Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has introduced a petition by Kathleen Wolf, also known as House Bill 3922, into consideration. This bill would "prohibit the corporal punishment of children. Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities."

It seems today that all of the conservative biased media is aflame with this House Bill, stating with defiance that, in the words of many on screen and in print, "government has NO RIGHT violating the sanctity of the home by telling parents how and when they can discipline their children."

First, a low blow. I guess government, in their eyes, has the right to violate the sanctity of the home if it involves a violation from "traditional" sexual practices. I'm not an advocate of homosexuality, bestiality, or anything else these hate-mongers would view as a perversion (although I find raw french toast in between my toes quite exciting), but I am quite taken by surprise by the intensity by which these handjobs have come forward saying "HEY BIG GOV'T GET OUT OF MY HOUSE YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO INSIDE THE WALLS OF MY OWN HOME, yet then again, if it involves cucumber dildos, charge in with the SS."

Ok, now that I've got that out of the way, let's discuss the bill. Actually, let's READ the bill. I know researching a Bill and actually reading what it is about, much like what you should do with a book before you burn it, is alien to most of you people, but it is a skill it would behoove you to learn, lest you look like an idiot. Alas, even that wouldn't help some of you. So, put down the torches and pitchforks and actually take a look instead of just listening to what your foolish friends have said and jumping on the bandwagon.

You may find the bill in its entirety at, and since I know some of you are mouse-impaired, hell I'll even post the damn thing below.


By Mr. Kaufman of Lexington (by request), petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 3922) of Kathleen Wolf for legislation to prohibit the corporal punishment of children. Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Kathleen Wolf

In the Year Two Thousand and Seven.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 119 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after Section 51 B, a new Section 51 B 1/2 , as follows:


Corporal Punishment of children violates their rights to safe, secure and respectful care.

This section is intended to actively support nonviolent parenting.

The provisions of this section are intended to eliminate the use of corporal punishment to discipline children, because of the emotional harm and risks of bodily harm associated with corporal punishment of children.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have thefollowing meanings: - “Child”, any person under eighteen years of age. “Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.

(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.

(c) The infliction of corporal punishment on a child may be a basis for a finding of abuse and neglect.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using such reasonable force as is necessary to protect himself and others from imminent, serious, physical harm, including assault by a child, to divest a child of a dangerous instrument, to prevent injury to property, or to remove a child from a life-threatening or injurious situation.


Ok. Now, if you people actually read that, you would see that the bill DOES NOT prohibit spanking. Did you miss it?


The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but I know most of you hate mongers out there can't see the forest for the trees, so here let me narrow it down a bit.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

Did you see it yet?

Here, last hint.

minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control


I wish someone would PLEASE do something to stop the stupid American Media - and yes, I'm pointing at you, FOX NEWS. I'm pointing at you, CNN. I'm pointing at you, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC. I'm pointing at all of you - from PURPOSEFULLY stirring this trash up.


THEY WANT RATINGS. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. This law is designed so we can prosecute or stop parents from behaviors not caught under the current definition of abuse. These could be "spanking your child with the belt so bad he bleeds, or with the buckle side" or "smacking your child in the face so badly you bloody her lip" or "strip your child of all his emotional barriers by humiliating him in front of his peers, say, by example making "fun" of him for being weak and a "fag sissy" while he is in front of his peers. Oh let's not forget about smacking your child with an open fist. Or calling your child an idiot, stupid, lazy, a fool, a detriment, or most importantly, calling her a regret, or by telling her to shut up, while she cries for a candy bar in the Mega-Mart check-out isle at 11pm when she should have been in bed.

Yanking your son out of the path of an oncoming car, taking your child aside for a quick swat to the rear with an open hand, or grounding your daughter for sneaking out at night so she can drink beer with the town's star quarterback are not prohibited by this law.

You might wonder where I get this information? How do I know this is the intent? Well..... they want the bill to pass, do they not? No bill that says a parent loses the right to discipline his or her child will ever pass.

[[ EDIT ]]

I've added these next couple comments because i'm not sure who had read this post by now or not.

First of all, when I said I did not advocate homosexuality, i wasn't meaning i thought homosexuality was wrong. I was stating that, to me, at this point in my life, I do not go publicly and campaign for the advancement or acceptance of homosexuality. If I see someone trashing it because they are being a stupid asshole, I'll surely let them know how foolish they are. But otherwise, I'm pretty much not involved.

Second, I wanted to add that I think this bill is really addressing those who spank out of anger. I know that corporal punishment may be defined in a manner of ways, including but not limited to any physical altercation with another being with the intent of altering or controlling that being's behavior, but I see a difference in spanking/punishing out of anger and doing so as just punishment. Spanking was an accepted norm in my house as a child, and I was spanked. My sister and brother would say that I wasn't spanked enough, but I would disagree :) . I also saw friends and extended family undergo spanking out of anger. I am lucky, because I never, to my knowledge, was struck out of anger. Shock, perhaps. But not anger. My relatives, unfortunately, whipped angrily, reacted differently to the punishment, and in many cases, were actually hurt by it. Hurt badly. The difference is obvious to me, and I am more than willing to go into more detail, if needed.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Experts? Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves

Since our first baby reached teething age early my wife and I have been reading and absorbing as much teething literature as we possibly could. Our son now is eleven months old and has twelve teeth. I had read many forums where parents had stated that their babies, when teething their molars, would have intense pain and would wake up in the middle of the night. Flying in the face of all these parents, however, were the experts who repeatedly and consistently said that teething pain was not painful enough to wake a baby.

Not painful enough?

This is not a picture of our son having awakened at 4am with teething pain.

This is not a picture of our son having awakened at 4am with teething pain, doing whatever he can to rub his gums and make himself feel better.

This is not a picture of our son having awakened at 4am with teething pain, doing whatever he can to rub his gums and make himself feel better, clearly begging me to alleviate this pain in any way I know how.

Again, this is not a picture of our son having awakened at 4am with teething pain.

Am I a cruel father for taking a picture of my son at 4am when he had intense teething pain? Absolutely not. Am I a father who loves his son so much that he would take a picture of him simply to make a point, putting these experts in their place? You're damn right I am.

Experts. In today's world, everyone is a smart-ass know-it-all. In a world of experts, knowing everything is the norm and knowing nothing is special.

We live in a world of experts. where anyone can find an expert who will tell them whatever nickel and dime opinion they want to hear. Experts are standing on the auction block before us all, whoring themselves for top dollar to whoever will believe their nonsensical take on reality as they see it.

Experts argue convincingly daily opposing sides of court cases, obviously giving expert interpretation of evidence. Experts give people crackpot quack psychological advice to more people than the actual trained psychologists could ever hope to give. Experts tell us that one ounce of body fat makes us obese, eating a cheeseburger clogs our arteries, pills will help us lose weight faster than reasonable diet and simple exercise, spanking our children is bad, spanking our children is good, global warming is bad, global warming is good, X, Y, Z, A, E, I, O, U, and it never ends.

There may be reasons why some of these things may or may not be true. However, in the case of teething pain and awakening at night, when an expert tells me that it doesn't happen, I can defiantly say "you're just plain wrong." I guess I could hit him angrily with a crowbar, but experts tell me that acting on my anger is bad.

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Brian Rokus on has published an article on his news site that is spotlighting a part of an upcoming series entitled "God's Warriors". The expose will be hosted by Christiane Amanpour.

In this article (my apologies to for linking their site), Mr. Rokus mentions Rehan Seyam, a Muslim who wore a traditional hijab (head scarf) to Wal-Mart while she did some badly needed shopping. It was the holiday season, and I'm guessing the store was quite crowded.

As stated by Mr. Rokus, Ms. Seyam reported that a man in the store singled her out and loudly sang the "12 days of Christmas" to her face, changing the lyrics to include taunts, insults, and references to Osama bin Laden.

According to Rokus, Ms. Seyam asked the gentleman "Do I look like a terrorist to you?" He is reported to have responded "What else does a terrorist look like?"

Excuse me, mr. wal-mart-shopper-who-knows-everything, but who is terrorizing whom here? Did Ms. Seyam come into the store and single you out and threaten you, or did you single her out and make her uncomfortable? Didn't you terrorize her? Was she a threat, or was this just an excuse for you to make a public display of your ignorance, prejudice, and hate?

What else does a terrorist look like? Oh, yes, that's right. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols put their turbans down, shaved their beards, and stayed away from the mosque, and that's why we missed them. Or has September 11, 2001 made you forget April 19th, 1995? Or is it because you are too uncomfortable to discuss the fact that homegrown terrorists are a threat to our way of life?

It is reported that there were 168 deaths and 800 injured on that day, including children. On September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists, mostly Saudis, killed 2,794 people in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania. 24 others were never located and are presumed dead today. It is estimated that there were 16,000 people around the base of the World Trade Center when it collapsed, and it is difficult to estimate how many were truly "injured".

But for Oklahoma city, two men killed 168 people. This may not seem like so much on the surface but realize that Tim McVeigh killed 168 people (Terry Nichols involvement with the attack is still, despite his conviction, in dispute--he did not "pull the lever" so to speak). Compare this to September 11th, where one terrorist killed 147 people (which I will admit is using simple math to compare number of terrorists and number of deaths and doesn't take into account locations and individual involvement) but I'm not saying Oklahoma was worse, just that it was as bad as what happened in 2001.

I remember the weeks following April 19th, 1995. I remember the concrete barriers that sprang up overnight. I remember the fears people had of going to work if they worked in a government facility. I remember the press conferences. I remember people being afraid. I remember the terrorism.

And I don't remember Islamic extremism being a part of it at all.

So the next time you ask an innocent Islamic woman in Wal-Mart, Mr. Rude Shopper, "what else does a terrorist look like?" You need to take a long hard look into a mirror.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Blood In The Mortar?

Ok I’ve hidden in the rocks long enough. As you know there comes a time when I just can’t keep my mouth shut for my own good. The pressure has been building and now I need to open the floodgates or face a critical situation.

Enjoy being in my reticule, conspiracy theorists. I’m not out to get you. I was just looking your way when I pulled the trigger.

A good conspiracy theory is great for entertaining reading, or a good movie, or something good to wipe your butt with. And yes, sometimes, when the planets align, or more to the point when we complete one galactic trip through the zodiac, a conspiracy theory is right on target. But not right now, in this entry. I’m not going to talk about Lee Harvey Oswald, Marilyn Monroe, Haliburton, Zionism, or Bush’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

No, I’m gonna smack around those who believe Freemasons are out to rule the world.

I’m not going to explain what Freemasonry is, where it came from, who started it, or why. There are plenty of lodges around that would be more than willing to explain history to you.

What I’m going to do is knock down these stupid accusations against the Masons.

First of all let’s burn the trump card.

1) This quote is used as the conspiracy theorist’s (henceforth written as CT’s) “smoking gun” that Freemasonry lies to its initiates. This is a partial quote by General Albert Pike in his work Morals and Dogma in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, 1871:

“The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry.” (pp. 104, 105 & 819)

As with anything else a paranoid, ignorant, and most importantly JEALOUS person who is angry because he isn't a part of something greater than he would believe, this quote is taken widely out of context. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that when you have an organization that works for the betterment of humanity, especially on the frontlines against entire tyrannical governments, so decreed by the CT himself, that people who have a different opinion of these secret societies (i.e. patriots to a tyrant) would seek to compromise the integrity of the institution. Simply put, you don’t give the new bank teller the keys to the vault on his first day of work. That’s one reason.

Another would be to protect the secrets of the order against tyrants if the lower ranks are captured, tortured, or otherwise compromised. Again, it is the CTs themselves who state the Freemasons have worked for political change on a grand scale.

And yet another reason would be to protect the initiates themselves. With so many people waiting in the bushes to string up a Freemason, you might teach them things slightly apart from the truth until they can be taught to keep what they know secret. This is a no-brainer to me. People are less likely to terrorize an initiate if the initiate knows nothing or is known to know the wrong thing.

My final legitimate reason is simply that their existence tells a story. Not only is life a continuous learning experience, but also is one’s progression through an order. It takes time to “shape” a mind. Yes, I know this comment in itself is enough to drive a CT into adulterous heat, but it is what it is. You don’t benefit from AA overnight. You don’t get your PhD in one year. And you certainly don’t understand the intricacies of an order as an initiate.

Of course there could be another reason, since the order is secret and no one REALLY knows, just for fun. “Sure, Bob, let Sammy think the unfinished pyramid and All-Seeing Eye represent a New World Order. Perhaps when he gets to the 30th degree we’ll tell him that it really just means we think our leader is a big and fat eyeball cause he keeps staring at us and he weighs as much as a pyramid.”

Yes I’m being quite facetious on that last one, but I’m sure you get my point. No one who isn’t a part of the organization knows what the organization teaches. NO ONE.

2) There is an entire volume of misquotes related to the role of Lucifer in the teachings. When people don’t listen to the CT’s when the CT’s scream about the secrecy or the political meddling of the Masons, the CT’s throw out another card, trying to strike fear into the hearts of the ignorant common man. They pull the religion stringand ring a bell. MASONS WORSHIP THE DEVIL! They cry. They scream. They teach. LUCIFER IS SATAN!

Give me a break.

Lucifer is mentioned in writings, to be sure. And all this could be well fine and good if, in fact, Lucifer were Satan. But I hate to burst the bubble of the CT, as well as that of the common uneducated spiritual enthusiast, but Lucifer is not Satan. In today’s contemporary society, certainly, people view Lucifer to be Satan, but this is based in ignorance. Any true student of the Holy Bible will tell you Lucifer and Satan being one and the same is untrue.

Lucifer is “mentioned” in the Holy Bible in the book of Isaiah, chapter 14, verses 12 to 15. It states, as written in the King James Version:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

This same passage, in the New International Version, reads:

12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."


Actually, no. If you read the entire book of Isaiah, and read the context of this passage, you will find it is NOT talking about Satan, but is in fact discussing the arrogance of the King of Babylon, and is delivering a prophecy against him and his people.

Here is chapter 14, in its entirety, in both the King James and the New International versions. Kudos go to the Bible Gateway, an online concordance.

Isaiah 14 (NIV)
1 The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob.
2 Nations will take them and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will possess the nations as menservants and maid servants in the LORD's land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors.
3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage,
4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!
5 The LORD has broken the rod of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers,
6 which in anger struck down peoples with unceasing blows, and in fury subdued nations with relentless aggression.
7 All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing.
8 Even the pine trees and the cedars of Lebanon exult over you and say, "Now that you have been laid low, no woodsman comes to cut us down."
9 The grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones—all those who were kings over the nations.
10 They will all respond, they will say to you, "You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us."
11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you.
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble,
17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?"
18 All the kings of the nations lie in state, each in his own tomb.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot,
20 you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his sons for the sins of their forefathers; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 "I will rise up against them," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will cut off from Babylon her name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the LORD.
23 "I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction," declares the LORD Almighty.

A Prophecy Against Assyria
24 The LORD Almighty has sworn, "Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will stand.
25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders."
26 This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations.
27 For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

A Prophecy Against the Philistines
28 This oracle came in the year King Ahaz died:
29 Do not rejoice, all you Philistines, that the rod that struck you is broken; from the root of that snake will spring up a viper, its fruit will be a darting, venomous serpent.
30 The poorest of the poor will find pasture, and the needy will lie down in safety. But your root I will destroy by famine; it will slay your survivors.
31 Wail, O gate! Howl, O city! Melt away, all you Philistines! A cloud of smoke comes from the north, and there is not a straggler in its ranks.
32 What answer shall be given to the envoys of that nation? "The LORD has established Zion, and in her his afflicted people will find refuge."

Isaiah 14 (King James)
1For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.
2And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
3And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,
4That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
5The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
6He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
7The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
8Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
9Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
22For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
23I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.
24The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
25That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.
26This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.
27For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?
28In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden.
29Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
30And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant.
31Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.
32What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the LORD hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.

Babylon at this time was the most powerful and dominant sovereign nation in the area. Babylon was aggressive. Babylon had conquered land after land, and Babylon was the subject of many persons' ire. This passage equates to a curse against Babylon for its sins against the Jewish people. The Babylonians believed themselves superior to everyone, walked on everyone, conquered everyone, and believed themselves gods of men. They thought they knew what was best for the world. They thought their word was truth. And their truth, ironically, was “the Way.” The Babylonians were, in effect, Isaiah’s Roman Empire.

The word Lucifer itself may fall under scrutiny. Truly, the usage of Lucifer in this passage is purely metaphorical, a device, understandably so, misunderstood by most of the Human population. Lucifer, here, is a symbol, and the description thus used is what was best to describe, as a symbol, the King and people of Babylon.

In Latin, “Lucifer” comes directly from “lucifera, luciferum”, defined as light-bearing, or light bringing. It is attributed to the morning star, the first star, and/or the brightest star.

Of course light bringing or light bearing can mean whatever you want it to mean, but in this case, it is similar to knowledge, or bringing knowledge. For example, think of all those cartoons where a character got an idea and suddenly a light bulb appeared over her head. It’s the same premise here, and is the same premise in Masonic thought. Do you see the light?

Lucifer delivering the light simply means gaining knowledge. It does not mean meeting Satan for tea and devoting your life to his evilness.

COME ON FATBODY. Are you saying all those times that Lucifer is mentioned in Masonic, Biblical, and other pre-Christian mystery that it meant only somebody got a bright idea?

Yes, actually I am.

COME ON FATBODY. What about Aleister Crowley, Anton LaVey, The Church of Satan, The Satanic Bible, and its use of Lucifer as Satan? What of the old poets?

First of all, these men were charlatans. I’m not saying the power of the mind should be disrespected. I’m saying these men were not satisified with their religion-du-jour and looked for something else. LaVey, for example, wrote the Satanic Bible, pulled from historical and popular contemporary sources and made his own religion. His work did not exist in the days of Isaiah. They, like Marilyn Manson today, needed a gimmick, and they found a good one.

The old poets? Hogwash. I think the most popular secular work concerning the rivalry between God and Satan is John Milton’s Paradise Lost. In his work Milton mentions Lucifer three times but mentions Satan over ten times. When Milton names the nemesis of God, he uses the term “Satan.” When Milton describes Satan’s position, or his relationship with God, he uses the term “Lucifer.” Again, it is a metaphor used to relate Satan’s status with God, that, Satan was God’s “best and brightest” angel, and God’s “right hand.” You can visit OnlineLiterature.Com and read and search Milton’s work and form your own opinion, but it seems obvious to me.


Ok ok. So, we see that the Lucifer-Masonic link isn’t as strong as the CT would like you to believe. But what else do the CT’s claim?

3) Freemasons, namely Gerald B Gardner, C. W. Leadbeater, Wynn Westcott, support black magic, voodoo, wicca, satanic sacrifice, hedonistic sex magic, etc.

All I can say is these men are dead, they can’t answer these accusations even if they had an inkling of desire to do so, and we should not judge the movement for what they what have believed in, may it have been bad, abnormal, or different. All I’m saying is, given the fact that these men did in fact practice disturbing evil rituals or other acts, and if these were contrary to popular substance and obscene in their own right, that we shouldn’t let a few “bad apples” or “kooks” smear an entire organization. I’m sure the Christian majority, after dealing with their own problems, for example Jim Jones, The People’s Temple, and Jonestown, will understand this.

4) Freemasons want to create a New World Order of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Separation of Church and State, and Religious Tolerance.

Ooooooook. Yeah, I guess those are bad. Guilty as charged. I guess I'm an idiot for wanting that too. Maybe I seek to destroy the world. This was from their description from Wikipedia and I absolutely could not resist quoting it. Click here to see the entire article.

5) The National Seals of the United States of America, the dollar bill, and the streetplan of Washington DC “prove” the Freemasons have “created” (and sometimes, in contradiction, “taken over”) the American government.

These are funny. Let’s sort them out. Fortunately for us both the obverse and the reverse of the great seal are on the reverse of the dollar bill.


On the reverse of the dollar bill you will find both sides of the Great Seal of the United States of America. First is the unfinished pyramid, the great All-Seeing Eye, and the words “annuit coeptis” and “novus ordo seclorum,” which mean “favoring” and “new world order” respectively. The other is the bald eagle bearing arrows and an olive branch.

I know the words “new world order” scare the hell out of fundamentalists, but let’s just explain this here. When the United States was created it was, for all purposes, A NEW WORLD ORDER. It was a new type of government, one which had been documented, perhaps tried, but never followed. The way Americans would do things would be truly new. No monarchs. No aristocracy. No oligarchy. Rule by the people and for the people. Too bad it didn’t stay that way. And if it still scares you, you know when Jesus brought the truth and the way to the masses, he brought a new world order. Think about that.

Back to the point, the words Annuit Coeptis are placed above the All-Seeing Eye, otherwise known as the “Eye of Providence”, for a reason. Novus Ordo Seclorum was beneath the pyramid as well. The pyramids of Egypt stood the test of time. So too would this new order that the founders had created, they hoped. And it was not finished. They had only begun to build this great order, thus, the pyramid is unfinished. This was their way of saying “fortune has favored the creation of the new world order, or our great nation of the United States of America.” These symbols were so popular at the time that you could almost view them as contemporary freeware clip-art. There are no hidden messages here.

Another pertaining to the seal is that if you draw a Star of David on the “Annuit Coeptis” seal, using the eye as the top of the star and the bottom of the pyramid as the star’s base, that where the star touches letters you will find the word MASON. I guess this links Masons to Jews.

I think the CT would be better off using a five-pointed star (pentagram) here. You can still get the letters that would spell MASON if you turn it just right, and the pentagram is generally viewed as an evil symbol by contemporary Christian society and would solidify the link to Masons being Satanic. Oh well. Can’t blame them for trying.

Personally I think the letters spell “MOANS,” because this is exactly what I do every time I hear that this is a hidden message or anagram in the Great Seal of the United States of America.

What I wish someone would explain is why the background of the dollar bill is spider webs, and why there is a tiny near-microscopic spider walking along the top-left side of the bracketed 1 on the top right side of the front of the dollar? Is it because the money was green, grass is green, and you find spiders in the grass? You got me.

Here we have a bald eagle, wings outstretched. Over its chest is a shield with a blue field and thirteen stripes. Above the eagle’s head are thirteen stars in the shape of a six-pointed Star of David (which may be a key to use the same pattern to find the word MOANS on the reverse seal). The eagle holds in its talons arrows and an olive branch.

The eagle is the official symbol of the United States of America. There are thirteen stripes on the shield because there are thirteen colonies that formed the great nation. There are thirteen stars in the star above the eagle’s head, again, because there are thirteen colonies. The words E Pluribus Unum adorn the eagle on a ribbon. E Pluribus Unum means “out of many, one.” This is again a reference to the thirteen colonies.

Many CT’s say the number thirteen comes up again and again as a reference to Friday the 13th, the day the Knights Templar died. They say this because they link the Freemasons to the Knights Templar. I’m sorry, but this is just too far out there. THERE WERE 13 COLONIES YOU MORONS. Or did the masons orchestrate that too?

Truth be told the great seal is full of both Masonic and non-Masonic symbols. Like I said before, these symbols were their clip-art of the day. Benjamin Franklin was the only “proven” Mason to be on the Great Seal Committee, and all his recommendations were rejected. He even wanted the turkey instead of the eagle. That would have been attractive.

If you draw your lines just right, you can link major monuments in Washington DC with a large pentagram, and find the compass and square.

Okay. You can also link them with crosses, and I don’t think the CT’s would say this meant the designer was a Christian and prophesizing the coming of the New Jerusalem. But I guess this follows the rationale that if you believe it enough you’ll see it. Well of course you will.

All I can say is so what. If the symbolism is there, so freaking what. Pierre L’Enfant was a Freemason, it is believed. He would have put the symbols there subconsciously if not consciously. Just because they are there doesn’t mean DC is the seat of Freemasonry, or beyond that, even the site of evil. Look at all the Christian symbolism in Vatican City. Does God live there with the Pope? Aside from God being everywhere, I think not.

4) Depending on what math you use, how you do it, no matter how you do it, you get 13 this and 13 that.

This is the only way I could bring this one up. Idiots absolutely LOVE playing with mathematics. I think it’s like a baby holding a cell-phone, awestruck by the blinking lights and having no idea what it’s for or how it works. These people love trying to persuade using math. For example, they say there are X number of windows on Y sides of a building that is Z feet around the base. And if you bring in N number of buildings constructed by that architect and I where I is the number of potatoes he ate M days ago, and you divide by O his age, then take the standard derivative of the integral as it approaches how many times he farted on Tuesday, you get 13, the holy number of masons.

Math isn’t a toy. You shouldn’t play with it like that or you just might hurt yourself.


What this all boils down to is anytime you have a group of individuals who practice in secret, whether it’s Christians in the time of the Roman Empire, or Libertarians in the time of tyranny, people talk about them because they don’t understand them. Whenever a child went missing in the day of Nero Caesar everyone pointed first to the Christians because they were mysterious and didn’t practice their religion in public. Today, the World Trade Center collapses and we point fingers at Freemasons and Jews instead of where it truly belongs: at ourselves. I know that’s a pretty hefty statement and I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but I do ask you to spend a little while thinking about what it means. We don’t exist in a vacuum. There was a little trick we used in debate--if you can find three to five good examples that support my argument, even if you disagree with it, at least you understand it, and understand your own point even better. I challenge the reader to do that, if he/she disagrees. Conspiracy theorists never seem to do this.

The CT’s seem to punctuate their articles by talking about how they’ve been threatened by masons. Like I believe that. However, to further my constant quest of indulgence, let me give you a real threat, and I’m not even a Freemason:

To all the half-wit keyboard-jockey wanna-be-special investigators out there, what makes you think that an organization as secretive, as all-encompassing, as malicious, controlling, powerful, dominant, and sovereign as you would have the Freemasons believed to be, would bat an eye about making someone who clearly wouldn’t be missed disappear from the face of the Earth? Entire kingdoms have fallen at the whim of Masons, and you think they’d waste time “threatening” you? You need to think about that, as does everyone who reads your insane drivel.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Being tagged

Ok i admit, i think i got carried away. When my tag post broke 22 pages, I realized that I think I had begun to write my memoirs instead of play a simple game. For that reason, I'm going to hold off on the life story and just post a few things about myself that you may or may not know. If anyone is interested in the memoirs, well, I guess I could keep working on that and post it too.

First things first. I’m supposed to post some rules.

• I have to post these rules before I give you the facts.
• Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
• People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
• At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.

¬So here’s my facts:

1) I hate alpha-males and alpha-females
2) I hate blind-compliance and closed minds
3) I hate liars, cheats, and wolves in sheep’s clothing
4) I hate smokescreens and mindgames
5) I hate forced conformity
6) I hate stupid people
7) I hate being sick, which happens to me way too often
8) I hate hating.

Things I like

I love hearing my wife sing or play music
I love a good walk at sunset
I love meditation by a creekbed
I love making my son laugh
I love keeping a promise
I love to drive
I love watching snow fall at night
I love slapstick comedy

I hope this is good enough. If not, oh well. I hope you like bratwurst.

Thursday, July 12, 2007


I have evidently been tagged. This will be a long post for me. Please bear with me while i write it, those of you who tagged me. It should be up eventually.


Sunday, June 24, 2007

Paris, Revisited

I wanted to add to a comment made on the previous post, but thought it made a great subject for a new topic, so here it is.

"I certainly don't want to be seen as defending Paris Hilton, but while she is incarcerated, droves of non-celebrity inmates will be released do to overcrowding. Also, I have it on good authority from a former CA prosecutor that it is routine to allow inmates to pay for their stay in a swankier facility, an option which Paris was denied. Is Paris a whining, spoiled, talentless brat? Absolutely. Is she being treated fairly? Of that I can't be so sure."

First of all, droves of non-celebrity inmates are being released from prisons due to overcrowding, which is true, but is, as stated, due to overcrowding. They are not released simply because they don't want to be there, or don't like the accomodations. The justice system shouldn't give a damn if you, as in Paris' own words, "I'm claustrophobic, and my cell is really small...I was going a little bit crazy in the beginning. I'm getting used to it now."

Being released because there simply isn't room for you is a bit different than being released because you don't have your bedroom that is most likely the size of an average person's home. We need to keep this in mind.

And the second point, that it is routine for inmates to pay for their stay in better facilities--a right which Paris' was denied--is unfair treatment is the meat of my post. Whether or not the law guarantees this to other persons of means is what I hold in question. Surely, she may be treated unfairly when considering others with means can avoid their sentences, but this is not what is truly unfair. The existence of those with means to even pay for this change of housing is what is unfair. I have no pity for someone being treated unfairly by an unfair provision that is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.

First of all, I have great respect for California in many ways. I love the town of San Francisco. I love the respect that more liberal ideas have there. But as extreme conservative ideas have a home in the southeastern United States, so too do extreme liberal views infest the state of California. And just as you will find it almost taboo to not hate gays, blacks, athiests, women, or democrats in the southeast, it is almost in some places just as horrific in California to believe that people who don't recycle should not be put to death, that people who don't have tree sanctuaries on their properties aren't heathens, or that people who drive cars that get a little less gas mileage then the prius actually might not wish armageddon onto all wildlife preserves. I will be the first to come out and say that I do not know if this law allowing persons with means to pay for better incarceration is held in other states. I don't know if this is primarily a California law or if is the same in Alabama or Connecticut, but I will say that it is not her being denied this right which is unfair, but this right as a whole, no matter what state holds it as law, which is unfair to the remaining 98% of the population.

Unfair laws exist on the books in every state. It takes hard work to abolish that which the majority thinks is right but is unfair, such as Jim Crow, Poll Taxes, rights against interracial marriage, and selling beer on Sundays. We still have a long way to go, particularly in the direction of marriage equality, abortion, antiprivatization and antiglobalization, and clearly, putting the belief in a caste system to pasture for all time.

Certainly a right to pay to be incarcerated at a more pleasant facility is not the same as paying for someone to serve your mandatory military service in your place on its surface, but at its root, these beliefs are based on the same concept, which is those with means are better than those without.

That is, of course, unless the fee to choose a different facility were based on a percentage of your net worth, instead of a ridiculous amount that any poor black man caught speeding in a white neighborhood could ever hope to pay. And we know this is not the case. If it were, the 63% of our prisoners which are Black and Hispanic would be in other facilities. For the record, Hispanic is not treated as White. Click here for 2000 census data. Lots of fun data there. Hell, if they even could pay for this treatment, then maybe, just maybe, others wouldn't be released due to overcrowding.

It is clear to me that the excessively weathly think they are a better breed than everyone else by thinking they have the right to pay for better prison treatment than the average person gets. What disgusts me is the average person simply accepts this. It's easy to be apathetic, but it is even more obvious in cases where, for example, Paris Hilton's family came to visit her at her prison, push their way through the line of people waiting for hours to see their own incarcerated friends and family, enter the cafeteria area, force it to be evacuated, a procedure I might add set into place by the facility for when high-profile families or visitors show up to see their criminal kin, thereby proving to everyone with eyes and ears that not only do they know they have more rights than you but also the system agrees because they have procedures in place to make the celebrity visitors' experience more pleasant.

To be honest, I'm not against Paris Hilton because I have any grudge against her. I don't hate her, and I don't think any less of her for partying, being loose in the knees or for making a sex tape even. I wouldn't mind if she made another one. We all know that being angry at her for that is the age-old double standard of sexual deviance knocking at our doors again. As far as I'm concerned she is the product of a system that deifies the wealthy. It is tragic for her, in this, I presume, and for that she has my sympathy. Personally, I hope she can grow up and overcome this brainwashing that fame has given her. In the meantime I will continue to take on Hollywood and the religion of Celebrianity, because our ancestors fought a war in 1776 so we could live out from under the thumb of a king and aristocracy, and I have no wish to have to see that conflict waged again in that manner.

By the way, I trademark the term "celebrianity." :P

Saturday, June 09, 2007

A Little Sun On The Horizon

Ok so some of my faith in the justice system is restored. Paris Hilton was basically dragged crying and screaming back to jail to serve her sentence. Seems the judge got some confidence and ordered her back, saying he did at no time indicate she could be allowed to be returned home, and that the sheriff who released her was out of line. Oh well, I can't be mad at that, and I won't point fingers at who is responsible for the fiasco. I'm just glad she's going back to jail. And stop whining. My goodness, Paris, it's only 45 days, and probably in the county jail. Sure it isn't as posh a place as you're used to, but please, stop acting like it's San Quentin. I would say think of it like you were grounded, but then I think you have no idea what that's like either.

In the end, Paris, if you survive your own self-centered stubborness, this is probably the best thing that has ever happened to you. Maybe you'll grow up a bit.

Thursday, June 07, 2007


Oh well Paris Hilton is out of jail five days after she went in. Seems she wasn't eating much of the food this penitentiary was serving her and was released to house arrest for medical reasons. HEAR THAT CONS? All it means is you just need to be a little stubborn and spoiled brat and you just might get out of the joint for "medical reasons." God forbid all you guys and gals in the pen throw ignorant hunger strikes because you don't like your accomodations. Oh yeah, it helps to be a billionaire heiress who is loose in the knees too, I guess.

I thought the American Justice System was better than this.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Friday, May 25, 2007

Whiney-Ass Americans

I think my blood pressure has gone up again and this time it is because of people out and about as we approach Memorial Day complaining about the rising cost of gasoline. Listen, people, please, take my advice -- Shut the hell up! At least shut up, or start using that energy for solving the real issues here.

What got me going was a quote I read on CNN in their article Fed Up Station Owner Shuts Off Gas Pumps that can be found here . In this article Maria McClory stated that she drove over 100 miles a day for work in her SUV. This one got me going. The kicker occured later when John Schwartz indicated that he could not "fill up his SUV at that price" (previously stated at $3.49/gallon). He later indicated, per the article, that "...if it keeps going like this, my kids will never be able to drive."

Give me a damn break. As a citizen of the United States of America, it sickens me when my fellow citizens gripe, bitch, whine, and complain when they are forced to step up to do something that the rest of the world has been doing for quite some time. This sense of entitlement that many Americans have is ridiculous. And don't give me that "we're entitled to it because our soldiers pay in blood when no one else fights" B.S., because I will smack you down with the unnecessary-war bat so hard you'll go running to mommy crying for bandaids and a lollipop.

The rising cost of gasoline is NOT the problem -- it is the MILEAGE we get. What we pay for gas is still not what the rest of the world pays for its gas. If you don't believe me, go drive around Europe for a while. When you realize you are paying four and a half bucks a gallon for gas, then you'll understand.

But four and a half bucks a gallon isn't bad if you can get 40 or more miles on it, right? Maybe 50? But Fatbody, we can't have these cars. Fatbody, our government and our president and our car manufacturers are telling us that they are working diligently to solve this for us. Fatbody, if we are lucky, we may see cars on our roads that get 40 mpg in ten years. Unless we buy hybrids, or hydrogen cars.

STOP BEING AN IDIOT! The technology for better gas mileage exists. If you don't believe me, check out the New Ford Mondeo, manufactured by (yes you guessed it) the American Motor Company we know as FORD. This is one company we have that says they are FRANTICALLY WORKING TO IMPROVE YOUR GAS MILEAGE ABOVE 25mpg. This is one company that George W. Bush is pushing to "develop new technology" so that we can have cars with higher gas mileage on our roads sometime in the future. The Ford Mondeo 2.0TDCi LX (115ps) 5d, on sale in Europe TODAY, gets 50 miles per gallon! 50! FIF-TY! Why the hell can't I buy this car in the United States? It's made by FORD for goodness sake! Want to see more cars? Click here . What you will see is a list of all cars sold in Great Britain and their results on governmental mileage tests. If you want more mpg, go to diesel, but for now, I'm arguing petrol (gasoline).

One thing to note is that their gallons are 8 pints of 20 fluid ounces each, ours are 8 pints of 16 fluid ounces each. This is a 20% difference, which takes the 50mpg down to 40mpg. Hell America, I'd SETTLE FOR FORTY MPG. And if the fact that they are selling these cars in Europe without giving the United States consumer the option to purchase doesn't piss you off, listen to this.

If you want a better comparison, Ford sells the Focus in both the United States and in Great Britain. According to the U.S. Government Fuel Economy information database the 2007 Ford Focus 2.0L 4-cyl. 5 Speed Manual gets 27mpg (New EPA) 31mpg (old EPA). In Great Britain, according to their standards the most similar Focus, the Ford Focus C-Max 2.0 Duratec 2.0L 5 Speed Manual Petrol (gas) engine gets a whopping 38.7mpg. With the above fluid ounce conversion that meets the above old EPA of 31 mpg, which was amended to be 27mpg because it was deemed innacurate. These are combined numbers that bring up problems in their calculations, relative to the standards of the country computing the statistic. So let's compare highway mileages. Not highway and city mile averages. The U.S. Gov't states the Focus gets 33mpg highway, and in Great Britain, the Duratec gets 50mpg. Did I say that right? You're damn right I did. FIFTY miles per gallon. FIFTY POINT FOUR (50.4) to be exact. And again, after the fluid ounce conversion, that's approximately 40mpg!

Didn't I say something about selling myself on a street corner for forty mpg?

If you feel you are entitled, Americans, then drop your cheetos and get your butts off your couches and pitch a tent on you congressman's lawn and GET THESE CARS INTO THE UNITED STATES.

GM produced twenty five years ago the car known as the GM TPC. It got 75 miles per gallon! And believe it or not, this same company produced the GM Lean Machine in 1982 that reached 80 miles per gallon! And beyond that, the GM Aero series and GM Ultralite in 1992 are proven to reach 100 miles per gallon!


Do you get this? In 1992, GM could manufacture a car that achieved 100mpg, but continued to sell cars to the public that only achieved 20mpg.


Why can't we work forward from what we already know and increase our fuel efficiency, instead of continuing to undermine our populace by telling us we can't do what we've already done?



WHERE IS MY 50 MPG CAR? I'm entitled to it, after all.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The Pro-Life Conundrum

Every day that passes seems to bring with it a battle between pro-lifers (usually conservatives) and pro-abortionists (usually liberals) about what rights a woman has over a fetus and how far she can go to terminate a pregnancy. This issue seems to be one of the most prevalent issues among Christians today, and the moral majority has waged war against this right since Roe Vs. Wade was won.

Maybe it's because I try so hard to hover around the middle, or maybe it's just because I'm an arrogant asshat, but I think I see this issue with a broader perspective than most pundits give justice.

What I mean is this issue goes FAR beyond declaring whether or not a fetus is human life.

Life is life, regardless of how you view it. Whether that life is incapable of experiencing happiness, joy, or reality is up for interpretation. But the fact remains, life is life. And if you value life, you should value it in all respects.

Life is a blessing, whether it is given from a Creator, or the miraculous result of evolution, and/or [ACK] intelligent design.

Now either you view life as I have indicated, that it is something to be preserved, or you don't. That's your choice. People, however, need to stop cherry-picking the issue to further their agendas.

If I were to believe that a human blastocyst, no matter its age, is human life and should be protected, no matter the cost, what am I valuing? Am I honoring cells that will potentially develop into a human given good conditions, or am I honoring the fact that life was created? If I am thinking abortion should be illegal, what am I really thinking? Is it that the tiny fertilized egg is taking the shape of an innocent baby in my mind? Or does that mess of quickly dividing cells have a soul?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But again, this is your choice, and you are entitled to it.

What bothers me is the belief that somehow, for some reason, when an adult commits a heinous act, his life is forfeit.

What bothers me is somehow, for some reason, a mess of cells no bigger than the head of a pin should be revered, but yet somehow, for some reason, a thinking human being with (hopefully) developed social skills who can be helped or rehabilitated or somehow given some other use is hanged, gassed, electrocuted, shot, put to sleep, or destroyed in a myriad of ways.

I don't see how someone can be against abortion and simultaneously be for the death penalty.

Life is life, regardless of how you view it.

Personally, I am against abortion. I do however believe it should be used in certain medical scenarios, e.g. when the life of the mother is proven to be in danger, and the fetus will or will not survive the birth in this case as it stands. I make this consideration because I, as a believer in Life, believe it to be protected, yet I, understanding that I have a right and need to defend my family with deadly force, which is perfectly legal in most states, draw a parallel to the case of a mother in danger, wherein a fetus would be aborted in defense of her life.

Because I am against abortion I also am personally against the death penalty, in all its forms, principally because when one is put to death it is in a controlled situation, where no person's body is in direct danger. I respect the death penalty due to its legality, yet I do not support it.

I understand that states have control over the death penalty, and I understand that many of these states have abolished the practice. However, as long as I have a right to kill someone in defense of myself or my family, I believe a mother has the right to kill her fetus if her health is in danger, or better put, in defense of her life and health.

Abortion used simply as a method of birth control is, in my strongest opinion, a grave sin, and should be outlawed, no matter the age of the developing baby. I am arguing the legitimate uses of abortion, the baby's health notwithstanding, in cases where the mother's health is in danger.

Life is life, regardless of how you view it.

If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake a thinking human being should be just as important. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake lets do what we can to help the mother after the baby is born, instead of forgetting her. If a developing fetus is so important, then for God's sake please can we stop killing people in our prisions and hospitals simply because we have judged them and their lives as useless to us.

Mixed Up And Desperate

I have just a quick gripe here. Let me set the situation for you. There is controversy in Texas going on right now, and it centers around whether a hospital is doing the ethical thing in seeking removing a 17 month old child with a terminal illness from a ventilator.

I am not going to argue whether it is right or wrong to do so. I'm not going to even argue the facts of the case, beyond state the child has Leigh's disease, a rare disorder with no cure that results in death. The child can't see, speak, eat, or breathe on his own.

The hospital says he is in excruciating pain and wants to remove him from the ventilator. The mother says he is not in pain, smiles when he "looks" at her, and wants to keep him on the ventilator.

I am not going to argue for either of these points. What burns me up is the mother said she was fighting to keep her son on the ventilator so he will die (and I quote directly) "naturally, the way God intended."

I understand one may say strange things or believe the unbelievable when placed under duress, especially the fear, pain, and grief caused when one's child is in the hospital (I know this from personal experience, unfortunately). However, I think stating that keeping your child on a ventilator so he can die as God intended is over the line.

Take the kid off the ventilator. Let him die with dignity, AS GOD INTENDED. Let his soul go home. Keeping him here is selfish. The ventilator is keeping the child alive. The doctors say he would die in a matter of hours once it is removed. This is the NATURAL way.

There is nothing natural about a clicking and beeping machine prolonging the inevitable. I feel sorry for the mother and respect the pain that she feels, but I believe the real problem here is her inability to let go and to give her son back to God.

So she makes excuses.

And selfishly on my part, I have to pay for it.
And truthfully I wouldn't mind doing so, if she wanted to keep the boy alive for other reasons.

Saturday, April 21, 2007


Give me a break. It seems to me that the renaissance of new age mumbo jumbo bullshit is in high swing. When our TV is on it is usually on comedy central (our most dependable channel for cable news), yet sometimes when everyone is in bed i decide to brave the thick of idiocy on the other channels. At least comedy central is supposed to be funny. I mean there are some things on the producers of which believe to be taken seriously, and if these shows didn't anger me as much as they did, I'd nominate them for the best-new-comedy-show academy award.

For example I think every channel on basic (non-hbo/skinemax/showtime cable) has some sort of stupid show or other about searching for ghosts. It seems to be some past-time for most people, I guess, to somehow form links with long dead people in order to:

a) prove to themselves there is an afterlife,
b) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by convential, dominant spirituality,
c) prove to themselves there is an afterlife that is different from what is accepted by conventional, dominant spirituality so that they can feel better about themselves after being excommunicated by church, friends, and family for being a stupid moron.

And there is so much proof out there that you'd be an idiot not to believe the way they do. I mean that's how they make their shows. How else could they get away with snubbing conventional faith?

Granted, conventional faiths have addressed the existence of spirits since their origin. I don't deny that. But these shows on TV today take the approach that all the knowledge gained from milennia of soul-searching is wrong. This is the common theme. Christians are wrong. Muslims are wrong. Catholics (yes I know they are Christian too but they are separate here because they are one of the only ones I know who have ritualized processes relating to the exorcism of evil spirits) are wrong.

These shows proclaim (sometimes with subtlety, others with brazen defiance) that only "earthy" faiths truly understand the afterlife. The plight of native americans is usually addressed and glorified, and many times some half-drunk native american desperate for money or attention comes onto the screen discussing the relationships between spirits, our ancestors, and nature. Again if it weren't as shameful as it were, I'd laugh.

So after sitting through these shows (which normally last an hour or so and are chock full of nightvision video, shots of balls of dust floating around that they claim are spirits of the dead, silly girls in women's bodies who pretend to be scared and giggle and scream a lot, weird tapping noises that sound surprisingly like expanding/contracting wood during normal night settling, mysterious EVPs of voices saying "OOOOSSSSSHBBIIIXOSSSHHHHMMMMMMCALLLLLLLSHHHHH [static]" (which says something like "hey i'm dead, it's cold, i'm lonely, get out of my house, get me a jelly donut" or whatever ridiculous thing people say they say) and my favorite the EMF fluctuations that "JUST DON'T HAPPEN IN NATURE AND PROVE THAT SINCE GHOSTS ARE ENERGY AND ENERGY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM THEN WHEN YOUR METER JUMPS 10 OR MORE UNITS (again never explained exactly *what* they think is being measured) A GHOST IS HERE! ) <---BIGTIME RUNON ...

So after sitting through these shows I decided to study how they do it.


Why is it that it is always the smart kids with bright futures who get gunned down at universities? Can't for once the people in these shows burst into flames for our sensationalist enjoyment?

Or would the news even tell us? Probably not.

Anyway while I watched about the blueumpteenthmillion of these ridiculous shows I think I figured out the racket. So, if anyone out there wants to become famous and make lots of money, I offer you now my crash course in being a ghost buster, all for the wonderful price of a pile of dog crap and bucket of unsearched south american emeralds from ebay.

This is important. If for any other reason, you need this so the eyes of everyone you film has that neat cat's-eye reflective thing effect going on. It's also important for filming in the dark. See step 10.

Not only will this girl inspire innocence when the viewer sees her, but also she will serve to disarm the viewer's skeptical walls with her sheer beauty. As offensive as calling a grown woman a girl is, I use the term accurately, seeing that I am not judging her physical age, but her mental age, which, to be successful, needs to be similar to that of a day-old turd.

I don't care where this is. It could be an old abandoned hospital. An elementary school after a PTA meeting. Your basement. It doesn't matter. Hell it's going to be dark anyway.

Make shit up. Make it good. Tell them something like young boys ate the livers of black cats, got possessed, kidnapped people from Kansas and sacrificed them to Kegger, an ancient, forgotten Sumerian god of partying. After that, they drank the blood of their parents.

People say these days that when the moon is out and it's dark and you can't see anything for what it really is, you just might get carried away and imagine seeing little boys with black eyes riding war-pigs across the floor, searching for victims to oink to death. Get the idea?

Put this rug in the room where the ghosts most frequent. Be sure to tell the idiots so they spend time here walking around, stirring up dust. Orbs anyone?

This does wonders for EMF readings. Trust me. The result will be quite humorous.

Watch as the idiots take the EMF detector to the walls above the outlets and "detect the presence of a vortex or spirit."

How else will we feel cold spots?

Watch the fireworks. Be SURE you got the girl so scared that every rat, every flying insect, every draft, every tap and step is definite proof of the existence of spirits. It's even better if you can get her to the point of screaming, and better yet, crying.
And with the night vision (because as we all know, you can only see ghosts in the dark, and they are too weak to manifest in bright daylight) her eyes will be big and shiny, and she'll not be able to see her hand in front of her face, and when the cameraman gropes her butt it will be explained away quite easily.

The rest writes itself.
VOILA. A ghost hunter show fit for any of the networks.

I could go on and on about this, so please, if anyone wants to support these shows in comments, be my guest. Don't expect an answer though, because it's pointless. I know I'm right, and I know you're stupid. That's that.

I enjoy watching those guys on TAPS though. They do their best to disprove things, and some things have happened on their shows that is difficult to explain. What I like about them is they say "yeah we think ghosts are real" without putting that stupid new agey mumbo jumbo let's-get-back-to-our-ancestors-because-the-earth-is-crying crap the others do.

Go TAPS. I think you're doing your best to do it right.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

The Haves and the Have-Nots

Why you should not have unprotected sex -

you get cute things like this:

Apples And Oranges

Friends, family, and strangers ask me every so often how I can claim to be religious and shack up with a self-proclaimed Atheist. Doesn’t this cause problems in your marriage, they ask? How will you raise your children? How do you ever agree on anything?

What you people asking these questions do not understand is how similar our moralities are. Here, let me explain:

In the year 1969, while on a trip bestowed by that wonderful mind-altering agent LSD, the great prophet Shantal decreed that the state of the Christian church at that time was defunct. Angels visited Shantal and instructed him on the method by which he could restructure the church so that it could successfully reach out to people and solve their problems. Thus, the Directive for Understanding Multiple Beliefs And Social Structures was given.

The great prophet Shantal gave the name of the directive to our church, thus fulfilling an ancient Mayan prophecy that a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. prophet and a bunch of D.U.M.B.A.S.S. “Christians” would bring the new gospel to the planet Earth. The people were given their mission – do whatever you can to secularize society so that the true church can find its place contemporary society. worked for years to bring this mission to fruition. I joined the church in the 1990s after being introduced to it by a member of its executive council, the group known as AFJ, the Atheists For Jesus. I was taken aback by this – I couldn’t understand how an Atheist and a D.U.M.B.A.S.S. could ever reconcile life choices, let alone get along in everyday life. I soon saw the error of my ways. Since both of our organizations valued hedonistic sex, we hit it off quite quickly and ended up marrying each other. It was a beautiful ceremony: the moon was full, the leaves had begun to fall onto the graves, and the statue of the Baphomet and the great prophet Shantal in a circle-jerk ring shone from atop the altar of rubber tires greased with Crisco. Our marital bliss began that day at the climax of our ceremony when they brought out Shantal, now reincarnated into the Chihuahua Bubbles. We copulated atop the rubber tire altar with Bubbles, insuring that our life of morality would never end.

My D.U.M.B.A.S.S. life improved day by day. My wife, being a member of AFJ, the executive order of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., introduced me to the secret societies within D.U.M.B.A.S.S. and their agendas. The hardest thing for me to understand was the similarities between Jesus and Bubbles. Although my mind is finite and I will never understand fully this great virtue, I trust my wife when she tells me they are the same and different. Because we were so similar in other ways she gave me the opportunity to join her cause. From that day on I swore I would not rest until:

1) Prayer was removed from schools
2) “In God We Trust” is removed from our money
3) “God” is taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance
4) Any woman is allowed to abort her baby so we can drink its blood
5) Gays – being the sacred judiciary of D.U.M.B.A.S.S., are given the right to marry so they too could receive tax breaks for having dirty sex, lighting the way for all of us in the true pleasures of hedonism.
6) Murder, rape, and drug use are made legal.
7) Telling the truth is not only not necessary but is also frowned upon.
8) Anyone can walk around naked if they want to.
9) Jews around the world are rewarded for what they did, since the true prophet is in fact Bubbles the Chihuahua, the reincarnated LSD using great prophet Shantal.
10) The black helicopters are painted pink.
11) Freemasons are given their 30 acres and a bucket of cement, as promised so many years ago.
12) We can not only burn our flag, but also use it as an adult diaper if there is no other cloth around.
13) We admit to evolution. Listen people, coming from monkeys is an improvement.
14) We allow the terrorists to win. After all, who needs freedom of religion and speech?