Category Archives: Uncategorized

Slogans or Taglines?

If you read my little bio on the side you know I was given this URL (a fancy way of saying ‘website’) from my younger sister.  I was at her house and she was walking me through how to post things and such, when she came up with my tag line “Life as I know it.”  Brilliant isn’t it?  I love it and shall always keep it.  I shall keep it and it shall always be mine.

But I was thinking the other day (a dangerous pastime – I know), and wondering if I had thought of a tagline or slogan what would it be?  Here is a partial list:

Give a hoot – read Lifezilla.

WOW!!  The Lifezilla side of my head feels all tingly.

Just put a pinch of Lifezilla between your cheek and gum.

Lifezilla: The artist formally known as Prince.

Lifezilla: Taste great, less filling.

Lifezilla: The other white meat.

Lifezilla: It just keeps going and going.

Lifezilla: While others drink from the fountain of knowledge, we gargle.

Lifezilla:  ‘Cause beauty may only be skin deep.  But it is nice to have if you’re poor and stupid.

Lifezilla: Just like heaven.  But without that awkward “dying” part.

Lifezilla: WHEW!!!  All this quality writing is really making me thirsty.

Lifezilla: Would like to take this opportunity to give you a quality written article.  Here, take it.  No seriously, take it.  It’s yours.

Sniiiiiiiiiiiffff – AUGH!!!  Don’t you just love that Lifezilla smell?

Lifezilla: It’s, like, oh-my-gosh, totally un-yucky.

You know what?  I think I just figured out why, at work, I hold the company record for the longest time spent in an entry level position.

HEY!!!!  Help spread the word about lifezilla.net , unless you think that word is “incompetent.” Then I would appreciate it if  you just kept your mouth shut.

Let’s Make Like a Baby and Head Out

 OHMIGOSH.  I have funniest story.  Seriously, you are going to die laughing.  So picture this, my best friend and I are driving, and he said something that, I thought, was a little rude.  We often tease each other, but this was over the line.  I sat and stewed about it for a minute and then I decided to take action, so I took out my gun and shot him in the face.  HAHAHAHAHA!!!!  You should have seen how surprised he looked just before I pulled the trigger!!!  It was hilarious.  I was all…what?  You don’t think it was funny I shot my friend in my car?  Okay, picture this.  Same scenario, we are driving, he says something, I stew, as I’m dropping him off I decide to take action and I run over him with my car. HAHAHAHAHA!!!  You should have seen his face just as I slam into him.  It was so…what?!?!  You’re not happy with that story either?  In the first story I killed him in my car, in the second I killed in outside the car.  There is a HUGE difference here.  Oh, oh, wait?  It’s not where I killed him that bothers you, it’s that I killed him.  OHHHH…well, you are going to hate the rest of this article.

Before I launch into this, I know this isn’t my most “timely” article.  I try to do things a little more current.  I have just been super busy the last few weeks (actually I have being “normal” busy, I’ve just been wearing a cape.)  A few weeks ago (February 23, 2012) the Journal of Medical Ethics released an article entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” (Ironically the 23rd is my birthday).  Apparently the two authors Alberto Giubilini, and Francesca Minerva are a little shocked over the negativity they have experienced, because of their paper.

This is the abstract of their paper (the word “abstract” is a fancy way of saying “the point”):

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

OHHHH YEAH!!!  What could possibly go wrong with this line of thinking?  I read every word of the paper, and let me tell you, there is not enough hand sanitizer in the world to “de-ibby jibbies” me. I really want to invent and patent “brain bleach” for this type of article.

They conclude their paper with: “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”

My question is where will it lead?  What about the elderly?  “Grandpa, you don’t want to be a burden on society do you?”  What about the mentally retarded, or borderline retarded?  They don’t really contribute that much to society, do they? What about the fat and lazy? What if we could make it so that everyone who isn’t blond haired and blue eye just went away?  Oh wait, all my kids have brown eyes…well…as long as it fits the “criteria… (social, psychological, economic)”, and is better for society.  Sorry kids.

What’s their problem with adoption?  Well, it is better to perform an “after-birth abortion” (apparently the word “murder” was already taken) because, “Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief,” where as, “those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss.”  Well, isn’t that cute?

In an article I read on the subject a Professor Savulescu, from the University of Oxford responded with, ”What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited … Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.”

Ohhhh, oh, I see, “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.” Now it could be these “ethicists” have evolved WAAAAY further then me, it could be I’m a little “Forrest Gumpy” because (imagine this in a Forrest Gump voice,) “I’m notta smort man, Jen-knee”, but in my humble opinion, I would say that statement proves you can be educated beyond your intelligence.  You know what, yeah, they have probably evolved further (Oh no, should I be worried about being a candidate for a future “death panel”?).

Now, I sincerely believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.  And it bothers me people have issued death threats.  I don’t understand the mentality of bombing anything to make a political point. That line of thinking is stupid, but on a purely “proper academic discussion and freedom” way of thinking, it is ironic that they are upset people are threatening them when they are discussing killing others.  Just saying.  All I know is, I want to be there when karma comes back to punch them in the face… Just in case she needs help.

Read more:

Original paper

First Article

Second Article

I wrote this article for UFI back in December…..

Here Kitty-kitty-kitty

There are two things I have learned in my adulthood contrary to the brainwashing my mother inflicted on me.  The first is I am not a little teapot.  The second, I no longer consider myself as “special;” as a mature adult I prefer term “limited edition.”

My paradigm has always been a little different than most people.  (The word “paradigm” is a really fancy way of saying, “the way I see things is often a little askew,” which is a fancy way of saying “off.”)   Two examples: I hear some people when talking about marriage, say “she wears the pants in the family” or “he wears the pants in the family;” I wonder why they are wearing pants at all.  Or, people will say “the glass is half full” or “the glass is half empty;” I wonder why the glass is so big.  See what I mean?  It’s a tad off.  I try to keep an open mind.

True story

My older sister used to be a beautician.  One day, while in my early twenties, I was in her studio and she asked me how I was going to conquer the world.  I have no idea what inspired me to say it, but without batting an eye, and with a completely straight face, I told her I was thinking about opening up a Petting Zoo.  I quickly described the layout, and then I said, “Of course I would also have a Heavy Petting Zoo, for people who really like animals.”

She came UNGLUED.  She was so mad at me.  You would think I told her I was harboring Nazis or something.  I was just trying to be witty.  I learned there was a line with her.  And it wasn’t a fuzzy gray one.

Apparently the Obama administration has no line.

On December 5, 2011 during a White House press conference the press secretary Jay Carney (click here for the official White House transcript) was asked by World Net Daily reporter Lester Kinsolving the following:

KINSOLVING: The Family Research Council and CNS News both reported a 93-to-7 U.S. Senate vote to approve a defense authorization bill that, quote, “includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, but also repeals the military ban on sex with animals, or “beastiality.” Does the commander-in-chief approve or disapprove of  beastiality in our armed forces?

CARNEY: I don’t have any comment on–I don’t have any comment on that. Let me go to another question.

KINSOLVING: Does the President believe this will be approved by all animal support groups, such as–

CARNEY: Let’s get to something more serious.

(On a side note, the Wihte Huose trnasrcipt mis-speeled the word beastiality.  I qouted dircetly from thier webiste.)

Mr. Carney called on another reporter who didn’t let him off the hook.  He offered to yield his question back to Mr. Kinsolving.

Mr. Carney could have easily done several things.  He could have just answered the question with “No, the President does not approve,” he could have elaborated on how disappointed the President was the repeal was included in the bill in the first place, or he could have joked about what is going on at the Senate.  Saying nothing, on a political no-brainer like this, says something.

My initial reaction when reading about this was to smirk at the obvious hypocrisy of the left.  “Meat is murder!!! Unless, of course you want to have sex with the animal, then it’s okay to explore your feelings.”

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is upset that Carney made light of the abuse of animals.  They wrote two letters, one to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, urging him to add a new section to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibiting cruelty to animals; the other to Mr. Carney encouraging him to be more sensitive to issues of animal abuse.

Of course this in no way excuses the 93 Senators that voted for the bill.  Seriously, who wrote a bill that included a repeal like that?  Senators, READ THE BILL!!!!

There are two things I learned from this story. First, the moral of the Obama story: next time you want something transformative and uplifting, buy a WonderBra.  The second, be open minded.  Just don’t be so open minded your brains fall out.

 *DING DING DING* …Two Boobs, No Waiting!!

I rarely exercise.  And by “rarely” I mean NEVER.

My wife on the other hand works out several times a week.  She is quite the little hard body.  And you know what they say, “a hard woman is good to find” (wicked grin).  The bummer part about having a workout queen for a wife is that she wants me to work out too.  Yuck.  She wakes up at the crack of dawn and bounces, or yoga’s around our room, I’ll lay there pretending to sleep RIDDLED with guilt.  She then talks about how great she feels after a good sweat.  Good sweat?  I don’t know how you can feel good after sweating.  I sweat all the time.  I’m sweating right now and I’m just sitting here.  All sweating makes me feel is sticky.  I try to convince her that I AM in shape, “Honey,” I tell her, “potato could be a shape.”

So I resolved to get in shape by THINKING about joining a gym.

I took one of those tours where one of the muscle bound employees’ shows you how all the different machines work.  I was on one of their torture machines that you put weights down on one end and pull down with your arms.  So there I am, arms out stretched, which, you can imagine, caused my shirt to untuck, revealing my rippling, cascading “flab-alanche.”  The guy who was showing me the torture machine looked at, and nodded toward my stomach said, “Cool tattoo.”  TATTOO?!?!?! I thought to myself…tattoo…what is this irritably fit guy talking about? I don’t have any tattoos.  I looked down and saw he was referring to the stretch marks etching across my protruding belly.  As quickly as I could I told him, “Oh yeah, yeah, I just got that done.  That’s the Chinese symbol for NEGLECT.”

I read a couple of articles this week which essentially (and literally) asked, “Is cosmetic surgery “ethically corrupt”?” The first article also posed a broader question, “Is aesthetic cosmetic surgery medicine or just exploitation?

When I first read it I thought, “What a stupid question.”  What if your child was born with a cleft palate?  Is it ethical to have it fixed?

If not, what about braces?  I could have saved thousands of dollars not getting my kids teeth fixed.

The fact of the matter is people have been altering their appearance for centuries.  In Thailand they wear brass rings around their necks to stretch themselves out.  Is that cultural, or morally wrong?

The second article I read was about breast implants (had I known that I would have read it first) it states, “Cosmetic surgery is nothing more than an industrial-scale scientific experiment.” It then went on to explain about a study published in the journal Psychological Medicine.  I read this article several times.  And…well…I think it’s flawed, flawed, flawed.  Here are a couple of examples of the dumbery:

Example # 1

“Next month, for example, the journal Psychological Medicine will publish a study of almost 1,600 Norwegian adolescent girls who were monitored over a 13-year period.”  So first the study is of ADOLESCENT girls monitored over 13 years?  That math is ALL messed up.  Let’s say they  mis-wrote that and the study is of adult women who, while adolescents, had cosmetic surgery. Even then, the study is skewed.  Where are the parents?  What father is going to say to his thirteen year old girl, “Honey, your mother and I have decided to get your some boobs for your next birthday.”  You get a young teenager, who doesn’t have the maturity, or developed moral compass a gift like that and it will be *DING DING DING*…Two Boobs, No Waiting!! Yeah, her life may be messed up.

Duh!!  Show me a study of 35 year olds followed over thirteen years and take it more seriously.

Example # 2

“The finding is that women who use cosmetic surgery do not (I added the italics)  have lower opinions of their general attractiveness than women who do not opt for surgery. However, they display more symptoms of depression and anxiety, use more illicit drugs and have stronger histories of self-harm and suicide attempts. And the surgery is likely to make things worse… As the researchers conclude: “A series of mental health symptoms predict cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery does not in turn seem to alleviate such mental health problems.”.”  WHAAA?!?!  So the conclusion is COSMETIC surgery will NOT alleviate mental health problems?  Good work, Sherlock.  What was your first clue?  Seriously, who funded this research?

The article concludes with this, “Cosmetic breast implantation is a flawed and ethically corrupt psychological experiment, carried out for commercial profit on vulnerable women. And it should now be halted.”

Vulnerable women?  Are there black vans driving around abducting unsuspecting women and forcing breast implants on them?  I would imagine most women who choose to have the surgery save up their pennies to have it done.

Now, there is still a debate on rather or not there are health issues if silicone breast implants rupture (I can see there would be) but the piece failed to mention saline implants.  If those rupture they would pose no threat to the health of a woman (other then the actual surgery).

For me, the bottom line is this: we have dominion over our own bodies.  If it makes me, or anyone, happy to let myself go, start working out, or have surgery to improve myself, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else the government, and everyone else,  should butt out.

Befroe I lancuh itno tihs psot tdoay.  I thugoht I wuold tlel you waht rsentely hpaneped.  As mnay of you may konw, my fmlaiy and I are HGUE bekirs.  Not on motroccyels, oh no.  I’m tlaknig biccyles.  We lvoe to rdie our bkies.  I’m awlays atfer my kdis to waer thier hemlets.  “Kdis,” I tlel tehm, “waer yuor hemlets.  Yuor mohter and I dno’t waht to hvae to feed you thourgh a starw,  and I gaurnatee you don’t wnat coloirng bokos for Chirsmtas, evrey yaer, for the rset of yuor lief.”

So the ohter day we are abuot to go on a bkie rdie.  I look all oevr the palce and cna’t fnid my hemlet anwyhere.  It’s oaky, I fiugre.  I’m a big boy.  I can hnadle it.  Wlel geuss waht?  I crsahed.  Not olny did I crsah.  I hit my haed.  HRAD!!!  No, no, no, dno’t wrory.  I’m oaky.  Sersiouly, I hvae nveer flet bteter.  The wreid thnig is, taht eevr scine the acicdnet, eevn thuogh I’m oaky, erveynoe esle semes a ltitle off.  Taht’s knid of odd, ins’t it?  I hit my haed and ervenyoe esle chnages.   It is lkie I’m lviing my own prviate epsiode of “The Twliihgt Znoe”.   Wierd, huh?