Made from 100% real ideas.

Category: Humor

The Occupation Issue and the Middle East

Let us get serious for a moment and discuss the Occupation that is destabilizing the Middle East. Since 1925, the House of Saud has been occupying the Hijaz, which is the region that includes the Islamic holy sites in Mecca and Medina.

The Saudis follow and propagate a deviate form of Islam (a reactionary form of Salafiyyah, and more specifically Wahhabism), which might be more generously labeled as heterodoxy. Consequently, Abul-Aziz ibn Saud’s violent conquest of the Hashemite ruler of the Hijaz has been controversial amongst Muslims. Thus, the conqueror (a religious crusader) and his sons, who subsequently ruled the kingdom, have attempted to legitimize their violent invasion and continued occupation of the Hijaz. Using the wealth created by western oil development, the Saudis have attempted to propagate their religious heterodoxy against modern Muslims, who seek improvement in the individual lives of themselves and their children in actual reality through western technology and values.

The militant lust for killing other Muslims of Abul-Aziz included unsuccessful invasions of Jordan and Yemen; however, there may be others that escape my memory. The new generation of leaders of small states in the Arabian Gulf allied themselves with the United States in the war against Saddam’s Iraq seeking a great power protection against the Saudi’s lust for their domains and the designs of Persian mullahs willing to kill Muslim Arabs in order to gain greater geopolitical power through state control of oil reserves.

As a distraction from this Muslim upon Muslim murder and violence, the House of Saud has deceived Muslims with a faux conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. While Israel seeks peace and statehood for the Palestinians, the Saudis and other ignorant Muslim depots, whom the Saudis have duped, fund a Palestinian leadership that undermines peace and Palestinian statehood in their every effort. Given the forbearance demonstrated by the Israelis, the casualties in that persistent televised conflict are exceeded by the Muslim upon Muslim violence in Algeria. Absent the financing of Palestinian extremists by the Saudis and their dupes (such as the Bush and Obama Administrations), a modern life embracing individual rights and the pursuit of happiness would be available to the Palestinians in trade with Israel and the West.

So while the despotic Muslim rulers and demagogues of the Middle East suggest that terrorism and other Muslim violence can only be solved by negotiations between their violent (Muslim killing) Palestinian stooges and the Israelis, let me suggest another occupation that the United States could focus upon in its diplomacy…the Saudi occupation of the Hijaz.

Report This Post

Taxing Congress

While listening to Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent talk at the Council on Foreign Relations, I heard him mention cutting congressional pay by 10% as part of a revised deficit reduction package.

As an alternative, I have a modest proposal to evade the 27th Amendment and achieve an immediate financial penalty upon Congress. In the spirit of Jonathan Swift, I suggest that Congress pass a special tax that would apply only to their salary. The rate of such a tax would be calculated based upon the size of the federal deficit; for example, if the federal deficit were 43% of revenue, then our Representatives would pay an additional 43% tax, which we could call an Incompetence Tax.

This tax would embrace erroneous principles currently in fashion with our legislators. First, it would be a use of the tax code to do what is prohibited to Congress by the Constitution. Second, like ancient Athenian democracy, the majority can target a tax upon a specific unpopular individual or group for expropriation of their wealth; is anyone less popular than Congress? Third, it uses the taxing authority not to raise revenue but as a punitive instrument.

Report This Post

Newt Gingrich’s Contract with God

Shortly after the election, I remember some comments about hope for a new Contract with America type effort as a backlash against an overreaching Democratic Congress.

However, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has made clear what an updated Contract with America would look like; as published in his 2005 book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.

One of his core proposals is re-establishing “the centrality of our creator in defining America.” This is to be accomplished by compelling the judiciary to reinterpret the Establishment Clause to allow for the integration of God into public venues, especially the schools. His book includes a chapter on this point arguing based upon an original intent analysis.

Gingrich has been forming a grassroots political organization ’American Solutions’ for the implementation of new contract agenda. “The Drill Here Drill Now” mantra from the last election was one of their productions. On the group’s website, central within the issue forums for policy brainstorming is an area entitled “Religion & Public Life.”

One of Gingrich’s recent public campaigns has been for the integration of religion into the new Capitol Visitor’s Center. Posted days after the Republican electoral defeat, a recent video featuring Gingrich and his wife promotes the issue, a petition drive, and a companion movie “Rediscovering God in America.”


Reviewing this post, without other context, I see that it is written so factually that it may not be evident that I damn Gingrich and his supporters for this corruption.

Report This Post

Why is it OK to make fun of Christians but not Muslims?

Many Christians have been complaining about the multiculturalist crowd being offended at people making fun of Muslims but not when people make fun of Christians.

Most importantly, every adult that talks to their imaginary friends are either a prime candidate to be the object of humor, or institutionalized if they are a direct physical danger to themselves or others. This includes Muslims, Christians, and all other devoted followers of the Invisible Sky Daddy. Fortunately, it generally isn’t necessary to make the effort to make up jokes about them as they do that themselves when they open their mouths.

One good self-interested reason not to make fun of Muslims is that members in good standing of that faith have been seriously deadly in the name of that faith not only recently but for more than a thousand years. Truly, the vast majority of Muslims are not personally violent, even if in many cases they do morally, spiritually, and financially support violence by other Muslims against innocent individuals.

Instead of protesting in the face of religiously inspired murders that Islam is non-violent, how about peaceful Muslims do something useful? At next Friday prayers, maybe all the moderate peaceful Muslims who actually exist could take the violent jihadists aside (and you actively know who they are because you don’t want your kids playing with them) and convince them to wear funny hats so that they could be easily distinguished from the peaceful ones. In return, it will be easy to tell which moderate peaceful Muslims to make jokes about and which jihadist Muslims to pacify.

In addition, especially outside of this country, Muslims live in cultures where Aristotle is now completely absent. To find something similar in this country you would have to go to a Protestant church or a university faculty lounge. No wonder they act illogically, they don’t even know that logic was invented. Humor would go right over their heads; non-contradiction, what is that?

In contrast to the majority of Muslims in backward cultures around the world, Christians in this country have the opportunity for a great life, thanks to Aristotle and his descendents. Despite this objective fact, these Christians insist on believing that life in reality sucks and that life’s goal is an imaginary place after death because of a book written by shepherds in a desert says so. That is a pretty good reason to make fun of Christians!

Report This Post

April Fools Day Cancelled

With wide-eyed anticipation, I got up this morning and ran to the computer expecting to browse wondrous gifts of spring humor; but, NOTHING!!!! What evil conspiracy is afoot? I suspect the Invisible Sky Daddy, or at least his multitude of minions.

Remember three years ago, when John Cox was imprisoned because his creative license had expired. How about the empty dialogue bubbles incident in 2005? Oh, how I miss the censored card game between Mo’, Jess, Mo’, and a cigar smoking pig; good times {wiping nostalgic tear from my eye}.

Right now, I could really use a good vehicle April Fools joke from Nick Provenzo: the van down by the riverand the monster truck for Capitalism.

Images: Center for the Advancement ofCapitalism

This year’sC&F April 1 offeringgave me the clue I needed for my missing chortles. My conclusion, the theists have ruined the innocent humor of April Fools Day by making a deadly laughing stock of themselves every day of the year.

This is why today, on this high holy day of humor, I declare an Atheist Jihad on the Muslims, Christians, and Environmentalists.

As YouTube’s Captain Awesomehas explained, in an Atheist Jihad, Atheists don’t try to kill or physically maim the true believers, instead we make fun of them, their ridiculous beliefs, and of course their Invisible Sky Daddy.

To begin this Atheist Jihad, I have a suggestion for the FBI. Overtime, I have been very critical of them for not having more than one terroriston their Ten Most Wanted Fugitive List, despite having many opportunities to fill vacant slots. While we all really hate bank robbing murdering pedophiles, the FBI has declared fighting terrorists as their primary mission and not a side feature, and their actions should probably not contradict their stated mission, if they want to be taken seriously.

Now that the FBI has captured the infamous gangster Shauntay Henderson, let me suggest another fugitive from justice to add to their Top Ten dragnet. So that it is not too much of a departure from their usual focus, my suggestion is not just a terrorist, but also a pedophile. If the FBI is too busy to track down this fugitive and his “gang,” perhaps they should refer the case to Fred Thompson over at “Law & Order: SVU.”

My nominee to be inducted into the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List is: Mohammed, curses be upon him and his thoughtless followers. To aid in the FBI investigation, below is a video taped confession by Mohammed and a proposed Wanted poster.

Mohammed’s Confession

Wanted Poster

Video and Poster via Captain Awesome

Report This Post

Dim vs. Wit: How can I know if there is there a Good and Evil?

Adapted from forum discussion with names changed and spelling corrected to protect the contradicted.

DIM: What is it with selfish and selfless? Keep out of my way and do anything you wish. What is this need to define good and bad even in actions anyone is allowed to do?

WIT:Â The answer toÂyour questions is ethics, “a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions–the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” [A. Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13; via Lexicon]

“Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival…

“I quote from Galt’s speech: ‘Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice–and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man–by choice; he has to hold his life as a value–by choice; he has to learn to sustain it–by choice; he has to hold his life as a value–by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues–by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.’

“The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics–the standard by which one judges what is good or evil–is man’s life: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

“Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” [Ibid., p. 23]

DIM: If rationality implies reasonability, every sequence of reason starts from a set of assumptions(beliefs) which are not to be subject to reason but to choice. With choices, the only adjective you can use is “differ” and not good or evil since you cannot reason them (since its a choices of beliefs). You can choose to differ from somebody but cannot call him good or evil (going by the mean in of the words).

WIT:Â No. Drop the whole primacy of consciousness thinking.

Reality, not assumptions, is the starting point.

It is not Rationalism; it is Objectivism. Big difference.

Your comments demonstrates how a proper ethics must be founded upon valid metaphysics and epistemology.

DIM: How do I know what the exact reality is when we cant even find the dynamics of a multi-electron atom, even any decent approximation of it. As it gets complex, things get a lot worse. We don’t know anything about electrons in molecules (anything definite I mean). The world should be I suppose a lot too complex. I have to make assumptions. Those three axioms of Ayn Rand’s [existence, identity, and consciousness] take me no closer to finding the nature of reality

WIT:Â You are tied up in contradictions. Free yourself.

You are agnostic about your ability to know reality, but at the same time expect your ideas to be taken seriously.

You doubt consciousness, but cite evidence that requires consciousness. By definition, consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Without it, what possible value can your statements have? Further, your bromides rely upon the fallacious primacy of consciousness as express by Kant and his noumenal realm.

If you are serious about the physics question you ask, I recommend the work of David Harriman who does an excellent job explaining Kant’s corruption of science. I look forward to his upcoming book _The Anti-Copernican Revolution_.

DIM:Â You did not answer me.

WIT:Â How do you know that I did not answer you?

Of course, I did answer you but let me be more explicit.

Your question was dishonest. In my response, I exposed contradictions demonstrating why it was invalid.

Looking again, there is one more point I should comment on and that is your use of the word ‘exact,’ which betrays another fallacy of your argument which ignores the relevancy of precision.

When you fill up your gas tank in your car for a planned trip of 100 miles, how many molecules are in your gas tank? If you don’t know, how could you possibly be sure that you can get to your destination and return? How can you even start the car?

Obviously, we inductively know these questions that I just asked are absurd as the requested level of precision is not relevant to the tasks.

Now, you say that man can not know reality because he can never know the location of an electron in a multielectron atom. I take that to mean that man has never know this, yet billions of people live and have lived. You are demanding a level of precision that is not relevant to human life, while man’s knowledge of reality is relevant to human life.

Could such knowledge about electron location be relevant some day after it has been acquired? Perhaps for certain limited applications, but that would make it the equivalent of a ‘life boat’ scenario for epistemology.

Report This Post

Dim vs. Wit: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist

Dim: One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist!

Wit: Really? was George Washington a freedom fighter or a terrorist?

Dim: I says that he is a freedom fighter. But, to a Brit ?

Wit: Stop for a second as I am trying to explore your original point. Is Osama bin Ladin a freedom fighter or a terrorist?

Dim: I says that he is a terrorist. But, to a Muslim ?

Wit: Wait again as I continue to explore your original point. You know that George Washington was a freedom fighter and Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist. Both of these judgments can be proved with reference to objective facts. However, you lack the independent judgment to assert this factual knowledge because someone else may erroneously disagree. If you can’t trust your own judgment on these facts, then what stock should I put in your first assertion?

Dim: But everybody knows that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.

Wit: However, another man’s opinion that a freedom fighter is a terrorist and that a terrorist is a freedom fighter does not change the facts, which are immune to subjective opinion.

Report This Post

© 2021 Words by Woods

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog