Where I Be

July 24, 2013

You know how sometimes, you can have a day that’s just monumentally shitty. One unfortunate stroke of misfortune after another. Like, maybe you sleep through your alarm and you forget to put on deodorant in your hurry to leave, and then you spill your entire cafecito on your brand new shirt before you even get a sip, and then you get to work two hours late and your boss yells at you for being alive, and then your doctor calls you and tells you he’s concerned about a lump and that he wants you to come in this week so he can thoroughly test you for butthole cancer, so you spend the rest of the morning reeking of sweat and coffee, trying to focus on getting work done, but you can’t because you can’t stop thinking about dying of butthole cancer, and, now that you think about it, you swear to god you can feel it in there, and you can’t sit comfortably. Malignant tumors in your booty hole. Cancer of the asshole. What an appropriate way to die. And as you ponder this, you realize you’re four hours into an assignment that you’ve done completely wrong and you realize now that you’re going to have to start again from scratch, and yada yada yada and fast forward through another eight or nine hours of one consecutive terrible thing after another, made ten times worse by the fact that you can no longer find a comfortable seat, anywhere.

Finally, you get home from the police station, pay the taxi driver and apologize for what you left in his back seat and for the fact that you don’t have enough for a tip, go inside, move your bowels with some discomfort, replace the dressing on your forehead that’s starting to get bloody and soggy, remove your shirt (which now has mustard, bird shit, sheep’s blood, and human urine added to the collection of stains), take off your pants (which are actually someone else’s pants and three sizes too small)…

But then, something good happens. Maybe you take a nice, long, relaxing bubble bath, and you make a bubble beard and bubble armor and declare yourself the bubble god and banish your worries to the underworld and watch them disappear down the drain along with the bathwater. Maybe your friend comes over and brings you some McDonalds and before you know it, you’re laughing and crap-talking over McNuggets and Dr. Pepper, and you don’t even remember what a crap cake day you just had. Maybe you flip on the telly, and something awesome is on, like your favorite movie just starting with no commercials, or a news report saying that Lil Wayne died earlier today from crashing his private jet into a volcano. Whatever it is, the point is something good happens that cuts through the bad shit of your day like a lightsaber through a stick of butter, and keeps you from going off the deep end.

Suddenly, life isn’t so bad. Tomorrow’s a new day. There’ll be a new shirt. Your pants will be yours. You probably don’t have butt cancer and even if you do, it’ll be alright. Work will be okay, and even if it isn’t, you hate your job anyway. There’s a giant mountain in front of you that you’ll have to climb, but at least the valley is behind you.

That was my overly elaborate way of explaining how I feel right now. How sometimes, the clustering of misfortunes can make simple pleasures that much better, and make you appreciate it more when things go right. So to anyone that might be wondering where I went and how I’ve been, I’ve been better, but things are looking up. I have this feeling that the next phase of my life is going to be very significant in a way I don’t entirely understand yet. Kinda like a dead phoenix.

It’s been difficult to get myself to write lately, but I’m going to try. I think maybe I need to.

The Black Jeezus Rises

August 22, 2012

Image

Howdy, humans.

Yes, I realize it’s been a while. I think a few updates are in order, no?

First off, you may or may not be pleased to know that I am, in fact, alive and well. And aside from some allergies and intermittent bronchitis, I’m in tip-top health. My absence from the ol’ wordpress was due more to a change in attitude than anything else. I’m still very much an atheist, but I no longer have the desire to vent my frustrations online. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine. I suppose one might say I’ve “matured,” though I’m not sure that’s the word I’d use, given the fact that I still inspect all of my poops before flushing to see if they look like any celebrities.

I’ve mentioned that before on this blog, haven’t I? No? Shit.

Anyway, I haven’t abandoned writing either. Just blogging. For those curious, I finished the first drafts of a ten-episode comedy-drama series (I refuse to use the word “dramedy”), and am in the process of constructing a different, much more time-consuming black comedy / crime drama series. It’s hard, frustrating work, trying to write something that you’re happy with. But until they discover a way to be a writer without actually having to write anything, I guess I’m doomed to a life of constant disappointment and dissatisfaction. Kinda like Miami Dolphins fans. Only with less alcoholism.

Furthermore, some of you may or may not be pleased to know that I decided to give the whole “love” thing another go. Put my cards back on the table and let the chips fall where they may and whatnot (I may be mixing my analogies here). And wouldn’t you know it, I nabbed quite hefty jackpot. By the way, I mean “hefty” in the sense that she’s awesome, not “hefty” in the sense that she has a problem with girth. Anyway, I met her on the internet (which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who is growing increasing frustrated with the matches in their own social circle), and we’ve been doing pretty well. She’s really something. Motivated in ways I’m not. Beautiful in ways I could never even hope to be. Sensible in ways that always escape me. And her cat is okay too. By the way, I mean “cat” as in a literal cat, not “cat” as in a euphemism for vagina. I know it’s cliche, but I feel those familiar tingles and jingles in my abdomen when I’m with her. I missed those. It’s like being in high school again. Only with less alcoholism.

Now that that’s out of the way, onto the blog. I almost considered taking it down, but upon intense reflection (not really… it was more like three minutes of thought while on the john, pinching out a sewer trout that looked like Judd Hersch), I’ve decided to keep the blog up and running. I’ve even decided to try to write a little more often. But definitely not the same subject matter as before.

So in summation, if you like my writing style, but didn’t much care for the subject matter, you’re in luck. You’ll still be getting the pure, raw Black Jeezus wit, but without the annoying filler.

So stop sending me e-mails already.

Leprechauns?

January 11, 2012

Just found this jewel on Matt Dillahunty’s blog. Made me LOL. Enjoy.

* * * * * *

A very sturdy looking box rests on a table as two men walk up to it

Theist: That box has a leprechaun in it.

Atheist: I don’t believe that…why do you?

Theist: I heard him talking.

Atheist: I don’t believe that either…in fact, I have no evidence that leprechauns exist.

Theist: Well, either there’s a leprechaun in the box or there isn’t, right?

Atheist: Right.

Theist: So it’s 50/50…and since I heard him talk, I’m sure that there’s a leprechaun in there.

Atheist: Either there’s a leprechaun in the box or not, but that doesn’t mean the odds are 50/50.

Theist: Of course it does.

Atheist: Actually, it doesn’t, but could you offer some evide…

Theist: Hang on! He’s just told me that if you don’t believe he’s in there, he’ll chain you to a tree after you’re dead and stick his shillelagh up your ass for 10,000 years!

Atheist: Um, wow, but I was asking if you could offer some additional evidence beyond your claim that you heard him. I didn’t hear him say that, by the way.

Theist: Well, you’re not listening hard enough.

Atheist: Ok (listens)…noth…

Theist: Give it TIME! You’ve got to sincerely WANT to hear him…

Atheist: If he’s in there, I’d like to know it…I’ll keep listening.

Theist: Did you hear that?

Atheist: Nope, nothing.

Theist: You’re either lying or you’re so closed minded that he’s not letting you hear him.

Atheist: Not letting me? Leprechauns can choose who can hear them?

Theist: Of course! He could open this lid, show himself to me…and you’d never see it, you’d think the box was closed the whole time. They’re MAGIC!

Atheist: Well, do you have any evidence for any of this? I mean, I’ve never seen a leprechaun…I have no reason to think they even exist and every time you tell me how to prove it, the tests fail.

Theist: No, YOU fail. It worked for me.

Atheist: (Motions toward a handful of people to one side) Well, there are other people here who have tried this…and it failed for them.

Theist: Yes, but these people (motions toward a huge group off to another side) heard it. In fact there are WAY more people over here who will tell you they heard it.

(The Atheist moves off to ask them a few questions.)

Atheist: I talked to some of them…they all have a slightly different take on this. Some say it’s a leprechaun; others say it’s a fairy; still others say it’s a goblin. They don’t all describe the same voice and they apparently have conflicting messages that they claim came from inside the box. Most of them simply said that they knew other people who claimed to know what was in the box.

Theist: Ah, yes! There’s actually a troll in the box with the leprechaun. He sometimes pretends to be the leprechaun, or a fairy, or a goblin in order to fool those other people – but you’ll notice they STILL heard something.

Atheist: Yes, some say that, but others don’t.

Theist: Well, that troll sometimes blocks the sounds so people can’t hear it.

Atheist: So, how do you know, when you hear the leprechaun, that you aren’t hearing the troll?

Theist: Don’t be absurd! The leprechaun is my friend; he makes sure that I only hear him.

Atheist: But how can you be sure…if you think there’s a troll there too, who pretends to be a leprechaun…how can you know? Maybe there’s ONLY the troll and he’s just fucking with you.

Theist: Now you’re just being thick. Look, there’s a box, right?

Atheist: Yup.

Theist: Now why would there be a box here unless there was something in it?? There MUST be something in it, right?

Atheist: No, the box could be empty.

Theist: No it couldn’t, or there’d be no reason for the box to exist! Boxes are for holding things. We all know that.

Atheist: So you’re claiming that the box could not possibly be empty?

Theist: Correct.

Atheist: And you don’t see that as a flawed premise?

Theist: No, and it’s confirmed by the fact that I heard a leprechaun.

Atheist: How did you hear him?

Theist: He talks to me telepathically.

Atheist: Oh, so you didn’t mean to listen with my ears, you meant listen with my mind?

Theist: Your heart.

Atheist: That doesn’t listen…

Theist: Your metaphoric heart!

Atheist: Ok…but that guy says he heard it with his ears.

Theist: He’s wrong…he’s hearing the troll.

Atheist: But I don’t even hear the troll.

Theist: He’s blocking you.

Atheist: Ok…how do you know all of this?

Theist: The leprechaun told me.

Atheist: Ok, so you’ve made appeals to magic, telepathy, leprechauns, trolls and non-empty boxes….you’ve offered no evidence. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you.

Theist: Don’t forget the shillelagh!

Atheist: Right… and you’ve made threats about things that’ll happen after I’m dead – when there’s no evidence that there’s any ‘me’ to experience anything after I’m dead. I just don’t believe your claim.

Theist: What if you’re wrong? Isn’t that a lot to risk? He says he’s got a pot of gold for you if you believe…isn’t that worth believing?

Atheist: Look, even if I could make myself believe, which I can’t, why would I want to do that? If there’s no leprechaun in there, then I’ve wasted the opportunity find out what’s really in the box. And if he wants me to follow his instructions…

Theist: Oh, he does…I’ve written them down for you, here…

Atheist: (Looks at the list) Then I’ll have wasted time doing things that…does that say “Do not eat poo”?

Theist: Yup…great rule, isn’t it?

Atheist: Yeah, but what about “Drop money in the box”

Theist: He’s got needs too…pots of gold don’t grow on trees.

Atheist: I thought he was magic.

Theist: He is…but, well, the money is so we can tell other people what the leprechaun wants.

Atheist: Why doesn’t he tell them?

Theist: He could, but…well, he will, if they’re open too it. Some, like you, are fooled by the troll.

Atheist: Why doesn’t he get rid of the troll.

Theist: It’s a mystery, but we’re sure he will eventually.

Atheist: Anyway, if this isn’t true, then I’ll have wasted a lot of time and money on something false…only to avoid a threat that wasn’t real.

Theist: Yeah…but what if you’re wrong.

Atheist: Ok…look, I’m done. I do NOT believe there’s a leprechaun in the box.

Theist: How can you be sure?

Atheist: I’m not, but I don’t believe there is.

Theist: How can you say there’s no leprechaun in the box!

Atheist: I didn’t…I said I don’t believe there is one.

Theist: Same thing.

Atheist: No it isn’t…however, now that I’ve considered and rejected your claim…

Theist: Don’t do it!

Atheist: I’m willing to say that I actually do believe there is no leprechaun in that box.

Theist: NO! You’re making an irrational claim…you think you know everything?!??!

Atheist: No, I’m not claiming that I’m absolutely certain that there’s no leprechaun in the box…but I actually believe, to some degree of certainty that there isn’t…because if there were, I’d expect there to be some evidence to support it, and investigations keep coming up empty. I’ll be back with some tools…we’re going to open that box.

Theist: You can’t open the box.

Atheist: Why not.

Theist: You just can’t, it’s impossible.

(Another person walks up)

Agnostic: He’s right. Neither of you know what’s in the box. You’re both equally absurd to assert that you DO know.

Atheist: I didn’t assert that I’m absolutely certain, I simply stated what my belief is…and it’s based on the evidence, or lack thereof

Agnostic: Don’t be silly…you’re just as dogmatic as he is.

Atheist: I’m not dogmatic about this at all – I’d just like to open the box and find out.

Agnostic: The box is impervious.

Atheist: How do you know?

Agnostic: Um, well, I don’t…it just seems impervious.

Atheist: Really, do you have other impervious things to compare it to?

Agnostic: Well, um, no…but I’m sure it’s impervious.

Atheist: If you’ll forgive me, as we’re essentially on the same side in that we reject his assertion…

Agnostic: I don’t reject it, I don’t reject anything

Atheist: Do you accept his claim?

Agnostic: I don’t know.

Atheist: You don’t know whether you accept his claim?

Agnostic: No, I mean I don’t know if he’s right or not.

Atheist: Well, neither do I, but that’s not what I asked.

Agnostic: The box is impervious

Atheist: Well, you sound just as dogmatic about our inability to know as he does about his private communications with the leprechaun

Agnostic: Now you’re just being rude

Atheist: Look, I’m going to open this box

Agnostic: Silly atheist….

(The atheist manages to drill a tiny hole in the box…)

Atheist: Look, it’s not impervious! I’ve got a hole here. We may eventually be able to investigate this in more detail.

Theist: You switched boxes!

Atheist: No, this is the box.

Agnostic: It’s STILL impervious; your little hole doesn’t give you enough information to support your claim.

Atheist: I can continue to investigate…and so far, there’s no evidence to support the theist’s claims.

Theist: You switched boxes!

Atheist: No I didn’t.

Theist: Then, um…he’s hiding. He needs you to believe without seeing him, so he’s hiding.

Atheist: That makes no sense.

Theist: The troll has created an illusory hole that is providing you with false information about what’s in the box!

Atheist: /sigh

Agnostic: That might be possible, I really couldn’t say.

Atheist: No, I bet you couldn’t.

The theist walks away, to tell other people about the leprechaun in the box.

The agnostic tries not to be anywhere near either of them, while secretly keeping an optimistic eye on the atheist’s activities.

The atheist goes about his life, occasionally finding new ways to investigate the box, but he tries to enjoy his life while preventing the theist from ruining it by imposing the leprechaun’s rules on everyone.

 

I can’t even begin to tell you how much I enjoyed watching this

July 22, 2011

Gee, I seem to remember something in the Christian scriptures about not bearing false witness.

Ahh, wait. That’s Old Testament. Never mind it, then.

Focus on the Family, just to be clear, is not a “fringe organization” or representative of an “ignored minority.”  FotF is, by all accounts, the most influential evangelical group in the United States, and untold millions of Christians ate up James Dobson’s bullshit every day on his radio program (including yours truly, once upon a time).

So if you’re thinking of complaining that atheists like me get bent out of shape over mere straw-men or extremists, think again. These people are knowingly spreading misinformation to a huge portion of my countrymen, who don’t even think twice to question it because they’d rather trust a prick with a bible and a psychology degree than make the effort to read actual scientific research.

And what’s worse, these people vote.

Meanwhile, Down at The Ol’ Office…

June 16, 2011

Orlando:
I like the Jets.

Lauren:
Me, too.

ME:
You like the Jets?

Orlando:
Yes. Yes, I do.

ME:
The New York Jets?

Lauren:
Those Jets.

ME:
I like the Jets slightly more than I like a hairbrush up my asshole. But only slightly.

Lauren:
I thought that was every Wednesday at your house.

ME:
Not anymore.

Lauren:
No more Hairbrush Wednesdays?

ME:
Nah. Now it’s Curling Iron Thursdays.

Lauren:
Nice. I hope you leave it unplugged though. Safety first.

ME:
Where the fuck is the fun in that?

Lauren:
True.

ME:
Plus, you get those curly ass hairs that women love. Seriously, bitches are all about the curly ass hairs. Like Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Sexy shit. Literally.

(collective groans)

Lauren:
Why do you always have to one-up people?

ME:
Because I’m so fucking good at it!

———-
EDIT
———-

SOHAIL (via text message):
And I’m not there to stop you.

REPLY:
No. No you are not.

Ron Paul may be a religious douchebag, but I’m voting for him anyway. Here’s why…

June 15, 2011

“Leave the young people alone, and they’ll find out that they prefer lovemaking to warmongering”
–Congressman Ron Paul

It’s been a while, humans. Sorry for that.

But once again, I’m here with a purpose. And that purpose is patriotism.

I consider myself a patriot the same way I consider myself an atheist; in other words, though the term might make me uncomfortable because of the connotations associated with it, it is nevertheless an accurate term when applied to me. I love this country. We may not be the best at everything. We may have a lot of problems. We may not always be on the same page. But, for the most part, we the people represent a concept that was quite revolutionary at the time of our founding, and remains pretty revolutionary today: liberty.

Sadly, a lot of patriots forget this concept; which is sad, because it’s the very concept this country was founded upon. Li-ber-ty. Not safety. Not religion. Not economic or social equality. Fucking liberty.

Here’s the thing. As I mentioned before (and in every other entry on this blog), I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any kind of god. I don’t hold any kind of religious beliefs. And I also really resent non-believers being excluded in the political arena. But I’m also not one of these knee-jerk liberal atheists that only vote on one issue. I’ve made no bones about my attraction to the concept of classic liberalism, and when if I vote, I try to weigh the pros and cons of each and every candidate before I make a decision. The same way everyone should, I think.

With that in mind, I now turn my attention to Congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has taken a lot of flack from both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals find him too conservative. Conservatives find him too liberal. And some just think he’s nothing more than a big bag of guano-crazy anarcho-extremism.

And that may or may not be true. But I’m voting for the bastard anyway.

I’m certainly not going to sit here and suck Ron Paul’s veiny, libertarian cock. In fact, I’m going to start by listing the areas where I disagree with him, just so we’re all aware that I’m not out to over-sensationalize anyone.

So without further ado, here’s where Ron Paul and I do not see eye-to-eye.


PART 1: Where Ron Paul and Black Jeezus Disagree

Freedom of Religion

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.”
–Ron Paul, “The War on Religion

So I figured I’d start with where I most disagree with R-Pizzle. Entering into evidence, Exhibit A, the quote above. Granted, he wrote this way back in 2003, but he hasn’t come out and officially reversed his position on the issue, so we can only assume he still feels this way.

Most of the aforementioned knee-jerk atheists would be quick to dismiss Ron Paul solely on this basis (mostly because… well, he’s wrong). I am not one of these atheists.

Yes, he’s also voted in favor of the We the People Act, which would have effectively allowed states and local governments to display religious text and imagery in public buildings. And that’s a bad thing. But I still don’t think it’s reason enough not to vote for the motherfucker.

In short, if the Ten Commandments showing up in a county courthouse is the worst thing I have to worry about with a Paul presidency, then I’d say it’s pretty meager as far as sacrifices go. I mean, we already tolerate violations of the Establishment Clause on our money. If dealing with some religious imagery means we won’t be sending our kids off to die in the desert and our money won’t be ablaze, that’s a tradeoff I’d be more than willing to make.

And what’s more, I know for a fact I’m not the only atheist who feels this way.

Abortion

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
–Ron Paul, in a 1999 Speech to Congress

Women’s rights is another big issue for me, although I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t devoted much attention to abortion rights on this here blog. Which means I’m now pretty much forced to summarize my own views right here, in a handy little paragraph. So here goes…

If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, such that the rights of a fertilized egg are equal to or even supersede the rights of the adult female carrying said fertilized egg, then you, sir, are a douchebag. Not only are you a douchebag, but (in my opinion, anyway) you are a sexist douchebag, because such a belief diminishes women to an unprecedented and completely despicable degree. It’s almost like equating women with saliva, and declaring that both deserve equal protection under the law.

And if you, in addition, believe this issue to be black-and-white, you can add “moronic” to the list of adjectives as well.

Ron Paul disagrees (to which I respond…). He wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But unlike most candidates on the conservative side of the aisle, he adopts a much more libertarian standpoint, and would rather leave the legality of abortion up to the states to decide for themselves.

See, this is why you shouldn’t make a ruling on a candidate based on ten-second sound-bytes. Because, whether you’re conservative or liberal, if you really think about this option, it’s not a bad compromise.

Roe v. Wade forces all states to accept abortion whether they agree with it or not. Which means, in some cases, their tax dollars are being spent to enforce laws that they believe are morally wrong. Yes, they’re mistaken. You know that, and I know that. But whether or not we think they’re mistaken doesn’t matter. What matters is that if we leave this question up to the states, some will inevitably uphold the current abortion policies, while others will vote to ban it. So if, say, Alabama votes to ban abortion and some woman gets pregnant and really wants to abort, she can go to a state where abortion is legal and spend her own money in that state, which in turn improves the local economy of that state, thus providing an incentive for those states who choose to allow legal abortions.

Likewise, if a citizen doesn’t want their tax dollars being used to enforce a law that makes abortion legal, they can pack up and move to one of the states that bans it. No one’s being forced to adhere to a law they don’t agree with.

Now, before I get a bunch of vitriolic comments, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ISN’T AN IDEAL SOLUTION. And I’m fully aware of the negatives and externalities. But this is an extremely touchy issue that Americans have been bickering about for decades, and even though I believe that a fetus =/= a human, I can’t empirically demonstrate the validity of this view any more than a Christian can show the opposite. A compromise needs to be reached, and one that is fluid enough to be able to change over time as the American people become more and more educated about women’s issues and the right to choose.

Forcing one view on everyone through federal policy, even if I do agree with that view, leads only to polarization and does little to combat the root of the problem. Leaving it up to the states, while not a perfect solution, is still a more elegant one than any of the other options.

Evolution

“Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided upon a scientific matter. And uh, I uh, I think it’s a theory. The theory of evolution. And I don’t accept it as a theory. [snip] The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and uh, you know, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.”
–Ron Paul in 2007, when asked if he believes evolution to be true

I know I’m about to lose a lot of atheists here, as I can’t imagine too many rationalists being willing to cast their vote for a candidate who is unwilling to accept a scientific fact that’s as well-supported as germ theory or gravity. Needless to say, I disagree with him here as well. Quite ardently.

And I also disagree with Paul’s assertion that it’s an “inappropriate question.” The teaching of intelligent design in public school classes is absolutely a political issue, and one that has even been ruled upon by federal judges. Bear in mind also that the president appoints federal judges, which makes it especially relevant during a presidential campaign.

But take a look at what Paul writes in his latest book, Liberty Defined:

“No one person has perfect knowledge as to man’s emergence on this earth…The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.”

See, that’s not so crazy. He believes that a person who accepts evolution after careful review of the evidence isn’t wrong or misreading the facts. I can get behind that. It’s certainly not what I’d ideally like to hear from a presidential candidate, but at least he’s not insistent on every American believing that his imaginary wizard friend poofed everything into existence.

Unfortunately, he’s gone on record [PDF] saying that he would support the presentation of “scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.” And, actually, I’d be in favor of that too. That is, if such “scientific evidence” existed anywhere outside of the vivid imagination of uneducated creationists.

And yes, he thinks states should decide what they want to teach in public schools, but if you’re paying close attention, he adopts pretty much the same stance I do concerning public education overall. He thinks public education funding should switch to more of a voucher system, which would allow parents to choose their children’s schooling options from a number of private alternatives and receive public funds to cover the cost. I’ve already written about this issue, so I won’t repeat it again. In sum, this option is much less intrusive and is likely to produce a much better education system overall, at least in my own opinion.

Even if this weren’t the case, I still think Ron Paul’s stance on evolution is far from the biggest thing on my mind when deciding which candidate to vote for.

Possible Deal-Breaker: Gay Marriage

“Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.”
–Ron Paul, “Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny

The gay marriage issue is certainly a deal-breaker for me, especially since my best friend is a homo-gay; I simply can’t envision myself supporting a candidate that believes same-sex couples do not deserve equal marriage rights.

The problem with Ron Paul is that I’m unsure of his official stance on gay marriage, since he’s continually given conflicting opinions on the matter. On one hand, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, and he also introduced the aforementioned We the People Act, which would have removed such questions from federal jurisdiction and left them up to the states.

But on the other hand, if you actually read the legislation, both these votes are consistent with his stated view that in a best-case scenario, the government should have absolutely no say in marriage, and would simply enforce private marriage contracts (regardless of sexual orientation) and grant divorces. And, when asked about his stance on gay marriage, he’s gone on record saying, “I am supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want.”

Additionally, he voted in favor of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, though I’m not sure how relevant that is to his stance on gay marriage.

Bottom line, this is one of those issues for which I’m going to require a straight answer from Ron Paul. Yes, I agree that the government (federal and local) should have no say in a person’s private voluntary associations whatsoever, and should do nothing more than enforce private contracts in the matter.

But that is not the current situation in our current America. The government has somehow taken it upon themselves to overstep their boundaries yet again and afford special privileges and incentives to citizens who decide to get married; and if a government decides to do this, it absolutely cannot withhold these benefits from certain citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation. It has to either make these benefits available to all its constituents, or not do it at all.


PART 2: Why Black Jeezus is Voting for the Bastard

Reason #1: War & Foreign Policy

“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons.”
–Ron Paul, in a 2007 Washington Post interview

Ron Paul was one of the first politicians to openly oppose the War in Iraq, from its very ill-conceived beginning. And he continues to this day to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, accusing the government of using the War on Terror to drum up enough fear to curtail civil liberties.

In fact, his stances on all wars follow a consistent pattern of non-intervention, which I absolutely love and fully support. The cruelties and inhumanities of war notwithstanding, just think how much federal money would be saved by withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Germany, Japan and every other goddamn corner of the world where we’re neither needed or wanted.

Lots of candidates say they would end the wars, including Barack Obama (fat lot of good that promise was, right?). But Ron Paul is the only candidate with the consistent voting record and massive balls to back up his statements; and as Commander in Chief he would actually have the power and resources to get that shit done.

He’s also opposed to U.S. monetary support of Israel (of which I, myself, have yet to hear a good argument in support) and voted in favor of ending the pointless trade restrictions with Cuba. A thousand fucking points to Gryffindor for that shit.

Reason #2: The War on Drugs

“We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working. We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses. And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this.”
–Ron Paul, at a 2007 GOP Presidential Forum

This is where Ron Paul and other libertarians completely lose the conservatives. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

If you’re a fiscal conservative, you should be against any policy that wastes tax money. The War on Drugs has been wasting our tax money for forty fucking years, with absolutely no results. If you’re a “small government” advocate, you should be against any policy that sets out to make the government needlessly larger and subject the American people to search and seizure procedures that trample even the most basic of human rights. If you’re hard on violent crime, you should be against the single policy that has nearly doubled the murder rate, greatly increased the instances of assault and robbery, and given unprecedented power to street thugs and drug cartels who use violence to control the market.

And the icing on the cake? I have yet found a single person who, when asked, is able to name one solitary reason why illegal drugs should remain illegal that wouldn’t also apply to alcohol or tobacco. None.

So, yes. Ron Paul is right on the fucking money when he says that drug addicts need to be treated like addicts and not like criminals. And it’s a shame more politicians don’t have the cojones to say so.

Regardless of how you personally feel about drugs, keeping them illegal is so much more costly than legalizing them. Costly in so many ways, that to still be in support of Prohibition after researching the facts is tantamount to willful ignorance and waste.

Reason #3: Fiscal Responsibility

“Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank.”
–Ron Paul, “Has Capitalism Failed?

Liberals, hear me out. I love you, I do… but your economic policies are monumentally shitty.

You don’t solve an economic crisis by taking more money from people and using it to subsidize goods or hire people to do things that the general public wouldn’t pay for of their own accord. Christ, even saying it sounds asinine.

First, Ron Paul has, from the very beginning, voted against all unbalanced budgets, and his stance has always been about reducing the tax burden. He would do this, he says, by drastically reducing the size and scope of the government, eliminating or greatly shrinking several federal departments including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Internal Revenue Service.

God-damn wouldn’t you love to never have to deal with the IRS ever again?

A lot of us have been conditioned to think that the government cannot operate without taking money from our paychecks. But in reality, the federal government can operate just fine with the money it generates from tariffs, excise taxes, property taxes and sales taxes… if it simply (a) doesn’t overstep its boundaries, and (b) discards superfluous spending. In fact, prior to 1913, this was exactly the case.

This also includes getting rid of the welfare state, which pushes the irritable buttons of a lot of liberals who think a government solution to a wide-scale problem is the only possible solution. Listen to me, okay? Welfare, in short, is when you care so much about people you’ve never met that you’re willing to steal from other people you’ve never met. Make sense? Yea, didn’t think so.

But it’s not just a monetary issue. It’s a social and moral one as well. Welfare programs do nothing to address the issue of poverty or it’s underlying causes. All they do is place a band-aid on the problem, enslave the people that depend on them, and spawn more antipathy and hatred. Obviously, we should make an effort to reach out to those in need and take measures to combat poverty. But only measures that are likely to work. Current welfare programs fail miserably at this.

Oh, and Ron Paul was also against the federal corporate bailouts of 2008. So to any ill-informed shitheads who think he’s just another politician in the pocket of big business, think again.

Reason #4: Fucking Civil Liberties, Motherfuckers!

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.”
–Ron Paul

There are several facets to this, so I’ll try to blast out as many as I can.

Ron Paul has voted against Net Neutrality (if you wouldn’t, then your ass needs to read more). He has also opposed the Patriot Act consistently, from its very inception.

He’s an ardent supporter and advocate of the right of jury nullification, a concept of which too many Americans are still regrettably unaware.

He supports the federal decriminalization of prostitution and online gambling.

He’s against capital punishment, an issue that he actually changed his mind on during his time in office.

He opposes the federalization of airport security and supports disbanding the TSA along with the DHS.

I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the idea. Representative Ron Paul knows that human beings have rights, and that the role of the government is to ensure that we keep them, not to take them away.

Reason #5: He’s Sexy as Hell

I know it’s a dangerous business, letting sexiness determine viability as a presidential candidate (see: Sarah Palin), but god damn… look at that sexy motherfucker in the picture. Those eyes. That charming-ass smile. And clearly he takes care of himself (he’s a doctor, after all). How are you not turned on right now?

I’m secure enough in my heterosexual masculinity to admit that Ron Paul is one good-looking man. And mine eyes have seen plenty of man to go around.

But seriously, though…

I’m not naive enough to think that one man will solve all of our social and economic problems. I’m not counting on one candidate to single-handedly bring us into a state of democratic and constitutional utopia. And like I’ve already stated, there are several things about Ron Paul that I just plain do not like.

But what I vote for, ultimately, is liberty. Mother fucking liberty. And for my vote, Ron Paul just happens to hit most of my bullet points. No other candidate I’ve seen even comes close.

That may change. It’s pretty early to tell, and some points of contention may indeed arise between now and November of 2012. But until I find someone better (or until someone endorses my own presidential candidacy and funds my campaign), I’m sticking with Paul. Mostly because I’m sick and tired of the same old shit, and want someone who has the balls to back up his talk with his votes.

Hopefully, the rest of you American humans agree.

A Yearbook Page from 1943

May 12, 2011

Notice anything… different? (Click to embiggen, if it’s too hard to read)

That’s right. This was in those days prior to the phrase “Under God” being forcibly thrust like a splintery wooden dildo added into the Pledge of Allegiance. Back before people were willing to ignore the Constitution just to stick a thumb in the eye of millions of non-believers.

“Part of this country’s history,” my black messianic ass. More like revisionist history.

(via reddit)

First it was “Creation Science,” then it was “Intelligent Design,” and now… “Non-Evolution”

March 18, 2011

So there’s this legislator in my home state who seems to think that simply stating the opposite of a well-established scientific principle counts as a theory in itself. Despite the fact that his “theory” has no evidential leg to stand on.

We (and by “we” I mean “they,” and by “they,” I mean “ill-informed zealots” which are actually the worst kind of zealot) used to call this “Creation Science,” employing the popular-yet-misguided notion that adding the word “science” makes something scientific (to see why this is complete bullshit, one need look no further than Scientology). Certain irrational citizens of our country thought that it should be taught alongside evolution, which is kinda like saying that Rick Moranis deserves to play in the NBA. No… actually it’s like saying that Lucky the Lucky Charms Leprechaun deserves to play in the NBA.

Long story short, they were wrong, and the courts agreed.

After that, they made yet another attempt to teach religion as science, only this time they called it “Intelligent Design.” Same tired arguments. Same utter lack of evidence. So, naturally, the results in the judicial system didn’t change.

Now they’re back, echoing the same vacuous sentiments, dressed up in yet another pretentious title: non-evolution. With any luck, this story will be the last we hear of it, but if history is any indication, I don’t think it’s likely to stop here. Quite fitting when you think about it… the movement rallying against evolution refusing to evolve itself?

The irony is not lost on me.

Assorted Malarchy

March 10, 2011

(image via Reddit)

– I love offensive memes. So, one that manages to criticize religion so poignantly? Dare I say, a godsent

– I’m at a complete loss for words.

– How come I never had teachers like this?

– Impressive: an electric car that doesn’t look like a piece of shit. Even more impressive is the price tag on this baby.

– Why is no one manufacturing these? Hmm… I’m off to fetch a patent application.

– Peter Griffin via Twitter: “Boob” is the perfect word.

– In honor of the 14th anniversary of the untimely demise of one Christopher “Biggie Smalls” Wallace, here’s footage of a 17-year-old Notorious BIG freestyling on the streets of NYC. “It was all a dream…”

Damn Right

February 12, 2011

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 177 other followers