Archive for the ‘Say what?’ Category


The myth of christian charity.

November 1, 2007

Flamingo Road Church (a South Florida mega-church) recently closed a soup kitchen that they ran in Hallandale Beach.  According to the church’s spokespeople, the church closed the food program because none of the volunteers were church members.   


Hmmm…despite the need for the food program, the church closed down the operation because no one in their church is xtian enough to volunteer to feed the hungry.  So, the volunteers that did staff the food program aren’t good enough for Flamingo Road Church?  The fact that food was getting to the hungry wasn’t reason enough to keep the place open?  Oh, jeebus would be proud!

The church claims that the food program will reopen at some point in the future.  I guess that’ll be once they can brainwash enough of their flock to do the work.  A Flamingo Road Church apologist says:  “They are doing this to make it ten times better. It is hard to make it better while the ministry is goingo [sic] on. It is going to take a break to come back better than it ever was before.”

Yeah…while the hungry people are starving to death, they can comfort themselves with the knowledge that the church just needed a little reorganization.  Well, at least this shows that faith based initiatives don’t work.  A non-faith organization would not stop helping the needy due to such a ridiculous notion.  Oh, wait, I get it now…the hungry people aren’t xtian, and Flamingo Road wasn’t successful in shoving jeebus down their throats with the food, so they closed up shop.  Of course, it’s all so clear now.

Those Flamingo Road xtians are clever.  They told a big lie so that the “volunteers” would look bad, not the church.  Well, I’m sure that the people who depended on the food program will understand Flamingo Road’s decision.  I wonder where in the xtian magic book of lies it says, “Ye who do not succumb to jeebus shall not receive food from xtians!”


Those pesky abominations!

November 1, 2007

Monday’s episode of Jeopardy (which I watched last night; ah, the joy that is TiVo) included a category called “Biblical Abominations.”  Normally, I hate it when a category that’s based on the bible is included in the game.  However, I figured I would enjoy this category as I assumed it would hint at the hypocritical behavior of xtians.

Homosexuality is the “abomination” xtians repeat the most often.  They love to quote passages from Leviticus that say, supposedly, homosexuality is evil.  I’ve always wondered why xtians are so hellbent against homosexuality when there are plenty of other abominations, i.e. sin, that they freely commit.

To my delight, none of the Jeopardy answers had to do with homosexuality.   Instead, the Jeopardy writers included the abominations of eating shellfish, and the ban on anything to do with bugs, eagles, incense and Egypt.  Wow!  Egypt is an abomination?  Tut would have been so proud.

So, despite the abomination that is shellfish, I’ve never encountered a xtian eschewing a lobster or a clam.  In fact, I’ve even seen ads for church sponsored clambakes.  Likewise, I’ve never heard a xtian parent scold a child for committing a sin by playing with a caterpillar or a ladybug.  Oh, and what about incense?  Don’t the catholics love to swing around their purses full of incense during mass?  They should be going straight to hell for that.

Furthermore, xtians claim that the US is a xtian nation because the “founding fathers” wanted it that way.  (Uh, that’s a big lie.)  Nonetheless, the symbol of this great xtian nation is an eagle.  Ha!  Eagles are an abomination!  Ooh, those xtians who covet eagles are sinners! Since it’s in the bible, it has to be true.  Right?

When did xtians decide which abominations are worse than others?  And how could they do that?  If god said something is an abomination, it can’t be changed just because some xtians choose not to obey the word of god.  It’s not rational that xtians are so against one supposed abomination when they freely engage in other abominable behaviors.  Isn’t an abomination is an abomination?


IKEA Voting

October 30, 2007

I went to IKEA on October 28th for my first ever visit to the iconic chain store.  IKEA Sunrise (which is not in downtown Miami, as is depicted on the IKEA website) opened on October 17.  As I thought that I had given enough cooling off time for the eager crowds, I was taken aback by the number of people waiting in line to enter the store.  I won’t dare to estimate, but it’s true that I couldn’t see the end of the line.  Once the store opened, the place was so jammed with shoppers, it was nearly impossible to look at any of the merchandise.

While waiting in line, I thought about people waiting in line to vote.  Despite rampant reichwing patriotism, US citizens use so many excuses not to vote.  Furthermore, if any “hurdle” is put into the mix on election day (e.g. a long line, rain, cold, traffic) many US citizens choose not to vote.  But here we waited (for over an hour, standing in the South Florida sun, with no shade) for the store management to open the doors.  One woman said she had driven from Orlando just for the privilege of visiting the store.  She admitted that she had come to the store the previous evening, but gave up her quest to get in after waiting for three hours.

People camp out at stores to wait for the release of new products.  They will sit outside in the rain, snow, and frigid temperatures to watch sporting events.  But the same people will use lack of time and inclement weather as excuses for not voting.  Oh, the irony of it all.

Since people don’t mind waiting in line for something “good,” perhaps we should put polling places at popular stores.  Better yet, let’s tie elections to special events like product releases and sports games.  Would thousands of people still show up to a sporting event if they knew they would have to cast a vote before entering the stadium?

People should be thrilled to wait in line to vote, no matter the weather or time constraints.  If it’s OK to “suffer” for sports and consumerism, why is the same not true for voting?  Only when it’s too late, will most Americans realize that they were too busy shopping while they should have been exercising their right (and duty) to vote.


Sagging = Screw me

October 29, 2007

The young guys who wear their pants with the waist just above their knees do so because they want respect.  They claim that people who disapprove of their “style” are “haters.”  They think that “sagging” emulates the tough prison culture and a kiss-my-ass attitude.  In reality, it’s a humorous trend because it looks ridiculous and uncomfortable, but also because of the inherent fallacy.  The guys sporting the bagging pants don’t understand that their style really means that they’re ready for anal intercourse.  I doubt these self-described “gangstas” and “thugz” would continue wearing their pants so low if they knew that it means they are telling the world they are ready to be dominated.  The irony is astounding.

I don’t agree with the recent action that some municipalities have taken to ban “sagging.”  While the style is stupid, it doesn’t affect anyone but the wearer.  Furthermore, in a free society, we can’t dictate how one wears clothes.  How is wearing pants low any worse than wearing a bikini or a thong at the beach?

Nonetheless, I do agree with the sentiment that has brought about these municipal ordinances.  The real problem of thug attire is that young men desire to emulate prisoners and gangsters.  How sad it is that our culture has devolved so far that young men look up to men who glorify murder, drug use, and rape.  It’s time for the rappers, hip hoppers, and the corporations that back them, to say “enough is enough.”  It  would be so great if Diddy used his Vodka money to encourage young men to respect themselves and honor their friends, families, neighbors, and communities.  If the young men don’t want “haters” pointing fingers at them, they need to stop hating too.


Farther is not Further

October 24, 2007

My mind swirls with awe when I see or hear people using “further” when they mean to use “farther.”  It’s in print, it’s on TV, it’s in idle conversation…the further switcharoo happens so frequently that I’m beginning to think that I’m the target in some grammar joke or conspiracy.  Hey, take some time to notice; you too will think that you’re the only one not in on the joke.

Further is used so often in place of farther, I believe people don’t even know that farther exists.  The rules are simple; I just don’t understand why people have such a problem with the correct usage.

Use farther when specifying sequences in physical distance (e.g. Why Geese Fly Farther than Eagles)

Use further when specifying sequences in degree or severity (e.g. Further Adventures of Penrose the Mathematical Cat

Lesson Tutor has a great page about the proper usage for farther and further.  

Should you get stuck in furthering your correct usage, here’s something to keep in mind:  Farther is far, not fur.


Plethoric myriad obfuscations

October 11, 2007

There’s a pethora of myriad obfuscations around the web lately.  Ha, how’s that?  Seriously.  What’s it about?  Is it that bloggers have a hope that their posts will get more hits if they use big words like myriad and obfuscate?  Why make readers stumble over obfuscate, when it’s just as easy to write “confusing.”  I’m certainly not a grammar and usage expert, but I do think it’s silly to use words just because “everyone else is doing it.”

This is especially true when one doesn’t even know the proper usage for an appropriated word.  If I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen “a myriad of” I would be worth more than a Blackwater no-bid defense contract!

Example:  There’s a myriad of sand at the beach.

Doesn’t that sound awkward?  It’s better to say “a ton of.”  One can’t have “a myriad of” anything.  Also, when people use myriad, I have no doubt that they really mean to say “a bunch of,” “multitudes,” or even “many,  many, many.”  These myriad users surely don’t intend to write “uncountable.”  Really, when’s the last time you read a “myriad” statement from which you understood that the writer meant an indefinite, or infinite number?

Example:  The myriad grains of sand at the beach.

Ah, that’s better.  Are you less obfuscated now?


Your, you’re, and yours (and mine’s?)

October 10, 2007

I’m astounded that people use “your” when they really mean to write “you’re.”  It’s a barometer of stupidity for me.  Don’t these people know that “your” is not the same as “you are?”  It’s so basic, it makes my head hurt!  Luckily, I’ve noticed that this error is made most often by reichwing neocons.  Check out the idiot hate mail VoteVets received because of the Limbaugh phony soldier statement.  I couldn’t find one in the whole bunch that got it right.  Maybe if they didn’t have their heads so far up Limbaugh’s ‘I didn’t serve because I had a huge pimple on my Ass’ they’d be able to get it right.  And these are the people who want to replace public schools with “vouchers” for private (i.e. religious) schools.  Scary.