Bills Player Drops Ball, Blames God

The sports media is all over Buffalo Bills wideout Steve Johnson for dropping a potential game winning overtime pass yesterday against the formidable Pittsburgh Steelers, and then blaming god on his Twitter account. I watched the play unfold live and and screeched in horror at the gaffe because I don’t like the Steelers. The Bills went on to lose, but I have to say that Johnson’s postgame tweet almost makes up for it:

“I praise you 24/7!!! And this how you do me!!! You expect me to learn from this???How??? I'll never forget this!! Ever!! Thx Tho.”

How many times have we heard a football player praise god or Jesus for having a great game or making a game-winning score? A gazillion. How many times have we a heard a football player or any professional athlete blame the deity? Well, Johnson makes one. This is truly historic, like moon-landing historic. Like first artificial heart transplant historic. We need more Steve Johnsons not just in the NFL, but in everyday life. If more people start to think that their beloved god is working against them despite all their praying, then it’s only natural that there would be a turning away from the great dictator in the sky.

My only regret is that George Carlin did not live to see this day.

- Max

Religion Does Not Make People Moral

The face of religious tomfoolery

Few things are lamer than attempts to demonstrate that religion is the foundation upon which moral behavior rests. Each new such endeavor seems to be as unconvincing as the last, with the same old tired canards being recycled in delusional ruminations about the necessity of divine approval in human relations. Such is the recent attempt by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby in a particularly puerile Op-Ed, whose claims should repulse any freethinker.

The best part about Jacoby’s column, is that in arguing for the necessity of a Biblical foundation of morality, he actually refutes himself, thoroughly might I add. Read the following passage, where Jacoby is describing and ridiculing the American Humanist Association’s secular ad campaign. He says the organization is being unfair by highlighting only the shockingly violent passages of the Bible to quote, even though such passages are everywhere and easy to find. In a paragraph that is totally self-defeating for his own case, Jacoby whines,

Of course anyone can cherry-pick quotes to make a point. And of course it is true, as the humanist group’s executive director Roy Speckhardt maintains, that there are “religious texts’’ that “advocate fear, intolerance, hate, and ignorance.’’ Religion has often been put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty. Then again, the same is true of every area of human endeavor, from medicine to journalism to philosophy to the law.

He then proceeds to blow a lot of hot air about why religious morality is necessary for civilization, but it’s all moot, because in these two brief throwaway lines inserted with the purpose of defending his position, he actually destroys it before he even really gets started. Jeff Jacoby, thank you for playing, your column is over.

It is over because he outright concedes the point that religion is a human endeavor often “put to evil purposes or invoked to justify shocking cruelty.”

Saying religion is a “human endeavor” could mean one of two things. It could mean that religion is a human invention, with its gods, lore, and moral customs outright fabricated by humans using some sort of vague and illusory divine sanction. Or, it could mean that religion is truly a divinely-inspired enterprise whose execution is nonetheless ultimately in the hands of imperfect humans who put religion “to evil purposes.”

As a believer in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Jacoby’s understanding of religion as a human endeavor falls into this latter category. Not only does he concede that religion is capable of inspiring horrific acts, he actually puts religion in a category with medicine, journalism, philosophy, and law—strictly “human” disciplines. Thus, in his attempt to elevate religion to the status of the sine qua non of morality, he paradoxically “lowers” it to the level of earthly studies. His point is to show that religion too, is not immune to the taint of human influence. But if this is true, then what is religion for? If religion is as corruptible and susceptible to pure sophistry as any other “human endeavor,” then it stands to reason that whatever moral rules are said to derive from religion could just as easily have arisen by nonreligious means. Despite Jacoby’s claim that the secular ad campaign “cherry-picks” Bible passages that are especially abhorrent, the Bible is rife with instances of objectionable behavior by both humans and the heavenly father. It contains innumerable acts and instructions which no reasonable person could condone or follow. We do not stone those who work on the Sabbath. We do not kill those who practice witchcraft. We do not regard our women as chattel like the Tenth Commandment would have us. We do not punish those who hold different religious beliefs. We do not adhere to the lesser known commandment that we mustn’t wear clothing woven from two different materials. We do not allow our enemies to strike us without us striking back. And the reason we do not follow these and countless other commands—even though they are in the Bible—is because they are ridiculous and wrong. Members of the Judeo-Christian faiths “cherry-pick” from the Bible all the time, and we should be thankful for that. Otherwise our society would be characterized by a horrifying authoritarianism that regulates virtually every last detail of human behavior. The plain fact that not even Jews and Christians adhere fully to the Bible’s diktats is the clearest evidence that humans are capable of constructing a morality which is independent of revealed wisdom.

These considerations render Jacoby’s argument senseless blather, and his subsequent remarks contain all the intellectual rigor of a game of tic-tac-toe.

The truth is, people are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion. Believers tend to be more moral than the religions they practice, as shown by their unwillingness to adhere to the more despicable maxims which comprise their respective faiths. We may thank someone for that.

Just not god.

- Max

Gearing Up For The War On Christmas

Alright, let’s do this.

It’s that time of year once again when opponents of the separation of church and state decry…well…the separation of church and state. Christmas season provides no shortage of Christian zealots wishing to foist their iniquitous hocus pocus on others by using the public forum to display apocryphal scenes from Biblical lore and to spread the fraudulent words of their huckster messiah.

The inevitable and Constitutionally-minded secular pushback against such ignoble and illegal buffooneries will be met with perfunctory revulsion and shocking disbelief by those who are Holier than Thou. Editorial pages of the conservative press will be rife with indignation at the offense to this great “Christian nation.” Fox News anchors and like-minded media personalities everywhere will feature a seemingly endless parade of segments announcing that “the war on Christmas” is once again under way, with the godless factions “mounting this surge because they are aware that they have a large, untapped army of potential troops.” Christmas indeed seems to be under attack. Or so we are being told.

But the media, far from overstating the atheist objective as I understand it, actually undersells the broader objectives of the freethought movement. What I envision is not a war on Christmas, but a war on Christianity and religion in general. I am not content with merely keeping a nativity scene off the public grounds. That is but one minor skirmish in the wider war on superstition, gullibility, ignorance, and bigotry. If this writer had his druthers, no one would belong to any religion anywhere. That is not to say I am desirous of imposing nonbelief on the faithful. Far from it. The shedding of religious belief must be undertaken by one’s own volition, which is actually anathema to the manner in which religion itself afflicts human minds. Typically religion is simply inculcated on children who know no better than what their parents and mischievous clergy tell them. And that is how religion in the 21^st century must survive: through early indoctrination and general social sanction. Religion has no real merits of which to speak.

Neither Christianity nor any other faith can withstand the rigors of intellectual honesty and scrutiny. Indeed, one suspects that the religionists are so sensitive to perceived assaults on their faith because on some level they surely know that their beliefs are logically indefensible. Religion is therefore inherently weak, and this fact should encourage those who wish to see it destroyed. And be destroyed it must.

- Max

Long Overdue, Semi-Coherent, Profane-Laden Rant About How Fucked Up Our Politics Are Right Now

Get it off me!

Nowhere is insanity on fuller display than in the debate on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and set to expire on December 31. On one side is the Republicans, who come January, will control one out of the three institutions (House, Senate, White House) needed to pass any extensions. They have indicated that they will not vote for any tax cut extensions that do not include cuts for those making over $250,000 a year—a group that accounts for two percent of the fucking population! Excuse me, but where in the holy fuck do the Republicans get off saying they won’t compromise on tax cuts? With what leverage are they making these crazy statements? Memo to John Boehner: you can’t do shit without the Senate and White House, neither of which you control. The tax cuts can expire with our without your regressive-ass governing philosophy. On the other side is the Democrats, and I will get to those fuckers momentarily.

If the GOP is so serious about reining in our massive budget deficits, why the fuck do they want the government to eat $700 billion over the next ten years, which is what extending the tax cuts for the upper 2% would cost? Standard bullshit answer: Because that 2% does the investing and job creating. Well suck my ass. I don’t know if any of these GOP empty suits have noticed, but America is having a bit of a capital flight problem at the moment. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the dollar is getting royally crushed on the Forex and our exports are still getting their asses kicked. The Fed’s second round of quantitative easing is underway and, woops, bond yields are rising. That’s ok though, at least those struggling bankers at Goldman Sachs are front-running on these asset purchases and selling the taxpayers bonds whose prices are unnecessarily jacked up. Way to monetize the debt you fucking FOMC assholes.

But back to these Republican douchebags. They don’t give a flaming fuck about deficits or the national debt. If anything, they want our situation to be even more fucked than it is so they can eliminate every social program there is, and spend all tax dollars on corporate subsidies, military Keynesianism, and expanding the police/surveillance state, which are the cornerstones of what passes for American conservatism these days. So they want to give back $700 billion to a bunch of people making over $250K and therefore by definition, don’t really need the money. And don’t tell me they’re going to invest their tax cuts in America or some such horseshit. Those rich people don’t earn that much money because they’re fucking stupid, and because they’re not fucking stupid that money is going to go overseas and in precious metals and commodities. The dollar is dead. Paper money is fucking dead. Might as well buy some hard assets with your worthless fiat toilet paper. Either that or equities so we can blow another bubble and watch it pop. That would be truly awesome.

While Europe undergoes austerity, we here in the US cling to the belief that no matter how indebted we are, we can never be expected to lower our standard of living or rein in our global empire whose costs are at unspeakably obscene levels. Thank god the Republicans have retaken the House so we can start cutting costs, downsize the military and slash pentagon spending, and implement sensible tax policy.

Wait, what’s that? The Republicans want to do none of these things? What’s that? Their recipe for fiscal responsibility in a nation with a $14 trillion debt and a $14.5 trillion GDP is lots of tax cuts with a sprinkle of fucking earmark reform? Is this for serious? Who voted for these buffoons? Way to go teabaggers, fuck you very much.

As for the Democrats, holy fucking shit do you guys suck buffalo cock. What a clusterfuck your reign has been. Nice fucking health care bill that will necessitate a massive transferal of wealth from taxpayers to the criminialistic, anti-trust exempt, premium-jacking, coverage-denying, cocksucking HMOs for the indefinite future. Nice non-legislation allowing the government to negotiate bulk prices of pharmaceuticals under Medicare. Nice non-legislation allowing the reimportation of said pharmaceuticals. Nice fucking mandate that makes Americans purchase health coverage from private tyrannies.

Also, good job on reconfirming Ben Bernanke Fed Chair. Whereas sane societies would see him, Greenspan, Blankfein, Dimon, Cassano, and thousands of others in jail or motherfucking decapitated, the Democratic President and Congress bring him on board for another four years even though he couldn’t see a giant fucking real estate bubble stuck right in his goddamned beard. Homer Simpson once said that people with facial hair have something to hide, well, what the fuck is Bernanke hiding?

By the way Dems, what a bunch of legislative pussies you are. How many times is Obama going to cave? I think Obama—far from being a progressive—is actually a fucking Caucasian Reaganite supply-sider in blackface. How else do you explain an “extended period” ZIRP and multiple rounds of QE? Obama doesn’t fight for anything. He says he wants one thing and then settles for far less, and by the time its over the legislation looks like something that GHW Bush or Ford would’ve signed into law. Why the fuck are you letting Orangeman Bohner and Turtle McConnell lead you around by your balls? This isn’t fucking change I can believe in.

Oh well, Obama. At least you can always bomb Iran to boost your popularity with the warmongering faction of the American populace. Lindsey Graham, David Broder, and others inside the beltway are already calling for it, and as things continue to be shitty at home, the American people will need a distraction because American Idol and Biggest Loser can only keep the rabble amused for only so fucking long. I’ve already got the fucking name ready for the next bullshit American military intervention: Operation Persian Carpet Bombing. That oughta keep those ignorant American serfs busy for a few months. “Oh, you’re unemployed? Well at least the fucking mullahs won’t be slitting your throat as you sleep! We’re over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Now sit down, shut up, and be scared shitless!”

Yes, it’s quite a fucking operation we’ve got going over here. The sane need not apply because the fucking nutbags are already running the asylum.

- Max

A Midterm Election Autopsy

Ever since election day, grossly overpaid media pundits who contribute little to intelligent discussion have been offering all kinds of reasons for why the Democrats got their asses kicked. The theories range from, “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too far Left” to “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too moderate,” and everything in between. But they all have the same theme: Democrats have done X, but the American people wanted Y. So Democrats were defeated on Tuesday because they spent the last two years doing one thing, while the American people wanted them to do another, and perhaps in a different way.

One great thing about these kinds of analyses, for pundits anyway, is that they lend themselves to endless possibilities in argumentation which amount to little more than quasi-educated spit-balling. The postmortem of the 2010 midterm elections, like all others, is a vague and subjective hazarding of guesses and proffering of pseudo-insight. It relies on this ambiguity in rendering a seemingly plausible but ultimately untestable and therefore useless explanation as to why one party won more seats than the other. Such analyses require amalgamating millions of voters from across the country into a singular entity with a coherent political ideology, or at least giving the American people a mathematically mean ideology which can be placed on somewhere on the Left/Right political spectrum. But this assumes that The American People have a coherent political philosophy, and care enough about it to vote their ideology regardless of whether they think the country is on the right track. This assumption is wrong. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald puts it well:

[W]hat voters care about are not cable-news labels, but results. Democrats didn’t lose because voters think they’re too “liberal.” If that were true, how would one explain massive Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, including by liberals in conservative districts (such as Alan Grayson); were American voters liberal in 2006 and 2008 only to manically switch to being conservative this year? Was Wisconsin super-liberal for the last 18 years when it thrice elected Russ Feingold to the Senate, and then suddenly turned hostile to liberals this year? Such an explanation is absurd.

The answer is that voters make choices based on their assessment of the outcomes from the political class. They revolted against the Republican Party in the prior two elections because they hated the Iraq War and GOP corruption (not because they thought the GOP was “too conservative”), and they revolted against Democrats this year because they have no jobs, are having their homes foreclosed by the millions, are suffering severe economic anxiety, and see no plan or promise for that to change (not because they think Democrats are “too liberal”).

To Greenwald’s assessment, I would add that because we only have two parties that really matter, election results often furnish us with a skewed version of reality. In 2006, Republicans were voted out because their war in Iraq had turned sour. In 2008 Republicans were voted out because the economy was in the tank. In 2010 Democrats were voted out because the economy is still in the tank and they were replaced by the Republicans who were just recently thoroughly repudiated in the previous two elections. Notice that Americans don’t vote parties in; they vote parties out. Republicans took control of the House and made gains in the Senate last week not because Americans think they’ll do a good job, but because they’re still nervous about the economy and they don’t have any legitimate choices left at the ballot box.

- Max

On Marriage and Children

Perhaps the most dearly held dogma about life in America is the idea that one ought to marry, have children, and live happily ever after.

Most versions of the otherwise vacuous “American Dream” feature these ingredients. The American man who goes a lifetime and departs this earth without marrying and without procreating is considered abnormal by his fellow citizens. Often, his acquaintances pity him for not having experienced the marvels of marriage or the pleasures of parenthood. And his death only heightens this sense of tragedy. For the departed single childless female, the lamentations of those who knew her are amplified further because of the universal understanding that all women desire marriage and a brood. Those women who do not—especially those who have the temerity to say so—are considered deviant and perhaps stand accused of lesbianism.

The act of marriage is widely regarded as a sacred union of man and woman (or man and man or woman and woman)—a promulgation of love and devotion by the parties involved. But marriage is also something else. It is an implicit affirmation of complacency. To marry is to say that one can do no better, or that perhaps one can, but it would not be worth it to find out. Hence, every marriage involves “settling” for someone—someone who by the sheer laws of probability is not the most compatible spouse. Marriage would be a more admirable thing if married people could recognize this reality. But instead there is a great deal of denial involved. Everyone has heard a friend or a relative announce that his or her significant other is in fact The One, as if, out of the three billion men or three billion women on this planet, this hopeless romantic has found the one person meant for him or her. That of course, is a false assumption. No one is meant for anyone because everyone’s existence is cosmologically meaningless. Humans create meaning. Thus, to say that so-and-so was meant for so-and-so, is to engage in an ex post facto rationalization.

Regarding children, no child has ever been conceived out of anything other than selfish motives. Children are conceived either by accident or by intention. In the case of the former, the parents’ selfishness is manifest because the desire for sexual gratification on their part outweighed the consequences of not employing an effective method of birth control. When children are planned, the origins are also selfish. When two people decide to conceive a child, it is because of what they want. Even single people—particularly single women—can often be heard saying, “I want a child” for whatever reason. Because this is considered a normal aspiration, those do not share this sentiment are frequently the focus of a suspicious curiosity. Any person who has ever announced in the presence of company that he or she wishes to have no children often receives the same response: “Why don’t you want children?” Of course, there is no reason that having children should be considered the default position. Indeed, I can think of far more good reasons against procreating than I can in favor of it. If anything, the burden of proof ought to lie with those who want kids.

Ladies and gentlemen, what separates us from common animals is the ability to engage in sex without having to worry about the inconvenient prospect of children. And yet, millions of us every year forgo the fruits of contraception science to produce yet another crop of mostly mediocre children. Sigh.

- Max

Fabulous War! David Broder Says Obama should stage Iran showdown

The face of senility

From David Broder’s latest column in the Washington Post:

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

Not that a guy like David Broder paid it much attention, but I find it absolutely hilarious that this column comes less than 48 hours after Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. The thing is, Broder is not some rabid Hannity-esque warmonger. Rather, his is the pen of the beltway establishment and therefore conventional political wisdom. And here he is making the case for war with Iran. Keep that fear alive, David. Sanity is overrated anyway.

According to Broder and his conventional wisdom, the Great Depression was resolved by the prosecution of World War II. It’s the standard canard about WWII economics that requires more explanation than Broder gives it. The assumption that war yields economic prosperity is a pernicious and often incorrect one. No one would say that the French or British economies were strengthened by World War II. Germany, though it experienced robust growth when waging its wars of choice, paid heavily for them during the last few years of the Reich and beyond. In fact, all of the major players in that war endured great hardships because each had experienced the war first hand within their own borders with the exception of the United States. The US was in the unique position of being a major combatant without having to worry about the immediate safety of its own civilian population.

When hacks like Broder say WWII lifted the American economy out of the doldrums, what they are really saying is that massive amounts of spending and heavy state intervention in the market saved the US economy. Military spending, price controls, wage controls, and rationing were in vogue as the federal government assumed de facto control over the country’s defense, energy, and commodity sectors. World War II was essentially a gargantuan public works project geared toward the maximal production of military hardware. The nation’s manufacturing sector became a well-oiled machine of production previously unseen in world history, banging out not only the tools of war at a rapid rate, but goods for civilian use as well. With an increased need for production came an increase in employment, which resulted in more disposable income, which resulted in more demand, and so on. It was not that WWII cured America’s economic ills, it was the way in which it was conducted on the home front.

Whether his senile mind knows it or not, Broder is advocating military Keynesianism. Even though he assures us that he isn’t suggesting Obama start a war, the president “can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

First of all, from a moral standpoint, no person anywhere should ever be “orchestrating a showdown” with anyone—not at home or work, and certainly not in international relations. To purposely take measures that would escalate tensions and hostilities is downright psychopathic.

Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, Broder is stuck in 1940. He seems to be assuming that American preparations for war with Iran would mirror our preparations for war with Germany and Japan when they will not. The reason they won’t is because it’s a pretty safe bet that the US already possesses the necessary military hardware to conduct a full-scale invasion of Iran. There would be little if any additional war matériel to produce, and therefore no effect on the economy on this front. Sure there might be a need for additional war production if the conflict went on long enough, but no one—except for maybe al Qaeda—wants that. Plus, Iran is far more militarily capable than Iraq.

Another fundamental difference between WWII and the wars of today is that the government doesn’t ask American civilians to sacrifice anything. Indeed, the wars themselves are essentially unfunded, with the costs just piled onto the national debt. Aside from the hell we put our volunteer soldiers and their families through, Americans have carried on as usual during wartime. To their credit though, Americans do put “Support the Troops” stickers on their cars, which can look awfully ugly on the back of a Hummer.

Perhaps the most amusing part of Broder’s column is when after he’s laid out his piss-poor economic argument for war, he tosses in the obligatory, “Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century” as a mere afterthought. But the truth is, Iran has more reasons to fear the US than vice versa, and Broder’s column itself is a case in point because it’s advocating a hostile confrontation for god’s sake. More importantly, the US has a long history of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs, including the 1954 American-orchestrated overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government. Not to mention the fact that the US presently has hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying Iran’s western and eastern neighbors. Ask yourself, who is a greater threat to whom?

Thankfully, the current economic climate in the US makes more war unpalatable for the American people. Of course, that could very well change with another 9/11-style attack or even just a really good propaganda campaign launched by the government with help from its media sidekicks. Who knows, maybe Broder’s gotten the ball rolling and we don’t even know it yet.

- Max