This is all I feel it necessary to say about Glenn Beck

Following the whole Glenn Beck thing has become a favorite pastime for conservatives and liberals alike. I guess I'm mostly addressing the latter here, because I don't feel I'm actually capable of changing peoples' minds about the actual content of what he has to say. People have all got their minds made up on that by now. While I disagree with it, that's not really what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is what a childish little prick the guy is.

Glenn Beck thrives on attention, and he likes to get it through overblown appeals to emotion, shock tactics, and saying unbelievably "politically incorrect" (read: ignorant) things. His show is all about the gimmicks. Lots of silly drawings and those sorts of things. His show is Howard Stern meets Bill O'Reilly with a dash of low-brow childrens' TV. Fox has found a winning formula, and I'm honestly sort of disgusted by it. The difference is, no one takes Howard Stern seriously past the age of about 13 when they realize how much of a tool the guy is. On the other hand, every time Glenn Beck says something stupid, I'm hearing about it for a week, mostly from liberals who somehow can't believe he said it, as if it even matters that he said it.

So what I propose is we just stop talking about the guy. I don't give a shit what he has to say, and, at this point, taking him seriously enough to respond to him is giving him far more credit than he deserves. We've got real issues to deal with in this country, and responding to every crackpot cable news throws our way is really pretty useless. The more we talk about Glenn Beck, the longer his show stays on the air. Given that he thrives on this sort of attention, I figure the perfect way to get him to just go away would be to stop giving it to him. If we start treating him like the obnoxious, attention-starved child he is rather than the serious political voice he's not, he'll go away a lot faster than if we keep going on about the guy.

That said, this is the only post I'll make about Glenn Beck.

Medical marijuana, and why I don't support it.

More and more states are legalizing medical marijuana lately. With each election, it seems like one or two more pass a medical marijuana bill. This is commonly seen as a good thing by people who are against the prohibition. And I can see why. It shows a greater acceptance of marijuana by the general public and that their efforts are actually accomplishing something rather than just amounting to piss in the wind.

To me, it seems like medical pot is just distracting from the larger issues the people affected by the prohibition face. Rather than actually facing the issue head on, the medical marijuana movement seems more content to try to "take down Big Pharma" (something I commonly hear from people who buy into other horseshit like homeopathy or naturopathy - but that's a post for another day) and make excuses for self-medication in an attempt to legitimize it by trying to make the law regard it as "real medicine." The problem is, thanks to its potential for abuse, the difficulty of controlling dosages, and the rather underwhelming medical literature on its supposedly beneficial effects, most real, professional doctors would never, ever recommend that people use weed for anything. It would be extremely unethical to prescribe marijuana when something else would be better suited to a person's condition. This would open the door for less scrupulous doctors to prescribe weed to pretty much anyone, which isn't that bad for most people, but is actually horrible in cases where it would actually be harmful for their patient to not be on a real medication, and these doctors would make a lot of money just from saying what their patients want to hear. "Alternative" (non-scientific) medicine would be allowed to thrive, and at the end of the day, I see it doing more harm than good.

On top of that, I don't really see what legalizing medical pot would change for the rest of us. Even if pot was changed from a schedule I drug to a schedule II (which, thanks to the potential for abuse, is where it would likely end up, alongside other commonly abused prescription drugs like oxycodone), it would still be a crime to have it without a prescription. While the penalties would probably change, due to the rescheduling, there would still be penalties, and to remove those would be to start the whole fight all over again. My main problem is that the medical marijuana movement ignores the wider issues of prohibition. Mostly the issue of whether it's any of the government's business what a responsible adult puts in their body (it's important to distinguish between responsible adults and irresponsible adults, the same way we do with people who drink alcohol), but also the problems caused by prohibition itself. Would crime decrease because of medical pot? I don't think so. Recreational users will still be buying from criminals (or friends on medical marijuana who would then become criminals). Drug gangs will still thrive. The legal system would still be dealing with lots of harmless individuals, who, on the other hand would sometimes have to be forced to deal with actual criminals just to get high.

The problem here is that marijuana isn't harmless. All psychoactive substances need to be treated with due respect, and spreading the myth that marijuana will never cause any health problems or that it's equivalent to any medicine specifically made for a given purpose is in pretty direct violation of that respect. As of right now, the only really respectful or honest use of marijuana is recreational (hemp, however, is another story entirely). The legalization movement has been pretty terrible about spreading misinformation about weed, and in the end it's hurting the entire movement. I support legalization on the grounds that it's none of the government's business what responsible adults put in their bodies, on the grounds that it's (probably) not any more harmful than recreational drugs that are legal, and on the grounds that enforcing prohibitions is a waste of time and money that could be spent fighting real crime. I also think it's a waste of our time to fight for medical marijuana when we should be trying to put decriminalization bills on election day ballots or pushing for legalization in general. Until then, I'm all for looking into medical applications that are actually more legitimate. But it should never distract from the larger issue.

The golden rule and you: on celebrity gossip

This week I've heard more about Tiger Woods than I ever cared to. Personally, I think it would be a great step toward a better world if every source of celebrity gossip all went under in unison. Maybe we could fill the then-bare supermarket checkout lines with back issues of the tabloids that actually had the decency to be funny, like the Weekly World News, or maybe even some delicious candy. Alas, this will never be the case, but a man can dream.

Anyway, the more I hear about Tiger Woods, the more I feel compelled to tell people straight up at the first mention of his name that I don't give a shit about his private life. Of course, this is usually met with some bullshit excuse like "but think of the sponsors!" and "Tiger Woods is a public figure, and doesn't get the same privacy as the rest of us!" and "Tiger Woods came forward and said it himself!" Well, except the sponsors are being screwed by the tabloids just as hard as Tiger woods is, Tiger Woods is human being and fame does not change that, and he didn't come out to the public about it himself. Like many other things, Tiger Woods was outed by unscrupulous gossip magazines who were motivated to shoehorn themselves into his private affairs by the money they were going to make from the lucrative industry built around people being unable to just mind their own goddamn business.

So how this relates to the title of the post: imagine your neighbor is constantly spying on you. Sitting at their window with binoculars, watching who comes and goes from your house. Following you around. Taking pictures of you. Trying to find out anything they can that could possibly embarass you. Generally, I'd imagine people wouldn't be too happy about this, whether they're doing anything society might frown upon or not. This is exactly what you're supporting when you buy into celebrity gossip rags and all that trash.

I understand people wanting to know everything about the famous people they hear about. Don't get me wrong. People have a natural curiosity about each other. It's the same curiosity that leads me to be concerned when I see an ambulance or fire truck in my neighborhood. That's completely fine. The problem is when indulging that curiosity causes undue suffering to others. In this case, Tiger Woods' private marital problems have come under public scrutiny when, ideally, they'd be a private issue between him and his family.

My point is, before you pass judgement or try to paint Tiger Woods as some sort of amoral figure who stands against everything society holds dear, put yourself in his shoes. And no cop-out excuses like "I wouldn't do what Tiger Woods did." Imagine you did. Then, honestly (this part is important - no "I'd want to be shot in the face for being a dick" because no, you fucking wouldn't) think about how you would prefer to be treated. Then extend that respect to him.

Godspeed to the horny repair man. You are missed.

I was thinking a while ago about the many reasons that the 70's were awesome. The fashion and the music, of course. The cars, the movies, the well-made electronics. But there's one thing a lot of people forget about: the porn.

You see, in an era of low budget internet porn, and major studios competing to put out as much porn as cheaply as possible, something has been lost. Sure, the fucking is still there, but what about the story? What about the acting?

You see, in the 70's, these things were the best thing about porn. They provided motivation. There was drama. There was feeling. Where modern porn has two people fucking just because, 70's porn had the repair man reaming the lonely housewife just because (there would usually be some reference to "fixing the plumbing" here, but really, he was just horny).

But now, where is the repair man? Out of work. He's on a park bench, track marks all over his arms and legs and eyeballs and that vein right under his dick, feeding the pigeons, reminiscing about the glory days he'll never get back.

So next time you beat off to some hot XXX action, please, think of the repair man.

The "Founding Fathers" wore clothes that we would find unfashionable in modern times

To be honest, blogging seems sort of awkward to me, these days. My brain is so used to expressing thoughts in 140 characters or less (yes, I love Twitter; I'll admit it freely), that I started this blog in an effort to get away from that. And then I start getting really bad about actually updating it. Go figure. Anyway, I'm going to try to get better at it.

Anyway, every time we hear someone talk about politics, we always eventually hear things about what the "founding fathers" supposedly wanted. This has always bothered me for a number of reasons. First off, an argument from authority alone is pretty meaningless from a logical standpoint. Not to mention the sheer volume of misattributed quotes and the number of people both sides of any given issue can somehow claim for their side. And besides, those people knew what they wanted for America, but is it really what's best for America? You'd probably find someone even among them who would disagree with you.

But more importantly, what bothers me about these arguments is that they are completely irrelevant. Maybe George Washington or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or whoever was on your side. At this point, I have to ask: so what? A lot of people seem to forget that cultural attitudes tend to change over the course of a couple hundred years. A lot of people also seem to give undue weight to something just because it was written earlier than something else, as if the age of a thought has anything to do with its quality.

But a lot has changed since the constitution was written, a lot of it completely unforseeable from that far in the past. We stopped allowing people to own slaves. We allowed the people who were slaves to vote. Then we allowed women to vote. And that's not all. We've also progressed technologically. Laws regarding newspapers and literature are not sufficient when it comes to things like the internet. And transportation laws of the time could never have forseen things like the airplane (at least, not as we know it). On top of that, when the constitution was written, there were 13 states rather than 50, and the United States held a distinctly different place in the world than it does now.

That said, it doesn't really matter what anyone speculates the "founding fathers" might have thought about any given issue. They left us with only one document that actually governs this country, and that's the only one that really matters. The age of our constitution can be attributed not to it having been written exactly right the first time (and it definitely wasn't, or we wouldn't still be arguing about whose side it's supposedly on), but to the fact that it allowed for amendments to be made, to adapt to modern times. The best thing they ever did for this country was leaving the future to the people who would inhabit it.

So next time you want to tell someone that you're right because some historical figure wrote something that can be taken to be in favor of your side, do everyone a favor and construct a better argument. If that's the best you have, then you might consider re-evaluating your position, because it's probably not a very strong one.

Atheist fundamentalism

I'm an atheist. A flaming, out of the closet atheist. Lately, I've noticed a trend among religious folks toward referring to atheism as "fundamentalism," and, to be honest, I would probably laugh in the face of anyone who called me any sort of fundamentalist if they didn't all mean it so hard.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe. I'm all for your right to believe it, but I don't care what it is. I respect your ability to live a full, happy life however you see fit. I think I speak for a lot of atheists when I say this. It's in our best interest to support religious freedom, too. Unfortunately, we often don't have the same courtesy extended to us. While most of us are perfectly okay with you worshiping your god in whatever way you see fit, atheists are commonly seen as a "problem." As if we're somehow incapable of developing a moral grounding for ourselves without religion. As if somehow, the good we do isn't good because it's not in the name of a god. Personally, I'd say this point is not even worth addressing; if I can't speak with the authority of "god," I won't be changing any minds anyway. Moving on now...

I resent being called a fundamentalist by the sorts of people who want to keep us down in society based on their own religious fundamentalism. What this betrays to me is a huge lack of understanding of fundamentalism on the part of the accuser. Fundamentalism is an extreme adherence to a set of principles or a religion or pretty much anything, really. And for atheists, that's simply not there. Our disbelief in gods doesn't come from any specific place. Almost all of us arrived at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a god on our own, through different thought processes. We don't proselytize. We do often engage in debates, but they tend to be on more specific issues (such as evolution), rather than whether there is or isn't a god. No one is "converted" to atheism by missionaries going door to door or putting on events at a church. On top of that, the way we see the world changes with the data. We don't have an infallible text on anything. Even Darwinian evolution as outlined in The Origin of Species is not really accepted as the whole, official story, just like Galileo didn't contribute the entire body of modern astronomical knowledge. Atheism comes more from a recognition of our profound ignorance rather than from any sort of know-it-all mentality. We are well aware that we don't know everything, and we're also well aware that just jamming "god" in the place of things we just don't know is lazy and counterproductive when it comes to actually learning about those things.

Further distancing atheists from fundamentalists are our goals and the forms our activism takes. We don't want atheism to be the "national religion" (unlike people who refuse to let go of the idea that we're a "Christian nation" - based on very questionable evidence). We just don't want a national religion. We don't want god on our money or in our pledge of allegiance because we don't believe in a god and therefore, don't wish to pledge our allegiance to one. We don't want our tax money going toward monuments with religious symbolism on them. This is not because we want an "atheist" nation. It's because our constitution guarantees us the right to live in a country where we aren't assumed or expected to follow a particular religion. And to do that, there are two options: either we officially recognize every religion as our national religion, everything, no matter how far-fetched, on equal footing with everything else, or we keep the government and religion separate from each other. I like the latter option better. I wouldn't put my money in a collection plate, and I don't want the government to put my money in a collection plate, either. We're all okay with you putting your money in a collection plate, and conducting religious activities in ways that don't infringe on the rights of others, but apparently, our not wanting any part of it makes us "fundamentalists." In reality, we want a government that makes its decisions based on the facts available on any given issue, without those facts being "influenced" by religious belief in potentially harmful ways.

And the form our activism typically takes? Well, we don't kill people. We don't strap bombs to ourselves. We don't use tax-exempt organizations for sketchy purposes. We're not fighting any wars over "holy" lands. Typically we engage in debates, increase interest and educate people about science, raise awareness of the issues atheists face, stand up for the continued separation of church and state, and most importantly, come out as atheists publicly to encourage other people to do the same and quit being ashamed of their lack of belief.

Which, really, is not a very fundamentalist way of going about things, is it?

I love living in Idaho sometimes

This level of "redneck" is something I'd generally frown upon, but I think this is Idaho sinking so low, it's essentially just self-parody now. This one has it all: wolf hunting, free hats, free guns, and "big bad American trucks." The Mountain Home Auto Ranch truly does want to be your one-stop shop for all your redneck needs.

This is basically the funniest thing I've seen all day, in other words.

I think "big bad American trucks" is a phrase I'm going to make a point of using more often. Especially when I wouldn't want people to think I'm talking about some Japanese truck or something. Especially not a good one that may or may not be reasonably sized.

Been playing lots of Tony Hawk games lately

Today I was playing Tony Hawk's Proving Ground on my DS. Picked it up last month after spending a day with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 on my Playstation. You know, just to see what the hell was being done with the series. I have sort of mixed feelings about it.

On one hand, I like the fact that a skilled player can now continue a combo indefinitely. There aren't tricks that will instantly end your line anymore, at least, as long as you know how to use them properly. They range from the vitally useful (reverts, aggro kicks, spine transfers, acid/bank drops, etc. - and I'm aware most of those aren't unique to Proving Ground) to the completely useless, but awesome (bert slides, footplants, flatland tricks, natas spins, focus mode, etc.). Also, as far as I can tell, the nollie button is gone. I don't miss it. Never used it in the old games and wouldn't use it in this one. One curiosity in the DS version of Proving Ground is the stylus tricks. There's no reason those need to be there. They don't add anything to the game, and they're not implemented well at all.

On the other hand, it's now become virtually impossible to bail. You don't bail when you jump straight into a wall. You don't bail when you go off a quarterpipe, catch air, and land on flat land. You don't bail pretty much ever unless you lose your balance in a grind or a manual or hold a trick too long. It really has gotten far too easy. And even when you do bail, you can save your score with the Freak Out system, which, frankly, is pretty lame. While I understand that the style of gameplay is more "arcade" oriented, it's just gotten to the point where the challenge has been sucked right out of it, especially for players who've been around the series for a while.

So I really hope they go back to the drawing board with it. Maybe a more challenging gameplay style is in order? I'm not talking Skate-style realism here, but at least something a little less cartoonish (and yeah, I'm aware it's even been toned down since THUG2 - the low point of the main series in my opinion).

Let me tell you about a little somethin' somethin'

Hi. I'm Soup. If you don't know me, this blog probably won't be very interesting to you. I mean, you're welcome to stick around and all, but you'll probably get bored with my stupid rambling.

Okay. That disclaimer's out of the way; now it's time for another one: this is going to be the most unfocused blog on the internet. If you're looking for something specific, you'd probably be better off going somewhere else.

So there you go.