Perspective on Propaganda

This really pisses me off. One of the reasons I like living in Oklahoma, is it's not California. Well, I guess it is now. People totally buy into the modern propaganda on so much crap, and it really makes me mad. Take the list on this page, for example. There are a lot of people that are anti-gun and/or pro-gun control because of all the accidental shootings. According to this table, you are nearly twice as likely to die from medical malpractice than accidental gunfire. Furthermore, you are many times more likely to accidentally die from many other situations, including (but not limited to) car accidents, falling, poisoning, drowning, or choking on your food! Let's compare these stats to those on this page.

Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year

I am claiming that I'm putting these things in perspective, so let's make that an actual number. According to this page, the U. S. population in July of 2007 was 301,139,947. That would mean that the people who die each year of lung cancer from second hand smoke account for .000996% of the population. To simplify that for some of you, that accounts for only one of your 10,000 closest friends. I wouldn't exactly call that a F*&%ing epidemic. And, you are over THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to die in an automobile accident than you are to die of lung cancer that you got from second hand smoke. You are more likely to die in a fire than from lung cancer associated with second hand smoke. What pisses me off more than anything else is the fact that there is so little truly comprehensive information concerning health risks according to smoking. I would like to see a study that says that X% of smokers contract whatever disease, not associated with other high-risk lifestyles such as glazier or machine work. I suspect you can't find this information, because it would be detrimental to the argument that it it so terribly, terribly bad for you. So, we just have to go with their numbers, I suppose.
But, if we take the above U. S. population number, and figure that 1/5 of the population smokes, as is guessed by The National Cancer Society, that would make 60,227,989 smokers, of which 440,000 were estimated to have died due to tobacco for the year. That would be 1 out of every 137 smokers dying of smoking-related illnesses. This amounts to less than 1% of all smokers dying each year. If the statistics could be applied straight-forward, if I smoked average cigarettes at an average rate over the course of 137 years, would I be almost certain to die of lung cancer? Not quite pandemic proportions.
It is estimated on the same website that 213,380 people got lung cancer from tobacco in the year of 2007. That would account for one out of every 282 smokers, or .36%. So, If I smoke for 282 years, and don't die of anything else, I'll get lung cancer. I know that statistics don't work exactly that way, but the way tobacco has become public enemy number one is ridiculous, and people need to start understanding the lies they are being fed.
It's like they want us to all believe that if you smoke, even occasionally, you will certainly die of cancer, and if you are around people who smoke, you will most likely die. I just don't think that's true, even looking at the weighted statistics of tobacco's enemies.
Given these statistics that I have laid out for you, people need more guns and smoking, and let's do away with cars, doctors, and water.

In response to Rachel Lucas...

All,

I just read this post from Rachel Lucas, and felt inspired to give a response. Although I agree with her on many points here, I must respectfully disagree on a couple of the finer points of her blog entry, and felt that it would be longer than would be courteously posted as a response on her blog. So, here we go...

Firstly, I would like to agree whole-heartedly that NO ONE needs to feel obligated to find a mate in life in order to be a whole person. No person, nor any thing can make another person happy. Happiness is fleeting in this world. One must choose to enjoy where they are when they are, or be miserable. No matter your gender, sexual persuasions, race, creed, color, etc., if you decide that you will be miserable because of your circumstances, you will be. Once those circumstances change, you will find yourself still miserable, because you will be reaching towards imperfect things or people to try to achieve perfection. Einstein's theory of relativity can be applied to speed to determine that it is impossible for an object of significant mass to achieve the speed of light. Therefore, light speed is like perfection of life, in that we may approach it, but we will never achieve it in this reality. Therefore, I believe that I am agreeing with Rachel that those who get paired up and committed to another because they are settling out of desperation are destined for misery. No one should be in a hurry to find someone to marry.

Secondly, I also agree that the most lasting attractive parts of a woman are her mind and her heart. Frankly, I've met women with the most beautiful faces, and the sexiest, tightest bodies that were bitches, and it made the entire effect of physical attraction completely crumble. It's like having a car with no engine, or a colorful fruit that is rotten and worm-eaten on the inside. They may look good at first glance, but their total uselessness destroys any physical beauty that one sees at first glance.

Now, I will tell you why I disagree with her. In this blog entry, she says,

Sure, some women might feel panic and desperation when they turn 30 or 35 without a husband, even if they don’t want kids, because they’re worried they won’t be able to get a man simply because they don’t look as good as they did in their 20s. You know what their problem is? They have nothing else to offer.

I’ll admit that sometimes I whine about getting older. I’ll say something to Rupert about not wanting to age, not liking the changes in my face. He snaps me out of it every time by reminding me of what I already know.

Women who should worry about losing their looks are women who haven’t bothered to develop an appealing personality. They haven’t invested any effort in educating themselves and having something to say. They have no sense of humor and they’re superficial. Often, they haven’t managed to find a way to earn enough money to take care of themselves.

You can only get away with that when you’re young and beautiful. Some men will put up with a vacuum between the ears if you offer what they consider an acceptable alternative - being hot. Once you stop being hot, you’re screwed, because you’ve got nothing to counterbalance your shitty personality.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on your for several points here, Rachel Lucas. First of all, getting older does not mean getting less attractive. Sure, it's easy to be hot for an eighteen to twenty-six year old girl. All the pieces stay where they are supposed to, the skin is tight, and the metabolism runs faster. But, an attractive 40-year old is exponentially more stunning than an attractive twenty-something for that very reason. I'm not going to use that old cliche about women being like wine, but when a woman is well-aged, beautiful, and in shape, she shows that she has enough character and intelligence to take care of herself and preserve what God gave her. There is truly no higher mark of beauty than a few silver hairs and a couple of well-placed wrinkles. Beautiful women showing age are SEXY. In my home town, there are many women that have spent way too much time under the knife. These "ladies" are commonly referred to as "the trophy wives," and are spending lots of money to regain the glory days, or some crap like that. They look terrible. What they look like is a 45-year old woman trying to look like she is still in her twenties. Try this; look good the age you are. Don't look like a 45-year old trying to look like your 20-year old daughter, just look like a hot 45-year old. It's tons more attractive.

As much as I hate the stereotypes about what “all women” want, I equally hate the stereotypes about what “all men” want. The idea that every man is more interested in looks than anything else is BULLSHIT. It’s simply not true. I’m a perfectly average-looking female and I’ve had four serious relationships, all with high-quality, good-looking men, and every one of them liked me more than they liked better-looking women who were interested in them because I’m smart and because I’m not crazy. My lack of big boobs and perfect face haven’t hindered my man-catching adventures in the least, because smart men want women they can stand to be around outside of the bedroom.

I agree and disagree here.

First of all, breasts are a waste of time. Granted, every once in a blue moon, I see a woman with stunning, well-shaped, large breasts, and I must admit that it is impressive. But they are so rare that they are hardly worth the effort of pursuing. They are not that impressive. Besides that, when I sought a mate, I was looking for a woman crazy enough to come on all of my wild adventures with me. Forget all the action shows that have Pamela Anderson-looking women in them. It's awful hard to repel, and go spelunking while hauling a pair of D+'s. A woman's chest is beautiful with little to no breasts. From a reptilian standpoint, the presence of large breasts signals that this woman will be able to nurse the babies. Guess what? A woman can be as flat as a wall, and they will still work. They are not that impressive. Period. I'm glad that my wife is sized the way she is, in that as she ages she will not sag, develop related back problems, and she isn't dragging giant people udders around with her all the time. I was looking for a partner, not a dairy factory.

As far as the "perfect face" is concerned, it doesn't exist. There are some that are close, but it really is unfair that society and the media makes every woman feel like they need to look like Lucy Liu, Jeri Ryan, Angelina Jolie, etc. et al in order to be beautiful. I will try to put this delicately. In my experience, the vast majority of women are beautiful. Most of them simply don't know it. On a daily basis, I see women who seem to be deliberately sabotaging their looks on a subconscious level with bad glasses frames, baggy clothing, poor hair choices, and the like. If I had a dollar for every woman that I have seen that I could identify the one thing that she was doing to make herself not look gorgeous, I would be a millionaire. Why this happens is a mystery to me, but I like to chock it up to the fact that we live in a fallen world full of damaged people. Damaged people have a hard time doing their best, and perpetuate the condition of the damaged world.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that yes, Rachel, who you are is far more important that what you look like, now and from now on. But, don't give up on looking good, because it does have it's limited merits. Beauty and sex appeal on a wonderful, intelligent woman is like icing on the cake. Chances are, Rupert sees you as a whole lot hotter than you see yourself, and his perspective is likely closer to reality than yours. Women in general (here's another generalization) have bad self-images. I wish they did not, but it was a bad self-image that caused Gottlieb's article, and it is bad self-image that causes women to say that they aren't that attractive. I think you should ask Rupert if he thinks you are pretty and sexy and why. I think that if you really listen, you'll be surprised.