Creationism Contest Deadline Change

The contest is over! Congratulations to the winner, Professor of Anthropology at James Madison University, Richard Lawler, who sent in this story.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned

For some reason Barack Obama has chosen to drink Bud Light for the upcoming Beer Summit, and has pissed off one of our readers in the process.

Reacting to President Obama’s apparent capitulation on the proposed health care legislation and his choice of beverage for the upcoming Beer Summit, one young lady expressed her disappointment by emailing me some remarks. Normally I don’t post material other than my own (unless I’m quoting someone), but her comments demand a public forum. The author wishes to remain anonymous.

Apparently while Obama was choosing Bud Light—the Wal-Mart of beers—for his upcoming meeting with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, the health care bill was being compromised by a compromise. The original version is dead.

What does this combination of events prove? Obama is a poser and health care will always be a mess.

I’m over him and our political system.

By choosing Bud Light, Obama alienates his supporters and shows that he sides with conglomerates that make crappy beer.

Is Bud Light supposed to be the “American” choice? He should suck down a Colt .45 straight out of the paper bag. If he really wants to portray himself as a Joe Blow American, he might as well go all out.

All I am saying is we didn’t vote for vanilla, middle-of-the-road, not-gonna-rock-the-boat, mom jean-wearing, Bud Light-drinking Barack. We voted for change. We voted for empowerment and people rising above politics and getting things done. We voted for intelligence, classiness, and pizzazz. I thought things would be different this time around and that I could chill on the jaded twenty-something routine. I thought he didn’t flinch at the “liberal elitist” accusations. Harvard grad, son of a single mom.

I feel stupid. Like I just slept with some dude who said he really liked me but was gone when I woke up and never called.

Barack fed us a bunch of lines to bed us, but the sex sucked and now he’s gone. Off drinking Bud Light, totally inaccessible except for when he addresses us on TV about how our whole world is going to come crashing down if we don’t fix health care in this country. He gets us all fired up like we just ran into him at a party after he didn’t return our calls. He does the ice luge with us and then we turn around and he’s making out with another girl.

Right now, Barack is making out with the lobbyists and big businesses who funded his campaign and Dick Cheney for all we know. Freaky son of a bitch. The health care bill is dead. What an a-hole.

- Anonymous

A New Way Of Thinking About Atheism

Over the past several years I have been encouraged by the growing interest in, and volume of atheist literature. But as the opportunity for the atheist side to be heard increases, so too does its ability to be misunderstood. Not only do many theists fail to grasp what atheism is, but many atheists seem not to understand the dynamics of their own position. We are long past due for a clarification, lest our discourse stall owing to a poverty of understanding.

Let us consider the following classic complaint about atheism, articulated by a Randal Rauser from www.christianpost.com. I have chosen this paragraph because it encapsulates precisely the misconceptions I would like to dispose of. Rauser says,

“Problems begin when atheists confuse atheism with agnosticism (a confusion which in my experience happens quite often). Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’. Agnosticism is the stance where one affirms neither (1) ‘there is no God’ or its negation, (2) ‘there is a God’. Agnosticism is a respectable position. One may very well believe there is inadequate evidence either way to settle the question. But I have encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]”

As any intellectually honest atheist will tell you, there is no way to disprove theism (i.e., the existence of god/s). However, there is no way to disprove the existence of unicorns either. Does this fact make the proposition, “Unicorns exist” any more tenable? Of course not. Nonetheless, we cannot say with total certainty that horned horses do not exist, no matter how ridiculous the prospect may seem. So technically, one might say that I’m agnostic about the existence of unicorns. However, calling myself agnostic on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter) isn’t saying much at all. To say one is agnostic about a proposition is simply to say one can’t be certain whether the proposition is true or not. Essentially, declaring oneself agnostic is simply to declare one’s inability to know for sure either way; it does nothing to convey what the agnostic thinks is the likelihood of the proposition being true.

Rauser says he “has encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous. [sic]” It isn’t disingenuous. It’s actually the opposite of disingenuous because the candid atheist realizes the limitations of human understanding, as well as our inability to disprove certain propositions. Personally, I believe that the chances of god existing are infinitesimal, but I cannot know for sure. Thus, technically I’m an agnostic, but again, this word is virtually useless here. Here’s why.

Rauser, like most people, begins with a false assumption: “Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) ‘there is no God’.” My contention that Rauser’s claim here is false will no doubt surprise many. After all, if theism asserts the existence of god, it’s only logical that a-theism asserts the opposite, right? Not quite. It is my supposition that atheism can exist only in relation to theism. Let’s consider: theism is a proposition which we’ll call X. Now consider this scenario in which I use a couple of Humean characters. A theist (that is, a believer in X) whom we’ll call Cleanthes, happens upon a person who has never heard of X, whom we’ll call Philo. The two begin talking with each other about the weather and the theist Cleanthes mentions something about X to Philo, but it is quite clear that Philo does not know what Cleanthes is talking about. Philo has never heard of X, and asks his interlocutor to educate him about the subject. Cleanthes obliges and once he is finished explaining what X is and the reasons he believes X is true, Philo is unimpressed, either by what Philo perceives as a lack of logic in Cleanthes’ argument, or a lack of empirical evidence, or both. As such, while Philo concedes to Cleanthes that he cannot prove X wrong, he finds Cleanthes’ case unconvincing, and also he finds X so unlikely as to warrant no belief in it whatsoever.

Is Philo agnostic? Sure, but only in the sense that he recognizes that human reason is unable to determine the truth or falsity of X. Therefore, Philo is agnostic in that he says he cannot know for sure the truth status of X, but he is also an a-Xist—that is to say, he is an a-theist: he sees no good reason to believe that X is true. In this way, Philo is not affirming a proposition (atheism); he is affirming reasons for believing some other proposition (theism, or X) to be false (or at least, unlikely). One does not argue “for” atheism as one argues “for” theism. Atheism is a negative. One can only argue “for” atheism by arguing against theism—or more precisely, by arguing against the arguments for theism.

Hence, atheism is not a “position” in the same way theism is. Atheism exists only in relation to theism. Theism initiates the debate by claiming something, X. Those who do not ascribe to X, for whatever reasons, are by default a-Xists, even though they may not be able to disprove X and admit as much, and in this way are also agnostic.

Let’s take a quick look at Richard Dawkins’ belief scale to see why “agnostic” is a very unhelpful term in these metaphysical debates.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung,‘I do not believe, I know.’

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that is there.’

3. Higher than 50 per cent, but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non- existence are exactly equiprobable.’

5. Lower than 50 per cent, but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’

7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’

From The God Delusion, p. 73

As we can see, “agnostic” could conceivably describe anyone from a 2 to a 6, and definitely anyone from a 3 to a 5. It does nothing to illuminate the agnostic’s actual position, other than to say that she admits that she can’t be certain either way. For the record, like Dawkins, I describe myself as a 6.9.

So then, what is an a-theist, or atheist?

An (intellectually honest) atheist is a person who says, “While the existence of god cannot be disproven, I think the prospect is so unlikely as to warrant my not believing it. While you could say I am an agnostic in that I cannot be certain either way, I am an atheist in the sense that I see no good reasons for believing theism to be so.”

Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion surrounding atheism and the corrupting influence the term ‘agnosticism’ has had on the theism/atheism debate. If you’re a nonbeliever who still isn’t sure what to call yourself, ask yourself this question: Just because I cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, would I say that I’m an agnostic on the matter? It would far more practical to call yourself an a-Santa Clausist, wouldn’t you say? Not only that, you’d be much less likely to be institutionalized.

-Max

Can You Tell The Difference Between A Tour De France Cyclist and WWII War Criminal?

Cyclist or War Criminal?

Do you know your 2009 Tour de France riders from your World War II war criminals? Find out by taking the Inebriated Discourse Cyclist or War Criminal Quiz. Each correct response is worth 10 points.

1. Heinrich Haussler

Cyclist

War Criminal



2. Vidkun Quisling

Cyclist

War Criminal



3. Rodolfo Graziani

Cyclist

War Criminal



4. Jens Voigt

Cyclist

War Criminal



5. Philippe Pétain

Cyclist

War Criminal



6. Christian Vande Velde

Cyclist

War Criminal



7. Wilhelm Keitel

Cyclist

War Criminal



8. Yukiya Arashiro

Cyclist

War Criminal



9. Markus Fothen

Cyclist

War Criminal



10. Erich Raeder

Cyclist

War Criminal

What your score means:

90 or better: You could've been a judge at the Nuremberg Trials.

Between 60 and 80: You can spot a war criminal most of the time.

Between 30 and 50: You probably think that Hermann Goering is a former Tour de France champion.

20 or worse: You may very well believe that Lance Armstrong invaded Poland.

- Max

Discovery Institute Somehow Manages To Get Propaganda Published In Boston Globe

The creepy and sinister-looking Stephen Meyer, Ph.D (Professional huckster and Douchebag)

The Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer amazingly managed to get a lengthy letter titled, “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design,” published in today’s Boston Globe. He spends 700 words to make the following case: Thomas Jefferson believed in a Creator; therefore Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. That is his argument. If you think I’m setting up a straw man, check out his letter for yourself.

Meyer cites an 1823 letter from the elderly Jefferson to his friend John Adams in which he stated, “I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.” Jefferson also remarked, “It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.”

There is so much wrong with Meyer’s letter that I’m not sure where to begin. I suppose I could start by asking, so what if Jefferson believed in a Creator? I doubt he’d want it taught as a scientific hypothesis, and even if he did, who cares? Meyer is making a pathetic appeal to authority here. As every rational person knows, hypotheses are accepted or rejected on their merits, not who their formulators and supporters are.

The doltish Meyer—who is a Christian, surprise surprise—dares to suggest that ID is not inherently religious. But here’s a challenge: find an ID advocate in the Western Hemisphere who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Go ahead, I’ll wait. The fact is that ID is simply repackaged Creationism, with the laughable parts about Adam, Eve, and the talking serpent edited out to make it more plausible. Not that it means anything truth-wise, but this was also the opinion of federal judge John E. Jones III when he ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools because it violates the Establishment Clause.

In his letter, Meyer never mentions the utterly empty and useless darling phrase of ID proponents, “irreducible complexity,” but he launches into some bullshit about the wonders of DNA, saying, “As Bill Gates has noted, ‘DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.’” Yet another appeal to authority—and again to a guy who has no background in evolutionary biology or genetics. But do you know what’s even funnier about this one? Bill Gates is reportedly an atheist. Way to make your arbitrary quote-pulls airtight, Steve.

Continuing with his horrid drivel,

“This discovery [of DNA] has made acute a longstanding scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed or solved: the mystery of how the very first life on earth arose. To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet modern scientists who argue for intelligent design do not do so merely because natural processes have failed to explain the origin of the information in cells. Instead, they argue for design because systems possessing these features invariably arise from intelligent causes.”

That temperature increase you just felt wasn’t global warming. It was a tornado of hot air coming from Meyer’s asshole. Darwin “never addressed or solved” the problem of abiogenesis? Well if he never addressed it, how could he solve it? Meyer and other anti-science hooligans are fond of criticizing Evolution for not answering a question it doesn’t even purport to address in the first place. In the case of a buffoon named Chuck Missler, he seems to think that Evolution does try to account for abiogenesis. Watch as he attempts to refute a nonexistent claim, while making a complete ass of himself in the process:

Right, so because I believe in Evolution, I wouldn’t be surprised one of these days to find a fucking bear in my peanut butter. Peanut butter guy here thinks Evolution is hooey and favors ID, but in truth he is actually one of the best arguments against Intelligent Design you could hope for. And how about the guy in the very beginning of the video? If he’s willing to lie about his baldness by wearing a toupée, what else is he willing to lie about? Probably anything.

However, I must admit, I’ve always been intrigued by the approach of criticizing theories for failing to account for phenomena they don’t even attempt to explain, so I decided to try it out myself. As you are about to see, I came up with some major findings. For example:

Game Theory does not explain the elliptical orbits of the planets.

The second law of thermodynamics does not explain the deliciousness of pineapples.

Plate Tectonics does not explain why Dane Cook sucks.

That was fun. And I had no idea these dearly-held ideas were so deficient. I feel like I’ve stumbled upon some serious revelations. Who knows where Discovery Institute logic will lead us next?

Anyway, getting back to Meyer. Don’t you just love how he states that the features of DNA “invariably arise from intelligent causes” as if he’s telling us what he had for breakfast this morning? Like what he’s saying is self-evident. State it as confidently as you want, but that won’t change the fact that your assumption has no grounding in empirical evidence, otherwise you would’ve offered us some by now.

You’ll notice that because Meyer can’t find a reputable scientist who endorses his primeval views, he has to resort to yanking quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Bill Gates. Never mind Charles Darwin, Ernst Mayr, Kenneth Miller (who’s a Catholic), Richard Dawkins, and others who have spent countless hours studying and researching the evolution of organisms and who repudiate Creationism/Intelligent Design (including Miller). If you’re Stephen Meyer, why give a damn about the inconvenient findings of great scientists when you can just quote non-biologists whose comments ever-so vaguely support your chickenshit hypothesis?

- Max

Bill O'Reilly Still Whining About Secularism

Note: The video I had of O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo was removed from YouTube, so I’ve substituted this segment about the same exact thing where he makes the exact same stupid argument.

So, Bill O’Reilly is miffed because President Obama refused to spend thousands of dollars to fire up a few jet fighters to do a flyover at some “God & Country Festival” in Idaho. Big deal. What have those freeloading Idahoans ever done for the rest of the country, anyway? As one astute observer has commented, Idaho blows. Like most Red States, Idaho gets more money from the federal government than it pays in federal taxes. Idaho gets about $1.21 for every $1 it pays to the federal government. Compare that to my state—a Blue State—which gets about $0.82 for each tax dollar we pay. Red States, for all their complaints about federal spending, are actually financial parasites on the backs of more prosperous (and mostly Democratic) states, leeching money so they can dick around with statues of the Ten Commandments and teach Bronze Age mythology in science classrooms. But I digress.

O’Reilly says, “There is no specific religion in play at that festival.” Having known nothing about this festival, I still knew O’Reilly’s claim had to be bullshit. I was right, per usual. If he had taken five seconds to do an internet search, he would’ve found that the festival’s own website declares, “Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News…” It also states that the festival “is an unashamedly Christian event.” Now unless O’Reilly doesn’t consider Christianity a “specific religion,” he is either lying or hasn’t done his homework. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell because he has such a long and storied history of misinformation that one often doesn’t know where O’Reilly’s incompetence ends and his deception begins.

The festival itself aside, Bill-O is pissed because unlike his predecessors, Obama actually decided to heed the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by refusing government resources to some Bible thumpers on Planet Idaho. O’Reilly likes to throw around the word “secular” like it’s an insult instead of a word for people who ascribe to Jeffersonian principles in matters of church and state. Obama’s a “secular guy.” Oh no, he wants to keep religion out of government, and government out of religion. Cry me a fucking river. Can’t these slaves of Jesus just be happy for their own goddamn servitude without using money from the rest of us to promote their abhorrent and backward beliefs? Be a slave on your own dime. Don’t use my tax dollars to perpetuate your morally and intellectually bankrupt fairy tale of vicarious salvation.

O’Reilly also says that “to diminish spiritually by denying the good folks of Idaho a flyover is simply stupid.” Is he really saying that the spirituality of the festival attendees will be diminished because they won’t get to see some very expensive instruments of destruction fly over their heads? Bill-O and I must have very different definitions of spirituality. And I love how O’Reilly says that secularists are being disrespectful to people of faith. We’re not disrespectful to people of faith, but faith itself because it’s ridiculous and often harmful. Several times I’ve had people of faith tell me that I’m going to burn in hell for eternity because of my unbelieving ways. Now that’s disrespectful.

Then, in a remark against secularism, O’Reilly states, “The secular culture, which President Obama embraces, is mainly concerned with things of this world, like global warming.” Think about that statement for a second. The secular culture is mainly concerned with things of this world. Well what world should we be concerned with? Does O’Reilly think we should be worrying about tax policy on fucking Neptune? Or what the seating arrangements will be in a nonexistent afterlife? Literally, Earth to O’Reilly, bring it in, Bill. Then in a bullshit non sequitur, he asks where this is getting us and starts talking about the reluctance of China and India to take preventative measures on global warming. Bill says they’re not going to help on global warming, so he basically suggests we pray for the problem to go away instead of doing our part, even if others won’t. Seriously, I do not understand the Right’s feverish opposition on this issue. Even if you think global warming is a complete myth, is it really such a bad idea to want to curb emissions and cut back on pollution? This should be a bipartisan issue just like murder and child rape. Then again, one should never underestimate the ability of business interests to corrupt public discussion by lining the pockets of their favorite politicians who are all too happy to repeat canned industry lines about the evils of regulation.

Finally from Bill, the classic demented refrain of the delusional Religious Right: “The U.S.A. has become the strongest, most prosperous country on this earth largely because of its Judeo-Christian traditions.” Bitch, please. Few claims are more revolting than the idea that we would be without moral sense had the hallucinating Moses not promulgated the Ten Commandments to the filthy, illiterate and credulous fools at the foot of Mount Sinai. Those who insist that our laws are based on the commandments simply don’t give humans enough credit to be able to figure out important things on their own, like how the prohibition of murder and theft would be conducive to the perpetuation of any society. Or maybe it’s because the Christians who try to impose the commandments cannot understand themselves why allowing murder is a bad idea. This would explain their continued insistence that the Ten Commandments be displayed everywhere except in Paris Hilton’s vagina, even though there’s enough room for two stone tablets.

Secularism is railed against by ignorant thugs as some kind of subversive ideological force permeating American culture. In reality, secularism is not an ideology, but a safeguard against (religious) ideological encroachments on our society. It is a fine complement to America’s republican form of government, whereby the potentially dangerous and violent passions of the people are diluted through the channels of representation. In a similar fashion, secularism is an insurance policy against religious zealots—Christian or otherwise—who would endeavor to mix religion and government, or worse: impose theocracy in America where God and Jesus would be the chief policymakers in what would be a most nightmarish scenario. We often take it for granted that the Religious Right is not allowed to advance its wretched agenda in wholesale on the rest of the country because of the First Amendment. But we can easily imagine how matters might be otherwise. Secularism is the only thing standing between America as it is now, and a Christianized version of Iran. If America were to become a theocracy, it would perhaps begin with the most minor of religious infractions on free society, and gradually grow until it has rotted the roots of our government, toppling the tree of democracy and sending it crashing earthward to the dirt and filth from which it had managed to ascend to the heavens.

- Max

New Post Coming Later Today

In the meantime, Dan Gurewitch of College Humor shows just how stupid and ridiculous Twitter is by putting it to the Reality Test:

Glenn Beck: Actor or Paranoid Psychotic?

Cover of Glenn Beck’s shitty book, the title of which suggests that he thinks there also exists a “Fake America,” fueling speculation that he’s certifiable.

Barack Obama hasn’t been president for six months and already the Republican shit factory is pumping out high-grade, persecution-complex BS at full capacity. One of the most efficient workers in this impressive operation is Glenn Beck of Faux News. Each time he goes on air, Beck somehow manages to outdo himself in the paranoid delusions department. Although I assume Beck is a jackass in real life just as he is on television, I cannot—I repeat, cannot—imagine that Beck actually believes half the shit he says on the air. Why? Because if Beck went around in his everyday off-air life saying what he says on the airwaves, he certainly would’ve been committed by now. I am not exaggerating and this isn’t a joke. I mean it 100%. If Glenn Beck really and truly is the man he plays on television, then my friends, he is man suffering from serious psychosis with secondary paranoid delusions.

Behold,

Beck’s ready willingness to shed crocodile tears over 9/11 was genuinely vile, to use the favorite word of Beck cohort Bill O’Reilly. I would also use O’Reilly’s term “smear merchant” to describe Beck, but for some reason whenever I hear this phrase I always picture some guy selling used underwear. In any event, Beck is doing great in the ratings as you might expect. You see, since about two seconds after Obama was sworn in, the electorally repudiated conservatives started to revert to their tried-and-true Clinton-era strategy of telling everyone “We’re fucked!” now that the Democrats have retaken the White House. This position rests in stark contrast to their strategy when they’re in power, which is “Fuck you.”

-Max

Funny Creation Story Contest- $100 Cash Prize!

The contest is over! Congratulations to the winner, Professor of Anthropology at James Madison University, Richard Lawler, who sent in this story.

New Creation Story Deemed As Plausible As The Next

Virtually every culture has adopted its own creation myth ever since human consciousness evolved the faculty of language. Remarkably, many of these myths continue to be taken literally by a vast herd of sheep that have been blessed with the absence of a critical-thinking instinct. Any person who chooses to believe one elaborate creation fairytale over another is surely one who holds contempt for logic. God created the earth in seven days (Judeo-Christian); a celestial cat got shitfaced just enough to help it create human beings by breathing life into clay figures (some African culture); the dark overlord Xenu came down to earth, dumped a bunch of demonic aliens in all the volcanoes and attempted to destroy them via nuclear weapons (Scientology). Each myth is just as plausible or implausible (unverifiable) as the next. Some years ago, while contemplating the absurdity of having faith in such creation myths, I decided to produce my own original theory about how life as we know it came to be. Keep in mind that my story is just as credible as any other. Enjoy!

Life in the Cosmic Petri-Dish

Gallzak, a member of the most evolved intergalactic species in the universe (the Remulonics), began experiencing sudden, unprovoked ejaculations on a regular basis. He (the pronoun “he” is used hereafter for convenience despite the fact that Gallzak’s entire species is gender neutral and asexual) would randomly cream in his space shorts without the aid of any physical stimulation or even the slightest mental-image lubricant. His strange predicament managed to perplex everyone that he dared to confide in. In order to soothe his feelings of insecurity and shame, Gallzak soon decided to chase the tranquilizing high that could only be derived from playing what was known as the ‘God game.’

The Remulonics had been the first species of life to find a complete answer to the God question, a final solution that explained what had formerly been the mysteries of the cosmos. Their advanced intellect enabled them to easily conceptualize, and even to viscerally feel the highest mathematical formula that revealed creation in all its splendid wonders. Intelligent design and chaos (randomness) theories were seen as one in the same. There was never any need to debate or question the formula. Remulonics understood and honored the remarkable capacity to create inherent in most sentient beings. In fact, creating (playing the ‘God game’) was considered one of the highest arts within Remulonic society. Gallzak had often fantasized about producing magnificent artwork of his own and he began growing increasingly eager to get down to this business of creating.

Gallzak and his fellow Remulonics typically reproduced asexually through ejaculating onto a special candy bar, which served as an incubator for the new life-form. Remulonic semen (colloquially referred to as gooze) had amazing special properties, and, whenever discharged onto a surface other than the special candy bar, was capable of producing life all the same. This life, however, always consisted of brand new life forms that were all vastly different and typically much less evolved than the Remulonics. Gallzak’s intuition was telling him that the spontaneous orgasms recently plaguing his existence were producing gooze of a very special variety. He subsequently decided to do everything possible in order to capture his essence upon the next unexpected shudder of orgasmic delight.

Upon waking early the next morning, Gallzak quickly got dressed and went to the nearby science store to buy a sterile petri-dish. He held that little clear container all day, patiently waiting for the chance to collect his own specimen. Surprisingly, he went the whole day and evening without having his, now routine spontaneous orgasm. Discouraged, but still faithfully clutching the dish in hand, Gallzak climbed into bed and prepared to sleep. Fortunately, just after he put the blanket over his body, he began to feel the familiar waves of pleasure pulsating throughout his core; he knew a big sample was fixing to spew. He exploded with magnum force, but was still able to discharge most of the product into the petri-dish as intended. “Something special will come from that,” he said to himself quietly as he wiped the excess gooze from his chin.

The next day, Gallzak rounded up all of his friends to celebrate his splendid act of creation. He set up a microscope-type instrument with a projector, which enabled all of his guests to view the new life-forms in magnified, stunning high-definition. Since the Remulonics existed in a state of non-linear time, they were able to view, in one sitting, all that had occurred within thousands, or even millions of years of linear time as we know it. Gallzak and his audience watched in awe as life on earth evolved; from amoebas to dinosaurs all the way to human beings. Special snacks were being passed around as Gallzak’s friends kicked back and watched the entire history of mankind unfold for their viewing pleasure. It was like watching a blockbuster movie. Human life was the most entertaining drama that Remulonics had witnessed in some time. Gallzak’s intuition had not misled him. His uncontrollable ejaculations were indeed guided by a purpose (the creative principle).

Gallzak’s masterpiece brought him considerable notoriety within the community, and the dramatic feature film, “Humanity,” would long be hailed as a classic by Remulonics far and wide. A feature film, however, was all that was to remain of his magnificent creation. The spontaneous ejaculations never bothered Gallzak again after that fateful night when he jizzed the milky-way and humanity into existence.

~Wolf

Just What Is This Art Of Which You Speak?

Saxophone, by the lovely Laura Hanley

“Art,” Marshall McLuhan once said, “Is anything you can get away with.” Sixty years ago this would have been a very cynical take, but today his maxim is elementary. Given the kind of crazy senseless shit that has passed as art in recent decades, a lot of contemporary art is indeed something that must be gotten away with, unlike the painting above.

Two people who have been particularly adept at getting away in this manner are the married wastrels Christo and Jeanne-Claude. This Bulgarian Boondoggler and his scandalously ugly wife are considered by many to be the preeminent avant-garde artists of our time. Last week, they received critical support from Colorado’s congressional delegation for a proposed 2012 project that would suspend six miles of fabric above the Arkansas River. This project would continue the couple’s tradition of defiling public property with their mind-blowingly ostentatious projects constructed under the guise of fine art. Recall their 2005 project The Gates, in New York City’s Central Park. Over 7,500 vinyl gates lined twenty-three miles of path in a venture that cost them $21 million. At the grand opening, Jeanne-Claude declared in typical haut monde fashion, “Let them eat gates,” in what was the runaway winner for Pompous Statement of the Year.

The charitable benevolence of Christo and Jeanne-Claude on display

Gee, it sure was nice of the Bulgarian Boondoggler and his potato-head spouse to conceive such a grandiose project for us unwashed masses to enjoy. Like the time they wrapped the coast of Little Bay in Sydney with erosion control fabric in 1969; or when they ensconced Berlin’s Reichstag in polypropylene fabric in 1995; or several other wealthy bourgeois endeavors that would be unachievable by artists of moderate means who could nonetheless conceive of such gaudy enterprises. The irony in all of this is that aside from the couple’s initial drawings and the orders they bark to their proletarian laborers during the building of these monstrosities, they don’t do any constructing themselves. They’re like a pair of glorified architects whose projects are both temporary and useless. Christo described his work this way:

“Do you know that I don’t have any artworks that exist? They all go away when they’re finished. Only the preparatory drawings, and collages are left, giving my works an almost legendary character. I think it takes much greater courage to create things to be gone than to create things that will remain.”

Wow. Christo is deep. And I think he just made me appreciate the legendary character of Seattle’s bygone Kingdome—the former home of the Mariners and Seahawks. I’m sure the Kingdome’s architect knew it would come down at some point since nothing lasts forever, so imagine the courage he had to have in order design such an impermanent structure.

Powerful stuff. Of course, I fully admit that the Kingdome was hardly on par with a project such as The Gates. I mean after all, the Kingdome was utilitarian, it had a function. What silliness.

Naturally, Christo and Jeanne-Claude aren’t the only hucksters ever to hit the art world. Recall that, in the 1960s, the art community popped a collective boner over the works of a charlatan from Pennsylvania named Andy Warhol. Warhol, as you know, painted iconic images of Campbell’s Soup cans, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Jackie Kennedy, among other familiar objects as part of the pop art movement. He did this during the advent of the mass media age and at a time when mass production and distribution were being perfected by an increasingly mechanized and soulless society. If the works of Warhol serve as an ironic and damning Marxist indictment of American capitalism and consumer culture, it is only by accident and not by intention, and Warhol himself said as much. By depicting universally recognizable Main Street objects, Warhol vulgarized art, and became what you might call an anti-artist.

Pop art was an extremely reactionary movement. Artistically, it was the nuclear age’s radical answer to abstract expressionism and the no-thingness of Pollock, Still, et al. And as pop art was a direct response to abstract expressionism, it was an indirect response to a general anti-iconographic trend which had emerged in the late nineteenth century. As Richard Brettell has observed, many notable works of modern art—including several impressionist works—appear to be “without subject,” such as Monet’s On the Bank of the Seine at Bettencourt (1868), Cézanne’s Houses near Auvers-sur-l’Oise (1873-4), and Gilpin’s early color photograph, Basket of Peaches (1912). While works such as these do indeed depict some-thing, their “deliberate cultivation of the banal” is virtually tantamount to representing no-thing at all.

Subsequently, anti-iconography was taken much further by the abstract expressionists. While abstract expressionism was extreme almost to the point of revulsion, it made good fodder for a vivid imagination. Furthermore, it was legitimized by its inherently emotional aspect. In the case of the ever-troubled Pollock, for example, he managed to scream from his canvasses so convincingly that it is hard to doubt the authenticity of the emotionally charged nature of his work.

By the 1960s abstract expressionism had morphed into less inspiring forms such as geometric abstraction and its hideous progeny, minimalism. It was around this time that Warhol splashed onto the scene. Whereas abstract expressionism had been figureless and lacking in iconography or signage, pop art was at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Very often pop art depicted mass-produced objects or universal symbols, leaving little to the imagination. The awful soup cans in particular obviated the need for any contemplative reverie while viewing them because the objects are so commonplace and presented in identical fashion with that which they portray. Whereas Monet and Cézanne had conveyed the banal by depicting unfamiliar familiarities (such as a house the viewer had not seen before per se, but is nonetheless typical and unremarkable as a house qua house), Warhol conveyed the familiar by depicting the familiar. Thus, while his soup cans might have been artistically redeemable had they been painted in way that deviated meaningfully from their real-world models, their replicative nature makes for an uninspired and mundane work. Herein lies the crucial difference between re-presenting an object, and merely representing it, as Warhol did.

“Am I high or is this a painting of just a bunch of soup cans?”

After pop art came all kinds of other weirdo artwork, such as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ (1987), which is a photo of a plastic Christ on a crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine. Now, as a godless heathen, I find Piss Christ to be a first rate work of blasphemy. However, its value as a work of art depends almost entirely on its shock value because as far as I can tell, Serrano didn’t have to put a lot of effort into this one. Beyond shock, there is nothing to feel when viewing this work. A far more aesthetically meritorious work would have been a painting or sculpture showing Peter giving Jesus a blowjob. In this case, the work would artistically be more valuable and historically accurate, and would embody the blasphemous shock value that comes with portraying an apostle giving his messiah a hummer. (Pun intended.) There it is, art community. I just wrote a huge check. All you have to do is cash it.

At this point I cannot help but ask, “What will they think of next?” It’s a scary question, but an inevitable one. I do not mean to imply that the artwork of our day is junk, but it seems a goodly number of people are quite ready to accept all sorts of strange art as great art simply because it is unusual. But just because a work ventures into uncharted territory does not mean it carries an inherent artistic value. Value resides in a work’s aesthetic qualities and its engageability. Indeed, the alien is not necessarily artistic, and the artistic need not always be alien.

-Max