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
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
My American Paradox Is More than a Great Album Title
Here's a paradox for you: I love the United States of America. I love the topography. You know: purple mountains majesty, fruited plains and what have you. I love the system of government that was created for it. I love it's Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. I love America with much, if not all, of my heart. But I don't consider myself an American. Perhaps politically I am. If I were to go another country I would be considered an American due to my US citizenship but I don't identify myself specifically as an "American." To see why I'm on this topic take a listen to this news piece from NPR's "Morning Edition" for context: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121986877
Briefly, in this piece NPR speaks with Stanford professor Clifford Nass who suggests that due to the increased number of media outlets ranging from the hundreds of television channels available to the on-demand style entertainment available from the internet and pay services that America is losing the identifiers that help define our culture. Americans are becoming disconnected from each other because people are able to get media that is more specialized to their interests rather than sharing ubiquitous cultural reference points. For Nass this is especially problematic because it means that a fractured society is less capable of being mobilized. Although it is unclear whether this is Nass' sentiment or "Morning Edition's" this mobilization may include issues like health care reform and opposition to war. I suspect they wouldn't have an issue if this interfered with the mobilization of something conservatives advocate like the Tea Parties but who's counting?
So the question becomes, what does this have to do with Chuck not being an American? Everything. Everyone of us is gains a more global cultural perspective because of this access to media. I imagine that all of us have seen a movie or TV show from both Japan and England, if not dozens from each. Admittedly these countries are known for their overwhelming cultural output but the fact that we can all access the internet right now to obtain artifacts from these and many other countries shows us that national identity is slipping away because we are individually and societally dissolving these boundaries. Morally and socially I value my indviduality with higher degree than any group identity but if I must identify with a group it is as human of the planet Earth, not just a taxpayer of the United States.
Due to the great circumstances with which I live I may superficially have more in common with a woman from Texas than I do a man from Laos but when it comes to my concern for others "my people" are the inhabitants of Earth without regard to their nationality or ethnicity. What is most important to me are the things that I have in common with people everywhere: the love of my family and my friends, providing the best life I can for myself and those in my care, having sex, and, well, I guess having sex. Humans don't need to identify with their immediate neighbors to be mobilized to stop war. They simply need to realize that war is violent force being used on their long distance neighbors and that the politicians and governments that use war as a tool of tyranny rely on us embracing arbitrary distinctions between groups like nationality.
Here's a fun game you can share with your kids: the next time you hear a politician make reference to "American people" replace it with "American pawns" and see how the meaning changes. Is he or she talking about the individuals who are the citizens of the United States or a faceless, manipulated crowd being forced to follow the will of a power elite? For bonus points you can see if it works when other international "leaders" do the same thing!
Briefly, in this piece NPR speaks with Stanford professor Clifford Nass who suggests that due to the increased number of media outlets ranging from the hundreds of television channels available to the on-demand style entertainment available from the internet and pay services that America is losing the identifiers that help define our culture. Americans are becoming disconnected from each other because people are able to get media that is more specialized to their interests rather than sharing ubiquitous cultural reference points. For Nass this is especially problematic because it means that a fractured society is less capable of being mobilized. Although it is unclear whether this is Nass' sentiment or "Morning Edition's" this mobilization may include issues like health care reform and opposition to war. I suspect they wouldn't have an issue if this interfered with the mobilization of something conservatives advocate like the Tea Parties but who's counting?
So the question becomes, what does this have to do with Chuck not being an American? Everything. Everyone of us is gains a more global cultural perspective because of this access to media. I imagine that all of us have seen a movie or TV show from both Japan and England, if not dozens from each. Admittedly these countries are known for their overwhelming cultural output but the fact that we can all access the internet right now to obtain artifacts from these and many other countries shows us that national identity is slipping away because we are individually and societally dissolving these boundaries. Morally and socially I value my indviduality with higher degree than any group identity but if I must identify with a group it is as human of the planet Earth, not just a taxpayer of the United States.
Due to the great circumstances with which I live I may superficially have more in common with a woman from Texas than I do a man from Laos but when it comes to my concern for others "my people" are the inhabitants of Earth without regard to their nationality or ethnicity. What is most important to me are the things that I have in common with people everywhere: the love of my family and my friends, providing the best life I can for myself and those in my care, having sex, and, well, I guess having sex. Humans don't need to identify with their immediate neighbors to be mobilized to stop war. They simply need to realize that war is violent force being used on their long distance neighbors and that the politicians and governments that use war as a tool of tyranny rely on us embracing arbitrary distinctions between groups like nationality.
Here's a fun game you can share with your kids: the next time you hear a politician make reference to "American people" replace it with "American pawns" and see how the meaning changes. Is he or she talking about the individuals who are the citizens of the United States or a faceless, manipulated crowd being forced to follow the will of a power elite? For bonus points you can see if it works when other international "leaders" do the same thing!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Lust - The Absolute Bestest Deadly Sin of All!
If you took the time to read my introduction to my series on "My Favorite Deadly Sins" then you may recall that the only thing I see as being a violation of good moral behavior is causing another person harm. In other words the only thing that I see as being 'wrong' is hurting someone else. Breaking legs, stealing cars, shooting Granny or child molestation would fall into this category. Sex, on the other hand, falls no where in that category.
I take this pretty broad view that any sexual behavior by consenting adults is good. One person, a couple, a couple thousand people, it doesn't matter. Anything sexual that all the parties agree upon is alright by me. In fact, let me take it step further. It's not just 'OK' with me. Whatever it is that person or persons choose to do is awesome as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to sexual activity I think that anything anybody wants to do is totally rad. I love it. It doesn't matter to me whether I've engaged in it or not. It doesn't matter whether I may never participate in it. If it's consensual then I hold in the highest esteem.
See, when I was a religious man the church used to hammer home this idea that even though sexual thought was inevitable it was only appropriate amongst married people to engage in the activities and, even worse, to participate in 'lustful thoughts' was a moral aberration. I take full responsibility for believing their bullshit but at the time when I thought I deserved eternal damnation for masturbation the representatives of the church didn't try to dissuade this. As a matter of fact, they told me I should abandon my behaviors and pray for forgiveness. It's bad enough that they don't want teenagers to learn how to use condoms but when they are encouraging philosophies that cause kids to cry because of the mental anguish caused by masturbation guilt these people are harming young people and should feel ashamed.
Ultimately this lead to my entire disdain for any sort of thought crime mentality but especially when it came to sexuality. I don't usually use my blogs to tell people what to do but in this case I will: if you're a parent make sure that your religious doctrine doesn't encourage this sort of mentality. Mental health is important and sexuality identity is one of the key factors in adult self reliance and social behavior. And to my religious friends out there: if you're still a virgin and frustrated it's not because your god wants you to suffer. It's because your church is afraid of your autonomy and getting a grip (a nice, loose, lubricated grip) on your sexuality is a great first step.
But back to good stuff: fucking. I honestly think that all kinds of sex fucking rules. Men and women fucking each other. Men fucking other men. Women fucking other women. Men fucking men and women. Women fucking men and women. It's all great. I'm actually sort of a shy guy and like to keep my own sexual practices private but I'm more than happy to say that I think all of this shit is super hot. When it comes to sex I am pro-everything.
Not everything is exactly a turn on for me but I still think it's sexy. So far I've never been in a sexual situation where one person dressed up as Stalin, another as Churchill, and another wheeled in as Roosevelt but I still like to think that someone, somewhere is getting a boner by envisioning this scenario. If spanking midgets in over-sized cowboy hats make you wet then go forth knowing you have my blessing. To me an open-minded person would find the sex scenes in Brokeback Mountain to be as hot as anything else they've ever seen in a movie not necessarily because it contains specific actions they wish to replicate in their own personal life but simply because it's two people enjoying each other's sexual company.
Unfortunately there are individuals who aren't this open when it comes to sexuality. They can't allow others to find their own niche without feeling personally violated in some way. The most obvious and contemporary example of this is exhibited in many people's pure hatred of the idea of gay marriage. As backwards as Americans are in denying it legally we are actually much further ahead of most countries that wouldn't even allow the conversation. In the United States it disappoints me to no end to think that there are people out there who think the only exercise of individual liberty means lower taxes. They used the word freedom but they only mean it conditionally.
The entire concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' is actually repulsive to me. The word sanctity comes from the Latin word sanctitas meaning 'holy.' Holiness means being placed aside for religious or spiritual reasons. In other words when a person argues for the 'sanctity of marriage' they are in fact saying that marriage is a religous rite. This alone ought to throw up to several red flags. By there being laws prohibiting a person to participate in marriage as a religious ritual is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits the state from interfering with the free exercise of religion. If a person volunteers to participate in a religion that refuses to conduct gay marriage that's their own stupid decision but it shouldn't be prohibited by laws.
The second red flag comes up with this whole idea of marriage being holy to begin with. Does that mean that as an atheist I should be prohibited from being married? In a modern, liberty-loving world we must be able to allow for any sort of contractual agreement to go forth, be it commercially, professionally, or socially oriented. If I want to make a contract with any other person and define terms that we both can agree on then that is my right as a human. If I want to make multiple contracts, as long as they don't violate a contract I've made with another person, I should be able to do that too. Personally I think that marriage would be far more sensible if people made renewable vows - create a contract with a time limit and if the people want to renegotiate or terminate the agreement they can do so without recourse.
Whether you're married or not I suggest you go out there and get some action. Whether you fuck one person a thousand times or a thousand people one time go find out what suits you best. Be honest and horny.
I take this pretty broad view that any sexual behavior by consenting adults is good. One person, a couple, a couple thousand people, it doesn't matter. Anything sexual that all the parties agree upon is alright by me. In fact, let me take it step further. It's not just 'OK' with me. Whatever it is that person or persons choose to do is awesome as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to sexual activity I think that anything anybody wants to do is totally rad. I love it. It doesn't matter to me whether I've engaged in it or not. It doesn't matter whether I may never participate in it. If it's consensual then I hold in the highest esteem.
See, when I was a religious man the church used to hammer home this idea that even though sexual thought was inevitable it was only appropriate amongst married people to engage in the activities and, even worse, to participate in 'lustful thoughts' was a moral aberration. I take full responsibility for believing their bullshit but at the time when I thought I deserved eternal damnation for masturbation the representatives of the church didn't try to dissuade this. As a matter of fact, they told me I should abandon my behaviors and pray for forgiveness. It's bad enough that they don't want teenagers to learn how to use condoms but when they are encouraging philosophies that cause kids to cry because of the mental anguish caused by masturbation guilt these people are harming young people and should feel ashamed.
Ultimately this lead to my entire disdain for any sort of thought crime mentality but especially when it came to sexuality. I don't usually use my blogs to tell people what to do but in this case I will: if you're a parent make sure that your religious doctrine doesn't encourage this sort of mentality. Mental health is important and sexuality identity is one of the key factors in adult self reliance and social behavior. And to my religious friends out there: if you're still a virgin and frustrated it's not because your god wants you to suffer. It's because your church is afraid of your autonomy and getting a grip (a nice, loose, lubricated grip) on your sexuality is a great first step.
But back to good stuff: fucking. I honestly think that all kinds of sex fucking rules. Men and women fucking each other. Men fucking other men. Women fucking other women. Men fucking men and women. Women fucking men and women. It's all great. I'm actually sort of a shy guy and like to keep my own sexual practices private but I'm more than happy to say that I think all of this shit is super hot. When it comes to sex I am pro-everything.
Not everything is exactly a turn on for me but I still think it's sexy. So far I've never been in a sexual situation where one person dressed up as Stalin, another as Churchill, and another wheeled in as Roosevelt but I still like to think that someone, somewhere is getting a boner by envisioning this scenario. If spanking midgets in over-sized cowboy hats make you wet then go forth knowing you have my blessing. To me an open-minded person would find the sex scenes in Brokeback Mountain to be as hot as anything else they've ever seen in a movie not necessarily because it contains specific actions they wish to replicate in their own personal life but simply because it's two people enjoying each other's sexual company.
Unfortunately there are individuals who aren't this open when it comes to sexuality. They can't allow others to find their own niche without feeling personally violated in some way. The most obvious and contemporary example of this is exhibited in many people's pure hatred of the idea of gay marriage. As backwards as Americans are in denying it legally we are actually much further ahead of most countries that wouldn't even allow the conversation. In the United States it disappoints me to no end to think that there are people out there who think the only exercise of individual liberty means lower taxes. They used the word freedom but they only mean it conditionally.
The entire concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' is actually repulsive to me. The word sanctity comes from the Latin word sanctitas meaning 'holy.' Holiness means being placed aside for religious or spiritual reasons. In other words when a person argues for the 'sanctity of marriage' they are in fact saying that marriage is a religous rite. This alone ought to throw up to several red flags. By there being laws prohibiting a person to participate in marriage as a religious ritual is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits the state from interfering with the free exercise of religion. If a person volunteers to participate in a religion that refuses to conduct gay marriage that's their own stupid decision but it shouldn't be prohibited by laws.
The second red flag comes up with this whole idea of marriage being holy to begin with. Does that mean that as an atheist I should be prohibited from being married? In a modern, liberty-loving world we must be able to allow for any sort of contractual agreement to go forth, be it commercially, professionally, or socially oriented. If I want to make a contract with any other person and define terms that we both can agree on then that is my right as a human. If I want to make multiple contracts, as long as they don't violate a contract I've made with another person, I should be able to do that too. Personally I think that marriage would be far more sensible if people made renewable vows - create a contract with a time limit and if the people want to renegotiate or terminate the agreement they can do so without recourse.
Whether you're married or not I suggest you go out there and get some action. Whether you fuck one person a thousand times or a thousand people one time go find out what suits you best. Be honest and horny.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Most Controversial Sin - Greed
There have been several words that have been applied to me over the years including 'liar,' 'satanic,' 'self righteous,' and my personal favorite string of words: 'dope-smoking hippie fag.' I won't even tell you what a stranger called me because I celebrated a Pistons victory over the Lakers. While I suppose all of these words have had some level of truth to them at one time or another in my life I find it quite unfortunate that the word 'greedy' has never been applied to me by anyone other than myself. I suppose one reason is that while those other terms have been used pejoratively 'greedy' is one that I wear with a tremendous level of pride.
A quick Google search to define greed returns with "[the] excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves." That sounds exactly like me. I want more wealth than I need. I want more property than I need, more food than I need, more DVDs, lovers, and hair cuts than I need. In fact, if need is based solely on daily survival I am super greedy. I may not have developed all the tools required to get more than I need but I sure as hell want them and even take steps to get more than I will ever need to live. The last time I checked I don't need a single book to maintain life, much less hundreds of them, but to some of my friends and colleagues my library is somewhat admirable. I want things that I won't even get to use before I die. If I had the means to do it I would have a heated castle with servants, an indoor pool, and a harem. And cable! Can't forget cable. Castle or not I do not plan on facing death with nothing but zeros in my bank account and I feel like I'm possibly making some errors in judgment if I don't end the year with more money than I started with. I see it as a measurable way to show that I'm contributing to my own well-being.
Being such a big fan of greed you can imagine that I'm often a supporter of those also motivated by greed. Chances are that if you are a semi-rational person you yourself are a pretty greedy person too. Take this into consideration: according to the World Bank there are currently about 1.4 billion people living under the conditions of extreme poverty. They define this as someone living on less than $1.25 a day. That's less than late fees at a video store. That's half the price of a box of Pop Tarts on sale. Two songs on iTunes would cost more than that. In Liberia that constitutes over 4/5 of the population. In the United States the number is so small it isn't even a statistic. You may not realize it, but you are rich. You may not be as wealthy as people who are doing something as important as marrying Demi Moore and playing a TV prankster but the standard of living which you have exceeds not only most of the people alive but almost every single person who has ever walked the planet Earth.
Me being the self-righteous bastard that I am let me make one aside about politics and namely the hot button topic of the day: healthcare. Speaker of the House Pelosi likes to defame those in the health industry, and particularly insurance companies as being greedy. According to an Associated Press article by Calvin Woodward health insurance providers "barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure." I know they make billions but it also costs billions to run these companies. Maybe they are greedy and they just aren't very good at actualizing themselves.
I'm not going to claim to be an expert in economics nor am I going to say that I know how to make the cost of health care decline but since Nancy Pelosi has chosen to target health insurance companies and reprimand them for their alleged 'greed' then I think she may need reconsider her position. Alcohol manufacturers have huge profit margins and it is one of the leading causes of health and family issues but I haven't seen Nancy call them out (or give back their campaign contributions or prohibit their sales in her restaurants).
This isn't to say that I'm one of those individuals who thinks that a so-called public option is gift from Satan bent on destroying Western civilization. I don't even believe in Satan. But what I will say is that in a country where we can use our Kroger Plus Card to get discounts on antiseptics, bandages, pain killers, antibiotics, dozens of different kinds of cold medicines, and literally hundreds of other items brought to us by 20th and 21st century science that to hear people complain about the high cost of MRIs gives me a kind of sickness that even modern health care cannot cure. In America we call modern technology which costs thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars life-saving while in other countries the same term is used for clean water and vitamins. If you've ever taken an Ibuprofen you should be overcome with gratitude. I know I take it for granted.
To tell you the truth I don't know what to make of the proposals for health care reform before Congress. I would think any smart person would look at any proposals government or free market based with a degree of skepticism. Maybe what Congress wants to do will help. I certainly hope that it doesn't drastically increase inflation because people without a lot of money sure as heck don't need what little cash they have to become worthless. As usual I have my doubts about the best intentions of politicians. I mean this with all seriousness: if nearly one trillion dollars are going to be spent on improving health care I would much rather that money be used to help out places like Rwanda or Tanzania where well over half the population live under extreme poverty. I think their need is far greater than America's uninsured.
I'm advocate for greed. Whether it's healthcare or an iPhone I want as much as I can get. So when it comes to pointing the finger at the greedy you don't to have select the companies that build their wealth by providing a much-needed product for millions. Nancy and anyone else like her can single out this self-righteous, ex-dope smoking hippie fag right here.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
My Favorite Deadly Sins - An Introduction
I take morality and ethics pretty seriously. I have a very simple moral code in which I try to use as my basis for what I think correct behavior is. It works as follows:
DO
First off take care of yourself and act in your own best interests. Following that you should provide help and assistance to those closest to you, namely your family and friends.
DO NOT
Using force to fulfill your goals and harming another person is wrong.
I think morality is pretty intuitive but a while back some religious meatheads decided to try to tell everyone else how to live by coming up with an arbitrary list of 'deadly sins.' Since America's political environment is so volatile right now and because morality often dictates a person's ideas on public policy I thought I would blog for a few days about my favorite deadly sins and tie them into some contemporary social issues. As usual I'll probably yammer on too long but I'll try to make it entertaining.
DO
First off take care of yourself and act in your own best interests. Following that you should provide help and assistance to those closest to you, namely your family and friends.
DO NOT
Using force to fulfill your goals and harming another person is wrong.
I think morality is pretty intuitive but a while back some religious meatheads decided to try to tell everyone else how to live by coming up with an arbitrary list of 'deadly sins.' Since America's political environment is so volatile right now and because morality often dictates a person's ideas on public policy I thought I would blog for a few days about my favorite deadly sins and tie them into some contemporary social issues. As usual I'll probably yammer on too long but I'll try to make it entertaining.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Compassion is For Losers
When listening to a recent interview on "Fresh Air from WHYY" with Karen Armstrong, author of THE CASE FOR GOD, I took note of the reasons she offered for pursuing a religious life. She characterizes mainstream religion as primitive and the atheism of Richard Dawkins to be heartless. Armstrong feels that rather than a faith based on dogma and ritual that a 'transcendent' religious experience awards an increased awareness and capacity for compassion.
I'm sure that there are some non-believers who may claim that materialism may offer a greater cause for being compassionate. Maybe they have some socio-ecological understanding of the interconnection of living and non-living things and thus have a deeper understanding of human life. It must then follow that since they are concerned solely on the physical needs and existence of another that they are more capable of offering substantive help. Okay, so maybe there is something to be said about materialism providing a more effective avenue for being compassion but that doesn't necessarily speak on the people themselves. Maybe secular humanists have the most cleverly deceitful name since PETA.
A few weekends ago I made an offer to play disc golf with a couple of left-leaning buddies. I guess Republicans play real golf and liberals play disc golf. Either way it's one of those sports where you can focus for about 45 seconds at a time and then spend the rest of the time conversing about undignified things like social policy. As the lone non-Democrat I appreciated the candor and honesty in which my co-horts offered while they attempted to trample my ideals. But in this conversation, just like in Karen Armstrong's interview, it was the statements regarding compassion which stuck with me.
It was explained to me that under no uncertain terms that the reason liberals hold on to their political values is because they are more compassionate than conservatives. I was told that with few exceptions Republicans care less about their fellow human being than Democrats. They argue that all conservatives care about is money, greed, more money and more greed and will stop at nothing to grind poor people into the dust. In my mind right now I can think of a handful of my liberal associates who would agree with this whole-heartedly and are patting themselves on the back right now. By this man's evaluation liberals are compassionate because they voted for Obama.
Although I am not religious now I do remember when I went to church that I knew several seemingly compassionate conservatives. And I don't mean a couple of good ones in the bunch but I mean literally dozens of people who gave up lives in the private sector to make little money because they wanted to dedicate themselves to a life of religious and social service. They truly felt that by committing themselves to helping others materially and spiritually that they were making a better world a better place to live. When you take into account the fact that conservatives give far more generously to charities than liberals ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html ) it might even lead me to think that maybe liberals are actually LESS compassionate. But I don't think that for one second.
See, I don't think anyone 'owns' compassion. We may individually come up with different takes on how to best exhibit our compassion and we may prefer the thinking behind one or more ideologies but that is almost just an aesthetic quality. Personally I prefer my compassion to come without the attached strings of organized religion or the ineffective red tape of government. Compassion guarded with rational self interest usually amounts to a pretty rewarding life, I understand.
I don't consider myself to be an extraordinarily compassionate person. I don't think I care more about my fellow human than, say, you. But since I am such a highly evolved primate I was born with a pre-existing condition which has allowed our species to thrive called "empathy." Just about every single one of us care about ourselves, our loved ones and others. In my case I care about 'others' to a much smaller degree than I do myself or my friends and family. I haven't met most of them so I couldn't really comment on them individually but, all in all, they seem like a pretty good species.
I'm sure that there are some non-believers who may claim that materialism may offer a greater cause for being compassionate. Maybe they have some socio-ecological understanding of the interconnection of living and non-living things and thus have a deeper understanding of human life. It must then follow that since they are concerned solely on the physical needs and existence of another that they are more capable of offering substantive help. Okay, so maybe there is something to be said about materialism providing a more effective avenue for being compassion but that doesn't necessarily speak on the people themselves. Maybe secular humanists have the most cleverly deceitful name since PETA.
A few weekends ago I made an offer to play disc golf with a couple of left-leaning buddies. I guess Republicans play real golf and liberals play disc golf. Either way it's one of those sports where you can focus for about 45 seconds at a time and then spend the rest of the time conversing about undignified things like social policy. As the lone non-Democrat I appreciated the candor and honesty in which my co-horts offered while they attempted to trample my ideals. But in this conversation, just like in Karen Armstrong's interview, it was the statements regarding compassion which stuck with me.
It was explained to me that under no uncertain terms that the reason liberals hold on to their political values is because they are more compassionate than conservatives. I was told that with few exceptions Republicans care less about their fellow human being than Democrats. They argue that all conservatives care about is money, greed, more money and more greed and will stop at nothing to grind poor people into the dust. In my mind right now I can think of a handful of my liberal associates who would agree with this whole-heartedly and are patting themselves on the back right now. By this man's evaluation liberals are compassionate because they voted for Obama.
Although I am not religious now I do remember when I went to church that I knew several seemingly compassionate conservatives. And I don't mean a couple of good ones in the bunch but I mean literally dozens of people who gave up lives in the private sector to make little money because they wanted to dedicate themselves to a life of religious and social service. They truly felt that by committing themselves to helping others materially and spiritually that they were making a better world a better place to live. When you take into account the fact that conservatives give far more generously to charities than liberals ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html ) it might even lead me to think that maybe liberals are actually LESS compassionate. But I don't think that for one second.
See, I don't think anyone 'owns' compassion. We may individually come up with different takes on how to best exhibit our compassion and we may prefer the thinking behind one or more ideologies but that is almost just an aesthetic quality. Personally I prefer my compassion to come without the attached strings of organized religion or the ineffective red tape of government. Compassion guarded with rational self interest usually amounts to a pretty rewarding life, I understand.
I don't consider myself to be an extraordinarily compassionate person. I don't think I care more about my fellow human than, say, you. But since I am such a highly evolved primate I was born with a pre-existing condition which has allowed our species to thrive called "empathy." Just about every single one of us care about ourselves, our loved ones and others. In my case I care about 'others' to a much smaller degree than I do myself or my friends and family. I haven't met most of them so I couldn't really comment on them individually but, all in all, they seem like a pretty good species.
I like to give to children's healthcare and literacy charity groups. Literacy may be a wash because poor kids don't give a fuck about books when they're starving but if it helps out any child succeed and realize their dreams then it was worth it. And since the only reason I can walk now is because of the fine folks at Egleston Children's Hospital (and because I don't think Congress is going to fix shit) I think children's healthcare causes are worthwhile. You can decide for yourself if I'm doing it to help or because I think that chicks dig compassion.
Here is a test of your reading comprehension skills: did I at any point in this blog tell you to be compassionate? Did I define it or tell you what I think is the best way for YOU to be compassionate? Of course not. I don't know what the best way is and if I did chances are it would only be applicable to me. Unless you're Dexter chances are you feel emotion and empathy. If you want to use those to drive you to exhibit concern for others then that's great. If you choose not to I don't have a problem with that either.
Here is a test of your reading comprehension skills: did I at any point in this blog tell you to be compassionate? Did I define it or tell you what I think is the best way for YOU to be compassionate? Of course not. I don't know what the best way is and if I did chances are it would only be applicable to me. Unless you're Dexter chances are you feel emotion and empathy. If you want to use those to drive you to exhibit concern for others then that's great. If you choose not to I don't have a problem with that either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)