Similarly Inclined

I've been reading this terrific book by Michael Shermer called "The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Affect our Economic Minds" (Times Books, 2007). It is no surpise that I find this and his other books compelling because a) like Shermer I'm a skeptic who seeks scientific explanations for events and b) Shermer advocates for free market economics for a variety of social and moral reasons. This falls squarely into the category of "preaching to the choir" as I am an atheist libertarian like Michael Shermer himself. Both of us have been persuaded by the same arguments regarding philosophy and ethics and we share a similar perspective of how the world does and can operate. I am aware that there are equally learned and brilliant people who criticize Shermer and his philosophies but I have yet to read or hear any messages that I find to be more persuasive than those that he espouses. Since I have drastically changed my mind about these subjects before (remember, I used to be a socialist Christian) I always like to leave open the possibility that I may, and most likely will, alter my beliefs about the world.

So here's my question: what's so hard about taking the perspective that a person may be wrong about things and that it's just part of being a human? All the time I see conservatives deriding liberals as being mentally disabled and stupid and I see liberals calling conservatives hateful and ignorant. Maybe it's because of my libertarian bent that I take issue with this because I tend to support economic conservatism and am therefore lumped together anti-abortion, pro-religion zealots. Perhaps it's because I think people should be able to choose what they put in their bodies, be it drugs, fast food or cocks, that I'm considered a morally permissive sinner bound for Hell. I have no idea what the best choices for you are. I certainly don't think that corporations or the government know what is best for you. I do think that we as individuals are more than capable of making relatively good decisions for ourselves and the more autonomy we are given the better off we are. At least I am until I am given sound reasoning to think otherwise.

I know I've written about this before but I'm just fucking tired of name-calling. I'm particularly tired of people thinking they have a moral upper hand because of their beliefs. I shouldn't be surprised about this because in "The Mind of the Market" Shermer discusses studies recently conducted in which people were asked to rank their virtue in comparison of others, including their friends in which they consistently ranked themselves as being more moral and compassionate than others. There are a number of reasons for this but it ultimately comes down to humans' irrational ability to justify their own actions, right or wrong. Having been associated with both religious and non-religious groups I can tell you that no one has a monopoly on self-righteousness. I think atheist libertarianism offers the best, most constructive worldview currently available but that doesn't make me a better person by any measure.

Give Obama a Break

About 16 months ago I published a blog regarding a report that stated that President Obama made more biblical and Jesus references in a year than President Bush did during his entire presidency. If you go back and look at the comments you'll see that a lot of my friends, mostly self-identified liberals, argued that Obama was using religion as a way of reaching out to a part of the electorate and that he didn't really believe in Christianity. In private conversations some even argued that he probably didn't even believe in god.

Conservatives call Obama a Muslim and liberals are calling him an atheist. To me what this boils down to is that they all are calling him a liar and some are okay with it and some aren't. Either way they both argue that he's lying to get votes.

A couple of weeks ago this article came out about the Obamas finding a church home: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html

So he and his family are Christians. Please stop calling the guy a liar. If he were really Muslim he would believe that deception is wrong and wouldn't go to church. If he were really an atheist he would see through the bullshit of religion and would either criticize it or use a different method of arguing his point.

Again, Obama is a fucking Christian. Period. He espouses Christian beliefs. I disagree with a lot of President Obama's ideas including but not limited to his belief in God but I'm not calling the guy a fucking liar. Personally I think his politics are heavily influenced by Christianity and that may be one reason why I disagree with him but I don't think the guy is lying about something as important as his religious beliefs. He is a goddamn, motherfucking Christian. Stop saying he's a liar.

Good Ol' Fashioned Hatefulness

Dear Overtly Hatemongering Asshole:

People are going to disagree with you so you should learn to accept it. You don't have to like the person and you certainly should be adamantly opposed to her or his ideas if you find them to be illogical or unsubstantiated but as a citizen of a free country you must accept that there will be differences of opinions. Even a person who believes the same things as yourself will interpret it and represent it in a different fashion than you simply because her or his life experiences, neurology, genetics, and choices are different.

If you are like myself then you believe in the free market of ideas. I don't want to silence those that disagree with me because I feel strongly that my beliefs are supported by rational argumentation and that the person who posits an opposing view will, in the long run, be proven either right or wrong. Germ theory wasn't immediately accepted but as it stood up to repeated testing and scrutiny it eventually became the accepted explanation of disease transmission. Freedom of speech is essential to the liberation of thought and the advancement of society. I may think that much of FOX News is propaganda for their agenda. But I also think that when a person calls for their "satanic death" like John Cusack has recently it shows a lack of confidence in the logic behind his or her arguments.

But what it also demonstrates to me is that some people are hate mongers. It used to be that when a person was a hate monger you expected that individual to be wearing white robes and burning crosses. From the extremists on the right I hear is how Barack Obama is a simultaneously a communist and a fascist (which is like being fire and water) and that they want him dead. From the left I hear people openly hoping that something awful befalls the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Yes, many of their ideas are wrong. Yes, they have made personal life choices that you or I would not make. But they are still human fucking beings. Palin isn't chopping up homosexuals with chainsaws. Obama isn't blasting bankers with a tank. Beck's politics may be influenced by a fraudulent religion but he isn't financially defrauding people. They all endorse ideas and policies that may be harmful for society but they aren't bad people. Say you hate their ideas. Call them assholes. But being an asshole is not immoral and it doesn't mean that wishing a person harm is justified.

Personally, I have no room for this in my life. I am war with ideas not people. If a person wants to place position themselves on the side that advocates or wishes physical harm to come to another person for expressing ideas then I do not want you to be my friend. If you cannot be civil don't be in my life. A grown up doesn't want Glenn Beck to die. A grown up tries to find the most compelling argument and lets the free market of ideas to take over.

What I was thinking while the guy on the other end of the line was blowing a gasket...

I got super pissed off yesterday when I was listening to NPR and they started talking about public policy and obesity. According to NPR and the federal government I'm borderline obese because if I add 2 pounds to my body, whether it be derived from fat or muscle is irrelevant, I become obese. They also said it wasn't my fault but probably the environment I live in so somebody, and since they said public policy and Federal government I suspect it means that they need to change the world around me instead of me changing my behavior. What it boils down to is the government wants to be god. Well, Uncle Sam, I'm a motherfucking atheist and I don't have, don't need and don't want a master in the fucking sky.

It's not that I don't believe in a space Santa raining us with blessings. It's that I don't believe anything in the universe or the universe itself gives a shit about any of us. This isn't a benevolent cosmos. It's an indifferent cosmos. If it has anything to offer it is nothing but emptiness and, as we humans seem to understand, pure fucking misery. And the only reason we have anything that appears to be good in this world is because humans are fucking good, fucking animals and when we aren't busy doing things for ourselves we're usually doing it for somebody else. So catch this fly ball: we humans don't deserve shit. Not from our family, not from our friends, not from our peers, not from any fucking body or any fucking institution. I hate it when people demand that the government try to fix everything like A) they've been blessed with some knowledge on what life for individuals or society is supposed to be like and B) they have the fucking right to do it. The improvement of this world, the so-called bettering of our society is achieved by letting humans just be what they are: good. And if they aren't good, if they tear apart everything, they destroy everything, they exploit everything, they devour and destroy the entire planet and every living thing on it they still aren't being bad. They are just following in what appears to be a teensy weensy itsy bitsy part of this impending thing that looms billions of years in our future called the Big Rip.

So in conclusion, if you don't think people are good then you can go fuck yourself. Stop being such a fucking asshole and realize that these people sitting around are just as self-centered as you are and have their own shit to deal with.

The New Face of Free Speech

What the fuck just happened? Did I get sucked into the Twilight Zone?

When I was in high school I remember there being two highly controversial news stories surrounding freedom of speech: the National Endowment of the Arts funding a traveling art exhibit which included the works of Robert Mapplethorpe (which offended the conservative right) and Ice T's rock group Body Count releasing the song "Cop Killer" (which offended just about everyone). There were some other hot issues in there too like "Piss Christ" and the advent of shock jocks but these two stories always seemed to be mentioned whenever the subject of freedom of speech came up.

Maybe it was the post-Reagan bliss that a lot of burgeoning young liberals were experiencing but at the time I remember it being people on the left defending this controversial speech. Warner Bros. was lambasted as sell-outs for taking "Cop Killer" off the market and the liberals cheered when Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati was prosecuted for "pandering obscenity" for showing Mapplethorpe's art and found not guilty. Conservatives (like Tipper fucking Gore) helped to organize things like PMRC and worked to demonize public funding of the arts. It seemed like if you were a liberal then you were a proponent for free speech.

Flash forward to today. A couple of days ago I saw an editorial (I don't know what else to call it since there was only one person being interviewed about the 'news story') on CNN about how the words of conservative talk show hosts are hate mongers saying things which can incite violence from the right and that she questions the constitutionality of their diatribes. She may be right that some of them are hate-mongers and she may even be right that some are calling for violence even though no specific examples were given. But if they are how is that different from the ultraviolent lyrics of "Fuck Tha Police?" The last time I checked "There will be a sea of cops dying in LA" wasn't meant as an olive branch.

Or what about words that the left use to justify violence? Should the actions of the Animal Liberation Front nullify the words of "The Sexual Politics of Meat?" Or does the Unabomber's violence mean that one cannot criticize industrialization? Thomas Jefferson openly called upon violent rebellion when he said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Yes, it is ugly, unruly speech but I cannot fathom anyone who supports the words of the First Amendment wanting to place limits upon it's protections. Well, that is unless it's The New York Times:

"The court has already heard arguments in a challenge to a federal law barring material support to terrorists, which prohibits some kinds of speech in support of controversial causes. We hope it narrows the statute’s scope, carefully sorting through what kinds of assistance are protected speech, and what are the sorts of aid the government can properly prohibit."
"The Court and Free Speech," April 23, 2010
(emphasis added)

How about none? What if there is no speech the government can "properly" prohibit?

But what's crazier to me is how conservatives now position themselves as the defenders of free speech. They aren't actually going to do anything about it like dismantle the powers of the FCC but they will be glad to sing the praises of anyone making anti-Islamic statements (but not necessarily anti-religion) or anti-gay commentary. Maybe they actually do support freedom of speech but it just seems far too convenient that these ideologically charged issues would be the ones they cite. It remains to be seen if they are such fervent supporters of civil liberties that they will push to do away with speech codes on public school and university campuses.

Whether you're a conservative, a liberal, or something else you owe it to yourself and your beliefs to support unhindered freedom of speech. Don't get bullied into thinking that your thoughts and voice are criminal even if some other person's actions are. If you advocate for the silence of your opponents now know that your words will be on the chopping block within a generation.

Oh, by the way, I'd really like to say that I want to shoot a gurgling load of my jizz down Tipper Gore's throat but I'm afraid that it may contribute to global warming so I'll refrain.

A Few Words on Art

During a weekend visit by my friend Shane we had the most wonderful opportunity to talk for hours about a variety of topics and I'd like to thank him for the inspiration of this blog.

Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.

In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.

On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.

But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.

A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.

Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.

So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.

I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?

I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.

Reform the Care of Your Health

Barring the complete loss of mental faculties of President Obama or a decision by the Supreme Court that reverses the course of health care reform it's pretty safe to say that the health care package passed by the House of Representatives will become the new game in town. It's a time of rejoicing for some and denouncement for others. For some close to me they know that during the time of debate (which will continue into perpetuity I'm sure) that I have expressed my own skepticism regarding the nature and effectiveness of proposals placed before us. I have had doubts regarding the economic feasibility of such a potentially expensive package and have questioned whether the rights and responsibilities of individuals was placed in high enough regard in the minds of those crafting the bill. Given the success of the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and Terror it's not unreasonable to have misgivings about the United States' government capability to deliver all of their health care promises and simultaneously reduce the deficit through taxation on potential GDP.

To tell you the truth, I hope I'm wrong. Due to pure stubbornness I'm sure that there are some who want this to fail miserably but I personally have no roosters in this cock fight. My ego will not be shattered if everything works out wonderfully. I would love it America becomes a healthier, more industrious nation without a single person sacrificing an iota of his or her freedom. Some people far more intelligent than myself, or at least far more politically connected than myself, seem to think so. Of course more intelligent people than myself bought into the idea that American soldiers "will be greeted as liberators" in Iraq and that Endangered Species Act would prevent species from going extinct but I digress. And regardless of whether it's the most economically, philosophically, and morally sound approach that the government could take I will always be optimistic about my ability and the ability of humans in general to overcome obstacles and make the most of a given situation. I'm not losing sleep because I think that human progress has come to a halt. This may be naive of me to say but I'd like to think that if it proves to be ineffective that maybe we can try a different approach in the future.

So if I feel so good about things, why am I even bothering to write a blog about this hugely divisive issue after the fact? Because now that we have an idea of what our political future is like we need to look at what our own personal futures will be like. This may be an unwelcome comment but I think some (which is a loaded term in and of itself) proponents of Democratic-led healthcare were, well, dicks. We know that a lot of Republicans were dicks with their whole death-panel/Obama-is-more-dangerous-than-Hitler rhetoric so that's been addressed. But no matter what your political ideology is you have to agree that any argument with integrity must be accompanied by culpability. First, some context.

See, I used to live with this guy who hated Blacks because he thought that they were shiftless, lazy criminals but he himself was cocaine dealer (I didn't know until a couple of months in) who only cared about Florida football. Obviously because his mind was muddled with white powder and white power I couldn't take anything this guy said seriously. I've made A LOT of mistakes in my life. I put myself through decades of obesity, failed to exercise, and ate literally tons of fast food. Then I became a pot head. You know who doesn't take their health seriously: a fat ass, Taco Bell eating pot head. Now I'm far from living a perfectly healthy lifestyle now but now I go to the gym regularly, actually eat fruits and vegetables, and completely gave up the use of illegal drugs and alcohol. That's now. Maybe in the future things could change again, but right now I try to place some importance on my health.

I put this in context because I'm aware that a person's health and his or her necessity for health care are intertwined. You can't change your genetics (yet) and you can't make everyone a cautious driver but there are some major things you can do to preserve your health. I chose to look in the mirror and ask myself what can I do to improve my health. You may imagine, then, that when I am presented with rhetoric to reform health care from a person I think that they way he or she takes care of his or herself is going to affect the calibers with which I use when evaluating his or her argument. Maybe that's not fair but I remember a Facebook posting from a person I know who was a smoker who drank heavily and used cocaine demanding her "free goddamn health care" I immediately de-friended the person. I had no respect for her argument and felt that she was probably not a person whose life and words would be personally edifying for me. Maybe I'm a dick too.

I completely disagreed with Obama's statement during his debates with McCain that we are all going to have to sacrifice for the sake of America's future. I think all of us already make sacrifices but they are voluntary; that's what makes it a sacrifice. When something's taken away from you without your consent or as a form of retribution when you've wrong someone that's not a sacrifice that's an act of oppression. But let's go along with this inane idea that perhaps we all need to make a sacrifice for America. If you believe in this health care package that is going to be signed into law by President Obama, I want you to step up to the plate too. Barack smokes and drinks so he can't make this call to action, but I can. If you think Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and that Floridian guy who said that Republicans want you to die are correct I want you to start by giving up cigarettes; especially hot chicks because smoking ages you and makes you less attractive. I also want you to stop drinking heavily. If you aren't able to drink less than, say, a twelve pack in a week you may need to seek professional help. This shit ain't easy, I know. Neither is earning over $200,000 a year but Congress is okay telling those people how their money should be used. Given the political reality we face right now I desperately want to be wrong. But when it comes to the idea that nobody is more responsible than you for the quality of your health I know I'm right.

Pray for Haiti?

(Because of the recent tragedies that have befallen Haiti I've been trying to process the ethical and social realities that compose the so-called human condition. Writing blogs has been one way in which I make attempts to understand the world and place current events within perspective and the Haitian earthquake and aftermath has been no exception. But what has been different is that I have thus far chosen not to post my blogs on the subject. Much of what I have written is in anger and sadness and I think it's wise for me to refrain from posting too much about my own life. Additionally many of the behaviors that I am critical of were exhibited by people I like and who like me and I expect that it could potentially cost me some valuable social capital were I to share all of my feelings. Along these lines I will add that I don't give a fuck about late night television talk show hosts and I couldn't care less who they work for or how much money they make. The lives of Haitians is of far greater consequence to me and I think it should be for you too. Also, since none of you are the DJ that I heard on 95.5 The Beat wondering aloud why more media attention and money has been paid to Haiti than to New Orleans after Katrina (neither of which are true) it's a wasted breath to discuss this.)

Pat Robertson is a dick. That's not a revolutionary thought. Even amongst the most religious of my friends I can't imagine anyone I know would dispute that claim. His moronic comments about Haiti's earthquake being the result of a pact made with Satan to keep out the French were insidious and vile. His words were, however, the result of a strange and perverted sense of consistency. Pat Robertson believes in the supernatural and believes that other-worldly forces play a part in the events of day-to-day activities. He calls it 'God' but regardless of the terminology Robertson believes that unseen forces affect what happen to humans and the rest of the universe. Either by action or inaction these forces determine what happens in the lives of one or all. He followed up his statements about Haiti by saying that 'God' did not directly cause the earthquake to happen but, presumably, it chose not to prevent the earthquake. As ludicrous as it sounds to me Robertson realizes that if one believes that supernatural forces are involved in the lives of individuals then the deaths of over 200,000 people must have somehow been influenced by these same forces.

As a person who believes strictly in a material world I have neither the luxury or burden of explaining why 'God' or 'Allah' or any other supernatural force either caused or allowed such a tragedy to happen. Likewise I have no supernatural force to supplicate my earnest emotions regarding the people in Haiti. I contributed money to a couple of different disaster relief funds because all I could see was that humans populated an island that sits on a moving fault line and that they were suffering. I did not ask somebody else to ease their suffering because I am aware that cash buys more medical supplies and food than prayer does.

I'd like to offer you a challenge. I spent far too much as an evangelical Christian in my youth to bother with trying to convert people to my non-religious philosophy. There are others who can make far more eloquent philosophical arguments on the matter than myself and it usually seems to be a fruitless activity on my part.

I spent over a decade living and maintaining a religious identity. I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to view the world through a lens that imagines seeing supernatural influences on everything. If you do think the world is guided by unseen forces I would like to invite you to use your imagination and explore a different viewpoint. Imagine that the world we live in has no supernatural influence, no holy guidance, no divine purpose. For a few days, maybe even a few weeks try to imagine that there are only material forces behind everything. Take note of how it may make you change your perspectives on the people you interact with and of the history unfolding around you. I'm not asking you to convert to atheism I'm simply asking you to walk a mile in an atheist's shoes. I've walked several miles in the shoes of a believer and I feel like my life is more fulfilled because I haven't just entertained one perspective. To be very direct I'd like to add that if you worship a divine being that would punish you for an eternity for simply entertaining the thought that it doesn't exist you should ask yourself if such an intolerant force is worthy of your worship.

If you're still looking for something to give up for Lent might I suggest keeping chocolate and forgoing religion!

Cursed Facebook, Inspid MySpace

The other day I saw that there was a Facebook group for people who "refuse" to pay for Facebook. I wonder if this is that they think Facebook should be free because they think using the service is something they should be entitled to; like their rights would be violated because a private service that they probably use daily to communicate and network with others is somehow guaranteed by the Constitution.

I sure as shootin' don't want to pay to use Facebook but I think that it consolidates a lot of my social networking desires in such a tight package that I would have to pay for it. I'd want better service it there was a fee but I'm sure they have done a lot of cost/benefit analysis regarding the drops in ad revenue and brand value they would experience by requiring paid membership and they will make the best decision possible. For the time being it's free and all I have to do is look at some ads. And I'd like to point out, though, that these advertisements are far superior to the ones I that I used to receive from MySpace. The following is an older blog post from 2007 about an issue I had with MySpace marketing. I don't know if it's any better now because I was only visiting the site to see if one of my older blogs was still posted there and didn't look around too much.



Friday, August 24, 2007
Would Someone Explain to MySpace what ’Demographics’ Are

I'm sure by now, oh MySpace users, that you've noticed that this dear site analyzes your various entries searching for keywords for marketing purposes. For instance, if you have entered 'superheroes' in one of your interest fields (as I have in the past) you will get adds for comic book sellers on your MySpace homepage. Thanks to our good friends at News Corp. and their directed advertising practices if you select 'Atheist' as your 'Religion,' you can expect ads from companies that offer 'God's Promise in His Word' and debate 'Evolution vs. Creation.' Atheist, people. I do not believe in God. Get it? I used to, now I don't. Pretty simple. Perhaps Christian webmasters have never actually met an atheist, but most of us don't want to subscribe to your daily devotional newsletter. Unless we can win an XBOX360.

++UPDATE++I now have 'Sponsored Links' that ask if I am 'Struggling with Lust,' 'Believe in Evolution?' and am 'Puzzled by Christianity.' Is this Christianity saying 'fuck you,'? Well, grow up, Christianity. We're getting tired of your nonsense. You're like a child who wants to keep telling us the details of an unfunny joke.
++And now 'Cool Jesus Christ T Shirt.' Really? Nothing makes a fashion statement like '100% Human 100% Divine Color Black, Long Sleeve'
+++This shit is ridiculous: "Want to Share Your Faith?", "Puzzled by Christianity", etc. It has actually gotten so bad, in my opinion, that I have written MySpace to complain. And I guess I will have to again

Sex and Freedom: Smiles All Around

Read this article:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/indiana-school-sued-student-athletes-suspended-sexy-pics/story?id=8975121

The young ladies in this article are heroes. I cannot applaud a person enough for standing up for freedom of speech issues but especially when it is young people fighting against a public school. Debates aside about the best way for a child to be educated I think that any school that receives any sort of government funding must not be allowed to violate the rights promised to citizens by the First Amendment. It is illogical and should be illegal for a public institution to prohibit the right of free speech by it's students. The reason the school exists is because of the government of the United States and it should defend the Constitution which allows it to exist. If you want a school with speech codes then pay to send your child to a school where there is a voluntary restriction on language. All speech should be protected on public grounds whether it is safe or offensive. This school has no business punishing it's students for exercising their Constitutional rights. I would feel this way if they were making moronic statements like Holocaust denial or religious affirmations. But in this case these young women are actually being reprimanded for saying and doing something heroic: celebrating sexuality.

That first paragraph was a piece of cake to write. All I had to do was bring up Constitutionality and defending freedom and shit like that but when it comes to writing about sex, I don't know even know where to begin. Of course the first thing that comes to mind is "how do I write about teenage girls and their sexuality without sounding like a creep or a pervert." People are so afraid to talk about fucking that even a guy like me who has no problem writing about damn near anything is concerned that one of my readers may think worse of me. But that's the issue at large. Our society and our world need to be even MORE sexualized than we already are. We need to feel comfortable talking about cocks and pussies and assholes with each other. We need to be comfortable fondling cocks and pussies and assholes. We need to be comfortable looking at pictures of them, licking them, and fantasizing about them. We all have some arrangement of them and it feels fucking awesome when we do things with them.

When you fuck people you get closer to them and not just spatially. You get to know them as individuals better. You learn about what turns them on and what gets them off. You get to experience a person when he or she at one of the happiest moments of his or her life. No work pressure, no taxes, just straight up enjoyment. It would be wrong to say that the only person that you should ever get to know better is the person you're married to so I think it's just as wrong to think that the only person you can experience sexual pleasure with is the person you're married to. We all have opinions on politics and religion but bullshit like that creates distance between us. We can all be brought closer together by fucking. I don't care if you voted for Bush and believe in God, I'd still fuck the hell out of you. It's true that sex is about love but it isn't just romantic love. It's about a love of life and sharing intimacy with another person. Or with lots of people. I'd rather be in a room filled with naked people than a stadium filled with people wearing the same team colors. So when these girls in this article are getting together and exploring their sexuality with each other and taking private photographs they aren't being horrible or evil or dirty (well, maybe dirty in a good way) but they are celebrating one of the most wonderful, if not THE most wonderful thing humans have to share.