Jew-Mas

Jew-Mas

Okay, that was just offensive. I shouldn't be so offensive, I work in the film industry and it's run by Jewish folk. Not to mention that they make up many of my friends and my girlfriend has a little Jewish in her (Hey now!) But hey, Chuanuaka is here and it celebrates the struggle of an oppressed people against imperialism, so perhaps it would appeal to those who don't really favor capitalism.... Now how's that for deep thinking material?

On Wednesday you were suppose to light the first candle of Channukah. And while it sounds like a bunch of hellenistic paganism, it's really not. It really is about an oppressed underdog fighting back against the man. Don't believe me? Let's look at the history of the festive celebration of lights!

Hanukkah (Hebrew: חֲנֻכָּה‎, nowadays usually spelled חנוכה, also romanized as Chanukah), also known as the Festival of Lights, is an eight-day Jewish holiday commemorating the rededication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabean Revolt of the 2nd century BCE.

In the narrative of I Maccabees, after Antiochus issued his decrees forbidding Jewish religious practice, a rural Jewish priest from Modiin, Mattathias the Hasmonean, sparked the revolt against the Seleucid Empire by refusing to worship the Greek gods. Mattathias killed a Hellenistic Jew who stepped forward to offer a sacrifice to an idol in Mattathias' place. He and his five sons fled to the wilderness of Judah. After Mattathias' death about one year later in 166 BCE, his son Judah Maccabee led an army of Jewish dissidents to victory over the Seleucid dynasty in guerrilla warfare, which at first was directed against Hellenizing Jews, of whom there were many. The Maccabees destroyed pagan altars in the villages, circumcised children and forced Jews into outlawry.

After the victory, the Maccabees entered Jerusalem in triumph and ritually cleansed the Temple, reestablishing traditional Jewish worship there and installing Jonathan Maccabee as high priest.

According to Rabbinic tradition, the victorious Maccabees could only find a small jug of oil that had remained uncontaminated by virtue of a seal, and although it only contained enough oil to sustain the Menorah for one day, it miraculously lasted for eight days, by which time further oil could be procured.

Why yes, I too celebrate an excellent bargain when it comes to the oil markets. Maybe I have a bit of connection to this holiday because growing up I was always asked if I was Jewish. It must have been my broken nose or something but here we are.

So you see, don't you believe in miracles?! I know I do! 8 days worth of oil for the price of one? Talk about a bargain! Time to celebrate. At least it's not based on a pagan holiday!



So even though according to American Television shows, Hanuka is not about American jews getting a present every day for eight days straight. This idea has been perpetuated for far too long in a vain attempt to make Jewish people not feel so bad about killing the true son of god. We all know the silly goyim's aren't buying the whole 8 days of worthwhile presents.

I know plenty of Jewish people who never got gifts for Hanuka. And if they did, they were just stupid shit you wouldn't be proud to get like socks, school supplies and other such novelties that you ignore in your typical christian stockings.

Besides, everyone knows American Jews get 8 small shitty, but practical, gifts for Hanukkah and then they get something for Christmas so that they would have something to brag about in keeping up with the Jones.

Let's not forget that Hanukkah is fun. You get to eat potato pancakes. I fucking love potato pancakes. And the brisket. You know, growing up in a Mexican (and former Jewish) neighborhood, I got so sick of tamales during the holiday season.



What I would give for a nicely cooked ham.. or a brisket. Fuck! That sounds so good. The notion of latka's also sounds so pleasing to the pallet right now. Let alone cravings for some Matzah ball soup. Even if it taste like campbells with some large softball in it. It's still very delicious.

Oh man. I love Jewish foods. I would convert on that alone. I think the trick is that good Jewish foods are all based on pickling and preserving stuff in some way or another. Mustards, pickles, Lox, Corned Beef... All good stuff.

I guess the only thing I don't want from that holiday is all the parental wielding of guilt against their mid-20s kids. Other than that, being Jewish seems to have a pretty good advantage to the whole thing. Once you tell other Jews what family you're from they all want to invite you for take out Chinese. And if there actually is a god, you're at least his chosen people!

Though I can't get behind the denial that comes from being Jewish. I know this guy who insists that I admit that I'm a Jew because I know all sorts of things about the religion... and again, my facial features. And when I tell him "No, I'm not Jewish", he always acts like it's some secret that is safe with him. "Oh, you can tell me if you're Jewish, I wont think any less of you."

Like, really? Do people somehow think less of someone because they're Jewish? How does this work and why does that even seem normal? It's not like we're in Germany during Hitler rule, I doubt there's many Jewish that are still paranoid about admitting their lineage. Why is being Jewish something that folks think you need to confess about?

Also what I don't get is the importance of the maternal lineage. I mean, really? Aren't the same folks who are keeping strict guidelines on who is Jewish based on the vagina you came out of being Jewish the same ones who are enjoying a shrimp cocktail or a cheese burger? I can't see how maternal lineage can still be important for Jew-dom. If one of your parents is Jewish, guess what.. you're half Jewish too.



So on this day I say, Happy Third candle, my fellow brothers in the diaspora. In the spirit of the festivities, Israel is currently burning

In an emergency cabinet meeting assembled in Tel Aviv on Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked the nations sending forces to aid Israel in a large-scale brushfire, which had already cost the lives of 41 people

In his short address, delivered minutes before he was due to travel to the sight of the Carmel fire, Netanyahu thanked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for sending fire-fighting aircraft to aid Israel in it's battle against the conflagration.

Turkey's sending of two fire-fighting planes comes as its relations with Israel have deteriorated in recent years and reached a low point last May when nine Turkish citizens were killed as Israeli naval commandos boarded a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

Perhaps there will be a new miracle of lights and the fire will burn for 8 years. You know, 8 is the number of infinity. So go ahead and enjoy Chuanuaka but just remember that Festivus is just around the corner.

The Pope Said A Thing...

The Pope Said A Thing...

So now that we're all into the Holiday season and everyone's into the whole Jesus thing, I guess it's time to listen to something the Pope said..

Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases'

Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably "to reduce the risk of infection" with HIV, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."

Well, isn't that something. I'm sure I could fill the rest of this blog with tons of articles and other such stories showing the horrors that the catholic church's standing on condoms has caused the world, especially in third world countries and the massive high number of aids cases in Africa, but that would be too much effort and it's the Holiday season after all.. Gotta rest up as the year comes to a close.



Then again, this won't change anything. No reasonable catholic ever gave a shit about what the Pope said. Hell, it's hard enough to find a reasonable catholic itself. Even if this is a step into the right direction for the Pope to do away with silly nonsense of trying to get the masses to produce like cattle.

It is a bit alarming that there's probably going to be a lot of religious idiots who will be upset about this reversal of a long time practice of shunning condoms as sinful. I mean, just look at the response by the Catholic church because the Pope stated an opinion..

But, as the Vatican noted in a longer, Italian version of its statement, the pope's remarks were made in a "colloquial and not magisterial" form. In other words, they represented his private opinions rather than official teaching.

Writing for the Catholic World Report website, US academic Janet Smith, argued: "The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense."

Ha. What a load of shit. So they pinned it that it was simply his opinion but has no baring on the stance the church has taken. That would be like Obama stating that racism shouldn't exist, but that our nation will still racially profile and the views are simply of that one head leader..



How could the church continue on with this stupid stance that using condoms will still send you to the fiery pits of hell? I guess it's a double win for them if they keep this stance. Those folks who are religious nuts will still be having tons of kids, who at least one or two will be more than willing to give money to the church as a life long member.

Not to mention that the less gay people who are for Jesus, even though the church tells them he hates them, will not use condoms because A.) The church says it's wrong and B.) because it feels a whole lot better. Leading the chances of AIDS in the community that much bigger and killing off the gays for the church.

I guess I should just settle with the Pope at least agreeing with the concept that using condoms should be something folks should practice. I wonder what his stance on double bagging is? Or maybe I just shouldn't take my sexual advice from someone who's not suppose to have sex.

Let God Strike Me Down....

Let God Strike Me Down....

Hi there. This is the Butter Jesus. It's a 62 foot tall statue of Jesus on the east side of interstate 75 at the Solid Rock Church, a 4000+ member Christian mega church near Monroe, Ohio.



A funny thing happened the other day. You see, lightning from a crazy storm that passed through the area actually struck it and now it looks a lot like this..



That's right. God literally struck this thing with lightning and burned it to the ground. Pretty fucking crazy, don't you think? Where is your god now?

As fun as that image is to watch from a still frame, I do sort of want to see it burn up in live action. Oh goodie, we have a Youtube video clip of Jesus getting burnt to a crisp.



But even with moving pictures and some crazy bitch saying that Jesus is on fire, it seems like I need a news story attached to things like this or you just wont believe my crazy bullshit. Here you go

MONROE – Lightning struck and ignited a fire late Monday that destroyed a 62-foot-tall statue of Jesus Christ with his arms stretched toward the skies, according to Monroe police.

“It burned to the ground. The whole statue is gone,” said Kim Peace, a police dispatcher.

The large “King of Kings” statue was a Butler County landmark since it was erected in 2004 outside Solid Rock Church, 904 N. Union Rd., along northbound Interstate 75 in Monroe just north of the Ohio 63 exit.

Fire crews were called to the church at 11:15 p.m. after several people phoned 911 to report the blaze as a severe thunderstorm swept through Greater Cincinnati, producing a spectacular lightning show, Peace said.

“The lightning was just amazing,” she said, wryly adding: “It was a lot of fun in here last night.”

How about we have some fun with Youtube Doubler for this bad boy? See how a tragedy can be turned into comedy? Welcome to my world.

The son of a bitch thing cost $500,000 and was funded entirely with donations. Ha! Hail Satan. Though I know this smug smile on my face is going to be wiped off when they rebuild it in about 3 days. Still, for the moment it feels good to look at that shit and just laugh.

I also laugh at how this is possibly going to be justified. The standard idea that when a disaster happens to someone you don't like, it's god's wrath, but when a disaster happens to you, it's god testing you crap just doesn't fly here. God just burned the shit out of your offering of worship to him.

Remember, this weekend is Father's day. Even if your dad is metal as fuck, you need to get him a gift.


Take your statue of my son, your only statue whom you love, and make of him a burnt offering! Though I shouldn't be to thoughtless here. How about you all post your favorite memory of the butter Jesus.

I once went to a county fair in rural northern Ohio as I was passing through and I got real sick after I ate way too many corn dogs and drank a couple of bad milkshakes. Seeing butter Jesus on the way forced me to pull over and puke my guts out on the grass. When I looked up, butter Jesus was there - Comforting me, assuring me..... Mocking me? I don't know, to be honest. But I do know that fucker is now just ashes to ashes.

So, just in case any of you at home are keeping score...



Thor - 1
Christ - 0

The Bible Baddies

The Bible Baddies

It's Sunday. You know what that means. Time to praise Jesus! OOOOh yeah! But while in the middle of the talking in tongues you should stop for a minute and check out the top ten villains in the bible, according to The Christian Handbook

1. Satan
2. The serpent
3. Pharaoh (probably Set I or Rameses II)
4. Goliath
5. Jezebel
6. King Herod
7. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes
8. Judas
9. Pontius Pilate
10. God's people

-- The Christian Handbook

First off, WRONG! The greatest villain is humanity. I think there's no doubt about that. I could end this blog post right now, but then I wouldn't have as much fun, being that I'm part of the greatest villains of humanity, right. Instead, let's actually look at the real villains on this list and who actually is bad.



Satan isn't a villain. Satan is just a dude doing his job, you people need to get off his back already. Satan killed like 10 dudes. God killed like 100 million. Maybe you theists should consider who the REAL evil is.
~~~*S*a*T*a*N*c*R*e*W*~~~

Then let's even get into that detail of the ten or so dudes that Satan kills.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
...
And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
...
And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19

Ah, so Satan's ten kills were the result of a dare/prop bet from God. Apart from the whole 'rebellion' thing, did Satan actually do anything bad in the bible or did he just get slandered a lot? I mean, seriously, what kind of chump thinks Satan is the villain of the bible, not the hero?

God made Satan as one of his angels, god is omnipotent - which means he can see the future, therefore because god knew that Satan would turn but created him anyway, god is the most evil entity in the universe. If you were the omnipotent, omnipresent Abrahamic god, the only moral thing to do would be to kill yourself.



The number one on that list should read as follows;

1. God- Wrecks shit constantly.

God's reaction to everything seems to be pretty much the same - Devastate the entire city it took place in. You can't forget God when thinking of bible Villains. Consider the story of brothers Onan and Er. Er did something to piss off God (he was 'wicked', who knows what that means) so God fucking killed him. Then God told Onan to have sex with Er's wife. Onan reluctantly complied, after all, God is a fucking sociopath who kills you for no good reason. When he was about to cum, he pulled out and jizzed on the ground instead of inside his sister-in-law, which God killed him for.

The moral of this Bible story is that God is a fucking psycho and when he tells you to rape your sister-in-law, you'd better fucking cum inside her if you know what's good for you. Wouldn't want a single drop of sperm to go to waste. Hear that? You masturbating angers god. God is literally a sociopath with a gun making you rape your family. If you think I'm exaggerating, read the story, it's really something.



Look at that cute painting of Onan. He looks like he just came or got killed, turns out it was both. Really makes you think - The old testament God was way rowdier than new testament god. He really seemed to calm down and get his act together once he had that kid.

I know that's a bit much to take in. I haven't even gotten to the point where God demands 6 golden rats and 6 golden hemorrhoids. He's a sure fire asshole, but the guy clearly has a sense of humor of some kind, right? Maybe we should look at some of the others who made that list and see if they actually belong.

7. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes

I like how they put this down instead of just "The Jews". One could argue that this is more the biblical equivalent of "ivory tower elitists". But that fails to account for the fact that the Pharisees and Sadducees were two sects of Judaism account for about 99% of Jews in the world at the time. Modern Orthodox Jews are, in terms of their practices and beliefs, identical to the Pharisees. The Sadducees simply died out.



So saying "The Pharisees" are uber-villains is either profoundly ignorant of what the term means and of history, or simply a polite way of saying "THE JEWS". The authors of the list are probably just dumb though. The Pharisees are considered to be the "overly legalistic" class, not the conservative orthodoxy though those have quite a bit of overlap.

Speaking of the Jews, let's not forget the original bible OG Cain. Fool straight up invented murder, killed somebody before God even. But then again we go back to the start and realize who built this murderer? God. Yup, if this was a CSI episode, all the evidence would be pointing back to God as the main asshole.



Who I'm also surprised not to see on that list - Delilah or Eve. Hell, most notable women in the bible aren't exactly notable for their virtues. Perhaps they needed some more feminist back in the ol' bible times to even things out. Bet you'd be reading about a lot fewer whores. I mean, let's face it. Lilith owned. That girl had massive game. Though after the divorce when Adam went for a younger and straight from his rib model girl, she had to get the boot. Know what I'm sayin'.

There's an old saying - Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day... Light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. So with that, I guess I should just bust out the better list of the Bible Villains.

#1) The Prophet Muhammed
#2) Romans
#3) Satan
#4) Eve
#5) Dinosaurs
#6) Jews
#7) Blacks
#8) Mexicans
#9) Trojanman
#10) Pedophiles
#11) Pedophile priests

Ash Wednesday

Ash Wednesday!

Now that you had so much fun watching women flashing their titties on Fat Tuesday celebrating Madri Gras, it's time to come down from that high and get Ash Wednesday on with. No, it's not a day you're suppose to watch Army of Darkness. It's not that sort of Ash Wednesday. But it is time to mock your co-workers for having a dirt mark on their face.

You're probably wondering what exactly is LENT. I'll tell you. It's the past tense and past participle of the verb "Lend". Now you know and knowing is half the battle. In a nut shell, it's when a person of religious back ground, namely catholic or christian, gives up some thing they do for 40 days and 40 nights. This is suppose to mirror the made up scenario that Jesus went through when he went through the desert.

But to me, the "Self denial" of Lent is funny because it's not difficult or useful or behavior-changing and is basically just a way for children in adult bodies to trick their caveman brains into expecting a reward for their sacrifice. It's very silly to think that some arbitrary day has more poignant meaning of giving things up over any other day.



I know what you're thinking. How dare I say something true about your beliefs! You'll have me know people have held your beliefs since before the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution and that makes them beyond reproach!

But let's get real. Do you really know what you sound like?

"Oh hi, I'm going to fst because I'm a christian. And by fasting I mean I wont eat meat. Well maybe only on Fridays though.. But it can only be fish because that's not really meat... and McDonalds has a sale on Fillet-o-Fish."

No meat on Friday seems like the easiest rule to follow of this whole time period. Given that it's mostly poor families that are more religious, there's typically no meat the rest of the week either.



Think about it. It's as silly as thinking that some magic sky man cares that you gave a thing up. Though I admit that most catholics recognize the absurdity of giving something up for lent.. except for meat on Friday. Why exactly? I have no idea. I would just like to point out that while Jerry's is a Jewish deli, they still serve shrimp cocktails.

Lent is nothing but horse shit. A couple thousand years ago the pope decided that in the leanest time of the year (midwinter) he should trick people into fasting/using fewer resources so he could continue bribing his secret baby mommas without having to pay a premium on dates and spices.



Should I remind you again that the Pope's house is a city. Think about that. A city that is its own country. A country financed in part by cheap dates and spices from the orient and a country that is the size of 17 football fields.. Let that sink in.

I suppose that there should be nothing absurd about making a choice to remove something from your life that impacts it negatively. All it ends up being is some promise that you make to yourself before god. Though I remember the few times growing up what I gave up for Lent and I'm sure that 8 year old me didn't really prove much as a person or to God in taking a month away from Saturday morning cartoons until Easter.



When it comes to appeasing the higher being with giving up something, who do you think you are really impressing with your pussy denials. If you want to practice will through self denial Ramadan is the way to go. And if this really is just abstaining to improve yourself, you're doing it all wrong. Asceticism is for the weak-willed, taking up good habits is much cooler than giving up bad ones.

I just have to laugh when people say they're giving up sweets and slushies for lent. I mean, really? You're going to use the excuse of giving up something to better yourself or sacrifice something in the name of some higher power to give up something so trivial? Yes, it may mean something to you, but let's be honest, how will giving up those things for 40 days improve your life at all?

I know, maybe I could just give the bitterness I have towards religions. But do we ask balloons to give up helium for lent? I think not! It's very simple, you either accept your bad habits or kick them permanently, the reward is not feeling guilty about it and/or a healthier life for yourself.

Fuck The Pope - Happy Thanksgiving

Fuck The Pope - Happy Thanksgiving

What? You expected me NOT to write something offensive on this turkey day? Yeah, I realize I made a lazy video post where you laugh at comical ads, but that's for your enjoyment in a more food coma sort of way... Besides that, you know me well enough to realize I would write something that is highly offensives, but is absolutely true.



I realize that I should be getting food ready right now, but I can't help but point out this absurd motion that the Pope made a decree of. Yes, he has stated that we stop world hunger now. Which is a bit topical on this day when we stuff our faces with the most amounts of food you will stuff it with. Ok, that's a lie, I mean, we are Americans after all. In saying that, The Pope declares we end World Hunger... Now... I warn you, this shit is long, just skim it:

(16 Nov 09 - RV) Pope Benedict XVI on Monday visited the Rome-based FAO for the opening of the Food Summit. We have this report...


Full text of Pope Benedict XVI's discourse at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation International Summit on Food Security:

Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen!
1. I was very pleased to receive an invitation from Mr Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO, to speak at the opening session of this World Summit on Food Security. I greet him warmly and I thank him for his kind words of welcome. I greet the distinguished authorities present and all the participants. Echoing the sentiments of my venerable predecessors Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, I should like once more to express my esteem for the work of FAO, which the Catholic Church and the Holy See follow attentively, taking a keen interest in the day-to-day work that is carried out there. Thanks to your generous engagement, aptly expressed in your motto Fiat Panis, the development of agriculture and food security remain among the key priorities of international political action. I am confident that this same spirit will inform the decisions taken at the present Summit, and those that will follow later, in the common desire to win the battle against hunger and malnutrition in the world as quickly as possible.

2. The international community is currently facing a grave economic and financial crisis. Statistics bear witness to the dramatic growth in the number of people suffering from hunger, made worse by the rise in price of foodstuffs, the reduction in economic resources available to the poorest peoples, and their limited access to markets and to food – notwithstanding the known fact that the world has enough food for all its inhabitants. Indeed, while low levels of agricultural production persist in some regions, partly owing to climate change, sufficient food is produced on a global scale to satisfy both current demands and those in the foreseeable future. From these data we may deduce that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between population growth and hunger, and this is further demonstrated by the lamentable destruction of foodstuffs for economic gain. In the Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate I pointed out that, “Hunger is not so much dependent on lack of material things as on shortage of social resources, the most important of which are institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to sufficient food and water … and also capable of addressing the primary needs and necessities ensuing from genuine food crises …” I added, “The problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a long-term perspective, eliminating the structural causes that give rise to it and promoting the agricultural development of poorer countries. This can be done by investing in rural infrastructures, irrigation systems, transport, organization of markets, and in the development and dissemination of agricultural technology that can make the best use of the human, natural and socio-economic resources that are more readily available at the local level, while guaranteeing their sustainability over the long term as well” (no. 27). Hence the need to oppose those forms of aid that do grave damage to the agricultural sector, those approaches to food production that are geared solely towards consumption and lack a wider perspective, and especially greed, which causes speculation to rear its head even in the marketing of cereals, as if food were to be treated just like any other commodity.

3. The weakness of current mechanisms for food security and the need to re-examine them are confirmed, one might say, by the mere fact that this Summit has been convoked. Even though the poorest countries are more fully integrated into the world economy than in the past, movements in international markets make them more vulnerable and force them to seek the aid of intergovernmental institutions, which no doubt do valuable and indispensable work. The concept of cooperation, though, must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity: it is necessary to involve “local communities in choices and decisions that affect the use of agricultural land” (ibid.). This is because integral human development requires responsible choices on the part of everyone and it demands an attitude of solidarity – meaning that aid or disaster relief should not be seen as opportunities to promote the interests of those who make resources available or of elite groups among the beneficiaries. With regard to countries that are in need of external support, the international community has the duty to assist with the instruments of cooperation, assuming collective responsibility for their development, “through the solidarity of … presence, supervision, training and respect” (ibid., 47). Within this overall context of responsibility, every country has the right to define its own economic model, taking steps to secure its freedom to choose its own objectives. In this way, cooperation must become an effective instrument, unbeholden to interests that can absorb a not insignificant part of the resources destined for development. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that an attitude of solidarity regarding the development of poor countries also has the potential to contribute to a solution of the current global crisis. Support given to these nations through financial plans inspired by solidarity, enabling them to provide for their own requirements of consumption and development, not only favours their internal economic growth, but can have a positive impact on integral human development in other countries (cf. ibid., 27).

4. In the current situation there is a continuing disparity in the level of development within and among nations that leads to instability in many parts of the world, accentuating the contrast between poverty and wealth. This no longer applies only to models of development, but also to an increasingly widespread perception concerning food insecurity, namely the tendency to view hunger as structural, an integral part of the socio-political situation of the weakest countries, a matter of resigned regret, if not downright indifference. It is not so, and it must never be so! To fight and conquer hunger it is essential to start redefining the concepts and principles that have hitherto governed international relations, in such a way as to answer the question: what can direct the attention and the consequent conduct of States towards the needs of the poorest? The response must be sought not in the technical aspects of cooperation, but in the principles that lie behind it: only in the name of common membership of the worldwide human family can every people and therefore every country be asked to practise solidarity, that is, to shoulder the burden of concrete responsibilities in meeting the needs of others, so as to favour the genuine sharing of goods, founded on love.

5. Nevertheless, while it is true that human solidarity inspired by love goes beyond justice – because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other – it is never without justice, which leads us to give the other what is “his”, what belongs to him by virtue of his being and acting. Indeed, I cannot “give” the other what is “mine”, without first giving him what belongs to him in justice (cf. ibid., 6). If the aim is to eliminate hunger, international action is needed not only to promote balanced and sustainable economic growth and political stability, but also to seek out new parameters – primarily ethical but also juridical and economic ones – capable of inspiring the degree of cooperation required to build a relationship of parity between countries at different stages of development. This, as well as closing the existing gap, could favour the capacity of each people to consider itself an active player, thereby confirming that the fundamental equality of all peoples is rooted in the common origin of the human family, the source of those principles of “natural law” that should inspire political, juridical and economic choices and approaches in international life (cf. ibid., 59). Saint Paul speaks eloquently on this subject: “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality. As it is written, ‘He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack’” (2 Cor 8:13-15).

6. Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, in order to combat hunger and promote integral human development, it is necessary to understand the needs of the rural world, and likewise to ensure that any decline in donor support does not create uncertainties in the financing of activities of cooperation: any tendency towards a short-sighted view of the rural world as a thing of secondary importance must be avoided. At the same time, access to international markets must be favoured for those products coming from the poorest areas, which today are often relegated to the margins. In order to achieve these objectives, it is necessary to separate the rules of international trade from the logic of profit viewed as an end in itself, directing them towards the support of economic initiative in countries with greater need of development; once they have greater income at their disposal, these countries will be able to advance towards the self-sufficiency that leads to food security.

7. Nor must the fundamental rights of the individual be forgotten, which include, of course, the right to sufficient, healthy and nutritious food, and likewise water; these rights take on an important role in the realization of others, beginning with the primary one, the right to life. It is necessary, then, to cultivate “a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination” (Caritas in Veritate, 27). Much has been patiently accomplished in recent years by FAO in this regard: on the one hand it has favoured an enlargement of the objectives of this right over and above the mere guarantee of satisfying primary needs, and on the other it has emphasized the need for its adequate regulation.

8. Methods of food production likewise demand attentive analysis of the relationship between development and protection of the environment. The desire to possess and to exploit the resources of the planet in an excessive and disordered manner is the primary cause of all environmental degradation. Protection of the environment challenges the modern world to guarantee a harmonious form of development, respectful of the design of God’s creation and therefore capable of safeguarding the planet (cf. ibid., 48-51). While the entire human race is called to acknowledge its obligations to future generations, it is also true that States and international organizations have a duty to protect the environment as a shared good. In this context, the links between environmental security and the disturbing phenomenon of climate change need to be explored further, focusing on the central importance of the human person, and especially of the populations most at risk from both phenomena. Norms, legislation, development plans and investments are not enough, however: what is needed is a change in the lifestyles of individuals and communities, in habits of consumption and in perceptions of what is genuinely needed. Most of all, there is a moral duty to distinguish between good and evil in human action, so as to rediscover the bond of communion that unites the human person and creation.

9. As I pointed out in the Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, it is important to remember that “the deterioration of nature is … closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits.” Indeed, “the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.” And “the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society.” Therefore, “our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society” (ibid., 51).

10. Hunger is the most cruel and concrete sign of poverty. Opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions. Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Catholic Church will always be concerned for efforts to defeat hunger; the Church is committed to support, by word and deed, the action taken in solidarity – planned, responsible and regulated – to which all members of the international community are called to contribute. The Church does not wish to interfere in political decisions: she respects the knowledge gained through scientific study, and decisions arrived at through reason responsibly enlightened by authentically human values, and she supports the effort to eliminate hunger. This is the most immediate and concrete sign of solidarity inspired by charity, and it brooks neither delay nor compromise. Such solidarity relies on technology, laws and institutions to meet the aspirations of individuals, communities and entire peoples, yet it must not exclude the religious dimension, with all the spiritual energy that it brings, and its promotion of the human person. Acknowledgment of the transcendental worth of every man and every woman is still the first step towards the conversion of heart that underpins the commitment to eradicate deprivation, hunger and poverty in all their forms.

I thank you for your gracious attention and, as I conclude, I offer greetings and good wishes in the official languages of FAO, to all the Member States of the Organization.
God bless your efforts to ensure that all people are given their daily bread.
Que Dieu bénisse vos efforts pour assurer le pain quotidien à chaque personne.
Dios bendiga sus esfuerzos para garantizar el pan de cada día para cada persona.

Before I get started on my Holiday rant, I would like to say Happy Thanksgiving... and now..

FUCK THE POPE.

Fuck ALL popes past, present and future.



While a lot of this is gooey, non-specific pro-help the world language that we can all support, I was amazed by two things:

1.) Population growth is NOT a cause of hunger, nope, no way, no how, keep those babies coming, who needs rubbers? Abortions? pffft- please. No way will more people on earth mean more mouths to feed.

2.) Opulence is BAD! You should always remember that when you see the Pope sit on a throne made of gold in a castle made of gold on a mountain made of gold.

They claim that the Catholic Church's net assets in 2007 was $669 million, and that doesn't count the wealth of the individual dioceses. The Catholic church, overall, is extremely wealthy. So I have to wonder why they're asking me to help out in this situation? Get with the program or at the very least don't bug me for donations while you have ostentatious displays of wealth.



Does the Vatican really claim to have less than a billion dollars in assets? Because that's just balls out bullshit and I'm impressed that they have brass balls that big. Maybe that's the net figure, taking into account liabilities for future child abuse lawsuit settlements.

This doesn't even cover the value of the land the vatican holds if you were going to turn it into a giant beet farm. The Catholic Church needs centuries of stolen wealth and trinkets for the same reason a talent agency needs a big fountain in the lobby.

Hello, I'm the Catholic church. I accept donations under the pretense of feeding starving people in Africa but the money actually goes to buying blood diamonds that fuel genocide and slavery in Africa instead. The Pope sure looks pretty in his robes though.

It's okay. I believe in Jesus..



Yeah. It's almost enough to shave your head and tear up a picture of the Pope.

One of my favorite lectures was back in my Catholic high school days where a jesuit priest gave a speech using the line "There's infallible and there's 'infallible.'" It made me laugh. But it is really annoying to think that Catholic people feel the need to vote on Politicians based on their positions on abortion and gay marriage. How about what they'll actually do instead of who you can most likely drink with at a bar (sinful!) and not get into a fist fight with. This is in a country that has important issues facing it.



Then again, if my earlier post is any indication, I'm not going to be eating all that much if I want to actually lose that weight, or at least not gain it before the New Year. So perhaps the food I lack eating will be gladly consumed by those who face hunger. I know, I shouldn't make fun of this. But really, I can easily say I'm doing more for those who face hunger than the Pope. I at least buy a family part of an animal for the holidays through Heifer International. This year I may buy them some bees again.

It certainly beats spending money on your loser employees relocating them after they've gone off the deep end and raped little boys. But then hunger is a key part of a legacy from centuries of colonial oppression and exploitation. Gotta keep that co-dependency relationship going. Can't let them be on their own and able to think for themselves. Just gotta keep telling those African folks that condoms increase the risk of AIDS and hope that they just keep multiplying.

I usually dislike Sarah Silverman, but she does make a very valid point here.


Besides, she's a Jew. In this time of year, she's going to get the short end of the stick and I'm sure I'm going to write a lot more about the Jewish Holidays as they approach, so I wont get into those. I have to say, they are what I can relate to. Oy!

But really. It's times like this that I'm glad that I'm Atheist. At least that way I don't have to make up excuses for the most ignored man in history. The Pope is the one guy no one takes seriously. Whatever he says gets negated. Thankfully. Because while his views are the ones that the Catholic Church is suppose to be conveying. Mainly because they're so extreme and people want to get into heaven, they just don't want to be on the fucking honor roll.

It's times like this that I think there's a need for the Anti-Pope.

Remember, Remember the V of November

Remember, Remember the V of November

Talk about a concentrated amount of holidays near each other. In the past week we have had Halloween and Day of the Dead and now we have Guy Fawke day. This man is Guy Fawkes.



On November 5th 1605, Guy Fawkes tried to assassinate King James I (and most of the Protestant aristocracy), by blowing up the British Houses of Parliament. This would be the equivalent of destroying the Capitol during the State of the Union.

No one is entirely sure why Guy and his associates (pictured below) wanted to do this. The main theory is that it was an effort to re-establish Catholicism in England (as King James I and his predecessor Queen Elizabeth I were both Protestants).



I should point out that Guy Fawkes wasn't the prime mover of the 'Gunpowder Plot, he was merely a cog. Guy had been a soldier though, and it is likely he was involved as he had some knowledge of explosives. The conspirators had rented a cellar below the House of Lords and had been stockpiling gunpowder in there, to create the explosion.

The story goes that a letter was sent to a Catholic Lord, telling him to stay away from Westminster on the 5th. He was suspicious and showed the letter to King James, and unfortunately Guy was caught leaving the cellar in the morning of the 5th, where the guards found at least 1800 lbs of gunpowder, underneath coal and firewood. Apparently if the explosion had occurred, it would have destroyed most of the surrounding buildings and smashed windows up to 1km away.



Fawkes was subsequently tortured over the next few days. He held out for four days without revealing anything, and only gave in after seeing some of his fellow conspirators in shackles after giving themselves up. He ultimately only revealed the names of conspirators who were dead or who had already been arrested.

The men were tried and convicted on Jan 31st, and were hung drawn and quartered. On the day the plot was discovered, the people of London were encouraged to build bonfires to celebrate the survival of the King. The next year, Parliament passed the 'Thanksgiving Act' which made November 5th an annual celebration. This Act remained in force until 1859. In modern Britain, 'Guy Fawkes Night' (or 'Bonfire Night') is still celebrated, with fireworks, bonfires and church-bell ringing. Traditionally, children would create an effigy of Guy Fawkes to raise funds to buy fireworks ('Penny for the Guy!'). These effigies would be put on top of the bonfires and burned. This is less common now, as children aren't allowed to purchase fireworks any more.



Guy Fawkes was also used in the comic books and film, V for Vendetta. The famous mask is supposed to be the face of Guy Fawkes. But really, I disliked that Alan Moore book. It was such a piece of shit. Remember, remember, that "V for Vendetta" was, upon watching it a second time, a movie that's largely about a disfigured savant who kidnaps a woman, keeps her locked in his basement, tortures her, breaks her mind and then only lets her out once she's become a devoted follower of his ideas.

the only way a libertarian could get a woman. Rorschach could totally beat up V for Vendetta . But if you want to be a nerd, you could make a joke that it has been 404 years. Revolution not found. Ha ha ha ha ha...a.... yeah. One more for the road. The other joke is that he was the last man to enter parliament with honest intentions.



But Guy Fawke is not the only way to feel the V of this day, just a couple of days ago a new take on the 80's TV mini-series V aired the first episode. Yes, I'm moving on to the topic of Television here. For those unfamiliar with V, it's about a somewhat covert takeover of Earth governments by a race of reptile aliens that want to steal our water and eat the flesh from our bones. I know it's 25 years old, but I'll take the high road and assume that you haven't seen it.

But then again, if you saw the first episode on Tuesday, you saw what was the first 3-4 episodes of the original series. I mean, seriously, they pretty much breezed through it. I sort of felt that they were playing it in fast forward. They got to the healing, went to the reveal that they were reptilians, and even set up the resistance in the alien crowd.



I don't even think they formed a resistance until the 2nd-3rd hour of the original miniseries. One thing I did realize was that Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet from Lost) is literally the worst female actress that has ever lived. Seriously, I couldn't stand the scenes she was in. They were awful in every way and the only redeeming factor was that Wash was with her.

Which leads me to another thing. Does this mean that we'll never get a Firefly get together again? All the key actors seem to have gotten steady gigs now. This show has two of the cast from the show. All I know is that the next time I see any of the cast members from Firefly, I'm going to be stabbing them with a metal stick because they're god damn Reptilians.



I'm sort of interested to see how they are going to work the moral calculus here. If some aliens show up and heal millions upon millions of people and achieve world peace, how exactly could you justify forming a resistance to expel them? Even if they were all about stealing our water and eating our flesh, they did bring about world peace. Maybe the aliens will start eating people en masse to really make us turn against that whole thing.

Though I can see this show causing a lot of political ramifications. I mean, what the fuck was up with bringing up Universal Health Care? I know I talk about it at least once a week here, but in this show that has the V's in favor of it, even if it's under a rouse, it's still going to be fodder for the conservative right to protest. The Teabaggers already are going crazy with Obama for the birth certificate, I can see them running with this whole V stuff and making it even more annoying to see them protest stupid shit.



It's bad enough that Coast 2 Coast is constantly ranting and raving about the reptilians. Clearly a case of one too many red neck hicks who watched the original V mini series acting out. But now with this we're going to get even more crack pot fools talking about this. I suppose it's a lot better than talking about Mel's Hole, right?

Then again, while I saw the current political situation reflected in what the Vs were attempting to do, I did see some Scientology parallels, mostly in the interview with Queen V, where she was ready to walk out unless they didn't mention things that would portray them in a bad light.

So there you have it. A little history lesson into another famous day that was marketed as a "remember", hmmmm. I wonder if we'll have a "never forget the 11th of September" chant in a couple hundred years. And there's your taste of history and television talk.

Happy Bonfire Night everyone! Long live the rich aristocracy!

Feliz dia de los muertos.

Feliz dia de los muertos.

It's day of the dead, or as Venture Brothers put it, "that crazy dead people Christmas Mexicans celebrate". Yes, it is dead people Christmas us Mexicans celebrate. We do some wacky things to graves. Like putting photos of the loved one out there as well as food they enjoyed eating. It's all to honor the departed loved ones and keep their memory alive.

It's all part of the Halloween festivities. What with Halloween being All Saints Day (Hallow = Holy) and the following day being All Souls Day. Meaning all the people who died. It was the church's way to try to kill that Pegan fall festival. Though it seems like they're getting all up in arms about everything forgetting all about their own god damn Holidays.




For example, look at this crazy person rant about the dangers of Halloween;

The word "holiday" means "holy day." But there is nothing holy about Halloween. The root word of Halloween is "hallow," which means "holy, consecrated and set apart for service." If this holiday is hallowed, whose service is it set apart for? The answer to that question is very easy—Lucifer's!

First off, God doesn't exist. Therefore any argument appealing to religion is null and void. At least in my eyes. Besides, what's so harmful about dressing up as a mummy and eating candy? There are so many issues where kids are blissfully unaware and happy, but parents are extremely concerned for the safety and eternal standing of their children.



I may openly mock Halloween costumes (see future Disney Princess blog), but it's still just fun for the kids in the end. It's not like they're going out and conducting pagan rituals that would be potentially crossing the line of ethics or moral lessons. Yes, you're asking for kids to live in a socialist world and redistribute the candy free of charge, but then again, maybe that will mean the future grown ups would be willing to actually pass such socialist programs like Universal Health Care.

I mean, Halloween is a catholic church approved day.. well at least try attempted to make it one. All Hallow's Eve, with "hallo" referring to a ghost or spirit. Holy Spirit. Because November 1st is All Saints day. Get it? But hey, that doesn't allow one to get irrationally angry at a kid's holiday, so we might as well go and ignore that.

Every year there's some people who get all riled about Halloween. Like that documentary Hell House, about a church group creating a scary "haunted house" about sinner and going to hell. Yeah, the whole scared straight stuff has worked in the past, right.



Could Halloween just be a day where kids put on costumes and go door to door to get some candy? Oh absolutely not, by dressing up as The Little Mermaid or Spiderman obviously means you're worshiping satan! Though on a future topic, dressing up as the little mermaid may make you feel like you should change for a man and lose your voice to "get" him.

And then there's this fear that Wicca and Pagan followers will be sacrificing babies and making it dangerous for your children to be out. What the hell? Serious? I think Pagans have a busy schedule of taking off their clothing and worshiping whatever crazy gods they want to as well as doing that retrospective look at those who died in the past year(s). It's like claiming crazy church goers are going to go out and eat atheist children on Sunday morning.

Here's a tip, the people who are most prone to taking their clothes off and dancing in the moonlight are rarely the sort of people you want to see taking their clothes of and dancing in the moonlight. Unless, of course, you like 'em large and in charge.



But again, these church going people are the same types of people who think the spells in Harry Potter are real. They are mentally deficient and should be treated as such. They should also be sent to Texas.

If it wasn't for Halloween how will the kids learn that humanity is full of bastards and charlatans if not from the scum who give out black and red waxy paper wrapped peanut cement chews? Not top mention what motivation will the children have to dress up like sluts and drink themselves retarded if they aren't trying to bury the regret that they're no longer of the age to dress as a beloved cartoon character and beg perfect strangers for candy? Oh wait, that's for the older crowds who no longer care about God.

I don't know how they did it, but they (who, anyway? beer companies?) turned another holiday into another Amateur Drinking Festival. In a few more years Washington and Lincoln will be hoisting big glass boots of beer for the big President's Day Drunk-a-thon. This is why, while I like Halloween, I do think the meaning is pretty much lost, or at least altered from the years, but it certainly hasn't altered to a satanist worshiping holiday.

That's why I like celebrating The Day of the Dead, where we actually make alters and food, have retrospective memories for imaginary skeleton ghost, now that's pagan as fuck, but it's still approved by the Catholic Church because if it wasn't, Mexicans would burn the whole pueblo down.

So hey, forget Halloween altogether. Not because it'll lead you to eating something that will make you sick, or because it's satanic but because dia de los muertos is a whole lot better of a holiday.

The War On Christmas Begins Today

The War On Christmas Begins Today

It's may be the end of September, but it doesn't seem to be too early to begin the war on Christmas that Christians love to claim is something Atheist or anyone else who doesn't believe in the silly concept that baby Jesus was born in a desert during winter on that CHRISTmas morning. A holiday I've got problems with it? let me tell you, all of them. Every single last one of them. But a war on one specific one? Nah, that's small fries.

As you will find out in this news piece, they're already claiming that the war on Christmas is on and the battleground is the state where the Alamo had it's last stand.. Texas

Proposal would delete 'Christmas' from 6th grade lesson

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival, a change that's riled conservatives who say it's another battle in the "war" against the Christian holiday.

"It's outrageous that the war on Christmas continues in our state and in our nation," said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the conservative Free Market Foundation. "This effort to mislead students about current society is shameful and must be stopped."

The draft proposal being considered by the State Board of Education won't be formally adopted until next May for the 2011-2012 school year. The standards will remain in place for the next decade, dictating what is taught in government, history and other social studies classes in elementary and secondary schools. The standards also will be used to develop state tests and by textbook publishers who develop material for the nation based on their largest market, Texas.

The standards currently instruct sixth-grade students to be able to explain the significance of religious holidays such as the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. The proposal, which is set to be debated during a hearing next week, removes the words Christmas and Rosh Hashanah. Diwali, a Hindu festival, is added.

How dare we try to get students to learn a little bit about religious festivals from cultures other than their own at the expense of giving them the trivially simple assignment of explaining the significance of something from their own culture! How dare we do that!

I wish I could sign up for an actual war on Christmas and other corporate consumerist 'Christian' Holidays. While my girlfriend may not like it, I still don't dig Valentine's Day and Easter? Fuck that Holiday. I'm going to be celebrating a Birthday around Easter. No time for a stupid bunny to steal that thunder.

To be honest, we wouldn't have to start the war on Christmas so early if they wouldn't start Christmas so early. It's not even Halloween and I'm seeing some places pop up with festive cheerful things already.



How the hell could they claim persecution? As a member of the world's largest religion, how can you feel your rights are being trodden upon? I'm curious as to what history these Christians are referring to that makes Christmas their holiday? It's just the standard winter festival, only they attached the birth of Jesus to it, which never made sense because a kid born in the desert just sounds like one frozen dead baby. It's pretty clear that it's the same date as the Roman winter festival

Christians only really started getting heavy recently, just over the last 100 years-plus, basically since Dickens. I guess the whole Ghost thing got to him. In the early colonial days, celebrating Christmas was still illegal in some parts of the BUILT ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES U.S., because people would get shitfaced and start tearing shit up. And I don't mean their gift wrapping..

What's funny is this is more or less how it's always been and exactly what happened in the late 19th Century. Christmas had always been secondary to East in the Christian calendar and mostly a holiday to get drunk and party hard. Then in the late 18oo's, the "reason for the season" stuff started, but it was completely different from how it is now.



For proof of this, just look at the most famous example of literature from the era, Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. A novel which specifically denounces capitalism and has its protagonist redeem himself by becoming a socialist. I think it's a pretty big slap to the face that there's such a commercial holiday to it now.

Why would they teach Christmas in a history course anyway? High school English classes aren't teaching the bible, although it is an important literary work to the religious type. That has to be some war against Christians as well, right? The bible is the most god awful novel around. They might as well teach John Grisham novels in school.

This is all just another problem caused by trying to create a universal public education system instead of letting parents choose where to send their kids. Oh wait, the universal health care debate isn't this blog.. Sorry, it sort of melts altogether with me.



If I were president, my first act would be to bomb all walmarts with cruise missiles at 6:15AM, Friday after thanksgiving. This would solve so many problems. Such as killing poor people that partake in consumerist holidays when they clearly can't afford them.

I'm only going to be buying my relatives charity donations for Christmas and only asking for books anyway. I'll more than likely be wearing a Dawkins shirt for the entire season for shits and giggles.



Don't even tell me it's a reason for family togetherness. That's the part I hate most about Christmas. It sucks having your family guilt trip you into driving or flying hundreds of miles to see them for a few days when you'd be much happier relaxing at home or going somewhere with someone whose company you actually enjoy and do something fun while everyone else is stuck with their family.

How about if you really cared about your family you just have the same togetherness the rest of the year without having to rely on a commercialized Holiday one day out of the year just so you could check "made awkward small talk with blood relatives" off your list.



One would wonder, if you want to wage war on Christmas, what would be the first step?
1. Kill God
2. ?
3. Did you kill God yet?

Let me tell you what the calendar looks like for that time of year;

Liberal atheist agenda for 12/25

09:00am-War on Christmas
11:00am-War on Kwanzaa
12:30am-Lunch with Janice
01:30pm-War on Chanukkah

It's not like I'm sending Christmas an unending rain of mortar fire, exploding tree shrapnel and manger scene fragments everywhere hitting civilians with cheer. You don't see me slapping some economic sanctions on Christmas first in an attempt to work something out.



I have to say, most Holidays celebrated in America are boring as fuck. Shit like Dia De Los Muertos and Holi are way cooler than anything we celebrate. Arbor day? Flag day? What a bunch of loser holidays. Dia De Los Muertos: awesome bread, sugar skulls, serious reflection on life and death. Halloween: Free candy to keep our children fat and 'sexy' costumes as an excuse to dress like a slut. Seriously, dress like a slut everyday, I will be the first to tell you that I wont mind. Fuck halloween, Dia De Los Muertos owns

But I guess the American economy would be decimated without Christmas, so a war on Christmas is a WAR ON AMERICA! That's right you non-Christmas celebrating heathens, you're terrorist of the worse kind. All of you!

Holidays are just the government telling you when you can go on a three day bender. I shouldn't have to get permission from big brother to get shit faced for three days. So fuck it, let the war begin. I'm ready to practice a scorched earth sort of strategy. Ho ho Fuckin' Ho!

Are You Ready To Rock?

Are You Ready To Rock?

That's right, I know you're gearing to rush out today, on this 9-9-09 and pick yourself up some Rock Band: The Beatles. Well tough shit, loser. Everyone else is going to do the same. It's Beatles day and if you can't tell by the amount of Beatles blogs I've written today, I'm excited. Though the downside here is that everyone else will be rushing to the local Bestbuy and WalMart to get their Breakfast with the Beatles on. You'll more than likely wont be able to find it anywhere.

What is a young impressionable fake musician to do? Put your heart in with Jesus and get yourself Guitar Praise!

JAM WITH THE BAND!

Strap on the guitar and play along with your favorite bands—tobyMac, Relient K, Flyleaf, Newsboys —and more. SHRED the riffs…THUMP the bass…BLAST that solid Christian Rock!

check out the killer tunes and the flash video here

Sure it's no Strawberry fields, but where would you rather be forever? Heaven or some fruit filled field? Living is easy with eyes closed... which is pretty much what religion is, right? Ha. I know, it's like when you were a kid during Christmas and you asked for a specific name brand toy from your parents and then you open your presents on Christmas morning to find that they got you a generic brand toy. Instead of a Sony Walkman, you got a Son-I Walkfriend.

I have to say, they missed out on a real opportunity by not having a gimmick guitar with a cross for a head. Maybe stylized text that says "inri". They could have called it Guitar Martyr.



Besides that, The Beatles are a band that parents weren't happy with their kids listening to back in the old days. When John said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus the christian reaction was not good. The reaction was instantaneous. Radio stations across the country, but especially in the South and Midwest, stopped playing the Beatles records. Death Threads began pouring in directed at all the members and bonfires appeared and went up where people burned albums and other memorabilia as the fuel to the flames.

In South Carolina, for example, the Klan Grand Dragon Bob Scoggins nailed a Beatles record to a large cross and set it on fire. Other Klansmen justified their campaign on the grounds that not only were the Beatles blasphemous, but that they were not really 'white' either. Oh, comedy, I tell you. In Cleveland, the Reverend Thurman H. Babbs threatened to excommunicate any member of his congregation who listened to the Beatles. Way to destroy all those sought after Beatles memorabilla that is worth a ton of cash these days, you christian wack-jobs!



Children, don't settle for anything less. While Christian rock may technically be considered "Rock" it's still not good. Besides, if you invite your friends over and they see you with this instead of Rock Band Beatles, you'll end up having a lot fewer friends. Be the cool kid, Obama told you to dream big and achieve it at any cost possible. Dreaming big in the sense of actually getting a real music video game and not some stupid religious knock off.