Monday, February 28, 2011

Music Monday: Eels

The Eels, or eels, or EELS… or however they choose to typeset their name this week, are a constantly rotating group of multi-instrumentalists centered on its founding and only constant member: Mark Oliver Everett, credited on most records as just simply E.

The band had a break-out hit in the 90s with “Novocaine for the Soul.” Their subsequent albums lacked any singles that received heavy radio play, but their work continued to be featured in dozens of films, including the first three Shrek movies and American Beauty.

The Eels were in the middle of a minor obscenity debate when their song, “It’s a Motherfucker” was claimed to be an example of liberals marketing obscenity-laced music to children by Dan Bartlett. The CD containing the song in question was given out for free at a Democratic Party political event and had cartoons drawn on the cover.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Saturday Reflection #18

In Soviet Russia, people rob bank. In Capitalist America, bank robs people.

Friday, February 25, 2011

WTF Moment of the Month

It’s been a while, but it finally happened. I couldn’t help but what-the-fuck this story. It encapsulates two of my favorite blogging topics: religion and politics. The title pretty much says it all: China tells living Buddhas to obtain permission before they reincarnate.

Now… I don’t even know how to approach this. If I come at it politically, it seems like, “Well, here’s a government trying to regulate something they have no business regulating,” but if I come at it religiously, I have to think, “Hmm, this makes about as much sense as those Southern municipalities that passed laws banning Satan from their town.”

I’m not sure how they’re going to enforce this. Well, I am, but I’m also not. What will happen is that when a Lama dies, the Chinese government will suppress any attempts by monks to seek out the reincarnated Buddha, but how they plan to do this (especially if they look outside of China) is beyond me.

If I was a Tibetan monk, I would just claim to have received permission from a reincarnated Chairman Mao.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

King Jamesians

One thing an atheist must understand if they wish to engage religious people in discussion is that there is no uniformity, despite how it is presented by the religious.

Often I see the argument, “X% of the world believes in God, why don’t you?” Usually X is some unusually high and inaccurate number, often over 90%.

In reality, only three broad forms of religion believe in “God,” a.k.a. YHWH, Jesus/The Father/The Holy Spirit, or Allah. What’s more, there is a great amount of inconsistency not only between these three groups (and Jews are so tiny as to be nearly insignificant), but also within.

While there is diversity within Islam, it can’t touch the shocking amount of division within Christianity. There are more Christian sects created within the last 200 years in America than there are different sects in Islam. When it comes to Christianity, you have to get the person to clearly define their beliefs, because saying “I’m Christian” is utterly ambiguous.

Outside of Catholics, those who venerate the King James Bible as the absolute and unquestioning word of God are one of the largest groups (especially in English-speaking nations like the US, Canada, Britain, and Australia). What is up with the KJV of the Bible?

To date, I have not personally met anyone else who has completely read the KJV from Genesis to Revelation, just me. I am sure I cannot be the only person, I just don’t hang out in the appropriate circles which would put me in contact with people who have. So, for those of you who haven’t… I can honestly say it was the most laborious and pained read I ever undertook.

To be fair, though, I was unable to even finish reading Atlas Shrugged. Can a Russian writer ever just get to the point in under 2000 pages? Honestly… how hard is it to tell the tale of an immature child who owns most of the toys getting fed up with his friends telling him he has to play fair, saying “Screw you guys, I’m leaving,” and going to play by himself?

There is nothing really special about the King James Bible. It is not a particularly accurate translation (though it is not remarkably inaccurate). The language is awkward and largely archaic, reading like a Shakespearean play (but without the compelling plot or scandalous intrigue). However, this is part of the appeal.

Many Protestant sects demand that their followers only read the KJV of the Bible, and I find it to be a blatant attempt to keep what is actually written in the Bible from being understood by the layperson. This is ironic, because this goes counter to the original intent of the translation: to provide an easily accessible English translation for people who are not versed in Latin. Centuries of lingual evolution has resulted in this late 16th/early 17th century language being inaccessible and obscure to the average English reader.

I have come to the firm belief that the KJV is favored by certain groups because it is so unwieldy to read. Just as Muslims demand that the Quran be read in Arabic, despite most Muslims having little (if any) real working knowledge of Arabic, a Christian minister demanding his followers only read the KJV can ensure ignorance among the congregation regarding what the Bible actually says.

One thing which I continually perplexes me when dealing with these King Jamesians is that some actually refuse to defer any Biblical authority to any non-KJV Bible… including the original Hebrew and Greek. Not all, but some Christians who adhere to the KJV as being the ultimate Word of God refuse to be engaged in any discussion of the original material.

If that weren’t strange enough, their understanding of the Bible as a historical document is also highly suspect. Those who view the KJV as the pinnacle of Christian theology are nearly all opposed to the Catholic Church… despite the fact that it was the Catholic Church (or what would become called “the Catholic Church”) which compiled the Bible from hundreds of available books. Centuries later, Luther decided to drop some books on a whim, and nearly all Protestants have decided to do the same… despite any evidence that doing so made any sense.

Saying “they are of the devil” seems to be good enough, and the world’s Protestants took the violently anti-Semitic 16th century German monk, Martin Luther, at his word…

The truth is, the compilation of the Bible (the New Testament in particular) was politically and theologically calculated, with extreme prejudice. The Bible was constructed from numerous available writings with the express goal of presenting a very specific ideology, at the exclusion of other texts, which ended up being largely destroyed in order to maintain uniformity.

Removing a few books and translating the texts into a now-obsolete English dialect is not an accomplishment worthy of being worshipped as a miracle by modern Protestants. I think it would be a miracle if a Christian ever actually read the Bible in its entirety and still believed it. There is some unbelievable bullshit in there… and I’m not even counting the talking ass. That part I find plausible; just look at Rush Limbaugh.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Discussion: Musical Hell

What music is being played in your own personal hell?

Blogs of Note #1

I don’t usually give shout outs, but I sometimes I read a blog for a while and I can’t help but think… “How the hell does this awesome blog not have anyone reading it?” Today, I want to highlight two blogs with single-digit readership which deserve a mention, one which is old and one which is new.

The first is “cryptonaut-in-exile,” an atheist blog that also has a fair among of interesting reposted news stories and political opinions. I usually get a kick out of reading this blog, and it’s updated several times a day, so there’s often something new to read there.

The other blog is a new one started by a relative of one of my many online nemeses (obviously not so villainous that I ignore his requests to check out his relative’s blog). I think we all remember how annoying it was to post something to your blog and know that nobody was going to read it (tell me about it… I had like hundreds of great, thoughtful, courteous, and serious posts before I realized you guys only came here to watch me make a fool of myself… but hey, if I’m laughing to, then you can’t be laughing at me… right?).

Check them out, and don’t let the fact that you hate me stop you.

Top Ten: Transvestite/Transgender Songs

10. The Killers – Somebody Told Me

9. David Bowie – Lady Stardust

8. Frank Zappa – Bobby Brown Goes Down

7. Queen – I Want To Break Free

6. The Beatles – Get Back

5. Aerosmith – Dude (Looks Like a Lady)

4. The Beatles – Polythene Pam

3. Blur – Girls and Boys

2. The Kinks – Lola

1. Lou Reed – Walk on the Wild Side

Monday, February 21, 2011

Music Monday: OK Go

I’ll be honest: I’m not sure I have ever really listened to the band “OK Go.” The truth is, I know nothing of their musicianship, what their albums sound like, or even much about the band themselves.

Instead, I know OK Go as performers. More than any musical group out there right now, I think OK Go is making a hard push to resurrect the lost art of the music video.

What’s more, of the amazing music videos I have seen them do, I can’t complain about the music. If anything, I see their sound as being the perfect sound track to these downright masterful pieces of visual art which have garnered millions of views on YouTube (which has supplanted MTV as the primary source for music videos).

I highly recommend you take the time at some point to put on a pair of headphones or crank of the speakers and watch these videos in full screen with a bag of popcorn. You will not be disappointed.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Saturday Reflection #17

We are shaped by our environment, and our control is limited by our ability to change what we are surrounded by.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Crumble Away

So much is going on, and I guess I should care. Egypt… meh. Wisconsin… meh. Obama’s budget… meh. It only takes a cursory glance to understand most of these (as much as they can be understood, anyway).

Egypt ousted a stagnant leader who was propped up by the pro-Israel West. I can’t pretend to know what will happen now, but I know it’s none of our fucking business. There’s a lot of talk about this, and I have to wonder… who the fuck are you to say anything? Are you Egyptian? If so, I would love your opinion. If not, move on.

Wisconsin is basically the same thing. Most of us knew that the real political movement (that of vibrant youths) has been a sleeping giant, kept comfortable and appeased with a multitude of high-tech distractions, but once you wake them from their dream of an affordable college education… well, let’s just say that it will be funny as hell watching you old, fat pieces of shits in suits being clubbed by kids in the streets. Can’t wait for that noise.

Obama’s budget couldn’t surprise me less, because the guy has basically been advised to be a “centrist,” which in America translates to: “stick the dick of the rich directly into your mouth.” Yeah, maybe they’ll like you now, Obama. Don’t forget to cup the balls.

Let’s see, what other stereotypical bullshitery is kicking around the old news cycle…

Sarah Palin complaining about something inane and harmless that Michelle Obama said… yawn.

Justin Bieber said some stuff, apparently. Frankly, I just want to die because I mentioned him. Moving on.

Oh, and today is (was, if I don’t get this posted before midnight) the 150th anniversary of the swearing in of Jefferson Davis as the president of the Slave States of America. Southerners will be celebrating the event all weekend, so expect a lot of inbred babies with FAS to be born in 9 months.

Bill Maher talked about this tonight, and I also don’t get it. Why celebrate 1) losing, or 2) slavery. There was literally no other actual cause for secession besides the fear that the newly elected (and hardly even sworn in) president Lincoln would… not end slavery, but slow the spread of it in new states.

So in a way, they didn’t leave to defend slavery, they left to spread slavery. It wasn’t enough for the South to own slaves in the South, they had to own them in the Great Plains and Western states. That was worth sending millions of men to their death, whose only crime was being dumb enough to think fighting and dying for your state’s “honor” was a worthy cause (and that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt).

Look, I have some German ancestry in me. I don’t go donning a brown jumpsuit with a red swastika arm band to commemorate my ancestors. I also have English ancestry, and it was revealed this week that the ancestors of England were cannibals (it’s nice to see their cooking hasn’t gotten any better in thousands of years). I’m not going to eat someone just to relive a cultural tradition. I’ve also got some Italian in me, and I’m not going to go make pasta and red sauce, then have a shouting fight with my wife… I did that yesterday.

My point is this: no one gives a shit where you come from. It means nothing. You could be of royal blood or the discarded orphan of a sailor and a club-footed whore named Co Co (that’s first and last name). None of that means jack squat compared to who you are, how you act, and what you make of the situations you’re given. Now, if you’re a Southerner, you can mope around, taking life at half-speed, get drunk at the bar, and cheer with your friends about how the South is going to rise again.

Or, you could take a look around, realize what a toilet of a place the South really is, and work on improving and modernizing it before you go worrying about taking on a larger, more educated, and wealthier place. America won the revolution because England was distracted at home and was an ocean away; underdogs don’t win in feuds between neighbors.

Bah, if your heart is set on fighting over something stupid, I’m not going to talk you out of it. If you already agree with me, then I’m just preaching to the choir. I guess what I mean to say is… we all seem very intent on big things, while the little things all around us continue to crumble away.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Cause and Affected

Not that long ago, I heard about Bill O’Reilly’s comments when speaking to an atheist regarding the tides. I also had the displeasure of bothering to sit through his rebuttal, where he then asks “who put the moon there?”

I was reminded of something I found out in high school while in a statistics class. We were asked to write a short survey and to analyze the results. I chose to ask people for basic demographic criteria like age and gender, and I chose to include religious affiliation. The real meat of the survey, however, was asking basic scientific questions. Two I remember in particular (because I wrote about them extensively due to their implications) were “Do men have more ribs, do women have more ribs, or do men and women have the same number of ribs?” and “What causes wind?”

The first is simple, it’s one of three choices. The second required a far more nuanced answer, though it wasn’t a test to find who had the right answer. The first does have a simple right or wrong dimension to it.

Among the religious, very few (including a medical doctor) got the first question correct. The religious did much better on the other question, though they still trailed non-believers and the two Buddhists I talked to.

The most interesting thing about the first question was that religious people were more apt to guess that women had more ribs than men, often owing to the story of the creation of woman in the second Genesis story. Plenty of atheists, non-believers, agnostics, and non-Christians in general got this wrong, too, but only about half (compared to something like 80% of Christians). What’s stranger is that non-Christians who got it wrong tended to say women had less ribs, many vocally reasoning that women might need one less rib in order to accommodate a baby.

This says something very meaningful: when confronted with an unknown, believers and non-believers approach things from very different perspectives. This seems obvious, but I think it bears an explicit mention.

We’ve come to wind, and what causes it. I actually had a small number (single digits, out of 50 people) literally respond “God.” I had a fair number of people say it’s caused by the ocean (some wind is indeed caused by the ocean) or large bodies of water (I lived in Indiana and was talking to people from Indiana, so we were familiar with lake-effect weather patterns). Some people said something having to do with air pressure (which is more of a result of wind than an initial cause, though pressure systems do have an effect on wind). I had roughly the same number of people joke with me about beans causing them to break wind as I had answer “God.”

Only a handful of people really boiled it down (bad pun intended) and simplified it to: the sun/heat. When it comes down to it, the sun’s energy is the catalyst for all weather on our planet. The conditions on a planet further affect how this heat is translated into environmental phenomena. Having a thick atmosphere will trap heat, like on Venus. Having a thin or escaping atmosphere causes cooler temperatures, like on Mars, while having no atmosphere causes extremely hot days and extremely cold nights (like on our moon).

A fair number of the non-Christians got some sort of answer that resembled “heat” or “the sun.” Many were able to explain the process of uneven heating of the planet’s surface, the role of ocean currents, and other general mechanics at work behind wind. The Christians (who were the overwhelming bulk of my 50 people queried, something like 38 or 39 were Christian of some kind) didn’t do so well. Some got it, most didn’t, and two told me about how their house was destroyed by a tornado, though they still didn’t understand what causes wind.

I have one question left: is this ignorance caused by religion, or is religion merely caused by this inherent ignorance?

What’s more, why do stupid people think that their ignorance is evidence for the existence of God?

Oh right, because they’re stupid.

Discussion: Socialism

Would you rather take a one week vacation anywhere of your choosing or let someone you never met get a medical operation to save their life?

[In reality, this is not actually the real choice... since people who do live in social democracies get more vacation time... but for the sake of argument... this is how I will phrase it.]

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Wednesday Word: Terminazi

Terminazi: a terminology nazi


a robot sent back in time to kill Anne Frank

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Top Ten: Quitters

10. JD Salinger – Writer of such high-school English class fodder as The Catcher in the Rye and Franny and Zooey, he lived a reclusive life and stopped writing in the 60’s, surfacing only to sue people for bringing attention to him or his work.

9. Sarah Palin – John McCain’s inexplicable presidential running mate in 2008, she quit her job as Governor of Alaska to pursue more lucrative punditry duties with Fox News (not to mention her need to distance herself from the backlash caused by her failed policies and corrupt practices).

8. Dave Chappelle – Under intense pressure from Comedy Central to continue doing his sketch comedy show, Chappelle reportedly cracked before moving to South Africa.

7. Newt Gingrich – After Republicans lost many seats in the House, Speaker Gingrich threw a public hissy fit and refused his seat (despite still maintaining a majority); also, it was revealed that Newt had been having an affair at the exact same time that he was heading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton.

6. Syd Barrett – This founding member of Pink Floyd left an indelible psychedelic mark on the band’s first albums, though his stint with the band was cut short when his mental illness and unreliability caused the band to slowly and deliberately distance themselves from him.

5. Richard Nixon – Everyone knows Nixon as the president who resigned in order to avoid impeachment, but he is also famous for his “fuck off” to California when he held his last press conference as governor of the state: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

4. Kurt Cobain – Cobain wanted everyone to know there wasn’t going to be a comeback, though he was milked for his creativity with releases over a decade after his death.

3. France – They gave us the very word “quitter” (and they even quit when pronouncing the whole word… how do you get “kee-tay” from that, honestly?).

2. Brett Favre – He was high in the running for the top spot, but ultimately quantity did not win out over quality, and it’s impossible to make him the king of quitters until he actually goes through with it.

1. Steven Slater – The story of the flight attendant who lost it when a passenger insulted him, resulting in his grabbing of a beer and sliding down the emergency escape chute of the airplane, has become a modern folk legend exemplifying the ultimate working-class fantasy (or at least the liberal, unarmed, harmless equivalent).

Monday, February 14, 2011

Music Monday: Better Than Ezra

What better way to resurrect my blog than with a band like Better Than Ezra. Forming in 1988 with an enigmatic and yet unexplained name, the band suffered an early setback when lead guitarist Joel Rundell killed himself in August of 1990.

The band took a few months off, but reunited before the end of 1990 and continued touring the South. In 1993, they released their first nationally available, after several cassette-only releases sold out of their van or to local record shops. This album ended up in the hands of music executives, who signed the band in 1995. Within a few months, they released another album and had top-charting single, “Good.”

Their success is described by bassist Tom Drummond as taking “seven years to get signed, and then seven months to get to #1.”


I tried, I failed. I wanted to completely redo blogging, start fresh and write a blog about myself and my actual life, using my real name and location, blah blah blah. I got bored half-way into writing a dozen different posts (all but one left unfinished), so I can’t even imagine how banal it would be for other people to read them. I would link you to the single post I did, but… I can’t in good conscious go against my wife’s wish to remain anonymous. Trust me, though, it’s bad.

At the same time, I want to change the name of this blog, and by extension change the URL. I feel like I’ve gone as far as I can with “Anything But Theist,” and yet I would only consider renaming it if I was to shell out the $20 bucks or so for a real www.[name].com address. I’m unemployed and haven’t bought anything for myself since I had a job last summer (besides food).

So, then I thought about putting a PayPal donation link on my site to get the money. But honestly, I would rather you give that money to a homeless person (even if they were just going to spend it on booze or drugs) than to me. I won’t tarnish my blog with advertising, and I think begging is best reserved for people actually in need.

I got some good fiction writing done, so at least something came out of my brief hiatus. I haven’t read most of your blogs yet, though I checked my blog and I must say… I had the same average traffic this week from posting nothing as I did the previous week of posting.

Well, I’m off to drop another Music Monday into the toilet, fish it out with a little goldfish net, and throw it into the fan of my blog to be splattered around the internet. Sorry to those who wasted time coming here to see no updates the past week… I feel like I owe you a slightly better quality week of posts before I settle back into my sub-par rut, but we’ll see if I can muster the necessary creativity.

Monday, February 7, 2011


While the thought had occurred to me before, it dawned on me today that I don’t like any of you and that blogging doesn’t make me happy. It’s not your fault, it’s mine for deciding to do it. So, I’ll be fucking off now, bye.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Saturday Reflection #16

When you say a lot of things tongue-in-cheek, you will have a tendency to bite your tongue.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Reflection on Infanticide

It’s tough to gauge the outcome of my last post, where I advocated (quite poorly) for infanticide. On one hand, I had 100 unique visitors for the day; on the other, I lost a follower. On one hand, it was argued horribly; on the other, it was to the point and opened the topic up to discussion.

Really, the article was meant to rile up a group that was largely silent. I don’t know if I’m already off the radar, or if it will just take time for the content to circulate into the hands of the kind of people I expected would react, but I got basically no conservative opposition. Instead, I got abortion advocates telling me how sacred the point of birth was (which was entertaining in a twisted sort of way).

So, as expected, I didn’t convert anyone to the pro-infanticide camp (a very lonely and creepy tent, by the way). I will be honest (and I don’t think anyone is surprised here), I did not think this one through very thoroughly. Shocking, I know. I will continue to ponder the nature of my modest proposal and perhaps work on making my case better in the future.

And before you think I’m a horrible person, just remember: your kids are safe around me. It’s my future children who had better watch it. “But Bret, how could you kill your own newborn child?” To which I have to reply… have you seen how flimsy babies are? It’s not very difficult at all. Also, it’s easier if you don’t name it until you’re sure you’re keeping it. Also, use object pronouns instead of personal ones in order dehumanize it.

I’m joking, of course. I wouldn’t hurt my own kids, because my wife and I take measures to ensure we only have kids when we want to have kids, and she’s in touch with her body enough to not accidentally get pregnant and go into labor like some kind of television reality freak show. [Though after this whole thing, she may be rethinking the kids plan…]

If you’re considering killing your kids, stop and think about it. Wouldn’t you rather they go through the foster system, being juggled between religious extremists and child molesters before growing up and going to prison? At least then they have a chance at happiness.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Infanticide vs. Abortion

I was recently called to task when I expressed my views in favor of infanticide. I’m not surprised; it’s easily my most controversial view, and the only person I’ve discussed it with is my wife. She disagrees with me, as I am sure most people do.

I would personally never kill a baby, but the fact of the matter is that most cultures have explicit evidence of infanticide as accepted practice. It’s not an off-the-wall idea. Ancients cultures did it, and since this is the reasoning for all Christian beliefs, those who oppose abortion are the ones who should most respect my reasoning for legalizing infanticide. We’re both traditionalists, just on different ends of the spectrum.

Legalizing infanticide is more clearly in line with our freedom and liberty based ownership culture. If you make something, you ought to be able to destroy it. “I brought you into this world, I can take you right out of it,” as my parents used to say. It’s not forced on anyone; no one is going to make you kill your baby. Unlike abortion, it does not limit options, it creates a new one, without infringing on anyone.

Except the baby, of course. But what is a baby? Do you remember being born? Do you remember turning 1? I would posit that we are our memory, that we were not who we are now when we were infants. In the parlance of Christianity, I don’t think the soul enters the human being until sometime between the ages of one and three. That’s my belief, and you cannot prove differently.

What interests me, however, is not that people oppose this notion. What I have noticed from exposing people to this view of mine is that I have never gotten as much hate mail. While I got a couple disagreements from liberally minded people on the infanticide issue, the true vitriol came from anti-abortionists.

Now, I have no way of knowing for sure (some of these people might in fact threaten my life for supporting abortion, but no one has before), but I have a feeling people take greater offense at infanticide than abortion. Why? Is it because maybe one is worse than the other? That a full born baby is in fact signficantly different than an unborn fetus, perhaps?

But this shouldn’t be. Anti-choice advocates think females are concubines who have no sovereignty over their own bodies. They think the government has a right to tell a woman what she can do with herself, all because removing what amounts to a smear of cells constitutes “murder.” These anti-abortionists are right now in Washington trying to redefine rape over this very issue, because they want more children of rapists and incest to be borne by women against their wills.

Anti-choice advocates are willing to stomp on the rights of women, and yet despite this… they seem to see the difference between killing a fully-born infant and aborting a fetus. And they seem to think infanticide is worse.

The irony is, what anti-choice advocates don’t realize is that a complete ban on abortion would cause infanticide to sky-rocket. Historically, Christianity and Judaism oppose abortion, which was possible through not only surgery in the ancient world, but with the use of herbs. When those who performed abortions were killed and tortured as “witches,” women could no longer abort a fetus… and infanticide through exposure became more common. Why? Because someone who is determined to not have a child will not keep it. It’s just like how allowing divorce decreases murder; if you can’t leave someone, you’ll find another way of getting rid of them.

Frankly, I don’t think legalizing infanticide would result in the death of many babies, or at least many more babies. It is estimated that 200 children are killed by their mothers every year in the US. When a child under five is killed, it is usually the parents who did it. It’s already happening, so don’t think that the laws are saving all the babies who grow up; most people survive their parents because their parents love them, not because of a decision made by politicians.

So, I’m curious what questions people have, because based on the response I have gotten, this seems to be an idea of mine that most people take issue with (with a distant second being my view on legalizing drugs, which we can discuss in tomorrow’s post). Does the idea of infanticide disgust you (as it does me)? Is it worse than abortion? Am I a heartless monster who wants to round up the elderly, disabled and Jews into camps for extermination?

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Wednesday Word: Billion-heir

Billion-heir: the most common occupation of the world’s wealthiest people

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Discussion: Era

If you could be born at any time up until yesterday (so, not including the future), when would you like to have been born and why?

Top Ten: Songs You Haven’t Heard Since the 90s

10. Right Said Fred – Too Sexy

9. Rednex – Cotton Eye Joe

Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe
Uploaded by djoik. - Watch more music videos, in HD!

8. Ace of Base – The Sign

7. Corner Shop – Brimful of Asha

6. Chumbawamba – Tubthumping

5. Tag Team – Whoomp There It Is

4. Ini Kamoze – Here Comes The Hotstepper

3. The Verve Pipe – The Freshmen

2. Trio – Da da da

1. The Spin Doctors – Two Princes
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...