Navigate --

Open Chat Board

Old Rants --


Blogs --

Websites --

Michael Savage
Michael Medved
Stick Page
Heir to the Throne - Online Game

Bloggers for Mike McGavick for Senate 2006!

Members --


We Eat Liberals for breakfast, lunch AND dinner. Don't like it? Email us


Why should you use a Seat belt

 - Loki

Hey, check this out:

Video: Why should you use Seat belt "Why should you use a Seat belt"...


Uber-rant: Has the word "nigger" got you down?

 - Brian

So I finally set aside some time to pay attention to this whole Michael Richards controversy. If you were like me a week ago, then you probably don't know what I'm referring to.
Michael Richards is a comedian (or was before his comedic career was obliterated by the controversy) who had a total mental breakdown while performing at the Laugh Factory in LA. In the middle of his stand-up act, some black guys made an interrupting comment or two. At this, Michael Richards gave the most profound come-back in comedic history: He allegedly called them a bunch of niggers (among other things). Oh, and by the way, it wasn't exactly alleged, seeing as how there's a video of it.

As a result of Richards outbreak, the owner of the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood is planning on fining comedians who use the world "nigger" while performing there. No, not just white guys, but black guys as well. He's trying to get everyone to stop saying "nigger" at his comedy club. What a Jew!
FINING FOR SAYING NIGGER?? It's a comedy club for God's sake! The whole point of comedy clubs is to let people say and hear things they usually wouldn't in normal society!

Which brings me to this: The word "nigger". I think we all know where "nigger" originated from, and it's a touchy subject. However, the past few decades have found a new use for the word. People in the black community use it as among themselves as a sign of companionship and unity. Face it, the "N" word has lost most of it's negative meaning.

However, "nigger" can be used as both a sign of unity or a derogatory term. The word by itself isn't hateful, it's how people use it that's hateful. There's a big difference between a couple of pals greeting each other with "nigger," and some inbred mental midget using it in a derogatory context.

Now that we have that settled, I don't think it's right for the owner of Laugh Factory to charge comedians to use "nigger." His reasoning for doing so that "it's offensive to much of our audience." Two words: Bull Sh*t. Over the past few decades, famous black comedians (Richard Pryor, Dave Chappelle and Cat Williams to name very few) have been using it in their routines, and no one seems to mind (even some white guys have gotten away with!).

So here's some concluding questions: Do you think that the owner of Laugh Factory should fine comedians for saying nigger? Do you find the "N" word offensive? If so, why? "Uber-rant: Has the word "nigger" got you down?"...


Loads of pretty little hits...

 - Brian

For the first time in 2 months, I decided to check out Blog Hogger's hit statistics to see how depressed I could make myself. Well, my findings were...unexpected.
It seems we're recieving roughly 2,000 hits a month, most of those new visitor hits.

All this leads me to the following questions: Dude, where's the comments? I know I haven't been posting much in the past few months, so where are all these hits coming from, and why aren't people commenting? As of lately, we've been recieving 40 to 70 hits a day, and I'd expect at least 1 out of 40 people to comment every once in a while. Very strange. Well, actually it isn't, but I'd like to think it's strange anyway.

Also, there's quite a few returning visitors with the same I.P address, which leads me to yet another question: What do you people do all day? I can't imagine you sit down at your computer for hours on end refreshing Blog Hogger, but I can't be sure...for sure. It's not like we really update that much anymore, and when we do, it's nothing that thought provoking.

There's my monthly update.

Praise Allah. "Loads of pretty little hits..."...



 - Brian

---Buy Gears of War.

If someone took the manliest aspects of war (e.g rusty chainsaws, bulky, cumbersome armor, ridiculously enormous firearms, explosions etc) and combined them with aw inspiring art, the result would probably be something with as much awesome as Gears of War (divided by two).

Needless to say, the visuals are stunning.

Someone/something getting his/it's shtuff ruined by a chainsaw. Oh the moral depravity. o_O

If your computer isn't an archaic excuse for a doorstop, you should check out the in-game vids.

Now, where could I possibly find enough $$$ to purchase an Xbox 360? Oh well, back to selling narcotics on the corner. A nigga's gots to do what a nigga's gots to do. The white man's got me down, dawg. "NOTE TO SELF:"...


The Best Interpretation of Star Wars Ever

 - Brian

Video: Star Wars: A Lost Hope "The Best Interpretation of Star Wars Ever"...


Evolution-Creation and what I think

 - Joe

I'm so stinkin' tired of the polarization between "science" and evangelical "Christianity". Especially when the separate groups try to make you think that you can only believe in evolution to the exclusion of God, or vice versa. I have no problem with an evolutionary worldview that doesn't undermine my Catholic faith. Frankly, it doesn't matter one iota in what way God created the universe, as long as we understand that he did.

Granted, we must assume a few things before accepting evolution wholesale, such as the humongous difference between humans and animals (animals don't have professor types trying to figure out if they're animals), the existence of a rational soul in humans that animals didn't get, and the procreation of the human race from two, and only two parents. Evolution doesn't rule any of this out, and as a matter of fact, I seem to recall a discovery channel documentary some years back on how the human race could have indeed come from two parents.

Another stupid fallacy I want to overcome is that of the "stupid Catholic" namely, that Christians as a whole care nothing for science and reject facts because they don't square with beliefs in God. We owe our understanding of genetics, planetary motion, and the big bang (to name a few) to Catholics. A little-known fact is that Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, was one of the first framers of what we know today as "the big bang". It was initially rejected by the scientific community as being "too creationistic" they themselves believing in an infinite, static universe. This continued until Edwin Hubble's observations of redshift indicated that the universe is expanding, implying that... anyone? It must have a *gasp* beginning to expand from.
This is not to say that Christianity is without its share of bad science. My favorite happens to be the work of "Dr." Kent Hovind. It's so full of straw men and non sequiturs that it almost looks as though he's trying to make Creation scientists look bad. Our dear friend Jack Chick evangelized Hovind's data in another of his laugh-inducing tracts entitled "Big Daddy". Note the usual intolerant teacher with the intelligent Christian student.

Likely, you're probably going to ask, "What about Genesis? It says that God created the world in six days!" That leads us to the question of what the bible really is. First and foremost, it's a book written that we may believe that Jesus is God, with a nice sampling of what the Catholic Church teaches thrown in. It's not the sole rule of faith, as the protestants claim, because that would mean that you'd have to prove that based on the bible (which it doesn't assert). It would be absurd anyway because any book could make that claim. If it's not the sole rule of faith, it's certainly not the sole rule of science. First, there's the absurdity of the 24-hour earth day being the timetable for God's creation. The sheer unlikelihood that all, or any other planets in the universe have the same day causes that to die in absurdity. Also, our understanding of physical processes makes the six-day system seem almost impossible. What then is the genesis story doing in the bible? We can't very well say it's untrue as that would throw the whole bible into question. We can however question whether or not it's intended as concrete truth or symbolic instruction. I lean toward the latter with the view that it is not intended to teach scientific truth, but simply to show that all creation comes from God.

To tie up this more-random-than-usual post, just don't be afraid of science! It can't disprove God. But wishing it away to protect the Genesis story is stupid. Let's get back to restoring some morality to this country. We don't have time for useless debates.

Let me know what you think. It's been way too long since we had a good debate here on BH. "Evolution-Creation and what I think"...


Oh, boy

 - Joe

Feminazis retain control of Washington.

UPDATE: My sister Elizabeth deserves the credit for pointing out Maria's Nazi wave. "Oh, boy"...


Free Domain Forwarding

add text << # St. Blog's Parish ? >>

Humor & fun cool stuff