A Self-Annointed Intellectual and the Bread Recipe

TheAmazingAtheist, whom I've critiqued before on this blog, is the target of this post. This will be pretty concise and it might garner a few laughs. For clarification purposes, this man romances himself as an intellectual above the typical man, which is his form of misanthropy (which is arguably the most recurrent type of misanthropy out there; so much for being distinct on his part). Yet his own stupidity is particularly hilarious because he displays 1) the inability to learn from and recognize his mistakes and 2) the unfamiliarity with age-old & very common practices, such as what I'm going to talk about in brief next.

He doesn't know how bread is made. Un-fucking-believable...

TJ, as he's usually called in his social circles, once said in a video, "You mix wheat & water..." Is this guy serious or just fucking stupid? I'm not angry with this, I'm just frustrated. How can someone who so brazenly and repeatedly claims intellectual superiority over most of his fellow men & women be completely unaware of one of the oldest recipes of man's creation? And since he's admitted more than once that he spends a lot of time on the internet, in which there are literally countless recipes for countless types of bread to be found, how is he, at 27 years, still ignorant of even the most basic bread recipe? When he admitted this I began contemplating that the man is an irredeemable retard in denial. No offense to those who are retarded through no will of their own. Such people are above this cretin.

Here's a brief history for you, TJ: the oldest known bread was a flat-bread, made by collecting plants and pounding the grains, forming a shape, and cooking it over a fire. This specimen was dated to be as old as 30,000 years. Yeah, you read it right. It was a flat-bread that was not even complex whatsoever. It makes you think why anyone who makes any kind of living today even bother to buy bread from supermarkets, given how simple and cheap it is to make your own loaf of fabulous and fresh bread.

This idiot is known to have dropped out of high-school because he "was sick of all the bullshit." That's just a cop-out from a coward who prefers things to be handed to him on a silver platter; an excuse to avoid the responsibilities that life always demands of Earth's denizens. You see, if you stayed in high school, you could have taken culinary class. In that class you learn how to cook mostly basic recipes, usually some kind of baked food. You get accustomed to the entire process; preparation, cooking, serving, and clean-up. It's one of few classes in high school that is mostly devoid of bullshit that most educational institutions put you through, like when they discourage creativity and going above & beyond the process.

Anyway, you don't simply mix wheat and water, idiot. Wheat is a plant that you find in fields, farmed or otherwise. You can't make bread with wheat, you have to extract ingredients from wheat instead. And for many bread recipes, you need yeast. It's your choice if you want gluten for consistency, but most avoid it entirely because of the unnecessary added fat from that ingredient. If you care about your body even a little bit, you won't use the bleached, nutritionally-void white flour, either. Use the real stuff and work with whole-wheat flour. Add oats and whole grains as well for added nutritional value as well as flavour, because it's fucking easy to do so. Mix, knead, let it sit for the bread to rise (air pockets form after all, and it helps give the bread form & shape), and then bake. You have, as mentioned, countless sources of information available with just a few clicks and key presses. So TJ, you have no excuse to be this blatantly ignorant.

I guess you're just too stupid and hopelessly lazy to care.

Playing with Politically Incorrect Fire

I'm one of the authors over at the fledgling opinion site Superbious. Feel free to check the place out. To be honest without coming across as an arse, some of the writers could use a bit more work on perfecting their craft (myself included, but not quite for the same reasons). A couple of them have, so far, demonstrated mistakes with:

- The "their" & "they're" conundrum.
- The "then" & "than" puzzle.
- The dreaded proper demonstration of the oft-misused apostrophe (knowing when to use it makes all the difference, folks!).
- And common, often overlooked spelling and/or grammar mistakes.

Also on my first article, the editor of the site didn't take care to remove the final paragraph where I mentioned to the reader to view a video. That same video is featured in my second most-recent post in this blog (the one before this post you are reading). In fact, they're the same article.

Another note is that, by request of the webmaster or editor of Superbious, any of the articles I write for them won't appear anywhere else, including Corpus Intorqueo.

In the end, this should be an interesting ride. Someone took notice of me and has accepted my tutelage as a content contributor. Thanks, Superbious.

Bill "Sore Loser" O'Reilly: I Won the Rumble!

At least, in his mind he did.

Bill O'Reilly is, as expected, not owning up to how much devastation he incurred by the likes of Jon Stewart, especially when he called him 'The Mayor of Bullshit Mountain'. As you watch the video (provided below), you almost wonder what was going through the old man's mind at that point. You could tell that he wanted to retort, but he just couldn't. Yet it wasn't at the debate where he'd attack Stewart with any measure of effectiveness.

Later, nestled in his safe zone in the 'no spin zone', O'Reilly post-humously claimed victory over Stewart by, shocker alert, taking him out of context. Here's the piece where O'Reilly performs his usual tactic on his merciless opponent:

If you saw Jon Stewart and me Saturday night, you may have noticed there was a very important theme among all the chaos. Stewart, an honest and smart liberal, supports a 'nanny state' where everyone is provided basic life necessities and economic outcomes are guaranteed.

I disagree, not because of the intent, but simply because it's impossible. The Constitution provides Americans protection so they can pursue happiness, but the Founding Fathers did not guarantee happiness or material well-being, and if you try to do that you will bankrupt the nation.

Stewart and I previewed what we'll all be voting on - do you want a nanny state or do you want a self-reliant nation? That's what's at stake in this election. The left-wing press is not going to tell you that; it portrays President Obama as a moderate. And the right-wing media says he's a socialist, maybe even a communist, bent on destroying traditional America. But Stewart and I pinpointed the real situation: nanny state vs. self-reliance.

Polls show the country is deadlocked, but I find it very hard to believe that 50% of us want to be Western Europe. What do you think Europeans are rioting about? They're angry that governments are cutting back on entitlements. This is what the nanny state mentality leads to - give me free stuff or I will hurt you. Jon Stewart doesn't believe that, but it is absolutely true. So I hope you will watch our debate, which is available at TheRumble2012.com.
 

Thanks Steve of oreilly-sucks.com for the quote above.

See how pathetic he has to be to claim victory over Stewart? Of course, he didn't bring his opponent on to discuss the results, or talk about their respective talking points. O'Reilly also assumes of his audience that no one actually bothered to watch The Rumble. One couldn't blame potential audience members from not actually watching the event, because it required paying a fee to do so. Exploitative as he always is, O'Reilly took advantage of this obscure tidbit, and of his audience, and spun the debate as ending in his favor. After all, no one likes 'the nanny state'.
 
Watch the embedded video below and you can judge for yourself as to whether O'Reilly ideologically "beat" Stewart in The Rumble, or whether Stewart argued for a nanny state government that wants its citizens to be dependent on The Man.

Greenpeace is right, Globe and Mail; you're not

The article in question, authored by Margaret Wente: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/greenpeaces-golden-rice-stand-should-appall-us-all/article4541042/

This is a response that I made in the comments section for that article. I am aware that it is categorized as "commentary", but that doesn't diminish the necessity to put this shill, which she seems adamant to paint herself as, in her place on this issue. The issue is GM crops, in the end, but it is specifically about the fledgling "golden rice" that is apparently being manufactured, and thus sold (and therein comes the downsides) to curb the advent of Vitamin A Deficiency (or "VAD"). With my ever-growing knowledge of the dark side of the GMO market, I can only sense negative implications with this crop, amongst the many genetically-modified crops already present (such as virtually all corn you'll buy anymore, as well as nectarines & tomatoes). What's worse is that you can't escape from GM crops, as they are taking more hold on the agriculture industry than otherwise, and Monsanto owns over 90% of the shares of said market.

Without much further ado, I'll present to you the comment that I authored on that page. It had a maximum character count, but it was surprisingly enough to write what I wanted to. I've added a bit more "exclusively" for this post. Just a quick note: it appears that the overwhelming majority of comments get down-voted, thus hinting at a frightfully unattractive community of nitwits.

---

How much were you paid to outright promote GM crops, Mrs. Wente? Your credibility went right out the window when you said that GM crops improve health, which they don't. I'm referring to the following paragraph, completely un-edited so as to not manipulate any information for readers:

Genetically engineered crops do far more than improve people’s health. They can dramatically boost yields in places such as Africa. They are the key to feeding the world’s exploding population. But GM opponents have been tragically successful in stalling the spread of modified crops to the people most in need of it. In China, where people are already terrified about food safety because of major scandals over tainted milk powder, GM crops are generally shunned.

 

Previously, you decried Greenpeace's skepticism in the risks and implications that are not-yet-known, but at the same time quite possible, with the consumption of this new "golden rice." Keep in mind Mrs. Wente that these are genetically modified crops, and given how it appears that every GM crop causes implications in health and even in economics & biodiversity (after all, GM crops negatively impact natural crops), you made yourself appear quite one-sided. Here is the excerpt where you fail to defend your claims with a source while attacking Greenpeace's necessary skepticism:

 

The last thing Greenpeace wants is for Golden Rice to be effective. It insists that the rice poses all kinds of environmental and health risks, even though repeated risk assessments by leading scientific bodies have found no such risks. In fact, according to scientists at the University of California, GM rice reduces pesticide use and improves farmers’ health.
 

Oh, brother. In regards to the last sentence, do you have a study to back up your counter-claim? You should, as a "journalist", provide any and all information to such studies, via sourcing. Let's also not forget how aggressive Monsanto gets with this method of stifling opposition to the ever-growing GM crop market. They pay many "study groups" to produce results that coincide with Monsanto's wishes. They really are that scared of groups like Greenpeace, who help keep people aware of the industry's malpractices. 

 

You're also ignoring the economic implications that GM crops will bring about. I know that the inventor of the GM crop had good intentions with the idea, but that idea has become a ploy to gain a monopoly over what is inarguably the most important industry on earth; agriculture. Monsanto is notable in their quest to dominate the agriculture business by:
 

1) Owning all parties involved in the agriculture industry with their patents and corporate takeovers.
 

-and-
 

2) Using patents to eliminate competition, and the products that they manufacture in greater amounts to destroy any chance of would-be competitors gaining any ground (high costs of seeds, eliminator genes in said seeds which prevents sustained re-growth, buying pathetically weak politicians who implement loopholes and laws to protect Monsanto's interests, etc.).

 

Another economic hurdle will be in how much money is spent on these crops. Millions will be spent on producing this product, but read on further. Greenpeace is right when they note how it is not yet known what side-effects of consuming this rice will bring about. You can ignore it all you want in favor of "feeding the poor", but if it has impacts on health, then it'll do more harm than good in the long run. So to invest in this new product which only addresses VAD, while at the same time there are proven healthy methods of addressing VAD as well as other nutritional concerns such as supplements, proves how short-sighted you are, Mrs. Wente.
 

Shame on this Roger Cooper (a user who wrote a comment on this article previously) for exploiting the sad fact that millions of people around the world are malnourished and starving, while ignoring the sad fact that the parties involved in the sale of GM crops are only in it for the money and nothing more. Only bad things can come of that, especially if this product gains a foothold in its market and gives the producers an excuse to increase their stranglehold on said market.
 

I feel pity for those who fall to the temptation of money, and let it blind them, or allows them to demonstrably deceive those who seek information on the issues that really affect us, like the things we eat to survive. After all, Monsanto doesn't give a spit if you are a healthy individual, just as long as you depend on their often poisonous, artificial "food" products. Politicians routinely display their cowardice, their weakness in resisting the temptation of money to keep them in power, and Monsanto & its few competitors easily stifle progress in the industry this way. It's one of the many reasons why I think all politicians should be fired and lose all their money.

I understand the need to feed as many people as possible, but this actually proves to be a double-edged sword; it is causing the hopeful in these decidedly third-world nations to have to depend on Monsanto more and more, paying more and more money because of the dreaded eliminator seeds. It's also a burden against people who still luckily possess natural, or semi-natural crop seeds because should Monsanto be made aware of any growth they feel would impede on their control of the world's agriculture markets, they'll do what they can to stifle the growth, or sue those in question, or take over their resources, or easily do all three.

Margaret Wente should be ashamed for this shilling, but I doubt she is. She gets paid for it, so why should she be? Money brings down many an otherwise respectable individual, and she appears to be no exception. If anything, I wish for her sake that she didn't stupidly destroy any semblance of credibility she had with the paragraph (which I quoted, and that's the first one I quoted in this post) where she didn't hold back in defending the GM market. You might as well be a spy stating outright to his/her targets that you're spying on them with this gaffe. It didn't bolster her argument one iota, and only proved Greenpeace's point.

With that said, good job, Wente?

Malicious Smile

The new single from Converge's upcoming album "All That We Love We Leave Behind", the song "Aimless Arrow", is the inspiration for this piece. I don't know the lyrics at all, and I don't think anyone knows, but the sound & the feel of the song were enough to inspire me.

---

My back is against the wall, but you wanted it this way.
What you felt for me is now gone; I can see it in your face.
From where did the memories come, when we'd go the extra mile.
A time when I'd beg to god, before his malicious smile.
The burden replaced our hearts; anger was the killing blow.
We could've sought a fresh start, but time sank our souls too low.
The end began too soon.
The end came too swift.

Walt is toppling the mountain - Review for Breaking Bad, episode "Say My Name"

This episode was fairly slow throughout. Very little intensity occured when compared to some of the earlier episodes in the season, but that's only if you take it at face value. Walt continues to devolve into something monstrous, selfish, and most damneding of them all perhaps, confident. This episode is centered almost entirely around Walt's pride (indeed, take note of the title of the episode), which has been the focal point of the season in general, but so far this is the episode in which that story element takes the front seat all the way through., relentless & defiant of all that stands before it. 

This episode may also be the end of the Fring investigation on part of the DEA, but you'll have to read further into my review to understand why. The final episode of this half of Breaking Bad may also mark the eve of the coming conflict, which seems inevitable, between Hank & Walt/Heisenberg, de-facto, man'o-a-man'o. Hank has even been usurped officially by his superiors in the DEA, specifically in the case against Gus Fring's right-hand man, Mike, but Hank will no doubt find his attention turned towards the ever present "blue sky" that Walt produces, right under Hank's nose no less. The vestigial remains of Gus' empire are coming to a heed in a big way, and as always it seems, Walt has something to do with it.

Mike has let a little something slip so far, and that something gets picked up on, big-time, by the DEA. They're hot on his heels with warrants for his arrest, and while he's a very resourceful fellow who has dealt with perhaps worse scenarios before, this occasion will be the end of him in some way or another. His part of the deal with Walt is all that he's vested in now, but that also carries a price. Just when it seemed he was getting out for good, to be a grandfather for good, and to get away from the life that could have seen him dead many times over, Walt decides that he won't let Mike leave on his terms. Just before the episode closes, tinged with a tugging sense of tragedy, Mike, sitting absolutely still and shocked, the last of his blood leaving his body, falls dead.

It wasn't a heart attack that did him. It wasn't ricin that did him. It wasn't even a hit-man or a DEA shootout that did him...

It was Walt, fueled by his craving for further power, who took his life. It was all for the money that he felt was entirely his. It was the Olympic-summit of pride that drove him to make this the old man's last day alive. Some could say it was all coming anyway; after all, Mike has almost killed Walt several times in the recent past, and Walt doesn't let things like that slide as everyone knows. However, did it have to be out of his boundless pride? Could Walt be any less noble and any more morally bankrupt?

Now that just leaves Jesse, and then Hank, and then...Skyler, for Walt to deal with. What further damage he'll do to carve his niche as the great and powerful Heinsenberg, is anyone's guess. After all, the Walt that everyone wanted to love is gone. Just know that crap is going to hit the fan, and it won't be pretty

A Canadian, proudly endorsing: