May 7, 2010
May 6, 2010
What does faith feel like?
Recently, Me posted a very interesting post with a very interesting question... here's my answer.
What an interesting question. It’s almost like trying to effectively describe love. Some people describe love as a warm and fuzzy feeling you might have inside, but think about it, what exactly is a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside? For warm you can think of a soup on a cold day or maybe a shot of brandy as a night cap, or how about a hot shower when you’re still groggy? For fuzzy you think of texture, something completely sensorial; which is funny because you can’t really grasp or touch love. Yes you can feel it, but you can’t touch it.
So when you ask what faith encompasses physiologically, you will get a variety of metaphorical answers that try to explain something that can’t truly be explained effectively. If you want a straight answer, you will probably not get a better one than Restriction’s. He used vivid examples from your life to try and help you understand what is pretty un-understandable.
For my part I recently did my Catholic Confirmation. You know this and somewhere inside you, I think there is the suspicion that I drank some magic Kool Aid and have suddenly gone all Christ loving. For some reason, saying I’m agnostic consistently gets people thinking I’m atheist. It’s like if I said I were bisexual everyone would think I was gay, because once you suck cock, well, it’s hard to make a case that you are not a one reproductive organ lover. But as with most things with me, it’s not that simple.
I have a Catholic upbringing so that’s my frame of reference to explain something that I don’t get, but I feel. Does that mean I deny my Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim sisters and brothers? Certainly not. I find different religions deeply fascinating, as I do the one I’ve been brought up on. Does that mean I deny my Science loving brothers and sisters? Certainly not. That’s because none of us have any clue as to what’s really going on and why we’re here, but we all have the right to search for answers.
Science and religion have fought since their beginnings pointing a finger at each other and saying each one has the real explanation of why we’re all here, and that is simply bullshit. Being agnostic, I question most things and accept the possibility of most things as well. Do I believe there’s a man in the sky dressed in white robes who gives pieces of delicious tasting bread to people for behaving? No. Do I believe that there is no God and that we are merely products of ribonucleic recombinations, ever adapting to our current environment? No. Reality just isn’t that simple or clear cut, if you ask me.
If you break it all down, one explanation is rational while the other one is emotional. My problems with science stem from the fact that when you control conditions to produce a result, you’re nothing more than a glorified magician. You might have changed your cape and wizard’s hat for a lab coat and notebook, but you’re no different. You’ve just upgraded to fit the times and refined your magic work to convince people of your truths with complicated numbers, charts and calculations. If you wonder how I could say such a preposterous thing, it’s simple. If you accept the words anomaly, probability, and error, you accept that science is flawed. On the other hand, you have religion. Purely emotional and offering some explanations that don’t make a whole lot of sense. But if you simply look at them that way, obviously you won’t see any benefit in either.
Bill Maher is a cynic of the times and though he makes a lot of sense a lot of the time, he can be such a smug prick about his opinions that he doesn’t accept there’s some grey middle ground to be discussed as well. I love how he gets all pissy and preachy when someone has a differing opinion that irks him, because though he can accept arguments on certain topics, he’s quite incisive towards others. People have said that for ages religion has been the reason why we’ve had wars and conflicts for as long as we know. I say false.
Before your eyebrow hits the ceiling, hear me out. Religion by itself is harmless, as is science. They are trying to explain something we don’t understand. Some of the things might not make any sense, but we take the answers we’re given until a better one comes along. Just in case, religion hasn’t killed people. Religious people however, now that’s a whole other story. Religious institutions, which are governed by people who use religion for their own ulterior motives, now that’s where evil does reside. Because you take something harmless like a book, let’s call it the bible, and you misquote it to justify some pretty heinous actions and then have the balls to say that God told you to do it. Well let’s put it this way, if you change the character of God for Satan, then a person goes from being divinely enlightened to possessed, and from righteous to villainous, just because you changed one character. But in its essence, it’s still just a book trying to explain what the hell is going on. Is it factual? No. Is it historical? Slightly. Is it the truth? Well exactly WHAT is the truth? It’s just a book and religion is just a set of mores, rules and guidelines to try and get you through your day without stepping on other people’s toes.
Some people might say “But science and technology have come a long way in helping us understand the cosmos?” If that’s so, then why do we underuse our brains? If that’s so, then why do new theories oust old theories? If you want my perspective, it’s simple: data + results do not equal the truth. It equals a possible truth. And if religion was used as the scapegoat to start wars, science and technology developed the means to carry them out. It’s not like people were fighting each other with crosses and hard cover versions of the bible. So which one is worse?
Since I was 13 I’ve had a crisis of all faiths resulting from almost drowning and not seeing a tunnel of light, not feeling a hand pulling me from the depths towards safety. I’ve been thinking and pining over death since I was about 9 and had already lost about four close relatives. But does that mean I won’t pray and speak to a higher power I know nothing about? Does that mean I’ll look at scientists and religious people and scoff at their explanations of why we’re here? Simply put, no. I’m not one to judge anyone on their preferred set of explanations. I just try to get something out of everything I come in contact with because it’s always easier to write something off, but it isn’t that easy to see a positive in something that may not make sense. So would I say I’m religious? Not necessarily. Would I say I’m scientific? Not necessarily. For me, a non logical combination of spiritual and rational aspects is more towards my liking… and no, I’m not going to become a Scientologist either.
As for religion, to me it offers examples and issues a set of guidelines. Regarding Catholicism and Christianity, I actually really like the figure of Jesus and his values. From what I’ve read and what you may grasp, he tried to help people, tried to talk sense to them, was the first feminist, accepted lepers, hookers, Moors and Samaritans. He decried institutions and criticized temples that divided and categorized people hierarchically. He invited people to look at themselves before criticizing others and he stuck to his values, even if it meant dying. Now you can speculate whether he was the son of god, a savior, or what have you, but at the very least, you can’t deny that what’s been written has him being a pretty cool cat. He said if you are slapped, offer the other cheek, which I interpret it as saying that it takes two to fight or that if someone loses their cool, it’s up to you to keep the cool (but that’s my interpretation). He was pissed at Pharisees and called them hypocrites because they were more concerned with money, influence and power rather than faith. He also said that whoever looked at their brother and cried fool would face the fires of hell. Now if you take the hell connotation out, it seems like he’s asking people to do something better than to criticize or judge others.
Now do I think all of this is factual and happened as is written? Well I’ll answer a question with a question: Why are there different versions of the bible, why are their scrolls we are not allowed to read and why do we need others to interpret the “word of god”. Why is there an interpreter or a middle man? Hell, last time I checked, if you played the telephone game with eight people, the message that starts out rarely gets to the end without changing significantly. I think religion is much the same way. True, they try to maintain the tradition and what have you, but time passes, needs arise and greed edits to its own satisfaction, be it science or religion. Honestly speaking, I could just as well quote Star Wars, Fight Club, The Sandman, Dune, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Niebla and Lord of the Rings and some of their characters to show what aspects I resonate with and base my theory of life on.
But to answer your question, what does faith feel like? Well, I have no idea, but if I had to describe, it’s that split second when you jump off a ledge, after you took that step and before you begin to freefall where you don’t know what anything is going to feel like, but you have already accepted the direction your going and that in the end, the outcome won’t matter, because you’ll be ok with it if you look at it with an open mind. If you fall to your death, it’s a logical explanation; if you land on a lower ledge, it could be divine intervention or luck; and if you sprout wings and float away, it’s a miracle. The middle explanation is the only one that accepts personal interpretation and offers a choice, whereas the other two lean completely to rational or emotional. What they all have in common is that before the outcome, you took a step and said screw it, what will be will be and the peace in that moment, though brief it may be, is what we may know as faith. It is the happiness of a decision without taking into account the consequence, it is not caring about anything but the moment. It is freedom in its purest form.
Other people describe how faith feels more in tune to the definition of joy, enlightenment, celebration, security, etc. I’ve simply chosen to describe it as peace. Is this the right answer? Instead of replying with, “who knows?” or saying “maybe”, I ask another question: “why care?”
Draft your definition, edit as you see fit and be happy if you find an answer that makes even the slightest bit of sense for you.
Hope this perspective in some way helps in your quest to find your definition.
Cheers
What an interesting question. It’s almost like trying to effectively describe love. Some people describe love as a warm and fuzzy feeling you might have inside, but think about it, what exactly is a warm fuzzy feeling on the inside? For warm you can think of a soup on a cold day or maybe a shot of brandy as a night cap, or how about a hot shower when you’re still groggy? For fuzzy you think of texture, something completely sensorial; which is funny because you can’t really grasp or touch love. Yes you can feel it, but you can’t touch it.
So when you ask what faith encompasses physiologically, you will get a variety of metaphorical answers that try to explain something that can’t truly be explained effectively. If you want a straight answer, you will probably not get a better one than Restriction’s. He used vivid examples from your life to try and help you understand what is pretty un-understandable.
For my part I recently did my Catholic Confirmation. You know this and somewhere inside you, I think there is the suspicion that I drank some magic Kool Aid and have suddenly gone all Christ loving. For some reason, saying I’m agnostic consistently gets people thinking I’m atheist. It’s like if I said I were bisexual everyone would think I was gay, because once you suck cock, well, it’s hard to make a case that you are not a one reproductive organ lover. But as with most things with me, it’s not that simple.
I have a Catholic upbringing so that’s my frame of reference to explain something that I don’t get, but I feel. Does that mean I deny my Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim sisters and brothers? Certainly not. I find different religions deeply fascinating, as I do the one I’ve been brought up on. Does that mean I deny my Science loving brothers and sisters? Certainly not. That’s because none of us have any clue as to what’s really going on and why we’re here, but we all have the right to search for answers.
Science and religion have fought since their beginnings pointing a finger at each other and saying each one has the real explanation of why we’re all here, and that is simply bullshit. Being agnostic, I question most things and accept the possibility of most things as well. Do I believe there’s a man in the sky dressed in white robes who gives pieces of delicious tasting bread to people for behaving? No. Do I believe that there is no God and that we are merely products of ribonucleic recombinations, ever adapting to our current environment? No. Reality just isn’t that simple or clear cut, if you ask me.
If you break it all down, one explanation is rational while the other one is emotional. My problems with science stem from the fact that when you control conditions to produce a result, you’re nothing more than a glorified magician. You might have changed your cape and wizard’s hat for a lab coat and notebook, but you’re no different. You’ve just upgraded to fit the times and refined your magic work to convince people of your truths with complicated numbers, charts and calculations. If you wonder how I could say such a preposterous thing, it’s simple. If you accept the words anomaly, probability, and error, you accept that science is flawed. On the other hand, you have religion. Purely emotional and offering some explanations that don’t make a whole lot of sense. But if you simply look at them that way, obviously you won’t see any benefit in either.
Bill Maher is a cynic of the times and though he makes a lot of sense a lot of the time, he can be such a smug prick about his opinions that he doesn’t accept there’s some grey middle ground to be discussed as well. I love how he gets all pissy and preachy when someone has a differing opinion that irks him, because though he can accept arguments on certain topics, he’s quite incisive towards others. People have said that for ages religion has been the reason why we’ve had wars and conflicts for as long as we know. I say false.
Before your eyebrow hits the ceiling, hear me out. Religion by itself is harmless, as is science. They are trying to explain something we don’t understand. Some of the things might not make any sense, but we take the answers we’re given until a better one comes along. Just in case, religion hasn’t killed people. Religious people however, now that’s a whole other story. Religious institutions, which are governed by people who use religion for their own ulterior motives, now that’s where evil does reside. Because you take something harmless like a book, let’s call it the bible, and you misquote it to justify some pretty heinous actions and then have the balls to say that God told you to do it. Well let’s put it this way, if you change the character of God for Satan, then a person goes from being divinely enlightened to possessed, and from righteous to villainous, just because you changed one character. But in its essence, it’s still just a book trying to explain what the hell is going on. Is it factual? No. Is it historical? Slightly. Is it the truth? Well exactly WHAT is the truth? It’s just a book and religion is just a set of mores, rules and guidelines to try and get you through your day without stepping on other people’s toes.
Some people might say “But science and technology have come a long way in helping us understand the cosmos?” If that’s so, then why do we underuse our brains? If that’s so, then why do new theories oust old theories? If you want my perspective, it’s simple: data + results do not equal the truth. It equals a possible truth. And if religion was used as the scapegoat to start wars, science and technology developed the means to carry them out. It’s not like people were fighting each other with crosses and hard cover versions of the bible. So which one is worse?
Since I was 13 I’ve had a crisis of all faiths resulting from almost drowning and not seeing a tunnel of light, not feeling a hand pulling me from the depths towards safety. I’ve been thinking and pining over death since I was about 9 and had already lost about four close relatives. But does that mean I won’t pray and speak to a higher power I know nothing about? Does that mean I’ll look at scientists and religious people and scoff at their explanations of why we’re here? Simply put, no. I’m not one to judge anyone on their preferred set of explanations. I just try to get something out of everything I come in contact with because it’s always easier to write something off, but it isn’t that easy to see a positive in something that may not make sense. So would I say I’m religious? Not necessarily. Would I say I’m scientific? Not necessarily. For me, a non logical combination of spiritual and rational aspects is more towards my liking… and no, I’m not going to become a Scientologist either.
As for religion, to me it offers examples and issues a set of guidelines. Regarding Catholicism and Christianity, I actually really like the figure of Jesus and his values. From what I’ve read and what you may grasp, he tried to help people, tried to talk sense to them, was the first feminist, accepted lepers, hookers, Moors and Samaritans. He decried institutions and criticized temples that divided and categorized people hierarchically. He invited people to look at themselves before criticizing others and he stuck to his values, even if it meant dying. Now you can speculate whether he was the son of god, a savior, or what have you, but at the very least, you can’t deny that what’s been written has him being a pretty cool cat. He said if you are slapped, offer the other cheek, which I interpret it as saying that it takes two to fight or that if someone loses their cool, it’s up to you to keep the cool (but that’s my interpretation). He was pissed at Pharisees and called them hypocrites because they were more concerned with money, influence and power rather than faith. He also said that whoever looked at their brother and cried fool would face the fires of hell. Now if you take the hell connotation out, it seems like he’s asking people to do something better than to criticize or judge others.
Now do I think all of this is factual and happened as is written? Well I’ll answer a question with a question: Why are there different versions of the bible, why are their scrolls we are not allowed to read and why do we need others to interpret the “word of god”. Why is there an interpreter or a middle man? Hell, last time I checked, if you played the telephone game with eight people, the message that starts out rarely gets to the end without changing significantly. I think religion is much the same way. True, they try to maintain the tradition and what have you, but time passes, needs arise and greed edits to its own satisfaction, be it science or religion. Honestly speaking, I could just as well quote Star Wars, Fight Club, The Sandman, Dune, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Niebla and Lord of the Rings and some of their characters to show what aspects I resonate with and base my theory of life on.
But to answer your question, what does faith feel like? Well, I have no idea, but if I had to describe, it’s that split second when you jump off a ledge, after you took that step and before you begin to freefall where you don’t know what anything is going to feel like, but you have already accepted the direction your going and that in the end, the outcome won’t matter, because you’ll be ok with it if you look at it with an open mind. If you fall to your death, it’s a logical explanation; if you land on a lower ledge, it could be divine intervention or luck; and if you sprout wings and float away, it’s a miracle. The middle explanation is the only one that accepts personal interpretation and offers a choice, whereas the other two lean completely to rational or emotional. What they all have in common is that before the outcome, you took a step and said screw it, what will be will be and the peace in that moment, though brief it may be, is what we may know as faith. It is the happiness of a decision without taking into account the consequence, it is not caring about anything but the moment. It is freedom in its purest form.
Other people describe how faith feels more in tune to the definition of joy, enlightenment, celebration, security, etc. I’ve simply chosen to describe it as peace. Is this the right answer? Instead of replying with, “who knows?” or saying “maybe”, I ask another question: “why care?”
Draft your definition, edit as you see fit and be happy if you find an answer that makes even the slightest bit of sense for you.
Hope this perspective in some way helps in your quest to find your definition.
Cheers
May 4, 2010
The God Concept. Please, explain.
Can someone please make me understand how believing in God feels like?
There. I said it. Wait. WAIT! I'm not trying to be funny or disrespectful. In fact, this has been THE question that NO ONE has tried to answer in a logical way. As I don't believe in God or Jesus as people define them (Son of God, miracles, yada yada yada), this has been sort of a mystery. You see, I see religious people and I sit there and think... I don't get it. What is it? What made you believe? What possibly made you believe all the stories, the dogma, the weird things that people do in Church?
What made me ask this question and write this post - which will sure make us lose a shitload of readers but, again, was not my intention - was simple.
I was having dinner with my boyfriend last Friday and the nice dude who was our waiter was talking to us. I don't know how the theme got there, but suddenly the waiter was talking about how he suddenly dropped out of everything and turned to serve God.
"There is no better peace but that of God's" - he said.
Hm. Really? Damn, I totally disagree! Peace for me is being at the beach, alone with my thoughts, having a cool beer and watching the sunset. That's a peace that NO one can give me. I've been to church. I've listened to many Garden Variety Preachers go at it. Hard Core. Not one has given me any iota of peace. Oh yeah, I did read the Bible. Not one piece of peace there as well. In fact, all I thought was... women are nothing in this book, dammit!
So... Why? What made you think that way? Do you at one point get filled with some kind of great feeling and feel it's God? What kind of peace are you talking about? Did you feel lost at some point so now God is telling you the way? How can you tell apart the fact that maybe you just were droning along in life and now you think that some guy upstairs is guiding you, when all it really is your brain just thinking straight for once?
Really guys. Believing in God = Faith, right? So tell me, please, how does it feel like. What is having faith? And please, don't give me Bible talk. No. I need a strong rational argument. Believing in God feels like this and this and this, because this and this.
I don't want the normal if you believe in God then you will go to heaven storyline. Nope. I'm not even asking WHY you believe in God as much as HOW do you feel while doing it. Is it a need? Is it that you feel some kind of reward or you think you have a reward? Does that poor sap have peace, really? Why?
Why????
Hopefully someone will write back. I have... faith?
May 2, 2010
The undefeated streak continues, Fucking Mayweather....
The event has come and gone and I don't think many boxing fans would have minded having a heart attack during the break between rounds 2 and three of the Shane Mosley Floyd Mayweather fight. Unfortunately, I at least sat through the whole fight and saw yet another notch be formed on Mayweather's belt.
Now before you go thinking I'm suddenly a Mayweather fan, the fact remains that until Shane, he's ducked a ton of people and yes some people will make a case that Shane is over the hill, etc. etc. etc. I for one will not be so kind to Shane Mosley. Being a Shane fan I was wishing and begging for Shane to impose his supposed strength, push the action and make it a rough fight... and he did just that... for two rounds. Round two shall forever go down in the books as the round most people smiled in a Mayweather fight... then things became all too familiar and phrases like "he's too good", "he's getting outclassed" and this isn't even competitive began to creep into the dialogue.
If you want it put simply, if any boxer fights Mayweather's fight, there is absolutely no chance in hell anyone can beat him. If you don't make it a physical and aggressive fight. There's no way in hell anyone can beat Floyd Mayweather Jr. If you don't hit on the clinch, if you don't dirty box, if you're not willing to take three shots to land one, and if you try and potshot with the king of sharp shooting, no one will beat Floyd Mayweather Jr.
If you want to look for excuses for Shane, you can find a few and you suck for using them as a crutch. I won't mention the reach advantage, the age advantage or the ring rust. I won't even say that maybe Shane over trained. Fuck that. Shane lost the fight because he fought Mayweather's fight for nine rounds and I even wanted him to get knocked out at one point because I was so frustrated. I don't know how many times Shane had Floyd on the ropes and no punches were thrown. I don't know how many times Shane tried to size up and counter Floyd and I also lost count of the times where I screamed towards the screen and tried to transfer some of my life force into a boxer that suddenly seemed unwilling to engage.
It could have been Mayweather's brilliance, Shane might have gotten tired or who knows if there was even money under the table; I have no clue and as stated above, I'm not interested in nurturing a kind respond to Shane Mosley and for the first time ever, I've been able to come away from a Shane fight feeling animosity towards him.
I could offer you a round by round breakdown, but instead I'll just offer the major themes in the fight.
Rounds 1 and 2 Shane won and he won the second round decisively to the point of making Floyd look like he was on his way to the canvas.
Rounds 3 and onward, Floyd hit Shane with the punches he wanted to and made Shane look like a complete fool and utterly outclassed.
BTW, my feelings towards Mayweather do not change. I still think he's a supremely talented asshole and I will not overlook his lacking past because of an impressive present, I don't care what any Mayweather sympathizer wants to say. To his credit, he stood his ground, was aggressive and took Shane Mosley out of the fight. Credit where credit is due, the same as with criticism. In the past I've said Floyd has rarely taken risks in his career and I stand by that opinion even though there is a sea of people who will now be Floyd fans.
Oh and to the Manny sympathizers, I love Manny Pacquiao, but that doesn't mean he can beat Floyd. Floyd is bigger, stronger, faster and better. Manny is more aggressive. That's four assets that can and will neutralize Manny if the fight ever occurs. Am I basing this on his performance against Mosley exclusively? No. I'm basing this on tonight's performance and the reality that Floyd didn't look smaller than Shane, which I thought would be the case.
Now does this mean I'm a Floyd Mayweather fan?
Simply put, no. The best thing Mayweather has brought to boxing is the 24/7 series which means that apart from bringing a reality TV motif to the sport, I could care less for his existence. As for the comments made by Mayweather upon his comeback, let me feel free to quote and react.
In case you didn't hear it when it happened... Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Leonard Ellerbe (his manager) stated two things... that the king is back and that boxing wasn't the same without Floyd Mayweather and they're right on both fronts.
The king of running his mouth was in fact back in the mix.
And secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that boxing wasn't the same without Floyd Mayweather...
It was better.
Cheers
Now before you go thinking I'm suddenly a Mayweather fan, the fact remains that until Shane, he's ducked a ton of people and yes some people will make a case that Shane is over the hill, etc. etc. etc. I for one will not be so kind to Shane Mosley. Being a Shane fan I was wishing and begging for Shane to impose his supposed strength, push the action and make it a rough fight... and he did just that... for two rounds. Round two shall forever go down in the books as the round most people smiled in a Mayweather fight... then things became all too familiar and phrases like "he's too good", "he's getting outclassed" and this isn't even competitive began to creep into the dialogue.
If you want it put simply, if any boxer fights Mayweather's fight, there is absolutely no chance in hell anyone can beat him. If you don't make it a physical and aggressive fight. There's no way in hell anyone can beat Floyd Mayweather Jr. If you don't hit on the clinch, if you don't dirty box, if you're not willing to take three shots to land one, and if you try and potshot with the king of sharp shooting, no one will beat Floyd Mayweather Jr.
If you want to look for excuses for Shane, you can find a few and you suck for using them as a crutch. I won't mention the reach advantage, the age advantage or the ring rust. I won't even say that maybe Shane over trained. Fuck that. Shane lost the fight because he fought Mayweather's fight for nine rounds and I even wanted him to get knocked out at one point because I was so frustrated. I don't know how many times Shane had Floyd on the ropes and no punches were thrown. I don't know how many times Shane tried to size up and counter Floyd and I also lost count of the times where I screamed towards the screen and tried to transfer some of my life force into a boxer that suddenly seemed unwilling to engage.
It could have been Mayweather's brilliance, Shane might have gotten tired or who knows if there was even money under the table; I have no clue and as stated above, I'm not interested in nurturing a kind respond to Shane Mosley and for the first time ever, I've been able to come away from a Shane fight feeling animosity towards him.
I could offer you a round by round breakdown, but instead I'll just offer the major themes in the fight.
Rounds 1 and 2 Shane won and he won the second round decisively to the point of making Floyd look like he was on his way to the canvas.
Rounds 3 and onward, Floyd hit Shane with the punches he wanted to and made Shane look like a complete fool and utterly outclassed.
BTW, my feelings towards Mayweather do not change. I still think he's a supremely talented asshole and I will not overlook his lacking past because of an impressive present, I don't care what any Mayweather sympathizer wants to say. To his credit, he stood his ground, was aggressive and took Shane Mosley out of the fight. Credit where credit is due, the same as with criticism. In the past I've said Floyd has rarely taken risks in his career and I stand by that opinion even though there is a sea of people who will now be Floyd fans.
Oh and to the Manny sympathizers, I love Manny Pacquiao, but that doesn't mean he can beat Floyd. Floyd is bigger, stronger, faster and better. Manny is more aggressive. That's four assets that can and will neutralize Manny if the fight ever occurs. Am I basing this on his performance against Mosley exclusively? No. I'm basing this on tonight's performance and the reality that Floyd didn't look smaller than Shane, which I thought would be the case.
Now does this mean I'm a Floyd Mayweather fan?
Simply put, no. The best thing Mayweather has brought to boxing is the 24/7 series which means that apart from bringing a reality TV motif to the sport, I could care less for his existence. As for the comments made by Mayweather upon his comeback, let me feel free to quote and react.
In case you didn't hear it when it happened... Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Leonard Ellerbe (his manager) stated two things... that the king is back and that boxing wasn't the same without Floyd Mayweather and they're right on both fronts.
The king of running his mouth was in fact back in the mix.
And secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that boxing wasn't the same without Floyd Mayweather...
It was better.
Cheers
May 1, 2010
Children get cancer but Glenn Beck lives.... go figure
Big government = Nazism or Communism
The level at which Glenn Beck can twist facts to form a point and convince you to anything he's saying is magnificent. Now that I've put that out there and probably made you think I didn't listen to three videos or read some news articles, here's where it gets interesting.
Glenn Beck does state facts. He does and that's why he's a lot more effective than purebred shit for brains like Newt Gingrich who does not have one single thread of credibility to anyone deciding to listen. He isn't the monumental racist shit bag that is Rush Limbaugh. No. He's another type of creature altogether, and quite a clever one if I might add.
Now before you think I won't give credit where credit is due, please read this. Glenn Beck might play the role of ignorant Conservative, but he isn't stupid. I'm not going to say he's brilliant either, but street smarts can get you a long way in this life, and being able to mix a couple of messages to sound coherent is something he's long done with varying levels of success.
On the Puerto Rico debate, he doesn't necessarily have all the facts.
What he does say that does make sense:
Puerto Rico has voted to determine the status three times and each and every time they found a way to vote those referendums down. That is a fact.
What he says that might make sense:
This vote seems to have a hidden agenda. Honestly and open mindedly speaking, Most votes do have an ulterior motive and this one seems like another one. I'm not disagreeing yet.
What he says that doesn't make sense:
Puerto Rico gets all of the benefits and pays none of the taxes. Well it all depends on what taxes you're talking about. It almost sounds as if you think Puerto Rico has gotten a free ride. First off, if we've gotten a "free ride" for so long what's the catch?
The reasons for having Puerto Rico as a US Territory are quite more than you would think, but rather than writing some things that may sound like pure conspiracy theories, let's number some possible reasons.
1. Military. Though a variety of bases have been closed, many remain. Having military presence in the Caribbean is a must and the only place the US was able to get into was Puerto Rico. By the way, if you think black people were used like cannon fodder in wars like Korea, WW 1 and WW2, by all means click here and draw your own conclusions. By the way, there are more sources, don't depend on wikipedia, me or Glenn Beck to get your truth sources.
2. There were tax credits for pharmaceutical companies. Read this for a possible explanation to why Puerto Rico, that little insignificant island of undecided Hispanics is the fifth largest producer of Pharmaceuticals in the world.
3. There are US sanctions that do not allow foreign companies to open shop in Puerto Rico. Why is this important? Simple, check the sales for JC Penney, Sears, the Victoria Secret Catalogue, Burger King, Maggie Moo's Ice Cream and Krispy Kreme and check if you don't see a trend. Just in case, in all of those instances, Puerto Rico numbers rank in the top 5 of sales for those companies worldwide. Puerto Rico is probably one of the most if not the most consumerist place in the world. People live on debt but they keep buying and by keeping other competitors out, you have a rich source of capital and just in case, no I'm not exaggerating and yes you can look for the numbers. I won't give you the source to that one so you don't think I'm simply leading you to the links I want you to read... that would be far too Beckian for my taste.
If you want some other miscellaneous possible reasons that may sound like hogwash, take note that the birth control pill and various forms of birth control (pills and procedures) were first experimented on Puerto Rican women. Second off, Puerto Rico consumes more beer than half the United States combined. It's not something a country should be proud of, but when it comes down to dollars and cents, boy those companies sure don't mind. Taxes were included before pricing to give the illusion that there is no tax in Puerto Rico. That has gone out the window though and the end result is PR having one of the highest tax rates when you factor in the pre retail price tax hike.
Now back to our clever Beck. Something he REALLY doesn't want people to know is that though we elect Republican representatives to the US Congress, because we do have that right, if Puerto Rico becomes a state, it's almost guaranteed that they'd vote democratic in US Presidential elections. Just in case you were wondering, we actually did have some say in the Democratic Nominee and if it were up to Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton would have run for President.
Which brings me to my point. With the current political climate, Republicans really don't want to give Puerto Rico any power because that little island that could, would be a nightmare in terms of trying to convince them to vote Republican. Oh and by the way, Puerto Rico has an over 90% rate of voting... unlike the US which is closer to the mid 40's.
So does passing the bill give Puerto Rico statehood? In a short answer. Nope. Does the bill start leaning Puerto Rico towards choosing statehood? Possibly and I actually do agree that this is part of the agenda. Whether you're for it or against it, that's up to you. But is there something else that I do want to touch on? Of course.
Once again Beck plays the "this isn't a racial argument yet" but it is, and him mentioning the words illegals, drug dealers and prisoners in his argument is more than evidence. Now I'm not going to say Glenn Beck is Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich, but I'm not going to say he's never played the racial card ever... I just really don't want this post to be that long. I'm just saying that the government and congress aren't the only ones with ulterior motives, hidden agendas and subliminal messages... after all, that's what Mr. Beck's career has been founded on.
Cheers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
