Wow I can't believe you're reading this. You must be really bored. Me too. I'm also hungry but I am trying to lose weight and to eat sort of defeats the purpose. I feel fat even though I am normal weight for my height. I hate that feeling, you know?
But that is NOT what I meant to talk about!

Anyway, what can I say about myself? Not much to tell. I'm eccentric; very individualistic. I'm a Catholic apostate and I am a Republican. (I suggest you check out George W. Bush's site .

I can't think of anything else. Very tired feeling right now. It's school; it drains me. Heh. I dont know.

I was pissed yesterday, but I am not pissed anymore. I want to state right now that I am controversial and if you don't like honest discussions on religion and/or politics, I suggest you leave now.

In the past, I wrote in a private online diary because I didn't want anyone to read it. haha! Well, now I don't really care so have at it.

I think the Passion of the Christ is crap to say the least. Yeah, now you're all horrified. But I do. And I'll tell you why. What got me mad was my aunt, who went out yesterday (it came out yesterday) and ran up to Wal-fart to buy it because my devout Catholic grandad wanted to see it. Well, I would rather walk barefoot over a hot nails then buy that movie. I would rather give Bush my life savings for re election (at least I'm doing something worthwhile that way) then give Mel Gibson $8 or whatever it takes to get into the move theaters nowadays.

First off, I don't belive in Jesus, never have, never will. Don't really care what you do with that knowledge; I am firmly convinced he wasn't the messiah, therefore, your arguments aren't really sound to me.

Secondly, much like Farenheit 911 (did I spell it right?), (created by that fat slob Micheal Asshole Moore), THe Passion is based on biased and perhaps very flawed historical evidence, if evidence at all. Some of you may disagree with this, but the whole thing CAN'T BE PROVEN. (If you're going to argue with me, please first read 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' by Lincoln, Leigh and Beisert. It is an excellent book; there are many books on this topic out there, just look.)

But back to the topic. These two movies aren't based on evidence, thus, they should be taken as 1. an inaccurate misrepresentation 2. a movie is a fictional creation. When a book is turned into a movie, it is misconstrued and many parts are removed. Thus, it is more or less a fictional creation, biased by actors and scriptwrites and 3. for pete's sake, it is a friggin movie, not an accurate portrayal of the truth. Who knows the truth? No one knows the complete truth; humans can't possibly know it!

Therefore, both movies should be viewed OBJECTIVELY rather then SUBJECTIVELY and must be understood as a (frankly) one-sided theory on the way things could be, not necessarily the way things are. If you want to show me some thing that IS, back it up with FACTS and EVIDENCE. Sadly, neither movie has either of these.

Don't take this as me implying that I am completely objective. We are all subjective about some things; that is human nature. But my point is: nothing in this world is one-sided, but the majority of the population hears one side and takes it to be true without even consulting with the other. I make my own decisions, not based on popular opinion, my friends, my family or anything like that.

Anyway, what's my point? MICHEAL MOORE AND MEL GIBSON ARE FEEDING THE POPULACE OPINIONS AND CALLING THEM THE TRUTH! And they're making money off of it!

Speaking of people I've learned to dislike in the past year, John Kerry is right up there on the list. He seems like such an ass. Does he stand for anything? Ugh, I can't really help it; I just have to say it. Haha, I dont think he can really help it! Or maybe he can. Maybe he's just CONFLICTED and goes back and forth on his asinine behavior. One of my favorite websites regarding Kerry is John Kerry Sucks It is quite nice.

There's my ranting for the day. Ah, I feel better.