Friday, May 26, 2006

Ghosts and Near Death Experiences

Someone asked my opinion about the existence of ghosts recently, as many have, and I have multiple experiences seeing things that I still deem to be paranormal, and don't much care to describe those accounts in any great detail. Do ghosts exist? Definitely. Are they as individualized as various stupid documentary shows might imply? No. Ghosts are provable by the laws of the conservation of energy. Energy, like matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. It carries on, and we all contain energy. When our mortal frames meet their respective demise, that energy simply doesn't disappear; it lingers in some state, somewhere, be it in the vicinity of the body's death or in another location that might hold more significance to the entity in question. I've never embraced the notion of pesky poltergeists or similar spirits that throw dishes around or generally cause mischief, as I find no reason for an extant mass of energy to suddenly find the power to crack back into our dimensions and affect tangible objects in any manner, especially for the sake of merely being a pain in the ass. Sounds of moaning, creaking, and echoed, labored voices might be reported in particularly haunted venues, but perhaps the power of suggestion might be narrating the nature of such experiences to those who expect such hauntings? Why are they always moans and creaks? Are ghosts that uninventive and boring?

Which brings me to those that recount tales of being dead. How can they recount such tales? They're dead. The brain ceases to record. Nobody will convince me that they can remember being dead, because hey dork, you're dead - there's no remembering. Yeah I've heard that the brain continues to function in a limited capacity for a modicum of time, but the lack of adrenalin in the system and similar components preclude one from memorization at the brink of their terminus. While I do believe in heaven and spiritual realms beyond this environment, it is inherently against the will of "God" to allow us to drift into his spiritual world, then report back to the earthly base of operations as if it's like going to Hawaii. Like the proverbial (almost literally) thief in the night, nobody can tell me of the days of rapture and end of the world, and as such, nobody will convince me how the transition into the next world might appear, as to me, the description will simply be a function of their own brains' panic and doomed desperation.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Another Open Letter

So I love the AFLAC duck commercials; they are the best. I hate advertisers, but this series is so cute, it's the best. Well, some poultry rights people have some protest against it, like it negatively portrays a duck or abuses it or whatever. It was at

Supposedly ducks are being degraded. So I wrote the head honcho the following:

I understand your concern and humane foresight for the portrayal of a duck being abused, but the notion of protesting AFLAC into changing the nature of their duck's portrayal is illogical at best. Why is this a quest of yours, when, as an animal rights conscious citizen, I see so many other injustices in today's society, particularly with poultry, that you waste time with a campaign that I find amusing, creative, and clearly without abuse to a live duck? I despise advertising and their nefarious practices but found the AFLAC duck to be a breath of fresh air and incredibly cartoonish in nature - and most importantly, harmless.
As a supporter of animal rights, there are limits to where protests and contention must extend. When those limits are breached, such activists and supporters of animal rights merely appear overzealous and idiotic with oversensitive protests that carry little effect or gravity in the scope of greater efforts. I sincerely applaud AFLAC for their commercials, as they are some of the few that amuse me, and clearly no live animal is being harmed. Firing shots at this campaign is an embarrassing gesture of oversensitivity and I, as others that have heard of this, strongly recommend you rescind the complaints and seek the myriad other injustices and abuses that exist in the food industry, etc, rather than a mere portrayal. Any such campaign against a comedic character merely strips away credit and respect from your cause, I hope you see that. I am not against your goals, merely pointing out a mistake in logic.

You are welcome to publish my thoughts, despite their dissention. As stated, I support your general cause strongly, but find this protest a bit of a joke and thought better of you to redirect efforts elsewhere. Is there a protest against Daffy Duck being shot up by Elmer Fudd a future campaign? Common Sense.
Mike Caldwell