Monday, February 06, 2006

Not-so-moderate view about religion

I'm fed up with religion. I don't care if your religion is all about death and destruction, or love and peace, your religion sucks. Unless your religion lets you believe whatever the hell you want and it doesn't preach about what your morals should be, then it sucks.

When a man ceases to choose, he ceases to be a man. (Burgess)

Religion was created by elitists to control the masses. The idea of hell is to scare the people so they will do what's "right." Who the hell decided what is right and wrong? God? The Bible was written by men, not god, so don't you dare defend anything, especially a freaking law, with that. Referring to what the Bible said is a red herring fallacy.

How come religious leaders can interpret the Bible however they want?

Ed Gein was psychotic. He was the inspiration for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre killer, Psycho, and especially the Silence of the Lambs. His mother was a Christian fanatic. She taught him that all women except her were evil, so he developed a very unhealthy infatuation with her. He dug up women's graves or killed women and used their skin to create a suit and decorate his house.

The Crusades was over religion. We added "Under God" to the pledge because of those godless communists in the Soviet Union.

How many kids are disowned by their parents because they turned out to be homosexual?

Christians and Muslims in general are so hypocritical. They both desire peace yet promote war. Love even those who trespass against you, but blow the hell out of them if they don't believe in the same god. Kill the homosexuals but save the babies. God has a plan for everyone, but even if one is "meant" to kill someone they will be punished by his fellow man.

I have no problem with God, I have a major problem with his fanclub.

When I was forced to go to church when I was younger, I would always question the existence of god and ignored some of my true feelings. Catholicism didn't quite work out. I believe I'm the only atheist in my entire family.

What is the purpose of praying to a god you can't hear or see? To be comforted by false hope?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

What liberal media?

Hopefully, now that I'm in a government class (AP, mind you) I will be inspired by the exciting lectures that my teacher gives us. So far, I learned just how much the media screwed America over.

Did it not occur to them how stupid people would become if they watched 7-second sound bites for their "news"? Of course, they refute that saying that's what people want. It all comes down to money, doesn't it? Competition for viewers and money is what drives our news stations. Now they have successfully created the most uninformed, wealthy, democratic nation in the world. It's the people's fault really, having 30-second attention spans and prefering to be entertained rather than educated while watching news, but the media has reinforced this. America is a society that supports competition, so the problem traces back to our roots.

If a newspaper has a "liberal bias," how come no newspaper dug up some dirt about G.W. Bush, they hardly mentioned all the laws and everything that he did in the past. It makes me wonder if the newspaper editors, not necessarily the reporters, even care about politics unless it affects them.

The media is extremely powerful. Since they're mostly against all politicians, I don't think it is quite as dangerous. However, they don't use their power wisely, in my opinion. Especially when major topics don't reach the headlines while random, unimportant stories do. The "gatekeeper" role of the media (the media decides what issues will be most pressing) is extremely useful for pushing attention either direction. If they are so cynical and dubious towards politicians, why don't they push America in the direction of reformation? Especially reformation of government, moving it more towards a system of proportional representation rather than winner-take-all; or political parties and the media itself, so that American politics would be less centered on candidates; or schools or society (I'll get into that some other time. Read Education and the Significance of Life by J. Krishnamurti.)

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

viva la revolution!

Already I have some people interested in my "guerrilla campaign," which is good because it depends on submissions. It's starting to motivate me as well.

My main plan is to make some sort of pamphlet or newspaper, some kind of publication, filled with articles and artwork. I'm willing to take photographs, poems, essays, one-liners, political cartoons, or original artwork, all having to do with big brother, or perhaps whatever you want. My goal is to create a publication that will stir thought and promote the truth. I call it a "guerrilla campaign" because I plan on placing them wherever people may find them: bathroom stalls, inside newspapers, anywhere.

I'll probably put it together myself and distribute them in my town, but that obviously won't be enough. If you want to help, please ask me.

E-mail me your submissions please. Thank you.

Thursday, September 08, 2005


Apparently, I'm the true definition of a liberal. Almost. A real liberal would have less government controls on everything, so they won't tell you what to do with your body or be so involved in the economy and such. I don't really want laissez-faire economics, so some government regulation is good because corporate greed (as well as equality of result) is bad. Prostitution and drug use is fine with me, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Right now, there's too much of a 1984-like status quo going around, but it's so subtle that people don't seem to know, and it scares me. I can't believe that the Patriot Act passed without real debate or anything.

"Why of course the people don't want war... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Goering, Nazi leader
- April 18, 1946 - WWII Nuremberg Trials

I think that politicans secretly study psychology, or their puppet player, because they always know how to mess with the easily swayed minds of their citizens. Hitler was a great leader - who can deny that? - he knew exactly when and how he would gain complete control over the Germans. Desperate or not, it seems like people, or at least Americans, want revenge for anything. Even if the enemy really isn't evil or the attackers, the citizens believe their leaders and suddenly become violent and therefore patriotic, because they say pacifists are unpatriotic.

Why doesn't anyone realize this? Why doesn't anyone realize they can't believe everything coming from the media? Isn't it almost a known fact that politicians lie - yet we give them the greatest power in the world and take their word as true?

I sent a news tip to 18 major news stations, and none of them even replied with a "thank you." This leads me only to think that the media only wants money by supplying the masses with what they want to hear, or the media is too regulated by the government or something. I've recently sent a long letter to an independent newspaper, hopefully the editor will read it.

So I just decided I'm starting a totally peaceful, but hopefully intellectual, guerrilla uprising.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

"Conformity: the American way"

I hate American culture.

Everything is so commercialized, ever since the 70's, from what I've learned. Tommy Hilfiger stole bellbottoms and floral designs from real hippies and people began dressing like hippies just to be cool, so eventually there were few hippies that actually believed in and stood for something. This is because clothing companies hire people to take pictures of people's original styles and they steal their ideas and adapt them. They still do that. I've seen that hippie thing happen to the punk scene, and probably every other "popular" scene.

Our culture has made it so that to be considered socially acceptable is to be fashionable or to listen to what most people listen to, or not to be "out of the ordinary;" the way to be "successful," according to our culture, including the way to survive in this country, is to have money; our way of life makes it necessary to have a degree, have a car, have a TV, have a computer along with internet, and have a cell phone. A lot of this is definitely luxury, but the way America is, they're almost necessities.

It makes people so fake and people lose their identity and originality and creativity. They do this because it's "cool." They have the free will to choose what they wear, but companies determine what the clothes look like, so they are the ones, the big companies, that determine what is "socially acceptable" or fashionable. The companies don't care if they caused a once passionate, opinionated scene to go down the drain.

They're trying to take away art and music from schools. But why? Creativity is essential for everything - how will we move forward when only a few artists and inventors have the essential creativity to create new ideas, technology, and designs while the majority of the population is dependant on them because they can't create something different than the norm?

Saturday, July 02, 2005

proof is right in front of your face


Somebody gave London's Sunday Times a briefing by Richard Dearlove, who was head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. "Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq."

"Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be 'justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.' Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, 'The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.'"

"The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to 'take out' Saddam."

"The intelligence was not simply mistaken; it was manufactured, with the president of the United States awarding foreman George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for his role in helping supervise the deceit. The British documents make clear that this was not a mere case of 'leaning forward' in analyzing the intelligence, but rather mass deception—an order of magnitude more serious."

"Small wonder, then, to learn from CIA insiders like former case officer Lindsay Moran that Tenet's malleable managers told their minions, 'Let's face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it.'"

In the secret Downing street memo:

From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

There. Proof that Bush made up this "War On Terror" in Iraq - his motivations are clear now. Bush made up the terrorists and WMD in Iraq, so why does he want to go to war so bad? The reason is simple: money. He, including some friends and family, are making a lot of money off this war. Yet people still strongly believe that he went to war because these bastards are terrorists even though the proof is staring them in the face.

What about the media? Why haven't they brought this up? It seems like the only people who know about this are either British or independent. This kind of information is definitely politically dangerous to the Bush administration and all that cal, so you liberal activists better tell somebody about this leak.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Oh, thanks for dropping that extra $200...

Somebody told me about a policeman who fined him for trying to hitch-hike on an onramp. Where is the logic in this? How is a hitch-hiker supposed to know the specific laws of every city? How many hitch-hikers, who probably doesn't have a car or money for a bus for a reason, can pay a $400 fine? My friend said he was fined an extra $200 for not showing up on the court date. Now they expect a hitch-hiker to travel all the way back to their city (They did, however, drop the extra $200 fine because he explained himself.)
I think illogical laws like these are just scams so local governments can get more money. Or perhaps it shows how much politicians pay attention to what they are doing even though they take their sweet time debating or processing or whatever that they do. Or maybe they just don't really care about who they may be hurting, or whether or not it makes sense, because it benefits somebody more important.

Friday, June 24, 2005

abortion and why we need it

I don't know about you, but I, personally, dislike children and wish never to become a parent. So why should I be denied my dream and pursuit of happiness - after all, a child would make my life miserable even if I were richer than Bill Gates and happily married at age 24 - just because other people don't like it? Oh, I'm such an evil murderer (or at least a potential one) because I like to kill things that aren't alive or wanted or undeveloped! But of course, a lot of people who would call me a murderer say it's perfectly fine if the woman having the abortion was a rape victim. Oh of course! Why didn't I realize that it's only ethical if a fetus is murdered if it was unwanted - I mean - if it was the product of a rape. It's much more clear to me now.

"Pro-lifers" - even the NAME is hypocritical! According to my friend, which I think is brilliant, they should call them "pro-babies" because unwanted children can destroy life (the mother's life, the father's life, the 12-year-old aunt...)

My sister had a child right before she graduated from high school, and I'll let you know that it didnt just screw up HER life. Though I wasn't entirely required to, but I felt obligated to since my niece's parents couldn't afford a real babysitter, I had to babysit my niece almost my entire summer. Not only that, but my niece has to grow up without her parents together. That is going to affect her later in life, I know it, and it isn't her fault, so why does she have to suffer? My niece is going to have psychological problems in the future, it's really obvious since she grew up with a disrupted childhood - her father isn't always there, her parental figures are unclear, her mom is too harsh, among other things.
In addition, my sister didn't finish college. I think my parents' reaction and everything else my sister experienced damaged my sister's self-esteem because it seems like she's unsure about herself, which might explain why she's hesistating to finish her education.

According to Roe v. Wade, women has the right to privacy. After 30 years, everyone believes that women don't? Why should the government have control over the future of a woman's life, especially if it would screw up her life, like my sister (and everyone else related to her)?

Abortion is performed through surgery or using chemicals (medical abortion) - using the combination of two drugs (methotrexate and misoprostol), pills with RU-486, or vacuum aspiration abortions. 96% of 178 women had successful medical abortion (Richard U. Hausknecht at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY.) A second study by Dr. Eric Schaff was held at the University of Rochester "found that 98 of 100 women completed abortions with the Methotrexate-Misoprostol combination."

You think that having an abortion is much more unhealthy, worse, or dangerous than going through pregnancy? Giving birth HURTS - so only a few women give natural births, which means there are chemicals used in pregnancy as well! Some women become depressed after pregnancy. Bladder control problems are common. Most women gain weight as a result of less exercise and possibly bad eating habits, and it's difficult to get back into shape because of caring for the child. There is a chance that varicose veins, hemorrhoids, which are usually found in the legs and genital area, will occur because of the hormones of pregnancy. Stretch marks, which 90% of women will have, sometimes stay permanent. Hepatitis B, HIV, or other sexually transmitted diseases can be passed on to the baby. A woman's body can take up to 8 years to fully heal after giving birth. This is not a complete list.

According to Childbirth by Choice Trust:
RU-486: 1 death in 200,000 abortions.
Vacuum aspiration abortion: 1 death in 200,000 abortions
Childbirth: 1 death in 14,300 pregnancies
Illegal abortions: 1 death in 3,000 abortions.

The embryos aren't even technically alive, since they don't have a brain during the time they are able to be aborted. They haven't been born yet, either, so it isn't murder. I see it as getting rid of something that will become a greater problem.

In states in which a minor needs parent or guardian consent for abortions, there tend to be more illegal, hazardous abortions taking place because the youths prefer to risk their lives than have their parents involved and get a legal abortion. If the right to abort was taken away entirely, there would definitely be more dangerous abortions occurring and probably more abandoned children.