Through a Cougars Eyes

Mulling over Mohommad

2007-06-06T11:05:00.000-07:00

So I have been sent this link about how there are defiantly nuclear weapons within our boarders. Honestly I cant say I'm the least bit surprised. Now far be it from me to get political (bit of Ole' tongue in cheek humor there folks, calm down) but it is nothing new that we are experiencing. The Muslims have hated anyone who is not Muslim for a very long time. As a matter of fact it is not bigotry to say that Muslims want to kill "us", us of course being anyone who is not Muslim. See the fact of the matter is that their own scripture tells them to convert the entire world in one of three ways. Those ways would be by choice, by torture, or death. That's not taken out of context, that isn't misconstrued to give a false impression. The cold hard fact that Americans cant or wont understand, is that Muslims want to kill all non Muslims. Unfortunately for us, it doesn't take a belief in something for it to be true.

Its that last part that perfectly sums up the second reason why this is so fantastically believable, and that would be the modern democrat. Lets cut through the chase and call it what it is. In an effort to be Marxist, a claim virtually all Dem's would deny but there really isn't much defense against it, they are seeking to remove all that is not equal in an effort to create peace. It is in this vein of thought that we are told by a largely leftist media that there is no such thing as terrorists. We are told that Muslims don't want to kill us, and that AL qaida is just misunderstood. I love that last one, misunderstood. That has been used to cover just about anything Dem's/leftists/Marxists cant actually explain away by calling someone a bigot/racist/prejudiced. Take for instance Muslim terrorists. They believe they have been commanded to kill all non Muslims, that if they die in the service of doing this that they are reserved a higher place in heaven, and that any means are acceptable. This is a paraphrasing of their own teachings, not some quote from an anti Muslim hate group. Why would anyone for one second believe this was not a threat?

Dem's are literally unable to see this. See they are basically stuck in high school. How many times have you heard that the "world" doesn't like us, and that's why Muslims are bombing us. Let me rephrase that a bit, the other kids don't like us, and that's why they pick on us... if we just made friends with the mad jihadists then they would put down their knives, forget their cultural convictions of genocide, and we could have tea and crumpets. Some how I don't quite buy that story. Not only are Muslims bombing virtually everyone they can get their hands on, but in this world that hates us, countries keep electing pro American/pro bush governments. The rest of the world has already tossed off Communism, and they are now tossing off socialism as well.

Well this is my take on this story, I wasn't the least bit surprised. Perhaps if the jihadists nuke California and new york not only will we have a clean election, but the people standing in the way of reason who are destroying the traditions this country was built upon will no longer exist in great numbers. Now I'm not one to wish for the death of people, however if those same people insist on being a destructive force in our world, then I say cut out the cancer. Just so nothing is not understood, I lump both Muslims who want the world turned Muslim (which is all proper Muslims mind you) and those who would seek to do nothing but sing kum ba ya with marshmallows on a stick as a means of preventing this conversion as a cancer on this world. Destroy the ideology, and if that means destroying the people, than so be it. This is not "making us as bad as the enemy" as the saying goes, it is a retaliation and a defensive measure to prevent insane ideologues from having control over anything.

Again, I'm not surprised. As has been stated its going to take a few more 9-11's before people wake up. I can only hope my loved ones are not caught in the blast when the inevitable happens.

violation of freedom of religion

2007-04-19T23:12:00.000-07:00

OK this will be a short one as its getting late and its such a clear violation that I really don't understand what else to say...
This article talks about how some catholic pharmacists have a problem with selling a morning after pill labeled "Plan B" and how there was a ruling by their governing body, licensing board, that if they don't fill prescriptions they could loose their ability to practice. Keep in mind this is a regulated state funded organization, the licensing board. What this means is that they are threatening to take away the ability to practice for anyone who doesn't violate their religious beliefs and hand someone the tool which will be used to abort a pregnancy.
I often hear people say the magic words when I talk about things like this... you know them... say them with me. Separation of church and state... That's right, those are the words. Well guess what, I have some news for you. Those words arnt in any of our founding documents. No I'm serious, look let me show you.
What people cite is the first amendment, here's what that says:

US Constitution. Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

See I told you I wouldn't steer you wrong, want to see something cool, guess where you CAN find those words...

The constitution of the former Soviet Union. Article II, Chapter 5, Section 13: "For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religious propaganda is accorded to every citizen."

I kid you not boys and girls, that line is taken straight from the handbook of Karl Marx himself.
See the problem lies in the fact that this is indeed a violation of those individual pharmacists right to practice their religion freely. If they do practice their religion, which involves the not being party to abortion, something they disagree with on a religious level, they are subject to fines, punishment, and possibly loss of career. I hope this makes it to the supreme court. God doesn't need defending, but man sure does.

"point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable’"

2007-04-19T22:34:00.000-07:00

OK so there was this ruling in the supreme court the other day about the upholding of a ban on "partial birth abortions". It got through for a few reasons, primarily because of the testimony that this procedure is never needed for health reasons, thus precluding the often used loophole of... well what ever the hell someone wants to use as a "health reason". This has traditionally been things such as finances, mood, social impact, stress. I'm really not making these up, actual cases cite things such as the mother doesn't want stretch marks as a health concern and reason for a partial birth abortion.
Here in lies the problem, Roe V. Wade very clearly says that an abortion is legal for any reason the woman desires up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable'". Lets take a look at that for a moment, your inducing the delivery of a baby, pulling its head out of the body, and then crushing its skull or sucking the brains out of its head. This is an otherwise healthy baby. This is a baby that in many cases has nothing wrong with it. This is a VIABLE child! I fail to see why we needed this law to begin with. Isn't this procedure illegal as per the confines set forth in Roe V. Wade? It does not say the right to have an abortion under any circumstance for any reason up until the child is delivered (which mind you, what part of partial birth do you not quite understand... so even then)
As much as I actually do be live life starts at conception, I actually agree with Roe V. Wade from a point of view. When I say life its in a vague sense, quite literally every living cell on any living item on the planet is just as alive as a fertilized egg. Do I think its alive, yes, does it have the capacity to grow into a human, yes... However so does every skin cell on your body. Thus I look at the term alive not to mean living separate organism. As a matter of fact I consider a fetus to be a parasite quite a few months after birth through the breast feeding stage. That departs from the question however. At what point is it a viable separate organism? Well for that answer I think we need to look at some common practices.
A baby is typically considered generally viable after 22 weeks, that's mid 5Th month for the math impaired. However we now have this case. In that a 21 week old lived, this forces the question, is the beginning of the 5Th month the point at which an infant could live outside the womb? The answer is clearly yes as it has happened already. So as a rule any abortion, as per the courts own decree after the 5Th month is automatically illegal, I can imagine that a viable infant killed would be, as per Roe V. Wade... murder. OK now the larger question. There are roughly 1million abortions performed in the united states every year, I wish I was making that number up. Mind you there is only 300 million people in the country, only half of them women, so that means since its inception in 1973 there have been 34 million, give or take, abortions out of 150million people. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me.
Now the advocates of this will say that its a deeply personal and troubling procedure, and is undertaken with anguish. They will say that most of these cases are rape or incest. They will say alot of things to be frank. Well as per this stat site there are only 89,110 rapes in the united states per year. I dont want to say only as if that means I dont think that's too many, however even if every single one resulted in pregnancy, and in reality when women are only able to conceive 4 days out of the month if they are lucky we know that this is just statistically impossible. But lets just go with it and say that someone was really unlucky one year and every single rape victim conceived. That still means that less than 10% of all abortions are due to rape, over 90% are not (even if you say every single victim got pregnant).
People say you should have a choice over your own body... but that's really the question here isnt it. Just exactly who's body, and for that matter, what about the parents... no I'm not talking about the girls parents, that's a whole separate issue, I'm talking about the father. Last time I checked it takes both a male and a female to produce offspring. What about his parental rights? Arnt his rights as a father being violated by her in fact murdering, OK lets speculate that she wouldn't have carried full term and be lenient and say attempted murder, or at least assault. After all that infant has the same chance of becoming a human as the skin cells on your arm right? so if I took a vacuum or some poison and injected it into your arm, killing a clump of cells would that not be aggravated assault?
I think the point I'm making here is its a very dangerous game you play when you start attempting to determine when something is and is not worthless, particularly in respect to life. We take great precautions when executing our dangerous criminals, but there is no respect given for the loss of life which occurs during an abortion.
I say until we have a better way of looking at it that 5 months should be set as viable, and anything beyond that which does not involve the death of the mother should not involve the death of a child. How horrible is it that someone wants a health mandate. You really want to say that emotional hardship is reason enough to kill someone. You will be stressed and don't feel like having a baby, mind you, you did have months to make up your mind, but no, now that it has a chance to escape and survive you deem it OK to kill it... hmm.
On a side note I'm all for child abuse charges for those who deliberately cause harm to "viable" children such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs would be the main ones.

Personal Responsibility

2007-04-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to people realizing that when something happens, theres a very great chance that they had a very large part, often times the only part, in creating the problem. Recently I have had a few discussions that just got me very angry. I was going to put the word confused there, but that's a PC word that means pissed off that we have been tought to use. I decided not to use it because it perfectly illustrates my point. Someone does something stupid, and we have been so conditioned to believe that its not any ones fault that we share the blame, claiming ignorance at what actuality happened so as not to hurt any ones feelings. Someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel, people say things like "I just don't understand why someone would do that". The hell you don't, they are irresponsible fucks that don't give a shit about anyone but their own drunken, sullen, and pathetic self... many times not even that.

What happened when we as a society insists on sharing the burden for the pathetic looses of the planet. Sure I'm all about eugenics, I think its a great idea, hell so did the inventor if planned parenthood. But that withstanding, if we are going to allow rampant stupidity, the least we could do is decry it and point out how pathetic it is. Its not OK to be irresponsible, yes it happens, but its not OK. That's the line people have crossed. It used to be accepted that you still cared for people even when they did moronic things, but in today's world, we don't even see it as moronic, its just different. Different my ass, its wrong, why cant we say somethings wrong anymore? Its no longer wrong to disobey the law if you don't agree with it, as pointed out by Pelosi who violated the Logan act, was guilty of sedition, and quit possibly treason. Mind you this isn't some crazy hippy with no life... well OK yes it is, but shes also speaker of the house, third in line for president.... and here she is giving the finger to our government.

I'm just at a loss, we have Keith Ellison swearing in to congress using Thomas Jefferson's koran. For those who don't know, this was the capitalist used to justify the destruction of the Barbary pirates. It is also where the line "from the shores of Tripoli" and the slang term leatherneck originated for our US Marines. This was a koran used to destroy muslums, and here Ellison decides because people are idiots and don't know any better its a cool publicity stunt.

I can go on and on about the stupidity that's rampant. While I loathe intelligent hate spewing liberals, I have to say, I like them better than the cattle that surround both sides. Pick a side in life, believe what you believe and for Gods sake know why you believe it.

Revelation 3:14-22 (King James Version)

14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Treat others

2007-03-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

So this post will differ from my typical post where I use reference and such to prove a point. This is more a rant about my great confusion over particular behaviors and mind sets.

Reactionary and vindictive behaviors, honestly while I understand them I find them becoming more and more previlant every day. I was recently introduced to a term "emo", short for emotional. Now for those who read this who actually know me, you are aware that I absolutely dispise emotion. It is clearly the root of evil and brings about things I have heard over the last few weeks. Let me give an example of someone I have talked with, and a few of their more recent actions. Person gets into a car accident with someone, now it is claimed that they were not responsible, however due to the constantly high emotional level of this person facts are basically unsubstantiated. See to the emotional mind facts are irrelevant. Well the person they were in an accident with apparently didnt have insurance. The first question I have is, are you alright of course. Their response... im going to sue the pants off them. Ok first off lets let logic interject. If they dont have insurence, chances are they dont have money. Your going to take someone who has virtualy nothing, and beat them because your pissy. Beyond that, why in gods name is that your first reaction? To point out that this is not an isolated incident, earlier they had been talking about sueing the electric company for what may or may not have been an error on their part. See when I asked if the high bill that said person was claiming was in error their reply was, and im not making this up, "I dont care, im not paying it". So your reaction to something you dont like, even if you actually are responsible, is the sue untill you get your way? Im reminded of a recent quote from rosie o donnel to the effect that when she was growing up she learned that to be a patriot was to yell and scream louder and louder untill the government did what you wanted. Consider that we have an entire group of people who actually believe that its acceptable to behave like children and scream and stamp your feet when you dont get what you want. I find that behavior detestable but hey, im old school I guess. Then there was today, where I was asking about this persons business that they supposedly run and they talked with great glee about how their original partner pissed them off, so they used their clout to buy him out and make sure no one would work with him again. Adding that "their lawyer" informed them that the old partner would be filing for bankruptcy soon. This person was ecstatic that they ruined someones life out of spite and vindictiveness. First clue, if you use the words "my lawyer" in virtually every conversation, you have serious issues.

Then theres a few others, for instance the person my wife works with who boasts that between him and his family he has 13 outstanding lawsuits. Mind you he just bought a new truck with cash, fully tricked out, and basicaly that kind of equiptment is far above his lifestyle. He has made a career off of stealing from people. Only diffrence is insted of a gun he uses a lawyer.

These people see nothing wrong with what they do. To them its business as usual. What I find terribly odd is that they would respond to the exact same behavior from others with I would imagine near homicidal rage. Where did we as a people get this type of entitlement? At what point did people start thinking so highly of themselves that they endangered others livelihood. Or even more basic, that they felt they were entitled to others things. In the first example, the person was upset that while they only took 5 thousand dollars out of the company in a year, the partner bought a vehicle and a house. There are some objects here which I am not aware of, for instance, while I know the person I talked to had someone with them that took care of other expenses, whos to say the partner did? If you are part of a business and you need to make a house payment it makes sense to me to spend it. Having a thriving business and living on the street dosent make much sense. However when questioned about this, the direct line given was "he was stealing from me"... sorry, werent you partners?

Its that rampant selfishness that I dont understand. If you partner with someone, thats a binding ideal, even if its not on paper. I guess I just dont do well with un moral people. I cant understand why someone would take pleasure in the dis pleasure of others. Well thats not exactly true, but I really dont want to accept that the vast majority of people are self serving peices of shit who would rather devour their fellow man than share a peice of bread with them. Apparently I am quite old fashoned.

Who else is pro-wife beating!

2007-03-19T12:23:00.000-07:00

Well its been a bit since my last entry, so lets just jump right in with some talk of violence. Wife beating, spousal abuse, what ever you want to call it. The question here is, is it wrong? Now I know this sounds like a stupid question. But of course its wrong, right? I mean how could being physically violent with someone be right? Well for that answer you have to not be an idiot, and remove the word physically from that last sentence.

Lets take a moment to examine male vs female traits. At their core, although plenty of bull dyke's and fema-nazis would bunch their panties, females are the "weaker" of the two. With common traits being social/co-operative in nature such as group problem solving, outward compassion, hyper verbalization and the like. Females are very much wired to be social creatures and work within a group of semi-equals. It is not uncommon to have one pack leader, but typically no more than that, and even that position is not absolute with frequent discussions and disagreements with leadership. Situations are worked out in group think.

Now this is all very obvious and well known, that part wasn't written as much as education as mental orientation. Look at those traits, its well known that women work better in a group. Males on the other hand, well their groups tend to be slightly different. Men hold things like disrespect and loyalty to be much more than fleeting thoughts, as considered by their counterparts. Men have very clear hierarchy within their ranks, from high man down to low man, everyone is classed. Dissension within the ranks is rarely accepted, and while disagreement is welcomed, final say is absolute with the alpha.

These are just a few pattern traits, now lets examine one very specific trait, violence. What constitutes violence to women? How do they act out agenst each other? Do they claw, bite, pull hair? Not really no, on the contrary it is very unlikely for a female orientated dispute to erupt into physical violence. Female violence takes on the place of female orientated traits. There will be name calling, passive aggressive actions, back biting, and the ever popular, bitching. At this point if you are unfamiliar with, or are unwilling to accept the presence of these items in the real world, and womens use of them as tools then stop reading now as you are too deep in the rabbit hole to see the light so to speak.

Ok lets look at the other side of the coin, male pattern traits as they relate to violence. Men are much more direct in their actions. Male aggression would be more seen as physical posturing, short and direct threats, and of course physical violence. There are a few key differences to note here, and I will point out that these finer points are completely un-understood by females. Men do not find it uncommon that after a fight, the two combatants would laugh, pat each other on the back, and possibly even hug (though rarely as thats not manly), this stems from the root of the violence itself. Men test themselves and pair off physically, women pair off and test themselves verbally.

Lets look real close at that last sentence now with a real world example. Woman comes home, shes had a bad day for whatever reason, she starts to yell and piss and moan. Now as males in the current age, we are expected to tuck our balls between our legs and let her vent, after all we are the stronger (a nice double standard there eh?) and its not like shes actually hurting you right? Take a look at some decent information regarding this issue, of particular interest are the definitions.

Why don't we play that scenario back using a different set of formula. Lets have the man be the aggressor and replace the wife with a male friend. Male comes home, friend is not doing much, playing a video game perhaps, male stomps around and grumbles walking right in front of the screen and pausing for a moment (this is a direct passive aggressive action designed to provoke a fight) friend replies with some angry outburst (short direct threats) along the lines of move your butt or the like, male gets the trigger he was looking for and turns yelling about some random item, the important part is body position however (posturing) friend stands as a fight is imminent (more posturing) and after a moment one of them (traditionally the primary aggressor, male in this case) takes a swing. This may go on for a few moments, or a few minuets depending on back issues. The fight ends and both dust each other, one says hes sorry he over reacted, and life moves on.

Now enter the confusion, the explanation, and the problem. For my entire life (turned 30 two days ago) I have been told that male traits were wrong, aggression was evil, I should sever my penis and live life as a more enlightened woman.... blah blah blah, its really quite scathing. The confusion comes in that while women know they are attacking men, they don't understand why they are hit more often than not. Well its because you provoked a response. Heres the visual as above, as seen through the eyes of a man, and what should happen under typical circumstances had we not been told it is not Ok to be masculine. Woman comes home, starts bitching (verbal threats), man responds to the benign comments (verbal threats), woman seeing the man entering into a verbal match continues to escalate the assault (verbal threats, posturing), man responds by moving within strike range (heavy posturing), woman responds to her threat of personal space by becoming very animated (reciprocated heavy posturing), and finally woman is hit. Now the man is angrier than normal for a few reasons. First she questioned his authority, second she did not heed his warnings, and third she was unqualified for the battle she provoked. That last one is interesting, consider a bee stings you, now you could just pluck it off and send it on its way, however the normal response is one much more primal, a subconscious "how dare a pathetic thing like you attack me", which is often followed quickly by a quick death on the part of the bee. Its that last one why two men can fight and become friends, a man hits a woman and continues to strike her. The very idea of an unqualified fight is insulting.

See the underlying problem here is miscommunication, and a horrible double standard. As long as emotional violence and physical violence are not seen on the same level, and as long as males are shown to be the horrible overlords and suppressors of women, we are going to have this problem. In short, my current view on this is that the vast majority of spousal abuse cases are completely warranted. As I often say, if you jump into a lions cage covered in bloody meat, don't get upset when you become dinner.

Is there really a right and wrong?

2007-02-23T10:58:00.000-08:00

Right and wrong... to this I would counter with is there really only opinion. The opinion argument is one that has confused me for a while. Its like starting a sentence with "No offence but...", clearly you are going to say something offensive. The most pervasive place I see this is with the uncouth behavior of women. A term many of you should be familiar with, its called "bitching". Over generations, and particularly since the whole women's liberation movement, it has become more and more acceptable for women to spout off every and any senseless tantrum at any given time and claim some useless drivel such as "I'm just telling the truth" or something of that nonsense. In reality your being mean, rude, and generally (as the term implies) a bitch. But I digress, that is just an example of opinion being used to excuse poor behavior that would never be acceptable if portrayed as anything other than cheerful conversation.

Really though, is there a right and wrong to things or are all things opinion. I would counter with this line from a very good movie if you can stand the slow parts. In K-Pax Jeff Bridges plays a psychiatrist who is trying to help Kevin Spacey who believes he is from another planet. In one of their counseling sessions Bridges asks Spacey about his home world and when it is discovered that they have no laws this conversation takes place (paraphrased as I don't remember the exact words). "You have no laws? Then how do you know the difference between right and wrong?" After a very perplexed look from Spacey he replies "Every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong Doctor." For me that was a very powerful statement, and one I completely agree with. Why is it that my dog has his head down when I come home and he has been in the trash, why do children close doors when they are doing something they are not supposed to? Its because, quite literally, every creature in the Galaxy knows the difference between right and wrong. The difference is that humans have chosen to attempt to redefine that standard. If you want an example try this, run a red light. In the middle of the night on a dirt road with no one for miles. If you are a moral person you will get that feeling in your stomach that could possibly prevent you from doing it at all, but even if you are able to push through that, the tightness in your stomach will actually cause you pain. Why is that. You can see that there are no cars around, your clearly not in danger of being hit. The only explanation is that you are about to do something very wrong and you know it, even though, and this is the really important part, even though there are no worldly consequences.

Lets look at right and wrong in a different light, what are they. They are a system of morality, without religion they do not exist, as religion is what gives us this moral code. Now I believe that this code is ingrained in each and every person regardless, however religion spells it out for us as well if you somehow get confused. If you want an example of this look at nature, we don't find it offensive or punishable if a lion kills another who is attempting to force him out of the pride.... however god forbid I come home and find another man in my house with my wife and slice him into thin strips. I would be tried and convicted of murder. Why, you have to ask yourself why. If we truly are just animals, then why does it matter, why do we not as a population follow the law of the animals? Whats funny is the people who are traditionally the most agenst religion and what it brings, are also the most agenst people possessing weapons. You would think that would be the other way around.

So right and wrong are a matter of religion, however without religion humans and animals (of course animals have no religion) know the difference, so clearly everything exists within this fabric. At the same time there are real indications of when you are doing something wrong, the stop light example. So we have established that there is indeed a right and wrong regardless of if you decide to believe it or not.

The next step is what actions are right and what are wrong, now this is where it gets fuzzy. Personally I choose to go with the logic approach. I remove emotion, and what is left I sort out in the most logical way possible. Basically this is the way the US legal system is supposed to work, a system I completely support in theory (in practice it is a political circle jerk but that's not the systems fault that's the people in it not doing their job). You have to remember, all sins are based off emotion, I very much believe that emotion is the practical application of free will. It is that fudge factor that takes a right decision and turns it into a wrong one. Often times I hear people say "I know what I should do, but I feel like I should do something else"... read that again if you didn't catch the irony.

Of course how deep does this rabbit hole go, is the world black and white or shades of grey. Well remember right and wrong is an aspect of religion right (this is where I'm about to get a little biblical for those unsuspecting readers who would rather hug a tree at this point). Its stated clearly, much to many peoples dismay, that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, thus if an action is a sin, it is bad. Not a little bad, but completely and equally as bad any ANY other sin. To answer that question you are having right now, yes, jay walking is the same as mass homicide. The only reason people choose not to believe that is because they... wait for it... don't want to FEEL bad about themselves. They want to say, well sure I'm not perfect, but at least I'm not....yea... all equal in the eyes of God. Its this perspective that many don't want to face. So if all sins are just as bad as any other sins, then the converse, are all rights as good as any other right. Well by simple algebra yes, it has to be so to balance the equation. OK so good actions and bad actions are all black and white.

What about things that don't exactly have a good and a bad, well there again your fooling yourself. There is not an action that you can take that does not have one of those connotations. You may think otherwise but that's because you are looking for that fudge factor. Think about it, upon reading that last sentence whats the first thing that came to your mind... "oh there must be some thing that docent have either good or evil to it." I heard a very good sermon the other day about perversion, how it starts small, looking for excuses, just minor ones, and later branches out into massive inconsistencies. Again getting metaphysical, the bible is assumed to be infallible, because it is a representation of God, thus if Satan were to be able to create a situation where the bible contradicted itself... it would all fall apart. Now consider that situation. Satan isn't trying to tell you that God doesn't exist, even he isn't that arrogant (unlike many many humans) all he is trying to tell you is that hes not perfect, and thus not worthy of being followed.

Lets connect the logic chain on this one, all actions have good or bad (right or wrong) connotations. Choosing good puts you on the side of God, choosing bad puts you on the side of Satan. Satan is attempting to show humans that there is exceptions to the laws of God. By doing this God is no longer perfect, and thus no longer need be worshiped or followed. Looping back to the beginning, if your not following God your following Satan. Satan wins.

The problem people have is they think they are important in ways that are irreverent (worldly) and insignificant in ways that are paramount (Godly). It is this confusion over our purpose in the world that causes people to kill for shoes, seek earthly pleasures at the expense of their soul, and numerous other examples. You have to ask, if people know the difference between right and wrong, why would they do such a thing. I answer you, emotion... free will... because it feels good and because they can.

Who says spellings important

2007-02-13T12:07:00.000-08:00

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn m nid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Straight talk about Vaginas

2007-01-30T17:36:00.000-08:00

News news news....

Well it seems as if every day theres something strange, dark, wet, and slightly odorous emanating from someone calling them self a journalist. In this particular article we are treated to a heart warming story of how countless women could be saved the pain and suffering of cervical cancer if the, and I'm quoting from the first 6 pages of responses to this article now, "the religious right would get out of the way".

Wow us conservative religious republicans must be some evil bastards huh? Who knew in our effort to keep that which is holy sanctified and pure that we would run not walk down a road of submission and terrorism to those who are far more intelligent than us... or perhaps that's not the case at all. Lets look a little closer, something that the writer of the piece, nor any of those who responded obviously did.

This little gem is from ashastd.org and has a whole list of common misconceptions of genital warts, otherwise known as HPV. There is actually a great deal of wonderful information on this site, which writes in detail about the specific types, of over 70 particular strains that are most commonly found to cause cancer. Read carefully what I wrote, not that cancer is predominantly caused by these types, but that these types are known to cause cancer. A good way to look at the importance of that wording is by saying HPV is a little fish taking a small bite out of a larger fish vs. the larger fish completely devouring and consuming the smaller fish. In short, not all, nor not most cases are caused by HPV, however of the cases that do involve HPV we have isolated the strains which are known to be culprits and even then they are not that prevalent in their transition into cancerous tissue. For reference read myth number 4 in that link to know what I'm talking about.

Ok so at this point we have established that HPV is infact known in some cases to lead to cervical cancer. That's horrible, it really is. As a child my mother had a complete hysterectomy due to late onset cervical cancer so really, don't mistake that I think its a good idea for people to contract this illness.

This is what were talking about, Gardasil. A drug made by Merck & Co., a company of which I am a huge fan by the way, however the spin on this is not exactly ethical in that it is heavily misleading. Basically this is not the wonder drug people are touting it to be, let me explain why.

"Those most strongly associated with cancer are HPV types 16, 18, 31, 45, and, to a lesser degree, half a dozen others. These are known as the "high-risk" types, not because they usually or frequently cause cancer--in fact, cervical cancer is a rare disease in the United States today, and penile cancer even more so--but because, in the infrequent event that cancer does develop, it can usually be traced back to one of these types."

That little line there makes me question something, particularly this one from the gardasil site, GARDASIL is the only vaccine that may help guard against diseases that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Ok now if we compare that list there are only two known possible cancer contributers on that list, which means 50% are not, not to mention the "half dozen others." I'm sorry but a less than 50% optimal success rate is hardly a miracle cure.

Ok now that we have pointed out the hype lets get on to why this article annoyed me. Its premise is that there is this wonder drug that people are trying to make a mandatory shot that people would have to receive upon entering school after age 9, optimally between 11-12. The problem I have with this is not that they want to make it mandatory, I actually don't have a large problem with that as most parents that don't know better would not be inclined to partake of the vaccine. What I do have a problem with is the misinformation and the fact that the information being handed out tends to slant people from the reality that the drug is not all that effective. Is it good enough to be a mandatory shot, I would say no. Is it something that could be refined to become more effective, I would say yes. At this time in the drugs history and development however it is not the amazing breakthrough that Merck wants it to be to warrant the billions of ongoing revenue that would be generated by forcing a marketing campaign. Better than nothing, sure, but that is not grounds for enacting laws.

Tell ya what, if you want to impress me come up with a drug that vaccinates against heart disease, the leading cause of death of all people to include natural causes, now that would be impressive

Hows that leash feel around your neck...

2007-01-29T15:21:00.000-08:00

Right now I'm thinking of the words "Love it or leave it". Today as I was browsing through my favorite website I happened upon this article Click where Times military reporter Michael Gordon is taking heat for supporting our troops, and an initiative to remove terrorists from our planet...I know what a concept right? Here's the thing that struck me; the man apologized. He goes on PBS and says that he supports our efforts to stomp out terror, to stabilize a once prospering den of terror and to create a safer, happier, and more western friendly ally and is openly chastised for it. What planet are these people living on?

So I am to assume by the statements made in that article that basically, even though the actual words state that hes using just his opinion, that hes not allowed to speak his mind when it comes to anything that might be viewed as non anti American?

Lets take a gander at just exactly what it is that people are protesting. Predominantly we are dealing with uninformed and mislead people who are under the mistaken impression that this is about random and insignificant things. These items would be things such as oil, revenge, posturing, and then theres the ever popular "hippy" issues of peace not war, endless/pointless diplomacy, make them your friend not your enemy and so on and so forth.

Lets just cut right down to it, here's the reality of the situation which is readily available to anyone who cares to look. Were there the infamous WMD's that are always talked about, simple answer, yes Click. We have lost over 3,000 troops there in the three years of active combat. I'm sorry, did I read that right, we have lost 3,000 troops in 3 years of active combat... am I supposed to think that this is significant? Lets put this in perspective, over 4,000 Californians die each year in alcohol related auto accidents, a state that has 10 million more people living in it than the country of Iraq... however a state that is not in active combat with military troops making armed patrols. Mind you if you want to compare apples to apples here... in 2005 there were 2,503 murders, 2,392 in 2004, and 2,407 in 2003 in California, or if your not that quick on the math 2.434 times as many outright murders in a peaceful state of America where a great many of the anti war banner crybabies hail from than in 3 years of active combat. Sounds a little strange right. Don't go away yet, I have more juicy details for you. Like for instance lets look at this number, 194,820. Whats that number you ask? Well that would be the number of lives SAVED by the United States being in Iraq. Also that only factors one issue, Saddam himself. That's the average number of people, based on the record of his killings that were averted by removing him from power. That does not include the death squads, his psychotic sons, the over 701,629 refugees that were averted due to us being there nor any other factors, that's just Saddam.

There have also been free elections, a fact which many people over look as useless or insignificant. Then theres the fact that a constitution was developed, how many years was it after our constitution before we had a functional and useful government? And how many people died during that time as a result of those actions? When you put it all together, theres alot of spin on the issue, but the facts as they lie is that the extreme majority of violence is due from Al-Qaeda and their related actions, they are flooding in from Iran and it is in there interest to continue the violence. Such actions taken include the bombing of churches and religious leaders. Keep in mind these leader's are Muslim, so they are bombing people who are spreading their faith in the effort to force their faith on others. These actions are the exact reason we went to war. In the end we have done what we set out to do for the most part, the vast majority of the country is pretty safe, there were free elections, the violence is minimal and is predominantly terrorists killing civilians. And if all of this doesn't help people to see the light that fighting there is not a waste of time take a look at these two points Click Click.

But I'm sure your right, the largest Muslim country in the world is willing to back Bush up and agrees with the need to stabilize Iraq to prevent terrorist actions, so much so that they are willing to send in their own military as support (so much for no one supports us eh?), and an educated, leading Iraqi surgeon praises the United States military for its actions in saving him and his family. You would think that if it was really as hopeless as we are led to believe that none of this would be the case. It seems much more likely to me that Anti-America media in America is much more interested in censorship of anyone who may speak favorably of the situation. Pity, I would have thought that a major news publisher would want to uphold the freedom of speech and speak in his defense, not chastise him and "draw a line" for personal opinion... So much for land of the free eh?

Racisms ok... as long as your not white

2007-01-26T11:49:00.000-08:00

So I was having a conversation last night with a good friend of mine and we got to talking about basically the same types of things we always talk about. Racism, Gender bias, Political confusion, the list goes on but in short deep issues that many people just glaze over.

One thing that hit this off was an article from MSNBC about is Obama appealing to his "black base". Now lets look at that in another light, is Whitey Mc Honkey appealing to his extreme minority (blacks only make up around 12.7% of the population last time I checked and pretty much... don't vote) of white lower class individuals. I'm pretty sure someone would call that last statement racist, God knows the people who jumped all over Kramer for saying Nigger would, they wanted him fined... on a side note, lets examine that. There are people, predominantly black, that want someone fined for the use of a word they find offensive. Keep in mind this is a word you can hear ad nausem on the self proclaimed "Black Entertainment Network" but who ever said double standards arnt fair. Oh and lets not forget these same individuals, not blacks in general I'm speaking of the activists who went out of their way to attempt to get him to pay millions of dollars for saying it, are the exact same nartards who run screaming to the ACLU with their collective stories of oppression and degradation at the first hint that they arnt given a leg up for something they don't deserve, they run to an organization that claims to support the bill of rights (more on that later) to include freedom of speech, but when they feel slighted for the same things they are supposedly fighting for, well then its just fine to be a hypocrite.

Sorry, don't try to read that all in one breath. I do have to make honorable mention to two distinct people I have had very detailed conversations with about this topic, mentioned only because they are black and were willing to talk about the confusion drawn from the double standard. What I walked away from both of those conversations was very enlightened, both said that they don't take offense to the word nigger, specifically because "its a word that implies the person its applied to is ignorant (which actually isn't the case at all, its a deviation of the Spanish word for the color black, negro but I see where he got that from) and since it doesn't apply to me, I don't take offense". In short these were professional, personable people who didn't take things out of context and understood that words are just that, words, they mean what you allow them to mean to you for the most part.

Back on topic now, Obama. Why is it news that hes about as cracker as a black liberal can get? Does this make him a worse candidate for president? I say absolutely not, I think his record of voting completely against what I believe in makes him a terrible candidate, not the fact that hes black or in any manner how well he gets along with "his people". Also for those interested in the other half, his mother was white, his father left him, so lets go figure why he doesn't buy into the ever popular "its whiteys fault" mentality. I'm suddenly having memories of Dr. Cosbys speech about taking responsibility and getting a tear in my eye :)