And Now For a Random Quote From the Pharyngula Files!

One blog I read often is Pharyngula. One of the boxes in the sidebar always contains a random quote of the "religious nutjob" variety. When I went there today, I instantly recognized the quote:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked, his wrath towards you burns like fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night, that you was[sic] suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep.
["Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," preached July 8, 1741. In Ola Elizabeth Winslow, ed., Jonathon Edwards: Basic writings (New York: New American Library, 1966) p. 159.]

Yes. Jonathan Edwards. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Always held in high regard in our household. We were all big fans of that "fire and brimstone" stuff. Special thanks for contributing to my childhood/adolescent immersion into Puritanism, Tabletalk Magazine!

Obviously, this sermon is completely ridiculous, but maybe you wouldn't know that if you underwent similar immersion through the entirety of your upbringing. We can't judge people, but we must challenge one another to question our beliefs. If something is true, then it should be independently verifiable.¹ In our search for truth, though we may be dependent upon the (again, independently verifiable) work of others, we must remember that "authority" means absolutely nothing.

---

¹There may be some who claim that "nothing can be completely independent!" This is a different discussion, but for our present purposes, I reject that claim as false, or at least irrelevant. Don't believe me? I'm not stopping you from looking into it!

The Passion of The Prejean, According to St. Meghan

Hello again, dear readers! It's been a long time since I last blogged. Where have I been? Well, twitter. Yes, *sigh*.

One person I "follow" on twitter is Meghan McCain. I was reading her article in The Daily Beast on Monday regarding conservatives' treatment of her in comparison to Carrie Prejean. There were a few points I wanted to discuss, but couldn't fit into 140 characters. (I have other topics lined up about which to blog, but this one is actually sort of timely!)

Ms. McCain rightly notes the hypocrisy of those who defend conservatives who are guilty of actions for which they would condemn everyone else (of course, I would say that the same goes for all other political/ideological groups). Speaking of this, two words: Bristol Palin. I'm sure others have observed that if it had been a 17-year-old daughter of Obama who was pregnant out of wedlock, many conservatives would have become apoplectic! Not even considering how they would have reacted if the pregnancy had been terminated! But Palin's defenders were tripping over themselves trying to "justify" the circumstances of her unwed-teenage-pregnancy. "um! But at least her and the father are going to get married! oh, no? um! at least she chose not to have an abortion!" What was that? "Chose"? First of all, yes, there were people using this language. It seems strange, considering that these are the same people who do not consider abortion an option, who say things like, "It's not a choice! It's a child!" Secondly, if you are "pro-life," and you think there's a moral equivalence between abortion and murder, why give anyone special recognition for not murdering a child!? I never hear people congratulating mothers for not committing infanticide!¹ But I digress... I fully agree with Ms. McCain that it sends the wrong message to justify making a sex or masturbation tape with/for another person on the grounds that you are in love with that person. It's the height of disingenuousness to justify an action you would otherwise condemn on such shaky grounds. Of course, she wasn't the first Republican to try to do something like that... To be fair, Ms. Prejean did appear contrite for what she admitted was the "biggest mistake of [her] life." Oh wait, sorry, make that the "eight biggest mistakes of her life." Did she really think that producing these tapes was such a huge mistake before they became public knowledge? There's no way of knowing for sure, but I'm skeptical.

Look: Let's be clear: In contrast with Ms. McCain, I neither condemn nor condone the production of sex tapes or the act of sex per se. I, in fact, have taken and distributed nude photographs of myself for, let's say, non-artistic purposes (upon request, of course, and I was "smart" enough to obscure my face). I don't envision the release of these photos as having political consequences for me since I'm being so open about it. (But honesty often has its own penalties...) As I may have said before, the ethical guidelines I try to follow are based primarily in empathy and what I "do unto others," as well as maintaining a consistency between who I am in public and in private.² Under this paradigm, the only major "sins" [I can think of at this time] are: harming or restricting the freedom of others,³ violating prior agreements, and hypocrisy. An act such as the production of a sex tape would be "wrong" only if a person had previously agreed not to produce one or if s/he had publicly stated that such an act was immoral and had condemned others who had participated in such activities.

So the question is: Is Ms. Prejean a hypocrite? Yes, of course! Taking her full history of media appearances in context, Ms. Prejean's personal stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of "opposite marriage" is merely a sliver of a worldview that highly regards "traditional morality" and seeks to defend it from the threats that the continuing modernization of society poses against it with its "equality" (pah!) and willingness to accept "science" and "reality" (hmph!). The very acts Ms. Prejean recorded herself performing (in fact, any kind of sexuality outside the shackles of holy matrimony) are anathema to this entire worldview!

So why are people like Sean Hannity so vehemently defending this young woman? Sorry, wrong question. Why are they continuing to give her a political platform even though anyone can see that she's completely unqualified? Wait, who am I talking about? Prejean or McCain? Anyway... I think it's fairly obvious that although, yes, certain people said some mean things about Ms. Prejean (and I am certainly not trying to justify that!), she's taking the victim act way too far.

Somebody Get Ms. Prejean a Crown of Thorns, For Christ's Sake!

Her main function in the current media storyline is to corroborate the narrative fabricated by the "right-wing" (or "traditionalists" or whatever label into which you want to shoehorn them) that traditionalists ("us" or "we") are the victims. Then they frame the issue such that those who want to change the status quo ("them" or "they") are not opposed to an unjust system, but are primarily interested in "ramming 'their' radical agenda down 'our' throats." This, enabling America's Christian/Conservative Persecution Complex, is part of the Right's own brand of identity politics and is just another way for those who have power to use the sheeple as pawns to further their own agendas.

Ms. McCain further raises the entirely valid point that traditionalists treat her very differently from how they treat Ms. Prejean. They definitely directed a lot more criticism at McCain for photographing herself when she happened to be wearing a tank-top (and I don't even need to mention their opinion about her regarding the fact that she's honest about enjoying sex! *gasp*!) than there was at Prejean who, let's remember, even before the masturbation tapes or the nude photos, participated in a competition that involved traipsing around on a stage in a bikini on national television! Surely you can see not only the hypocrisy, but also the tribalism here. Prejean's actions are justified in spite of cognitive dissonance because "she's on 'our' side!" and, "The Christian values that she has cherry-picked to defend are similar to mine!" And because McCain chooses to espouse a set of values that is different in certain areas, traditionalists treat her the same as any other non-tribe-member.

We could further ask whether or not it's "right" or "brave" to stand up for certain values for no other reason than that they just happen to be the values a person was raised to revere. Of course, the answer is a resounding "no!" I think that bravery, much like other virtues, requires that one make informed decisions and really understand (or at least make a sincere effort to understand) why one takes any specific position. The traditionalist does not stand for truth, but for dogma. Dogma is an enemy of truth. Any fool can parrot lines they were indoctrinated to believe, but it's really better and ultimately, far more rewarding for a person to make the effort to seek the truth for oneself. This is something that I don't really think either McCain or Prejean have seriously attempted. But McCain is at least somewhat better off because some of her values just so happen to be "the right ones" (this is a bit subjective, but, basically, what I mean is that her stance on gay marriage, at least, is on "the right side of history").

So should we criticize Ms. Prejean? I would say that we should only
criticize her as long as she has her undeserved platform and even then, only for her shallow understanding of the issues and her bankruptcy of core-principles (governing her own actions) and her ignorance and her hypocrisy and her opportunism and... What I'm saying is that I don't think we should engage in personal attacks against people. We should first engage people on their ideas and their words. Prejean is, of course, a person who has no business being a part of the discussion on any political issue, but that's because she hasn't done her homework. She hasn't performed (and, let's be frank, might not even be capable of taking on) the research or analysis necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on any of the major political issues of the day. But no one should call her a "cunt" or a "dumb bitch," regardless of whether or not those are accurate characterizations of her (because, well, that's just not nice...). That said, let me emphasize that Perez Hilton clearly claims³ that he was not upset with her opposition to same-sex marriage, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing/"family-values" echo-chamber, but with the complete lack of grace and intelligence with which she answered the question. In addition, I think he was right about the answer she should have given if she did, in fact, have "half a brain." After all, he didn't directly ask her for her opinion on same-sex marriage, but she gave it to him anyway. I guess she thought that it would have made Baby Jesus cry if she had decided to take anything less than such a "bold" stand on the issue.

Ms. McCain goes on to say that she "[doesn't] want to be too harsh on Carrie Prejean" because, after all, she's only 22 and "she feels the same way about gay marriage that [sic] our own president does." Yes. Ms. Prejean is only 22. Fair enough. As I said earlier, my primary complaint is that she has this undeserved platform in the first place. But I must take issue with McCain's 2nd point. I'm growing tired of the non-stop propagation of this "Prejean and Obama have the same opinion on gay marriage" meme. Sure, they both believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but to stop there and claim that their views on the issue are equivalent is, at best, a beyond-Clinton/Bush-league distortion of the facts, true on only the most superficial level! I do not consider such language hyperbolic because, first of all, Prejean has, thus far, to the best of my knowledge, shown herself to be incapable of speaking intelligently on this subject, particularly from a policy standpoint. Secondly, Obama is, in fact, in favor of civil unions and even opposed Proposition 8 because it used the California constitution to take rights/priveleges away from people, which is the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do. That said, I do think that Obama deserves criticism and pressure from supporters of same-sex marriage for his stance on this issue. I'm certainly not going to give him a free pass. It seems ironic, even hypocritical, for a black person to promote same-sex civil unions but not marriage considering the parallels between such a "separate-but-equal" policy and those used to subjugate black Americans in the past. His own parents wouldn't even have been able to marry each other in certain states until 1967!

The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is to ask what are [some] possible motivations people have for propagating this meme. Ms. McCain probably doesn't know any better. However, I have seen other bloggers incorporate this disingenuous assertion into their strategy to frame the issue. [Some of] these are the same people who always take pains to characterize Obama as some kind of radical leftist. The implication is that support of same-sex marriage is an issue so far to the left that not even our "radical-leftist" president supports it, when the reality is that same-sex marriage is not a partisan issue, but a human/civil rights issue.

Of course, there are some contradictions in this framing. First of all, President Obama is emphatically not a radical. He's a politician. Sure, he talked a lot about "change" during his campaign, and it does seem like he's working towards some of that, but most of these changes have been (or will be) cosmetic, or marginal, or superficial. He hasn't yet really done anything to drastically alter the status quo. Even the bailouts and the stimulus were not dramatic departures from previous policies (of course, this is debateable, but that's not really the point right now). Another problem with the "gay marriage is a left-wing issue" meme is the fact that many people like Meghan McCain who are not liberal support it. Also, it's not very consistent to say that the U.S. is a "center-right country," as do so many carriers of this meme, and simultaneously call an issue that regularly garners support from more than 40% in many states (and support increases the younger the demographic) a "left-wing issue." Come on, people, Which is it? You can't have it both ways!

On a final note, I've often observed that self-described conservatives seem to think that calling someone a "liberal" is some kind of trump card that wins any debate; or they use it like some sort of elementary school playground insult. Why is this? It makes even less sense to me than the use of the word "gay" as an insult.

Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially those of you with Conservative and/or Christian Persecution Complex! Count it all joy, my brethren [and sistren]!

---

¹Of course, I realize that one reason for this is that it's such a common procedure. I do understand the conviction that carrying a pregnancy to term should be congratulated. I plan on discussing this issue more in-depth in a later post.

²People must be judged according to the standards by which they judge others. Of course, I believe there's always room for mercy.

³Of course, it's usually a good thing to help others if you can, and, in fact, it may be unethical if you can help another person, but don't and the other person is harmed.

⁴Of course, I don't claim we should take him at his word. We can have a discussion about that, but that's not the issue right now.

"There's Only One Woman in the World... With Different Faces"

This is a follow-up to my column, "Bitches Ain't Shit, but Ho's and Tricks." It seems that I left out a few things I wanted to say, even though that column was over 2300 words in length.

I am a strong believer in freedom (to a certain extent. I can discuss that more in-depth later). But I believe that freedom requires responsibility. I don't think I made this perfectly clear in my "Bitches" column. When it comes to sex, freedom in this area requires that we take certain precautions. If you've taken any sort of sex-education class, you should know what those are (for the present purposes, I think it's sufficient for me to state that they exist without going into a lot of detail about what they are). I also believe that freedom requires us to have realistic expectations. Things aren't going to be perfect just because you have more options. With more options come opportunity costs because there are more options you can't choose than there are when you have less options from which to choose. OK! I hope I've cleared that up!

Everyone masturbates, but when I bring up masturbation in front of people I've just met at a Denny's at 2 am after karaoke, they think it's awkward for some reason. Why is that?

My mother was raised Catholic, so she was raised to think that sex is disgusting. When her and my dad were "living in sin," she got pregnant with me so she could convince my dad to marry her (half-joke!). But during this time, she was also ashamed to go out in public because people would know she was having sex or had at least once had sex in the past. She still hasn't gotten over this misplaced aversion towards sex. When my dad tries to feel her up, (even at home!) she tells him to stop, and calls him a pig (on the other hand, maybe there are other reasons for that). That just goes to show you how such a restrictive upbringing can fuck up a person. You see how difficult I (and others) have it trying to educate people not to be ashamed of their bodies or anything like that.

I really hate self-righteousness. My reaction to it is always: "But you masturbate!" That's always a great self-righteousness trump card. Another thing I can't stand is people who try to act like their "relationship with God" makes them more moral. Most moral standards based on religion are unattainable. Don't tell me that it's possible to live a "sinless" life. Don't tell me it's possible to "overcome" human nature. Sure, it might be possible, but what fully-informed person would make the decision to live like that? How does a person with such a human-nature-denying system of morality deal with continually failing to meet their own standards? I would assume that if s/he is a mainstream, non-Catholic Christian, s/he just asks for forgiveness and moves on with his/her life, possibly subtly, smugly looking down on the "unforgiven." Other religious people might have their own problems to deal with, like guilt, etc. Of course, if anyone tries to make me feel guilty for not living up to their moral standards (of course, not believing in God is about as far as I've gotten at this point), my response is usually "Fuck you, man! I was more repressive of myself than any of you for the past 24 years! Don't act like you're more righteous than me just because you have an imaginary friend!"

Ok. Gee... ended on kind of a harsh note there. Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials!

New YouTube Video: "I Want You..."

I want to feel connected to you

I want to understand you, and I want you to understand me.

I want to be able to look into your eyes and know that I'm speaking to a human being.

I want you to make yourself completely vulnerable--completely break down the walls you've built around you.

Dispell all preconceived notions you've ever had about anything.

Let us not be afraid to be completely honest with ourselves and each other.

Let us reject fear, pride, contempt, and other irrationalities.

I'm not looking for a fight. I am not your enemy.

I want you to realize that we are all one... figuratively speaking.

Is this too much to expect?

Belated Obligatory Ted Kennedy Blog

As you may know, Ted Kennedy died recently. Death is usually caused by what biologists call "fatal genes." In the case of Mary Jo Kopechne, this was the gene that causes young women to get into cars with drunken senators as well as the gene that causes the human brain to use more oxygen than can be filtered out of a body of water.

I've heard various perspectives on the Ted Kennedy legacy. Most of those on the left praised his legislative accomplishments. Some were particularly obsequious and "hagiographical" of the man. I believe MSNBC spent several days' worth of coverage on the story. Obviously, this can become annoying after a while, but one needs to keep in mind that the seemingly over-arching philosophy on the left is that a person's accomplishments (or even just a person's intentions) for "the greater good" count for more than their personal failings. This is why many liberals (including feminists) loved Bill Clinton even though there exist women who he might have allegedly mistreated on a personal level. Some would argue that Kennedy's "personal failings" were far worse than Clinton's, but I'll get into that later.

Of course, one question we must ask is how effective Kennedy's legislation was at accomplishing its intended goals. As a "libertarian," I am fully aware that law-making is like manufacturing sausage. There's a lot in there aside from meat. There are also a lot of "unintended consequences." For example, large corporations tend to be able to afford the legal muscle to seek loopholes in regulations, whereas for smaller businesses, these regulations might not seriously increase "equality of opportunity/access," but may be difficult or costly to implement, and a smaller business would not be able to afford to pay a legal services department millions of dollars to seek a loophole. Yet, as a semi-rational human being, I also realize that not everyone is going to "do the right thing." No, you can't legislate morality, but (go ahead... call me a hippy) I believe that people have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of things like race, gender, religion (or lack thereof), etc., except, of course, in very limited cases, such as in private clubs, like the boy scouts, which I, in turn, refuse to support. Since I believe this is a right, I also believe that it's the government's job to protect this right. Of course, I don't think that congress has to enforce this using the interstate commerce clause! I'm sure the equal protection clause would work just fine. But if I'm wrong and we need to change the constitution to reflect this idea, I'm sure there are ways of doing so that do not require congress to insinuate itself into every aspect of my life! So, anyway, for what it's worth, thanks, Ted Kennedy, I guess, for that Americans with Disabilities Act... I mean, it's possible that there would be other ways for me to have equal access to employment with my "condition," but then again, maybe not. I don't know. Since I'm ignorant in this area, I'm not going to assume anything right now. Since it's not my primary concern at this time, I'm not going to research this question right now, either, although I probably could. Yeah, thanks.

I don't think I need to discuss at length Ted Kennedy's aforementioned "personal failings." That has been done elsewhere. He has been criticized, obviously, for the Chappaquidick incident. He has been criticized for laughing at jokes about it. Some have criticized him for "wasting other people's money"; for his alcoholism[?] and his treatment of women. He has been rightly criticized for many things. Although I will say that I'm not sure how he can be criticized for laughing at Chappaquidick jokes. Lots of people laugh at such jokes. Why can't he? Just because he was responsible for the incident? Call me callous, but I would think that it caused him quite a lot of guilt and humor about it became a coping mechanism for him, possibly among numerous others. Ok, fine. I'm perfectly willing to admit it if my folk psychologizing is incorrect, but it's an idea that doesn't seem to have been considered by those who criticize Kennedy over it.

Andrew Breitbart¹, for example, was all a-twitter upon the demise of the Massachusetts senator. Ok, so Kennedy "wasted other people's money." He was "an animal to Clarence Thomas." He was "responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne." You could reasonably claim that if he was responsible for her death, an investigation should have been performed and charges should have been filed. Wait... isn't that the process that was followed? I believe Kennedy was charged, albeit with a much lesser crime than, say, vehicular homicide. Ok, so you say he still needs to apologize. Not to you, right? To Kopechne's family? I haven't heard any of them ask for an apology. Is it really any of your business who he apologizes to? Obviously, his constituency doesn't seem to need an apology since they re-elected him numerous times.

Another thing Breitbart said was that Kennedy was "proof that big government is evil." Ok. Even if he was responsible for Kopechne's death, I don't see anyone who was outraged at Kennedy similarly outraged over the Iraq war (which Kennedy at least had the decency to vote against, thought it might not have required much political courage as he was "the senior senator from Massachusetts" at the time) or even the Oil for Food program (thanks a lot, Clinton administration!), each of which were responsible for over 100,000 deaths. Surely no one would claim that if you kill one person, you're a monster, but if you kill hundreds of thousands, you're a hero and a great leader. I would seriously question the sincerity of anyone who would suggest that, for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act was worse than the Patriot Act, or that "No Child Left Behind," as bad as it was, was worse than the Iraq War. Not seeing it!

Thanks for reading. Happy trials!

---

¹The man is possibly my Moby Dick. Well he is white... and kind of whale-like.

Racewars 2.0!!! [or: Credibility Issues 1.0]

[note: I had wanted to write about Andrew Breitbart's latest intellectually dishonest column, but I felt like I needed to write about this one first, for the sake of context. See you next time!]

Andrew Breitbart, in addition to operating breitbart.com and bighollywood.com and writing for the Drudge Report, has his own little column in the Washington Times (not helping your credibility there, pal). He would seemingly like to think that he has fresh ideas about the race issue in this country, but there are a lot of aspects of that issue that he doesn't really quite seem to understand. He's of the school that believes that [of course, it's possible that I'm being reductive] the whole racism problem in America ["c" not "k." Don't worry, I got it!] would simply vanish if those darn liberals cut out all that politics-as-usual "identity politics" and "affirmative action" bullshit! Now let's be clear. I am certainly no fan of identity politics. I do agree that it's bullshit [not that Republicans or conservatives ever play identity politics. Certainly not. You can just ask Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Piyush "Bobby" Jindal]. Also, there's obviously a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Government actions always have unforseen consequences. Affirmative action based on race has probably engendered at least a bit of bitterness and resentment among those who saw it as being at their expense. "Hey! I never owned slaves or discriminated against minorities, or even had the opportunity to do so," some might have asked, "so why am I being punished!?" My concern right now is not whether or not those poor, unfortunate souls suffered actual damages due to affirmative action. My point is that it's not necessarily the fault of most white people alive today that racial inequalities are still such a problem in this country. But that's not even the real point. The real point is that you don't even need the racism of ordinary Americans to perpetuate a state in which there are gross inequalities. It so happens that most of the people in charge of this country today are white males. This is largely because of racism, definitely that of the past, although it is far less prevalent now, yet it still exists. There are, of course, other factors (including classism and sexism, and, sure, whatever reasons conservatives say there are), which I don't feel the need to address at this time! But now that the system is set up this way, you no longer need racism to "keep the black man down" because this state is "self-perpetuating." Is this not a "self-evident truth"? Could anyone perhaps present an argument against this? I'm sure you would at least agree that people have to realize that, if nothing else, this has been the case until very recently.

So a few weeks ago, this black dude got arrested for being loud in his own yard, and maybe being a bit disrespectful to a [white] cop. I would like to remind you that nothing this guy did was actually a crime! I cannot emphasize this strongly enough! But not a big deal. Happens all the time. Oh wait, turns out this guy was a well-respected Harvard professor. Should the cop have thought twice before arresting a partially disabled [basically] senior citizen for a non-crime? No. Of course not. The police in this country have the authority, nay, the obligation to tase first and ask questions never. So then, someone from the press did a "man in the white house" interview of another black guy, and he was all, "gee, I wonder if race had anything to do with this." Totally a legitimate question. For example, it's a commonly-known statistic that black people use drugs at a rate similar to that of white people, yet 2/3rds of the people in jail for drug offenses are black. Hm, I wonder why that is. But it turns out that, no, the cop actually taught a class on racial profiling, so, maybe race didn't have anything to do with it. Maybe the cop was simply being a major dick-hole. Again, not a big deal. This sort of thing happens all the time. But then again, as author/genius/"blowhard demagogue" Michael Eric Dyson pointed out, maybe things would have been different if it had been a black officer arresting an older white man in his own home for a non-crime. This too is a legitimate question to which I know not the answer. It's something for us all to consider on our own. This is, I think, the difference between Dyson and, say, Al Sharpton: Instead of asserting that race had something to do with the incident, Dyson asks that we examine what race may have had to do with the incident. In any case, when this revelatory information was revealed, that the police officer was probably not a racist, merely a dick-hole, the president, for political reasons, had to back away from his perfectly legitimate criticisms of the man. Of course, the officer's co-workers came to his defense. This was to be expected. Just as Obama came to the defense of Gates, who he said was a friend. I have heard some say that Obama should have simply kept his mouth shut on the issue until he knew all the facts. I personally think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq until we had all the facts, but that's beside the point. What, are these people going to tell the president that he shouldn't excercise his own 1st Amendment rights simply due to a lack of information? Was Obama wrong in his assessment of the situation? I think not. I understand that there was a lot of hatred poured out against poor Officer Crowley and this might possibly have had something to do with Mr. President's refusal to stay silent on the issue like some kind of submissive dhimmi. But how do we know that similar feelings were not directed at Professor Gates? What is the complaint of those who [most likely before they had full knowledge of the circumstances] sided with the officer? I don't understand.

To me, Andrew Breitbart lost more than a little bit of credibility on the race issue in his [predictably intellectually dishonest] post-Gates-gate column in the Times, in which he makes some claims that I find difficult to understand. First, he claims that Obama wanted "to protect the status quo." What status quo is that? The one in which less than 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black? I find it difficult to imagine that the Democratic party is so greedy for black votes that they'd be willing to keep this "status quo." Breitbart also writes, "Any serious discussion would have put multiculturalism on trial." I don't really know how he defines multiculturalism here. I, for one, think that multiculturalism is fine as long as there are no burqas involved! As long as we're all under the same set of laws! As long as we're not terrified of offending people in certain groups! To me, it's not "seeing people in terms of the color of their skin" or anything like that. It's embracing the freedom of others to be different. That's what America is all about, right? Breitbart then spends a couple of paragraphs of the column trying to argue for some kooky conspiracy theory about Obama taking classes from far-left professors in college or something like that (oh no! Far-left professors!? Anything but that!). Then there were a couple of statements in the rest of the column that drew my attention. First, Breitbart points out that mediocre college grades didn't seem to be a problem for Bush II, Gore, or Kerry! Obviously, college grades don't matter if you're a white, upper-class, heterosexual male. But could we say the same of anyone from a different background? This is a question that Breitbart seemingly fails to consider, though it stares him in the face. Then, he makes the odd declaration that Obama and Gates wanted "to end a national discussion on race, not begin one," that they had initially "played the race card," which "proved unpopular," and so "orchestrated" the infamous 'beer summit' so that they could "have their frosted malt beverages and get outta Dodge." Wow! Nothing racist about that statement! Nope! Move along now, nothing to see here...

Breitbart's problem is that he seems to ignore or at least downplay most of the factors in our country's race/class/gender problems [some of which I mentioned earlier in this column!] and focus on the following issues: ⁽¹⁾What are the black-studies departments at our Ivy League Liberal Elite Universities teaching? ⁽²⁾The Democratic Party, in order to keep its lock on the black vote, tells black people that they have to be afraid "of cops, of Republicans, of conservatives, of 'Uncle Toms,' and even of Tiger Woods, who proves that America, while still imperfect, is clearly heading in the right direction." Right. None of the things I mentioned previously in this column are part of the problem. We can apparently ignore all of that stuff. It's all Liberal Elitists and Black-Studies Departments that we should be concerned about! Alright! Glad you shared that oracle with all of us unenlightened masses! Thanks!

Sorry, but the rest of us live in this foreign land called "reality." You are always welcome to join us, if you are so inclined.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that if you wanted to "accuse" someone of being an "Uncle Tom" you couldn't find a much better target than Obama, himself. To act like he hasn't been critical of this attitude within the black community is ignorant at best. I don't know. I don't want to read too much into that... or do I?

New YouTube Video: "Fuck Her Gently"

This is my cover of "Fuck Her Gently" by Tenacious D. I'm sure I would have otherwise made my first video one in which I attempt to expound "deep thoughts" or whatever as I [attempt to] do here in my blog. It just so happens that I finished this first. Oh well. I'm sure I'll put up "real" videos later. Anyway, enjoy!

The Silent Treatment

Once I had this friend who I loved very, very much (I still love her, but not quite in the same way). It might be more accurate to say that I was completely obsessed with her. She didn't like me any more than any of her other friends, but she tolerated me for quite a while. She didn't completely stop talking to me until about a year and a half ago when I temporarily moved to a location within 70 miles of where she lived, although she didn't cut me off from all contact with her, or "excommunicate" me, as she would say.

After this, I would sometimes talk to her on instant messenger when she was online, but she would never respond. Sooner or later, I realized that the way I felt when I was talking to her on IM was the same way I felt when I prayed, and I had to ask myself,"Is it consistent with my view of God that he would [permanently] give me 'the silent treatment'?" I then realized that I had never felt or perceived that God had "spoken" to me, figuratively or literally.

The whole thing made me kind of sad, although I've gotten over it since then. It was just one step out of many on the road to atheism, [in addition to everything else it was. I would never reduce such an experience to just one thing].