What's Wrong With a Mosque at Ground Zero?

Nothing. Islam is the largest religion in the world. The extremists fit into a small minority. Therefore, it would be irrational to suggest in any way that a mosque is a symbol of terrorism or a threat to the USA.

Fox news recently did an interview the Republican Senator of Texas, John Cornyn. When asked about this topic, Cornyn said, "Whether you're connected with people, whether you're listening or whether you're lecturing to them, I think this is sort of the dichotomy that people sense, that they're being lectured to, not listened to, and I think that's the reason why a lot of people are very upset with Washington," Cornyn said.

As you can see, he is playing the "Americans are being condescended to by the elite Ivy League liberal grads" card. This is a recurring theme and tasteless strategy used by Republicans whose constituencies consists of back-woods hicks and low IQ hillbillies. That's who buys the rhetoric of repubs such Cornyn, unlike us educated elitist northern folk. Now I understand that as a libertarian, I agree more with republicans than I do democrats. However, many of the tactics I see used by republicans in their arguments just seem phony and calculated. The "common sense" approach to everything in politics is getting tiring to say the least.

One of the common arguments against the building of the mosque near ground zero is that it insensitive to those who died on 9-11. I do not understand this one bit. By doing research, one can easily find out that Muslims too perished in the 9-11 attacks, along with Christians and many other religious people. Whether or not building the mosque is in "bad taste" is completely subjective. What is objective is the law and the constitution, which both fall on the side of those who wish to build the mosque.

These arguments for government intervention in a religious freedom issue mainly plays on the emotions of Americans who are sensitive to what happened in the atttacks on the Twin Towers. For those of who are mature and intelligent, labeling any mosque as a terrorist base/breeding ground is illogical upon any fair analysis. But not for many flag-waving lunatics, apparently.

Ironically, it seems that the Americans who are the most patriotic are the ones that you are most embarrassed to share the same nationality with.

A Shift in Thoughts of Sweat

So fitness is something that I've just recently taken up. The whole idea off braking a sweat was something that I dreaded until I turned 20. One day I just happened to notice that I had quite a gut on me. Not one that showed through most clothes, but one that you may see if the shirt was tight enough. At 5'11, I weighed in at 193 lbs. This came as quite a shock to me. I finally realized that I had to do something about it.


As I sat in my car in the hot sun because of a massive car event a few weeks later, I began to wonder if joining this gym would be worth it. I mean, I wasn't actually fat, was I? No one could tell that I was a bit overweight, so why even bother? Good tasting food is one of the many joys in life. Well, needless to say I still decided to go through with it. I actually passed the gym because of it's strange location, but I was sure to head back out a few days later. This was my first ever gym and I was not at all surprised by what I saw. Unfortunately, the gym was not co-ed. This did not help me get girls, but hey, the idea was to get in shape right? The only girls that were present were the trainers and desk clerks, who were as condescending as I've ever experienced. No surprises there, however.


At first, nothing. I did mostly cardio, just running on the treadmill for about 20 minutes. This did absolutely nothing for me in terms of weight loss. I was beginning to lose motivation. One day, however, it all changed. I decided to experiment with my diet. Unfortunately, until then, I had never thought to change up my diet in order to get results. I finally tried, and lo and behold, I was at 189 lbs. I felt great. Nothing had been going right for me at that time, but this came through. I started to count calories. Less than 2000 a day. One other trick I learned was to eat nothing after 6pm.


Losing Weight While Still Eating Fast Food

Now that's where it got difficult. It is extremely hard to go without dinner every night. But you know what? It worked like a charm. When I woke up, I checked the scale and I was losing at least 1-2 per day. I flew through the 180's very quickly. Then it hit me: weight loss is more about DIET than it is FITNESS. Exercise, in my opinion, is nothing more than icing on the cake in terms of strictly weight loss. I was dropping lbs faster than I ever thought possible. I actually became quit obsessed with it, checking the scale 2-3 times a day, looking at websites that had information about BMI, etc.


Taco Bell, Checkers, McDonald's, Burger King. All places that I ate. The key is not to order fries or sodas. Get a burger, perhaps with no cheese. Drink the tea or just get a water. That's the way to go. The chicken wraps are also very good and light on calories.


So here we are today. I'm at 157 lbs. Everything worked out for me. I am heading in the direction of being cut and having a 6-pack, and to what do I owe this accomplishment to? Myself, of course. Only I could do this. Not a doctor, not a diet plan, not a pep talk. It was all self-motivation. I had to have the self-control and willpower to be able to go a few days without food. I had to have the determination to head to the gym at odd hours and put in a good workout.

Sweat and physical pain are now things I strive for, because I know the results will be worth it.

Here is how I lost over 30 lbs. I still ate fast food, by the way. Follow these tips and your golden. It's all about willpower.

1. Count calories. Eat 1500 or less per day. Take in most of them in the morning.
2. No soda, period. No fries, period. You order water or unsweetened tea. And for coffee drinkers such as myself, go all black. No cream, sugar, or anything.
3. No food past 7pm. This includes snacks. Nothing but water and tea at night.

Do these 3 steps and the results will come in almost immediately, guaranteed

Lost: Finally Over, Final Thoughts

One of my favorite shows was LOST. From season 1 on, I was hooked. The mystery, suspense, and drama always held me in and left just enough to my imagination to get me to watch the following episode. I still can't believe it's over after 6 seasons.

To me, the reason LOST has gotten progressively worse ever since the first season is simple. Academic touched on it: the answers the mysteries were not satisfactory in the least.

They spent so much time and energy into building the suspense and drama of the mysteries of the island. They built up the hype to it for so many episodes to the point where we as viewers were literally begging to know what the answer was. The problem with this is in the buildup itself that the writers should have been smart enough to figure out: there is no feasible way to satisfy such a teased mystery. Your better off omitting it from the show or not answering it at all, which would still lose you fans.

The biggest mystery and disappointment in this entire series, without question, is Walt. They dedicated so much time in season 1 and 2 to taunting the viewer about how "special" he was. Well, its season 6 and now all we know is he killed a bird. This is the prime example of building so much hype and anticipation with there being no possible satisfactory explanation for it. You could just tell they were on to something and kept trying to feed into it; with the others taking Walt and keeping him in a special dungeon (or whatever that place was).


Kind of like a few episodes ago when it was revealed what the voices were in the jungle. A dead Michael stands there and confirms to Hurley that the voices are just dead spirits who are stuck on the island.....Thats it?

You see, they teased the "voices" in the jungle for 5 and a half straight seasons and there simply wasn't going to be an explanation that felt good enough. They should have revealed what the voices were long before that.

Ironically, the mystery element is what made this series great and a later disappointment at the same time. Its like taking a loan out and not being able to pay it back later. They just kept borrowing our suspense and anticipation over and over and when it came time to pull back the curtain it was too late. The only reason any of us kept watching was for the suspense and anticipation for what was to come. The writers tried too hard to bait us and didn't put the same amount of effort into actually explaining what the answers were.

The problem with the ending was that it was anti-climactic and too safe. It gave me the feeling that all of it could have been in Jack's head. The main draw of the show was the mythology...not the characters. What was so interesting was not the love triangle between Kate, Sawyer, and Jack. It wasn't about the struggles of the characters. These were very interesting plot developments, but the main hook of the show was the mystery of the island, time travel, and all things supernatural.

The ending of LOST simply ignored all of these things and did not even make an attempt to explain them. What exactly was the smoke monster? Was it an ancient God? Was it simply a "security system"? Both of these explanations were eluded to in the show, but the answer was never given. This is a common theme with LOST.

Overall, however, this was still one of my all time favorite shows. My favorite characters would have to be Locke and Desmond. LOST had it's shortcomings, but the characters and their back stories helped to keep the show interesting while still teasing the viewers with mysteries.

The Rating System: Girls from 1-10

One of the interesting ways that men created in order to identify a woman's value, is the ratings system. A woman's worth is largely defined by how good she looks. What I will do for everyone who reads this is give a standard for what is valuable as well as invaluable in women today. Make no mistake, any woman can be rated.

First, allow me to define the rankings.

1: Untouchable. Repulsive. Disgusting. Pitiful. This woman has 0 value and 100% of the time, it is her fault. This is reserved for women who have lost all self control.

2: Barely better than a 1. Still untouchable. The difference here is perhaps the woman was born deformed. Since her looks are out of her control, I will spare her the 1 ranking.

3: This is the girl in high school that you'd get made fun of for dating. This is the last option. This is for the poor man that simply cannot afford anything better. Women like this usually compensate for their atrocious looks by being overtly funny or "good" to her man.

4: Still butt-ugly. No self-respecting man should ever stoop this low, however, the sexual marketplace favors women and therefore even below average ogres can get a man.

5. As average as it gets. Certainly not marriage or dating material. This girl is your last option in the bar when you've been rejected by everyone else. If your drunk enough, you just might take her back to your place. (But prepare to be horrified in the morning when you sober up)

6: These are the girls that usually look just decent enough to be in a relationship with (if your desperate), but not good looking enough to be a bitch. A 6 will cook, clean, and be appreciative of her man because she lacks the value to do anything less for him.

7: On her best day, when her hair is done, the nails are nice, wearing a cute outfit, she looks cute. On most days you could easily overlook her. 7's are common in offices. They shine at the christmas parties and other events when they can dress up, but other than that, you could do without them. Most times, however, this girl remains in a perpetual state of cute/averageness. (I made that word up) Also, she may be average facially but have a banging body.

8. She's cute and has a descent body. As I mentioned above, the sexual marketplace's current state is very beneficial to these women; you are very lucky to get one to stay with you. Nothing to be ashamed of here, however, you and I both know that you could do better.

9. Great body, excellent face. The real way to test if she is a 9 is to see how she looks without makeup and with her hair not done. A 9 is beautiful, even on a bad day. If you can bed a 9 then you've done well, and you deserve a drink :) What is she missing? Its hard to say, but guys know there is something left to be desired.

10. The pinnacle of beauty. Only a few exist on earth. This girl is perfect in every way. You hardly see them in real life, because they are either supermodels or off somewhere in a private country club which an uber-rich man paid for. You will most likely never bed or even talk to a 10. They are rare and unavailable.


Now that the ratings have been defined, allow me to give the standard for what is what. Below are examples of women, 1-10.

1.


Notice the short hair. Very few women can pull this of and still look decent. Long hair is feminine and very important for a woman to at least have some semblance of being a female. Her fatness was brought on by herself; she is also equally ugly.

2.


3:



4.



Not fat, just plain ugly


5.



Ah, your average American woman. A few extra pounds

6:



7:





8:




9:





10:



Let's be honest here: Asian women are superior in beauty. They truly are the best. This one here is the most beautiful on the planet. No questions asked

Feminism and Chivalry: Hypocrisy

Parenting is one of the most important jobs that one can have. That's where it all begins. Sure, genetics play a role in what a child grows up to become; however, for the most part, it's up to parents to raise their children the right way and instill in them proper beliefs and customs that benefit society as well as themselves.


Generally speaking, what is the average young boy taught growing up in regards to women? To respect women. To hold open doors for women. To be polite around women. To take care of women. To watch his language around women. To pull out chairs for women. When there is something heavy to be lifted, the boy learns quickly that he should volunteer to carry it for the girl. Not long after this, the average young boy discovers chivalry at its most horrific stage: dating. Whether its a romantic comedy or a television show, the young boy will find out that it is a social standard that on a date, he must (standard date)

a) Chauffeur the girl around in his car, on his dime.
b) Pay for the movie tickets and any snacks that she desires
c) Pay for dinner
d) A kiss is expected at the end. This requires courage, as he is risking rejection as well a a blow to his self-esteem.

We know what young boys are taught growing up. Basically, its to appease and serve women. It continues through adulthood; men don't care for large homes and fancy cars. Not in the abstract they don't. They work slavishly to get these material possessions because society has taught them that its the best way to get an attractive female; if a male could live in a comfortable apartment with a decent car his whole life and not have it work against him when it comes to getting a mate, he would do it. So serving women never stops.

With that being said, I have an important question to ask: are young girls instructed by their parents and society to respect and revere men as much as boys are told to respect them? Of course not, and everyone knows it. Young girls are pampered and told they are princesses. This is a fundamental difference in the way men and women are raised. If feminism is truly about equality, then why exactly have feminists turned a blind eye to the issue of chivalry and the way boys are taught to worship girls?

Chivalry in and of itself is sexist. Yet I see nothing but hypocrisy from feminists and most women for that matter. The feminist movement has turned out to be yet another special interest group that claims to be for equality but in reality desires more and more advantages, entitlements, and attention.

If you are a true egalitarian, you would not identify with any ideology at all. That is the fact that feminists hide. Inequality is a double edged sword. Not being equal has disadvantages as well as advantages. For instance, a disadvantage for women in the early 1900's was that they were restricted to the kitchen and raising children. However, an advantage was not having to work or take on any stressful responsibility. Another advantage was having the luxury of choosing a mate. Women were (and still are) in the position to judge males and choose who they saw fit. Chivalry was also an advantage.

Now, after feminism has pervaded society, we see that these disadvantages are gone. However, the advantages that inequality brought women remain; they conveniently held on to the luxurious social custom of having a man put his self-esteem on the line to approach a woman who he doesn't know, and go through all of the steps that I outlined above on a date. Chivalry was left out of the "equality" movement.

This seems to me to be pure hypocrisy and nothing more than a power grab for the gender that is a 53% majority in the USA. Feminism has turned the average woman today into a party-seeker. A feminist will fight for the right of women to get drunk and pass out in front of groups of red-blooded males. This is subtle encouragement. Today's American woman is as irrational as yesterday's American women; the difference is that today's has been given the green light to act on her illogical, irrational, and emotional choices.

Rand Paul: Libertarian Messiah or Fraud?

Rand Paul, the "Tea Party" candidate has won the republican nomination for U.S Senate in Kentucky. Like his father, Ron Paul, he is a libertarian that used the republican ticket to help him get elected-this country is still in the dark when it comes to voting for anyone other than a republican or democrat. When I heard of this news, I personally was excited. Finally a senator that I can get behind. I mean, he's a libertarian so I should back him 100%, right? Well not after I saw this video of him getting grilled by Rachel Maddow:




Now don't get me wrong: his stance on private ownership is a true libertarian one. And I would support his view even though no one in this country wants to go back to the 1950's where we had signs outside businesses that banished certain groups from entering. The problem with Rand Paul is that he selectively chose this issue to have an extreme view on. After reading an article by David Saltonstall (link to the article below, I discovered where Paul stands on the issue of medical marijuana: he support's its legalization. Upon first glance this may seem to be a good thing. However, the true libertarian stance is against the nanny state. All drugs should be legalized. It isn't in the government's place to tell its citizens what they may or may not put into their own body. The problem with Rand Paul is that he is extreme when it comes to allowing businesses to discriminate, but not extreme where it counts perhaps even more: on the war on drugs.

Anyone who understands the war on drugs and how it is a complete failure knows that it is an issue of utmost importance. This isn't about letting stoners and hippies have their day; its about ending statism, violence, and helping to grow our economy. Paul, unlike his father, doesn't seem to understand this. He should be at the forefront of the argument speaking out against the phony war on drugs. Instead, he takes a weak, watered down stance on the issue and promotes the legalization of medical marijuana. That is simply not enough.

Either you are for freedom or for the state, take your pick Rand. So far you have damaged the Tea Party movement beyond repair. The big knock, if you recall, on the Tea Party Movement was that it was filled with racist, middle-aged, crazed blue collar people who are fed up with so much government. You are only validating the liberals when you take unpopular stances on a civil rights bill that is in the past and will never be changed. What was the point of speaking out against it? I don't understand this extremist point of view in light of the fact that you aren't willing to take extreme libertarian views on other issues.

Philosophy can be a great basis for political positions. However, one must discover that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, what Rand Paul wants should hold up. But in reality, all business owners and corporations are not filled with responsible, good natured people. There is incompetence in both government as well as private business. I understand that private ownership is better to bet on than government, but one must not defend private ownership at the expense of the civil liberties of American citizens. Let's suppose a private business were to bar all Jews from entering their Cafe. Does this not infringe upon Jewish American's freedom of movement? What about the American citizens?

These and many other issues are ones that Rand Paul must think clearly about. The arguments that he brings forth are at the college level- they have no place in the United States Senate. He needs to clean his act up and start coming up with constructive, practical ideas rather than loony ones that no one but him will vote in favor of.

Barry Goldwater: The Aboriginal Conservative Libertarian

The description that I give myself politically is as spot on as I could put it: I am a conservative libertarian, along the lines of a Ron Paul. The Texas senator is a staunch constitutionlist and understands the importance of freedom. Liberty is my main concern whenever approaching the political realm.


Who was an even greater pioneer for personal rights, freedoms, and liberty? Why none other than Barry Goldwater. Outside of his misguided notions about minorities, Goldwater's vision was on the correct tract for both his time and ours. This Arizona Senator was a true patriot and is certainly a great influential figure in history for any true libertarian. He was known as "Mr. Conservative"

Not only was his policies and ideas in the right place, but he also commanded a stellar resume. Prior to his political career, he was a Major General in the U.S Air Force Reserve. Military experience is paramount to determining the intestinal and mental foritude of a presidential candidate in my opinion. What Goldwater accomplished was no easy feat; combining true conservatism with the libertarian movement.

Here are a few classic and influential quotes by Goldwater that truly represent freedom:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"


“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away"


"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

-Barry Goldwater