Tuesday, October 14, 2008

"Found $$$"

What’s up free thinkers? Are you enjoying these debates?..

It seems that our country really wants to feel comfortable that someone is working on fixing our economy, before we get sold and bought at a reduced price. The Central Banks could buy us, but they’d rather jut loan us our freedom, at present value plus interest. When these banks loan us each dollar for a dollar plus interest, can we ever truly catch up? Not mathematically- and this is exactly when you should use mathematics.



Let’s stretch our imaginations and pretend that we are in such bad shape that we need to find a way to bring profitable income to our government. We need cash. We need it now. Ok, it’s not so pretend. It’s very fucking real.

Not only could we save 7 billion dollars annually from ceasing to chase down the “Devil’s Weed”, but we’d better utilize our resources- like the armies of wasted soldiers and researchers and bogus office positions to focus on something with merit. If we regulated and taxed marijuana, based on today’s national usage, revenues would likely exceed an amount of another 30 or 40 billion. Having that money in the economy wouldn’t suck, would it? Instead, they’ll want to make sure you pay the ridiculous jacked-up price at the pharmacy if you want to achieve good health. That way, the rich get richer.

If you want to expand this conversation to include the failing War on Drugs, we’ll use dollar amounts that are 3 or 4 times the amount wasted to prohibit the natural medicine of Cannabis. Easily. By the way, they allow doctors to prescribe THC in a pill form, which is a blatant admission of its medicinal value, but they deny it at the same time so they can get richer. Of course, the Feds give cannabis to those 5 patients on their system anyway, while arresting others for the EXACT same “crime”, so what the fuck.

If you are interested in knowing where the presidential candidates stand on the medical marijuana issue, I HIGHLY encourage you to check out this clip from MPP TV.



By the way, if you live in Michigan or in Massachusetts your vote can be the one that stops the illogical criminalization and helps the needy obtain their medicine without fear. Both states have an excellent chance for passing favorable laws on Nov. 4th and becoming the nation’s 13th state to admit what we already know. They are both going to have to fight a lot of lies between now and then, so lend your support if you are able. MPP Homepage



Last week’s RVD RADIO premier- or as I like to call it, “test run”, had such a huge response, that the high volume of callers overloaded the switchboard and caused big problems for the techs. Despite several unsuccessful attempts to connect calls, audio level and equipment issues, Masterpiece and I both enjoyed it and we’re looking forward to doing it again Wednesday. Because many of you called and didn’t get through, we’re going to be live for 2 hours this week, at a special time before the big debates. From 4/7 to 6/9 we’ll discuss topics such as Addiction, Will Power, Brain Damage, RVD TV and wrestling. Chris “the Brain” Nowinski will join us from the Sports Legacy Institute, and we’ll check in with Dr. Shawn Staziak. I’ve read from many fans who enjoyed the show and who have committed to listening every week, so that’s cool. I’ve also been asked quite a bit if the shows will be archived and they are. If you go to RVD RADIO last week’s show comes up, and soon I’ll have them available at robvandam.com and myspace/5starcomics.com.

If you’re upset because you really wanted to talk about censorship last week, bring it up anyway. My feelings are genuine so when you bring up my topics, you’re bringing up my feelings. As far as censorship goes...on regular tv, you can show a breast, as long as you’re operating on it or it’s dead, but not on a beach, unless it’s a documentary about Africa, and you can show your middle finger as long as it’s with your other fingers but if it gets separated, you are not to show it or you will be censored.

You know, I doubt you can convince me that this is not moronic, no matter how hard you try.



Make sure and check out the new “Auction” page at robvandam.com eBay Store - RVD 5STAR STORE: I’m going to try to keep this operative every week with items from my old store, RVD’s 5 Star Comics or even personal items from my house, so keep checking back. Being a collector has made me a bit of a pac-rat too, so I usually have stuff to get rid of.

Last Friday’s episode of RVD TV took place in Tokyo several weeks ago, while I was there for Mr. Inoki’s IGF. On it, I visit a store in Shibuyu, where many wrestlers get their outfits. Cacao has made my shin pads for years and his stuff is top quality. If you’re a wrestler looking to get a kick ass mask or just want to check out his awesome stuff, visit 覆面.com, and bring a translater if possible.

I loved Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous”. You know that I appreciate a good thought provoker, and Bill had many really good points. My bible-thumping friend Eddie, feel free to jump in here, but one of my favorite parts was when Bill questioned the priorities of the Ten Commandments that were chosen. He implied that the first 4 (depends which version you refer to) are all about the correct way to worship God and the list( the other 6 seem to be about the correct way to treat your neighbor) doesn’t include important issues like torturing people and fucking little kids. I will admit that there was an eerie moment or two when the entire theatre was laughing as Bill made fun of worshippers while he stood his position as a non-believer and it reminded me of the stories I’d heard about in Sunday school- about all of Noah’s neighbors laughing at him while he built his boat. The neighbors in that story used to seem so wrong, back when Romper Room was the best show all week.



When we truly don’t know something about ourselves, there’s an uncomfortable void and we feel fear. We like the comfort of filling that void, even if it’s with a false sense of security. It just feels better. It allows us to sleep at night.

“ I know I’m a good person and I’m going to Heaven when I die.”

“There’s no way that the United States Government would do that to its own people.”

“ Of course that man -who I thought was much like me- murdered his family and committed suicide, he was taking steroids.”

“ I don’t eat red meat so I know I’m good.”

Even “ I could nail any bitch in here, but they’re not worth my time.”

We don’t really know but we’ll accept that we do. Why not? Who wants to be afraid?

I don’t mind questioning uncertainties for what they are, and I encourage you to do the same-if for nothing else, a mental workout.



Talk atcha on Wednesday.

Until then, look both ways before crossing the street.

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Rob, Cool Blog!!
I found and downloaded the "test run" RVD Radio not too long after listning to the 1st show. First thing I noticed was how well you kept your cool where any other radio host would become slightly pissed or at least panic a bit when technical glitches occur live on-air. 2nd thing was how smart you guys are on all things medical!!. And that rip-off promoter?? Was he the fat guy from the doco Beyond The Mat?? 2 hours this week should be Sweet!! So I'll set my reminder timer and tune in for week 2.

Really good, but really scairy news about the weekly auctions. I almost missed last weeks but lucky I didn't as the Eddie/RVD 2-pack was one of the few RVDs I have left to hunt down. SO now I got a signed one, And it's from RVD!!!F'N'SWEET!!!. The RVD figure collection now stands at 70, all different and on there cards. :) Auctions always freek me out and the Aussie dollar stinks at the moment, so I gotta do the maths even more now.. lol

Watching TV the other day seeing your election...is still going. The conversation came up, Why is this dragged out for so long?? and, How much is acctually spent?? Fingers crossed with the pot vote hopefully with more States giving the freedom back more will follow. Then maybe down the road Australia will too, medical THC rules here are very strict. Doctors are either fully against it telling you such things like 'pot causes metal diseases and possible permenent psychosis'. While other doctors will say, 'you have been self medicating with marajuana for how long??' They have red about and seen the benifits insted of only listning to the negitives from generations of lies, becuase of our laws or the way doctors are tort. Majority here say 'pot is bad'. But will gladly put you on a pill that comes with bunches of side effects.

That Japanese shop is mad!!! A one stop shop for everything!!! My computer kept popping up instal translator but that's got to be thee coolest wrestling shop ..lol

Take care of you two, stew

October 15, 2008 at 12:07 AM  
Blogger peaceonearth said...

Interesting stuff with the MPP. It seems that at least all of the candidates are against unfair imprisonment, although with the way John McCain has gone back on a lot of his more liberal stances after he got the nomination I wonder if we can expect anything except the party line if he becomes president.

I don't totally condemn Obama for not going full-out in support. Politics is a tricky thing, and he needs all the support he can get. To take a sidetrack for a moment, have a look at this article on race in the election,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/from/ET/

Pretty scary when people can't get past something so simple as the color of one's skin. Anyways, I think he has a lot of maneuvering to do and a lot of people to appease. That's the nature of these things, like it or not. The real work with this issue is going to be if we can be vocal enough about it. There's a lot of apathy and even antagonism around the issue, and politicians, even the ones who support leagalization, aren't going to do much about it until we show them we want change, and the best way to do that is to keep spreading the word.

As for the Libertarian candidate, Libertarian policy just doesn't work. Libertarian policy is de-regulation for EVERYTHING. I know that sounds very American, but de-regulation is what got us into this mess with the economy in the first place. De-regulation is also what hinders people from being able to gain economic equality, and has produced the largest wealth gap between the upper and lower classes in American history. De-regulation is the right way to go with cannabis, but letting a Libertarian de-reglate other vital programs is not the way to go.

As for the other two, they made the best argument and Ralph Nader is a very sensible man, possibly even better suited for the role of president than Obama, but the hard truth is that third parties don't win. Worse yet, third parties usuallt serve to take votes away from candidates who are closer to them in terms of opinion. For example, in 2000 Ralph Nader and Al Gore ran on very similar platforms. Republicans actually attempted to help Nader in order to snag votes away from Gore, splitting the vote it's called. Nader ended up with almost three percent of the popular vote. Voting for a third party ALWAYS helps the candidate who is most dissimilar to that third party candidate.

October 15, 2008 at 5:35 AM  
Anonymous Brandon Dyer said...

Dude, not saying your wrong cause they should make it legal...tax the hell out of it just like alcohol... but maybe the dude in the tie-dye spandex sporting dragons, yin-yang signs and skulls isn't a good spokesperson for the cause…
And I just wand to say that I watched your match with Jerry Lynn for the 45th time last night...I still can't see anyone in the WWF...err WWE lockerroom doing this now. The two of you tore the house down and even more told a wonderful story in the process!!!

Respect/Love/Peace
Brandon

October 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Harry said...

peaceonearth, how foolish. Let's get real - neither of the major parties are going to deregulate marijuana, so someone who wants that to happen has no reason to vote for them.

You're dead wrong about deregulation too. Regulation caused the "Greatness" of the Great Depression and it's caused this current recession to be much worse; we would be on the road to recovery without the bailout.

The reason deregulation sounds American is because it IS American - it's called freedom. Why would you trust the government to fix this problem when the government prolonged it?

We don't need the feds regulating anything, whether it be the market, weed, alcohol, wrestling, whatever.

October 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kick ass blog rob.so true what you said about censorship.i know alot of people i have to watch how much i curse around or they'll get offended.Why?its a fucking word .i just cursed and it didnt hurt anyone why do they have to bleep out a normal word on telivision .it doesnt make any sense to me nor do i think it ever will.


before i started reading your blog i thought marijauna was just as dangerous as Kokain and myeth. i checked everything you said about it and you were right about everything. i was amazed at how much the government and DEA exadorate everything. hell the government even made hemp illegal because its slightly related to pot. i live in North Dakota so that could bring in alot of money with how many cheap products you can make with it. i saw a news report that said to get "high" off hemp you need to smoke a joint the size of a tellophone pole. according to the the government its way to risky to allow something you have to smoke an entire feild of to get high on to the public.

October 17, 2008 at 8:39 PM  
Blogger peaceonearth said...

Harry, I could say the same thing about your comments, foolsih. More accurately, they're short-sighted and unfounded. The fact is that there hasn't been a single President from a party other than the Republicans and the Democrats since Millard Fillmore of the Whigs was elected in 1850, and there hasn't been a single President that eschewed the two-party system since George Washington. Only three states have ever elected an Independent as governor: Maine, Lames B. Longley in 1974 and Angus King in 1994 and 1998; Oregon, Julius Meier in 1930; and Texas, Sam Houston in 1859. There have been a few Independents elected to Congress, but never too many at one time. There was one Independent in Congress before the last mid-term election, now there are none. Like I said, Nader, 8 years ago, got 3% of the vote. Things are not going to change that quickly. You need a clear majority in the electoral college to win, which means you'd have to do a lot more than just increase the percentage of the popoular vote you're receiving by 48%, you'd also have to win key states to ensure you gain a majority in the EC. Third parties and Independents have neither the resources nor the support to do that.

Let's talk about how things get done in Washington. Say you elect a President who's willing to de-regulate cannabis. He puts his proposal into writing and sends it to Congress. It must now pass through both the House and the Senate, both of which are completely made up of Democrats and Republicans. Too bad, bill fails, try again.

The only other option is to try to get the Supreme Court to declare laws against cannabis control unconstitutional, which i don't think even cannabis supporters would do as it would set a legal precedent for de-regulation of all drugs, which could then be applied to food products and everything else regulated by the FDA, and then things are fubar. Also, to get a Justice that supported de-criminalization another Justice would have to die, resign, or be impeached. There's one justice seat that's likely to be vacated during the next term, but other justices might hold on to their seats longer than expected if they knew a justice who had such a radical disposition was likely to be appointed in their stead, and it's entirely possible that all the other justices besides the first one will live through the next presidential term. That means not only will the next President not be able to seize a majority of justices that support his position, he wouldn't even come close, not to mention the fact that congress has to approve all appointments.

Bottom line, unless a third party organizes en masse, steals enough support from one of the two main parties BEFORE their conventions, and has an extremely large segment of voters pledging to vote for them (not necessarily a majority, as independently-aligned voters usually decide an election), they are not going to win and are going to, in fact, split the vote in favor of the party to which they are most oppositely alligned. So by all means, organize for a third party and, unless you're a Libertarian, I'll pledge my support if and until it becomes apparant that we won't get enough voters to have a chance. Until then, the smart thing to do is vote for the Democrat or Republican who most echoes your sentiments. Doing otherwise is only hurting your own cause.

Now, on to Libertarianism. You have just made my day because I LOVE it, and I can't overstate enough how much I LOVE it, when people use vague, undefined terms to define complex ideas. American. Geez, how could you not vote for someone that stands for ideals that are AMERICAN? Well, you could realize that American is simply an abstract idea, and that just attaching the phrase to a policy or platform does not mean it necessarily defines the ideals of said platform/policy. So waht is American? Freedom you say, and may I be so bold as to attach another common reply in opportunity? But freedom and opportunity are not synonymous, not by a longshot. For instance, after the Emancipation Proclomation was made African Americans were technically free, but due to a lack of regulation (Ah, how things come full circle), of southern sharecroppers they were barely if any better off than they were during slavery. They were free to vote, but that didn't mean they had the opportunity to vote as southern whites would threaten and even lynch those who tried. But they were free.

Let's go to the Depression for a minute. As for what actually caused it, we could go back and forth all day about free trade or regulation being the actual cause, as economists still do. I'm just going to point out some solid facts about both the Depression and our situation here today. One constant is debt. In both the pre-Depression period and our current period people were granted cheap credit by greedy lenders, and when rates rose spending, by both individuals and businesses, decreased, and things just spiraled out of control.

As for the regulation of which you speak, I'm assuming you're referring to, at least in part, the increase in regulation of foreign trade. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff act by no means caused the Depression. Although it did decrease American exports, the change was not as significant as the numbers indicate, as the physical exports decreased much less than the monetary exports due to price changes.

Furthermore, heavier regulation is primarily what brought us out of the Depression. Programs such as unions and a heavier business tax were integral in bringing us out of the depression, and politicians who wrote the New Deal programs blamed a disparity in wealth for a large part of the Depression. Here's a lesson in economics: There are three classes. One is very small, one is very large, and one is between the two in terms of size. The smallest one already controls the majority of the wealth when the government decides to NOT increase their taxes to keep up with inflation and ensure they don't become significantly richer than the other two classes due to income; to NOT tax them when they pass on an inheritance; to NOT regulate their businesses to ensure they're not unfairly manipulating the market. They begin to accumulate wealth because their income tax no longer keeps their wealth porportional to the ohter classes; their estate tax ensures they can pass on their wealth to their children with very little change, thus ensuring wealth stays centralized; and they can manipulate the market as they see fit to further their own gains. Now there's a problem, though. They own all the wealth, so the lower classes stop spending as much money. There is less demand for the products the largest class is selling. Now they have to manipulate the market again to make up for a decline in revenue, so they raise interest rates which they previously lowered. They lowered interest rates because the economy works on projections. If a company has good first quarter projections, their stock rises and investment soars. If the first quarter rolls around and the actual profit does not match up with projections, stock falls and investment falls. So now interest rates are higher and the lower and middle classes, who were already cutting spending, start defaulting on loans. Interest rates rise, and spending drops even more. Now spending is at a point where it's affecting businesses. They start to close, jobs decline, because there's a bigger demand for jobs, the pay decreases. Enter the spiral. You want another comparison of now to the Depression? Wealth gap. While income between the upper, middle, and lower classes has remained fairly porportional since the 70's, inherited wealth and a lack of regulation has caused the wealth gap to the largest it's been since before the Depression.

Now let's get back to what's American and what's not. What is American? Is freedom American, or equality, or opportunity? Is any one of those more American than another? Better yet, let's start playing the synonym game. Equality, Communism. A constant theme in a Karl Marx's ideal society is that everyone is equal and cannot be allowed to use the economy to create social disparity. Equality, Capitalism. A primary tenant in capitalism is that one group benefits at the expense of another. Left unchecked,i.e. de-regulated, capitalism could create a social structure very similiar to the Aristocracies that dominated Europe before the 18th century. Freedom, Anarchy. Freedom in a philosophical sense means liberation, but in a political sense means anarchy. During the French Revolution the French people were free from rule by a monarch, but were subject to the frivolous and unchecked whims of the various factions vying for power, leading to an unprecedented number of political imprisonments and executions. You can put together two words that sound nice, but it doesn't always work out as nice in practice.

Now let's talk about the form of economics I assume you support, lassiez-faire. To be perfectly blunt, it doesn't work. Economists as early as the 17th century could see the inherent failings of this type of economic policy, and would predict that an economy with a progressive tax system would become the norm. Lassiez-faire is a repitition of an aristocratic system, even supported by many aristocrats. It invariably leads to a consolidation of wealth,as explained in the previous economic lecture. Wealth is power. If you have wealth you can afford to send your children to the best schools. If they go to the best schools, they will have a marked advantage in the art of debate, and be better suited towards politics, an area in which they have a further advantage due to their large wealth. They come to dominate government, meaning they can put their best interests at the forefront. They dominate government, they dominate industry, they use government to further dominate industry. They basically control the country, and can act as they please in any manner possible, meaning a spiritual end to Democracy.

Lastly, let's talk opportunity, the great American lie. If you are born into a lower class family, right off the bat you are going to have to work as soon as you are able. If you and your parents scrimp and save you MIGHT be able to go to college, but if you have brothers and sisters it's likely they won't be able to. Let's also look at how much of your life is in your control. Assuming a complete lack of regulation, as you advocate, the upper class controls the prices of goods. They control the availability of jobs, and wages. If they don't want you to make enough where it's feasibly possible for you go to school, you won't make enough, plain and simple. If workers start to unionize, they can cut jobs thus increasing the demand and effectively dis-empowering unions. They also decide IF they're going to give you insurance and how much you pay, and also what's fair and what's not in dealing with insurance. If they follow John McCain's plan for social security, which is very similiar to Nixon's plan for privatizing health care, you will now be paying into your own social security fund. Social security was created specifically because senior citizens could not hold down jobs due to the de-skilling of labor and keep up a minimum standard of care, privatizing it runs against the very institution itself. Your employers will also decide if and how much they will pay into retirement. Go look up the statistics of how many people move from one social class to the next during their lifetime, much less from the lowest to the highest. Now imagine how hard it would be if de-regulation happened to the point I have just described. It would be reverting back to a caste system, there's no two ways about it. You would be born into a level of society from which you could not escape, even though in theory you could. Lassiez-faire is freedom in theory, anarchy in execution. Regulation is arbitrary in theory, but a tool for opportunity in execution.

October 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM  
Anonymous CalmMountain said...

Nihao RVD-san,

Thanks for sharing the radio broadcasts! I've listened to both of the archives that are currently up - the test run and the two hour special - and enjoyed the adventure. Amazing how quickly the time passes, isn't it? Glad that you're having fun with the show.

Realize that you might still be learning how the switchboard and the rest of it works. Can volume consistency please be looked at though? When I listened to the archived broadcasts then I could hear you and Mr. Masters, once he arrived, just fine. But sometimes I could not hear the people that were calling in. And the sound-clips are a few decibels louder than anything else - I learned this the hard way. So when I crank up the volume to try n' hear the callers then the sound-effect clip always renders me temporarily deaf and will even blare enough to be heard outside the computer headphones. Honestly I'm not too bothered about getting looks from people but there IS a decent chance that I could be banned from the library if complaints are made. Please, if it is possible, smoothing out the volume level of the show would be a much appreciated help. Look forward to the future broadcasts.

In light of the communications genius that you are becoming... It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the brilliant SVD-san has already set up her cameras in order to film a broadcast of RVD Radio to use for a future episode of RVD TV. Yay for cross-marketing! *laughs* Then all you'll have left is to set up a permanent fandom address so that you could read from fan mail during the broadcasts, if you wanted. Then the fans from overseas could also participate without having to worry about time zones or long-distance expenses.

Understand your stance on censorship much better now. Never disagreed but the more examples that are provided, the more aware I become of how commonplace censorship is. Out of sheer curiousity, may I please know - do you feel that perhaps this is a uniquely American issue? Other nations and cultures that you have visited, from what you saw of them - are they as sensitive?

I begin to wonder about the role of censorship in culture... Maybe what we choose not to show and not to speak about becomes part of our national identity. Sort of like a cultural tradition. Maybe that is why there is such resistance to anything else? *shrugs* I do notice that censorship has a role in gender identity. The stereotypes are old but the stigma is still very real. Foul language is generally considered 'manly' - I don't know why exactly - but that is part of why usage of foul language by women and children seems especially frowned upon in society. If there is a similar role for censorship in national identity... Then maybe it's not that saying fuck is merely 'bad' - maybe to some people it's unpatriotic? Maybe that's why they get so touchy about it?

On the power of the mind: about the people who have more than one personality, whose eyes change color - I've read of this happening too. There's a rather disturbing book called 'When Rabbit Howls', it is a nonfiction about a girl who grew up in a highly abusive environment and who developed multiple personalities - as a way of coping with the all trauma - as a result. No one is completely certain of how many personalities she has but the estimates are into three digits. And the records kept by herself (uhm, herselves...?) and her counselors indicate that when she switched between personalities... Her eye color changed and so did her handwriting, her voice and her fingerprints. Sometimes, her height adjusted. Thus a person with more than one personality, it's been suggested that when they change over mentally it alters them internally as well, their physical chemical makeup. So one personality might be deadly allergic to something which none of the other personalities occupying the same person are allergic to. One personality might be fluent in languages that the others are not.

If anyone qualified takes up counseling in a war zone or similar environment, they might find more examples of what prolonged trauma can do to the human mind and shed more light on the origin and development of consciousness and personality... And so as fascinating as all that might be to learn, it's not something that we can wish for without a degree of sadness. As with all the wrestlers and other sportsmen who have died too young - their deaths have opened the path to some important educational discussions for the rest of us and that is good but their types of deaths are not something we wish to see happen again. We need to learn and move on.

Did you know that the layout of taste buds is unique to each person? Guess a lot of the people who avoid vegetables tend to be more sensitive to bitter flavors and it's a learned ancestral behavior to crave the sweet tastes instead. Because in the wild, bitter taste is often associated with poisonous plants. That's why Ms. Seinfeld was able to make a small fortune off her cookbook that basically says to puree all vegetables, mix the puree with other foods and voila - no bitter taste. She wrote the recipes for parents, to help them disguise vegetables from their kids but I know a lot of ladies that have been doing the same thing for ages for their husbands. On the one hand... If Moms can sneak asparagus and spinach into brownies, that's great. On the other hand, it's like another application of censorship. If the kids don't ever see or taste the vegetables, how will they learn to make good nutritional decisions later? Eventually, there would have to be a day when Mom sat down and discussed this - right?

Perhaps all that you've endured, RVD-san, altered your taste buds as well. From the concussions to the various pills... Sounds like there have been a lot of opportunities for taste to be changed.

*nods* Evolution is a two-way street AND an ongoing process. So many people forget that! Whether we lose our little toes or go back to having tails, it's going to depend on what kind of environment we have to adapt to. Maybe we'll have to live underground. Maybe if ocean levels rise rapidly, we'll all have to move to higher ground. Maybe we'll have to live without electricity. Maybe we'll be eating cloned animals. Maybe they'll launch the proposed mirror shield to slow global warming and, as a side effect, turn the blue sky either white or yellow. Maybe there will be cities in domes. Maybe we'll be setting up colonies on the moon. Nobody can be sure precisely what the future holds.

One theory that has come up may be of interest: there is the idea that cancer might be part of the human evolution process. If I understand this correctly, cancer has reached the point where it's in our genetics. All humans have the genes for at least one type of cancer, in other words. And so even if a persons genes don't trigger and activate the disease... We will be passing this on to future generations. And if medical researchers are successful in transferring some of the traits (regeneration, longer cell life, etc) of the cancer cells to other cells... Then it is possible that this could become an internal mutation that will be very beneficial to humankind.

Does SVD-san know about www.armyofwomen.org already? I realize that it addresses a different cancer than the one she has endured/is enduring but the goal is admirable.

Guns are very efficient weapons. Much as I dislike guns, I won't deny that they are well designed. And once in a while there's a blurb in the newspaper about someone who uses a gun for defense. A person fires a weapon to scare a bear away from their camp or to wound a thief that broke into their home. Is it stupid and ignorant, to say that I am only really in favor of people using guns for defense from fairly immediate threats to their lives? *shrugs* Probably. Because the world doesn't work that way, weapons are never used just for defense. Unfortunately.

To some people, taking a chair shot without blocking proves how tough you are. To other people, the same act is seen as proof that you don't really value defending yourself. Is only one group right?

Had an unpleasant intuition about the next president. They're inheriting a huge mess. People are frustrated. Economic healing and real political change, if it comes at all, is going to take time. So with all these things considered... It was hard for me to decide to vote this year. Because I half expect - not hope, may I be completely wrong on this - the next president, whomever it may be, to keel over before their term is up. A job like that has got to be a lot of stress and even in relatively good times, people are going to want a scapegoat. In bad times... I hope I'm wrong.

There is no shortage of ways in which the government could reduce spending. Everything from ending ALL the wars they’re involved in – including the ones they don’t tell us about – to making it illegal for congress to vote themselves a raise, refusing to prop up big businesses that have forgotten how to compete and eliminating the federal spending on holiday decorations. But the question is not what changes can they make, it’s what changes – if any – WILL they actually make and enforce. And the news from that angle doesn’t look so good.

By the way, to Stew in Oz: good question. I think maybe the presidential campaigns are so long because we had people running for president back before there were commercial airlines. So tours of the country had to be done by other modes of transportation (car, bus, train) which were slower but more comprehensive.

Now, it's more of an endurance test. The candidates are going to multiple states in a single day and visiting foreign countries, trying to convince the whole world that they really truly want the job and also trying to show that - by managing a large, expensive operation like a campaign - they're prepared to manage our country. However for what it's worth, I'm with you. If the candidates only campaigned for like, two or three months prior to an election - that would be fine. That would be more than enough. And it would save so much money... I've no clue how much all the candidates have spent. I think Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, just those two, if I'm not monstrously misinformed then between them they've spent about as much as was needed to bail out the AIG bank. (To rescue only the AIG was around 700 million dollars, I think.) But instead, we have a batch of mud-slinging presidential commercials and frustrated citizens ultimately footing a bill at least ten times that size for a bailout whose details have yet to be announced. *sigh* I hope Oz is more honest with its people.

About addictions... I look at the censorship issue, the power of the mind and all the negativity in the news and I wonder - do you think America is addicted to fear? Or is it just a habit, a routine for us now?

Please keep taking care.

Courage and Peace!

~CalmMountain

October 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM  
Blogger peaceonearth said...

Just wanted to do a little bit of a follow-up and comment on what CalmMountain said. I didn't hear the radio broadcast, but CM did bring up some good points. For one, you talked about what we talk about becoming part of our identity. What is our identity, and is it right for us to have that identity? We talk about being the land of the free, about equal opportunity for everyone. Shouldn't this, then, be reflected in our identity? I'm not talking about having an identity that supports any type of speech, I'm talking about double-standards within our identity. On TV, an actor can be portrayed as drinking his or herself silly, but you can only hint at cannabis use through on-screen smoke or subtle references. You can say ass, call a woman a whore, and make derrogatory jokes about homosexuals, but god forbid you ever say the words, "Jesus," and/or, "Christ," that's censored by the FCC. You can make fun of Buddah, Allah, and just about any other diety, but you can't, "take the Christian lord's name in vain." Is that equal representation of everyone's value's? In fact, our national identity: our drug laws, our marriage laws, our censorship laws, all support a white, Protestant point of view, and our national identity is very much white Protestant. In fact, John Kennedy was the only U.S. President to not be a Protestant, and that's not going to change during this election cycle.

To answer your question about it being an American issue, yes and no. I couldn't tell you how citizens in other countires feel about censorship and if it's as big an issue, but I can tell you how some societies treat the issue. Britain, for instance, is very similar to the U.S. in that it's culture is connected to religion, only there it's the Church of England. You actually cannot be active in the highest levels of government if you practice any other religion. Tony Blair had to be a practicing member of the Church to be Prime Minister, and when he left office he converted to Catholicism. I don't know how conservative their censroship is, but I do know they hold the Crown in high regard and I don't think it would bee to presumptuous to assum there are some standards, written or unspoken, about ridiculing the crown.

Many Islamic countries still practice strong censorship policies, outlawing images that promote, "Western decadance." I think people in those countries who weren't as conservative as others feel a bit opressed, but there's enough support in these populations, sometimes fear, to keep these standards in place. At any rate, social science in general has not become very prevalent at all in the Middle East, period.

I think Germany, France, and Italy are pretty liberal when it comes to censorship. All of Europe, however, is very concerned with violence. While our censorship organizations get bent out of shape over female breasts, they treat violence with far less scrutiny. European culture, however, is very open about sex and harsher on violence when it comes to censorship. Some countries also censor drug use highly.

Australia is a country that's big on censoring drug use. They actually have a very conservative stance on violence too, but drugs are definitely the biggest issue there. They've really cracked down on games featuring drug use, denying them ratings and prohibiting them from being sold, and there are a lot of citizens, it seems, that are passionate about reducing the amount of censorship in this regard. Also, technically it's not censorship with games, as you can't censor a game after it's been made. the way they do things in the gaming industry is to deny games ratings, which keeps them out of major retailers.

I actually read an article about a gun death the other day. There was an 8 year old kid who was at a gun range on some kind of kids day, supervised by his father and a range employee. He was handling a submachine gun and he accidentally blew his own head off. When the father was interviewed he said, and I paraphrase, "We never let him handle any big guns, nothing with any kickback. This gun was designed to not have any kickback. We've taught him gun safety since he was young. I just don't know what happened, it was such a surprise, I don't know what went wrong." Apparantly, he's still a big gun supporter. Let's see, what went wrong, I just can't tell. Well, just a guess here, maybe the problem was that you WERE LETTING AN EIGHT YEAR OLD PLAY WITH A FREAKING UZI!

Most presidents under this kind of pressue actually perform pretty well. The most unpopular presidents are the ones who participate in unpopular wars, increase debt, and are involved in political scandal. Roosevelt (both of them), Jefferson, Kennedy, and Clinton all faced tough financial situations when they took office and came out on top. FDR, especially, is an example of a president who inherited a tremendously bad financial situation and was able to make the most of it, and he did it by increasing the rights of the working class. I have no doubt that as long as our leadership, not necessarily the president, has a strong desire to empower the middle class, create jobs, safeguard pensions, provide affordable insurance, secure health care for coming generations, and create an environmentally-friendly energy infastructure, this next term will be one of America's greatest.

Everyone has an opinion on government spending. Given the chance, most people would cut a lot of prgorams that other view as healthy. There's a lot of anger from white voters right now directed at affirmative action programs, but I'm sure that if you go to poor neighborhoods they'd tell you they don't want those programs cut. I think Barack Obama said it best when he said that we don't need a hatchet, we need a scalpal. Government spending needs to be streamlined, not just cut.

There's a lot of areas we could focus on. One area is earmarks. For those who don't know, earmarks are when spending bills are attatched to other bills. For instance, a bill passes through congress to create a comittee to report on the war in Iraq. A congressperson can attach spending bills on to that bill, so now if congresspeople want to pass this bill they have to go along with the earmark. This is one thing McCain has been very passionate about during his career, I just don't think that a desire to fight earmarks is worth the breaks he wants to give to big businesses and other problems I have with him. It's interesting to note, when he accuses Obama of voting for spending bills, most of those numbers are from Obama voting for a bill he supported that had earmarks attatched. I'm not exactly sure that boycotting would solve the problem. If every congressperson voted against every bill that had an earmark attatched that they didn't like, congress would never pass anything.

Another constructive way to decrease debt is an investment in green energy. Al Gore gave a webcast address last night that I thought was absolutely great, and which outlined the benefits to both the environment and the economy that going green would have. If you can find it on YouTube I'd highly reccomend it. Basically, going green can create jobs, which is what is part of what's so bad about our economy right now. Our national economy was bad before this crash, the crisis doesn't have much to do with that. It has more to do with how private corporations were handling their business, leading to a sudden interest spike and home foreclosures, leading to a decrease in spending, leading to the decline in business in certain industries. Right now, major car companies are asking the government for their own massive bail-out. What's a better way to spend government moeny: give these corporations, who worked their way into the current situation on their own, more money, or give more support to the middle class so that they can resume buying cars and bring these industries back to where they were?

Finally, back to drug regulation, change does not just happen overnight at a federal level. Look at abortion: There were actually no abortion laws on the books in the U.S. until the 19th century other than the law of quickening: abortions can be done at any time before the mother feels the baby move inside her. During the 19th century, laws outlawing abortion began to be enacted at the state level, some states providing provisions for several circumstances. It was illegal in most states by 1900.

From 1967-1972, however, a change in opinon occured and states began allowing abortion for safeguarding the mother's health, in case of rape or incest, and sometimes on request. Nothing was accomplished at the federal level until 1973 with Roe v. Wade, and it was likely pro-abortion movements in state legislature that generated enough support for abortion to be taken to a federal level.

My point is, it's going to have to work the same way with drugs. The federal government is not going to all of the sudden legalize cannabis without widespread support. The focus at the federal level should be to stop unlawful prosecution of those who operate in states who have enacted their own cannabis laws, as the Constitution strictly emphasizes states' rights over federal law. Cannabis has to be legalized at the state level in more states for this cause to gain traction, and that happens by spreading knowledge. Change minds, write a blog, talk to your local politicians, do research, make the real facts known, and don't let up. It's not easy challenging people's conceptions of what's true and what's not, but when you're armed with hard facts and you keep forcing them to face those facts it's very possible. MAKE people care about this issue, SHOW them the hypocrisy in the drug regualtion laws, SHOW them how government refuses to acknowledge individual's rights, and then this movement will start to gain the support it needs to even think about moving to a federal level.

October 30, 2008 at 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Robert Teesdale said...

Rob and Sonya,

I knew Sonya many, many years ago in Ohio. I've often wondered where she went in life; what adventures life had brought her. I can't tell you both how incredibly happy I am to see that you both found each other a decade ago and have such a successful life together.

It closes a long-open circle and in such a positive way.

My prayers and thoughts are with you both as Sonya recovers from her surgery. I know that the energy, passion and drive that I remember of her and what I see in Rob is the most powerful ally you both have.

My very best wishes, and warmest hopes to you both for her full recovery and a continuing bright future together.

Kindest regards,

Robert Teesdale (Baker-Carr)
robert.teesdale@fmr.com

November 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM  
Anonymous CalmMountain said...

Nihao RVD-san & SVD-san,

Hugs and congrats to SVD-san, being in the final stretch of chemo is beyond fantastic! How will you celebrate moving past this phase of your life?

Thanks for the continuing radio broadcasts, I've enjoyed all the shows thusfar. The subjects and guests are always interesting and the overall volume consistency of the archived broadcasts has really improved. Appreciate that you continue to speak out and inspire others to do likewise. Hope that you are continuing to have fun with the setup.

Due to time restrictions, usually I can only listen to each show once through but show #4... Had to listen to a certain part of that show a few times over before I could get past it. Wish that words could do justice to the pleasant shock that show dealt me. Hopefully I'll figure out how to contact Ms. Nikki Heyman and sincerely thank her. However she is likely fairly busy, she apparently isn't a member of the blogtalk radio site and I'm not in a rush to join myspace since that whole domain gets blocked about half the time by the filters on these computers.

Uhm. *considers* Hey, actually... Maybe she'll read this... This is awkward but in case: Ms. Nikki H-san: Thanks very very much for sharing your stories, particularly in show #4. I've spent the last sixteen-or-so months suspecting that I couldn't be the only person who'd had a posthumous introduction. Was a really nice surprise to hear that validated. Oh and good luck with the potential managing job, sounds like you've earned it and will no doubt be excellent at it. Take care!

RVD-san, in case you ever return to the topic of haunting-type stories and such, I have a question: why are ghosts and spirits often described as abnormal or supernatural? Honestly, I've never understood that. Death is the normal and natural end result of mortal life - correct? Even if the specific circumstances of a persons death were not, for whatever reason, normal or natural - the fact of death itself is not so uncommon, right? And so if spirits and ghosts are the natural, normal result of death... It just bugs me that people call them 'paranormal' all the time. Because it's like creating an excuse for ignorance and apathy. Spirits(non-earthbound souls) and ghosts(earthbound souls) are different from us – of course - but I feel that's a shallow reason to be afraid of them and/or ignore them.

Not sure what to think of the New World Order concept. It's hard for me to believe that a group so skilled, organized and effective could actually exist. Am skeptical on what could be done about it as well. I mean, you'd have to start by knowing who to trust and that would not be easy. Also I don't really understand what their objectives would be. Your guests claimed that the New World Order wants to rule the world. Okay... so.. How? And actually, if this group is responsible for even a fraction of what they're accused of then in some small way - aren't they already ruling the world? And if you listened to your guests and believed them and then voted for a democratic candidate, who is apparently of the system, anyway... Well. I don't blame you but I'm confused about where you must stand on the NWO thing now.

Power to the MPP, I'm glad that they made some progress on election day.

The elections were kind of sad out here. Reporters shouldn't call the races before every vote has been counted, you know? That's just frustrating. Hearing that Mr. Obama won was truly great but hearing it while the polls were still open seemed to put a damper on the whole importance of voting at all. Plus the Republican Party took our locality for granted AGAIN and got away with it AGAIN. *sigh* It's not a reputation we're proud of. Speaking of which, what the heck happened in Cali? Is it the economy or the perpetual wildfires down there that caused the collective brain freeze on human rights?

Got to watch Mr. Hogans CCW the other week. Cringed a bit during the episode you were in, those were some painful landings to watch. Did you enjoy being a trainer there? You seemed quite relaxed. From the way the show had hyped your presence, we'd expected a little more camera time though.

While we appreciate the CCWs honest and educational approach, have to admit that it's kind of hard to get into. Admire the celebrities for participating but very few of them seem invested so they don't really radiate the level of energy/charisma that we're accustomed to seeing in certain wrestling professionals. Maybe that will change towards the finals though, we'll give it another chance. Perhaps it's a change that we need to make as well – as an audience, we're not really accustomed to wrestling shows that treat us intelligently. Anyway. We missed the explanation of what the celebrities are competing to win. If they're after the CCW belt, that would make sense but... When would the new champion have to defend their title? There would almost have to be another season, wouldn't there. That’s kind of fun to imagine… Are there any celebrities that you, SVD-san or Mr. Masters would like to see in season 2?

The subject of abortion came up during one of your radio broadcasts. May I offer some thoughts?

*deep breath* Okay. Pro-life persons, I hear them say "Abortion is reasonable in the case of rape, incest or when the mothers life is at risk..." and I just want to SLAP them. Sorry. But listen to yourselves sometime, okay? Really LISTEN. Can you honestly believe that you just used the word reasonable in the same sentence as the rest of that crap? And it IS crap. Find someone who's been abused and just try asking them how reasonable that experience was for them, you'll be lucky if you don't get kicked. And when you pause to consider all the wonderful advances that modern medicine has made, how can it be anything short of appalling that we have not yet figured out a way to make childbirth - which is not a new phenomenon - a safe and pleasant process for everyone involved?

You know what though, really, if you want to outlaw abortion - that's fine. But do it the RIGHT way. Eliminate rape. Annihilate sexual abuse and domestic violence from our planet. Cure our blockheaded species of all gender discrimination and sexual irresponsibility. Figure out how to prevent any and all diseases and deformities that can complicate a birth. Then maybe you won't NEED to pass a law to stop abortions from happening because you'd have taken away pretty much all the 'reasonable' causes.

Oh and for the record, in case you were not aware... We live in a world where at least 1 out of 3 females in a relationship fears for her safety. We live in a world where a girl under the age of 10 has given birth. (This was some years ago.) So yes, we do need to teach the kids about these hazards but there are a lot of parents who think that under age 10 is too soon to start this kind of education. So the question is how do we protect and inform the kids without offending all their parents? And how do you teach anyone under the age of 10 about sexual predators without just frightening the kids half to death?

In your own little debate on the broadcast, you mentioned that if you had a daughter... And then you talked as if this imagined girl was maybe a teenager. Rape and abuse affects both genders and all age groups, wish more people were aware. So RVD-san, what if your fictional daughter was 10 years old or younger? Are you still going to call the girl a slut, if someone notably bigger and physically stronger than her has inflicted this kind of harm on her? And why stop there, let's forget the fictional daughter for a moment. What about other relatives that you have - sisters and cousins and aunts. What if it was one of them? What if it was your Mom? What if it was SVD-san?

Please try to understand that it is too easy for people to be critical of abortion when it doesn't affect them. When you start to think of your own friends and loved ones having to make the difficult choice... That's when you realize that abortion, it's not a great thing but it's more of an effect than a cause. More of a solution than a problem. Having abortion as an option doesn't mean that everyone HAS to choose it and it doesn't mean that everyone WILL choose it but the people in these situations... Are often in these situations because some degree of choice has been taken away from them before - that's the definition of the word victim, right? Someone who didn't get to choose. So taking away the right to choose abortion just continues the pattern of victimhood. It's not just the tragic possibility of kids growing up unwanted and unloved; it's the tragic and traumatic act of an entire society basically blaming a person for the crime that was committed against them.

Hate to say this and sound all feminist but honestly sometimes I wonder... If males were the ones that were capable of getting pregnant - then what? Would abortion have been legalized and standardized ages ago? It's sad but gender discrimination seems bent on punishing women merely for being born with the ability to reproduce. So it's hard to separate issues like abortion from womens rights. If you truly love and respect females then how can you deny them the right to make important decisions about their own health?

Sorry. I tend to have strong opinions on that topic. Thanks for letting me explain.

Read that Mr. Paul London recently moved to the City of Angels to pursue new career options. Realize that the City of Angels is the second largest city in America, that you and Mr. London may not be friends and that both of you are busy people. But if it's possible to get ahold of Mr. London for even a few minutes on some future radio broadcast, that would be cool to hear. Because I don't recall having the opportunity to hear much from him before. *shrugs* Just a thought.

Hope that Florida is good to you, travel safe. Hope that this site gets caught up blogwise because your myspace tends to generate some ridiculous warnings. Enjoy the Holiday of Overeating and Counting Blessings. Please keep taking care!

Courage and Peace!

~CalmMountain

November 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rob - watching your 1997 shoot interview and you seem like a real dick. i don't know if you were in character of if that's the real you, but if that is the real you, jesus christ, fuck you. i used to be a fan, but now you can go fuck yourself for all i care.

if you're in character somewhat, then my apologies. if not, like i said, you can go fuck yourself you arrogant, self-centered, punk ass, piece of dogshit.

December 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM  
Blogger Jahan said...

Hey Rob,
Your website is amazing. If I wasn't a broke grad student, I would join RVD TV.
I was wondering if you would considering inviting any cannabis/cannabinoid researchers or any scientist or doctor to talk about your 'topics" on the radio show?
theres a lot of good science out there and a lot of bad science. An authority on the subject might take it to the next level for your listeners.

I share your pain with the hypocrisy in regards to cannabis research in this country.

For instance, there was a study that came out on which talked about how smoking cannabis "shrinks your brain." It was all over the media. The people they looked at for this study were poly-drug users (Crack, heroin,tobacco,etc) and somehow the researchers got away with saying cannabis is the culprit. What's even stranger is that the control group ("non drug users")had a few cannabis smokers in it. I can't believe this study got so much hype when it was bad science...

Keep up the good work.
Best Regards,
Jahan

December 4, 2008 at 7:05 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Hey RVD!

I have been listening to the radio show since the beginning with the switch board mishaps and it just keeps getting better and better.

I'm a long time fan of yours man, I love your thoughts an opinions. Glad there's a way to connect with you still.. cuz even if you were still wrestling.. well I don't watch that much anymore.. I really enjoy your show every week. Hope you keep going for a long long time

Sending good vibes your way, and to SVD too

December 12, 2008 at 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

damn i don't know if you actually read this, but god damn dude. most of the things people put in your comment section are fucking stupid.
I've been a huge fan of yours since your days back in the old ecw (not this fucked up watered down bullshit they air on tv) I've always thought you were the best fucking wrestler I've ever seen. With that said I hope everything is going great for you and your wife SVD sounds like a real trooper, she may be the new f'n show!!
Anyways, I wanted to wish you the best in life, whether it be acting, doing a tv show (btw you kicked ass on ccw), radio shows, going back to wrestling. I hope nothing but the best for you and your family.
Stay strong and reach for the 5 star!!

December 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM  
Blogger JAYLTEAVI said...

Hi Rob, just wanted to say hi.
I know tomorrows Dec 18 is your birthday and i just wanted to say on behalf of all your faithful fans we wish you a happy birthday. And we hope that your 38th birthdays and everyone to follow is better than the one before.

I hope your wife sonya continues a speedy recovery. And wish you two all the best in the world.

I saw you in Hogan Celebrity Wrestling and you looked as awesome as always. Hope to see you again, where ever it might be.

Well, take-care Rob. from probally your biggest fan J.L.-T.V.
Hasta la proxima vez.

December 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hello rvd my name is stephane im french i like you

October 9, 2009 at 6:33 AM  
Blogger bathmate said...

EXCELLENT play

Bathmate

December 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Vehicle routing said...

Logical Transport are next-generation providers of integrated passenger transport solutions, covering all aspects of Vehicle and Passenger Scheduling, Routing, Vehicle Tracking and Mobile Communications - allowing multiple transport services to collaborate and schedule together.
Vehicle routing

January 16, 2010 at 12:23 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home