Atheist Survives Black Magic Attack

The New Age? It's just the old age stuck in a microwave oven for fifteen seconds.
James Randi

On March 3rd a Indian television show took an unexpected turn as guest Sanal Edamaruku, a famous atheist, challenged one of India's most "powerful" tantrik masterlords (or whatever they're called) to try out his supposed "powers" on Edamaruku. He did this after the tantrik had professed that he could kill a man in just three minutes, using only witchcraft. "Amazingly" Edamaruku is still alive today.

The witchcraft-session started out as being just a three minute thing, however, since the tantrik failed to kill Edamaruku in three minutes, the session continued. The show was extended, and all other programming on the channel was cancelled. The tantrik tried wawing his arms, throwing water on Edamaruku and even flashing a knife in his face. Nothing worked. The tantrik then proclaimed that his subject must have a very powerful god protecting him, Edamaruku quickly replied "I doubt it, I'm an atheist".

In the end the tantrik gave up, but said that he knew of one method that would definitely kill Edamaruku, but it had to be done outside and at night. The television show said "ok", and scheduled an airing that same night. After jamming away all night with almost exactly the same methods, Edamaruku was still alive. The tantrik masterlords hold a great deal of power over people in India, but at least some of that illusion was shattered that night.

Hopefully this, and countless other similar examples, will soon sink into the minds of people who believe that any supernatural entity exists. No matter if its god, muhammed or the supposed "powers" of everybody from psychics to tantrik masterlords.

Faux Election

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.
Voltaire

Mcmoogol has over the past week enjoyed a relaxing vacation in the land where the future of the world will be decided this coming fall. In the midst of last week's sex scandals, pastor-problems and hooker-revalations, I have tried to make sense of the disturbing feelings I'm left with after my trip. I feel like this country doesn't deserve to decide the future of my world.

I've visited the U.S. numerous times before, but the state of the Union have never concerned me more than it does now. An historic election is coming up, but the only ones who seem to be doing the "electing" is the media (and maybe the preachers in the congregations where people actually show up on sunday). Polls and news story go hand in hand. If Fox News runs a story for no more than two days in a row as their maintopic on The Factor, Hannity and Colmes and On the Record. That WILL shift the polls. It did. Early last week they decided that it was time to start attacking Obama about the whole pastor-situation, and it worked. After just two days, many surveys showed that Obama had lost as much as 20 points on Clinton.

This while all the other news channels (which nobody watches, so it doesn't really matter) kept running more stories on no-brain-hollywood-sluts who's lost their dog, fucked a papparazzi or better yet bleached their anus. They have left the country home alone with Rupert Murdoch, and he has naughty intentions. This election will be decided by the media, and America will end up with another Republican president. No doubt.

Not there is necessarily anything wrong with John McCain. As long as he doesn't completely fistfuck the right, and especially the religious-right, he could be a decent president. That fact that the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh urged republicans to vote for Hillary over McCain, makes him ok in my book. Just don't think that "President McCain" was your choice America, because it wasn't.

The Christians Ruined My Day of Shopping!

Business is the salt of life.
Voltaire

Ok, so I'm back from the land of the free and the home of the (not so?) religious. Mcmoogol is a bit jetlagged right now, so he will give you the full rundown of the trip tomorrow. I will, however, point to something interesting I found out on my little easter getaway.

When christians remember the resurrection of their lord and saviour (Mcmoogol vaguely remembers his name as starting with a "J" and ending a "sus"), they like to do it while shopping. Sunday was our last day in the americas, and being as we probably are the least religious people on this planet, we figured we would have a nice relaxing last day of shopping. Earlier in the week we had visited the same shopping mall, and found it to be quite busy. Seeing as we then thought sunday would be a day of worship for what we thought was a very religious people, we decided to come back then. No such luck was granted to us. The place was packed! Probably more packed than I've ever seen a shopping mall. There wasn't a parking space in sight, and to just get into a store you had to at least elbow three elderly women, and a couple of snot-nosed kids. It was awful.

So I guess being religious in America means the same on easter sunday as it does on every other day of the year - being a pain in my ass.

It's Easter!

You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy.
Charles Manson

It's (almost) easter, a time for remembering Charles Manson...eh...Jesus. I always get those two mixed up. It's a common mistake I guess. Both beard-faced lunatics, with schizophrenic tendencies and a small cult of followers. Both carpenters, and both were sentenced to death (only one of them was smart enough to get out of it, though...)

Anyway, because of this Manson/Jesus-celebration, Mcmoogol is taking a week off. He's off investigating the primary-situation in Florida (ok, so I'm really just taking a vacation, but "investigating" sounds a lot better).

Check back monday, 24th March.

Videos for the non-believer

I don't believe in afterlife, although I am bringing a change of underwear.
Getting Even

Today Mcmoogol presents his top five videos for the non-believer. Being a non-believer myself, I think I can speak for the whole "team" when I say we as a group just love watching people with a certain supernatural belief being beaten both intellectually and with humour. All the videos will be linked from youtube. Atheist/anti-theistic/agnostic/skeptic pleasure is just a click away!

5. Derren Brown - "Astrology"
Illusionist Derren Brown convinces five people in London, LA and Barcelona that he has "psychic powers". He asks them all to draw the outline of their hand on piece of paper, and put a personal item in brown envolope. He then takes the envolope and the drawing in to a separate room, where he is to write a detailed evaluation of their personalities. When he hands them back to the participants, almost all of them say he's got them "dead on", with a personality match most of the times reaching over 90% accuracy. The funny part comes when he asks them all to compare each others evaluations...

Similar videos - Criss Angel does the same trick, except he does it in a "psychic booth".

4. Hitchens and Boteach Debate God
One of Hitchens best debates. Be aware, though, this is the full version of exchange, and it's quite long (1 hour and 30 min.). If you don't wan't to sit through the whole thing, there's also a smaller excerpt-version.

3. David Cross on Religion
David Cross is a standup comedian who is most definitely an atheist. Crude and crass, but also extremely funny. He does swear alot, though, so weak souls might want to steer away from this one.

2. Ricky Gervais - Creationism
Ricky Gervais does standup. However, he doesn't need to come up with original material. He can just read from the bible, and people will laugh hysterically. He proves that in this clip.

1. Christopher Hitchens on the Death of Jerry Falwell
Hitchens goes on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" to defend his comments about Jerry Falwell upon his death. He completely slaughters his opponents in what quickly transforms into an intellectual-knockout.

It's 3 a.m. and Hillary is Still Making Bad Decisions

All styles are good except the tiresome kind.
Voltaire

There's been so many spoofs on Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. ad that I was scared to attempt one myself. This CNN news story sums up the situation pretty well. If you wan't to find any of the parodies, just try a youtube search with the words "Hillary" and "3am". There's alot of them, so you might stumble onto quite a few bad ones before your quest is rewarded with some quality comedy.

I'm still not sure on the main point - who I'd want answering the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House. Probably a unfortunate secretary who's been stuck with the night shift (and hopefully a pot full of coffee). There's one thing I am sure about, though. I would want the President to be fast asleep. He/she has probably got a pretty (fucking) busy day coming up.

However, if disaster did strike and Hillary got herself elected, I sure as hell wouldn't want her to be up in the middle of the night (pants-suit and all), answering phones. The ad was, of course, ridiculous, and little miss Clinton knows that now. What's interesting, though, is that she apparently didn't when she approved it. You know how the candidates have to approve every ad they run with that silly "I'm..., and I approve this message". How could she not have realized how dumb (and let's not forget patronising) this ad was. It's almost become a theme of the campaign - the fact that Obama can just sit back and wait for Hillary to do something stupid that brings him more votes.

Because while Barack's got Obama-girl, Hillary has got her husband and his mildly racist comments. While Obama has got the "Yes, we can"-song, Hillary has the "3 a.m."-ad. What she needs to do is just shut up and continue to model the pants-suit collection. It may at least get the menopause-vote back...

I'm Mcmoogol, and I approve this message.

Sex Scandals - Right and Left

Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts.
Voltaire

Ok, so maybe I can't pin today's big sex scandal on Hillary (I still want to, though). I saw a couple of international newspapers doing it earlier today. Probably because nobody in the international community had the faintest idea of who Eliot Spitzer is, until now (and also because it's fun to come up with adjectives when the story concerns the Clintons and sex scandals). If you haven't caught the story I'm talking about yet (you live in a fucking cave!), I'll lay it out for you.

The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, have been listed by police as part of a high-class prostitution ring today. He is now under pressure to resign his post. Spitzer is a Democrat, and a well known supporter of Hillary Clinton for President. The ironic thing about him being caught as part of a prostitution ring is the fact that the NY gov. is known for being an ardent "fighter" against (you guessed it...) - prostitution. He especially devoted much of his time to this issue while holding the office of NY attorney general.

Seeing as today's political sex scandal was that of Democrat's, I started thinking about something else that is ironic. Namely the fact that everytime a Republican is involved in such a scandal, he always seems to be found down on his knees in a men's room somewhere. However, when a Democrat finally makes the news for his saucy behaviour, he's involved in HIGH-CLASS prostitution ring. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

The Republican party has in later years come to be known as the gathering of the filthy (non-philanthropistic) rich-, gay bashing-morons. A group one would suspect had quite a few members who dabbled in the areas of society where one might find high-class prostitution rings. On the other hand, the Democrats have become increasingly accepting of the gay-lifestyle, and let's not forget; more and more concerned with the issue of poverty. A party who's members one might find in a men's bathroom with a penis in their mouth.

So even if we can't give Hillary grief for today's sex scandal, at least we can find humour in the ironic element each scandal brings with it. (And btw) I'm sure we can get little miss Clinton on something tomorrow.

The Vatican Wants to Battle Global Warming (but still seems OK with the whole paedophilia-thing)

And y'know, they're God's representatives, so that means... God fucks little boys.
David Cross

In a Reuters news story today, it was reported that the Vatican has listed "new sins". The new sins include pollution and drug trafficking. Apparently in between covering up clergical paedophilia and warning aids ridden countries that condoms truly are the "new evil", the Vatican has found time to turn green. Reuters tells us: "Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green".

It seems to have become a habit for the Vatican to change it's policy on different issues lately. It wasn't long ago that they retracted the famous concept of "limbo". Limbo being the place where babies went if they died without baptism. On the back of this new policy I was reminded of comedian David Cross' rant about the whole "Catholic priests raping little boys"-story. If you don't feel like listening through the whole thing (about 10 minutes long) I'll give you the gist of his point. Cross says that since the priests are God's representatives on earth, performing God's will, that must mean that God also likes to rape little boys. He goes on to say that this might give some nice closure to parents who struggle with the issue of having lost a son at an early age. He's clearly up in heaven servicing God! As I see it, since the retraction of "limbo" Cross' theory has never been more valid.

Oh, the Vatican - you surely are the moral beacon of light!

So, I guess the point of this entry was to take away the pleasure the Vatican might have gotten from this one good press statement. They don't deserve it. Sure it's good to be environmentally conscious. But if Hitler had used solar-energy powered death showers instead of gas chambers to kill jews, would he have a better rep today? I will never forget what the Vatican have done (and gotten away with) in the past, and neither should you.

Alcohol Doesn't Make Women Funnier (it does make the ugly-ones pretty, though)

An average man has just one, outside chance: he had better be able to make the lady laugh.
Christopher Hitchens

Following up on yesterdays promise, Mcmoogol offers his undercover piece on whether or not alcohol makes women funnier. He also wraps up the debate on women being funny in general. Seeing as last nights undercover work was in it's nature alcohol-related, this piece is written in a cloud of headaches and "hung over-ness".

Ok, so this all started yesterday when I brought you the story about the ongoing dispute between Christopher Hitchens who has proclaimed that "women aren't funny", and Alessandra Stanley who begs to differ. If you haven't read the story yet, you might want to at this point. At the end of the piece I promised to do some undercover investigating on the subject. The premise being that I find alcohol often helps people and things be funnier. I would go "undercover" and see if alcohol did make me laugh at women. I guess you've already found out my conclusion by reading the headline.

The first problem I ran in to was of course the factor I touched on yesterday, and which Hitchens points out as being his main argument. There is no need for women to impress me! I'm already impressed. Men want women to like them, whereas women already know that they're wanted. Humour is often the only thing men can use to impress women and make themselves attractive. This was also the problem last night.

I found myself continuously trying to make jokes and be funny, while the women around didn't even attempt to be funny in any way shape or form. They sat idly by while waiting to laugh at the next joke (a man) came up with. It's all on a very evolutionary scale. I guess it all comes down sex (doesn't everything?) in the end. Men go looking for it. Women doesn't have to.

For this reason the project didn't really culminate into anything. I guess other than confirming that women in general really aren't that funny. However, it also told me that this really isn't women's fault. It's biology! So I guess I'm still in Hitchens' corner in a way. But I do agree with Stanley's main point about there being many great female comediennes out there at the moment. I love the comedy of Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman, Susie Essman and Chelsea Handler. One does, however, wonder if I like them because they're telling men's jokes. Kind of like "I'm not a man, I just play one on TV".

Why Women Aren't Funny, and Apparently Can't Read According to Christopher Hitchens

I hate women because they always know where things are.
Voltaire

In a provocational piece by Christopher Hitchens first published in January 2007 he proclaimed that "Women Aren't Funny". Now, more than a year later, Alessandra Stanley strikes back at Hitchens in a rebuttal which she has simply entitled "Who Says Women Aren't Funny?". Apparently, Hitchens doesn't feel convinced and has lashed back in this video called "Why Women Still Aren't Funny". The debate seems to have heated up, and such a story does not go unnoticed by Mcmoogol. Today he gives his take on the disagreement, and tackles the core issue itself.

Ok, so this whole thing started over a year ago. It was a good essay by Hitchens then, and it's still a very good read. So if you haven't read it yet, click on to the first link I provided. Hitchens main argument has always been that women don't "need" to be funny on a evolutionary level, while men on the other hand often only have humour to impress and seduce the opposite sex. As he puts it "most men are tremendously ugly". He goes on to explain his argument by saying that women always will be attractive to men. However, men must make themselves attractive by separating from the proverbial "crowd". So far I find it difficult to disagree.

Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph and Tina Fey doing girl-stuff (while apparently still being funny)

In her piece Stanley hits back by displaying to Hitchens and the world the many funny comediennes on todays comedy scene. These include, but are not limited to, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, Kristen Wiig, Susie Essman, Sarah Silverman, Amy Peohler and Chelsea Handler. Some of you might be thinking "that's a pretty strong lineup". Yes, says Hitchens, before he adds his second point: these are females projecting "male comedy". Hitchens say that these lady's play by men's rules, with their lewd and often cross style of comedy. He adds that his initial essay already commented upon this, and that the angry women who's been sending him hate mail ever since the piece first was published also have proved that they apparently "can't read either".

It's definitely a interesting story to follow, and Hitchens' semi-promise of a second essay on the issue is a mouth-watering thought. Personally I feel the issue needs more investigating and research before one can make final judgment. I will conceed that I have yet to meet many funny women face-to-face, and is therefore leaning towards Hitchens' corner at this point in time. However, seeing as I need more info to make up my mind I'll do some digging.

To start this quest (for knowledge) I thought to myself - when do I laugh the most? The answer, of course, is: when there is alcohol in my body (and preferably lots of it!). So tonight I will go undercover, and do some real investigative journalism. I will submerge myself in alcohol (in all it's delightful forms) and try to keep track of how many of my laughs is produced by something a female said or did. It will only count if the female is intending to make me laugh. If the laugh is produced without her being aware of it - it's not registered (but it'll probably still be funny).

So look for my conclusion on this debate tomorrow, and look forward to my "hard-hitting" undercover piece.

Hillary Clinton "...a monster"

Behind every successful man stands a surprised mother-in-law.
Voltaire

According to Scottish (duh!) newspaper "The Scotsman" an Obama-advisor by the name of Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a monster during a recent interview in London. The comment was apparently made "off the record". Today I ask why?

And if you thought I was asking "why did she call Hillary Clinton a monster?", you're wrong. I'm wondering why Power had to go off record with her comment? It's pretty plain for all to see, isn't it? She is a monster.

Riding on the back of the most famous blowjob in history, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her candidacy for President back on January 20, 2007. Being the wife of the man who recieved the now infamous blowjob, she found herself to be viable to run for the most important job in the world. For a long time it seemed like she was right. It looked like she had it in the bag. But then people woke up and realized that having a husband who gets blowjobs from rather overweight jewish girls isn't really that special (maybe except for the jewish-thing).

People have continuously criticized Obama for not having substance. The major source of this criticism have come from the Clinton-campaign, and little miss sunshine - Hillary herself. My dictionary define the word "substance" with among other desprictions, these two:

"...the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality."

"...something that has separate or independent existence."

If the words "Hillary Clinton" could be found in a dictionary, I'm pretty sure those two defintions would be nowhere in sight. Heck (!), I'm pretty sure the definition would be the exact opposite of those. How about something like this:

Mcmoogol's dictionary (1st edition)
Hillary Clinton -
"...the appearance of an actual matter of a human, but is actually a shadow of her husband."

"...a woman who's existence would be impossible were it not for her husband."

"...a monster."

Ok, so I added that last one for fun, but it's fun because it's true. So next time Samantha Power or anybody else want's to call Hillary Clinton a monster, do it on the record! Just refer people to Mcmoogol's dictionary (1st edition).

Become a Better You: 7 Paragraphs on Why Joel Osteen is a Charlatan

Clever tyrants are never punished.
Voltaire

Joel Osteen makes me want to throw up.

But before I go any futher, here is some info on him for those who have yet to be exposed to this newfangled charlatan.

from wikipedia:
"Joel Scott Hayley Osteen is the senior pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. He is married to Victoria Osteen, who serves as co-pastor. Joel Osteen was featured as one of Barbara Walters' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2006", and was named "Most Influential Christian in America" in 2006 by The Church Report. His second book, Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day, was released in October 2007 with a first printing of three million copies."

Osteen is nothing more than the emporer's new clothes, and he surely is buck naked this time! He can accurately be described as a money making machine, emptying the pockets of his "followers" as he lauhgs all the way to the collection plate. His message of positivity is not only sickening, it's actually quite sad when you think about it. Osteen would have been selling pencils in a cup somewhere had he not cloaked what he is selling (because he is selling something) in the name of religion.

Osteen has been criticized by the evangelicals and disowned by many mainstream preachers for his refusal to talk about any scripture which isn't entirely positive in it's message. He has indeed invented a new form of christianity. But let's not fool ourselves. This isn't really why "the other christians" are upset. They couldn't care less about what he was preaching before he started taking people and money away from their congregations. The money follows the people, and the people have spoken with their feet. They have gone to Osteen. It has given him bookdeals, a basketballarena for a church, and bank account which is rapidly increasing as we speak.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Tell people what they want to hear, and they will give you their money. Osteen is no different than the tired old telemarketing "psychic"-hags that advertise in a free paper near you. He is no different than the Peter Popoff's and the Jimmy Swaggart's. A charlatan veiled in the words of the scripture, just waiting for you to get your wallet out.

A Clergyman's Daughter

He must be very ignorant for he answers every question he is asked.
Voltaire

Watching a sappy 90's drama show on telly today (don't ask me why, and don't ask me what show it was), the conversation turned to the good old "I'm gonna ask for your daughter's hand, sir..."-routine. In the midst of all the wows of chastity and sickening promises of respect, a question was quickly asked and just as swiftly answered. It went some thing like this:

The father: Do you go to church?
(the boy not even taking a second to answer)
The boy: Every sunday

The question came and went so fast that the untrained eye (and ear) would have missed it. It was a quick formality with a standard answer. And I guess that is what bothered me. Not the fact that the nature of the answer was what it was. And not that the question was asked in the first place.

It was the implication that the question only had one right answer. It was the implication that a different answer would have caused a system break-down in the father's brain, and that the conversation (or rather bargaining session) would have been over. This is not okay by me. One might ask why this simple little fact of sappy television-life bothers me so much. The fact, however, is that this one little question and answer session reflects so much of what has become the norm in American culture, and it scares me. Actually it frightens me.

One would be hard pressed to find any good counter arguments to the statement "being a christian represents having character and being a better person than one would be without that belief in contemporary American society". That means that so-called contemporary wisdom in the worlds last remaining superpower is geared towards reducing people without a belief in the supernatural to being persons without "character" and of a lesser human value. Not only is this factually wrong, it breeds a society which accepts and even promotes a view of fellow human beings as second rate citizens. It excludes those who isn't "lucky enough" to be born with belief in the ridiculous from having any political power. It excludes them from exercising their constitutional right to voice their opinions without being ostracized and looked down on by their peers.

In the end it all comes down to an old and rather repetitive message of despair from those who find themselves in the minority which is being excluded. I just thought it was funny that such a small and unimportant passage of speech taken from a sappy 90's television drama could awaken this message once again.

Rights of Man

Love is a canvas furnished by nature and embroidered by imagination.
Voltaire



Kerry Howley is hot. She’s like a real life Rory Gilmore (don’t ask me how I know). She’s brilliant, yet classically beautiful. She’s playful and funny. On top of all this she writes for Reason. I’m standing proud just thinking about it. Yet this week it was reported that Hugh Hefner once again had inquired with the Olsen-twins if they would do Playboy. Fuck that. I want to see Kerry Howley on all fours with an Ayn Rand book stuck firmly in between her ass cheeks. I want to see her shot upside down doing jumping jacks while reciting a passage of Friedrich von Hayek. I want to see her take a dump on The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

Ok, so Playboy might be out of the question for that last one, but still – with the internet I’m sure we could make it happen (?). The point I’m trying to make is this: why are men continuously drawn to skinny-blonde-irritating-no brain-idiots, when we could be up at 3:00 a.m. watching RedEye on Fox News with our hands firmly down our pants just waiting for the possibility that Kerry might say something dirty. I know if I lived in the US, had cable, no life and a rather stalkerish persona – I would. Sadly, though, I’m not an American, I don’t get Fox News and the stalkerish persona thing have yet to be proven in court (I guess one could make a point for the no life-factor, though)

I want men to prove that we are the rational creatures that we continue to proclaim we really are. I want us to look outside the box (don’t that take that as a metaphor for the computer screen – I’m trying to make a fucking point here!), and I want us to begin with women. How much easier could it get? We love women. Me saying that to prove ourselves we should start with women is like allowing socialists to begin their political arguments with a personal sob story about “this little kid I know…” It couldn’t get any easier!

So let’s change the world. I want Kerry Howley’s face to be the new logo of sexiness. Next time Fox does a piece about a spring brake rape, don’t show a continuous loop of sluts in bikinis dancing, get Howley’s face up there! Next time your mom finds your dirty magazine stash, I don’t want them to be a pile of Playboys and Hustler; I want them to be a sticky stash of old Reason magazines (and I want your mom to be disgusted!) Fuck healthcare, fuck Obama, fuck global warming and fuck the Ron Paul revolution – this generation of young men have more important things to worry about! We are psychologically drawn to stupid women, and it has to stop. Kerry Howley could be our leader, heck (!), she could be our Jesus! So let’s not march on Washington, let’s march on the Playboy mansion and demand that our masturbating future is changed not only for us, but for those who come (so intended it’s not even funny) after us!

The Road to Serfdom

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
Voltaire

It would be difficult to define the world as I see it today more poignant than Voltaire just did. Therefore I will not even try. Except I will. Confused? I am.

What I do know is that the road to serfdom can be way too short sometimes.

It is hard to see the value in ones own opinions when realizing that those who came before already have done a much better job at it. As that is the case one can only expect that this blog will be filled with a lot of quotes, citations and musings on rather strange topics. All in the name of trying to be both original and within the frames of an intellectually accepted level of so-called "speech".

At least this is evident in my first (or rather second) entry - it's about Kerry Howley taking over the world. Enjoy?