Monday, November 30, 2009

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum My Ass!

I sent this to Bluekipper. I don't think they will put it up though. To the Hells with them. The site is shite anyway.


Nil Satis Nisi Optimum? What delusional rubbish!

No player wants to sign for us. We have no money to spend anyway. We have to sell players before we can buy any. Over a century of history, and we are the undisputed paupers in the League. Maybe we should play a division lower. At least we get a real shot at winning something. Well, maybe not.

We are like the plague. Nobody with any money to invest would come near us. At least the Barcode Army had Mike 'Ratface' Ashley. We are nobody’s child, If Bill Kenwright and his board of functional retards have any self-respect, they should just sell the club to anyone with money. South American drug cartels, the Russian mafia, the Taliban, Singtel, I don’t give a damn. Just give us money. Money, money and more money.

Our chairman is skint, our board incompetent and from the business point of view, we could not sell an iced-tea in a desert. The club is so pathetic it is reduced to begging the Shite for ground-sharing. Would you share your wife with another man?

The city council are cretins, Shite supporters or both. They would never approve whatever building plans we come up with, even though it means losing the chance to create 1,000,0000,000 jobs. We could not get Stanley Park, Kirby is in tatters and before long they will throw us out of Goodison Park.

We could not hit a barn door from five yards and we never look like scoring in a whorehouse. Our most creative player is out for possibly the whole of this season, and our most solid centreback badly missed. Every cross into our penalty box is likely to result in a goal. For some reason our well-paid players either do not want to pass the ball, or cannot string together a few passes to save their own lives.

Our manager is too defensive at times, even against mediocre sides we want to defend, defend , defend and then hope to nick one from a mistake or set piece and then defend, defend, and defend until the end. Against passing sides we lose our balls in more ways than one. How many points have we taken off the ManUre, Chelski and the Arse in recent years? We are always moaning about how classy the rest are and that we are not ‘good enough’ or ‘lack cutting edge’. You do not hear Fulham moaning about how good Roma are. You certainly do not see SUNDERLAND going tortoise when they played the Shite, ManUre and the Arse!

It is long ball after long ball after long ball – whom are we trying to attract, American football investors? I know our goalkeeper is American, but this is freaking ridiculous!

Stop giving excuses that we have a long injury list. The Arse had an injury list but still played Standard Liege off the park. Our fit players are good enough to at least give a decent accounting of themselves but the only accounting consists of spiritless displays, dropped points, and prematch hot air.

Our stadium is just as charming as a piss pot. Its architecture is depressing, and the view is terrible. It is an eyesore; the sight of it is liable to give the elderly cataracts.

Our luck is wretched beyond description. Against the Shite, for once we started playing like a team. We dominated them, we scared the bejesus out of these whoresons, but they came away with three points. If the Shite were bad, we were worse. It was not the Merseyside derby last night, but the Miseryside farce. They may have been out of the Champions League, but at the rate we are going, we will be out of the Premiership before long. Misery loves company, and in the end we will be left to walk alone.

In the best interest of human dignity they should build a railway track across Liverpool for disgruntled Everton fans to end their despondency. I rue the day I became a Blue. Fourteen years of heartache, not a trophy in sight, shite football season after season, and a board that is so bloody useless. In the words of the immortal Didier Drogba, 'It’s a fucking disgrace!'

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Capitalism A Love Story


Capitalism A Love Story is an unrelenting attack on the monstrous institution that has brought the world to its knees for the benefit of a plutonomy. In his typical provocative fashion, director Michael Moore details the history of capitalism, exposes its flaws and examines the recent financial crisis.

The documentary film begins with an advisory that it may not be suitable for people with weak hearts and that children must be accompanied by adults. It is then followed by a comparison of the US and the mighty - and fallen – Roman Empire, setting the tone nicely for the next two hours.

Moore shows the footage of a family who could not pay their mortgage loan, barricading themselves in their own house while the authorities smash their door down to evict them. A real estate dealer describes how he makes profits off the people losing their homes and says smugly that the difference between him and a vulture is that ‘he does not vomit on himself.’

Having gotten Catholic priests to condemn the evils of capitalism, Moore produces what is for me, the most hilarious part in the film. In ‘What would Jesus do?’, a dying man is brought to Jesus, only to be told by the Messiah that ‘I cannot heal him’. As the crowd looks on in stunned disbelief, Jesus explains, ‘You have a preexisting condition.’ A sly dig at the insurance companies in the US, and brilliantly executed.

In ultra-entrepreneurial America, you can securitize anything, and this is aptly illustrated with something called the ‘Dead Peasants’ insurance. Companies are free to take insurance policies on their employees without their consent. In short, an employee is of more value to his company dead than alive. Only a heartless capitalist i.e., Wall Street banker, would not be moved as two bereaved families recount how they could not get their departed loved ones’ companies to pay even a single cent to cover the outstanding medical bills and funeral fees.

Moore’s next efforts to portray the evils of capitalism are as entertaining as they are outrageous. He goes to AIG and attempts to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’ of its executives. He cordons off the US Stock Exchange Building with tape because it is a ‘crime scene’. He asks people on Wall Street what a derivative is, but is largely ignored. At last he manages to find a finance manager and a professor at Harvard University to explain it to him, only to find that they are just as lost as everybody else.


'Come out and step to the side. There is nothing to worry about.
Federal prison is a nice place...
'


Former US President George W. Bush is not spared in Moore’s condemnation of the administration that has been colluding with Wall Street for the past 30 years. He speaks to two state representatives about the politics that have led to the recent US$700 billion taxpayers’ bailout of the failed financial sector. He takes aim at financial regulators, politicians and bankers who have benefited themselves via a tripartite arrangement of backroom politics, pseudo-regulations and lack of business ethics. There is an expose of Citibank’s memo to three of its wealthiest investors, conveying their fear that 99% of the country, who own less wealth than the top 1% can be a threat because they have 99% of the votes.

Besides lambasting the corrupt capitalist system, Moore also suggests solutions to the problem. There should be more workers cooperatives in America - people who manage a company should be its workers. Democracy should be in the hands of the people, and should not be a privilege granted to a select few. The scenes of an entire neighborhood acting in defiance to the law to help a family who has been driven from their home by their bank is inspiring. So is the sit-in in Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, that has prompted even President Obama to give his support to the workers.

Academics, the politically-correct, pseudo-intellectuals, oligarchs, and their ilk will criticize Moore for being one-sided, childish and strident. But there is no denying that Michael Moore’s loud and emotive displays and his willingness to play to the choir strengthens his arguments rather than diminishes his credibility. Although Moore may be too idealistic in his support for President Obama and his belief that the democracy will replace capitalism, hope, and hope for change, are precisely what the world needs now.

Capitalism A Love Story is definitely worth spending your last $10 on. Don’t waste money on trash like My Girlfriend is an Agent, and 2012. Capitalism A Love Story is the real deal and if you have brains and self-respect you should watch it.



Ratings: 4.5 out of 5.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Last Day of the Season

I finished my last ordeal of the season an hour ago. I was quite relaxed during the paper. I wrote what I could, but even the amount of drivel I managed seemed a pittance. As far as I am concerned, Fixed Income Securities is over and done with, and may it stay that way.

XH commented on my Facebook that he is betting he will fail more subjects than me. My bro is surely clinically insane. He needs medical help immediately.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Devil - Unjustly Maligned

This has got to be one of the best shit I have ever read!

The original article can be found on the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.


The Devil - Unjustly Maligned

Author: Harry Edwards


Reading the Bible it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the Devil has been unjustly maligned.

From the beginning of time the Devil has been blamed for anything and everything from warts to volcanic eruptions, from haemorrhoids to earthquakes and crop failures to plagues.

* It's the Devil's fault.
* It's the work of the Devil.
* Blame it on the Devil.
* He's possessed by the Devil.
* The Devil is evil.
* To the Devil with you.

Anything beyond the knowledge of the day was blamed on evil spirits or on the Devil.

His name has been defiled. His character besmirched. His reputation sullied. All without being given the chance to defend himself against those who bore false witness. So it's about time that someone defends him in the name of justice and present such evidence as is required to clear his name. I believe that far from being evil the Devil was in fact of good character, and an angel of good intent with high ideals who was sacrificed in the interests of political expediency.

Now before we debate the truth of my contention we must accept as fact that the Devil actually exists. God fearing Christians who believe in the existence of a creator God, heaven and angels must, by believing in the existence of supernatural entities, by logical extension also believe that the Devil and hell exist. I will therefore proceed on that assumption.

The most authorative source of information on the Devil and his abode is of course that weapon of mass deception - the Bible, and this shall be my prime source. As the Devil's dwelling abode is not the subject of this article we'll simply say that hell is a very inhospitable place.

In the Old Testament our alleged villain was referred to as Satan. Because of the vilification campaign and scurrilous attacks on his character he was forced to change his name and in the New Testament is known as the Devil. He has also been obliged to adopt other aliases such as Beelzebub and Lucifer.

Even back then some sympathisers were aware of the injustices, hence when referring to someone today who has been poorly or badly treated we use the expression "the poor Devil"

Satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary." Being an adversary simply means having contrary interests or opposing views. It doesn't necessarily imply evil or malicious intent.

In clearing the Devil's name I intend showing that the Devil's adversary is a perverse God who plays mind games and shifts the blame for his own shortcomings on to a third party. God's attitude towards his adversaries is not exactly benevolent. In the first book of Samuel 2:10 we read, " the adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces and out of heaven shall be thunder upon them."

The word 'Devil' has many connotations, among them, a wicked or sadistic person, an evil spirit, the prince of darkness and a malevolent person. But it must be understood that these are the definitions in Christian theology and therefore represent the fundamental beliefs of millions who have never bothered to rationalise or to seek the truth. So let's put together a composite of the Devil with quotations from the Bible to ascertain a more benign picture of the Devil's persona.

In the second book of Peter, Chap 2 verse 4 the Devil is described as "Supremely beautiful and dazzling in brightness." We also read in Peter "the Devil was God's super archangel and right hand man who was trained to administer God's government." Now although bureaucrats aren't normally held in very high esteem this one came highly recommended and was hand picked by God himself.

The Devil's principal charge was to 'impart knowledge and enlightenment' So what went wrong in the Garden of Eden?

Genesis chapter 3 verses 1 to 21.
Picture the scene. A balmy evening in the Garden of Eden. A happy carefree nudist couple are strolling hand in hand through their vegetarian ecosystem. No high rise developments, no motorcars spewing pollution, no speed cameras. The birds are singing, bullfrogs serenading among the lotus blossoms, the perfume of many flowers permeating the air, and trees of every description bend under the weight of fruit. Truly a romantic self-sustaining paradise on Earth.

God decrees that the couple may eat of every fruit bar one on the pain of death.

Suddenly from a marijuana patch, up pops Satan wearing a snazzy snakeskin suit. Now this in itself is no mean feat.

Satan approaches Eve saying, "Hey little sister, try a bite of this apple, it'll flip your lid and give you good vibes.

The Devil was in fact only trying to do his duty to impart knowledge and enlightenment, He tells Eve that she won't die if she takes a bite, so she goes ahead and then, Oh my God, shock, horror she sees herself naked.

Now remember that God created everything that creepeth on the earth and had it seems the ability to change his super archangel into a long extinct species of talking snake. By forbidding Eve to do one thing and then telling his a creation to tempt her - God was playing mind games. So why should the Devil get the blame?

A further example of mind games can be read in Genesis 22 where God tells Abraham to barbeque his son Isaac. What sort of sick mind are we dealing with? It certainly wasn't the Devil's.

That people are prepared to sacrifice themselves or others for a particular belief doesn't necessarily make that belief true, right or good. Kamikaze pilots died for their emperor god and suicide bombers today have no compunction in killing innocents in the name of Allah. The Nuremberg trials in 1945-46 found the Nazi leaders guilty of crimes against peace, waging wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. Similar atrocities are detailed throughout the Bible and are directly attributed to God.

Nowhere is the Devil objectively cited as the instigator or the perpetrator of malevolent deeds.

Meanwhile back in the garden in a fit of tantrums, God turns it into a thorn and weed covered wasteland, condemns all women to painful childbirth, and tosses Adam and Eve into the wilderness.

Rumour has it, that armed with the knowledge that it is better to conceal than reveal, Eve went to Surfers Paradise where she opened a boutique and sold bikinis.

Now the hypocrisy of this story is that God, having implied that covering one's nakedness was wrong, he then makes the couple coats of skin (verse 21).

The poor Devil, alias the snake, having been made the fall guy, was then cursed and condemned to eat dust for all of the days of his life.

In that episode it can be seen that the Devil is portrayed as the guilty party when in fact he was the innocent tool of a third party. Right from the beginning of creation therefore the Devil has been unjustly maligned. What's more, having blamed the Devil and cast him out without any right of appeal, God condemns himself out of his own mouth. In Isaiah 45:7 God says, "I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things." In Nehemiah 13:18 we read confirmation of God creating evil where it says," did not our God bring all this evil upon us?"

In a fit of bad temper and self-recrimination for the mess he's made of creation God says in Genesis 6 verse 7, "I will destroy man whom I have created and will send wild beasts among you which shall destroy you and your cattle".

And we're told that the Devil is the bad guy?

So scared of the truth coming out God even threatens debaters. In the second book of Romans, chapter 1 verses 29-32 we read that according to God "debaters are worthy of death." So much for the seekers of truth.

Now there's one interesting aside to the Garden of Eden story, which goes to show that the Devil's intent to wise up Adam and Eve was of more value to human kind than God denying them knowledge.

In Numbers 21:8-9 we read, "The Lord said unto Moses, "Make thee a serpent of brass and set it upon a pole and it shall come to pass that any one that is bitten -- when he looketh upon it - shall live." I put it to you, if you were bitten by a poisonous snake would you put your faith in the Devil's knowledge of anti-venin or God's brass snake on a pole?

Now you may remember that the Devil was condemned to eat dust for the rest of his days. This would no doubt have clogged up his vocal chords and made speech extremely difficult. However like a character in a soapie who dies this week and comes back to life the next the Devil evidently gets his voice back. In Job chapters 1 and 2 we read.

"Job was man of substance. He owned 7000 sheep, 3 000 camels, 500 oxen and 500 asses. He also owned a very large house on a vast tract of land. He was perfect and upright and feared God." By all accounts. a great man in the East. Every feast day he would get together with his wife, seven sons and three daughters and offer burnt offerings to the Lord. One day God called in Satan and asked for his opinion of Job saying "there is none like him on Earth, he is perfect and upright and feared God, what do you think?"

Satan, evidently now with full voice, gave a truthful answer by pointing out that God had given Job everything and that Job had nothing to fear.

Then out of the blue, God burns all Job's sheep and servants, sends the Chaldeans to carry away Job's camels and creates a cyclone to blow down his house killing all his sons. Naturally Job was a little peeved; he tore his clothes, shaved his head and fell to the ground. Instead of cursing God for doing this to him he said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." Not satisfied, God then commands Satan to smite Job with boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.

Now it can be seen that once again the Devil gets the blame for doing the dirty work and yet in fact he was only carrying out God's instructions.

Most of you would agree that germs, bacteria and viruses cause disease. God created them all along with everything else that creepeth on earth. According to the Bible however, the Devil is the one who caused illness, sickness, infirmity and malformation. Luke 13 v 11-16 for example refers to a woman "whom Satan hath bound." Throughout the New Testament the cause of many diseases is attributed to the Devil and the various forms of mental maladies were all spoken of as being possessed by the Devil.

In the case of the plague or Black Death which took the lives of millions world wide it would seem that God must have cloned many devils. We now know that rats and fleas both of which were created by God carried the plague. But once again the Devil and his mates got the blame and so were unjustly maligned.

By giving us the means to attain knowledge the Devil has allowed mankind to achieve the standard of life we now enjoy. God on the other hand has presided over the worst excesses. The wholesale slaughter of the Midianites. (Numbers 31) The massacre of the whole nation of Heshbon. (Deuteronomy 2) The total destruction of the seven nations of Canaan. (Deuteronomy 7) The massacre at Jericho. (Josh 6) The assassination of Sisera. (Judges 5) and the murder of 185,000 Assyrians (2nd book of Kings) The list is endless.

When the Crusaders plundered and pillaged the Middle East they did so in the name of God, not the Devil. The Inquisition tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands in God's name, not the Devil's. Before suicide bombers press the button to kill innocents they praise God. not the Devil. More crimes against humanity have been committed by God or in God's name than any other entity in history.

In summary, throughout history the Devil has been made the fall guy for God's indiscretions, mistakes, shortcomings and crimes. He has been slandered and his character sullied in the most defamatory and libellous ways. He has been denied the right of reply. The right to defend himself. The right to debate. The right to state his case. The right to a fair trial and the right to free speech. Even Saddam Hussein accused of crimes against humanity and with the blood of thousands on his hands has been given the right to a fair trial, Why not the Devil? After all, his only 'crimes' have been to offer mankind wisdom and knowledge.

I appeal to you as understanding, tolerant and forgiving beings and in that great Australian tradition of giving a bloke a fair go, to grant absolution to the Devil, one who has without a doubt, been unjustly maligned.

One More.

I finished my Political Economy of ASEAN paper a while ago. I wrote all I could. The two hours did not allow me to express myself to the fullest extent, but my aim was to secure a positive and not necessarily spectacular result.

Three down, one to go. I am on my last legs. I can go on no more.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Singing the Relegation Blues

It is Friday the 13th and I am singing the relegation blues.

I followed up the debacle of two days ago with yet another dismal display. Although it was an open-book examination, I was not afforded the time to finish all my questions. I had a twenty mark question consigned to Gehenna, just over half of the first question done, and produced a truckload of rubbish for the remaining theory questions (worth 30 marks).

From the reaction of the mob around me, I knew that this time the Curve is not going to be good enough to pull me from relegation. When you lose games and your fellow battlers win theirs, it does not argur very well for your prospects of staying up.

It could have been worse, but I had the consolation to indulge in a bit of voyeurism before kick-off. Her face was okay, but her boobs were...stimulating. Even with my blurry vision and from ten metres, I enjoyed the sight of her rack walking around, putting things into her back and making her way back to her seat. My ogling calmed me down somewhat, although it may not matter towards the end, at least it was not a complete loss. 99% yes, but not 100%. It is a pity I am unable to shag her. Oh well. Life is a twat and then you die.

Having finished two of my most hated modules ever (besides my engineering subjects in poly of course), I can now prepare myself for the remaining two in a comparatively stable state of mind. I had been a bit tempted to emulate the unfortunate exploits of the equally unfortunate - and missed - Robert Enke, but the thought of my carcass being photographed by those motherfuckers we call our journalists brought me back to my senses, or at least what was left of it.

My Political Economy of ASEAN is a mixed bag really. While its course notes are little more than thinly veiled propaganda for our despicable and high-handed regime,the course itself is still more bearable than that thrice-damned HRM module, which I had the misfortunate of taking. Unlike my instructors for HRM, my Political Economy lecturer - as far as I know, since I only attended two lecturers out of six - chose to concentrate on political and economic principles, rather than pander to the regime. I respect him for this, and not simply because he gave me FULL MARKS for my essay. To be frank, it didn't deserve that kind of marks, considering it was hastily churned out, had many grammar mistakes and more than a few broken references. At the most I would have given it a 70. But the season is hard and when you have got the rub of the green you got to take it and be thankful.

But I am digressing. This module is particularly fascinating because I am in the unique position of either failing it flat, or getting a distinction for it. What will it be? Seriously, from the egoistic point of view it would be nice to have a distinction, but the way this season has gone I would gladly settle for 40 marks for my examination. Being relegated is tragic enough. To be relegated and losing ALL your games as well is surely of West-Brom-esque proportions.

Fixed Income Securities seems more theory than calculation, which suits me fine. Still, this kind of obfuscating subject is nothing to be sniffed at. Since the world of stock, bonds and their valuation remain largely incomprehensible to me, the best I could do is to write as much drivel as possible. Shoot on sight, hit 20, 30 shots, surely a couple will go in... Desperate yes, but when you are pretty much like Bolton, physical but little skill, you got to get in their faces and try sneak something from anywhere.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Slave Management is Slave Propaganda

I just finished my Human Resources Management (more appropriately known as Slave Management) examination. I am still recovering from my trauma.

Getting pasted in an examination is one thing, but being robbed is quite another. I thought my Business Law II examination was bad, but at least from a charitable point of view what happened could be attributed to administrative incompetence. The HRM examination was not just robbery. It was overt political indoctrination, entirely off-topic and therefore a fucking disgrace.

For starters, much of the material found in the textbook was not really tested. No job-design, recruitment, retention and human development strategies. There were ten chapters, but half of the questions in the examination focused on merely the one chapter on diversity. I was particularly gutted with this unbalanced approach, considering that I practically spent my efforts studying for ALL TEN CHAPTERS.

One may argue that as undergraduates we cannot expect straight questions in examinations. I do not disagree with that. In fact, I support this notion. While I have no complaints about having questions that are application-based (fitting concepts to a case scenerio), the fact that some questions negate this principle gets my goat. How many concepts, from how many areas in the field of HRM can you possibly dump onto questions that are based on just ONE chapter, especially when the line of questioning was so narrow? Of course, it would still have been possible to apply different concepts to even the narrowest question. I am not saying it is cannot be done. A good writer could do it. But when the examination was only two hours long, you didn't even have time to read and analyze the questions, let alone write enough material, and in a coherent fashion. No disrespect to my esteemed lecturers and professors. If they were in my shoes they would struggle too. After all, I am a BETTER writer than they are, judging from the course notes they wrote (I am arrogant, so bite me). Questions should focus on different areas, and not just on one chapter and then expect people to APPLY concepts from other chapters. Since they insisted on it, they should have given us three hours instead. Examinations should test a student's knowledge, not their writing speed.

As far as I am concerned, a university education should provide three things: a degree that leads to increased future earnings, knowledge pertaining to your chosen field, and a development of independent thinking. If my university were a student, it would have received a provisional pass for the first (a UniShit degree is only recognized locally), a B for the second, and a straight F for the third.

I know that our regime has been going ad nauseam about how good foreign talent are (in their eyes, every foreigner is a talent; notice they never refer to the locals as 'local talent'), but do they have to do that in school as well? Surely our *excellent* local state-controlled media is doing a fine enough job of indoctrinating 'approved' values to the populace! We do not really need any more of this. I AM NOT being xenophobic. I agree we need foreigners, but let us be balanced about it. We should focus on quality, not quantity, and we certainly do not have to convey this most pressing of needs like a broken record.

I know the regime supports my university financially, and this means that technically UniShit cannot be strictly considered as a private university. While it is understandable they would want to respect their sugar daddy by including the regime in their case study notes, to over-do it and become fawning sycophants goes beyond any standards of decency.

Every time I attend my fucking HRM classes, it was like attending the bloody National Day rally. It's 'we have a great regime', 'we have a great cuntry', 'we need to work ourselves to the ground and take lesser pay to maintain our competitive advantage', 'we need more foreigners because we don't have enough talented local people', blab blab bra abracadabra. ENOUGH ALREADY!

True, globalization and managing diversity are key concerns in the human resources field. I am not denying their importance, but surely they should not take precedence over the other areas I mentioned previously. Is it not true that irrespective of the composition of your workforce, there are certain principles, such as job design and satisfaction, job and business process design, recruitment and retention etc, that will always apply? If we do not even consider these to merit sufficient discussion, then who are we to talk about manageing a diverse workforce and 'coping with the challenges of globalization?' Want to look far, get your own backyard in order first, mate.

I would rather my lecturers concentrate more on HRM from a globalized perspective, rather than look it from merely a local and narrow-minded point of view. If they like to talk about globalization and its challenges so much, they should also talk about what goes on in other countries. Why not have some consistency? I had said it and I will say it again. Contrary to what our regime would have us believe, our nation IS NOT the centre of the universe. The world does not revolve on its axis for our benefit. There are lots of things beyond our tiny and unimpressive shores, and we should be aware of these instead of sucking on our kiddie blankets and repeating the mantra 'we are the best we are the best we are the best' like some religious retard from the Pure Land sect.

And the textbook - let me go off-topic for a while more because I need to rant - is another fucking disgrace. Not only does it exhorts the virtues of our national system like a Social Studies textbook, the sheer number of grammatical errors it contains is absolutely shocking! I have never read pedantic trash like this! For all their doctorates, the writers had absolutely no sense of editorial integrity, and not only that, they were too cheapskate to pay for an editor. (It could have been due to the unsavory circumstances of their births i.e., their fathers were too cheapskate to pay for a whore and their mothers were free of charge, who knows?)

I want to say for the record that I regret signing up for this wretched course in this wretched univesity. If I had money I would quit straight away. I am disgraced by my affiliation with this flophouse and this affiliation feels like an affliction. It is like a cancer, a malignant growth, and it will get worse the longer I stay. To all the Hells with this craphouse!

Friday, November 6, 2009

Dear Miss Emo II

If you are underage, politically correct, prone to nausea, or just plain stupid, please leave this page immediately. The Philistine takes no responsibility for the trauma you may suffer as a result of reading the entry below. If you are unsure, do not proceed further. You may close this browser, click on the Back icon, or click here, here or here.




Dear Miss Emo II,


Although my reasons for writing this letter are not of your concern, for the sake of charity I shall now deign to divulge them. First, I have heard so much about you that I feel that you deserve to be lambasted within an inch of your miserable existence. Second, I have been under a lot of stress and I feel that I ought to channel my frustration in the right way. While beating up some deserved whoreson provides a certain satisfaction, it also runs the risk of incurring a crippling fine and/or a lengthy incarceration. By abusing you, I am able to kill two birds with one stone.

The fact that you may never get to read this letter deters me not. What is more important to me is that after reading it, people who are suffering from their unfortunate association with idiotic parasites like you would be sufficiently inspired to abuse your ilk. Anyway, you are probably too stupid to understand my letter. If you happen to read this, do get someone to explain it to you, preferably using simple words.

You, Miss Emo, are the most wretched specimen your equally wretched country has ever produced. Your intelligence is as flat as your chest. Do not bother to wear a bra. There is nothing to support or cover. Your face is as plastic as you are spastic. The number of times it cracks daily is probably the same as your single digit IQ score. If you were in Nazi Germany, you would have been exterminated on the grounds of being morally, physically and mentally unfit, and the Nazis would have been – solely in your case – perfectly justified in doing so.

The reason why you still breathe is because it is illegal to kill you. The reason you even exist at all is because your father was so pathetic he was turned away by the cheapest whore, and your mother was so grotesque she could not get any other man to invade her cunt. Their untimely and shameful union was a pestilence upon the earth and a desecration of all moral values, and the end product of their many vulgar intercourses none better and a thousandfold worse.

Your parents should have drowned you the moment you were spawned. Your brood mates should have devoured you and have themselves killed to end this wretched lineage. Your parents should be sterilized, your mother made to work in a cheap whorehouse and your father deported to Afghanistan as cannon fodder in the War against Terror.

You are an utter disgrace to all Communications students. You know nothing about the world beyond your 10 inch thick push-up bras and your irregular and messy periods. You are so retarded that you could have beaten Ris Low, Dawn Yang, Xiaxue and Jamie Yeo on the stupidity scale. What possessed you to think that Mexicans speak Mexican? Perhaps you thought that ‘Singaporeans speak Singaporean’? The fact that you have managed to survive in your university course for so long is a vicious and damning indictment of our education system. One cannot imagine the horrendous amounts of taxpayers’ money squandered in funding the university education of functional retards like you. How many times have you spread your legs for your lecturers, how many times have you given them head, so that you could stay and stink up your faculty with your malodorous presence?

The male reptilians that surround and look upon you with adoration are sorry bastards and degenerates of the worst kind. DO NOT, even for a moment, feel flattered. They swarm you because they want a free fuck, and like your father before them, they are too cheapskate to pay for a cheap whore. Either that or they are myopic, pity you or have unresolved emotional issues that drive them to destroy themselves.

It was a pity that your dim-witted mother refused to allow you to attend your school's Halloween party. If you had gone, you would have won Best Costume, even without any makeup. It was incredible that you did not think of lying to your mother, since she was thousands of miles away and would not have known if you had opened your legs to your lousy boyfriend and/or the entire faculty including the teaching staff. Then again, knowing that you are mentally deficient, perhaps that should not have come as a surprise.

If you could not even hold onto your boyfriend’s micro-penis with both hands and your mouth, what made you think you could carry your friend’s camera and not let it shatter on the floor? You should compensate her for damages and refrain from touching any of her things. You are a hazard and a walking time bomb. You cannot even walk farther than a tortoise without wailing like you are being raped by ogres.

STOP torturing my friend. For once in her life she has a chance to get away from her intellectually bereft country. Please do not spoil it for her. Consider it an honour that she is your roommate. You should kiss the ground on which she walks. She is too good for you. Please do not touch her things, and keep away from her bed. She has enough difficulties breathing as it is, what with the poison you exhale. She does not need to be flea-infested as well.

Please do not procreate. Your very presence is already a blight upon the land, and that festering creature you call a boyfriend is not just an eyesore, but a disgrace to the male species. I do not, for a moment, believe that you are a virgin. You are a harlot, a whore, a strumpet, a slut, a brazen hussy and a trollop. Your idea of womanly virtue is to open that yawing and flea-bitten maw of a cunt to all those desperate enough to risk disease for the price of an orgasm. Just like your mother, you would have allowed the dead to hump you, had they been sufficiently ambulatory to bury themselves in your wet, eager and reeking crevice.

I beseech you. I implore you. I come to you with the most desperate of entreaties. KILL YOURSELF. Are you so wretched you do not even have a shred of decency left in what passes for your heart? Have your conscience been devoured by dogs? Then why do you not end it? End it now. Make it stop. Make the pain go away. I beg you. KILL YOURSELF.



Regards,
The Philistine.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

To the Hells with Michael Ruse!

Some philosophers and atheists ought to be drawn and quartered. One example is the idiot who gave us the following article.


The original bullshit can be found on The Guardian.


Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute


There's a schism alright, and I seem to find myself on the unfashionable side of it

o Michael Ruse
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 November 2009 12.00 GMT
o Article history


The question: Is there an atheist schism?

As a professional philosopher my first question naturally is: "What or who is an atheist?" If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly does not believe there is any God or meaning then I doubt there are many in this group. Richard Dawkins denies being such a person. If you mean someone who agrees that logically there could be a god, but who doesn't think that the logical possibility is terribly likely, or at least not something that should keep us awake at night, then I guess a lot of us are atheists. But there is certainly a split, a schism, in our ranks. I am not whining (in fact I am rather proud) when I point out that a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the "new atheists", loathe and detest my thinking. Richard Dawkins has likened me to the pusillanimous appeaser at Munich, Neville Chamberlain. Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True, says (echoing Orwell) that only someone with pretensions to the intelligentsia could believe the silly things I believe. And energetic blogger PZ Myers refers to me as a "clueless gobshite" because I confessed to seeing why true believers might find the Kentucky Creationist Museum convincing. I will spare you what my fellow philosopher Dan Dennett has to say about me.

There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting. This claim is on a par with golden plates in upstate New York. The Quakers and the Evangelicals were inspired and driven by their religion to oppose slavery, and a good thing too. Of course there has been evil in the name of religion – the pope telling Africans not to use condoms in the face of Aids – but as often as not religion is not the only or even the primary force for evil. The troubles in Northern Ireland were surely about socio-economic issues also, and the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley criticised his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

Third, how dare we be so condescending? I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. If I needed advice about everyday matters, I would turn without hesitation to these men. We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms. I can explain their faith claims in terms of psychology; they can explain my lack of faith claims also probably partly through psychology and probably theology also. (Plantinga, a Calvinist, would refer to original sin.) I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." I don't think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.

Fourth and finally, I live in the American South, surrounded by ardent Christians. I want evolution taught in the schools and I can think of no way better designed to make that impossible than to spout on about religion, from ignorance and with contempt. And especially to make unsubstantiated arguments that science refutes religion. I never conceal my nonbelief. I defend to the death the right of the new atheists to their views and to their right to propagate them. But that is no excuse for political stupidity. If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

Back in 1961, in the depths of the cold war, terrified as we were by the threat of nuclear annihilation, John Whitcomb Junior and Henry Morris published The Genesis Flood, a six-day-creationist account of origins. Because of its dispensationalist message – God clears things out every now and then, as he did at the time of Noah, and we should expect the next (literal) blow up fairly shortly – it became the fundamentalist bible. But don't worry. It's all part of God's plans, even the Russian bomb. Today, nearly a decade after 9/11, terrified as so many still are by the terrorist threat, the atheistic fundamentalists are finding equally fertile soil for their equally frenetic messages. It's all the fault of the believers, Muslims mainly of course, but Christians also. But don't worry. In the God Delusion, we have a message as simplistic as in The Genesis Flood. This too will solve all of your problems. Peace and prosperity await you in this world, if not the next.

Forgive me if I don't sign on.