Don’t Like Bigots? Then You Must be with Hitler!

There is a growing paradigm in this country that is actually a little bit disturbing for me to see.  I have been viewing it for some time in the public forums and it is honestly a little bit off-putting and off-pissing.  It is becoming so commonplace in modern society that people are not even noticing and getting as offended as they should be.  Really, it is becoming so widely used that history is becoming nothing but a joke.  This is dangerous because people need to understand about real history.  They don’t need Christian bigots and right-wing morons giving them deliberately bad information in order to get people’s fear going.  The new target paradigm for people those groups don’t like – Hitler and the Nazis.

Now, here is a bit of real history – Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German who became the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, which is known in modern vernacular as the Nazi Party.  It is the horror of what the Nazi Party did during their reign that has been one of the big talking points of people who are against socialism, which is a huge logical fallacy, but we’ll get into that later.  Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic.  He believed what he did was for God.

Now, a lot of people believed that Hitler had a very cozy relationship with the Pope, Pius XII, but there is also some data that shows Pius didn’t see eye-to-eye with him.  I will choose not to voice and opinion because there is too much data that contradicts itself.  Besides, some Catholics get their panties in a bunch when you do that.  Of course, we’ll get into it later about how the Catholics have no reason to get on anybody’s case, ever, about the views of Adolf Hitler.

But back to history, Hitler began his Party as a grassroots movement.  All fascism starts as a grassroots movement (don’t tell that to the Tea Party, eh?).  They quickly came into power after the Great Depression.  In 1934, he came into total power as the Fuhrer.  Using his power he did atrocities all over the world.  Some estimates put him at killing 17 million civilians, over 6 million Jews, and half a million Romani people.  That is who the man really was.  He was a monster who killed, destroyed, and had no regard for human life in any significant way.  His way of thinking didn’t die with him, and this is a tragedy that should be mourned by everybody.

But now the new paradigm that people think is perfectly acceptable is to have groups that they don’t agree with compared to the Nazis and Hitler.  Every example that has come up is tragic and the people who makes these examples are nothing but scum.  Not one of them is a worthwhile person in any way.  The first example that I am going to bring up is when Pope Benedict (or as TJ calls him, Been-a-dick) decided to link Atheism to Nazis.

Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.  As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and
thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

Yup, apparently, all the muder that Hitler did was because he was an atheist.  This is an issue that makes me question Pius XII and his unsettlingly cozy relationship with the Nazis.  When somebody goes out of their way to make the point that a group they don’t like is like a group who has some evidence of being too cozy with them, that doesn’t bode well to me for the point that they weren’t friends.

Now, I know that all Catholics don’t think like this guy.  I know plenty of Catholics who didn’t like that statement and severely disagreeded with his sentiments.  But this is offensive becuase, as Richard Dawkins also commented on, it diverts attention away from the fact that Hitler did what he did in the name of the Catholic church.  He killed so many people because he wanted to, and his faith did guide him.  So that is probably the most extreme, but certainly no the last example.

It is easy to forget now that he is gone and nobody gives a shit about him all the comparisons that Lonesome Rhodes Beck made between the liberals and Nazis.  It is kind of amusing how Lewis Black said that he has “Nazi Tourrettes.”  Beck would go on and on and on about how everything Obama did was like Hitler, how the liberals were all like Nazis, and the Tea Party movement that gathered around him was quick to pick up the slack and go on and on and have sign after sign about how Obama is Hitler.  Yes, the President, the democratically elected president of this country is a Nazi.  And why is he a Nazi?  Because he wants free healthcare.  Yeah, that so seems like something that Nazis were all about.

And the bigotry keeps going.  Bryan Fischer, a very good friend of a group that is funding Rick Perry’s little shindig that is going to be happening on August 6th, had a thought about who the Nazis are.  His belief is that the Nazis were gay.  Yes, if you are gay, you are just like the Nazis.  He believes that the Nazi Party began in a gay bar.  Yeah, because the Nazis were very cool with gay people too, right?  Wrong, you bigoted dumbass!  The LGBT community were also victims of the Holocaust.  It is unclear how many were killed in the concentration camps, but they were also struck down by the Nazi regime.  But of course, no point telling Bryan Fischer that.  He doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together, so it is pointless to try.  Here is Bryan Fischer’s quote about being gay and being a Nazi –

The Nazi Party was formed, ladies and gentleman, in a gay bar, and historians agree.  Hitler’s earlies enforcers, the stormtroopers, the brown shirts, were almost, without exception, homosexuals.”

And my final example was brought to my attention today from a person I had heard a little bit about, but had never looked into in a significant way until now.  There is a woman named Pamela Geller.  This woman is the worst kind of bigot.  Her bigotry knows no limits and she never has a problem making her voice heard.  There are Republicans who think she is attractive, but I am with Coughlin when I think that she looks more like the Crypt Keeper.  In any case, she believes that the reason that the Nazis exist is because of Muslims existing.

These people are all scum, each and every one of them.  Given all the crimes that the Catholic church has been involved in, like thed Spanish Inquisition, witch burnings, the Crusades, and the list goes on and on, they have no right to ever lecture anybody about how one group is better than another, morally speaking.  And for those who point to Hitler and talk about evil socialism, you think all socialism is like this?  If you do, you’re an idiot.  Guilt by association, very classy.  But the fact that people find it so easy to ignore history is even worse because people who have actually done horrible things are now being misrepresented and when people start to forget real history, they are even more doomed to repeat it.

Until next time, a quote,

“Even if Hitler had been an atheist, as Stalin most surely was, how DARE Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds!”  -Richard Dawkins, a rally protesting the Pope in England

Peace out,


Shockofgod is a Flaming Idiot With NO Brain

There is a YouTuber who every once and a while comes up among the atheist community, so I thought that I would take a crack at him.  He is a giant moron who can’t think for himself for two seconds, but hey, I might as well try and reason with the unreasonable person that this Christoholic is.  Really, I think this guy is drunk on his delusions.  I think that he is absolutely consumed by his little-man and love-of-God syndrome.

For those of you who don’t know, this guy is famous because he posed a question to as many atheists as he could find –

Prove to me that atheism is true and accurate.”

That was his question.  It gave him internet stardom for his blind idiocy.  It gave him a huge opening with which to attack the atheist community because the overwhelming response was, as TJ Kincaid put it –

 No.  Prove that belief in God is true and accurate.”

That was the response from that atheist community at large.  Of course, other elements of the atheist community made much more comprehensive videos, like tooltime9901, The Amazing Atheist, The Skeptical Heretic, King Heathen, and there was even a response when the blind and ignorant idiot phoned in his non-sensical question to The Atheist Experience, which is a TV show down in Texas.  My personal favorite responses are from the first two listed above.  I will provide links to their videos here and here.  TJ came back later and made another video taking apart the fact that shockofgod deliberately ignored their answers and didn’t seem to care what any of the answers were.

Here’s a truth about shockofgod – he is a blind ignorant fool who is too stupid to accept any information other than that which supports his claim.  And the information that he has is half-assed, blind, dim-witted, and worse, he almost never cites the sources.  He will go on and on about what all the “philosophers” and “scientists” are saying, but how many times does this ignorant moron actually provide evidence?  Well, never.  He gives names, but never references, articles, links, anything.  He just talks and talks and talks and never has any backbone enough to show the sources of his information so that his critics can argue with him on a level playing field.

What’s more, proof of his scum is that he deletes comments that he doesn’t like, because he doesn’t have the balls to be able to come out and debate on a level playing field.  The reason is simple – he has no ground to stand on.  There is a reason that well over 90% of all scientists are agnostics or atheists.  The reason is that there is not a single bit of scientific evidence to prove the existence of a God or gods.  If there were a physical manifestation, there would be no doubt.  Instead, it is up to those who defend it to be biased, and choosing to see evidence where none exists.

But back to his request for people to prove atheism is true and accurate – hey shock, prove that God is true and accurate?  And better yet, prove that the Christian God is true and accurate.  Prove that your linguistically bullshit question isn’t able to be answered by another god, or a cabal of gods.  Prove that it is this one guy.  Prove that it is any of the Abrahamic gods!  Prove that it is any of these guys!  You can’t do it!  You can’t do it for the same reason that I cannot prove that (and this is what you, you dumb fuck, were trying to say) there isn’t a god or gods – because this is an unfalsifiable claim.  It cannot be proven or disproven.  Now, I can almost hear this ignorant imbecile’s retort that since it cannot be disproven, it’s real.  Guess what, my man, you are wrong without opening your ignorant mouth!  Science doesn’t work that way.  Something has to be proven before it is real.  And it is the reason that good scientists don’t acknowledge your religion at all.

And a really tragic note on this guy’s resume is that he is so stupid that he doesn’t even look outside of the Bible to prove his bullshit.  He can talk all he wants about how scholars and philosophers and scientists have his back, but here’s a nifty bit for you – he gives no references, of any kind to any studies, articles, letters, anything that back up his claims.  This man is stupid on a level I have not seen in a very long time, and I’ve argued with a lot of dumbass Christians (I fully accept that there are very intelligent Christians, and I have had some very intelligent conversations with them, but this dipshit isn’t one of them).  He believes that because something is in the Bible, it is true.  I believe Warren Vidic had a quote about that –

Anyone can write a book.  And they can put whatever they want onto its pages.  Used to be we thought the world was flat.  Or that the moon landing was a hoax.  I believe there’s also a book, claims the world was created in seven days.  Best-seller too.”

Just because something is written in a book doesn’t make it true.  It has never made it true.  It has never made anything true.  Things that are written in books are being disproven all the time.  All the fucking time.  But I don’t put it on shockofgod to understand that.  A guy who rattles off numbers without even knowing what he is talking about and cannot give a single link to any of the knowledge he claims to possess is not somebody I will accept having a plethora of information.  The fact is that shockofgod doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together.  He just doesn’t.

He also then tries to shift the blame to atheists when his own arguments fall on their ass.  He tries to make us out to be some kind of evil devils.  Yeah, never mind that atheism has never killed anyone.  Christianity has never killed anyone.  All the people who are getting killed are getting killed by other people.  And after some of the horrible atrocities that Christianity and the ilk who follow that have been involved in, I think that this guy has absolutely no room to talk.  Ignorant ass.

Shock, I am sending this message to you – you are scum.  You are scum who wants to feel important, but in the broad scheme of things, ignorant morons like you will be forgotten by history.  You will be forgotten by the world that we all live in because we live in this real world.  You are the one who lives in a land of fantasies.  You are the one who does not understand that God is a man-made machination based on our fear of the unknown and our wish for life to be more easy to understand.

This guy is an idiot, and I hope that none of you take anything that he says serious.  Sometimes I wonder if this ignorant dick takes himself serious.  I know I wouldn’t.

Until next time, a quote,

“So, the question is incoherant because it’s asking for proof and evidence of belief.  When you say that you are a theist, that means that you are describing your belief in God.  Where if you are an atheist, you are describing your lack of belief in God.”  -tooltime9901, Shockofgod’s Incoherant Question

Peace out,


My Favorite Moments from The Wire

This show has not only been, in my opinion, the crown jewel of HBO’s creations, but it is also probably one of the best shows that has ever been done.  It was a masterful creation capturing every element of a city and saying some very harsh thing about society and the entire world and how we treat one-another, and how the groups all manage to affect one-another.  Really, there isn’t much more to say than that.

This is going to be a list of my favorite scenes from this masterful creation that is being forgotten over the years, and I hope nobody ever does.  Nothing HBO has created since then has even come close to this, or really ever will.  One can hope, but probably not.  If you don’t know the show, there are a lot of spoilers, and you should watch it instead, then come back and read this.

1. the scene where McNulty asks Bodie to help him bring down Marlo Stanfield
and tying into that
2. the scene where Bodie loses his temper after Little Kevin is brought out of a vacant

Bodie is a character who is in a very dirty game just trying to do the right thing.  His character is a tragic reminder of somebody who knows nothing else, who wants to do right, and who keeps getting screwed by the system every time.  It is kind of interesting how D’Angelo’s lesson on how to play chess comes back.  In the first scene here, Bodie remarks –

This game is rigged, man.  I feel like one of them little bitches on the chess board.

Bodie has been a soldier, never doing wrong by his boss, and never talking to the cops.  He finally decides to work with the police after he sees Marlo pulling his friend Little Kevin out of a vacant.  He talks to his friend Poot about how Marlo has no code, no honor.  He doesn’t kill people because of business, or because they are snitching.  He just kills people because he can, because he enjoys it.  He is an evil person.  Bodie remarks on that to McNulty saying that those without a code need to go.  They need to be taken out of the game, because to him, standing by your people, being reliable, being faithful to the cause, and having a level head means something.  It means everything.  A quote from Bodie from the second scene (there is some racially explicit language that I am not exempting because I believe in being true to the character.  If that offends you, I’m sorry, but I have more respect for this than that) –

This mother-fucker just be killing niggers just to do it.  You see?  Nigger kills mother-fuckers just cause he can.  Not cause it’s snitching, not cause it’s business, but cause shit shit just comes natural.”

These scenes are so integrated because it shows that Bodie not only has a code, but also that he is a good person, and only wants to do right by his own people.  It was powerful, and makes his death later on that much more tragic.

3.  The scene where Brianna comes to talk to McNulty about the death of D’Angelo

This scene was powerful because it got into the minds of not only McNulty, but Brianna Barksdale, who had always seemed to be a kind of ruthless character.  As a little background, her son, D’Angelo, was in prison for carrying drugs for his uncle, Avon.  However, before he chose to take prison, he was close to flipping on his uncle and the entire organization, giving up everybody.  Brianna then confronted D’Angelo and convinced him to take the years.  Stringer Bell, on the other hand, believed D’Angelo was weak, and had him killed.
McNulty comes into the picture later.  He is gifted cop, as Freeman calls him, “natural police.”  He thought the killing was fishy, so he did some poking.  Brianna naturally was upset by this, and the confrontation was powerful.  She didn’t want to believed that her family could have been involved in the killing of her son.  Ironically she didn’t know that her family wasn’t.  The confrontation between Stringer and Avon about this was pretty cool too.  But the best line from this scene came right at the end.  Brianna asks McNulty –

Why go to her?  Why not come to me first?”

To which one of the most brutal responses was –

Honestly?  I was looking for somebody who cared about the kid.  I mean, like I said, you were the one who made him take the years, right?”

4. The scene where Brother Mouzone confronts Avon

Here was another scene where you get to see a lot into the mind of a character.  The relationship between Avon and Stringer had quickly deteriorated after Stringer disagreed with Avon’s way of doing business, and after finding out that Stringer had ordered the killing of his nephew.  But Avon tried to stand by him, even then.  But here is where Brother Mouzone comes into the picture.
He had been hired as a protection man for holding Avon’s towers.  He did his job exceedingly well.  This cut in on the business plans Stringer was trying to set up with Proposition Joe.  So he set up a meet with Omar (my favorite character on the show) to tell him that it was Brother Mouzone who had killed his boyfriend Brandon.  This naturally sent Omar on the war-path, and his used his cunning and skill to get close and then nearly killed Brother Mouzone.  He naturally sensed that something was off about it all, so he backed off.
When Brother Mouzone comes to Baltimore seeking revenge, he quickly finds out from Omar what had happened, and then goes to confront Avon, in order to seek restitution in the means of Stringer’s life.  What you find out is that Avon cares more about his business in the end than his people.  He gave Stringer up.  It makes the irony that Stringer betrayed Avon that much more tragic.

5. the scene where Brother Mouzone confronts Omar

Here you get to see how Brother Mouzone and Omar are two of a kind.  They are both smart, dedicated, will stop at nothing to achieve their goal, and who fear nothing.  The banter between these two here is actually too cool for words.  They both are in an alley, facing one-another.  Guns drawn, each knowing they both might die.  It begins and episode that ends with my favorite scene in the whole series.  A nice little choice bit of this banter is as follows –

I suppose we could stand here all night.”  -Brother Mouzone

The response was priceless –

I suppose we could, or settle this once and forever.”  -Omar

When Brother Mouzone revealed he was looking to talk, rather than to kill, it starts a partnership for one express purpose –

My all time favorite scene – When Brother Mouzone and Omar kill Stringer Bell

This scene is probably, in a very subtle way, so powerful if you know everything that happened before.  This scene depicts the end of a character who you come to realize is so manipulative and so horribly twisted up inside, who is what the Joker was talking about in every respect.  He is a schemer.  His schemes were endless, huge, and he had no limit of them.  In the end, it was his own schemes that brought about his downfall.  It is also one of the few scenes where you get to see genuine rage in Omar.

Stringer schemed against everybody, even his own friends.  For his schemes to be the end of him, it is kind of poetic.  Really, this is my favorite scene in this entire show for the same quote I am going to leave you all with.  It was masterful poetry of the end of a man who wanted everything and his own incompetance and lack of foresight caused him to lose everything.

This show was a work of art, and needs to be given more respect by the community of people.  People see things that they want to see, like Game of Thrones, and they instantly are drawn to that, but to be honest, it is rarely the things that are liked by the masses that are the greatest works of all.  I hope that sticks with you.

Until next time, a quote,

“You still don’t get it, do ya?  Huh?  Your boy gave you up!  That’s right.  And we didn’t have to torture his ass neither!”  -Omar Little, The Wire

Peace out,


Stop Quoting Your Book at Me. And God Denial?

So, here is a contention that I have had for a long time and has never really voice in any significant way until I saw a new video uploaded on YouTube by a good YouTuber named rationalwarrior.  He talked about in a very simple way, but I will get into the details.  I want to get into the details because the fact is that the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any of the other holy books are terrible and hopelessly subjective sources of information.  Not to mention there isn’t a single piece of information in them supported by evidence.

Look, here’s a nifty fact – the Bible is a REALLY boring book.  I’ve read it from cover to cover, and the fact is that the book is boring!  The characters are flat and one-dimensional.  The plot lines are hopelessly complicated to the point that the average intellectual wouldn’t be able to suspend their disbelief, and worse than that, they’re boring.  They are really boring.  Every story is told in a melodramatic pose like the guy in the original Planet of the Apes screaming “get your paws off me you damn dirty apes!”  I wouldn’t enjoy this book as a reading material on my own.

But what makes it worse is that people quote this book like it is somehow true because it exists.  There is a quote by the main antagonist of the video game Assassin’s Creed, Warren Vidic, about how things are in this world when it comes to literature and what you can find in literature.  He said that you can put anything you want into a book, and the moment you do, people start to believe that you have said the truth.  Here was his response –

Anyone can write a book.  And they can put whatever they want onto its pages.  Used to be we thought the world was flat.  Or that the moon landing was a hoax.  I believe there’s also a book, claims the world was created in seven days.  Best-seller too.

And that is the truth.  You can put whatever you want into a book, and guess what – because it’s a in a book doesn’t mean it’s true.  There are books saying that the world is flat.  They’re not true.  There are books talking about how the moon landing was faked.  They’re not true.  There are books talking about how 9/11 was an inside job.  They are also not true.  Just because something is written in a book doesn’t make it true.

The fact is that when a person of faith quotes their book to me, I take it about as seriously as a person who is speaking in “tongues” when we all know it’s just gibberish.  And I could just as easily do it back to you.  I could quote any number of books.  I could quote any source and claim it as fact.  I could quote The Social Network and claim it is fact.

You’re offering a conclusion not found in evidence.”

Ironically enough, that’s the truth.  You aren’t offering a conclusion found in evidence.  The absolute lack of evidence of a supreme being (and the burden of proof is on you, religious people) should say something.  But the fact is that quoting a book to me like it is the absolute truth and telling me to believe it just the same is not only not convincing, but the fact that it convinces you says something.  Something that isn’t good.

I wrote a post about how people can get their values from television, and how absolutely ridiculous it is.  It is equally stupid to get your values system from a book.  Worse, a single book.  You are basing your entire life’s system of morals and value on what you read in a book.  You are basing your entire system of behavior not only on a single book, but also a book that was edited and have parts that were meant to be in it thrown out.  Whole Gospels, a lot of Gospels were thrown out of the Bible.  They were thrown out of that book because the Catholic church didn’t like them.  This is a book that is not only biased, but had any part of it that didn’t agree with the rest thrown out.

And also there are parts that are altered.  It even says that the texts in some regards were changed.  So, the book has missing pieces, has had parts changed deliberately, has been basically screwed with by lots of people, so the legitimacy of what it says should already be suspect to you, and you believe it like it is truth.  That’s weakness right there.  It is weakness and denial.

See, I was approached some time ago by a man who believes that I am a “God-denier.”  He believes that I am in “G0d-denial.”  This guy was a flaming idiot.  Let me explain.  Denial is when you have a concept.  All the evidence points to it being true, and you choose to ignore it.  Take Holocaust denial, for instance.  There are not only first-hand accounts of what happened, but there are mass-graves, the facilities where the killing of Jews was happening, there is a metric ton of evidence (don’t tell a white nationalist that, like the people on  That might make them think, which is something that we all know that none of them can do) that the Holocaust happened.  So, to be in denial of it is a sensible term because the evidence is overwhelming to one side.

However, when it comes to God-denial, there is no claim to call it denial.  For one thing, there isn’t a single shred of proof, none whatsoever, that God is real, or that any supreme being is real.  It is an unfalseafiable claim.  Meaning that it cannot be proven or disproven.  So I’m not in denial.  There is no evidence to say I’m in denial.  Plus, denial requires that you know what the truth is, you just choose to look the other way.  I am not doing that, because there is no truth about this.  There is no proof about this.  There is nothing at all.

So, stop quoting your book at me.  Stop talking about it like it is the absolute truth.  Stop telling me I am wrong.  Go the fuck away.  I don’t talk to idiots.

Until next time, a quote,

“And I said, well, according to this book, God doesn’t exist.  Because it said so in this book.  Would that be convincing to you?  I think not.  And it shouldn’t be, because it’s a bullshit argument.”  -rationalwarrior, We Don’t Believe Them Either So Stop Quoting

Peace out,


Glenn Beck and Anders Breivik: Are They So Different?

Now, before you all go off saying the Glenn Beck hasn’t killed anybody, I know.  At least that much Beck has going for him.  Of course, his endless quotes telling people to “rise up” and encouraging people to be as militant as possible does say something, but let’s not get too much into that because that isn’t what’s important right now.  What is important right now is the fact that Glenn the fucking idiot Beck seems to agree with all of the talking points of the terrorist in Norway, Anders Breivik.

It has come to light over the last few days that Anders was a very right-wing man.  He hated multiculturalism, the liberal way of thinking, and he also hated Muslims.  He hated that there was Muslim immigration in Norway and Europe.  The real irony of it all is that these have been talking points of, as Keith Olbermann calls him, Lonesome Rhodes Beck for some time.  For those of you who don’t know, the name reference comes from the film “Face in the Crowd.”  I won’t go into that, but it is a good movie.  See it.

Anyway, Beck has mirrored a lot of these points about how Muslims are evil and how they are a threat to western society for some time.  During the big overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, he was talking about how the Muslim Brotherhood was going to take power and then, take over the world!  This guy has been doing his fear mongering demagoguery like this for years.  Ever since 2009 when Fox News brought him on, as TJ Kincaid said in a recent video

He is a social critic devoid of social awareness and critical thinking.  He’s a brain-dead brain washer and a slightly washed-up on at that.”

The fact is that Glenn Beck shouldn’t be relevant anymore, but he comes back swinging into the spotlight by his most recent comments about the shooting that happened in Oslo, Norway, recently.  His thoughts were so stupid, so ignorant, and have pissed me off.  I have a few choice clips from his radio show that I will play for you now that will prove the Glenn Beck and Anders Breivik really aren’t that different, ideologically speaking.  In fact, they’re the exact same person.

I don’t think we made a comment on it because we didn’t know other than there was a bombing that happened.  And as the thing started to unfold, and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or whatever.  I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics?”

Unbelieveable!  Un-fucking-believeable!  Does this guy not have any shame at all?  Does the weight of his own evil nature not affect him in the slightest way?  Does the fact that he says things that are so fucking stupid just not get to him?  I guess it must not.  He keeps on about how the liberal mentality is just like Hitler, the same way the pope goes on that atheists are like Hitler, and how Bryan Fischer that gay people are just like Hitler.  Evil fuckers every one.  And they don’t care.  It doesn’t bug them.  They can be as evil as they want and it doesn’t even phase them!  But he keeps going.

And never mind having a camp for the things you believe in.  Beck’s right, that is so weird.

And he continues in his tirade to defend the very points that Breivik was talking about!  Beck goes on in his show about how multi-culturalism is bad and how Islam is bad.

We don’t want to kill our daughters in ‘honor killings.’  We don’t want to stone people to death.  We don’t want our husbands to have, what is it?  Hourly marriage.  We like to call it ‘prostitution’ here in the United States.  That Sharia Law does not have a place in today’s world.”

Those word, the same words that the shooter in Norway was motived by, ideologically speaking.  He was motivated by the belief the Islam is the enemy and multiculturalism was the enemy, the kids at the camp was weird, and he was making what he believed to be a necessary stand against them and the people who espouse those beliefs.  He believed his actions were required.  But every point that he killed all of those people by was the same talking points that Beck just defended!  He defended his mentality and his way of thinking while trying to distance himself from Breivik.  Why?  They’re so much alike.

I suppose probably the biggest difference that I see between Beck and Breivik is that Beck is a Moron, oh sorry, Mormon, and Breivik is a hardcore Christian fundamentalist.  Yup, difference of faith is the only thing (aside from Beck not killing anybody) that I see as a major difference between these two characters and their ideologies.  I like what TJ brought up, that at least with Breivik, he has been deranged on his resume as an excuse for how he behaves.  What is Beck’s excuse?  What is his excuse for his endless amount of bigotry against Islam?  I hate Islam.  I think it violent and loathesome, but I don’t hate the people who believe it.  I hate the belief.  What is Beck’s excuse?  He calls pretty much all Muslims terrorists, all liberals Nazis, anybody who doesn’t agree with him a socialist (not a bad word to me, but then-again, I doubt Beck and any of his dipshit followers know what it really means).

What’s worse is that Beck has a bunch of ignorant dumbass followers who nod their empty heads whenever he talks and sink the money they don’t have into buying his dumbass books and going to his ignorant social gatherings.  People are free to blow their money on whatever they want, but I reserve the right to make fun of them for following a man who basically agreed with everything Breivik did the shooting for.

And the really interesting thing is that Beck tries to seperate himself from Breivik.  Here’s his defense –

 This guy who’s the shooter, is from the right-wing.  Different than our right-wing.  It is still big-government.  He is coming out and he is doing the work of a madman.  He is doing the work of what all people that want big government always do, and that is, commit terrorist acts.”

Yup, everybody who wants big government kills people.  Un-fucking-believable.  This guy is so stupid that there isn’t a way to register his level if idiocy.  His own ignorance is drowning in stupidity.  And what’s more, he agrees with all the talking points of Breivik, but doesn’t get that he does.  Pure stupid.

Until next time, a quote,

“So here’s my question for Glenn Beck – if you’re nothing like Anders Behring Breivik, then why the fuck are you so much like Anders Behring Breivik?”  -TJ Kincaid, Glenn Beck Said What?!?!

Peace out,


It’s High Time For Video Games to be Cultural Art

When you hear of a titles like – To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Indiana Jones, The Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, The Old Man and the Sea, Moby Dick, and a million others, you think of some great pieces of creation that people often make a point about if you don’t get a reference from them or if the themes of one of them elude you.  They are parts of our culture that the academic community has fully come to accept.  There are even classes in universities about these forms of art and how they have affected modern culture.

But you want to know another form of art that has been neglected to find acceptance from the academic community as a big part of our culture – video games.  But the fact is that the Mario theme is a song that is almost universally recognized not only in this country, but all over the world.  Video games have become such a massive part of our culture in the same way as books, films, TV shows, you name it.

For real, when you see the warm and charming face of Mario, you have a memory.  I was brought up in a world that Mario was a big part of.  Him and those like him who have been involved in the evolution of this genre are now a huge part of our culture, even if the academic community doesn’t want to accept it.  For real, I can list of a million characters, and each and every one of you will know who I am talking about, and have a feeling or a thought about these characters and what they mean to you.

Cloud Strife, Link, Mario and Luigi, Mewtwo, Donkey Kong, Solid Snake, Ezio Auditore da Firenze, Albert Wesker, and the Master Chief.  All of these names (or probably almost all of them) are a part of a culture that my generation has grown up coming to know and love.  We have come to care about these characters because they mean something.  They are important.  It is one of the reasons that when they screw up a video game movie by making an absolute piece of crap, it says something.

Plus, one of the aspects about knowable and likeable video game character is that they stand the test of time better than novel characters.  You read a novel, you can see into a time period that it was written in, but with video game characters, they have to evolve to keep up.  In fact, most of these characters have been pioneers in their own way for the evolution of this genre.  Most of them have been involved in every step of the way of video game evolution.  Mario has been here for almost every Nintendo system.  The Master Chief is still what the Xbox is known for.  Halo: Combat Evolved was the game that made the Xbox’s reputation.  And what’s more, it is pretty clear that these things are such a huge part of modern culture.

It should be obvious from the fact that so many movies are made from these works that they are a large part of American and worldwide culture.  Granted, all of those movies (without a single exception) have sucked, but the point is that filmmakers realize how big a part of our culture they are.  It is just general incompetance that has led to them all sucking, because not a single filmmaker has gotten the source material enough to make a decent movie of them.

The big theory among the video game lovers is that games are inherantly impossible to make into films given how complex they are.  Another reason that games should be recognized as art – they have stories that are complicated enough for any critic to enjoy.  The games that are held in such high esteem, the best ones, are the ones with spectacular storyline.  When most people hear that, they think that that only comes in the realms of RPG’s.  Not true.  There are games of every genre that have great stories.  Bioshock told the story of an underwater metropolis that fell apart and the character is just trying to survive and get away from this nightmare.  Dead Space tells the story of a starship that was victim to a alien race and an alien artifict, along with the main character trying to stay alive and to not join the ranks of the living dead that inhabit the darkened and blood-stained corridors.

I like the video that GrapplingIgnorance did on this and what he believed should happen with the video game culture

For too long have video games been denied entrance into the prestigious of cultural contributions, while they have provided as much inspiration, adventure, diversion and entertainment to the modern youth as any works of popular fiction have done for generation of the past.

He is absolutely right.  The fact is that video games have had as much of a cultural impact as any of the other works.  They are continuing to have a cultural impact as they are evolving with the times.  The stories are more complex, the characters are more realistic.  The visuals are so arresting that you feel like you are there with the people who you are playing.

What’s more, the intellectuals who look down on those who play video games fail to realize that this war has happened before.  Back when film first came about, there was a huge controversy on what was artistic, and a lot of grumpy old men didn’t like to see them regarded as art forms.  When television became a big deal, many intellectuals didn’t like the idea of including TV shows as forms of cultural relevance.  Now we have whole classes about the cultural themes and contributions of one of the greatest shows created – The Wire.  There has been (and still is, in a way) a huge debate about whether or not comic books should be considered artistic.

It is a very difficult for a culture that has had such a rigorous system for so long like America has to accept new things, to accept change (look at the debate over gay marriage).  It is not easy for a person to be able to step outside of their zones of comfort and look at the big picture.  But the fact is that video games are just as significant to our culture now as the books of the past were to theirs, and the films of the past were to their generation.  The pruddish scholarly types have to accept that video games are a huge part of our culture, and as time goes on, it isn’t going to get less that way, it is going to get moreso.

Until next time, a quote,

“For too long have those who sit in a chair to read books for hours been considered the automatic intellectual superiors of those processing information, solving puzzles, committing to mastery of newly-learned skills, and interacting with an impossible virtual world that surrounds them.”  -GrapplingIgnorance, Underdog of Culture Contribution

Peace out,


Modern Feminism is a Joke, Part III!

Yet again, TJ Kincaid, my favorite YouTuber, has brought something to my attention that correlates with something that I have been noticing in the system of this country for a very long time.  It is that there is a HUGE disparity for what is acceptable for men to say and what is acceptable for women to say.  There is also a huge disparity in the legal system favoring one gender over the other, but you wanna know something – it isn’t men.  The system and the media disparity favors women WAY more than it favors men, and as for me, I think that not only is it bullshit, but it is part of the reason that I have such a huge problem with modern feminism.

So, for those of you who don’t know, there is a show on CBS called “The Talk.”  It is their version (in really every conceivable way) of The View.  Really, there is no huge difference.  It is a bunch of women sitting around a table and talking about pop culture (something I loathe with my entire being), celebrity news, their problems, whatever.  I like how Family Guy depicted The View, because I depict The Talk the exact same way.

In any case, on this show they talked about a story that was in the news.  A man asked his wife for a divorce.  Instead of talking about it rationally, she decided to chop his dick off and sticks it in the garbage disposal.  You would think that the response this horrible crime would have been revulsion, right?  Wrong!  Sharron Osbourne, one of the women who talks on that show, thought it was so funny!  Here is the clip that I am refering to.  Watch it and be prepared to be sick.  Her comment about this was –

I mean, I don’t know the circumstances, I don’t know why he filed for divorce, I don’t know between them, however, I do think it’s quite fabulous.  I mean, can you just imagine that thing wizzing around the disposal, it’s like…”

And the reaction from the audience – laughter.  They laughed to their heart’s content.  They laughed until their sides split.  It was a gesture that says something really awful to me, and should say the same thing to all of you – that it is perfectly acceptable to laugh at something like this.  Let me put this plainly – this woman is a criminal!  She committed a crime!  She deserves to have the book thrown at her and to rot in jail!  And I hope she does.  I hope she suffers in the American penal system because of what she has done.  No man deserves to have this done to him.  But really, it isn’t that she did this that gets on my nerves so much.

What bothers me the most is that it is acceptable to laugh at this.  And if a man protests, he is called sexist.  What’s more, if the situation were reversed, and it was a man (and a woman on The Talk brought up this very point and I am so grateful that at least one of these cackling harpies had the decency to do it) who was laughing over a woman getting her genitals cut off after she told her husband she wanted a divorce, the media uproar would be incredible.  The attacks would be endless.  It would be a storm of media hellfire!  And when this thought was posed on The Talk, do you know what Osbourne’s response was –

It’s different, though.  One’s floppy and wide and sometimes stick up like that (makes a hand gesture), it’s easy to do that!”

This harpy, this sociopathic harpy actually has the nerve to make this joke?  Really?!  This is bullshit, and the fact that it is accepted and even looked positively upon by the female culture in this country is even worse.  But what really is worse is that it goes beyond the media.  The legal system has it too.

There was a case where a woman got a shotgun, went into her husband’s room late at night, (This was on Forensic Files, on Tru TV) put the shotgun to his temple, and blew his brains out all over the bed.  She killed her husband in cold blood.  All of the evidence points to her doing this in cold blood.  She was arrested for the crime and it went to trial.  On the stand she says that he deserved it because he beat her and abused her mentally.  This man deserved to go to jail for spousal abuse, he deserved a lot of things, but never, in any possible conceivable way did he deserve to get killed in his sleep.  This wasn’t self-defense.  She wasn’t in any danger.  She walked into the room and blew his fucking brains out while he was sleeping.  And what was the verdict?  Not guilty.  She was acquited of this crime because the jury believed that he did deserve it.

WHAT?!  Are you fucking kidding me?!  He deserved to get murdered in cold blood?!  Is this a statement we want in this country?  I love a quote by TJ –

That’s American justice, that’s how we perceive these gender issues in America.”

And what’s more, it goes beyond stuff like this.  In divorce cases, it has been (it is changing now, but this is a VERY recent development and the numbers are still very one-sided) tradition that the men pay alimony because the belief has been that women are incapable and need to be given more.  In divorce cases, it is routinely believed that the mother is the better parent than the father.  In sexual harassment cases, it is pretty routine to believe the man was the one who did the wrong.  Michael Chrichton wrote a great book about the concept of sexual harassment and how it is perceived in the workplace called Disclosure.  I recommend it because there is a quote from it that was great.

In this quote, the husband is talking to his wife.  They are both very upper-class citizens and the wife (who is a wealthy lawyer at a successful law firm) is talking about how women are oppressed in this country.  Here was the husband, Tom Sanders, response –

How are you oppressed?  You never wash a load of clothes.  You never cook a meal.  You never sweep a floor.  Somebody does all that for you.  You have somebody do everything for you.  You have somebody take your kids to school and somebody pick them up.  You’re a partner at a law firm, for Christ’s sake.  You’re about as oppressed as Leona Helmsley.”

The fact is that the oppresion of women is something we just don’t have in this country.  In Iran, it is a huge issue.  In China it is a huge issue.  In Russia it is a huge issue.  The fact is that in this country women have so much more opportunities and the fact is that women are now becoming more and more the breadwinners of a house.  There was a report on ABC where women were complaining about the fact that they have to pay alimony, and how it is becoming a reverse of what the complaint used to be.

But to put this point home, there was a story about something that happened in Russia (now, there is some serious contention as to whether or not this is true, but the reaction is what we are going to talk about) where a guy tried to rob a woman’s store, and she beat the shit out of him, tied him up in the back, and raped him for several days.  The reaction to this was appalling.  She has a fan-page now on Facebook, people comment about how great this is, how he deserved to be fed Viagra and be kept as a sex slave of this woman for three days.

This is the reason that feminism in the modern age is such a joke to me – because it doesn’t address these kinds of disparities.  If the situation were reversed with the woman in the store, what would be the reaction?  Women were saying about how this empowers women!  That is bullshit!  This is sick, but in countries like this where women have a multitude of opportunities and where they are more and more becoming the more enabled class, the feminists don’t address this.  Instead, we have bullshit feminism like Rebecca Watson talking about how a guy should talk to a girl, or Eve Bit First talking about why a man is a rape-supporter.  They talk about how porn is evil.  They talk about absolute bullshit, but do they touch this, does the bulk of the community goes after this?  Not a fucking chance.  It is the biggest double-standard that I have EVER seen.

Here is the reason it is a joke to me, and the last I am going to talk about it because I have kind of gilded the lilly already, and it is time to move on.

Until next time, a quote,

“This is why I can’t fucking take feminism seriously.  I just can’t.  I can’t take it seriously.  Because they don’t address things like this.  They want to talk about the disparities between genders but they never want to talk about this shit.”  -TJ Kincaid, It’s Only Sexist When Men Do It

Peace out,


Alaska Baptist Says Wives Should Shut Up and Take It

My good friend Amber Sawyer shared this link with me today.  She told me she would be showing me her response to this article (and I look forward to it) which I am going to be sharing with all of you.  It is an article that is sick on so very many levels.  For real, this article couldn’t be any more twisted and sick if it tried.  I don’t think there is a single part of it that doesn’t just rub me the wrong way.  And for any decent person who reads it, they should be equally, and if they are women especially moreso, offended by what this preacher, Ron Hamman, says about the role of women to their husbands, and things that are a crime, but he believes should be ignored.

Not only that, but he believes that men have a sex drive, and that women should be subjugated to men.  I’m not bullshitting you here.  I am going to give quotes from the article that talks about this.  I will give you the link here so that nobody thinks I am taking this all out of context.  I want the full horribleness of what this monster Hamman has said to be made known to everybody.  This needs to be talked about.  It needs to be critically examined.  It needs to be attacked for what it is – misogyny of the worst order.

For those of you who don’t know what happened, a reporter named Lara Logan was in Egypt, reporting on the fall of the Mubarak regime.  She was suddenly grabbed by members of the crowd and brutally sexually assaulted.  She told the harrowing story of what happened to her on 60 Minutes recently.  It was tragic, and it was awful.  Since I am a man, I cannot know how horrible this must have been for her to go through.  One doesn’t want to think about it for too long.  In any cast, this brought up an issue – spousal rape.

That’s right, a man can rape his wife.  It is a tragic affair that happens all too often, and what’s worse, there are allegations here in my home state of Alaska that Alaska preachers are involved in keeping these affairs quiet.  It is a very serious allegation, and what makes it worse is that evidence is coming up that it might be true.

Now, here is an issue that I have had with religion for a long time – how somebody can tell a crime to their preacher and it not get reported.  The Catholic church is guilty of it (by leaps and bounds), and other churches are guilty of it too.  The more extreme the church’s views, the more likely they would be to side with the husband and make the wife out to be the perpetrator (and we think Christianity and Islam are so different, don’t we?)  Of course, Ron Hamman, a priest at the Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla, thought his opinion needed to be put in.

That is, this kind of allegation becomes her word against his word. And while I understand that in Alaska the lone female is able to convict her alleged perpetrator, this goes contrary to the Bible.

Yes, the Bible.  The great document that says that women should be second-class citizens to their husbands (for real, why do Christians hate Muslims so much?).  The book that says that a magical snake told a woman to eat fruit from a magical tree.  This book is what we should be looking at in reference to the law.  But only gets worse from here.  It can only get worse.  It can only get more heartless as this man goes into more detail about his misogyny.

 The purpose for this is the preservation of justice. The truth is that people, including women, can lie. Thus, in not requiring two or three witnesses to the event, Alaska statute proves itself to be unjust, and likewise those legislators responsible for it. But then again, what more can we expect from the lost?

Wanna know what interests me about this statment – Islam has the same policy.  In Islamic states, when a woman accuses a man of rape, she has to have two to three witnesses to the crime.  Yeah, in most cases, the witnesses are the rapists themselves.  And yeah, it just happens all the time that a woman is raped with two or three witnesses around.  That is the casual way it’s done.  This man is not only ignorant, he’s just deluded and sick in the head.

The truth is that God has given to us physical needs we commonly refer to as a “sex drive,” and he has designed for these to be met within the bounds of marriage. The trouble comes when one spouse or the other decides to exact retaliation against the other because of some offense and withholds him or herself from his or her mate. This is wickedness, and such is a violation of the spirit of marriage on the part of the withholder.

Sorry about the length, but I wanted to give a little context to what I am going to post next, which just plain infuriates me.

Thus, if these allegations of spousal rape are due to the wife withholding herself in attempt to control or punish her husband, she is out of line with God. And it doesn’t matter how many laws are passed, it will just be another reason why God will not bless America.

This is BULLSHIT!  It is sick, morally repugnant bullshit!  Yes, women are crying rape because they are withholding sex from their husbands and the guy needs that sex.  After all, he has a sex drive, right?  He deserves that sex!  He deserves to get his rocks off to her!  And if she doesn’t put out, she is against the husband and God!  What kind of sick delusional thinking prompts this kind of hatred of women?  Where does it come from?!  I want to know the answer to this question, and I am going to send this in an email to Hamman because I want an answer as to what exactly is his reasoning that a woman deserves to get raped.

He ends his article talking about how America is going away from God and blah, blah, blah, but I want to touch on this for another bit – he believes that a husband deserves sex, and if he doesn’t get it because the wife is a tease of whatever, he deserves to be able to rape her.  And if two or three witnesses didn’t see the crime, the women should have no legal standing whatsoever.

Christians, no, women, why do you believe this?  Why do you embrace a faith that puts you as a second-class citizen?  Even the New Testament says that a woman should be subservient to her husband.  She should obey him.  She should be able to be told that she deserves what happened to her.

Here’s the truth, the one Hamman doesn’t get – spousal rape is a crime!  No husband deserves the right to sexually abuse his wife!  The Bible is nothing more than a morally pathetic reference book for anything, and not something any decent person should look to to help them with a moral problem, ever.

Until next time, a quote,

“Until now I have never heard anything as offensive as Hamman asserting that ‘God will not bless America’ because we have laws that protect a spouse’s choice to not partake in sex if they choose not to.”  -Amber Sawyer, The Frontiersman

Peace out,


Vanilla Ice Cream is…Alright

So, I thought that I would write about something so uncontroversial because I seem to be sparking a lot of really boring debates these days.  I will write about something so completely out of character that most people will think that I am an absolute Looney Tune.  Let me say up-front that this is a completely personal rant and not supported by ANY scientific fact whatsoever.  I don’t think there is any science that can possibly back up what I am going to talk about here, but if somebody can show me any, I would actually be amused and interested.

So, here is what I am going to talk about – ice cream, and my personal belief that vanilla is not the best flavor.  Sure, it is alright, but not the best.  In fact, neither is chocolate.  A big debate with people seems to be that these two are the base choices, but the fact is that they are not.  In fact, with so many flavors to choose from, why exactly is it that people seem to believe that these two should be the natural choices of what one’s favorite flavor of ice cream should be?

It is very strange, the things that people will debate about.  Really, they will debate about anything.  It is that reason which is why I am never sorry for the things that I say on here.  If somebody says anything, you are bound to raise somebody’s dander.  If you say, as I did in a recent post, that dolphins are idiots, you are about to make the dolphin lovers all come out of the woodwork and have them talk to you about how dolphins are equally, if not moreso intelligent than humans.  There are those who believe that.  And they will vigorously defend their position.  I have a friend who believes that her face is funny.  I get such a laugh out of how she will defend her position.  It seems such a strange thing to feel so strongly about it.  I dig that her and I can get a mutual laugh.  But for real, everybody has an opinion about something, and their beliefs are very cherished to them.

And that brings us to this conversation, about ice cream.  There used to be a big bragging point by one of the ice cream chains or other, I think it was Baskin Robbins, that they had 32 flavors of ice cream.  That was apparently a big selling point.  My thought about this is – so what?  For real, because they have 32 flavors of ice cream, that makes them better?  What if all 32 flavors suck?  What if they are all terrible?  One of my favorite places is Cold Stone.  They make a damn good milkshake.

Another thing about the debate about the best kind of ice cream is the fact that sometimes it isn’t ice cream that is the best of the frozen desserts.  To be honest, I am much more fond of sorbet.  It has a very light flavor, yet very good.  It is a dessert you have to take your time eating.  Of course, my personal belief is that people should take the time with any dessert.  Don’t just inhale what you eat.  Enjoy it, love it, live it.  Since I love to cook and am damn good at it, it is something I am very strong about.  Enjoy the food you eat.  Who knows, we may have a global food shortage or a nuclear holocaust, so we may not have it in the near future.

But every once and a while you get to hear two people debating what flavor of ice cream is the best, and it can get a little nuts!  I got to see two girls debating this at Cold Stone the other day.  I almost wanted to freak out, but I kept my cool.  I didn’t want to become part of a group of people who sometimes amuses me, and sometimes annoys me – people who get crazy about their preferences and the things they believe in.

I live under the firm idea that a person should remain level-headed about everything.  Getting hardcore never helped anybody, not really.  When a person loses their objectivity, when a person loses their ability to take a breath and open their mind, they risk missing out on some of the parts of life.  When a person is hardcore about any area, they just are missing out on the rest of the world.

People who say that only rock or country or any brand of music is good, they are missing out on the other stuff because often they won’t even try it, won’t keep their mind open to the concept.  I hate country music, but let me assure you that I have listened to a lot of it.  I just don’t care for it.  Now, that brings me to the point – you can and should have things you like more than other things, and things you dislike more than other things, but keep a cool head about it, will you?

If you like vanilla more than the other million and a half flavors of ice cream (I bet the number of flavors that we have now is well over 100, but that is my opinion), good for you.  I think vanilla is a good flavor.  It just isn’t my favorite.  I actually like sherbet and sorbet much more than ice cream, to be honest with you.  I am not dogging on it, for sure.  There are a lot of good flavors.  Orange and vanilla is one that I am pretty partial to, along with cookies and cream.  But I keep my mind open to all flavors.  Granted, I am actually not all the fond if ice cream with nuts in it.  I am not big on nuts in most anything, well, pecans and walnuts, anyway.  I love Cashews, macademia nuts, peanuts, and I don’t mind almonds so much, but those two just don’t do it for me.

In any case, if I had to have a moral to this story, it’s this – keep your cool, people.  Don’t turn into a single-issue or single-sided person.  I have a feeling that there are two people who read this who are going to try and throw it in my face, well, whatever.  I guess they can do what they please.  I’ll ignore it anyway.

Until next time, a quote,

“Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?!”  -George Carlin, Complaints and Grievances

Peace out,


Legislating Taste is Wrong

I had a very interesting dialogue tonight with a good friend of mine about second-hand smoke.  There have been two major studies that people point to and talk about how it is such a bad thing.  The first is a study done in 1993 by the EPA which said that 3,000 people die annually from second-hand smoke (that number has been hopelessly inflated by those who have used this study to defend their position).  A judge even ruled that that study “cherry-picked” their findings to support them, and often how they were judging the scenario was false.  So yeah, this was not good for the smokers.  Then there was a subsequent study by the World Health Organization that people were told said that smoking is really dangerous.  The fact is that the people were misled.  The report said nothing of the sort.

The fact is that these two studies are used as the rallying cry behind people who are one of two groups – either they want to actually help people, or they are just trying to legislate taste.  With my friend, she is one of the first group.  She is well-meaning, but the fact is that the premise is wrong, at least in my mind.  A lot of scientists and doctors are saying that it is garbage, and federal judges have ruled the data to be cherry-picked.

While there are a lot of scientists who abhor smoking, there is a consensus that the science is scanty, not there.  In 1998 a federal judge in North Carolina lambasted the EPA’s study as being the garbage that it is.  When you confront those who support outlawing second-hand smoke in restaurants and bars, they will talk about all the big organizations who are in favor of it, like the American Lung Association, and so on.  All of the big-time organizations who are against second-hand smoke use the same data – the EPA study from 1993.  Plus, all the organizations I am talking about have hopelessly inflated the number of people who die from it a year.  Bald-faced lying.

The problem here is that people are just trying to legislate taste.  Granted, people like my friend have their heart in the right place.  She wants to keep workers safe, but if I am right, and it isn’t unhealthy at all, then what are we doing?  We are just legislating taste.  That is it in a nutshell.  People don’t like having to have cigarette smoke around them, and so they feel it is their right to get the law to give them their way.

Here is an area that I have a serious problem with and have seen time and time again through the years – legislating taste.  People want their opinion to be made into the law.  It is the same thing with gay marriage, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, outlawing pot, and a million other little stupid things.  To give a very recent example, the mayor of Anchorage, Alaska, didn’t like a homeless protestor camping out in front of City Hall, so he tried to get legislation passed to ban sitting or reclining on sidewalks.

And what’s more, people who are against smoking will say it isn’t the people, it is what they do.  It is a very Catholic kind of argument when you talk to a Catholic or a Westboro Baptist Church bigot and they say “hate the sin and not the sinner.”  Yeah, that is why people who argue against smoking being allowed talk down about these people like they are some kind of serial killer.  The fact is that the modern mantra of how second-hand smoke is so bad is becoming a rallying cry for people to treat smokers poory and villify them.

It is another area where PC is coming into the public fold.  It is politically correct to be against smoking, and people feel the need to get on everybody’s case because they think the world revolves around them and they need to be obeyed.  And for those who believe they are trying to protect people – what if completely conclusive evidence comes out tomorrow that second-hand smoke isn’t bad for you at all?  Will you accept it and let this issue go?  I somehow doubt it.

Now, I am not a Libertarian.  I don’t particularly like their way of thinking.  But this is an area that I share their opinion.  In my mind, legislating taste is a slippery slope.  When you are able to ban it in restaurants and bars, what is next?  England has passed a law banning people from smoking in the street.  The fucking street!  People can’t smoke out in the great outdoors, for fuck’s sake!  This is legislating taste at it’s worst.  And to me, the health side only makes it worse.

What will be next?  Cake is horribly unhealthy, should we have laws about how much cake you can eat?  Drinking is unhealthy, should be ban all alcohol?  Yeah, I think they tried that.  Didn’t work real well.  Eating fast food too much can be unhealthy, should be ban all fast food?  Kenny G music is annoying, should be ban it in all restaurants and bars?  The fact is that if you start letting personal taste legislate what happens in your government, ignoring the scientific evidence (or lack thereof), then people start embracing ignorance.  That is never something good.

And sometimes, like with the gay marriage issue, it can have devastating consequences on people whose only crime was loving somebody of the same sex (not really a crime, but some people seem to think it is).  It can devastate the lives of people who have done nothing wrong but do something you don’t personally agree with.  Here is an area where I think that science should be the defining answer to things.  Science has come to the conclusion that being gay is not a choice.  It has said there is no concrete evidence that smoking is bad for your health.  Kenny G is not a danger to society (though it is for my old-school jazz loving sense of taste).

And if you just want to help people, that’s good, I am behind you.  I want to help people too, but I defer to science first.  If you don’t like something, don’t try to tell me that I should have to follow your lead because you know what’s best.  What’s best is a consensus, not a follow-the-leader game.

Until next time, a quote,

“…but I don’t ask that my opinion be made into the law!”  -Bill Maher, I’m Swiss

Peace out,