Kevin Benko

Random stuff from a chaotic mind

11 September 1857: Mountain Meadows Massacre

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.11

So, who knows, generally, what happened on 11 September 1857, 157 years ago?

The Mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, certainly know what happened their, because that slaughter of innocence was all about the Mormons.


The brief explanation is that there was a wagon train that had departed from Arkansas in April of 1857. It was referred to as the Baker-Fancher party that was emigrating to California. The wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and almost all of the party was slain, except for 17 children.

This  massacre was called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It has been estimated that 137 men, women, and children were killed on 11 September 1857, approximately 35 miles from Cedar City, Utah. Those 17 children, under the age of seven, that were not killed were left alive because they were sufficiently young because they were “too young to tell“. They were spared and taken in by Mormon families in Southern Utah. In 1859 those 17 children were reunited, by the Federal Government, with their extended families in Arkansas.


The Baker-Fancher party was very well outfitted with travelling carriages a large herd of 1,000 cattle and  oxen, and numerous horses. They had gone through Salt Lake City around 4 August 1857 to resupply. They had apparently gotten permission to rest in Southern Utah for several weeks to resupply and graze their cattle and oxen before continuing on their way to California.


But, for some reason, which I will explain, they decided to murder everyone in the wagon train. However, it wasn’t as simple as you might imagine, the Baker-Fancher party was well armed and well provisioned. A band of Mormon militia, under a flag of truce, had lured the disarmed members of the wagon train from their fortified encampment and accompanied by some Paiute Indians, or Mormons dressed as Paiute, had massacred them.

“The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands without a parallel amongst the crimes that stain the pages of American history. It was a crime committed without cause or justification of any kind to relieve it of its fearful character… When nearly exhausted from fatigue and thirst, [the men of the caravan] were approached by white men, with a flag of truce, and induced to surrender their arms, under the most solemn promises of protection. They were then murdered in cold blood.” William Bishop, Attorney to John D. Lee.


So, why the hell did the massacre occur?

Aside from the fact, that in my opinion, the Mormons are bat-shit-crazy. It was all about Joseph Smith and Missouri.

See, the Mormons had been persecuted since they had first formed a religion. However, in looking into Joseph Smith and his antics, the persecution of the Mormons was, in my opinion, entirely justified. Let’s face it, Joseph Smith was a con-artist, an asshole, and a dickhead to everyone that did not believe in his bullshit.

It was during the Missouri Mormon War that had caused all the problems. Apparently The Mormons were at war with the state of Missouri (I am dead serious). The story is that Joseph Smith had threatened Governor Boggs, and Governor Boggs had replied with that threat with Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order.

 “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description“.

Apparently, Boggs had taken the threat by Joseph Smith, reworded it and passed the executive order to apply to the Mormons. That executive order, written in 27 October 1838, was rescinded on 25 July 1976.

Now, there were some rumors that some members of the Baker-Fancher party were from Missouri. That’s it, the Mormons knew that Missouri is the state north of Arkansas, someone got their mind that maybe someone on that wagon train is from Missouri, so lets kill them all!

Yes, I am dead serious about this. This has got to be the stupidest reason in the world for a massacre. But, it is the Mormons, so go figure. And, yes, I really dislike the Mormons, as I had lived in Salt Lake City, Utah for FIVE YEARS!!!!!


In closing, I have referred to the included links, above with some additional source being:


Posted in Mormons, Mountain Meadows Massacre, religion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

My Problem With Atheism+ version 1

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.09

My Problem With Atheism+

Kevin Benko

Sep 9, 2014

Disclaimer: Note that I had a stroke three years ago, and it has taken me a great deal of time to write this post. And while this posting is partially about Atheism, it is also about feminism, thus, I have posted this on two separate blogs. Also, I have problems communicating (Aphasia), so if I have gotten confused in my writing this post, you may to look at it in the future if I have made any changes.

 I, like so many other people have a big problem with what is known as Atheism+, hereafter referred to as Not-Really-Atheism.

I will be talking with my particular problem with Not-Really-Atheism, while of the many other people have their own reasons for not liking Not-Really-Atheism, that is of no concern for me.

First of all, for those who have been living under a rock since the dreaded elevator-gate thing, let me discuss what happened with elevator-gate, and how Not-Really-Atheism was formed, in my opinion.

Rebecca Kay Watson, who you see a picture below acting like a slore at an Atheist conference with dollar bills being stuffed in her, insubstantial, cleavage. Now, when at an Atheist conference, a man asked him in the elevator if she would like a cup of coffee with him, she became outraged. She had claimed that “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.” However, in my opinion, the guy was just asking to have a cup of fucking coffee. Also, from her appearance, she is no prize, even without her attitude. She went onto say that she felt threatened by advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women.


Again, this was only because the other man had asked Watson if she wanted to have a cup of coffee with him.

Now shortly after that elevator-gate thing exploded, a movement started to grow within Atheism which had named itself Atheism+ , or Not-Really-Atheism. Jen McCreight started Not-Really-Atheism, a self described feminist and atheist. However, in my opinion, based on the official definition of Not-Really-Atheism, if we ignore all the extraneous nonsense, it is supposed to be some sort of “new Atheism” that is, essentially Atheism PLUS:

  • they care about social justice,
  • they support women’s rights,
  • they protest racism,
  • they fight homophobia and transphobia,
  • they use critical thinking and skepticism.

Now, I have three problem with this definition of Not-Really-Atheism.

First, Atheism is the null hypothesis concerning the existence of god. And that is all that it is, there are no other restriction, guidelines, or rules concerning Atheism. And, as far as I am concerned, all that other nonsense in Not-Really-Atheism is not only extraneous bullshit, it is also detracting Atheism as it has cause some conflicts between Atheism and Not-Really-Atheism.

Second, that last item has got to be a typo of some sort, because the last thing that Not-Really-Atheism proponents do is think critically or skeptically. First off, on “freethought blogs” they heavily censor their posts to the point where if you actively disagree with the Not-Really-Atheism party line, you will be booted from their forums. If you don’t believe that absolute fact, ask Thunderf00t, from youtube.

Not-Really-Atheism almost seems very cult-like. It is starting to behave like some sort of quasi-religious movement.

My third problem of the definition of Not-Really-Atheism is that it really is a part of the feminist movement. It looks like Atheist Feminism, to me. I kid you not. Some of the speakers in Not-Really-Atheism, Richard Cevantis Carrier, for example, have essentially admonished non-Not-Really-Atheism Atheists with some less than pleasant words. And those words were if they were coming from the feminist handbook. Following the announcement of Atheism Plus, fellow freethought blogger Dr. Richard Cevantis Carrier posted an article titled “New Atheism+ ” in which he expressed support for the idea and came forth with the view that anyone not immediately supporting (despite it still being quite unclear as to what it was) it were engaging in “douchery “.

So, in my opinion, Not-Really-Atheism is a parasite on proper Atheism, and it is sucking the life out of Atheism. In my opinion, there may be a war brewing as Atheism versus Feminism.

I think what the problem is that Not-Really-Atheism isn’t anything about Atheism. It is not about thinking critically and skeptically, it is about “social justice”, it is about feminism, but, and make no mistake, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

See, Atheists are supposed to have intellectual veracity, evidence, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and skepticism. Now there some people who do not deny that god exists, but that they do not like what god has to say. In my opinion, that is the heart of the matter. The Atheists that have a null hypothesis concerning the existence of god, versus the so-called Atheists who do not like god because he is a dick. That is where the divide between Atheism versus Not-Really-Atheism begun, and exists.

The Not-Really-Atheism is like choosing the faith that they want to hear. But it is not an acceptance of objective reality, but of agreement with the option that they agree with based upon emotions.

Atheism is a search for objective truth, weighs the evidence and finds evidence of of a deity lacking in veracity. Atheism is the acceptance of what is and the rejection of belief in those things that are not supported by evidence. And that is all Atheism is. Atheism is not by the appeal to consequences inherent of the religious community. Particularly with a rigid set of rules, society will collapse. Now while there are people who do need those rules, Atheists recognize that others are able to police their own actions. Atheism really doesn’t care about that at all, Atheism is only about a lack of evidence, and everything else is vacuous.

Atheism is not the appropriate place for people who dislike the constraints and requirements for religious dogma. Atheism is not a safe port in a storm for feminists, homosexuals, social justice warriors, those who have been oppressed by Christianity, Judaism, are Islam. Atheism is not for people who want to eat shellfish, eat bacon, have premarital sex, and it is not about preaching about belief systems that have oppressed people over human history. All of those things are appeals to consequences, and Atheists don’t, or shouldn’t, care about those types of issues.

Now, the consequence of Atheism are, in my opinion, better than the consequence of religion. And that is all concerning the arguments for or against Atheism and religion. It is like an argument against evolutionary psychology because it could be used to justify sexism. And that argument is all about emotion rather than rationality. That is a vacuous argument, and a real Atheist will, or should, say that.

So, all of those emotional appeals have no place within Atheism. Atheism is a commitment to the objective truth and reality, and nothing more. It has no room for emotional appeals of any sort at all.

Atheism is about objectivity and reality, not about consequences. Atheism is about facts, not feelings. Atheism is about evidence, not about the greater good.

Additionally, if compelling empirical evidence existed that theism created more just and prosperous societies that Atheism does, I would still be an Atheist. if compelling empirical evidence existed that Atheism was responsible for increased rates of poverty, crime, suffering, anti-social behavior, violence, war, improper grammar, bad hair, and STDs, I would still be an Atheist. If research into behavioral biology revealed that all the horrible things that had been done in the name of religion had been done in name only, that the flaw resided in human nature and not god, I would still be an Atheist.

Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god.

And any other reason to embrace Atheism is based on a logical fallacy. And the most popular fallacy is an appeal to consequences.

Unfortunately, this logical fallacy had opened the door when Watson, and her elevator-gate debacle happened, when McCreight created Not-Really-Atheism, and when proponents of Not-Really-Atheism, particularly Carrier, walked into Atheism with the realm of emotions. That was when Atheism was at risk from the feminists.

And the sad thing is that the Atheists opened that door willingly, and in my opinion, that door has never closed, and it may, possible, never be able to be closed. And the Not-Really-Atheism will always talk about how harmful religion is, rather than how irrational religion is. And that harm that religion has caused is not evidence of anything. And I think that Atheism has forgotten that simple fact ever since the Not-Really-Atheism has infested Atheism.

The fact that religion is cruel, harmful, and mean is of no consequence to Atheism. Because it is an irrelevant fact, because it is not based on objective facts. However, the cruel nature of religion has caused many people to embrace Atheism, and that appeal to emotions has allowed the Not-Really-Atheism to knock on the door. Ant the Atheists that opened the door has very probably ruined Atheism for a long time until someone, somehow, can manage to close that door on that emotional fallacy.

Make no mistake, Watson and McCreight did not embrace Atheism because of their skepticism. They didn’t embrace Atheism because of empirical evidence of god does not exist. Rather, they embraced Atheism because they do not like the way that god treats women, and their denying the existence of god means that, through Atheism, they do not have to put up with it. And, as a bonus, they can embrace Atheism and not have to get rid of their own ideological beliefs. And their entrance into Atheism, through Not-Really-Atheism, is just giving god the finger.

So, when the Not-Really-Atheism people came into the open door to Atheism, they let in all the people who do not think in a rational manner, rather, they let in a whole bunch of people who really do not understand Atheism at all. And now, there is a religious sect within Atheism, sad to say. And Not-Really-Atheism is still ruining Atheism, and while it may, hopefully, just scream and die, the damage is continuing today, as they try to destroy Atheism, burn it down, and salt the earth and replace it with Not-Really-Atheism.

And that Not-Really-Atheism sect is using the same tactics that the religious preachers use to keep their member in check, to police their own members: shunning, ostracism, othering, harassment, whispering campaigns, censorship, witch hunts, blacklists, vague feelings-based admonishments like “you just don’t get it”, accusations of sinfulness , or imputations of malice in reply to request for evidence.

Feminism is a belief system that does not care about how the real world operates, they don’t even, really, understand any position other than their own. It denies objective reality and an adherence to the unfalsifiable. Feminism does understand the facts of anything, as they are only concerned about how they feel about the thing. Subjectivity trumps objectivity, emotion trumps rationality, and belief trumps evidence.

And the Atheists have invited all that crap into their house, via Not-Really-Atheism, with open arms. Atheism, some of you, have asked for it! And now we are all stuck dealing with it.


File translated from TEX by TTH, version 4.05.
On 9 Sep 2014, 12:03.

Posted in Atheism, feminism, philosophy, reason | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

My Recent Battle With systemd

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.06

I have recently battled with systemd. Systemd is a new init system that has been introduced into the Testing branch of Debian (Linux). Now, prior to that, Debian was running under sysvinit until about 2-3 weeks ago. I had blindly installed it, then I had looked online about it, and it sounded somewhat grim.

For those who wish to look into systemd, I would suggest that you look at the following URLs:

Some of those links are good, but most of them are opposed to systemd.

Now, as I have had a stroke, I do not have the cognitive faculties to deal with anything too new to me. And for me, systemd is too new for me to evaluate. However, in my two to three weeks of dealing with systemd, I have noticed some unfortunate behaviors. When I restart my computer, it needs to perform a fsck and it tells me that I hardware system time is probably wrong. Now, I don’t know why that happened after I had upgraded to systemd, but I have noticed it, as I have 4 hard drives of 1-3 TB each, and it takes me a while, even under EXT4. And it pisses me off. In addition, I have noticed that the old commands I have been using forever have changed, and that pisses me off. and when the system reboots the load on my computer is pretty sizeable, around 9-12. YEAH. Really. And I have an AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor, and 11.74 Gb of memory. So it is not the fault of the computer, it handle anything except systemd.

Well, yesterday, after asking a question in the IRC and having been referred to a URL ( I tried to remove all of systemd and replace it with sysvinit. For the most part it was successful, however, I still have three packages that I cannot get rid of: libsystemd-id128-0, libsystemd-journal0, and libsystemd-login0. Now, I don’t know what these libraries are for, and it may need to be there, but unless I want to remove about 400+ packages and reinstall them, they are probably going to have to stay, for now.

So, while I have gotten rid of systemd, it did cause me some concern, but I think it was the best for me.




Posted in Debian, Linux, systemd | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

My Half-Sister Is A Psycopath

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.08.21

I kid you not, my half-sister, Leeann Dilliard Garton, is a legitimate, honestly, psychopath. I didn’t realize that in April 2013.

See, here was my situation in April of 2013:

I had had a stroke in September 2011, my cognitive faculties had taken a hit, and I was not able to take care of myself for about a year. My ex-wife divorced me in April 2013, and at that time, I was planning to move to Fargo, North Dakota. However, my ex-wife had tried to prevent me from living on my own, so she had talked with some of my relatives to see who would take me.

The deal between my ex-wife and my half-sister was that I would move to Schnecksville, Pennsylvania for a few years. My sister was supposed to provide me a room for two years, food, and a home for my cats. However, I didn’t last there for even four weeks. My half-sister told me to get out after three weeks.

So much for me staying there for two years. Now, I didn’t upset my half-sister in any way, shape, or form. I pretty well kept with myself and left everyone alone so as not to interfere with anyone else. But, yet, she threw me out for no reason which I understand. My half-sister fed me only one meal in those three weeks. This whole situation was entirely unfair to me. She was the one that had asked me to move into her house, she was the one who had agreed to let me live there for two years, she was the one who told me that she would feed me, she was the one who allowed me to drain my money in moving there and the Evil Bitch From Hell threw me out.

I had no other choice but to use my last resort, I moved into my Mothers house, and stayed there for six months until I got my SSI/disability.

So, while what I have said has no bearing on my claim of her being a psychopath. However, I had noticed some things about Leeann weren’t quite right. My mother had never referred my half-sister by her name, Leeann Dilliard Garton, but she always referred to her as The Evil Bitch From Hell, based at her actions that she had witnessed over the past twenty or thirty years. Actually, everyone that has known her for a few years starts calling her The Evil Bitch From Hell. While my stroke left me relatively unfazed, however, I had made some observations and had written them down in my notebook, and after poring over my list for several months, referring to the DSM, and speaking with people, I have come to the conclusion that my half-sister, Leeann Dilliard Garton, is a psychopath. Now, I do NOT say she is a sociopath, I do NOT say she is psychotic. I really mean that she is a fucking psychopath.

Now, I am approximately 1400 miles away, in Fargo, North Dakota. So, I think I am mostly safe. Additionally, I may have a stroke, but I am still dangerous when people push.



Posted in cats, counseling/therapy, disability, Divorce, ethics, freedom, legal, medical, mental health, morality, philosophy, psychopathy, rant, reason, stroke, values | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.07.26

Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists

John Hembling (JtO)

4 June 2011

 I had seen the below following posting only a few days ago, and I think that this particular text needs to be read by more people, thus I have slightly reformatted the text, but it is the words written by John Hembling, although I agree with all of it.


Where is the counter argument?


I’ve been an outspoken Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) for a few years now, and I’ve noticed that despite the overwhelming opposition to any argument for male rights, there are no substantive counter-arguments. No arguments whatsoever. Opponents of men’s rights have no trouble reciting false facts, debunked talking points, fabricated studies, and obvious lies in support of their religion of female victimhood and male villainy, but lies are not arguments. They’re just lies.


  •  1 in 4 women is raped, sexually assaulted, battered or abused – is a lie 1
  • The wage gap – is a lie 2 3
  • Women’s historical oppression – is a lie
  • Rape culture – is a lie 4 5
  • The inherent violence of masculinity – is a lie
  • The inherent goodness of femininity – is a lie
  • The idea that feminism is about equality – is a lie


By contrast, whenever I or any other MRA fields an argument in defense of men’s rights, or critical of feminism, it is never met with a counter argument. The arguments of MRAs are met with accusations, shaming language, insults, threats, blackmail, violence, censure, censorship, cooked up criminal charges, vandalism, imprisonment and other calumny.

My article critical of the institution of marriage was answered by feminists  accusing me of being gay,
… of being bitter, of having a small penis, or social ineptitude, of financial impotence, of living in my mother’s basement, of body odour, and of tenancies to hatred, violence, and pedophilia. Of those critical of my article, none actually addressed the substance of the argument made. None.

My article deconstructing the feminist goal of reversing the burden of proof in accusation of sexual assault was met by feminists who called me a rapist, a bigot, a woman beater, a loser, a violent criminal, and a sociopath. Not even one criticism addressed the substance of my article, and Jessica Valenti likely still wants women to be killed.

One of the first articles I wrote exploring the relationship between central banking and the funding stream of organized feminism was answered by a feminist on a different continent whose best rebuttal was to re-present each point of my argument – leaving out, and adding, key points to make them easy to refute in a straw-man attack – then to call me a stalker. A stalker on another continent.

In response to my arguments, I have been variously subject to shaming attacks, censorship, straw-man arguments, false accusations of violent crimes by people thousands of miles away, accusations of pedophilia, of rape, denounced as a psychopath, a serial killer, as maladjusted, as a loser, as a racist, and all manner of villainy. Almost none of my philosophical opponents have fielded anything approaching a substantive argument, or have addressed me with anything except lies and abuse, and a few threats of death too.

I won’t make any pious declarations of my own lack of violent, criminal or
deviant behavior. Why bother? I also will not shut up and go away. I will never shut up.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

What I will do for my loudest and most amoral critics is to offer a few suggestions:

  • Admit that your position is unethical, and that you are purely self centered
    and devoid of anything like an ethical compass

  • Admit that your continued insistence on women’s eternal victimhood is designed
    to take adult agency away from the members of the sexual demographic you
    supposedly care so much about

  • Admit that you want to force women’s and men’s behavior into a mode of compliant
    service to your own greed and sadism

  • Admit thatyourethicis built on lies and violence
  • Admit to yourself that even though you lack the muscle and the courage to commit
    violence yourself, your philosophy depends absolutely on violence done by others
    on your behalf

  • Admit that those who do violence on your behalf, when they have scrubbed the
    field of anyone who dares to disagree – those enforcers will turn on you

  • Recognize that whenyourpoliticalwillhas been imposed by force on everybody around you, you will discoverthatyouare locked into a tiny cage as well
You see, I recognize that in spite of my optimism and my repeated attempts to open dialog or discussion with the ideological opponents of the men’s rights movement – there will be no civilized discourse between us. The reason is that feminism’s active proponents have no interest in truth, nor in justice, nor in human rights, nor in protecting anyone from harm, least of all women.


Despite a nearly omnipresent narrative of “protecting women” mainstream feminism is a sham which depends on escalating social carnage to maintain a control on public conscience and to secure streams of funding.

I recognize that the opponents of the men’s rights movement are organized,

…violent, hateful bigots, and the only reason you cannot be correctly called criminals is that your ideology now controls the courts, and thus the definition of what it means to be a criminal.
I also recognize that soon, individuals doing nothing more corrosive than simply speaking out, will soon be named criminal.

A man I held in high esteem recently died, and I will repeat a statement of his now. “When your conscience says the law is immoral, don’t follow it.”

Past and present efforts to silence, shame, marginalize, and subvert the efforts of men’s rights activists demonstrate that what we are saying about our opponents, the enemies of human rights, is not exaggeration, or conspiracy theory, instead it is understatement.

I’ll restate what I said earlier.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

The fact that shutting me up, and shutting up other MRAs is a major goal is illustrative of just what we oppose. The truth does not require state funded enforcers. Now, in addition to not shutting up, and in light of my, and other’s increased understanding of just who and what you are who oppose the men’s movement – namely that you are violent, lying hypocrites lacking interest in truth, and consumed with a self serving philosophy which relies on escalating harm to those you pretend to protect. I don’t mind telling you, I am no longer here to debate, or to reason, or to converse, or to hope you may be reached by logic or evidence.

I am here to fuck your shit up. And in that, I am not alone. Now I don’t mean to stoop to the use of lies or violence. You are practiced at those tactics, and frankly, I don’t need them.
You may also wonder, what can a few disgruntled MRAs do that you should be concerned about? And to that, I can only say – watch, and learn.






File translated from
version 4.03.
On 26 Jul 2014, 13:37.

Posted in Men's Rights | 1 Comment »

Thinking About LaNeige

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.05.19

As I had previously blogged, on 23 of April 2013, I had put LaNeige to sleep, as he was diagnosed with liver cancer. I am also thinking about Mister Fluffy, who is nineteen years old, and he will probably be dying soon. However, Mister fluffy is still relatively happy, alert, and aware, but he is an ancient cat, and he will die in the near future.

Unlike LaNeige, whom I had let live too long and was in pain for about 3-4 months, I know better now, and I am almost always checking on him to make certain that he is not in pain. So im almost always checking on him to make sure he still breathing and not feeling any pain. I only wish that I had been kind enough to put LaNeige asleep when I had first recognized that he was in pain.

Now, I have a surgery that I need to have, but I cannot have the surgery until Mister Fluffy is still alive, since he is so old that when it is time to die, it will be, hopefully, quick, and I cannot ask anyone to check on Mister Fluffy when I go into  surgery, since Mister Fluffy really doesn’t get along with other cats, nor other people.

On a positive note, my impending surgery doesn’t really need to happen any time soon, since I have been needing the surgery for approximately nine years, so a few more years isn’t going to do anything I haven’t dealt with for nine years already.

So, I check on Mister Fluffy far to often to check and see if he is feeling pain, and he doesn’t seem to feel pain yet. But I think that Mister Fluffy is a bit irritated with me looking hard at him several times a day to see that he is still OK.


Posted in cats, ethics, morality | Leave a Comment »

Bagels: You Are Probably Doing It Wrong

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.05.12

Once upon a time, a bagel was generally made in a particular way, until bagels became more prevalent. Then they stared to make bagels the wrong way.

The wrong way to make a bagel:
A bagel is cut in half, lengthwise and the bagel is toasted. That’s it, it has, essentially, been delegated to being a piece of fucking toast. In my opinion, this is the incorrect way of preparing a bagel. It is a quick and nasty way of making bagels.

The right way to make a bagel:
You are supposed to heat an oven to approximately 350 degrees Fahrenheit and throw it in the oven for approximately twelve minutes, cut the bagel lengthwise, add either butter, cream cheese, or cream cheese and lox (cured and cold smoked salmon). The end result is chewy/doughy inside and crusty on the outside. Any other way is WRONG!


Posted in food | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Do We Need A Higher Minimum Wage

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.04.24

It has been, on many occasions, that we need to raise the minimum wage. Again. To be honest, I don’t buy it. In my opinion and in my experience, we certainly do not need a higher minimum wage. Additionally, I believe that we should just entirely do away with any form of a minimum wage.

I sat down with a spread sheet, and it entirely possible for me to live on a minimum wage. Now, you certainly cannot live in, for example, Manhattan. And you would need to live somewhere that is more easily affordable. You may need to move a moderate distance, but you can find a place that you can afford. I live in Fargo, North Dakota; and, yes, it is somewhat difficult with the cold, but after having paid for heating in Fargo, I know that I can do it, and so can you.

You will certainly not be able to buy a house, but under the current minimum wage, you can survive. And you are planning on getting a better job, aren’t you? And maybe, eventually you can have that house once your job prospects improve.

See, it seems to me that people spend more money than they need to, and that is why these people are claiming that the minimum wage is not enough. This is because they want stuff that they cannot afford. Seriously, how much things do you really need.

People tend to eat-out more frequently. What’s up with that? People, you do not to eat-out every day, once a week, or even once a month. You do not need to eat-out at all! So pull your head’s out your asses and just eat at home, and take a lunch from home.

You really do not need a cellular phone, or even a computer. If you really need a computer, you can use your public library. So just suck it up and stop complaining that your minimum wage job sucks. Use the library or the local job service and get a resume, and get a better job, dammit. No is no rule that says you need to work the temporary job forever. And be aware that a minimum wage job is, by definition, a temporary job.

However, in my opinion, the minimum wage is not a good idea. If there is a minimum wage, the some people will not be hired by anyone. Let’s face it, some people are really not worth it, and under a minimum wage, since they cannot justify the slacker who is, shall we say, less than optimal, hiring, they just don’t hire the slacker, she doesn’t get a job offer. So, would you hire someone less than, say, $2 less than minimum wage, or don’t hire the woman at all?

Additionally, when the minimum wage is raised, the only affect is that people will be fired. So, that’s the choice, if there is a minimum wage and it is raised, people get fired. And, if there is a minimum wage to begin with, you will just not be hired. Period.

It’s your choice!


Posted in economics, employment, free market | Leave a Comment »

Who Decided That Health Care Is A Right?

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.04.13

In my opinion, in no way, shape, or form, does anyone have health care as a right.

Let us first examine what a right is. A right is a sanction for an individual to perform, or not perform, an action such that everyone enjoys that action, no one is denied that action, and no one is coerced to perform the action.

For example, the right to bear arms is such a right so long as no one is required to provide the arms.

The freedom of due process is another such right, if we are accused of a crime, the cops must go through a particular process in order to charge the crime, the cops are not permitted to just call an action a crime until and unless they go through that particular process.

Another right we have is the freedom to say what we will, now, there is nothing to prevent us from shouting FIRE in crowded movie theater, but if choose to do it, we must face the effects. If, for example we shout FIRE in a room full of deaf people, no harm no foul. Really.

In the case of Health Care, someone must provide it. The fact that someone is coerced into providing health care clearly makes Health Care NOT A RIGHT. Since every person may chose what they do for their life  this does not, and cannot, force anyone to treat a patient that they choose not to. To do otherwise is an act of slavery. In the name of health care, you you really want slavery?

Sure, doctors get paid a bunch of money. But they also pay a bunch of money to become a doctor. Do you realize the financial cost of becoming a doctor, in addition to the time spent in medical school, and years AFTER becoming a doctor by slaving away in a hospital. And for what, the people think that health care is a right have cheapened the profession into becoming indentured servitude.

What the fuck is up with that?

Of all those people who are under the delusion that health care is a right, can you pay for and do the work for a single semester of medical school?

We should let doctors do what they will, enjoy the freedom for what they have. When going to a doctor, I want someone that is doing it of their own volition. Someone that wants to treat me of their own free will.


Posted in ethics, free market, freedom, health, medical | 1 Comment »

How And When I Took The Red Pill.

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.03.18

As an aside, I had been thinking about god and Atheism for approximately three years before I had decided that I was an Atheist. Compare and contrast that it had taken me approximately ten years to realize that I had “taken the red pill“.

It had started in approximately 2003, my wife at the time was yelling at me, again, and she had struck me. Actually, after she had hit me the first time, I had provoked her into slapping me several times. At that first time, I had not responded beyond provoking me into slapping me again and again.


I do not recall how and why she had stopped slapping me, it was probably at the frustration she was feeling because I had continued to ask for it again and again. At that point, I decided that our marriage was going to end.

Periodically, I had attempted to discuss the issue, although I never brought up the fact that she had struck me. For me, that was not as important as to why she struck me. I had told her on those occasions that she had never taken me seriously. Because, in my mind, her striking me was an indication that she never taken me seriously.

And every time I had accused her of not taking her seriously, that started a fight. Always. Even though I had “started” the fight by saying, “I don’t think you take me seriously”. That was it, when I said those exact words, I knew that it would rapidly degenerate into a fight. And I still have no idea why. And when my wife asked me what was wrong, and why were not getting along, I would, yet again, say that “I don’t think you take me seriously” and we would rapidly degenerate into a fight

I eventually stopped even starting that fight anymore. And I would not talk about it ever again. I had spent too much time into starting that old fight, and I had just eaten my confusion, I had eaten my anger, and I swallowed my rage, buried inside of me. And since I am a man, I knew that with a divorce was a death sentence for me, so I stayed married and I just dealt with it.

Then I had a stroke in 2011.

I have a blood clotting disorder. One part of my clotting cascade is missing, and another factor of my clotting cascade is over-compensating. I was already om Warfarin, but they needed to increase it to prevent another stroke.

Actually, my stroke was simultaneously a bad thing and a good thing.

It was negative in that I am barely functional, while my memory took a huge ht, because I was intelligent to begin with, my end result is that I still have much of my memory. And my “executive functions” aren’t functioning. The executive functions, (aka cognitive control and supervisory attentional system) generally controls the management of cognitive processes, working memory, reasoning, task flexibility, and problem solving. Essention, my internal manager that looks over these thing isn’t working worth a damn.

On the plus side, my wife divorced me and she knew that if it came down to money, she would be supporting me for the rest of my life.

Now, as I unable to work, due to my cognitive disability, and since my right hand is not working as well as t could, I am on SSI/Disability. And even though it is a pittance, I would be getting, and keeping, more than I would if I had a standard divorce. So, as far as I am concerned, I have a very thin PLUS on my ledger.

See, all women are, essentially, Evil. The whole NAWAL (Not All Women Are Like That) is a load of crap. Women can play a role for years, they can act all nice and stuff and they can change slowly over the years, trying to change Men very slowly, as Women try to assert there true nature. It has been said that a woman changes and tries to change her man, but a man remains the same and tries to keep his women the same. Perhaps the truth of the matter between men and women is that the women plays a role for several years, and then she reasserts her true nature, while a man remains the same.

This, I think, is the problem. And, thus, I have finally, after ten years, taken the red pill.

Posted in Divorce, Red Pill | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: