Wednesday, July 27, 2005
We are working on a big problem. We want to be able to broadcast live while taking phone calls. We have been, obviously, recording the phone interviews fine for about a year. The problem now is that the speakerphones we have been using don't work while the modem is operating. We can hear them, they cannot hear us.
I thought I had such a brilliant idea: have the caller listen in to the station while we talk. What a brilliant perosn I am. HOWEVER! The station has a 5-second delay that we cannot adjust. I thought we could, but we can't. This would cause a slow and boring broadcast that no-one wants to hear.
The person we call hears some of our conversation, but not enough to make it meaningful. So I'm on the internet looking through page after page of home recording manuals and message boards about recording phone convos. I know about all kinds of 500 dollar equipment and computer phone hookups and mixers, but everyone still has the same problem.
I need to call some tech heads. But I just want to get this done as low-tech and low cost as possible. Basic is best. Of course, we have a shitty sound card. Of course, our extra sound-blaster stuff doesn't work with XP.
Here's an idea to bounce off myself: does a mixer route a mic into the system, so that I could choose line-in, and talk to people through something like Yahoo Voice Messaging? Or, would I buy a small mixer form a pawn shop, connect the mics to it, connect it to the computer, and again use yahoo or paltalk to interview live? Could I broadcast a paltalk chat without paltalk suing me? I'm thinking a private room, of course.
Anyone know anything about this stuff?
So, what did they do? Did they make a comment on the entry? Did they email me, voicing their concerns? No, this pussy tattled on me to Rapid Share. Rapid Share, upon getting one complaint, promptly deleted me. Sure, I'm giving people ideas. But, anyway, obviously the file is available. I will make it available in every form I can, for spite, unless someone can actually contact me and gove me a good reason why I should censor myself.
But anyway, I am quite delighted, so I'd like to thank whoever thought my material was challenging enough to be censored! Go Me!!
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Edited to say: Please stop commenting if you're trying to convince me that you can't know anything, and that nothing can be true. If you don't see your own self-refutation, I can't help you. All I can do is agree with you that you don't know anything, and are unable to speak the truth: i.e. that there is no truth. Fine with me. You don't know shit. Now. Back to reality. Which, contrary to the ignorance-promoters, exists.
As you may or may not know, I have made a series of OTR-style audio plays, many of which are based on Jack Chick tracts. One such parody is Johnny Virtue in: Dark Dungeons.
Johnny Virtue is a CPI: Christian Private Investigator. In the second installment of the adventures of Johnny Virtue, we have ventured away from the world of Jack Chick and into the world of Bibleman! This would be the first of a two-part Bibleman adventure.
For Enter The Bibleman, I am looking for someone who can do the part of Vinnie, Johnny's shady Christian sidekick. Vinnie has seen the best and the worst of The Streets.
An excerpt from the script:
Anyone willing to take on this easy assignment would need only a few things:
VINNIE : "Vinnie."
VIRTUE : "Hey, it's me. I've got a case I need your help on. You're going to like this one."
VINNIE : "How much is the reward ?"
VIRTUE : "A possible 1.2 million."
VINNIE : "Impressive ! Who is the unlucky victim ?"
VIRTUE : "Bibleman."
VINNIE : "Not so impressive. I didn't know you specialized in suicide missions now."
VIRTUE : "Are you afraid of a bunch of costumed freaks ?"
VINNIE : "A bunch of costumed freaks wearing armour and armed to the teeth with stolen Church technology... I'm not too hot about that."
VIRTUE : "You know I wouldn't put myself in a risk I couldn't take."
VINNIE : "True."
VIRTUE : "Meet me at the corner of Lazarus and John Paul the Second."
***MUSIC: Relaxed Jazz
- Free Audacity Software
- A mic (a computer mic will do fine)
- a few minutes of free time
- a relatively quiet room
- a way to send the files to me
Thanks a lot, and let me know either through this blog or go ahead and send me an email at email@example.com .
PS: More parodies may be found on my archives page.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
It amazes me to observe the extent to which otherwise rational people are willing to disable their own moral judgement--and prohibit the judgement of others--to protect a favorite idea. How is it that people who promote reason insist on its end?
This happens every time the subject of Cultural and Moral Relativism is brought up. One part of the argument posits, since there are so many different cultures, customs and opinions, morality itself must be culturally relative. It's "okay" for other cultures, and maybe even other people in other cultures to have what we call "morals," but it's not okay for the two discussing the matter. In Moral Relativism, simultaeously nothing and everything is moral. In the first, the Holocaust and genocide is okay, because most germans supposedly agreed it was. In the second, the holocaust is both moral and immoral and everything in between, because everybody has an opinion about it. It's true and false, both and neither, that the holocaust was good, or didn't happen, or both.
It usually doesn't take more than one exchange before the moral or cultural relativist (often both at the same time) pretends to agree that the holocaust, or human sacrifice, or killing the elderly because some think they have outlived their purpose, is morally good. I am skeptical, however that the person is being honest, as they generally don't think that morality could ever be based on the facts of reality, yet they speak about honour killings, human sacrifice, and the The Holocaust, which are facts of reality. They are not ideals or hypotheticals. In fact, how can we not discuss facts of reality? How can we not make moral choices based on facts of reality? We have no choice but to make moral decisions based on reality. It's called "life."
If morality is culturally relative, then it is based on nothing but the majority opinion of the persons in a given culture. That is, assuming that we can have an objective limit on what that culture is and who belongs to it. That would be pretty rare, especially in the 21st century. All we can have is a subjective opinion on who makes up that culture, and what "they" think is moral! If majority opinion within a culture = morality, then the dissenters = immorality. Germans against genocide in the 30's are immoral. Atheists. Girls leaving Muslim families that want them circumcized. All immoral heretics.
Now, if morality is simply subjective, then no culture has a basis for morality, majority or not, even when it comes to protecting one's values, family or individual rights, against the moral judgement of others. Individuals should not attempt to have a moral sense or make moral choices, since it's "not based on reality--it's just their subjective perspective." If this hypothetical person were to manage any decision at all, it could not be moral. Of course, that's impossible. Every person makes decisions based on his values. There is no question that the values themselves exist. Sure, people make irrational choices, leading to disaster. But in order to survive, decisions must be made.
What do we call it when a person makes a choice based on his values? It's called "morality."
We know that "culture" is made up of individuals, and cultural action is made up of individual action. In cultural relativism then, individual action is invalid. Therefore, there is no moral justification for the culture. In this sense, to deny individual morality you must first allow for it!
People are so willing to rationalize themselves away from making damned sense. When I say "you can think for yourselves, you have moral autonomy, you have individual judgement," I mean it. Don't let this kind of nonsense back you into a corner, where you find yourself actually saying that mass-murderers are okay, force and coercion is okey dokey with you, and "it's all good." It's not "all-good. " How much are you really willing to tolerate?
Thanks for listening, diary.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
While in the chat room you said
"I think that if there were a God that was everywhere, was al-powerful, and knew everything in the universe, it would be absurd and hilarious that She would give a Sh*t about our sex-lives. "
But let me ask you somthing you believe that there is no God but do you believe murder is wrong?
Yes, murder is wrong.
Do you believe lieing is not something you should do often.
It depends. Lies are necessary in certain circumstances. Whether it should be done "often" or not depends upon the reasons we lie.
If you do then you have morals. If you have morals where did they come from?
My "morals" come from reality. Values are subjective. Morality is not, as it comes from the facts of reality. Morals are the set of actions we do when we make choices in our lives based upon our values. We should always act in our own best self-interest, so that we can survive and have good lives.
Do you really think that a person who truly does not believe in god would go out and murder people? That would mean that you do not have real moral values. If you really base your morals upon a belief in a god (which I don't believe you do) then you have nothing. Your morals, if they are biblically based, are subjective and wishy-washy, and have no solid base.
Who is the one that is superior enough to set these standards that most of the world believes?
Nobody should. It's not about an authority setting standards. It's based upon civilization. It's silly for someone to call themselves a god and try to make rules for everyone to follow, for the only reason that he threatens them with eternal punishment for non-eternal rule-breaking. That is quite immoral, don't you think?
If there is someone this superior enough to set them, which if you said yes to either of the two previous questions, then they would be known as a God therefore there is a God. The God.
Nobody can set the kind of standards to keep you alive. The standards exist as the rules of reality. The laws of nature are fine as they are. We don't have to anthropormorphize them into something that looks like us. That would be just silly.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Another message board exchange I'd like to share with you.
This is a subject I'm going to have to face myself within the next few years. My wife and I have a son and he'll be turning five November 27. Most of us here agree god is a myth. Atheism however is not a very popular position to take, especially when it comes to child rearing. Now I don't want my son growing up any differently than anybody else, and that includes religion. Earlier this year, he was attending a church sponsered school two days a week and he loved it. He's an only child, so naturally he loved being around other kids his age. For those of you with kids, exactly how did you handle this? If you don't have kids, feel free to put in your 2 cents worth.
Oh, man. That's like pretending your kids aren't adopted, and then springing it on them when they're 16. Don't. Do. It.
Your kids are not "normal." There's nothing you can do to change that. Pretending they are is worse. Your kids have an atheist father. They are right now on the default position: i.e. they are natural atheists. Many kids are bombarded with images of Jesus from birth. I was born with a crucifix--dead jesus--above the crib.
Treat bible stories like you would any other stories. Parents who are thoughtful read their kids Grimm tales when they think they are ready to hear them. Those stories were meant to be more than just fairy tales. They are meant to teach lessons--and sometimes those lessons might not be lessons we want them to learn. So whatever do we do? We discuss. We don't dictate. We discuss, no matter how young. We tell them what we think about things. There's nothing you can do about your kids thinking you are a kind of god right now, but they're going to know when they are teenagers, that you're not. Guaranteed.
The very best possible thing to do is to be honest, talk, talk and talk. Create an environment where talking to you is a good experience. Praise independence and curiosity. Never ban books. Take them to the library once a week. Take them to a protestant church. Take them to a catholic church. Take them to a jewish service. Go to a unitarian church. Go eat the lime jell-o. Learn about Buddhism. Read mythology of all kinds. Buy a telescope and find some kids' websites about space. Talk about philosophy. Realize that a moral compass does not and never really comes from a church. It comes from you, and it comes from reality.
If they have a good education, a reason to want to be curious, an appetite for knowledge - what's to worry about? Well, everything. Always. But that would make you, well, "normal."
Monday, July 18, 2005
Francois and I were discussing the concept of the "Mind," and how many people are uncomfortable with the idea that it is not seperate from the brain. It made me think of how people speak of the soul, and especially how new agers speak of an "inner self" or a hidden potential.
I finally decided that there is no such thing as an objective Self: what I think of as "me," or the personality of me is a subjective perspective of "Who I Am." There are many other perspectives about me through the eyes of others. But since I have accepted the notion that an "inner me" or a special hidden potential, a soul, or an Alleee Life force doesn't exist, how then could I think there is such a thing as a solid, irreducible Alleee Self?
Sure, there's me. The flesh person, the genes, the dna. But when folks talk about the Self, or the personality, often they are talking about something else; that thing that people hope is "more than the sum of its parts."
We know, for instance, that there is no such thing as perfection. We know that idealism is nonsense as well. Idealism being this idea that the essence of material things lives in some other supernatural world, that essence being "more real" than the material. Well, people who believe in the soul sometimes talk about it this way: According to the bible, heaven is a place that does not accept imperfection or sin. That's why when you die, you leave your flesh and your body behind, and what goes to heaven is a soul that is somehow cleansed of sin by the blood of Jesus. Your soul, therefore, is an idealized you, stripped of everything bad that the world soils you with. Every bad decision, every bad act, every bad thought, all pain, and so on. This inner you that has no flesh.
But then, how could that be you? Isn't you, your personality, your identity, tied into your birth, all of your experiences that colour your perspective, and all of your thoughts?
Well, no, not totally. Some people explain it better by talking about "the place you are in in your life." A person doesn't drag everything that ever happened to them into everything they think and everything they do. Not all memories are fresh and apparent to the world. Not all thoughts are expressed at all times. We are also capable of learning that the facts of the world sometimes contradict our experiences. We are capable of learning from the mistakes of others, and we are capable of logical thought. We are not slaves of our culture. We are capable of dissent. Our selves are not the same selves as they were at 6, or 14, or 40.
Ever hear the Christian cliche, "Be patient: God isn't finished with me yet." When is God finished? Does that mean we have not reached our hidden potential until we reach the moment of death? Does it mean that we are not actualized selves until "God calls us home?" Shouldn't a child be considered a whole person?
This is what bothers me about Christian as well as "spiritual" idealism. It's too tantalizing for the Shy Person, like I used to be. When you're a Shy Person, and especially when you're young , you have this idea that there is, somewhere inside of you, the person you should be. The person you are is a shadow, an embryo, a shell. "What do you want to be when you grow up?" they ask kids. There is a picture of a person inside the minds of kids--the person that they are supposed to become. Who ever becomes that person? Why isn't a child the person they are "supposed" to be? Why isn't their world "the real world?"
Who you are right now is who you really are--right now. There is nothing sure about you except that you will not be the same next year. But that person doesn't exist, so why worry about it? There's nothing wrong with improving your skills, and trying to be what you think of as "better." It's just not a good idea to think that your only hope of being "the person you want to be" is in death. The Self exists only as an idea: not a ghost, not a little man in a theatre, and not a cloud in the world of ideals. It is your perspective on, well, your perspectives. Right now.
Maybe I should be a guru.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
I finally finished it: my parody of the Jack Chick tract, Bewitched! (26 mb).
I think I managed to improve my skills doing this thing, ever so slowly.
It was a hell of a process. I think that if I could get people to record their parts faster, I could get one of these things done in a week, once the script is set. But, what do you know--people have lives.
But I could do these things full-time. I wish I had a good studio and a bunch of locals. Maybe I should start bugging the folks at the McGill radio station. Hm...
Anyway, here's a version at 40 kbps.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
If it is true that no one is smart enough to know how to live his own life and if it is true that no one else knows how to live your life either, then you are in a real fix unless there is a God who does know and is available to give you direction.
Putting it personally, I have concluded that I will never know how to live my own life, and that is exactly why I need God! As I think about it in terms of the most important learning of my life, I put it in this way "No one is smart enough to know how to live his own life and that is exactly why you need God!"
---Strengths-Based Advising: MY MOST IMPORTANT LEARNINGS: Edward C. Anderson
No one is smart enough to be able to live his own life? What are they talking about, babies? That's why we have parental instincts. If God made all the creatures of the world, he decided that some animals don't need the tutoring of parents, most do, and the ones that look the most like us seem to need the most parental instruction. A few thousand years ago, we didn't seem to need as much as we do now. A few thousand years ago, we were considered elderly at 18.
I'm not altogether certain that is what they mean, though. Help me out: how smart do we have to be to "live our own lives?" Isn't that a meaningless question, since they already admitted that no one else can live your life for you? No matter how much of a failure you are, you are still "living your own life," aren't you? If you look around, there are plenty of people who could be considered "failures." They are still living their own lives, but most of them are theists. There are also many people living successful lives as atheists. So it doesn't matter how stupid you are: a life is a life, no matter what, and it belongs only to the one living it.
If this is one of Edward's "Most Important Learnings," he probably needs a lot of help with living.
I need God. I need God to help me be the person that I know is inside me. I need God to give me a reason to clear away the cobwebs and fog, and to touch the bright space of my soul, the goodness that can't be corrupted, can't decay. I need God because I am afraid I am in danger of never seeing that goodness again. I do not want to be one of those icy, bitter people who no longer believe in anything, whether it's God or love or themselves.--Right Thinking Girl
Another example of a giant ego. I talked about this in my post about The Soul. Where does the belief that there is a perfect person, a magical potential inside all of us, just screaming to get out? It's not in the bible. We are all imperfect in the eyes of God, and it's only through God's graciousness that such dirty people are allowed in. And those dirty people are, ostensibly, our souls. Our dirty, soiled souls. Not the gleaming, shining Goodness that RTG fancies herself. The "icy, bitter people" part? Meh. Heard it all before. Seen it, wrote about it, ranted about it. All of us atheists are dark chocolate. I like dark chocolate. Good for the heart. Of course, you know I am incapable of goodness, don't you?
I learned years ago that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Still, one of the experiential proofs I have, at least for myself, is on the basis of need. I need God, because no human being -- even the most loving and well-intentioned – can fulfill ALL my needs, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I need love, understanding, compassion, justice, mercy, and encouragement, all the time.-Rolf Gompertz*
Could this guy be more needy? And who says that one person must be capable of fulfilling all of those needs 24 hours a day? Not even a baby's mother should be asked to do that. That's why we have fathers, grandparents, aunts, sisters, and friends. Why can't you get your needs met yourself, if you're a grownup. Do you really want to have one person constantly there spoon-feeding you everything, so you can never independently nurture yourself? Do you remember being a child, wishing you were more grown-up so your parents would let you do more things like get your own snacks or go around the block by yourself, or at the very least, go to the toilet by yourself? Isn't it wonderful to be healthy enough to be able to be independent, to rely on yourself so you can accomplish the things you desire?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be loved. But how can you expect to find a mate if you don't love yourself--and more importantly--if you are going to be totally dependent upon him? Sure, Rolf agrees that "one" human cannot do that. Maybe man is not an island. That's why we have civilization.
Human beings are limited, by time and space, in what we can do for each other. Even the best of relationships end in death. Human beings can also be terribly cruel and brutal, as individuals and as groups. >Where can I turn, then, under all circumstances, including the worst, for comfort and reassurance, for strength and love? Where can I turn, in extremity, without despairing, even as I despair temporarily? Only God.
Human beings, I thought, were also limited in their needs, especially because of death. This guy's needs seem to continue in eternity. We should be thankful that human needs do end upon death. Yes, we suffer. Yes, sometimes there's nothing to be done for some suffering. Sometimes nobody gives a shit about an individual's terrible suffering, and sometimes human beings cause suffering. It can be a fucked-up world. But life goes on. and on. Without a god. We are in charge of all of it, all by our lonesome. The fact that we deal with suffering does not prove a biblical god: rather, it's one of the biggest problems for the existence of the biblical god. It's called the problem of evil. An omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent god is not only ignoring the suffering, but is the cause of it. And what does Rolf expect of this god? A listening ear? Well, if that's all god is, there is no reason to think that humanity cannot take care of that miniscule task. And if nobody is there to listen, what do we do? Or, I should say, what do I do? I can't possibly claim to have suffered nearly as bad as a lot of people, but I've had my share of troubles. Where do I turn when I despair? To other people, and to my own inner resources.
I have faced possible death. That was one moment when I can say I despaired, and had "nowhere" to turn. Temporarily. I "turned" to everything I had : my physical strength, and my intelligence. Once I was safe, I turned to the police, I turned to my best friends, I turned to my family. I got through it. Not once did I think of turning to god--and I didn't know I was an atheist yet. I know I am lucky and I am grateful that I had what I had. Many, many people have not been so lucky. But if I were to claim that god was there for me, I would be saying to all those other people in the same circumstance; "screw you. God was listeing to me, but I guess He didn't have time for you." Human cruelty is not evidence for a god, especially since many of these people have no time to "despair" or "turn to God" at all.
And life goes on. Without a god. If there were, maybe this god would better serve us, since Rolf seems to think god is man's servant, by preventing the desperation, not just listening to it.
*Rolf Gompertz is an author of such books as A Jewish Novel About Jesuss and Sparks of Spirit: A Handbook for Personal Happiness
Sunday, July 10, 2005
(via WFMU's Beware of the Blog)
From Free Conservatives dot com:
I doubt if too many people have actually seen air -- evidence of air? Yes. ACTUAL air? No. If YOU have seen air, maybe I should believe YOU to be INsane and UNintelligent because I and so many others have NOT seen air.
Yes, Fundies Say the Darndest Things is back, sort of "wikkified." This is great news. You can find a lot of great quotes from fellows like our good friend Jason Gastrich, who, unfortunately, will not be on our show anytime soon:
My statement was supposed to read, “90% of the world believes in God.” If this were the only proof of God’s existence, it would be pretty weak. However, it isn’t and it is a very interesting fact in support of God’s existence.
It's good for my psyche, I think, to stop getting angry and trying to refute "arguments" from people like this, and turn it into a refreshing moment of hilarity. Really. Why be angry at this:
As a God fearing Christian I can and will tell you what is right and wrong and when you are in the wrong. If you persist in trying to further your progressive agenda then you will force me and others like me to take up the sword and destroy you.
The automated site (that's pretty much the same as the old one) can be found here.
"Theorizing that any human skulls are directly related to non-human African apes by evolutionary descent is a form of scientific racism. "john crawford
Ahhhh. Life is good.
Oh Reason, I have to show you this:
Too good. too, too good.
"Seriously, this happened .... My son has a t-shirt I bought for him last year. He wore it the other day and I noticed around the surfing logo is a very well cleverly hidden skull face. He has had this shirt for a year and when I looked at it before buying it I didn't see it either until two days ago. My husband has a "hawaiian shirt" that also has the skull on it cleverly hidden in its pattern. He wore it several times before I saw the skull in the pattern. He had the shirt a couple years and never noticed it.KittyCat, Rapture Ready
Can't be too careful these days as they imbed stuff into what you buy and you never know it."
Thursday, July 07, 2005
His works were gritty and realistic, and those chapels and churches that didn't condemn Caravaggio as a heretic saw them as good for the poor. You see, the dirty poor people were used to seeing prostitutes and disease: why not give it to them ? The works are undeniably brilliant. It's interesting to see the many portraits of Mary, Queen of Heaven, modeled by known prostitutes, or paintings of dirty street urchins, posed by his boy-lovers. It's like painting the Nativity of Christ with Paris Hilton, Tommy Lee and Mini Me.
Check out the biography of this violent, sexually depraved man. Perfect for the Church.
Christians: where the fuck have you been? This is true christian art. You lost your soul in the mid-1800's Victorian era, when christian art met sentimentalism. Ever since, it's been nothing but C.R.A.P. Where are the Caravaggios? Where are the Handels? All we have is Sandy Patty and pictures of Jesus wrapped in the American flag, playing hockey. Hummel killed you all. From Caravaggio to Precious Moments. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
I have a question for believers. I don't mean churchgoers, or everyday people who give lip service to being sort of fans of the symbol of Jesus. This is for believers.
How do you masturbate?
Now, if you answer "I don't masturbate," your answer doesn't count. That's because you would be lying, and since you really believe in God, then you would be lying about masturbating in front of Jesus, who watches you pulling on your monkey, with tears in His Holy Eyes.
So how do you masturbate? How can you have sex with someone else? HOw can you concentrate enough to have an orgasm. Christian ladies, I'm talking to you. You know that for us gals, we have to shut our minds off a great deal in order to have an orgasm. But how can you do that, when Jesus is watching? Jesus is everywhere, and He is crouching down at the edge of your bed, peering directly into your crotch while you buzz away with your Walmart "foot massager," $19.99. When you say, "Oh God, oh Jesus, Oh God," he is saying, "Yes, Mary Katherine? Yes, Jennifer? Yes, LeVanya? I am here! I am listening! I am avoiding that tidal wave of Womanneed coming from between those tatooed thighs!"
What is your answer to Jesus? An emotionless mop-up with a dirty towel, or a prayer of thanksgiving? I want to know. Write me a comment, or send me your anonymous reply to firstname.lastname@example.org . Because I'm a dirty atheist voyeur.
There's always an argument going on about this. You just can't make a good argument against Christianity anymore, that mentions past atrocities. You can't, for instance, bring up the books of Exodus, Deutoronomy, Joshua, or Job. You can't talk about how God killed every living thing because they were having sex wrong, gambling, and wearing jewelry. You can't point out how Jesus says that burning forever in hell is just deserts for those that don't believe in him. You can't ever mention the crusades, the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch trials. This just doesn't have any relevence you see, because
The soviets were Godless Atheists!
Apparently, Chairman Mao and Josef Stalin opened the Big Holy Book of Atheism and found the verse where it says to kill Christians and arrest people for praying. This is a big secret that I promised never to tell: Until Now.
You see, all us Atheists have this little doctrine in The Big Holy Book of Atheism that tells us that, since there is no afterlife and no objective source of judgement (besides the Big Holy Book of Atheism), we can do whatever we want. And, being atheists, what we want most of all is to push people around so we can feel superior and smarter than everyone else. Stalin and Mao both knew this Big Book by heart. They also knew that if they killed Christians, that would impress everyone so much that they would want to be a part of Communism, which has nothing to do with a Totalitarian State that owns everything, but everything to do with Atheism, which is another word for Total Social Darwinism.
All soviet and Chinese soldiers that forced citizens to work on farms and camps had one thing on their minds: Atheism. The fact that there is no god twisted their minds so much that everything they did was for Atheism. You see, they really did believe in God, but their leaders brainwashed them to Hate God. It made them so mad in their hearts that someone else would be happy and blissful in their love for God, that they were driven to commit such acts.
So, now you know. And now you know that there are only two kinds of people: those who murder in the name of hate, and those who want terribly to murder others, but don't because God will torture them in hell.....
...and then a third subgroup who murder others, but then repent and go to heaven anyway.
But we don't like to talk about that.
Thanks for listening, diary.
Monday, July 04, 2005
OK, it's not that hot, but I'm practically a snowman, and I like it cool, and it's like a tropical greenhouse fill of bromilliads and things.
How do you do it? Do you get a glass of some drink with paper thingies in it, wear a big hat and pretend you're on vacation? It just doesn't look paradisey in here. It just looks like an apartment in the poor part of Anjou, Quebec.
An air-conditioner might be forthcoming, if I can get Francois up. I fear he might be hoping that he wakes up too late to go out. HA! HA! I say. It might be the 4th of fucking July, but it's Canada, so HA! This is how I plan on celebrating my Independence From America, by ordering a Whirlpool from Sears.
As you can see, the heat has left my brain stewed and mildewed. It is on siesta until I can get it cooled the fuck down.
It also refuses to do any work until the Hellbound alleee station is back to normal. The servers are going off like fireworks all over the world, and mine was one of those little sparkly stars with the little tail that makes a squealy noise. So my schedule is slogging, and I have to manually keep it going. I have no sense of time, so your favorite program might be a little late.
Thank you for your patience. I don't take customer complaints.
The station is now back to normal, thank Almighty Tech Support.