Stem Cells and South Park

I remember an episode of South Parkin which Cartman was running a black market scam, selling aborted fetuses to doctors who needed them for research.  In one scene, after Cartman finds out his friend is dying from an incurable disease, he stops a visibly pregnant woman coming out of a clinic and convinces her to abort her child “to help save his friend’s life through stem cell research.”  In another episode featuring stem cells, a wheelchair-bound Christopher Reeves was showing off his secret for continued life: He snapped open an aborted fetus like a cookie and sucked it dry.

Here is where some say that South Park is puerile and uses appalling gimmicks like that to get attention.  Maybe.  But here’s what I say: That’s the best social commentary on the issue of stem cell research that I’ve ever seen.

So many of the critics of stem cell research act like liberals and doctors and medical researchers are running an abortion racket, killing babies to fund their mad-scientist dreams.  The critics set up a straw man argument and hype up fears to make their point, all the while completely ignoring reality: Stem cell research is done on embryos that are already going to be tossed out anyway.  How about an obvious analogy: If someone in a hospital is going to die anyway, why not harvest his organs to help others?

Or the critics say that it doesn’t work, that embryonic stem cell research doesn’t hold any promise for medicine.  And yet, simultaneously they fully admit that the issue is a moral one, that it comes down to – in their view – murdering babies.  So, which is it?  Let me put it this way: Suppose there’s a  breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research that will lead to the eradication of Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis in five years.  But darn it, just like the proverbial omelet, some embryos have to be broken to create the cure.  Would the critics be okay with it then, if they’re faced with solid evidence that those embryonic stem cells are going to save lives?

What is it, something like sixty percent of embryos are “murdered” by nature anyway?  What if embryonic stem cell research was done only on these victims of the natural processes?  Would there still be a moral objection?  And of course, “nature” means “God” for you Christian conservatives.  If everything happens for a reason, wouldn’t it be a reasonable assumption to say that God chose for those embryos to be rejected so that something good could come out of it?

Lows in Cosmetic Surgery

I thought women had reached the absolute nadir of cosmetic surgery with laser vaginoplasty (the procedure is pretty self-explanatory), but then the other day I saw a picture of a fifty-year-old woman and her twenty-eight-year-old daughter.  The mother had spent ten grand on cosmetic surgery to look identical to her daughter.  They go clubbing together, and apparently guys “compliment them all the time and mistake them for sisters.”

One of the reporters on TV said it was “creepy” that they would look so alike.  He was delusional.  They didn’t look anything alike.  The daughter looked like any young woman might; the mother looked like an old lady trying desperately to look young.  She had the typical cadaverous, wretched Botoxed face that some women apparently prefer to wrinkles.  In this way, it was certainly creepy.

I don’t mean to be cruel about this, but here’s the truth: Age does not make a woman unattractive, but pretending to ignore her age (with Botox, facelifts, fake tans, saline, etc.) does.  Cosmetic surgery like this is the biggest “inside joke” among men.  Any man who compliments a middle-aged woman using cosmetic surgery to cling to her youth is engaging in empty flattery.  He wants to get laid.  This is not cynicism; this is reality.  When men see this type of thing, they assume the woman has low esteem and will be easy to screw.

You know how pathetic most women find an aging, graying man who wears an obvious hairpiece and drives a sports car?  You know how young women laugh and mock older men who try to be “hip” but just come across as lecherous?  This is the analog; this is how most men see women like the one I’m talking about.

I think everyone should try to be practical about this.  Both men and women should accept aging and realize that it’s another facet of who you are.  Get used to it.  Pretending to be young just makes you appear pathetic.  If you want to look good as you get older, eat healthy and exercise.  At least face reality and realize that cosmetic surgery doesn’t work.  It doesn’t look natural, it doesn’t look real.  You’re not fooling anyone, and you’re contributing to a culture in which body parts equal beauty.

Biblical Beauty Queens

So Ms. California is against gay marriage (or sorry, just for traditional marriage).  We have North Korea and Iran possibly employing nuclear technology, Islamic radicals trying to destroy Western civilization, and a president whose spending is going to destroy Western civilization, and yet we get to hear about how a plastic-smiled beauty queen thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  But I’ll get to Carrie Prejean in a minute.

First, this nasty little shrieker named Perez Hilton needs to understand that he’s a joke.  He’s not helping the cause of gay rights by calling Ms. Prejean a “stupid bitch” and a “cunt.”  I’m for gay marriage, and I think anyone who’s against it should learn to mind their own business, but people like Perez Hilton just perpetuate the notion that left-wing gay-rights activists have no rational argument to make and instead just call people names.  I hate to break this to people like Perez, but not everyone who’s against gay marriage is a bigot.  I also think they’re wrong about their defense of traditional marriage for “society’s sake,” but being wrong doesn’t mean they want to take baseball bats to gay people.

And while we’re at it, why doesn’t Perez Hilton call our president and vice president names?  They’ve both said exactly the same thing that Ms. Prejean said, publicly and quite clearly.  And unlike Ms. Prejean, they actually have a little something to do with making policy in this country.  Here’s the heart of the matter: If gay-rights activists want to make a dent in this country’s lagging policy on gay marriage, they need to start with Barack Obama.

Now, for Carrie Prejean, I agree that she shouldn’t be punished for her views.  That’s un-American.  But she should be challenged.  She threw herself into the political arena, she’s an adult, and she claims to fully support her ideas.  Reap the whirlwind, Ms. Prejean.

One thing that struck me as kind of funny, though, was her sound byte about how she wasn’t being politically correct, but “biblically correct.”  My question is, what exactly is biblical about putting on a bikini and allowing men to rate your flesh?  Honestly, beauty contests may net some positive things (like scholarships and charity work), but how does Ms. Prejean square her desire to be “biblically correct” with the fact that she entered a contest in which part of the qualifications is giving male judges a hard-on?

If Ms. Prejean wants to be biblically correct, I suggest she read 1 Timothy 2.9, which advises godly women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…” (Likewise, 1 Peter 3.3 says something similar.)  Now, this quote is open to interpretation, but I’m pretty sure “modest apparel” does not mean a sheer bikini that reveals the contours of one’s nipples and labia.

I remember hearing on commentator ask where the feminists were, that they should be defending Ms. Prejean.  Indeed, where are the feminists?  In this case, they should be on the same side as the conservatives: Both in denouncing the nasty things that Perez Hilton said, and in decrying the “meat market” Ms. Prejean used for a platform to promote healthy family values.

Janeanse Garofalo: Bit Brain of the Left

Is there anything more pathetic than an untalented, pseudo-intellectual, pale-skinned actress pontificating on TV about racism that doesn’t exist?  Seriously, I’m trying to think of a more pitiful image – Blago comparing himself to Nelson Mandela, Michael Vick pretending to apologize for killing dogs, Laura Ingraham swearing she didn’t call Meghan McCain fat – but nothing even comes close.

Applying her background in wooden acting and boring comedy to social commentary, Ms. Garofalo said that the recent tea parties are simply about “rednecks not liking a black president.”  That’s right, those half a million people who were protesting big government spending last week were apparently racists who don’t like a black man in the White House.  They cleverly tried to hide their true intent with notions like “fiscal responsibility” and “low taxes,” but they couldn’t pull the wool over Ms. Garofalo’s eyes.  She understood the truth and decided to enlighten us all.

I heard Ms. Garofalo has also said that women who listen to Rush Limbaugh are the same type of women who write to prisoners.  Well, I’m a prisoner, and here’s a tip for Ms. Garafalo: In twelve years, I’ve never heard of a Limbaugh listener writing to any of my peers in this place.  In fact, just the opposite is true: Almost all of the women that Ms. Garofalo mistakenly refers to (the prison groupies) are of the left-wing, restorative-justice, your-childhood-and-society-made-you-do-it persuasion.

Furthermore, here’s another tip for Ms. Garofalo: You’ll find plenty of like-minded men in here.  Prison is full of liberals; that is, people who whine incessantly about discrimination of one kind or another, see racism behind every opposed position, and relegate themselves to a perpetual state of victimhood.

When Ms. Garofalo gets some actual evidence that there’s a racist undercurrent to this tea party movement, I’ll be the first to praise her genius. (Strangely, I feel pretty sure that won’t happen.)  This is what left-wing morons like her do.  She’s making a caricature out of herself, giving people like Ann Coulter another joke about how the left simply calls you names because they have no intellectual argument to make.

Here’s the irony: Garofalo and her peers are like Ms. Coulter’s anti-evolution creationist cadre.  Both of them pout and stamp their feet when their cherished belief gets challenged.  Both of them have no intellectual case to present, so they call the opposition names (listen to what Ms. Coulter says about Darwin and people who accept the evidence for evolution).  Both of them sell out their sense of reason for an ideological cause.

The major difference, however, is something Ms. Garofalo should pay attention to if she ever wants to be anything other than a laughingstock: Ann Coulter, whatever her faults, is still a hundred times the intellectual that Janeane Garofalo is.  At least Ms. Coulter occasionally manages a rational argument – even when she’s wrong.

Tea Party Shenanigans

I have mixed feelings about the tea parties going on around the country.  On the one hand, these are not tea parties like the Boston Tea Party.  The resemblance may be convenient, but the essence is not there.  Those revolutionaries a few centuries were protesting against true tyranny: taxation without representation.  I’m sorry to say to the people out there protesting now that you had representation.  A great majority of Americans elected a socialist-leaning president and members of Congress, and now we have to reap the whirlwind.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the message of these modern tea parties.  I heard Obama was “surprised” that these people were protesting, because they’re the same people his so-called tax cuts will benefit.  How utterly unsurprising.  Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Maybe some people don’t want your freaking handouts – especially if they come at the cost of bankrupting America and selling out future generations.  Maybe some people are saying: “Let’s bit the bullet and deal with the big headache right now, because if we keep spending money we don’t have, the headache will morph into a brain tumor in ten years.”

It’s amazing how clueless the news media is.  I saw a clip of this wretch of a CNN reporter “interviewing” a man attending a tea party with his kid.  She was so arrogant and dismissive.  Rather than report the news, which I thought was her job, she took it upon herself to campaign against the man’s cause and get in an argument with him.  Then she ended by saying that it’s clear the general tone of these parties is anti-government, and that they are sponsored by the Fox News Channel.

First of all, these rallies aren’t anti-government, as anyone with eyes and ears can discern.  They’re anti big government, a difference this CNN propagandist can’t fathom because she’s too busy polishing Obama’s shoes.  She also apparently thinks if you’re not castigating people with whom you disagree and simply doing your job as a news network, you must be “sponsoring” what you’re covering.

Link this with the news that DHS is looking at “right-wing threats.”  We can no longer use the term “War on Terror” in Obama’s brave new world, but people who disagree with the Obama administration are labeled as possible threats.  Hell, I’d welcome the Bush wiretaps with open arms; at least Bush wasn’t brazen enough to use government against people who disagree with him.

Required Reading for Convicts

If you think it’s hard to get kids to read, imagine how it is when it’s convicts we’re talking about.  Even when they do actually read, it’s generally chaff like a John Grisham novel, which in my view is exactly the same as watching Boston Legal or a random sitcom.  Don’t get me wrong; I watch my own share of mindless entertainment on television – and that’s why pretty much every book I read is either nonfiction or at least a bit more substantive than the latest Dean Koontz thriller.

In prison, though, there’s one sure way to get an inmate to consume books like crazy: Throw him in the Hole.  In segregation, there’s literally nothing to do.  If you want to experience what it’s like to have your leg muscles atrophy without getting paralyzed or going into a coma, spend some time in the Hole.  But you can get books eventually, and further, every cell comes equipped with a Bible.  You’d be surprised how even all the “begats” and other mind-numbing nonsense in the Old Testament becomes an interesting read in this situation.

But honestly, is this really the best we can do to help inmates?  The Bible is long on fortune-cookie platitudes, but it doesn’t teach you how to think for yourself, how to reason, or how to look at a situation critically.  Every single one of us in here knows the difference between good behavior and bad behavior.  We don’t need the Bible to tell us what’s right and wrong; we already know.  The problem is that most of us can’t think about ourselves and our actions rationally.  The Bible – and reliance on any faith-based morality – is part of the problem in this case.

Not only that, but most inmates simply don’t give a shit about the Bible, Jesus, or Christianity.  They think it’s weak.  They think the Christian services are a haven for sissies and child molesters.  I’m not saying this to be spiteful; it’s the truth.  Do you think inmates really join Wicca and Asatru groups because they find spiritual fulfillment?  On the same token, why do you think a radical form of Islam has such popularity in prison?

So here’s what we need.  Give inmates some serious reading that’s three things: entertaining, not sissified, and exceedingly instructive in morality and reason.  Give them Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.  Seriously, put a copy in every cell in the Hole, and I swear you’ll have guys coming out of seg saying, “That book changed my lie.”  I’m told there’s an Ayn Rand Foundation, or a Center for the Advancement of Objectivism…I wonder if they could fund something like this?  Try it out in the prisons of one state.  Advance objectivism in the prison population – we need help more than anyone.

I’m not going to get mushy about how much reading that book meant to me, how much it helped this convicted murderer.  I suppose the best I can say is that Atlas Shruggedis necessary.  That’s the most descriptive word for it.  Everyone must experience this book for themselves, period.  And that way, rather than inmates walking around asking what Jesus would do, they’d be asking, “Who is John Galt?”

Christians, Muslims, and Fear

I was just recalling when Rosie O’Donnell made her incredibly insightful comment about “radical Christianity being just as dangerous as radical Islam” and thinking about how some of the gay protesters are behaving out there right now.  A few of them have ran in and disrupted church services, and of course there was the one lovely incident where some jackass snatched a cross out of an old lady’s hands.

I’m not painting with a broad brush here – the gay community certainly has its share of radical morons, just like any group of people does.  But compare O’Donnell’s comment with reality: Why don’t gay protesters go after Muslims like they do Christians?  I mean, in some parts of the world Muslims execute people for being gay and justify it with their religion.  Regardless of how “dangerous” Ms. O’Donnel thinks those crazy Christians are, she can rest assured that won’t happen here.

Traditional Muslims oppose gay marriage just as much and as vehemently as Chrisitans do.  Granted, Muslims don’t have the political clout that Christians do in this country, but still, their ideology is the same.  It’s a fact that you won’t ever see a gay protestor go into a mosque and disrupt the service, and we all know the reason: Muslims won’t tolerate that shit, but Christians almost certainly will.

I’m not saying Christians are cowards.  I’m saying that like most Americans, they’ve been weaned on multi-culti politically correct nonsense, in which our greatest bogeyman is offending some group or another.  I’m also saying that when someone offends Christians, they don’t burn flags, riot, and kill people.  I never heard of a Mormon stabbing a filmmaker to death for making a movie about kids being abused in polygamist communities (the corollary being the murdered Danish filmmaker whose movie exposed the awful plight of some girls in traditional Muslim households).  I never heard of an elderly teacher being arrested and causing riots for naming a teddy bear “Jesus.”  I also never, ever see Christians cheering in the streets of American cities when innocent Muslims are blown to bits.

When it comes to Islam, the entire Western world seems to be bowing to some sort of culture of fear.  How many American newspapers wouldn’t run the pictures of the Danish cartoon about Mohammed that sparked off riots?  What about the New York Times, who refused to show the cartoon out of “respect,” but then ran a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant shit and pornography the very next day?

I remember this comedy sketch on Mind of Mencia in which a fantasy wrestling match was being set up between the big religions of the world.  Jesus, Buddha, and Shiva all stepped into the ring, but when it came to Islam’s turn, Mohammed was invisible – for the express purpose of not wanting to offend Muslims.  The silliness aside, has there ever been a more succinct and demonstrative way of characterizing the situation?

Conservative Idiocy About Evolution

The topic of evolution brings out the stupidity in conservatives.  Let’s be straight: I’m not saying that conservatives who don’t accept evolution are stupid.  I am, however, saying that so far I’ve heard nothing but stupid arguments for why they don’t accept evolution.  Whether it’s Tom Delay claiming evolution in classrooms is responsible for what happened at Columbine, or Rick Santorum and George Bush supporting creationism being taught as science, the conservatives never fail to deliver an asinine argument.

The crown of anti-evolution pseudo-intellectualism, however, has to go to Ann Coulter.  If nothing else, she deserves the dishonor for being the most widely read.  The blathering about evolution in her book Godless makes her sound like a shill for Darwinism, satirizing the arguments of the creationists by making them sound ludicrous.  Example: If evolution is true, why haven’t earthworms evolved bigger brains yet?  Here’s something to consider, Ms. Coulter: What ever led you to believe that evolutionary theory says they should?

Coulter’s greatest folly – and the most common one among conservatives – is categorizing evolution as nothing but a component of a secular/liberal/atheistic philosophy.  Ms. Coulter says, “This is the linchpin of their man-based religion, designed to poison young minds from the beginning,” and, “This beady-eyed fly-torturer [Darwin] gave us a conclusionary theory that has become a crucial part of how we are programmed to think in nonspiritual terms.”

People who think rationally about this topic tend to sigh and shake their heads at garbage like this. Evolution doesn’t challenge God.  It simply makes His intervention unnecessary when it comes to biological change in organisms – similar to how the germ theory of disease showed us that sin or witchcraft aren’t necessary to make people sick.

I’m sorry to inform Ms. Coulter and those of like mind that in this case you’re not even wrong.  To call you wrong would grant you an honest intellectual effort.  You’re simply speaking nonsense; the theory of evolution has nothing to do with your political and/or ideological battles.  If you can’t even accept that it’s a scientific theory based on evidence like any other (and stronger than most), you have no intellectual ground to stand on.

Ms. Coulter and her intellectual peers come across like the modern-day sissy versions of crusaders and inquisitors, the philosophical descendants of people who screamed and kicked their feet when Copernicus dared to suggest the earth wasn’t the center of the universe.  When new evidence gets in the way of their thumb-sucking, baby-blanket belief, they cling to the latter more fervently.  This is what children do, Ms. Coulter.  You should follow the advice you give – rightfully, in many cases – to liberals: Grow up.

Full-Fledged Socialism, Part Two

In the first part of this post, I was making a point that “socialism” is no longer just a Republican scare tactic or campaign buzz word.  On the contrary, the Obama administration seems determined to destroy everything that is good, moral, and effective about the American economy.  Then Jimi left a comment accusing me of (among other things) falling into “the capitalist trap that claims that survival of the fittest has to be the main motivating factor in human society.”

Jimi pointed out that capitalism implies a CEO’s contribution to society is a thousand times more than a garbage man’s, for example, because of their respective salaries.  He clearly thinks this is absurd.  Regardless of how you measure one’s contribution to society, Jimi, I think it is absolutely arguable that a CEO of a huge corporation contributes many times more to society than a garbage man.  This is not to belittle a garbage man; the only thing that separates a garbage man from a CEO is the choices they made early in their lives.  Capitalists say anyone can be a CEO; socialists say the garbage man is forced into his lot and can’t change it, so he needs assistance.

In any case, the main point is that the particular amount a CEO makes doesn’t matter. Whatever someone is willing to pay for your good or service, you earn.  The owners of the corporation are willing to pay their CEO an exorbitant amount of money for what he does, so what’s the problem?  No one’s getting screwed or stolen from.  It’s a free contract between consenting adults.  Why should anyone even care how much the CEO makes, as long as there’s no fraud or theft involved?

Jimi said, “Socialism is not about governments stealing from rich people but trying to create equal opportunities for all, be it in education or health care or social services for the weak in our societies…”

So, who exactly are the weak in our society, Jimi?  Are you talking about the garbage man from your above example?  Are you talking about the middle class or the working poor?  What makes them weak?  Just because a person is working a minimum wage job doesn’t mean they’re weak, and it certainly doesn’t mean they don’t have equal opportunity.

This ties in with the most ludicrous thing you said.  I’m a convicted murderer.  When I was eighteen, I robbed a man and accidentally killed him as a result.  Jimi said that perhaps if the rich had been taxed like they should have been, the social circumstances that made me do what I did wouldn’t have existed.

That notion is at the root of everything that’s wrong with society.  Jimi thinks that something made me commit my crime.  He thinks people like me are sitting in prison because we were poor and forced into a life of crime.  I’ll quote Shakespeare: “This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune – often the surfeit of our own behavior – we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity…”

No one’s a villain by necessity in America, Jimi.  I’m sure there are plenty of convicts who would be flattered if you said some garbage like that to them; I’m not one of them.  Nothing made me commit my crime, and the same is true for every one of my peers in here.  I know exactly why I am here.  The responsibility is mine alone.  It had nothing to do with my socioeconomic status.  It was because I was a dumb, irresponsible kid who ignored and/or ruined his opportunities; not because those opportunities didn’t exist.

In America, the opportunity is the easy part.  Anyone who says otherwise is whining.

Creationist Liars

I recently saw an issue of a magazine called Answers.  It’s a Christian creationist magazine aimed at anyone who’s naive enough to think a few anecdotes and appeals to biblical authority make a science.  Personally, I found it depressing that rational adults take this stuff seriously.

The publishers are young-earth creationists, people who interpret Genesis literally and think that God made the earth a few thousand years ago, that every “kind” of animal was created, and that the Great Flood explains the fossil record.  It’s amazing how these people can simply ignore evidence.  Don’t worry about radiometric dating, the distance of stars from us, the absence of shorter-lived radioactive elements on earth, cosmology, astrophysics, biology, and genetics; don’t worry about the sequential and gradual nature of the fossil record; don’t worry about the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for a creator god, miracles, creation events, etc.  Most of all, don’t worry about the nonsense in Genesis that no rational person can possibly reconcile with reality: Plants were created before the sun, birds before land animals, etc.  Just turn your brain off and have faith.

And let’s not forget about the Great Flood.  No matter that a wooden ship the size of the Ark is impossible to build, or that on a flood-covered earth the water vapor content of the air would make it impossible to breathe, or that a single male and female of a species can’t repopulate it.  What about the fossil record?  It’s laid out in the exact order evolution predicts: Oldest and/or simplest organisms in the oldest layers, and newer and/or more complex organisms in successively younger layers.  Is this a problem for the YECs?  No way.  With straight faces, they claim that the sequential order of the fossil record is explained by a worldwide flood because – wait for it – simpler animals would have drowned and sank to the bottom first, while more complex ones would have survived the flood longer and thus be found in the top layers.

No dumb, slow cow died early and got stuck with swifter dinosaurs.  No speedy or lucky plesiosaur made it up to higher levels with whales and dolphins.  Somehow torpid mammal species like sloths survived the flood for just as long as cheetahs.  Somehow none of those ancient fishes – not one species, not even a single example – could make it up to the level with modern fishes.  No modern animal, regardless of how slow, stupid, or unfortunate, ever shows up in the lower levels, and vice versa.  Flowering plants, which don’t appear in the fossil record until relatively recently, are never found in earlier layers – why?  Shouldn’t they be spread throughout all the layers with other fossilized vegetation?  After the flood, how did that huge diversity of marsupials – even the very slow ones – make it to Australia in a few thousand years when many other faster and more adaptable mammals didn’t?

One can’t argue with faith.  Creationists can claim God’s magic solves every problem.  The tragedy is that these people honestly think theirs is a scientifically sound argument.

What made me angry about this magazine, however, was the children’s section.  Here they crossed the line from delusional do-gooders to plain liars.  Here they tried to inculcate kids with the notion that science supports the idea of a young earth and created species.  Needless to say, this is certainly news to scientists the world over – and the young-earth creationists know it.