October 7, 2009

Roman Polanski's Story Could Have Been An Old Testament Saga

OK, I had a tough time writing this at times. But my smiles overcame me.

Is it just me or has it dawned on anyone else that Roman Polanski's life to date would have made a great story in the Old Testament?

I'm no expert on the Old Testament, but I know enough of the themes of many of the stories that I see that if Polanski was born 3000 years earlier, he would either be a hero, tragic character, or villain, depending on the writer's interpretation of what Polanski did in context to what God desired him to do.

I checked a brief biography of Polanski's life on Wikipedia. His parents were agnostics, his mother born brought up Catholic (having a Catholic mother and a Jewish father), and his father was born a Jew.

Right there, God could have took a hissy fit and punish Polanski's dad for marrying a non Jew, and he could have put a pox on the family for that. In fact, that pox and hissy fit could have originated with Polanski's father, a Jew, who committed "the sin" of intermarriage. Again, it depends on what the bible writer wants to write and how he writes it.

Since most of you know the rest of the story. Let me state in with a biblical slant.
I've decided to place God's original wrath on Polanski's mother's father.

God was pissed that this Russian Jew would marry a Catholic and then raise his children Catholic. This pissed him off big time, but he waited to unleash his wrath.

One of the children Bula, was poison to God. Not only was she the product of a mixed marriage, and a doubter, she had to take it a step further, and seek out and seduce another Jew like her mother did. This made God froth at the mouth.

This intermarriage stuff was getting out of hand. God had to create the settings for the Holocaust to teach the Jews a lesson. And it was Bula's fault for putting him over the edge.

God wanted to punish Jews for marrying non Jews and non Jews for marrying Jews. Hitler was the perfect guy for the job, because Hitler didn't give a hoot about Jewish laws that state a Jew is a Jew by either religion or if the mother is a Jew. Hitler was down with what God wanted. He considered anyone who even had one Jewish grandparent to be a Jew.

The Polanski's were taken to concentration camps. God thought for a second, which Polanski should die. One needs to die, or what is the point? Bula, was the best choice. She would probably marry another Jew if she survived the camps. And women are only important to God if they are ethnic Jews. So Bula was killed, her husband allowed to live and reflect on his choice, and Roman was allowed to escape. God wasn't through with Roman yet.

Polanski was brought up Catholic from there. He was in fact, not an ethic Jew anyway, nor a religious one, God wanted to show the world what a mess the product of a mixed marriage can become.

The first thing God did was to inflict Polanski with the idea that 13 year old girls are hot, no matter how old you are. And God gave Polanski extra free will to act on his urges. Even though God gave everyone the same extra free will and the same desires during biblical times, this is now and that was then.

God saw that Polanski was unsure of his existence, and God wanted no part of Polanski believing in him even considering his existence. God just wanted to prove to the rest of the world he exists.

So God punished him some more, by sending a band of heathens who were worshiping false prophets to do his work. Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered, in a way that made God smile.

So now, Polanski was faithless. But what else could God do to show the world that intermarriage is a grave sin? He did bless Roman with the urge to have sex with very young girls. So he tempted Roman with one, and Roman, who knew better, couldn't prevent the God given urge he had to booze up a 13 year and then rape her anally. God figured it would be cool to ad some Sodom and Gomorrah into Roman's story.

Even though back in biblical times, Roman wouldn't have received even a question when it came to raping a thirteen year old girl, God knew the times had changed enough and the general population developed ethics that contradicted those in the bible, and Roman had to flee.

For thirty years (why not 40?), he has been in exile. And the world now knoweth that intermarriage for Jews is a big no no.

The story continues.

October 3, 2009

Is Fox News Trying To Lose Or Confuse Viewers

I've admitted here before that I watch Fox News. I'm gravitated to mostly because it is like watching a train wreck. I'm fascinated by the constant whining and spinning of the marginalized Religious Right disguising themselves as journalists and a political party. The cute on air blondes don't hurt their cause with me either.

So I put it on this morning, and two featured stories today made me ask myself "is this Fox or CNN?"

First they had a medical expert who said that half the newborns in the USA today will live to at least 104. Interesting fact, but also took it a step further and said that America has dropped to 40 something from 11th in the past decade when it comes to countries and life expectancy. And you know what he blamed it on? NOT HAVING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. Wow, on Fox. Even the talking heads couldn't dispute what he was talking about.

Some more advice from the health guy, he said Americans need to go out and "walk."

Then, to top it off, they had their science expert discussing the recent find of Ardi.

One of the talking heads asked if this was the missing link. And the science guy gave a real answer, that this find is too young because it is only 4 million years old and that humans and chimps diverged around 6 million years ago. Although the real real answer (I can say real real if Whoopi can say rape rape) is that it is in fact a missing link. There are many, but scientists have also found many links that are no longer missing, so that they know pretty much what the missing links would look like.

But the guy on Fox this morning amazed me, before the find was discussed he called this exciting news and even blurted out "wake the kids." This was the same guy, I think, who not so long ago did a one sided interview with that Discovery Institute imbecile who reminds me a little of David Schwimmer (Casey Luskin), who was going on and on about how science books have it wrong when it comes to evolution.

I just saw the Luskin video again, and the guy who interviewed the Fox science expert was not the same dough head who interviewed Luskin.

Any way, what are the people who take Fox News seriously (evolution deniers and/or teabaggers) gonna think after watching this mornings broadcast?

September 19, 2009

Proof Teabaggers Are Bat Shit Crazy

I know this was edited, but all it did was preach to the choir when it comes to my opinion of the whining marginalized Religious Right. The majority of them are absolutely clueless:

HT/Goddess Reigns Supreme (a known anti-semite), but I still have to give credit where credit is due.

September 15, 2009

If I Could Have Dinner With Anyone Living Or Dead

Wouldn't it be great to get into a famous person's head for a few hours?

Who to pick? Jesus and Moses most probably never existed, but even if they did, I can always go to Toronto and go to Queen and Sherbourne and talk to just about anyone on the street to get the same out of a dinner with either of these fictional characters.

Since I'm married, and have this ridiculous notion that I must be faithful, it makes no sense to choose a sexy woman from past or present.

How about scientific discovery? Charles Darwin would be a pretty good choice, but he did have failing health much of his latter life, and it might be a turn off eating with someone who might have old puke stains in their beard (see, I'm thinking of everything).

The US Founding Fathers? It might be cool to sit with Jefferson and ask exactly what he thought about God and Christianity, and I could fill him in on Darwin and evolution, and then ask him "so what are you now? Deist? Theist? or Atheist? or are you going to cop out and say agnostic?"

But of all the people living and dead, I would choose Seth MacFarlane. Usually, I'm not one to put one person above everyone else, except for myself that is, but when it comes to Seth, I have to make an exception. Does this make me a weirdo? I don't care, we are all weirdos in some ways at least.

Oh, and apparently there really is a Peter Griffin:

H/T Joe's Big Blog (I took the picture from another site though, but check out Joe's blog, it has lots of funny stuff on it).

September 5, 2009

When Did Liberal Become Such A Dirty Word

Watching Fox News this morning, I've heard the word "liberal" being tossed around like it is a disease.

Lets look at the definition of "liberal:"

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Why would anyone want to be anything else? Makes no sense to me.

I'm not talking about being a Far Left whack job who pushes tolerance of behavior of others to the extreme. There are limits. A rapist is a rapist is a rapist, and I don't care what drove him to become one. A suicide bomber is a suicide bomber is a suicide bomber and I don't care what drove him to blow up innocent people. Yes, the far Left has major problems because they can't identify who the perpetrator is and who the victim is many times. They are not open minded because they tend to blame the real victim or society. They are not true liberals.

The word "liberal" in its truest sense has nothing to do with political affiliation unless the government has policies that are not progressive. A liberal would be against anything that stifles progress.

What exactly is the opposite of "liberal?" Here are some examples:

I'd rather be a dirty liberal any day.