May 13, 2014


I've been bothered a lot lately, sort of nagging at the back of my mind, by the whole recent ( well, if you consider within a decade or so  recent ) decision to change from AD (Anno domini, or in the year of our lord)- bc ( before Christ) to CE ( common era) - BCE. ( before common era). 
And before anyone complains, it's not just that they're  doing so (blatantly) only in the name of political correctness ( and, as others have pointed out, only PC at the expense of Christianity... No ones decided to remove the word "January", for instance, even though it's name is in honor of Janus... An ancient roman god.... Which should be considered offensive to anyone not of that faith) although that bothers me, and it's not just that changing over blatantly disregards and disrespects the contribution that Christianity has made to history, ( [Christian]Gregorian monks, after all, invented the calendar and timeline system that we use around the world today) although that bugs me even more. No, what really bugs the hell out of me is why they bothered to change the calendar labels but kept the event it's based on ... What??!! Let me explain: What happened at year 0, Before Commone Era, that suddenly made everything "Common"? Christ's birth, that's what, or else what other event are they basing it on? Huh? That's so weird to me... Change the labels around, but have the actual timing be based on the year when Christ was supposed to be. 

Personally, I think if they're going to switch the labels around, in the blatant, biased, un- scientific, intellectually dishonest way that they've done it, they should just go ahead and change the freaking starting date that the whole calendar is based on too, or they're A) being intellectually and scientifically dishonest and inaccurate by not giving credit to the Gregorian monks and pope Gregor who invented the whole darned  calendar in the first place, and B) they're still not technically being politically correct because the entire timeline of the Gregorian calendar, which they still use, ( just with the labels "BCE- CE" instead of "BC-AD") has the starting point for the calendar, ( the year "0") based on the year that they supposed Christ was born. ( even if they were a little inaccurate and off by like five years or whatever, as some people nitpickingly try to point out)  Did you guys get that? The whole entire timeline is still based on the year that Jesus Christ was supposed to have been born. Oops. So much for being "politically correct". 

March 13, 2014

Success, Money, and Contradiction

Lately I've been reading a lot of self-help "success" purporting to teach me methods, mindsets, and mantras that will (along with hard work and luck) make me richer. (Actually, given the hard economic times, I imagine that's something that a lot of people are doing besides just myself)

One thing that I realized, though, and thats come to really bother me, is: How come most of these supposed "money gurus" have, upon further inspection, made most of their *own* wealth from selling their own crap on how to get rich???

Example: Kawasaki, Tracy, etc

How come most of these people haven't actually made any money themselves except teaching *others* how they can "get rich"?  You would think that if what they're teaching (re: Selling) actually worked, they would have made millions and multi-millions in something *other* than the Self-Help industry.

Now, in one sense, if they used their techniques to help them sell those same said techniques and got rich that way, it's awfully redundant and tautological but I guess it sort of proves they work. But my point? Why don't they work in any other industry, then?

January 16, 2014

Earn free cash doing stuff online!!

Hey Guys! 

   I just wanted to let you all know about this great site I'm a member of, and you can be too, for free! 

It lets you earn points, called "Swag-Bucks", which you can then redeem for cool stuff like gift cards, visa-cards (cash-equivalent!), magazine subscriptions, and even things like donations to charities like the Red Cross.

It's free to join (I think I already said that, oops) and, in most cases, free to earn the points, although for many of the offers you have to join some service/website, or buy something. (only for the big bucks, though, like 1000 swag-bucks, etc) Each SB (Swagbuck) is roughly equivalent to 1 US cent at the time of this posting.  You can even (randomly) earn points just for using their (free) search engine!

The only cons that I can think of is that the site does make it kind of difficult to earn lots of points, but don't let that dissuade you. Even if all you do is use their search engine (set it as your homepage so you'll remember, if your forgetful like I am anyways) and answer a few surveys, you can easily earn around 500-1000 swagbucks a month. If you do that through the year, by years end you could wind up with as much 10,000 swagbucks to spend on Holiday gifts for loved ones! (10k SB is almost $100!!!) 

Thanks guys!  

PS Full disclosure: The link above is my referral link, and I get extra points if you guys use it to sign up. Please do so if you're thinking of joining the site, as it doesn't cost you extra, and we both can earn points that way!!! :D :D :D

January 14, 2014

Chai Chai, Funny Funny

Just realized, looking at my blog traffic data, that most of my hits are from some Russian search engine, for some Iranian music video named "Chai Chai". (also is embedded below :))  o_0 Wow. Well, at this point, I'm still thankful for the hits, I guess, but boy, is the world a small place now, with the Worldwide Web. And no, sorry guys, but for the life of me I can't find the lyrics to Chai Chai. Hell, if they're good, I might just make it the theme song of this blog. :P

Chai Chai:

Direction of the Blog in future

Hey Guys,  (and Gals :P)

Just wanted to give  a big thank-you to any readers out there, your eyeballs (and comments, do please comment!! :D I won't bite! lol) mean a lot to me, so thanks for reading.

One other thing I wanted to note, is that, for now, at least until I get more readership, (100+ visits per day or so....maybe less, maybe 75, I dunno, depends on how long it takes to get readers)  this blog is going to be kind of a catch-all, for random subjects that I decide to post on. o_0 Once I get 75-100 readers+, I'll take a poll (or just examine the numbers) and see which subjects are the most popular, and just focus on those.

Until then, expect to see posts on topics as disparate as book reviews of my favorite thrillers, political news and commentary, tech reviews, philosophical musings, and personal posts of my real life (Coins! Photos coming soon, I promise. :S Just running into too many tech difficulties...sorry about that guys. :(   In the meantime, please enjoy, and comment on the posts you like/ and/or take issue with the most.

- W. Jonathon B.  AKA the Chai_Guy

January 12, 2014

HIV-AIDS: Nutritional Component

HIV-AIDs seems to be more on the rise than ever, despite all efforts to combat it. (And no, merely "practicing 'safe' sex" isn't likely to help much... it only takes one time to get infected.)

Obviously, there is one foolproof, sure-fire way to never end up with the virus: Don't be promsicuious, just stick with one sexual partner, as the vast majority of cases are contracted sexually, not inherited or through infected blood supplies/ accidental finger pricks, etc.

However, being faithfully monogamous seems to have been discarded in today's society in favor of jumping into bed with as many people as you want, in constant pursuit of the almighty perfect orgasm. So, if you have it already, one thing that a few studies say might help, is a combination of four necessary nutrients that are severely depleted by the virus: Tryptophan, Cysteine, Selenium, and Glutamine.

My thanks to for the article source and link. :)

Christianity and Hope

I was browsing search results for a question I had, (What's the most compelling argument against theism? [or for atheism] So I could pick it apart :) ) when I saw this video embedded in an article, by Ravi Zacharias:

If anyone (atheist, Christian, or otherwise) has any responses/comments to this, please comment below. :) Thanks for reading. :D

January 11, 2014

Coin collection...

Apologies for my promised coin collection pictures being late in coming... I'm having a few technical issues, (besides also being slightly lazy :P)  please bear with me.  I promise to only post the interesting/neat/of historical interest coins, so hopefully they'll be worth the wait. :)

Colorado now the 'Highest' state in the Union

...with the state of Washinton soon to follow.

Please forgive the rather lame pun starting off this post... I just couldn't resist. :P

I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert in either politics or drug dependence/ effects, so please bear with me. :)

 The news coming in that Colorado is now legalizing medical marijiuana (though, without a prescription) comes as no particular surprise to this blogger. Legalizing weed is something that Libertarians, the medically suffering, and hardcore addicts have all been clamoring for for years now. So, I guess the question, morally and politically, is 1) Does the US Federal Government even have the Constitutional authorization to be regulating drugs like marijiuana, cocaine, etc,  (I know they like to use the Interstate Commerce Clause as their pet loophole to justify regulating absolutely everything that crosses state lines that they deign to regulate, but I mean other than that....besides which, and I'm not 100 percent positive on this, but I'm pretty sure there has to actually be legal interstate commerce in said article to begin with before the Feds can start regulating/ taxing it, so it would seem like something that is really up to the States) and, 2) Even if they do have that power, should they do so, morally, even if they can do so?

I'm going to try and do some research on the drug, it's effects, (both beneficial and not)  and, possibly, try to see what this means for drug policy in the future. One thing that I do remember hearing from experts on a documentary on the substance, (I think it was the History Channel...please don't hold me to it though :) ) and so far as it's detrimental effects on judgement and the like go, it seems it's much worse/ has much more of a pronounced negative effect on "newbie" users, whereas in those who commonly smoke a couple pipes a day of the stuff, they're hardly effected at all when they're "high", so far as judgement, reaction time, etc. Maybe something to keep in mind, given that Colorado is likely to have new users, with legalization.

On the flip side of the issue, one benefit frequently mentioned  by drug legalization advocates (including such libertarian groups as the Cato Institute) is massive reductions in the funding and money illegal drug cartels and terrorist groups, such as MS-13 and Al Qaeda, will get, once there is legal competition in place. (Price wars will [theoretically] cause their profits to plummet) And, on top of that, the Feds will no longer have to spend the X number of billions of dollars they are currently spending on their hopeless, failed, drug "war". (As drug advocates call it, anyway)

Myself, I find it hard to choose which position to take. On the one hand, I'm the last person that wants the USA to turn into a nation of lazy, dependent, good for nothing wastrels, wasting all of their money to get their next fix, sitting sideways in some Govt trough. (Being supported by the "rest of us") Just making drugs "legal" doesn't mean all of the deadly, dangerous, and inconvenient (to society, at least) side effects just magically disappear. And, on the other, it would be nice if we no longer had to spend billions and billions of dollars in a war where there are no victories, only countless causalties, and where the more effective the Feds are at tightening up drug supplies, the more money illegal, criminal enterprises are able to make once they do manage to slip past the Feds. In my opinion, as long as the taxpayer isn't required to pay for the consequences,  I say, let 'em be legalized. Just make it so their insurance doesn't cover whatever illnesses and injuries (including psychological) they may incur from their addiction.

(Or if it does, make it so it's out of their pocket, and not the taxpayers.... I mean, c'mon, why should the rest of us have to pay for your lack of character, just because you feel like you need to get high???)

Note: I'm starting to get too tired, (was up too late the other night... :( ) so, dear readers, I'll be adding links and research data later. (Hopefully tomorrow if I can happen to get on. :) ) Thanks for reading. :)

Against "Religous Extremism"? A little Extreme.....

It seems that everyone these days, from Government to news organizations to lobbyists, are all against "religious extremism" and "religious fanaticism". Whatever happened to being against "terrorism"?

Anyhow.... I wouldn't normally have a problem with that, except when most of those organizations use the term, "religious fanatic" = someone with a belief about religion who also happens to think that they are right. Incidentally..... that puts liberals, the Government, and others in the same category.... they all (undoubtedly) have positions/thoughts/ideas about religion, and the all (undoubtedly) think that they are right. But since when have I expected either the Government, or liberals, to act in a logically consistent manner?

Besides all of that, a Buddhist could also quite accurately be described as a "religious fanatic" yet to the best of my knowledge they haven't harmed or threatened anyone yet... nor do they plan to do so.

I think it's high time that politicians, news anchors, and others, all got some guts and admitted it: "religious fanatics" didn't ram two airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon... Islamic Jihadists did. Not Amish, not Christians, not Jehovah's Witnesses, certainly not Buddhists.... but MUSLIMS blew up the WTC.

Good God.... does it take another terrorist attack on U.S. soil before people start waking up again?