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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
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.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Great Doughnut Debate
It's pretty darn obvious that the world moves a lot quicker than my modest mind allows so I probably don't need to tell you all a story that showcases that trait. But since it leads me to an opportunity for some moral grandstanding there was no way I could help myself.
A couple of months ago I immersed myself in a total doughnut experience at a pastry-inspired art show at Sublime Doughnuts. As it was a Sunday I reveled in the opportunity to trade the loud, abbreviated soundbites of weekday radio for the well-spoken, full-length, but often equally insipid interviews that the weekend provides. I heard a few minutes of an interview with liberal firebrand James Carville. He used his appearance time to argue that, without question, the Democratic Party would "rule" government for the next 40 years. He offered this following his argument that economies were most prosperous under the administrations of liberal presidents. That is a potentially accurate claim presuming sufficient evidence is presented that could verify the required components and meanings of that claim. But rather than supplying sufficient evidence Carville compared the argument to the evolution vs creation argument and stated that the economic superiority of liberals was just like evolution and they are both [and here is where my memory is sorta, basically, almost exactly accurate] "not open to debate" and that "there is no debate."
What does he mean by "no debate"? Just because we have literally millions of astronomical and fossil artifacts to verify the age of both the planet and the life on it and just because DNA offers us the physical and chemical diagrams of the history of evolution and the development of species that does not mean that the debate does not exist. There are some people who offer factually unsubstantiated explanations of the origins of the universe but that doesn't mean they aren't invited to the debate. Personally, I think those are the first people you invite to a debate because they offer the people with correct explanations to learn the thinking patterns of those who disagree. I want them there because critical thinkers may hear things that either challenge or fortify their own premises but mostly because I love seeing religious dumbasses get served.
So if evolution is open to debate why wouldn't Carville's claims about liberal presidents and periods of liberal "rule" also be open to debate. And if their claims regarding both the future and past are contestable then so are his claims regarding policy and society. And who knows, he may be right. But if he wants me to believe me he can't hit with me with the same authoritarian tone that a gospel drooling preacher he's going to have to back it up with facts. Debate is absolutely necessary when it comes to addressing issues. The absence of debate is completely oppositional to the free market of ideas that was held in such esteem by men like Jefferson and Adams (it's still 4th of July month so I get to milk their names). The beauty of life is that no person is always right all the time and thus no one dogma can be right all of the time either. If you stake an emotional claim into something even the most critical of minds might allow a few laundered facts. As for me, I err to the side of personal liberty. And especially the liberty to eat doughnuts.
...and so I used that liberty to go to Sublime Doughnuts and eat awesome doughnuts. I'm standing firm on this, by the way, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, campaigns on an anti-doughnut platform they can kiss my vote goodbye.
(Just to further illustrate the point that my mind's clock isn't operating with the rest of the world get this: I opened a couple of tabs in Firefox to research the events of my story. Apparently the doughnut show was May 17th and the interview with Carville was the 7th, a full 10 days apart. So clearly I'm a liar, a cheat and a scoundrel who will bend the truth for a good story.)
A couple of months ago I immersed myself in a total doughnut experience at a pastry-inspired art show at Sublime Doughnuts. As it was a Sunday I reveled in the opportunity to trade the loud, abbreviated soundbites of weekday radio for the well-spoken, full-length, but often equally insipid interviews that the weekend provides. I heard a few minutes of an interview with liberal firebrand James Carville. He used his appearance time to argue that, without question, the Democratic Party would "rule" government for the next 40 years. He offered this following his argument that economies were most prosperous under the administrations of liberal presidents. That is a potentially accurate claim presuming sufficient evidence is presented that could verify the required components and meanings of that claim. But rather than supplying sufficient evidence Carville compared the argument to the evolution vs creation argument and stated that the economic superiority of liberals was just like evolution and they are both [and here is where my memory is sorta, basically, almost exactly accurate] "not open to debate" and that "there is no debate."
What does he mean by "no debate"? Just because we have literally millions of astronomical and fossil artifacts to verify the age of both the planet and the life on it and just because DNA offers us the physical and chemical diagrams of the history of evolution and the development of species that does not mean that the debate does not exist. There are some people who offer factually unsubstantiated explanations of the origins of the universe but that doesn't mean they aren't invited to the debate. Personally, I think those are the first people you invite to a debate because they offer the people with correct explanations to learn the thinking patterns of those who disagree. I want them there because critical thinkers may hear things that either challenge or fortify their own premises but mostly because I love seeing religious dumbasses get served.
So if evolution is open to debate why wouldn't Carville's claims about liberal presidents and periods of liberal "rule" also be open to debate. And if their claims regarding both the future and past are contestable then so are his claims regarding policy and society. And who knows, he may be right. But if he wants me to believe me he can't hit with me with the same authoritarian tone that a gospel drooling preacher he's going to have to back it up with facts. Debate is absolutely necessary when it comes to addressing issues. The absence of debate is completely oppositional to the free market of ideas that was held in such esteem by men like Jefferson and Adams (it's still 4th of July month so I get to milk their names). The beauty of life is that no person is always right all the time and thus no one dogma can be right all of the time either. If you stake an emotional claim into something even the most critical of minds might allow a few laundered facts. As for me, I err to the side of personal liberty. And especially the liberty to eat doughnuts.
...and so I used that liberty to go to Sublime Doughnuts and eat awesome doughnuts. I'm standing firm on this, by the way, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, campaigns on an anti-doughnut platform they can kiss my vote goodbye.
(Just to further illustrate the point that my mind's clock isn't operating with the rest of the world get this: I opened a couple of tabs in Firefox to research the events of my story. Apparently the doughnut show was May 17th and the interview with Carville was the 7th, a full 10 days apart. So clearly I'm a liar, a cheat and a scoundrel who will bend the truth for a good story.)
The unanmous Declaration of the thirteen... WHAT ARE THIRTEEN THINGS YOU LOVE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES?
from Facebook
originally posted Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 9:07am
To celebrate Independence Day share with everyone 13 things you love about the United States. We all have opinions on how to make this country a better place and, thanks to a well-placed Amendment in The Constitution we are allowed to express these opinions in both private and public forums. Take a few minutes to copy the body of this Note and come up with a list of your own and post it as a Note. Then, tag a bunch of your friends and we can all learn a more about our fellow inhabitants of these United States.
A List of 13 Things I Love About the United States
i Pam Grier
ii The Batmobile
iii Carl Sagan
iii KING KONG
iv Evel Knieval
v The Ramones
vi Russ Meyer
vii Tammy Wynette
viii "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
ix Frederick Douglas
x Tortillas (on Ponce)
xi Jim Henson
xii glow-in-the-dark sex toys (which may not be made here but just seems as American as Elvis Presley)
xiii Ray Harryhausen
originally posted Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 9:07am
To celebrate Independence Day share with everyone 13 things you love about the United States. We all have opinions on how to make this country a better place and, thanks to a well-placed Amendment in The Constitution we are allowed to express these opinions in both private and public forums. Take a few minutes to copy the body of this Note and come up with a list of your own and post it as a Note. Then, tag a bunch of your friends and we can all learn a more about our fellow inhabitants of these United States.
A List of 13 Things I Love About the United States
i Pam Grier
ii The Batmobile
iii Carl Sagan
iii KING KONG
iv Evel Knieval
v The Ramones
vi Russ Meyer
vii Tammy Wynette
viii "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
ix Frederick Douglas
x Tortillas (on Ponce)
xi Jim Henson
xii glow-in-the-dark sex toys (which may not be made here but just seems as American as Elvis Presley)
xiii Ray Harryhausen
I am a Hypocrite
from Facebook
originally posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 9:03am | Edit Note | Delete
Check out this news piece entitled "OBAMA INVOKES JESUS MORE THAN BUSH"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510;_ylt=Aj6oWEFDjOXdqJFmgeS.5WCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJsbm5uNWc0BGFzc2V0Ay9wb2xpdGljby8yMDA5MDYwOS9wbF9wb2xpdGljby8yMzUxMARwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNvYmFtYWludm9rZXM-
Since I've been obsessed with President Obama's religiosity for a while now I'm not really surprised about this. Admittedly President Bush did take things a little further by saying that God spoke to him but I bet that question hasn't been directly posed to Obama. The nighttime talk radio host on AM1390 said that the "hand of God is on Obama" so I presume at least others believe God speaks to him whether he claims it himself.
First off, I hate Christianity. You hate stuff too, I bet, so please don't treat me like an intolerant fool. You probably hate National Socialism because we're all taught to hate it and with several good reasons why. Between hate speech, anti-individualism, witch burnings, crusades, and Oral Roberts I'd say that Christianity has had more than it's fair share of evil attributed to it's cause. The big difference between Christianity and Nazism in the public eye grows from the fact that people love to hate Hitler but still adore that guy named Jesus.
Let's clear something up quickly. Lots of guys named Jesus existed at the turn of the millennium and it is most likely that there existed a fella who made a name for himself by criticizing politics and religion. Or rather, Paul made a name of him. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died and the reason that anyone knows his name is because one very vocal, powerful, and literate man fell in love with the guy and wrote letters about him to others. Paul's the asshole who we should all be pissed at. In other words, I could be Jesus but I don't have a PR guy like Paul. Of course, since I am literate and I do write my opinions you know more about me than anyone will ever know about who Jesus was.
My hate doesn't end with Christianity, though. I hate Ghandi too just for this quote alone:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Christians, just like we evil, depraved atheists, are just normal people which means just like you and I they are concerned, compassionate people. Maybe not as compassionate as you, of course, because who is? But really, no matter how stupid the bullshit is that people believe they generally care about other people anywhere from somewhat to a lot. Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian who ate people and Stalin was an atheist who committed genocide so maybe a person's theology is not the most important thing when evaluating them as an individual.
I agree that a lot of good did come from Ghandi, even though he was clearly an elitist and he was an extreme racist. But I say I hate him because of what he stands for in people's eyes. He is treated as an enlightened, spiritual, holy person. Some people are more intelligent and some people are more benevolent than myself but I don't think that any of them are holy.
This means the Pope, a yogi, the Dalia Lama, televangelists, psychics, Ayatollahs, and more all suck in my eyes because they have been granted undo power because they claim to have supernatural powers that normal humans don't. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em sideways. Fuck 'em in their holiest of holes. I don't need to mention any names but that guy who claims to be the 14th something or other says he "prays for peace" which means he's a delusional non-intellectual who doesn't seem to care what the rest of the world goes through.
Which brings me to my hypocrisy. I love Carl Sagan, Harry Houdini, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Penn & Teller, and many more. I hang on their words almost like they are religious truths. Their words inform my decisions and I feel enriched by learning about their lives. But what separates these men from the aforementioned holy men is that none of them claim to be divine or even divinely sparked. They use their profoundly gifted minds and, at times, bodies to demonstrate the power that a human can achieve. And, perhaps most importantly, because they claim no divine knowledge or guidance they leave wide open a door that those who use religion cannot: fallibility.
originally posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 9:03am | Edit Note | Delete
Check out this news piece entitled "OBAMA INVOKES JESUS MORE THAN BUSH"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510;_ylt=Aj6oWEFDjOXdqJFmgeS.5WCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJsbm5uNWc0BGFzc2V0Ay9wb2xpdGljby8yMDA5MDYwOS9wbF9wb2xpdGljby8yMzUxMARwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fbW9zdF9wb3B1bGFyBHNsawNvYmFtYWludm9rZXM-
Since I've been obsessed with President Obama's religiosity for a while now I'm not really surprised about this. Admittedly President Bush did take things a little further by saying that God spoke to him but I bet that question hasn't been directly posed to Obama. The nighttime talk radio host on AM1390 said that the "hand of God is on Obama" so I presume at least others believe God speaks to him whether he claims it himself.
First off, I hate Christianity. You hate stuff too, I bet, so please don't treat me like an intolerant fool. You probably hate National Socialism because we're all taught to hate it and with several good reasons why. Between hate speech, anti-individualism, witch burnings, crusades, and Oral Roberts I'd say that Christianity has had more than it's fair share of evil attributed to it's cause. The big difference between Christianity and Nazism in the public eye grows from the fact that people love to hate Hitler but still adore that guy named Jesus.
Let's clear something up quickly. Lots of guys named Jesus existed at the turn of the millennium and it is most likely that there existed a fella who made a name for himself by criticizing politics and religion. Or rather, Paul made a name of him. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus died and the reason that anyone knows his name is because one very vocal, powerful, and literate man fell in love with the guy and wrote letters about him to others. Paul's the asshole who we should all be pissed at. In other words, I could be Jesus but I don't have a PR guy like Paul. Of course, since I am literate and I do write my opinions you know more about me than anyone will ever know about who Jesus was.
My hate doesn't end with Christianity, though. I hate Ghandi too just for this quote alone:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Christians, just like we evil, depraved atheists, are just normal people which means just like you and I they are concerned, compassionate people. Maybe not as compassionate as you, of course, because who is? But really, no matter how stupid the bullshit is that people believe they generally care about other people anywhere from somewhat to a lot. Jeffrey Dahmer was a Christian who ate people and Stalin was an atheist who committed genocide so maybe a person's theology is not the most important thing when evaluating them as an individual.
I agree that a lot of good did come from Ghandi, even though he was clearly an elitist and he was an extreme racist. But I say I hate him because of what he stands for in people's eyes. He is treated as an enlightened, spiritual, holy person. Some people are more intelligent and some people are more benevolent than myself but I don't think that any of them are holy.
This means the Pope, a yogi, the Dalia Lama, televangelists, psychics, Ayatollahs, and more all suck in my eyes because they have been granted undo power because they claim to have supernatural powers that normal humans don't. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em sideways. Fuck 'em in their holiest of holes. I don't need to mention any names but that guy who claims to be the 14th something or other says he "prays for peace" which means he's a delusional non-intellectual who doesn't seem to care what the rest of the world goes through.
Which brings me to my hypocrisy. I love Carl Sagan, Harry Houdini, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Penn & Teller, and many more. I hang on their words almost like they are religious truths. Their words inform my decisions and I feel enriched by learning about their lives. But what separates these men from the aforementioned holy men is that none of them claim to be divine or even divinely sparked. They use their profoundly gifted minds and, at times, bodies to demonstrate the power that a human can achieve. And, perhaps most importantly, because they claim no divine knowledge or guidance they leave wide open a door that those who use religion cannot: fallibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)