Monday, February 18, 2013

Personally, I Don't Give A Shit...

about the Pope... and I'll tell you why...

I think it's safe to say that the Catholic Church is a nation without borders. The Pope, being the figurehead of their government, in my opinion, has a lot to answer for. At this point, I don't give a shit about who the fuck they choose, because no matter who it is, he's still going to be a symbol of a nation that continues to cling to archaic ideas that are doing the world's population GREAT harm!

At a time when THE REST OF THE WORLD is trying to battle AIDS in Africa, the Pope keeps coming along and SHAMING PEOPLE for taking the necessary precautions to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. How can he be considered a “humanitarian” whose organization “helps the poor,” if he stands in the way of the devices that the poor need?

The Ten Commandments says “Love thy neighbor”... but apparently, that stops at the doorstep of a GAY neighbor... even though Jesus never told you to hate anyone other than “Money Changers”... Jesus never said ANYTHING about hating the gays... in fact, Mat. 19:12 iswhere Jesus said that gay people are BORN GAY! But the Pope still believes them to be lesser humans. Jesus, himself, said that people were born gay, which means that they are no different than the “neighbors” spoken of in the Ten Commandments. For that matter, would Jesus think there are ANY “lesser humans?” We're talking about a guy who hung out with whores and lepers... a person who said “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.”

Did you hear that? He used the word “BROTHERS”... that means no matter WHO they are, we're all in the same brotherhood of man... which means that the Church's bigoted posturing against gay human beings is entirely antithetical to the words of the person their whole religion is built around!

On top of that... if Jesus hated the “Money Changers” (bankers), then why is there a “Vatican Bank?”

The Catholic Church CLAIMS to preach peace... and yet, owns a controlling stake inBeretta Arms...

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to “preach peace” while manufacturing weapons of war. That's the ULTIMATE hypocrisy!

but then again, the Catholic Church HAS been known, in the past, to use... shall we say...

... less than subtle techniques... get people to convert...

More than once, they've seen death as a punishment for the “crime” of not believing what they do.

so if that's the case, then why should we be SURPRISED that they own an arms company??? They haven't historically been the “friendliest” religion when it comes to people who believe differently, so I suppose this is just the next natural step for them... although... that doesn't indemnify them from the label of hypocrisy... that's going to linger around their neck until they give up imperialism as a business model.

Now, let's consider the number of pedophile Priests that the Vatican has covered for. People DESERVE justice for the ways they've been wronged, and the Pope stands between the humiliation of the Church and the simple acknowledgement of wrongdoing to the victims!

Yes, the Church SHOULD be humiliated!  But with their refusal to submit to justice, they're only digging their hole deeper.  If the Pope would just come out and APOLOGIZE, and stop protecting the bastards, that would go a long way towards reconciliation... just ADMITTING that they have a problem... JUST ACKNOWLEDGING IT... 

... but they won't even do that...

In my mind, the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for... genocides... hypocrisy... pedophilia... spread of disease... malicious hate...

and until they have a Pope who's willing to speak to these atrocities, I don't give a shit about the Pope.

Anybody else agree???

Friday, February 15, 2013

Well... That Explains EVERYTHING!!!

Such brilliance is rarely found in something so simple. Have you ever heard about the “Dunning-Kruegger Effect?”

I doubt it.

But in order to TRULY understand the problems we have today, it's ESSENTIAL to understand the “Dunning-Kruegger Effect.”

So, what is it?

Well, in their words,

and here's what they said, in “you and me” talk...

Basically, the dumbest people don't have the ability to realize they're stupid. They consistently overestimate themselves, and underestimate everyone else. They BELIEVE they're smart, despite MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary.

That's the BASICS of it...

Now consider what that ACTUALLY means, in the context of today's biggest problems, like the economy, education, and social issues...

Consider, also, the fact that Professors Dunning and Kruegger have stated that Creationism is a tangible example of their study... despite SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, they cling to their book's claim that the world is between 6 and 10,000 years old; and insist that there is “science” to support their claim.

but there's another side to the “Dunning-Kruegger Effect,” as well... the stupid people aren't the only ones who have a consistent problem... the intelligent people have a constant struggle, themselves...

You see, intelligent people understand that the more you learn, the less you know. They have the ability to question the things that they had previously believed to be true. As such, they believe that EVERYONE has this ability; which the stupid people do not.

The outcome is, intelligent people tend to overestimate stupid people; falsely believing that they have the ability to learn and adapt.

doesn't that explain EVERYTHING about politics right now???

the Republicans (by way of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and the rest of their propagandists) have spent the last 30 years cultivating the stupid people... feeding them more and more stupid... providing them with news that makes them MORE stupid... and now... that's all they have...

so that left the Democratic Party with the smart people... the people who consistently overestimate the intelligence of their opponents...

That's why our Congress has dissolved into the governmental equivalent of a Pre-School class. If we REALLY want “change,” we have to deal with each other on an intellectual level that people can UNDERSTAND!!!

That means that when we formulate our arguments to MORONS, we have to speak in short sentences, and use smaller words. Talking over their heads will just enrage them. Look at the tea party for an example... enraged by words they don't understand, like Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Dictator, Marxist, and “teabag”...

Those are words they heard, and thought they sounded bad, and they were TOLD that they were bad, so they started using them; without the knowledge of what they MEAN. Now, convincing them that their definitions of these words (and many, many more) are not what they believe them to be...

and they believe it all...

So now, getting these people to understand the truth will be nearly impossible.

Not only that, but many of them are dumber than we think, and we have to find a “Sesame Street” kind of way to present it to them that appeals to the toddler in their intellect.

and here, we find ourselves at a cross-roads...

How do we get the stupid people to accept the facts that they've been told are lies; and how do we get smart people to realize how stupid the stupid people are?

I believe it all starts with the smart people... the smart people are the ones who have the ability to adapt and learn from their mistakes, so they have to be the ones to learn how to deal with the stupid people on their own level.

Am I being too harsh?

Well, given the problems that we face as a result of the anti-intellectualism that's been allowed to fester, I don't think I am being too harsh...

maybe this will snap some stupid people into realizing they're stupid...

maybe this will snap some smart people into analyzing their mistakes from a different direction...

a man can dream, can't he?

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

One Seditionist Invites Another

Ok... ok... I know I usually only post once a day, and I do my best not to sound like a partisan, but something in today's news is something that I find abhorrent, to say the least.

Does that sound like someone who really BELONGS there? Ted Nugent has NO PLACE being in that room tonight! His anti-American rhetoric is something that Teabagging morons might celebrate, but that's something that belongs at their Teabagger rallies and cross burnings... NOT at the State of the Union Address!

Furthermore, Steve Stockman should be DISGRACED from his position for inviting a SEDITIONIST to disgrace our time-honored tradition with his presence!

but then again...

should we REALLY be so surprised???

The Republicans THEMSELVES have been guilty of sedition for the last FOUR YEARS!!!

When an entire Political Party refuses to do the jobs they were elected for, purely for a perceived political advantage; and they spread lies to uninformed people to get their way; and they hold rallies promoted by billionaires in order to scare stupid people; especially having COORDINATED this effort on the night of a President's inauguration... THAT'S A CONSPIRACY OF SEDITION!!!

So, the fact that one Republican with the intellect of a Cro-Magnon invites an open seditionist SHOULD be no surprise; given that Stockman, himself is a seditionist (even though he's really not smart enough to know that... truth be told, I'd be surprised if he could SPELL “seditionist”; let alone define it).

If Ted Nugent is going to threaten the President's life, he shouldn't be in attendance... it's JUST that simple!

Of course, then he'd bitch and whine and complain about not getting his way, and he'll come out with another blatantly ignorant, racist, or insurrectionist comment that'll sent the Teabaggers into a frenzy, and the Liberals into a war machine!

All that remains is one question...

How will “the Nuge” humiliate America THIS time???

My Four Beats Your Two

Last week, I was writing about gun rights pertaining to the Second Amendment. There's another angle here, that I feel is necessary to point out.

We've all heard people who RATIONAL people refer to as “crazy”; they're the ones who insist that the government is coming to take their guns, and they'll have to use their guns against the government when they do it.

They claim that the Second Amendment is what allows them to have and keep their guns.

Simply put, they're wrong. Here's why...

… Yes, the Fourth Amendment... NOT the Second!

… and what the FOURTH Amendment says, is that you're secure from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, and any such actions must have a warrant attached to it...

Notice how the word “unreasonable” stands out to me? That word means that yes, if you are perceived to be a threat to yourself or other people, then the government can, indeed, come and take your guns.

In some cases, yes, they SHOULD come and take your guns...

Would you have supported the government taking the guns away from people like Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, or Adam Lanza, or James Holmes; in order to prevent their massacres?

If your answer is yes, then why shouldn't the government come for ANYBODY'S guns if they perceive an imminent threat?

Do you believe the government will perceive YOU as being an imminent threat?

If not, then no... the government will not and should not be coming for your guns.

If, however, your answer to the question “should the government EVER be allowed to take guns away?” is no, because any government that takes guns away from people is tyrannical, then I recommend you SERIOUSLY re-examine your priorities and values.

Let's be clear, here... if you're planning a mass shooting, then I would say that the government DEFINITELY has good reason to take your guns!

If you're planning an insurrection because you're a whiny little crybaby who can't stand the fact that the election didn't go their way, then yes, the government DEFINITELY has a good reason to take your guns!

If you're planning on attacking the police, either out of vengeance or because you're a dumb-as-a-rock “sovereign citizen,” then yes, the government DEFINITELY has a good reason to take your guns!

On the contrary position, there are lots of people who are screaming “The government is NOT coming to take your guns!!!”

Given the fact that yes, there are some people who should have their guns taken away, I don't think it's entirely fair for them to say that. You never know who you're talking to, and if it really IS someone who should have their guns taken away.

Now, did I say that people shouldn't have guns to protect themselves from criminals?


Did I say that people shouldn't have rifles or handguns for sporting reasons?


I just said that SOME PEOPLE shouldn't have guns... I think we can all agree with that, can't we?

People seem upset that CRIMINALS get guns...

Most people don't want CRAZY PEOPLE to get guns...

So, given the fact that we can all agree that some people shouldn't have guns, doesn't it stand to reason that the guns SHOULD be taken from SOME PEOPLE?

As I've laid out in my Fourth Amendment argument, the government CAN take your guns, and as long as they have “probable cause,” they can do it!

I just have to wonder if some of the people who fear that the government is coming for their guns secretly know that they're one of the people who SHOULD have their guns taken away. I mean, if it's something you fear, maybe it's because deep down, you know you're either too stupid or crazy to be in possession of them...

Is that it?

Do you think the government is coming for your guns because they have “probable cause?”

If so, then why do you have them? Doesn't that make YOU a criminal, by your own definition? If the government can and should take guns away from some people, and you think they're coming for your's, then doesn't that mean that you see yourself as a criminal?

… and the avalanche of insecurity begins...

“I'm not a criminal... the government is just coming for my guns just because they think they can...”

No... they're not...IF they're coming for your guns, they're coming for your guns because they have a reason to, and you know it! I mean, you claim to be such a “Constitutional scholar” based on your knowledge of the Second Amendment, but if you TRULY knew the Constitution, you'd know that the Fourth Amendment proves that your premise is founded in bullshit.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

It Must Suck to be God

Imagine, if you will, the life of God...

God, the almighty...

God, the magnificent...

God, the all-knowing...

Who the fuck wants THAT kind of experience? Nothing new. No changes. No innovations. Everything’s always the same. That’s a world that would disgust me. No mysteries… you already fuckin' know everything. You know exactly why everything happens, so you just expect everything that’s going to happen.

That would REALLY suck! That would probably mean no music… no movies… no Hitchcock or Twilight Zone… no Welles' “War of the Worlds”… no reading… no news…

You know, when you think about it like that...

... it must REALLY suck to be God!

In an omnipotent, omniscient existence, what do you really have to look forward to? If you already know everything and you can make anything happen, what kind of hobbies can you possibly have?

You’ve got some people who love you, some people who fear you, and some people who don’t even think you exist... nobody calls you by the same fuckin’ name... some people think you have multiple personalities and refer to different things you do by different names. Sometimes, people get so crazy that they start killing each other in your name, neither side realizing that the other guys are really following the same entity.

… and then there are the varying stories about your children…

If we’re to trust legend, you have one kid who went into a blind rage, killed his family, and had to complete a bunch of impossible labors as atonement for his crimes; 

another kid who got crucified by the Romans;

another kid who got pissed off and stole your eye… 

of course, there are MORE stories, but it's kind of hard to top that one...

… your kids are a real handful; but since they’re the LITERAL children of God, you HAVE to be a parent because no mortal can POSSIBLY have the ability to be an effective parent to a demi-God. You have a stressful, time-consuming job that takes a lot of time from your family. Hell, even when you’re with them, you’re still working. You never took them to Disneyland… you never played catch with them… even when you WERE with them, you were always on the phone…

In empathy, I offer this: Who can BLAME them for rejecting authority?

Yep… life is tough when you’re God. Just think… that’s just the BEGINNING… (and just one WORLD... who the fuck knows how many MORE you're overseeing on the side...)

Everybody wants you to do shit for them. Some people thank you for what you do for them, but most really don’t have a clue what you’ve provided for them. Almost nobody notices the little things… the beauty in the world; like butterflies and rainbows and shit.  

When you’re God, it’s your job to kill everyone and everything. In the long run, everything you’ve created has to be destroyed… by you! That makes it really hard to make friends. When you know you’re going to have to kill someone later, do you really want to get too close to them? Sure, maybe you’ll see them again, but nobody really knows for sure (except God).

Christians believe that you either go to Heaven, Hell, or Limbo (in some circles). Atheists think you just end and there’s nothing after that (yes, I do consider Atheism to be a faith, because religions have faith that there IS a God, and Atheists have faith that there is nothing. Either way, it’s all faith, and it's large groups of people who all believe the same thing.) Odinists believe you cross the Rainbow Bridge to Valhalla and spend your afterlife with past warriors.

The truth is, nobody can claim to know FOR SURE whether there is or isn’t a God. Nobody’s met him face to face since Moses. (Sorry, Mrs. Bachmann and Misters Bush, Perry, and Cain... those voices in your head are NOT “The Lord”) Nobody can provide conclusive evidence of his existence or of his absence. There are STORIES about God, but nobody that wrote them is around to substantiate the claims. We just have to take the books that contain the stories at their word.

… although...

When you’re God, you always have a great view of the sunset. You can go to the top of any mountain. You can visit any moment in time. You can lick the beaters whenever you want. You can always watch “Ghostbusters.” You can experience any beauty you want, at any time you want.

Here’s the truth about God...

… at least, the truth as I see it, when I use my own logic...

God neither loves us nor hates us. God is ambivalent. God is random. Like I said, God can’t get to know anybody; he’ll just have to kill them later.

There’s no one person he likes more than any other person; they’re all the same. We’re all just pawns. There are no REAL kings or rooks. Everybody has the same role to play: fodder.

We serve our purpose, then we get taken off the board. Does the game ever get reset? Do we ever play again?

Who the fuck knows???

If you make it all the way to the other side of the board, do you get to bring someone else back to life, before going off and doing whatever you want? Nobody will ever have the definitive answers for these questions. Once you’re gone, you’re gone, and there’s no coming back to tell anyone what the fuck happened later.

Nobody can ever claim to know God on a personal level. Nobody will ever be omniscient or omnipotent, so nobody will ever be able to claim that they “get” God. God is more complicated than Shaft... and HE’S a complicated man!

So when you’re God, you’re constantly misunderstood, lonely, bored, ambivalent, and manically both creating and destroying things... just TELL ME that doesn’t suck! Who the fuck can blame him for throwing an earthquake or a flood every once in a while? Dealing with all of that can NOT be good for one’s Psychological fitness!

… and just think… God’s been at it FOREVER, and he’s NEVER GONNA STOP! There was never a beginning and there will never be an end. Could you imagine feeling like that? Wouldn’t you get tired? I mean, you never get a vacation… you work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! It’s NEVER ENDING! How would YOU like to exist, knowing that you will never have a break? It’s not like working a regular job… 40 hours a week… No, you’ll never have a day off, despite what the Bible says.

God never stops working... I mean, it’s not like time just STOPS on Sunday… things happen… if things are happening, God is working… it’s that simple. If you don’t believe it, then any time there’s a natural disaster on a Sunday, you can’t fuckin’ blame God for it! If you TRULY believe that Sunday is a “day of rest” and that it’s supposed to be God’s “day of rest” as well, then you can’t believe he’s making tornadoes and hurricanes and shit on his day off!

Consider this; the Bible ALSO says that to God, a millennium is as a day… TECHNICALLY, that means that God takes a thousand years off after every six thousand years working! The last time he TRIED to take time off, the dark ages happened, and he had to come back to work EARLY! He couldn’t take ANY time off without us REALLY fuckin’ things up!

Of course, if God DOES, indeed, take time off, then that means time DOES stop. Supposedly, God makes time happen. So if God takes a break, that means time stops. This says to me that one day, we’re all gonna wake up and there’s gonna be a MILLENNIUM worth of dust all over everything. We’ll all look around and say “what the fuck HAPPENED last night?”

YOU only work FIVE DAYS before taking TWO days off! You lazy fuck! Look at how hard GOD works! What makes YOU better than GOD?

Arrogant bastard!

However, if you DON’T believe these things, you’re fine… just keep doing what you’re doing…

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Consti-Tuesday: Second Amendment Remedies

Ok... I realize I left off last week in the middle of the First Amendment, but I'd like to take a different direction this week, because the Second Amendment is what's close to all our lips right now.

I really thought about neglecting the Second Amendment altogether because quite frankly, people tend to go apeshit over this one. Crazies on both sides of the debate tend to blow EVERYTHING out of proportion, and some of them have the tendency to shoot people who they see as “gun grabbers.” Let's just be clear, here... I'm neither a “gun-grabber” nor a “gun nut.”

I like guns just fine. I don't own one myself, but I'd like one; if no other reason than to blow off some steam at any soda cans who have in some way offended me or gave me funny looks as I drained them of their usefulness.

Let's just refresh our memories here with the text of the Second Amendment, so we're all on the same page... ok?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The first thing I notice is something that's never discussed in public form when regarding this Amendment. Two words: “militia” and “people.” Both terms signify a plurality of people; not a single person. Think about it... the term “one man Army” has been loosely thrown around, usually in the context of Action movies, but think about how ridiculous that ACTUALLY sounds... there's really no such thing as a “one man militia.” The only person who might be given that description is the Unabomber, and is he REALLY someone that should be looked up to?

The way I read the Amendment, it sounds like the “militia” has the right to keep and bear arms, being that the militia is a plurality of persons. Furthermore, how can we say for sure that “the people” isn't a LEGAL reference, as in “The People vs. PeeWee Herman?” If “the people” is in reference to the taxpayers (as it is in the context of legal proceedings), then doesn't it sound more like there should be some kind of arms depot somewhere, where dangerous weapons are stored so that "the people" can get to them when they need them?

Lots of people like to point out that weapons technology has changed A LOT since the framing of the Constitution, so they think that the Amendment should only really reference weapons available at that time, such as muskets.

If you ask me, that's just as crazy as the people who scream “ARM EVERYONE!!!”

The people who crafted the Constitution were no idiots... they understood history. As such, they knew that until gunpowder was invented in the 9th Century, we were throwing rocks and sticks at each other, and swinging edge-weapons. They were aware that technology would continue to develop, and that we would develop new weapons and ways to kill one another.

What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was the fact that the sad folly of humanity is that humanity is self-destructive. They wanted to believe the best of humanity. Sadly, that was a mistake.

People are emotional beings. As such, our emotions tend to overflow, which causes us all to lose our minds at one time or another. Everybody (except Gandhi) has at least one thing they would kill for. Threatening that one thing may induce an emotional over-reaction, resulting in someone “exercising their Second Amendment rights” against another person, employer, business, or organization.

People have done it to protest war (ironically).

They've done it in the name of love.

They've done it in the name of God.

They've done it in the name of their country.

They've done it in the name of their race.

They've done it in the name of their gang.

They've done it in the name of money.

They've done it in the name of drugs.

They've done it in the name of territory.

They've done it in the name of justice.

They've done it in the name of their ideology.

Mostly, they've done it in the name of their own ego.

People will ALWAYS kill each other, for one reason or another. However, that doesn't mean that we should make it any easier.

That doesn't mean taking guns away from people... ok... maybe SOME people... SOME people are simply too stupid, too crazy, or too emotionally unstable to have guns.

On that note, I think that most of the people who think that the government is coming for their guns because they might have to fight AGAINST the government are probably too crazy to have them. In that respect, they're right... the government SHOULD come for their guns!

Let's not forget, people... the Amendment DOES read “well-regulated militia.” That doesn't mean that people should be able to buy any gun they want... that doesn't sound very “well-regulated” to me.

However, if someone wants an assault rifle, then they should be able to have one... as long as they keep it at the gun range where they're going to use it. Let's be honest here... not one single person... NOT ONE... NOBODY... has ever used an assault weapon to defend their home... it's just never happened. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's true. Therefore, if people want them, they should stay locked away until they're going to be used. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. If someone wants to keep a handgun around for their own protection or enjoyment, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to have hunting rifles for their intended purpose, that's JUST FINE. Shotguns? No problem!

Assault rifles, however, tend to draw personalities who want them in case they “have to” shoot lots of people at one time. Seriously... how often does that happen? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!! Therefore, if people want them, then they should have them in a place where the weapons can be monitored, so we know they're not going to be used in any more movie theaters, malls, or schools.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the “zombie apocalypse” is coming. If that's something that you fear, you probably fall into the “crazy” heading, as well. It's one thing to joke about it, but another thing to BELIEVE it.

To change directions a little bit, it occurs to me that the same people who complain that “the criminals will always get guns” are the same people who promote cutting law enforcement budgets (just like they want to cut EVERY budget). Let me make this CRYSTAL clear here... if you don't want the criminals to have guns, you can't keep slashing the budget for law enforcement. You say you don't want the criminals to have guns, and yet, you put a stranglehold on finances so that the criminals have MORE availability to get guns... you can't have it both ways, idiots... if you don't want the criminals to have guns, you want MORE cops on the street... not LESS!

Seriously... the hypocrisy runs deep in some people.

I also feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out the solid research that radio host and author, Thom Hartmann, has done with regards to the Second Amendment. His openly-displayed research shows that the Second Amendment was written, in part, to allow “militias” in Virginia to hunt down escaped slaves. (A summation of Thom's work can be found here:

We all know that this represents what may very well be the ugliest era in American history. Slavery is a big, fat, undeniable scar on our record. As such, when we discuss issues that have at least some root in slavery, we should consider the relevance of the fact that the Second Amendment was put in place partly to keep a race of people “in their place.”

I think that certain acknowledgements need to be made in the Congressional record. Let's be honest... part of the Second Amendment WAS written with purely malicious intent. If we're not honest about the historical intent, then it's just like denying it's there.

It's no different than people who think that the Civil War was actually about “Northern Aggression.” They deny that slavery was even an issue in the war, and that's no different than condoning slavery NOW!

The Second Amendment is an open wound in American discourse. We'll never make any progress in the “well regulated” part of the Amendment until the psychos on BOTH sides of the issue SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the “adults” in the room talk. The problem is, both sides have become so emotional and reactionary that both sides are fast approaching the point at which they would embrace the primitive inhuman condition of humanity: killing in the name of killing.