Lottery Players Suck!

Seriously, how many times have you had to stand in line at 7-11 for an extra hour because some loser is returning his tickets in exchange for his 2 dollars, or making the clerk play specific numbers which are probably the date one which this person last got laid? The state should pay someone to be on site at all times in order to man the lotto machine for these people who coincidentally have already bought their other items with state funded food stamps. All they would have to do is take the money out of the jack pot in order to pay these people; it's pretty simple.

The other thing about these idiots is well, for one, they will never hit the jack pot. The second thing that kills me is that when Powerball is at like 3 million no one cares but as soon as it hits 300 million people are standing in line for the tickets. The problem with this is that your odds of wining the 3 million are a hundred times greater than you wining the 300 million. Are you saying that you aren't interested in 3 million but you are interested in throwing 50 dollars out the window?

Just go to the Casino with all the other losers and let’s keep the time that it takes to buy a frozen pizza under the amount of time that it takes to make one myself.

Yes, I know my blog suck as of late. Bear with me as I am going through some life changes and have had other things on my mind. No, I am not becoming a woman or anything like that.

"They Hate Us For Our Freedom"

From CNN Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Posted: 12:36 p.m. EST
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The Bush administration is renewing its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.

If Bush and the United States Government is so concerned with "spreading freedom" (AKA oil profits) in other parts of the world why are they trying to restrict freedoms within the United States?

This one isn't even about terrorism; it's about bad lazy parenting. This is all in efforts to keep children from looking at internet porn. I have a great idea, put a password on you computer and don't let your children use it unless you are in the room with them. If you can't take care of and keep your children safe on your own then you just shouldn’t have kids. It's not the government’s job to raise your kids. Let them focus on keeping us safe from another terrorist attack, not babysitting your kids!

New Fundamentalist Town to be Exempt from Constitution and Restrict Freedoms. No, It's not in Saudi Arabia, it's in Florida!

From CNN: Thursday, March 2, 2006; Posted: 11:36 a.m. EST (16:36 GMT)
NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control.

So does this mean that I can build a town that won't allow anyone to sell Bibles, practice Christianity, go to Church, preach on the streets or protest Planned Parenthoods and adult book stores? Can I build a town that will make guns, free speech and religion illegal? In this town, can I also make prostitution, heroin, same sex marriages, drunk driving, racial discrimination and poll taxes legal? I think my town I will also pass out condoms to elementary school kids and offer free abortions to anyone who had premarital sex. Apparently this town in Florida is already handing out free lobotomies.

Catholics already have their own city, it’s called Vatican City. I would suggest moving there where the laws and the constitution may be a little less intrusive to your ultimate goal.

Of course, Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida, was at the groundbreaking and lauded Monaghan’s vision. What a jackass! At first, it sounded like they were trying to create a town without bush.

Tired of Sex in the Media? Stop Reading the Bible!

The next time you hear someone bitch about condoms being advertised on MTV or some shitty Fox show called "Who Wants to Bang My Dad" and they talk about how things like this should be censored, remind them that if they want to start censoring sexual innuendos out of the media they can't pick and choose what they censor and must censor every thing.

I would like to remind people that the Bible contains as much sex, much more violence and displays more intolerance than most Hollywood blockbusters and nearly all network television shows and even rap music. When I speak of sex, violence, disrespect of women and praises to God, am I talking about a rap video or the Bible?

At least TV shows only imply that someone is about to have pre-marital sex, they don't actually show it or describe the fluids which were transferred. Yes, maybe some network shows don't teach children that they should hate gay people and some of them even depict gay people as people but it's nothing the Bible hasn't already described. Some TV shows depict unfaithful spouses screwing their neighbors but neither of the latter are anything that was new to someone in the Bible such as David.

I have compiled a list of sexual encounters and innuendos in the Bible which, if on TV, most Christians today would like to see banned and censored.

Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

When was the last time fluid transfer was visualized on MTV?

II Samuel 11:2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home.

Makes Desperate Housewives not seem so desperate anymore doesn't it? And before you say David was punished for this by the death of his son, I want to point out that Solomon was also his son and ruled Israel and it was his descendents that later spawned Jesus. That sounds more like a reward than a punishment.

Genesis 19:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Maybe this would work on prime time but I haven't seen it yet.

Genesis 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.

If a book or a show came out today that depicted a father offering his daughters to a horny mob there would be an outrage and American Family Association would be in the streets burning TV guides and calling for boycotts.

Genesis 19:33 that night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him.

When incest is the subject of the new episode of the OC I will shut up and go home.

Leviticus 15:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean.

Cum play? Are you kidding? That isn't even on the Playboy channel.

I Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

Ok, so now we are getting into Alexander and Broke Back territory.

1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."

So, not only is David a polygamist but one of the people he is married to is a man and is now marrying that mans sister. You couldn't find this scenario on the Jerry Springer show if you watched it for 2 years straight.

II Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

I have already addressed this; David loved Jonathon more than his own wife, which just happened to be Jonathan’s sister. Kinky.

II Samuel 13:12 And she (Tamar) answered him (Absalom), Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? And as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee. 14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

Ok, some R rated movies show rape but other than that you won’t find it on an episode of the Simpson’s.

Imagine what I could find if I referenced all the bigotry, hate, racism, sexism and violence in the Bible.

Why Iraq Will Fail

All of this over some guy in some other country drawing a cartoon, a cartoon which doesn't actually go against any teachings of Islam. No where in the Quran does it say you can't draw a picture of a prophet. This drawing is clearly not idol worship. No where in the Quran does it say that the whole world must live according to Muslim laws which don't even apply here in the first place. Essentially what happened is that their feelings got hurt and now they are taking their toys and going home. How can you justify boycotting Western Civilization by the actions of one person exercising their freedom? I would also like to point out the irony of this situation. When a group of people react violently to a cartoon that was depicting their religion as violent, doesn't that just feed into this stereotype? I realize the people who are blowing up embassies and burning Danish flags represent maybe 1% of Muslims worldwide but where were they when the Saudi papers printed derogatory depictions of Jews? What, it's ok to make fun of one religion and not the other, just because it's not yours? I know, Christians are really good at doing this as well but other than a few abortion clinics here and there, boycotting Procter and Gamble for putting Pagan symbols on their toothpaste, they haven't reacted this way in a couple of hundred years.

I would like to point out that the act of public protest is a form of free speech. Clearly these people aren't allowed to burn their own country’s flag, or speak out against Islam but if they want the freedom to burn Danish and US flags and voice their grievances then they have to allow others to voice their grievances. Speaking of flags, there must be a flag supply store on every corner in Muslim countries. I couldn't produce a Turkish flag if you gave me a $1000 and a week to find one. Maybe I should go to the Middle East and open a flag store. I would also like to point out that maybe if they spent their days at work, instead of in the street burning flags, maybe they wouldn't be so poor.

Based on the reaction of a cartoon, imagine what the Muslim reaction would be in a free country where women could hire and fire men, or where women wore G-string bikinis or Larry Flynt started selling his magazines and homosexuals were free to do what they pleased. This part of the world is not ready for freedom nor do they want it. Bush should have known that before going into Iraq. Iraq will never be a free, secular country.

Educated Does Not Mean Liberal!

So I was watching that Pen and Teller show Bullshit the other night and I saw something on there that has always gotten on my nerves. Don't get me wrong--this is a great show, but they did this whole "College is Bullshit" segment and within that segment, they talk about how colleges are now stamping out freedom of speech for anyone who is not a minority and or a conservative Republican. They had this guy from FIRE.ORG (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), whose name I believe was Alan Charles Kors talking about how colleges today are bastions of liberal, democratic and socialist brainwashing. For those of you who don't know, FIRE is not a group that is concerned with every student’s free speech on campus. They are only concerned for the speech of people whom they agree with, namely conservatives, Republicans and Christians. This is not a group who will defend a student artist who creates nude or controversial art or the rights of a Palestinian student union to show films depicting the suffering of the Palestinian people under occupied rule. This is also not a group that will fight for the rights of war protesters on college campuses. So their name is somewhat misleading, as with all these other "family" and faux free speech and equal rights (for Christians and gun owners) type groups because the title doesn't live up to their intentions. That is probably what the show should have been about; after all, it is called Bullshit.

Anyhow, on this Bullshit episode Alan Kors cited the study of 1000 university professors in the U.S. and found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 7-1 in the Humanities and Social Science departments and 30-1 in the Anthropology and Sociology departments. At U of C Berkeley and Stanford he found a 9-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans within the faculty and administration. They also claim that the University of California system and Harvard topped U.S. universities in per capita political contributions to Democratic candidates and that within those two systems, Kerry voters outnumbered Bush voters 19-1. On the FIRE site, they talk about a study conducted in 2000 that stated among the voter registration records of Humanities and Social Science instructors at Cornell University, Democrats outnumbered 166-6 and 151-17 at Stanford. In the Ivy League system, they found that 80% of the professors voted for Gore in 2000 and only 9% voted for Bush. They claim that this is bad and that religious, conservative, Republican and uneducated people need to be represented as well. What they don’t report on is the discrepancy between conservative vs. liberal staff at a place like Liberty University, David Lipscomb, Bob Jones or Regent University. Sure, those aren’t state schools but neither are Harvard or Stanford and they are a lot cheaper than Harvard, Stanford, or Berkeley, so why can’t these conservative students go there if they want to learn about how the dinosaurs never existed?

Of the Universities mentioned with these terribly biased teaching staffs, I would like to point out the following: US News and World Report publishes an annual ranking of the nation's top schools; for 2006, Harvard was ranked number 1, Stanford number 5, and U of C Berkeley ranked 20th in the nation. Clearly, one of the main reasons these schools are ranked so high is because of their qualified and educated faculty. They wouldn’t be ranked this high if they were hiring half-retarded, bible-thumping, gun rack-owning, high school dropouts would they? What this says to me is that when you become educated you leave behind fantasy, myth and dogma and you appear to become what is considered “liberal”. You start to challenge traditions and begin questioning the world from an outside viewpoint and start questioning what you were taught by your parents and Sunday School teachers. Don’t mistake a guy who can analyze strata layers to determine how old they are as liberal if he concludes that the earth has been here for close to 5 billion years with no evidence of human fossils for the first 4 or so billion years. He doesn’t have an agenda, he has data. He has evidence that may or may not go against what you believe. Just because you don't believe that an invisible man created the entire Universe in 6 days doesn't mean you are a liberal socialist, it means you have evidence to the contrary and you know better. Bottom line: don’t confuse educated with liberal if you are not educated enough to know the difference.

Why is higher education the only place Republicans care about the ratio of Democrats to Republicans? At least in an educational setting there are facts that are discussed and independent books to read that weren’t written by these liberal professors. How can something like geography, history, or numbers and math be either liberal or conservative? Teaching kids that Europeans (us) wiped out the Native Americans and owned slaves is not liberal, they are historical facts. What they should be worried about is how the Republicans in Congress out number the Democrats and that 78% of all oil company donations go towards Republican candidates. A Democrat teaching kids about art history or Sigmund Freud is far less damaging than the oil industry running the White House and deciding which countries we invade.

I would also like to point out that if Harvard, the rest of the Ivy league and all these other “liberal” brainwashing institutions are trying to convert our students into liberal socialists they are doing a terrible job. George Bush went to both Yale and Harvard and most of his cabinet has attended other Ivy League schools. These are not people I generally think of when I hear the terms liberal or socialist. The President, Vice President and Secretary of State all having oil ties that affect our foreign policy is an easier connection to make than professors that happen to have voted for Gore, are all brainwashing our youth into becoming tree hugging, Christ hating socialists.

Breaking News! This Just In!

This just in: Doctors say Ariel Sharon twitched his nose!

Can someone explain to me how this is news?

Have A Baby So We Can Make More Money

Has anyone seen those "having a baby changes everything" ads sponsored by Johnson and Johnson? These are a series of commercials that show happy middle class white people with their babies having the time of their life. They start off by pointing out how selfish and shallow you are or were before having a baby and then they end the commercial by saying you can fix this unhealthy lifestyle by having a baby and buying a lot of Johnson and Johnson products. After the commercial they give you a link to baby.com. On baby.com you can find all the reasons you should be a parent, find baby names, get advice on weight gain during pregnancy, get advice on your relationship with your partner and of course get all kinds of offers on Johnson and Johnson products that you will surely need before and after having this little savior. Baby.com also has a link to babycenter.com which is also owned by Johnson and Johnson. On babycenter.com you can buy their books, clothes, strollers, and all kinds of other baby related gear that you will need to make your new family complete.

In other words, forgive me for not wanting to take Johnson and Johnson's advice on why I should be having a baby; I think they have a biased take on the subject. This attitude towards having a child is fairly common in our culture today. The message to single people, couples without children and people who are unable to conceive is essentially that you are not important, your life is not complete and you are not a true American, and thus will pay the price until you have children.

It's bad enough that childless people are already one of the most discriminated against groups in America. How many times have people with kids taken all their sick and vacation days in the first part of the year only to have their kids get sick in the winter and are then allowed to take extra time off? Why can't I get off extra time when I have to take my dog to the vet, or just because I want to be treated as an equal to people with kids? Who gets all the time off from work when they are pregnant or after they have a baby? Who gets all the per-child and child care tax credits? On the other hand, how many times have I been told at work that I am the one who should be going to out of town meetings the most because I have no kids? Who are the ones who have to stay late after work since they don't have to pick anyone up for soccer practice? Who are the ones who have to pay the taxes to support these people's children when they go to school or when they are unable to support their kids financially? Whose insurance premiums increase to allow everyone else to have babies? If you can't afford, or are unwilling to pay the price of having a child then don't have one; it's that simple. Why is one lifestyle rewarded but mine is not? Why don't I get tax credits for rescuing two shelter dogs? Is it because Johnson and Johnson is a bigger company and has more influence than the Nutro dog food company or my local pet store? The only people who should be getting tax breaks for having children are people who adopt.

I have nothing against people who have or want kids so why do they have so much against me? Don't make me pick up the bill or make me feel inferior for not making the same choices you have made. It is a lifestyle choice plain and simple. Forgive me for wanting to watch an entire movie without interruption, for enjoying a night on the town, for enjoying hot meals, for valuing a full night's rest, for not having to save for college and for being able to leave the country whenever I please. Some people choose to stay single, some people can't have kids and some people do have kids so does that make them so special? Why do they get all the breaks?

Why does the term "family values" only apply to people with kids? Does that mean couples who live together or the ones who can't have children have no values because they don't need a parental lock on their TV? Does this mean "family values" is all about free handouts as long as you play ball, and punishment if you don't? Just because you have kids and don't want them to hear the F word why do I have to pay the consequences? Maybe I do want to hear the F word; maybe I want to see naked lesbians making out on Skinemax and maybe I don't want to watch Look Who's Talking 2 and Disney movies over and over and over again. I have the freedom to choose that just as you have the freedom to not have cable or the internet in your child’s bedroom.

Don't force your economic burden and lifestyle on everyone else just because you decided to have kids, it doesn't make you better than the rest of us. Look, I am no Libertarian, I am not saying that my tax money that goes towards public schools doesn't end up benefiting the whole of society but just because you know someone with a penis and something fell out of your uterus doesn't mean that we should hand you a pile of cash or that it puts you on top of the world’s food chain. That's my rant for now; that commercial is dumb!

The Christians Who Stole Christmas

There is paranoia abound lately over Christian fears of secular Atheists' destruction of baby Jesus' manger and "his" holiday of Christmas. Most of these people are like Jerry Falwell, scrapping for headlines and searching for further "proof" of the "war against Christ in America". Of course, he is fat and retarded and has no idea what he is talking about since the conservative religious Republicans hold the White House, the House and the Senate, leaving the liberals little power to "destroy Christmas". People such as Falwell and every Christian blogger from Idaho to Georgia think that Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus and, thus, the start of Christianity, which they assume is the religion to which all Americans belong. As always, they are wrong.

Earliest examples of "Christmas" were practiced as long as 4000 years ago by Babylonians as a celebration of a 12 day New Year festival honoring the god Marduk. Also called Sacaea by the Persians, these celebrations involved holiday feasts, giving gifts, and caroling.

The Roman Pagan celebration of Saturnalia started in the middle of December and lasted until January 1st. This was a celebration of the solstice, marking the Sun's return. The exchange of gifts, decoration of homes with greenery, feasts, and the suspension of private and public business marked this celebration. Once Christianity began to spread throughout the Empire, Pagan and Christian societies began to merge and the prosecution of Christians decreased. During the reign of Constantine (a sun worshiper), Pope Julius I moved Christmas from January 6th (Epiphany) to December 25th, which was the Pagan Deus Sol Invictus, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun god. Sun god. Son of God. Not a huge leap of faith for these early Christians assuming the Latin words for "son" and "sun" sound as similar as they do in English--but really, who speaks Latin? This is where Christmas started to take on some of the traditions and meanings that we see today. Still, these events are not the only things that contribute to Christmas as we know it.

Yule or Yuletide was the Pagan winter solstice celebration which in the Julian calendar was December 25th and Gregorian calendar December 21st. The Scandinavians and Germanic tribes of Northern Europe celebrated this as the return of the sun from the long dark winter nights. Trees were decorated with candles, holly decorated doors, a Yule log was burned, and feasts were prepared along with the sacrifice of a pig, which is where we get the traditional Christmas ham. The mistletoe was used in both Norse and Druid celebrations. Obviously, as Christianity spread in this region, Scandinavian seasonal celebrations merged with the Roman's Pagan/Christian winter solstice holiday. It must also be noted that Odin, the primary figure in Norse mythology, had a hat and a big white beard had a flying 8 legged Horse instead of 8 flying reindeer. Odin at one point also had hung from a tree and had a spear wound not unlike the fate of Jesus.

One other reason that Christmas is not a Christian holiday is that Jesus was not born on December 25th, nor is there really any proof that he was born in Bethlehem in a cold manger. Every Biblical scholar knows that if Jesus was born when "shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night." that this would have to have been between the months of March and November as it would have been too cold for the shepherds to have still been there at night in the cold rainy season. Since we know Jesus was born 6 months after John the Baptist and we know he was born in late March or early April, Jesus had to have been born in late September or early October at the latest.

Christmas has really always been a celebration of winter solstice, it’s just that in our calendar it is 4 days off the mark due to the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Just as they did with the once secular pledge of allegiance and our currency, Christians stole Christmas and made it their own, adding the nativity scene and Jesus' birthday. Somehow, secular Americans are the assholes when we merely try to take the pledge, our dollar bill, or Christmas back to its original incarnation.

My Father is an Atheist, my Mom is a Christian who doesn't believe Christmas is Jesus' birthday, and I am Agnostic. We all welcome Christmas as a time for sharing and togetherness, not the birth of baby Jesus in his manger. What does a Christmas tree have to do with the birth of your savior? What does getting your kid the new X-box have to do with Christianity? Nothing. And you know who else thought this way? The Puritans.

That’s right, about the time they started burning witches, Puritans in New England outlawed the Christmas celebration. Christmas, The Mass of Christ, was considered to be a Catholic holiday which had nothing to do with the actual birth or birth day of Christ so they therefore outlawed the Pagan traditions of decorating trees and caroling. Since they believed that the Christmas celebration and the birth of Christ was completely separate, Christmas was outlawed in Boston from 1659-1681 and the Colleges in New England didn't even start observing Christmas until about 1847. Christmas was not declared a federal holiday until 1870.

For these right wing nut jobs to say that December 25th, and all that is associated with that day, is purely Christian, is ludicrous. So when they say that the secular Christ-haters are trying to destroy Christianity when we call it the holidays and not Christmas, tell them that you think it's ironic that someone who thinks that America was founded by Puritans is so intent on going against Puritan beliefs, which were anti-Christmas. You can also tell them that you find it ironic that the same people who are trying to censor the internet, cable TV, song lyrics and art are offended when someone tries to censor their 1st amendment rights.

No one wants to destroy Christmas, you are paranoid. Who doesn't want a couple of days off work every year to hang out with family and friends to eat, drink, be merry and get presents?We just realize that roughly 23% of the US is not Christian; you cannot simply bully minorities because you outnumber them. We realize that all the traditions of Christmas, except going to mass, are secular. We realize that like the Pledge of Allegiance and US currency it has been adopted by Christianity, not the other way around.

So if some Jews in your town don't want The Night Christ was Born playing at the town hall manger, get over it. Go home and play your own Christmas music; you are free to do so. You wouldn't like it if you were forced to fast for Ramadan would you?


Sources: Holidays.net, History Channel, Wikipedia, Pantheon.org, World Wide Church of God (wcg.org) , Religioustolerance.org, All about Jesus Christ

How Not to Get Shot by Air Marshals

CNN's Anderson Cooper, is going to run a segment tonight asking, "could the shooting have been avoided?", yes of course it could have; here is how:

How to avoid being shot by an air marshal:

1. Don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.

2. If you are a vaguely foreign looking guy with an accent and you are arriving to the US from another country, don't run towards a bunch of air marshals holding guns while screaming that you have a bomb in your bag.

3. Don't say anything about a bomb on a plane.

4. When a guy with a gun tells you to drop your bag, drop your bag.

5. If you have already declared that you have a bomb, don't reach into the aforementioned bag after you have been told to drop it by guys who are pointing guns at you.

6. Don't strap the above mentioned bag to your stomach like a suicide bomber would do if you don't really plan on blowing yourself up.

7. If your husband is the kind of nut who gets erratic and violent, don't put him on a plane without his medication.

8. Don't even get on an international flight until you have purchased your above mentioned medication if that will cause you or your husband freak out and talk about blowing up planes.

9. Don't marry a crazy person.

10. Just drive to Orlando.


Being a nut doesn't mean you get a free pass to do any of these things. I would also like to point out that most people who blow themselves up are indeed crazy. So, his wife saying that he is crazy is even more of a reason to shoot him if he says he has a bomb.

Conservative Capitalism = Corporate Communism

Communism n: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Corporate Communism n (my definition): A system in which the corporation plans and controls the government and economy and a few, often authoritarian companies hold the power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are consumed by the people.

Not much difference between the two is there?

After pointing out the inequalities, greed and exploitation by major corporations, I am often told that all these fat cat document shredders are our salvation and any attempt by the federal government to tax or regulate these corporations is Communism. And of course we all know that Communism is evil and Capitalism is near divine in its purest form and that the only problem that arises from capitalism is the regulation and control placed on it by the Socialist federal government. The common consensus is that they wouldn’t be committing crimes if the government just make their offenses legal. Ironically, these are usually the same people who want the government to control every aspect of our private lives whether it be who we can marry, what we say, what we watch on TV and whether or not a woman can decide what happens to her own body, but as soon as they try to regulate commerce, business and industry they again say it is Satan's version of Communism. Of course there are exceptions. When ADM, GE or Exxon receives federal subsidies, that is pro-capitalism. But, when individuals are allowed to receive federal subsidies for doing nothing, that is merely Socialism.

But I was thinking about Capitalism, freedom and Communism and how they all relate to each other and what the differences between them are. Communism as we know is against private ownership, and is built around the state owning production and controlling the media. So what is the difference between the state owning production and production owning the state? If we lived in a country where there was no regulation of business and we ended up with one oil company, one retailer, one phone company, one insurance company, one health plan, one gas company, one electric company, one media conglomerate and one auto maker, and those companies were so powerful that they got all of our politicians and leaders elected wouldn't that essentially be Communism, especially, if these companies put their own guys in office?

We all know that, due to mergers and acquisitions, that there are now only 3 major oil companies operating in the United States so they are a virtual monopoly. We also know that our President and most of our Republican leadership is supported by oil money. How is that different from Russia having one oil company that was controlled by the state since our oil companies essentially control the state? Companies such as Wal-Mart are clearly against private ownership and competition and has worked with local governments to displace independent owned businesses that operated on private land in order to set up shop and then had the very tax payers they evicted pay for the destruction of their property to make way for a Wal-Mart. How is Wal-Mart any different from Stalin when he revoked private land ownership from the peasants in Russia, forcing them to work the land they once owned? These people and Wal-Mart alike are both anti-union and anti-private entrepreneur, as is Communism. How is that a free society? How are those people any more free than those peasants Stalin evicted from their own land? How is that not Communism in its purest form, other than the fact that the state is now owned by production instead of the other way around? Do you really think that once all of Wal-Mart's competition has been snubbed out that they are going to keep their prices low?

So, I would like to just point out that pure capitalism and zero regulation of commerce by the government eventually leads to a government controlled by these monopolies leaving the consumer with no choices and no way of protesting with their wallet if one company is allowed to set the price for everything we buy. In other words, only they win. At least Communism in theory was power to the people; in corporate communism the people will have no power and no freedom to choose. After all, if I can't be trusted to decide what I want to listen to on the radio or watch on TV then can we really trust a hospital or insurance company to do what's best for the patient or an oil company to do what is best for the environment.


Maybe I am overreacting, even the early Christians were Communists:

ACTS 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Condoms Couldn't Possibly Prevent AIDS or Pregnancies

From CNN November 21st:
LONDON, England (AP) -- The global HIV epidemic continues to expand, with more than 40 million people now estimated to have the AIDS virus, but in some countries prevention efforts are finally starting to pay off, the United Nations says.

For the first time there is solid evidence that increased efforts to combat the disease over the last five years have led to fewer new infections in some places, said UNAIDS chief Peter Piot.
Previously improvements had been seen in places such as Senegal, Uganda and Thailand, but those were rare exceptions.
"Now we have Kenya, several of the Caribbean countries and Zimbabwe with a decline," Piot said, adding that Zimbabwe is the first place in Southern Africa, the hardest-hit area, to show improvement.
These are all countries that have invested heavily in safe-sex campaigns and other prevention programs, with the result that prevalence of HIV among the young has declined.

"People are starting later with their first sexual intercourse, they are having fewer partners, there's more condom use," Piot said.

So let me get this straight, education, prevention programs and more condoms are attributed to decreasing the spread of AIDS in all these countries but even with all this information and the tools available people still have sex, even if it means their life. Yet there are people in this country who believe that they don't need things like condoms and sex education because the schools should just teach their kids to not have sex and that will solve everything. If the threat of AIDS and death hasn't deterred people then the possibility of having a kid that your parents will raise for you will not prevent our teenagers from having sex. Guess what? Teenagers have sex; that is what they are biologically designed to do and no one is going to be able to stop it. Do you think a teenager who can't be relied on to clean his room, cut the grass, not take guns and drugs to school can be trusted to not have sex with your daughter? Think again. Remember how horny and stupid you was when you were a teenager?

Condoms are not evil and Jesus won't take away your birthday if you provide kids with condoms in order to avoid AIDS and teenage pregnancies. You can teach abstinence all you want as long as you keep condoms available to the large number who will not abstain. It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt, the very people who are against condoms in schools, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies, children born out of wedlock and poverty, within the United States.

Oh, and in case you forgot how to avoid AIDS, I will again share my AIDS prevention tips with you one more time:


How not to get AIDS:

Don't have sex, stay home and jerk off to skinamax half porn, or get a blow up doll.

Don't have sex with someone who has AIDS, even with a condom.

Don't have sex with someone who is bleeding out of their ass.

If you must have sex with someone, use a condom.

Don't have sex with people you don't know or just met in a mens room, George Michael included.

If you know of someone who has had sex with an AIDS victim, do not have sex with that person.

If you shun condoms because you "dont like the way the feel", ask yourself how a big dose of AIDS would feel.

If you want to have a good (long) sex life, find a committed partner that you can trust that has had an AIDS test.

Don't tag team some other guy's ass with a bunch of leather dudes you just met at a bar.

Don't have sex with someone who has ever been tag teamed.

Don't believe people when they tell you they don't have AIDS.

Don't frequent glory holes, either side.

Don't blow heroin addicts or crack heads in alleys.

Don't share needles with heroin addicts, more specifically, heroin addicts with AIDS.

Don't have sex with prostitutes, or a junkie prostitute with a bad itch.

If you are African, having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS, it spreads it.

Dont' become "blood brothers" with someone who has AIDS

Don't be born in Africa.

Don't let herpes victims with open sores on their mouth give you a blow job, as these people tend to not be as careful and selective as someone such as me and may also have AIDS, though I will not blow you.

Don't let anyone cum on any open sores, cuts or orifices.

Do not become, or have sex with a porn star, more specifically a gay porn star that has violated my other rules.

If you do any of the above, get an AIDS test every week.

If you are a gay basher, don't make your victims bleed as the flailing blood may stain your Ted Nugent shirt, infect you and later, your fat girlfriend who lives with you in your double-wide.

If you are an NBA player, don't nail every white woman between L.A. and Boston that is trying to get knocked up by someone rich and famous.

If you are a Catholic priest, condoms are evil, fuck little boys who couldn't possibly have AIDS yet.

If you are an altar boy, don't hang out with priests alone.

If you are Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, don't mock God, he will punish you with AIDS.

If you're Bill Frist, a medical doctor and US Senator, don't let anyone sweat or spit on you.

If you are Tom Delay, rules obviously don't apply to you, feel free to do all the above.



P.S. These tips may also be effective in not getting knocked up when you are 14 years old.

Dover, PA Bracing for Hurricanes, Death of First Born

From CNN:
(Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Yes, I know, this is old news now but Pat Robertson, the guy who called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez, blamed 9/11 on the ACLU and abortions, told Orlando, FL to brace for earth quakes and hurricanes if they let people put up rainbow flags, has warned the city of Dover, PA that they will suffer God's wrath because they voted out 8 Republican school board officials who tried to introduce Christianity as science in their public school system.

Parents and the ACLU, defenders of religious liberty and the American way, sued the school board for forcing students to hear a statement saying evolution is just a theory and that intelligent design was another theory that they pulled out of their ass in order to indoctrinate the students with misinformation and replace science with Christianity, thus ignoring the 1st Amendment.

So does this mean that the school board thinks students should hear the same statements before they discuss Einstein and his "Theory" of Relativity, or that the Earth has a liquid core? After all, no one has been able to prove these "theories" 1st hand.

In related news, the Kansas school board voted 6-4 to replace science with creationism. This will probably open the door for critics of astronomy and chemistry to replace these "sciences" with astrology and alchemy respectively.

Message: PA=Smart, KS= Stupid


Steve Abrams at the Kansas State School Board setting fire to the US flag showing his hatred of the American way, loyalty to God but not the tax payers or the outdated ideology of separation of church and state.

Bible Quiz

For all of you who like to question my knowledge of the Bible I just want you to know that I got a perfect score on this Bible Quiz:

Bible Quiz!

Check out the Scoreboard!

Let me know how you all did!

P.S. You don't really have to type in a valid email address to see the results.

Why Wal-Mart Sucks

Oct 25th:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said he's urging Congress to consider raising the minimum wage so that Wal-Mart customers don't have to struggle paycheck to paycheck.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/

Basically Wal-Mart is saying that they would like to sell more cheap shit to low wage people. In order to do so, since trade with China eliminated 1.5 Million US jobs, they want the government to raise the minimum wage so these people can spend this extra money at Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart wants the people who would shop at Wal-Mart to have more money to spend then I think they need a good long hard look in the mirror. They could give all their impoverished 1.2 million employees raises, such as Henry Ford did, making it possible for his work force to be able to afford the products they were making. Or if Wal-Mart wants to make more money for the corporation then maybe they should cut the pay of their executives instead of gouging their vendors or taking it from their workers.

Some people would argue that Wal-Mart is forced to buy cheap Chinese goods and pay low wages with few benefits in order to stay competitive, profitable and keep their cheap-shit-buying consumer base coming back for more, but we all know that is a bunch of BS.

In 2004, H. Lee Scott Jr., President and CEO (not the founder) of Wal-Mart, made 22,991,599 dollars from Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart only paid him $991,599 per year (a salary I would kill for), they could take the other $22,000,000 and give 5,288 employees a $2 per hour raise. S. Robson Walton, Chairman of Wal-Mart is worth 17 Billion dollars. If you divided up his net worth and paid it to all the US employees of Wal-Mart they would all get a $4.80 per hour raise which is $9,984 per year. If you gave all of Wal-Mart's 1,200,000 US employees a $2 per hour, or $4160 per year raise it would only account for 1.7% of Wal-Mart's annual sales revenue. Wal-Mart's employees earn 20% less than unionized grocery store employees.

It is estimated that the US government spends up to 1.5 billion dollars subsidizing Wal-Mart employees with public assistance, food stamps and health care as these employees cannot make it on Wal-Mart wages. You could say they don't have to work at Wal-Mart. But, when Wal-Mart is responsible for these people's stores going out of business, or the town bulldozed their store or former place of employment in order to build a Wal-Mart, or their job was lost due to illegal competition from a Chinese manufacturer that Wal-Mart now buys from, then where exactly are they supposed to work, especially if they live in a small town?

More facts about Wal-Mart:

Wal-Mart received 37 million in welfare payments out of the new transportation bill.

They posted approximately 9 Billion dollars in profit last year.

They have collected over 1 Billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments.

Wal-Mart also receives advanced warning from the federal government about child labor law inspections.

Wal-Mart has been busted for having illegal immigrants working in their store for less than minimum wage which drives down American wages.

Exports to the US from China outnumber US exports to China by 5 to 1.

70% Of Wal-Mart products are made in China.

Wal-Mart accounts for 14% of the United States 126 Billion dollar trade deficit with China.

Trade unions in China are illegal.

A story about how lower earning stores who never received government subsidies are being forced out by a Walmart receiving 10 million in local subsidies under eminent domain.

These guys don't create jobs--they eliminate them. Don't get the two confused.

Don't shop at Wal-Mart. Support Main Street American ma and pa stores when possible. Remember, America is a Democracy before we are capitalists; we the people also have the right to keep Wal-Mart from building in our towns.


"There is one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford


Sources: Forbes, CNN, Wal-Mart Home Page,Walmartwatch.com, PBS Frontline, AFL-CIO