Showing posts with label Entries by Lauren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Entries by Lauren. Show all posts

Thursday, April 30, 2009

A Fun Rant about Conservatives: A Great Excuse for a Research Paper by Lauren Lane

I had to write this for my Art History of Graphic and Applied Design Class, and I thought I would share. It was super fun to write! I'll let you all know what kind of grade I get! The topic we were supposed to write on was "The propaganda of traditional values in contemporary visual communication as a result of the current political climate" and he wanted us to write as if we were writing him a letter or talking to him. I think I did ok...

Whenever I read the topics for the research paper, I nearly squealed in delight. You see, I have what one would call, oh, I don’t know, an intense loathing of all things conservative. These strict ‘moral’ people continue to shock and anger me on a daily basis. There seems to be no end to their vortex of stupidity.

However, in many cases, I am more than content to blast apart their unsteady arguments that they push forth like screaming toddlers before nap time. So getting to write this paper for class about their rather mindless propaganda of their traditional values in contemporary design only gives me an excuse to feed the fire and spend even more time on the internet getting angry over the blatant piles of stupid I trip over. Let’s look at a few favorites, shall we?

The first type of propaganda I would like to discuss is the most recent commercial, and now youtube video phenomenon, to have hit the mainstream media about anti-gay marriage. Put forth by the National Organization of Marriage (or NOM…I’ll let that one sink in), this video claims that “a storm is coming, are we ready?” As individuals with rather sullen looking faces are telling the camera that “they are afraid” for us heathen liberals have taken the issue of same sex marriage “far beyond same sex couples.” One such individual goes as far as saying that they believe their “freedom will be taken away” and that “they will have no choice.” Yeah…what?

Anyone with half a brain can instantly see this is a load of complete bullcrap. It has become clear that, due to the current political climate turning continually more liberal out of both necessity and common sense, conservatives are becoming more and more nervous human beings. This seems to be causing them to lash out with any and all available resources with blatant disregard for rationale, logic, and honesty for they innately fear change and progress.

To endorse and implement gay marriage would happily and rightfully end in the redefinition of the basic family values that conservatives hold dear. Husband? Wife? Mother? Father? Male? Female? All going to change, but rightfully so and for the better. Unfortunately, trying to tell that to anyone who is a conservative is like banging your head against a brick wall. Their heads are so far deep in the sand that all they can really make out is some muffled noises.

In a similar vein, I would like to talk about another attack against the homosexual lifestyle that has been fully supported by the right wing, the ‘ex-gay’ movement. Designed to make people feel as if being gay is an unfortunate temporary lapse in judgment and a voluntary, conscious decision, this is another type of hateful propaganda spread by the right wing.

Perhaps one of my favorite organizations to roll my eyes at is called NARTH, which stands for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Sexuality. It is here, with the creation of these types of organizations, that misleading propaganda reaches the tipping point of irony. This organization claims to “respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny” and yet squashes and belittles the rights of those who claim to be homosexual . How, exactly, is this respecting the rights of all individuals? It’s this kind of double speak that conservatives specialize in that I find rather infuriating. They never seem to know the difference. Or will admit to knowing the difference, anyway.

Furthermore, this type of propaganda is even more so disgusting in that it claims to have actual research to back up its rather false and antiquated declarations. The use of people with doctorates from the smallest and most religious of schools is an old tactic that has as yet to go out of style. For example, the article written on the NARTH website entitled “Homosexuality 101: What Every Therapist, Parent, And Homosexual Should Know” is written by Julie Harren, who has the fancy titles of P.H.D and LMFT behind her name. After some quick Google stalking, I can find nothing about to which university this woman gained her degree or where she is currently at work. It’s strange how they have not included to which institution of higher education she has come from. I mean, if her views and opinions are legitimate then you would want her pedigree easily accessible from all us nay-sayers, right?

The fact that conservatives will fight so dirtily only further proves how completely misguided they are. They have to either fabricate facts and figures or skew them laughably out of proportion to find even the smallest of foothold to stand upon.

As an additional attack on sexuality, conservatives like to spew out misinformation galore when it comes to abstinence-only education and its benefits. It is a well known fact that any and all religious organizations adamantly lobby for youngsters of all ages to please keep it in their pants until marriage. Because you suddenly become mentally and emotionally ready for such a thing once you are wearing a certain ring on a certain finger and have spent way too much money on pomp and circumstance to please both your parents and society. It’s true! (Please be sensing the blatant sarcasm, here.)

Organizations, such as Abstinence Clearinghouse (which is a ridiculously ironic name), Chastity Call, and Generation Life attempt to show the validity of abstinence through their rather large and horribly organized website layouts. For example, Chastity Call’s ‘A Real Woman’ poem claims that females are “Modest, pure and chaste… Understands chastity, Values her sexuality, Appreciates her fertility, Controls her passions and desires, Knows her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.”

Ok, ok, you’re going to have to give me a minute to stop giggling so much my sides hurt before I tear this faulty logic a new one…Alright, god-living aside, (for I could write you another research paper equally as long if not longer in support of atheism) this poem is so full of wrong it hurts my eyes.

Valuing people, especially women, on the basis of their sexual history is innately and severely damaging. What kind of message is this sending to let young people know that basically their entire worth is dependent upon the status of their no-no parts? This misdirected significance placed on their genitals is thoroughly antiquated and downright insulting to women everywhere. Ladies, are we not more than our lady parts? I know that I have a perfectly good brain over here. Anyone interested?

Also, this sad excuse for a poem asks women to basically suppress their physical urges, while at the same time asking them to value their sexuality. Umm...what? Do the makers of this propaganda not realize how confusing and contradictory they are being?

So, if I’ve got them right, I should love being sexual, but only when I’m supposed to when I’m married, and only if we’re doing it to have children. Right. These people don’t seem to understand that I am human and will have urges because, oh, guess what? They’re normal! Suppressing yourself and living in obtuse religious restraints is not normal. And what’s this stuff about my body being a temple for the holy spirit? Who is this guy/girl/thing? What the crap is he doing in my body without my knowing it? Is that a form of nonconsensual sex?

Yeah, well, I hate to break these people’s hopes, but it turns out that their, ahem, lovely poems, scary prom-gone-bad Purity Balls and abstinence pledges certainly aren’t winning anyone over or doing anyone any good. It turns out that “teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do” (Stein 1). So not only are the kids doing it, but if they say that they are saving it for Jesus, they are more likely to be unsafe about their reproductive health. I have one word for you, conservatives-FAIL.

Moving on, I mean, I wasn’t going to bring this up, but since we’re on the topic of women and their bodies, I might as well talk about it. Perhaps the most aggravating and sickening propaganda that the conservative right winger’s put out is information about the nature of abortions. Pro-lifers might as well be my sworn mortal enemy because I wish I could set them on fire with my eyeballs due to their disturbing lack of knowledge. You know, for people who seem to be fairly earnest and dedicated, you would think that they would at least research all of the information first, right? Wrong.

Conceivably the most ghastly tactic used to propagate misinformation about abortions by conservatives is the ‘bloody baby’ pictures. (I’d put one here in the paper for reference, but they are just too gross for sharing, even for academic purposes, really. But if you need to see what I am talking about, go to www.armyofgod.com and prepare to throw up in your mouth a little). Relying upon this kind of shocking visual as a crutch for your argument is pretty low in my book.

For the purposes of keeping this essay rather short, I’m just going to lay out the facts that republicans are more than likely to willfully ignore in order to stubbornly stay within their obsolete religious value system. One, a baby is not a baby until it has exited the womb. Two, yes, a fetus has the potential to become a human being, but so do a woman’s eggs and men’s sperm, and if you’re going to talk about how sacred a small collection of cells are, let’s not rule those out. Three, all evidence suggests that conscience is tied exclusively to a functioning brain, so no worries about losing a human soul-if they even exist. Four, having an abortion will not make women go crazy. Yes, they are going to be somewhat psychologically straining, but so is pushing a watermelon out of a hole the size of a quarter.

In the end, what it comes down to is that pro-choice wins. Abortion should be a viable option for any and all who should want and/or need it. This way, I can have it my way and you can have it yours. Even if I think your way is crazy.

I suppose it would be unfair of me to write a paper regarding the conservative wing’s use of propaganda to propel their traditional values in contemporary society without talking about every right winger’s favorite news channel, FOX News. Aptly dubbed ‘faux news’ to those in the know in more liberal circles, this twenty four hour news channel often times seems more like some sort of joke than it does actual news.

For example, let’s look at this whole ‘tea party’ phenomenon. Historically, tea parties were held in response to colonists being taxed on items, such as food, without having any representation in their presiding government across the Atlantic Ocean-The British. Settlers decided to quit being ignored and dumped a large amount of tea into the Boston Harbor as a mark of protest. No taxation without representation! Seems to be a fair and reasonable request, no?

Alright, now that we’re clear as to the history of the Boston Tea Party, we can move on to the newest incarnation that the likes of the FOX news community has brought to our attention. They, being the oh so clever little devils that they are, decided to throw their own little ‘tea party’ on tax day as a protest against the recent tax increases that Obama has implemented in order to stimulate the economy and work on stemming the already overflowing national deficit. Heck, they even had everyone’s favorite all-American man, Joe the Plumber out, to celebrate this recreation of a historical event that their beloved founding fathers did, and gosh darnit, they’re gonna do to.

But, that’s the thing. While the intentions of lowering or getting rid of taxes is the same between both events, that’s where the similarities end and the hilarity begins. These people all have representation. They are not being taxed against their wills and without any kind of voice to stand up for them in government like our forefathers, they have people they voted for in office!

To make matters worse, these tax increases that these teabaggers were protesting most likely didn’t affect them in the least. The modest (at best) tax increases that the president had implemented were to only affect those people who make more than $250,000 per year or big businesses (Tapper 1). Let me reiterate so I know that we are being perfectly crystal clear with one another. These tax increases, which prompted many working class families to protest in the form of mailing teabags to the White House and rally in the streets, were for people who make more than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. The average family makes about $46,000-$50,000 dollars a year. Yeah.

I can only speculate that, somehow, FAUX, I mean, FOX news was able to distort the facts so fully about the tax increases that it frightened a great many people into protesting something that they didn’t really understand. It is, without a doubt, deeply disturbing that such a great number of people are willing to digest what they see on news channels without a second thought. Having capitalized on this, FOX News is one of the biggest propaganda generators of our time. I kind of want to perform some kind of teabagging that I am not allowed to talk about in academic papers to the CEOs of FOX news, but I unfortunately lack a certain type of body organ to do so.

Isn’t is the job of journalists everywhere to remain true to the story at hand and present all the facts in a clear, fair, and balanced manner? I would argue that it is the role of news channels everywhere, regardless of affiliation, to present information in a truthful, accurate, and complete manner, something FOX news hasn’t done…well, ever, as far as I’m concerned.

OK, well, now that I am officially overly worked up from looking at all of the ridiculous piles of stupid that are permeating society due to right wingers, I need to go calm down before I end up setting something on fire. I think we can both safely say that conservatives are masters of misleading information in contemporary society. I don’t blame them for being scared, though, they rightfully should be. I will certainly leave not leave their inaccurate and faulty logic be, I plan on destroying it.


Saturday, April 25, 2009

Sarah Haskins fills the Jesus Shaped Hole in My Heart

I realized today that I haven't shared the wonder and absolute joy that is Sarah Haskins. She has a regular spot CurrentTV online every Thursday called 'Target Women' that usually makes me laugh so hard I shit my pants.

Gotta love those feminists who kill you with humor! Enjoy this week's episode:

Hannity Acends to New Heights of Douchebaggery

Check out the first couple minutes of this video. Hannity says that he is against torture, but for 'enhanced interrogation' (whatever the hell that is) and then offers to be water boarded for charity. What. A. Jackass.

Go Keith Olberman for totally handing Hannity his ass to him:


Friday, April 24, 2009

Miss America: An Epic Journey into the Unknown

So, I'm quite sure that you all have heard of this Miss California gay marriage thing that has been popping up everywhere as of late. And while I certainly do have a lot to say regarding gay marriage, right now there is only one thing on my mind:

Why the hell do beauty pageants still exist?!

Proponents of such moronic cattle calls really seem to rally under one point: that it gives scholarship money to young girls who would otherwise have no chance! OMG!

Apparently, these women are so spectacular that they can find the time to promote a platform of charity, be a part of a half dozen school organizations, hold down a job, and don't forget workin' the stairmaster for tight buns, keeping your hair nice for the boys, and having a big, fat, laser white smile and fake tan, but not so spectacular that they can't find other ways of paying for their education. More academic and meaninful ways. Right.

Just for shits and giggles, can we take a look at some of the contestants?





Nope! Doesn't look like they're trying to fit an idealized stereotype at all! Well thank goodness for that.

Anyway, being an extra special nerdy-type that I am, I decided to do a little research and see what, exactly, it takes to be Miss America. After all, for a place that advertises itself as being 'one of the nation's leading achievement programs and the world's largest provider of scholarship assistance for young women' you know that they are going to be all inclusive, right? Wrong. Check it out:

A Contestant Must:
  1. Be between the ages of 17-24 years of age. Must be a High School senior or graduate and no older than twenty-four (24) years of age on December 31, 2009 (for Miss Missouri 2009 / Miss America 2010.)
  2. Must reside in; be enrolled and attending classes on a full-time basis at an accredited college or university in; or be employed on a full-time basis for six months in the state in which the young woman plans to compete.
  3. Must be a citizen of the United States of America at the time she enters her first pageant.
  4. Additional Requirements:
  • Must have never been married.
  • Must have never been pregnant.
  • Must not be the adoptive parent of any child.
  • Must never have been convicted of any criminal offense.
  • Must not have criminal charges presently pending.
  • Must be in good health and can participate fully and without limitations in any Program activities.
  • Must not use or consume any illegal controlled substances or abuse the use of alcohol or other dangerous substances.
* See contestant contract for additional requirements.

Apparently you can be Miss America, but only if you fit the bill of a stereotypically 'good' young woman. Forget it if you've ever been preganant or are turning your life around after a substance abuse problem, sucks to be you! And apparently there are more requirements in the contest contract...who knows what they are. And what if you have taken custody of a younger sibling?

Ok, so, maybe the requirements aren't as outrageous or as far fetched as we'd all like to think. I mean, asking young women to conform to these ideals is small potatoes, right? Like, who doesn't, like, have, like, this perfect idealized existence? OMG! So let's say that your springy young non-pregger and non-substance abuse loving body makes it into this pageant. What kinds of things do you have to do to prove that you are fit to represent the "not-for-profit organization (also known as the Miss America Pageant, LOLZ) that has maintained a tradition for many decades of empowering young women to achieve their personal and professional goals, while providing a forum in which to express their opinions, talent and intelligence."

Phases of Competition:

1) Interview a.k.a 'Presentation and Community Achievement'

Alright, I see what they're doing here, they're seeing what these girls are all about. I can agree with there being some sort of interview to see if these girls got what it takes and are the upstanding, active, and intelligent people that they are said to be. Right on.

2) Talent a.k.a 'Artistic Expression'

Ok, so this is where the judges start to lose me a little. A talent portion? What for? Who cares if these girls can sing or tap dance? Isn't it about what's inside that counts? Actions speak louder than words? Plus, any kind of talent competition that only allows 'absolutely functional' props and bans talents 'involving safety hazards, such as fire batons, sword and/or knife twirling, bow and arrow skills' sounds really boring, anyhow.

3) Swim Suit a.k.a 'Lifestyle and Fitness'

Yeah...what? What the hell does my worth and integrity as a woman have to do with how well I look in a damned swimsuit? Does Sean Hannity have to look good in a swim suit to do his job well? How about Obama? Yeah, didn't think so. This is starting to be sexist, sexist shit.

4) Evening Wear a.k.a. 'Presence and Poise'

Once, again, what the HELL does looking good in evening wear have to do with empowering women?! How about asking them about public affairs? Relevant and controversial issues?

5) On Stage Question a.k.a. 'Knowledge and Understanding'

Well, ok, looks like the pageant people are attempting to be less superficial with this part. The questions are usually about a social issue-like binge drinking, so at least we're getting somewhere, here, but here's the thing: contestants are answering not for themselves but pandering to the judges to win. Straightforward and honest opintions will be hard to come by.

Well, there you have it. The Miss America Pageant in a nutshell. I can understand that these people are trying to give opportunities to young women...but there are much better ways to do so. What good can come from a place where one's personal worth is mostly based upon their outward appearance?

In a less eloquent way-fuck pageants.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Today Show Proves Stupidity Yet Again

Why is that every news show will give airtime to views that are obviously wrong and/or destructive? Even if they are trying to be fair and balanced, they are surely doing a crap job of it.

Go Jessica Valenti for not flat out kicking these bitches in the face!

Jay Smooth PWNS Miss California

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Some Common Logical Fallacies (a.k.a. How Religious People Argue a.k.a Stop Presenting Me with Shitty Arguments that You Expect Me to Take Seriously)

After my recent atheist post, many friends have asked me questions in private about my beliefs, many arguing poorly in defense of a god. I’ve compiled this list of the numerous logical fallacies presented to me time and time again in the defense of a god because I am sick of individually refuting them. Well constructed and sound arguments are the only ones that are going to change my mind, people, so read up and learn!


(Just so you know, this is going to be quite the extensive list; you really won’t hurt my feelings if you don’t read it all. And-thanks to JT Eberpants for helping me out. :D )



  • Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of their presented ideas.
    • Ex: OMG! You are just a mean, evil atheist who is going to hell because you don’t believe in Jayysus.
  • Argument from Omniscience: Saying that all people, everyone everywhere think or believe a certain thing.
    • Ex: Everyone believes something! (Orly? How can you support this claim o’ omniscient one? I submit that you cannot.)
  • Appeal to Tradition/Belief: Saying something is true or good because it has been done for many years/decades/centuries.
    • Ex: Christianity has been around since, like omg forevers! So it must be true! Also-My parents raised me to believe in god so it’s what I believe.
  • Appeal from Authority: Using the words of an ‘expert’ on the subject to add credibility to your claim.
    • Ex: Ben Stein believes in god and he’s, like, really smart!
  • Argumentum Ad Baculum: Presenting an argument that is based on a threat.
    • Ex: If you don’t believe in god you will burn forever in the fiery depths of hell with no marshmallows, sucka!
  • Appeal to Ignorance: Assuming that someone will accept your argument because there is no proof of the contrary.
    • Ex: Because there is no proof that God doesn’t exist, you should accept that he does.
  • Appeal to Pity: Trying to get the other side to feel sorry for you to get them to agree with you.
    • Ex: I have nothing but god in my life, I was a bad person before and now I am good because I have accepted my savior, therefore religion is credible.
  • The Bandwagon: Arguing that just because lots of people are doing it makes it right.
    • Ex: Like, hundreds of people believe in god, so there must be one!
  • Begging the Question: Demanding your audience accepts whatever conclusion you come to without any sort of support or evidence to your case.
    • Ex: Worshipping a god improves the morals of society. (What proof do you have, Mr./Miss jesuspants?)
  • Burden of Proof: When one argues for something and then forces their opponent to prove otherwise.
    • Ex: You think god doesn’t exist? Prove it! (Apparently atheists are always on trial for their beliefs so we have to be well read motherfuckers while everyone else can skip around happily ignorant.)
  • Circular Reasoning: Stating in your argument what you’re trying to prove.
    • Ex: God exists because the bible tells me so, the bible exists because god created it.
  • Confirmation Bias: When one who is presenting an argument purposefully ignores the evidence that does not support their cause.
    • Ex: People of religion who expound upon the powers of prayer based on a few cases where it happened to work out rather than the millions of other ways it has not.
  • Confusion as to Correlation=Causation (Or Cause/Effect): Assuming that because two factors are linked when there is no verifiable proof that they are.
    • Ex: Stalin was an atheist and look at all the bad shit he did. Therefore, all atheists must want to do bad shit. (This can also be called ‘guilt by association’-all atheists are like Stalin)
  • False Dilemma/Dichotomy: Presenting only two options, one of which must be true.
    • Ex: Either the universe came about by chance or by design. It didn't come about by chance. So, it must have come about by design.
  • Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion about a population using a sample that is not large enough.
    • Ex: That one atheist I met is a real jerk. All atheists must be jerks.
  • Non-Seqiutor: When a conclusion doesn’t follow what evidence has been presented.
    • Ex: We can't figure out how any natural process could account for the complexity of the human cell or whatever complex biological entity. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have put these parts together in the cell.
  • Middle Ground: Attempting to accept that the middle ground between two extreme ideas must be right simply because it is the middle.
    • Ex: Agnostics. (Suckers! Lol.)
  • Misleading Vividness: Allowing recent events to overshadow facts and evidence.
    • Ex: Person 1-I’ve been thinking about becoming an atheist. Person 2-What? No! Last week I talked to this atheist and they were really mean and spiteful and no one liked them at the church bake sale. Person 1-Oh! I guess I won’t, then.
  • Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming that because one thing happens after another that the two are linked.
    • Ex: After you prayed super hard for a pay raise at work for a couple weeks, you got one. Therefore, the power of prayer has been proven.
  • Poisoning the Well: A type of Ad Hominem fallacy, this is where someone spreads unfavorable information about a person (true or false) in order to discredit whatever they should say.
    • Ex: Don’t listen to them, they’re atheists! *Gasp!*
  • Red Herring: When an arguer will change the subject in order to divert attention from their crap argument.
    • Ex: God exists. You don’t think so? You’re a bad person! Look at all the bad stuff you do!
  • Reification Fallacy: When someone treats an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical, tangible entity.
    • Ex: God.
  • Relativist Fallacy: When a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for them for whatever reason.
    • Ex: Person 1-You’re claim that a god exists is unjustified, unsupported by any evidence, and riddled with logical fallacies, therefore I cannot accept it. Person 2-Well that may be true for you but it’s not for me.
  • Slippery Slope: Presenting a chain of events and assuming that one will inevitably lead to the other and so forth so you must accept a claim.
    • Ex: If you don’t believe in god, then you are a bad person, bad people go to hell, in hell you burn eternally, burning eternally sucks, so you should believe in god.
  • Special Pleading: Someone applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking themselves (or those they have special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.
    • Ex: I am a Catholic. I follow the bible, as do my peers because it is what we believe is right. I use birth control, though, because I am a pretty princess.
  • Straw Man Fallacy: To distort or misrepresent the arguments that you are trying to refute.
    • Ex: You want to spread Atheism do you? You realize that Pilt-Down Man was a fraud of paleontology, right? So atheism is built on a series of fallacies.
  • Two Wrongs Making Right: Justifying one’s actions because another has done the same.
    • Ex: How can you give me crap for criticizing my religion when you do the same? (This has no relevance to an argument, people.)
  • Weak/False Analogies: Comparing two things that aren’t really alike in all of the relevant respects.
    • Ex: Atheists and religious people are the same because they both believe something.


Well, there you go. Feel free to add some, because I know I missed some, or let me know if I got something wrong.



Oh, and, YOURMOM!

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Lauren's "Why I'm an atheist and stuff" rant:

I've promised a certain someone that I would write this (*ahem*, JT), so here I am, doin' it. I would like to preface my rant with a disclaimer: I like to use profanity, sarcasm, and cynicism whenever possible. Feel free to stop reading here if a well placed 'fuck' or 'bitch' is going to disturb.

Alright, down to business, first of all, I am, in fact, an atheist. No, I don't hate you. Or eat babies. Or have five STDs. Or eat babies with STDs. I just simply do not see a logical reason to believe that some being is living in the air/space/brainz of everything and everyone around us on top of dictating our silly little lives.

Overall, I see religion as a rather stupid part of society that needs to be outed along with sexism and racism (two things that the Bible advocates if you religious types would actually read the damned thing).

I'm just such a big fan of reason and logic. More evidence exists in support of there being no god, therefore I do not believe in it/she/he/turtle. I realize that society has not reached an exact conclusion scientifically, but I would wager that if certain types (BUSH) would let science frolic and run free we would be a lot closer to answering such a question.

The bible is also an overwhelming piece of shit. That's right, SHIT. Have you ever actually read the bible? There's more incest, violence, and prejudice in that thing than every rap video and video game combined. I prefer to just live a moral life because it makes me happy and feel good. I don't need a magical book telling me how to live. I get the feeling that if I did, I would never be truly happy because I'd always have to compare myself to some really fucked up standards. But, I suppose that is going to have to wait for a different post another day.

Listen, I can understand the need for comfort. It would be nice to think that out there somewhere is a big superman-type character who's got a plan for us all and is watching out for us. But that's such a weak way to live, it's like a metaphysical cop-out. Life is weird and crazy and unpredictable and you just gotta roll with the punches. Sometimes, life really fucking sucks. Other times, it rules. That's just how it goes. Admitting that you're alone is hard, but extremely freeing. You realize just how strong you are, I know I did. I'm ten tons of awesome.

So, if you got this far in my note you're either 1) Really pissed at me and planning on waging a comment attack below before de-friending me, 2) Amused but unsure that it's such a good idea to take such a strong stance or this issue, or 3) Right along with me.

To those in category one, well...fuck you. I just thought I would get that out of the way. See, every time I argue with a Christian, they say that they are more than willing to accept other points of view and keep an open mind during conversation, but always seem to go back on their word. So, if you planned on writing a large expose on why I should accept Jesus Christ as my savior please kindly fuck the hell off. I have made a solid decision based on lots of introspection and thought. Can you say the same about your choice in religion?

Now, that isn't to say my mind can't be changed. I say that if you are absolutely sure that you have certifiable evidence of a higher power, by all means, present it to me and send my atheist ass back to the congregation. I think here you will find the glaring difference between atheists and religious-types. I am more than willing to change my mind if given the evidence. Right now, as it stands, there's more on the 'no god, sorry, try again' side that the 'do this or god will surely smite thee' side.

Category two, it would do you well to grow a set of balls. I urge you to think through the arguments, do the research, and come up with a solution that works well for you and defend it. I think I can confidently say that I already know which side you are going to end up on. Mine! So do me a favor and convert yourself so I don't have to come over there and beat some sense into you.

Category three, right on! *High five*

So, there you have it, some rather basic arguments as to why I don't believe in god and consider myself to be an atheist. Have a lovely day!

Friday, January 2, 2009

Too Bad the Holidays are over

I can totally think of a few people who need this Sarah Palin toilet paper.

Or a John McCain punching bag.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

PraiseMoves-The Christian Alternative to Yoga

Yeah, this thing really exists.

*sigh*


------EDIT------

I fixed the stupid link. Enjoy the crazy!

-----END EDIT-----

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Parrenting FTW

Have you heard about the parents who are seeking legal action against a supermarket because they refused to write out their child's full name on his birthday cake? Did I mention the kid's name is Adolf Hitler Campbell?

Seriously. I couldn't make this shit up.

Oh, and he has two sisters. JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. How charming.

Craigslist Shenanigans

Lately, there have been some pretty stellar best-ofs on the craigslist website, so I thought that I would share them with you:

"Room for Rent -- Inauguration Day/ObamaCon 2009
Date: 2008-11-11, 11:45AM EST


In a search of a room in DC so that you can spend Jan. 20 standing in the bitter winter cold with thousands of like-minded souls watching the historic transfer of power from one Harvard grad to another? Look no further.

Me: Heartless, greedy right-wing oppressive type looking to make a buck.

You: Obama's election was Christmas/your first kiss/May Day all wrapped into one. You dutifully wore his button -- which you have yet to remove -- contributed money to his campaign from your non-profit job and chanted "yes we can" as if it were the 11th commandment. A strange void now exists in your life and -- like an old hippie looking to recapture the spirit of Woodstock -- you are undertaking a pilgramage to Washington for one last gulp of the Kool-Aid.

Along with my bedroom you will have access to the house's many amenities including cable television (not that you watch much TV) for viewing Keith Olberman's latest unhinged rants and CNN in high-def. Wireless internet means that the Huffington Post and DailyKos are only a click away on your MacBook. American flags and other patriotic paraphernalia in the room can be removed upon request.

The house is located in the diverse neighborhood of Adams Morgan with people of many different skin pigmentations that will allow you to revel in your tolerance. Rest assured, however, that this diversity does not extend to ideology and that you are sure to march lock-step with the prevailing sentiment ensuring that your most strongly held beliefs remain unchallenged.

Easily accessible subway and bus stops will help ensure a minimal carbon footprint while fair trade coffee is never more than a few steps away at any number of independently-owned establishments. Nearby non-chain bookstores similarly mean that tomes such as Mao's Little Red Book, Chomsky's latest masterpiece or additional copies of The Audacity of Hope can be easily purchased either for yourself or as early holiday shopping.

Rather than state a price I am requesting that you bid on this fabulous opportunity to ensure profit maximization on my part so that I can better weather the Bush Recession."

And then there's this:

"Lost: My Right To Marry
Date: 2008-11-05, 6:36PM PST


I went to bed early last night and when I woke up, I discovered I'd lost my right to marry. It's pretty easy to recognize--four California Supreme Court justices spotted it several months back, although it took them a long damn time to finally find it. It's in like-new condition--I personally haven't had a chance to use it yet, and was really looking forward to the opportunity. A couple of my friends and family still have theirs, and even enjoy it so much they've used it several times. If you can find it for me, I'd really appreciate getting it back. I'm not sure, but I think the shady gang of thugs who stole it were heading for Utah or maybe Fresno, so please keep an eye out. Thanks."

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Twilight Can Lick My Proverbial Balls.

Ok, yeah, I know, this post is a few weeks late, but, hey, I'm in school and it gets default priority. Right after mayhem. Anyhow....

Twilight. This new literary 'sensation' that rivals Harry Potter is just so outrageously bad I think I'm going crazy because not a lot of other people have spoken up about it. So, here it is, my reasons for hating Twilight and all of its bullshit:

  1. This book has a bazillion religous undertones. Did you know that the author is Mormon? Well, now you do, and boy does it show within her work. For one thing, the looks and actions of the main female character, Bella Swan, just so happen to fit into the constraints of the author's religion. She has long hair, doesn't have premarital sex and/or sexual thoughts until after she is wed, cooks and cleans for her apparently incompetent father, and is the epitome of your stereotypical housewife/good little girl which brings me to my next point:
  2. Bella sets an abominable example for young girls with her stereotypical and mostly anitfeminist actions and views. She constantly has to be taken care of by her male counterparts unless those actions happen to be cooking and cleaning, that stuff she can handle because of her innate delicate inner female nature. Well screw that, I say, let the girl freakin' fight for herself every once in a while, have her stupid Dad learn to cook a few things to break these characters from your normal gender roles and shake things the hell up. Plus, I am a hardcore feminist and to see that Bella couldn't really stand up for herself was frustrating to read. Women are very capable creatures.
  3. This story also greatly emphasizes physical beauty. I mean, I know that this is a vampire story and that they are supposed to be beautiful, but I swear to all that you find holy if I hear about how goddamned gorgeous whatshisnuts (Edward) is one more freaking time I am going to sock the first pretty boy I see on the street in the face. I really wish that there would have been less description of his 'golden eyes' and 'marbled physique' and more about his personality and thought processes. I am pretty sure that, if you cut out all the extraneous 'Oh my god you are so pretty *drool*' portions of the book, it would cut the books in half length-wise. We get that he is easy on the eyes, now let's move the hell on and get some action up in this bitch.
  4. This book supports rather unhealthy relationships. Bells sees Edward once, and BAM! She is hooked like a junkie on heroin, no questions asked. What about actually getting to know someone? It's like she just sees this really pretty boy and that's it, that's all she needs for a fulfilling relationship. Well, I've got sour news for you chum, it takes more than a pretty face to make a relationship work. And what about the obsessive stalking that Edward does? The obvious neglect and abuse suffered? Do we really want teenaged girls to seek out this glorified emotional dependence? I've got some news for you all out there who can't get enough of this 'love story.' Someone who loves you will not just up and leave your ass for whatever reason without an explanation. Someone who loves you will not stalk your butt at all hours of the day, even when you are sleeping. Someone who loves you will communicate everything, no matter how shitty, so that you can both work it out. Edward and Bella are two dumb teenagers who haven't even begun to learn what love is or can be.
  5. Sex. The sex thing bothers me. It's like Bella and Edward are asexual beings up until they get married. Then they just can't get enough of each other's goods. Someone please point out some other couple in the history of time in their teenage years that was able to have such self-restraint and innocence for a few weeks, nevermind a few years. Even Romeo and Juliet got it on! Now, I'm not saying that the book should be overrun by hormonal teenagers, but I felt as if I was reading nothing, absolutley nothing about the physical attraction these two had for eachother (minus the 'omgz you are so pretty *droool* shit) up until they got hitched. Then it was a free-for-all junkfest. That shit is just not normal. Again, what kind of example is this setting for youngsters and how realistic is this premise? Refuckingdiculous, I say.
So, there you have it, a few reasons why I hate these goddamned books and everything that comes with it. Sure, I am a chick and I have been known to like a good romantic story every once and a while but this book just has so many blatantly unfeminist aspects I find it rather repulsive and hard to stomach.

What about you? Do you like Twilight? *eyes narrow*

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Whopper Virgins

Am I the only one who thinks that BK's new ad campaign is outrageously exploitative and racist as hell?

The have these people (dressed as 'native' as possible, of course) eat a whopper and a big mac to see which one they like better. I can't help but think this is just a bit fucked up. I mean, going out and seeking normal Americans who haven't tasted either burger seems more acceptable to me, but to go out and find people that are obviously foreign and clueless to use as a gimmick seems rather heartless. Do these people realize they are being used for a stupid ad campaign? Are they OK with that?

It is entirely possible that I am just being overly sensitive here, but I can't help but feel as if it's innately wrong to use these people as a ploy. Using racist stereotypes has always been a part of ad campaigns, but this one just seems to get to me more than your average pizza commercial.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Sarah Palin Turkey Interview

Sarah Palin is a retard. Proof: she conducts an interview with local media right in front of a farmer slaughtering turkeys. *Warning*-Graphic turkey slaughter action.

Surfing teh Interwebs is Good for You!

A new study has proven that surging the internet is good for teenagers.

Not a teenager? Not to worry! It turns out that surfing the web is just as good for everyone else, too.

Each volunteer underwent a brain scan while performing web searches and book-reading tasks.

Both types of task produced evidence of significant activity in regions of the brain controlling language, reading, memory and visual abilities.

However, the web search task produced significant additional activity in separate areas of the brain which control decision-making and complex reasoning - but only in those who were experienced web users.


Yay for not ending up like this guy!

If 'God' had a Facebook page:

Well, what do you know, College Humor actually comes up with something not involved half naked chicks or booze. Kind of.

Behold, the 'God' Facebook page!

Here's a little taste of what it's like (but I highly recommend going to the page and reading it all):

Sweet Map Action

So, I was listening to NPR the other day I learned about World Mapper. This guy, Mark Neuman, and his team of super nerds have come up with an alternative mapping method which re-sizes areas on a map according to a certain subject of interest.

For example, here is the normal election map that is sectioned out by state:



This map can seem somewhat skewed because it seems like, due to visibility alone, that Montana would have more influence over New York because it appears larger on the map. However, New York has more electoral votes because of the larger population, which this map doesn't show.

Check out Mark's alternate version:



Freakin' cool! The areas are skewed to properly show how much influence each red or blue state has.

More maps can be found on World Mapper and they are all pretty awesome.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Keith Olberman rules all

And here's the proof:



Oh, and, p.s.-

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Oh California...

After the rather shocking (to me, anyway) pass of Prop 8 (which bans gay marriage) in California, I was happy to learn that thousands are protesting and rallying against such blatant hatred.

Favorite protesting signs include, "Stop the H-8" and "Would You Rather I Married Your Daughter?"

Additionally, Arizona and Florida passed similar laws this past election. Arkansas banned gays from adopting children.

This proves that we still have a long ways to go, people.