry air.  When it is cold outside, the air is drier both outdoors and inside (where people have their heaters on) which may make it easier for germs to pass from one person to another.  But it is not the cold weather that causes the cold, it just might make it easier to spread the virus.

In tropical areas, where it does not get cold, the common cold and flu season generally occurs during the rainy season.  But again, these illnesses are not caused by the rain.  They are just more prevalent because people come in closer contact with each other than they do during the dry season.

So there is a little bit of information that I found interesting.  It's something that actually makes sense, but goes against almost everything that we were taught as kids on why and how we get sick during the winter months.

What Branch Is The Best?

Everybody has their ideas on what branch of the military is the best. Most people say the Marines. I have even heard a few people say the Army. Navy? Air Force? Coast Guard? So which one is the best? Which one is the hardest?

Now I can't speak about any other service except for the Marines. Why? Because I am a Marine! I served with the Marine Corps from 1996-2000, and I can personally tell you that being a Marine isn't easy! It can be fun, but it's extremely challenging! It's hard work and you must have tons of dedication to get the job done.  I'm sure that this is the case in most branches, however, the Marines are just hardcore. So let me say up front that I believe that the Marines are the best branch to be in if you have a pure desire to serve in the military.  It's also the hardest branch to be in. It may not be the hardest branch to get into, but by far, it is the hardest branch to serve in compared to other branches. There is a reason that they say that the Marines are "The Few".  It's the smallest branch of any service.  Well, out of the four main branches.  

Technically, there are seven branches of the military.  Most people have only heard of four, with a select few hearing of five.  Those branches are:

1.) The Unites States Army

2.) The Unites States Marine Corps

3.) The United States Navy

4.) The Unites States Air Force

5.) The Unites States Coast Guard

6.) The Unites States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

7.) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps

The first four are the most common and almost everybody has heard of them.  The fifth is also a major player in the military, but most people think that they Coast Guard is some sort of police force rather than an actual military branch.  The last two are relatively unknown but are also part of the military.  The last two do not empower enlisted personal, rather both branches are strictly officer only services.  It's one thing to note that all branches are considered "uniformed services", however, only the first five are considered "armed services" while the last two are considered "non-combatants".  Also, the sixth service can actually be called to serve as part of the armed forces if directed by the President of the United States.

So back to the Marines.  It's my personal belief that the Marines are the hardest branch of military service to be a part of.  Like I said before, there is a reason that they call the Marines "The Few".  When you go to boot camp, it's hard.  Probably one of the hardest things that you will ever do in your life.  And if things get too hard and you think that you can just quit, think again.  Within the first few days at boot camp your going to take a physical fitness test that will determine if you are even ready to begin bootcamp.  Fail that and you'll be in boot camp for about another 3 weeks minimum, or until you can pass the fitness test.  Only then will your training begin.  If at any point during your training you don't make it, you get "recycled".  That basically means that you must be dropped from your current platoon and shipped to another platoon to begin your training all over again until you pass the requirements.  This will go on over and over until you pass.

Like I have said, the training is hard.  Very hard.  When I was in boot camp, we started out with about 120 recruits and ended up with about 90.  We dropped about 40 and then picked up about 10 from other places like the physical conditioning platoon.  When you have about 40 people who simple can't make it, I'd say that should show you how tough it can be!

If you make it through boot camp, it's off to the School of Infantry if your a grunt, or the Marine Combat Training if you have another job specialty.  Then your off to your Marine Occupational Speciality School to learn your job.  Then and only then do you go to the Fleet Marine Force.  Make it through all of that an you still have tons of training to do.  About 3.5 years worth.  Whether it's physical fitness or job training, you have tons to do, and it's never easy.  Marines train day in and day out.  They never quit.  Marines train so hard that they are ready for anything in a moments notice!  There is a reason that Marines are First to Fight!  Marines are sent first because they know what they are doing.  It's not to say that other branches don't, but Marines train harder than any other branch, therefore they go first.  They are more prepared to fight than any other branch!

So that's my opinion.  Do you see it any different?  If so then please let me know.  Leave a comment and tell me your thoughts!

To Bend Or To Break

Rules.  Everybody has them.  We all follow them.  Well, most of the time anyways.  Rules are set up to keep order, to keep people safe, to reduce chaos, and a number of other situations, but sometimes rules are meant to be broken.  If not broken, maybe bent just a little.

So I hear of this story of Erik Fagan and Daniel McIntosh, two students that go to Gonzaga University that pulled a gun on an intruder to make him leave because he was trying to break into their apartment while they were there.

The story unfolds like this.  A homeless man comes to their door.  Fagan answers the door and the man asks for money but Fagan refuses to give the man any money, instead offering the man a blanket and a can of food.  The man insists that he needs money but Fagan still refuses to hand over any cash.  That's when the man became agitated and combative.  Then the man tries to force his way into the two students apartment.  That's when Fagan called for McIntosh to come help him with the man to try and get him to leave.

McIntosh comes to the rescue, only he was not alone.  McIntosh brought his 10mm Glock along for the ride.  McIntosh admits he pointed the gun at the man.  McIntosh is quoted as saying, "I draw on him.  As soon as he sees me, he decides he doesn't want to deal with me.  So he takes off."

The two men call the local police and the university police.  The police take a report and a short time later, the man is caught.  So who was this man?  Turns out his name is John M. Taylor and he's a six time felon.  Although police have not fully revealed all of this mans crimes, they did say that some of his crimes have included riot with a deadly weapon, possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful imprisonment.  Oh and by the way, Taylor did have an arrest warrant from the State Department of Correction, typically meaning that he violated his terms of release.  Yep, he's been to jail before.  He's probably somebody that you wouldn't want to get involved with.

So what's wrong with what these students did?  Well, the problem is that they had guns.  But wait, we at least know that Fagan has a concealed handgun license.  I assume that MCIntosh does too since he wasn't arrested, but maybe that has to do with home invasion laws, although I'm not 100% sure on that.  The real problem is that they were living in off site campus apartments and had guns in those apartments.  Gonzaga strictly forbids firearms upon campus property.  Regardless of their intentions to ward off a six time felon and a home invasion, university officials say that they students should not of had the firearms in the first place.  While it may be true, personally I do not see a problem with it.  Technically, by having a concealed handgun license, they were following the law, just not following campus rules.  Because of this Ganzaga is considering expulsion for the two students, but for now they have only been suspended.  Gonzaga is also using this incident to re-examine it policy on firearms.

Here's my thought.  I personally think that Gonzaga should allow firearms on campus apartments.  Tons of students love to go hunting and do other activities with guns.  As long as the person has a concealed handgun permit and no criminal history what so ever, then I think that this should be allowed.  Who actually knows what would or could have happened to these students if they didn't actually have a firearm.

Why The Kids?

I have never understood why there are people out there that kill children. Children are innocent, but what makes people decide that they deserve to die? What gets me is when people kill children and say that they were just getting back at their ex girlfriend or whoever! But why? Why the kids? I just wanna pull my hair out just trying to figure out what goes through these people's minds that makes them think that children deserve the wrath of death because your mad, not at them, but at someone else!  Seriously?  If some guy is so pissed off at their girlfriend that they decide to take a gun and blow them to pieces, although I don't agree that killing them is the right thing to do, believe it or not, I can actually understand that!  However when someone simply gets so mad at someone else and then decides that the best way to get back at them is to kill their children, that's when I scratch my head and just wanna beat my own self senseless trying to figure out what in the hell these people are thinking!  I will NEVER understand how people can take their frustrations out on innocent children.  Children are so innocent.  They are defenseless and they have nothing to do with other peoples problems.

I hear more and more about these type of killings as time goes on and I simply don't understand it!  

Anyways, I guess this is more of a rant than anything!  I'm just trying to understand things that I never will!

Medical Malpractice???

So every time I watch TV, during the commercials, there are groups of lawyers advertising some sort of, what they believe to be, medical malpractice.  They say things like, "If you ever took "this" and then developed "this" you could be entitled to a large settlement.  Call us now!"  Or they say, "If you ever had surgery for "this" and they used "this" and you developed "this" you could be entitled to a large settlement" Call us now!"

My big problem with this type of class action lawsuit is that I personally believe that it should be illegal to sue someone or a corporation for these types of "medical malpractices".  Honestly, I don't believe that it's medical malpractice at all.  In most cases, the commercials that I see are lawyers suing over things that were considered safe maybe 20, 30, or even 40 years ago that now in todays society are considered unsafe.  For example, 40 years ago asbestos was considered safe because at the time they didn't have the same technology as we do today.  Today we now know that asbestos can lead to cancer, but back then we didn't know.  Same thing with lead based paint.  Lead based paint was considered safe back in the 60's, but today we now know that it's unsafe and can also lead to cancer if inhaled.  In fact, lead based paint was so popular that most houses build before 1970 have lead based paint in them.  Back in the 60's, we didn't know the effects that lead based paint had on humans as we know today.

This is where I have a major problem with lawyers trying to sue corporations and people over things that are today considered unsafe, but 40 or 50 years ago were considered safe.  It would be different if back then we knew all the things that we know today about some things like asbestos and lead, but the truth is that we didn't know back then what we now know today.  When I see a commercial for a lawyer that says, "If you were exposed to asbestos in the 60's and you have recently developed cancer, you may be entitled to a large settlement.  Call us now."  It just doesn't make sense to me that we sue someone or a corporation or whatever over something that is now considered unsafe, yet back then was considered safe.  Like I said, technology back then was limited to what we knew at the time and what we considered safe.  There might be some things that we use today that we consider safe that in 20 years might be considered unsafe but right now, using the technology that we have, we consider them to be safe.  Does that make sense?

Personally I believe that this type of lawsuit should be illegal simply because of the types of things that they are suing over.  We should not be allowed to sue corporations or people on things that are considered unsafe today that we thought were perfectly safe 20+ years ago.  It's wrong.  These people and corporations tried to keep there people safe with what they knew about these products back then even though it turns out that modern day technology says other wise.  I don't believe that these corporations intentionally exposed their workers or the public to something that they knew would cause cancer 20+ years down the line.  That's foolish.  It would be different if we knew back then that these products would have caused cancer, but the fact is that we didn't.

12 years ago I had hernia surgery.  They used a mesh fabric to put me back together.  If 20 years from now they find out that the mesh fabric they used is considered unsafe, I'm not going to sue the doctor or the hospital for putting in the wrong mesh simply because at the time the mesh that they used was considered safe.  I just think that it's wrong for lawyers to try and make a buck this way.  It's wrong, but the fact is that lawyers all across this great country of ours are suing people and corporations on things that are considered unsafe today that 20+ years ago were considered safe.  That's wrong.

The FDA thoroughly inspects all the medicines that the approve before allowing them to be put on the market using todays high standards.  This doesn't mean that 20 years from now they might find out that something they put out is considered unsafe.  Medicines get pulled all the time.  Why?  Because the FDA finds out that they were wrong about a certain medicine.  How do they know?  Because modern day technology tells them.  Technology grows at an extremely fast pace.  So something considered safe 5 years ago might be pulled because they find out something about that medicine today that they didn't know know 5 years ago.  So does that mean we should sue the FDA for putting this medicine out 5 years ago?  Absolutely not.  The FDA doesn't put out stuff that they know will harm the public.  

As technology grows we have a better understanding of what  products we should and shouldn't use.  This doesn't mean that we may be wrong about some things today as in years to come we might find out that we were actually were wrong.  For us to sue over things that we didn't know in years past is just plain wrong and shouldn't be allowed in todays society.  We are ruining people's lives and shutting down or severely hurting corporations that only were doing what they believed was in the best interest of their employees or the public back then.  We may have been wrong about some things back then, but it's even more wrong to try and make a buck from these people and corporations over things that were considered safe many years ago.

The 3-1-6

If you ask almost anybody what the most famous verse in the Bible is, they will tell you it's John 3:16. Believers, non-believers, and skeptics alike can tell you this. Used and quoted more than any other verse in the Bible, this verse basically sums up the entire Bible in only a few short words.

John 3:16 is also the favorite verse of Tim Tebow, quarterback of the New York Jets and former quarterback of the Denver Broncos. In college, Tim would write John 3:16 on his eye blacks. Tim has never been shy about letting people know that he is a christian. After each game, win or lose, he has always thanked Jesus Christ first and foremost! However, this really isn't about Tim Tebow, rather it's about his favorite verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16.

If you ask me if I believe in the Bible I would tell you yes. I grew up in church all my life. I believe in God not because someone told me that God is real, rather because I have a hard time believing that somehow this Earth and everything in it just came about by mere chance. I look at how this Earth rotates and gravity and how we seem to be constantly protected against disasters that could take place. I look at the human body and how it works and just tell myself that all this could not be by mere chance. I honestly believe that there is a greater power at work here on Earth. I believe in God because in my opinion, God is plainly seen. Not physically, but in everything he has created. But sometimes things happen that almost demand an explanation. I believe that sometimes sometimes God just makes his presents so obvious that it's almost undeniable that he does exist! One of these incidences came on January 8, 2012.

Now this is going to sound so crazy but everything I am going to say is true. It has been confirmed by major news outlets such as Fox News, ABC News, CNN and others as well as major sports outlets such as ESPN and the NFL. If you doubt me then go ahead and feel free to google it yourself.

January 8, 2012 was a NFL playoff game between the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburg Steelers. Tim Tebow was the quarterback for the the Broncos during this particular game. Remember though, this is not about Tim Tebow, but rather his favorite Bible verse, John 3:16. What's interesting about this game is how many times the numbers 316 come into play in this game. Let's take a look!

When Tim Tebow won the game against the Steelers it came 3 years and 16 hours after he won his college championship game with the Florida Gators. That's an interesting number. 316.

During the game against the Steelers, the turning point of the game happened on a play that, strangely enough, happened to be on 3rd and 16.

Tim Tebow just happened to throw for 316 total yards during the entire game. This is getting weird.

Tim Tebow's average yardage per throw was 31.6. But wait, it gets even weirder.

The Neilson ratings gave that particular game a total of 31.6 viewing audience.

The total time the Steelers had the ball the entire game was 31 minutes, 6 seconds.

Finally, the grand finally of entire game was when Demaryius Thomas caught the pass by Tim Tebow to win the game. It's not the pass or the catch that's so amazing. It's that Demaryius Thomas' birthday just happens to be on December 25th, the same date as Christians celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ.

Now you can look at these stats and say that they are merely just coincidence, however I'm not so sure. The numbers 316 appeared in the game over and over. That's just so strange to me. Then the winning touchdown just happens to be caught by a guy who just happens to have the same birthday as Jesus. Take it how you will, but as for me I honestly believe that God inserted himself into the game. For what reason, I'm not sure, but maybe, just maybe, just to let us know that he is still here and he is in total control.

Why Divorce?

Have you ever just sat back and thought, what would the world be like if everybody just got along? If people never got divorces and just worked out their differences! How would this effect our children today? What would they be like if they didn't come from a broken home? After all, it seems that when I watch a show on TV and the people have problems, it seems like
almost always that they blame it on the parents. So what if the people came from perfect homes? What then? Would they be perfect citizens walking around with Ph.D's or would they still be jerks? Or maybe they would just be your average Joe! Who knows, but let's look back at the parents.

It's been said that children as well as teens look to their parents as roll models. If you look at your kids, or someone who has them, you can see that the children want to be involved with their parents! Children want to do what their Father's do, and do what their Mother's do. Let's say that Daddy is in the Military, there is a real good chance that son or daughter is going to want to be in the military too! This isn't to say that their choice in careers won't change by the time that they graduate high school, but it is saying that for a good chunk of their life, they are going to want to be what their Father or Mother is as far as a career.

However the real question to me is why are people divorcing in the first place? You see, when you married you made a vow! Everybody make them! Most people follow a set of vows that says they will stick with their partner through thick and thin! They make a lifelong commitment to be with their spouse "until death do they part" meaning that only death will separate them! Nothing else will come between them. Not health issues or finance issues or any other kind of issue. No matter what the circumstance, they vow to stick with each other. In most marriages this is sworn on a Bible. Basically it means that the marriage vows that each person takes is not sworn to each other. The wife doesn't swear to her husband that she will stick with him through thick and thin, nor does the husband swear that he will stick with his wife through thick and thin. Rather both of them swear to God, the creator of this universe, that they will stick with their spouse through thick and thin. When they do get divorced they have broken the commitment that they make with God, not with each other. And let's face it, if your a Christian you know that God hates divorce. Malachi 2:16 says, “The man who hates and divorces his wife, ” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty. Basically it says that you should stick with your spouse no matter what because divorce does more harm than good. You might think your getting away, but your not. The pain is very real and when you divorce it makes it that much worse.

There are tons of reasons that people divorce, but the number one reason always seems to be the same and that is finances. People divorce over money, or lack there of, more than any other reason. But is money a real reason to divorce? No. We all have struggles in this life that we have. If you can find one person in this world that has had the perfect life then you are fooling yourself because there is not one person in this world who has not had it hard in their life at some point. We all struggle in life, but if your married you struggle together. Listen, I would rather struggle with my wife than struggle alone. At least if my wife and I struggle together I have someone who knows how I feel and I have a shoulder to cry on. Being alone is just no fun in my opinion.

If there is one thing that I have found out in life it's that the Bible has the answer to literally everything in life. No matter what I am going through I can look to God and find help. God wants to help you and he will if you are willing to let him. So if you are struggling in the divorce area, get help. I would encourage anybody thinking about divorce to get help from a local church. Get counseling from a church not some guy who is going to charge you $200 bucks an hour for his opinion. Get help from God. He deeply cares for you and desperately wants to help you.

People Not So Sugar Sweet to Sugarland

I have yet to figure out why people sue each other here in this country.  I can understand suing someone for really screwing you out of your money or for being coned or something like that, but for no reason makes no sense what so ever.

It's sad for me to see that the band Sugarland is being sued by some of the victims families that died or got injured in last years Indiana State Fair.  It doesn't even make sense to me that people would even think to sue Sugarland.  They had nothing to do with this incident.  They just happened to be there.  If Sugarland knew in advance that the stage was going to collapse and didn't tell anybody, or if they had built the stage themselves, then it might be worth suing them, but not for things that were beyond their control.

It's sad that people want to point fingers and blame everyone.  However, an attorney representing one of the victims in the lawsuit(no name given) said the band was trying to “pass the blame.”  Basically, this attorney is saying that it is Sugarlands fault.  So, so sad that even lawyers are blaming Sugarland for a simply buck!

No Point

So I go to Lowe's Home Improvement the other day because I needed a few things to finish a project that I was working on.  So I go in the store, find everything that I needed, and then proceed to checkout.  Not a big deal right?  Everything normal so far, right?  Well, it's not during the checkout that things get weird, not even when the guy told me to have a great day.  It's when I've already left the store that things get weird, or rather Lowe's gets weird!

I'm out the door walking to my car when all of the sudden a guy comes out the store chasing me telling me that I set off the alarm in the store.  I understand that sometimes things like this happen, so I'm not in any way offended, however what bothered me is what the guy says next.

He tells me that he has to take me back to the store to "deactivate" the metal strips that caused the store alarms go off!  This is where they got me!  First, I just don't understand the logic in making me go back to the store.  Second is because I have my receipt that proves that I bought the stuff that I have in my hands! I had only bought 3 items and my receipt proves that I bought them, but the guy insisted in taking me back to the store and deactivating the metal strips.

Well to make a long story short, I ended up going back to the store and letting him deactivate my stuff.  The point is that this was stupid.  A total waste of time.  What Lowe's should have done was checked my receipt and sent me on my way.  There is no point in dragging a customer back to the store to deactivate something that was already out the store.  Just check their receipt and send them on their way!

And that's my rant for the day...I think!

What's Wrong With Flexible Spending Accounts

So if you don't know anything about what a flexible spending account is, here's a little breakdown.  A flexible spending account is an amount of money that is given to you and you are forced to pay back.  You set the amount of money that you want to receive and at the beginning of the year you receive a credit card with that amount of money on it.  The payback on the money is taken right out of your paycheck.  The payback is divided into 52 equal payments  or 26 biweekly payments or 12 equal payments so that it is paid back in one year.  Flexible spending accounts are  tied in with your insurance.  The only way to have a flexible spending account is to have insurance.  This is not a loan.  In a loan situation, a company gives you money, trusting that you"ll pay them back.  If you don't there is nothing that they can do to you.  They can't send you to jail and they can't garnish your wages.  They can't do anything except ding your credit score which can be damaging enough by itself.  This is not a loan in that you are forced to pay it since it is taken right out of your paycheck.  There is another reason that it is not a loan but we will get into that later.  Basically, the only way to default on a flexible spending account is to quit your job.  Finally a flexible spending account can only be used to cover the cost of medical treatments or dental treatments and to cover the cost of prescription medicine!


So that's the low down on a flexible spending account.  Sounds pretty good, right?  In some ways it's great.  Having a flexible spending account means that if you get sick and have to go to the doctor or you have a dental appt., you don't have to worry about having enough money to cover the cost because you already have the money with you on the flexible spending account.  Or if you get a prescription filled, you can use the flexible spending account to pay for your medicine!  Also money that you put on a flexible spending account cannot be taxed by the federal government.  So if you put $3000 on a felxible spending account, that money is not taxed!


So what's wrong with flexible spending accounts you ask?  Well several things.  For every one thing that sounds good one a flexible spending account, there is something that's bad about having a flexible spending account.  Let's see if you agree!


First would have to be the amount of money that you put on a flexible spending account.  Currently you can put up to $4000 dollars on a flexible spending account.  Starting in 2013, that amount will change from $4000 to $2500.  But that's not why I am complaining.  When I say the amount of money that's put on a flexible spending account is a problem, what I mean is that you have to "guess" on how much time your going to be sick this year.  How much your going to be a the doctor or how much your kids are going to be in the clinic or hospital.  How much time your going to be in the dentist.  Things like that.  My thing is, who in their right mind plans to be sick?  Who plans on going to the dentist expecting to have cavities?  Who plans on their kids breaking an arm?  Who plans like that?  I certainly don't and I hope that you don't either.  I don't think that there is anybody out there that plans to be unhealthy.  The truth is that you cannot plan on things happening.  It's like driving in a car and getting in a wreck.  Nobody plans to get involved in a wreck!  So basically you have to plan on getting sick and guess how much money your going to use that year.  Pretty much impossible.  If you don't put enough on a flexible spending account, you may have to start digging money out of your own pocket that you might not have.  This might get you into trouble in some cases.  On the other hand if you put too much on a flexible spending account and don't use it, well in that case your just going to lose it, which is my next topic.  Once you set the amount that you want to be put into the flexible spending account you cannot change it unless a qualifying event occurs such as the birth of a child or death of a spouse, etc.


Use it or lose it.  One major drawback is that the money must be spent within the coverage period as defined by the benefits plan coverage.  This can be different depending on the type of flexible spending account that you have.  There are several different types but for the most part, they are typically the same.  Some require that the money be used within 12 months while others give you a grace period.  The grace period usually is about 3 months but sometimes can be shorter.  Any money that is left unspent at the end of the coverage period is forfeited and can be applied to future plan administrative costs or can be equally allocated as taxable income among all plan participants.  This is why people call this the "Use it or Lose it" rule.  If you want to get technical, if you don't use some of the money and you lose it, they you are taxed on that money.  Basically you get taxed on money that you didn't have.  Let's say that you put $2000 on your flexible spending account.  They give you the $2000 at the beginning of the year.  You only use $1000 so you lose $1000.  Even though you paid $2000 back through payroll deductions, you still lose that money and then are taxed on the money that "they", the government, took back.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I'm not sure why you lose the money at all!  If you pay all the money back anyways, why do you lose that money if you don't spend it within a certain time frame?  You earned it, right?  They just gave it to you in advance, yet you are paying it all back with equal payments.  There is not a more devastating feeling than the government taking money away from you that you earned!  Well just one other which ties into my last topic.


Finally, a major drawback is where you spend the money.  The government has designated where you can spend the money that is on a flexible spending account.  The money that is on a flexible spending account must be spent on medical expenses, dental expenses, and prescription costs.  In certain cases it can be spent on things like childcare services.  Used to, you could spend the money on over the counter  medications but as of 2011, this feature has been taken away unless these over the counter medications are prescribed by your doctor of dentist.  However, I don't know of any doctor or dentist that prescribe over the counter medications.  This is the other reason that a flexible spending account is not a loan.  Unlike a loan, you cannot spend it wherever you want.  On a loan, you can spend the money where ever you want.  The only loans that you can't are a care loan or a house loan.


Audits.  This ties in with where you spend the money.  Anytime that you use the money, you are subject to an audit.  They can audit you every time you swipe the card, or they may never audit you at all.  It all up to "them".  What boggles me is why the government tells you where you can spend the money.  Especially when you earn it.  True that they give it to you at the beginning of the year, but if you pay it back then why does it matter where you spend the money?  It's your money and you earned it, yet the government tell you where to spend it!  In my opinion that's totally wrong!  Especially in a free country as we live in.  But that's government for you!


So tell me what you think?  Am I wrong or does what I'm saying have any merit to it at all?

Out Of Control Infringement

So my son is at his school's talent show.  I'm taking pictures and my wife is taking a video.  My son is 11 at the time and he really knows how to rock on a guitar!  Taught himself how to play he did!  It was awesome!  On of the best acts of the night!

So we go home after the show and then my wife decides post the video to Youtube.  No problem right?  Wrong!  Within a day or two I get a letter from Youtube that the video of MY son playing HIS guitar in a video that WE took, might have might violate copyright laws and therefore be copyright infringement!  But how?  This is a personal video!  We took it ourselves!  

So I got in contact with Youtube and asked how this could possibly be copyright infringement if we took the video ourselves!  I didn't add any type of other stuff into the video that would make it infringement!  The answer I got was this.  The video constituted copyright infringement because he was playing to a song that was copyrighted.  Because the song is in the video, even though I didn't add the song to the video personally, it still constitutes infringement!  I was thinking that this certainly couldn't be right!  So I decided to write to a copyright forum and see what they had to say.

I wrote to the forum and told them my situation.  I gave them another scenario that I was taking video around my house and went into my sons room where he was listening to the radio and then I posted the video to youtube and got an infringement letter.  The forums response was the same as Youtube.  They said that as soon as I posted the video with the song in it as public, that it became infringement even if I did not add the song to the video myself!  Simply that the song is in the video alone constitutes infringement.  

So in a nutshell, if you have ever posted a video to Youtube and it has music in it, chances are that you have broken the law, no matter how the music got there.  Unless of coarse you wrote the song yourself!  But is this the best thing for the music industry to be doing?  I mean, do they really need to pursue these copyright claims the way that they are?  Are not the people posting the videos with music in them in a sense promoting someone else's music?

Personally I think that big corporations like Sony and others should just stop heckling us peons about copyright infringement simply because there are way too many videos out there with music on them!  Every minute on Youtube, there is 24 hours worth of video uploaded.   You couldn't hire enough people to go through all that video footage just to see if there if copyrighted material or music on them!  Why even keep trying?  By posting YOUR music in OUR videos we are just helping promote YOUR music!  Essentially we are advertising for them and who doesn't want free advertising?  Corporate America I guess!

Look, when we go buy shoes at a store, no matter how cheap or expensive they are, we are promoting for that company.  Every shoe has at least two ways to identify it.  One is the name of the shoe, and the other is their logo that is incorporated onto the shoe, usually on either side of the shoe!  Same thing for cars.  When you buy a car, not only is the name of the car on the car but that company's logo is also on the car so people will know one way or another what type of car you are driving!  Clothing companies too!  Old Navy does it more than any other company I know of!  I would go as far as to challenge you to go into an Old Navy store and find something that doesn't have the words Old Navy blatantly obvious on their stuff!  It's all over it!  No matter what you buy from Old Navy, people won't even have to ask you where you got it from because it will be so obvious!  

But what if we didn't want to promote their product?  Do we have a choice?  Can I take these companies to court and demand that I don't want their logo or name on their stuff that I wear of theirs?  Probably not!  In most cases I would figure that I would be told to go shop somewhere else!  Not that it bothers me because it doesn't, but if it did then would I have a case?  Why when I don't want to promote a product, I'm forced too, but when I want to promote a song in a video I make, I can't!  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense!  Big companies every year save millions in advertising by making their customers the promoters of their product, yet big music companies get mad at their customers when they post music to homemade videos that might make them more sales in the long run!  Some of the best music I have in my music library is from videos that I saw on Youtube!  I watched a video, heard a song that sounded cool, got that song info and bought a rocking new CD!  And that's how Corporate America should view this!  People want to promote your music!  Why?  Because they like it and they want others to like it too!  They wouldn't post it to their video if they thought that it was trash and not worth listening too!  

Copyright infringement has gotten out of control.  It's so nit picky!  Most people who copyright infringe, don't even know that they are doing so!  If they did, would they really do it?  Highly doubtful!    Give your customers a break!  Look at it from our view!  People are not intending to break the law, but rather they want to promote the music that they love into their videos!  What's wrong with that?  Customers make or break companies.  When companies stab their customers in the back for petty things, that's when you may lose customers!  And you don't want negative customers!  While a happy customer might tell one person about their good experience, an angry customer will tell every person that they come in contact with about their bad experience!  So Corporate America, keep your customers happy and stop being so legalistic! 

Featured Video

So I was looking around on Youtube as sometimes I do, and I noticed this video that was in the "Featured Video" section. Most of the time they have some good things in that section and it's fun to look at some of the stuff that people come up with or what people are doing. However, this video was just too much.

The video title is, "baby eating habañero pepper". I thought, no way. Who would let a baby eat one of the hottest peppers on earth? Bad parents that's who! At first I thought that this must be a fake title. Someone who puts that title on their video to get people to look at it. After all, there is a video floating around Youtube that has almost the same title and when you click on it, the baby is eating a lemon, not a habañero pepper. So I decided to check it out.

At first I could not believe my eyes. There is a guy holding a habañero pepper right next to a baby! I was thinking, no way this guy would stick this in a baby's mouth. But he did! He held down the baby's arms and stuck it in the baby's mouth! Babies will eat anything so why would this be any different? I was in total shock. Who would do this? Why are they doing this? This is child abuse and these people should be put in jail! Those were my thoughts when I saw this video.

What amazes me is that this video is a "Featured Video" on the Youtube website! I don't know how they judge what video's should be "Featured" but this is not one of them! What amazes me even more is that this video has been up on Youtube for almost 4 years and has had over 600,000 hits and is still up and running. To me, that is just uncalled for and should be taken down from Youtube.

You can see the video here.

If you watch this video please report this video to Youtube as child abuse!

The baby eating the lemon but the title says habañero can be seen here.

The $14,000 Word

So I am really confused about this issue over whether the US Government is going to give Christian Lopez a $14,000 "tax liability" over catching Derek Jeter's 3000th hit ball. Why such a high tax liability? Since Christian caught the ball and it marked Derek Jeter's 3000th hit, the Yankee's gave him what they claim is $50,000 dollars worth of "stuff". So what all did they give him? Let's see, four luxury suite tickets for each of the team's remaining home games, including the postseason, three bats, three balls and two jerseys all signed by Jeter. I'm not real sure the total value of all that stuff, but my guess is that all this stuff is overpriced, especially the stuff that is signed. Oh and speaking of overpriced, I forgot to mention that Christian also received front-row seats for Sunday's game, which the Yankee's report sell for up to $1,358.90 each. If that's not overpriced then I don't know what is.

Now here's where this tax liability becomes really tricky. It's going to be up to the Yankee's and how they classify what they gave to Christian as. If the Yankee's say that what they gave Christian was a prize for catching Jeter's 3000th ball, then he could, and most likely will, get slammed with this $14,000 tax liability. However, if they say that what they gave him was a gift then he won't get the tax liability. Yes, that's right, all this comes down to one simple word. But which one are the Yankee's going to use?

In reality, either word would be correct. So let's look at each definition.

PRIZE - a reward for victory or superiority, as in a contest or competition. Was it a contest? Not really! A competition? Only in the sense that tons of people were all going to the same ball at the same time and it came down to who got the ball first! So in this sense, the Yankee's could say that Christian was given some prizes for catching the ball.

GIFT - something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present. When reading this definition, you know that what the Yankee's did for Christian was to "honor an occasion". Did they expect payment for what they gave Christian? No sir! They fully gave all this stuff to Christian without expecting anything in return. So in this sense, the Yankee's could say that Christian was given some gifts for catching the ball.

Like I said, either one is right, but which one is right to tell the US Government? In my opinion, the Yankee's should classify all the stuff that they gave Christian as gifts! No one wants to be all excited to receive some stuff from your favorite team, just to be slapped in the face by the US Government with a $14,000 tax. If it were me, I would probably wish that I was never at the game. Not an image that the Yankee's would want on any fan. Also, I know that Christian has stated that he will ask his parents for help with the $14,000 if it comes down to that, but what if they don't help or have the money? Then Christian would most likely have to sell some of the stuff that he got for free. Oh but it wouldn't be selling, rather giving it away because the money that he gets is going right back to Uncle Sam. I guess that's what they mean when they say that free stuff really isn't free.

I just hope that the Yankee's make the right decision in whatever decision that they make. If they don't then your going to have people all over the US screaming foul.

Are We Obsessed With Killing?

So I was watching some of the Emmy Awards earlier today and I was actually surprised at how much this show called Dexter was nominated for awards! Now they didn't get any, although director Steve Shill did win one for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, but I was still surprised at the amount of times the series kept popping up!

If you don't know what the series Dexter is about here is a quick breakdown.

Dexter is about a guy named Dexter Morgan who works for the Miami Police Department as a blood spatter expert for the Homicide unit. When serial killers come along he finds out who they are and then leads the Miami PD astray just long enough so that they cannot find the serial killer. Then Dexter goes after the Serial killer and kills them himself. Basically, Dexter is a serial killer of serial killers!

So I was wondering if we are just attached to watching shows that had to do with murdering people! What makes the killing of others so attractive?

I wanted to write about current movies that were in the theaters that had to do with killing people, but currently where I live there are only 2 movies out there.

The first one is Piranha. Not really a murder movie yet people get killed by psycho piranha's. I guess that some movies like this one that have lots of killings in them also get a lot of popularity. Just look at any of the Friday the 13th movies of any of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies! At least 10 people get murdered in those movies each and every time! Yet people seem to like watching people being murdered! That's why they keep making these movies!

The second movie out there is The Expendables. You want to talk about killing people then this is the movie to talk about! The Expendables has approximately 180 people getting killed in the movie, yet this movie has been the number one rated movie almost since it opened! This weekend was the first time it had dropped since being number one. This weekend it dropped to number three.

But lets look at the cast of The Expendables and see just how much each one of them has killed in their careers!

• Mickey Rourke – 28 Kills on screen in 61 Films – 0.45 kills

per film.

Most Kills:- 15 as Marv in Sin City

Kills in The Expendables: 0

• Jason Statham – 147 Kills on screen in 23 Films – 6.4 kills per film.

Most Kills:- 60 as ‘Farmer’ in ‘In the name of the King’

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 80

• Bruce Willis - 168 Kills on screen in 62 Films – 2.7 per film.

Most Kills – 26 as Korban Dallas in Fifth Element

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 0

• Jet Li – 327 Kills on screen – 39 Films – 8.3 per film.

Most Kills – 50 as Kit Li in High Risk

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 30

• Sylvester Stallone – 334 Kills on Screen – 50 Films – 6.7 per film.

Most Kills – 87 as John Rambo (2008)

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 60

• Arnold Schwarzenegger – 513 Kills on screen – 31 Films – 16.5 per film.

Most Kills – 102 as Matrix in Commando

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 0

• Dolph Lundgren – 632 Kills on screen – 36 Films – 17.5 per film.

Most Kills – 60 as Frank in the Punisher

Approximate kills in The Expendables: 10

THE BLOODY FACTS:

TOTALS: 2149 Combined Kills in 302 Films.

1. HOW HIGH – If you laid all the bodies these guys have racked up in their movies and stack em up like a single tower morbid game of Jenga it would be the height of 2149 feet, 655 metres or 0.4 of a mile which is roughly the same size as five London Eye big wheels, Two Eiffel Towers or as tall as 13 Godzilla’s (Japanese 1954 original version).

2. HOW FAR- Alternatively if you don’t fancy stacking you could lay each body-bag head to toe (presuming each guy exterminated was 6 foot tall, which is about right height for your average villain) it will total up to about 12,894 feet, 2.5 Miles or 3,930 metres in Length. That’s 9.8 times around an Olympic track that would take Usain Bolt about six minutes to reach the end of running at full pelt.

3. BLOODBATH! – If the average human body contains 5.6 litres of blood and presuming after each life our action stars takes the bodies loses around half that, then there would be enough blood to fill 10,588 pints of beer, 22.3 baths of water and is three times the amount of blood used to blast out of the bed in A Nightmare on Elm Street!

Yes all of this is so interesting! And yes I did copy all of those last statistics about The Expendables from a site called "heyuguys". Did you really think that I had all that time to all this type of research? Heck no!

My whole point is why are we so obsessed with people getting killed and why do we flock to see these type of movies?

I wonder if we have created this type of society on our own. I mean, what if we are the ones who watched these type of things as we were children and then wanted to expand our imagination and make something that was already violent, even more violent. So I decided to do some digging and here's what I found from the Parents Television Council.

Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of studies examining the connection between media violence and violence in real-life. In 1952, the United States House of Representatives was holding hearings to explore the impact of television violence and concluded that the "television broadcast industry was a perpetrator and a deliverer of violence." Then in 1972, the Surgeon General's office conducted an overview of existing studies on television violence and concluded that it was "a contributing factor to increases in violent crime and antisocial behavior." In his testimony to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld said, ""It is clear to me that the causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior is sufficient to warrant appropriate and immediate remedial action… There comes a time when the data are sufficient to justify action. That time has come."

Remember that these studies were done way back when! I really wonder what they would say now! But I'm talking about murder, not just violence! It is estimated that by the time an average child leaves elementary school, he or she will have witnessed 8,000 murders and over 100,000 other acts of violence. By the time that child is 18 years-of-age; he or she will witness 200,000 acts of violence, including 40,000 murders.

So my question is when did all of this become ok? When did we as a society make it ok to make violent movies? Make movies that we kill people? Are we promoting murder? Is that why murder is on the rise in America? We allow music to be produced that talks about murdering people. We allow video games to be put out there that puts you in the roll of a murderer!

Wether you know it or not, you can stop it. But how! It's really easy. Don't buy it! In America we produce what sells. If violent movies are selling, that's just what Hollywood is going to produce! If violent video games are a hot selling item, then your going to see more and more violent video games popping up. I guess that's why I like Nintendo so much! They hardly have any violent video games on their system!

If you don't think that you have the power to change things things buy not buying them, think about this. You go to the movies. You have just bought your ticket to see the movie The Expendables. Just kidding! You've got your tickets to go see Toy Story 3. Your seeing this movie with someone close to you. You get a large popcorn to share and the both of you get a medium drink. Now, how much did that just cost you? I'd be willing to be that you just spent around $28 dollars just on the tickets a popcorn and two drinks! Does that not sound like you have just been ripped off? When Toy Story 3 comes out on DVD, you are going to be able to buy the DVD, an 18 pack of microwave popcorn, and two 3 liter cokes for less than $28!

So why do we pay for things like popcorn and cokes at a movie theater, knowing that we are getting ripped off? If we were in a grocery store we would complain to the manager that their prices were horrible and if they didn't change them we would never shop there again? Since we allow ourselves to get ripped off in a movie theater, they continue to charge those prices. The longer you pay for those items at a very high price the longer they are going to stay high priced. However, if you refused to buy their product then prices would plummet!

That was kind of off the subject but the point was that as long as people continue to buy into violent movies and such, violence is what is going to be produced! It's just like when people say, "Sex sells". It has a truth to it because you see half naked girls on beer commercials, magazines, in nascar, and in all other types of things. Sex sells, and so does violence! Especially murder!

Did Roger Clemens Ever Really Use Steroids?

On Monday, August 30, 2010, seven-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens will be arraigned on federal charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of Congress.

But did he really do the things that he is accused of doing? Did Roger Clemens really use steroids and if so, where is the proof? I'm a proof kind of guy, and when someone is accused of doing something, I want to see the proof! However, this case that he is involved in right now just seems to be a he said/she said type scenario! Well, I guess since there is no females involved it would rather be a he said/he said, but you know what I mean.

Roger Clemens testified before Congress back in February of 2008 denying that he ever used steroids during his career as a major league baseball pitcher. However Clemens' former trainer, Brian McNamee has come out and told Congress that Clemens was lying. McNamee has said that he himself personally gave Clemens steroids. To make matters even worse for Clemens, one of his former teammates, Andy Pettitte, has also come out and said that he knows for a fact that Clemens was using steroids.

Even after all this, Clemens still maintains that he never used steroids at any point in his career!

What I would like to see is a video or a picture or something that proves that he was using steroids. I don't like the fact that Clemens says he never used and these other two people say that he did, and now Clemens is accused of lying because he is outnumbered. Where is the justice in that? We need proof people! This scenario is just as bad as someone being accused of murder, yet no one can find a body!

I'll be real honest, I have never really liked Roger Clemens! I think the guy is cocky! To be really honest, I think the guy is a jerk, but I wouldn't go out and accuse him of doing something like using steroids unless I had solid evidence, such as a picture or video, of Clemens actually doing the things that he was accused of doing! That's just not right!

Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like to me that I keep hearing about more and more cases where they are based on hearsay rather than being based on proof! What is this country coming too?