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!