According to the Armenian priesthood.....BEAT THE LIVING S__T OUT YOUR FELLOW PRIEST. AND ON JESUS' HOME TURF AT THAT!

 

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071227/wl_mideast_afp/mideastreligionunrestbethlehem

 

 Can you say, "GOING TO HELL?". LOL!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 http://www.torontosun.com/Entertainment/OtherEntertainment/2007/12/27/4741231-sun.html

 

 Are we so facist and when it comes to political correctness, that absolutely NOTHING can be spoken about anymore, without first issuing a global apology? Even an unnecessary one, as in this case? Are we so hypersensitive to certain topics, that even the most obvious elements of such, have to first be explained away multiple times to the feeble-minded?

 

 Will Smith had NOTHING to apologize for in his commentary regarding Adolph Hitler. NOTHING. Any neophyte with even a moderate education in WW2 Nazi idology (never mind a doctorate) could have relayed the same information to that interviewer. Which, is interesting to note, is based on the SAME curriculum that was taught to myself, almost 20 years ago. And has been repeatedly taught by teachers and professors the world over to this very day. Which basiclly stated that Adolph Hitler's actions, were based on his radically askew mindset. One that many historians believe may have been brought on by the ravages of advanced syphilis, and who's warped  theories were well documented in his personal writings. Smith, in no way whatsoever, justified or endorsed Hitler's actions or idologies. He was just reiterating longstanding facts about the man and his beliefs.

 

 So what's all the fuss about?

 

 Because apparently, unlike others in society with half a brain and the willingness to use it, those at the Anti-Defamation League need everything explained to them twofold. Which, or course, wouldn't have been necessary. Had they actually bothered to READ what Smith said the FIRST time. It makes me wonder if these lobby groups are sitting on the bench of hypersensitivity, just waiting to pounce on the slightest thing that will draw attention to themselves. Kind of tragic, if you ask me.

 

Gh0sT

 

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_co/congress_steroids;_ylt=ArgfessdX5e.xkRp06X5Q5fmWMcF 

 

 It took the Barry Bonds fiasco, AND the murder-suicide of The Benoit family, to finally get the federal government to intervene in professional sports, and sports "entertainment". I'm going to make a prediction: By the end of 2008, if you don't see radical change in sports governing bodies, you NEVER will. EVER. It shouldn't have taken deaths in mass quantities, or a laundry list of baseball players splattered across the front page of newspapers the world over to take action. But it did, and that's a shame.

 

 I know there are some people out there who will say, "Steriods are a personal choice. They're a victimless crime.". Unfortunately, that's not entirely accurate. They are sold on the blackmarket. Right alongside heroin, cocaine, crack, and other illegal substances. Performancing enhancing drugs create an uneven playing field in sports. Leaving a pharmaceutically-clean athlete gazing across at their competition, wondering, "Did he win on his own merrit? Or was it drugs that did it for him?". It offers up the illusion of that which is unattainable, being attainable. Every time a pro bodybuilder gets infront of a microphone, and brazenly declares they acquired their physique though "hard work, diet, and nutritional suppliments". The whole time being heard by millions of impressionable minds the world over.

 

 Speaking for myself only, I've grown tired of the lies. Tired of the propaganda. Tired of seeing the people I grew up watching dying unnecessary, steriod-related deaths. And all for what, exactly? Bonds will have an asterix beside his accomplishments for the rest of his life. No amount of denial on his behalf, will ever change that. What good is all the fame, money and notoriety in professional wrestling, if you don't live past 40? Not even long enough to enjoy the fruits of your labours? A lifetime spent in pain. Only to die young for your troubles.

 

 Remember what I said, this time next year.

 

 Gh0sT

 http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17714.aspx 

 

  This actually serves the greater good of Canada in several ways. This will prevent her from leeching off the Canadian welfare system, for the rest of her natural life (Think about it: You're an employer. Would YOU hire this woman after what she's done?). If some other country wants to pick up the tab, then by all means let them. God knows we've done it enough times for the felons of other countries. In addition, her freedom to come and go as she pleases on Canadian soil, will no longer be flaunted in the faces of her victim's families. Lastly, it will put an end to her morbid sense of "celebrity". At least here, anyways.

 

 Good riddance.

 

 

 

 

 

  http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2007/12/14/4725099.html

 

  Glad it wasn't MY tax dollars at work!

 Really. You just can't........

 

 http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_17534.aspx

 

 

 

 It never ceases to amaze me, the social refuse we allow into this country. Like this fine, upstanding gentleman...

 

 

 

 Based on his juvenile actions (I can't believe this guy is 25 years old. I just can't....), it's even more shocking he was released on a pitance $35 000 bail. It's unfortunate he chose O.C.A.D. as his school of choice, and not some other institution. Like, say, an art school located in NEW YORK CITY. Where I'm sure they would have apprecated his form of "art" so much, a judge would have seen fit to remand him WITHOUT bail ("Welcome to Rikers Island, tough guy! BEND OVER AND GRAB YOUR ANKLES."). It's interesting to note, his bail is approximately one-third the amount estimated to have been lost by The Canadian Foundation for Aids Research, as a result of having to shut down their event. That's a CONSERVATIVE estimate on their behalf. So much for the stereotype, of the "socially conscious" art student.

 

 I know art is VERY "subjective". In the last few years, we've seen this ideology pushed to the extreme. Sketches of child pornography, bodily waste products being smeared on religious icons, severed animals heads, etc...All attempted to be flown under this banner. With the "artist" in question, always falling back on the same defense of it being a "social commentary". Personally, I think it is more a commentary on the producer of such art themselves, than on society as a whole. But TERRORISM? That's a new low. Even for the "artistic" community. Who often prides themselves, on being "morally superior" to us laymen.

 

 He wanted to make a "social commentary", and he made one. It reads (and I'm paraphrasing): "I'm a egocentric, narcissistic ignoramus. I care nothing for the well-being of my fellow human beings.". Just based on his actions, is this even debatable?

 

 Gh0sT