Ozzy77's blog

Now I know that after reading this blog, everyone is going to wonder, "How is this blog progressing Personal Freedom?". Well, just so that concern won't come up later, i will go ahead and explain how it relates now. Life is fun, so therefore, the things in life should have fun. Remember, everything in life has the personal freedom to do what the fuck it wants, and still call it fun. Now that I've cleared up this blogs relevance to personal freedom, I will go on to say what is so fuckin' awesome. Picture this, countless advanced showings to movies you want to watch. Now imagine that all the showings were free! I no longer need to imagine; as a student at UT, I can receive free passes to view advanced showings of some of the movies that the Communications building is featuring. This past week, I watched School for Scoundrels on Tuesday, and Jackass Number Two on Wednesday. Both movies were fuckin' awesome. School for Scoundrels had an interesting story line, and was overall comedic. But, Jackass Number Two, not only changed my comprehension of humor, but even tempoorarily altered my taste for humor. (I hope it's temporary). Last night, I was watching "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" after seeing Jackass Number Two, and I don't know, they just weren't funny anymore. Now that I've seen that mad, bizarre, crazy shit on Jackass, I don't know if I'll ever find straight humor funny again. Jackass, was so funny because it featured Bam Margera, Bam's crew minus Rake, the guys from Wildboyz, and some new faces who added to the humor. Johnny Knoxville wasn't even the funniest one on there because Ryan Dunn and Steve O were just so fuckin' hilarious. Bam freaked out like 3 or 4 times throughout the whole movie, proving that he is not the King of Rock n' Roll. Anyhoo, I don't want to ruin the movie for all of you out there who actually give a fuck and want to go see it tomorrow. Seriously, go see it. It is indeed worth it, and unless you have Showtime or Pay-per View, you probably won't have the opportunity to see it again other than on DVD, cuz it won't get premiered on Basic cable. Oh yeah, School for Scoundrels? It sucked. Don't waste ten bucks to go see it.  Read More »

Dear Readers,

After reading news headlines and articles on how President Bush wishes to write off the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by dictating people to not place too much importance on it, I am wroth with anger. How dare this man that placed too much importance on a foreign "semi-crisis" tell people how to react to a domestic crisis. Though a year has past since the initial occurence of the disaster, the aftermath is still waxing. Everyday, new reports on the situation in New Orleans and southern Louisiana are featured on newscast programs. Countless times have I been reminded that people are still offering aid and assistance to rebuild the areas that suffered damage. While watching tennis, during the U.S. Open, I was repeatedly informed by the sportscasters that some of the tennis players, like Serena Williams, are still donating money to the relief effort. So, undoubtedly Mr. Bush, people must still be dwelling on the impact of the situation. People won't forget such a widespread and mass media-projected disaster. Nor should they. This disaster should remain in our hearts and minds as a reminder to how blessed we are each day to not suffer as some people from Louisiana and Mississippi have, lest we forget and repeat the mistakes of the past. The constant providing of relief also reminds us daily of what happened so that in the future, other coastal cities can be protected against such forces of nature. A simple reminder never hurts. Another reason for my support for honoring the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is because when I was growing up as a young child, I had no idea who are what Hurricane Hugo was. However, I still saw kids at my school walking around wearing "I survived Hurricane Hugo" shirts; And this was more than a few years after the disaster. Now why can't people make shirts about Hurricane Katrina in order to remind younger generations, that have no idea of the disaster, of what happened in late August 2005. I wonder what Mr. President would say to that. Anyway, I am through ranting. Visit this link to find out more. http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5316302&nav=HMO6HMaY  Read More »

Dear Readers,

After reading news headlines and articles on how President Bush wishes to write off the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by dictating people to not place too much importance on it, I am wroth with anger. How dare this man that placed too much importance on a foreign "semi-crisis" tell people how to react to a domestic crisis. Though a year has past since the initial occurence of the disaster, the aftermath is still waxing. Everyday, new reports on the situation in New Orleans and southern Louisiana are featured on newscast programs. Countless times have I been reminded that people are still offering aid and assistance to rebuild the areas that suffered damage. While watching tennis, during the U.S. Open, I was repeatedly informed by the sportscasters that some of the tennis players, like Serena Williams, are still donating money to the relief effort. So, undoubtedly Mr. Bush, people must still be dwelling on the impact of the situation. People won't forget such a widespread and mass media-projected disaster. Nor should they. This disaster should remain in our hearts and minds as a reminder to how blessed we are each day to not suffer as some people from Louisiana and Mississippi have, lest we forget and repeat the mistakes of the past. The constant providing of relief also reminds us daily of what happened so that in the future, other coastal cities can be protected against such forces of nature. A simple reminder never hurts. Another reason for my support for honoring the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is because when I was growing up as a young child, I had no idea who are what Hurricane Hugo was. However, I still saw kids at my school walking around wearing "I survived Hurricane Hugo" shirts; And this was more than a few years after the disaster. Now why can't people make shirts about Hurricane Katrina in order to remind younger generations, that have no idea of the disaster, of what happened in late August 2005. I wonder what Mr. President would say to that. Anyway, I am through ranting. Read this attatchment to find out more.  Read More »

There's a verse in the Bible that says that God knew you, even when you were in your mother's womb. This scripture has been misconstrued to the point were some Christians believe that God completely knows everything about everyone even before they are born. Their attitudes, their aptitudes, their personalities, their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations, their likes, their dislikes, even their hobbies; God knows them all. Luckily, I don't buy into this "blind following the blind" nonsense. Certain aspects of your life, especially your character and personality, depend mainly on your actions and behaviors after you exit the womb. Now, not saying that God doesn't know the future, how could he know that some drastic event in early childhood would effect you and someday influence you to become a rocket scientist? And is it just simply that if your parents decided to have you born in a different city, raised in a different country where you don't experience that drastic event, then would you not be influenced to become a rocket science? No one knows for sure, but I point to free-will because every little detail makes a difference in our futures. Check out this attatchment and your eyes may or may not be opened to the proof!  Read More »

I am in a shitty mood currently. I will not get into the details. Let's just say that shit is not going my way. Which brings the question to mind, "Then why am I furthering my struggle by not leaning on the word of God?" Well, I guess I should clarify, that I do not have beef with all of the Old Testament. Actually, I enjoy reading many of the passages and stories from the Old Testament. There is just a small part that really irritates me. Now, since these stories are as old as the hills, some even older, no one can truly prove or disprove their occurence. Yet, some of these tales seem a bit unreal, and the events that take place seem inconceivable. For example, in Genesis 38, one man name Onan decided to hump his wife, but let his semen run out and hit the floor because he didn't want to impregnate her. It says that this act "displeased the Lord", so God, the Lord, slew him. I recently saw the episode of Moral Orel titled "God's Chef", and it showed a young boy masterbating, later explaining that during his masterbation, he had killed and deprived life to millions of potential children of God. Now I view this at a scientific standpoint, and I believe that spermatozoans are merely sex cells, and not living, breathing organisms with souls. So, I hardly think that God would slay someone just for killing things that have no eternal soul, since humans have been killing animals from the beginning of time. So, in this aspect, this story seems to only be an old-wives tale used to deter people from masterbation and abortion. Also, if this scientific principle holds true, then an abortion performed while the sperm is still in the cell cycle would not be considered killing something with a living soul, since cells, as far as have been proven, do not have individual souls. That's just food for thought. Another story of the Old Testament that seems contradictory to some commands and principles later shown in later books of the Bible is found in Chapter 25 of Numbers. In the 17th and 18th verse of this chapter, God tells the Israelites, his chosen people to "vex" in King James, and to "harass" in New King James, the Midianites because they had vexed the Israelites with schemes and wiles. Now, surely this does not sound like the "unconditional love" that the New Testament speaks of, nor does it teaches one to love his neighbor as himself. This anomalous text in the Holy Bible, emphasis on Holy, also teaches a different message than the "Turn-the-other cheek" message of Jesus Christ. Now, I know that these "Holy Wars" that Israel participated in may have originally started out as a trek of the Israelites to get from eastern Egypt, through the Negev, to the Hebrew "Promise Land", but somewhere along the way, the Israelites began to be a bit ruthless. Sure, they were finding themselves a home, but I feel that they aren't any different than the Native American tribes that fought with others that looked exactly liked them, but had a different god or sun-dance ritual. I feel that a God who loves all of his children and causes it to rain on the just and the unjust alike would not command some of his children to kill the rest of his children, even if some of them are supposedly "chosen ones". One more thing, I have been wondering lately, if the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, etc. had really been God's "chosen people", then why didn't he put up a wall of protection around them during the Holocaust. Why didn't he slay the Nazis like he had done earlier to the Philistines, Canaanites, and Amalekites. Is it because most of the Jews involved in the Holocaust were "Polish Jews"? Did God disown them just because they mixed with Eurasian peoples? Surely, it can be argued that Israel has been protected and is always blessed in battle by God, but it could just be coincidental good-geographic, strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea, or economic and technological prosperity that keeps them modern and up-to-date. If Israel was completely landlocked, like Nepal, Armenia, or Belarus, would it be such a military might? I still do not believe that the God that I worship would place one people above all others, certainly since they weren't even the founders of the First Civilizations. For goodness sake, Mycennae almost outdates the creation of the Israel nation. Just imagine how much Mesopotamia and Sumer outdate Israel.  Read More »

Dear Readers

You probably thought that I was done when I finished ranting about the free-will/ divine intervention topic. Well, there's more that I would like to share, if I may have your attention. I've thought of a new list of misconstued concepts of Christianity. This summer, I feel that I have once more grown closer to God's truth, learning and eagerly seeking more in his words and other historical texts. Life itself did not begin with Christianity, so I feel that what I am seeking does not require reading of the New Testament. That is why I am busy reading the Old Testament, mainly the books of The Pentateuch. Currently, well, I started a project in late June, and I've been working at it little by little all summer, and now I am ready to make some headway in it. I am trying to analyze the books of Genesis and Exodus in such a way as to estimate certain times for specific events such as: the building of Noah's Ark, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even, the time of the Patriarchs and their sons. It sounds interesting, right? Well, that is enough about that. Right now, I need to be presenting a few more Christian misconceptions. I will start by once more stressing the fact that God does not think in ultimatums. The Bible, for instance, contains many events that are dependent on the actions of man through free-will. Surely, there are the few occasions where God strikes someone down for sinning, or where the Hebrew people slaughter neighboring lands in God's name. These books, since they are early, lost, incomplete accounts of early history, tend to contain portions that contradict certain verses in early books, and sometimes, even contradict each other. However, in the New Testament, God shows that he allows mankind to live and choose their own path; He allowed man to question his only son, he allowed man to crucify his son and persecute any of his followers, he even allowed Christianity to come to the brink of annihilation like many early religions that were stomped out by invading people including Zoroasteranism, Animism, Sun Worship, Calvinism, and other tribal/ regional faiths. However, the decision-making of a new group of leaders in Rome spared Christianity the fate suffered by many archaic religions of the past. Apart from the conversions of people like Paul (Saul) that posed a threat to early Christianity, the choices of a group of religious leaders actually helped solidify Christianity as one of the great religions to this day. So, at least now, since the death of Christ, it can be stated that God doesn't think in ultimatums, enforcing his will on everything, allowing no room for free-will. Instead, he knows that things will come to pass. Another misconception is the way that Christians throw around the idea "Honor your mother and father, and your years will be long on this earth." in order to get ornery kids to obey their parents. My parents, and many other Christians I know seem to believe that if you don't obey everything your parents say, then years will be slowly shaved off of your life. I am pretty sure that God didn't mean that literally, you will live longer if you obey your parents. He basically means metaphorically that if you obey and honor your parents, and follow their instructions, your life on earth will be more relaxing, less stressful, and you are less likely to die doing something ill-advised and foolish. If you listen to your parents warnings to not get involved with gangs and thugs, then you probably won't get shot in the streets early in life. So next time, don't take it literally when you are told that your life will be extended just by honoring your parents. Just take it as a life lesson, and everything will be okay. Also, I'm am not so sure if the verse that says that God knew you even in your mother's womb is meant literally. Surely, he knows you once you've taken form and is growing in your mother's womb. However, I've heard people use this scripture to explain the characters of murderers, serial killers, perverts, and other criminals or evildoers. I am pretty sure that this verse doesn't apply to personality and character traits since many of these are acquired traits and social standards learned as children. I'm pretty sure that God won't know whether you will be a defender or a criminal while you are in the gestation period. I believe it is after you are born, the things you are exposed to early in your toddler years, these are what form your personality. Also, eating habits, body size, and tendencies are developed after you've exited the womb. So, in a way, God knows you exist once you've fertilized the ovum, but your personal traits are left until later, once you are living.  Read More »

After giving myself time to think about the issue with athletic scholarship requirements, I have learned something. I am only biased towards academic scholarships because I have spent almost half of my life chasing after academic excellence. I grasp and understand the challenge to excelling at academics, and often, I underrate the practice, skill, and endurance needed to excell in athletics. It is this opinionated view that stymies me from completely understanding the challenges that exist in athletics. I dabble at athletics, and surely, I feel that I am okay at most sports. But to truly excell takes a certain attitude and aptitude of the sport's modus operandi; one must be made of "sterner stuff", with a spirit and love for the game that never quells and cannot be quenched. Only than can one truly share the viewpoint of an athlete. Now, in the previous blog, one of my main arguments was that participants in academic scholarships face harder challenges and are measured by stricter requirements. Yet, I've realized that athletes that recieve scholarships confront challenges that are equally difficult and must meet certain expectations on the field. On saturday, I played basketball and football with my friends, three brothers all athletically skillful. With little effort, these guys can throw flawless spirals, and shoot long-range jumpers with ease. After talking with the youngest brother, who is only advancing to the eighth grade, I realized, with this family, it starts early. Just as training for academics and placement in honors programs begin in early childhood, so does training for athleticism and sportsmanship. True star athletes, like these three brothers, start young, and practice the same drills, play, and techniques from sixth and seventh grade. They hit the weights early, and always make sure to find the time to exercise and condition. This process of repetition each year is a form of conditioning to yield a certain response: great performance on the field. So, I no longer feel that bookworms and honor grads put forth more effort for more years than athletes, because it is evident that great athletes put just as much time into training and practice for the same number of years. Now, my only beef is with the term "scholarship" applied to athletics. Webster defines a scholar as "1 a learned person; person having much knowledge 2 a pupil at school; student; learner 3 a student who is given a scholarship 4 a person who is able to read and write". The word is derived from the Latin word scholaris and schola, or school. Primarily, this word has to do with learning knowledge. I hardly belief the ability to recreate certain movements and abilities due to physical strength, endurance, and flexibility is considered "knowledge". Some people say "knowledge is the 'know-how'", yet, I feel that true knowledge must be studied and intellectually pursued. Otherwise, it is merely pantomime and emulation. No offense to the sports or the athletes, they still deserve financial aid money, but it should be more regulated and be under a separate category of aid. Maybe the word "Athletic grant" would do, since the provider is granting the athlete money to attend the school of his/ her choice. This word may not go well with the athlete and his/ her parents because they'll feel that he/ she earned the money, so it wasn't just granted. Yet, this word seems to be the best term for such a form of financial aid. And that is that, I am done with this topic.  Read More »

 
Not to be a disgruntled Dany, I must admit that I am dissatisfied with the state of U.S. scholarship programs. Now scholarships, when properly and fairly divvied, can be a blessed device, providing aid to those who need it and seek it. However, in the corrupt world that we reside in, nothing can stand totally pure. With subjective members on scholarship boards and panels nationwide, scholarships can't help but be a little biased. I realize that scholarship entries must be graded subjectively for the most part since they must be scored by a certain rubric. Yet, still, I feel that there should be more regards to creativity and individual points of views. I am also outraged because today I learned that in some cases, athletic scholarships don't enforce the same requirements as merit (academic) scholarships. Whereas merit scholarships require that a "3.0 average must be maintained at an accredited university ... blah blah blah", many athletic scholarships don't set gpa requirements, nor even require the student to be taking a full-load of credit hours. Now I know that star athletes really don't need to maintain 3.0 gpa's to accomplish their goals and reach their dreams, nor does the scholarship aid they're recieving have anything to do with academics and essay writing skills.  Read More »