Yeah, you read it right. I said it, “Obama is white.”
I’m sick of hearing all this race nonsense getting thrown around. Genetically he’s just as white as he is black. His mother was white and his father was black. So if you can call him a black candidate, I can call him a white one. Race should not be an issue in this election. Despite what some of the black community leaders try to spread, most of the American people are not racist. 50 years ago it may have been an issue for the elections but it’s 2008, I don’t even want to hear it. I’m not saying that racism is completely abolished in this country, like slavery, but what I am saying is that we have to put things into perspective.
There are several reasons why I consider him “white”, and will continue to label him as such.
First, of all, because genetics couldn’t help us in figuring out what race to consider him, since he’s exactly as white as he is black, than maybe this will.
Which looks more like Barack Obama the guy on his left or the guy on his right?
Ya, that’s what I thought.
Second, this eliminates the race card in the election. No one can be racist, because all the candidates are white.
Thirdly, this helps him. I’m not saying I want him to win, but then again, I’m not saying I want him to lose. If he runs as the “white” candidate we all know him to be, he’ll probably win. If anyone else has noticed the last 43 presidents have been white. That’s 100%. That gives him a lot better odds.
Lastly, by bringing the ambiguity of his race to the forefront, I can bring up his biggest downfall. If Obama is half “white” and half “black”, shouldn’t he be at least half “outraged” at Reverend Wright’s racist rhetoric?
Fuel prices may be one of the hottest issues of today. I think it basically stems from the fact that Americans don’t really care what goes on as long as the price of gas is low. Ethics and integrity is willingly thrown out the window so long as the price of gas stays affordable.
The truth of it all is that we will never “run out of oil”. How do I know? Supply and demand. If we were in danger of running out of oil it would become extremely expensive. As supply decreases prices increase. So how much are we willing to spend for our personal transportation? That’s what it all comes down to, because the closer we get to running out, the higher the price will get. It’s not going to skyrocket to $20 a gallon in a year though, as the supply gradually decreases, prices will gradually increase. Eventually, we won’t be able to afford it.
So what happens when oil prices creep up beyond our willingness/ability to pay? We find other ideas. Car companies won’t sell cars if people don’t buy gas. So they will be forced to make cars that are affordable or go out of business. You can bet that everyone who uses oil now will quickly find some other form of energy that their technology will run on.
Although we will never run out of oil, we will need alternative fuel sources for when the prices become too much for the average person. What’s the best idea to solve our problems?
Hydrogen? Corn? Nope. Algae.
Algae will be the future of fuel. Algae as a fuel source is incredible. Some types of algae are made up of 50% oil, which can be made into bio-fuel.
Advantages of Algae Fuel
After the initial building of algae farms it would cost 1/3 of what we spend every year buying oil from other nations.
The money we spend on algae fuel, is not leaving our country, but actually helping to stimulate our own economy.
Algae farms could be used to clean up waste streams from humans or animal farms.
Corn can produce 100 gallons per acre per year whereas algae can produce 4,000 gallons per acre per year.
Using 80% of the acreage we now use for bio-fuels, we could fuel the entire United States using algae farms.
The acreage used for algae farms is likely to be desert land, which is unused land anyway.
A corn crop takes a year to grow, an algae crop can be grown in a couple of days.
Conclusion
As long as we can a.) get oil companies to invest in this or b.) keep oil companies from ruining this, I think that this has great potential for solving some if not all of our nations fuel problems as well as some of our economic problems.
Our culture has some odd obsession with those uni-legged, patch-eyed sailors with annoying birds fastened to their clavicles.
Let me tell you something. They were not nice people. They were the terrorists of their time. Terrorists. You know Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden? Those are the pirates of today. The only difference is these terrorists terrorized on land, and pirates terrorized the seas.
What are we teaching our children by letting them have pirate birthdays and wear pirate costumes and pajamas and watch “Pirates of the Caribbean” and play pirate themed mini-golf?
Now you may think I’m being picky. “Lighten up!” you might say.
“It’s just all in good fun. The kids don’t know that pirates stole, raped and pillaged. Heck, they don’t even know what two of those words mean!”
Agreed. It’s all in good fun, until you have to walk the plank.
I think we need to be careful about how we portray our past. No one would think it appropriate to come to a costume party dressed up as Charles Manson, or Hitler, would they? So why is appropriate to have children’s birthday party’s with a cruel and ruthless seafaring theme. That’s ridiculous.
You know what else is ridiculous?
This.
Blackbeard would rollover in his watery grave if he saw this becoming the future of pirating.
He would be outraged to see all his work of immoral and destructive training had lead to such disgraceful children’s song and dance.
One of the major problems with pirates is the way they talk.
If those dang pirates didn’t have such a catchy dialect, it would be much easier to convince people that pirates were actually horrible people.
There’s a website that dedicates their existence to spreading the word of pirate words to the masses.
“Talk Like A Pirate Day” is what they promote. I won’t have any part of it though. I’m promoting against it.
I just want to remind everyone that Talk Like a Pirate Day is Sept 19th.
Spurred by the group Anonymous, I have done some research on Scientology.
Scientology is recognized by most as that religion that turned Tom Cruise into a weirdo. Although, Tom Cruise may have ended up that way anyway, Scientology was a catalyst to his quick regression.
1. Scientology is a religion/cult “founded” by L. Ron Hubbard (invented is a better word), a science fiction writer in the 1950s who used his creative powers to come up with an organization that sucks the life and money out of it’s members.
2. Hubbard was a pathological liar and crook that said “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.” quoted in the Los Angeles Times (27 August 1978) and claimed he was a nuclear physicist, the youngest Eagle Scout in Boy Scout history, and a war hero; all of which are completely untrue.
3. Scientologists recruit people/children to their religion/cult by meeting people on the street and having them take personality tests (that they say are designed by Oxford University, but aren’t) that are rigged to get poor results, in which they offer courses to “fix” you… and make you broke, since the beginning courses are cheap to get you hooked, the prices jump sky high very quickly so the next thing you know, you’re selling your house and stealing from your parents for Scientology.
4. Brainwashing techniques known as “auditing” is the counseling Scientologists use to get personal information to use as blackmail in the future as well as perform a type of hypnotism that creates euphoria-like visions and convinces them that the beliefs are real, which in turn makes people give them money. “We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).” L. Ron Hubbard, HCO Technical Bulletin of 22 July 1956
5. Scientology consists of courses and “auditing” that create a hierarchy of levels that are in order of specific knowledge and “skills”.. oh, yeah, and money; which costs an average of almost $400,000 for the whole “bridge” (all of the levels).
6. Scientology has its own lingo which consists of words like “Thetans”(evil spirits that our bodies host by the thousands), “SP”(Suppressive Person… like you and me, who don’t believe in Scientology) and “Teegeeak” (Name of Earth 75 million years ago).
7. SP’s are people that are enemies of Scientology, could be you, could be me, but let’s hope we don’t get labeled as one. “SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” L. Ron Hubbard, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV
What You DON’T Need To Know About Scientology In 7 sentences (only one run-on):
1. Mr. Hubbard’s old mother wasn’t in a nursery rhyme.
2. Despite the sound of pronunciation, it’s L. Ron Hubbard not Elrond Hubbard and no… he’s not in Lord of The Rings.
3. “…sound of pronunciation” might be redundant.
4. I think that people should warn me about scientologists that live nearby with fliers, like the sex offenders.
5. I’m going to make (and sell) a t-shirt that just says “SP?” in big letters on the front that would have a double effect because all of the scientologists will be checking for characteristics of my destructive behavior while everyone else will be checking for misspelled words.
6. If you want one, email me.
7. My email address is zach@alogicalillation.com
This is Anonymous… With their V for Vendetta masks on. I’d like to do that sometime.
That’s the problem I have with global warming. It’s not that I think that believing in global warming is dumb. It’s not that I think that not believing in global warming is dumb. I think that being absolutely certain of either is dumb. The fact of the matter is that we have no facts on the matter. There is not enough data to prove either of them. We’ve been taking data on global warming for 50 years! What’s 50 years in the history of the earth? The definition of climate is the average and variations of weather in a region over long periods of time. Keywords: “long period of time”.
I feel like yelling at people when I hear them say things like “2006 was the hottest year on record! So that proves global warming.” (1st statistic given on www.environmentaldefense.org) or “This is the most snow we’ve had since 1954! So that disproves global warming.” That is called anecdotal evidence. Not real evidence. It doesn’t PROVE or DISPROVE anything. If I said that I pulled up to a red light and had to wait 5 seconds for it to turn green yesterday. Today, I pulled up to the same light and had to wait 10 seconds for the light to turn green. Would I assume that they have doubled the length of the red-light since I drove there just the day before? No. Why? Because that would be stupid. There’s just not enough evidence there to make a decision. It’s the same thing for global warming. Every year the weather changes, one year in the history of the earth is nothing. 100 years in the history of the earth is…nothing. Since the beginning, the earth’s climate has been changing. Sometimes it gets warmer; sometimes it gets colder. No big deal, the earth is a resilient place.
If global warming is actually happening, I bet it’s not from Hummers and smoke stacks; it’s probably from some weird source, like the earth turning itself inside-out or something. It’s probably something we would have never guessed.
You can’t deny real facts.
When Al Gore created the internet, he had no idea it would be the cause of global warming. I’m serious. Look at the graph. Global warming has gotten worse as the internet has grown. Coincidence? I think not.
Al Gore caused global warming by creating the internet, and now he’s trying cover it up with his “Inconvenient Truth”. I’m on to his schemes.
Ok, ok. In all seriousness though, no one knows the truth about global warming. Is it naturally warming ? Or warming because of us? Or not warming at all? We don’t have enough data to prove anything so let’s not pretend like we know whats going on, because that’s just irresponsible, arrogant… and annoying.
This may just be my cynicism talking but, let’s face it, democracy is not all its cracked up to be. It sounds like a great idea with the “we the people…….” bit but the fact of the matter is, there are good reasons why it’s turned into a disappointment. Here are 5:
1. Everyone can vote.
I realize this is what democracy is all about, and I just don’t think it’s a good idea. Why would we want everyone to vote? It just doesn’t make sense. When I look around I see a lot of people who have a hard enough time deciding what to wear in the morning… and many who don’t do a good job. If they don’t have the faculty to pick out their clothes in the morning, what makes us think they will be able to pick out reasonable government officials?
Do we really want everyone to vote?
Click American Idol’s Alexis Cohen to see a video of her in action!
These kids will be voters in about 8 years.
2. We got rid of literacy tests.
In 1965 the National Voting Rights Act got rid of literacy tests, mostly because the motivation for them had been discriminatory against African Americans. Although I don’t agree with discrimination; I also don’t agree with letting people who are illiterate vote.
“…democracy as a form of governance can function only if the voters are informed about the political life. The rational explanation for the literacy demands, in our time, is that illiterate people are not sufficiently informed about the political candidates and their political programs; for that reason, they are not able to make a truly appropriate decision.” Leonard at Meti Online
3. No one does the research.
Either no one has the time, or no one takes the time, to do the research needed to make a responsible decision when it comes to voting. I think that I probably do more research on politics than 90% of the voting public and I still feel like what I know right now is not enough to make good decisions for the nation. It’s just plain irresponsible to vote without doing the research.
4. We push voter turnout.
Why in the world do we encourage people to vote? The people who don’t want to vote probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place. I think we should encourage people to do research. Then the people who weren’t going to vote, and probably shouldn’t vote anyway, still won’t vote and the people who do the research are probably going to put that hard work into action, and are going to vote without the push from some advertising campaign on TV.
5. Elections are popularity contests… but not real ones.
What do people look for in a candidate? Well, we would hope that people would look for experience and qualifications, but that’s wishful thinking. The majority of Americans vote from an emotional viewpoint. Barack Obama is a perfect example of this.
How many people have you ever seen faint about how qualified and experienced someone was? No one. People faint because their emotions get the best of them. Tele-evangelists have been doing it for years. Its all a popularity contest, who has the most charisma, the best smile, the most handsome face, that’s who wins. It’s like middle-school student government elections. Except for it’s not a “real” popularity contest, because if it were, we all know Chuck Norris would be our president.
Note: I’m not ungrateful for the people who gave their lives for the country: I think they fought to keep us and our freedoms safe, not for democracy specifically.(Also, I realize that the United States is not a true democracy; it’s a constitutional republic. I know, I know.)
The thought entered my mind when I was driving and noticed a Darwin-fishwithlegs on the back of a Prius (stereotypical…yes, I know). I’ve seen them a thousand times, but this time it struck me differently. I thought, “Wait. What’s really going on here?”
It’s obviously a play off of the Christian fish we so often see on the roads. At first it’s kind of funny; in a creative way. But what is it really saying?
This idea is first suggesting that this person is not a Christian and proud of it. Proud to have Darwin as his/her…..moral teacher?? …See my point? As if Darwin and Jesus are competing for recognition in the same arena. To me, this is outlandish and ignorant.
1. Jesus wasn’t a biologist.
2. Darwin wasn’t a moral teacher or a Savior.
3. Christianity is not a theory
4. Darwinism is not a religion.
My second thought about it was, “what is the purpose of this?” Obviously this person doesn’t follow Darwin as a moral teacher or Savior. This person is actually just saying that he/she is more advanced, and more evolved than the Christian; that a Christian is a lower life-form than a Darwinist. Yikes. That’s a slippery slope.
This was the most interesting part of it all. Why might you ask? It’s because right underneath this Darwin-fishwithlegs was this bumpersticker:
A Coexist bumper sticker. An idea in which tries to promote natural human equality and living in unprejudiced harmony with each other. Ah ha ..what a hypocrite. The very fact that you think that people who have a certain belief (Christians) are of a lower life-form proves to me you actually believe quite the opposite. Caught red-handed by yours truly.
Next time you decide to spend $300 on random, liberal bumper stickers to cover the backend of your Prius, think about what you are really saying , otherwise you could end up being the subject of my next article.
Yeah, you read it right. I said it, “Obama is white.”
The thought entered my mind when I was driving and noticed a Darwin-fishwithlegs on the back of a Prius (stereotypical…yes, I know). I’ve seen them a thousand times, but this time it struck me differently. I thought, “Wait. What’s really going on here?”
