Closing the Wage Gap

One of the most common criticisms of feminism I hear is that it's too nebulous. Opponents will claim that feminists spend all their time whining about their problems, but they aren't actually taking steps to fix them. According to these people, feminists don't have any stated goals.

I think that's an incorrect assertion, but fair enough. Today I'd like to take you through my plan to fix one of the biggest issues facing women today. The wage gap. And yes, MRAs, the wage gap does in fact exist. I proved it in episode 22 of my series Men's Rights Memes. There are sources and everything. Go check it out before you scream at me in the comments.

Now that all the rational people have determined that the wage gap exists, we can get to work on fixing it. I have a few ideas about how to do that, so we're going to talk about them today. Buckle up, motherfuckers.

Real quick, I just want to point out that I am one person, and this is a complex issue. I don't have all the answers. With all that out of the way, let's get to it.

I suggest that we do more to address and combat discrimination in the workplace. I think we need to foster better, more comprehensive conversations about gender roles and sexual harassment. Right now, most sexual harassment manuals recommend that women cover up or take similar measures. I think we ought to place the onus on potential perpetrators, rather than potential victims. We need to grant women agency and freedom in the workplace, and that includes loosening dress code standards. Obviously, I don't think people should come into work naked, but less restrictions are definitely necessary.

I also propose that we improve wages in female-dominated jobs. In most cases, there's no reason for them to pay less in the first place. For example, it takes roughly the same amount of education and experience to become a nurse as it does to be an engineer, but engineers tend to get paid more. Check out that episode of Men's Rights Memes for sources on that.

Finally, I think it's a good idea to avoid discriminating against people who wish to start families, especially considering that our society often pressures women to become mothers. If we're going to keep perpetuating those antiquated gender roles, we must institute measures like paid family leave for both mothers and fathers.

I know that those points aren't perfect, but this sounds like a good place to start.

Just something to think about.

Kim Davis

The Internet is all abuzz with talk of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the basis of her religious beliefs. Now she is in prison, and people have ripped her apart. I think they were right to do that, and I joined in the fun along with them.

Basically everything that could be said about what she did has already been said by much stronger minds than mine. I don't really have anything new to say in regards to her actual conduct, though I would like to point out that she was not jailed for her beliefs. She was jailed for, again, her conduct. There is a huge fucking difference, you guys. You can believe whatever arcane bullshit you want about gay folk, but you have not right to dictate how we live our lives. You cannot limit our freedoms.

What I want to focus on here is the treatment of Kim Davis' number of marriage. I know that we only ragged on her because she was a hypocrite. She defended her bigoted actions by bringing up the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the sacrament. She's also been married four times, and those two things don't really mesh. I think it's perfectly fine to talk about her marriages in the context of religious hypocrisy, but the number of partners you've had says nothing about the content of your character.

I think there's also a lot of bullshit surrounding Kim's appearance. I've seen some shit on Twitter that makes it seem as though she is a lesser person for being conventionally unattractive. Not only is this untrue, it is also terrible debate strategy. If you level personal attacks against your opponent, it signals that you cannot compete with them on an intellectual level. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Just something to think about.

Objective Morality

As some of you may know, I do not believe in an objective sense of morality. But more than that, I know that there is no objective sense of morality. There are a number of reasons for this, so let's go over a few of them today.

Because I do not base my morality on anything objective, everything I do, whether I think it's right or wrong, is entirely based on how I feel about it. Anything that does not conform to my standards of morality, I consider to be immoral. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality in this world is mine. It's really just that easy.

Well, it's easy for me, anyway. But the fact that there are so many people, from all around the world, who seem to disagree with me, only confirms the fact that there is no objective morality. If there was an objective morality, we would not be arguing over whether or not it was okay to kill children, or circumcise baby girls, or rape women. There would be no debate about whether or not it was okay to stone someone to death, or to own slaves. We would all just know, instinctively, that these things are wrong. We wouldn't have to fight about these things, we just wouldn't do them.

Now, there is a form of morality that rests outside of me, and in some cases differs from my conception of what is moral. I'm talking here about societal morality. But even then, from society to society, we all believe different things. The Nazis believed that it was moral and just to exterminate the Jews. Even during World War Two, within Nazi Germany, there were people who stood up and fought against this idea. Shouldn't the Nazis have just known that it was wrong to kill millions of people? Perhaps. But there was a certain percentage of people who did not know this, and therefore, objective morality cannot and does not exist.

This is further evidenced by the fact that there are those who operate outside of morality entirely. Stalin is a perfect example of how somebody can exist without a moral code, and still live with themselves. That's how sociopaths work. 

There is no objective morality.

Just something to think about.

My Thoughts On Family

I am a human, and like most humans, I have a family. Unlike most humans, I have a very, very large family. I often describe myself as having a ‘small army of cousins,’ and that’s true. When you’re dealing with numbers as big as I am, it’s statistically inevitable that there will be people in my family whom I dislike. There aren’t many, of course, but they do exist. (You can read about my experience with one of them here.) In any case, the environment I was raised in greatly influenced the way I think about the modern family unit, and my opinions on said unit. So...here those are, I guess.

Family doesn’t mean shit. By that, I mean the bond of family is not inherently meaningful. It only becomes important when all parties work to make it so. Family is like any other relationship, in that it requires effort. You gotta earn it.

Again, I believe that this is true of any relationship, and most people would agree with me, up to a point. They usually draw the line at family, though. They say things like, ‘they’re your family, you have to love them,’ or ‘he’s your family, he means well.’ 

I disagree, but I understand where these people are coming from. After all, our family stays with us forever. They’re the first people we interact with, the first relationships we cultivate, and they permeate every aspect of our lives. For better or worse, the things they say stick with us for all eternity. Their compliments carry more weight, sure, but so do their insults. That’s why the people who say things like ‘blood is thicker than water’ are wrong. Since family is not a matter of choice, there’s no telling who you might end up with. What if a gay person grew up in a conservative christian household, and his entire family considered him immoral. That person should be able to leave that environment, because it’s toxic. He didn’t choose his family. If it is not to his liking, he should absolutely have the freedom to leave.

So those are my views on family. I’ve gotten a lot of flack for them over the years, but I believe they are correct, so I’m sticking with them. And, as those ‘blood is thicker than water’ people are loathe to tell you, I’m not alone in these convictions.

‘Blood is thicker than water’ isn’t even the full phrase. It’s actually, ‘The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb,’ meaning that the bonds formed by choice are stronger than those formed by birth. Isn’t it funny how these things work out?

Just something to think about.

My Rant About Conservative Talk Radio

He’s angry again. I don’t know why, but I’m almost positive it’s misguided. None of his rants make any sense these days, and he fumbles the facts like a quarterback with anxiety. It’s a mystery. Last week he was pissed about somebody on TV taking the Lord’s name in vain. Before that it was the EPA, then the Department of Education. He stands up there on his podium, screaming his ass off about big government interfering with hard working job creators. He talks about limiting their power, then votes against gay marriage. I guess he wants the government to stay out of your way, but only if you’re exactly like him.

I don’t think he really believes in any of the stuff he says. I think he just likes to hear himself talk. This whole thing is just an excuse for him to get his ego stroked. Well, who can blame him? We all want to feel important, we all want to be remembered. But what he doesn’t realize is that history only smiles upon the intelligent ones. He’s already out of luck.

Why I Do Capitalize God

Here’s another short one. Again, this isn’t some huge, pressing issue I’m tackling today. I’m not sticking it to the man this time, just ranting about a minor pet peeve of mine. The object of my ire right now is the atheist community. This might appear odd to some of you, given that I myself am a nonbeliever. But I’ve called out the atheists numerous times, both on this blog and in the real world, and I’m doing it again today. Buckle up, everyone. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Okay. Why the fuck do some atheists not capitalize the word God? I’ve heard some people say that it’s because he’s fictional, and that’s the argument I’m addressing here today. Most atheist, particularly the outspoken variety found on the internet, say that they don’t capitalize God because they believe he’s fictional. Not capitalizing his name is a way of rejecting the mass delusion their culture has bought into.

There are a couple of things wrong with that line of thinking. Firstly, Having a capitalized name and being fictional are not mutually exclusive. Nobody believes in Harry Potter, and yet we all capitalize his name. Fictional characters are still proper nouns, so the rules of correct grammar still apply. This includes God, at least according to atheists.

Now let’s look at that bit about shattering the mass delusion or whatever. To that end, I say, “REALLY?” Do you honestly believe that by not capitalizing the name God, you will break down the hold that religion has over society? Are you really that fucking dense, guys? If you really want to separate church and state, or encourage empiricism, then I’d agree with you. We all go by the same label, we have the same goals. But you cannot further those goals by just choosing not to capitalize a word. In the grand scheme of things, that’s inconsequential. Maybe instead of whining about trivial bullshit, you would work to improve science education or fight for social justice. Do that, please, and stop acting like such petulant children. Do it for me, so we can actually improve the world. Please?

And maybe obey the rules of proper grammar while you’re at it.

Just something to think about.

Censorship and Jerry Seinfeld

I recently went to see Jerry Seinfeld perform a comedy show. I thought he was excellent, and I was also a huge fan of his television show. His comedy matters to me.

That's why I was rather nonplussed when he said that he would no longer perform at colleges, given that they are too politically correct, or 'PC.' Here's the thing that weirded me out about that. Jerry's comedy isn't fucking edgey. He does observational humor, and I would've felt comfortable taking my kid to that show. It baffles me that anyone would be offended by any of his jokes.

In light of that, there are two distinct possibilities, two collections of events that could have transpired which caused him to make that decision. Either somebody got pissed at a joke that he made based on a misunderstanding of the material. That is to say, someone became angry over subtext in a joke, when said subtext was not intended. I will concede that this is plausible, but again, the material that he used at the show I attended was in no way offensive. I find it exceedingly unlikely that any rational, thinking person would ever describe him as being 'non-PC.' But maybe the material he used at the college was different from that which he used at my show. I have no way of knowing that.

Which leads me to what I consider to be the more likely possibility. Jerry Seinfeld is a sniveling, whining little asshole. By that, I mean that his joke didn't land, and he got pissed about it. Then he went out of his way to blame anyone but himself for the failure he committed.

Look, let me be clear. I do not agree with censorship in any form, least of all in the context of a comedy show. The jokes that a comedian tells are not necessarily indicative of his real feelings on a subject. His persona onstage is merely an act, intended to illicit laughter from the audience. It cannot be offensive, in my view, because it is comedy. If the humor employed by shock-value comedians like Daniel Tosh offends you, then it is your responsibility to avoid that sort of humor. You cannot force a comic to change his act. You can educate, and engage in constructive debate, but if he chooses to ignore your suggestions, then that is completely within his right. He has a right to peddle the sort of product that he wants, to the market demographic he desires. If that demo does not include you, then suck it up and deal. No one is forcing you to listen to comedians you don't like.

But, in a way, the same goes for comedians. It's still about personal responsibility. If a joke you make onstage doesn't land, it is his responsibility to evaluate why. He must place the blame on himself, and examine his material from a logical standpoint. If he discovers flaws in his act, he can change them to appeal to a broader subset of people. And if he wants to keep pleasing his current audience, that's fine too. But in the context of entertainment, my original point still stands. Both parties are personally responsible for their own actions.

Just something to think about.

Humanists Behind Bars

Recently, an inmate in a correctional facility in Oregon sued the prison for the right to practice his 'religion of humanism.' The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognized his plea. This means that, for the purpose of the prison system, humanism is considered a religion. This new designation affords humanist prisoners the right to form study groups, hire chaplains, and speak to philosophers.much in the same way that Christian inmates would be allowed to hire priests.

This seems to be following the US Army's example of recognizing humanism as a 'religious choice.'

Now, many atheists, most of whom refer to themselves as secular humanists, take this as a mixed blessing. And, honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from. After all, humanism is not a religion, and recognizing it a such might contribute to the collapse of the already tumultuous relationship between outspoken atheists and conservative Christians. After all, we've spent years correctly denying the claim that atheism is a religion, and now it is being recognized as such. At least it is in one specific context.

So, doesn't this designation sort of undermine our push for scientific literacy and reason? We claim that said push is not about furthering a religious agenda, and this law seems to be in direct opposition to that claim.

In this context, I don't think it does. See, this isn't really about the classification of humanism. It isn't a religion, but I don't think designating it as such here will actually contribute to misinformation among theists. At least, not among those theists who still have functioning brains. There aren't many, but they're out there. My point here is that calling humanism a religion is a means to an end. If there were a way to get around that, I'm sure prison officials would have taken that path. But I don't know. Maybe I'm giving these people too much credit.

Or rather I would be, were it not for the fact that this case does not designate humanism as a religion. It explicitly calls it a religious choice, as the US Army did. This is not the same as a religion. I think it can best be summed it with a quote from Bill Maher. "Atheism is religion like abstinence is a sex position." Yes, these two things are very different, but they're on the same spectrum. Opposite ends of it, sure, but the same spectrum nonetheless.

This case is not about religion. It's about whether or not secular humanists are entitled to the same protections under law as religious folks. Quite simply, this is a matter of human rights. The FBP was sued by the American Humanist Association, and they agreed to acknowledge humanism as a worldview, rather than a religion. So, really, the argument against this is meaningless.

This decision allows humanists in prison to request time and space for activities, the right to form study and debate groups, and many other things. Before, only theists had these rights. This breaks down the barrier between special religious rights and opens the door for debate and discussion. This is about equality. We have to focus on that, rather than the technical label.

Just something to think about.

Are Babies Atheists?

I've seen an info-graphic circulating around the Web recently, particularly in atheist spaces. It depicts an infant, and then below that, the words: 'you don't become an atheist. You go back to being one.'

That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.

This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"

Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.

That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.

Just something to think about.

Was Reagan Crazy?

Was Reagan Crazy?

Yes. This is clear. He advocated for an economic policy that, objectively, cannot work. Trickle-down economics states that granting tax cuts to the wealthiest corporate magnates will eventually lead to greater wealth for the workers employed by said corporations, and indeed all workers. This is provably false, as when you give the rich more money, it will invariably go towards lining their own pockets. Further, economist Steven Zydar conducted a study that showed that tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs. So, Reagan was quite clearly politically insane. He didn't care about facts, and neither do his disciples in the modern Republican party.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about today. Ronald Reagan, who ran our country for four years, was goddamned obsessed with the concept of an alien invasion. In an infamous speech to the UN, he hypothesized that an extraterrestrial threat would help to unify the world. He claimed that the invasion would force us to put aside our differences as we worked to save the entirety of the human race.

The speech can be found, in video form, here.

For the purposes of this examination, we're going to ignore the implausibility of there ever being intelligent life outside of Earth, let alone life that represents a significant threat to the human race. Let's assume that aliens are a known quantity. The invasion is inevitable.

So, the question remains. Is this an accurate statement? Does Reagan's idea about the invasion make any sense?

I think it does. Sure, in the beginning, mass panic would cause people to revert back to their primal, animalistic states. It would most likely be every man for himself for some amount of time. Society would, in all likelihood, devolve into loosely-connected bands of roving looters, struggling to survive and doing so by any means necessary.

But, eventually, we would all realize that a lawless, purely individual societies are doomed to fail, In fact, they aren't societies at all. In the wake of the invasion, amid the death and destruction, humanity would have to come together on a larger scale, and rebuild civilization itself from the ground up. In that scenario, there's no place for bigotry of any kind. Everyone must pitch in, so exclusion of any group spells death. Humanity will need all the help it can get, and the unity that arises will be unparalleled.

That's assuming that things like race, gender, and sexual orientation are even on people's minds after the fall of civilization. Nobody gives a shit about your politics when there are giant green men coming to eat everyone. When survival is not a guarantee, there simply isn't enough room left in your brain to think about such trivial things.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, no, Reagan was not talking out of his ass in that video. That's surprising, I know, but there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

Then again, maybe I'm an idiot. Perhaps my idealistic optimism is clouding my judgement about human nature. Perhaps, in the aftermath of the invasion, our dividing factors would be more important than ever. Maybe, without the glue of compulsory participation in society holding us together, each group would split into their own separate nation-states. Societies then would only be made up of like-minded people who banded together out of choice, rather than necessity. Then all the groups would wage perpetual war with one another over the planet's scant natural resources. Maybe I'm giving the human race too much credit.

Just something to think about.

The Lesser of Two Evils

I've heard a lot of people, particularly on the left, who have become disillusioned by the political process, and thus have ceased the practice of voting. I think there are a host of legitimate reasons to take  this position. However, the most common one I hear is not. I'd like to talk about that today.

The way I hear this point summed up most commonly is that the political candidates are all the same. the Democratic party has become conservative. they're center-left, of course, but they exhibit the same kind of corporatism that their opposition in the Republican party does. This is true to some extent. After all, President Obama made ninety percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is a profoundly conservative move, proof of which can be found here.

Events like these will often lead the above disenfranchised people to say something along the lines of, "That's why I stopped voting. I didn't want to keep electing the lesser of two evils."

Do I even need to explain the problem with this argument? It's the fucking lesser of two evils. Someone is going to be elected no matter what happens. One person not voting isn't going to change that. In fact, not voting is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to send a message. The whole point of democracy is that the people must have a way to send a message to their elected representative. You know how we send those messages? We fucking vote. That's how you affect change, by electing candidates who have views that will better the nation. But sometimes boring establishment people win the nomination. Sometimes the choices aren't radical enough. You know what we do then? We vote for the lesser of two evils. As I said, someone's gonna get elected either way, it might as well be the person closest to the correct one, especially if the precisely correct one is nowhere to be found.

Just something to think about.

Drugs

There's been something of a shift among progressive circles recently, and now many popular figures on the left are advocating for the abolition of prohibition. That is to say, they are in favor of the legalization, or at least the decriminalization, of all drugs. Their primary argument is that the cost of prohibition is exceedingly expensive, and that the sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenses are so long as to ruin people's lives. And, near as I can tell, both of those things are objectively factual. Further, anti-prohibitionists claim that, by legalizing, taxing, and regulating substances, we would take power away from violent cartels and ensure that the substances circulating are safe and nonfatal.

Here  is a Web site which contains data about the drug war and determines that a progressive drug policy is the best fix for the problems outlined above.

The argument against is that drugs are not good for you. At least, that's one argument I hear from both the opposing left as well as the right. This is a bullshit argument, of course. Hamburgers are not good for you, should we criminalize those? If you want to criminalize something, you must take into account a whole lot more than whether it is or is not 'good for you,' whatever the fuck that even means. Snatching away and criminalizing everything that might possibly be bad for some segment of the population is, as outlined above, expensive as hell. It also needlessly ruins people's lives, and often ends up causing way more harm than it prevents.

Are there some drugs that are so harmful that they are worth the cost, both monetarily and otherwise, of criminalization? Perhaps. But the mere fact that something is unhealthy is not enough reason to ban it entirely.

Just something to think about.

Pope Francis and Climate Change

So Pope Francis recently wrote a paper on climate change, wherein he stated that all the data points to three things. The first is that climate change is a real thing that is actually happening. I didn't think this needed to be said, but apparently I was wrong. Just shows what happens when I act as if humanity is not populated entirely by dense, knuckle-dragging mongoloids. Damn you, optimism!

Anyway, the data also says that climate change is harmful, and that action needs to be taken in order to prevent its effects from worsening even further. Again, I figured this was obvious. Again I am wrong.

Finally, the numbers point to humanity as the number-one cause of climate change. The planet is fucked, and we are all collectively responsible for this fact. I guess our species really is idiotic. Would you look at that? I was right about something for once!

So after Pope Francis pointed all this out to us, and urged the proper authorities to take meaningful action on the issue, people flipped their shit. Most of these people were the uber-religious right-wing type, which really should not have surprised me as much as it did. There were two narratives these assholes pushed, none of which is particularly accurate. Nor are they all that different from one another, come to think of it. They're both bullshit, anyway.

People like Greg Guttfeild, the 'comedian' on Fox News, claimed that Pope Francis is not an authority on science, and so the church should stay out of the discussion. In essence, he should've left the science to the scientists. That's odd. He wasn't saying that when creationists wanted to teach their crackpot theory in high school science classes, now was he? That seems a tad hypocritical to me.

And, also, his argument is factually incorrect. Pope Francis is leaving the science to the scientists. Everything he said in that document is corroborated by data and scientific consensus. Pope Francis is merely agreeing with it. He recognizes that the Church holds immense power and influence over the common people. He has elected to use that power for good, and that's awesome.

The other talking point these people spewed forth from the depths of hell is that public opinion skews against climate change. The American people don't support taking action against it, so therefore we shouldn't do it.

Quite frankly, I have no fucking idea where this is coming from. This shows that the people, by and large, support action in regards to climate change. But even so, who gives a shit? Climate change is an objective reality. It's a fact. You don't get to have fucking opinions on facts. Just trust the scientists, okay?

Just something to think about.

The Reagan Question

"Sometimes when I'm faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I like to take him to the most delicious gourmet dinner I have ever served, and then when he's done, ask him if he believes there's a cook."

That's aQUOTE concerning God from president Ronald Reagan, or at least it's been attributed to him. Whether or not that is really the case remains to be seen. I don't want to spend too much time on who actually said this, though. Frankly, it's irrelevant to what I want to talk about right now. I'm far more interested in addressing the substance of the argument. Yes, trust me. There isn't a lot of substance to this, but it is there. Just squint and look real close, you'll find it.

This is essentially another way of wording the Argument from Design. That is to say, the world looks so complex, it must have a creator. Reagan uses a cooking metaphor to drive this pointHOME. Every meal has a cook, so every universe has to have a designer. God must exist, or the universe would not.

This is a fallacious assertion for a number of reasons. The first is that a meal and a universe are not one and the same. That's shocking, I know, but just bear with me for a moment. This will all make sense in time. See, the universe is essentially a series of naturalPROCESSES working in tandem with one another, whereas a meal is guided by a human hand. I am not aware of an natural processes that can create a gourmet dinner. If you are, let me know. That sounds tasty as fuck. Anyway, because there are no natural processes that are known to result in a meal, the only reasonable assumption one can make is that it was created by a human.

Conversely, we know of nothing that can create a universe other than the natural processes that science has observed. There is no evidence of an ethereal sky-daddy, whether you like it or not. Because there are natural processes in place, the existence of the universe just isn't enough to reliably say that a deity exists. If we could not observe evolution, for instance, then you might be able to say that there is a god. But we already know how the universe functions, for the most part. Therefore, the god claim holds no water.

The above refutation is not an endorsement of the God of the Gaps argument, however. That, too, isINCORRECT. The God of the Gaps assertion, for the uninitiated, goes something like this: "You cannot explain everything about how the universe works, so there must be a god." I have seen this defense used in almost every context imaginable, including the existence of hummingbirds. No, seriously. According to the theist in question, hummingbirds are too small to be able to fly under their own power, therefore God must have created them.

This is bullshit as well, and here's why. InORDER to make a positive claim about anything, you must be able to provide positive proof. Not knowing the cause of something doesn't mean you can just plug God into the equation and be done with it. That's not the way these things work. When you don't know something, you must work harder to find the answer. That's the only intellectually honest course of action.

Just something to think about.

Just Something to Think About

Just Something To Think About

Chris Costello

If you’ve been reading this blog for any amount of time, you’ll have noticed that I end all of my opinion pieces with the phrase, ‘just something to think about.’ Why do I do this, you ask in my head. Well, there are a few reasons.

Most importantly, my opinion pieces are just that. Opinion pieces. Although I try to influence my opinion by looking at objective data and facts, I cannot be one hundred percent correct all the time. My word is not gospel, and should not be treated as such. I can only offer my take on things, which you areFREE to disregard if it suits you. Put simply, all I can give you is something to think about. Nothing more and nothing less.

Further, I am absolute shit at ending essays. It’s always been a struggle, so using the phraseoffers me a monty-python-esque out. When I run out of things to say, I can use those five words to put a nice little bow on everything. In non-prose work, I’ve always struggled with conclusions. Until such time as my skills improve in this area, having a tried-and-true ending in place makes things easier on my part.

I’ve decided to be a rebel and save the least important reason for last. Namely, the fact that I have a thing about word count. Most of my pieces, if they are not poems, end in either a zero or a five. Having the phrase in my pocket is a nice way to increase the count and ensure that this happens. Higher word counts make me feel more productive. Now that I think about it, this whole blog is just a way for me to stroke my own ego. But, hey, isn’t that what the entire internet is for?

Really, that’s all I have to say on this topic.SORRY this one is so short.

Anyway, you guys know the drill here.

Just something to think about.