Archive for the ‘ Fresh press ’ Category

Oh, Ryan!

Today, with Mitt Romney’s announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate the days of the Romney campaign being conducted in the listless bloodless manner we have all gotten used to are over.

Paul Ryan, a forty-two year old congressman from Wisconsin, a rising star in conservative circles. He is best known for designing several conservative alternatives to the federal budget which had no chance of becoming law because of democratic and moderate republican opposition but which existed to galvanize the members of the church of cut and cut and cut some more.

The several budget plans Mr. Ryan created and promoted are the typical conservative kind of thing. Lower taxes for the rich, fewer social programs for the poor, with a reduction of spending on all domestic programs by seventy-five percent and the privatization of social security and Medicare.

Watching Mr. Romney and his running mate brings up something which will be obvious to everyone. The vice presidential candidate outshines Mr. Romney. Its a real boy to a puppet,  Its a star to a candle, an idealist to a career politician.  Ryan is so different from Romney. For one he actually possesses charisma. Second, whether you agree or disagree, Ryan is known  exclusively for talking about policy, something Mitt Romney has avoided ever since the primaries.

Up until this morning, Mr. Romney has  done everything possible to remain a political sypher, engaging in masterful newspeak, practicing the art of saying a lot while saying nothing at all so as not to risk the alienation of even one registered republican.

Paul Ryan’s addition to the ticket changes all of that, because now Mr. Romney will be linked to the Ryan plan. All of the major players in the campaign will push this  connection, and the public mind being the small sad thing that it is within a month Mr. Romney’s roadmap for what he will do as president will be seen as the policies Mr. Ryan  outlined in his most recent budget.

Mr. Romney has made an intelligent political move. Romney cannot appeal to independent voters now because of his hairpin turn to the right during the republican primaries. He cannot energize the superstitious social conservatives he needs to because their superstition denigrates Mr. Romney’s Mormonism. Because Mr. Romney is such a political enigma, many republicans worry that the liberality he showed as governor of Massachusetts is lurking deep under the surface, ready to bubble up only after they help him to the whitehouse. As much as anything can, the selection of Mr. Ryan will calm those reasonable fears.

As I watched Mr. Ryan except the spot on the ticket I was repeatedly struck by his charisma, his anti-Romney eagerness to have substantive policy discussions, his idealism and his youth. I  disagree with Mr. Ryan on almost every issue of policy. But seeing a man so ready to debate, and so knowledgeable about the issues and not scared silent by a lust for power is a refreshing thing in a republican candidate. The man has convictions, has reasons beyond god for those convictions, and is willing to open his mouth and talk about actual issues. Its giving me chills.

I kept thinking that Mr. Romney was perfect vice presidential material while Mr. Ryan should have been the Republican presidential candidate. He makes Mr. Romney look like a colorless member of middle management.  Mr. Ryan is a fiery speaker, he was compelling when he spoke because he so obviously cares about this country.  Romney most resembles a talking action figure, wheeled on stage, mouthing vague platitudes with a robots lack of emotion. Mr. Ryan is energetic, and speaks like he’s spoiling for a substantive political fight. Mr. Romney, while an adequate  representative for the GOP is symptomatic of the sad parade which was this years republican primary. Mr. Ryan stands head and shoulders above Mr. Romney in electibility as Mr. Romney stood head and shoulders above his farcical opponents. The vice presidential spot on the ticket is hardly able to contain Mr. Ryan whereas Mr. Romney is nothing but  underwhelming as a presidencial candidate.

I don’t know what I think about Mitt Romney because he has turned into a political chameleon. But  I must give Mr. Romney credit for his VP pick especially when contrasted to  John McCain’s pick of Sarah Paylin.

Back in 2008 it was obvious that Mr. McCain found Sarah paylin and thought to himself, young republican woman who is attractive, good enough. MRS. Paylin was the least qualified vice presidential candidate since Dan Quail, and Mr. Ryan, with his intelligence and his career in congress characterized by policy is the anti-paylin. Unlike her, Mr. Ryan is intelligent, a policy wonk, and  thus qualified to hold office.

Mr. Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan for vice president is a tacit endorsement of the Ryan plan. Any part of it which Mr. Romney fails to explicitly refute will be assumed to be Mr. Romney’s thoughts on the matter.

The things about Mr. Ryan which will excite the conservatives are the same things which will energize liberals for Mr. Obama. The Ryan plan is a conservative doctrine which Mr. Romney is now attached to. Mr. Ryan’s budget plan could have been called, “A democratic field day,” and in the coming weeks it will provide easy fodder for the democratic war machine.

Mr. Ryan will only strengthen the criticisms leveled by  democrats that Mr. Romney has a Screwjlike attitude for the poor.

Further, the addition of Mr. Ryan, and our first hints of actual policy from the Romney campaign have now set up a clear contrast between the policies of Mr. Obama and Mr. Ryan.

I don’t know if this is the most important election ever. People say that every election. But this election is certainly a choice between two antithetically apposed styles of governance.

Here’s to hoping Mr. Ryan’s addition to the campaign elevates it from the meaningless thing it has been since May and let’s the country have an intelligent debate on policy.

I’m going to end every future post with this. If you enjoyed this post, follow the blog. I’m usually this amusing.

Is it Right to Bear Arms?

People kill people, but people with guns kill more people and kill those people with ease.

This is a truth everybody calling themselves an intelligent person has to accept. If the United States had a complete ban on firearms, we would have far fewer gun deaths in this country.

In the United Kingdom and other countries which have banned firearms, you don’t see a violent rampage every year or so. In the united States, where there are more guns than people, you do see a violent rampage every year because some crazy sad sack decides his personal demons have become too much and he wants to blow some innocents away. He can legally buy guns, so he buys them, goes to a public place,  and shoots away until he gets shot, bored, or shoots himself.

Directly due to lobbying by the NRA, our background check system is not all that it should be. If you have ever been convicted of a feleny, you should find it impossible to own a gun. This is not the case. Loopholes, such as being able to make unregulated gun purchases at gun shows, mean that many people that society has decided should not be able to own guns of any kind still own them.

But as last Friday’s horrific event in Aurora illustrates, even when the system is working perfectly, some person beneath our nations contempt and sympathy is still able to buy an AR15 and walk into a public place and kill at his lejer.

This is a direct consequence of people being able to own guns. Make no mistake.  It is people who kill people, it is guns and hundred round clips that make that killing easy. The problem, technically is not guns, as proven by the millions upon millions of people who own guns and don’t go on shooting sprees. These people want to own guns for reasons of self-protection, collection, or shooting sports, and more power to them. There are towns where more than half the population owns guns and no one is being shot for no reason whatsoever.

But focusing on this part of the issue makes no sense. Because there is only so much the government, both state and federal can do, to separate accurately the good folks from the batshit insane folks meaning that if guns are sold in this country every year or so we are going to see an awful massacre. Security measures which would make impossible rampages such as the one James Holmes went on last Friday would be prohibitively expensive.

That means in this country we have a choice. We can try as hard as we can to get rid of every single privately owned firearm and see a huge drop in violent crime, or we can tighten our gun laws to stop the mentally retarded, criminally insane and convicted felons from being able to own guns and even so we will still have mass murders like columbine, Virginia tech, and Aurora. It is one or the other. Pull your head out of your ass and deal with reality.

There is of course a third choice, don’t tighten our gun laws, keep the loopholes open so that determined mentally ill folks and convicted felons can still procure guns,  and let the NRA continue to lobby against common sense, and we’ll have even more mass murder. This is probably the choice we will opt for at least for the next decade.

You may be surprised after all of this to know that my choice is not to ban  guns. I strongly believe in the second amendment. I believe that all sensible precautions must be taken, a felon caught with a gun should get life without parole, and mentally incompetent people caught owning guns similarly should be remanded to psychiatric hospitals. Perhaps we shouldn’t go that far with the retarded, but the point is that the people we want to remain without firearms in our society should be ripped apart by the might of the law if they are caught violating our will.

As I said, however, once all precautions are put into place so that only sain law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, we are still going to see mass murder. It is a natural consequence of lethally armed humanity. For every  million sane and civilized folks, there’s one or two insane monsters and those monsters will take advantage of their ability to buy lots of guns, lots of ammo to  kill lots of people. This part is inevitable if you are a second amendment supporter. If you find this price too high, join the organizations seeking to repeal the second amendment, or live as a hypocrite.

I have two reasons for supporting gun violence.

The first is that if someone tries to shoot you, whether or not you have a loaded weapon on your person at this point in  your life is literally going to be the most important factor in your continued survival. I believe if someone draws a weapon and is going to shoot you or your loved ones or someone within your sight, you are not just allowed to try and kill that person but obligated morally to blow his brains out the back of his head.

Similarly, if someone is robbing you and you have a gun you should shoot them.

I do not advocate Batman-like vigilantism. No one should wander the streets looking for crime without a badge.  The victims of James’s Holmes violent tantrum did not deserve to die for a failure to arm themselves . All I am saying is that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent of violent crime. It is not an ideal deterrent, but it is a thousand times better than criminals with guns and victims of criminals without guns. See my post on a solution to prevent most rapes if you want to read more about this.

But this mode of self-protection is merely my secondary reason for why we as a country should leave our second amendment rights mostly unfettered. I believe in hundred round clips, assault rifles, I believe, in short, that if you are legally allowed to own guns, you should be able to own whichever guns you want.

Why?

Because of the remote possibility that our government someday turns on us and tries to create a dictatorship.

Here is where I am roundly mocked. So go ahead. Take a moment to scorn my position, and then continue reading and let me defend it.

The United States government abandoning its founding principles of democracy and becoming a dictatorship is what we call a Black Swan event.

Black swan events are those which are low probability events, events which are outside the range of normal expectations, leaving them almost impossible to predict. The conquest of North America is the best example of such an event. Unanticipated by the natives, and deadly for them nonetheless. If you had asked the most intelligent Native Americans of 1300 the likelihood of white devils coming at first in thousands and then in millions from across the ocean, carrying lethal diseases with mortality rates for the indigenous population upwards of 90 percent, they would have mocked you like you are mocking me for my belief in the second amendment based on the remote chance that someday our own government will turn on us. The odds are low, but there is a difference between low odds and impossible odds.

Lets take another example. Alien invasion. This probably isn’t helping my case.

But if you believe in the existence of extra terrestrial life you then must concede that the possibility of alien invasion is there, however small that possibility is.

I’m not saying that we should prepare for an alien invasion because I believe the odds of such a thing happening make the odds that our own government will turn into a dictatorship look phenomenally high, I’m saying that a country prepared for a black swan event will be able to react to it better then one which is not prepared for such a thing. No country has lasted forever. Often countries transform because of internal revolution.

In the United Kingdom there is almost no gun violence. But if David Cameron had the backing of the military, he could set himself up as king. How many people do you think a platoon of British soldiers armed to the teeth could kill if those people could only arm themselves with knives from their kitchens and cricket bats and crowbars? Those soldiers would just shoot and shoot and kill and kill. In this respect, the social contract is only enforced at the mercy of those in power. It is not about intent but possibility. In countries with no armed population, what stops government from violating the social contract is forbearance, nothing more.

In the United  States, however, if president Obama tried to set himself up as king, and had the full backing of the military, what we would have would not be a massacre, but a civil war.

If free speech was abolished tomorrow, and then two days after that freedom to assemble, and so on and so fourth, America as an armed people could and would rebel.

What the second amendment does is to let the social contract mean something. Because it is maintained by all of us, although we have the means for armed insurrection at our fingertips.

And before you raise your next objection, I believe the last few years of disgusting partisan rancor proves my point for me.

There are lots of republicans who hate the shit out of Barack Obama and the democrats. Lots of gun owning republicans. But there are no revolutionary groups attacking our government because these Republicans recognize the difference between serious political disagreement and a subversion of the democratic process. We are experiencing the former, not the latter.

Now if you don’t mind I would like to present myself as an ass hole to make one final point.

What happened in Colorado last week is tragic. It turns the stomach, it makes us all reflect upon how lucky we are not to have been shot, it shows us that some of us are sick with hate and insanity. It should show us that people like James Holmes should be locked away somewhere deep and dark, and if that deep dark place cannot rehabilitate a man like Holmes, he  should stay there until he dies, for our own safety.

It shows us that it only takes one crazy man with a gun to send cracks up and down the glass of our peaceful civilization. In the shooter we see the worst of humanity, and in the reaction of the nation we see the best of humanity.

But now that our grief is muted and not as fresh as it was, lets put this in perspective.

Here’s the part where I’m an ass hole.

The murder of twelve people is horrifying because we have empathy, but it doesn’t matter statistically. Already from last Friday our population has grown, and even as a percentage of this last weeks population growth, those twelve are much less than one percent.

These types of mass shootings are ugly and we should do all we can short of taking guns from law abiding citizens to stop them, but when balanced against the price of a potential disillusion of our republic they do not matter in the slightest.

I must  reiterate that such a transmutation of our country from bastion of democracy to dictatorship is unlikely. It is more likely never to happen.

But unlikely and impossible are not at all the same thing.

England, France, all of the first world with the exception of the United States bars its citizens from owning guns. And that means the citizens are powerless to make changes to the social contract once force is a factor. If England or Germany had a civil war with the military on the wrong side, the only way it would turn into a war rather than remain a bloodbath is if the opposite side got its hands on lots of guns.

Here that is not a problem.

I am not advocating armed revolution over nothing, what I am speaking of hopefully will never happen. But if it did happen, if it did come down to war to reclaim our democracy, the single reason we could win such a war is because of the second amendment.

In this country right now I am sure there are a hundred thousand AR15’s, a hundred thousand m16’s, and hundreds of thousands of other assault rifles. We could create a large militia if our government ever turned on us.

I am not being paranoid. I believe this possibility to be so remote that in all likelihood we will never have to test if I am correct or not, with a war.

It is easy to consider this argument hogwash because of how peaceful our country currently is. George Bush and Barack Obama never did anything to make any intelligent person think either man was setting himself up as a dictator, and may this hold true for future presidents until the end of time.

But if we give up our guns and enjoy increased safety because of fewer murders, what would we do if our government ever decided it wanted to become something other than the republic it is today? If we had to try and fight our own military with swords pipes and knives, how would that go?

So only if you tell me you know for a fact that our country never has to fear such a thing will I tell you your wish to ban firearms makes sense. Otherwise gun violence is the price we are forced to pay.

Of Course There are Better Cultures, you Dumbass

There is a common school of thought which has arisen because of a massive logical fallacy. This is that because all people are equal, all cultures are equal and therefore all cultures are equal because they were made by people.

This is false. Some people believe that a preliterate society that still is hunting and gathering is as good as a modern industrial state.  And the only thing I want to ask the people who seriously believe that is what have you been smoking?

Here’s the thing. If you really think all cultures are equal, go live in Afghanistan. I’m not telling you to go live in Afghanistan because I want you out of this country, I’m telling you to go live in Afghanistan because I know you wouldn’t like it there and after a week and a half removed from the First World or whenever you happened to see an honor killing you’d come back and admit to me I was right and you were wrong.

All people are… Well they aren’t created equal. But because fairness is advantageous to everyone we should pretend they are. The law shouldn’t differentiate between the smart and the stupid, the rich or the poor. Because our culture values the concept of equality. And this is right. Its not like stupid people should be jailed for murder while smart people should be let off the hook.

A culture isn’t a person. Cultures are   institutions crafted by people, much like fighter jets. and, as we can empirically show some fighter jets are better than others, similarly some cultures are hands down better cultures for the well being of the members within them.

I never thought I’d say this, but serious disagreement with my thesis comes from over thinking the issue.

When we look at our history, we judge ourselves based on how we are today as compared to how we were in the past. We can all agree slavery was wrong. All slavery, not just ours, Roman, Greek, Egyptian was categorically wrong. It is wrong because you would not want to be a slave, and even more agregus than slavery itself was the fact that the distinctions by which some men were enslaved while others were not were based on nothing more than ignorance. . The argument which is made by some academics is, “Who says slavery is wrong?  Isn’t your anti slavery ethos created out of your western values? The people who hold slaves don’t think slavery is wrong, and your demeaning them by dismissing them as savages.”

First, yes, my western values tell me slavery is wrong. That’s one of the great things about my western values.

Second, every slaver is not necessarily a savage, but is certainly savage.

And if you really want to keep arguing this with me I’m just going to come up to you with a bullwhip and my laundry and beat the fuck out of you until you admit to me that slavery is better off dead.

Or until you’ve  done my laundry.

Either way I win.

There’s a word that liberals shie away from these days, and that word is evil. It gets hidden away in the wreak of moral relativism.

Here’s how this works. Murder, rape, human sacrifice and theft are all evil.  Why? Because you would want none of these things to happen to you, and the infliction of pain for no larger goal other than ones personal ends is wrong.

This has a basis in logic and in empathy. If you had to watch a rape from beginning to end hopefully you’d feel sick. If you were raped you’d be devastated. Thus the first is the empathetic reason, it hurts us to see other people in pain, and second the logical. We don’t want to be in pain thus we stop rape and murder whenever possible because it is implicitly understood that its always possible the next person who is murdered or raped might be you or me.

A culture that allows evil within itself is by definition evil.

The United States isn’t perfect. We have problems. Too much rape and too much murder. But we’re trying hard to improve and the very fact we see rape and murder as serious problems to be dealt with rather than as a permissible status quo indicate we are moving in the right direction. Our own   Societal improvement isn’t always as rapid as we’d like it to be and sometimes its slower than anyone with common sense can fathom, but it is happening.

The existence of cultures where rape and murder are encouraged and also of rapists and murderers within cultures where rape and murder are discouraged are two sides of the same problem. Evil.

I do not claim that men are born evil. Men are made evil through circumstances which are almost too complex to parse, in every country there are serial killers, sociopath’s and gangsters. These people commit crimes we wish they wouldn’t. And some cultures, such as that of Rwanda, commit acts of genocide we wish they wouldn’t.

A good culture where bad things happen, however, is different than a bad culture in which even more bad things happen. Recognition of this fact is essential.

There are countries that you would never want to visit, even for a day, because the odds of you getting shot are way too high. Why is this? Because these countries are shitholes. Some of these shitholes are evil, some are simply anarchic.

Let me break this down quick.

There are places that are great to live, America, Europe, Japan, south Korea, Canada, the rest of the first world and the best parts of the second.

Then we get into a second area, the second world, where things are improving but haven’t yet reached the high standards of living enjoyed in the first world. On the one hand you can drive a car and drink the water without shitting yourself to death, there is an upper class, the economy is growing rapidly, education levels are rising, but on the other hand people still get kidnapped and the kidnappers chop off an ear as a ransomed note, and this is common enough that it doesn’t make headlines, as it would had it happened in the first world,  and the murder rate hasn’t dropped to historically nonviolent first world levels.

Then there are places where the population either wants, or should want, to emigrate. Somalia , Seria, Iraq, the rest of the middle east minus Turkey and Israel, Northafrica, central Africa, Southafrica, North Korea, Mexico, the list goes on for a really long time.

That’s because these places are the aforementioned shitholes.

What must a country do to be designated a shithole? In short, the technical definition is as follows. Shithole. A country in which no one is surprised to hear of something completely shitty happening that day.

Car bomb kills a hundred. In the United States that would be headline news for ten days. If the headline instead read, car bomb kills a hundred in… Yemen, at least my reaction is, no shit. Then I eat my breakfast.

Its not as though anyone sane is going. “A car bomb? In Yemen? God I just didn’t think it could happen here!”

In the first world we take peace mostly for granted. Its unlikely you’ll be shot today. This is a blessing of civilization.

In the second world there is reform, because some one realized there are places more civilized and peaceful, and they want there own country to be like that. So your odds of getting raped or shot are higher then they should be, but get lower every few years.

And then  There are countries where the incidence of rape and murder are much higher than in the first world. And much of this rape and murder is institutionalized, weather by government legislation or savage tradition.   Poverty is rampant, and not American poverty where your poor but have food and clean water and a TV and your kid goes to school, and perhaps you get to drive a beat up car, but third world poverty where you shit worms and have malaria by age eight and finding two meals a day is the overriding struggle of your life. Because there are no food stamps. Because the government sucks.

Some of these countries lack a powerful government, such as Somalia, and some of these countries have a powerful government, and that government is evil. Iran.

There is a huge difference between the shitholes and the nonshitholes.

For a long time the world was a shithole. So it isn’t surprising many countries are still shitholes.

Lets all take a moment and focus on the good news, which is  that some countries are no longer shitty. Western Europe, Asia, eastern Europe, the America’s,  all used to be shitty.

Here’s the historical context of shitholes. Your a dude. You never go to school one day in your life. You  work the field. Your back gets bent before your balls have hair. You die at thirty.

Your a chick. You never go to school one day in your life. You  work the fields. Your back gets bent before you have your first period. You have a kid. You have a second kid. You have a third kid you have a fourth kid. Half of those kids die. You have a fifth kid. You die in childbirth at twenty.

Your a dude. You have a lot of money. You get everything you want but your really religious and live in an extremely violent society. You fuck peasants and there is no rape in marriage. Legally speaking and being a product of your time you take full advantage of this.  You either die in war or from a disease today we cure with a pill. You die at fifty. Your a chick. Your family has lots of money. Because your a woman none of your families money is yours unless your lucky and become a widow. You get married off to a dude. You have no say in who the dude is. He can cheat, you can’t. the statistics say You aren’t allowed an education, you have a kid. You have another kid. You have another kid. You die at twenty-five.

For most people this is how life went down for millennia

Then came modernization. Modernization gave us  so  much that even a bare bones listing of its achievements would take twenty pages, but I’ll tick off the high points.

Modernization is why you are not a subsistence farmer or a peasant, modernization is the reason why  women aren’t raped at random with the blessing of society. Modernization is why we don’t burn witches. Because we don’t believe in witchcraft.  Modernization is why criminals aren’t stretched on the rack, its why criminals aren’t crucified, modernization is why criminals don’t get noses, hands, ears, or other more important body parts chopped off.

Modernization is why if you get into a bar fight, you don’t pull out a sword and gut the dude who called you a fag. Which is what used to happen all the time.  Modernization is why its now a crime to beat the shit out of your wife. Modernization is why women don’t die in childbirth, which was so common that nobles would often marry two or three times, because the first wife died birthing kid ten. Modernization is why you don’t have kid ten, because  you can control the number of children you have.

Modernization is why there are doctors who have effective cures for disease which do not involve the four humors of the body or leaches. Instead the cures involve kidney transplants and chemotherapy and skin grafts and vaccines. Modernization is why all your friends don’t have smallpox scars. Its why we brush our teeth. Its why we can fly in airplanes and drive in cars. Its why horses are now something rich girls learn to ride for the fun of it, rather than as a means of transport. Its why HBO canceled a show when three horses had to be put down on set. Its why you have no fucking idea how to hitch yourself up to a plow and drag it like an ox. Its why being fat is a problem. That’s a real modern problem, btw.

In short, every single convenience you take utterly for granted today is a product of the march of civilization. The civilization your living in is a product of cultural movements whose aggregate over centuries has been  modernity. The civilization ruled by a despot is the product of fear and a weak willed population ignoring the flourishing of more successful forms of government. For the most part.

The degree to which the members of a country still live the bleak existence described above has to do with how modern they are.

The American farmer is not a European peasant. But an African peasant is much like a European one. What separates them is five hundred years.  Africa and the middle east, in fact, are the dark ages with guns.

Let me continue to break shit down.

Writing is good. Efficient farming is good. Cars are good. I mean all of these things are good for people.

If you can’t write its hard to trust your history because memory is fallible. If you can’t write, sooner or later, your memories which have been past down through oral tradition die or are corrupted and your history is lost.

Writing allows for all sorts of things which will forever be beyond the illiterates comprehension.

Cars are good, because you aren’t stuck to the daily speed and distance of a horse.

Efficient farming is good because society cannot advance until someone can pull his head out from the dirt to stop breaking his back with drudgery and instead use that time to think.

Writing, farming and cars are good advancements. This does not mean that the people without efficient farming techniques, literature and cars are bad people, they are unfortunate people. They are not lesser people, they are people forced to develop in a lesser society.

On the other hand, chopping off a girls clitoris is not an amoral  action. Its immoral.  Evil. I hope this isn’t news. The culture that institutionalizes clitoris chopping is a savage and evil culture first because Clitoridectomies  are awful in themselves and second it isn’t as though the culture where this happens is just like ours except for that one thing, its one of those markers that allows you to stereotype a ton, and you’ll be right. The problem is you can’t blame any of the dudes who went along with this, kneeling on some screaming chicks wrists as the tribal elder sharpened the freakin rock,  because he doesn’t know any better, he was raised in clit chopping land. He’s like a southern racist from the fifties. Evil, naturally, but when everyone around you is evil you’ll grow up to be  evil as well.

When someone says to me, all cultures are equal, none are better, none are worse what they must mean is that there isn’t anything wrong with five guys holding a girl down and using a sharpened rock to fuck up her shit.

They fall back to this weak ass position. They go, “Well, I’m not saying I approve of that action, but your value system is based on your culture, and there value system is based off there culture, and you can’t force your values down someone else’s throat.”

First, yes I can.

Second, its very simple, really. A country where evil rampages around unconstrained is a bad place. No, all the people there aren’t bad people, but something’s rotten in Denmark if the Dutch are killing each other every day and if Dutch women are raped all the time and if theft is rampant and if slavery or subjugation are the norm.

The west has, in fact, shoved its values down lots of other countries throats. If we had not democracy would never have spread. This process doesn’t always happen because we as a society make a concerted effort, sometimes good idea’s are so good they are transmitted like viruses.

I hate to use emotion and sentimentality as a cornerstone of an argument but sometimes when explaining moral issues I believe I have to.

When people believe in an idea, whatever that idea is, they naturally construct rationalizations for why the idea is good. In societies where murder is commonplace, a lesser value is placed on human life by the people in that culture. Moral relativists would have us accept this. But I will not.

The world has improved. Some people refuse to believe that we’ve experienced progress throughout history because they are liberal and progress has not been distributed equally throughout the world.

As I said already, it isn’t surprising that some of the world is still awful because two thousand years ago the entire world was awful. Even Rome, our first real grasp at a civilization that could have become modern, wasn’t America with toga’s. It was misogynist, women were under the control of either there wife or there father. The roman ethics was even more warlike than the later Christian ethos when it came to conquering territory. Rome may have  evolved into something more like our civilization later, and is noteworthy because until it began to collapse it was a society in existence, stable and trending upwards nonetheless Rome entertained itself with gladiatorial combat that today we would never countenance. You put two people in a ring with swords and watch them try and kill each other. Now we see that in action movies. The closest thing we have to gladiators is the ultimate fighting championship, and we’ve put in place rules to insure the safety of the participants.

It comes down to this. If every person could choose to take there family to a new country or stay in there own country, the amount of emigration from any given country would give you a good idea of the supremacy of that country.

Most people probably would not want to live in the third world if they could magically get teleported to the first. But very few people living in the first world would want to go live permanently in the third.

It doesn’t matter if this is unkind, that’s why cultures and people are not the same.

It is foolish to evaluate a person without also looking at his culture. Many of the presidents historians consider to be among our greatest were racist. They thought Blacks were inferior and this belief was so strong it remained unexamined. The kings and queens of England had prediusis even harder for us to understand. Hitler did not invent anti-Semitism.

It makes no sense to hate people of the past for being racist because the belief was so prevalent that it took exceptionally good people from that time to understand it was wrong.

But you can easily look at a culture and see its moral shortcomings because what you are evaluating then are the common beliefs of a society.

This is why, had we to do it all over again, we probably would not have made genocidal war on the Indians, because now we see land grabs as wrong.

It is redolent of the imperialist mindset of the nineteenth century to claim western cultural superiority, but that is an unfortunate coincidence.

When looking at how people in the second and third worlds live, there attitudes towards there living situation are not important.

Slavery must have given slaves ghastly psychological scars. But there must have also been slaves who made there peace with being enslaved. In general people make peace with adverse conditions because its do that or kill yourself but this doesn’t mean because they have found a way to live through shit that it isn’t shit they are living through.

Similarly the woman forced to wear a Burka or who is not allowed to talk to men without a male family member present or who is denied an education based on her sex may be content with her lot because realistically she cannot expect any better. But her contentment with awful circumstances does not justify her placement into those circumstances because the same Burka wearing woman born in Iran may have been a scientist had she been born in England.

 

What goodness, for lack of a more intellectual term comes down to is choice.

If you want to wear a Burka, go ahead. If you want to be a housewife or hunt and gather, your free to not work or to hike out into the woods and go off the grid and grow your vegetables and hunt deer. Realistically our government is not so omni-present to stop you from doing the latter and has no desire to stop you from doing the former.

But the important aspect of your situation is that you have the choice.

In the first world you have free speech which allows you to say all cultures are equal. If you said that in Iran they’d shoot you in the face, there bye denying you freedom.

I have written this post because its so easy to discount civilization. People complain about things which prove the progress we have made. If you think you live in an extraordinarily violent or brutal society, and you are living in the First World, you believe this to be true because you lack an understanding of how awful things used to be everywhere.

I do not say we must try and right the worlds wrongs. But it is absolutely important to recognize that there is a right and wrong in an international context. Our country is not always in the right, we are not a cartoonish perfectly moral guardian. But there is a difference between the United States and Iran, the United Kingdom and north Korea, Germany and China.

These differences were not preordained. But they exist. It is important to understand this when focusing on international relations because you must understand the moral point a country is speaking from in order to evaluate its moral authority. Iran’s wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the genocide in darfure or the ethnic cleansing in Cosivo are evil being practiced on an international scale.

They are not the same as the United States accidentally bombing a hospital.

This is bad. Hospitals shouldn’t be bombed.

But compared to where the rest of the world is coming from, the fact that we even care enough to apologize is progress.

In mid evil times, or in Africa or the mid east today, you’d go to war and slaughter villages to the last child.

This post is not foremost a defense of America. Its a defense of the first world.

The goal is that there will at some point only be a first world.

When I read about all the awful stuff that happens in other countries on a daily basis the only thing I think is, that wouldn’t happen in my country.

This is not because we are better people, its because we were born into a better culture, which is why we are not killing each other over a spring or three goats.

The first world, year by year as a society the first world is struggling to get better. We try and stamp out ignorance, bloodthirsty ness, religious strife,and  bigotry.

These things are hallmarks of bad culture.

If something bad happens– excuse me, when something bad happens  in the Arab world tomorrow, lets say its a car bombing, the question that should be asked is, what’s the absolute root cause of why that guy just took his truck and blew himself up and took out that restaurant of civilians along with his worthless ass?

In the United states if we had a car bombing, it would be front page news. And car bombings dot the foreign section of the New York times like periods.

The fair rule of law, a trust in government, the cultivation of intrastate peace, the education of children, all of these things are so important.

The first world is not a utopia, at all, unless you compare it to the third world.

There is nothing noble about savagery. The strife afflicting Africa isn’t fine or noble or just or a northern model of how shit should get done, its barbaric and needs to stop. Similarly, the Chinese or Iranians don’t get to claim they are civilized and great if they don’t allow there people freedom.

We, the first world, already went through these struggles.

The thing is that if you were looking for the seeds of utopia, you would find them here, in the first world.

Thank you.

Smoking, a Guide for the Blind

I’m blind. I don’t mention it in the blog because it usually isn’t germain to railing against god or drug laws or the fact that HBO canceled luck or whatever I usually talk about, but this time its important for the post.

Blind people have forums, which I never go on. But I was bored and so I was looking through the topics, found one about what blind people think they miss out on. Some kid said he didn’t know how to smoke cigarettes. I hate that I smoke cigarettes.

You can’t post to the forum unless you have an account, and I’d made one four years ago to ask a question about something which I hadn’t used since it got answered. But I went back and found my username just so I could write this little essay on how to smoke if you can’t see. So to old men going blind, curious people with vision and my fellow members of the army of darkness, enjoy.

So I have my own thing I think I missed out on, but first let me respond to the smoking thing.

My initial advice is don’t

 

fucking smoke. I smoke, I’ve been smoking for five years, I’d love to quit, I can’t.

That said, if you want to smoke, here’s what you do.

Get a bick lighter. You’ll know its a bick because its oval. The bottom of the bick is flat, the top is raised with a wheel. On one side of the wheel there is a hole. This is where the flame comes out. On the other side of the wheel there is a small… trigger. Its not like the trigger on a gun, it feels more like the spray button on cleaning fluid, its flat and doesn’t push down very far.

Hold the lighter in your dominant hand. The trigger part faces towards you, the hole faces away from you. You know your doing this right because your hand makes a fist around the lighter and your thumb is free, kind of hovering over the thing. Now take your thumb, and rub it quickly down the wheel. You want to push, not mad hard, you’ll figure it out when the wheel turns. As the wheel turns, your thumb should almost automaticly slide down to the trigger. Once it hits the trigger, push the trigger and keep your hand there. If all has gone well you should now have a flame lit. You’ll know because you’ll hear it fwish and feel the heat.

 

 The flame is now going to be in existence above your fist.  lol, is this description totally retarded?

Anyway, practice that a few times so that you feel reasonabley sure you know what your doing.

 

 It should be one quick little motion, not all fumbling, kinda like snapping your fingers.

Now, get your pack of cigarettes. If your cigarettes have filters, when you open the pack of cigarettes the filters will be facing you, that is, filters = top of pack, end of cigarette you burn equals bottom. Cigarettes have a weird rapper like a pull tab, but just tear the plastic rap to skip past more crap you don’t want to deal with for now.

Put a cigarette in your mouth. If your cigarette has a filter, you will know because if you hold the thing in between your teeth, not between your lips its gunna have some give to it like rubber and when you poke at it with your tongue it will be flat. If you have tabaco on your tongue after doing this you either have a cigarette without a filter or your about to screw up.

 

 If you light the filter, something I wanta point out for whoever’s keeping score I have literally only ever done once in five years, you will know because your going to smell burning plastic. If the cigarette has no filter you will know because you will feel the roughness of tabacco at both ends.

Moving on.

Put the cigarette in your mouth. Now hold the lighter just in front of the tip of the cigarette, like you may have done as a kid when you were playing with magnets, almost touching but not, The flame comes straight up out of the lighter and widens, so if you hold the tip of the cigarette fucked up your going to light it crooked or in the upper third, rather than the tip. If you were to draw a line from the tip of your lighter to the tip of your cigarette the angle would be something like fifteen or twenty degrees.

 

Oh my god I just used geometry for the first time since high school. Now light your bick and when the flame is working puff on the cigarette, do this two or three times. If its lit your going to know.

Now when you smoke, hold your cigarette between pointer and middle fingers, almost but not quite at the tip. When you aren’t actually dragging on the cigarette you should lower your hand, you don’t leave your hand up in front of your face. Hold the cigarette either by the filter if it has one or at the butt end if it doesn’t have a filter, don’t hold your hand up towards the flame or you’ll look retarded. To flick ashes off your cigarette, flick the corner of the butt end with your thumb. When your done with your cigarette, you can’t see, so jesus, grind it out

 

, don’t just drop it. I never do this and I guess god must love me. I’ve rarely seen cigarettes light other things on fire, but it can happen.

But really, you shouldn’t smoke.

P.S. The two things I missed are colors, I like to write and am always struggling to use subtle color descriptions, a novel wouldn’t work with no colors at all, but its hard, are cars usually blue,

 

 maybe red, but dark or bright red or rusty brown… Its all about setting a mood I can’t see and only has to be there rarely, because people need it. I know there not pink, that kind of stuff.

P.P.S. The other thing is dancing. When I’m at clubs or parties I’m sure

 

beyond a shadow of a doubt I look more retarded than whiteness can excuse.

P.P.P.S Everyone worried about eye contact, just wear a pair of dark shades.

 

 It might make you look like you think your a douchey  asshole, but I’ve gone out shades on and shades off and the “is he a fucking retard” quotient is way lower with shades on. Dark Shades inside tip people off, especially with a dog.

The Real Reefer Madness

Booze and cigarettes are legal. Pot is not. Try as I might I can’t get my brain around this.

I would understand if Booze, Cigarettes and pot were all illegal, but the current state of affairs is one of extreme hypocrisy.

Pot is classified as a schedule I drug, which is the same classification the government gives to LSD.

In the description of why pot is schedule I the government claims it has “high abuse potential.”

OK, I get that. High abuse potential, you don’t want everyone toking up twenty times a day, stepping outside in the middle of work, stinking up the world with smoke, constantly puffing away freaking out if they run out of something to smoke. Oh, wait, that’s what happens with cigarettes, the product that you buy for seven bucks that could easily be renamed high abuse potential, such a high abuse potential that 96 percent of people who try and quit fail on any given attempt. . .

Here’s where my comprehension breaks down.

I can go to the package store and buy a pack of cigarettes even though it is a scientific certainty that cigarettes kill. They don’t always kill, but the reason so many people have lung cancer is because they smoke cigarettes. Lung cancer isn’t like pancreatic cancer, it doesn’t simply happen for reasons we don’t understand, it happens because people are smoking.

But cigarettes are legal.

Alcohol is legal. Legally I can go buy a bottle of bourbon and sit in my house and drink so much I black out. If during this black out I called a police station and told them I’d drank a bottle of bourbon and was sitting in my kitchen, they’d say, “why are you calling us?”

But if I had a single hit of marijuana and called the cops to tell them I was high they’d send a car out to write me a ticket.

I live in Connecticut. Connecticut recently past a bill making possession of up to a half an ounce of pot a ticketing offense.

But this is even worse than if pot was completely illegal because what the law says these days is that its ok to have half an ounce of pot, but if your the guy selling pot by the half ounce, and thus logically you must at any one time have more than a half an ounce, we’ll still prosecute you and punish you like a criminal. But little guys, go ahead, toke up even though logically we know your getting pot from people we’re gunna prosecute.

Murder outside of self-defense  is wrong, and our laws reflect that. Even if you punch some guy in the nose and despite what you intended you shove his nose bone up into his brain and he dies you’ll probably go to jail at least for a few years.

But in the first world where pot is illegal, the message we’re sent isn’t all that clear.

Because  alcohol is legal, which is mind altering, and cigarettes are legal and are addictive, and pot is mind altering, far less addictive than cigarettes, and illegal.

Further, it isn’t as though alcohol doesn’t have abuse potential, people get hung over, drink until they vomit, drink until they sleep with someone ugly, drink and drive, drink until they black out,  some people become addicted and drink daily. Alcohol has such high abuse potential that there’s even a group people have to join to try and quit. You might have heard of it.

Some of these alcohol related patterns we consider to be ok, getting tipsy or drunk as long as you remain convivial,  and some of them we don’t. Getting drunk and running someone over.  If you drink you’ve been drunk at least once. That’s what the odds say. But its not like anyone you know considers this to be a problem. As long as your not knocking back a bottle of Jack before work every morning or having a two marteeny lunch, your probably alright. This is sarcasm, you may not be alright, but the point is that no one worth knowing judges themselves or anyone else for moderate alcohol use.

But we do judge you when you drink and drive, because that’s dangerous to other people, so we arrest you. This, however, is different from how we judge you if you drink and don’t drive where from a legal perspective, generally we don’t care.

See, our attitude towards booze is pretty sensible. Drink to your hearts content and your livers detriment. Our litmus test for the drinking issue is  if you aren’t hurting other people or endangering them or drunkenly screaming at them in public, go ahead. That’s our attitude with smoking cigarettes as well. Its slow suicide that tastes really fucking good, but that doesn’t make it any less of a slow suicide. My grandmothers eighty-four and she’s smoked a pack a day for over fifty years. Your grandfather smoked and died of lung cancer at seventy. That’s because even if some people beat the odds, most people don’t, which is why we call them the odds, those people  get emphysema or have a heart attack at sixty or get lung cancer and die.

But our attitude towards smoking is, do it outside and we don’t care. Go ahead if that’s what you want to do. Similarly, being an alcoholic is something we all recognize as a bad thing, no one goes, “I know this super great alcoholic,” but we also understand it as something that’s a choice. That is to say its not illegal to be an alcoholic or a cigarette smoker. Even though we as a society think those choices are bad, we don’t stop people from going to that place.  But pots illegal because of its high abuse potential. And I try as hard as I can to square this with logic, and I can’t.

Lets backtrack for a moment. A drug is something that alters chemicals in your body or brain. Some drugs are used as medicines, some have only recreational application. If you drink coffee, your a drug user. “I’m not a drug user,” your bitching, “That’s just my coffee. Coffee’s not a drug man, its not like I’m smoking cigarettes or shooting up or popping pills.”

Let me explain something to you. There was a time in the distant past when people woke up at first light and were tired and said, “ah, I’m exhausted.” much like in the modern world, they got out of bed and rubbed there eyes and left the house because much like you, they had important crap to do. But they couldn’t drink coffee, they just had to deal with  being tired until like an hour later they were no longer tired. What a world. Then Europeans discovered coffee in the New  World, brought it back to civilization and all the sudden one dude in a frock coat was telling some other dude in a bowler hat about this stuff you put in a pot and boil with water and strain. “it tastes like ass but you get all peppy and full of vim for three or so hours.”

Because coffee’s a drug, and at one time it was a brand new drug,  and at some point five hundred years ago it was imported into meaningful society. Like coke in the eighties. I mean, that’s the comparison. It was new, it was a stimulant, and it emerged on the scene at a time when Europeans only drug of choice was alcohol. If you’ve experienced a long night of drinking and a nice morning waking up with a few cups of coffee you know they are vastly  dissimilar experiences.

The anxiety medication you take is a drug, if your on an anti-depressant your on a drug, if you take Nodoze or Aderol to stay up and study your using drugs, if you take an aspirin for a fever your taking a drug, if you go clubbing on E your taking a drug, if your smoking cigarettes or cigars your on a drug, if you do coke your on a drug, if you smoke crack your on a drug, if you like chocolate your on a drug if you have a glass of wine in the evening your on a drug. This should make my point for me. Drug is too broad of a term to  mean anything except  its definition. So when you say, “drug user,” your talking out your ass.

What you should say is “recreational drug user,” and at that point your still including smokers of cigarettes and drinkers of booze and coffee  in that definition.

But what people think of when they think of “drug user” is those people who use drugs that are illegal.

The problem with lumping all those people together in one group is that recreational drugs are like zoo animals. One has nothing to do with another. Take a hit of pot, yeah, the worlds a little different. You laugh more, music means more, sometimes you feel like you and your friends are all natural born philosophers.

But the world isn’t all that different your senses are still functioning in a normal way. Unlike if someone slipped caffeine into your water, something you might never realize, pots stronger than that, if someone gave you pot instead of a cigarette you’d figure it out, the effects are noticeable but not to the point where your so fucked up you can’t function. In short the world your used to when sober is still the world you see and experience when high off pot, your just thinking about it differently.

It isn’t like you look up at the sky and see huge wings blotting out the son and casting huge serpentine shadows  in your yard as dragons fly low over your house.

But smoke some DMT or some salvia and you might see a dragon because under the influence of those drugs the world changes a lot.  DMT is a chemical your body releases when you die. When its smoked or injected people experience intense auditory and visual hallucinations which are generally so strong those living through them lose awareness of there bodies. These people often experience ego loss, and come into contact with godlike entities who speak to them.

Snort some coke your amped. Pop a pill your chill. But the world isn’t crazily fucked up. Take a blotter of acid, it is, the trees will roar and your couch will try and eat you. For eight or twelve hours. People tell scientists in clinical studies that taking mushrooms counts among their five most significant life experiences, and report that the experience is still influential months and years later. Snorting a line of coke is probably not a meaningful experience unless it gets you addicted.

The take away, again, is that drug A is not drug B, and its pure unadulterated ignorance to assume because a drug is illegal its the same as another drug which is illegal.

If someone wants to smoke pot and can’t he’ll be upset. If someone wants to smoke crack and can’t he’s going to break into your house and steal your TV. This is an important difference.

Now anyone with common sense would if pressed most likely admit that a world without tobacco would probably be a better world. I do. I’ve been smoking for five years and periodically I try and quit. I can’t. If forced to go with no cigarettes for a month, like because I was trapped in Utah or something, I would, but as long as a pack of cigarettes is an eight minute walk away, I eventually decide I want one and I go get twenty.

Now I made this point earlier, but cigarettes kill four hundred thousand people a year. That’s eighty percent of our active duty army. Every year.

Coke and heroin don’t kill as many people a year, booze, which can kill if abused chronically, doesn’t kill that many people a year. Our homicide rate isn’t four hundred thousand a year.

So when you think about it, if we were going to make one drug illegal, logic says it should be nicotine. We can test for it, and it would do more to save lives then if we had a  country where the murder rate was zero. Cigarettes kill more people than people.

But we don’t make cigarettes illegal and the single reason we don’t is because we know people would go fucking crazy. Everyone who smoked would flip there shit and start rallies and we also know people would continue to smoke cigarettes, the difference is they’d do it  at home with the doors and windows shut. Basically if we outlawed cigarettes two things would happen. The price would be gouged, more than it already is, like I want to support children’s health insurance with every pack of cigarettes

I buy, and people wouldn’t smoke in public anymore.

Here is the reality of the situation. The war on drugs is a war we’re not exactly losing, because you can always find anyone on any drug you decide you don’t like and throw him in jail. But for every person you arrest, there are five hundred you wont, and for every dealer who goes to jail, there are five that won’t. The United States is conducting a gorilla war on drugs. The idea is never that we’re going to catch every drug dealer ever, because that’s patently impossible, the idea is we’ll make drug dealers so tired of all the risks involved they’ll stop dealing, and that’s patently stupid because the moneys too good.

Pots been illegal for about fifty years, and the proportional amount of people who smoke pot is higher then it was when the drug was made illegal.

If you want to go get pot today, this minute, you can. It isn’t hard. You know someone who knows someone, or you just know someone. If someone kidnapped your kid or your dog or your jewelry, and there ransom was an eighth of weed, you’d have it in six hours.

And pots illegal. But its not super illegal.

This is what gets me so mad that I literally want to go take a shit in the president of the DEA’s office. Here’s my thing.

Either a drugs a real societal problem or it isn’t. Heroin and cigarettes for example are problems. Why, because once you use a little your addicted, and withdrawal includes real physical symptoms and in the case of heroin can kill you. And using both drugs will lead to death, cigarettes if used exactly as intended, heroin in case of overdose. I’m not saying that either of these things should be made, or should continue to stay, illegal, what I’m saying is in an ideal world we would make that question moot because no one would be using them.

Instead of looking at pot first, lets look at an even more clear cut example of a drug which should be legal.

LSD.

What? Why? That sounds crazy.

Let me explain. If the two largest reasons drugs are bad are addictive potential and health effects, LSD is the safest drug around.

No one gets hooked on acid. For two reasons. The first is you don’t trip balls and instantly decide  you want to do it again, and second if you do decide this the tolerance you develop to LSD develops fast so that you can’t trip chronically.

Now, LSD is some crazy shit. I’ve never done it because I’ve heard peoples stories about bad trips and they scare the shit out of me. But I’m super curious and have read everything I can get my hands on.

When people get hurt on LSD, it isn’t from the LSD itself, its because they decide they’re superman and hop off a roof or want to hug a car or fuck a lion or climb a latter that isn’t there or whatever. In short they get captivated by delusions, act on them, and suffer the consequences.

But this isn’t a problem with the drug, this is a problem with stupid people. If we let fat people run,  risking heart attacks, we should let people trip out.

When LSD and all other drugs that alter ones day to day experience  were made illegal, what that law said is “we do not think experiencing any altered state of consciousness should be allowed. Except for being drunk because that’s different.” And here is the gigantic problem. Its perfectly valid to never want to experience anything except the average day to day consciousness. But our laws tell us that experiencing anything else is bad   and there is no  meaningful” because.”

LSD is not addictive, and it is not illegal because it is unsafe. if what we wanted to ensure was peoples safety, we’d legalize LSD and create acid cafe’s with trained medical professionals on hand. We would then have mandatory life sentences for those who sold LSD without an LSD permit.  But we don’t do this, and as we don’t we understand this is not actually doing anything at all to curb LSD use.

Now I’m not saying people should use LSD lightly, its some serious shit, but lightly and illegally are two totally different things.

I don’t want to do LSD. You probably don’t want to do LSD. And that’s cool. The problem is that what our laws say is no one can do LSD when all of the scientific literature available says that LSD isn’t inherently harmful.

The reality is that people are doing LSD, but because it isn’t legal those people don’t know what they are in jesting. The FDA doesn’t regulate tabs of acid, because its illegal. If you smoked a cigarette and it was laced with LSD you could sue Phillip Morris, but if you do LSD and its laced with something else that isn’t LSD, you can’t sue your drug dealer, your only recourse would be to find him and beat his ass, there bye creating crimes everyone agrees are bad. Violent ones.

Now lets talk about something that isn’t serious shit.

Pot.

I’ve smoked pot and I’ve smoked cigarettes. There was a point a while ago where I was smoking what people who don’t smoke pot would call a lot of pot. I’ve quit smoking one of the two things, and it isn’t cigarettes.

That’s because pot isn’t physically addictive. Being high’s great, so pot can be psychologically addictive, but so can a double cheeseburger, that’s why half the country has a goddamned belly and love handles and has to keep buying larger belts.

When I stopped smoking weed I was angry. Because I wanted to smoke weed.

There is a key difference here you might not understand if you’ve never smoked cigarettes  something with a physically addictive quality, meaning your brain actually tells you it needs whatever substance you are detoxing from. Quitting cigarettes is awful. Its probably worse than breaking up with someone.

I mean, it starts out bad and gets worse and worse. You feel like you need a cigarette. You feel like life blows because your not standing outside lighting tobacco on fire and breathing it in. Coffee sucks, you can’t drink because you know if you do you’ll smoke, going outside is awful because you used to smoke outside and now you aren’t.

Finding a lighter makes you feel you must go buy cigarettes. You start acting like a dick to everyone an even though you know, “shut the fuck up bitch I’m busy!” is not a socially acceptable response screaming at someone feels so good somehow you do it all the time. Eventually you end up being quiet and not speaking much because anything you do say is going to be snide because you can’t smoke a cigarette and that makes the world an awful place.

In the 1950’s before people had scientific data that showed smoking kills they smoked, and at that point it made sense because smoking a cigarette feels so good, and they got to do it guilt free.

The thing is that everyone smoking today knows its killing him or her and they don’t stop. Everyone who smokes knows the risks, and they keep puffing away, day by day, week by week, and when people ask they say, “I know I might get lung cancer but I can’t quit or I don’t care.”

Stopping pot isn’t like that, its like giving up soda or skiddles or waffles. Or steak.

My favorite thing to eat for dinner is a rare steak. But  I haven’t eaten a steak for a month. I dunno why. I’ll eat steak again, probably soon, but I  forgot to buy it the last two times I bought groceries and I don’t want steak badly enough to make a special trip to the grocery store.

pots like this. The first few days are unpleasant. Not stopping cigarettes unpleasant, but its like, I’d like to smoke, oh, I quit, damn. But then it gets to a point where everything’s fine. If you think about it you want to smoke but you don’t. Or you do, but then you go back to not smoking again, unlike with cigarettes where you say you’ll just have one more and then its eight months later and the little tumors on your lungs are slightly larger.

In short, pot is less addictive than cigarettes, there’s no physical dependency yet pot is the drug which is illegal.

Now you might want to point out that studies have also shown pot to be more carcinogenic than cigarettes. This is true, but is beside the point.

A person who smokes cigarettes, on average, has a cigarette every two hours to keep his nicotine levels high. Two hours is the amount of time it takes for the first withdrawal symptoms to begin and is thus the time at which a person smokes cigarette number two of the day.

Now if one joint has more carcinogens then one cigarette, that’s fine, because first only the most dedicated pot smokers are smoking every day, and even someone as dedicated as Snoop Dogg isn’t going to smoke twenty joints every day.

Here’s the second thing to understand. Pot and booze are almost equivalents.

Why do I say almost?

Well, because I believe that its safe for a dude whose taken one hit to drive a car, just like it is if he’s had two or three beers.

However, a dude whose smoked a joint or a chick whose had six beers should not be driving because they are both so impaired they should sit home and chill rather than endanger other people by getting into a car and driving around with slowed reaction times. .

but that is where the similarities end.

Getting high and getting drunk are experiences equal in intensity, stronger than a cigarette or coffee, weaker than DMT or LSD, but in no other way related.

Drunk people get stupid, violent, and uninhibited. Bars where people go to drink, not to sip, are loud and sloppy places after midnight. Pot isn’t like that.

If you haven’t smoked marijuana its a hard feeling to explain.

The thing people don’t get is it doesn’t make you stupid like getting drunk does. I don’t mean it instead makes you smart, but it isn’t as though you have two joints and become a slurring nonsensical mess I want to punch in the face. You don’t become angry or violent or sanctimonious or an ass hole. You don’t decide to fuck a stranger, (probably,) you don’t get into a bar fight, you don’t piss in some guys yard, you don’t puke your guts out.

You ever have one of those days where you lie in the sun and have two beers? Your all relaxed and its good to be in nature and you start thinking about something and you look up at the sky and its glorious and you smell the fresh cut grass and the neighbors cooking on the grill and a rock song comes to you faintly from across the street and you know its summer? Its like that feeling plus you think differently. Ideas you have and then dismiss get contemplated more. Music sounds far more interesting and is something that’s focused on. Details you overlook become worthwhile. Humor is enhanced.

I love pot, alright? I’m not saying its everybody’s wonder drug, but for five years I assumed the only fun high was being drunk. When I smoked pot I realized that getting drunk is retarded by comparison. I still do it from time to time, but I don’t value the state of mind at all.

My point here is that as far as the intensity of he experience is concerned  pot and alcohol are about the same but if you ask anyone whose done both if they feel the same there answer is going to be no and thus what the law is penalizing a pot smoker for is not wanting to drink but wanting to get, to use the idiom, fucked up in a different way.

It is impossible to make the argument that pot is a better drug to people who have never smoked, but I would make the argument its a safer drug.

People do lots of stupid crap while drunk they’d never do while high. Because pot acts a lot like a downer. Not that it necessarily is one, but  pot doesn’t make you want to beat the shit out of the guy who was giving you a look ten minutes ago. It isn’t that kind of experience.

Our laws say things about what we condemn. When rape is made illegal, to simplify, what that law  says about us as a people is, “we don’t like rape. We think its wrong. If you do it we don’t like you so we’ll put you in jail where you’ll get raped.” When we make theft illegal, what that law is saying to society is, “Hey, stealing’s wrong. Steal ten bucks we’ll make you pick up trash. Steal ten thousand we’re throwing you in jail.” Most people, myself included, agree both the laws on rape and the laws on stealing are there because they make society a better place. I don’t want to get raped, and I don’t want to get stolen from, so I’m glad people who steal and rape go to jail.

Now, what pot being illegal says is, “we do not think you should be allowed to alter your consciousness. You can’t handle it, if you feel you need to get fucked up, drink instead.”

This is what the law says. The law doesn’t say, you can’t alter your consciousness, because booze is legal. So first the law is illogical. Second as you know, the law is ineffective, as pot use is rising, not falling.

I’d understand the drug laws if drugs were all  illegal. No coffee, no booze, no cigarettes, no cigars, no pipes, no pot, no shrooms for religious bullshit. No chocolate.

That’d be ok. I’d hate it but at least it would hold up to logic.

Instead we have a world where your allowed to drink and smoke but where you can’t do any other drug, even the soft drugs.

And I have so many   problems with that.

Because I don’t believe there’s such a thing as a victimless  crime, but I do believe in a thing called crime with a victim.

And here’s where I’m at with all drugs.

If someone decides what he wants is to do the drug he wants to do, he’s going to do it. The cops aren’t going to stop him. Don’t misunderstand me, the cops will stop a few of the people every once in a while, but by no means will they stop anything like enough of them for the stopping to make a bit of difference to the people they don’t stop. For every fifty people I know who have smoked pot I know like two or three that have gotten into trouble for it.

If what some guy wants to do is pills or heroin or coke or shrooms or pot or LSD or crack, he’s going to go out and get that drug and do that drug. The cops aren’t actually stopping him. Because people who do drugs don’t respect the drug laws.

Before I smoked pot I always had a contempt for people who were disparaging towards cops. I didn’t understand it at all, aside from corrupt cops, I didn’t get why people were so hostile.

Now I get it. If I ever get busted for smoking pot, the contempt I’ll feel for that specific cop will be total. It would be to the point where if I didn’t think he had any legal recourse I’d spit in his face. Why? Because he’s wasting my time, but more importantly he’s wasting his time!

A cop shouldn’t spend any time finding people who are toking up or doing coke when across town some chicks just been sodomized and beaten and is calling the cops but the dispatcher tells her its going to be fifteen minutes because bacon bits has to finish writing my joint ticket. I think spitting in his face would get that idea across more than words ever could. I won’t ever do this because if I’m ever busted for smoking weed I’ll be shitting myself instead.

Calling a cop bacon bits is unkind, and I don’t care.  Why? Because there is more  important shit that pig should be doing. Namely everything. Anything and everything crime related is more important than stopping people from doing things to themselves. It is true that rape should be illegal because you don’t want to be raped, but my smoking pot doesn’t mean suddenly you wake up high!

And this is where my fury comes in. This is why I’m so angry. Rape  and murder are real. Assault and battery is real, carjacking, bank robbing,  ponzi schemes, home invasions, all that happens. People on Wall Street with no ethics perpetrate theft on such a massive scale that if they were old fashioned thieves what they would be doing would involve raiding fort Knox with a bulldozer.  Sex trafficking, illegal immigration, all that shit needs to be stopped.

And there’s some fat pig wandering around trying to find the dude supplying me my dope. Or your dope, I quit.

And that’s a waste of everyone’s time. because when the person who wants drugs gets drugs, he doesn’t go rape your four year old, he goes and gets high, ok, that’s what he does.

I want murder to remain illegal with the harshest conceivable penalties because I never want to be murdered nor do I ever want to learn someone I know has been murdered. However, whether or not someone goes and does his or her drug of choice doesn’t matter. It doesn’t effect me! Its not like I have to trip when you do shrooms! I don’t have to do coke because you want to do coke, it doesn’t have any impact on me!

The reason pots  sixty bucks an eighth is it has to  be  smuggled here from wherever the hell. The reason coke costs whatever coke costs is because its illegal.

If heroin was a dollar a bag or snort or whatever, people wouldn’t steal shit to buy it because they could afford it.

Which brings me to you, the non drug user.

I have a theory. My theory is this. If your someone who thinks pot should be illegal, I believe you’ve never smoked it.

My first advice in all seriousness is go try it. Then tell me it should be illegal.

I’m not kidding at all. If you’ve never  smoked pot and think it should be illegal your position is untenable. I respect you if you’ve tried it and think it should be illegal, because you know  what your talking about. This is different from people who have never done heroin talking about it because heroin is addictive, we know this to be true because people commit all sorts of crimes to get the next fix.

Pot isn’t addictive. That’s proven. If you smoke it once you won’t need more to be happy tomorrow. To get a joints worth costs you like ten or fifteen bucks, and that’s it.

If you think pot should be illegal you should smoke it and then come back to me. Because otherwise your talking about an experience smokers will tell you is about the  intensity of anywhere from three to thirty beers depending on how high you get but utterly different in its character.

The law doesn’t say you can’t drink to the point of  sloppiness and if it does no one listens to that part of it.

If you’ve gotten drunk, and have never gotten high and think pot should be illegal your position on the issue doesn’t make sense. You can’t tell me anything about being high, because you’ve never been high. But I can tell you all the reasons it sucks to be a drunk or to drink. Now I’m not saying booze should be made illegal, we tried that and it was a mess, in fact almost the same mess we currently have with people buying billions of dollars in illegal pot, I’m only clarifying that it isn’t like booze is great compared to all other drugs, that’s not the reason its legal. Its legal because its popular.

So here’s my final statement on drugs. If some guy feels what he needs is heroin he’s already doing it. He’s not hurting anyone except for himself, and we should let him snort all the h he wants. Because that’s his choice. He’s an idiot. Just like every cigarette smoker, myself included. But he doesn’t belong in jail with violent criminals for doing a drug. It makes no sense.

The thing about morality is this. You might think the only moral people are those who have no sex before marriage, never drink, dance, play cards or smoke, and its your right to think that, and if that’s what you think that’s how you should live.

But in this country its life,  liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It isn’t life, my conception of liberty and my conception of the pursuit of happiness. And because the constitution is so broad on the moral issue it offers  each individual a lot of moral leeway. I think good people are good because of how they treat other people, not how they treat themselves.

Every time a fat dude eats a chili cheese dog or some chicken wings, he’s not helping his figure. But I don’t go, “hey fatty, put down the hotdog, your gunna have a coronary!” And the cops don’t arrest him for eating his hotdog. They let him eat it.  Because so many people over eat we’ve decided that its ok to make that choice.

And that’s the thing. All choices which don’t hurt other people are valid choices. You may disagree with those choices, you may disagree with them strongly, which is why we call them choices! ~ And we have divisions of police departments who are trying to stop people from doing drugs, when they should be stopping murders.

But there is drug related crime!

No.

What there is  is crime related to illegal drug use. The reason some meth head steals your TV is because he can’t go into a convenience store and buy two dollars of meth, because the street price has been artificially inflated by its illegality. The reason there are drug dealers and drug cartels isn’t because we’ve all watched too many movies like Blow, but because drugs are illegal. Its why we had gangsters running booze during prohibition

Look at California, a state where pot is now  almost legal. You go to the weed store and buy your weed. If the Bloods used to make money from selling pot, they now make way less money because people can just go to the fucking weed store with there fake medical problem flash the card they got from a sympathetic doctor and then they go home and smoke.

What bothers people about drugs isn’t that some guys sitting in his house getting high, what bothers them is they see the Hispanic gentleman in the green van handing baggies out the window. If drugs were legal, you wouldn’t have to see that, the dude handing bags out the window would be handing the FDA regulated bags of drugs out from behind a counter, and gang related crime would fall because there’d be no bootleg market for drugs.

Its 2012. Can we please all get our heads out of our asses? Wait, sorry, can all of you get your heads out of your asses so that we can start dealing with important shit?

Mike Wallace and Rod Serling

So everyone’s going to be watching the Mike Wallace highlight real in the aftermath of his death yesterday. I started looking through old interviews of Mr. Wallace’s because it amazes me whenever a career spans more than a half century, as his did. He first appeared on film in World War II and worked almost until his death. That’s longer then some people were alive. He gave his first interview before the cold war started. He was old when I was born and it looks like he interviewed almost every famous person in the world.

I decided I wanted to find an interview not a lot of people had seen from the 1950’s to show everyone what a long and storied Career Mike Wallace had,  And I found something I wanted to share with whomever sees this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77SEuyeQAAg   Its an interview from 1959 Mike Wallace conducted with Rod serling. Its from a different age of TV, and its fascinating because on the one hand it could have been given today, and on the other hand the way the two men discuss TV shows what a young medium it was back then.

The interview is all about Rod Serlings award winning career writing for TV, and this takes place one year before the twilight zone begins which makes it all feel unreal. Serling complains about censorship imposed upon him by networks and sponsors, and Mike Wallace really asks some interesting questions. The interviews sixty two years old and I ended up watching the entire thing, he probes Serling that well and gets him to open up and talk about the business and continues to ask follow up questions to carry the viewers interest along, but it also feels like the two are having a conversation that interests both of them.

The other aspect of the interview I found different from modern TV is that it goes on for twenty minutes, when the average interview on CNN is like four.

The best part is that Mike Wallace says, “So you have a new show coming up called the Twilight Zone?”

P.S. It sucks Mike Wallace just died. It makes me feel sad

Eighty year old woman who is not pilot lands plane!

There’s so much bad news every day I wanted to pass along the craziest good bit of news I’ve heard in years.

So this elderly couple was flying home from their summer house, or to their summer house, it doesn’t really matter, when the husband, who was piloting the plane, fell unconscious. The wife, who was in her eighties, called the police and explained the situation.

With her plane running out of gas, a flight instructor was quickly dispatched in his own plane to fly next to her and guide her through landing the plane. After a practice run and then one attempt where she was coming into the runway too fast she successfully landed the plane on her third attempt.

That’s so bad ass! It’d be cool if it was someone in her twenties, but the fact an eighty year old lady whose husband had just lost consciousness kept it together enough to learn how to land a plane within ten minutes, man, its so inspiring. What it will inspire me to do is nothing, but I got this warm glow when I read about it. I can’t believe she didn’t crash! Its like something out of a movie!

Of course the bad part is that her husband died on the way to the hospital, but that happens all the time so we don’t need to get sad about it, we should instead spend time marveling at how sick it was that this woman landed a twin engine plane with five minutes of lessons! This is why I love being alive.

I keep reading about how much the world sucks, and then I hear about something like this and its so cool and touching and all that good shit that I’m I don’t know, glad it happened? Glad she landed the plane, I mean, not that her husband died.

A link to the NewYork Times article is below if you want to read more about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/learning-to-be-a-pilot-with-fuel-running-out-in-midair.html

All of my Thoughts on Religion

This was supposed to be a blog post of average length, and then it turned day by day into the pages and pages of text you see before you.

I should get this out of the way at the beginning. I’m an atheist. And while I appreciate everyone who reads my blog, I’m looking for religious people to read this post specifically because I don’t want to preach to the quire, I want instead to exchange ideas with people who disagree with me.

Some words of warning. I get pretty offensive about religion in the next paragraphs. And I hope that doesn’t make you stop reading. As an atheist because of familial obligations I’ve sat through many sermons whose every word I’ve disagreed with. But I’ve listened and I hope as a Christian or Muslim or whatever religion you are, you also listen. Please consider it a test of your faith to get through the hole thing. If you have strong convictions nothing I say in the next however many words should shake them, but its always important to understand the views of the opposition. That said, lets jump into it.

 

I’ll just say it. I think religion is a cancer that’s constantly doing damage to all aspects of our society. If everyone was an atheist, the republicans who are so popular today would have no traction. They are popular for denigrating homosexuals, abortion, premarital sex, post marital sex that is unorthodox,  evolution, stem sell research, and the reason they denigrate these things is there interpretation of the bible has shown them that the things I’ve just listed are counter to how Jesus wants them to live. Other reasons may contribute, but they are reasons that are supplemental to their religious beliefs. Rick Santorum, to use the most well known current example holds the views he does because of Christianity. I’m not putting words in his mouth, he’d be the first to admit this to be true.

All of the intrusive anti-utilitarian morality I hate has religion at its core in general and its representations in this country are caused by Christianity in particular. Peoples belief  in a giant alien in the sky who wrote a book and made a bunch of arbitrary pronouncements about when and how we’re supposed to have sex and how we’re supposed to treat each other and when we’re supposed to work and how many wives we can have.

It isn’t that the bible is evil, or lacks passages I consider to be moral, but as a hole when I read it what comes across to me strongly enough to blot out the rare instances of beautiful prose or moral sentiment I’m not against is that Gods a dick and is making moral judgments which  are not explained the way a philosopher would explain his own morality, the justification is that I’m god, this is what I want you to do and you should do it because I’m god and just told you to do it. Further when I read the bible as a moral document I’m angry for all it doesn’t mention. Thou shall not kill is a commandment, which everyone agrees is good,  but there isn’t anything about thou shall not own other men as slaves, or thou shall not rape or thou shall not touch little boys in my name.

One of the reasons I wanted to write this is because a few months ago some kid made a youtube video where he said religion was bullshit and then backed down as soon as a priest saw the video and yelled at him, and because I know I wouldn’t ever do that, I wanted to make up for his fecklessness. I was saddened by his lack of conviction, so I wanted to write to you and give you my thoughts on religion, which I wouldn’t disavow if I was lucky enough to get them noticed by a priest who took issue with them.

The bible is a book written by man, it was not written by god. The people who wrote the bible had no science worth the name and so they made up the things they had no way of understanding. The proof for this is that when reading the bible it is impossible to find passages that clearly indicate omnipotence, that is, nothing in the bible couldn’t have been written by a man living in the first century. If you are religious this should concern you.   and because so many Americans are raised Christian and because the idea that when you die there’s a heaven is such a comforting one, this truth is rarely acknowledged and religion persists. I hate this.

I got into a discussion with an acquaintance the other day and he started telling me all this crap about how the earths really six thousand years old and how dinosaurs and people lived at the same time and how before the great flood there was no rainfall, yet somehow there were still plants,  and how the reason for the flood was that humanity was interbreeding with demons the offspring of human demon hybrids being giants, and all I could think was that it sounded a lot like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And then I wondered why we hadn’t found the bodies of giants if this were true, and then I wondered if the problem god saw with Man was that he was interbreeding with demons, why didn’t the demons come up from hell after the flood and start interbreeding with us once again?   I saw him the next day as he had a completely un ironic discussion with a friend about how the world was going to end soon which is what people have been saying in error since whenever the hell revelations started to get a lot of readers. He said that our technology  portents the world ending because it’ll make it possible for us to take pictures of the disciple whose supposed to lie in the gutter and send them to one another using our phones.

Every year or so somebody with more charisma than sense gets a group together and then they go onto the mountaintop to await the end and they’ve always been wrong. Always. Its always like, “the end is coming,” and they’re the latest in a string of groups who have been positive the world was going to end in fire and all the rest of the signs of the rapture, and so this latest group, ignoring how all previous groups were wrong, pick a nice spot, pray a lot, sit around until the sun sets, and then the stars come out, and then people feel disappointed that nothing’s happened and as the sun rises the leader of the group decides the bible actually meant the world would end next week, which is what every dumbass who has demonstrably been wrong about the world ending says when it fails to go up in smoke when he thought it would.

I used to laugh at these people because what it looks like when you don’t believe in god is stupid, but as I got older I started to feel sad. Because all I can think is that every single theologian who believes in a god or gods or some kind of pantheon of demons or angels or jinn or dragons or ancestors that really are still alive in some form or another got bogged down in false premaces at step one and thus spent all there mental energy trying to figure life out based on the equivalent of a bad fantasy novel that isn’t even internally consistent.

Every statement  is either true or false. As an atheist I’m either a hundred percent wrong or a hundred percent right. Right now either Gods watching me write this letter to you and thinking to himself, another one for hell, or there’s no god and the universe was created through some kind of random event like the big bang and we’re really smart chimps. There is a right answer to this question because that’s how the world works. Either there are aliens on far distant planets or our planet contains the only life in the universe. Objects can either travel no faster than the speed of light, or they can travel faster than the speed of light but we haven’t observed them doing so yet, these questions have answers which preclude any other answers being true. My dog has four paws, right now there is no possibility he has three or five. God is either in heaven at this exact moment stroking his beard and watching you pray for your cancer to remit and working in mysterious ways, or there is no god. Or all the Indian gods exist or ala exists, but the point is that all questions have a single answer even if we don’t know definitively what that answer is. An atheist and a Christian have different views about how the world works. One group is right, and the other is wrong. There is no way both are right. there is no middle ground and a false facade of mutual respect for each others opinion clouds the issue. I’m right or you are, its one or the other and in my opinion you are the twenty-six year old guy reading the Brothers Grim and waiting to wake up with the forty thieves. This does not mean I do not have respect for you as a person but it does mean I have no respect at all for your opinion because I’m almost sure its wrong and saying anything else to make you feel better would delude the message I’m trying to get across.

Its hard to know where to begin when trying to make a case for atheism, because its remarkable that people believe in all of this crap in the first place. If I told you that when the sun set it was because Apollo had parked his chariot in a stable somewhere on mount Olympus, you’d ignore me. You’d think I was crazy or misinformed because the idea that a big Greek guy pulling the sun through the sky on horses is obviously insane, but Christians believe that Moses took a staff and made the sea part for him so that he could get away from faro’s army. This is no more consistent with how the world behaves then a guy pulling the sun on a chariot they are both experiences that are equally against the laws of nature as scientists currently understand them. The difference between them is that Apollo pulling the sun comes from Greek mythology and Moses parting the red sea comes from the torah.  Catholics believe when they eat a piece of bred that that bred has literally become the body of Jesus and the wine they drink has literally transformed into his blood, which is crazy to me because I’ve eaten it and it still is bred, no different from any other bred I’ve ever had in my entire life and this should remain obvious to everyone while they eat it. The only reason you have for disagreeing with me is that someone has told you a thousand times that the bred turns into Jesus. And the catholic justification for this is that it tastes like bred, feels like bred in your mouth and is the body of Jesus despite the evidence of your senses.  You can tell me my socks are shoes all you want, but they will still be socks and bullshit described by any other name is still bullshit. If a priest told you fire was ice, insisted upon it, showed you biblical justification, you wouldn’t put on a coat when your house was burning, you’d run.

I have to go to church every once in a while when someone I know has just died and priests are all like, “he’s in a better place now so deaths not that big of a deal.” But in my opinion he’s not in a better place, he’s gone and all that’s happening now is that the dudes body is slowly rotting six feet deep. And this is when it becomes important to recall that as a Christian you are either right or wrong. Because if Christians are correct, death isn’t death in the way that term is commonly understood because there is an afterlife. Death is instead good for the person who has just died and should only be depressing because  you can’t see them until you die yourself. you should, as a Christian, be able to blow off your fathers funeral with a clear conscience because right now he’s sitting on a cloud watching you put on your suit  while you cry.

Meanwhile I know that when someone close to me dies they are dead and they aren’t watching me, they are rotting in the ground and soon there will be nothing left of them. That’s why I find death to be unbearably sad.  When you do not believe there to be an afterlife every moment of life becomes priceless because there’s nothing after  it ends and thus all we have is this earthly existence.

Note the difference, because your idea’s about what happen after death effect how you view life. I think the murder of a child is tragic, you, by definition and conviction should find it merely expeditious if you truly believe in heaven.

I think about Thomas Moore whenever I think about how there isn’t anything after this. Thomas Moore  was an adviser to Henry VIII. When Henry was creating the Church of England he made all of his subjects swear an oath that he was the head of the new Church of England. Thomas Moore tried to get out of having to swear the oath because he still believed that the pope was the head of the catholic church and probably thought what Henry had done was blasphemy and so because of conflicting loyalties  he said nothing one way or the other, and his refusal eventually got him beheaded. He was given many opportunities to reconsider and never did.  and I think, why the hell didn’t you just swear the oath and get on with your life. Instead he died for a lie. I’m not saying he  should have known better, he was a product of his time and was raised as a catholic and did not have the information or cultural context to conceive of a way out of that little box, but today people should know much better and yet we get these people from the south trying to discredit the theory of evolution because it discredits what the bible tells them about how the world was created and I think its the twenty-first century and in my own country people are acting like its the fifteenth. If your kid came home from school and told you her teacher said “mom, today they taught us that the earth is flat and that its the center of the universe,” you’d be pissed because you know that isn’t true. You have seen pictures of the earth from space and the solar system and the galaxy. The bible says the earth is the center of the universe, but the evidence to the contrary has simply become so colossally overwhelming that everyone now ignores that. But they shouldn’t because God wrote it. If god wrote the bible we should not have been able to prove even one line wrong. And if one line is proven wrong then what makes all the other lines in violet? Remember what I said earlier. Everything in the bible is consistent with what first century man knew and first century man did not know the sun was in fact the center of the solar system because we didn’t even realize we were in a solar system at that time.

Further, you would assume that God, having created the universe would know that the sun was in fact the center of the solar system and that the earth orbits it. Why he didn’t mention this in the bible I couldn’t say. Well, I actually can, its because he doesn’t exist, didn’t write it, and the desert savages that did right it thought it reasonable that because of how the sun looks from earth that we were at the center of things.

The difference between your hypothetical outrage if your daughter told you the earth was flat and your lack of outrage on the evolution question comes down to how easy something is to grasp. Its easy to google “earth from space,” “Solar system,” and see pictures of this stuff for yourself that make it quite clear, regardless of how long its been since you took earth science that yes, the earth is round and orbits the sun. However, evolution, being more complex is harder to understand by looking at pictures. As far as easy explanations go, “god created the earth in six days” is much easier for you to understand then, “well, first there was some primitive bacteria, then some more complicated bacteria, then some two sell organisms, then some little fish, ETC ETC.”

And I admit it has a comforting ring to it. God, I mean. It would be nice to believe there was a guy looking down right at you and loving you and helping you in all sorts of ways and waiting for you to die so he could pluck your soul from your hospital bed as you flat line and bring you up to heaven where all your dead relatives are waiting to greet you after so long apart… And admittedly as comforting as that concept is, the idea that life is sheer random chance and thus purposeless from a religious perspective is as uncomfortable to contemplate as the religious ideas you believe are comforting, and people generally believe what makes them happy.

Its true that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to, it is untrue that there beliefs are automatically right. And wrongheaded beliefs are not valuable. They are wrong. If you want to believe that  sex before marriage will send you to hell, go right ahead. Shut up and don’t have any. I’ll believe you to be stupid and outmoded, you’ll believe me to be arrogant and secular, I’ll agree with you, and at some point we’ll both die and in our last moments we’ll have the thing settled one way or another. I don’t want to get all authoritarian and tell people they can’t believe certain things,however I profoundly  wish they wouldn’t. If you walked into your front yard and saw your best friend gutting a goat as an offering to all mighty Lord zoose, your first honest thought, before anything else like political correctness got in the way would be, “What the fuck is that guy gutting a goat in the front yard for?” And you’d be all confused and shocked and then you’d think, “Man, that’s crazy.” Please correct me if I’m wrong there.

A  dude in the sky with a staff that throws lightning is as crazy to my mind as people who believe that god turned a city to salt impregnated a woman without actually fucking her, had a kid, let him die for  all our sins, then brought him back from the dead. Its only a difference of mythology. Xoose used to turn into animals, fly down, fuck people, impregnate them with half god children and leave. But that’s nuts and didn’t happen, whereas Christianity is perfectly plausible and not at all fantastic.

If I had my way I’d never  have to think about this issue. I don’t spend much time in my daily life thinking about how there isn’t a god because its implicit in my thinking, its as strong of a belief of mine as is my belief in gravity, I finished the hard thinking on this issue like seven or eight years ago because it isn’t complicated to realize that there is most probably not a man in the sky listening to prayers and watching and who created us. Its not difficult to come to this conclusion, so I came to it and moved on.

If you are Christian, and are still reading at this point, first let me say, wow. Second, I want to say that I really didn’t want to write this post. Because I know how hard it is to get people to think about this stuff, let alone to get them to question any of it, and I didn’t want to waste words trying to convince people of things when there was, forgive me for the bad pun, less than a snowballs chance in hell of doing so. but  then I turn on the TV and some ass hole is sitting there saying gay people are going to go to hell because they’re having sex with one another and what sends tremmers up my spine is the guy looks like he really believes it. Like really! And his belief makes me feel such a contempt for him because he’s trapped in this myth of god and demons and his big problem with the world is sodomy when there are more important things to be worrying about such as starving children, a nuclear Iran, our national debt, our falling educational standards, our partisan gridlock in Washington, murder, rape and domestic violence, terrorism, the national healthcare debate, the rising price of Gas, the species of animals that are going extinct, the revolution going on in Syria, the high unemployment rate, cancer,  and on and on.

If I told you I spent half my life in another world where everyone was eleven feet tall and got around on giant fifty-six legged lizards  but I’d never let you see it, you wouldn’t take that on faith, you’d call a doctor. But my fifty-six legged lizards, who also can fly even though they are wingless and can speak to me through their mind melding abilities, in case you were interested, are outlandish, there is no proof for there existence, and thus in that way they are the same as God and Jesus and Mary and all the angels and demons and shit that people spend there time believing in. The day I convert to Christianity is the day you catch me an angel in a net and drag that bastard kicking and screaming onto my front porch. And in all seriousness, on that day, I’ll go with contrition to kiss the ring and go to mass and pray for forgiveness for all the porn I’ve watched, impure thoughts I’ve had, and all the rest of it.

I read a book about an atheist who went to  Liberty university pretending to be a southern Baptist so that he could describe to more secular people what it was like to attend a religious college. What I  remember from that book most is a chapter where he talks about going to some spring break spot where he and all his classmates tried to save peoples souls by asking if they knew Jesus Christ to be their personal savior. They did not and were not interested. Of course they weren’t interested, I would have the same luck trying to make Atheists by standing outside a Liberty University classroom and going, “you know your living a lie, right?”

As an atheist I think sex is important and intimate but not  anything “sacred.” sex between two or three people for that matter is between those people and as long as its consensual they can do whatever the hell they want to do because however weird others sex gets, if its something I don’t want to do myself, I’ll never have to.

As an atheist I’ve come to this conclusion about morality. Everyone has one life and when they die they are gone and will never come back or go on to some other place. Therefore every millisecond of life is priceless. Therefore murder is the worst thing that anyone can do to anyone else. Note that if heaven really does exist then murder shouldn’t really matter because its just expediting things, but if it doesn’t it matters a lot because it isn’t expediting its ripping someone right out of the universe forever. Everything else works backwards from this. Rape is wrong because it inflicts almost as much pain as death or like a year of torture. Punching someone in the face is wrong on a much smaller scale. I’m not talking about self-defense in this instance.

So these people spent a week trying to convert people who were having a good time  drinking and hooking up and partying. They converted no one.  And here’s my problem. Its perfectly valid to say to yourself, “I don’t think I’m going to spend time getting drunk and high every weekend for however long,” but what I really detest are people who want to tell other people they shouldn’t do it, and the reason they shouldn’t do it is that Jesus has a fucking problem with it.  As far as reasons not to do self-destructive things go, that doesn’t even register on my list.

Let us consider. I believe murder to be wrong because inflicting pain on others is wrong. I believe this because I have experienced pain before and have not liked it, and  would not want to be murdered and every other person I know has expressed the preference to me, either implicitly or explicitly, that they don’t want to be murdered. I’ve seen families devastated when someone is murdered and wouldn’t ever want to be the cause of that pain, and short of in defense of my life, my property or another’s life, I can’t think of a reason why I’d ever want to kill someone else because life is so glorious and depriving a person of life is evil. Even if I wanted to die this would not change my views on the question of killing other people. Because they don’t want to die.  I believe rape to be wrong because I would not want to be raped, and I do not want to cause pain to another, and I do not ever want to violate a persons free will like that, and couldn’t even imagine doing so.

You believe murder to be wrong because god said thou shall not kill. according to all Christian faiths, if you have other reasons for why you believe murder to be morally wrong they are secondary to god telling you murder is wrong. There are better reasons not to kill.

Let us say that tomorrow you woke up in a different world from this one. This different world is a world where god doesn’t exist, I say a different world because most Christians I talk to won’t even give me the hypothetical in ours. So in this different world, we’ve proven atheism through whatever means, its an established verifiable fact. Would you start killing people? Gods not around to either tell you its wrong or to send you to hell. I know I wouldn’t, because even if I’m wrong about gods existence, I haven’t killed anyone and have never wanted to kill anyone, and many people in this world who are not Christian go through life living morally, never raping or killing, many even avoid jealousy as much as humanly possible, and many nonchristians respect there parents and don’t give false testimony. And they have reasons for doing these things which have nothing to do with Jehovah. As evidence I sight all of the people who are not Christian and are also not murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.  My reason for not baring false witness would be that this government has given me stability, I admire its principals of equality and fairness, and while I have lied in my personal life, testifying at trial or under oath in some other capacity is more important than my personal feelings, its a duty as a citizen.

To get back to the folks from Liberty university who were trying to convert people partying at spring break. what also upsets me is not only do these people go and ruin someone’s night, but the concept of religion is also wasting time they’ll never get back if they’re wrong. If life is finite and there is no god an hour in church is like smoking ten cigarettes. And by trying to convert someone your wasting your time and her time and if you actually succeed in converting them and I’m right, its even more time you’ll waste.  If I’m wrong, I burn in hell. If they’re wrong, they will die and then will no longer exist but have sacrificed countless hours to an imaginary friend in the sky. And the other thing is that even though I’m an atheist, I’ll never tell you that  I’m one hundred percent positive I’m right. I’ll tell you I’m the smallest decimal place short of one hundred percent right, I concede  the infitesmil possibility that I might be wrong. Its not a large possibility at all, but its there and its being there makes me vastly different from all Christians, all of whom I’ve asked tell me that they are absolutely a hundred percent sure god exists. When I say to Christians, “your one hundred percent sure? Like absolutely positively, no doubt whatsoever sure that gods up there and that everything it says in the bible is true, no exceptions,” they all say yes like I’ve just asked something stupid!

But in the rest of life no ones a hundred percent sure of anything. I’m ninety-nine point nine percent sure I won’t die in the next day, but not a hundred percent sure. I’m almost positive the sun will come up tomorrow, but I am not completely  positive it will. I’m ninety-nine percent sure there is no god. There is no scientific evidence for his existence, when I read the bible it has lots in common with other holey books and it reads like a first century document written by man, there are logical inconsistencies in the conception of god and how he is alleged to act and in the morality he espouses that again lead me to think he was created by man, I have never experienced a miracle or talked with someone I trust who has experienced a miracle, (the definition of which is something science cannot explain,) and when I speak to Christians its clear to me they believe what comforts them, not what the evidence suggests, and so I am almost positive there is no god. I live my life as though there is no god because if your almost sure of something to the point that you’d bet your life on it, you might as well live like your sure of it and the possibility is so small I would bet the lives of everyone I hold dear against  its being true, but the possibility is there because everything after death is a mystery and there is strong scientific evidence that apposes supernatural forces extent in our world, which is why its clear to me that the x-files is fiction, but as of yet I haven’t come across evidence which is strong enough to eradicate all of my doubts that god exists. It is hypothetically possible that I’m wrong in the same way its hypothetically possible that there have been camouflaged aliens among us for centuries no one has spotted. Both could be true, but the burden of proof isn’t on me to disprove the existence of either god or secret alien invaders because the possibility is so small, the burden of proof is on those people who believe there are either secret alien invaders or god. and it is the complete lack of doubt intrinsic to faith which gets me angriest of all because to believe in anything else in the world with such dogmatic hard headedness would be easily seen as the supreme act of arrogance that it is. My atheism is as strong as my conviction that when I get on a plain it won’t crash. I’ll get on a plain any day of the week, sure enough that it won’t crash that I’ll have a dirty marteeny and go to sleep with no fear I’ll wake up with the plain in a nosedive. Similarly I’ll ignore religion as wrong and backward mostly sure that I won’t end up in hell when I die.

When I talk to Christians and try to discuss this stuff with them it always comes back to the bible. Its like the bible says this and that and blah blah blah. Its like they don’t even understand what I’m saying when I say I think the bible is the same as the Koran or the bhagavad gita  or whichever holey text you want to offer up in its place. They hear the words when I say them but this key point doesn’t seem to penetrate intellectually; the concept never registers because in the next breath they’ll say, “if you look at chapter four of Luke,” and my point is that will never convince me. Ever. I just said that four seconds ago and now your telling me about Luke again! That’s why I just said there is no difference in my mind between any holey book because to me they are all fiction! I just said it and now your telling me to look at Luke again! Did you not hear the words I said four seconds ago? If you want me to prove a scientific theory, I don’t need a science textbook to do it because science focuses on reproducible results, it isn’t enough to do one experiment, get one result, and tell everyone “this is how whatever works.” The idea is you do that experiment again and again and look at your results, so, for example if you and I were in an argument about the combustion point of paper I wouldn’t say “the combustion point of paper is four hundred and fifty-one degrees because my science book here says that’s what it is,” I could show you by getting a flame that we verified with some kind of industrial thermometer, putting a piece of paper over it, and watching it burn, and then I could do it again, and then I could show you that a flame of four-hundred and fifty degrees would not make paper burn. And if there really is a god up there, you should be able to put your bible down, and while never speaking of it prove to me through some kind of experiment or logic that he’s there. Because everything else in the world that we as people believe can be proven with evidence.

And what really gets me is that religion occupies this crazy area that nothing else does. If I tell you anything about my normal life that makes no sense you will call me on my bullshit, but when people talk about God all the normal rules we use to argue disappear and the religious folks will admit that they’ve disappeared because otherwise they couldn’t win the argument.

And people tell me these stories where they had a friend with cancer and they had lots of prayer meetings and the cancer went away and I say to them, “that’s one person who recovered from an aggressive cancer. Sometimes that happens. They got lucky.  Its not significant, because  for every person who recovers from some awful thing that the odds say they’ll die from, the other ninety-nine people do what the odds say they will and snuff it.

Even scientists who should know better will puss out and say religions above there pay grade. I’m looking at you, Stephen Gould. Man up.

And none of this would bother me if you people were content to be quietly religious, but you have to shove it at me all the time whether directly by talking about it in public or indirectly by trying to legislate crap that we should be spitting at.

I was a quiet atheist for so long. I saw other atheists trying to argue people out of religious beliefs and I’d watch and chuckle at the stupid atheist who was wasting her time. I’d mention my atheism if someone asked me in a bull session about religion or philosophy or if someone tried to convert me, or if it came up for some other reason where someone asked me about my religious beliefs,  but I didn’t feel like it was important for other people to know. I didn’t want to have them trying to convert me, and so I assumed that they didn’t want me to try and tell them why it was all a big mass delusion. But as I’ve gotten older I’ve realized that religion is the reason so much of our world is fucked up. It allows people to believe crazy things that atheists don’t have the framework to except. I don’t believe in ghosts or vampires or demons or angels or zombies or psychics or spirits or the laying on of hands or portals to other worlds or heaven or hell or wizards or witches or voodoo or genies. So I will never go somewhere isolated and wait for the rapture and I will never stake someone through the heart and I will never testify at a witchcraft trial and I will never pray. Because I believe in only the evidence of my senses and the evidence of those people who strike me as rational people. If you want to believe in supernatural things, either one of the things on my list or all of those things, feel free. Go nuts! But don’t pray in the public schools, don’t tie gay kids to fences and beat the fuck out of them, in fact, let gay people get married if they want to. You don’t have to be gay and you don’t have to get gay married, and that should be enough for you. If hell exists the retribution for atheists and homosexuals and Jews and Muslims and everyone else that end up in hell will be so much worse than you pointing it out to me right now, so let society go secular and let people burn for being wrong, if they’re wrong.  Don’t try and stop Mosques from getting built, because I think the dude praying to Ala is wasting as much of his time as you are and I don’t try and stop churches from being built, because its live and let live.  and worship how you want in your churches or homes, and because I can’t convince you your wrong and you will never convince me I’m wrong, I’ll not worship in my own home just as I don’t pray in public.  And I want to clarify as well I don’t think I’m better than these people, I just think they’re much much stupider than I am which isn’t the same thing as my thinking I’m better than they are. They just got some bad information really early in life whereas I was lucky enough to realize it was bullshit before I’d gotten the big cross tattooed on my back. And now your going, “Oh, there it is that liberal contempt for religion.” And it’s like if someone told you nine plus seven equaled forty six thousand and six you’d feel how I feel  when someone tells me that Jesus died began to decay because he was truly dead  and then came back from the dead three days later and started walking and talking and then disappeared in a flash and went up to heaven. I’d like to pause here because ok, yeah, technically that’s dying for other peoples sins, but he came back! He didn’t have to die, like if I decided to die to save someone else, I wouldn’t come back, I’d be gone. But he got back up. Three days of sleep and a day dying on a cross for all the iniquity of the world? Cheap tricks.

Not to mention that even if I’m wrong and god does exist I’d still be some kind of heathen because for one he’s not exactly Mr. Democracy and my own reading of the bible from a secular state of mind makes him look like a prick, an alien with a masia complex. I have friends and family members who are gay. Priests tell me and everyone else that those people will burn in hell, and if god does exist I fucking won’t condone that and I’d rather sin and burn with those people I know who are gay than repent and become the modern equivalent of Nazi collaborators during the Holocaust.  My parents are responsible for my creation but if they asked me to kill someone to show them I was grateful for being alive I wouldn’t even entertain the possibility. I’d laugh at them.

And it gets to the point where I just want to start shaking people and roar at them, “why don’t you freakin get it, man?” And what scares me is that they feel the same way about me, two people who are sure about something must get the same feeling of “oh, I’m right on this,” and it feels good and when I hear Jesus I’m as dismissive as a Christian is when he hears “hitchens,” but one of us must be wrong and I’m pretty sure its not me.

And I don’t know what I’m supposed to do because these kinds of arguments so rarely sway people. I could lay out a book of ten thousand volumes refuting every religious argument perfectly point by point and even if we forced our hundred thousand smartest into this project when refusal meant fifty years of slow torture the book would only convince six people.

And what I keep thinking goes like this. “people have cultural beliefs in this stuff they hold very dear and they see secular society as something attacking those beliefs and when they see secular society attacking them they are one hundred percent right. Whether the secularist means to or not by his very nature he’s bad for religious beliefs because of the way he thinks about them, any intellectual distance from biblical truth is detrimental to true religious life, the bible isn’t just some book to those who take it seriously, its like the constitution or Shakespeare but even more important in a way I can’t understand. So they fight back. The beginnings of this fight in modern times was Galileo’s trial and they’ve been losing ground ever since which is why today you get Christians who are friends with Muslims. Back in the bad old days we went on crusades to kill the infidel.  And I don’t know what to do because its a cycle of crap where the two sides don’t even except the same things as evidence so of course no one gets anywhere when they argue. I mean Williams Jennings Brian was made to look like a fool during the scopes trial and its not like that changed very many minds because faith trumps looking like a dumbass. every single time.

If I’d written this in the middle ages and if I’d been retarded enough to publish it do you know what would have happened? The thought police would have come to my house, arrested me, put me on trial, and as a heretic the trial would have been for show, it would have been performed so as to tell everyone else why I was being killed,  and then when I’d lost my trial, a certainty, they would have tied me to a steak, made a fire under it and roasted me alive. And then to insure my physical remains did not become any kind of rallying point they’d smash my bones with a hammer and scatter them, and the reason they would have done this because at that time everything which wasn’t Christianity was seen as poison that couldn’t be allowed to spread. And they felt justified because of the bible to burn people professing unorthodox views.

And the most common response at this point is that “well, they were superstitious, but things are different now, that would never happen in America today.” and I agree, they were superstitious, And I agree things are different now because we ignore the parts of the bible that say kill heretics and witches. That’s why those things are different. But every once in a great while someone decides to resurrect the passages, and that’s why you get things like the Matthew Shepard killing. If a Christian with a semi-auto went into an atheist rally or a Mosque and killed fifty people we’d say he was crazy. His being Christian would be the secondary thing. But all that seperates him from Christian sanity is five hundred years or so. in Africa today people are killed for being witches and warlocks. Muslims who are living in primitive countries, which are about as savage as Europe was in the middle ages are more religious than American Christians. They take there faith seriously enough to die for it, and that’s why things like 9/11 happen.  But I don’t believe witches exist, and so would never try and kill a witch. The idea that everyone has a right to their beliefs doesn’t come from the bible. That’s a modern idea and is counter to Moses’ example.

I see editorials from focus on the family and they are angry that someone just flashed a nip on TV or that CBS aired an episode of a sitcom where the main character says slut and some dude goes and rants about how its screwing children up when in the fifteenth century you had thirteen year old squires watching people get sliced up and trampled and speared and they turned out fine but when some eight year old hears some guy say bitch that’s it, he’s done and its crackpipes and hookers from there on out.

Whenever focus on the family starts to rant about all of this and calls for more censorship I get angry. Please be honest with yourself. By age ten  you’ve heard all the cursewords already. More than once. More than twice! Does reading the phrase huge dick and balls really offend you? You’ve heard it before, your going to hear it again, its a crude phrase for speaking about the genitals, if your kid hears huge dick and balls, (I told you you’d hear it again,)  on TV its nothing he hasn’t heard on the playground already, otherwise he’d not even know to be offended or titillated. You’ve probably said  every curse, even the bad ones. They’re words, not bullets, and the human body with no clothes on isn’t something you should   be forced to look at when you don’t want to, but if, for example Janet jaxons dress slips during the super bowl and you see a nipple, its a nipple, you’ve seen them before. Put your hand over your face in disgust and go “ah,” and then laugh and get over it and move on. Same thing if you see a mother nursing her kid as long as she’s not trying to make you see it. She has to do it somewhere and maybe she’s not at home and the kids crying like I’m hungry right now so despite everybody’s efforts you see a little baby sucking a nipple. It isn’t like your watching her get done doggy bent over, hands braced on the curb, its the healthiest way to feed a baby, studies show it gives little kids a stronger immune system and the best nutrition,  its natural, and although it might be fleetingly upsetting in the scheme of things you having seen it doesn’t really matter, in three weeks you won’t turn in bed to face your naked husband or wife and go, “man, I just can’t sleep. I just close my eyes and I keep thinking about that breastfeeding mother I saw the other day, and I just can’t sleep,” so put your hand over your face, go “ah,” then look away, chuckle to alleviate the awkwardness and then move on. Is that too much to ask? Here is the difference between me, an atheist, and you, a Christian. When you see an episode of family guy that either offends you or that your worried your kids might see you write a letter to the FCC and complain that they said “bitch” on television again. When I see an episode of seventh heaven that I don’t want to see, and make no mistake that piety on TV offends me just as much as family guy offends you because I think your religions a bad joke I’m sick of hearing, you know what I do? I change the channel! I don’t complain to whoever the hell aired seventh heaven or jone of Arcadia! I just pick up the goddamned remote! And I hit a button and as soon as I do I don’t have to see any more Jone of Arcadia! Its great! All the sudden I’m no longer bothered by programing I don’t want to watch! But I understand that there are people who like seventh heaven, just like they’re are people who like wizz califa. And I don’t get it either way but as with the people who have kinds of sex I don’t want to have, I don’t need to do what you do, so I don’t write to the FCC. If you don’t want your kids watching family guy, block the channel it airs on from your TV, tell them they shouldn’t watch it, run into there room and check to make sure they aren’t watching it, but respect the fact that some people who are not you want to watch things that are things you don’t want to watch and instead of calling the FCC about this, call your congressman when he votes for a bill that cuts money from the education budget or something. There are better things you can do with your time than worrying that someone on AMC just said “shit.”

The unadulterated truth is I think every religion that has supernatural elements is wrong, and I believe over all religion is the biggest obstacle to progress in the first world. I view it like the dead twin that is born inside of the living one. The child lives with a twin that’s managed to survive inside his body cavity and when he gets old enough to talk he reports feeling things moving around in his body and the doctors have to go in and cut it out. That’s what this culture war is.  That’s the truth. Metaphorically.  There are wonderful people I know who are religious, but they aren’t wonderful because they’re religious, they’re wonderful in spite of being religious. I refuse to believe all human kindness is motivated by fear of hell or hope of heaven.  The study of religion is only valuable because it offers us a method of understanding the actions of historical figures and the reasons Muslims strap bombs to themselves and kill people; and amidst the heaps and heaps and heaps and heaps  of bullshit there are commandments or rules which are moral, but they aren’t moral because they’re religious, they’re moral in spite of being found in religious texts. Like watch this. Rape is wrong. If you agree with no other statement of mine in this post you agree with that one. But you don’t agree with me that rape is wrong because I’m an atheist, you agree with me that rape is wrong in spite of my atheism. Oh, and by the way why doesn’t it say rape is wrong in the bible that could have saved us a lot…. Oh, never mind. . And its what every major issue in this country seems to come down to. Religion. It’d be a vastly different world if no one believed in anything science couldn’t prove.

And don’t start up the weird argument that suddenly we’d find ourselves in some 1984 kind of place. We’ve had moral atheists in this country before and will continue to have them.

I don’t believe in god. I haven’t gotten laid in a while. I mean, its actually getting sad. Remember I’m an atheist who laughs at god and other gods who are not your god and I haven’t wanted to rape anyone, and even though I want to have sex and don’t believe I’ll go to hell even if I raped a nun I don’t want to rape anyone. I couldn’t even begin to contemplate it, I think every rapist is complete irredeemable scum and the idea of raping someone horrifies me to the marrow of my bones. I’d never in a thousand years want to inflict that kind of pain on someone, I can’t even fathom how rape happens. All the screaming and crying and begging, it makes me sick to think about the depraved bastards who rape and murder.

But this entire birth control controversy that just went down last month wouldn’t have been an issue if there were no religious people. Christianity makes people say that you need to keep your rape baby, and I know I’m a guy and don’t get what its like being a woman but that’s like getting raped twice, isn’t it?  and when I think that the other side of the argument is “there’s this guy who made the world a while ago who says sex only exists so that we can be fruitful and multiply and so any sex which happens for a different reason is not what I intended even though if I’d wanted to I could have made a world where it was pharmacologically impossible to create this thing I don’t like but I let the pill get invented because I wanted people to be tempted into using it thus risk eternal damnation which I could have made into like a rehabilitation program instead,,” I don’t even know how to come at it. I’m not sure what to say to make someone at least spend five minutes in my head seeing it my way.

And I think about that guy who graduated with a doctorate in geology from Harvard and he said to himself after a long reading of the bible where he cut out every passage his PhD told him was false, I can either have science or the bible, and he chose the bible. And he’s the problem right there because he chose what made him happy over what he had a rigorous  intellectual framework for believing in;  he’s  the worlds religious  struggle personified in one dude.

and what gets me even angrier are people who take the bible and then decide I believe page three which talks about heaven but not page four which talks about hell because that’s some real harsh shit man and I don’t think god would do that to people… except for Hitler, when the fucking book says god will do that to people!

then its not like your believing in the bible, your believing in your own stretched and altered version of it, which is what people have been doing ever since it came out, and they just pick the shit that sounds good and throw away the shit that doesn’t like its a half rotten apple they’re trying to eat and every hundred years one more bite gets wormy with facts they can’t ignore so they chuck that. So the catholic church says no one can use birth control and between 95 and 98 percent of catholic couples use birth control, and churches say no premarital sex and there’s more premarital sex in this country than ever before. And its not guilty premarital sex, religious people have premarital sex all the time and lots of them don’t worry about it, understand gods against it, believe in god, and then go have more sex. I have premarital sex because I know god isn’t real and that there’ll be no opportunity for sex when I’m in a suit in a coffin, dead! But if you believe in god and your priest says no drinking no gambling no dancing and no sluts, (which is how they’d say it,) then you should either drop out of the church or you should listen! Fuck! You know what medieval Christians are gunna say when you go to heaven? “In my day we would have burned you all! Standards have really gone to hell in this place!”

In real life there aren’t very many institutions where we say, “Um, women, you can’t do this job. We don’t think your at all qualified, you can sit and watch.” But priests, oh, that’s different. God forbid we have women priests, so for the most part we don’t have women priests. and chicks are just like, “well, in all other aspects of life I’m a feminist, equal pay for equal work, I’m as good as a man, I want to be able to play sports in high school, I don’t think its cool if a dude grabs my ass at work, I’m not only glad I have the vote but see the times before I had it as barbaric because I believe the genders are equal. Well,  except when it comes to being able to talk about god. In that case, men are better at it. God says that’s how that works, otherwise they’d let me become a priest or minister or rabbi.  . but I won’t think about it very much because otherwise it would bother me so I’ll just deal with it because that’s easier.”

And if you look at the world there’s a spectrum. On the one hand there’s the dude whose a southern Baptist and is sinning up a storm, he’s gay and in the closet, he’s drinking and smoking coke blunts and he’s oh, I don’t know, getting into bar fights and watching breaking bad. On the other end of the spectrum are Thomas Moore and the 9/11 terrorists. Because there are Christians in this country, who, if there priest said, go to Kabul and blow up a Mosque, you’ll go to heaven, no matter how tight of a biblical case they made the person who they were trying to get to become a suicide bomber would never do it and not only that but would never even be on the fence, whereas you go to Afghanistan where some imam says the same thing and some dumbass straps himself up with nails and plasteaque and goes and kills a bunch of civilians because he believes now he gets to go have some fuckfest up in heaven  and its like the more seriously you take religion the crazier you act. Like the Indians who did a ghost dance and thought they were bullet proof. You know what I’ve never entertained? The possibility that any amount of praying would ever stop a slug from ripping my body apart. The only way you’d ever believe that is with a religious justification.  But if your religious in your moment of extremis you’ll pray when what you should be doing is anything else because it has a better chance of helping you live if your in a situation where you could die.

And what’s also odd is that when I speak to religious people as soon as we get clear of the topic their thinking magically pops back into something that makes sense again and they’ll talk learnedly on everything and then all of a sudden we get back into it and they’ll tell me that they have a guardian angel except he must have been taking an extra long lunch break the day the dudes house burned down or when he fell down and impaled himself on a broken bottle or whichever misfortune has obviously befallen the person talking to me because very few people have lives so perfect that I think to myself, oh, yeah, he has an angel watching out for him. So god always gets credit for the good things and no shit for the bad ones because those are all Satan’s fault unless the persons one of those people who only believes in god without believing in the devil, because the idea of the devils a little too scary and old school for them.

And the other strange part is people of my generation are religious by default. I live in New England and normally god does not come up in conversation. No one’s ever said to me “I can’t go out drinking tonight because God would have an issue with it,” but when it is brought up every nine months or so in a bull session people say they believe in god but its such an unexamined belief that I can tell they’ve adopted it through osmosis because there parents went to church and that churchgoing rubbed off on them.

And what I always wonder is why do religious people cry when someone dies? I’m upset when people I know die because that’s it they’re dead and will never be able to speak to me again as long as the universe exists because they have been snuffed out of all existence. But Christians cry at funerals. So your eighty and your husbands just died and your crying. But if you believe in god and you’ve been a good person, all you have to do is wait around for eighteen months for your heart to give out and you’ll die and go to heaven and you two will be together forever which is longer than you can even conceive of, but you cry and carry on. Why? Why cry if death’s a transition? Why is death even bad at all if there’s a big mansion in the sky where we all stand in ranks and listen to angels play the harpsichord? Why do we even bother with doctors? What’s the point? We should all want to go at twenty-four if god really exists, we should be waiting and hoping to get hit by a bus if god exists and we’ve been good. But people don’t treat it like that. People say they think gods real but when someone dies that isn’t how  the living react.

And one final point. I don’t like getting into questions of theology because I don’t really read the bible and there have been people filling in plotholes for two thousand years, but what’s with the “god works in mysterious ways”  argument. No one said that Hitler worked in mysterious ways but when there’s an earthquake that kills a hundred thousand or a baby with cancer, its all like, oh, god has this plan and part of that plan involved your kid getting leukemia sorry about that but he’s in heaven now, well, unless you forgot to get him baptized in which case your child is burning in hell.

Mysterious ways? Gods supposed to be a source of morality, but we don’t hold him to anything like a moral standard. God turned a city to salt because he didn’t like how the inhabitants were living. If we nuked the capital of Iran all we’d hear for the next ten years would be “Civilian deaths!! Children, women, hospitals, all glass!” but because god is god he’s judged not at all for all the things the bible said he did. If you have a child it isn’t ok for you to beat that kid just because you created him. But gods chosen people have gone through more crap than almost any other group on the planet. Look at the history of the Jews and  most of the time you won’t be reading with a smile, you know?

And Christians tell me that I have no morality because I’m an atheist. So they say that not only can I have no morality because all morality comes from god but that they don’t trust me because of this. And my response is if tomorrow morning I woke up and was god do you know how you’d know? Because the earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunami’s  would stop, no kids would die of childhood diseases because I felt like being mysterious, and we would all live forever and when there was no space on earth for all the people I’d make it bigger and I would give every child a puppy and no one would be hungry and anyone who raped and murdered I would smite and I would clean the streets with my magical god powers and I would bring back the dodo and grow the  forests and I’d get rid of all those little plastic bottle ring things that choke birds to death and I’d get all the oil we’ve spilled out of the oceans and the asbestos out of old houses so that construction workers didn’t have to do it and because I was god I’d simply snap my fingers and remove all poison from the world and I would tell everyone as long as they didn’t hurt each other they could do whatever they wanted and I would you know, protect all of you like little animals in a terrarium or something, not periodically kill a couple hundred thousand so I could watch and chuckle.

Some of the pyas Christians I’ve known have been wonderful people and its obvious to me there superstition has been the big fear for there being so nice, and then on the other hand I read in the news about those people who protest at military funerals with god hates fags signs. And yes I know there are only about fifteen of those people but half of this country is against gay marriage and that isn’t an atheistic position. That’s a position you take because god hates fags. and I try and walk in the shoes of the people who are concerned about keeping gays down. I try and view it from there perspective but whenever I try I just cannot understand how some guy sodomizing some other guy matters to anyone except for the two of them. I can’t fathom it.

There have been Christians for two millennia now and since the beginning of Christianity the moral code of Christians as a hole has undergone such change that a seventh century Christian would hardly recognize a twenty-first century Christian. If a seventh century Christian had seen two men having sex he would have pulled his sword from his sheath and hacked them to bloody bits. If a seventh century Christian wanted to rape someone he could take comfort in knowing that on the morning of battle priests absolved him and his fellow soldiers of all sins which were going to be committed that day, so he could rape away. If a seventh century Christian had this thing read to him, because he couldn’t read, he would stab me in the face and then perhaps he’d do something a little pagan because the faith hadn’t blotted all the old stuff out yet.   If a seventeenth century Christian saw a black guy running through a field with a chain on his foot he’d call the dogs, help catch him and then go home and run his thumb under all the passages the bible has about slavery. I would like to stop the moral comparison to say that if god is infallible and everything in the bible is infallible god would have said, “hey, don’t have slavery in your society, I think its wrong,” but he doesn’t, instead he talks about blood prices for slaves that your neighbors kill.

If a nineteenth century Christian saw a black guy drinking at a whites only water fountain in the south, he’d stop him, call the cops, be outraged. If a twenty-first century Christian saw a black guy running through a field with a chain on his foot he would run over to him and say something like, “Oh my god, what happened to you, why do you have a chain rapped around your leg is someone chasing you?”

But in all that time of moral evolution the bible hasn’t changed a word.  our society is not even remotely similar to the societies of a thousand years ago. Which means logically Christians are either becoming less or more Christian. If there’s a right way to live and a wrong way to live, the average member of society, who is Christian, is living differently than the average member of society not just of five hundred years ago, but even from a hundred years ago, and each century of time gone by brings its own distinct moral differences. Its not a path from the average person being a saint to the average person being a sinner. We have more sex but are less racist, can cure diseases that used to decimate our populations with no explanation but church attendance is down, believe the earth orbits the sun but these days more people are reading the bible on there own than ever before, because there was a time when no one in the church wanted it to be in any language except for Latin. There have been too many changes to label them, from a Christian perspective, all good or all bad.

But priests don’t say that the average Christian sucks now. And you don’t think as a Christian your worse off for not believing in slavery or women being stuck in the home as your great great grandparents did, when it was a common belief god was all for slavery, like nothing gave him more pleasure than the crack of a whip as it sliced through the skin of someone’s back. And thus we have a phenomenon of everyone saying they get there morality from the bible and at the same time that morality is constantly shifting. What gives? Its been two thousand years, why hasn’t the moral code stabilized if the bible has such a good one? It could say, “don’t hurt anyone, don’t take slaves, be kind to everyone, always pick up your trash, cigarettes kill, I am a jealous god,” but its not that clear cut. And wouldn’t cigarettes have been a great thing to mention? Not just cigarettes, maybe tobacco in general. How come that wasn’t mentioned? Or perhaps a little advanced warning like, “there’s a dude whose going to be born named Adolf Hitler. This one time I’m cool if you just take him as a kid and smash his head into a rock.” The reason is that the bible was written by first century man and the evidence for that is that there is nothing in it he couldn’t have known.

The reason Christians believe the bible is a source of morality has to do with how big it is. Any action you commit you can justify through sighting of a biblical passage, and therefore any action is permissible. The crusades were a series of attempts to conquer Jerusalem, because it held religious significant’s. Armies sent from Europe went to go kill Muslims and retake the city. Today if this were to happen, if some country went to war and gave a Christian justification and began the slaughter of another country and gave as the reason why directives from the bible the popular reaction in America would be outrage when, eight hundred years ago, when the crusades took place, the popular reaction was to scrape up the one copper coin you owned to help fund the war effort.

But our morality has gotten better, we aren’t savages anymore. We think religious based slaughter is wrong, and so now we ignore those bible passages which tell us that everyone who doesn’t believe in god should be put to the sword and read the bible passages which enforce our modern,  relatively tolerant ethos, such as the golden rule.

And the other thing I can’t fathom is how the Christians keep repping scientists that other scientists laugh at. If some scientist wrote a paper tomorrow about how the earth is actually flat we’d laugh because you can go on google earth right now and see a picture from space and you can know he’s wrong. But when some scientist says that god made us and we didn’t evolve from monkeys given that most of us are not scientists its harder for us to grasp that he’s talking out his ass because to really get how stupid he is we would need to have more scientific knowledge than we do. I believe in evolution because firstly it makes more logical sense to me than anything else, it seems more probable. Secondly I believe in evolution because I believe in science.

I do not put my faith in science, I look around me and see all this great stuff that science has done.

The reason people live into there eighties when three hundred years ago the average life span was about 40 is because of science. That’s why the average person doesn’t have smallpox scars, that’s why we brush our teeth. That’s why you can open a canne of food you bought a year ago and eat it. Its why you have  every single modern convenience that you enjoy from TV to the Internet to the radio to your car to your gun to your clean water to your indoor toilet to your phone to your vacuum cleaner. Its why you can know what’s happening in China right now rather than having to wait eight months for a letter bringing the newspapers by ship, its why there are newspapers because science, in its primitive form gave us the printing press. Its why your reading this blog and its how your comment flaming the shit out of me will be transmitted from your computer through a bunch of wires to an Internet server… etc.

These things were invented by people who understood scientific rules and laws. Someone didn’t just think, I’m gunna pound on this metal box and pray allot till it makes my food cold, they knew all sorts of things which I can’t even begin to accurately summarize which allowed them to invent a refrigerator. And that’s why I don’t understand how there can be poling done that asks people if they trust what science says and conservatives trust of science is down, but the survey was conducted over the phone which would not exist if we hadn’t had the scientific method and then a long progression of people who spent there lives being the opposite of theologians to invent things including the phone, and poling. And the reason today’s vacuum cleaner is better than the vacuums of fifty years ago is because we have better science. The reason you can now take every single piece of music you own and potentially shove it up your ass when thirty years ago if you owned ten thousand albums you’d have to build a music wing onto your house is because of science.

And what modern day religion says is “we have scientific laws and the proof for this is all the stuff science has given us, and those laws are unchanging except where the bible contradicts them and our evidence for that is the bible. And you should not question how it is that stories of the divine conform to nothing science has taught us, they simply do conform, but on the other hand scientists can treat them like they are certainties which is why its always going to be that gravity makes your cup of coffee fall off the table at a speed of 9.8 meters per second squared and it will not turn into wine halfway to the floor.”

If things such as bred being turned into a thousand times more bred could happen, science couldn’t work and wouldn’t be science. Scientists couldn’t have made all the discoveries they did if the rules governing our physical world were only laws nine hundred out of nine hundred and one times. Galileo was put under house arrest because he said the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. The Jesuits used to have a prayer that said “the world is not made up of atoms.” Now there’s intelligent design. You catching the gist of where I’m going with this yet? In case you aren’t, where I’m going is that religious people always attack the science that people who are not scientists are least certain about, eventually lose the battle, and move on to the next thing that people are uncertain about.

. To be a scientist, you have to get a degree, and then you have to go get a masters. So six years of studying and of course after that as a scientist your always learning and what most scientists believe is the theory of evolution which, phrased in non scientific terms could more aptly be called the idea we have which is supported by the most evidence and is consistent with all evidence we’ve found thus far of evolution.

And then what happens is two things. A Priest stands up in church and says that the secular agenda is to convince you that we came from monkeys, and that this is wrong because we were designed by god and any evidence that shows a different narrative is the devil at work. But because as a nation we are less stupid than we were a hundred years ago a guy with a bible impresses us less than it once did so the priest has to get a scientist to back him up. The priest finds a scientist who is so religious that he either sees what he wants to see or lies to himself and says he thinks the theory of evolution is wrong, and the religious people are mollified because they have a scientist who agrees with them.

But the thing is that the scientists these guys get are the ones the other scientists don’t take seriously. If nine hundred smart guys who study this one thing are laughing at the nine hundred and first, then he is probably wrong.

The titanic majority of scientists believe in evolution. This leaves two possible scenario’s for how the scientists who do not believe in evolution could be right. First, all other scientists are wrong. This is unlikely. Second, all scientists who postulate evolution as the way in which humanity arrived at its current state know they are wrong and are perpetuating the idea because they are part of a massive secular conspiracy which has given us lots of wonderful technology along with one huge lie that those who promote get tons of shit about. Which makes more sense?

The bible describes a history of this world involving a flood, so the religious scientist looks for evidence of a flood and doesn’t stop looking until he finds it because unlike secular scientists he isn’t thinking objectively he’s finding pieces to fit a narrative he believes must be true because god is infallible.

I’m so sick of this crap. I mean, Santa clause is somebody we all except as fictional once we reach a certain age. Partially this is because we buy all the Christmas presents, but it isn’t like if you found two extra labeled from Santa you’d start believing again, you wouldn’t be a born again eight year old you would come up with a logical explanation for how the extra gifts got there.

How did you decide that Santa didn’t exist? How do you know he doesn’t exist now? Its that old math problem you do when your about nine where you decide there are about a billion houses in the world and Santa has twenty-four hours to drop a present off so he’s running at somewhere past lightspeed to get all this crap done when you realize, that’s probably not possible, not to mention slays don’t fly, blah blah blah.

But you believe that there was a big boat where all the animals lived without ripping each other to shreds or swamping it in their own shit for forty days and then were let out again and made it back to their natural habitats, and because there is no evolution every freaking variation of Beatle had to be jarred and stored and released. And there are thousands of different Beatles. And all the salt water fish would have to have been kept in salt water tanks because rain is fresh water and it will delude the oceans and kill the salt water fish, so the arch had an aquarium the size of New York city in it to support all the fish life and Noah and his family had to somehow feed this huge number of animals and when you do the math you realize, just like with Santa, there wouldn’t be enough time in the day.

And you know Jonah probably wasn’t swallowed and then spat out by a wail, but I’m sure you can see how before people knew what a wails stomach looked like how they thought someone could be swallowed by a wail and survive, and again, this is another reason you can tell the bible was written by a bunch of Jews in the desert two thousand years ago, not by a god.

There are people who believe these biblical stories are supposed to be understood metaphorically. And that concession is so huge and cowardly that I’m not going to bother arguing with them. Well, aside from this. If Noah’s arc is a meta for, and the story of Jonah is a metaphor, and if the story of Adam and Eve is a meta for, and if Joshua knocking down the walls of Jericho is a meta for, and god is not a meta for, what you’ve done is taken the bible, given up most of it and drawn one arbitrary line to demarcate all the things you know are false from the one thing, God, you insist is true. Because you’d love it to be true.

If I’d written the bible and wanted to prove I was the God who wrote it, I wouldn’t be vague. I would say, “in the year two thousand and one I’m going to let two tall buildings be destroyed by plains. Plains? Verily plains are metal birds that humankind shall invent in the year nineteen hundred and eight and even though logically they will fly higher than the height of the tower of babble I will not fuck with your languages again because that’s now played out, and by the way I really don’t have a problem with women priests because men and women are basically equal, and I’m also not a fan of racism but I do think abortions wrong and I think war is never justified unless its to kill heathens, for I am a jealous God who spends my time making sure everyone prays to thank me for putting your asses on this planet that I did not put much time into designing, you can tell because of how tigers used to eat lots of you and how there isn’t enough food to go around and how people freeze to death in winter, and all the diseases, those were just for fun.oh yeah, build more churches. Free all the slaves. Slavery’s always wrong. And don’t kill anyone in my name. And ” It all could have been worded as clearly as that. Hell, if gods omnipotent then he could have written a different version for every generation just so nothing was lost to translation or cultural shift. The explanations that justify his refusal to do this never make as much sense as they should. He’s beyond human understanding, his plan’s so intricate we can’t comprehend it, its absolutely essential that a six year old is hit by a car, no way around it, mysterious ways,

And when I tell you the most likely probability is that there’s no god, when you die your worm food and will not be watching your kids from on high because you have no soul the idea depresses you and not only do you believe it isn’t true, you don’t want it to be true and to go back to that world where you knew that there was no god, you would force yourself to forget what you knew because the idea of living in a world with superhero’s and villains is essential to your identity. If I tell you god doesn’t exist and I’ve written one thing in here that’s made you contemplate the possibility I’m right, dealing with it would mean you’d have to make cultural adjustments you probably aren’t prepared to make, like telling all the people in your life who are Christian why you might not be anymore, and that’s probably too much to deal with. and the idea that heaven or hell is off the table, its only death depresses you which is why if your Christian your arguments will always be more compelling than mine. Because I say you get ninety years if your lucky and then you die never to be heard from or seen again. You say you get ninety years of life which is ok, but then for all eternity there’s heaven, which is great! And god loves you! He knows you and loves you even though your a really fucked up person. And then I say there is no god and your still a fucked up person in one way or another. Your thing sounds better. That’s why it attracts people. My things like, life’s still beautiful, natures marvelous and there’s lots of great stuff about life like food and friendship and nature, but your thing still sounds better.

And there’s no way to be an atheist without sounding like a dick. Not that I’ve tried at all to do that, but there’s no way to tell religious people “your completely wrong” that sounds good. No way. Because what every atheist is saying is “all religion is stupid.” What consistently baffles me is that religious people aren’t stupid when it comes to everything except for religion. So I can have a discussion with someone about things that have nothing to do with religion and I’ll be thinking, “shit, this person knows way more about this subject than I do.” Then religion gets brought up and its like, “yeah, Jesus really walked on water. Just got out of the boat and started strolling down the ocean. Peter did for a second but then he didn’t believe he could anymore so he couldn’t.”

You know, if I were a god and there was some atheist going on in a blog being as disrespectful as I’ve been over the last ten thousand words, I’d rip his lungs out through his ass and then hang him upside down from his guts somewhere and then I’d do something supernatural but that won’t happen to me as I write this. Could everyone just grow up already? So I don’t have to keep having this argument with people? Fucking fairytale hour at the goddamned  library ended when you were six, ok?

The Hunger Games is Pretty Good

The Hunger Games is pretty good. I know that description is inelegant for a book review, but its been a while since I’ve written a book review and I’m trying to get back into the swing of it.

In case you’ve been living under a rock and have no idea what the Hunger Games is about, the plot introduction follows.

Katniss Everdene, a girl living in a nation formed after ours was destroyed in an unnamed cataclysm watches as her sister is selected to participate in an annual blood sport tournament in which twelve boys and twelve girls are forced to battle to the death and because her sister is twelve and has no chance whatsoever of winning Katniss volunteers to take her place.

The premise is neither new or complicated but Suzanne Collins fidelity to it serves the novel well. The novels biggest strength is its plot, by chapter three Katniss is already on the train to the capital City of Panem, the nation that replaced the United States. Also by chapter three, all of the major characters have been introduced.

There are two love interests, the first is Katniss’s hunting partner who gets little screen time as he is not selected as part of the hunger games, and the second is the boy from her town who is selected, and whom Katniss may have to kill. These love interests benefit from the strong characterization which is found throughout the novel so that even though they are stereotypical bad and good boys respectively they both are three dimensional. It also helps the dark atmosphere of the novel that she’s going to have to try and kill one of them. There is also a drunken mentor who spends his first few appearences wasted and indifferent to whether or not the people he’s mentoring survive.

The novel isn’t exactly a character study as its more focused on story, but Collins does a good job with the first person narrator of Katniss. She’s been raised in the poorest of the twelve districts that make up the nation of Panem and thus is hard bitten and used to violence and struggle, but has managed to hang onto her humanity enough to be horrified at many aspects of her society which allows her to tell the reader what he needs to know, while also freaking out when she sees people die in front of her. This allows her to kill people and remain sympathetic.

The story moves at a fast clip, only slowing down every once in a while for flashbacks to earlier times in Katniss’s childhood which serve to flesh out a few of the characters by showing them in a context which doesn’t involve a bloody battle to the death.

For a book about twenty-four teenagers trying to kill each other, its not as violent as it could be, and the bleakest aspects of the dystopian society Collins has created are handled with discretion so that the book is appropriate for younger teenagers. The glossing over of sex and gratuitous violence is handled perfectly, however, so at no point does it feel like Collins was afraid of the subject matter she decided to write about, she implies with a few details what some authors would spend pages belaboring, and in that one way the censorship imposed upon her by the demographic she’s writing for benefits the novel. OK, that made up for pretty good, right?

The book can be roughly divided into three parts, before the hunger games, which is the name of the blood sport, the hunger games themselves, and the aftermath. The first part works at ramping up the tension so that even though I was pretty sure Katniss lives because there are two more books after the first I was nervous that she might die at any time once the hunger games started, and Collins does a good job of never letting the reader forget that death’s always right around the corner.

The Hunger Games are a reminder to the citizens of Panem that rebellion will not be tolerated, they are supposed to be punishment for an earlier rebellion. They are broadcast on TV like a reality show, and the book satirizes how our reality shows work. Katniss has a stylist who makes her look pretty for pre hunger games interviews, and the members of the capital see nothing wrong with watching people brutally kill each other.

The interviews themselves resemble the fluff pieces on good morning America, and the early part of the novel keeps showing us almost banal preparations for the contest to come. The contrast between getting makeup done and trying to shine on TV as compared to what’s coming is unreal. Because the novel is first person we stick with Katniss all the time she’s being prepped to die, and Collins does a great job of showing the stress that would result from being in such a situation.

Once the hunger games start, there’s a nice implied contrast between how bloody and violent the contest is for those involved in it and the idea that its entertainment for other people is made to be properly discomforting.  Teenagers die left and right and some of the deaths resonate. Given how short the book is, making miner characters vivid enough  that the reader cares about them when they die is a mark in the books favor.

The world building is balanced perfectly with plot. Katniss will mention facts that are important in passing several chapters before we need to know them, but at no time does the book get bogged down in tons of stuff that is irrelevant to the story. When the facts later come into play they’ve been introduced recently enough in the book that you remember them and its always nice to see how careful bits of exposition are important later on.

As more contestants die, Collins shows how awful it would be to have to participate in such a contest and she gets extra points for making the authoritarian and bloodthirsty society of Panem believable, everyone in the capital endorses the Hunger Games and enjoys watching them, but few of these characters strike the reader as evil, instead they are all misguided and ill informed.

Whoever decided this book would make a great movie has a wonderful eye for this type of thing as one of the books strengths is the way in which Collins draws you in through the settings she conjures up. The capital is decetant and foreign and very flash bang science fiction, while all the characters that populate it are believably human. The arena that the games take place in is dangerous and without comfort and the hunger games themselves which take up the largest part of the novel are well written. The battle fatigue and stress and fear that’s inherent in the concept of having to try and shoot someone in the face with a bow and arrow never abate or grow stale or repetitive.

The best illustration of Collins’s skill as a novelist work is that Katniss is a product of her society. While she’s against the Hunger Games, especially once she’s in them, she isn’t one of those unbelievable characters who lives in a dystopia and has an instinctual sense that everything about it is wrong. She reacts to the cruelty inflicted on her and her family, not on the cruelty inflicted upon the society as a hole. As the book continues and Katniss sees people dying all around her for no reason, the stirrings of a political conchisness begin to show themselves, but this evolution is naturalistic, and isn’t ever ham handedly done through pages of preachy monologue.

If you like science fiction or adventure, or books that keep you turning pages, give this a try. You won’t be disappointed.

One final thing. Some people have noted rightly that the Hunger Games is quite similar to a novel called Battle Royale. The only thing both novels share is that they are both about a reality show where kids try and kill each other. Battle Royale, however is a novel consumed with blood, whereas the Hunger Games works so well because it starts days before the first drop of blood is ever spilled and the comparison between the two is like comparing Dracula and Salem’s Lot. Simmilar but by no means the same book.

Whose Pro Death?

there’s lots of complex stuff going on in the news right now, and I don’t want to deal with it. So instead I’m going to talk about something real simple. The death penalty.

I’m for the death penalty , but adamantly against how it exists right now.

The three year recidivism rates for someone who served time for a homicide being convicted of another is 1.2 percent, and the recidivism rate for a rapist who is released committing another rape in the three years after release from prison is 2.2 percent.

These numbers are small but significant. When you die that’s it. There’s no angel waiting to give you a hummer and play all your favorite songs on the harpsichord. Your fucking done, and because of this murder is the worst thing one person can do to another person because they are taking them out of the universe and making it so never in a billion trillion years will anyone ever speak to them again. That’s what it means to be dead. And one percent, I’m rounding down, of murderers who are let go within just three years will kill again. These are actually misleading stats because obviously these are only the murderers caught and convicted and because they only last for a three year period from the end of the prison term and would be higher if the studies I’d found had tracked for a longer period.

Two percent of rapists will be convicted of a second rape within three years of getting out of prison. Short of murdering someone, raping them is the next most terrible thing you can do to them. It ruins there self-image, makes them have to go to therapy for a while, probably messes up there sexual satisfaction for a good long time, makes them wonder if there was something wrong with them that attracted a rapist in the first place, ETC.

In my opinion if you committed one of these crimes, either rape or murder which was not manslaughter, then you shouldn’t be reading this in prison off a jail broken iPhone after lights out because you should have been killed about eighteen minutes after your last appeal finished.

Why? Well first as I said, no one comes back from the dead and killing is wrong because you are obliterating someone’s unique consciousness from the world and this worlds all we get. If it wasn’t self defense or a fight that got out of control, a prisoner should be killed for murdering for the reason already mentioned but also because he might kill again and that is grossly unfair to everyone involved. We should not give either rapists or murderers a second chance. Murder isn’t backhanding your girlfriend in the face after six beers because she won’t shut up about how the gutters need to be cleaned. It will not heal in three days and sorry won’t make it better.

Rape isn’t giving  a girl, or guy for that matter, the creepy eye at the gas station its taking them and using them and then throwing them away like a dirty tissue when your done and is inexcusable for a host of reasons that I’m confident I do not need to enumerate.

Any chance that this person would get out of jail and then commit the same crime for a second time is intolerable. Rape and murder are not accidents, and if we assume people are responsible for there actions, then these two crimes are a large enough breach of the social contract that the only just response is death.

There are two good arguments for why the death penalty should not exist in any way shape or form. They just aren’t good enough to convince me it should be abolished. Here they are.

The first. We sometimes kill innocent people. Welcome to the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan I’m “bet my life” positive that at least a thousand innocent people have died for no other reason than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time yet we’d never dream of saying a loss of innocent life has never been a good enough reason not to conduct a war, it is instead seen as a necessary price to pay for the goals of whatever causes a country to go to war.

With no death penalty it isn’t as though innocent people won’t be sentenced to life without parole. Ask them at eighty if the last fifty years in prison have been happy and fulfilling.

Prosecutors suck. Not all of them are noble and hardworking, some of them are racist and some of them want to get a lot of strong looking convictions so they can run for the state Senit in a couple more years, and some of them are incompetent. Similarly, sometimes defense lawyers suck, because they are incompetent or disinterested, and that, again, is the fault of the defense lawyer who half assed it and of the legal system which did not recognize that he was half assing it. Innocent people get screwed all the time. This should be avoided whenever possible, but its almost a rule of the world that every day something unfair happens to someone. So it goes.  Doctors amputate the wrong leg or remove a piece of the brain from the wrong hemisphere or give the wrong medication, and yeah, every once in a while an innocent man goes to prison for murder or rape, and if he gets sentenced to death we kill him and that is tragic and the next time it happens we should use it as an incentive to conduct better trials, fire crappy prosecutors and always collect DNA evidence. But throwing a man in jail for something he did not do for the rest of his natural life is equally tragic and unjust but is the fault of our legal system and not the sentences that system hands out.

But whether or not we continue to use the death penalty has nothing to do with how affective we are at punishing those who truly have murdered  or  raped.  The question to consider when asking oneself if one believes the death penalty should be practiced is if a murderer deserves to die for his crime. The thing that’s worse than our killing an innocent man for a crime he didn’t commit is letting thousands of convicted murderers out of jail  because statistics show us that some of them murder again. If we killed them they wouldn’t do that.

The second argument for why the death penalty should be abolished is that it is not a deterrent. And of course its not a deterrent because its not enforced. Right now when you kill someone in this country you don’t even have to worry about getting the death penalty. Nothing like every murderer is killed by the state, it isn’t one in ten, it isn’t one in a hundred. From the perspective of the murderer, your luck has to be complete shit to be fighting a death sentence.

The only time you have to be concerned about getting lethal injection is when you get the average American housewife to change the channel from Jerry Springer to your trial coverage because at that point we’ll kill you.

And the reason we kill people in this country, the thing that gets you into the running for the death sentence is that the crime you committed brought home to everyone how crappy murder and or rape are because your crime was sensational compared to the average. Your crime had either more brutality than usual, or some interesting melodrama that people got involved in because you shot your best friend over a woman or through him off a skyscraper where he landed on a moving car and crushed a baby in its car seat, or you smothered eight kids with a pillow. It doesn’t matter that from the time at which I typed this to the time at which you read it eight children will have been killed individually, the point is that you killed them all at once and that’s more sad and so people want to know that you’ll be killed. They saw something violent that upset them more than the abstract understanding they have that people die all the time and they want vengeance. In these cases the death penalty is applied from an emotional place, because a murder or rape outraged the public and that is not justice, its a show, its making a statement with a single corpse and that is ghastly. Murder is always wrong even if the events of the crime are statistically tipicle. George Zimmerman killing a seventeen year old and some random guy killing someone his own age are the same thing. But we get more upset about the Zimmerman thing because its uncommon and because there are factors in the case that bring out more sympathy for his family than the family of a less photogenic victim. One murderer getting twenty years because his crime was tipicle and another being killed because his crime was not is hypocritical which is why I do not believe in our current system where only if you anger America do we kill you because what that says is some murders are worse than others because of who you killed or how you killed them.

Thus as the capital punishment in this country is practiced today, no, it does not deter murderers because they know as well as we all do that the death penalty in this country exists as a show or an emphatic statement, not as uniformly applied sentencing for specific crimes.

However, if everyone convicted of rape was led out onto the courthouse steps, chained up and then castrated, I am super positive the level of rape in this country would fall. We cannot do this because castration and then the public bleeding out are cruel and unusual punishment but my point is that if that became the new penalty for rape there would be less rape in this country.

Realistically, if the penalty for either rape or first degree murder was death by default and extenuating circumstances were what allowed someone to do either of those things and have a chance at continued life after conviction  it would be a deterrent because you would be sure that if you killed someone and didn’t chop the body fine enough or throw it far enough into the ocean, you’d be killed.

The alternative which is our status quo is almost satirical. You can be living on less than ten grand a year and kill someone and then you can go to jail and cost tax payers thirty thousand dollars a year for the rest of your life. A murderer will have his life saved if someone tries to kill him in prison, and male on male rape is stopped if guards see it and all that type of thing. Life in prison sucks. I’ve watched enough Oz to know that. But what sucks more is the idea that violent criminals who have committed the worst crimes get to see a new sunrise every day and get to breathe the air and get to live there lives while the people they killed don’t, and while the people they raped have to piece there’s back together one painful day at a time.

I don’t think that’s justice. I think justice is a firing squad.

There are many things you shouldn’t face death for, which are all the crimes I haven’t mentioned. This isn’t the middle ages, you shouldn’t have your hand chopped off for trying to steal an apple or an Ipod, and you shouldn’t be whipped in the town square for some petty offense, but murder and rape aren’t petty and I have no compassion for those who are guilty of either.

You don’t accidentally rape someone and the type of murder I’m speaking about isn’t accidental or a crime of passion. They are the opposit of victimless crimes, they are malicious and then our country gives these people the gift of continued life which is what they took from others.

I’m sure after year ten in prison there are days that subjectively feel ok. But if you’ve killed someone there are no more days like that because that person has been scrubbed out. They aren’t looking down at anyone from heaven, they’re gone, won’t come back and the guy who the courts declared guilty has gone to jail and gotten more Jacked than Lou ferrigno.

I admit readily that the wounds rape leaves behind are less visible. It isn’t like you can look around and pick out the women who were raped last year because by that point they look normal, but rape is the second worst thing that’s done to people on a statistically significant basis. And there’s far too much rape in this country and I’m sure there would be less if we killed every man who was convicted of rape.

My point is no one should feel sympathy for these people. It isn’t like smoking cigarettes or drinking or stealing food to feed your kids, you don’t wake up and go, “Oh shit I raped that bitch or shot that guy,” you did it because you wanted to and our response should be to guaranty beyond a reasonable doubt that you’ll never do it again. And the way to do that is to kill you.

There is a common misperception that our prisons exist to rehabilitate criminals. If that were the case when you shot someone in the face you would go to prison for a year of extensive counseling and rehabilitation, you would not be sentenced to thirty years in prison. The idea that we are trying to make prisoners better people is fatius, if it were so people wouldn’t be scared of prison, they would view it the way we view something like rehab programs. Unpleasant if what you want is drugs, but not terrifying. We send people to prison to punish them, and there are crimes, such as second degree murder and assault and battery and breaking and entering where time in prison is the best punishment because the crime was either a crime of passion, you came home drunk and found your wife in bed with another man and in a moment of rage you shot him, crimes where no one was killed, such as robbery, or a crime where someone was hurt but not killed, assault. These crimes do not signify that you are evil.

Evil is a word we run away from these days, but rape and premeditated murder are generally crimes that indicate that what you wanted to do was either end someone or inflict yourself upon them blotting out there freedom of action in the process. In these cases death should be the presumed punishment if a  verdict of guilty is returned both to protect society and to punish the person who committed the crime.