The Passion of the Tebow

    Is there anything more all-American than a faithful, wholesome, light-skinned, muscular, competitive, Christian quarterback? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you...

Tim Tebow

    Why am I writing about Tim Tebow? Is this a sports blog now? Well, it's kind of a "whatever's relevant" blog, and Tebow was all over the pop-culture radar over this last year. He led the Denver Broncos through a pretty dramatic and successful season. The thing that elevates him from being just a good quarterback to American Hero is his status as a die-hard religious guy. He is unapologetically committed to his Christian identity, in a very public way. 

    I don't necessarily have a problem with his faith. I should clarify this statement by saying that I resent the tendency in our culture to consider faith to be a virtue, and I think that the suppression of reason (and the subsequent tendency to replace reason with faith) is a source of needless pain and suffering on a global level. As a humanist and an atheist, I find his commitment to iron-age Palestine's superstitious tribal religious traditions to be a little pathetic and lacking in a rational sense, but as an American I respect his right to believe and practice whatever religion keeps him feeling warm and fuzzy, even if I think it's nonsense. 

    The things that I take issue with are hypocrisy and narcissism. Tebow perfectly embodies both of these traits, which is what makes him so endearing to Americans (particularly the hyper-religious). He is a shining example of the ugly, deceitful, morally hollow nature of the overtly pious. 

    I'm basing my arguments on Tim Tebow's repeated public displays of prayer, by the way. You may have seen photos or video of him doing this. When the shit goes down, it looks something like this:

Pictured: The most American thing ever.

    He does this at every game. Often, he does this more than once per game. I'm not just talking about his professional career, either. He used to do it when he was in college, too. It's kind of his thing. He prays over and over and over. Now, do I have any objection to public prayer? Depends on the context, I guess. I think that whether or not I cared about public religious displays isn't especially relevant. What is relevant is what Tebow's homie Jesus (allegedly) had to say about it in the bible, which is (allegedly) the historically accurate word of God. I think it's safe to assume that Tebow, as a devout Christian, grants the bible a measure of authority over his life. I feel especially confident about this assumption, considering Tebow's habit of writing the references to bible verses on his face all the damn time.

    However, one verse that you will never see on his face is Matthew 6:5. This verse says: "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." Now, the speaker here was a minor figure in Christianity by the name of Jesus Christ. According to the bible, Jesus condemned big, public displays of religion. His teachings would lead me to believe that he found such displays to be a sign that the offending person was more focused on seeking attention than on anything of a spiritual nature. In fact, the very next verse (that's Matthew 6:6, for those of you who aren't paying attention) says that when people want to telepathically communicate with their imaginary superfriend, they should "go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." The bible teaches that prayer is supposed to be a deeply personal process, and that when people do it in public it reveals that they aren't really focused on communion with their choice of deity, but instead that their focus is, at best, ostentatious.

    Let's take a second to assume that Jesus didn't explicitly instruct his followers to do their praying in private. What if public prayer was totally kosher? Well, this leads me to my second major objection to Tebow. See, if you look at the life of Jesus, as documented in the four traditional gospel narratives, the guy spent most of his time trying to help people out. His life was all about healing sick people and feeding hungry people. What I'm trying to say is, the guy was essentially a socialist. Just kidding (kind of). That's not what I'm saying today. What I'm trying to draw attention to is that Jesus' priorities were pretty much radically different from those of, say, your average NFL ticket-holder. 

    If there is a god (ha!), would he give a fuck about the Denver Broncos? Let's expand things a little further. Would he give a fuck about football? Now, I know that many Americans would say that he absolutely does, but many (most?) Americans are kind of (exceptionally) stupid. 

    I think that it's safe to say that, if god exists (ha!), he/she/it has bigger things to worry about. 

Pictured: The world, in its current state. Also, shit that's less important than football, apparently.

    Shouldn't people who have a direct telepathic line of communication to god be using that incredible gift to be praying for stuff like... oh, I don't know, maybe for god to reveal some kind of plan for solving problems like world hunger, religiously motivated terrorists, or the ever-spreading AIDS epidemic? Maybe Tebow, the alleged follower of Jesus, could spend his time praying for something that matters instead of praying to win football games? He could try praying for a cure for cancer, or for children all over the world to be rescued from abusive situations, or literally any number of legitimate problems that are affecting vast amounts of people right now. No, that would require Tim Tebow to have some kind of compassionate global perspective. I don't see it happening. 

    In case you are currently thinking, "Hey! How the heck do you know what he's praying for? He could be praying for something other than football, you know," I have something to show you. This is an excerpt from an interview conducted by Dan Wetzel following the Broncos' victory over the San Diego Chargers:

“That was a huge play,” Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow said. Yes, there was the rookie linebacker making a clutch, overtime tackle of San Diego Chargers running back Mike Tolbert for a four-yard loss. The play forced the Chargers into a just-too-long 53-yard overtime field goal attempt that wound up off course.

Not that Tebow saw either play.

“I can’t say I saw too much of it,” Tebow said. “I was praying.”

Praying for a miss?

“I might have said that,” Tebow laughed. “Or maybe a block. Maybe all of it.”

    He's praying for god to supernaturally intervene in fucking football games. He's not praying for god to supernaturally reach down and save anyone from leukemia. He doesn't care to trouble the almighty with a request that he extend his omniscient hand to provide comfort to the victims of rape. He's a millionaire athlete without a care in the world, other than the simple desire to beat the other team, and he thinks that god wants that, too. It's a fantastic example of the narcissistic nature of prayer. 

    "God, please help find my lost dog."

    "Jesus, I'm late for work. Please make all of the traffic lights green!"

    "Allah, allow my son to get in to a good college."

    For the Catholics: "Saint (insert name here), please give me (whatever)."

    It's disgusting. 

    It's morally reprehensible. 

    Any thinking person with ethical principles should condemn this behavior. Instead, he is celebrated. This isn't a "freedom of religion" issue, by the way. Tebow should absolutely be free to be as big of a rapacious, sanctimonious asshole as he wants to be. America should celebrate his right to express himself, and resoundingly cry out in anathema because of the moral implications of Tebow's self-serving beliefs. Instead, he has the second best-selling jersey in the NFL right now (behind Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rogers). 

An Affront to Reason

    I just finished touring San Diego's Creation and Earth History Museum. This institution was founded in 1992, and presents a young-Earth model of biblical creationism.
    There are so many things that I want to say. If you ever have an opportunity to visit this place, please go. I went there for the first time many years ago when I was a child, and it hasn't changed very much. What has changed is my perception of what I was seeing. As a child, with no knowledge of science, history, or philosophy, the museum was something that I looked at with respect. The young-earth creationists were righteous crusaders, standing in the face of the big, bad evolutionists and defending faith and religious freedom of speech. Today, as I walked through the museum (which more resembles a carnival haunted house than an actual museum, both in terms of tone and scientific accuracy) I was deeply troubled by the manipulative, sinister overtones that were blatantly present in literally every (false) exhibit.

    I am a member of the Secular Student Alliance at San Diego State University. Once, the SSA did picket at this museum, for various legitimate reasons. I have to respectfully chastise my colleagues who engaged in such behavior. I can understand why they would be repulsed by this disgusting place, and how walking through the museum would offend any morally sensible person, but displays of protest are not the answer when dealing with creationists. Reason and rational discourse are the weapons of the humanist. They are the tools of the trade for any serious skeptic or free-thinker. Spirited debate will be the mechanism which ultimately destroys the creationism vs. evolution debate. Now, recognize that this debate has, in actuality, been over for almost two hundred years. The modern debate which is taking place in America is being perpetuated by radicals and fundamentalists who cannot be reasoned with. Unfortunately, the creationists are targeting children and uneducated people with their propaganda, and those poor souls are the ones who humanists should be desperately trying to protect. 

    This battle is a serious one, because it is an attack on reason itself. The creation museum was an exhibit on the persuasive power of fallacies and lies. Well-meaning, but ignorant, religious people bring their children here to learn science. This is indoctrination masquerading as truth, and it is dangerous. When massive groups of people sacrifice the pursuit of truth in exchange for comfortable ignorance and complacency, it damages humanity. Everything that the creationism movement stands for is in direct opposition to human progress. 

    A lengthier discussion on the things I saw today is definitely in order, but time constraints limit such an exploration today.

    Sometime soon, I will write something which clarifies my position on the detrimental effects of theism, as well as a scathing critique of the creationist's position. My heart breaks for the children who I saw being guided through the creationist propaganda machine this morning, like so many sheep to the slaughter.    

Definitive Answers: East vs. West

    I'm a big hip-hop fan. I've been listening to rap music since I was 8 years old. The first real rap song I ever heard was "Cop Killer" by Body Count, way back in 1992. Before this, my exposure to rap music basically consisted of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air theme song. I distinctly remember listening to "Cop Killer" and being amazed at how provocative it was. As an 8-year-old white kid, I did not understand the themes that Ice-T was exploring on the track, but I was immediately aware of the potential consequences and implications that the release of such a controversial song could bring for the writers/performers of the song. It was unlike anything I had ever heard, and Ice-T impressed me deeply for having the courage to release something like that.
    This first exposure to rap music and hip-hop culture changed the way that I listened to music. The stuff that rappers were talking about in the early 90's was very foreign to me, and I learned to respect various artists for baring their souls in their music, and courageously speaking out against injustices that they perceived in American urban culture.
    Fans of rap music debate who the greatest MC of all time is. It happens all the time, and it's kind of dumb. There is no way to provide a definitive answer to this debate, so I think that the arguments for various rappers are ultimately very silly. However, I do think that it's a lot easier, and more productive, to debate the merits of one rapper against another. For example, it would be ridiculous to debate whether or not Snoop Dogg is the greatest rapper of all time, but it's not ridiculous to examine whether or not he is a better rapper than, say, Eazy-E. Or, since I brought up Eazy-E, it wouldn't be ridiculous to debate the artistic merit of groups like N.W.A. compared to Public Enemy or Run-DMC. Narrowing down the debate allows for more conclusive results.
    So, I would like to take a moment to make an argument about the comparative merits of two unquestionably great rappers. The question is, between Tupac Shakur (a.k.a. 2Pac) and Christopher Wallace (a.k.a. The Notorious BIG), who is better?

    This is the holy grail of rap debates. There is no bigger question. It has been argued over and over for many years. It was debated intensely during the 90's, when East Coast/West Coast rivalry was at an all-time high. Bad Boy and Death Row (Biggie's and Tupac's record labels, respectively) fiercely competed with each other musically in a way that seems downright savage compared to the subdued, highly commercialized, watered-down hip-hop that is produced today. While the rivalry between East Coast and West Coast hip-hop doesn't exist anymore, the Tupac vs. Notorious BIG debate has raged on over the years.
    Fans of The Notorious BIG argue that his flow was tighter than Tupac's. It's fair to say that Biggie's delivery was definitely better than Tupac's, and it's also fair to say that Biggie was a more imaginative lyricist. Posthumously, Tupac's albums have outsold Biggie's by a huge margin, but during their feud Biggie was more commercially successful, and he lived a more glamorous lifestyle, which was definitely attractive to hip-hop fans. Biggie had all kinds of swagger and confidence, and his music was about the pursuit of wealth and power. The Notorious BIG was the very personification of all things cool back in the mid-90's. Songs like "Hypnotize Me" and "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems" were just so damn COOL, and his delivery was smooth and effortless.
    If Biggie was the personification of cool, then Tupac was the personification of anger and urban desperation. He thought deeper than Biggie, and explored more substantial themes. Biggie was a larger-than-life figure, and he liked it that way. He was the Big Poppa, and the majority of his music emphasized this persona that he worked tirelessly to promote. On the other hand, Tupac preferred to allow the listener to see how deeply human he was, and welcomed us in to his insecurities without shame or reservation (he did this repeatedly, but he probably did it best, or at least most memorably, on "Dear Mama"). At the same time, this deeply human guy could eviscerate an opponent lyrically, a skill he demonstrated with unparalleled effectiveness, rage, and passion in the legendary Bad Boy diss song "Hit 'Em Up" back in 1996.
    So, who was better? I'm going to say Tupac. I think that the bottom line in this debate is that hip-hop is supposed to be rooted in urban reality, and nobody was more sincere and transparent than Tupac. His songwriting was amazing, but it's not his skill as a songwriter that made him so great. What made him great was a combination of honesty and versatility. Those qualities are what separate him from Biggie. Biggie was amazing, but he was not multi-dimensional like Tupac. You can only rap about money and bitches for so long before it gets repetitive, and Biggie was limited when it came to stepping outside of his lyrical comfort zone. Attempts at Tupac-like self-reflection (on a track like "Suicidal Thoughts", for example) seem forced and uncomfortable. Meanwhile, Tupac was just as comfortable rapping about violence as he was rapping about social movement ("Changes"), teen pregnancy ("Brenda's Got A Baby"), or the cyclical nature of doomed urban youth falling into criminal activity ("Shorty Wanna Be A Thug"). Tupac also radically differed from the majority of rappers (and I mean ALL rappers, even today) when he released the song "Keep Ya' Head Up" in an attempt to advance the role of women in rap music.
    To me, great artists enhance our understanding of the world, offering an enhanced perspective on humanity. By that definition, Tupac was a transcendent rapper, and a true artist. Biggie never really gave a shit about inspiring social change. Biggie was a professional rapper, and Bad Boy was all about money. While it would be stupid to say that Tupac didn't perform or write for money, I have a hard time believing that money was Tupac's primary motivation. Tupac wasn't as gifted as Biggie, and he chose to work on developing his talent while also exploring himself in his music. Tupac could have made more money rapping exclusively about the kind of stuff Biggie rapped about, but doing so would have greatly diminished Tupac's artistic credibility.
    So, there you have it. By the way, before you start thinking that I'm some kind of Tupac loyalist, I just want to go ahead and say that he is not my favorite rapper. He's definitely in my top ten, but he's not my favorite, and I wouldn't say that he's the greatest of all time. He's just better than Biggie. Definitively.

News Break: Doggy Style

    Occasionally, I miss my old home in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Sometimes I miss the slower pace of southern living. So, today I was reading some news, and I came across a story that took place near where I used to live.
    Ray Lynn Mitcham Jr. was arrested after his neighbor spotted him having sex with her dog. You see, what happened was, Mitcham's neighbor (who is also his landlord) opened the door to Mitcham's trailer (I'm sure you're as surprised as I was to hear that a trailer was somehow involved) and spotted him attacking her dog.  The shepherd-lab mix was brought to the Cumberland County Animal Control center, where a DNA sample, which matched Mitcham's DNA, was retrieved from the dog.

Pictured: Ray Lynn Mitcham Jr., who looks exactly like a dog rapist.

    Dr. John Lauby, who is the animal control center's director, said that he doesn't think that the dog will have any negative psychological effects from this experience. Lauby told reporters, "With dogs, the dominant animal breeds with the others, so I don't think there will be psychological damage."
    When I read the headline on this story, I was shocked. Then, after reading the story for a second, I saw that this went down in Cumberland County, NC, and I was actually the exact opposite of surprised. There's a reason I moved back to California.

Thug Life: The Amish

    Sleep soundly, America. Justice has been served. The wrong has been made right. In Mayfield County, Kentucky, Judge Deborah Crooks lowered the hammer on ten of the most hardened criminals in recent history. The reason these criminals were so hardened was because they don't believe in using modern farming equipment, so they raise they crops using a combination of comically outdated technology and hard manual labor. Of course, I am talking about the Amish.
    What was the crime? Churning in a no-churn zone? Public barn-raising? No. Get serious. This is some serious shit that I'm about to reveal to you... The Nefarious Ten, as these Amish guys have come to be known (on my blog, and nowhere else.), were sentenced to prison because they refused to pay some fines which were being imposed because they didn't put orange reflective triangles on their horse-drawn buggies.
    See? I told you! This is some serious shit! These bastards violated Kentucky's state traffic laws.

Pictured: Members of MWA (Mennonites With Attitude)

    Well, we can all be happy now that the citizens of Mayfield County, Kentucky can live free from the terrifying menace of these criminals, zipping around in their non-reflective buggies. 

    These were no ordinary Amish. Yes, there is such a thing as "ordinary" Amish. At least, there is when you compare the majority of Amish with the ultra-conservative Amish sect of Swartzentruber, which broke away from the mainstream Amish community. Apparently, most Amish folks were just too damn liberal for the Swartzentrubers. Yes, I do know what you are thinking. I'm thinking it, too. Swartzentruber IS a funny word. This is not the time to be focused on such things! There are serious legal issues that need to be discussed!

    The recently incarcerated Amish men based their legal argument around the defensive strategy of telling the Judge the truth about why they refused to pay the fines. They said that the bright orange signs violated their religious commitments to living simply. 

    Now, in other states this type of shit may work. Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania all have legal exemptions specifically for the Swartzentrubers when it comes to using reflectors on buggies. 

Not in Kentucky, you Anabaptist assholes. Take that weak shit somewhere else! Judge Crooks will lay the smack down on your wide-brimmed hat wearing asses! I looked at some statistics on the crime rates in Mayfield County, Ky. While their rates for murder, burglary, and rape are significantly higher than state and national averages, their judicial system is among the finest in the nation, because they have successfully put the most dangerous violators of all behind bars. You see, Mayfield county has had 57 (out of 89 state-wide) violations of the reflector-on-the-buggy law since 2007. 

    So, the next time you are feeling down about the state of the American legal system, remember this decision and cheer up. Sometimes, just sometimes, in this country... the system works.

The Appeal of Ron Paul

    Ron Paul took second place at the New Hampshire Republican primary. Second place. Um, I'm not exactly sure how to structure what I want to say, so I'm just going to dive right in and say: I don't understand.
    I'm sitting here this morning, trying really hard to figure out what the appeal is with a guy like Ron Paul. Yesterday I was driving in downtown San Diego, and I saw Ron Paul signs posted in windows and a banner hung up on an overpass. I didn't see any signs for Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman, or any other candidates. I know people who are Ron Paul supporters, and they are extremely devoted to this candidate. I remember during President Obama's campaign, there were a lot of wacko, undereducated, overly-devoted-without-understanding-why voters. A lot of people drank the Obama kool-aid without fully understanding who or what they were supporting, but the Obama zealots were nothing compared to the Ron Paul crowd.
    So, let's take a look at what has Paul's supporters so fired up. First of all, he's a libertarian. Or he's a republican. I'm not sure. He's running as a republican, but he says a lot of libertarian stuff. In case you aren't sure what libertarianism is, it's a political philosophy that says that isolationism, individualism, and, above all, human greed and self-preservation are the fundamental principles that should guide government.
    You may be saying, "Woah, now. Surely that's not what libertarianism is!" Or, if you are a libertarian, you may be saying, "Hey! That's not what I believe!" Well, allow me to look you directly in the eye and say, yes it is. Take a look at Ron Paul's political positions:
    Smaller government. Reducing the size of the federal government is a no-brainer. Everyone can agree that it's not just a good idea, but a necessity. The problem with Ron Paul is that the federal government (imperfectly) serves a lot of purposes, and it would hurt a lot of people if the government was suddenly and drastically decimated. Any rational person recognizes that many of the currently existing federal organizations are basically essential, and just destroying them would be counterproductive.
    Lower taxes. If you want to get elected, you have to promise to lower taxes. Um, I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but we are in debt. I mean, just a little bit. A little debt. It's cool, though. We can totally balance the budget and dig our way out of debt without tax revenue, right? Also, tax dollars do, in reality, help people. Do politicians fuck up in determining how tax dollars should be allocated? Of course. The government is imperfect...because it's run by human beings who are elected by morons like us. We The People are to blame. We The People dug the hole, and we (collectively) should have to pay for it. It sucks, but that's the way it is. It is morally irresponsible for politicians to promise (and sometimes deliver!) ridiculous shit that appeals to the selfish asshole in all of us. There is no politician today who has the integrity or character to stand up and demand that America act responsibly or be held accountable for years of failed, irresponsible policies. Ron Paul is no exception. His economic policies are an appeal to people who care only about themselves, and only in the most short-sighted way possible.
    By the way, his proposed raises to the national sales tax would seriously harm lower- and middle-class citizens. He wants to abolish income tax, and raise the hell out of sales tax. Like, from 9% to 25%. Think about everything that you purchase being 15% more expensive all of a sudden, but not having to pay income tax... it doesn't seem that bad, until you realize how staggeringly unfair that is. Millionaires (like Ron Paul) don't have to pay tax on their huge incomes, and you are going to pick up the slack by paying more for EVERYTHING.
    The All-Powerful Free Market! Libertarianism loves The Free Market! Unrestrained capitalism is the religion of the libertarian. Make money, yo. That's the bottom line. Ron Paul believes that The Free Market will regulate itself, which is so obvious you guys. I mean, just look at Wall Street. Those dudes have their shit completely figured out. Everyone knows that the pursuit of the dollar is the highest form of good, and that business owners will always act responsibly. Ron Paul doesn't think that evolution is a valid scientific theory (seriously.), but he believes that, economically speaking, survival of the fittest is the way to go. It's not like people's lives are affected by corporate greed.
    So, while the corporations run shit, taxes are low, and the federal government is powerless to intervene... LET'S GIVE EVERYONE SOME MUTHAFUCKIN' GUNZ!!! Ron Paul is pretty much opposed to all forms of gun control. So, that's interesting. I really enjoy shooting. I think that it's fun to go to a range and have fun with some guns, but it would be extremely stupid for me to go "I enjoy guns, so they should be legal for everyone to have" like Ron Paul or the NRA crowd. I'm not everyone, and even if I can responsibly own weapons, that doesn't mean that EVERYONE can. I mean, DUH.
    Ron Paul talks about personal freedom a lot. He has spoken about how he thinks that heroin and prostitution should be legal, because in his mind no rational person would just run out and take a bunch of drugs and indiscriminately bang prostitutes. Good thing everyone is rational and good-natured. In Ron Paul's imaginary Leave It To Beaver version of America, everything is legal (except abortion), the government is tiny, and people don't do drugs... well, just because.
    Finally, Ron Paul's foreign policies can best be summed up in one statement: If you aren't America, then you can go fuck yourself. He is against all foreign aid. He doesn't believe that we should be worried about anything that is happening outside of our borders.
    So, to recap, if you... don't directly need the federal government to help you with anything, hate paying taxes, think that guys like Bernie Madoff are admirable free-market opportunists, want to expand your arsenal of assault weapons, and would enjoy unrestricted access to drugs and whores, then RON PAUL IS THE CANDIDATE FOR YOU.
    Seriously, America? Seriously, New Hampshire voters? Seriously? This guy? Glenn Beck said yesterday that this guy is a "solid" candidate, but that Ron Paul is damaged by his "crazy" supporters. Glenn Beck said that. The guy who says that he is sick of hearing 9/11 victims "complaining" and that President Obama is a racist. The conspiracy theorist who thinks that Obama funding stem cell research is the same as Hitler exterminating Jews in an attempt to create a master race. That guy thinks that (1.) Ron Paul is a "solid" candidate, and (2.) Ron Paul's supporters are crazy.
    We're in trouble, America. If we can't get beyond the pursuit of our own selfish interests and start looking into the collective welfare of our nation, we are in for some very rough years in the near future.

19 Kids and What The Hell Is Going On?

    In my last blog, which was about how Rick Santorum (and the rest of the GOP presidential hopefuls) is a huge asshole, I briefly mentioned the Duggar family. In case you aren't aware of who/what the Duggar family is, allow me to summarize. The Duggars are a family from Arkansas that has 19 children, as well as a successful reality television program. They are known for being fundamentalist christians, who home-school their children, and they have become icons in the conservative christian community.
    The reason why you should care about the Duggars is because there are literally millions of people in our country who don't think that the Duggars are insane, morally corrupt, dangerous people who are harming their children. The things that fundamentalists like the Duggars believe are alarming, and should inspire moral outrage. Any sensible person would look at this television show, or hear Jim Bob (the patriarch of the bunch, and, yes, that is his real name) and Michelle (the one who has pushed nineteen babies out of her vagina) on any number of radio and television appearances, and be legitimately concerned. They are a shining example of the weird, radical beliefs of fundamentalists.
 
    The "Quiverfull" Movement: This is a movement that is, amazingly, gaining popularity among evangelical christians. Simply put, it is the belief that children are a "blessing" from god, so the use of contraception of any kind is a sin, because it is a rejection of a gift from god. Family planning, or limiting the size of your family in any way, would be considered wrong under this dogma. This is what the Duggars believe. They look at the biblical statement to "be fruitful and multiply" as a commandment that is non-negotiable. This is not uncommon in evangelical churches.
    The whole "Quiverfull" thing is really just an extension of providentialism, which is an old fundamentalist christian school of thought which believes that god's will is perfect, and is in action at all times.
    Here's a scenario. Imagine a family that already has ten children. The wife isn't allowed to work, because it is the man's responsibility (biblically) to provide income, so they are getting by on one income. Let's say that these folks don't have a lucrative contract with TLC for a reality TV show, so times are hard. Now let's say that this woman is in her mid-40s, and gets pregnant again, but because of her age (and other health factors that a woman who has already had ten kids may have to deal with) she has serious complications, and may not survive the pregnancy. Oh, by the way, all of the kids are homeschooled, because (according to these types of fundamentalist christians) that is what god commands. Providentialism would explain this whole scenario as the will of god, and if this lady dies and her baby dies and her kids are suddenly left without a mother to raise/teach them, then it's just what was supposed to happen. It's all good. Or, if she does survive, and the baby survives, then that is also the will of god, and it's her responsibility to keep cranking out babies until she is either dead or physically unable to do so. This is what these people believe.

    Homeschooling: Like any good fundamentalist christian family, the Duggars homeschool their kids. Approximately 1.5 million American children are homeschooled. According to the Department of Education's polling data, "providing religious or moral" instruction is the leading cause of homeschooling. It is a national movement, primarily among religious fundamentalists, and it has grown at a rate of 7% over the last decade.
    Parents, if you decide to homeschool your child, you are doing them a tremendous disservice. I have experienced homeschooling firsthand, as did my brother and many of my friends, and I can tell you that it is absolutely not a reasonable alternative to traditional public or private education. The negative social effects that homeschooled children are subjected to are often debilitating and have long-term implications.
    A recent Washington Post article claimed that a study showed how 1500 homeschooled children outperformed public school kids averages on standardized tests, which is exactly what homeschooling parents want you to see. Obviously, this is a ridiculous article, and the numbers are misleading. You probably already recognize this, but let me just say... ALL of the kids who go to public schools are required to take standardized tests. The kids who represented the homeschooling community were hand-selected by their parents, who volunteered their children to take the tests. Homeschooled kids are NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE STANDARDIZED TESTS. Legal groups like HSLDA work very hard to keep homeschoolers free from government regulation, which means that hundreds of thousands of children are receiving educations from their parents (who probably aren't qualified to teach, especially when compared to the standards of education which are mandatory to be a teacher who works for public or most private schools). Anyways, the bottom line is that the statistics are incredibly misleading.
    Also, it's pretty important to point out one little thing - LIFE IS NOT A FUCKING STANDARDIZED TEST. Standardized tests aren't an indicator of intelligence, as anyone who has ever taken a standardized test can tell you.
    For some reason, in our country the homeschooling movement is gaining popularity (I wonder if it is growing at the same rate as the Quiverfull movement?), and nobody seems alarmed about this. Nobody wants to get out there and try to help out all of these poor children whose futures are being devastated by their well-meaning, but ultimately very wrong, parents.
    Some of these parents actually believe that their children will be able to transition to college. Does anyone believe that a child whose kitchen table was his only classroom, and whose mother was his only teacher, will be able to excel in any kind of serious university? Actually, it's not always mom who is doing the teaching, which leads me to...

    Buddy-System Parenting: You may be reading this article and saying, how the hell can one woman (or one couple) effectively raise nineteen children? Well, the thing is, they can't. They know this, which is why the Duggars (like many other fundamentalist families) practice buddy-system parenting. The older kids are matched up with younger kids, and responsibilities which would traditionally belong to mom and dad get sloughed off to kids who are forced to raise their siblings. If you can stomach it, watch some episodes of "19 Kids and Counting" and you'll see what I mean. Even in the homeschooling, the older kids (who aren't out of school yet, and have their own educations to worry about) share in the responsibility of "teaching" their younger siblings.

    There's more. The restrictive censorship of the kids, the weird dress codes that are enforced, forcing the older kids to practice "chaperoned courtship" instead of more traditional dating... the list goes on. Now, this is America, where parents are allowed to raise their children as they see fit, which is incredibly fucking stupid and shortsighted. There is no kind of prerequisite or testing progress which determined the fitness of a person when it comes to parenting. You can't drive a car in this country without being tested first, but you can bring a person into the world and be completely responsible for their welfare just because you convinced some other dumbass to have sex with you. I don't believe that the government should control people, but there has to be some kind of oversight when it comes to widespread practices that harm children. Homeschooling needs to be strictly regulated, and parents must be held accountable. Domestic violence and sexual abuse are not the only forms of child abuse. When parents place their superstitious, fundamentalist, primitive beliefs ahead of common sense, and start to take opportunities away from their children, or limit their growth, it is a form of abuse. It's a lesser form, but it is still abuse. Homeschooling is only one example. There are many, many practices that are common in the fundamentalist community that damage people of all ages.
    The Duggars have chosen to be a high-profile fundamentalist family, and they are taking advantage of their freakshow status. It's troublesome that America can tune in and watch the Duggars, or the Amish, or toddler pageant queens and their disgusting parents, or morbidly obese people, or "Hoarders", or "Interventions", and just chalk it up to entertainment. The freakshow is happening in your backyard, and real people are in real trouble because of the spread of certain insidious attitudes and ideologies.

Politics: "Holy" Shit

   So, I scan the news periodically throughout the day. On most days, I glance at headlines every few hours. I like staying somewhat informed, especially when it comes to national politics. Lately I have seen presidential hopeful Rick Santorum in the news on a regular basis, and it seems like every time I see his name it is in an article referring to his stance on one particular, urgent issue. Here are some sample headlines:

"Santorum: I Would Still Love My Son If He Were Gay" - NBC News

"Santorum Says Gay Parents Are Worse Than Convicts"- Advocate.com

"Santorum Says Gay Acts Threat To American Family" - USA Today

"Santorum Tangles With Voters Over Gay Marriage" - LA Times

"Santorum Taking Heat On Gay Rights, Abortion" - Washington Post

   There are more, but you get the idea. I'm sure that Mr. Santorum has plenty of other social issues on his radar, but it seems like lately I'm hearing primarily about his stance on gay rights. Now, whether I agree with Santorum about gay rights or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that this man wants to occupy the Oval Office, and instead of offering up solutions to the problems that plague our nation (and, by extension, the world), he's spending a disproportionate amount of time thinking about gay people, which is weird and kind of creepy. I don't understand the conservative fascination with homosexuality. As a straight man, I don't spend a ton of time thinking about gay sex. I actually would suggest that the conservative voters who are supportive of a guy like Santorum probably think about gay sex more than your average homosexual does. They're fascinated by it. It's all they want to talk about. That, and abortion. These are hot-button issues that determine how vast amounts of people are going to vote in the upcoming election. This is what troubles me. It freaks me out.
   Santorum, who received the coveted endorsement from the Duggar family on January 2nd, is running as the "Jesus" candidate. Jim Bob Duggar, proud owner of two first names and nineteen (holy shit!) children, said "All the people in America that have conservative family values have to get behind Rick Santorum for president," at a rally in Polk City, Iowa. 

   According to ABCNews.com, at a rally in New Hampshire last Thursday, Santorum addressed an audience member who was suggesting (during a Q&A session at the end of the rally, which was sponsored by the 9/12 Project, a Tea Party group) that "we don't need a Jesus candidate, we need an economic candidate" by saying "We always need a Jesus candidate."
   Santorum went on to say, "We need someone who believes in something more than themselves and not just the economy. When we say, ‘God bless America,’ do we mean it or do we just say it?” These statements from Santorum didn't address the audience member's concerns about the economy, but redirected the topic from practical, tangible problems to the more abstract, intangible realm of religious politicking. Santorum doesn't care about the real-world economic problems that are devastating our country. He cares about getting elected, so that he can impose his radical fundamentalist worldview from a position of great power. 
   So, let's think about what a "Jesus Candidate" means in today's political climate. The first guy to really court the conservative christian base was probably Richard Nixon. While he was vice-president under Eisenhower, Nixon formed an alliance with Rev. Billy Graham, who campaigned for him in the 1968 election. Nixon saw the opportunity to increase his supporters, and Graham sought to align himself (and the evangelical movement) with the most powerful man in the country in an attempt to advance his religious ministry. To be completely fair, Graham later publicly addressed his feelings of remorse for his partnership with Nixon, but continued to served as a bipartisan advisor to future presidents. By 1981, Graham stated "The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." 
   Still, partnership with conservative politicians has remained the strategy of guys like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren. The name of Jesus is used to manipulate ignorant voters, for the dual purpose of advancing corrupt politicians and equally corrupt religious leaders. 
   As conservative politicians continue to throw around the label "christian" and guys like Rick Santorum -as the "Jesus candidate"- offer themselves up as messiah figures, the actual policies that they promote are rooted in philosophy that stands in opposition to the values espoused in the teachings of Jesus, who, I am told, was a major Christian figure.
   Jesus saw all human life as sacred and went out of his way to heal the sick, regardless of age, religious background, gender... considered the care of the sick and the poor to be a moral imperative. He also advocated peaceful conflict resolution, suggesting "turning the other cheek" as an alternative to violence. Lastly, when a group of people were planning on stoning a woman, Jesus put an end to their judgmental condemnation of the offender by saying, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). 
   Keep these things in mind the next time you hear a "Jesus candidate" speaking. Look beyond the bullshit and the rhetoric and try to discern whether or not they are actually advocating biblical principles or if they are appealing to racism, selfishness, and xenophobia among the conservative base. 
   Right now the most candidates who are trying to out-Jesus each other are Santorum (Catholic), Bachmann (Evangelical with dominionist views), Perry (Methodist), and Huntsman (Mormon). These guys are battling for the vote of the uneducated, uninformed, "issues" voters. 
   The remaining candidates play the game, just not as aggressively. You can't be a GOP candidate nowadays without some kind of religious affiliation. Newt Gingrich, for example, was raised in a Lutheran family, but when he entered politics he began to hang out with Southern Baptists, eventually becoming one. However, his third wife is Catholic, and after he met the Pope in 2008, Gingrich said, "the joyful and radiating presence of the Holy Father was a moment of confirmation about the many things I have been thinking and experiencing over the last several years" and he converted to Catholicism the same day. Ron Paul is a Lutheran, but his real religion is self-indulgent capitalism. Finally, there is Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon. Romney doesn't play the religious game as much as the other candidates, preferring to remain somewhat vague on what "Christian" values mean to him. 
   I get the feeling that Romney knows that his religious beliefs are kind of weird, and I like how he makes statements like this: (Comparing himself to JFK) "Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because he believes in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them, and to my beliefs."
   What a politician. I love it. He knows how to play a crowd. He also has said, "No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
   Mitt doesn't believe that. He knows better. It's a severely patronizing thing to say. As a Mormon, Mitt Romney doesn't give a shit about the prayers of Muslims or Buddhists or anyone else. If he is an authentic Mormon, he believes that non-believers are going to burn in hell. He believes that their prayers are meaningless, offered up to false, nonexistent deities. Romney knows that he would be unelectable if he were to publicly state this... although he has gone on record many, many times in calling himself a Mormon... which is basically the same thing... but the voters still think that he respects them... whatever. 
   Romney is harmless. At his core, he is an opportunist and a politician. He's a competitor, and if he were elected president, he would probably do a fantastic job, because he's a businessman, a natural manager and problem-solver, and, above all, he would want to get re-elected. 
   On the other hand, we have a guy like Santorum. I don't hate the guy. I just resent his existence on the national stage. He is not a statesman. He is either a stupid crackpot, or something much worse. He could be a sinister figure, attempting to take advantage of widespread ignorance among the voters, saying outlandish things to motivate and frighten simple-minded people. He has repeatedly said that the laws of America are important, but that they are secondary in nature to "God's laws" and that our legal system needs to be aligned with "higher" laws. As the self-described "Jesus candidate", Santorum has already demonstrated his religious exclusionary beliefs. He doesn't think that America needs a Mohammed candidate, or a Moses candidate, or a Buddha candidate. When he refers to "God's laws" he is specifically referring to the God that the guys in the Vatican believe in. He is all about that God, and only that one. What he suggests is absolutely the same as the religious tyranny imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and he is only a few points behind Romney and Paul in the polls. 
   Dean Obeidallah, on CNN.com writes:
"Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum. One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law -- called Sharia law -- upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the "creeping" influence of Muslim law."
   Obeidallah goes on to hypothesize on what a nation under Santorum's leadership may look like.
"So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum's Sharia law?

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist's child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge, authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president."

   It is time for America to stop holding on to ridiculous, superstitious belief systems when it comes to choosing elected officials. Many of the GOP candidates are running on platforms that would seriously harm people, and it is somehow okay because they are doing so in the name of "Christianity". 
   Wake up, people. 

The Semi-Triumphant Return Of A Guy Nobody Missed

A new year has come stumbling over the horizon... and with the new year, I have resolved to turn over a new leaf in my relationship with you, the reader of blogs. Really, I've redefined my relationship with myself, as a writer of blogs. I want to write more honestly. I want to bare more of myself in a more unapolagetic way. I want to remove any filters that exist between my mind and my fingers. Due to an overdeveloped sense of self-importance, I have come to believe that my ideas are powerful, and that my worldview is enlightened and worth spreading around.

Last year, over a four-month period, I experimented with a progressive blog. It was a liberating and educational exercise, and this new blog is the next evolution in my development as a writer. I was too limited in my "liberal" blog, and the political commentary that I was trying to create. This blog is not political, except for when it is. I'm not going to limit what or who I write about anymore. If I want to write about what a colossal hypocritcal asshole a guy like Rick Santorum is, then I'll do it. If I feel like writing about the reasons why I think Wife Swap is hands-down the best thing on television, then I'll write about that. Sports, entertainment, literature, current events, social trends, it's all happening, people.

Do I expect you to care? Hell yeah, I do. The way I look at the world is awesome. I'm ridiculously smart, and I am knowledgable about a weird variety of things. I retain strange information, and I want to share this odd catalogue of information with you, dear reader.

This introduction is for you, and for me. I'm attempting to simultaneously clarify and broaden my vision for what this blog can be. I want to develop a relationship with you, the online community. I have a deep, profound respect for you. I appreciate the honesty that exists on the Internet, in various forums. I want feedback. I welcome comments from all people. I will make outrageous statements, but never for any purpose other than honesty. This blog exists as a representation and an extension of my mind. I hope you enjoy it. I hope that you find it to be entertaining... but above all, I hope it challenges you and makes you think.