The Wisdom Tooth:

 

                I think it is necessary to review a few issues, or rather clarify some issues, so this is sort of a recap entry.  I would like to first of all reiterate, that there is no natural mechanism for the addition of new genetic information.  I do not say new DNA, but new Genetic Information.  Polyploid mutations increase the total amount of DNA but do not add any new information, they merely duplicate the information which is already there.  Human conducted genetic manipulation allows for the addition of new genetic information, but this is a completely artificial process, just like if I arrange small stones to spell Ambrosius.  That would also be completely artificial, and only possible through the intervention of intelligence.  For more on this review my previous discourse on why mutations cannot serve as a mechanism for the addition of new genetic information:  http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=jmsnooks&tab=weblogs&uid=292350491

 

                So what about vestigial organs?  I will take the position that there are none.  The appendix is part of the immune system, and without it your life span would be shorter.  Now what about the wisdom tooth?  People often opt to have their wisdom teeth removed because when they grow in they often push the other teeth around making them crooked and can potentially cause great pain.  I had my teeth straitened out when I was a teenager but now they are crooked in my upper jaw, they became so when my wisdom tooth grew in.  Now, fortunately I only had one, but if others had grown in the damage would have been much greater.  The reason wisdom teeth mess up peoples teeth is because their jaws are no longer large enough to accommodate them, which means that the jaws must have been larger in the past.  This does not prove evolution, if anything it is the opposite.  The loss of wisdom teeth, as in my case where I only have one, is a loss of genetic information, if anything.  Most people have four wisdom teeth.

 

                People had larger jaws in the past because people were originally larger than people today.  Nutrition and environmental conditions play heavily into affecting the growth of a child.  In the middle ages people were much shorter, I have been to Europe and seen the small archways and diminutive armor of the medieval warriors.  The large warriors were actually puny.  Diet and nutrition affect childhood development, mentally and physically.  So the next question is, what does this have to do with people being even taller in the past?  Simple, if better nutrition can cause modern people to grow taller than their medieval counterparts, imagine if nutrition was much better, and if the X-rays and UV rays were screened out.  The evidence from the ancient past is that many types of organisms, both plant and animal, were considerably larger than their modern counterparts.  Some examples:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=108&sid=6250047&cKey=1132491909000

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020731_TVmegafauna.html

http://paleoenterprises.com/moreinfo.htm

 

Whenever I finish my dissertation on the flood more of this will be explained in detail, but there is evidence that ancient man was larger than modern man:

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html

http://www.internetezy.com.au/~mj129/strangephenomenonb.html

 

It really makes a great deal of sense, if animals could grow larger in the past then there is no reason why humans should not.  The growth is most likely attributable to hyperbaric conditions which existed in pre-flood times: http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/aii-inl4.old#amber

 

Hyperbaric conditions are conducive to cellular growth and respiration, which is why hyperbaric chambers are being used by the medical industry today.  The hyperbaric conditions of pre-flood times most likely accounted for the larger size of many ancient organisms.  The hyperbaric conditions could have been caused by pressure exerted by the pre-flood water canopy.  I have yet to see the evolutionists come up with an explanation for it.   

 

I am about to head out of town, but before I hit the road, I wanted to make a brief, very brief, entry/complaint about something. 

For the second time this year, I have been warned not to flash my lights at any car I see driving with its lights off at night.  Now, given my nature I would never do such a thing, if anything I would be more likely to honk, and perhaps if sufficiently irritated…

Anyways, I heard for the second time that if I did such that I would be shot as some part of an initiation ritual for some accursed bloody gang.  All I have to say is that gangs are worthless, and people who want to join gangs are stupid fools, not cool, and are as close to being worthless as possible, assuming it is permissible to label anyone as being completely worthless.  I firmly believe that gangs should be hunted to extinction like the Dodo bird and fed to the crows and ravens.  If the government would let us all have weapons like it’s supposed too (but doesnt thanks to the activism of the political left), then citizens could wipe them out.  Just like I wiped out the vermin invading my workplace with a can of bugspray. 

The gun control laws are stupid, all they do is prevent honest citizens from being able to defend themselves from stupid barbaric pricks who join the idiotic gangs.

 

On a lighter note, didnt I owe some people some responses or promise to write some entries about something specific?  If so speak up because my memory is pretty wiped right now, but if I have all the notes in one place I can probably remember because it will function like a “to do list.”

Yesterday when I was out driving around, I saw someone who had a bumper sticker that had large fake lipstick kiss marks on it, and the sticker said, “This is the only smack your child should get.” 

First of all, that person is an idiot, who probably does not have any experience with kids, and second, they have no business telling me how to raise my kids.  Now, if I want their opinion then I will ask for it, but for something important like that I am unlikely to ask for advice from a moron.  I will ask for advice from my parents, or some of my older friends who have actually raised kids, SUCCESFULLY (emphasis added).

Kids need to be whipped, that is how training during the early stages of a kids life is done succesfully.  Young children have little imagination or comprehension on long term consequences.  When you have a young child that acts up, and you choose to lay off of him, then he is going to think “Sweet!  I got off easy.”  In the meantime he is going to sit through your pathetic little pep talk, and think about what he is going to do as soon as you let him go off to play again.  If you continue to not whip the kid, they will realize that they can do pretty much whatever they want without suffering consequences.  So if you do not want your kids to grow up to be thigs or criminals, then smack it out of them when they are young.  When they get to be teenagers they will possess a larger vocabulary and a deeper understanding of sociological concepts, and they can be reasoned with and lectured in more detail, but when they are young, smack them.  Either you smack them when they are young, or the law will smack them when they get older.  Now if you want to be a sissy negligent parent and try to be your kids best buddy, then go right ahnead, but when your kid holds a knife to me or my kid, then I am going to smack them, and they will probably not fully recover from that, it will definitely leave a mark.

I am going to be critiquing this article soon: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html  Normally I do not prefer to spend time on talkorigins, since it is unprofessional and does not always represent the positions taken up by the majority of professional evolutionists (those who have actual science degrees).  The only reason I do this is because someone brought this up in a realtime discussion.

In the meantime, I am going to complain about a few things.  At work I was told I had to put the toilet seat back down every time I get done using the bathroom reserved for staff people.  Ridiculous!  It’s already inconvenient for me to have to raise the thing every time I use it, and now I have to not only raise it but put it down as well?  So I have to be inconvenienced 2x so that the female employees don’t have to be inconvenienced at all.  They need it down and we need it up, why can’t they lower the seat themselves?  This is clearly unapologetic and one sided gender discrimination.  It really rankles me how most people are unwilling to acknowledge gender descrimination against males, even when it should be painfully and blatantly obvious.

Also I signed up for the praxis 2 test (again), and had to pay $40 fee because the people running the site functionally obliterated my original account.  This time around, they wanted me to fill out an annoying survey requesting all sorts of demographic information, including things like: what is my first language, which hand is my dominant hand, what is my original country, and what is my race/ethnicity (nevermind how race and ethnicity are NOT interchangible).  Since I have an aversion to giving personal information away to the government, or almost any organization, I chose to be as belligerant as possible and supply them with information only for the required fields.  Also, I do not care about assisting anyone with a survey, nor do I wish, as a general rule, to waste my time doing things that are simultaneously boring and useless.  They asked me about my race twice, the first time it was not a required field but the second time, I had to fill it out before I could go any further.  The weasly little blighters just have to have a record of identifying characterists.  I really dislike filling out that kind of information because it allows people to judge me based on personal characterists rather than merits and allows people to form preconceptions.  Also, it makes it easier for them to physically identify me.

While I do have more serious comment on the way, including responses, I decided to go ahead and post The Book of 2nd Opinions.  Everything in the Book is my opinion.  People have accused me for many years of being strongly opinionated, when truthfully, they merely mistook candid and contraversial statements for opinions.  I do have a lot of facts and theories, but what is going to follow here are pure opinions.  The list is rather short because I had to choose things which are truly matters of opinion (preference), and not matters of facts (true and false statements about reality).  The reason I do this is because many of my opponents have tried to use their opinions to bolster their argument(s), and since statements of opinion are irrelavent to discussions about facts I decided that from hence forth I will refer people to the Book of II Opinions, after informing them that statements of opinion do not count as proofs.  Also, while I realize that posting an actual picture of myself on the page somewhat undermines the whole mystique, I felt that this picture would be appropriate considering the content.  So without further adieu…

 

 

The Book of

II Opinions

 

 

 

I like to talk and I dread the day when I no longer will be able to engage in conversations.

 

—–Emperor Leto Atreides II

 

Chapter 1 (Comestibles)

 

1.      Anything which I dislike is revolting.

2.      Broccoli, Cauliflower, Brussel Sprouts, and Asparagus are sick and vile,

and should not be served in my presence, they are abominations.  Not only are they revolting in taste and smell, but also in appearance.

3.      Broccoli and Cauliflower are uncouth abominations which should be utterly

destroyed, and without remedy.

                4.  Broccoli and Cauliflower are utterly revolting to all 5 senses, and possibly a 6^th sense assuming such a sense exists.  Perhaps it does in this case.

                5.  Anything which smells as though it has already passed completely through the human digestive tract should be shunned, because it probably tastes as though it has.

                6.  The alleged nutritional benefits of eating Broccoli et al are grossly outweighed by the repugnance of the experience.

                7.  Caffeine is good.

                8.  Caffeine expands consciousness, Caffeine is necessary for early morning travel.

                9.  Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper are superior sources of Caffeine compared to Coffee and Red Bull.

                10.  Red Bull is vile and repugnant, and does not give as good of a boost as Dew and Dr. Pepper.

                11.  Coffee is repugnant, the taste is reminiscent of the vile aftertaste I sometimes find in my mouth after a long night of sleep during the apex of springtime when all the pollen has caused excessive snot production and the snot has drained down my throat and partially collected in my mouth.

                12.  Coffee makes a person’s breath smell as though a skunk has crawled down their throat and died.

                13.  Starbucks is stupid and lame.

                14.  Everything served in Starbucks tastes like Coffee to varying degrees.

                15.   Starbucks is also revolting because it has a pop culture appeal.  That is why it attracts large amounts of teenagers who can barely drive.  They want to go there because they think they will become cool by association.

                16.  Patronizing Starbucks does not make one cool by association.  It makes teenagers look stupid because it looks like they are trying to play grownup, either that or they initially became addicted to that skunk-smelling trash because they wanted to look/feel like they were an adult.

                17.  Drinking is NEVER cool.

                18.  Whine tastes like Nyquil, which is of course vile.

                19.  Beef (the muscle tissue of cows) is the best kind of meat.  It is best when it retains its original color and generous amounts of circulatory fluid.

                21.  A meal is not truly a meal without meat.

                22.  Meat should never be dry, unless it is beef jerky.

                23.  Vegetarians are sissies, when talking about humans.  The Mokele-Mbembe is definitely no sissy.

                24.  Cooked Spinach looks like something that used to appear in my older sisters diapers before she was potty trained but learning how to eat food.

               

 

Chapter 2 (animals)

 

                1.  All the animals which I like are cool; those which I dislike are repugnant.

                2.  Cats are revolting and worthless.

                3.  Cats are only suitable (as pets) for the female and the effeminate.

                4.  Cats are revolting in their appearance and mannerisms.

                5.  Reptiles are generally cool, even if they are dangerous.

                6.  Arthropods are generally revolting, and the kinds which get into human habitations need to be killed, except for spiders.  Spiders are good to keep around for a while because they eat the other vile arthropods.

                7.  Beetles are acceptable as long as they don’t invade the house too much.

                8.  Benthic fish are generally cool, especially the glowing ones.

                9.  Horses are cool, but all the “My Little Pony” stuff needs to be destroyed.

                10.  Dogs are probably the best kind of animal, and generally they are easier to get along with than people.

                11.  Dogs and horses should not be eaten, but “house cats” should be.

                12.  All types of primates (and no I do not include humans in that category, to any evolutionists who might get their paws on this), are revolting and repugnant.

                13.  Dinosaurs are always cool.

                14.  Small dogs (yappers), like the French Poodle, are revolting sick and inferior abominations which should never have been perpetuated.

                15.  If your yapper runs off and gets mauled by a superior dog then that is what you get for owning a yapper.  No compensation should be given.

 

 

Chapter 3 (Religion)

 

                1.  Buddhism is an aesthetically and intellectually revolting religion.

                2.  Westerners who subscribe to Buddhism are either druggies (or some other type of mush brain) or some type of leftist closet elitist.

                3.  Evolution is an aesthetically and intellectually revolting religion.  It is thoroughly repugnant AND boring. 

                4.  Evolution brings to mind death, suffering, and blood.  Not the good appetizing kind that oozes out of a fresh piece of steak when prodded with a fork, but the vile repugnant kind that reeks of meaningless death and Hitler/Stalin type tortures and genocides.

                5.  Evolution also brings to mind deep black darkness.  Not the relaxing kind of darkness of a deep sleep, or a pleasant night with the blinds shut, or the soothing pseudo-darkness accentuated by lava lamps and black lights, or the relaxing diminished daylight of a cloudy day, but a burning blackness that sears the mind and body, and the essence of the mind into meaningless.

               

 

Chapter 4 (Aesthetics)

 

Those who try to be cool are automatically the complete opposite of what they intend.

 

—-Me

 

                1.  It is revolting when women are tanned blonds.  One of the two characteristics must be disposed of.  Preferably the tan because women should not look like Mic Dundee (Crocodile Dundee).

                2.  Pink is a revolting color, as are most shades of yellow, orange, and red.  Although yellow, orange, and red are perfectly acceptable colors for food.

                3.  Purple, blue, and green are the best colors, and blue is the best of the best.

                4.  Yellow light is repugnant and quite literally an eye-sore.  Yellow light is something which should not be, except perhaps in small quantities when emitted as a week secondary or decorative source of illumination.

                5.  White light is the most ideal form of illumination when full illumination is required.  Light blue (bluish near white), the sort of light generated by the sun after being filtered through sufficient layers of clouds, is the ideal type of light for being outside during the day.

                6.  Yum, yum fun sunny days, are not fun or palatable, they are revolting and inferior.

                7.  Warm colored light sources are acceptable for decorative purposes as secondary light sources, meaning, that the over-all light scheme must be dominated with cool colors, such as blue, green, and purple.

                8.  People who live vicariously through celebrities are losers and hopelessly uncool.

                9.  Deliberately buying pants with holes in them is not cool, it makes one look like a beggar, or a fashion junkie who tries too hard to be cool, the effort negates the intended result.

 

 

Chapter  5 (Music)

 

                1.  German music is almost always cool.

                2.  Country music and rap are revolting.  Country music brings to mind incest and physical deformity.  Rap brings to mind illiteracy and gang violence.

                3.  Country and rap have mitigating affects on the ability to form coherent thoughts.  They are counterintuitive.

                4.  People who assume, upon hearing that someone listens to Classical Music, infer that some form of rock is being referred too, probably have less culture than my armpits after I have just emerged from a long shower.

 

 

Chapter 6 (Philosophy)

 

He who is concerned about the highest virtue is not in harmony with popular ideas; he who accomplishes a great work, does not take counsel with the multitude.

 

—-The Law of Kuo Yen, as stated by Lord Shang.

 

                1.  “Weird,” is not a self imposed classification.

                2.  Popular is not a self imposed classification.

                3.  Infamy is often preferential to popularity.  Infamy is earned through correct behavior more often than popularity is.

                4.  “Being shallow” is synonymous with being whimsical.

                5.  What goes on in the personal lives of celebrities is no more important than how many hairs there are on my toes.  It certainly has less value.

                6.  People who live vicariously through celebrities are probably justified in feeling pathetic about themselves.

                7.  People who subscribe to, as well as advocate, the notion that race is a social construction are closet racists themselves.

                8.  The most rewarding aspect about blatantly professing ones opinions is that the opinions do not have to be supported by empirical data.  Neither do they have to be defended when attacked.

                9.  Opinions are best when expressed unapologetically.

 

I have decided that videogames are unjustifiably scapegoated. 

“The kids are being more violent, it must be the videogames!”–Right…and the sky is falling too.  I cannot help notice that people all over the political spectrum are blasting videogames and calling for government censorship, I will therefore go through a few of these concerns and issue responses. 

Concern: If a kid sees violence in a videogame he may think it is cool and go try to emulate it.

Response:  Only if your kid is the “monkey see monkey do” type, and while I am quite aware of the fact that there are many young children which are that way, there is also a useful rating system, which describes what sort of scenes are in a game and rates them accordingly.  For the quazi-illiterates out there, it is usually a large black letter, with a white background, and encompassed by a black square.  That symbol designates the age group which the designers of the game intended it for.  Close to the letter one can find a description of what types of scenes the game has which gave it that particular rating.

*Kids are going to be violent, or have violent spats anyways, it is your job as a parent to smack it out of them.  Who is the parent?  The parent, or the government?  If you are the parent then you do the censoring, not the government.  While you may not mind relegating parts of your parental role to the government, as well as yours and my personal freedoms, I have no interest in having the government be a parent to me, and I will resent you for trying to make it that way.

Concern:  People will sell violent videogames to children.

Response:  So what?  Where are your children getting their money from?  Most children cannot get jobs (other than house chores like cutting grass and babysitting) until they are about 16 or 17.  So where do they get the money from?  THE PARENTS.  So here is how I see it, negligent parents want to hand their kids money, and then get the government to censor EVERYONE (including me) so that they don’t have to worry about their children spending the money they were GIVEN on something the parents feel is inappropriate for children.  I have a better idea, how about not letting your kids have money in the first place.  Giving children money does not teach them to appreciate the value of money, only hard work can do that.  When I was a child, my parents experimented with granting me an allowance, and I spent it very quick, and on candy.  Once I started working I became a tightwad because I had to work hard for that money, and I did not want to waste it.  So the problem here is the parents giving money to their children.

Concern:  What about teenagers who can work?

Response:  What about them?  Let them enjoy the fruits of their labour.  First of all, if they are playing something bad as a teenager, then you have already failed as a parent, and that is your fault, not mine, or whatever videogame company you want to scapegoat.  If you mess up as a parent, then that is your fault, not mine.  Second, I would probably disagree with you as to the game(s) you have a problem with being dangerous and/or objectionable.  I cannot help noticing that most of the really strong videogame objectors fit into an older age bracket.  So I could say that it is an age based culture conflict, or generational conflict. 

Just a few more points:

*When freedoms are taken by the government it is difficult, if not impossible to get them back.

*Videogames are not mystical demons that hyptonize children for no reason and brainwash them.  In the worst case scenarioe the type of videogames people play are reflective of aspects already within their personality, since in order for something to sell it has to have a target audience, and the target audience has to identify with what is being sold. But most people play videogames because they just want to have a good time and relax, not because they want to go out and kill people, or whatever.

*To right-wing and/or Christian objectors:  Videogames do not present a coherent ideology, they do not present threatening and/or comprehensive counterpoints to Christianity.  The true threat is all the evolutionism taught in the public schools.  Evolutionism is presented as scientific facts, and if children can be made to believe that then they have lost their belief in the Bible.  Even most of the really dumb kids can determine that videogames are fiction, but evolutionism is not presented as fiction, and many children lose their faith through that teaching.  If evolutionism is true then the Bible is wrong, since evolutionism is a series of counterpoints to the Bible based on an inversion of the Biblical creation account.  The ideological implications of evolutionism are an inversion of Biblical principles.  Evolutionism was responsible for the Columbine shootings, not Lara Croft.

 

Analysis of the Judge Jones ruling on ID:

 

            I have decided to assess the ruling made by Judge John E. Jones III concerning the teaching of ID and evolutionism.  My source comes from an AJC (Atlanta Journal Constitution) article that can be found in the Wednesday December 21, 2005 issue, on page A1 and continued on page A10.  The title of the article was “Intelligent Design Flunks,” by Mike Saccone, so much for unbiased journalism.  Of course one can never truly expect unbiased journalism from a radical left-wing publication like the AJC (or probably any other major newspaper for that matter).  I find this whole situation to be greatly upsetting, but once more I will at least try to maintain a façade of civility, and unfortunately I will most likely fail in that endeavor.

 

            In keeping with tradition, I am going to assign the not so esteem-worthy judge a slightly diminutive yet quazi-affectionate nickname.  I do this for opponents which I find to be annoying and foolish.   I do not give diminutive nicknames to opponents I respect.  At any rate, the not so esteem-worthy judge shall be known as Skippy Bo Bob in this particular journal entry.  According to the ruling the Dover Area School Board could not require the teaching of ID, HOWEVER, there are still no laws BANNING the optional teaching of ID.  So it can be done, but in doing so the teacher runs the risk of getting the resident leftomaniacs all steamed up and may risk loosing his or her job in the aftermath, but I digress.  

 

Skippy Bo Bob said “We find the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the establishment clause.”  First of all, that is a load of dren, because up until about the 1960’s the Biblical world view was the prevailing worldview taught in public schools, it was only until the atheists began imposing their own skewed interpretation of the Constitution on public affairs that Christianity was taken out of the public schools.  The people who lived closer to the original creation of the Constitution ought to know more about it’s proper application than contemporary leftomaniacs and activist judges.  This is just a matter of simple logic which ought to be apparent to everyone.  Second, he is wrong in his interpretation of what constitutes secularism (secularism should not involve the endorsement of any particular religious belief, including evolutionism), as well as the motivations of the school board.  The school board just wanted to present a balanced view, which most schools do not do.  They spend all their time drilling evolution into the kids heads with no regard or deference to the religious beliefs of those children.  The root of his error in logic is the assumption that atheism is a neutral standpoint (which is a common misunderstanding held by most leftists).  Atheism is not a neutral standpoint, it is another faith based and religious standpoint.  For more on the religiosity of evolution see: http://www.xanga.com/jmsnooks/370880337/item.html

At the very best atheism could be viewed as a negative belief, which would still make it something other than neutral since it would still be in opposition to other religions.  However, atheism remains a positive belief since it relies heavily on evolution, which is a long chain of positive beliefs which must be taken on faith rather than evidence, since, without observation, and in light of the direct contradiction of many of the important tenets of evolution to immutable natural laws, evolution completely lacks evidence.  Since evolution has to be taken on faith, and has it’s own philosophical implications, it can be classified as nothing other than a religion.  So if Skippy Bo Bob were truly concerned about not using government mandates to propagate any religion, he would be equally wary of evolutionism.

 

            Skippy Bo Bob also said, “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”  Wrong again Skippy, first of all, its CREATION not CREATIONISM. Many belief systems tout Creation as the origin of everything.  Creation is an event, not a comprehensive and independent ideology, and various ideologies have varying creation accounts.  Evolution is an “ism” since it stands alone as a complete ideology in and of itself.  Furthermore, it becomes clear to me that Skippy Bo Bob does not have a grasp on what exactly ID (Intelligent Design) is.  ID merely purports that the universe is the product of deity rather than being self existing/self creating.  To put it as simply as possible, it could be said that ID is a negative belief in evolution.  In order to say that ID is Christianity in disguise it would have to be shown that ID specifically promotes a Biblical worldview and endorses the Christian God.  Now, it could be said that Christians fall under the umbrella of ID, but then again so do Moslems, deists, and anyone else with doubts about Darwin.  Opposing evolutionism does not automatically equate to an endorsement of Christianity, it is merely indicative of a person who uses their brain.  Allow me to simplify further:

·        The belief that the universe is a product of design—Scientific and not inextricably religious

·        Deliberations on the motivations and expectations of the designer—Religious

 

So ID is by no means specifically religious, although it is often an essential element to many major religions.  For an example of a non-Christian who opposes evolutionism and utilizes valid scientific proofs in the process visit the following website:

http://www.harunyahya.com/

…or…

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php

 

Harun Yahya is certainly not the only one but he is one of my favorites.  The Darwinism Watch page is really good.  Another of my favorites is Dr. Behe.  For more on basic (secular) ID see:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

 

            One of the more disturbing things about Skippy Bo Bob, is that he is a 2002 Bush appointee.  How could Bush appoint such a Godless and reprobate judge?  What a tasteless thing to do.  I renounce you Judge Jones, you are un-American and a disgrace to the country, as well as to the administration that appointed you.  Moving along…  Skippy Bo Bob also said, “The denizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the intelligent design policy.  It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.”  Moron, maybe their real motivation was to present a balanced view and to protect the religious beliefs of their children by establishing neutrality in the classroom.  What would an atheist know about Christian motivations anyways?  For atheists it’s only about ego and sex-drive, since there can be no higher motivation in the absence of deity, whereas Christians just want to keep people from going to hell, ESPECIALLY THEIR OWN CHILDREN!!  Also, Skippy Bo Bob ought to abstain from throwing around phrases like “poorly served,” when he just gave the shaft to ALL the Christians and other non-atheists in that community.  Now, nobody wants to be forced to pay for something they don’t want, which could be a basis for objection on behalf of the atheists which I would respect, except, they are causing us to pay for their religion to be taught to OUR kids.  Skippy Bo Bob actually had the unmitigated gall to claim that he was not an “activist judge,” well you know what Skippy?  You are the quintessential leftomaniac pinko commie ACTIVIST JUDGE, because you lack the wits or the will to realize that you are putting your own incorrect and foolish interpretation on the Constitution and you are in effect, creating legislation, which is a function the Founders did not intend to reside within your purview.  It amazes me how Bush could appoint someone so ignorant about US history and the Constitution.  I am also considering referring to evolutionism as evilstupidism, since it is both evil and stupid.

 

~JMSnooks, the guy who no longer likes Bush Jr. 

I am just a bit steemed up but I will nevertheless try to at least maintain a facade of civility.  Mainly what has me steemed up is something I just saw on the news.  I saw a news report about another school district that got sued by a bunch of leftomaniacs who objected to stickers which were being placed in “science” books which stated that evolution was theory, not fact, and that Intelligent Design was an alternative belief to evolutionism.  The leftomaniac judge (cant remember the name), ruled that the stickers were a form of religious prosylitization, and that as such it was unconstitutional.  There was not enough support behind alternative ID theories such as the belief that a time travelling scientist could have created life (theory F), or that space travelling alien scientists could be the progenitors (theory F-).  Since God was still the main theory it was “unconstitutional” according to Judge lackwit. 

First of all, theory F and theory F- are just plain stupid, almost as stupid as evolution, and second it is pretty obvious that there had to be a Creator God, due to the complete impossibility of the contrary.  Also, this was not a form of “religious” prosylitization since it never specifies which god is God.  Mainly all those stickers did was even the playing field by telling the kids that there are other options besides that one retarded theory.  So much for a fair and balanced school system.  Now, I realize that many may take umbrage to my coining of quazi-pejorative terms such as leftomaniac, but a person who wants to use the federal government to spread atheism and fight Christianity is a left wing extremist, bordering on mania (if not completely there). 

Actually evolution is a religion, and it is in fact a state sponsored religion, it never ceases to amaze me how most atheists seem to be utterly incapable of looking in a mirror.

I am sick and tired of atheists using the public school system and the Supreme court to spread their ideology.  The USA was founded on Christian principles, and without that foundation it ceases to be the USA, and drifts towards becoming a pinko commie hell-hole where everyone is poor except for government fatcats and people are raped and tortured for having Bibles.  The American colonists did not rebel against England because there was prayer in public schools, they rebelled because they correctly realized that their inherent God-given natural rights were being violated.  So before any leftomaniac tries to argue this one out with me, I am going to post part of the Declaration of Independance here for all to see:

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

By the REPRESENTATIVES of the United States of America,
In GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

The Masculine Mystique:

I have heard lots of people refer to the “Female” or “Feminist Mystique,” and although I am still unclear as to what exactly that all entails, I have decided to attempt to formulate a “Masculine Mystique.” This is not to attack females, this is to help females understand males better. Any kind of input is welcome.

1. Getting very hungry 3x a day is completely normal and acceptable.


2. Meat is the most important part of the meal. Without meat, a feeding session cannot be classified as a meal and the hunger cannot be truly quenched. It is possible to fill up all the free space in the stomach without quenching the hunger. To do so requires meat. Without meat, a “meal” is not actually a meal, it is a snack, therefore it cannot be labeled as “lunch,” “breakfast,” or “dinner,” without meat.


3. As a correlary to the previous statement, the consumption of meat does not have to be restricted to a meal, meat can be eaten as a snack as well.


4. The purpose of a salad is to clean out the colon, not to make up for the consumption of ice cream or a candy bar.


5. Being unproductive is unsatisfying.


6. Respect is more important than affection.


7. Nagging is annoying, and begging can often be a form of nagging.


8. Meat is more important than dessert.


9. The side dishes are called side dishes for a reason.


10. Direct communication is infinitely preferential to indirect communication.


11. Indirect communication should only be used in emergency situations when the consequences of direct communication may be deleterious. For example, if the phone lines are being bugged by fascists or communists.


12. Indirect communication is usually pointless. The point of communication is to convey a message, and if the message is meant to be unknown then there is no point in relaying it, if it is meant to be known then it ought to be apparent so that it can be received.


13. Romance flicks are lame. In order for a story arch to be of interest it must involve adversity, although it is not necessary for the protagonist(s) to triumph. Adversity is required to make the story-line of interest, and in a movie (for example), it can take the forms of explosions, melee combat, and gunfights. The aversion of the threat of the afore-mentioned events may also be acceptable. Men do not wish to live vicariously through the protagonists in romance flicks (be they books or visual media), because for males romance is frequently perceived as being akin to a chore (just being honest), and the romance flicks lack adversity, or at least the type of adversity which interests us. Resolving a bunch of feelings does not count.


14. For meat that does not have to be cooked all the way in order to be safe to eat it is preferential that the meat not be cooked all the way. The blood adds flavor, and dry meat is difficult to swallow and similar in sensation to eating cardboard. Meat that does have to be cooked all the way ought to be full of its natural, albeit thoroughly cooked, juices.

Disclaimer: This was not directed at anyone specifically, or written with anyone specific in mind. This is a general public service posting.

For those who may not know, last Monday (11-24-2005) was “UN day.”  I know not how that day got started or how one is expected to celebrate it, but I would like to celebrate UN day in my own way, which is to write an analysis of the UN.  So without further delay, I will present my belated commemoration of UN day.

      First of all, I would like to clarify that any Christians who are aware of the UN and scripture (assuming one can be Christian and unaware of scripture) will and must oppose the UN.  Reason: the UN is attempting to set itself up as a one world government, which will pave the way for the anti-Christ, who will be worse than Hitler and Genghis Khan put together, and will rule the entire world.  Revelation Chapter 13 clearly teaches that the anti-Christ will preside over a world government and that this will be a very dark time for humanity (especially Christians).  “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”–Revelation 13:7.  “And he causeth all, both rich and poor, free and bond, to recieve a mark in their right hand, or in their forheads.  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”–Revelation 13:16-17.  What exactly the mark is remains unclear, some have speculated that since one cannot engage in monetary transactions without it that it must function similar to a debit or credit card.  Possibly a device which draws power from the nervous system.  Humanists would leap at such a device as it would greatly reduce the possibility of being robbed and it would allow governments to track people.  In order for humanists to achieve this they would have to take over the world and eliminate the last vestiges of representative government, change the beliefs of the majority to accept the “big brother knows best ideology,” or just kill everyone who disagrees.  The point is, establishing a one world government is a necessary precurser to effecting these changes.

      Now I would like to address the anti-semitism of the UN, for which I will draw largely from an article in the Jewish Virtual Library called Anti-Semitism in the United Nations, by Morris B. Abram.  He begins his article by stating, “The title “Anti-Semitism in the United Nations” was carefully chosen. It does not charge the UN, an indispensable world organization, with anti-Semitism. Rather, it suggests that there is a considerable anti-Semitic component behind the policies pursued there and expressed without challenge (except by the United States) in its fora.”  I agree with everything in that statement, except I disagree that the UN is an indispensable world organization.  We would be a lot better off without that evil and twisted organization.  At any rate, he goes on to mention how the UN has held many emergancy meetings of the general assembly to condemn Israel, but it has never held one on the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timur, or the Rwandan genocide.  Clearly deriding the Jews takes priority over preventing genocide and the spread of communism.  After all, big friendly communist China can do no wrong, but you had better watch those sneeky Jews who might want to defend themselves from suicide bombers.  Confound those Jews for wanting to live!  (Those last two remarks were meant to be interpreted as sarcasm.)  Furthermore, the UN established programs to combat racism and xenophobia, but it was not until 1993 that any resolution was passed condemning anti-semitism, which of course required pressure from the US.  This was followed by the creation of two Special Committees and special units in the secretariate dedicated to ideologically and politically attacking Israel.  These organizations cost millions of dollars a year and spend their money on the creation and distribution of anti-Israel propaganda around the world in four different languages.    Abram says, “The viciousness with which Israel is attacked, and the reluctance of even democratic states to defend Israel or to accord it the same latitude for mistakes and wrongs that it freely and reciprocally accords other states, has a special quality and origin,” which is quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about the UN, but the question is, why is the UN that way?  Clearly there is no rational basis for it, and it cannot be entirely racial or  religious in motivation.  I would venture to suppose that the cause is spiritual, more on that upon request.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

     

      Another thing that strikes me about the UN as being rather peculiar is their choice of members for the human rights council.  Six of the worlds 18 most repressive nations have been chosen to sit on the UN’s “Comission on Human Rights.”  China, Eritrea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are all members of the CHR, yet they are some of the most tyrannical and opressive nations in the world.  Clearly the CHR functions more as a protective agency for those who wish to violate human rights, rathar than a source for positive or humanitarian influence. 

Source: http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/033105.htm

      So what are the functions of the UN?  It looks to me like they are as follows:

1. Setting up a one world government.

2. Making sure that Christians and Jews around the world recieve a proper amound of persecution.

3. Spreading anti-Biblical ideology.

4. Protecting countries like China and Cuba which wish to violate human rights on a massive scale and persecute religious and/or ethnic minorities.

      So what is the need for the UN?  There is no need for the UN, the only thing that mitigates the evil intentions of the UN is the US and it’s few allies.  The US and it’s allies do not need the UN, and the UN contributes nothing positive to the world that could not be done by the US or it’s allies, therefore I adhere to the position that the UN is superfluis at best and malevolent and dangerous in the worst case scenario. 

      What can we do?  The best thing we can do is vote for whichever candidate appears to be less friendly towards, or perhaps I should say more hostile towards the UN.

Happy belated UN day!!