Hi, my name is D and this is my writings on subjects. I'm no rapscallion or anything at all. If you want to you can read my writings on subjects if you have free time. If you want to argue with me or call me names then please comment. Negative feedback is very welcome...I love dat shit. Me? I'm not even a noun, I'm a fucking verb, dude.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Dogs. Are they in Revo, Evo, or Devo?

I've been looking into a rather odd subject over the last 12 years or so. I've been carefully looking into the possibilities of dogs achieving total evolution and cognitive skills on par with humans. Doggie-volution, you'd call it...I guess.

I became interested in this field of study in the year 2000, after coming across a song called Where are Your Dogs? Show us Your Ugly on the internet. Well, maybe it is not exactly a "song" but more like an audio story tune, or an audio story dirge...or something.

It's an audio story tune about this dog who escapes from a plastic surgery test lab on Christmas Day (and is thus referred to as The Santa Dog). While he was in the lab, the Santa Dog got injected with human growth hormone and soon after his escape he began walking around town on his hind legs...and the "ugly humans start staying home in record numbers" in fear of the Santa Dog.

This whole concept of dogs evolving was something I found really interesting, and after being introduced to the concept, I naturally began a thorough investigation soon afterward.

From Wolves to Dogs: The Birth of the Dog

Dogs back in the day...used to be feral, vicious, ravaging beasts who traveled in packs who killed and ate all kinds of birds and deers. No one called them "doggies" back then, they were called "wolves" and everyone was dirt scared of them. You had to be scared of wolves because a pack of wolves would fuck you up back then.

It is theorized that humans thousands of years ago, in different spots of the globe, came upon wolf packs where the all the old wolves were dead and the only survivors were wolf cubs who could not fend for themselves. Humans adopted these wolf cubs and raised them and the wolves grew up to consider humans as friends and not food. Soon the wolves bred more baby wolves and the humans kept the friendliest ones in the human tribe and kicked out the ones who were too violent and feral. Basically, thanks to human influence, only the friendliest and least violent wolves got to breed and pass on their genes. Scientists call this phenomenon artificial selection.

After humans and doggies became fast and bestest friends, humans began to breed doggies more methodically. They got the dogs with the maddest skills (like hunting, smelling, running, seeing, etc.) and mated them with other dogs who displayed the maddest of skills in hopes that the puppies would be born with even madder skills. Often the puppies were indeed born with the sought after mad skills (as such).

Now we have huntin' dogs, seein' eye dogs, smellin' dogs (bloodhounds), racing dogs (greyhounds), and all kinds of skilled dogs. We even have funky dogs and nasty dogs and Dogs...woooooo!

These bad boys were being selectively pushed by humans to get better and better and in only about 100 years of breeding (1750-1850) dogs were gaining skills at alarmingly bad ass rates. In fact, with human help dogs were evolving super fast. You might go as far to say that dogs were not going through evolution...but revolution. 

The Decline of the Dog in the Victorian Era

The British Empire's Victorian Era and its legacy was notoriously bad. The English Royal Family applied all kinds of silly and odd rules to speech, writing, diction, fashion, manner, behavior, and everything else you could possibly think of. For example the measuring system they created (the imperial system) measured a unit of length known as a "rod" in regard to "the length of the left feet of 16 men lined up heel to toe as they emerged from church." It's almost as if the dumbest people in society were running it.

The field of dog breeding had the same silly and odd rules applied to it in the Victoria Era. Dogs stopped being bred in hopes of getting puppies with mad-ass skills, but instead dogs started to be bred in hopes of getting a dog who's teeth were 0.01 "rods" apart, or who's eyes looked really funny, or in hopes of getting a dog who's hair looked retarded. Basically, they bred dogs for novelty and social status reasons. It was really in style to have a dog with little beady eyes who's legs didn't work...it meant you were richer than your friends.

Another huge factor that helped the decline of the dog in the Victorian Era was the notion of "pure breeding" which was big in all of Europe back then. It's not a secret that Royal Families in Europe engaged in incest and brothers, sister, mothers, and fathers all mated with each other (I'm talking about humans now, not dogs by the way). Incest in the British Royal Family is the reason they all have fucked up teeth and are morons.

Charles: a Pure Bred creature.
The current Queen Elizabeth and her husband (Phil) are both descended from Queen Victoria. They have the same blood (source). It is said Royals have to inbreed because their blood is pure and better than commoner's blood but let's be sane for a moment...inbreeding makes fucked up kids.

Take Liz's son Prince Charles for example, that's what "pure breeding" does to offsprings...it makes them look awful and have the intelligence of a peanut.

Pure Breeding when applied to dogs was not a good idea (just like it wasn't a good idea for humans). The Victorian Era bred dogs with their sisters, brothers, mothers, and fathers in order to keep their genetic features "pure" and fashionable and in accordance with the silly rules they invented for dog breeding. Pure bred dogs are dumber, and far less healthy (they have all sorts of genetic problems which lead to health problems and shorter lives) than dogs who were bred for mad skills.

British and other Euro-Trash Royalty stopped the Doggie-volution (which I may remind you was no longer an evolution but a revolution) and turned it backwards. You might even say that the Euro-Royals selectively de-evolved our canines.

Oh shit. Wait a sec, that would mean we have a concrete example that devolution actually is possible and is not just a theory! AHHHHHHH! BOOGIE BOY WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! IT'S TRUE GENERAL DAD! WE REALLY ARE ALL DEVO!!!! IT'S POSSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO D-EVOLVE!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!


Poor Doggies...What did we do to em' ?

To sum it up so far, humans put dogs into selective Revo, and then as quickly as we did we snapped them back and put them into selective Devo...and all these poor little puppy wuppies ever really wanted was just to naturally Evo.

100% De-Evolution Completed...
Poor Doggies, now that the Doggie-Volution is over, they have been reduced to pulling our sleds or being fashion accessories for skinny blonde bimbos.

The purse dog (as they are known) is a dog who is 100% de-evolved thanks to selective human breeding. It's sad, it really is. I hate seeing purse dogs, it's so stupid and it really represents the hallmark example of how humans have fucked up our doggie pals.

Dogs had no choice to team up with us. Humans are mean creatures, we would have just killed all the wolves if none of them agreed to befriend us. I wonder, on a hypothetical alternate time line, one which humans didn't survive the ice age and died out...how wolves/dogs would have faired. If humans didn't make it out of the ice age, but if every other animal did...I bet things would have been different for wolves/dogs.

Wolves would have continued hunting, foraging, and ravaging in their ecosystem for aeons and would eventually have evolved naturally with no human aid. They would have lived proud lives as warrior dogs, tailor dogs, doctor dogs, and other noble lives.

My Bias

Me (Left) and Cubby (Right)
At this point in the article, I must admit that I have a personal bias in favor or doggies. When I was a young boy, my best friend was a dog named Cubby. Me and him was tight, he was like my little brother, I even nicknamed him "Little Brutha." Me and him used to be together all the time, running all around town pulling all sorts of hoodrat stuff. Me and him played ball together and all those things. I grew up with that dog (I had him from the age of 5 to 19), he was a good dog.

So when I look at what humans are doing to our dog pals, I take it seriously because my best pal as a child unit was a dog.

What if Dogs Manage to Evolve Despite Our Efforts to Stop Them?

What if dogs are just one or two positive random mutations away from hitting a massive evolutionary growth spurt? Walking on their hinds legs, opposable thumbs, vocal chords for speech, brain development. What if dogs who display and excel in those traits manage to breed with each other for a hundred years or so? Wouldn't they gradually keep building on those mad skill sets?

Say by the year 2400, despite human efforts to make them our sled pullers, sheep herders, and purses...doggies still manage to level up a few evolutionary echelons. Would they still be our friends?

Would the dogs look at what we are doing the planet and approve of it? Would they approve of us doing everything in our power to pollute and ruin up our home? Would evolved dogs band together in tribes and launch a rebellion against humans? I dunno, but that would make a really good movie though (anyone readin' this can steal my idea if they want, I don't care).

Should we be living in fear of the inevitable doggie-volution, and their righteous and justified rebellion against human-kind? Should we ugly humans lock ourselves in our homes in record numbers? Is Santa Dog really out there waiting.....biding his/her time....for the Doggie Revolution?


(This dog is walking on its hind legs because she was born without her other two...so, it's not like they can't already figure out how to walk on their hind legs. Maybe it is just a  fleeting and a sleeting scene of snowness and of sleeves. Will dogs have a presence in the future? More importantly will these highly evolved Santa Dogs have presents in the future? I dunno.)

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Authority Figures and Children: Two Recent News Stories which Involve Both

I find two recent news strories very interesting for very different reasons, the Jerry Sandusky rape trial and the Karen Klein bus monitor incident. Firstly, let's think about "authority" for a moment.

You are brought up from a very young age to listen to authority figures. You are told to do as you are told. You must adhere to the rules set in place by higher authority at all times. You must OBEY your parents, your teachers, cops, priests, coaches, government, and everyone else.

You are to do as you are told. You must respect your elders you little punks. You must let them have dominion over your brain and obey their every command.

Now, I agree that this method of rearing children will make them docile and polite, but is there problems with this method? Do these authority figures who hold dominion over your mind ever abuse their power?

A look at the Stanford Study is interesting, if you never have, basically a scientist put innocent people into a prison and labelled one half as "guards" and the other half of people as "inmates" and told the "guards" to keep the "inmates" in their cells and to behave. This was a totally arbitrary study yet even in this test the power slipped into the "guards" heads quickly and they began abusing the "inmates."

(Stanford Study: http://www.prisonexp.org/)

Another example of arbitrary obeying of authority figures is the odd and disgusting story of the "MacDonald's Strip Search Prank Call." A former policeman who was intrigued about how people will blindly obey authority, made a "prank" where he called up Macdonald's (a company who's greed has netted them billions of dollars yet have paid their employees minimum wage throughout its existence, and who's hard military rule system trains its teenage employees to OBEY) in Mount Washington, Kentucky. The man claimed one of the restaurant's female teenage employees was a wanted felon (this was totally untrue) and told the manager to detain her until police arrived. The manager chose to believe this ridiculous order from a stranger on the phone who claimed to be an authority figure and locked the girl up in the office. Next, the caller told the manager to strip the girl and to make her give a blowjob to her husband (who was called in to help keep the teen prisoner at MacDonald's). The poor girl being told from an early age to respect her elders and obey authority obeys the command and gives the man a blowjob. Is that fucked up or what?

(Fucked Up MacDonald's "Prank": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam)

(the wiki says there was a film made about this called "Compliance" recently. Might be interesting.)

Now let's get to the main intended topic...

Jerry Sandusky

This man was a football coach who in his leisure time enjoyed raping the children he coached as one of his hobbies. He raped all kinds of kids from 11 year olds to teenagers and enjoyed every minute of it.

The coach figure is in charge, he tells the kids what to do and they must obey him. Jerry is not the first coach authority figure who got a kick out of raping his young players. Grahame James, the hockey coach, comes to mind. James raped kids who went on to be successful NHL players.

Respect Your Elders
Coaches rank second in rapes by non-parental authority figures, they only trail priests in that regard. If we got into kids who were raped by Catholic Priests we could be here all day, so let's not go into that.

Picture this, the 68 year old Jerry Sandusky giving a young football player some extra training by taking the 11 year old child into the showers and sodomizing him. Repeatedly shoving his disgusting old dick into the poor child's anus. Isn't that a completely gruesome and sickening thought? Isn't even more sickening that it actually happened?

To all you people shouting "respect your elders," ask yourself, should the children who were raped by Jerry Sandusky have shown respect to Sandusky while being raped by him just because his raping dick is 68 years old? Get fucking real.

Karen Klein

Using the age of 68 as a sort of segway, let's move on to Karen Klein. Klein has been saturated into the mainstream media for the last two weeks over an incident where very mean kids (aged 11-13) call her names on a school bus.

It's a horrible video, it reminds everyone of high school and how terrible that Puberty Prison was. Due to the shocking nature, the words used by the boys, and the fact that millions of people were made fun of in high school (and could relate to her)...an internet drive to compensate Klein for her suffering has hit close to $700,000 bucks and still climbing fast.

The only thing I would like to add to this over-saturated news story is that Karen Klein in this situation was an authority figure. She was placed on the bus to maintain order and the kids were expected to obey her commands just like they are expected to obey every other authority figure.

I do not believe that due to her age she should be considered "elderly" and thusly capable of no wrong doing. By that logic, Jerry Sandusky (also 68) should have been acquitted for raping those kids because he is also over 65 and an "elderly" person. She was placed in a position of authority over children, she was not a random passerby who just happened to be riding the school bus that day.

I don't want to defend these stupid mean kids, but I just want to pose the following questions out loud:

Would the kids in the Klein video have let themselves be raped by Jerry Sandusky? Or would they have kicked him in the nuts until he was unconscious, laughed at his old ass dick while he was on the ground, and maybe stole his wallet before they ran off to safety?

Would the kids in the Klein video have let themselves be held hostage in a MacDonald's and let themselves be forced to give a blowjob to some fat disgusting piece of shit? Or would they have kicked the guy square in the dick, pushed the retarded MacDonald's manager Donna Summers to ground and got out of that fucking grease pit prison?


I don't know. Sometimes being mean is a very good self preservation mechanism. I can't see those unruly kids letting themselves be taken advantage of by abusive authority figures. As much as I feel for Karen Klein (though I did not donate, I'm happy she has made 700K off of being called names), I do think that children need to develop non-violent methods of defending themselves against the onslaught of arbitrary authority figures placed upon them.

I'm not defending the kids, I just want to bring a new view point to these recent news stories involving two very different 68 year old authority figures.

By the way, was there ever any internet drive to raise money for the kids who were raped by Sandusky? No. In fact the only public outcry concerning the matter was a candle light vigil held for....(not the victims)...but for the head of Penn State Football Joe Paterno, because poor "Joe Pa" was getting negative press concerning the Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

Edit: (September 09/2012)

I recommended in this article that students should kick authority figures in the groin as a good method of counter-attack. Recently, a really good video of a little girl kicking her teacher in the dick has serviced on the net. I don't know for sure if it is real or staged but this is what I was talkin' about. You go girl...