PETA’s Propaganda

I saw a rep from PETA talking to Megyn Kelly on the news the other morning; apparently PETA’s latest ad features girls kissing.  PETA is making some statement about how vegetarians supposedly have better sexual health (and overall health) and thus have better sex.  Ms. Kelly saw it as a cheap gimmick to get attention.

She’s right, of course, but so what?  PETA is simply utilizing that common advertising axiom that sex sells, especially girl-on-girl sex (or as Howard Stern put it: Lesbians = ratings).  Maybe it’s slimy to exploit it, but surely Ms. Kelly wasn’t under the impression that PETA has high standards of decency in this regard.

What was more interesting to me were the misleading claims made by this PETA representative.  For instance, her main point that “meat clogs the arteries” (and by extension, also reduces blood flow to the penis and causes erectile dysfunction) ignores the truth.  Meat does not clog the arteries; cholesterol does (and not all cholesterol, either; only low-density lipoproteins).  There are plenty of meats that are low in LDLs, like turkey, fish, and chicken.  Furthermore, dietary cholesterol is not the main source of arterial plaque anyway; saturated fat is.  And again, one can find plenty of meats low in saturated fat.

While we’re on the claim that meat is bad for men’s sex lives, I’m sure that PETA is aware that testosterone is essential for male sexual health.  But perhaps they don’t know what testosterone is synthesized from.  That’s right, the nasty c-word; the body makes it out of cholesterol.  That’s why when men are on low-fat diets, their testosterone drops to a eunuch level and their sex drive disappears. 

Meat is not bad for you, despite what PETA may claim.  Meat contains a host of important minerals, most notably iron.  It’s difficult to get enough iron on a vegetarian diet, and it’s even more difficult to get complete proteins with all the essential amino acids in the proper proportions.  Certainly one can take supplements, but doesn’t that sort of ruin PETA’s entire argument?  If an animal-free diet is healthier, why are supplements required to get the proper nutrients a human body needs?  And if some of those supplements have to be created in labs to mirror what nature already provides, doesn’t PETA’s claim become laughable?

The ethical issue of whether or not animals should be killed and eaten is a separate argument.  Homo sapiens are omnivores.  We have canine teeth for shredding flesh.  We have enzymes specifically designed to metabolize animal proteins.  Certainly most vegetarians have better health than a glutton who sucks down butter, fatty meat, and gravy.  Practically anyone who pays attention to their diet and exhibits moderation will have better health.  Saying that animal products are the problem, however, is as simplistic and faulty as saying calories are the problem.  PETA’s stance is pure sophistry.

Clueless Parents and Bullying

I was watching the news the other morning and someone was on trying to sell a book.  This one was advice for kids (presumably fairly young ones) on how to deal with bullying.  Now, I understand we aren’t supposed to take every book-hawker on news programs seriously, but the “advice” this woman was talking about bordered on negligence.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if you want your kid to have a rough time in school, then you should follow this author’s advice.

The brunt of her presentation on the show was about “snappy comebacks.”  She said kids should practice clever comebacks at home (perhaps in the mirror), then use them when a bullying situation comes up.  She gave a few examples.  If a kid comes up to you with an attitude or calls you a name, she advises you to say, “Really?” or “Are you having a bad day?”  I can only assume the author thinks that a witticism will divert or dissuade the bully.

Sometimes I think that the people who write things like this led a sheltered life, and they’re simply out of touch with what it means to be a kid.  Here’s a scenario for her: A bully comes up and says, “You’re a fucking faggot.”  You smile and reply with “Are you having a bad day?”  The bully says, “No, I’m having a great day, you fag, because your mom just gave me a blowjob.”  You respond with “Really?”  And he says, “Yes, really, your mother sucked my dick.”

Look, if you want your kid to build his confidence by improving his skill at verbal ripostes, that’s fine.  But confidence is the end result – verbal ripostes aren’t going to protect him from bullies.  Bullies aren’t stupid.  In fact, they’re virtual Einsteins when it comes to figuring out when a potential victim is frightened and trying to stall or deflect with some pop-psychology garbage they heard from a well-meaning but clueless parent.  They are similarly gifted at recognizing a kid who musters just enough courage to initially respond but will otherwise back down.

Bottom line: Bullies move on to an easier target if they don’t think you’ll put up with it.  Therefore, you need to let them know right from the beginning that you’re not a victim.  Don’t allow someone to verbally abuse you.  Don’t let them get five disrespectful words out of their mouth before you respond.  Look them straight in the eye – do not even shift your gaze.  Step closer to them.  Never ever fidget or bring your hands up.  Do not try to look or sound tough (that will only get you in trouble), just hold your ground.  Do not try to be clever or funny or cool – you won’t be.  Do not raise your voice or get emotional, and again, DO NOT move your gaze from their eyes.  Your only goal is to let this person know that you’re not frightened of this confrontation, where ever it leads – even if it happens to get physical.

As to what you say.  To continue my example above, say, “Yeah, I’m a fag, and you’re not going to do anything about it, you little sissy.”  Say, “I may be a fag, but you’re a bitch who’s scared to do anything but run your mouth.”  Challenge them before they can challenge you.  Put the next move on them.  If they continue to posture and call you names, continue to challenge.  Say, “See?  You’re just a scared, bitch-ass little pussy who’s all talk.”  Taunt them.  Laugh at them.  Embarrass them in front of anyone who might be listening.  Dare them to throw the first punch – then you’ll only be defending yourself.

Because let me be clear: I’m not talking about bluffing.  You must be prepared to fight.  Never let fighting words come out of your mouth otherwise.  Fighting is not the end of the world.  A black eye will not kill you.  Life will go on.  Fighting is better than being a victim.  I guarantee that being a victim will cause you much more pain and trouble in the long run.

Finally, and this is most important: Don’t listen to me.  Listen to your heart.  Listen to that slimy feeling that comes when you allow someone to victimize you.  Realize that you don’t ever have to feel that way if you don’t want to.

Women Degrading Themselves

It’s often said that women who participate in pornography are degrading themselves, but I fail to see how this is so.  What’s degrading to some people is not necessarily degrading to others.  Like it or not, saying, “A woman who has sex on camera for money is degrading herself,” is purely a subjective opinion.

The point is that she’s comfortable enough with that level of “degradation” as long as she’s being compensated.  How is this different from what all of us do everyday?  How many people have drawn the line at certain jobs they would not do, regardless of the money?  How many women draw the line at stripping or working at Hooters.  How many people would never “degrade” themselves by sitting in the audience of a Jerry Springer show?

We’re talking about a matter of subjective opinion.  With porn stars, there seems to be this added element of sexual degradation.  Because a woman’s sexuality is usually viewed through a hallowed lens, it’s seen as much more depraved, much more horrible, when the female body is the subject of the perceived degradation.  Again, this is still a matter of subjective opinion.  Plenty of people will also tell you that women degrade themselves if they masturbate, use a sex toy, show too much skin, get a tattoo, dance the wrong way, or have casual sex.

I once saw a grown woman on the reality show Fear Factor eat a block of rotten cheese that was literally crawling with maggots.  Gagging and puking, bile and drool hanging from her mouth, she choked it down, chewing live maggots, on camera for a chance at winning fifty thousand dollars.  Just a chance of winning.

Contrast that with a female porn star, a woman who has sex on camera for a regular paycheck.

Now, I’m almost positive that there are women out there who would not eat maggot-ridden rotten cheese on national television for a chance to win fifty grand.  In fact, I would bet there are female porn stars out there who would think that eating maggoty cheese on Fear Factor is beneath them.

My intent is not to be an apologist for pornography.  However, in my opinion, there are absolutely more disgraceful things a woman can do to herself.  Me personally, I’d take the porn star home to meet Mom before the woman who was willing to gorge herself on rotten cheese and maggots.  I’d have more reason to distrust a woman who’s cheated on someone she loved than I would a woman who’s worked as a prostitute.  I even tend to think most porn stars and prostitutes have more self-respect than the drunken twits who perform sex acts for free on Girls Gone Wild videos.

But again, that’s just an opinion.  At least I can recognize it as such.  I see far too many moralizers, conservative social crusaders, and pop psychologists on TV stating an opinion and yet treating it as moral truth.  I have a wild idea: Perhaps adults should be deciding for themselves what does and does not degrade them.

Creationist Nonsense, Part Two

Prominent conservative Christians have attacked evolution like nothing else.  Many of them can’t even define science, as evidenced by public figures such as former US Representative Tom DeLay.  Displaying an ignorance that would be amusing were it not so common, Mr. DeLay once blamed the Columbine school shootings on the theory of evolution being taught in schools.  This foolishness resulted from the fact that one of the Columbine killers quoted some nonsense he attributed to Darwinism on tape.  Mr. DeLay apparently believes that presenting the reasonable and well-documented evidence for evolution will erode the morals of young people.

DeLay and those like him are mistaking a scientific theory for an ideology.  DeLay, a conservative Christian, views the theory of evolution as an anathema to his own ideology.  His argument is that evolution is teaching bad morals.  Such a statement is not wrong; it’s meaningless.

It is simply irrational to believe that the theory of evolution (or any scientific theory) can or should offer advice on morality.  We’re talking apples and oranges here.  Many conservative Christians are under the impression that evolution counters their creation myth, and so it also must counter their moral philosophy.  Forgive my use of pop psychology, but do they possess some deep-seated need to be told what is right and wrong?  Can they not decide for themselves that the thoughtless slaughter in nature should not be mimicked?  Do they truly believe that by accepting the evidence of evolution, they might be compelled to abandon human decency?

In his 1893 Evolution and Ethics lecture, staunch evolutionist T.H. Huxley said, “Let us understand, once and for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combatingit.”  (Emphasis mine.)  Even Richard Dawkins, the Darwinist and atheist that Christians love to hate, has said that it’s perfectly okay to accept Darwinism as a scientist and reject it as a human being.  Here is the crux: We have brains to decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not; we have no need to resort to imitation or appeal to authority.

Saying that a scientific theory is responsible for eroding morality is a mindless cop-out.  One may as well say that since Einstein taught us that everything is relative, a serial killer can justify his crimes as relatively moral.  Maybe the Columbine killers could have justified their acts with the entire envelope of modern physics: “All of our classmates are just collections of unthinking, unfeeling subatomic particles, so we’re doing nothing wrong.”

It would be safe to say that the two Columbine killers were about as ignorant of evolutionary biology as is Mr. DeLay.  But even if they’d been experts, even if they’d strapped bombs to their chests and screamed, “Darwin!” as they exploded, it would not change the fact that they committed those crimes not because they were Darwinists but because they were murderers.  Where is the vaunted conservative principle of personal responsibility in this case?

Yes, people have murdered using some warped version of Darwinism as a justification.  So what?  Science is not responsible for how idiotic murderers interpret a theory.  Darwinism is is taught because it’s viable science, not because scientists are trying to push some sort of ideology.  The way human beings feel about a scientific theory says nothing about its legitimacy – indeed it says nothing about it at all.

Obama the Very Ordinary Politician, Part Two

Here’s the best example of Obama’s sickening hypocrisy about his economic looter bill: He plays to everyone’s fears about the recession, and yet he defends the pork in the bill by saying “What bill of this size hasn’t had add-ons?”  He keeps warning Americans that if we don’t get on bard with this garbage, the consequences will be dire, and yet the bill includes six-hundred million dollars for global warming research.

Six hundred million dollars.  I thought we were in an economic crisis?  I thought the sky was going to fall if we don’t do something?  How in the hell do you justify spending six hundred million dollars of taxpayer money on global warming research (whatever that even entails) when the economy’s in such bad shape?  How is this going to stimulate the economy?

And let’s not forget about Comrade Pelosi’s thirty-million-dollar pet project for her home district to save the salt marsh mouse.  That will definitely stimulate the economy, right?  It is a testament to the utter decadency of Capital Hill that a politician can get away with spending thirty million dollars on a fucking mouse while she simultaneously shrieks about another Great Depression.  This is not a rhetorical question: How do these people sleep at night?  How do the Americans who voted for these incompetent, disgraceful money-grubbers live with themselves?  How is it that we haven’t thrown every single one of them on their asses?  They’re not stimulating anything but their own interests.  If they pulled these stunts in a private industry, they’d be fired or charged.

The economic looter bill got pushed through in one day, giving no one the time to read it.  The president’s language has been laced with fear-mongering.  Even worse, he seemed to suggest that we shouldn’t listen to opposing points of view, claiming that all the opposition to his looter bill consisted of right-wing “cable chatter.”

Then I see Bill Clinton in an interview talking about how the Fairness Doctrine or some alternative should be passed because there’s so much bad-mouthing (read: questioning) of the looter bill on the radio.  Other elected officials are on TV defending the Fairness Doctrine as well.

Then we learn that the White House is taking over the Census.  This matters quite a lot when you consider that whoever controls the Census controls how federal funds can be allocated and how district lines can be drawn.

Obama and the Democrats have learned a neat trick from the last administration.  It’s the same trick that they’ve whined about constantly for years, but apparently they’ve found it to be effective.  Their big criticism of Bush was that he used scare tactics to gain more control and push measures like the PATRIOT Act.  Considering the present and future ramifications of what’s happening now, can anyone doubt that Obama and the Democrats are doing the same to fast-track their own measures?  And where are they leading America?

Prison Story, Part Ten

Why is it so easy for people to make excuses and so difficult for them to make solutions?  Is there a faulty method of thinking that’s being taught to kids in schools nowadays?  The younger people in prison seem to have traded their brains for a chalkboard of excuses and justifications.  Their response to every difficulty in life is: “It’s not my fault.”

Of course, invariably it is their fault, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.  The other day I saw a kid get chastised for acting stupid, for throwing balled up paper and nearly hitting a bystander, which could have caused a fight.  This kid didn’t say, “Yeah, you’re right.  I shouldn’t have been goofing off around people like that.”  He didn’t say, “Next time I won’t throw something around guys who aren’t involved.”  He didn’t say, “Yeah, that was pretty stupid.  My bad.”

No, he started rattling off a long excuse about how he simply must play around and act foolish, because of “the drugs.”  Yes, apparently using methamphetamines imbues you with a proclivity to throw balled up paper over a table full of convicts’ heads.  He’s an automaton, you see, he’s not in control of his own actions.  It’s the drugs’ fault.

Guys in here will go to any length to get out of doing something that could possibly help them, such as learning.  Rather than admit they’re unable to get educated because they simply don’t try, they seriously claim to have some sort of ephemeral learning disorder.  They talk about how they need special home-schooling, or the teachers don’t understand their needs, or other such nonsense.  Granted, there are some people who actually have learning disorders, but it gets a little ridiculous when every kid in prison blames his inability to get a GED on a mental block rather than the true culprit: pure laziness.

Similarly, if they failed or dropped out of high school on the streets, it’s almost always for one reason: drugs.  I wish they’d say what they really mean, which is: “I chose to spend all my time doing drugs rather than passing classes.”  Christ, I was on drugs for my entire senior year in high school; I made a sport of seeing how often I could be stoned during school hours.  I still managed to graduate.  And if I hadn’t, I sure as hell wouldn’t be a thirty-year-old dipshit sitting in prison whining about how “the drugs did it” or “school just isn’t set up for people like me.”

Excuses have to be the most worthless things in existence.  Even if they’re true, so what?  Who care whether it was your fault or not?  What is whining about it going to do?  How is assigning blame going to repair the problem?  Making excuses doesn’t get anything done.  On the contrary, they give you a reason to avoid getting anything done.  In the time it takes to tell your sob story to all your enabling friends, you could have made the situation better or come up with a solution.  At the very least, you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of sounding so pathetic.

It’s as if some people just want an excuse to be lazy and unproductive.  The excuse gives them a justification to be worthless.  They’re ceding control of their actions and their future.  Rather than trying to make their situation better, rather than working toward loftier aspirations, they’re defending their mediocrity at all costs.

Why Ann Coulter Thinks Evolution is False, Part Eight

“Evolution is just a belief that atheists have.”

Many creationists suffer from a certain error in reasoning that I heard articulated best by Ann Coulter in her book Godless: She made the point that atheists need evolution correct, or else their entire worldview comes crashing down.  On the other hand, she stated, evolution being true wouldn’t hurt the Christian faith at all.

The latter part is correct.  The theory of evolution doesn’t disprove the existence of God, nor does it make any attempt to.  The theory of evolution need have nothing to do with atheism.  It’s simply an explanation of observable events in the natural world.  Plenty of Christians accept the evidence for evolution.  For a sterling example, I suggest Kenneth Miller’s absolutely essential book Finding Darwin’s God.

It is the first part of this creationist misconception that’s fatuous, the idea that atheists need evolution.  This is clearly subscribing to the either-or fallacy.  Why do creationists like Ms. Coulter assume that if evolution were proven false, we must automatically conclude that an intelligent designer is real?  Even the utter annihilation of the theory of evolution would not provide the first shred of evidence for intelligent design or a creator.  I’m sorry to break this to the creationists, but your “theory” must stand or fall on the evidence – the same standard you rightfully request from scientists.  One can still be an intellectually honest atheist without evolution.  Indeed, one can continue being an intellectually honest atheist until you creationists out there provide some evidence for your position.  Compelling evidence would be preferred, but any evidence whatsoever would be a good first step.

Ms. Coulter and those of her ilk make it sound as if atheists cling to the theory of evolution as a complete vindication of some belief they have.  Consider that the subtitle of Ms. Coulter’s book is The Church of Liberalism.  I think her use of the word “church” underscores the manner in which she views the issue.  If so, she’s missing the point: A sound scientific theory like evolution is an explanatory tool.  Those who accept it can do what they want with it; it doesn’t change the nature of the evidence that supports it.  Whatever anyone’s personal beliefs, whatever they conclude about the meaning of life, whatever ethical laws they subscribe to, whatever political views they have, they’re saying nothing about the theory.

Evolution is not a belief.  It’s not an ideology that is at odds with someone else’s ideology, and it’s certainly not a tenet of some “church” from Ann Coulter’s imagination.  Evolution is compelling because it has a plethora of evidence to support it, not because it has a plethora of followers who have faith in it.  Creationists would do well to consider the difference.

Dumbbells vs. Liposuction

I’ve heard people say that the flood of women getting cosmetic surgery is not a big deal, that cosmetic surgery is just another way of caring for one’s physical appearance.  It’s no different from going to the gym to tone up, they say.  So what if the women take a few shortcuts using modern technology?  After all, gym rats spend huge amounts of time, effort, money and even pain on their goals.  What’s the difference?

The way I see it, the difference is int he road traveled to get there.  People building their physiques in the gym often work as hard as athletes.  They have to work past the torture of lactic acid, muscle soreness, and forced reps and supersets; they have to deal with the dieting, the repeated sessions, the bad days where one has to drag oneself to the gym, the hours of cardio.

Physical training builds much more than just your physique.  Adherence to that lifestyle requires dedication, discipline, and ambition.  You can’t get anything out of bodybuilding that you don’t put into it.  The harder you work, the more goals you achieve.  This builds self confidence in one’s abilities.  You can’t cheat or take shortcuts – no matter which pills you take, you won’t defeat the laws of physics (calories expended vs. calories consumed).  Genetically gifted people may have a leg up on you, but it doesn’t matter because you’re only in competition with yourself.  You learn to not only value yourself, but to value the effort you’re capable of exerting to get something you want.  You become healthier; you decrease your risk of illness; you’re more competent at defending yourself; you have more energy, less stress, and more confidence.  The benefits of dedication to fitness touch every aspect of your life; your physical appearance is just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.

There’s the difference between a physique built by the gym and a physique built by saline and vacuum tubes.  The former requires a solid backbone in discipline; the latter requires a checkbook.  The former demands a path that leads to personal responsibility in all aspects of one’s life; the latter has no path.  The former requires clean living, good diet, and a sterling work ethic; the latter ignores health altogether.  The former allows the creation of one’s personal beauty; the latter presents beauty chosen by someone else.

Hypocritical Tolerance and Gay Marriage, Part Two

In the first part of this post I stated my position that while opposing gay marriage and speaking up for traditional family values is a perfectly admirable and reasonable thing to do, a line is crossed when you go out to vote to keep gay marriage illegal.

In case I wasn’t clear enough: Do you honestly want to make it illegal for gay couples to get married?  Why should you even care?  In what universe does it make sense for someone to mandate that a stranger can’t get married, simply because they don’t agree with whom they’re marrying?  Someone explain this to me: What exactly is the mindset required to justify this?  If it’s not simple bigotry or religious indoctrination (and I’ll give every opponent of gay marriage the benefit of the doubt that it’s not), then how do you arrive at the conclusion that this is okay in a free society?

In response, spiritualway asked where I left my “reasoning and logic” when I wrote that blog.  Okay, I admit I get passionate about this topic.  I hurl invectives and imply what I see as idiocy.  But my post wasn’t about name-calling; it was a challenge for all you opponents of gay marriage to produce a reasonable argument for why it should be outlawed.  So far I’ve heard nothing but personal opinions about what traditional marriage should entail – and I regret to inform you that in America, we don’t squash behavior because it might be inimical to our own views.

I’m not saying that opponents of gay marriage shouldn’t get a vote.  I’m saying that passing a law to keep gay people from getting married is morally repugnant.  I’m asking how anyone can reconcile their belief in liberty and fairness with this position?  You can vote on whatever you want.  Let’s see you logically (and morally) justify casting it.

So, spiritualway, where is the “reasoning and logic” in voting to keep strangers from getting married?  Do you think it’s reasonable that someone’s opinion should hold sway over the private lives of Americans who aren’t harming the person or property of another?  Where’s the logic in requiring that people in a free society can only get married if it’s on your terms?  Where’s the line of reasoning that gives you – or anyone – the right to define what marriage means to others?  How does allowing gay people to get married harm or even affect all the traditional marriages out there?

If I were being unreasonable and illogical, I would call opponents of gay marriage gay-bashers and leave it at that.  Instead, I’m asking the opponents of gay marriage to justify and defend their position that so far seems to be: “I don’t agree with gay people getting married, so it should be against the law.”  The problem with a position like that – the reason why it’s illogical – is that anyone can replace “gay people getting married” with anything they want.

Obama the Very Ordinary Politician

The other day I heard the president give a speech to a roomful of Democrats about the need for this monstrous new spending bill.  After it was over, one word came to my mind: Pathetic.  And not only is this the most appropriate word for his mewling monologue, it’s the kindest.

A couple times during the speech, Obama referenced the economic experts, suggesting that this isn’t what he wants to do; it’s what the experts are telling him must be done.  Yes, the economic experts that he hand-picked.  What about all the other economic experts who say this “stimulus” bill is garbage that won’t work?  Perhaps President Obama should read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal – unless he only listens to economists who agree with Democratic social programs?

Obama also suggested that we shouldn’t listen to the “cable chatter” out there trying to convince us that this plan is wrong-headed.  A clear allusion to Fox News, as Obama has referenced many times when he’s feeling particularly pouty about Sean Hannity.  So now Obama’s telling us to stop listening to those pesky dissenting points of view?  Yes, that’s brilliant.  Let’s just accept a trillion-dollar bill without listening to its opponents.  (And by the way, I see just as many supporters of that corpulent bill on Fox News as I do opponents of it.)

There was also Obama’s witticism about how huge a deficit and national debt was waiting for him wrapped in a big bow when he came into office.  It got some laughs and applause in this Twilight Zone that we find ourselves in.  We’ve gotten to the point where Obama blasts Bush for a huge deficit, and yet his solution is to make it twice as big!

When the subject of all the unnecessary pork in this bill came up, the president let loose with the standard sniveling liberal excuse: Everyone else is doing it, so why not me?  In all seriousness, Obama justifiied the wish-list spending in this bill by saying, “Tell me what bill of this size hasn’thad extra pork.”  I’m so glad we have a president who can justify – with a straight face – spending millions of taxpayer dollars on butterfly parks and Frisbee golf courses in the middle of a recession.

But the overall tone of the president’s argument came down to a standard politician scare tactic.  Obama’s doing the same thing he so often accused the Bush administration of doing: The politics of fear.  This time, instead of terrorism, it’s the threat of economic collapse and unemployment.  Obama’s saying, “Accept this bill now or you’re hurting Americans.  Stop questioning my plan or your neighbor will lose his job.  Swallow all the Democratic pork-barrel spending and social engineering dollars now.  Why?  Because you have to.”

Obama’s saying, “You’re either with us or against us.”  Sound familiar, Mr. President?