Eddie Guerrero laid to rest

Nov. 18, 2005

Eddie Guerrero was laid to rest yesterday in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Eddie moved his family to Phoenix a few weeks ago so he could be closer to his mother and sister Linda. The private ceremony was presided over by family friend “Superstar” Billy Graham. Several current and former WWE Superstars were in attendance. Chris Jericho, John Layfield, Dean Malenko, Vince McMahon, Chris Benoit, Tom Pritchard and Chavo Guerrero, Jr. all spoke in remembrance of Eddie.

The highly emotional ceremony celebrated the life of Eddie Guerrero, remembering exactly how loving, caring and humble he was.

Vickie Guerrero speaks on Eddie's autopsy report

Nov. 15, 2005

After the untimely passing of Eddie Guerrero, WWE and the entire sports-entertainment community is still reeling from the devastating loss of a champion. The initial autopsy reports on Guerrero have come in. WWE.com spoke with Eddie’s widow, Vickie Guerrero, earlier today.

“It was heart failure. It was from his past – the drinking and the drug abuse. They found signs of heart disease. She (the examiner) said that the blood vessels were very worn and narrow, and that just showed all the abuse from the scheduling of work and his past. And Eddie just worked out like crazy all the time. It made his heart grow bigger and work harder and the vessels were getting smaller, and that’s what caused the heart failure. He went into a deep sleep.

As soon as they saw his heart, they saw the lining of his heart already had the heart disease. There was no trauma, and Eddie hadn’t hurt himself in any way. It answered a lot of questions. I knew Eddie wasn’t feeling very good for the last week. He was home and kept saying he wasn’t feeling good and we thought it was just “road tired.” So we thought he just had to rest. It answered a lot of my questions, too, because he was just so exhausted. She said it was normal because the heart was working so hard.

When he didn’t call me last night and the night before I knew it was for real, because he would call me every night. I miss his phone calls. I cried through the whole thing (last night).

I loved his laugh. His laugh was the best.

We just celebrated his four-year sobriety last Thursday. We just thought we had life by the handful. We thought we had it all figured out. He worked so hard to make a better life for us.

I’m just overwhelmed by how people are coming out. It’s touched my heart a lot.
Everybody was just in awe last night in how beautifully everything was put together.

All my life was wrestling. All he did was take care of them and live for that. And I don’t know what to do now.”

Some thoughts on relativism / absolutes

Are you reading this right now? RIGHT now. Not at any other point in time, but right this second are your eyes casting across this word >>>HERE<<< ?

If you can answer yes to that question, what you have just done is define and acknowledge an absolute truth in reality. Really, in the real world, you did something at an exact moment which happened neither at any other time or in any other fashion to the way in which it actually happened. You actually read the word 'here', at the exact second in which you read it, and everything was as it actually was, as you read it. It happened no other way. That is how time and space collided in that instant, and that instant occured. That is fact, truth and logical. You experienced it and possibly witnesses did too. You can also do controlled tests to see if similar events can be reproduced with measurable constance (for example, you could read it again). So ... what?

Let me give a few points, here. If Bristol City score a goal against Bristol Rovers, then for the goal scorer, the rest of the City team, , the fans of City and their Manager - this is a good thing. However, from the point of view of Bristol Rovers and their fans? It's a set back and a bad thing. This is what is known as a relative truth; it can be shown in controlled tests to be relative to one's cultural point of view (for example, you can test the brain responses in a City fan and a Rovers fan to see if a Rovers fan will ever think City scoring is exciting or good). To a person who supports neither team or maybe doesn't even like football, the result could matter not one iota, or the goal could be purely judged on footballing skill.

However, apply this to the first example. Then also consider this - The number 8 bus arrives at the bus stop on time, at exactly 8:00am GMT by the atomic clock. There are two people waiting for the bus at this stop, and both have exactly timed watches showing this bus is here at 8am, though they are not checking them all the time.

They board the bus. Later someone asks them if the bus was on time. One says yes it was indeed on time. The other states that it was not on time, because that is his perception, he felt the bus was one minute late. Neither can prove this because they didn't check their watches as they boarded.

Now, it is absolutely true that the bus did in fact arrive at 8am. This is what took place, in reality. The bus did not arrive at the stop at 7:59am, or 8:01am. It arrived at 8:00am, reguardless of the man's perception on the kerb. It was there exactly when it was there, and an external police CCTV camera can verify to the milisecond that it was indeed, on time.

So then, the bus stopping when it did is an absolute truth, an absolute occurance in space and time, that we can test and repeat with consistant, logically deductable results (if we get the bus to pull up again at 8am exactly, it will be there at 8am).

This may sound logical and obvious - almost absurd to state thus. The issue here is with relativism and absolutes. According to the relativist, absolutes do not occur nor exist - that is the technical definition and the correct position description. I personally know of no relativsist who actually lives this way though; they expect predictable actions such as a toaster to pop up with cooked bread after use, water to flow through their toilet after they pull the handle and people to be angry if they shout 'screw you!' across the street at them.

The trouble then arises when debating 'is there such a thing as absolute truths in the world?' with them.

If you say there isn't, for a start, you are asserting an absolute right there and then. Secondly and as we've just seen, there are clearly demonstratable and repeatable absolute truths in reality, that correspond to testing.

There is a counter. If blue is only blue to you and it's red to me, what we're arguing about is a point of view. But this also cannot work as a moral argument for things like 'killing or stealing is wrong'. You see, in reality the counter is 'a colour'. What we decide to call that colour is up to us, but it is in actual fact, a specific colour. Every object has a set of attributes at any given nanosecond in time, and whatever those are, they are true. The counter cannot be both literally blue and red at the same time, it can be a colour that I call blue and you call red, however. But this can be tested with science, the properties of the counter measured without the use of the iris, either mine or yours. We can know the counter using instruments.

There is a human being. He is not literally you, and literally me at the same time. Someone might mistake you for me ... we may even look alike or have very similar traits. But I am testably me, and you are testably you. In time and space, we are not the same person.

Perception seems to be the only place where relativism actually works out. What is truth for me is not truth for you? Back to the goal experiment - if I am a City fan and you're a Rovers fan, it's true for me that the goal scored by City against Rovers was a good thing. It's true for you that the goal scored was a bad thing. But, this is a relative truth. Absolutes as shown above, are different. They are not merely points of view based on cultural, social or personal variations, however tiny (chaos theroy - butterly effect etc).

So, whilst Relativism does work for certain truths (Relative Truths), it doesn't work whatsoever for absolute truths.

The Relativist will argue there is no such thing as an absolute truth. However, science shows this to be wrong. The tests above clearly show that logically, mathamatically and scientifically (all free from propaganda or opinion, because they can be repeated in controlled environments and they won't change), some things at any given second in time, are so and are not subject to a point of view from anyone. For example, the sun rises and sets at different points to the position of a human watching on the earth, but what never changes is the measurements of the sun (Sol), it's heat, it's mass, diametre, position in space and many other measurable, testable attributes. The sun literally exists and it literally is what it is. This is not based on opinion or the perspective of a human on earth - or any creature anywhere in the universe for that matter.

There are absolute truths. These can be measured. Other truths are relative and the difference between the two is fairly obvious to anyone who wants to know.

Therefore, true Relativism cannot be a workable method for deciding truth or one's path through philosophy. It can shed light onto certain areas which are cultural and arguable to a point, but where absolutes are concerned, it renders nothing but rather ridiculous-sounding arguments like 'I was here, but I also wasn't here'.

R.I.P Eddie Guerrero - 1967 - 13/11/2005

The storied career of Eddie Guerrero

Eddie Guerrero was born into Mexico’s first family of professional wrestling in 1967. The son of the legendary Gory Guerrero, it was only natural that Eddie, along with his three older brothers, would pursue a career in sports-entertainment. With wrestling flowing through his veins, Eddie began his in-ring training at a very young age. In fact, Guerrero had mastered the dropkick by his third birthday.

Eddie moved from his family’s backyard ring to the professional circuit in 1987 when he debuted as “Mascara Magica” or “Magic Mask” in Mexico. After teaming with his brothers, Guerrero broke out on his own, crafting his skills in the lucha libre world. Eddie then moved on to Japan, wrestling as Black Tiger. It was there that Guerrero first met good friend Chris Benoit.

After moving back to Mexico full time, Eddie began teaming with El Hijo del Santo, who was the son of Gory Guerrero’s long-time associate El Santo. Eddie and Santo eventually broke up, with Eddie forming a duo with Art Barr. The pair would feud with Santo in one of the most heated rivalries in lucha libre history, which culminated in Guerrero and Barr losing a hair vs. mask match to Santo and Octagon in November 1994.

Eddie then moved on to ECW, where he gained his first full exposure in the United States. Not long after his ECW debut, Guerrero defeated 2 Cold Scorpio for the ECW Television Championship, a title he held twice before moving to WCW. Guerrero's ECW stay will always be remembered for the amazing match he had with Dean Malenko before leaving the promotion. After the match, which many consider to be one of the greatest ECW matches ever, the crowd showed their appreciation for Guerrero by giving him a standing ovation.

Guerrero spent four years competing in WCW. While there, he was a part of numerous memorable rivalries with the likes of Booker T, Rey Mysterio, Dean Malenko, Ric Flair and nephew Chavo.

On Dec. 29, 1996, Guerrero defeated Diamond Dallas Page in the finals of a tournament to crown a new United States Champion. He also went on to capture the Cruiserweight Championship on two separate occasions before leaving WCW.

On Jan. 31, 2000, four new faces showed up on Monday Night RAW and shocked the sports-entertainment world. They were former WCW wrestlers Benoit, Malenko, Perry Saturn and Eddie Guerrero – The Radicalz. The faction immediately got involved in a match between the New Age Outlaws and Al Snow & Steve Blackman, marking the beginning of Guerrero’s amazing WWE career.

Over the next five years, Eddie Guerrero overcame many obstacles to reach the top. In his first WWE match against the Outlaws, Eddie suffered a dislocated elbow, but returned to action in a short time. On April 3, 2000, he claimed his first piece of WWE gold, defeating Chris Jericho to win the European Championship. He would go on to win that championship one more time in 2001.

After The Radicalz went their separate ways, Eddie began a relationship with his “Mamacita,” Chyna. In fact, it was Chyna that Eddie defeated in September 2000 to claim the Intercontinental Championship. After their split, Eddie’s demons got the best of him. He subsequently took time off from the ring in 2001 to deal with his personal issues.

Upon his return in 2002, Eddie’s career skyrocketed to new heights. He won the Intercontinental Championship again in May 2002, this time from Rob Van Dam. Eventually, Eddie moved to SmackDown where he teamed with nephew Chavo to capture the WWE Tag Team Championship. He would win that championship three more times, as well as the United States Championship, but his greatest moment came in February 2004.

On Feb. 15, 2004 in San Francisco, Guerrero defeated Brock Lesnar at No Way Out to become WWE Champion. He had reached the pinnacle of the industry, and went on to headline WrestleMania XX against Kurt Angle. No one will ever forget the scene at the end of the show, when Eddie joined long-time friend Benoit in the ring to celebrate moments after Benoit won the World Heavyweight Championship.

Eddie later formed an alliance with another old friend, Rey Mysterio, and the duo would win the WWE Tag Team Championship in early 2005. This was Eddie’s final run as a champion, as the duo split up after WrestleMania 21 and began a bitter rivalry, highlighted by numerous breath-taking matches.

At No Mercy on Oct. 9, 2005, Eddie’s 38th birthday, Eddie squared off against a new amigo, Batista. He was unable to win the World Heavyweight Championship from the Animal, but their friendship was cemented when Batista led the crowd in singing Happy Birthday to Latino Heat afterwards. A little more than one month later, Guerrero competed in his final televised match on the Nov. 11 edition of Friday Night SmackDown where he defeated Mr. Kennedy.

It's a quote someone wrote

'Education without character, Pleasure without conscience, Politics without principals'

An MP said this, recently. He was talking about the current state of the policy of our Government here in the UK.

Of course, not everyone agrees. But there again, if you care to disagree? You should do so with an arugement to show that man's view is false. Simply saying 'no' isn't an argument - it's a rant. That's what blogs like this are for, though, which is why so many folks write these, I guess!

Encourage one another

Read a really old, family Bible today with my Grandma. She said it made her cheerful to see me and talk to 'a christian' for a change!

I was able to discuss scriptures and their meanings, too. I enjoy talking to her as she's got so many fascinating stories to tell. Though, I always feel bad because she gets out cakes and fruit and makes me tea and I pretty much can't say no!

All in all, a 'fruitful' day.

What if relativism were true? [An illustration]

What if relativism were true? An illustration.

Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid and as any other points of view and that the individual is the measure of what is true for that person. I see a big problem with this. Following is an illustration to demonstrate it.

The setting: A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc. In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative.

"So," says the owner, "everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong."

"That is a very interesting perspective," says the thief. "I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong. But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want."

The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store. That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door. The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man's face because he is wearing a ski mask. "Don't shoot me," says the owner. "Please take whatever you want and leave me alone."

"That is exactly what I plan to do," says the thief.

"Wait a minute. I know you. You are the man that was in the store earlier today. I recognize your voice."

"That is very unfortunate for you," says the thief. "Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you."
"You cannot do that," says the owner.

"Why not?"

"Because it is not right," pleads the desperate man.

"But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?"

"Yes, but I have a family, children, that need me, and a wife."

"So? I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you. And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do."

"But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so."

"As you can see, I don't recognize society's claim to impose morals on me. It's all relative. Remember?"

"Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!"

"I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance."

"But it is true! I swear I'll tell no one."

"Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember? If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative. There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative. Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you."

"But it is wrong to kill me. It isn't right!"

"It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth. And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself."

"No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you."

"Begging makes no difference."

.... Bang....

If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger? Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly. But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong? Others have said that it is a crime against society. But, so what? If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him? If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says? Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms? Doing so is a personal decision.

Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy. Why? Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.

[This has been borrowed from carm dot org]

Kim - on a DVD near you, soon!

Waking this morning, I groggily realised that in my dream I was about to crash a bus sized ambulance equipped with about a million medikits all heat sealed in case of nuclear war or something crazy like that, into a huge brick wall.

Answering what woke me up (the phone), I was surprised that it was a contact of mine who I was helping to make a DVD documentary. He wanted me to present the entire feature now, as the original plans and the back up had both not turned out viable in the end.

Short story is - I agreed. So now the Kimster will be on a DVD around Christmas time. Ho hum. Life is funny, ain't it?

Now, all I need to do is get frellin' paid ;)