From Coulter to Benedict

Okay, I've had it with this whole Coulter thing. You defend an asshole's right to speak and then get branded an asshole yourself. Listen sheep, if you develop the security to sit down and listen to someone with thoughts different than your own, give me a call.

I am a pro-choice, pro-same-sex-marriage atheist. I obviously think Ann Coulter's rhetoric is assenine. That is IF she actually believes the stuff she spews. However, a side of me wonders if she actually buys half of it herself and has just figured out a way to make $10000 every time she is scheduled to spout off. She reminds me of Howard Stern - I guarantee you off the air he is nothing like he is on it. Christ, Barbara Walters is one of his best friends (maybe she is a wild whore - who knows). Shock sells. I'll never know what goes through the mind of Coulter in private, but she has turned the radically right wing, offensive shit that comes out of her mouth into a nest egg, and for that I commend her. Simply put, defending free speech does not equate to agreeing with the contents of the speech.


Censorship is defined as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." For the head of a "respected" (and in the case of Ottawa U, I use that term loosely) university to write a letter to an invited speaker to inform her of what would be "tolerated" is, in fact, censorship. People are saying that because the government didn't stop her it isn't censorship. Censorship is not reserved for government use. The fact that her bodyguards made the decision to call it off may be true. However, had the provost of Ottawa U not sent the letter censoring her moronic speech, it would not have been made into such a big deal, and hence, there would likely not be a security threat. There were no issues at Western or Calgary. If you ask me, her subsequent comment that Ottawa U is "bush league" holds some merit. Once the head of university starts determining what speech will be tolerated in a bastion of "free thought", that university might as well close its doors.

As a person who enjoys to both read and (attempt to) write strong language, I will never agree with any form of censorship at any level. I have stated in writing many times my "hatred" for a variety of people, organizations, beliefs, and ideas. Once we start restricting this right in any way whatsoever we start a treck down a very slippery slope.

Thank you for your time and I hate the pope.

Good for You

Based on presale numbers, it would appear right wing hicks have learned to read. Going Rogue may prove to be Sarah Palin's platform for 2012, giving her the opportunity to claim that she has improved literacy numbers in the southern states dramatically. Ah neocons....you always find a way to rally the (m)asses.

The Earth Is Flat....and Too Religious

I think religion is dumb. I know and enjoy the company of lots of "believers", my family included. I don't think they are dumb. I just think that their beliefs, where all things creationism, deity, and miracles are concerned, are dumb. I could choose a variety of current issues illustrating the hypocrisy and simple-mindedness of religion but today I am choosing Father Lahey. I mean, the guy and his church make the job of an atheist blogger stupid-simple. So here's the deal: Pedophile behaviour is wrong on every level imaginable and, as the father of an infant, I think the bastards that do it should be kept out of the vicinity of children for the rest of their history. Which leads to Exhibit A against religion: the willingness of the roman catholic church (I'm aware it's supposed to be capitalized) to jeopardize the innocence and sanity of "God's children" for the purpose of protecting the reputation of the molester in question and the church itself. I challenge any catholic reading this (my guess is that most would avoid it) to find the verse in your book of fables that supports this behaviour - although, there are many passages that condone beating women, killing "sinners", and selling daughters to slavery, so you might just prove me wrong. In which case catholicism is all it's cracked up to be and those that choose to defend it are also defending these practices.

But here is where I hold a somewhat sympathetic view towards the robed bastards. This does not equate to condoning the behaviour by any stretch. However, I am driven to find the reason (which is not an excuse) for deviant behaviour. Here is my unproven theory: I believe that, if not a majority, a significant percentage of priests are gay. I also believe they have chosen the priesthood as a method of avoiding the urge to act on it and hence expose their "gayness" to a society that still, for the most part, persecutes homosexuals on some level (mostly, I might add, because religion has declared homosexuality a sin – oh the irony). I also suspect that some gay men choose "the cloth" as an "intervention" in hopes of reversing their desire to get it on with men. Why do they feel the need to intervene? Because they grew up in a religious family or community and feel they are wired wrong. So they enter the priesthood and solemnly vow never to have sex while devising a plan to work with the man above in an effort to fix themselves. But here is where the plan goes terribly wrong. As men are the evolutionary catalysts to our existence, their physiological urge to act on their sexual desires kicks in exponentially the more they attempt to suppress it. The more they deny their urge, the more the desire eats at their will to a point where they eventually crack. Maybe first they turn to the internet; a "place" where they can observe their desires acted out on a stage. However, over time this is not enough as their genetic and hormonal reality plays out and eventually they are internally forced to become the actors on their own stage. At this point I am sure many priests quit the "'hood" while others choose to live a parallel life with consenting adults. However, a few choose to maintain their facade by forcing their desires on a group they have the most unbridled control over: children. The initial attempt of an internally conflicted gay man to come to terms with his "problem" ends up leading him to commit criminal behaviour caused, in part, by the illogical beliefs of the organization he has chosen to "cure" his condition. My "sympathy" is not a defence of the behaviour but rather a recognition of the fact that if religion didn't exist, or at least did not persecute homosexuality, these men would have been able to act openly on their desires and the lives of children around the world would not be scarred. And please, don't start a rant that I am saying only homosexuals are pedophiles. In fact, I am open to the theory that both straight and gay men who enter the priesthood end up in this horrible scenario. My point being that the ridiculous premise of suppressing natural, physiological, and evolutionary behaviour causes man to commit deviant behaviour.

Like I said, there is no empirical proof to this theory. However, I think the frequency and similarity of the stories unfolding on our 24-hour news channels speaks to the anecdotal evidence of something related to what my gut and brain tells me. Mark my words: at some point in our future humanity will look back at this point in history as a "the Earth is flat" moment and boy will we look stupid.