Thursday, June 15, 2006


I can guarantee you I am not the only human being who has found the diet fad to be a tad ridiculous. There are not only a seemingly infinite number of ideas on how to lose weight, but there are also an endless number of athletes who are selling what they do to stay in shape. This is one of the most horrible ideas in the world. There is something special about super athletes which is why they are indeed super athletes and not regular people. Clearly, what they do, is not what will work for anyone else on the planet, hence their uniqueness and fame. If people want to lose weight, they should just try and it's generally good enough. When seriously obese people want to lose weight, it is almost futile to try and exercise the weight off since fat cells are permanent unless they are surgically removed. Every single fat cell that is in the body is put there in childhood and all the way up until maturity where no more are added nor removed. Regularly caring or doing something about the situation such as maybe eating natural things and not solely processed nonsense might be a good thing. This is not one of those situations where it is necessary to stop eating every processed thing in sight because there are some processed things that have ingredients that people are unaware of their purpose and thus panic about pointlessly. There is a common misconception that every ingredient on a package that has a long name is bad which is completely inverse of all logic. Scientists discover these compounds for solely these purposes so it is ridiculous to actually fear them without any thought. Vegetarianism is another thing that is commonly absurd. Animal rights activists are, in my opinion, somewhat idiotic. There is no way that the majority of humans in the nation will be convinced that meat is bad or that the treatment of farm animals is unjust, it is just not a thing that is going to happen. The true problem with animal activists is though is that they preach to all the wrong people with a subject for which people have no empathy. Animals that are harvested for processing for the most part, would not do anything in the wild. Chickens are among the most useless animals on the planet along with cows and turkeys. When animals like turkeys can actually drown by looking upwards in a rainstorm, and do quite often I might add, their protection is not a dire situation. Animal rights activists should be more focused on the exotic species that people still actually care about instead of fighting this uphill battle where boulders are being dropped on them and there is just a normal trend of complete ignorance against them. These people could actually be doing something useful but by now, the gene pools of all of the farm animals that are consumed on a regular basis are so screwed up that they hardly classify as animals anymore. There is something to be said about vegetarians who do so because of health reasons of their own or maybe even that they do not eat animals. Vegetarians or vegans who do so because they personally have things with eating animals or health benefits are good people because they are the type of people who do not spread their ideas around. The thing about society today is, people are unresponsive to being force-fed ideas and are far more likely to retaliate than accept them, so the smarter thing would just be to be a vegetarian and let people see and inspire themselves. Another direction that animal right's activists should be taking but are not as actively is the fact that meat producers keep cutting down more and more of the rainforests for cattle farming. The last time I checked people like oxygen and it's always amusing to look at the little creatures in the fake environments behind glass walls at the zoo so people are far more responsive to ideas like that. There is also plenty of good land that is not in the rainforest that can be used intelligently for cattle ranching. Issues like this are much more likely to gain support because people can connect to them. Typically cows and chickens are not in the zoo and so people do not really feel anything for these animals being treated horribly or anything of the sort. Protesting should just be far more intelligent nowadays so that it actually has an effect other than effectively turning off televisions across the nation.

Sunday, March 19, 2006


I have one simple phrase to sum up every thing I have to say about this issue. Get over it. Statistically, most homosexuals are not such by choice although as with everything, there are some exceptions. To all of you conservatives stuck in the past, gay people are not a thing of the future, and they are by no means a recent development. The empires of Rome, Greece and most ancient cultures actually ranked the male-male relationship as the highest. The male-female was the next ranked because they realized that reproduction was something that needed to be done although they rarely loved their partners, and then the female-female was the lowest because of sexism and lack of education. Alexander the Great was gay and he conquered 13 countries with his army and his horse so this stereotype that gays are weak and feminine is not necessarily true either. There are many accounts of gay people being leaders that I just cannot see why people have a problem with. There is nothing wrong with gay people, most of the time they are shy and in the closet so even if they are gay, no one will know. And besides, what will a gay person do to affect society? The only "goal" the gays have is to exist peacefully and live normally like everyone else without having to make a giant sacrifice to the super religious over-zealous conservatives who seem to be running the show lately. Gays do not choose to be gay, and even if they did, why would that make them any less of a person? Sexual preference does not say anything about the type of person someone is. If anything should be outlawed or banned, it should be the closed-minded ignorance of the right wing nutjobs in America. This mindset is far more damaging to society than a bunch of people who mind their own business and DON'T DO ANYTHING TO THE MORALS OF OUR SOCIETY by liking their own gender. If anything, homosexuality should be seen as a good thing from the religious perspective by survival of the fittest (however controversial that may be) because males cannot reproduce with eachother and sadly neither can females and hence, they are eliminated from the gene pool. I think the "problem" with gays is just ridiculous and everyone that does have a problem needs to be slowly and methodically raked out of the population. There is actual scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice but rather is a problem in the genetic code of the individual who possesses the trait. There is an actual gay gene that is responsible for the overproduction of the opposite type of hormone in the person's body especially during the crucial growth point in their childhood where they take on the mental traits of the opposite gender including their preference. Homosexual people are in essence people who got trapped in the wrong body and instead of getting a sex change, they embrace it in their current form. There are varying levels of the gene which is where the varying types of gays and lesbians come from. The gene has had a lesser affect on lipstick lesbians than say butch lesbians and dykes. There are overly effeminate males such as Richard Simmons also and the more masculine types of gays like Alexander the Great. I find that hating the homosexual population is like hating the disabled people for the very thing that disabled them which is not their fault but there is an air of condemnation that is completely unnecessary nonetheless. This is not to say that the homosexual population is disabled, but merely to say that their sexual preference is not, in most cases, a choice but rather a result of instinctual and completely natural and organic responses that are involuntary. Hating the disabled and homosexuals goes upon the same line except the religious right just cannot stand it when the disabled in this case can fight back and so arises the issue. Also, gay people are no less fit to be parents or be married, especially for financial benefits, than straight people. Many people who are cleared to adopt children are clearly not as fit as some upstanding citizens in the gay community like Ellen DeGeneres or Rosie O'Donnel (pardon the mispelling). There is nothing different or harmful about these people and they can have no influence on the minds of children because the children may or may not have the homosexual gene in them and it's impossible to change your genetics through outside influence of what one may think is right. In other words, if a child thinks that homosexuality is the correct thing, they may still have the gene that says otherwise and will therefore not be gay and not influenced therefore by the gay parent. Overall, there is no harm in homosexuality and I personally condemn anyone who says otherwise.

Monday, February 06, 2006


Feminism is quite the intriguing subject although it doesn't seem to be very hot these days. I personally, being male, am offended by feminism but not because I am a male chauvinist. Quite the opposite in fact seems to be the case because what I am discovering to be more and more common among feminist organizations is female chauvinism. Equal rights are one thing, but promoting a group of people over those in control is not productive at all. The initial position of feminism was just and right but now that rights are almost equal and the problem is not that drastic, there is no reason for mass protest and so forth. There are some companies that do not pay women as much and that is a problem that needs to be fixed but after that, there is no reason for the advancement of women. Feminism is becoming an organization for the promotion of women but also the correction of society. All of a sudden pornography companies and even some modeling agencies and advertising companies are being attacked by their portrayal of women as "sexual objects." There is undoubtedly some truth to the fact that many men see women as objects but not only is that not feminism's place because they cannot fix the ideals of men, and the women have the choice to exploit themselves. The fight for feminism in some cases is actually travelling the wrong direction. Men are also being used as sexual objects whether women care or not even though it's not to the same extent but the hype about Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom can prove that the street is indeed two-way. As soon as women and men are treated equally as far as money and work opportunities and tax benefits are concerned, the feminist right should be eliminated because the rest of that is a useless battle. No protests no matter how loud and convincing will convince the entire male population that women should not be regarded as sexual beings because that idea is wrong. Women are sexual objects and so are men. Humans are sexual beings as proven by the fact that we are one of the only species on earth that not only gets married but enjoys sexual relations instead of just seeing it as a furthering of the species or as soemthing to do. As soon as society as a whole including the religious nutjobs, feminists, and male chauvinists alike can see that humans are sexual beings, the world will be much better off and people will have less a stick up their butt and therefore will be offended by less and people can move on with their lives. The same thing with feminism holds true with minorities. There are blacks and Native Americans that are collecting settlements from the United States government because their families were in the slave trade back in the 1800's. These particular people were not directly injured by this conflict so the money should go to their ancestors and definitely not to them. They just want to advance the stature of their own race in society and oppress the white man at the same time. This statement may be slightly ahead of its time but soon the white man will be the least powerful entity in the country because the blacks, asians, mexicans, women, homosexuals, and everyone else on the whole planet will complain that we're being mean and take complete control of everything. Striving for equality is one thing, but at this rate, equality will be a major concern for an extremely long time.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Political Correctness

Alright, I haven't written a post in a while but it took a while to think of something that I could write a full entry about. I am not going to beat around the bush at all, political correctness is total, nonsensical and in all ways utterly idiotic. Most of the things commonly thought of today as "politically incorrect" should not be thought of as incorrect at all. In fact, many of these things are institutions driven through our skulls by the lovely Catholic church death grip on society in general. Profanity is merely used for expression of extreme emotion and for reducing the appearance of one's intellectual nature and is no big thing to be upset or offended over. Profanity isn't technically "politically incorrect" but we'll get to those later. Words are words ladies and gentlemen in case any of you were confused. A word cannot harm anyone because all it is is a sound wave meant for communicating a message to another recipient and nothing else. The fact that one certain collection of noises is seen as an offensive insult where something that is almost an identical word say "sheet" for example is not, is a stupid facility. Another thing I don't have problem with is nudity, the human body, and sexual nature of mostly any sort. "Adam and Eve" were created in the nude as God made them so obviously God intended for us to be clothed so I have no idea where all of this nonsense about the human body namely genitalia being offensive came from. Along the same lines as the profanity, an organ cannot be obscene seeing as how everyone has one and they are for perfectly natural and NOT "sinful" purposes however brainwashed you may be. Sex is not a bad thing nor is virtually anything having to do with sex with the exception of brutal fetishes and rape etc.. One would think that religions would celebrate sex much like the pagans did but instead they focus in the opposite direction directly stating that the process through which we bring new beautiful life into the universe as is God's will is Original Sin. Breasts and genitalia are just simply not offensive, they are natural, functioning parts of a normal human being and if people are SO upset by it, why do they refrain from demanding clothing on all animals? The reason is because they are brainwashed. No one in their right mind can find anything offensive about the human body unless somehow taught that it was bad or had a bad experience and didn't want to be alone in this feeling so taught other people about it. Sex in public is a bit too extreme for me though because that is just a private matter nothing that I'm offended by, I just find it to be out of place in a public place. European nations seem to have caught this drift so I say America should pull a giant stick out of its rectum and abide by the alleged freedom guaranteed to all of its citizens and make the country clothing optional. And finally, as for political correctness, I think the whole thing is stupid. Refraining from saying something because it might offend someone is just ridiculous to me. I personally do not care if I offend anyone because they will eventually either get over it or realize it was a joke and laugh. I am not a racist or an anything mean -ist but I do every once in a while find that a good ethnically aimed joke can be quite humorous and I am not afraid to say so. Pussyfooting around so that no one's feelings are hurt is just a ridiculous policy that should be eliminated post-haste and people just need to grow ,for lack of a better term, some nuts. I am also somewhat frustrated that caucasians in particular are targeted for being racists or other -ists when black comedians namely Chris Rock, Bernie Mac, Cedric the Entertainer and MANY others make ALL ethnic jokes either aimed at themselves or at we the overwhelming majority. I find that just because we are a majority, we should not have our rights taken away either by these people striving to be "equal" like many radical feminists who are secretly super chauvanistic. The Native Americans and African-Americans who claim that these moden caucasian families and the government owe them money are the worst though. These people did not experience any of the actual difficulty that they want payment for, nor did the caucasian people paying it dole any of the difficulty out so the whole system is ridiculous. Political correctness in this country is getting to the point of minority rule because the majority is so scared they might step on someone's poor brittle feelings they forget to have a say in things. Mainly, I think the country should just lighten up for once and stop censoring every little thing so that absolutely no one can be offended without being properly warned. THIS IS LIFE. If these people want to be sheltered, they should not subject themselves to things that they know they will find offensive and retreat into say a church like the nuns and priests. There are alternatives to making the rest of us suffer through censorship and I intend to make them known to all of these weak, poorly guided, and uptight individuals named Christians mainly.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

"Intelligent" Design

First of all I have not written a post in a while and let me tell you it's good to be back and inspired again. This may be the first of a few entries we'll see. But as some of you may have noticed there's a controversy going on today about some such "intelligent" design theory. This theory is a bunch of flying horse-shaped bologna that's just a "creative" title to disguise creationism in its "purest" form. There is no merit whatsoever to teach intelligent design in any location except a private residence perhaps, a church or maybe even a chautauqua tent if anyone feels like starting those up again. For one, intelligent design is not a theory, it simply states that life is too complex to have just "happened" which is the current scientific theory given the lack of knowledge on that particular subject currently. Other than the fact that this is total bogus and doesn't fit the scientific method to be considered a theory, what would there be to teach? There is a serious lack of evidence for this particular slice of pure propaganda making it incredibly impossible that this is a scientific theory given the fact that a scientific theory is comprised of first an initial hypothesis, but then many people doing experiments trying to prove it wrong not to mention the general ability of being able to test it scientifically. Not only is intelligent design NOT able to be tested in any way whatsoever, there is no evidence of any sort anywhere that proves that it's real. If there was then there would be absolutely no vitality to the group known so cleverly as atheists or agnostics or anything other than some denomination of christian for that matter. I'm sorry all of you bigots who feel like (to quote "Inherit the Wind") dumping a load of medeival nonsense on the United States constitution. There is no way to test for a divine being that we know of at this moment which is the very same reason why there isn't a scientific theory for the beginning of life. Another thing that bothers me is the fact that intelligent design was created to combat the evils of evolution. Not only is it ridiculous that evolution would NOT be real but evolution does not even have in it mention of the creation of life so it is futile to say that evolution is wrong and propose something else to teach in its place that fills an entirely different question (with an imaginary being mind you). Even if intelligent design does get its legislature that it so desperately desires though I won't be in dire straights because there is absolutely nothing to be said on intelligent design other than who came up with the "theory" and that it states that life is too complex. There is nothing else to say so if that's all of the talk in the classroom about it I'm perfectly fine with it as long as it's not being taught for sure as the reality of things because then that's not alright. Intelligent design should only be mentioned as something that some people believe....even though I find it ridiculous that intelligent design and evolution can both fit together in harmony because they explain different things. The fact that evolution is being argued with is infantile because just in the annual renewal of flu shots because of the new strands of influenza there is evidence of evolution. Anyone who is blind to that fact is not worthy enough to speak to me let alone try to influence the future generations of America with their hype. Intelligent design is creationism and everyone knows it especially when politicians are all arguing for it and some are bound to screw up as some already have. When one happens to be a politician one must walk on eggshells especially in the light of such drastic happenings of eliminating or overriding a legitimate scientific theory. The thing about evolution is it would not be around if one stray piece of evidence, able to be duplicated stated something contrary to it where when talking about intelligent design is impossible. I just think that intelligent beings should stay away from schools especially in the room where science is taught because there is no merit to teach something in science that is not in any way able to be science in any way shape or form at the moment. The argument over the creation of life is futile anyway because there are not sophisticated enough tools or theories to even have something to stand up against creationism with making this a one way battle for now even though since there is no way to have any evidence of ANY sort, the religious arguments are futile as well making this an altogether useless subject to argue at the moment. When new technology develops as I'm confident it will, the religious people will backtrack once again once science proves something about the creation of life that is contrary to their imaginary being just like they've backed out of the fact that the sun revolves around the earth, that gravity is magic, and man was created directly by "God" (although that hasn't happened quite yet). To quote what used to be a magnificent and edgy show "God has no place within these walls just like facts have no place within organized religion (Superindendant Chalmers talking about Springfield Elementary)" from the Simpsons.

Monday, September 19, 2005


One thing that has puzzled me about religion for the longest time is the existence of this darker figure always classified as the Lord of the Underworld or the Keeper of Souls and he dwells in Hell is subzero or broiling temperatures. The Greek interpretation which I believe is also the Roman is that there is a God named Hades/Pluto who dwells in this underworld location and keeps the souls for all eternity and that's the only location anyone goes when they die. These characters are often misconstrued as evil when they actually, according to mythology, were just the keepers of souls and not necessarily evil. I think that the Christian fables would benefit from such thoughts because then people would not be scared of living and of dying so that they're forced to give the church money to tell them what to do. I think that is a pathetic excuse for a religion now. A religion that eats, sleeps, and breathes fear is not a good source of moral value or a reasonable explanation for anything. People were not taught to fear Hades they were merely taught that you will go to Hades when you die and you will swim with all of the other souls for eternity in the underworld. The underworld was a physical location in lots of mythology though that was capable of escape even though near impossible. This idea that the underworld later renamed Hell for demonic and fear binding purposes was a bad place is ridiculous. I once saw this site on the internet somebody has found the temperatures of Heaven and Hell scientifically according to descriptions in the Bible and this calculates out to find that Heaven is hotter than Hell both of which are extremely hot. But anyway, not just the idea of this underworld or Hell being a bad place but the entire idea of Satan himself and the fact that God is perfect. That idea right there is the biggest folly of modern religion in my opinion because it can be proven through principle that God cannot be perfect as expressed by Epicurus. If God wants to rid us of Satan but does not know how, then he is not all knowing as claimed, and if he is not strong enough, he is not all powerful. If he does not wish to rid the world of Satan and thus punish his creations, then he is malevolent and if he is not willing to or able to rid the world of Satan, then why would we call him God? If God is supposedly all powerful, why would he wish pain on his creations? Especially when he already knows their outcomes and decisions being all knowing and all where is this common argument of free will? Also, how do we know that there is free will? If God is so all powerful, then he is powerful enough to control the minds and actions of every single being who ever existed simultaneously. Also, if we are God's creations, why would he allow us to die instead of grant us the power of a bigger planet, and never ending life? It seems silly to me to endure less than 100 years of this "test" and then be rewarded for "passing" for the following eternity and if you fail this 100 year test, you get to spend ETERNITY rotting in the fires of hell. According to Dante, those fires are actually freezing pools of water so I don't know where that came from. Thank you all powerful God for granting me this one life opportunity with a set of rules (which you apparently intended me to commit to without thinking that I should get them directly from the one who made them instead of these hand-me-down rules) that if broken in this short period of time on an eternal scale, I have the marvelous opportunity to suffer for the rest of eternity with another super powerful being which you allow to exist for the sole purpose of torturing people whom you created and supposedly love. The entire principle of this Christian Hell is entirely contradictory to a loving God they try and portray so actively to make people convert. Heaven for that matter is completely infantile and ridiculous in terms of reality because honestly, who believes that they are so divine and special that for enduring less than 100 years of "pain" and holding up these hand-me-down morals they get to spend eternity being happy and gay with their creator? This concept is so stupid and pathetic as far as logic and reason go that it boggles my mind how such a vast majority of people can believe this useless drivel. The Bible was written by men and so all that church and Bible study are, are these organizations of people who are super obsessed about a novel to the point that they think it's reality like a Lord of the Rings fan who would cry and go insane if you told them that the stories weren't real. From my eyes, a religious person I don't think could possibly see how very very foolish they look. In terms of reality and feasible applications to what happens after death, the Christian religion is SO off target, it is a modern mystery as to why so many people are blinded by its splendor and evil. I have one simple explanation for it however, people are sheep. A metaphor commonly used throughout the Bible, I believe it works on my side as well because sheep follow each other without reason, if one sheep falls off a cliff, others will think that it's the right thing to do and follow it off the cliff. I find it so ironic that such a perfect metaphorical reference to the blindness and ignorance of religious people could be found repeatedly in the book whos word they believe as "sacred."

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Unexpected Support

One thing that I find extremely amusing is the fact that we as Americans are taught that the founding fathers were deeply religious men and founded the country based on those morals that they beheld from their religion. The idea that these men were deeply religious at least in the sense that they had appreciation for Christianity is false found in letters to one another but of course to maintain the support of the public as in all politics, one must lie. I honestly believe that the Declaration of Independence which is always quoted religiously for religious purposes to prove something about the foundation of this country, was founded almost solely and lies and exaggerations. One objective of these hyperboles was to offend the King of England because the colonist's had been well-aware at the time that separation from England was inevitable so they might as well make it seem reasonable. Another was to seem religious so as to allow some slight possibility that the document would A) gain support from the colonies and B) Allow some possibility of victory in the American Revolution. The founding fathers as the general population knows them were completely different when investigated on a personal level or even remotely in depth. I was listening to a radio feed from somewhere and the interviewer pulled up an expert on colonial history or something and he was saying that many of the founders were actually agnostic or atheistic in their views despite what the general population has come to learn. The agnostic/atheist population had for some time considered the founding fathers to be either agnostic or atheist not only because of quotes but it was represented in the wording of their letters and documents and the principles that they stood for. Those documents could not possibly have produced such revolutionary ideals had their minds been hindered by religion, especially Christianity. The religious quotes that many people in the country find inspiring are always quotes that were displayed to the public at the time in books or speeches but never are the quotes found in the letters to one another recognized as evidence of anything because many people today that I have talked to are either unwilling to accept that they may have been agnostic or atheistic, or decide suddenly that they don't care whether they were or not when a few moments before that they were arguing with me over that very fact. I find the matter laughable to it's very core because figures such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are seen as legendary in American History when in reality they were as unbelieving as the savages to the west. It would be foolish of one such as myself to ignore the fact that religion was extremely prominent at this time and was a leading factor in the colonization of the country by Britain in the first place, or that many political leaders at the time including George Washington were religious. Of course, I am not talking of these political leaders but of the ones who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and are fundamental to our existence as it is today. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin have all been quoted as to be highly displeased with the church, or stating their disbelief in the religion altogether. One such quote comes from Thomas Jefferson,"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." This man judging from this quote, does not sound to me as if he is a deeply religious man that used his morals to build the foundation of this country which we all know and love today. What I find beyond amusing to the point of ironic is the fact that the super patriotic people of the day, the "Neo-Conservatives" and their supporters are extraordinarily religious and enjoy superimposing their religion on those minorities which happen not to believe in it. These are the people that support the country for religious reasons when the country itself and it's laws which bind it together were created by a fleet of atheistic geniuses. But I also find it miserable when people such as President George W. Bush are "elected" into office by wielding people's religious beliefs as a weapon against them and using their own religion which is sewn to their essence as humans practically as guilt into voting for him. He is a man who openly takes advantage of something that is not even supposed to exist under the founding laws which this country is based upon and the fact that he is using this as momentum to control and alter the country for his beliefs is treason. If while reading this there seems to be a lack of quotes, I will provide a few for your reading pleasure and also to back myself up. James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." Benjamin Franklin: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.", "He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." Susan B. Anthony: "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." John Adams: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."and finally "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." One more thing I find preposterous in modern society is the fact that people are unable to grasp the power of both intelligence and education once again found in atheism. There are countless brilliant minds who fail to accept the Christian religion because they can see that it is an evil institution or that it is altogether wrong. A few of those would be Friedrich Nietzche, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Galileo Galilei, Epicurus, Samuel Clemens, Carl Sagan, Gene Roddenberry, Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Ernest Hemingway, Edgar Allen Poe, and Voltaire. If you would like any further information on these quotes or to see others please visit (don't be intimidated) and click on the Great Minds Quotes button for a list of atheistic quotes and the people who have said them.