Oh... My.... R2-D2...
You just have to read this article. I pissed myself in the process.
http://www.ooze.com/toolofsatan/
The picture really did it for me.
Firstly, I go to a Catholic school, and, not of my own will, but that of my mother's. Strange, I am still not completely against it, though I am not a believer of God as a superior deity.
It was during education week that this issue was brought up. The theme was to "Show your Christianity to stop the bill from passing." "The bill" refers to Ontario's effort to remove religious education within the province, which, as many would agree, would be a good thing. However, I do not wish for religious education to just be eliminated, but also replaced.
You see, a few years ago, I had some bad experiences in a public school down in the Southern region of the province. During my stay, I realized a few things about the differences between religious and public schools; some positive, some negative. To my surprise, the positives and the negatives added up to a neutral point. Here's what I realized:
Positives of going to a public school versus a religious school:
You waste less time learning crap you'll never use, unless you become a priest or some sort of religious authority.
Negatives of going to a public school versus a religious school:
Your experience in school is somewhat more daunting because of the fact that religious schools implement structures such as the Golden Rule of respect heavily, while public schools do not implement such rules at all.
This is my remedy: completely eliminate religious programs within Ontario, but replace them with ethics classes, or implement a structure into all schools that bring out the inner humanitarian in all of us. Not only does this usually cost less, but it's less of a waste of time. Besides, we're going to end up learning the same shit anyway, minus the whole God aspect.
Thanks for reading, and..
Ciao!
In order to become a writer at ATWKS, you must send me an entry on any topic you like that is at least 250 words in length. The e-mail to send it to would be deep_secret1@msn.com. I will notify you usually within a day or 2 whether you've been accepted or rejected.
PS: Please read on what happens to writers who don't post at least once a week, which is required
It’s the most wonderful time of the year.
No, I’m not talking about that time after tax season; I’m talking about the time before it.
Christmas is a great time of the year when Jesus was born to convert Pagans and Jews; when they lie that old, morbidly obese white men ride on magical flying sleighs; powered by magical flying reindeer (one of which has a glowing nose) to pronounce the great magics of God, where said man then proceeds to break into your house and put presents under Christmas trees (which we also know as the “dead pine trees” lie), giving lots of presents, and eating so much after 2 weeks that you can’t even see yourself shitting on the toilet anymore.
We all know that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th some 2000-ish years ago, because there is no possibility. It wasn’t lied about because they wanted to celebrate his birthday a little earlier than April 1st, and a lot researchers would happen to agree with that theory. And certainly, the Church would certainly sink to the level of converting Pagans and converting Jews. Think they care about you knowing the truth or even about Jesus himself? They only want more recruits for their army of shitheads.
Next, Santa was not some big fat sleigh-riding white man who owns magical reindeers, elves, or some sweetass mansion in the North Pole, and neither did he ever have anything to do with Saint Nicholas. Santa Claus is a derivative of Sinterklaas, who came from the concept of Saint Nicholas. Saint Nicholas was a Turkish man from Asia Minor, specifically Turkey who was just really nice to everyone, saved 3 girls from lives of prostitution, and gave stuff to poor children in his village.
Imagine the modern-day perception of Christmas, which includes all the stuff said above. Did you know that the only part of those descriptions that actually is any part of Christmas is Jesus? Guess what the real holiday that includes Santa, presents, and immense amounts of turkey is: YULETIDE! Not only that, but notice how the Church “stole” the holiday of the Pagans they hate so much: “Germanic pagans celebrated Yule from late December to early January on a date determined by a lunar calendar.” Did you know that the original concept of the Christmas tree also came from German Pagans? But we’re sure it was all just some really big coincidence.
I’m just hoping you now realize what a croc-o-shit it all really is.
Speaking of croc-o-shits, you know what really grinds my gears? Buying someone coupons for a gift. You want to know what two things that says to me?
1. I went to a store and got you nothing.
2. You’re too stupid to know what to buy, so I’m limiting you to 1 store.
Until next time, ciao folks!
It is possibly the most overused excuse for failures in anything, and it's really pissing me off. There's a thing in life called "responsibility," and some people still need to learn to take it. However, wouldn't it be awesome if there was a flag that took away one's ability to use the card for 2 weeks when they misuse it? If only things could be a little like this....
Everyone's got "their song," "their album," "their band," so on and so forth. Whether the music touches them in a spiritual sense, makes them want to dance, makes them relax or focus, or makes them see things in an introspective manner, there is always something in their brain that tells them "this appeals to me." And, with modern mainstream (the popular) music being absolute shit in my opinion, I can't help but wonder what purpose such music serves to our generation.
My questions are as follows:
........watch The Story of Stuff to the end. Think what you want to think, believe what you want to believe, but if you are interested in listening to a solid perspective (whether it contradicts your own principles and belief system), attempt to gain something from it. It is about consumerism with Annie Leonard. Okay, granted, it seems like a bit of propaganda because while talking about consumerism and the environment, she also takes a definitive political viewpoint. However, this little movie is not meant, in my intentions, to persuade you to believe anything. It is about looking at one particular issue from all the many sides that surround it, and hopefully learning and becoming more convinced of what you believe is right.
I just made a guestbook for ATWKS. Be sure to check it out and sign it! :)
View My Guestbook
Sign My Guestbook
Ciao!
Honestly, Chad Vader is one of the funniest YouTube series I ever watched. Just watch 1 episode and you will DIE of laughter. For all of you Star Wars fans, this is a must!
I'm probably naiive in saying that I want this site to be very, very known. Well, I hope I'm not, but what I know is that I'm working alongside some really cool folks who have potential for great things. You don't have to follow it, but it's an idealistic type of thing.
So here's the set-up:
1. On every forum you go to, be sure to include a link to ATWKS in your signature.
2. Sign everything (online) off with a link to ATWKS if there is no automated signature option.
3. Inform your friends and family through e-mail, and possibly in real life, about ATWKS.
4. When speaking, subliminally tell people to read ATWKS. Live, breathe, and eat (I cannot emphasize that enough) ATWKS. When you sleep at night, you dream only of having sex with ATWKS. Just kidding. Or am I? Hah yea, I'm just kidding about this part, though it would be a nice touch!
5. Submit ATWKS to every search engine you can possibly find.
Got any other ideas to share? If you do, I'll make an updated version of the "code" within some time.
I just saw this video on YouTube after I found the info on... well, you know, the post right below this. I thought this was the coolest thing ever, and if you want to order the Litter Kwitter, go to the Litter Kwitter website.
I was just watching this video called Amerika by the German industrial rock act Rammstein, and I must say, this time, they haven't completely got me. Well, I don't mean that as in I don't understand the video, because I understand it damn well. I mean... there's some stuff in there that they claim to be part of American traditions that I don't feel really are.
Here's the video:
Here's the lyrics translated into English:
"[CHORUS]:
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar
we're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
Do you want me?
(no I don't)
Do you need me?
(No I don't)
Dance with me I'm leading?
(No I can't)
Will you love me?
(No I won't)
This is not a love song
(No it's not)
I don't sing my mother tounge
(No I don't)
Afrika for Santa Claus
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Maus
[CHORUS]
Will you do it?
(No I won't)
Should you do it?
(No I don't)
Could you do it?
(No I can't)
Will you please me?
(No I won't)
If you don't want me
(You'll get hurt)
If you don't need me
(You'll get hurt)
If you don't love me
(You'll get hurt)
Fuck you is the magic word
[CHORUS]
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola, Wonderbra
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika
This is not a love song
No, this is not a love song
This is how we do it
You'll get hurt
Fuck you is the sweetest word
[CHORUS]
We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola, sometimes war
we're all living in Amerika
Amerika"
So, here's what I don't agree with about Amerika:
Last I checked, Santa Claus wasn't American, and neither is 80% of the modern interpretation of him. Look up Santa Claus on Answers.com. It will tell you that he was from Asia Minor, specifically Turkey, which is in the Middle-East. That's right, Santa Claus is as Middle-Eastern as.... well, me. Not only is he Middle Eastern in true origin, but the modern-day interpretation of Santa Claus is based on Sinterklaas, who was a character that's quite popular in the Netherlands and Belgium, as the article entails. Don't believe Wikipedia? Look anywhere else.
Next, the part about Wonderbras being made in America. Though the product was actually trademarked in America, it was made here in Canada, which I think should be taken into account. But seriously, I'd like to ask... what's so great about showing off your tits?
Apart from that, really, I'm not going to argue the song. Okay, maybe the "sometimes war" bit, because to say that America has had significantly more wars than every other country would be a bit silly, don't you think?
I know this song is old, but I just wanted to put my opinion on it out there, especially since it brought back great old memories.
What do you think about America's effect on the world? What do you think Rammstein is trying to get out?
We all love him... well, not all. Some prefer to love to hate him, as did I, before I actually really heard what he had to say out of the spotlight. He's the co-host of UFC (I can't even remember whatever the fuck the other dude's name is), he's a comedian, he was that guy that hosted Fear Factor, and until recently, I've discovered that he's that famous blogger.
Joe Rogan, the Gaian sensation, is a very unique character. Once you see him on TV, you think he's a total tool, but when you check out his blog (at http://www.joerogan.net/), he's the fucking shit. Seriously, whenever I listen to him comment on any UFC fight (yes, he's a commentator too), he sounds like he's taken it up the ass one too many times by Randy Couture. Then, when he was a host on Fear Factor, he just seemed like a gross fuck who was funny at times. However, I now know differently...
Honestly, I had a love/hate relationship with Joe until I looked at his blog. For example... you know how you used to think his loud voice was violently obnoxious? Well, now I see it in a different light: whenever I'm at a bar watching a UFC event, and whenever everyone's screaming like a bunch of rampant gypsies (they honestly scream like gypsies each time their favourite guy takes down the opponent), I can always count on hearing one man: Joe Fuckin' Rogan. Whenever I hear him acting like he's been getting ass-fucked by Randy, I just can't help but find it humorous. Joe's just that kind of guy once you get to see the more personal side of him. Hell, I'm loving this guy now!
Lastly, as a treat, here's Joe Rogan's reaction to the infamous "2Girls1Cup" video, and his friend's reaction to the BME Pain Olympics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhevNN1BDnQ
And we wanted to go in and bomb Iran. Or let me rephrase. Those war-mongers in Bush's cabinet wanted to go in Iran and attack their nuclear facilities, which we know now are solely used for peaceful, resourceful purposes (for clean energy, and not for reasons of war). No, that ended almost five years ago, and the CIA either had, yet again, lacked efficient intelligence or were afraid to tell Bush and step down as cowards, afraid to tell the President, this time, what he so desperately needs to hear. The NIE (National Intellgence Estimate) was finally reported by the sixteen federal agencies. Finally. Bush is now, or was, obviously "confuddled" by this news that goes against "Bush's rhetoric" for the past four years. Good. The CIA actually had the balls this time to step up to the President.
Time Magazine:
"The NIE represented another promising opportunity missed. Imagine if the President had said,'This report means we don't want war. We want to talk, and everything - including lifting of the economic sanctions and our acknowledgment that you are a major regional power - is on the table so long as you put eveything on the table too. That means not only your uranium-enrichment program but also your support for terrorist organizations.' How could Iran have said no to that?
But that would have required another President. This President appears to lack the desire, creativity and patience to engage in the most important diplomacy that a nation can face - with its enemies - over issues that could mean the difference between war and peace."
Thoughts?
Here it comes, yet another heated presidential election.
Who will take it? The Democrats? The Republicans?
The black guy? The white lady?
Is it just me, or is this turning into an election that is more about getting something that is out of the ordinary into the White House than it is about getting somebody who is the most qualified into office?
A group of people came into the restaraunt where I work the other day and when asked their name the head of the party jokingly said that it was Barack Obama. They demanded a table for the next black president. When I laughed and said that they would have to wait he laughed with me and said, "It's ok, you're voting for me and thats all that counts." I smiled and laughed again and casually informed him that I actually wasn't sure who I would be voting for. The smiles and laughter ended there. Apparently not being sure that I would vote for the black man in the election makes me an Uncle Tom.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that women and black men aren't qualified to be president. I am just a little worried that people are beginning to overlook the issues in their heated desire to elect the first black or woman president. I have actually had conversations with several different people that lead me to believe so. In a nutshell, they all felt the same way. They felt that breaking the barrier and getting a black man or a woman into office was much more important in the long run than electing someone just based on who would be the best president.
So I wonder, is this true?
Is it much more important to overcome the race and gender barrier than it is to select based on the issues?
Just another small announcement...
As you can see, we've (okay, I've) added some AdSense bars to the site. Why'd I do it? I want to experiment and see if I can actually generate some revenue off of this. I'm technically not sugarloading the site with all these big ads, but you know, curiousity got to me. Ofcourse, since I'm 16, the money's not coming in my name. It's going to my mom. So, in short, this is an experiment; my mom knows I did this and is totally okay with it, and please tell your friends about ATWKS.
Ciao!
Why the Hell would you want every race that isn't white kicked out of a country if you don't hate the people, or even to the point of claiming to like them? That's like your best friend coming over, only to have you kick them out for no fucking reason. Can someone please explain to me the logic behind all this?
“China’s Olympic Warmup”, an article from Time Magazine, discusses the progression of China toward a more modernized and visionary nation, as the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing looms closer. It begins with an accurate depiction of Beijing as a global city with an obvious capitalistic nature similar to industrialized cities in the western world. However, the article reverts back to ways in which China is still an isolated, alienated, stubborn nation, unwilling to submit itself wholly to the demands of foreigners. Nevertheless, the Olympic Games next year will give China a chance to dismiss misconceptions that surround the country and will allow them to show the world what they are truly capable of. As the Chinese people envision a positive, and prosperous future with endless possibilities, political leaders and countless activists from all corners of the world are highly skeptical about Chinese domestic and foreign policy and find their own chances to confront the Chinese government by means of the Beijing Summer Olympics.
The article points out the dramatic transformation of Beijing, but it fails to address immediately the static and oppressive character in the rest of the country. The article notes this after it emphasizes the reconstruction of Beijing so as to illustrate the glaring disparity between the thriving capital city and the rest of the country stuck in the 19th Century. China is trying to convey to the world this superficial image, while still harboring deeply ingrained flaws and issues. There is no freedom of the press within the Chinese media, but it is granted to American reporters and British news stations to a significant extent. The domestic media faces more regulations and laws than the foreign press. Human rights is also of main concern to international activists and organizations who see Hutongs, although in poor condition, stripped from entire families, leaving them homeless as a result of the rapid transition from traditional to modern. They see the injustice in the government’s AIDS policy that leaves women especially vulnerable, and they see an egregious rights issue under the direction of the government in Tibet. More notably, it is a fact that the Chinese government is the number one foreign consumer and investor of Sudanese oil, thus China is financing and supporting a government that is deliberately attacking its own people in Darfur. Hu Jia, a political activist, believes, “It’s a policy of ‘soft to the outside, strict within’”, where he describes a nation committed to concealing these underlying issues. However, as China finds itself competing with the world’s powers in wealth, growth, and prestige, it also becomes subjected to codes of conduct expected of its position. China’s increased visibility means the potential for more scrutiny.
The question comes down to whether the Olympic Games in Beijing should be boycotted, and by whom. Will the Chinese let other nations dictate the way it is to conduct its own business? Will the games in 2008 be a chance for the Chinese people to reevaluate their goals and prove their capabilities or will it be an opportunity for foreign powers to intervene and point out all the flaws that this country has yet to resolve? Elegant leaves an open-ended question for the reader to contemplate.
I have never liked the idea of boycotting the Olympics because first you have the competitors, the athletes who have worked so hard to get to that point. The coaches, the committee, who try so hard to get things running as smoothly as possible. The Chinese government takes no part in their lives, dedication, and aspirations. I know it would be a symbolic protest, but protest in this case would be unnecessary and ineffective. If you want anything to change or get done, speak your voice to the government more directly, where you aren't affecting the millions of people who are looking forward to the Olympics, the millions of Chinese who have pride in their country, and the hundreds of athletes who have spent years training for this event. The actions of the Chinese government you may disagree with, like me and perhaps countless other activists, but lets put our activism where we can be most effective and that doesn't mean boycotting the Olympics. Look at the positives of this event and what it means to the Chinese people; look at what the boycotting will lead to, its consequences. We should have a voice especially when in regards to social and human rights' issues, but using the Olympics as a means to do so is not right at all. Yes there have been protests at the Olympics in the past, but it didn't solve anything, didn't help pass any legislation, didn't change a dictator's mind, only exacerbated the conflict, and so forth. I believe to represent peace, it needs to steer clear from politics, from socioeconomic issues, from human rights/egregious issues, and focus on the things we share justice in, on our commonalities, aspects that unite us. All these issues should surely be addressed, and people from all over the world should recognize and voice out against it and do something to try and change it, but the Olympics is not the place for this conflict between passionate activists and the Chinese government; it should be above that fray. The world is coming together in China, thus let it be that we come together in peace, that we are willing, for the sake of all participants and viewers, to forget about our differences for that brief period of time.
We aren’t at a time to truly or justifiably say what should be done in terms of boycotting the Beijing Olympics. We may find that a boycott will not be necessary as the year progresses, or we may find that it is the only option available; the only right thing to do. The basis for my argument is that if we look throughout the course of the games, a boycott, and solely a boycott, was not entirely effective, however, it did lead to other initiatives, such as when the United States, along with many other western nations, boycotted the Moscow Games because the Soviet Union had recently invaded Afghanistan. If the actual boycott doesn't do much, the consequences or results of that boycott can hold a lot of impact, which is really the true purpose of a boycott. It may start a path toward progress, if planned out carefully. It may start some sort of positive revolution or evolution if approached intellectually and cautiously, because the last thing we need is to act on impulses, and look at the underlying issue as an excuse to interfere arrogantly in the Chinese government. We must understand who we are dealing with, and how we can go about making compromises and resolutions before we resort to boycott. Really, it should be of last resort, if it is to be done at all.
In shifting focus to Chinese pro-democracy activists, it is widely known that the Chinese citizens are kept ignorant of what is going on with the Tibet conflict, and if they learned of the situation, or were educated in this conflict, no doubt, many Chinese civilians would be ashamed and angry, frustrated even with the control of their own government and the injustice being committed by their own leaders. I am sure the majority would not be too happy.
We should leave money out of this debate because it really isn't the issue. Sure, the Chinese would be losing the potential money they would have earned to pay for the city development, and perhaps those countries that boycott may lose a little from their pockets, but it just isn't the problem if you think about it. I mean we are dealing with human lives here, and a terrible injustice. The IOC has come out with a statement of proposals that the committee and several organizations from around the world demand China to adhere by, which involves China improving it's human rights' records. On top of that, it also involves allowing the Tibetans religious freedom, and calls for democratization in the region. As for the event, it demands that the government allow the international media to have full coverage of the games, and lift bans and restrictions on the people who can participate, which includes those, such as the Dalai Lama and Indian exiles, as well as the Taiwanese who have campaigned for democracy in Tibet.
The article refers to Yuan Weijing, wife of a blind lawyer who escaped from house arrest after being detained for publicizing the abuses of women by government officials in regards to family-planning, but she was again confined to house arrest after these officials finally found her. This anecdote shows the persistence of the Chinese government. It is a sad thing what the Chinese government is doing. If it does not comply with all the aspects of the statement, then other measures will have to take shape in any form most coherent, responsible, and effective. If it means that we must boycott, then so be it, but as of right now, I don't see how boycotting will do any good.
One country boycotting the Olympics would not be enough to help the Tibet situation or the conflict in Darfur, and if it cannot help it fully or contribute to it largely and effectively and would only alter China's approach only moderately and may even do more harm and disrupt international relationships then there has got to be other ways that we could be more effective in resolving the Tibet conflict, that would not involve the Olympic games, that could represent a larger, broader voice, even from Americans (because surely Americans boycotting the Olympics would be dire to our alliance with China, even the smallest conflict could do harm because sadly we have become too dependent on China, and they have become too dependent on us), which would bring the issue to the government faster and more directly, and we (America) could address the problem more intellectually, and appropriately, because more than ever do we have to be smart about who we choose to confront.
Sure, I grant that "democracy" is such an overthrown word that hardly mirrors, in exact likeness and theory, any known society to date, but in some form or another, it exists. For those of us who live in what most would call democratic nations, how are we to look at this principle? How are we to conceptualize it, embrace it, look at its postives and its negatives? Most importantly, how do we come to understand how "democracy" should apply to everyone else we share this planet with? As an American, its hard for me to get a grasp, a good sense, of how this country should push its views on others.
Posts
All Comments
 |
| provided by hit-counter-download.com |
