Opposing Bullshit

The Not-So Cinderella Story: The Marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton

2011-04-29T17:01:00.000-07:00

So, yes as I'm sure everyone would be aware of Prince William and Kate Middleton were married today, apparently witnessed by 2 billion worldwide, and of course, cost altogether £20 million. Yay! Hooray! We have a new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge! Isn't that great!? Yeah, you might've guesssed I don't really care if those two are married. One, Prince William is not the first in line to throne, anyway. Two, I don't really care that much for the concept of marriage, and finally Three: they're not really going to do anything for me personally. However, I did spend time travelling across London to Westminster just for the heck of it. But what do I see but Union Jacks everywhere? It. Was. Ridiculous. However, Central London did seem incredibly fun. Wish I had my vid cam at the time. Although allow me to get a few things straight:

1: Barack Obama (or whatever world leader you were griping about) wasn't invited because the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is NOT a state wedding (and yet, we blew £20 million over it), so it only allows for the leaders of countries of the Commonwealth to come.

2. It isn't really a "Cinderella wedding story" as people like to paint it as. Well, I guess it is if you saw it as "royal marries non-noble". Yes, Kate Middleton is not an aristocrat. But she is most definitely "nouveau-riche". Her parents own Party Pieces, which has an estimated worth of £30 million. She in 2006, was also an accessory buyer for the clothing chain Jigsaw. She's about as far from a peasant as you can get. The fact of the matter is that she is the 11th generation of princesses, by marriage.

3. Americans, you outta piss off. No joke. You go out of your way to celebrate the 4th July (Independence Day) and gloat how much better you are than the rest of the world, especially the limey, crooked-teeth Brits. But when one of our sweet princes gets married, I hear some insipid talking head for the CBS declaring that the Americans have such profound interest because "We want what you have. We never had royals to look up to, and be proud". Tell me, then, what is the point of you celebrating Independence Day, then? A holiday where you gloat over sticking to George III of the United Kingdom, and when one of his descendants get married, you're all googly-eyed. Well, I'll tell you what, if it was up to me, I'd say: "You want the royals so badly? You can have them." Seriously, what are they there for anymore? The army?

Actually, I might take that back.

Kanye West Wins O Music Awards (Or MTV Is Retarded...)

2011-04-28T15:09:00.000-07:00

So, it's that time of the month again. I get increasingly reluctant to do these posts, but a promise is a promise. So what tedious news surrounding my favourite rapper? Well, apparently Mr. West has won a music award that I've never heard before, nor have a flying fuck about called the O Music Awards. Apparently it's the only award ceremony in which he can't interrupt the acceptance speech...as he himself is the winner. Apparently Kanye West has received a nomination for "Best Tweets", an award that they apparently just made up. That's the thing about Twitter: you have to have to little to say, or mention something either briefly or of nominal importance to anyone to fit 140 characters in. It's not all that appealing to me. Probably need to use it more. However, if Kanye West of all people, out of all the artists in the music industry making hits this year, has something of the best tweets, then it says a lot about how interesting and/or insightful our internet-savvy musicians are. Which is to say "not very". Oh, that's right...He was the only nominee there wasn't he? Well, I for one, am proud of Kanye for winning an award that I never heard, much less gave a fuck of, and MTV made the right choice. I mean, who else than top tweets such as this:

And as for MTV, I'd never thought I'd see the day that you'd give awards for music stars on something that isn't music. But you've outdone yourselves haven't you? As you persist in this moronic celebuton nonsense, you might as well drop the "M" from your network. You have become E!-lite. You guys have stopped giving two shits about music whatsoever, and it has become nothing more than a commodity, which you merely make music awards out of tradition. You've stopped giving a fuck ages ago. And that's why you're network is garbage. I won't even ask you next time to actually give, Kanye, no, any music artist, an award beased on the music they produce, not stupid ass tweets, since you guys have ceased giving a fuck a long time ago.Readers, hold on your books tight because this will be a bumpy ride to the imminent Idiocracy!

Satya Sai Baba Can't Save Himself From Death

2011-04-25T14:13:00.000-07:00

BTW, This is not me laughing at this man's death (he lived a rather full life after all, for want of a better word). This is me finally calling him out on his bullshit.

On every uncomfortable and pathetic Sunday that I accompany my family to get their "Jesus High", I often meet up with a group of Hindus with their own little shed to do their worshiping. They were pretty pleasant people, perhaps much moreso then the congregation. If anything, I only had one "flaw" of sorts with the group: They are Satya Sai Baba devotees.

Yesterday, on 24th April Satya Sai Baba passed away at the age of 84. So rather than talk at ridiculous length on the nonsense of typical holiday hijacking in the name of Jesus, by the world's biggest religion, I've finally around to talk about the man who claimed he was an avatar of Shiva and Shakti. Will I shed tears like I did in my previous post about the late Elisabeth Sladen? No. Do I have any nice things to say of him? Not really. Do I regret that I had not done this post sooner? Well, like most things in life, the answer is not straight-forward. If anything, Satya Sai Baba was proof that with enough charisma, you can persuade anyone that you can do anything or are far more unique than anybody on the planet. Even when it is blatantly, and obviously, not true. He was also proof that Westerners in the apparent disillusionment of the perceived authoritative qualities in Judo-Christian traditions, and newfound love of the Eastern religions, will mindlessly fall in love with a man purporting to be a gateway to spiritual enlightenment. Even when this man is 1. like every other siddhi that came and went and 2. is just as authoritarian as any pastor, priest, deacon etc. would be. And to bring my point home, he even for a short while managed to grab the attention of The Beatles, until they wisened up a bit.

So who is Satya Sai Baba? Born as Sathyanarayana Raju on the 23 November 1926, at the age of 13, he claimed to his parents that he suddenly realised that he was an avatar, specifically the Sai Baba of Shirdi reborn. This was an interesting choice since the Sai Baba of Shirdi was respected amongst Sufi Muslims and Advaita Vedanta Hindus alike, so you see basically where this is getting to. His mother claimed that he was an "immaculate conception" akin of Jesus Christ, another "god-man" that he would liken himself with. To properly respond to the alleged "immaculate conception" claim made by his mother, I have this brief clip on The Princess Bride that readers can watch:

He then would later lead an organisation which over the period of his life would grow to around 6 to 100 million. His doctrine claimed that there is no true path to God, so you can choose the religions of your choice and still follow him. It also had the occasional "Be nice to people, life is valuable, don't do any improper sexual actions, yada, yada, yada..." stuff that I hear ad nauseum, that somehow constitutes as proof that he's a good guy, and built dozens of schools and universities in his name. Of course by this reasoning, with the latter, I could argue that Josef Stalin is the greatest humanitarian ever and world leader for all time because his regime had universal healthcare, and 90% of the whole Soviet Union literate. How this would justify 20 million people dying under his regime, I have no idea.

A key part of Sai Baba's influence comes from his purported miracles, most commonly, the materialisation of vibuti, or holy ash, amongst other things like necklaces, watches, rings etc. One of my favourite ones is when he supposedly materialises a small orb of gold from his mouth. The fact that people seem to honestly fall for his sleight-of-hand tricks makes it all the more sadder, especially when truly laughable excuses like, "His miracles are not a key part of his movement", or "You didn't provide sufficient evidence that he is not who he claims he is" or even, "science works in the realm of the physical, Sai Baba deals with the supernatural" are put forward to his critics (The last one was a claim verbatim that Satya Sai Baba made himself). Even when the responses are 1. "Well his teachings don't seem to be either", 2. "Yes, we did. You're just so caught around the charisma of this man, and was legitimately convinced by his parlour tricks, that you'll deny any evidence to the contrary" and 3, "Well, explain his 'supernatural' abilities look extraordinarily similar to sleight-of-hand manoeuvrings? Is the boundary between the natural and the supernatural really that thin?"

At some point, an organisation in India known as the "Committee to Investigate Miracles and Other Verifiable Superstitions", headed by Hosur Narasimhaiah (or simply H. Narasimhaiah), Indian physicist, educator freedom fighter, translator (of Mohandas Gandhi's work), and rationalist; approached Sai Baba to verify whether he could really materialise holy ash and gold, and surprise, surprise; under scientific scrutiny, he simply ignored his request three times, and pretended that somehow, Narasimhaiah's methods were suspect. Seriously, what does a god-man, have to fear from a little scientific test, which would easily fall apart if said god-man really could materialise objects from nothing, make his face appear on the moon, and was really omnipotent? Oh, that's right...He wasn't one, was he?

There was also the child abuse allegations that were made against him. Now, I would normally put those allegations aside for a moment and deal with simply the propagation of superstition. However, these allegations are widespread. In fact, these is an entire website dedicated to claims from former devotees that Sai Baba sexually abused them. Why haven't any investigations towards those claims ever come into fruition? Ah well, no reason. Just the widespread political influence this man possessed shielding him from most of the legitimate criticism presented towards him. That same influence protected him when six people were killed in his bedroom in 1993, after an assassination attempt, from any investigation into the events that occurred.

If anything, the only people I feel sorry for, is his ever-so-gullible followers. The fact that this man claimed he would live up 96, will undoubtedly have no effect on their blind devotion whatsoever. Indeed, Sai Baba's death had initiated a four-day period of mourning, and received condolences from Indian President Manmohan Singh, and the Dalai Lama...all over a man who used magic tricks to get followers. His body is currently lying in state. This is a joke, if I ever came across one. It really shows the absurd lengths that India's elite will go to protect the image who was essentially a conman. There is only a few things that I take as a form of solace in this shoddy public wailing over the life of a charlatan. 1. One of his opponents, James Randi, outlived him. He even wrote an article about him giving his "goodbyes" to one of his greatest adversaries. And 2. Satya Sai Baba briefly before his death, finally accepted the merits of science. For all his miracles and teachings especially this goldmine, which I'll give the quote in full of his response to H. Narasimhaiah's request for scientific testing:

"Science must confine its inquiry only to things belonging to the human senses, while spiritualism transcends the senses. If you want to understand the nature of spiritual power you can do so only through the path of spirituality and not science. What science has been able to unravel is merely a fraction of the cosmic phenomena ..."

...He couldn't even live to fulfill what would be his greatest miracle, and change the world before his death. He needed the hard work and determination of the excellent doctors around him to keep him going as long as he did. So, if you're some spongehead who scoffs at the achievements that science has brought to us and even made our lives better, even for one such as Satya Sai Baba, and remarks on supposed deathbed conversions of the greatest scientists to have ever lived, as some sort of support for your B.S. beliefs, on supernaturalism or whatever, remember this well: When your sick and/or dying, or otherwise incapacitated, we all become rationalists in the hospital room. Try to resurrect yourself out of that one, God-man. And I'm not talking about Jesus.

Happy Easter.

R.I.P. Elisabeth Sladen AKA Sarah-Jane Smith

2011-04-21T04:48:00.000-07:00

On the 19 April 2011, the actress Elisabeth Sladen, known for playing the companion of the Doctor, Sarah Jane Smith in Doctor Who, has passed away at the age of 63. Sladen spent her last months bravely battling the onset of cancer.
Now, I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who. And one of my favourite eras of the series was the Tom Baker years (1974-1983), otherwise known as the period of the Fourth Doctor. Much like the Rose Tyler of the modern era of Doctor Who (Who Sarah later met in the Tenth Doctor Doctor Who episode "School Reunion"), while Sarah Jane Smith was known for standing besides Tom Baker for about two of his nine-year tenure, the character first appeared in in the Jon Pertwee years (1970-1974) or the Third Doctors time. It all started when she being the plucky young girl she was and snuck aboard the TARDIS of the Doctor as the time-travelling alien had to deal with the militaristic species called Sontarans. As John Pertwee left, Sladen continued to portray Sarah Jane Smith as Tom Baker succeeded the former.

Sladen with Jon Pertwee.

Even so, reportedly preferred her time with Jon Pertwee (not that Baker was awful, or anything, as she was one of the few members of cast he actually liked), and when she heard of Pertwee's death in 1996, she reportedly cried for weeks. It was there that she took part in what was arguably the greatest period in the entire Doctor Who series. My personal favourite was the "Pyramids of Mars", when the Doctor and Sarah faced up against the alien destroyer known as Set.

Sladen with Tom Baker as Sarah-Jane Smith and The (Fourth) Doctor.

The team-work between the time-travelling duo was so effective, you'd think that well, they're some sort of...duo or something. I mean, she wasn't exactly his equal (then again, which companion was the Doctor's equal?), but by the end of it, she came pretty damn close. Indeed, she became the template for future generations of companions. And when she returned with her own series, she became deliciously Doctor-like.

It is said by her co-workers that Liz brought much of her personality into Sarah-Jane. She was warm, receptive and encouraging to work with. Especially with the younger generation in the Whoniverse. This was especially the case of Tommy Knight Anjili Mohindra and Daniel Anthony (Luke Smith, Rani Chandra and Clyde Langer respectively). Even David Tennant, the actor who portrayed the Tenth Doctor, reportedly could barely contain his glee when he found out she would work alongside him in "School Reunion" (Tennant was only three when she first appeared on screen).

Other work involved appearing in various advertisements, in particular in a Letts Alice in Wonderland advertisement, starring Alexa in the radio drama The Stranger, and portraying a mermaid and Mrs. Darling in the Peter Pan pantomime.

If there's any solace in any of this, it is that she died at 63 years young. And if you don't fully understand what is meant by that, here's a picture:


Helen Mirren had nothing on her.

Sladen is survived her husband Dennis Miller, whom she married in 1968, and their daughter Sadie Miller.

"The universe has to move forward. Pain and loss are what define us, as much as happiness or love. Whether it's a world or a relationship. Everything has it's time, and everything ends." - Sarah-Jane Smith.

In Soviet Russia, Space Visits You!

2011-04-12T23:43:00.000-07:00

Today, is the 50th year of Russia's Cosmonauts Day or Yuri's Night, internationally. After all, it is 50 years since the first ever human to enter space. In effect, validating that humans need not be confined to the pale blue dot floating in space, but they can potentially fly out into the cosmic oceans themselves to explore. When I was a kid, I was really enamored with space travel and astronauts. If anything, I was more in the U.S. Apollo program during the space race in the Cold War. Still, I couldn't help but admire the human achievement of actually being the first person to enter space. Sure, it was born out of some petty rivalry between the Soviet Union and the U.S., between who's got the best defence: military and technological advancements. But so long as it potentially helps humanity at large, that's good enough for me. So, who exactly was Yuri Gagarin? I mean, really?

Yuri Alekseyich Gargarin was born on 9 March 1934 to Alexey Ivanovich Gargarin and Anna Timofeyna Gargarina. While his mother was a voracious reader, his father was a carpenter. And the family spent time working in one of hundreds of the collective farms in the Soviet Union. When World War II came about, like millions of Soviet citizens,

Glenn Beck: So Long And Thanks For The Lulz

2011-04-07T14:38:00.000-07:00

Yesterday on April 6th, it announced that Fox News' favourite hysterical media raver: Glenn Beck announced he was leaving the network. At least for me and several others, this is a shame. You see I was actually planning to do several posts on his moronic outbursts watched by millions of Americans. And there would always be one comment that riles people off. The man, for want of a better term, was an ideological crackpot. And his role in Fox News seemed to be no different than to provide a 21st century right-wing spin on the insane news reporter on Network. So, as much my sole post on Glenn Beck before didn't even have me actually addressing his stupidity, but someone else. It upsets me even more because I was so caught up with other work I pretty much missed his retarded claim on atheists a few weeks back. Oh, how I wished I started this blog when he went after Malia Obama, apparently referring to her as "ghetto trash": An act of hypocrisy at the very least since during Bush's presidency, he said that his daughters are off-limits. It is this story that should've kicked off my blog. Not some musician whose awareness of the world isn't expected to be significantly high so long as he sell records. In any case, all that's really happened is that he's leaving his own show. He still has the syndicated radio talkshow where he can deliver similar rants. So he's not actually gone.

Also, this entire affair beautifully demonstrates that even the Fox News Channel has limits. You see, the Fox News Corporation doesn't care that much about media accuracy, or even that matter about political views. Well, it does, but certainly not nearly enough. What it cares about is money. Shoot, it's speculated that Beck's own rhetoric isn't actually representative of his actual views, but in actuality part of the carefully constructed persona he built to draw ratings. Of course, I personally take that with a grain of salt, since he was pretty serious about his Mormonism, and spent the time on his show to present the "theory" that America was one of the places where the 12 tribes of Israel in the Bible went to, becoming the Native Americans and even suggesting that the pyramids were part of the Hebrew culture they took with them. Nevertheless, Beck's show at its height, achieved the highest ratings of any 5PM show around in 2009. Now, it has a third of its viewers from last year, which numbered 3.1 million in 2010. With Beck's increasingly ridiculous rants, the advertisers are leaving by the wayside. Apparently they don't want to me associated with a blowhard prone to crying fits over changes in America he doesn't like, and invoking Godwin's Law repeatedly to people he doesn't agree with, not to mention his tirades are beginning to sound like the right-wing militia groups that emerged in the 90s, and the survivalist sorts. Fox News needs advertising revenue, especially on prime-time and Beck isn't providing that, instead shilling to the gold companies. So they let him go. From prime-time, anyway.

Aw, Glenn, please don't cry. America will survive without your mid-afternoon rants.

So what's new for Beck? well, I told you, he's still got the radio show. As for who'll replace him: Well, I would say I don't care, but considering the warnings Glenn Beck gave that he was only the calm before the storm, I'm actually a little concerned about who's next. So here's a clip I took hosten by some Fox News spongehead:

Also, I think it's again relevant to post this on the blog one more time as in the first Glenn Beck post:

Terry Jones: With Great Attention Came Great Irresponsibility

2011-04-04T10:29:00.000-07:00

Oh, boy. Yet another religion post. Ah, well. Ever hear of Pastor Terry Jones? He is the pastor of a church known as the World Dove Outreach Center in based in Florida.

Terry Jones: The only awesome thing about seeing him on TV, is looking at his moustache.

I actually first became aware of his antics through YouTube when I watched a video by the atheist vlogger known as ""xxxThePeachxxx" posted a video on the Qur'an and book burning. It was then I was informed of this man and his organisation, and his intentions to burn the Qur'an on September 11, 2010: the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, since according to Jones, the book had inspired the terrorist attacks. At this point, I wasn't much of a vlogger myself but if I was, I would've pointed out on YouTube that by his own reasoning, the religious book he uses: the Bible, isn't entirely clean from people doing horrible shit to fellow human beings with this particular holy book being used as inspiration for them:

Now, xxxThePeachxxx's video suggested that as backwards and obsolete of modern-day society as the Qur'an is, burning it is at best, an infantile approach to show your disdain for a book, and at worst purging our collective civilization of manuscripts of ideas and beliefs we once had, for generations to come. During the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" media frenzy in the United States (which wasn't a mosque, nor was it even near Ground Zero of the WTC), I noticed that widespread global media attention actually went to this man and his followers, and it seemed like he was seriously considering this. It was then that several US government officials, no less than Secretary of the State Hilary Clinton; General David Petraeus, the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan; and the commander-in-chief President of the United States Barack Obama himself specifically warning him that his actions could potentially threaten the lives of the soldiers abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would've seemed Terry Jones didn't care and would rather uphold his constitutional right to burn the Qur'an if he so chose, just because; but then he supposedly received a call from the developers of Park51 (aka the "Ground Zero Mosque") informing him that they'll move the building elsewhere, and so he relented. Of course, no such promise was ever made to him, and when this was brought up, Jones tried to turn it into them breaking their fictitious promise. Still, he relented saying he'll move the date and that his point was made (He also received a lucrative Toyota deal if he didn't go through with it).

Turns out he was serious when he said he'll move the date elsewhere. This fucking moron on the 20 May 2011, held a mock trial for the Qur'an, in which he found it guilty of crimes against humanity (or something) and burnt it after dowsing it with kerosene. A member of his congregation filmed the whole trial and the video was uploaded onto the Internet. The world's media caught wind of his new attention-whoring antics and "somehow" that news became within Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reach, who then condemned the Qur'an burning. This news spread and a protest was held on April 1, 2011 in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan; which quickly turned violent with 12 people killed as a result: 5 of them Gurkhas and 3 UN staff members. Terry Jones being the amoral fuckwit he is, bears no responsibility for the protests.

Now this post is going to be my honest opinions on the entire thing. Also what I found is that I can put my thoughts properly when I write it down, so here it goes: Terry Jones, you sir, are an attention-seeking moron. Did you not consider that for one second if you were really as patriotic as you fancied yourself to being last September, then you would've taken heed of the warning of Gen. Petraeus and President Obama of the consequences of your actions? and how it would affect the situation abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq? But you didn't care. You just wanted your 15 minutes of fame, and put it at the expense of the lives of those operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this was your way of finding proof that there is a violent element to Islam that still exists in areas like Afghanistan, my response is: "No fucking shit, Sherlock!" The Taliban is still actually out there. Of course there's violent elements to Islam. It's a religion with a book written 1400 years ago.

Protesters: As much as I find this Terry Jones guy vile, I'm aware you for the most part don't know much about the United States and the Western world in general. And I understand that since you guys have dealt with warlords fighting each other, the Soviet Union invading your country, and being ruled by the Taliban who basically controlled your exposure to the Western society (which is to say they only showed the bad bits and exaggerated them). But one of these days, you must realise that not everyone in the world is going to respect the religion that is predominant in your nation. Not everyone will put the Qur'an on top of the shelf, and that in the West, there are a number of people that will not view your holy book as the source for all morality and even in many cases, find it ridiculous that people in this day and age still use it. In the same way that the accusation is often made that people in the West generalise all Muslims as terrorists because of the sort of media there, you also can't generalise as some homogeneous block where everyone shares the same sentiments. The reality is far from what is presented to you about the way of life experienced in the West and the freedoms you will experience there. Sure, we've been absolute dick things abroad, especially in your neighbourhood, but that still doesn't warrant you to go and kill people you identity to be foreigners, or look Wetsern, or associated with Westerns. All you're doing is legitimizing the Islamophobic sentiments that is becoming a problem in Western culture. If you want people to respect your beliefs, then try to do everything that is within your power, to stop reacting violently. Terry Jones does not give a flying fuck if you burn effigies of him. In fact, he's hoping that you do just that to prove his point. And do not listen to those religious cunts who claim to speak for you and uphold your religion. They are part of the problem, and a significant reason as to why your country can't experience the liberties they deserve. They are even worse than Terry Jones. They are the ones who will tell you to give up your son to them, so that he can fight for some vague, unachievable goal as part of some fictitious Jihad.

And finally, media: I sincerely hope you dickheads had your lulz out of this mustached cunt. Care to explain how someone like Terry Jones was able to get your attention in the first place? Because I sincerely doubt he's that charismatic. I mean, look at the size of his congregation. How an organisation of no more than 50 members, all of them almost as uneducated as an 8-year-old girl under the Taliban were able to get the world's media's attention is beyond me. And worse, before you ask Terry Jones if he feels responsible for the protests in Afghanistan, why don't you take a good look in the mirror and ask yourselves: On what slow day was this newsworthy? Should we pander to attention-whoring pricks like this man? Is it worth pestering government officials on this man's actions? Would these protesters even know about this man if you ignored his attempts to showcase his fundamentalist idiocy on the six-o-clock news? Well, guys it was funny while it lasted (well actually, it wasn't) until people got hurt. So that's my take on this whole sorry affair. Misanthropy is becoming a more promising position when you have: 1. An idiot who can't voice his objection to someone's beliefs without it feeding his own ego, and pyromania; 2. A group of people who get really upset over their shared favourite book being burned that they have to kill someone as compensation (although showing them other, better books that can inspire practical use from its information gained from it); And 3. The media morons thinking number 1. is more interesting enough to report time and time again, until something cool happens. Like 12 people being killed, 5 of them Gurkhas. Awesome(!) There's enough asshole to go around.

So, what have we learned? Burning books are not arguments against them. And if you want respect, stop behaving in a manner that makes it harder for you to get it. Act like your fucking species, please. That's all. See you soon.

UPDATE 06/04/2001: My position has somewhat changed. Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot. However, burning the Qur'an does not kill people. Overreacting to the burning the Qur'an with violence kills people. The media just does what it does and it was pretty inevitable that they'd report on him again after last September. Also, where does the blame go from there, to relations between the West and the Islamic world? No. It begins and ends with the guys who killed innocent people for whatever reason. The real problem is people who cannot behave even in a slightly reasonable manner when their favourite story book is burned. Even if they had a lack of education, I still suspect that the killing of these people wasn't an accident. Shoot, even the Dove World Outreach Center is uneducated, I still think burning a Qur'an harms any diplomatic measures that should be taken. And so the ones who killed those 13 people, are a bunch of cowardly butthurt assholes. What reason was there to react like that and kill those people, none of them are Terry Jones or related to him in any way? Why did you kill the ones who weren't Westerners? And if they should be found and arrested for their actions, what will their excuse to the police?: "I killed those people because someone across the world burnt the Qu'ran"? That's a pretty fucking pathetic reaction to a Qur'an burning, as infantile as it is. If any protesters there do not advocate the murder of these people, then they should distance from them. As I said before, do not allow yourselves to be swept up by cunts who care less about you and your rights than their dogma. They are the ones that have ultimately ruined your country, not the West (well, kinda). So stop overreacting over a book and take personal responsibility.

KW And KP Can't Do E.T.

2011-03-28T14:15:00.001-07:00

So, it's the 28th again, and instead of discussing issues that I find more relevant to this blog, such as the Japan earthquake or my views on the foreign intervention on Libya, I am instead under a self-imposed obligation commenting on the exploits of the talented musician and arrogant, self-righteous manchild, ~~Michael Jackson~~ Kanye West. So what's new this month?: Well, some utterly boring shit related to more music video nonsense. As an update on last month: Turns out that Kanye does in fact care for other people than himself (and his late mother). That shoddy eye-sore of a video that was "All Of The Lights" was noted, adjusted and edited for the sake of the fans that are prone to photogenic seizures. I have to admit that this is very considerate of him since firstly, he recognizes the last 5-10 seconds of his video with flashing colours was downright inexcusable, and he avoids any potential subpoenas from some litigious cad presumably with an incurably awful taste in music (or is perhaps a more seizure-prone version of me). Anyways, he's teamed up with the likes of Katy Perry, who notably when she's not frolicking with Snoop Dogg in the dictatorship of Willy Wonka after taking the wrong to ~~Albuquerque~~ California, likes kissing girls. I know, shock horror, innit? Well, her parents apparently thought so (I get the feeling)...

(She also likes hanging around with Elmo...)

The duo made the song called "E.T." , which was not a homage to a wrinkly alien who can't make his way home nor Steven Spielberg. Now, I've heard the song and I thought, "Well, it's not that mediocre". To be honest, I hardly strive to expect much from pop musicians during this decade. This is probably the best song I've heard all year. That's a lie, by the way. This is the best song I've heard all year:

Anyways, the point is that while the song is out, Kanye and Katy Perry haven't finished working on the video and there was an incident where the video got uploaded onto YouTube before briefly taking it down. From what I can see Katy looks pretty alien (no pun intended, really):

For what's it's worth the lyrics are ridiculous. If Kanye really wanted to take the initiative and rap about how he's a manipulate hypersexual extraterrestrial, he should've dressed in drag and sampled one of the songs from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Damn, I've just revealed the secret!)

Grow back an afro and Kanye could become the black Frank-n-Furter.

(The song Kanye should be sampling or have sampled already)

I'm sorry but some of the lyrics don't make any goddamn sense. An alien is not supernatural, by definition. Those would be ghosts. Or demons. Or genies. Or angels. Or even gods. Allow me to illustrate the difference here:

This is an alien.

This is a god.

This is an alien...AI...thing... (Although you wouldn't have guessed)

This is a...well...God...possibly (This is not looking good...)

He's an alien.

He's a god (Oh, dear...)

He is an alien...god...being...(F-F-Fuck it! I give up!)

Anyways, the point is, the lyrics are silly, but there ways to make a concept video that makes the song that much better. Like "Work It Out" was one of my least favourite songs in College Dropout album before I saw the video. Then it became that much better. I'll update it as soon as it comes out, but I'll say this: There are ways that you can make being an alien with a completely foreign sexuality if that's what your aiming for. Katy Perry to be fair is getting the idea from the looks of it. But looking like an alien who is weirdly sexy isn't enough, since I think that's what the song was going for. You have to adopt qualities that would make for a sexy alien. Like alien fetish fuel. In any case, what I have to say is to an extent, irrelevant since there is always those goddamn morons who are impressed easily by that sort of bullshit, as long as you put a shitty rave techno beat. I just thought that, maybe, just maybe, we can actually to be as creative and amazing as possible. Not this cheap concept laziness, followed by ass-kissing pseudo-reviews simply because you're an established star, and you like the stupid flashing lightings in the vid and you think the star wearing glasses is oh-so-cool.
Anyways, I'll leave you with this video, as a parting note. Bye for now.

"Asshole!"
"Slut!"

UPDATE - 4.3.2011: I just watched the "E.T." video, and it's actually pretty good. It actually redeems the banality of the lyrics. It did everything I hoped it would do, if not more. Kathy Perry as an alien actually evolves into several stages which at least vaguely humanoid. Apart from the last one, which is very humanoid. As for Kanye: No comment (I say that because I'm tired of slagging him off) Sorry, the update came late. Anyways here's the video:

See you soon.

Japan Earthquake: Scales Of Being Pissed the Fuck Off IN One Day

2011-03-14T00:43:00.000-07:00

If you didn't already know, I was angry as I wrote this.

Nature. An impartial and harsh mistress to the affairs and suffering of humanity, who on occasion has very violent fits. It is this perspective of nature that is often avoided by the deeply religious when discussing "divine perfect creation". After all, after such events occur, our species found it to be more comforting to appeal to the invisible beings that is master of whatever natural phenomena occurs. The forefathers what came before us quickly realized that the world around us is a pretty hostile place: Stronger, tougher and faster animals than us, poisonous plants, fevers and diseases, not to mention the natural forces themselves. Faced with the hostility and apparent unpredictability of natural forces, which can be as brief as it is devastating, led our ancestors to assume that unseen magical forces; gods, are behind them. So we conjure up several gods to appeal to. For the sun gods: Ra, Krishna, Apollo, Surya were worshipped across different cultures; for the storms, Raijin, Zeus, Thor, Enlil, Indra, Shango, Set, Raijin,...Yahweh...and gods who create earthquakes, such as Poseidon and Yamazu. Over time, we began to understand these forces for what they are: natural processes, explained by chemistry and physics.

On March 11, 2011, Japan experienced its most powerful earthquake and the world's fourth most devastating, with a magnitude 8.9-9.0 on the Richter scale. In the actual earthquake, Japan did relatively fine for reasons I'll come on to, however, the real killer was the tsunami it brought towards Sendai. A waves between 4 metres and three stories would wipe out entire towns and villages. As of today, around 1,700 people are confirmed dead, with over 1,900 injured and 1,700 missing. with an estimate of casualties reaching tens of thousands. In addition to this, Sendai has around 11 nuclear power plants, six of which are, of have experienced failures. The Fukushima I nuclear reactor had experienced a partial meltdown after there was an explosion at the building, but the reactor itself was not damaged. A similar incident happened on reactor 3 of the plant. As for the Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, all four units were successfully shut down, amidst the earthquake. While it isn't expected to be another Chernobyl, the fears of a full meltdown led to the evacuation of 200,000 people. So yes, things are bad and very tense.

This Sunday has been a pretty crap one, if I say so myself. Not as the crap as those in Sendai, of course. But still pretty bad. Now I regularly watch the program, The Big Questions. There are occasions where it's really good, and those where is just a talking shop. In this week's episode, one of the topics of discussion was whether the Sendai earthquake brings into question a loving God. Since I've come across theodicies long before I did theodicy in religious studies class, my response upon hearing this subject, was this:

For me, it got a little bit worse. You see, there was an Islamic philosopher, Adam Deen claimed that the earthquake in Japan was, of all things, a test provided from the Invisible Almighty himself. Now, I've heard a lot of this stuff from Muslims in my religious studies class, school, Facebook perhaps more times than I heard it from Christians, and I still live in a fundamentalist Christian household (officially). Anyways, my point is: I don't understand why it is when faced a the problem of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, who is somehow able to relate with humanity to the point he is personal, and becomes involved with the physical world through "miracles", often in relatively moderate problems to solve, somehow wants to test millions of Japanese people by permitting a natural disaster to directly kill 1,700 people (as of Sunday 13th), and injure almost two thousands, while forcing hundreds of thousands out of their homes. Sure, you could argue that the survivors could have learned something really important about the human spirit. But then, does it really have to come at the consequence for someone's father, someone's mother, someone's grandparents or aunt's and uncle's, someone's children; who are if not directly killed by the earthquake and tsunami, are missing with no knowing of whether they are even alive or not?

We sit here and make pointless pontifications on the "morality" of an earthquake, when time would be better spent preparing for them, or investigating how they occur or if it already occurred, aiding the ones that have suffered. Surely, it's equally just as plausible that if an entity beyond the physical laws in which he can interfere every so often, isn't it equally plausible such an entity is not only not all-good, but actively malevolent? And personally gives out natural disasters to torture humanity, as it's more fun than outright killing all of them? Also, that such a being would only give out spurious relatively tiny "miracles" to pretend that it/he/she possesses a form of morality? So yes, That's the first form of being a bit cheesed off.

The next form of when I was, once again, pressured to accompany my family so that they can get their "Jesus High". I has hoping nothing stupid was said about the Japan earthquake during my uncomfortable stay. But I was to be disappointed. Turns out the Japan earthquake was predicted, yes, predicted...by the Bible. Funny thing is, Matthew 27:51 was mentioned, which says:

"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"

And it continues on to 27:53 which says:

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into went into the holy city, and appeared unto many".

And then, Hebrews 12:25-29:

"See that ye refuseth not that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised saying, Yet once more signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain, Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."
(They didn't read it in King James but, yeah.)

And, my response was this:

You see, I've actually written on them confusing natural geological activity for prophecies in the same book from people who really didn't have much foresight past the next generation or two. Such as the Icelandic volcano eruption and the resulting ash cloud to which they inconsiderately cite the um, Wrath of God™ for secularization or selfishness or whatever. So it's kinda part and parcel with these people. But this is where I really got cheesed off:

If you don't know, there's a group of jingoistic asshats who've ironically done a great disservice to their country by affecting how people perceive them. You see, these select few Americans thought it'd be okay to spout some nationalistic fervor and claim that the earthquake was just deserved. And this is when I got pissed off:

Apparently, the earthquake was some form of judgement or karmic payback for, of all things, Pearl Harbor. On Facebook:

The censorship was all me. They should be thanking me for protecting their worthless identities from (more) hate.

Yes. Because all Japanese people need to recompense for its Imperialistic outlook introduced by a man who's been dead for over twenty years, publicly apologised, renounced his status as a descendant of Amaterasu (kinda), and had his country under occupation by the Allied forces for over seven years. There's also this little tidbit they'd seem to have forgotten after Pearl Harbor happened, for (*cough*) "karmic retribution":

Yeah. I'd have thought people remember that little incident in their history books. And learned how 80,000 people were killed when the Fat Man detonated at Nagasaki. Perhaps remembering this can put a bit more perspective to those jingoistic nimrods. But never mind me. Here's a reaction to such bullshit from Christian user on YouTube that funnily enough, I actually have time for (And by Christian, this extends into the morality sense. And no, I'm not being sarcastic). Maybe I should be careful about these posts, since I often need to remember that not all religious people are jerks disconnected with reality. So here's her reaction to the donuts who think the earthquake in Japan is "karmic retribution":

So allow me to you guys in: We now know how earthquakes occur. They occur from the build-up of tectonic activity on the two opposing plates, with a sudden release of energy. In this case, the event of one ocean plate being pushed under a plate of land mass, or subduction. As the island of Japan is near the subduction zone, it will receive several earthquakes, and issue out warnings when seismic activity is detected. It is not completely unexpected outside magic books like these...prophecy jerks like to insist, neither is a test, or "karmic retribution". It is a natural event. Granted, it's the most powerful earthquake Japan has ever experienced, but it's a natural event nonetheless. That's all. All we need to do is show our support to the organisations offering to them. Thanks for reading.

Kanye West: Abortion and Seizures

2011-02-28T14:07:00.000-08:00

Kanye West Edition #4. And not a moment too soon.

Recently (as in 25th of February), As promised for the New Year, I started following Kanye West on Twitter. I have to admit that I'm relatively ignorant about how Twitter works and also what my first tweet should be about. But I do have to say that having a Twitter account, and what's more following Kanye West is one of the best decisions I've made online this week. And for that, I'd like to thank Kanye for reminding me why I make these posts on him every month. Nothing do with him doing something personal to me, or really that I have a bone to pick with him. It's simply for the lulz. And Kanye reminded me that he is truly lulzy. And I think Twitter is good for him too. I've especially noted that it's one of the few internet tools where he doesn't write in ALL CAPS. Throughout the weekend I've been observing the...um, rather unique and rare insight into social affairs and the world at large that Kanye demonstrates when he's not making a rap song. For instance, he has rather interesting views on abortion, and seems to be on the same side as a certain Justin Bieber (and his mother). Although his, um, reasoning for this seems to be quite distinct from Bieber's, his mother's and even much of the pro-life movement in general. You see, Kanye West doesn't oppose abortion because he believes that a foetus has a right to life, nor because of God's as-of-yet unexplained plan for the world. He opposes it because he thinks it costs (people like) him money:

(1st lesson about following Kanye West's twitter: Be sure to capture anything he says that are offensive, funny, stupid or all of the above. I learned this the hard way and now it's gone. So thanks to Buzzfeed!)

Uh...It's a bit hard to fully understand what Kanye is saying here. Either that, or he legitimately thinks that there are some women who sleep with wealthy people just so they can take his money and use it for an abortion. Not only this, but he seems to imply that the abortion ridiculously expensive before that's the sole reason why these "gold diggers" will use the money for,...and not much else. Seriously, what on earth is this guy on!?

OK, so Kanye tries to clarify his earlier tweet with this to help those who are confused what he's on about:

OK, so this abortion thing isn't about him but someone he knows. A shame that this explains pretty much nothing.

In any case, for these posts Kanye's been receiving a lot of flak across twitter, most notable of which by Lily Allen. Lily, who's had the misfortune of receiving two miscarriages in the same year, really took Kanye's comments to heart. "Never has a tweet put me in such a bad mood. This is wrong on so many levels." Of course, as you might expect, I agree with Lily Allen, and I completely sympathise with her. Although, while a lot of people are royally pissed off at what "Yeezy" has to say this time, I've since long gone past that, and instead find it to be so insensitive stupid it's funny, if not that, then just confusing.

Nevertheless, I fell I should help Kanye, or rather "the people he knows" out on this abortion thing, because they seem to be little confused. Now I may not fully understand how people do things in America, but I do know how to look for sources on the Internet. A simple Google search like this:

...came up with 8,420,000 results. Now from one of the sources I used, I discovered that in between 6 to weeks of gestation, a woman can expect to pay is $350 at an abortion clinic or $500 at a physician's office. At around 16 weeks, the cost rises to $650 at a clinic and $700 at a physician's office, and at around 20 weeks, the cost rises to $1,000. Also, this source reveals to me that forty-two percent of women who have abortions have incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level (that's $10,830 for a single woman with no children) and 27% of women have incomes within 100% to 199% of the federal poverty level. So Kanye and the anonymous (likely made up) person he knows need not worry about the cost of an abortion for a woman he, or that guy he knows, was involved with. I mean Kanye is a millionaire, so $350, shoot, even $1,000 is pocket change for him. Whoever told Kanye that an abortion costs "50G's" was clearly bullshitting must have been counting on him being a fucking idiot. In fact, I haven't found anything about an abortion costing $50,000, and all sources simply lead up to Kanye's own stupendous ignorance of the cost of an abortion. Or maybe I'm wrong and I didn't account for the possibility that Kanye and "the person he knows" does not live in America and actually lives in a location known only as "Ballin' Nigga's World", where abortions cost anywhere between $50,000 and maybe $100,000, and the only reason why a woman wants to get with a "ballin' nigga" is to spend his money...on an abortion.

If that's the case, then I have a suggestion for Kanye: In order to avoid the injustice of having to spend "50G's" at minimum on an abortion in "Ballin' Nigga's World", you can return to the United States of America, located on Planet Earth, where you can spend at least $350 to the woman "the person he knows" had a relationship with to get an abortion. Also, the possibility of getting condoms which aren't absurdly expensive, if the abortion cost on "Ballin' Nigga's World" is anything to go by. The choice is yours.


"Looks like Kanye's coming home, guys!"

Now speaking of mind-numbing nonsense, I'd like to relate a small story to you readers: 12 years ago, I owned the Guinness Book of World Records 1999. Back then, I was a fan of Pokemon like most kids, but then I learned in the Book of World Records that the anime I liked was responsible for having more children admitted to the hospital than any other programming thus far. The episode "Dennō Senshi Porygon", commonly translated as "Electric Soldier Porygon", featured the protagonists Ash, Misty and Brock in cyberspace battling the criminal organization Team Rocket. To fight off an anti-virus program, Ash (inconsiderate of the children watching his how) orders Pikachu to use "Thunderbolt" on the anti-virus missiles coming their way, creating an explosion, complete with flashes of red and blue lights. The result was that the Japanese Fire Defense Agency reported that 685 children, 315 boys and 375 girls, were taken to the hospital by ambulance with seizures. While most of them recovered during the ambulance trip, 150 of them were admitted to the hospital with two hospitalized for two weeks. A fraction of the 685 children treated were diagnosed with photosensitive epilepsy. It was then I learned that the things that I enjoy watching can potentially give you harm, and then it becomes a question of whether there are things so cool that they are worth getting a seizure over. 12 years later, I'm confident in saying that if it exists, then the video to Kanye West's "All of the Lights" is not one of them.

Now, Kanye West has made some decent, if not, brilliant tracks even since I've stopped describing myself as a fan of his. Shoot, he's made some decent if not brilliant tracks in his latest album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Tracks like "Power", "Runaway", "Lost in the World" are great. I might even tolerate "Monster". But "All of the Lights" is, at least to me, meh. Sorry. It's not all that. And I don't give a flying fuck if it had 14 artists on the track, squeezed into a 4-minute song. If you can barely notice well over half of them, then there's no fucking point, is there? No. So, usually brilliant video producer Hype Williams made a video to the single, managing to make it even worse. The video is an eye-searing, epilectic-inducing, ego-tripping piece-of-shit, and the only reason why if at any stage I found it likeable is apparently because Kanye and Williams had the decency to ~~homage~~ rip-off of the 2009 obscure French film Enter the Void.

Warning: The following videos may potentially onset an episode of seizures. One maybe out of awesomeness, the other...not so much.

While it's great that West at least seems to like that film, it makes no sense whatsoever to rip-off that film to that song. It's like having a fish-and-cheese sandwich. If anything, I'm amazed that Williams, as in the guy who made many of the greatest hip-hop videos of all time, each of them worth the massive budget put into it, especially the Busta Rhymes video "What's it Gonna Be?" featuring Janet Jackson, made this awful video. Dude, What. The Fuck!?

More than anything, I'm interested as to what explanations those in my Facebook (soon to be Twitter), and even those arse-kissing music websites have as to why a video which has seizure-worthy strobe effects, gives a "fuck you" to decent editing, and needs 14 or so people to make a song about having an injunction placed on him preventing him from seeing his daughter, which pays "homage" to a film far too awesome to put on this song? It's practically smack for the eyeballs. I've heard people pretty much say that they like it because of something along the lines of "it's a collab and-a-half". Yeah, and if Kanye had the bright idea to see if it's possible to put 76 separate artists on it, I'll probably hear from the same people practically masturbating to the supposed awesomeness the track would bring, as he magically managed to squeeze it into 7 minutes. "Awesomesauce!"...Yeah.

So until next time readers. Oh, another thing: If there's one thing I want to commend Kanye West for, it's his masterful gambit to try and get his own album banned for the album cover. In doing so would only provide more attention for himself, and create more publicity. And we all know that Kanye is practically the Galactus of attention-whoring. Thanks for reading. In this instance, even this, and especially not the video can save him from that twitter bullshit. Kanye, you're...fun. But please, come back to Earth and stay there this time, please? Thank you.

An Apology Of Sorts...

2011-02-26T23:50:00.000-08:00

Last week, my laptop was finally fixed. It's been a lengthy and frustrating month, until this happened and from then I had to do my blogging from other computers, and the result was fairly predictable. There were a few times that the posts were incomplete. As bizarre as this sounds I sort of of keep a mental timeline on when to publish posts up, so occassionally what would happen is that some are posted before I actually complete them.

Turns out the laptop neither had a problem with its memory of CPU. There was a lot of dust stuck inside the heat-sink, leading it to heat up and shut down whenever it got too hot. This...nuisance was later handled literally last week, and it's fine again. Since then, I realised that almost none of the writings that I announced I would do have been done yet. Most of which can be attributed to the highly inconvenient laptop fiasco, others simply can't and worse, I wanted to write on other stuff as well. Some of which only came to me recently. So, a slightly updated to-do list is in order:

Everything on the Happy New Year's Day article will be done this year as promised. Then there are also a few more nuggets to do:

The Arab protests of 2011
Scintific inquiry and ethics
The case for skepticism

And that's about it. So readers, I'm sorry for it took so long, and things will get better from now on.

Justin Bieber Has A Movie

2011-02-19T00:52:00.001-08:00

Just writing this pisses me off so much, I hoped it'd be shorter than the Kanye West articles .

Two months ago, I wrote the article: Fred Has A Movie; expressing my bewilderment that someone as obnoxious and unenjoyable as the character of Fred was on YouTube, and suggested that several other popular YouTubers warrant a movie before Fred does. Today, I realised to have shot myself in the foot with this one and take back what I said. Yes, that's right: Grammy-nominated, 2010 American Music Award Artist of the Year and 7th most popular woman on the planet: kidrahul, better known outside of YouTube to the world as Justin Bieber, has a movie. The movie is a documentary called Never Say Never, detailing his rise to success by some fluke of a music executive discovering him performing on the tubes, home vids, and of his of-so-fantastic World Tour 2010. Now, as you possibly might expect, this post, like the Fred one before it, is going to less about about the fact that Justin Bieber has a movie, and more about almost everything else. Apart from one thing...

To be honest, I've tried really hard to not dislike the guy. Even settling for indifference altogether. I mean, I at least "dislike" a certain rapper for all the dumb shit he says and much of the post-2007 music he did. He gets his monthly share, anyway. But in the end, I ended up being annoyed by Bieber. Not because of his music, but because he's either a moron or an arsehole. Specifically for many of his views and actions; some of which relate to :(*sigh*, not again...) religion. Perhaps I should give you a clue of what I mean:

Now technically, this one doesn't actually from Bieber himself, but his mother. After reading the Guardian (or G2) column Lost in Showbiz; a delightfully, wise-assed, snarky column that gives mine a run for its money, written by Alexis Petridis (Alexis is male, BTW. He's Greek), I learned that his mother apparently believed that Bieber was sent by God "to bring light to the world". Granted, she didn't actually specify how Bieber would do this, and that sounds like something mothers say. But if we can assume that coughing tepid R&B tunes, then I feel confident in saying that he doesn't quite compare to the likes of Moses, David, Solomon...you know, those guys, let alone, what was his name...oh yes, Jesus. But what do I know? I'm just a snarky, heathenous blogger making posts about things he declares to be bullshit. I mean, for all I know, Justin Bieber could become a special UN envoy or an ambassador of sorts, and bring peace in the Middle East through his music; with Israelis and Palestinians alike agreeing that the one thing they can agree on is that they love Justin Bieber (or perhaps hate as the case may be. After all, it wasn't specified if his music has to be liked to unite them).

Perhaps to strengthen his mother's case, there was a few months the massive flooding of the east coast of Australia. Bieber in response to the suffering experienced by thousands of victims, sent his prayers for them. A nice gesture. Although personally, I'd have thought a more direct response would be sending, you know, money. But then, given what his mother said of him, it's also possible that Bieber being the light of the world had his prayers answered, and God decided to alleviate the suffering experienced 35 dead lives and 9 missing later.

And then, there are these little nuggets on what he does when sufficiently peeved. Q: What do you do when some arsehole hacks into your Twitter account keeps prank-calling you? A: Well, if you're Justin Bieber, you get his phone number, post it on Twitter and encourage your 4 million followers, many of them rabid fans of his, dubbed "Beliebers", to call the phone number. Nice. Thing is, that sort of thing would get him banned from Twitter. Unless your name is Justin Bieber.

Look at how devilishly sweet he is...

There's also the bit when he chucked a water balloon at a police officer, and got away with it. Thanks to his bodyguard...or possibly God came through on that one as well. (Although this example is funny)

Now for Bieber's "astounding" insight into serious issues and the world around him:

On abortion: "I don't believe in abortion. It's like killing a baby."

...except it's not actually killing a baby. It's killing a potential human being i.e. "not-born-yet non-person". Now this might be a rather cold distinction, and I know the abortion debate is a little more complex than this, but I should note that well over 50% of fertilized eggs are discarded before they implant and 25% of pregnancies result in miscarriage. So if we followed specifically Bieber's pro-life reasoning, around 50%-75% of "unborn babies" die under God's watch. Just saying.

On abortion even in the case of rape: "Well, I think that's sad, but everything happens for a reason."

Wow. I'm just glad no-one asked him about in the case of life-threatening pregnancies, specifically ectopic pregnancies.

On politics & international relations: "I'm not sure about political parties, but whatever they have in North Korea, that's bad."

Yes, um, that's...bad. (Good Lady Haruhi! Hasn't he even at least watched Team America!?)
r wasn't reall
Now, some of you might be saying "You're too harsh of him! He's only 16!". To that, I answer there's some of things I realised when I was 16:

At 16, I wished I was allowed to vote for about two years. I thought Tony Blair was a lying sod, and David Cameron was no better. I was a bit curious as to how Menzies Campbell could maintain the policy of removing or at least a reduction of pension plans. I also witnessed Tony Blair step down as Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour Party, who was then succeeded by Gordon Brown...who David Cameron later succeeded as Prime Minister, three years later.

At 16, I was already aware enough of the principles of socialism enough to know that the Labour Party wasn't really socialist, and had an least basic understanding of what Marxism actually was (and for American readers, it is NOT Barack Obama's policies), the different varieties of Marxism, specifically Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism (the last two are almost interchangable), Luxemburgism etc. and was able to identify that North Korea follows the Juche system: a poltical ideology/pseudo-religion based on Neo-Stalinist thought, developed by it's founder Kim il-Sung, and inherited by Kim Jong-il. I also knew they have a practice of shooting citizens that are literally trying to run across the border to Chin...in frosty cold pools, and prior to him becoming head-of-state kidnapped a South Korean film director and throw him in a gulag for seven years simply to make a propaganda film.

At 16, I thought abortion was a little more complex than killing a person inside the womb, whilst when I was 15, the only way I could accept it as necessary is when the woman's life is in danger, or raped.

And finally, at 16, I began to question this "God" character everyone talks about. But that's here nor there.

Granted, I never went out in search for fame, especially by the comic strips I did in my spare time, but that was leaving aside the episodes of depression, I was content.

So what am I saying? Well, even excluding the latter which is pretty irrelevant, considering Bieber's ignorance of almost everything, I have to question the integrity of his marketing team, and how much they can squeeze out of him before he burns out. And more importantly, before he notices anything. I mean, if they were able to convince him that somehow his life story so far, while impressive with Grammy nominee and American Artist of the Year and whatnot, warrants a self-promoting movie, who knows what gimmicky shit they'll pull off next with him. For all we know, his own cartoon or show (possibly reality TV) might be in the process of being made, and a possible comic-books, if they're silly.

"Hi there! True Beliebers!"

In any case, after they've extracted the marketing juice that Bieber gives off, when he does something ridiculous, he'll get dropped like a hot potato, and the adoring public aren't so pleasant anymore. (Shoot, half the public aren't pleasant to him already. Either they're just needlessly mean, or they've grown considerably sick and tired of the music industry's gimmicky pop-teen diabetic nonsense they churn out every two years) Or perhaps to give an example illustrating the cold and cynicism of the pop music/Hollywood market machine, let's look at the life of Britney Spears:

Her rise to stardom began when she joined the Mickey Mouse Club in the 90s, along with Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake. Out of those three, Timberlake seemed to be the one who did very well for himself. Not that Aguilera didn't escape well adjusted, but compared to Timberlake, well...

Anyways, Britney's first hit was "Baby One More Time" in 1999, at age 17, which topped the Billboard 100 List for two weeks, turned platinum and sold nearly half a million copies in the U.K., becoming the highest-selling single of the year and the 25th highest selling single of all time in Britain. And that's not even getting into the album of the same name. between her then four albums, Baby One More Time, Oops I Did It Again, Britney and in In The Zone, each of them with Spears delving further and further into her sexuality, she became one of the highest earning artists of the decade. After making hits after hits after hits, most of which in her early 20s. Then she randomly started marrying three guys at three separate times. Last of which was Kevin Federline, a dancer, who in his own ignorant, self-absorbed way, seemed like he was marrying his way into some stardom plan. Eventually after a messy break-up, Britney had a serious meltdown, following two cases she had to be admitted to the psychiatric ward and the incident when she decided that she could play an enraged Uncle Fester on the obnoxious pararazzi in the vehicle beside in the petrol station, and the cynical media that adored her so much turned against her.

And all of this happened, with this post written all before she turned 30. Although, she was lucky enough to bounce back. Partly because unlike Bieber, she actually writes her songs and decides which ones go in her albums and how they're executed, produces her own videos, and pretty much has reasonable creative control.

There's also the Lindsay Lohan example, but...I don't wanna get in that too much. The point is, Bieber is going to need a lot more staying power if he wants to stay on top. And being a naive little douche doesn't help. If I were him, I'd be either thinking of better songs to write that actually have an ounce of depth to them, or thinking about what would be a suitable investment plans. But if what I've shown is anything to go by, it's doubtful that Justin Bieber knows what an investment is. If anything, if all goes bust, Bieber's mother would probably blame everything on his manager, Scooter Braun, for being a typically manipulative, money-hungry Jew. As opposed to just possibly manipulative, and certainly money-focused. After all, she seemed to be initially dismayed when she found out that Braun was Jewish. Well, if all else fails, at least he can go back to making YouTube videos and playing hockey. Of course, at the possible risk to public safety, simply because of his music, he'd have to disguise himself from the world; preferably a disguise that inspires fear to those around him as he plays hockey:

So while I don't really care for music, perhaps a little media awareness would do the boy some good. Oh, and please, Bieber, please, please, please, please, I'll forgive you of everything that I find irritating about you if you'd just read a book. Thank you.

Valentine's Day

2011-02-14T04:38:00.000-08:00

If you've noticed that I didn't write "Happy Valentine's Day", but simply Valentine's Day instead, then how observant of you. This is because I don't care about Valentine's Day. And with all honesty, I'm curious as to why a holiday that allows you to be special to your significant other only once a year, deserves such warrant. It's rather reminiscent of Jeremih's "Birthday Sex". It's supposed to sound awesome, but it's not. as Todd In The Shadows said: "The only reason why 'Birthday Sex' would be so special, is if you were so bad at sex for the rest of the year!". Likewise with St. Valentine's Day. Come on! Seriously, folks. What was wrong with all the other days to show special affection? The anniversary of your relationship: Marriage or otherwise? (To be fair that might've been on Valentine's Day for some people), Your partner's birthday? (Again, might be on Valentine's Day) Special night out for being so special? Next thing you know, there'll be some R&B jackass signing "Valentine's Day Sex", or something, as if that has any special awesomeness to it. And thousands of teenage girls and boys will buy it like every other superficial, regurgitated commercial pop-crap they can't get enough of. But since I'm on the topic, I might as well explain where the (alleged) origins of the holiday came from:

The Legend of St. Valentine

According to medieval legend, St. Valentine was a Christian under persecution and interrogated by Emperor Claudius II of Rome in person. Claudius II or Claudius Gothicus was infamous for his penchant for cruelty, having rumoured to knocking out the teeth of a horse with one punch, and knocking out the teeth of his opponent when they grabbed his balls in (real) wrestling.And that's terrible. So, a cruel bastard like him interrogating someone would probably look something like a Roman-style Jack Bauer interrogation moment, or even Captain Vidal from Pan's Labyrinth. Claudius II was apparently impressed with Saint Valentine and tried to get him to convert to the Roman faith. St. Valentine refused, and instead tried to convert Claudius II into Christianity. For this, St. Valentine was executed by being beaten to death with clubs, but not before healing (supernaturally, of course) the blind daughter of his jailer. Variations include St. Valentine being beheaded instead, and the jailer's blind daughter being St. Valentine's love interest, writing the first "valentine" card himself to her from prison before his execution, which read, "From your Valentine". Although no evidence for any saint named Valentine or Valentinus and a love letter existed.

The First Valentine's Day...sorta.

The first association of Valentine's Day with romantic love was in 1382 in Geoffrey Chaucer who wrote:

For this was on seynt Volantynys day
Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.

(For this was sent on Valentine's Day; When every bird comes to meet his mate.)

The poem that Chaucer wrote was meant to honour the marriage between King Richard II of England to Queen Anne of Bohemia. The treaty providing for a marriage was done on 2 May, 1381, with them marrying eight months later. They were both 15. In 1797, the Young Man's Valentine's Writer was published in Britain, in which several suggestions of sentimental verses for the young lover unable to form his own. Printers had already begun a limited series of cards with verses and sketches called "mechanical valentines", and as postal rates got cheaper, more of these valentines could be produced and, better yet, able to be exchanged anonymously. And so, a holiday initially based on the myth of a sacrificial love of a victim of religious oppression became this commercialised cheap concept of love, in which companies and businesses make millions in profits selling flowers, chocolates, stuffed animals, cards, and other such crap under some pretense that true love is based on what you can buy them in mid-February. Pretty much like most Western holidays, actually:

Also, another interesting thing happened on the 14th February. No, not Salman Rushdie receiving his fatwa for writing the Satanic Verses (although that did happen). Ever hear of Al Capone?

A little conflict between his mob and the North Side Irish gang, led to five members of the latter, plus two non-members to be murdered within the garage of 2122 North Clark Street in the neighbourhood of Lincoln Park in Chicago. It is alleged that Al Capone ordered the hit on North Side gang members, and also that some of Capone's men and/or men that Capone hired from outside the city were responsible. Of course, "Stop Snitching" was already a burgeoning concept back then. When one of the dying men, Frank Gusenberg was asked who shot him, he replied "Nobody shot me"...even though he had 14 bullet wounds. So, if your significant other is into hip-hop, or quite fond of concepts and names being cheapened by commercialism, be sure to buy 50 Cent's Valentine's Day Massacre, for Valentine's Day. It'll be the most romantic thing ever.

"Oh, baby! This is the most romantic present ever!"

Have a great day, and try not to confuse any foreigner with the concept of "wuv".

(Sorry this took so long if you've already seen this,. Problems with the laptop)

My Brother, The Fraudster

2011-01-28T22:58:00.000-08:00

This will be a brief interruption to my monthly schedule, to tell you a brief personal story. Now, last month before Christmas (and sometimes after Christmas). I've bought a lot of stuff. Many of which to be either comic books, manga, or even the Biggie & Tupac documentary made by Nick Broomfeld. But then, I was surprised to discover that I also bought quite a few stuff that I didn't want, or even know about. For instance, some headphones, something related to a website or online company called "Flower Girl", and some transaction to a random kid I don't know about and he isn't a charity case. This is because I didn't buy those things at all. My younger brother did on behalf of myself.

It's possible that he's been up to this since soon after Christmas. Basically , him and his dimwitted friends thought it a good idea to buy superficial crap for each other. Not content with the idea he probably has over a hundred pounds already, but doesn't have a debit card to buy stuff online, used mine instead. So, with the card, he bought a pair of special headphones for his iPod. An iPod, mind you that only he has, and nobody else. But those headphones weren't just regular headphones, Oh no. No, he bought a set of headphones promoted by Dr. Dre. Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you the iBeats Headphones with Control Talk by Dr. Dre. Now I invite you to look at this and tell me they are they are worth £79:00:

What's more, he also somehow gave money to one of his friends that I've never seen in life, and that cost me £24.99. Perhaps even funnier and more relevant to me writing this article is what he and his friends thought about purchasing:

Know what this is? It's a Black Jesus necklace! The type worn by hip-hop "icons" like Jay-Z, Tinchy Stryder and none than Kanye West!

While I could speculate on their...unusual taste in jewellery, I mean I still don't understand why it could warrant £40 on eBay, it still astonishes me that the influence of music artists is enough for young minds to even consider purchasing such nonsense. I mean, if Kanye West, Jay-Z or Tinchy Stryder never wore stuff like that across their necks, it would be just another shitty blacked-out necklace. In any case, I now took several measures to ensure it doesn't happen again, which included, but wasn't limited to going to the bank and having my card changed, and having an online account. Funny enough, I was receiving money from my brother, without being aware for what purpose exactly, since he didn't have the balls to me he's been using my card. "Uh, at least you got the money back!". Nice.

I can now officially say that I really dislike Kanye West after all of this. I mean, my money wasn't used to buy one of his shitty necklaces, and he's not the one who tells anyone to buy anything. But really, if you're going to endorse crap, why don't you make it clear that what you're endorsing is crap?

(Apologies for finishing this late. Having problems with my laptop. Still not using my laptop).

"Your Arms Too Short To Box With God" - O RLY?

2011-01-28T05:46:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to avoid making too many posts about religion, as evidenced in my last post and the fact I took a bit of a break from posting any thing. However, it seems to come with the territory when you come from a family of Fundamentalist Christians. And I accept as a form of consolidation, that I did actually put whatever interest I had in religion to good use, such as in my A-Levels. This is going to be the first in a two-parter which I hope to finish today. They will revolve around the claim that serious events of concern to the world, and also lesser ones are allegedly responded to with God's wrath, particularly if they make boastful claims challenging the authority of God,; some of God's masterful gambits for retribution up to even decades or centuries. I don't know whether to be amused or disturbed every time I hear this rhetoric. The funny thing is, all this suggests is that the Abrahamic God is not completely beyond humanity as commonly claimed, and is rather anthropomorphic.

Several months ago, I received a typically evangelist message about the consequences of tempting fate, sorry, God-goading and basically rejecting the religion who can presumably only find the true God in. It read as follows:

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDNT TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....
Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

'Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap.

Here are some men and women who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

'Christianity will end, it will disappear.
I do not have to argue about that. I am certain.
Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ),
while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:'God, that's for you.'
He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

The man who built the Titanic,

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:
'Not even God can sink it'
The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.
He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.
After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

'I don't need your Jesus'.
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment

Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
'Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'.
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.'
She responded: 'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full '

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died,
the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.
In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.
Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive.

'Jesus'

You are my 8 in 8 seconds. I am not breaking this. No way!

I'M TOLD THIS WORKS!!!!! Bishop T.D. Jakes '8 Second Prayer.' Just repeat this prayer and see how God moves!!

'Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me, my family, my home, and my friends, in Jesus' name. Amen.'

Funny thing is, I was actually aware of quite a few of the examples there. Such as the John Lennon one (of course) and the Marilyn Monroe one. I can only speculate this was meant to purport the idea that not even the famous are beyond God's judgment. Now, because I consider the person who sent this a friend (although I do think he may have received this from another e-mail), I didn't give a typically sarcastic godless response to each and every one of those points...which I'll do now. What I did, instead was arguably worse. I replied how much the message meant (but didn't let on that I thought it was actually an utterly pointless thing to send, and only reinforces the beliefs of those who share yours), before giving him the links to a documentary I discovered called Marjoe, the story of a child evangelical preacher, who upon growing up and getting involved with the hippie movement in the late 1960s, returns to his former role as an evangelical preacher when he's short on cash...only to expose the tricks of the trade. I actually laughed throughout watching the film, escepially at the fact that he talks to his fellow preachers as if they're on a similar level, when his actul view of them to his personal friends isn't particularly high, and rather condescending. My friend was actually...less than pleased he watched the film. I mean, I couldn't blame him. The guy was an obvious douche; manipulative and selfish. Although, considering where he was and what he was doing, I found it understandable, perhaps even acceptable. But I digress...

So yes, Allow me to post this again, and pretty much dissect every point on that e-mail. Now,...AGAIN!:

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDNT TILL NOW

Well, to be honest, I kinda did...

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Yeah, so what? Untimely death is such a subjective term. The only reason why we now consider it to be untimely is because we expect people to be alive tomorrow and the next day after that. The fact that death sometimes comes suddenly and unexpected only reflects our inability to have any foresight that resembles precognition-Oh, right, you believe in people who do have this ability but is provided by God, don't you? No wonder, you use terms like "untimely" as if they are meaningful. Think of it this way: Michael Jackson died at age 50. This is considered by many to be an untimely death, since if he kept healthy, and wasn't addicted to anti-depressants (or have a negligent personal doctor...) he would've possibly lived to at least 70 years of age. The average world human lifespan is 67.2 years of age. However, in Medieval Britain, the average lifespan was at least over 30 years (38-59 for aristocrats). It's only due to the advances of medicine, hygiene and technology that many of us even survive past childhood. Shoot, nearly a century ago, in the early part of the 20th Century, the average human lifespan was between 30-45 years. The medical and technological advances since then have increased the average human lifespan by 20 years. Of course, this probably disqualifies many of the figures in the list said to have "untimely deaths" by the standards of the early 20th century.

Make a personal reflection about this.....
Very interesting, read until the end.....

Actually, to be honest, it wasn't that interesting. Sorry. And yes, I did make personal reflection. I still don't consider the deity you pray to worthy of worship. Especially after this list...

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

'Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap.'

Personally, I find it astounding that Yahweh is actually concerned by the comparatively tiny affairs of humanity. You claim he's omnipotent, and he gets offended by mocking!? Why? If I had that kind out of power, and existed beyond this realm, do you think I'd concern myself with the thoughts of creatures who are to me less in comparison than you are to a microbe? Yahweh sounds...insecure.

Here are some men and women who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

'Christianity will end, it will disappear.
I do not have to argue about that. I am certain.
Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Interesting you should mention that, because that quote wasn't a mockery of God at all. He was simply suggesting that in terms of influence, his band receives more attention than Christianity. In the UK. And judging by the fact that virtually no-one made a furor over it in the UK, it would seem he was right. During this interview, but it only became big news months later in August 1966, by some American radio show host, and then banning the Beatles' music in several states, encouraging teens to burn copies of the Beatles' albums, protests, and ensue massive hysteria, allowing this (over)reaction to spread top Mexico, and even South Africa. Lennon eventually (sorta) apologised for his remarks (not that he had to), and clarified them in full:

Lennon: I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have gotten away with it, but I just happened to be talking to a friend and I used the words "Beatles" as a remote thing, not as what I think - as Beatles, as those other Beatles like other people see us. I just said "they" are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus. But I said it in that way which is the wrong way.

Reporter: Some teenagers have repeated your statements - "I like the Beatles more than Jesus Christ." What do you think about that?

Lennon: Well, originally I pointed out that fact in reference to England. That we meant more to kids than Jesus did, or religion at that time. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this.

Reporter: But are you prepared to apologise?

Lennon: I wasn't saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologise if that will make you happy. I still don't know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologise, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry.

So as you can see, context is very important. I should also especially note that it was the Sixties i.e. a time of social unrest. However, in this case, the uproar was in my view, unwarranted. I find it amazing that the radio show hosts and any other influential figure that cried outrage thought it more important to use whatever influence they had to rally the youth into a frenzy over some perceived insult to the sky daddy they worship, instead of rallying them against the real injustice against fellow human beings because of their skin colour. Talk about getting your priorities skewed:

No outrage neccessary, kids...

Outrage necessary! He blasphemed against our God! You've got to get mad, kids!

And to makes things worse, Christian spokesmen in the U.K. , believe it or not, actually sided with Lennon on this. Why you ask? Because they realised he was talking about the decline of Christianity in the U.K., not his group's superiority to it. It's not even a big claim. It's an observation. Isn't that what you fundamentalists always talk about? How people and sometimes, yourselves, treat X more important than God? "We treat the Simpsons like it's more important than God!" "We treat the X Factor like it's more important than God!" "We treat Snoop Dogg like he's more important than God! And he sold his soul to the devil!" And it's funny when I point out that someone serious nutters targeted him like the Ku Klux Klan and Mark David Chapman, who actually killed him over this, what's the response? It's this No True Scotsman cop-out like, "Oh, they weren't Christians. Christians don't kill! They weren't true Christians!" Hypocrisy, much? But it's nice to know God's sense of justice is to use a mentally ill member of his flock to murder Lennon for such blasphemy...

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

So God allowed him to win, and then kill him? Your God has a disturbing sense of humour. But let's observe this using, you know, rational and naturalistic explanations. Neves was an old man, around 71 at his death. He had a history of abdominal problems. He went through seven operations, and perhaps more to the point, he lasted a month as President, not a day.

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ),
while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:'God, that's for you.'
He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

I'm curious as to how you can consider that to be disrespectful to God in any way. Yes, he was addicted to smoking, but it's pretty obvious that he's showing his respect to God by doing that. He envisioned a concept or perception of God that would be satisfied with smoking. Just as you envisioned a concept of God that is wiling to smite someone over blowing tobacco smoke. Or perhaps God had no problem with the smoke. Perhaps he decided to kill him because he swings both ways, isn't it? If anything, no offence but I think you have a rather disturbing conception of a petty God, who would kill you over things that don't harm him but are harmful to you. Oh, and Cazuza died of AIDS, not lung cancer. Again, it goes back to God not being tolerant of sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, right?

The man who built the Titanic,

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:
'Not even God can sink it'
The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.

Agreed. God sure loves a challenge! It's too bad he had to allow children on board, and everyone else to drown just because of one man's blasphemous boast. But I suppose God loves killing people for other people's failings...even if they aren't failings, but stuff that personally offends him. Actually, what am I talking about? NO ONE EVER DESCRIBED THE TITANIC AS UNSINKABLE! THAT QUOTE IS COMPLETELY MADE UP, YOU JERKASS!!

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.
He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.
After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

'I don't need your Jesus'.
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment

I should note that Billy Graham, celebrated figure among the evangelist movement, has also been the centre of controversy for his anti-Semitic remarks in 2002, after the "Richard Nixon tapes" were declassified. Graham claimed that the Jews are in control of all American media, referring it to a "stranglehold".

"They're choking the life of honest, good Christian folk with the evil Satanic influence of the media!"

It amuses me that this man is considered by a Gallup poll to place number 7 in "The Most Admired People in America". Personally, I would've thought a much more worthy and decent Christian would reach the list. In fact, I think this figure should be number 1. His name is Fred McFeely Rogers (If you don't know who he is and are asking if that's his actual name, the answer is yes):

The nicest man ever to grace the TV. But beneath the smile is...a heartwarming, doting parental figure.

Also, I feel like noting that Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism in the later years of her life. Considering Graham's remarks, I find all of this funny, although I doubt that Graham even said anti-Semitic claims to Monroe, that this conversation you're talking about happened or even that they met at all. Still, Graham claims he doesn't recall those remarks, and has apologised of being linked with them, anyway. But I suppose the likes of you wouldn't suspect Billy Graham to be an anti-Semite at all, do you? It's probably slander directed at him, right? Pretty much like this entire letter basically defecates on the dead on behalf of God.

Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
'Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'.
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

OMG! He predicted his own death! And I thought Tupac originated that shit! He even told us where he's going to in the afterlife! Yeah, lets ignore the fact he was a heavy drinker, and abused drugs. Let's ignore the fact that choking on your own vomit, often happens when you mix a cocktail of alcohol and drugs and sleep. Let's increase the tally points for Yahweh in his little hit-list, but still argue he's worthy of worship, because there's no way you can accuse him of being a psychotic, vindictive, petty mass-murderer is there!?

Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.'
She responded: 'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full '

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died,
the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

So, what's the moral of the story? God is usually found in car trunks to the faithful, and give his magic protection there if he finds you drink driving. In fact, he will not extend his protection at all. He'll only save those in the trunk if you say the magic words: "Only if He Travels in the Trunk, Cause Inside Here, It's Already Full." And like a genie, or Shen Long from Dragon Ball, he'll grant your deepest desire (e.g. save my life from drink-driving idiots). Oh, that's right...this story is completely made up!

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.
In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

To be honest, I have to disagree with the late Christine Hewitt's opinion on the Bible. Yes, it's filled with bullshit, but it's not the worst book ever written. But again, if that's God's response to negative opinions on the Bible, then that only indicates he's a bully, not a saviour.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.

Other than Krishna, Odin, Buddha, Zeus, Amaterasu, Ra, Haruhi...

Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive.

Like Krishna...and L. Ron Hubbard....

'Jesus'

You are my 8 in 8 seconds. I am not breaking this. No way!

I'M TOLD THIS WORKS!!!!! Bishop T.D. Jakes '8 Second Prayer.' Just repeat this prayer and see how God moves!!

'Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me, my family, my home, and my friends, in Jesus' name. Amen.'

So, it's about a call to T.D. Jakes' ministry. Sorry, but I'd have to say thanks, but no thanks. But you guys don't take no for answer, so here's my real response. It's in two parts: Firstly, I have a story of my own, and like yours, it's possible it isn't true, as it is after all, a rumour. But here it goes:

The mathematician and strident atheist G. H. Hardy was traveling across the ocean by boat, but beforehand, he sent a postcard claiming to his colleague Littlewood in Cambridge saying that he had proved the Riemann hypothesis. However, a massive storm ensued. Even so, Hardy arrived safely in England at which point he revealed that he hadn't really proved it, and had just blackmailed God by ensuring if the storm had killed him he would have become famous for dying before the proof was known (as Fermat was famous for himself with his last theorem) and thus God would have made His enemy famous.

And the second message to your followers, you apologists, and your God:

So, true believers, the moral of the story is ~~Batman~~ God knows where you live. But if you're sick and tired of being told to do stupid things for his own satisfaction, if you're tired of being ruled by a passive-agressive overlord, if you're tired of many of his most obnoxious followers of being morally inconsistent, while self-righteously harping on about your defects and claiming you need this...psycho as your master, than metaphorically moon this undeserving deity for being a Peeping Tom and claim a superior way of life than provided by this cosmic bully. Good day, and don't do anything I wouldn't.

"That's for leaving me on the cross, asshole!"

(To be continued....)

The Gunman And The Politics Blame Game

2011-01-15T07:31:00.000-08:00

Now, I don't make a habit of discussing politics on this blog. Not because I'm not interested in it. Far from it. I have my own political views, but I don't feel the need to allow it to bleed on a blog called "Opposing Bullshit", unless someone is blatantly spouting bullshit, or crap ideologies catch a story e.g. Communists and Fascists. Although, I have to discuss this topic because it's been burning. So here it goes:

Last week, on January 8, 2011, a shooting occurred in Tuscon, Arizona in the United States, leaving six people dead and 14 injured. The target was U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of the 8th Arizonian District, who received a bullet to the head.

Fortunately, she survived and as of this post, she is reported to be in stable condition. However, she is the closest member of Congress to die in office since Larry McDonald who was aboard the Korean Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptor aircraft in 1983. the major suspect, Jared Lee Ettinger was almost immediately caught and brought into custody, charged with attempting to assassinate a member of Congress (which in his state, could result in the death penalty), killing of a government employee and attempting to kill a federal employee.

What followed next on the news was a furor of classic bullshit, and that's ignoring the report that Giffords had been killed, which is understandable. For instance, while there was call for the reduction of vitriol in the political debate from both sides, what occurred was speculation on whose side it was at fault for the shooting, and whether the left or the right was at blame. Right-wing mouthpiece Fox News suggested that the left was at fault for what occurred for being too aggressive, somehow. Which is ironic since Fox News has some of the most blatant fear-mongering I've seen in any Western media outlet that claims to present the news. You only need to take a look at Glenn Beck. But more on him later. On the other side of the spectrum, the Tea Party movement was received blame for the shooting because of the rhetoric and far-right beliefs they present. Some of the members even received hate mail telling them they can "burn in hell". While this does seems plausible, since its influential representatives have used rhetoric and imagery that is based on pure paranoia, and bordering violent: it's still based on very little. Sarah Palin's target poster notwithstanding (Oh, and before you tell me she took it down from her web page, it's still on her official Facebook page).

I mean, the Tea Party movement are filled with nothing but ignoramuses. But before we start blaming them, can you explain which Tea Party member would consider reading Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, when they hold posters like this?

Shoot, come of think of it, do you think you find much of the Tea Party who even like reading? (I mean there's a few, but):

And I know that the suspect's views seem to come from the Tea Party, but to be honest, with the selection of books he's been reading, it's hard to say exactly on which side's behalf he did this for. I mean, it's not just Mein Kampf and Das Kapital he read (the latter is a pretty serious book to read), he also read Plato's Republic (I have also, and I don't feel the need to bust a cap in Nick Clegg's ass) and Ayn Rand's We the Living. This doesn't imply Democrat or Republican at all. What it implies is his political views can be summed up as "fuck the government". Yes, he carried some extremist views, but they had nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing, but everything to do with, surprise, surprise...conspiracy theories. Loughner seemed to believe that the United States Government were responsible for 9/11, and that the formation of the New World Order was soon arriving, with a one-world currency, ; and finally that, the government was brainwashing people by controlling grammar. So he's not likely to vote for either Obama nor Palin for president. But Alex Jones.

Would you trust this man to run your country?

So it amazes me that even it has been largely agreed not to have such a heated political climate, the talking heads insist on assigning responsibility to partisan politics, instead of fringe politics. Loughner also had a history of psychological problems, known for saying utterly erratic statements, and as known by his friends to abuse alcohol and drugs. I mean really, this is a just like the 1995 Oklahoma bombing. Timothy McVeigh was also paranoid of the government, and the threat of his liberties been taken away by them, only Timothy McVeigh wasn't as mentally ill as this guy. Loughner also outweighs McVeigh in the creepy mugshot department:

If anything, this demonstrates rather visibly the dangers of paranoid beliefs that cannot be verified. Oh, and for those you who insist in calling him an atheist over been quoted as saying "He doesn't trust God", when if you look closely at the full quote, it is a criticism of the United States currency. Loughner was apparently a Patriot conspiracy theorist. He believes that money "not backed by gold or silver" is illegitimate, and had plenty of criticisms of the Federal Reserve as an organization held on by private owners. From what we know, Loughner way be indeed, critical of religion. But his criticism of religion seems to stem from the conspiracy theories he has come to accept, specifically Zeitgeist: The Movie, which alleged that Jesus is a mythical character stemming from the Horus myth...which is crap (and I'll address soon in my conspiracy theory series).

Also, even if he was , I'm more than happy to accept him along the fold. Just as I also accept Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Gene Ray. So long as you accept Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and Pope ~~Palpatine~~ Benedict XVI.

Unfortunately, while the blame isn't really Sarah Palin's in this instance, since there's plenty of evidence that Loughner was already obsessed with Giffords enough as it is, Palin did target her in the aforementioned poster, which Giffords commented on. Also, her attempt to hit back at critics suggesting that those who claim that she influenced the attacker in any way, have given her a "blood libel", which was...not the best choice of words you could use in this situation. For those who don' know, a blood libel is the false accusation that specific religious groups, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in rituals. Considering that Giffords is a Reform Jew, to say Palin's words were in bad taste would be an understatement.

To summarize, the biggest danger in the climate of politics is allowing stupid, paranoid beliefs and especially the personalities who beam them. These rambly nutjobs have a dangerous influence to the unstable, and should be challenged wherever they're found on every pile of bullshit they spout. Also, while this time, the fervently right-wing advocates seem like they are not to blame, they should try no to make it about them being assaulted or attacked by people. You're not the one who received a bullet to the head, so have some sensitivity please.

Happy New Year!

2011-01-01T07:44:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the New Year! If you're reading this, then I've taken a break from blogging here for a while. But here's what to expect for 2011 once I return:

An observation on Japan and religious customs.
More Kanye West monthly posts.
The FUBU religion series, including the Nation of Islam, and the one religion/cult that's even weirder than Scientology.
A post on Christopher Hitchens.
Addressing conspiracy theories, and those who make them up, with particular focus on Alex Jones.
A Guide to Agnosticism.
A Guide to Atheism.
An analysis on the Satanic ritual panic, and an explanation as to what Satanism actually is.
A sequel to "The Gospel of Yoko Ono".
Addressing misconceptions of Eastern religions.
A post on Satya Sai Baba...with the bullshit he pulls.
Addressing fallacious thinking and assumptions made...by atheists.
A post on my heroes.

And that's all I can think of at this moment. But I do have at least two New Year's Resolutions, in relation to this blog. They are:

~~Make more than 9 posts this year~~. (DONE)
~~Follow Kanye west's twitter without him suspecting who I am.~~ (DONE)

So see you soon.

Spiritual Death vs. Actual Death

2011-01-01T05:50:00.000-08:00

Based on my essay "The Soul Dillemma: The Christian Version".

I've noted during the brief existence of this blog that I've developed something of a bully pulpit towards Christianity. And that's..pretty unfortunate. Kinda. Then again, if many of its followers weren't so adamant at shoving their beliefs down everyone's throats, I wouldn't make such an issue about it. Even with Western culture behind them, and a following of 2.2 billion, many of its advocates still find reason to spread the religion everywhere. And that's despite the fact that a key part of the religion is its eschatology: that a chosen faithful few (possibly 144,000) will ascend to Heaven to be with Jesus after the Last Judgment, while the rest burn in the deepest pit of hell for eternity. This eschatology, mind you was likely believed to occur during the life of its supposed author, John of Patmos. But that never stopped the spreading of the stories within the Bible across the world, and its application as if they were real. And it certainly didn't stop the development of several methods of emotional blackmail and exploitation of deep-seated fears to gain more followers. Although I have say there were some pretty bad arguments for Christianity. And so, for this New Year's, allow me introduce you to the concept of spiritual death. Which is...arguably the saddest argument for Christianity I've ever come across.

So to explore spiritual death, we have to explore the concept of the spirit, or the soul. It's used interchangeably (although not the last time I came across it). The spirit was (and is) believed to be part of the soul; an incorporeal essence which all living beings are said to have, and in the case of religions such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are immortal, and as such,a re the only parts of our existence which will survive death. The Hebrew beliefs about the soul are that God give out souls by "breathing life" into humans as stated in Genesis 2:7: "And the LORD formed man of the just of the ground, and breathed into the nostrils of the breath of life; and man became a living soul.". Now, the ancient Hebrews did not believe in any sort of an afterlife. Which is why Yahweh's punishment for various offences in the Old Testament, were "simply" described as death. And an often horrible one at that. However, Hellenistic thought which influenced Christianity, introduced the concept of the soul and/or spirit to the Abrahamic religion, and an existence even surviving death became a key part of its doctrines. And to prove it is in fact, Hellenistic thought, let me give a brief outline of the dynamic between the body the soul, or the material and immaterial world according to Platonic thought.

According the Plato, the material wold is an illusionary construct, with the real world being the World of Forms. These 'forms' are idealised and perfect versions of all things, that we only see replicas of in this material world through outlines. e.g. we see several dog breeds and species of the dog family, so there must be the "Form of the Dog", there's also the "Form of the Human", the "Form of Colours", and as the ultimate source, the "Form of the Good". The body, being material, according to Plato cannot access universal truth, experiencing only shadows, but the soul can experience the former, and will only fully do so once you die.

Compare this to Christianity; You aren't your body, you are your soul. Your soul is given to you to the ultimate spirit, God. You, as in your soul, exists inside a material body, and once you die after you live as a Christian, go into Heaven; a place forever united with God, in a blissful existence. Only there's a figure involved with this transition: it's Jesus Christ.

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, so that he that believe in him, shall not die, but have everlasting life."
Romans 2:7: "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life."
2 Timothy 7-10: "So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

But this is where Christian evangelists shoot themselves in the foot, by introducing spiritual death: The concept that even if it's immortal, your spirit or soul can die if you've been naughty. So where does this concept of spiritual death come from? Well, those who refer to it often cite these passages:

Genesis 2:16-17: "And Yahweh commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 3:8-9: "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, 'Where art thou?'"

Mark 15:33-34: "And the sixth hour has come, there was darkness across the whole hand until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani? (My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?)'"

Ephesians 2:1: " And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins"

Ephesians 4:18: "They darkened in understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, and hardening of their hearts."

Colossians 2:13 "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave all your sins."

There's also some other stuff in Revelation about a "second death", which I'm not even gonna touch with a stick, since Revelation was written by someone who seemed like he was having a bad trip.

Most of the passages look like they have fuck-all to do with spiritual death when read at face value. Which is weird because many of those who use this doctrine are fundamentalists and Bible literalists, which more or less, exposes their hypocrisy.

Firstly, I'm rather familiar with the Adam and Eve tale, as I'm pretty sure that God claimed they'd literally die, but Adam went on to live to 930. That story also had a talking snake (later retconned to Satan) but that's neither here, nor there. I would've thought that extrapolating from that story (despite its obvious glaring flaws) that death was meant in a physical sense, and Adam and Eve were originally immortal, but cursed themselves, if they really wanted to reconcile their extended age and God's warning. But many go with spiritual death as an explanation. Oh well.

Also, God's omniscience somehow seems to be limited to "spiritually alive" people by this logic. Which is weird because how could God smite people if he can't see sinners/'spiritually dead' people?

Jesus during his crucifixion upon taking in the sin of humanity, well, he actually made himself a substitute for Judgment against humanity, notes God's absence. Apparently since he's taken in all the sin, He's probably "super-spiritually dead", which is somehow possible if you're God and the greatest human to have walked the earth.

The last three address "spiritual death" (kinda). I'm more inclined to think that Paul of Tarsarus when he wrote this, didn't mean people's spirits/souls are literally dead, but have such a new life in Jesus, their "past life" might as well have been dead, hence the term "born again". Then again, since it's wonderfully misanthropic, he may have meant it. It may highlight how much better life under Christianity is, so it would be used as a good tool. In any case, compare notions of the spirit with the most important organ within the human body: The brain.

The brain is the centre of the central nervous system and the organ which co-ordinates sensory input, motor activity and behaviour. I'll come on to that latter in a few moments. The largest part of the brain; the cerebral cortex, can be split up into two halves: the left and right hemisphere, which can be further split up into four cortical divisions: the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, the occipatal lobe and the temporal lobe, with the cerebellum joining the two hemispheres. While initially believed to be just another organ, over the past few centuries, it's been understood that our intellect, or rather our cognitive faculties are produced by the brain, specifically the cerebral cortex. For instance, Paul Broca's research into speech recognition led to the discovery of the area of the brain responsible for speech, by performing an autopsy of a boy nicknamed "Tan", because the only word he was capable to saying was "tan" due to a speech disorder; who died from syphilis. It was discovered that boy had lesions in a specific area of the brain, now referred to as Broca's area, located in the parietal lobe.

Also, in recent times, notions such as personality or self, and ultimately the consciousness, have received good supporting evidence for the explanation that they are products of the brain. With the former, the example of 19th century rail-road worker Phineas Gage, who in an accident had a iron rod rocket through his skull. While miraculously surviving (and I mean miraculous in a fairly loose term considering what happened to him), he turned from a polite hard worker, to a rude irreverent drunk. In other words, the life story of Barney Gumble, with a pole-blasting-through head misfortune. This seems to challenge any idea of a fixed persona called a "soul" or "spirit".

As for the latter, the link to this documentary shows an experiment which causes a critical wound to any Cartesian notions of mind-body dualism...by showing what one would look like, and giving a physicalist explanation for it. Death is clinically recognised as the cessation of electrical activity in the brain. Technically, everyone dies of "brain death", be it an elderly person suffering cardiac arrest resulting in a lack of oxygen and nutrients to the brain, or a gunshot wound to the head, resulting in brain death, it's same diagnosis. Brain death when the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly loses all function. This is not to be confused with a coma or a persistent vegetative state, in which there is some degree of brain function going on. Even in the latter, the reflex activity demonstrated is brain activity. Brain death does not feature any activity at all, or responses from the victim. Once the 100 billion neurons stop firing, that's all she wrote. Thus, brain death is the true physical death. While the brain is still a very mysterious organ, we can measure activity within the brain, and we can identify which parts of the brain are responsible for which specific functions. Which is more than I can say for the soul, which is utterly unfalsifiable, let alone any specific function for this immaterial concept. So it's funny when people speak to me of "spiritual death". So, if you were attentive enough with this post, let's have a little fun with this:

General beliefs of Christianity:

God is the creator of humanity
Humans (and for whatever reason, not other animals) have immaterial, immortal 'selves' called souls, or spirits.
Our souls/spirits are our true selves, and merely attached to the biochemical machinery we call the body, including the nervous tissue known as the brain.
Therefore, our immaterial souls/spirits, are distinct from our material brains.
Thus, it is all the more important that Jesus is accepted as personal saviour, having immortal souls/spirits.

Pretty much fine so far (sorta...), now we add the points that can summarized as "spiritual death".

Your immaterial, immortal soul/spirit can be killed by a single act ofsin (vaguely defined as whatever God doesn't like), or perhaps more shockingly, a poor diet. In Adam and Eve's case, the two were one in the same.
Despite the soul or spirit specifically stated to be immaterial, the ailment or affliction of "spiritual death" is hereditary.
Therefore, Adam and Eve's "spiritual suicide" had grave consequences for humanity.
Because you are "spiritually dead", it is therefore necessary that you are saved by Jesus.
However, all decisions until then, are undertaken by the brain, being that your real self, the soul or spirit, is dead.
Thus, your soul attached to the biochemical machinery known as the body, dead, with less usefulness than the pancreas within the human body (which has some use).
You can make your soul alive again, by accepting Jesus as your saviour. The exact mechanism of this is conspicuously not defined.

Thus, bringing home the point that:

Even accepting Jesus, which according to Christianity, is the most important decision of your life, or even 'eternal' existence (as if the latter has any meaning) is ultimately performed, by the brain.
Therefore soul < brain.

Or in other words, the soul is subordinate to the brain. Presumably until death. This makes very difficult to take seriously that the soul or spirit, as our 'real' selves.

An even more bizarre implication, which I wouldn't peddle too much is:

The moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit and 'killed' their souls/spirits, they became (more) self-aware or self-conscious.
Therefore "spiritual death" = (A heightened sense of) self-awareness/self-consciousness (WTF!?)

So "spiritual death" seems to refute itself. If anything, if Christianity is to thrive, it'd be advisable not to peddle this rubbish seriously. With a significant usage of critical thinking skills, it's very easy to poke holes around this. I mean, you can even use it to prove the brain is more important than the soul. The only thing consistent about it is with Christianity's tendency to be internally inconsistent. In other words, it's bullshit. That's the problem with using so many fear-mongering tools to spread religion. Too many cooks spoil the soup. Then again, "spiritual death" would make great Scary Movie lines:

Girl: "Oh my God, he's dead!"

Guy: "Damn! He got killed so horribly, his spirit died!"

Also, the notion of "spiritual death", if real, would mean that mangaka Tite Kubo was on to something when writing Bleach:

With "spiritual death", suddenly bleeding, receiving injuries and suffering from tuberculosis in the afterlife makes sense.

In any event, Happy New Year readers, and please, if you haven't already, make using your brain your New Year's Resolution.

Ghetto Barbie and Ken

2010-12-28T14:05:00.000-08:00

Well, as part of my monthly thing, I'm doing my monthly updates on bringing stupid and crap news about a certain rapper who demands attention, and thus I'm providing a dose of such nonsense as part of the agreement. Tis a shame, though. I was on a role on attacking classic bullshit, refuting the claims with evidence, rational arguments and so on and so forth. But now I'm back to Kanye again.

So, what's new? Oh nothing but a source I found from some website calling itself Zacquisha (probably like all putrid pop-culture sites, it's a focal point for a Zac Efron shrine or something):

"Kanye West can’t be all that bad as he is taking Nicki Minaj under his wing.
Rapping greenhorn Nicki Minaj looks up to Kanye West as her true-blue mentor. Despite the negative publicities that hound the 33 year old rapper, Nicki has only good words for Kanye she is comfortable asking him advice about music, career and even fashion. Nicki insists that Kanye West is a “good person” whom she has “well-rounded conversation” about things that matter to her.

Meanwhile, Kanye West was again heard ranting in front of a concert audience about his so-called haters in response to the success of his newly released album “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.”"

Take a look at the last paragraph. Nice to see that Kanye's favourite past-time of ranting to the crowd hasn't died down. Such a healthy ego. You go on, Kanye! Keep calling out those imaginary haters which keep trying to pull you down for being excellent. Just don't let me hear that you're going after people who've just come out of their teens again, cos' I'll fucking own ya! Mmkay?

So yes, Kanye's decided to take on Nicki Minaj as a protege. Does anyone know who Nicki Minaj is? Well, allow me introduce you to Obi Wan Kanyeezy's young padawan:

This is Nicki Minaj. And yes, she's stealing the look of, of all people, Lady Gaga. Well, one of them, anyway.

In any case, from hearing her music, Nicki Minaj for the most part seems like a rather talented rapper, although perhaps too little, too late for me since I've long since been disenchanted with hip-hop. Partly because much of it has gotten incredibly lazy and stupid in the past decade. And it should go without saying that I'm not interested with the obnoxious persona that made this piece of crap with Will.I.Am.:

Between the two of them, they actually make it harder for black people to admit that they like anime and Japanese culture in general and find it cool. And that's considering the people who I hang out with. I mean, I don't seriously think the term "weeaboo" is a serious insult, especially considering where it came from (The image board by the name of 4Chan), but that video alone could inspire a black-based pejorative, which would be possibly more offensive.

Although an interesting question is put forward: Since Nicki Minaj is signed to Ca$h Money Records, which is the record label of Lil' Wayne, why is she under Kanye West's wing, and not Lil' Wayne? Well, go read the first paragraph again. This is Lil' Wayne, BTW.

Young Money millionaire, indeed.

Nicki goes to Kanye for tips on fashion. I consider this to be a very good thing. Sure, I have reason to believe that Kanye's an idiot. But you surely can't deny his good sense of fashion:

The man is on the front cover of GQ. Seriously. Now, compare this to Lil' Wayne's "fashion sense":

Seriously, what the fuck? I had to struggle pretty hard to notice that his T-shirt had the image of Martin Luther King on it. And those who are reading this probably just realised this. Anyways, Lil' Wayne, I'm no fashion expert, but if you insisting in going all white, you can keep the hat, but lose the black sneakers, FFS. And pull your pants up, you're not in prison anymore.

And also, most importantly, musically Nicki could be going in a different direction. Not that I entirely care. Personally, I think Kanye is actually a better rapper than Lil' Wayne. I heard many a rap fan say Lil' Wayne is the greatest MC because he comes out with some next-level shit, popping some different lyrics you ain't even thought about...in reality, he pulls the shit out of his arse. And not even in a good way. At least Kanye uses actual word-pay and metaphors. Nicki may be on Lil' Wayne's record label, but her going to Lil' Wayne's advice on music is like Missy Elliott going to ODB...expect even ODB's lyrics made some degree of sense. And no, this doesn't mean I think "Yeezy" is the best rapper alive, it just means that "Weezy" isn't. Not that I care either way.

I think Kanye and Nicki might do each other good. With Kanye's blatant sampling, and Nicki Minaj's "biting" ("Like a dungeon dragon" was originally Busta Rhymes' bar), they might even rename themselves Snatch n' Bite. Although Minaj does seem to be somewhat decent. An effective double-entrendre!

So that's it: A brief Kanye article.which said little of Kanye himself this time round. Well, my New Year's Resolution is to find his Twitter and follow it. I'm not going to do a recap of the year for him since I just started this last month. So here's to Ghetto Barbie and Ken! (Even though Kanye's not ghetto)

Happy Holidays! (Please Don't Get Butthurt Over Me Not Saying Christmas)

2010-12-26T00:58:00.000-08:00

Tis' the season for freezing...as in your arse off. And being jolly. That as well.

It's that time of year again! It's the Happy Holidays! (Christmas for those who aren't aware of inclusive terms such as this)

Unfortunately, I didn't receive any presents whatsover. T_T
Fortunately, I did spend a great Christmas (Yes, I'm calling it Christmas now) with my family, plenty of good food, and good old-fashionsed TV watching. And I have to say, even after watching it several times from my youth, How The Grinch Stole Christmas is still one of the most heartwarming animations I've ever seen. Even more so as I've gotten older.

He's a mean one, Mr. Grinch...

Now, I'll come back to the reason for this, later on, I'm just going to talk about how I've not got much ideas for this post. While I could talk about how Christmas was originally a holiday celebrating the winter solstice, or that the suggestion that Santa Claus wears red because of Coca Cola advertising is patently false, since a number of people are doing that already, I think I'll make a quick mention about something that pops up every year around this time by fervently religious people and that's the so-called "War on Christmas". Don't worry, this is a short post.

Every year, there's been this claim that the true meaning of Christmas has been taken away by secularists, or a politically correct society of sorts, because they dare refer to it as "Happy Holidays". In the U.S.A., it's pretty bad because there's obviously a high numbers of evangelists, priests or any other Christian religious authority coming out of the woods and appearing on TV to spout this nonsense. And in the U.K., the same occurs, although not to the extent in the United States. And even if the "War on Christmas" is mentioned, the Daily Mail would be the first to tell us. Basically, the argument is that they're trying to remove Jesus, or its Christian roots from the holiday, and somehow attacking their religion by doing so. A few reason as to why this is rubbish:

Christmas is but one of many traditions that are pagan in origin to eclipse the rival religion, Mithraism. The church leaders felt threatened enough by this religion to use it to comemorate Jesus' birth. I should've really called it Mithrasmas. This is also partly why Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas.
Four centuries after Jesus was (supposedly) born, nobody cared when he was born (as in which month), and more focus was placed on after his birth. And by that, I mean what he did in his life. As common with founders of religions, legendary tales of the person's birth are assigned to the figure to make him seem more extraordinary. This has also been done with Muhammad, (Gautama) Buddha etc.
If anything, he would've likely been born in the spring if the descriptions of his birth is anything to go by. Of course, I already pointed out that the tale of his birth may have been made up entirely.
The holiday, while having Christian influences to it has long since been secularized with the phenomena of commercialization associated with Christmas. In other words, people buying lots of crap they don't really need, many of which they use only for Christmas. Even if it was Jesus' holiday, if you're not using it as an oppurtunity to make charitable deeds, you're doing it wrong. Jesus above all else was opposed to greed. He would turn in his grave (Oh right, he's not in there) at the sight of this:

And 4. alone has proven there isn't so much a War on Christmas anymore. Those who claim this have technically already lost before people supposedly started fighting. The reason why "Happy Holidays" is used to refer to Christmas is not because of people hating on Jesus. It's because it's understood that during this period, there are several holidays in different cultures. They include Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule and funnily enough, even Hallowe'en. This imagined warfare on Christmas is merely an expression of the prejudices that they hold for other cultures. I mean seriously guys, are you going to stop worshipping Jesus if you don't hear the term Christmas? No! So stop getting all butthurt over it. I don't believe in Jesus, but I personally don't care if they call it Christmas or not. It's a holiday for festivities and giving.

This brings me to my next point; It's rather hypocritical to claim the holiday on behalf of Jesus, and then spend massive amounts of money only for your own amusement, on decorations and expensive gifts to flaunt in your neighbour's face. If you wish to uphold the spirit of Christmas, then focus on the unity and togetherness it brings, spend time with friends and family and if you can, give to the less fortunate in any way you can either through things you own or even their company.

That is why I loved the movie of How the Grinch Stole Christmas so much: The Grinch believed that the citizens of Whoville were just celebrating their wealth and materialism so much during Christmas. while he had nothing. Which made him very envious. So out of spite, he stole every single gift out of the town believing that he would end Christmas once and for all. However, even after everything was gone from the Whos, the true spirit of Christmas never disappeared among them, and they sang together in unison celebrating the festive season. Upon seeing their warmth, the Grinch finally realized he could never truly steal Christmas, and the gifts alone would never bring him joy as he realized the error of his ways. His heart grew warm, and finally, he returned everything he ever stole to them (as promised to the little infant), and they were hospitable enough to share their joy, company and food with the Grinch during Christmas. And that to me, is the true meaning of Christmas.

Teh Gays, Teh Govement vs. Jesus

2010-12-21T03:01:00.000-08:00

Persecution Complex with the world's largest religion.

I was hoping to avoid even writing about religion at least until the New Year comes by. But with the article on the OIC, the UDHR and the Third Commission on the General Assembly, that was pretty much unavoidable. I've now learned that there will always be something that is so obviously ridiculous and stupid, that only given a pseudo-logical defense on the pathetic excuse that they're just following guidelines of some ancient textbook, that would piss me off. Especially if I still live with paranoid fantasists I call my family.

So basically, As living with these people means that I have to endure them indulging in superstitious beliefs as they head off to a place where like-minded folks go through much mental wanking over the archaic textbook serving as their moral guideline. Why, I'm talking about church, of course!

Interestingly, during this period, there's being something of a "reform" going on there. And by reform, I obviously mean "taking it back to basics" as most fundamentalists do. Somehow, the idea that the organizational structure of church should return to small, communal groups in which people meet up as they talk about the same nomadic scribblings they the nerve to call "the Good Book".

So, what have I learned about the a-changin' times? Well, apparently the freedom of religion and worship, is a myth. Well, not a myth, just not completely honest. Basically, I heard from the church leader about some guy who was gay suing a preacher because they removed for speaking his views on homosexuality, sorry, what the Good Book says about homosexuality. I discovered but two different tales on this, obscured sorely because of the fact that fundamentalist religious people insist on referring to gay people as "a homosexual" as if they don't have names. You can always tell if someone is being intolerant if they don't even so much as refer to them as a person.

So the first story I could find of is the Westboro Baptist Church being sued by the family of a soldier killed in the Iraq War. So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, not much except that the WBC has a prolific history of their vitriolic anti-gay protests, which for some reason has extended to Iraq War soldiers, several celebrities, the President of the United States (both George W. Bush and Barack Obama), Sweden and oddly enough, quite a few fundamentalist preachers; most of them under the same banner as "fag-enablers" or "fag pimps". I mean, the church even has a website called http://www.godhatesfags.com as well as godhatesamerica.com, and several godhatesexample.com to go with it. They're basically being sued for invasion of privacy and intentionally inflicting distress to the family. Anyone with even a semblance of sanity would agree that this is at least an understandable reason to why a family would sue a group who continuously pickets funerals of dead soldiers spouting their hateful vitriol to people in mourning. And for that reason, I doubt the church would be so stupid, bigoted and willfully ignorant as to defend the actions of the WBC in any case (save for the circumstances where the First Amendment covers them), where even "Focus on the Family" refers to them as a "hateful group".

(When even Fox News is disgusted by such unwarranted hate speech, then you really are scum)

For that reason, I suspect what was actually being referred to was the second article I discovered which was of a gay man appealing to a human rights tribunal because his church where he served as an altar boy for, removed him from duties for being gay (Interesting that this story was picked despite the church being Catholic, despite them hating Catholicism). Now those of us who actually care about things like discrimination and the rights of all people would probably think that the church is kind of messed up for doing that. But no, not with Christians! It's an attack on their faith! Things are gonna get rougher for the followers of Christ from nowm on! The End Times are coming! A few things though that they conveniently neglected to mention though (other than the church was Catholic and are therefore not True Christians™)

1. The guy was forced out of the church after 12 other members pressured the bishop to take action.

2. The gay man was in fact celibate. Imagine that! And here I thought they were obsessed with sexual immorality!

3. His name was Jim Corcoran. (I find this important to mention because I prefer to address even people I despise as, you know, people. Not labels that only characterize one aspect of them)

4. Not only did Corcoran lose his case against the church, but while many Christian blogs like to pander around the story of Bishop De Angelis forgiving him, the fact remains that he's still not allowed in the church and in fact, the church hasn't made contact with him since.

The astonishing thing about this is on point 2. Corcoran, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church actually refrained from "homosexual behaviour", since it is a "grave depravity" (So men fucking men is wrong, but priests fucking little boys is A-OK, huh?) .In fact, he's probably two shades away from being part of the so-called "ex-gay" community. But that wasn't enough for these bigots. No, upon discovering he's gay from his own blog, they sought to remove him from church regardless of whether or not he actually engaged in sex with a man. And then, fundie Christians are asshurt if he finds the balls to sue their bigoted asses for this travesty, and claim their beliefs are being attacked, even if they're winning. Granted, I don't think he should've sued the Church either. In fact, I think less energy, money and time would've been spent if he simply decided to leave the church, and abandon the archaic self-destructive beliefs been promoted as reality. However, while I do respect the turmoil that he goes through in reconciling his beliefs with his sexuality, the reality is so long as there are jerks like this, placed as authorities of the faithful, there will always be cases like this.

But the rant, mistaken as spiritual word didn't stop there. Oh no. Apparently, Senate voting in favour of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (awaiting Barack Obama's signature as of this post); there was much prayer throughout the early morning (Gee, and here I would've thought that fundie Christians like the idea of homosexuals running to shot at and/or get killed by someone who doesn't like them. Like the Taliban, for instance) OK, let's ignore that her in the United Kingdom, we already accept LGBT members in the military. We've done so for over ten years. A brief history of DADT:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a "compromise" that came about in 1993 during the Presidency of Bill Clinton. You see, Clinton campaigned on the promise that gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve in the military without discrimination. This promise was made difficult to uphold due to Congress electing to put the existing gay ban into federal law. Prior to DADT, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 654, it says in Statute (a) paragraph (13) that:

The prohibition of homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

And in paragraph (15):

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. (b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—

(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

(I would add more but its more effective to simply read it for yourself) In other words, in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, gays and bisexuals were to be discharged immediately. So, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was ~~a cop-out~~ served to compromise this, by allowing gays and lesbians in the military without fear of a witch-hunt (Don't Ask), as long they don't reveal their sexual orientation. The idea goes in a few stages:

Gays and lesbians risk losing their security clearance.
Unscrupulous persons often attempt to blackmail gays and lesbians into revealing classified information rather than have their sexual orientation revealed to their commanding officer in a letter.
If the commanding officer learns of their sexual orientation in a letter this would result in the loss of their security clearance, lest they continue to have access to classified information which they might reveal to a blackmailer.
See part 1.

The problem was that more, not fewer soldiers were discharged under this policy. Since 1993, over 13,000 soldiers were discharged over DADT. The highest number of military personnel being 1,273 discharges in 2001 (This sharply dropped after 9/11, but it was still pretty bad, reaching around 600 discharges a year until 2009). And it wasn't really the case of teh gayz being loudmouthed in the military , or feeling the need to be open about themselves. It was superiors actively trying to search for information about troops in personal webpages, personal letters, personal ads, despite their being the presence of "Don't Ask". Even sillier is the excuse given for this ridiculous ban in the first place. It was claimed that somehow, having teh gayz in the military would somehow affect unit cohesion or morale. Here's a little statement from the American Psychological Association:

Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993). Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996)

And seriously, in the battlefield, the enemy is not going to stop and ask which one of the soldiers is gay if they're trying to kill them anyway.

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

- Barry Goldwater

So what next to be asshurt about? Oh, nothing but this little "gem":

"There going to pressure the church to allow gay marriages. So we have to make a stand...Either you stand Jesus, or you stand against him."

Well, first off I'd like to point out that we don't have same-sex marriages in the UK. We have civil partnerships. That's not the same thing. And yes, following the Equality Act 2010, civil partnerships in England and Wales (note: not the whole of the UK, such as Northern Ireland) may now enter a religious venue if the building's proprietor is willing to conduct it. In other words, the state is not forcing you to marry couples, and you can refuse if you want to (I'm curious to why a gay couple would want to join a Pentecostal church anyway, let alone one that holds openly homophobic views). In fact, the first show of being asshurt over this bill was shown by, surprise surprise, a number of Roman Catholic bishops. In addition with a few of the Anglican clergy. The claim was that they were going to be prosecuted under the bill for refusing to allow gays, lesbians and transsexuals to join the priesthood (Interesting I hear all these tales involving groups that are apparently not True Christians™). Before we even get to changing the definition of marriage, I'd like you to read something:

"[miscegenation] will destroy our [white] race eventually...a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife."

That was by Jerry Falwell, who had a massive history actively opposing anti-segregation laws. I've never seen him actually renounce those views publicly even up until the end of his life.

You might say, "Well, that's nowhere in the Bible!" to which I would reply, "LOL!":

Numbers 25:6-9 "And behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought to his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel...And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazaar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel."

Numbers 25:10-13: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel."

So basically, Phinehas, whose granddad is Aaron, and grand-uncle is Moses; saw the interracial couple, killed them with a spear, and got rewarded by God with eternal priesthood, staving him from killing all of them. Well, at least we know about how Yahweh feels about mixed-race kids. That explains why the Bible-thumpers in the Tea Party movement hate Barack Obama so much.

(If the irony is lost on you in this, there's no hope for you)

Secondly, Jesus has never quoted anything on homosexuality, let alone against it. Granted, if we play the "Jesus is God" card, we can refer to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Of course, on that logic, they should also follow Leviticus 11:10, especially if they plan on eating lobster for Christmas (or is it New Year's). Also, Deuteronomy 10:16 seems interesting. I wonder how they've gotten around to "circumcising their heart". And Deuteronomy 22: 5. Maybe it's no wonder that people call those with such anti-gay rhetoric are labelled bigots whenever they resort to scripture: Because they so obviously pick and choose which ones to follow. What's astonishing is that even the fact that in the case of gay rights, in the stories mentioned, they're winning two out of three. And yet, that is enough to feel threatened and start declaring that their Lord and Saviour is coming soon, since the world is against you. Christianity is being attacked, indeed.

I can't even begin to cover the point by point horsecrap, so I'll just end with this:

"A few years ago, when Versace was still round. I had this friend who I spoke to, and then we had a sort of argument. I was saying that women should be careful about how they present themselves outside..."

But wait! There's more!

"And she said 'If the man doesn't like you I dress then that's the man's problem!'"

Wow. Kinda reminds me of that Dave Chappelle skit on men and women.

This was actually accompanied by laughter. Granted, I found it a bit funny as well. But not for the reasons that they likely did. You see what deeply religious folk and conservatives fail to understand, is that this statement is actually true. The suggestion that someone encourages men to behave a certain way because of whatever clothes they're wearing is ridiculous. Granted, that might actually attract men, but then are also the self-righteous moralizers kinda like the guy saying this, who don't like to see that. And simply of this vocal minority in society, the woman can choose to wear whatever she wants.

And yes, I've heard the argument go on to issues of rape and such, but guess what: If a man rapes a woman, it is the rapist who is the criminal. Accusing the women being sexually assaulted of somehow enticing the man would be like blaming the kid for being bullied at school: "You must done something to get his attention". But then the Bible also has screwy "blame the victim" rules, anyway: (Deuteronomy 22:22-23). Let's just ignore the fact that the majority of rape victims know who the perpetrator is, and around 50% of rapes occur in the home of the woman or perpetrator. Also, the argument can go both ways: If a man walks topless in the outside, would you expect women to lose control of themselves and attempt to sexually assault the man? And they have the nerve to talk about how Islam treats their women.

But it gets even better!:

"Then, a few days later Versace died. And then the woman came back and said: 'Yes, you're right , about how women should present themselves.'"

So, let me get this straight: God killed Gianni Versace, or at least withdrew his protection of Gianni Versace for making revealing clothes?

Gee, I would've thought he'd go after, Um, I don't know, Hugh Hefner. The guy who founded Playboy.

But I suppose I wanted to start small, huh? So how exactly did God go through this meticulous plan? Influence a gay prostitute serial killer to murder Versace and then kill himself for the same reason? Amazing how fundies are quick to jump on something bad happening and claim that "Goddidit". And this is supposed to convince people that God is loving, and convert to your faith? I'm a little shocked the woman put down her guns over this. Then again, critical thinking skills these days happen to be expensive.

But wait it gets even better!:

"Vercase, when he was young, saw a prostitute and was influenced by the prostitute...so he decided to make clothes...to seduce men. And that's why the Medusa is the logo of Vercase. Because Medusa is a sex ymbol."

OK, it's possible he read the source I used for this and muddled it up, or he spouted classic bullshit that was uncanny so here it goes:

Firstly, I found nothing on Versace seeing a prostitute when he was young. What I did see is him fascinated by the dominatrix and the prostitute in making his clothing. By then, he was already an adult. With respect to the prostitute, unlike what traditional, Abrahamic moralizers would have you view them as (e.g. "dirty whores"), to Versace prostitutes were heroic. Prostitutes turn their sexuality into a commodity. To Versace, prostitutes were assertive, confident and didn't abide by traditional rules, and thus were powerful. Versace sought to emphasize this in the clothes he made: Feeling powerful, but sexy and feminine. He wasn't trying to turn women into sex objects (He didn't need to, as I'll explain later), he was trying to take them take control of their sexuality and femininity, and not have it dictated by some patriarchal authority figure who tells you to cover up and abide by the same Bronze Age statutes that have influenced society for millenia, where men owned everything about the woman, including her sexuality.

Versace did however, see Medusa in his childhood. I myself wouldn't be so inclined to say that Medusa, the Gorgon, was a sex symbol. Rather, what she represented was a femme fatale. Medusa in Greek Mythology would turn to stone whoever gazed upon her. To Versace, Medusa represented the dangerous and deadly power of women. And as for this seduce men stuff, here's this:

"I wouldn't say the Versace woman is predatory. I would say she is seductive. Women need to seduce in order to achieve their goals. I don't mean seduce men - they need to seduce themselves, because once you seduce yourself, you start to like yourself and are better able to achieve what you want...The brain is the best seduction tool you have. But clothes help too."

That quote was from Donatella Versace, not Gianni Versace. Also, if you thought that quote was profound. Wait till you read this one:

"I don't like my physique very much."

Gee, no kidding:

You can never have too much plastic surgery with Donatella Versace.

So yes, the basis of Versace clothing has rather consistently been about empowering women, and using taboo roles of women as inspirations to make popular clothing. But let see how the Bible sees women! Surely, it's better than wearing Versace right?

Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,..nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbours." - So the wife is property? Gotcha.

Exodus 21:7-8: "And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her." - Tips on selling your daughter, and what to do if she doesn't make the new master happy.

Leviticus 21:13-14: "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." - God on who priests who marry. Imagine the irony with the Roman Catholic Church.

Proverbs 9-13: "A foolish woman is clamourous: She is simple, and knoweth nothing" - Foolish women are foolish!

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: And he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject in Christ, so let the wives be onto their husbands in everything." - So, when your husband comes home from a hard day's work, wives, and says "Bitch! Make me a sandwich!" You do it without question.

I don't even need to further with this. There's been so much B.S. so I'll end with this: You cannot live as how the people wrote the Bible at all, without picking and choosing, especially if you do not live in a Iron Age society. The reason why common objections to the "Good Book" is that its internally inconsistent, racist, sexist, homophobic amongst others is because it is all of these things. And that's understandable because it reflects the sensibilities of that time. But to then pretend it's the eternal guideline of humanity, and we really, really need it because we'd be in bad state without it, is nonsense. Our species managed to survive, build civilizations, and do fine reproducing, even with the homosexuals within social groups (In fact, having one in the family, may have enabled female fertility), thriving, and becoming the most dominant species on Earth for millenia before even the pre-Judaic religion even emerged. All of this because guidelines were put forward to how to behave within the constraints of the society, to keep it effective and to make sure everyone within it survives. Throughout human history, the codes of conduct known as morality has changed and adapted itself as societies grew and became more inclusive. The Bible is reflection of this developing process of morality in its entirety (And for this reason, is arguably the biggest reason for schisms within Christianity).

Thus, it is even more absurd to dictate how others should behave, when you yourselves reap the benefits of the works of those who you'd probably call "secularist" in making civilization, in particular that experienced in the West what it is today. So my request is that you cease dictating what it is people should and shouldn't do unless you have experienced the life of an Iron Age Palestinian, then return to see if this is a life you'd rather all of humanity experience; and in addition sort out the schism crap within your own religion first. For a group that says there's only one truth, you sure have a lot of dumb arguments over which bit is the most important. And finally, it's a bit hard to take seriously the "Christ is coming soon" mantra, when people have been telling others this for 2,000 years, which is a third of the time many of you believe the Earth has existed. So, if you are going to reform your religion, the least you can do is abandon the Young Age Creationism crap. It seriously does harm for your position. Although, I'd prefer it if you do the intellectually honest thing and abandon such paranoid fantasies that put a stranglehold on lives, which are all too brief altogether. Thanks for reading.

(In a world where neurotic wishful thinkers pray to God to give them cars and houses, a missionary has found life much easier, among a people comfortable enough without knowing what the word "god" even means. Anthropology FTW!)

Fred Has A Movie

2010-12-18T14:38:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago, I was rather shocked when I saw on the bus that a new movie was coming out of an utterly worthless person who is more or less, famous for being a fucking idiot. No, it's not about Kim Kardashian, nor a Jane Goody biopic (although I'd be more comfortable learning about that being made, than this piece of crap). It's a movie about Fred. Fred Durst? Fred Flintstone? Try Fred Figglehorn.

For those of you who don't know who Fred Figglehorn is, you've either never used YouTube in your life, or have not done so prior to 2009. And if this doesn't tell you all you need to know about Fred Figglehorn, then my sincerest apologies for this in advance:

That video at the time of posting this has 5.6 million views. And to emphasize that this is not just a one-off, I present to you this (My sincerest apologies):

In fact, it is videos such as this that had made Fred, the first person to receive a million subscribers, ultimately resting at (as of posting this article) the fourth most subscribed YouTube user of all time, boasting over two million subscribers, 105 million channel views and 667 million video views. If anything, this says more about the sort of people that YouTube is mostly populated with (read: pubescent fangirls and idiots).

There are those who have struggled to describe who or what exactly Fred is, so they accept the official term that he is "a six-year old with a dysfunctional home life and anger management issues". In actuality, the horrible truth is that he is an obnoxious teenager with the mental age of a six-year old, produced through an incestuous relationship between his mother/sister and his father, with a squeaky super-sped squeaky voice who vents his attention defiency onto YouTube. As such, the various aspects of his "life" are given encouragement by pre-teen morons with comments like "OMG! Fred's so funny!" or "I ♥ Fred!" or such nonsense. Worse, out of all the feminine-looking boys I've seen on that website, this guy looks like a parody Bishonen character. He looks like a mix between the main character of Eragon and Fogell from Superbad. In any case, Fred Figglehorn is a hideous character in every sense of the word. He's an awful character. He's also totally weird-looking, and that's before he does that weird thing with his face. And it's these factors that make it hard to even think of a Fred video without feeling physically sick. In fact, it was enough of a struggle to make this post.


I still don't understand how anyone watches this mistake of humanity, let alone make a feature film of him.

So I was amazed to see that a film was being made of this horrible creature. In fact, I'll give you a list of hypothetical films of YouTubers past and present, I would've excepted to have been released and would've been watched by me before I even get to Fred:

(I do not necessarily like all of the YouTubers on this list, but I certainly like them more than Fred)

(Oh, and if I don't list a movie title next to the name, then it means that's I think the title should be called)

lonelygirl15 (A Lonely Girl)
itschriscrocker (Leave Britney Alone!: Diary of a Britney Spears Fangirl)
sxephil (Sexy Phil)
LisaNova
Charliescocoollike
ThatGreyBloke
TheAmazingAtheist (Who knows? That might be in the process right now, since his idiot friend SaturnineFilms aka Cody Weber is "an aspiring filmmaker")
DontJealousMe (Don't Jealous Me!)
Hotforwords
ShaneDawsonTV (Shane Dawson Movie)
HappyCabbie
EdwardCurrent (Edward Current: Defender of the Cross!)
VenomFangX (VFX: The Rise and Fall, A Christian Canuck, A Boy Named Shawn, Jimmy Swaggart Jr., Immoral Orel, How to Rip Off Sick Children)
mrevilution777 (Mr. Toad)
MrStripyHead
NewNuma (Numa Numa Kid)
kidrauhl (Justin Bieber: The Movie. Bet ya never expected that, did ya?)
TonyZonday (Chocolate Rain)
blamesocietyfilms (Chad Vader: The Movie)
RayWilliamJohnson (YouTube Movie. Produced by Seltzer and Freidberg, of course)

You get the idea?

Incidentally, Fred's popularity at one point got him interviewed by CNN in which to explain what it is about Fred that makes him popular. Fred, or rather Lucas Craikshank, was far more articulate than his YouTube persona (perhaps because of medication) and explained in full the origins of Fred and his appeal. After watching this, I was rather shocked to discover how Fred came about:

1. Boredom.
2. Video camera nearby.
3. The existence of the website, YouTube.
4. The rest, as they say, is history.

He basically did what any teenager would do, and managed to strike out lucky by making a complete twat of himself for the camera.

And the saddest part about all of this? John Cena plays Fred's dad. I suppose that convinces wrestling fans as to what they suspected all along.: John Cena constantly demands attention.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Now attention whoring isn't bad in itself. I mean, pretty good and worthwhile videos have come out of it, and there's no way people would bother to make videos about themselves if they didn't want the world to see. It's just a bit shocking that characters like Fred not only represents the interests with a significant audience, but it's enough to make a film due to this. I mean, Lucas is listed as a "comedian" on his YouTube and Wikipedia page when nothing he had ever created as Fred was funny. In fact, some of it came as rather creepy and disturbing.


This is a comedian.


This is an example of a comedian playing a funny character.


This is a comedian who usually plays annoying characters.


This is an example of a kid who acts like a mentally handicapped person on the Internet...and is annoying.

But then it hit me. And when it did, I longer considered Fred to be poisonous to the future of comedy, or even YouTube comedy. Craikshank said that he created Fred out of boredom. In other words, he probably didn't put a lot of thought into creating this horrid character. And yet, he has 2 million subscribers because his audience loves watching high-pitched dipshits, in whatever "life" he showcases. He also claims that he "parodies other people on YouTube that want to be popular" by playing a frustrated, hyperactive manchild. If this is anything to go by, Craikshank very well may be one of the greatest parodists of them all.

Not only has he caught the attention of the pool of mental goldfish who go on YouTube, but a movie has been made out of it. And regardless of whether or not it is crap (and judging by the IMDb reviews it is), which person who started out on YouTube can honestly say that a film has been made of them? Certainly not anyone on my list. And with that, I've gotta give him his props for that. He got a film for being creatively lazy, but figuring this would still be enough to get him lots of views on YouTube...and he was right! And with that, this makes the backlash against such a piece of shit character irrelevant. Because to honestly say you hate Fred, and give his videos thumbs down (that's what they do these days on YouTube videos), you have to watch videos of Fred. All of this gives Fred attention. Therefore with the Fred movie, it's exactly the same principle, on a grander scale. So it doesn't matter if Fred gets a deluge of bad reviews by critics, because they had to watch his film to review it in the first place (At least in the U.S., it went direct-to-DVD and shown on Nickolodeon, mercifully spared from the big screen. The British would not be so lucky...). Craikshank simply doesn't care. It's all about the attention. The cash made from it is a fucking bonus. The only ones who may come out looking bad is those who paid to watch it, and hated it. And probably those who took part in the film, in particular, John Cena. Not so much, Pixie Lott.

If I do even find the stomach to watch the Fred movie (Online, of course. Not paying for that when I've already seen enough of him on YouTube for free), I won't even bother to give it a lengthy review give this article, which is more about amazement as to how it is Fred became so popular in the first place that he warranted a movie. Still, Lucas is not sure if he gets bored of Fred and decides to something better, what would become of the character. Although there has been an interesting glimpse of what may become of Fred in the next two decades:

Thank you for reading.

Lies, Damn Lies, Glenn Beck and Statistics

2010-12-12T15:39:00.000-08:00

The hysterical Fox News chief fear-mongerer (and Mormon) Glenn Beck, has again made yet another offensively stupid statement, suggesting that "possibly around 10% of Muslims are terrorists, but PC prevents this from being said"...or something to that effect (don't worry there's a video in that link). Since my, um, rather (deservedly) harsh stance on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on their absurd objections to the UDHR on the basis of their rigidly dogmatic thinking with respect to human rights, yet the disturbing irony in allowing them to dictate which human rights are, or rather aren't, appropriate to impart to certain groups, I think I should balance it out by defending Muslims. But only in the case that what Glenn Beck spouted was (as usual), bullshit. In fact, I don't actually need to address any of the points made by this pudgy bastard who gets paid to show how completely batshit he is. Because this week, there was someone who did a far better job. Watch the video below:

My heart really weeps for intelligent Americans who have to put up with sensationalist, propaganda being presented as news. It's starting to look like that film Network made in 1972.

Having Your Cake And Eating It

2010-12-11T02:35:00.000-08:00

10 December is Human Rights Day

Quite possibly my favourite observance or holiday. Even more so than Christmas. Basically, it's a celebration of the anniversary of the adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the 10th December 1948. Among the authors of the article John Peters Humphrey, a Canadian jurist, human rights activist; and Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady of the United States 1933-1945 and civil rights activist. The human rights set fourth in the Declaration are as follows:

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

Article 14

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.

Article 29

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The declaration is adopted by nearly all nations and translated into 375 dialects, and while not legally binding, it serves the basis for binding human rights covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; as well as the usage of the UDHR to put pressure on governments violating its articles. This then nicely brings me to the main issue I wish to address:

I'm sure many of you are aware of the decision by the Third Commitee of the UN General Assembly which removed references to "sexual orientation" in a resolution protecting people from arbitrary executions, essentially meaning that LGBT people can be executed without so much as an adequate explanation (non-binding, of course). Interesting in that in doing this, Articles 3, 6 and 9 of the UDHR are violated anyway, but let's consider the groups that were the most adamant in pushing this: The African Group and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or OIC; both groups have not exactly followed the UDHR to the letter. The latter especially have not being much of team players to the UN.

For instance, they had the nerve to suggest that the UDHR didn't take into account the cultural and religious account into Islamic countries. In 1982, Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani said that the UDHR was a "secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing Islamic law. Ignoring the fact that Islam is a Judeo-Christian tradition itself by definition (or to help puritans like him understand, Islam is an Abrahamic religion), and last year, I wrote an article titled: "The Ten Commandments vs. The UDHR", this does highlight a relevant point. To ensure that it is universal, suggestions can be made by other parties on how to improve the declaration to make sure it's compatible with their governments. Unfortunately, several of the countries in the OIC already had a poor track record in respecting the human rights of its own citizens and after having another look at the charter myself, I'm curious as to which articles exactly are incompatible with Islam. Maybe he, or someone else with the same viewpoint, can explain this to me because I don't want to put words in his mouth and say "Islam is incompatible to UDHR, Said told me". That would be jumping the gun, and I might sound like Geert Wilders. So, did they explain exactly which articles they had a problem with, and give suggestions to implementing some that are more inclusive to their culture and beliefs? Oh, Lady Haruhi no. That would mean that they gave a toss about the UDHR. I suppose it's always easier to claim the UDHR has a cultural bias than to face the inadequacies of their own human rights track record. Because universal human rights is a culturally relativistic concept, right? So, they went and adopted their own charter called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam in 1990.

Now there's nothing immediately wrong about this, since several other regional groups within the General Assembly. But then they put this their charter:

ARTICLE 1:

(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.
(b) All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

So they immediately put their dogma in the first article? Hmm, OK? So long as it's inclusive of the belief systems of others, the-Oh right, it's not, is it?

ARTICLE 2:
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a shari'ah prescribed reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to any means which could result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari'ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari'ah-prescribed reason.

Just out of curiosity, I know that there are different systems of Shari'ah relative to different law schools in Islam, but does apostasy count as "a shari'ah-prescribed reason" to breach Article 2(a) and 2(d)? I mean switching religions is pretty controversial for the members of the OIC, right?

ARTICLE 9:
(a) The seeking of knowledge is an obligation and provision of education is the duty of the society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee its diversity in the interest of the society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and uncover the secrets of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.
(b) Every human being has a right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of teaching, education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such an integrated and balanced manner that would develop human personality, strengthen man's faith in Allah and promote man's respect to and defence of both rights and obligations.

ARTICLE 10:
Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.

ARTICLE 11:
(a) Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty.
(b) Colonialism of all types being one of the most evil forms of enslavement is totally prohibited. Peoples suffering from colonialism have the full right to freedom and self-determination. It is the duty of all States peoples to support the struggle of colonized peoples for the liquidation of all forms of and occupation, and all States and peoples have the right to preserve their independent identity and control over their wealth and natural resources.

Gee, I'm rather reluctant to even touch that with a golf club. So Article 9 shows that it wishes to promote one faith at the expense of all others. Article 10 shows this quite blatantly, and is all kinds of B.S.. For instance, it's quite interesting that it says its forbidden to put pressure on someone, or to make them change their beliefs, as if somehow there no other reasons as to why someone can convert from Islam other than pressure, like for instance said person no longer finds Islam to be a fulfilling way of life or accurate explanation of the human condition. So much for "freedom of religion" (Also, if Islam is "the religion of true, unspoiled nature", wouldn't it logically infer that there wouldn't be anyone de-converting for any reason since it's perfect?). Article 11(b) I have no issues with but again in Article 11(a) it's quite that it is only inclusive of Islam, and uses it as the sole religion as to why human rights are granted in the first place.

ARTICLE 12:

Every man shall have the right, within the framework of the Shari'ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether within or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall be obliged to provide protection to the asylum-seeker until his safety has been attained, unless asylum is motivated by committing an act regarded by the Shari'ah as a crime.

Again, I have to question whether in the case of apostasy, if a person seeking asylum would be rejected by a state which adopts this charter? It is a relevant question.

ARTICLE 16:
Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical labour of which he is the author; and he shall have the right to the protection of his moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.

This is fine, but what if someone wishes to make a literary work inspired by Baha'u'llah, the founder of Bah'ai? This is a relevant question since Baha'u'llah according to mainstream Islam is guilty of heresy, specifically a false prophet, and Bah'ais as apostate and heretics. What would happen to the person then?

ARTICLE 22:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form or racial discrimination.

According to Article 22(a) you have freedom of opinion...so long as it doesn't contradict the Shari'ah, which isn't really freedom of opinion then, is it? While the norms of Islamic Shari'ah does very (kind of) between the OIC, with 22(b) does this mean that LGBT rights, abortion rights, rights to freedom of religion and freedom of opinion are wrong and should be warned against since their outside "the norms of Islamic Shari'ah"? As for 22(c), I have little quarrel with. Although I should note that a lot of criticisms of the religion of Islam seldom violate the dignity of the Prophets of Islam since many of the actions the latter are said to have done are seen as acceptable within the constraints of Islam (Muhammad and Aisha *cough*). In other words, the actions of the prophets obviously don't violate Islam anyway, since they introduced Islam, according to Islam. So criticisms of Islam, often focus on the actions of the prophets of Islam, specifically what is considered tolerable and acceptable within Islam, but questionable by modern standards e.g. slavery, child sacrifices, child brides etc., as to why Islam is wrong. Clear? 22(d) I have no quarrels with.

ARTICLE 23:
(a) Authority is a trust; and abuse or malicious exploitation thereof is explicitly prohibited, in order to guarantee fundamental human rights.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah.

Let see, according to Article 23(b) you have the right to hold office so long as you're not an apostate, homosexual, or a really opinionated person. A-OK.

Now for the two articles I have the biggest problem with:

ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

So, it's made abundantly clear in Articles 24 and 25 (especially Article 25) that this charter is not subordinate to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at all, but the Islamic Shari'ah. Even in the African Union, their charter, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, is subordinate to the UDHR. But with the CDHRI it has to be different and not only reaffirm the system they always had, but have it supersede all forms of treaties and protocols in the world. They've demonstrated their contempt for the idea of universal human rights. The OIC basically had a little tantrum over the UDHR because it required them to clean up their act. And because the idea that human rights could be bigger than their dogma was too much for them, they took their ball and went home, returning to produce this shambolic excuse for a charter and claim they promote human rights. And looking at Articles 24 and 25, I seriously don't see how anyone can claim that the CDHRI isn't an alternative to the UDHR and avoid being called dishonest or an absolute idiot by anyone knows fuck all about what UDHR outlines.

And worse, this group has a permanent place in the UN General Assembly, in which they have a platform to voice their objections to references to "sexual orientation" to a bill protecting people from arbitrary executions. When they themselves have shown by producing this laughable charter that they don't care about universal human rights and preserving their own rigid, comparably archaic values, and would much rather drag everyone else with them to fit their idea of universal ethics, but until then bellow "cultural relativism!" or "Bigot!" whenever they're called on their bullshit.

Dr. Adama Dieng, a prominent Senegalese jurist, in 1992 warned the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva on the grave implications for human rights it may introduce declaring in a statement that:

1. It gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based;
2. It introduces, in the name of the defence of human rights an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women;
3. It reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries;

4. It confirms, under cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)", the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.

I should stress that if Dr. Dieng, a practicing Muslim, could see what this article actually represents to the goal of universal human rights, then the UN General Assembly should as well. And it seriously needs to shape up if it is and its goals are to be taken seriously and not allow any excuses for hypocrisy. Especially in the form of pieces of crap being shilled as a human rights charter. But in order to do this, there has to be those fighting the good fight for the rights of those that can't defend themselves in such autocratic governments. And there are those that do so showing no quarter to any form of bullshit infringing on the civil rights within any state. So please support the efforts of the champions of human rights in any way you can, in their battle against human rights abuse:

Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
International Federation for Human Rights
International Commitee of the Red Cross
Human Rights First

The Gospel According To Yoko

2010-12-09T15:30:00.000-08:00

Yoko 3:16: For God so loved the world she sent her only begotten son, John. So that the world can be encouraged to live in everlasting peace.

December 8 is the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's death.

On 10:50 pm, December 8, 1980 in the Dakota, New York City, John Lennon was shot five times in the back with a Charter Arms .38 Special Revolver. The assassin was Mark David Chapman. Since then, the popularity of Lennon massive increased, and so was cultivated the legend of the musical prophet of peace slain by a madman.

Several memorials would be made in honour of the late musician. A memorial in Central Park near the site of his death, a posthumously Grammy Lifetime Achievement award in 1991. The John Lennon Museum in Saitama ,Japan in 2000. Shoot, even Cuba had its very own bronze Lennon statue in Havana, courtesy of then President Fidel Castro. In 2002, Liverpool, where Lennon was born in, changed its airport name to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, adopting the motto, "Above us only sky". Perhaps the greatest and most recent memorial is the Imagine Peace Tower in Viðey off the coast of Iceland in 2007, which would release a beam of light on the birthday and the day he died. This basically means, that on the day this post was produced, the prior time it lit up was 2 months ago, tomorrow. One thing I find really interesting is that the memorials, nearly all of them seem to revolve around this song:

I can only presume that this was such an idealistic song, that it was all the better to immortalize him as a musical prophet of peace. Indeed, this article from the Guardian pretty much solidifies this hypothesis by one quote from a 19-year old fan:

"John is the Jesus of music. He came to save us."

Y-y-yeah. This is the thing. I know that he's dead and its predictable he'd receive a tremendous surge in popularity, especially as a Beatles member, but the literal messiahfication of John Lennon is to me, totally unwarranted. I'm not sure about this Lennon being the musical equivalent of Jesus, since well, the Gospels themselves gave opposing tales on the character of Jesus, conveniently 70 years (at least) after he died, so that alone makes its hard to say that John was like Jesus, of course assuming the latter existed at all (Though if he did, going by Mark, Jesus would've at least been as sarcastic as John, as in John Lennon). However, in the case of Lennon's death, we can give a very accurate assessment of what the person was like, and whether the popular perception of him has any basis in reality. While I would usually ignore, or even enable the "peace prophet" ~~propaganda~~ image of Lennon, unfortunately I made the mistake of naming my blog: Opposing Bullshit. So, with a heavy heart, I'm going to take this on. Don't worry! I won't be harsh to Lennon. In fact, that's the beauty of being dead, you can't be personally hurt as much by utter falsehoods about you. Ironically like this "John Lennon is Jesus" tripe. I personally think he would've been offended by that. In fact, my real critique goes to the people who created this caricature based on literally one facet of his personality.

Sorry fans, but the real John Lennon was not the completely pacifistic musical saint we all know and love (although at one point, he did claim to be Jesus reincarnated after a freaky LSD trip, which he later didn't remember). Indeed, he'd probably be the first to tell you this, and would likely disregard such a perception. He was in fact, a sarcastic, tempermental, often violent jerk...who was an advocate for world peace. It's the latter image that I would prefer, since firstly, while not Jesus, he firmly represents Nietzsche's quote "human, all too human", and secondly, he sounds crazy awesome that way.

(Before I begin, I'd like to point out that every example I give on Lennon's jerkassery, are confirmed by those who were associated with him, or from Lennon's own mouth.)

Born on October 9, 1940 in Liverpool, when he was only five years old his parents got into a heated arument, in which John was forced to choose between his parents eventually going with his mother, and his father abandoning them to the point he'd not see him again for 20 years (conveniently after he became famous). At age 17, his mother died after being struck by a car across the road. He would later dress up like a teddy boy and became involved with Cynthia Powell. During said relationship, he was rather possessive of her, and even quite violent towards her. Lennon was however good friends with Paul McCartney, and joining with two other mates George Harrison and Peter Suthcliffe, they became "the Beatles" in 1960. Adding a drummer Pete Best, they soon met Brian Epstein, who became their manager, despite being a total newbie in artist management. Soon, Suthcliffe left, and Best was fired (with approval from every remaining member), and was replaced by Ringo Starr becoming the recognisable Famous Four. Around July, Lennon found out Cynthia was pregnant. Lennon then decided to marry her in response. After the group's single was released "Love Me Do" in August 1962, Lennon would marry Cynthia. The Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein would keep this secret to the general public, for obvious reasons (you know, rabid fangirls, aging the group etc.) The Beatles their first album in February 1963. After being on tour following recent success in the U.K., Lennon's first son, Julian, was born on 8th April 1963, in Sefton General Hospital in Liverpool. Lennon would later see his son three days later.

Now on to the serious "jerk" moments. I've pretty much described the guy's early life, and knowing how long it would take to actually write his history down, it's preferable if they were bullet pointed. So, without further adieu (in chronological order):

Pretty much being dismissive of Paul Best when the Beatles were called out on it saying "We were always gonna replace him. We just needed a drummer". He would later make an apology to Best, along with Paul McCartney and George Harrison. But not Ringo Starr. He wasn't the one who threw Best out, anyway.
Making cruel jokes about Paul Epstein, about his homosexuality and his Jewishness, referring to him as a "queer Jew". (Although they were actually just jokes, and kept at great lengths to keep his sexuality secret outside his close friends)
Beating the ever-loving shit out of MC Bob Wooler after he quipped "How was your honeymoon, John?" (referring to Epstein). Or as John put it, "He called me queer, so I battered his bloody ribs in."
More of less, leaving behind his wife and child Cynthia, as the Beatles went off to Wales to study under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in Transcendental Meditation. While he didn't exactly leave her, and it was more about her not being identified as Lennon's wife and missing the train, and deciding not to try and find another means of joining them, it should be noted that John had made little effort in contacting Cynthia either.
Lying to his wife about what was going on between him and Yoko Ono, the conceptual artist he met around 1965 (or 1966?). Cynthia found out they had a relationship when she returned home from Greece, found her slipper outside the apartment door, and Ono was wearing her bathroom robes as they stared at each other.
Filing for a divorce with Cynthia after during said discovery of John and Yoko's relationship. Cynthia returned from Italy to find this out from Alex Mardas, an associate of Lennon's, who informed her the decision was made on the grounds of adultery allegedly with Mardas. Considering Lennon's own relationship with Yoko Ono, and liaisons with groupies, friends and "thousands of women around the globe", this would make John Lennon, at least as defined on Planet Earth, a hypocrite.
During said divorce, Cynthia was given £100,000, which was the equivalent of John's monthly wages at the time, plus £42,000 for custody for their son Julian. Initially it was only going to be £75,000, with Lennon shouting over the phone "It's like winning the pools, what are you moaning about? You're not worth any more."
Leaving very little to his first son, Julian in his will. To be fair, he did make an effort to make a relationship with him.

I've ignored many of the relationship issues he had in his marriages, since well, while (not very) interesting, I'm not that much of a fan of marriage. And Lennon obviously provides some of the main arguments against it.

And to balance it out, here's some of the crazy awesome things that he did:

Coming on stage with a toilet seat around his neck in Hamburg (pre-fame), goosestepping around and shouting "stupid fucking Nazis" at them. They loved it.
The aforementioned freaky LSD trip.
The anti-war week long "bed-in for peace" calling the popular press and announcing them of this, with his new wife Yoko Ono on their honeymoon in 1969. And the bag-in moment.
Writing a song about a random drawing by his son Julian. The song? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
Wrote a song called "Woman is the Nigger of the World", and pretty much receive the thumbs-up from black activists (If you're too dumb to get that it was a song protesting for equality, maybe you're the one with the problem).
Pissing off President Richard Nixon, or as I like to call him, President Dick Dastardly; with his anti-war message. It led to him masterminding many schemes to get the singer deported by some bogus drugs charge.

As I mentioned already, the guy was a genuine anti-war activist. But he wasn't this Bob Dylan-esque activist, Oh Haruhi, no. When I say, this guy was a radical who called the Establishment out on its bullshit, I mean it. He was very vocal on his opposition to the hanging of James Hanriatty, saying that those condemning him "were the same bastards running guns in South Africa and killing blacks on the streets. ...The same bastards are running everything...This whole bullshit bourgeois scene." Also, when John Sinclair, an anti-war activist and leader of the White Panther Party was sentenced to 10 years for possessing marijuana, he attended a concert calling for his freedom, calling on the authorities to "Let him be, set him free, let him be like you and me". This wasn't to say he didn't have a sense of realism in the anti-war movement. Or rather, he was pretty radical. When asked if he was to choose between the British forces and the IRA, he said he'd side with the latter (Considering this was just after Bloody Sunday, and the question was posed in a manner that peace wasn't an option, I'd personally agree with him). The guy was even a target for COINTELPRO, which puts him on par with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X that the FBI has spied on.

So why was this saintly image of Lennon being presented? Well, the biggest reason was his widow Yoko Ono. after his death, a public statement was made that "There will be no funeral for John" and ending with "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please do the same for him." While this statement was short and rather heartfelt considering she saw her husband gunned down, even then you can almost see the beginnings of the messianic image being created around him, from that statement alone. While it was known that John was devoted to Yoko; to the point that her influence on Lennon was blamed for the break up of the Beatles, which is not necessarily true (At least not entirely), it really sank in that Yoko was devoted to Lennon as well. It got to the point where Ono withdrew from public appearances for an extended period.

Five years later, Ono would give Lennon his first memorial in Central Park, opened on 8 October 1985, when Lennon would've been 45. Then, memorials were pretty much popping around the globe, and Lennon's memory became pretty much into the peaceful saint of pop music. In fact it would be accurate to say that the image of Lennon; expressed through songs like "God", "Working Class Hero", "Jealous Guy", "Woman", "Mother", "Save Yourself" and others was pretty much reduced to "Imagine" (and possibly "Merry Christmas (War Is Over)". I don't know about you, but I think that in this world, one can be a peace activist while remaining a rude sarcastic, quirky badass. Just ask the Doctor.

It's possible this image would've eventually being absorbed into popular culture, but my issue with Ono (and technically only issue since she's done a wonderful job as an activist for feminism, AIDS victims and LGBT rights) was that she not only enabled the saint image, she bloody fostered and cultivated it. Seriously, like in 2002 in that Imagine... documentary on BBC, she spoke in terms like the world can be put in a simplistic dichotomy of "the peace industry, and the war industry". That literally sounds like it comes about of the "Imagine" song. Seriously, what about the photography industry? Or the media industry? Or the music industry? You know, the industries that you and John were pretty familiar with huh, Yoko? *Sigh* I can't stay mad at you. Tell you what, whenever you feel the need to put a memorial of your late husband, at least put more imagination than "imagine" or "peace". In fact, I'm starting a movement on whenever you get the John Lennon memorial feeling, just place a statue of him in Trafalgar Square, and title it "I Am The Walrus". In fact, since you're not even subtle about enforcing Lennon worship, just introduce a 900ft statue titled "John Lennon -God". At least it references one of his songs.

In summary, its more preferable if John Lennon was remembered as the deeply flawed, ballsy, with a deep sense of love for the human race, instead of the perfect almost soft-spoken icon. Part of that might even be the fault of TV since most of the stuff we see of him is in "watershed programming". That makes him a human being, not a god of any sorts. Indeed, not coming to terms with seeing Lennon for what he was is what led to his death in the first place, as the story is about some uber-religious Christian/Beatles fanatic with a god complex (not accurate terminology in psychology, but bear with me) who was butthurt over Lennon's openly critical views on religion, the dichotomy between singing about "a world without wealth" while being very wealthy, his success in general; all while refusing to sort out his own issues deciding to kill him and be famous. In the end, he wasn't slain for his anti-war views, but for not being perfect in the eyes of some deluded fan. I say if you want to remember John Lennon, don't go for this "John is the Messiah" crap. Instead, remember him for being imperfect, but trying his best .And having the balls to stand up for what he believes in. In that sense, the peace ideals are legit. But he's far more interesting as the lovable jerk who was human enough to make a stand against inhumanity. Oh and to me, "Imagine" is good, but it is not the greatest song Lennon ever made, let alone worthy of winning the best song ever 30 years running. (My personal favourite is "God", but that's a little too controversial for some)

Fin.

So, which other 60's icon shall I demythologize? Maybe I should go for another John, as in John F. Kennedy. Or maybe, Che Guevara...

(Oh, and for those who still don't get it...)

"I'll probably be popped off by some loonie."

- John Lennon, after being asked how he'd likely die in an interview in the 1960s. Eerie, huh.

"It's like idol worship. They only like people when they're on their way up. I cannot be on the way up again,... What they want is dead heroes, like Sid Vicious and James Dean. I'm not interested in being a dead hero. So forget 'em."

- John Lennon

"By the end you'll want to imagine this programme was less abysmal. But that would be difficult. Imagining the cynical, caustic John Lennon spinning in his grave at 5,000 r.p.m. is surprisingly easy."

- Charlie Booker, reviewing (*sigh*) Arena: Imagine Imagine.