AD, BC, BCE, CE, WC?

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". 

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?

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! 

(Here)

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

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

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 mercola.com 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:



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

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?

Your Brain on Naturalism

Okay, in this post, I would like to illustrate one problem I've heard with the worldview/philosophical point of view called "naturalism", also known as "philosophical or metaphysical" Naturalism to distinguish it from other forms, such as methodological naturalism. (the form used by many scientists, for example)

Philosophical naturalism is basically the point of view that, in the totality of existence, only the universe itself exists. Only physical objects exist, and anything that we think isn't can be explained away as being caused by something, or being something, physically existing somewhere in the Universe. Obviously, under such a system, nothing Supernatural can possibly exist.
As (I think it was Carl Sagan) said, "The Universe is all there is, was, or ever will be"

Note: It's quite common for atheists to follow this sort of system, however if it's by no means necessary that they do so. In other words, many Atheists are (Philosophical) Naturalists, however, not all Atheists are Naturalists. (And vice vesa, all Naturalists are and must necessarily be Atheists)

Here's the the problem: (and this came to my attention via a CS Lewis writing, so it's not like this some original argument I came up with, just FYI [I don't intend to be a plagiarist!!])

According to Naturalism, everything (and I do mean everything, from your dog to your shoes to your grandmother, to the planets, on and on) came about totally randomly, by chance, from natural processes. In fact, those natural processes themselves came about by random chance in the Big Bang. (along with everything else in the Universe) So, this means that my thoughts, and everyone else's thoughts, are all the result of random, irrational, illogical, chemical and electrical firings in my brain, which in turn evolved randomly from an ape-like ancestors lesser developed brain, which in turn evolved from some ape's brain, which in turn...well, you get the picture.

The problem? If my thoughts (and everyone else's as well, for that matter) are simply the result of totally random, chaotic, irrational chance events, then why on earth should I believe that those thoughts are in any sense rational, or true? Think about it, not only is that a problem for rational thought in general, it also means that the theory of Naturalism itself is irrational, for it is, itself,  (according to it's own, fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality) only the product of irrational, random chance.  Do we have any reason at all to presume that something that's the product of irrational chance (many times over) should be, itself, rational and logical?

To me, that just seems highly improbable, and highly irrational, to assume that Rationality, Logic, Order, Functionality, can arise form Random, Chaotic, Irrational, Chance.

*Editor's Note: I'll be adding quotes from Sagan and Lewis later. :D

My Coin Collection

Hey guys! Sorry that I haven't posted in such a long time, but I've been busy with various things. Like, for instance, my Doberman Pinscher, very to dear to me and the 'Love of my life' has passed away after 9 years on this earth. I'm actually still in shock, and depressed about it, 6 months later... she will be missed. :( RIP 

That sad news aside, I plan to make a series of somewhat autobiographical posts about my coin collection, possibly posting phots and descriptions of some of the more interesting ones. You guys are free to browse them if you want, but these posts are mostly for my own/ my family's own amusement. Fun fact: I recently found out that I have two coins in my collection that are both worth roughly $1500!!! Wow! Boy was I surprised to find that out...I thought that, at most, they had to be worth maybe $50 each?  o_0

Will be posting those in series over the next couple weeks. 

Guns and Tweets

If they interpreted the First Amendment the way they interpret the Second, the only freedom of speech we'd have would be 140 characters at a time, like on Twitter.

(This is a lot like a famous quote by one of my favorite Conservative authors/columnists, Ann Coulter, which goes something like:

"If Liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, the American public would have the right to carry personal bazookas by now. ")

One argument that liberals often like to make is "Well, sure, but the difference is, publishing news stories doesn't kill people. But guns (eg broadening the 2nd Amendment) do kill people"

Okay, even granted that point, even besides the fact that publishing news can, in fact, kill/ endanger people's lives, (Wikileaks, anyone?) it's a moot point. Theoretically, exercising you're 4th Amendment rights could also endanger people's lives, through the threat of terrorism. But you don't hear anyone complaining about that.... if anything, just the opposite, with Obama assassinating US citizens abroad, without trial. (By the way, just where, exactly, are all the loudmouthed 4th amendment nuts, who argued so passionately when Bush was in office? Huh? Where the hell are they now?)

Regardless of whether it may endanger lives, it's a Right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is not a "privilege" that the Government may take away nilly-willy.

Sports, Drugs, and Lance

I'm writing this post because I really think we all need to cut Lance Armstrong some slack. Yes, he used drugs. Yes,  he lied about it. And yes, he won the Tour de France while doped. But I think everyone also needs to bear these things in mind as they continue bashing Lance:

Drug usage is a fact of life in high-profile, high-paying sports. Any sport, pick a sport, if it's professional, top-level sports, then 90% of the the top performers in it are on PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) of one kind or another. As Durianrider said, unless you're talking about archery or curling, they're likely on drugs. It's just a fact of living in this cynical, all-about-money world. I'm sorry, I wish it wasn't like that, but there it is. As I think he said, he was just part of the "drug-culture" of high-performance cycling. Do I think that means he was right in doing so? No, certainly not. I just think we could all maybe be a little bit more sympathetic to his drug usage, especially given the fact that he (had) testicular cancer as well. At least that sort of gives him something of an excuse for doping... what's everyone else's?

If you were a champion (blank, pick a sport) athlete, and you were aware of drug usage in your sport, and you were aware that essentially all of the top performers in said sport were using drugs, would you decide to sacrifice your career for the sake of integrity? After all, if you don't use drugs, there's no way you can compete with everyone else. (who, likelier than not, do use drugs) I don't know that there are many people who can honestly say that they would've made a choice for integrity. In fact, given what I hear in business, politics, hollywood, and the like,  I know there aren't many people who would've made that choice... , people sacrifice integrity for career momentum all the time, especially now, in difficult economic times.

So please, unless you can say you've never sacrificed integrity for personal advancement, and never would, cut Lance a little slack.

*Note: As soon as I can find the link to Durianrider's video on Lance Armstrong and drug use, I will be posting it*

Gawker Publishes "Gun-pages" list

Following the outcry over the Journal News publishing a mappable list of gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties, (included among those were several prison guards, who subsequently have been taunted by convicts reciting their home addresses at them.) yesterday (Jan 8, 3:10PM) the Gawker blog published their own, 446 page list of "every licensed gun owner in New York City."

Wow. Maybe this time they'll include more, perhaps private security guards, or private investigators. (In fact, they even say "(And for the record, they are not all assholes. Some of them need guns for legitimate reasons for their jobs, like providing security for assholes.)" so there are the names of people whose careers and lives depend on the usage of firearms listed there. Way to go, Gawker. Maybe you could publish your own writer's home addresses, as well? Hmmm? Maybe let us know your home addresses, Gawker.

I should think that all this is even more scary, and more dangerous, for those who aren't on the list as for those who are....now criminals know which houses and apartments to target.

I heard Chris Plante today say that someone should publish a list of all the women who've gotten abortions, as well, since the liberals are going to publish all of the gun owners. Tit for tat.

Seriously, since many abortions are funded with taxpayer-money, it's not such a bad idea. After all, as Gawker said, it's all in the public domain anyway. (or, by rights, ought to be) Why not?

Miracles

Hello dear readers. I've been reading C.S. Lewis' book, "Miracles", and so far it's made great reading. There were two arguments in there that I thought I might share:

1)  Argument against Naturalism:

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that any beliefs are ture...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms--- [because] my beliefs have irrational causes"   

-Quote taken from "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis

2) Argument against morality in Naturalism:

" Yet if the "oughts" of Mr. Wells, and, say, Franco are both equally the impulses which Nature has conditioned each to have and both tell us nothing about any objective right or wrong, whence is all the fervour? Do they remember while they  writing thus that when they tell us we "ought" to make a "better world" the words "ought" and "better" must, on their own showing, refer to an irrationally conditioned impulse which cannot be true or false any more than a vomit or a yawn?"

-"Miracles" by C.S. Lewis

Reading this book has so far been worth it, even if only for those two arguments Even though I've known them in form before then, I've never seen them so eloquently put.

Relatively Speaking... and a note on this blog's future format/content.

All right,

Given that I have practically no readership (see post below) the format of this blog is going to be a little casual. (meaning, more personal, and, you can count on not seeing ads, or dry politcal reporting, anytime soon).

A note on the topics I'll be covering: (and a few general disclaimers)

 #1 I will be writing on Philosophy, (esp. as it integrates with Christianity) etc., but tar-babies (I have yet to come up with something better to call them than that) will be blocked. Genuine questions, even critical questions/responses are welcome, but I'm not planning on having a 2-hour posting blitz with every atheist that comes here. Students (c'est moi) have better things to be doing with their time. 

#2 Don't expect ace, up-to-the-minute reporting on every political "event"/gaffe by some major politician. Most political news in this country has become rather one-dimensional, (regardless of which party you're talking about) and I have no wish to imitate them.

Note: Given the title of this post, there was supposed to be a note on relativism (particularly moral) but I'll have to save that for the next post. (Thou shalt not write long, rambling posts is apparently the 1st Commandment of blogging)

 

      

The great nothingness that is... my readership.

This company makes hilarious antithetical counterparts to all of the "motivational posters" for businesses that you often see.  Example: A poster on blogging.

Since I seem to have exactly 0 readers* other than my family, (pretty lame for a political blog),

I thought this was rather hilarious commentary on blogging.  

Nothing's the Best...

Here's a great article from the Cato Institute, arguing that the recession has gotten worse because of Government action, not better, and that a policy of stasis would have been better than some of the policies the government has enacted. (bailouts, backing risky mortgages, etc).

Islamic Global Jihad...

Here's the link to a YouTube video with some sobering and rather scary statistics on international demographics. (If they're true, that is). 

Why liberals continue to deny that Islam is a radical, non-peaceful, religion, intent on conquering the world (Like they almost did circa A.D. 1400)  is beyond me. Multi-culturalism, moral relativism, and multi-lateral foreign policy will be the death of the United States, if more of us don't start waking up, and doing something about it.