Monday, August 31, 2009

Homosexual Propoganda debunked/ Mom read the bottom of this article

So here we are again after a long exile from blogsphere. Not here to make apologies, for I feel I have none to make to the 5 of you reading this. I do not think it is my duty or obligation to burden and pontificate my personal world views to you, or bore you with tedious details of what I did, who I went out with and the contents of my bowels once it has been expunged from my body through my anus. You already have CNN and the E!channel for all that good stuff, sans bowel content(it does not make for good conversation unless you have constipation and said conversation takes place in the confines of the clinic with a doctor and maybe nosy attending nurse).

I do however have to pontificate on a personal world view that most of you have already called me out on and metaphorically tarred and feathered me and severed long standing ties with. Yes, I'm talking about homosexuals. I have, and will, never believe the main argument that the homosexual propaganda machine tries to enforce and uphold for its own political agenda that homosexuals are born the way they are and that there is an inherent gay gene which causes said homosexuality. No one is born that way. There is no gay gene. Any "research paper" that you have read doesn't know the first thing about genetics and the slightest hope that homosexuals can see as a self justifying mechanism in regards to these "researches" are pounced upon by the liberal homosexual propaganda machine.

And just before you start you attacks and blog/flame wars and "oh ju-lian you're so blinded and biased and write such hurtful things" comments because you think I'm just blowing smoke up your ass and propagating homosexual hate crimes(which I'm not you fucking overly sensitive prick/bitch) here's my proof.

Is there a gay gene?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ­ from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some little known facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of non genetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eye color is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little and will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improve so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstrate for political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and well performed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead non basketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of non players. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traits-muscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Taken from the NARTH(National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals)

Now I KNOW you must be thinking, oh ju-lian, that taken from such an obviously biased NGO. You've taken it out of context and you're just being spiteful because Michelle hates you now. While you are entitled to whatever notions and opinions you may have, let it be known that I never ever hate for the sake of hating nor do I blindly follow what is being fed to me like the rest of you sheep.

Here's another study, from a NON NGO

The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled. The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten. The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for. On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report...,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

Homosexuality has been practiced for thousands of years. Simply put, homosexuality is defined as sexual relations between like genders (i.e., two males or two females). It was Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation. But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation. Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, schizophrenia) be explained by genetics? Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture? Are they inborn or learned? Some individuals believed that the answer would be found hiding amidst the chromosomes analyzed in the Human Genome Project.

The human X and Y chromosomes (the two “sex” chromosomes) have been completely sequenced. Thanks to work carried out by labs all across the globe, we know that the X chromosome contains 153 million base pairs, and harbors a total of 1168 genes (see NCBI, 2004). The National Center for Biotechnology Information reports that the Y chromosome—which is much smaller—contains “only” 50 million base pairs, and is estimated to contain a mere 251 genes. Educational institutions such as Baylor University, the Max Planck Institute, the Sanger Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, and others have spent countless hours and millions of research dollars analyzing these unique chromosomes. As the data began to pour in, they allowed scientists to construct gene maps—using actual sequences from the Human Genome Project. And yet, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosome contains any “gay gene.”

you can read the rest of the legnthy discussion here

Now for the kicker. I did not say that you CAN'T be a homosexual. Its a CHOICE and hey, who am I to tell you any differently. I don't agree with your lifestlye choice and thats just my own PERSONAL OPINION and I will defend my right to it. But please do not come and pontificate to me that you're born the way you are. The articles above have proven that that is utter bullshit and written by experts in the field. And im pretty sure they dont have their own homophobic agenda. Dosent bode well for their PhD you see. If im wrong, please feel free to correct me. So yeah, take that liberal media and GLAAD and PLU and Katagender and associated homosexual propoganda machines.

Hope that tides you over for a few months

Congratulations on reaching the end of this article. You've just wasted about 10 minutes of your time which you could have used for more productive things like watching porn or feeding the hungry children of the world or saving the whales. But thank you all the same.

Mom, this is just a status update. Im fine, working, joining the gym, everyone here is fine, there arent any racial riots here, yet. Still smoking but cutting down in an effort to be fit for the gym and not look like a tired fat fool in the workout classes and yes, for my own personal health and well being. Plus please try and get me a LA Dodgers replica baseball (home) jersey with Ethier on the back if they win the World Series in October. No, I can't get it over here. L size should be fine. Hope you're fine too. Love you.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Keroncong Hujan/ My Yasmin Ahmad tribute

Mega mendung di angkasa
Hembusan bayu dingin terasa
gerimis berderai di merata
bagai mutiara

Rahmat dibawa bersama
Limpahannya meresap dijiwa
adakala bahgia dirasa
meskipun duka nestapa

Tika hujan turun
sayup mendayu lagu keroncong
merdu irama dialun

Hujan membasahi bumi
melahirkan keluhuran budi
mengeratkan paduan suci
kasih sayang abadi


Clouds overcast the sky
The gust of a cold breeze is felt
Drizzle drips everywhere
Like pearls

Blessings are brought together
It's gift overflows into the soul
Bliss is sometimes felt
In spite of the sadness of woes

When the rain falls
Faint rumbles(whispers) of a song
With Melodious rhymes bellowing

Rain wets the earth
Giving birth to noble deeds
Strengthening pure solidarity
An eternal love.

apologies if i've made any mistakes in the translations

Friday, August 14, 2009

Guess not

Nope. Still alive.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Last post(?)

so yeah.. i might be dying due to the H1N1. Watch this space for further developments. Or not, in which case im dead.

I guess some people finally got their wish huh?

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Book of the law/ Ouroboros

If you're still here after seeing all three videos, here's my opinion.

Do what thou wilt. I'm sure most of you live by that. But this Christian propaganda is not without its merits. At what point do we draw a line as to what is right and wrong? Hitler followed his heart and 6 million Jews and 2 million others died because one man wanted to do his own thing. From a personal view, for example, I find homosexual lifestyle distasteful and disagree with it, but I know many of you do not. I did my own thing by saying what I felt was right in my heart and I was condemned for it. So it is right then for you to do your own thing when other are also doing their own thing by telling you you cant do your own thing? If you say that you followed your heart, would it not also be correct to say that I followed mine as well? And by denying me my right to follow my own will, are you not being hypocritical? Is it fairer to say that you can do your own thing while what someone else does that offends you is not the right thing and that person shouldn't be doing it? On that, I believe that doing what thou wilt is utter bullshit. We live in a society that is extremely selfish and individualist. There is no altruism to allow for there to be anarchical communality. Nobody "does their own thing". That is why we have laws. Would it be more accurate to say that "I'm do as I will within the confines and parameters of the laws of the land"? Does that not go against the idea of doing as thou wilt? Listen to what Charles Manson said. Why then do you paint him a villain and a monster if you are all for "doing your own thing?"

Oh sure, you can tell me that you're not like Hitler, Charles Manson, Anton LeVay, Alister Crowley. They were all just psychos. Criminals. But they all did their own thing didn't they? I'm not arguing against free will. I'm arguing for the fact that most people who say that they want to and should be able to do their own thing are nothing but hypocrites. If I was a God fearing Christian, as it is stated in my MyKad, and if I was to say that lesbians are scum of the earth and sinners of the highest nature I'm sure that that would draw flak from almost every acquaintance that I know. Mind you, I'm saying IF. But then we come back to doing your own thing. Would not being a God fearing Christian and saying such derogatory and inflammatory statements be me doing my own thing? Why then should the above said hypothetical statements be considered wrong and derogatory and inflammatory? Its because we do in fact live in a society that hypocritically claims that it has free will but are just in denial of the fact that they want to be subjugated to laws as and when it suits their own individual advantage, i.e. laws that protect them from those who would follow their hearts by denying you what your hearts wants.Even then, the law is subject to men who do as they wilt and we all suffer because of it, as Iran and our own Malaysia can attest You see the vicious cycle developing here? Its a loop within a loop within a loop. At what point of the Ouroboros does the head meet the tail? The answer is that it does not, and we are all bound in this endless circle of right and wrong and the middle path that leads to nowhere. We are all hypocrites for believing that we are "good people"and that we can and shall do what we will.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Nuptial Congratulations/Death/A fat man's worldview

First off, I did like to congratulate Ms(or should that be Mrs. now?) Chompunatt Krenger on tying the knot with Mr Krenger. Your brother was kind enough to send some of the pictures and like I told him, you looked beautiful. Here's to having many many many years of marital bliss and happiness.

Death has not been kind. Not to the celebrities anyway. I mean, I realize that death is an everyday part of life. Just last week there was a funeral behind my house. And a dead dog that was repeated run over till it resembled something akin to tomato puree near my dad's house. And the 5 mosquitoes I just killed and impaled their heads upon little improvised pikes to scare away their kin before they take another bite from He who's Blood is Like a Nutmeg and Honey Donut with Chocolate Sprinklings , or in mosquitonese. EEeEEEEeeeeeeeeE. And the 50 ants I killed with Commercial insect spray. You get what I mean. Death happens. But only to us "normies". Its like every week there's a celebrity death. Ms. Fawcett, Mr Jackson, Ms Ahmad, Mr Robson, Mr Mays. The list goes on. And it was all in the space of one month. Methinks death has become bored of us normies and craves to be hispter death with above mentioned celebrities. Or maybe he's forming a football team, with Mr Bobby Robson as coach. Anyway, what Im trying to say is, death is stalking, paparazzi style, and its disconcerting. These people entertained us and will no longer now. Instead the guilty, the corrupt and the immoral are still as springy as a spring chicken and no doubt at this very moment making the world a lot more shittier for the rest of us normies. Disconcerting. Oh, and I suppose condolences to the family and acquaintances of the deceased mentioned above. You touched our lives briefly but you touched us nonetheless. Metaphorically.

So, I admit i read Michelle's blog off and on. And surprisingly, Im not angry or "emo" as she put it anymore. In fact Im happy that she's found some happiness and is getting on with her life rather well. I don't know if its sincerity or indifference. Or maybe a bit of both. I can't say. All i can say is that Im not angry anymore and our chapter has come to a close. She has been relegated(or elevated) to memory of which i sometimes recall and then smile and say, that is the past and promptly get distracted by a scantily glad girl sashaying her way across the street while I hum The Door's "hello I love you" in my head and stare, at which point said girl catches my stare and promptly walks away faster upon realizing that she received a stare from a potential contestant on The Biggest Loser Asia.

Speaking of which, I entertained the thought of entering said competition, mainly for the money, partly for the weight loss which will guarantee me a 110% increase in pussy getting. Pussy as in the derogatory term for a woman's vagina and not the Michael(the cat) kind. But upon sizing up( pun unintended) the competition, I felt that I would dismissed out of hand as someone who requires just a little bit more exercise to ensure hot tamale-esque physique. It also got me thinking that I should befriend some of the said competition to be used as a foil so that I would seem thinner in the group of the BMI challenged. Having established what a bastard I am to think of such a thought, I promptly wondered if my friends see me that way since they all aren't BMI challenged while I am bordering on said levels. I then despaired till i saw a girl in short shorts(or micro minies..whooo) and fishnets with a tube top(and looking good I might add) and all was well again. Yes, I seem to live or be at areas where hot people peruse and wander through, causing us normies to stare and have a sharp intake of breath and spontaneously burst into humming obscure dittys about hot girls. Or the playlist at zouk, whichever takes one's fancy first.

Great, now i can't get that door's song out of my head. Then again I just came back from a mamak which catered to the after clubbing hours crowd and I was humming the song for a good half an hour.