A friend wanted to go see Kingdom of Heaven so we went Friday night. If you are thinking of seeing the movie, I’ll save you the trouble and the $6.50.

If Al Jazeera were to make a movie about the Crusades, this would be it – or theirs might be slightly less pro-Muslim. In this fine feature film, Europeans are barbaric, faithless, religious zealots with no morals, no honor, and no character – and the worst among them, the “men of God.” In contrast, the Muslims are fair, honorable, moral, and noble men of great character and insight.

The hero figure, Orlando Bloom, is a European blacksmith who goes on the Crusade to free his wife from hell, to receive forgiveness for murdering a priest, and to fulfill his oath to his father. Throughout the film, he makes certain the audience has heard him say God has abandoned him. Those whom God has not abandoned murder indiscriminately and some decide to convert to Islam saying they will repent later. Throughout the film, Muslims are hailed as noble men of great character and moral conviction.

I cannot believe I was stupid enough to pay $7.00 for a Hollywood rendering of the Crusades. In hindsight, it could be nothing other than what it is: a condemnation against the West and Christianity, and an unabashed endorsement for the religion of peace and moral absolutes.

If this review helped prevent your wasting $7.00 or more on a worthless movie, please contribute to the “Jeff spent his hard-earned money watching this movie so he could tell you not to make the same mistake” fund. Send contributions to Rancid Koolaid’s PayPal account.



I recently read an article saying tourism experts were expecting catastrophic consequences due to our heightened security concerns and policies following 9/11. It seems, due to more strict visa policies, some are being prevented from entry into the US and, in that prevention, are taking their money elsewhere

“Mr Dow stressed that tourism contributed to a positive perception of the US, which spread across to business. “If we don't address these issues in tourism, the long-term impact for American brands Coca-Cola, General Motors, McDonald's could be very damaging,” he said.
The plea echoed that of other industry trade organizations which say bureaucratic visa procedures and stringent security after the September 11 terrorist attacks have deterred business travelers and foreign students. “The idea has gotten out that we've pulled in the welcome mat,” said Rick Webster, the association's director of government affairs.”


O, no, the news is out: the US does not welcome terrorists.

So, if I am to understand the problem: we need to relax security policies so that those wishing to destroy our nation can get in with more ease? If we don’t allow the terrorists more access, the corporate images of Coca-Cola, GM, and McDonald’s may suffer? Greed is a terrible thing but seems to be our national hobby.

A friend of mine has recently informed me that the theory of evolution is dead – let us see if he can validate that claim emphatically.

Evolution is the theory that gene frequency changes over time.

The foundation of evolution is a principle Darwin called natural selection, of which the main component is differential reproductive success. Basically, all this means the following:

A given population will demonstrate stable allelic frequency over time provided the following criteria are met (Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium)
1. Infinite population size
2. Random mating
3. No migration
4. No mutation
5. No selection pressure

Obviously, this never occurs naturally; therefore, changes within the population are due to one or more of the listed factors intervening (this assumes sexual replication of a diploid organism.)

At the heart of differential reproductive success is competition. Differences within specific individuals of a population will impart advantages or disadvantages in specific circumstances – evolution is driven by the present environment.

The process functions as such – an example of Darwin’s finches: A certain population of finches occupies a specific niche within its native environment. At some point, one female finch hatches an offspring with a defective beak – much larger than the other finch’s beaks. At birth, this proves neither advantageous nor disadvantageous as the parents feed the offspring and beak size and/or shape is irrelevant – the bird only needs a hole into which the parents can drop food.

As our disfigured finch matures and eventually leaves the nest to feed on its own, it cannot effectively burrow into trees for insects; however, its larger beak is idea for cracking seeds. As none of the other finches within the population can crack seeds (it is not what their beak does best), our new finch finds and exploits a new niche within the finch population.

As his fellow finches compete for a scarce resource (bugs burrowed in trees), our little finch finds an abundant food source with virtually no competition. As such, this finch grows faster than the other finches and suffers none of the physical hardships due to scarcity and competition. This finch eventually breeds with another of its population and, due to the nature of genetics, produces offspring – some with the old beak shape and some with the new beak shape. As these finches grow, those with the larger beaks enjoy the same advantages as their larger-beaked parent (little competition, plentiful food supply) while their siblings compete for scarce insects.

Over time, the larger-beaked finches will differentiate from their previous population and will congregate into a new, discrete population. As time passes, the 2 populations will diverge in their normal population development and natural (and quantifiable) changes within the genetic composition of the populations will change to a degree that prevents individuals from one population from breeding with the parent population – a process called speciation.

This is a very simple, very narrow example of the process of evolution as dictated by change in gene frequency caused by differential reproductive success. Populations also experience changes in gene frequency due to the other factors listed above.


Exactly which part of this process, John, has been proven false and remanded to the dustbin of history?

1. Those who say material possessions cannot buy happiness have never seen my new television.

2. I cannot text message while driving - at least not very well.

3. The business world cannot be conquered through conference calls and worthless reports.

4. Hour-old double quarter-pounders with cheese (without pickles) taste like ass - but aren't as bad as hour-old, cold fries.

5. 36-inch Sony CRT televisions are much heavier than you'd think.

6. Bose speakers, when dropped from a height of 7 feet, will bounce once but not break.

7. You get what you pay for.

8. Nothing sounds quite like an AR-15 going off in an enclosed space - and few things are more fun than emptying a 30-round clip into a "hostage scenario" target in under 15 seconds and knowing that each round that went through the hostage would still have struck the guy holding her.

9. Restaurants with pick-up windows typically staff that position with the ugliest, stupidest person in their employment. This one baffles me, but I learned long ago that things could be true without my accepting or understanding them..


Things I expect to learn within the next 24 hours.

1. If South Park and Dave Chapel are just as funny in up-converted 16:9 big-screen as they were before.

2. If I can eat 2 Chick Filet sandwiches and 12 nuggets in less time than it takes Blade to kill 5 vampires.

3. If I, a corporate America stooge, can lose my job for watching too many movies when I should be working.

For the past few weeks, I've been reading the rants of a crazy woman online (last name Koolaid, imagine that) and she has some decent stuff. Recently, she posted this picture


And I gotta say I think I agree. The femi-nazi and her wussy friend are holding signs that say, "77% of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant." And unless I'm retarded, what that means is basically, men, because they will never be pregnant, should not possess opinions of a nature that attempt to control a woman's actions or unduly influence her opinions.

I agree with Miss Thing and her boy-toy and wish to take her thought process 2 small steps further toward a logical conclusion.

1. There are no women currently serving in combat arms roles in the United States Armed Forces. As such you ladies know exactly squat about war - so maybe you should let the pants decide whom we kill and whom we let live. Foreign policy is not your area of strength, matching socks and buying groceries should keep you busy, leave the war stuff to the guys.

2. Of the entire American female population, exactly 0% has held the office of the President of the United States. Due to your lack of actual first-hand knowledge of the goings-on of the Federal Government, perhaps you should - rather than disagree with the democratically elected President - get back in the kitchen and make me some dinner.


I agree with the fool in the picture, since I will never have a baby, I should not try to influence women - or men - to exert any manner of force over women's decisions in that regard. Likewise, the hippie-chick will never hold office, never fight for her country, never comprehend global economics, and never truly understand environmental issues, so she should probably butt out of those areas and many, many others.

You keep your focus on the baby machine, on your domestication duties, on looking pretty for all the boys, and on not shooting your mouth off - and we guys will run the nation, keep the economy going, allow you to enjoy the freedoms our blood has earned, and decide what peoples should be eliminated from the global gene pool.


I gotta say, the chick makes a great point: if it ain't your area of expertise, shut your suck and leave it to those who best can deal.


I guarantee I could kick that guy’s ass.

I just got this email from a local car dealer.

"I am writing regarding your internet inquiry for a .

I just tried to reach you by phone to verify your request.
I have a in stock, and I will be happy to answer any questions you have.

If xxx-xxx-xxxx is not the best number to reach you on please advise.

I will attempt to reach you again shortly.



I look forward to speaking with you,

John xxxxxxxx
BMW e-Commerce Team"


My response:

"John,


Nice form letter, Jackass. Next time, at least fill in the description.

And if you have a numbers-matching 1968 Shelby GT500 KR onhand, I'll take it; otherwise, never contact me again."