The Brain from Planet Conservative!

Goodness, it's been nearly a year since my most previous article!

...Ah, well.

So, why does it seem that everywhere I turn Conservatives and Christians always seem to be hand in hand? How come every time I say I like what Obama is doing, every one of my follow churchgoers give me some kind of condescending look? Maybe, just maybe, the majority of Christians in America are being brainwashed by right-wing media? Settle down, I don't mean that all Christians are idiots who'd fall for the simplest trick; that might have worked when having a cat meant having a barbecue later. No, I mean maybe instead of Christians manipulating the press, perhaps it is the press manipulating the Christians?

Oh, that kind of barbecue...

Everyone knows Fox News for its distinct right-wing bias. The channel also seems to favor "Christian" morals, standing out against gay rights, reporting on church persecution, and the infamous questioning of Obama's nationality. I used to be one of many so-called Conservative Christians, believing everything than Glenn Beck mocked at me and Bill O'Reilly yelled at me. However, I've long moved on from that stance.

Anyway, the other night I was able to catch V for Vendetta on MTV the other night, instead of their usual music vide-....oh, wait. So, according to the movie (the movie, don't give me crap about the graphic novel), a far right-wing "religious" man has achieved leadership in Britain, turning it into a darkened dictatorship in which homosexuals are sent to torture facilities just for being "different". Of course, conservative media jumped all over the film's case, mostly for calling it out as a "pro-gay" and "liberal, Marxist" piece of propaganda. The film did make me thing of something, though. What if the Christian bias of conservative media is just a face to receive Christian support, and not at all sincere? Some time ago, director Michael Moore was interviewed by Sean Hannity; I was surprised to learn that Michael Moore was a devout Catholic, and that most of his works are rooted in his personal Christian beliefs. Hannity, of course, countered by saying that he too was a devout Catholic, to which Moore asked if he attented Mass that past Sunday. Amusingly, Hannity stuttered and appeared to be looking for an excuse as if he had no idea what Mass is supposed to be. Let's not forget that a good majority of controversial moral affairs in politics involve a Republican politician, often claiming to have been a Christian. Another influence on this thought comes from the pre-Civil War years, when Bible verses were bent to make it seem as if slave ownership was A-OK by Jesus. Not to mention the propaganda presented by the Democrats to get slave owners to vote in their favor. Oh, and for those who don't pay much attention, the Democratic and Republican stances have pretty much switched entirely, so Republicans of the time would be Democrats today. Don't believe me? Look at some of the Democratic platforms of the time: states' rights, strict adherence to the Constitution, opposition to the national bank and moneyed interests, and opposition to high taxes. Why does all that sound familiar? Because they are all stances on today's Republicans.

By the way, you should totally look up William Lloyd Garrison, who I would have to say is one of the few "true" Christians of his time.

Okay, enough history lessons. Why exactly do I believe that conservative media is brainwashing Christians in their favor? Well, think about it for a minute. What are the main reasons Conservative Christians don't vote Democrat? Ask anybody on the street and sure enough, three common answers will come up: They're pro-gay, they're pro-abortion, and the Republican candidate is a Christian. Wait, so no opinion on the war? How about national health care? You may get those a few times, but honestly you're going to get some kind of moral stance as a Christian's reasoning. This is unsurprising. Christians are being used. Conservative media has continued to appeal to outdated Christian views to entrap older Christians, and with the TV on right there in front of the children, it's no wonder why Christian youth is also holding on to these beliefs. How come Christians can only dismiss abortion as "murder" without any actual Scripture to back it up? Why do Christians oppose homosexuality without scientific research, or what they heard the preacher say at church with no personal research? The Right-Wing Fear Machine™ is using these old views to brainwash believers into seeing the left-wing as evil communists who want to destroy Christianity. They use pieces of propaganda to say "Oh, this Liberal is trying to pass a bill that will ban your children from saying 'Merry Christmas' in preschool?" Of course, they neglect to mention that said Liberal is a far left-wing nut who nobody ever listens to.

Let's face it: we Christians are so easy to manipulate. If we hear Pepsi is giving money to gay rights activists, what happens? We start protests, sign petitions, and go crazy about it. Eventually, the product is associated with "evil". Sadly, this actually happened in my own church. It was quite humorous when I had to point out that the church's pantry was stuffed with Quaker Oats, Gatorade, and Frito-Lay products, all owned by PepsiCo. Of course, we couldn't just throw that stuff away, people have to eat. Eventually, the Pepsi fiasco was forgotten. It brings up a good point: If you want to hurt someone, just say they are anti-Christian. Conservative media does this with the left wing all the freaking time. This man supports late-term abortion! This one's daughter is a lesbian! That guy over there doesn't want Intelligent Design taught in public school!

It's an excellent weapon, Christianity. For years, it's been used as an excuse for discrimination, extortion, and murder. So, how hard is it to imagine religion being used a tool for political power? Why not, it's already happened more times than we can count! So, to the Christians I offer a question. Who is more Christian: a man who says he loves Jesus but believes in revenge, or a man who believes that every family is entitled to health care? Think about it for a minute. Jesus taught that one wanted to be perfect, we must surrender all our possessions to the needy.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
- Matthew 19:21 NIV

Now, most Conservatives reasoned the War on Terror as justified vengeance for the 9/11 attacks, but Jesus stood against revenge.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
- Matthew 5: 38-39 NIV

Conservatives criticize Obama for his attempts to relieve the recession, calling it Socialism, in order to make it relate to the horrible acts committed by Nazi Germany. Christians are then tricked into believing that Obama is evil. In turn, this causes televangelists to claim that Obama is likely a king described in Revelation, in order to make him seem as if he is destined to be a tool for the Antichrist. We already had enough accusations of Obama being the Antichrist during election. Since televangelists are probably some of the most gullible persons I have ever seen on television (check their reasoning on dismissing evolution, it's totally based on pseudoscience and lack of scientific research), but their seat in Christian leadership gives them an excellent place to manipulate other Christians into believing the exact same thing. Now, I'm not saying that all televangelists are trying to brainwash their followers, I'm sure some of them believe what they say.

Pictured above: EVIL!

Honestly, do most Republican politicians withhold Christian values in their personal lives? How many have gotten in to trouble for being caught cheating or abusing their power?

So, here's my closing statement. Christians are not manipulating Conservatives to follow outdated philosophy, Conservatives are using Christian morals to their advantage to brainwash the Christian public into seeing the other side as ungodly. Christians are falling prey to the Conservative machine, and in turn, homosexuals and pro-lifers are being persecuted by these Christians. There's an age-old question that all Christians need to consider whenever listening to what this Conservative media is telling them: What Would Jesus Do?

Breaker out.

Gay Rights and Gay Wrongs

Homosexuality is one of the most heated debates I've seen...and it is probably one of the most flawed attempts at a "who's right, who's wrong" argument. Everywhere I look, there is either a Christian condemning homosexuality as sin or there is a Liberal attempting to force his orientation down my throat. In my opinion, both stances are wrong. I can support granting all the same rights a married couple has to a homosexual couple, but I cannot support the intrusion on an individual's morals and beliefs. I also cannot stand the act of treating homosexuality as something "special".

This is what I'm getting at: recently, the movement for gay rights has been mainly focused on a push for the legalization of gay marriage. I don't have a problem with a gay couple having a ceremony to express their feelings, but when they have to push it on everyone else it's just plain dirty. In my opinion, the advocacy for gay marriage has taken an approach that explicitly states "Hey, you have to accept my lifestyle at the expense of your beliefs." I'm referring to the push for all churches, regardless of belief, to be legally forced to marry homosexuals. The problem is a blatant dismissal of one's morals for another's lifestyle. All too often I've seen homophobia compared to America's history of racism against blacks; problem is, black is race, not lifestyle. One cannot live "black". The problem with the racism comparison is that blacks were denied fundamental government rights. I just love it when an atheist is prepared to block religious political affairs with the separation of church and state, but when the topic of homosexuality is presented, they are ready to argue politically why churches should marry homosexuals. What happened to the seperation of church and state?

Now, the cardinal reason given for the legalization of marriage is because it is a basic human right. If basic human rights include the freedom of expression and equality before the law, why are they trying to infringe on the church's right to express a moral obligation to deny the practice? All men are created equal. Homosexuals and Christians are therefore equal. Therefore, one cannot intrude on another and overturn their rights. The problem is, we end up reaching a paradox. By intruding on the church's beliefs of homosexuality as immoral, the homosexuals become "more equal" than the church; and by denying the homosexuals the right to express their feelings, the chuch has denied the homosexuals' human rights. Either way, someone is going to have their rights denied, thus breaking the Constitution. In a way, it is akin to the fact that though our freedoms are protected, they are indeed limited; a white man can have freedom of speech, but by going out into the streets and shouting racist remarks, he can be charged with "hate speech" and be faced with legal action. Before I continue, I would like to point out that I am aware that there are several churches, such as the Episcopal church, that support gay rights and marriages. I am a supporter of civil unions; that is, a government grant that gives a legally bonded homosexual couple all the same rights as a married couple. For some homosexuals, this isn't enough; they want to be "accepted" and given the same treatment as a married man and woman.

As I said before, I have no problem with a gay couple having some kind of ceremony. My problem is with the push to force churches to "accept" the homosexuals as the same "as anyone else". Okay, yes, homosexuals are humans, they deserve the same basic rights as anyone else, but is taking legal action to force churches to do something against their morals the right way to go? A person is now currently protected by the Constitution's grant of basic rigghts regardless of one's race, color, religion, nationality, gender, and (legal) age, but, as I stated earlier, are rights are, in effect, limited. After all, Major Leage Baseball has yet to star a female athelete, yet any woman can quickly sue the MLB for denying her rights to pursue a career. The reason is, though we are given rights, the rights must remain within the realm of logic. A logical reasion for why a woman wouldn't be accepted into the MLB is due to the dominance of the male gender: there are no seperate locker rooms, to build a new one would result in the renovation of the stadium and would cost tens of thousands of dollars, and one could argue how the sport itself is unfit for the female body and how it could be harmful to the female. Now, personally, it wouldn't matter to me if a woman did end up playing for the MLB, my point is that she can push her rights as much as she wants, but is it logical to allow her to play? Now, let's use another example, an example for one's lifestyle. Alright, let's say some super radical religious nut killed a child because his religion demands he does so (I'm not equating homosexuality to murder, that's just plain stupid); the fact is, his freedom of religion can be used as excuse, despite infringing on the child's right to live. The point? Lifestyles and genetic effects can be supported by the Constiution, but only as it resides within logical reasoning. It is illogical to infringe on the church's denial to marry gays by legally forcing them. After all, since church and state are seperated, how can we? The church provides married couples with a housing for the ceremony, but it is the government and provides all the documentation and grants the rights, not the church itself. So why the push on the church? Perhaps it's merely a result of magnetic attraction, the attraction of polar opposites. The Christian church is notorious for its condemnation of homosexuality, so is it possible that homosexuals are basically pushing thier lifestyles on the church as a retort? Is this really just a battle of lifestyles, with one side hoping to come out victorious wearing a egotistical smirk to irk the opposition?

Some time ago, on a religous debate forum I moderate, an atheist pointed out that the push for the legalization of gay marriage is somewhat hypocritical on the homosexuals' part. Gay Pride parades and many other homosexual events and societies are known for flaunting their pride in how "different" they are. They go out into the streets, wave their rainbow flags, and flaunt their orientation as if it were the most unique and special thing in life. They strive to express their difference. I understand pride in being unique, but they tend to express it in the most flashy and loud ways. So, if they have so much pride in being different, why the push to be "just like everyone else"? It's as if they have so much pride in how different they are, then when one faction doesn't approve, they suddenly have to find a way to get the government to force the faction to accept their lifestyles. The attempt to force everyone to "accept" them isn't even logical; if I legally force a church to "accept" me as their pastor, and if they don't like the way I dress, have they truly "accepted" me? No, I just steamrolled my way into their lives with no respect for their opinions and beliefs. All I have done is made a complete jerk of myself.

Here's my final word on gay marriage: I don't have any problem with the legalization of gay marriage, but we cannot allow ourselves to fall to a level of ignorance and force those churches that do not support the stance to do something against their morals. There are plenty of churches who would be happy to house the event, yet these churches fall off the homosexuals' radar; they want all or none of it. They are not satisfied that some people do not support them. Gay marriage can be legal and there are churches that will support it, but we certainly cannot infringe on other people's rights and morals. After all, in the end, aren't these homosexuals simply after the same government-given benefits as straight couples? The church's stance on marriage is simply the bond between the couple by God; it really has nothing to do with the papers. Homosexual advocates need to drop this focus on the churches simply not accepting them and go after the legal issues that come with marriage. You can get the government to grant you the same basic rights as a racist, but you can't steamroll your way into the racist's personal life.

Now, am I saying that Christians are "right"? I wouldn't say so. Rather, I was simply pointing out the lack of logic in the homosexual push for gay marriage in churches. In reality, I believe the church is just as ignorant in their approach to homosexuality. First of all, the idea of homosexuality being a sin isn't even Biblically supported. Second, the church has yet to provide any logical reason to deny gay rights without religious support. Third, homosexual rights are still protected by the government, despite the church's beliefs; after all, I don't see many churches out there attempting to legally ban the public prayer of other religions.

Okay, let's start with the Bible and homosexuality. The most common reason for homosexuality being sinful is a result of this passage from the Old Testament:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
- Leviticus 20:13 KJV

This is a blatant case of the "cherry-picker" Christian, one who simply picks which teachings in the Bible are in effect and which are inapplicable based on personal preference. A majority of all Christians are believers in the New Covenant, a belief that the arrival and sacrifice of Christ nullified the laws God gave the Israelites wandering the desert (I am a supporter of this belief). The problem is, these Christians will support the nullification of dietary laws, punishments, and several other laws that were addressed by the Apostle Paul, but have somehow decided that this law is still true (minus the death sentence). They will use this verse to support anti-homosexuality, but if they are faced with a question asking if they must also follow the dietary laws, they will simply respond that "Jesus nullified it". If Jesus nullified that, then why is this verse still in effect? Who decides that? Jesus never states which, if any, laws are nullified and which are still in effect. I have even seen Christians argue that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the citie's homosexuality; but this ignores the fact the men of Sodom were interested in raping Lot's visitors. Also, the Bible makes several references to the cities throughout the text, often comparing the focused society's sinful nature to the cities..yet, none of these passages make any referal to homosexuality, they only explicitly state lying, adultery, contempt for the poor and needy. Jesus Himself implied that the cities' destruction was attributed to a lack of hospitality to strangers.

So what is the next tactic for a Christian to take? Quote Jesus!

"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh.'"
- Matthew 19:4-5 NIV

If Jesus said it, it must be true! Well, at least it was a nice attempt to prove that homosexuality is a sin, but if only Jesus was actually talking about homosexuality. Actually, Jesus was answering a question of a Pharisee, who asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife in Verse 3. There is no relation to homosexuality here. Jesus will continue to state that what God has joined together, let no man seperate, nothing to do with homosexuality.

Here's another good one:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
- Jude 1:7 KJV

Christians may argue that "strange flesh" means homosexuality. This is a simple case of choosing a defintion to fit one's personal preferences. "Simple flesh" comes from the Greek word sarkos heteras, and our word for "homosexual" comes from heteras; however, strange flesh has been repetively translated as "perversion", "lust", and "unnatural sex". So, to say that "strange flesh" here must mean homosexuality, then any reference to beastialty or aldutery must also be re-written as "homosexuality". The fact is, the term is actually too vague to give a specified definition. Christians will state that the reason this particular use of "strange flesh" is homosexuality is because the passage is reffering to the men of Sodom and Gomorrha, but, as we already went over, this would ignore that the men were rapists, which is also a perversion; hey, "strange flesh" might not even be human at all, it might be referring to the men's desire to rape the angels that visited Lot.

Christians will also quote this passage, written by Paul:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
- Romans 1:26-27 KJV

At first glance, this passage does seem to be an example of God condemning homosexuality. Well, that is, until you notice one little key word..."lust". "Lust" is explicitly stated to be a sin in the Bible. It is also important to note that the act of homosexuality itself isn't the focus here; rather, it is the fact that the people gave in to sexual perversion and became drunk with the sinful nature of 'perversion'. It is the same way that the Bible refers to drinking; to drink wine is okay, but to drink to be drunk is sinful. Why? It's not because the act of drinking is a sin, but it is the perversion of drinking that is sin.

Most other quoted passages from the Bible will actually say "homosexuality" as part of those who will not see heaven; but this is an inconsistency in translation, as the apostle Paul never used the Greek word for homosexuality, he used the Greek word arsenokoitai, a word with no known literal meaning. The word itself can be divided into parts: "arsen", meaning man; and "koitai", meaning "beds". Now, it is understandable how this could be translated into "homosexual", but it is known that this is not the Greek word for "homosexual". That definition belongs to the Greek word paiderasste, the standard Greek term for any sexual behavior between males. There are two issues when translating arsenokoitai into "homosexual". First, the word strictly adheres to the male gender, with no relation to the female gender, wheras the term "homosexual" refers to members of both sexes. The word arsenokoitai has been translated to refer to pimps, male prostitution, rape, masturbation and pedophilia. The King James Version translates arsenokoitai as "abusers of themselves with mankind", which would likely refer to any sexual perversion. However, it is unlikely that this translation could adhere to homosexuality, because the term refers to the "abuse" of sexual nature, again showing the difference between the act of something, and the perversion of it.

Finally, if any Christian quotes of passage describing Jesus stating homosexuality is a sin that will bring doom to oneself, they are simply wrong. In no Greek text does Jesus make any reference to homosexuality, none at all.

Many Christians can't logically argue why gay rights should be denied. As stated before, just about every argument I hear on homosexuality is simply fueled by religious dogma. They simply state that homosexuality cannot be constitutional because it is "bad". Of course, there is no scientific or factual information of why homosexuality is "bad".

Oh, I just want to mention that if you're going to argue on the side of gay rights, for the love of Joe, do not, I repeat, do NOT, use "the earth is overpopulated" as your argument. The earth is overpopulated already; granting gay rights now isn't going to magically reduce the population, seeing as the homosexuals were already here. With the exception of major "closet" cases where a homosexual may have a baby with the opposite sex, most gays by now have already not had sex or already have. We'll just have the same number of orphans, the same number of straight people, and with the American media so busy pushing sex on teenagers, there's no way that earth's overpopulation can be a good argument for gay rights.

Now, let it be understood that I don't have problems with homosexuals. My problem is the flaunting of sexual nature as a perversion. I'm talking about those gay dudes that brag about how they went clubbing and made out with some hot guy. I'm referring to what I call the "MTV Syndrome". When someone flaunts their homosexuality with the intention of being perverted, then that I can't stand. This why so many Christians see the gay community as one big orgy, because these weirdos decide to come out to Gay Pride wearing only a banana hammock and rainbow cape. This is when the homosexuals are just simply acting like mindless idiots. How can anybody take you seriously if you can't act maturely? How is your "beautiful nature" any different from the school whore? If it is beautiful, why can't it be sanctified? Seriously, at least act decent and grow up.

It's when homosexuals use their orientation as a perversion that sickens me. Because of this, we have the issue of "bicuriosity" these days; girls emulate lesbianism with other girls in desperate attempts to sexually attract guys. They are basically whoring themselves out just to get a date. I heard someone argue that girls do this because they are uncomfortable with themselves. So, it's suddenly alright to be a whore as long as you lack confidence? Chances are, these girls are going to have their hearts broken in the end, anyway! Why do they do this? Because the idiots in the gay community flaunt perversion and the perversion stirs a lust from the heterosexuals. When people throw away decency to flaunt themselves, then there is no reason to respect them. It is like the drinking analogy I made earlier: It is one thing to drink, but to drink with perversion is foolish. I feel the same why about those who "experiment" or do the "fed up with this gender, so let's be gay" binge. These people are simply acting on selfish desire (sins of the flesh, if you will). It is not socially tolerable to act like a fool, so don't be one. Again, being homosexual isn't perversion, but acting like a pervert and flaunting such nature is disgraceful. This is the reason most people won't accept you guys. Also, lose the MTV/N*Sync hair, stop acting like those tools on cable network television, and quit being so freaking flashy (sorry, personal rant).

My best friend is a lesbian. She is a practicing Roman Catholic, in fact, there are several communities of homosexual Christians. She dresses decently, she doesn't flaunt herself and her orientation as the most wonderful thing in the world, and she doesn't conform to the stereotype. She has plenty of common sense: she doesn't drink, smoke, or involve herself with any permiscuous debauchery. She has all of my respect. Fellow Christians, quit being so close-minded and blinded by personal doctrine. Homosexuals, get some common sense, forget the church, and approach the marriage thing with logic and understanding.

Breaker out.

Mission Failed! Abort! Abort!

No doubt that abortion is one of the most touchy debates in today's society. Though the debate is not restricted to Christian vs. Liberal arguments, it sure has become the typical manner of these debates. The typical Evangelical Christian argument usuall falls along lines of abortion being "murder of infants" and statements of the like, and the typical Liberal argument falls along abortion begin the choice of the mother or the embryo being a "lump of cells" without consciousness or feelings. Once again, a debate has fallen into the black and white of American politics. Republicans are pro-life and Democrats are pro-choice. Because obviously cooperation and communication is not an option when it comes to politics. Is it possible to come to an agreement between pro-life and pro-choice? Most Americans say no. The terms have become black and white, simply restricting the ideals to just No Abortion and Yes Abortion. There is a complete lack of understanding from both sides of the argument. Propoganda and twisted information is the number one tool for this debate. I am frustrated by the ignorance.

I mentioned earlier that I was pro-choice "to a degree". What does this mean? It means that I am pro-choice, but I prefer life. If you still don't get it, it's like this: I believe that abortion should be legal, even though I am of the preference of the mother choosing life over abortion. It may seem like a bit of a "fence rider" approach, but I do have my own position on the whole subject. Allow me to explain bit by bit. I personally am not fond of abortion, I do not like the idea of a human being rejected life. Yes, I said "human". I don't care if it is just a lump of cells or not. I also concern myself with the various effects abortion can have on the mother, and the views of those that survived abortion.

The majority of Protestant Christians in America identify themselves as advocates of the pro-life movement. The typical Christian argument is that abortion is murder, or that it is the destruction of God's plan. Many of these Christians are concerned over the souls of the unborn. Whether or not you believe in a soul doesn't concern me at the moment. Those that assert that abortion is murder are faced by those with scientific research to state that the embryo is not "human", and that it doesn't have thoughts or feelings. Another argument is the right of the embryo, which philosophers will argue that the right belongs to the mother; and the third most common argument is the idea of abortion being sinful, dealing with the soul.

As a Protestant Christian myself, I am pretty much expected to follow the mainstream views and arguments. However, I see several problems with these. First, the idea of abortion is not adressed by the Bible. There is something about the body being designed by God before birth, but this description is a part of Psalms, a collection of song and poetry for worship, not as God's actual words or law. Now, Christians, let's apporach the idea logically (stop laughing). Nowhere in the Bible is a detailed account of when the soul is inserted into the vessel is given. So, why do we assume that the embryo has a soul? If God is the perfect Judge, why would he give a soul to something that will never see life? That wouldn't make sense. Now, I am pretty sure some Christian out there is ready to type about how God's ways aren't our ways. Okay, sure. Still, what is the point?
For this point we have to take two approaches:
- If you're a Christian who believes that souls of the young go to heaven because they do not understand sin, then why argue against abortion? According to this logic, the unborn souls will go to heaven anyway. If you argue about the lack of getting to experience life, I have to ask why would you want them to live through all this sin? What if the person becomes an atheist and dies without God? As a result, you believe that the experience of life is better than the eternity in Heaven, despite the horrible effects of life. Then what's the point of pushing for no abortion?
- Okay, now, let's address those that believe souls are born with sin and are judged despite of age. Basically, you believe that God creates the soul, puts it in a vessel, only for it to be killed and have the soul judged even though it never did anything in the first place. Since you believe the soul is born in sin, this soul goes to Hell. There is no sense in that. Before you give me a "God's ways are not our ways" argument, then think about this: In the long run, the soul is never really given a decision to accept or reject Jesus, so how is it judged? Is the soul born knowing God? If so, how can it be sent to Hell without experiencing sin? By this logic, Jesus could not be perfect. After all, the soul is born into sin. Yet Christ was without sin. We reach a paradox. I've heard that Jesus was without sin because he was born not through Adam's seed. Okay, fair enough. However, that refers to the physical body and not the soul. The soul is created by God, not by biological means. Now, don't confuse this with the nature to sin, which is caused by the physical psychology of man. Jesus was faced with temptation and the physical ailments of man, too. Because he was resistant to sin shows us that the soul can not be born in sin. To create a soul only to have it sent to Hell is a waste of God's power and creation. What beauty is there to appreciate if a soul is wasted?
Okay, that aside, let's adress something else. Christians believe that God is the ultimate Judge. He is perfect and without fault. How can God judge something that has not been given experience? I believe that God will not insert the soul into a vessel if the embryo is to be aborted. God knows the future, and as such he knows who will live. God does not waste. To create a soul only to have it sent to hell without experience is a waste. It is like someone opening a can of playdoh and shaping it only to throw it away two seconds later. At least if the soul is given to the life of the atheist is time given to admire God's creation and is given the choice to accept God. If a soul is created without the choice then that removes the God-given freewill of man. Now, if I'm wrong and God does add the soul to a vessel, then I believe that God does not make waste of the vessel: he either brings it to be with Him in Heaven or saves the soul for another vessel.

Okay, so that was my argument on the spiritual level, so let's take this to the physical level. Mainstrem pro-life advocates assert that abortion is murder. Merriam-Webster defines abortion as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". By this, the assertion that abortion is murder equates to the idea that those who perform abortion kill the babies with the desire to cause pain. Does a doctor want to kill the baby? Maybe if he's a sicko. However, this means that all doctors who perform abortion are murders with the intent to do harm, but a doctor's goal is to heal, not harm. Doctor's take the Hippocratic Oath, the oath not to inflict deliberate harm. If a doctor is performing abortion, then he/she must believe that no deliberate harm is being done. In fact, the doctor might be trying to save the mother's life. To say that abortion is murder is to say that these doctors are murderers, but if these doctors are knowingly murdering then they break the Oath. Not only does the assertion labels doctors, it also undermines their intentions. Now, many pro-life advocates will use statistics comparing abortion to murder and suicide rates. This is the same assertion. It is also a flawed argument, akin to comparing the year's tomato sales to the number of missiles produced, and using this as an argument that tomatos should not be on the market.

Is the fetus alive? Depends on how you define being "alive". If you state that the fetus is a living organism, then you are scientifically correct. However, skin cells are also living organisms. Every time you scratch your nose, you destroy millions of skin cells. Did you kill? Did you know that skin cells have been discovered to be able to develop into embryo? Sperm is a living organism. If your body expels sperm during a wet dream, are you killing? Either way, you have ended an organism's life. However, these are not sentient beings. Is an embryo a sentient being, is it able to process thought? Brain waves can be detected during the sixth week of pregnancy, and the first detected activity in response to pain stimuli appears on the ninth week into pregnancy. So, the embryo has a heart beat and is responsive to pain. This seems to convince pro-lifers that the fetus is indeed alive and is therefore on the same level as a baby. The problem with this is that these features do not make the being sentient. Sentience is the ability to percieve emotionally, spiritually, etc. The embryo is merely as alive as a worm. It does not have complex thought or feelings. It just functions. It is not until the twelfth week of development is the brain fully formed, and the fetus is able to silently cry. Most every pro-choice advocate I have met believes abortion after the first trimester is not humane. At this time, the fetus is conscious of its surroundings and many organs have developed into complex systems.

Now, where do I have problems with abortion? Under a number of circumstances does my stance on abortion change. If a woman has taken part in voluntary sexual intercourse and wants abortion simply because having a baby would be a burden, then I cannot support the abortion. The intention for abortion is for selfish purposes. I suppose its really the laziness of the person that fuels my frustration. Now, if a woman planning to get an abortion is doing so because she cannot financially support a child or pay the hospital bill, or any reason where the concern falls on the child, then I support the abortion, as long as it is within the first trimester. Rape victims fall under this, too. By the end of the first trimester, three months, the mother has been given plenty of time to make her decision. At this point, I cannot support abortion under most circumstances. The only cirumstance where I would support abortion is if it is discovered that the child suddenly serves some kind of fatal danger to the mother. In the event this occurs, the mother's life should take priority. If premature birth can occur, then it needs to be done.

FOCA, the Freedom of Choic Act, was promised to be signed by Obama. I have several concerns about FOCA:
-Parental notification laws will be nullified
A teenager can fight in a war, get pregnant, have an abortion, smoke cigarettes, and still can't have a beer. Honestly, though, this part of the act is bit promotional of dishonesty, is it not? Also, it puts all of the governments funding towards sex education to waste.

-Reversal of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003
So, a baby can be healthfully delivered up to the neck, and then brain tissue is removed through a tube. It's kind of sickening, really. The baby is ready to be born, it has filled pretty much any requirement anyone has for what a human needs to be "born", yet this will allow the baby to be aborted just because the head hasn't come out of the womb yet.

-Reversal of Hyde Amendment
Now our taxes fund abortion. I don't mind if it is save the mother's life or to support someone financially, but if it is because a baby would be an inconvienence, then why not allow my taxes to support celebrity plastic surgery?

-Religiously affiliated hospitals will be forced to provide abortion or face shutdown
This right here is totally infringing on our rights. If a hospital is founded on moral beliefs and view abortion as immoral, why should they be forced? It may not be murder to you, but to them it's the same as telling them to shoot a child or lose thier jobs. This sickens me. We have the right to express our religious beliefs, yet this act will force people to disrefard their morals and beliefs. Now, I understand that many hospitals are religiously affiliated, but many of them already provide abortion.

-Abortions will no longer require a liscensed physician to be performed
...Okay, this is just plain stupid. I don't want a dentist to perform heart surgery on me. Also, if unliscensed characters are allowed to perform abortion...can...can you just see how stupid this is? Hey, I have a great idea: let's allow taxi drivers to fly our commercial planes, even though they don't have a liscense! Eh? Eh?

-Doctors and nurses that object to performing abortion are no longer protected from lawsuits
Again, infringing on morals and personal beliefs.

There is still so much more to say on the abortion issue, but I'll leave it here for now.

I lost my Get Out Of Jail card for Monopoly. :(

Alright, before I say anything, I want you to know first off that I don't consider myself "economically intelligent", so if I say something that doesn't fit, please correct me. Okay, so I'm not really going interested into getting into a huge discussion of America's dissolving economy; this is really more of a rant about two issues: the economy's effect on me, and how people are referring to the government during this crisis.

First, my parents have been working all last night and this morning to figure out taxes, debts, and all that jazz. I woke up to find both of my parents in a bit of a panic. Turns out we are about $190,000 in debt and my parents are becoming aware of the possibility of losing the house. We are four people living under that roof: Mom, Dad, my brother, and myself. Four mouths to feed, six mouths if you include the cats. Anyway, I mentioned earlier that Dad is a trucker and he recently found new work at a local dispatcher. However, trucking is so bad in Savannah now and my Dad is seriously considering over-the-road trucking. Over-the-road trucking (not sure if this is the official term) is when a trucker works for a company that sends them off to anywhere in the country, usually a span of twenty to twenty-five states. The trucker is usually away from home for two weeks to a month, and returns home for a very small amount of time. Dad did over-the-road trucking back when I was nine years old for (then) Builder's Transport. I recall that he would be away for two, sometimes three, weeks and come home for only two days. He was able to make a good amount of money (for a trucker), but he was away a lot and ended up missing some events that I'd view as important to me, such as the first soccer game my team won, my tenth birthday, and winning the Stock Market Game in fourth grade (ironic, due to my lack of economical skill). Being away from home had a very negative effect on thr family and my dad. You can be sure there was a lot of crying involved. Despite the anger I did feel, I knew that Dad was simply trying to support his family as best as he could. The company he worked for eventually faced a hostile takeover and was basically forced to quit. What I mean is that the company drove some truckers harshly in order to get them to quit so the company wouldn't have to send the final check. Upon hearing that he would have to work for four weeks to come home for a single day, and work through Christmas and holidays, my dad quit on the spot, to which his dispatcher simply replied "Good." For about nine years now, my dad has worked for several state- and city-wide dispatchers, and several problems rose quickly: companies would face shutdowns; his own truck would become a money vacuum, sucking up thousands of dollars in repairs until finally getting a new truck (which actually runs pretty good); loads would not come in to the ports; dispatchers became unable to supply truckers with work; and with all the companies falling out of business, truckers have dropped in demand. Now my dad is being faced with the idea of going back to over-the-road trucking, which he shared with me that it is the last thing he ever wanted to again. I'm not fond of possibility of Dad taking this job again, especially at this time of my brother's life (he's sixteen), but in this economy, everyone is being forced to take "do what you have to do" positions. Is my dad going to go with it? I can't be sure. More than often he has raised over-the-road trucking as a last resort in the past three years, but I believe that this time he really feels that it is vital. My mom, on the other hand, is a preschool teacher and is barely even paid. She showed me her latest check this morning. After two weeks of exhaustian, frustration, and stress (all jobs have this, but trust me, preschool teachers have it tough), she made a mere $424, and that's before tax and other deductions. I have often told my mom to use her degree, a Bachelor's in English as a Second Language, to find work in Chatham County's public school system, but she is not keen on teaching high schoolers nor does she think her degree could be used here, since she attented the University of Concepción in Chile. I recently recieved a check from my university for $413 for unused funds from my Pell Grant, and my parents have come to me to give whatever I can to help the family. My original intent was to place the check in a savings account and use it for college funds later, but the situation is urgent and I quickly endorsed the check for them. I don't think that I mentioned earlier that my dad is the worship leader at our church. He recieves a weekly check for a hundred dollars (this is a hired occupation in the church). My dad is upset because the church pays him so little (compared to what a part-time worship usually makes, maybe about five hundred dollars). He has decided to either ask the elders for better pay or for financial support. He understands that our church is small, but the church does have a really good amount of funds for its size. Now before anyone says something about people in the church and doing stuff for financial gain, Dad originally took the job because the pastor, a college buddy, invited him to become the worship leader. My dad did not originally know that this would actually be a paid job. He has gladly played in worship bands of several churches free of charge in the past, and has never let the paycheck become the main concern. However, according to the church's spendings and list of paid positions, my dad is being paid unfairly. Only now in this emergency has he ever been one to think about the salary. It was only because of this did I realize just how desperate he is feeling. Now I fear for my family's future. Will our house be foreclosed? Am I going to have to drop out to help support the family? Is Dad going to go back over-the-road? My head is filled with questions and I'm worried sick. If there is anyone else in this position be assured that I know exactly how you feel. All I can do is pray and keep faith that God can pull us through.

Now, other than God, my hopes and prayers are also with the government. It seems that people are pushing and pushing all of this on the White House. However, what upsets me isn't really the actions that are being taken by the government as so much as it is the American public and media and their lack of patience. I realize this is an emergency, I'm also one of these people in a ship sinking fast, but at least I understand that there are too many hazards to rush Congress into this. Yesterday, I found a political cartoon depicting President Obama driving a fancy car with a fat man with "Conservatives" written across his body asking "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?..." Now, I'm not one for cheap political party shots, but the artist has made an excellent point. Obama has only been in the White House for less than two months, and the people, fueled by the media, are pushing him too hard. First of all, the man is the President, not Superman or a messiah. He has to deal not only with our economy, but the war, immigration, environmentalism, energy crisis, and every other problem in the world that shows up on his desk. It was quite obvious to me from the beginning that the moment Obama stepped into office, he was going to realize just how much he is going to have to deviate from his initial plans to fix everything. I'll admit it, I did not vote for Obama, I voted McCain. However, Obama won, and I see no point in complaining about anything. I'll let the man do his job and support him as my leader, as most of you Christians out there should. I may not agree with all of his views, but I will not allow that to lead myself to ignorance. A lot of people seemed angry when Obama ended up changing his mind a lot of things (i.e. his plans to remove troops from Iraq), but everyone out there needs to understand that when one becomes President, he/she is going to be presented with previously unknown information and realize that there are certain methods that just won't work. Now, the liberal media is upset with Obama's policy changes and the conservative media is putting him in negative light because the economy hasn't been fixed yet. Now, I believe that the crisis was initially imminent from Bush Sr.'s tax raises, and that Clinton was able to delay it for awhile, but after 9/11 the effects were akin to a lioness waiting for an injured antelope to strike. I in no way am so ready to force blame on President Bush or the conservatives, but I do accept that much action that could have been taken to prevent or weaken the crisis was either left to float or seen as not vital. The fact is, we are now in a crisis and cannot change the past. However, we can still attempt to find those who have purposely fueled the crisis for personal gain. Now, we may not be able to toss them in jail but, as the recent O.J. and Blagojevich trials have shown us, fate has a funny way of getting back at you. Okay, now people also need to understand that though there are some of us who cannot afford to wait, rushing into this thing head on is not a good idea. Think about this: we rushed into the Middle East, we rushed into Vietnam, and we rushed into Reconstruction. None of these ideas did good for us. Rushing into this situation will most likely make matters worse. I believe this is the real intention behind Obama's stimulus plan for the citizen to make only $13 more. Governer Mike Huckabee, on his Fox News talk show Huckabee, shoed that though thirteen dollars is hardly an increment, it can do good for household items such as groceries. This isn't an attempt to make the middle class rich, it's more like an experiment or maybe a prototype to see what works. A little extra cash in your pocket isn't such a bad thing. Now, if everyone has a little extra cash then that actually might stimulate marketing. I don't know, we haven't seen the results. I do believe that the government is kind of closed-off to the public, however. Now I'm not saying it's because everyone in Congress is rich or anything like that, but it does kind of put a wall between the citizen and the politicians. Many celebrities have actually come up with methods that could very well work. Glenn Back is one of the few "over the top" conservatives that I believe brings up some very important issues, such as the kidnappings near the Mexican border. On a few occasions he has brought up something about the economy that I agree with. Though I think he flies the Patriotic flag a bit too much, he is right when he says that moral ground is important for America. It is because these banks and business people have become so frugal and perverse with their green that we seem to have been caught up with these bailouts. AIG is now coming back for another bailout, and we all heard about their parties, hundred thousand dollar bonuses and such. Do these people deserve all of this? I can't really say. I think that the employees could have been more careful with spendings. The jacuzzi/cocktail parties weren't a good idea, though. As for the bonuses, these people do deserve their big paychecks: they work, they deal with everyone else's problems, they spent years obtaining the credentials. Now what they could have done is give them the bonuses but not such huge ones. Everyone states that the bailouts were just like flushing the dollars down a toilet. Now I do agree that the bailout wasn't well regulated. In fact, it asserts my point about rushing into things. Congress happily voted in favor of the bailout immediately and basically handed the money over so fast that the Department of Treasury was unable to keep up with where it was going. Does AIG deserve a second chance? Certainly not. Remember these bailouts are funded by our taxes, and with the crisis, I believe that if AIG is begging for money after only a few months, then chances are they aren't serious about their problems. They may be better this time around, but they had their chance and blew it. Citi Bank is asking for a bailout. I don't know why, but I suppose it is fair to listen to them and give them a chance. Now, as for the automobile companies, I believe that out of all the companies to come forth, they deserve the bailout most of all. Why? The automobile companies do two great things for America. First, they produce something tangible for the public, something that just about every American needs and buys. Automobiles have been responsible for putting America on top when Ford first started producing. The other great thing it does is provide work for both blue and white collar workers. Blue collar workers are provided with jobs dealing with actually building the vehicle, working on machinery, mechanics and tasks of the sort. White collar includes designers, CEOs, scientists, and various other office jobs. The automobile industry has done a lot for America and it is time we gave back. My dad is wary of any kind of bailout now, but he agrees that he has no problem with this industry being saved with his tax dollars. Now, many people are put off by any kind of bailout so I believe that if the automobile industry cannot recieve a bailout, Congress should at least do anything they can to save these companies. In a way, these industries are the true backbone of America. They make cars and trucks. The trucks transport products. If the products cannot be transported then America will face a major meltdown. Cars provide economical support in that almost every American buys one, most households owning two vehicles, and even provide entertainment whether through sport or show. Ford's assembly line is one of the major forwaders of the Roaring Twenties. The automobile industry has proved themselves to be responsible. But what about the private jets? I find this controversy to be ridiculous. How many of those congressmen have personal jets? Private jets are privately owned. As for the Company jets, Congress and the media inquired if any of the CEOs were planning to sell the company jet to gain money for the company. This is just plain silly. Who is going to buy a company jet at this time? With everyone being so gung-ho on major spending, what person in thier right mind is going to buy an expensive jet? How many people do you see buying Camaros and private yachts? Fox News did a cover about the amount of fuel used by company jets. Now this is a good point. Private jets use a greater amount of fuel than commerical flights, and I had to agree that commerical flight would have been a wiser decision, and the CEOs did take the issue to heart and used commercial flights after the incident. However, this issue is not about energy conservation, though it plays a part. Honestly, I was aggravated by the focus on the CEOs' jets rather than the actual bailout itself. I still have yet to see anything on the news about the automobile industry. As far as I know, they have yet to come to a decision. I understand that Congress is trying to be tighter about bailouts, but come on. The automobile industry is nothing like banks. We haven't even given them a chance. They have tried to save their workers, even going as far as to give workers a paid month off to suspend production and reduce spending on supplies. The moral ground Glenn Back mentioned seems to be stable with the automobile industry. Give them a chance, I say. As for the American people, stop rushing Obama. The man has only just stepped through the door and now you are all demanding a miracle. The economy is not going to be fixed overnight. Chances are, it will be another six months to year that it gets better, and even then it just might get worse before it gets better. As for those who can't wait, these are the people Congress needs to focus on. If we are going to stimulate the country, we are going to need to save these people. Stop giving bailouts to banks for a while, and instead bail out these poor souls. If the government has enough money to spend $3 trillion on bear research we have more than enough to support the fincancially desperate for two years. Just think about that.

Introducing Myself

Greetings! So I see you've stumbled across my journal here. Whether it was because you were surfing Blogger or made a typo in your Google search for a guide to fixing your VCR, it doesn't matter to me; chances are, you've probably hit Back or closed the window already. If you're still reading, then allow me to welcome you. My pen name is Breaker, as it is my username for almost everything I do. I've made this blog as an output for the number of thoughts that cross my mind. Now, these aren't your typical "I wonder if Judy likes me?" thoughts. Rather, these are thoughts that relate to real-world events and life. My posts could deal with heavy controversial subjects like politics and religion, and they can also be about light social themes, like hobbies and interests. In a way, I sort of feel the need to make my point somehow. I mean, sure I could talk to friends or family, but I would rather try to avoid certain retorts. For example, if I were to get into a political discussion with a friend, he would simply end up ranting about Liberals, and that's not what I'm look for. I am not looking for silly one-sided complaints or narrow-minded criticism. So, I decided if I wanted to make my point, as well as recieve feedback from people I've never met, the best option would be to make a public online journal. This way, I do not need to worry about personal flares between people I know and myself. Now, I don't expect everyone who reads my posts to agree with me, and yes I do expect trolls and Poes, but what is important to me is that I make my thoughts known. So if you feel compelled to, you are free to comment on my posts, even if they are anonymous.

Now, a quick summary of who I am...

General Info

As it is, I don't feel the need to reveal my actual name, but you'll most likely eventually learn it from future posts. Let's begin with the basic facts, shall we? I am currently a 19-year-old male from Savannah, Georgia. I am a Hispanic/Caucasian mix; my mother was born and raised in the South American nation of Chile, and my father was born here in Georgia (since he was adopted, we do not know of what national descent he is). I am a college freshman attending Atlantic Armstrong State University, and a major in Fine Arts. Mom is a preschool teacher and Dad is a local trucker. I am at the time not working. I have younger 16-year-old brother who frequently gets on my nerves. Though I am technically single, a friend and myself have decided to start dating - this has yet to develop into a full relationship.

Personal Beliefs

Religion: I am a non-denominational Christian. This means that I do not associate myself with any of the major Christian denominations, such as the Catholic or Methodist churches. My faith is founded on personal studies of the Bible and the fundamental beliefs of Christian theology: God created the heavens and the earth, He sent Christ the Son to die for our sins, by His grace we are saved, and that the Son will return. Now, either you are probably doing one of three things: nodding your head in approval; shaking your head and rolling your eyes; saying "okay" and not really caring all that much. Now, let me go ahead and say this: though I am a Christian, many of my views do not fit with mainstream American Christianity. That is to say, I disagree with many fellow Christians on a number of issues regarding homosexuality, evolution, abortion, and other controversial subjects. I support basic gay civil rights, I believe in evolution, and I do not agree with most pro-life arguments. Now, many of you are probably wondering how can I be a Christian and be supportive of such ideas? I'll explain each of these manners in the future; however, it is imperative that you do not attack me until I have explained myself. Afterwards, I will accept any criticism.

That being said, I will warn you now that most of my posts are likely going to be centered around religion, as I have a lot to say about the Christian collective. I don't think I have to tell you that there is plenty to rant about.

Politics: Politics, in a way, is where I tend to do some "riding the fence", as it were. I really cannot find myself able to identify with neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. In fact, I feel as if these titles have polluted our basic American standards in recent years, but that's to be discussed another time. I suppose I do tend to learn towards Conservatism*, but recently I find my views closer to Liberalism. I see too much trouble in political parties and refuse to become a part of either. I know there are plenty of other minor parties about, but I don't have the time or patience to read up on each one's viewpoints. As for political media, I watch both CNN and Fox News. Yes, I am aware of the political biases present, but I watch both so that I can get a full understanding of what's going on, even if some stories are full of obvious political bull. That being said, I want to give a quick rundown of my views: I support gay rights, I am pro-choice to an extent, I do not support Creationism taught in schools, I currently do not approve of the war in Iraq but since it's already started I prefer to see it to the end, I have no opinion on taxes, I somewhat support gun control, I do not support illegal immigrants, I support most Democratic views on economy, I support national healthcare, I support environmental protection, and I support off-shore drilling.

Of course, there's a lot more, but I think that's enough for now.

Hobbies & Interests

Oye, where do I being? Alright, like most anybody my age, I'm into video games, music, and social life. As you probably know by now, I have a great interest in social issues based on religion and politics. I don't know where it came from, had this been three years ago, I wouldn't even think of touching politics nor having views that differed from mainstream Christianity. Anyway, let me explain everything in further detail for you.

Major: I believe I stated ealier that I was majoring in Fine Arts. To be more precies, my interests lie in graphic design, which is, simply put, art using computers. I love to mess around in Photoshop and Flash, and make logos and designs. Also, I enjoy making and editing videos in Sony Vegas, something I do often for church events. I'm also a "spriter", a person who makes small frames of video game animations. I used to do a lot in Microsoft Paint, and now I do everything in Photoshop. In addition, I draw and make pottery.

Music: Oh, dear, don't get me started. Seriously. I freaking love to listen to music. I mostly listen to rock, metal, funk, and hip-hop, and I'm beeing as vague as possible. When I say "metal", that includes nu metal, death metal, thrash metal, glam metal, and so on and so on. I listen to pretty much everything...well, anything that isn't modern. I have a distaste for modern music, what with acts like Simple Plan and Soulja Boy *shudder*. Do I think all modern music is bad? No. There are a few select groups I have come to approve of: Gorillaz, Demon Hunter, Coldplay, and Kelly Clarkson...to name a few. Most of my taste is revolved around 70s and 80s acts, like Alice Cooper, Joan Jett, Public Enemy, and Parliament-Funkadelic. Like I said, I have an extensive musical taste and if I continue on about it, I'd probably end up crashing the server.

Video Games: I see myself as a bit of an avid gamer. I don't collect games like I use to. You know, I don't go out and buy every new game that creates hype. I use to collect a whole bunch of games, but the cost for entertainment these days have hurt my wallet immensely. My console of choice is the Xbox 360. I also own a Nintendo 64, PlayStation 2, a Gamecube, and a GameBoy Advance. Honestly, I prefer classic gaming over most but there is plenty of that available on the net these days. Currently, I mostly play games from the Halo and Guitar Hero series, though certain classics such as Sonic and Yoshi's Island will always have a place in my heart.

Television: I don't really watch a whole lot of T.V. anymore. I'll watch some shows like Scrubs or House, but there's not that much that interests me anymore. Of course, there's classics like Fresh Prince and George Lopez; not to mention Colbert and Jon Stewart. Most of T.V. viewing time is taken up by watching the news more than anything. I don't see the point in following shows like Smallville or Heroes. *shrug*

Movies: I like movies. School of Rock is my favorite, no competition. I don't think there's any genre or theme that really captures me, I just go and see what movies seem to interest me. That said, I do have a thing for old B-Movies like Earth vs The Spider, but almost anything other than crappy CGI or romantic comedies could interest me. Pixar moves are great, and almost anything with Nicole Kidman has my vote.

Sports: Not my thing. I'll watch the Olympics, but sports really don't interest me at all. I'll say this though: I do not like Nascar. At all. Don't bother to mention it.

Books: Another weak area of mine. I don't read much. The only two series that have interested me are Left Behind and Babylon Rising. Other than that, there aren't many books I can really name right off the bat.

Okay, I think that's enough info for today, I'm quickly losing interest. So, come back some time to see what I have to say.

Later.