Gays And The Fundies Who "Love" Them (But Not Like That)

It seems like whenever any institution shows the smallest amount of positive or protective response toward gays, the religious kooks go into a tizzy. As far back as 1999, a decade ago, the APA had this to say regarding 'reparative', 'conversion' or 're-orientation' therapy:

“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients... were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed... the APA opposes any treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

Just last week the APA finally adopted a resolution in regard to this position:

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The decision rejects the hundred years' worth of research indicating the effectiveness and benefits of sexual reorientation therapy due to "serious design flaws."

The resolution also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness and rather seek treatments "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

The approval was made at the APA's annual convention with a 125-4 vote.

What exactly is the driving force behind the dissenting and consequently religious response to this? Religion wasn't taken into account as if it were a fact. Specifically religious doctrines which are mostly fundamental in nature which say that homosexuality is wrong and can be reversed or cured. Please keep in mind that the bible certainly says NOTHING about the nature of homosexuality - there is no book of butch which outlines if it's a choice or a characteristic or pre-determined in some way.

This is the issue for them:

The task force examined the 83 studies conducted in English between 1960 and 2007 regarding SOCE, but concluded that the vast majority of the studies were unacceptable because of poor methodology. "Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," task force chair Dr. Judith M. Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."

A good chunk of those rejected 'studies' were conducted by religious institutions and constitutes psychological pseudoscience. One asshole who makes a living peddling this 'you just have to WANT to change' garbage is...the guy who is complaining about the APA's resolution of course!

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic - a biblical de-gaying office - disagrees with the APA, stating:

the organization did not give sufficient weight to the years of clinical research that shows that in some cases sexual orientation is changeable through therapy. "The APA is really failing to not only represent science, which is its primary responsibility," he said, "but it's also failing to inform people."

The APA isn't failing to inform anyone of anything. In fact, these people have something to be happy about given that the APA didn't vote the practice of re-orientation therapy to be specifically unethical, they just refuse back it which means Nicolosi can still torment confused homosexual or bisexual people all he wants without risking the loss of his liscense.

I feel like Nicolosi's greatest fear is one of my strongest hopes - that people will abandon these types of therapy and instead learn to love themselves for who they are, whether they're theists or otherwise.

A Word From Ken Ham - RE: Creation Museum Visit

So I wandered over to the Answers In Genesis website (I know, gross, but I was curious) to see what creepy ol' Ken Ham had to say about the impending (and by now completed without incident) visit of about 285 atheists/humanists to his abomination unto mighty Atheismo, the Creation Museum.

I wasn't shocked to find his quote mining of prominent atheist and university professor PZ Myer's blog as definitive proof that all atheists are mean and snarky. The fact is, the creation museum is as much a joke among atheists as I don't know...valued and accredited scientific research is among creationists so lets not claim innocence on that front. However, this quote from Ham was a bit much:

Most people (even most of the non-Christians) who come to the museum do so to learn, to be challenged, to search out information, to be equipped, and so on.

I guarantee you, Mr. Ham, what you're doing at the creation museum has nothing to do with information unless you count misinformation as a kind of information. People may go there to learn the latest in christian apologetics, but as for learning history, science, or anything of value, the creation museum is not on the top of anyone's list. I will agree that there is a challenge here - the challenge to not burst out laughing hysterically at the ridiculousness of the 'museum' and it's content.

Yeah, I'm snarky when it comes to the application of pseudoscience when trying to give creationism scientific validity because creationism is an idea based on a myth. There are no observations in nature which support creationism unless you refuse to observe nature in its entirety. Once you start trying to lie to people by telling them that their mythological belief system has any amount of validity in the field of science, you are essentially throwing down the gauntlet for the discussion and the scientifically minded community isn't going to pull any punches in it's response. You can call us mean for it, but to relate to you on a level you'll understand - you started it.

Ham goes on to quote a post PZ made about the recent Iowa bus ad controversy where the DART pulled atheist bus ads after having initially approved them, published them, and collected the money for them. At first the DART claimed the bus ads were pulled because of a negative community reaction, but then changed their story to say that they were never approved in the first place. When confronted with proof that they were in fact approved, the DART has once again changed it's story to say that they were supposed to be approved AGAIN and weren't.

What confuses me is that Ham quotes PZ's entire post and then comes to this conclusion:

You see, regardless of the creation/evolution issue, these people oppose anyone who believes in God, regardless of whether they accept Genesis as literal history.

What? A post about discrimination against atheists in reference to a bus ad is proof that we oppose anyone who believes in god? I suppose when you run an establishment that brazenly asserts that T-rex was a vegetarian regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, you can come to any conclusion from any source without fear of being called out on your erroneous logic. Erroneous logic seems to be the name of the creationist game. Sometimes I just want to take creationists by the shoulders, give them a good shake and demand in my most authoritative voice that they make sense.

Jesus In Lodi, California

In Lodi, California there has been a controversy brewing ever since a secular minded individual questioned the council's prayer before the meeting began which specifically invoked Jesus. The council had a pre-existing policy which limits prayer to non-sectarian and non-denominational.

On Wednesday of this week the council voted to move the meeting regarding this issue back to September 30th but that didn't stop the protesters, the majority of which were Christian, from coming out of the woodwork to voice their concerns.

Out of about 400 people marching outside the council meeting, 300 - 350 were members of various christian faiths who had converged to voice their outrage at what they misguidedly cited as the reduction of christian freedoms in America:

While holding a sign quoting Colossians 3:17, Lodi resident Angela Lopez said she is tired of freedom being taken away from Christians.

Where do I start? The issue is about a pre-existing rule regarding prayer which was put in place to assure that no citizen was excluded - christian or otherwise. It would seem that these people feel that being fair to everyone is somehow taking away christian freedoms, but it's not. It's just being fair.

"It's becoming harder and harder for the Christians. ... It's only because we support God that our country is as blessed as it is," Lopez said.

Her son, Eddie, also held a sign and a Bible.

"I came just to support Jesus," Eddie Lopez said. "Just for him to know I was here to support him."

Ms. Lopez's statement is a common one among christians - we made this country great, we should be able to pray to Jesus no matter what. It's the 'you owe us' mentality but the problem is, it doesn't hold up. I would argue that the stregnth of the constitution - a secular document written in large by non christians - has had a large hand in why this country is as 'blessed' as it is. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it should be noted that the 'god did it' position is based entirely on faith and factless belief while my position is entirely based on historical evidence, though I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that evidence isn't held in very high regard by these kinds of people.

Also in regard to Eddie, I have to ask - would your jesus really be so petty as to care about this issue? I don't think so, and a few local pastors in the area have been quoted as agreeing with me:

While standing between the two rallies, senior pastor Tim Stevenson of Horizon Community Church in Galt said he came to watch and listen.

"God's pretty big," he said. "I don't think he needs us to defend his name."

He wishes the energy spent by both groups at the rally could go toward bigger problems facing Lodi and the world, like the people standing in front of Salvation Army or the thousands of children who die daily from preventable diseases.

"There are too many things around the world that God told us to go out and do," Stevenson said. "We got our priorities in the wrong place."

Though in attendace as a minority, there were voices of reason at the rallies, people who came to point out the obvious to the christians who are evidently too concerned about their particular god getting first billing to do the christian thing and consider the position of others.

As the Lopez's gathered to sing prayer hymns, Lodi resident Steve Weiner said he wanted to make sure the council knew there were two sides to this issue.

"We have Muslims, Sikhs, atheists and people of various faiths, and they can feel excluded and intimidated at council meetings if there is a prayer to one God, Jesus," Weiner said.

And this is the whole issue isn't it? There is no such thing as a completely christian town and regardless of the size of the minority, the majority should never be given special privileges simply because they are a majority. The United States is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic - it is justice and representation for all, not just for the group with the most participants. When you have people who can't stand to hear a prayer without aggressively inserting their personal deity's name -

At the end, he said "Amen," which was followed by some members of the crowd yelling "in Jesus' name." During the Pledge of Allegiance, some members also shouted the words "one nation under God."

Then the question in my mind isn't why you can't say jesus in a prayer, but rather what about your faith is so weak that you have to force jesus into every prayer?

Reconciling Self Deception By Way Of Self Deception

I occasionally read christian blogs and news feeds just to see what those wacky sky worshipers are up to and to give myself some perspective. Most of what I read is generally polite and interesting and even if I don't agree with it, I at least learn a thing or two from what I've read. Today I ran across a book review on christianity today that I felt was interesting to a certain point. I feel like this is indicative of what I usually encounter on these sites - logic, logic, logic, god. And god is almost always the dead end.

The book which was being discussed was I Told Me So: The Role of Self-Deception in Christian Living by Gregg A. Ten Elshof. Pontification aside, the point of the book as explained by the reviewer seems sound and applicable to anyone, not just those of the christian faith:

The abilities that contribute to self-deception are not wrong in themselves. People go wrong when they use their deceiving abilities to convince themselves that they are better than they actually are: "If I'm not so bad, I don't have to change."

Makes sense and in all honesty this is a pretty basic point. Self deception (they cite setting your alarm ahead 15 minutes so that you don't wake up late as an example) is not always bad, it's only destructive when the self decption results in a negative impact on yourself or others which is additionally somehow rationalized by the person inflicting the damage as not their fault or concern. The book evidently reconciles this by stating the following:

How does one avoid self-deception's negative effects? Ten Elshof offers several helpful strategies: Recognize that everyone does it, put real plans into action that prevent the need to deceive oneself, welcome honest and diverse feedback, and ultimately, seek the Holy Spirit's guidance to reveal the truth.

This bothers me. As an atheist I see the whole 'holy spirit' figure as a kind of self deception, so in essence this author is suggesting that the negative effects of self deception can be avoided by participating in...more self deception.

I understand that religious people don't see their myth the same way I do and for them this seeking out of the holy spirit is something so real to them it can't possibly be categorized as self deception in the same way rationalizing cheating or lying is, but essentially the rationalizing of a lie is performed by having a conversation with yourself. I can't see the whole looking to the holy spirit for guidance thing as anything more than just another conversation with yourself, only in that instance you're not only mulling something over in your own head, you're additionally pretending that your own head is something far more grandiose (and therefore more worthy of consideration regardless of how crazy the end result of the conversation may be) than yourself. That kind of make believe seems far more dangerous to me than any reality based self deception out there.

Atheist Blogroll

Alrighty kids, I was just officially added to that juggernaut of godlessness, the Atheist Blogroll. If you're an atheist, agnostic, secular, or whatever your favorite term might be, I would strongly suggest going through the motions of adding your little thought spot on the web to the roll.

I like the idea of the project in that it unifies us all in one tidy list so that like minded individuals can easily find one another and curious individuals have a user friendly reference to get started. The keeper of the list (sounds nerdily grandios!) would be Mojoey over at Deep Thoughts.

On the subject of blogs, I thought I would share with you a list of the blogs I personally read on a daily basis:

• Angie the Anti-Theist
• Atheist Revolution
• Deep Thoughts
• Friendly Atheist by Hemant ...
• Heaving Dead Cats
• No God Blog
• Pharyngula
• The Good Atheist
• Unreasonable Faith

If anyone has any suggestions for other tasty atheist blogs, let me know. The atheist blogroll has almost 1000 blogs on it and while I sometimes have time to do some random clicking and looking around, I still prefer recommendations.

George Sodini's Evolution of Faith

I just got done reading George Sodini's journal which has been posted publicly across the web after he shot and killed four women (one died on the way to the hospital after the initial reports were released) and injured 9 others. The guy seemed like a very lonely and unhappy man who felt himself a failure in many ways.

It's important to point out that this was in no way a religiously motivated killing. However, in his journal he does mention religion a few times and interestingly the passages that mention religion later in the journal (the day before the event) seem to be vastly different than the attitude he has earlier on in the journal. Here are the excerpts which interest me:

Now that I am on the topic of family and people I know, I might as well make a summary of sorts to show where things stand. This is New Years Eve I have time, no date tonight of course, so:

Honorable mention:

Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA - "Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!", as pastor Rick Knapp would proclaim. Holy ----, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at [phone number]. If no answer there, he should still live at [address]. In any case, guilt and fear kept me there 13 long years until Nov 2006. I think his crap did the most damage. Their web site: http://www.tetelestai.org.

Andy Pulkowski - I have been in barrooms and church groups. The worst people by far are the religious types. Especially a right-wing, stiff-faced fundie like Andy. A condescending, demeaning, passive-aggresive person. Frigid, rigid, linear and totally inflexible. Being a very serious person, he cannot hide his frown-lined face. He better not try to smile; lest his face might crack. I knew children of parents who grew up in strict religious homes. Religion has a certain stink to it of guilt, shame, fear, and that moral standard that always contradicts the natural tendencies and desires of a person. Therin lies the conflict. Young person cannot experiment with things to decide on their own and establish their own parameters. So they tend to cut loose and really rebel much worse than the average young person. Ma and Pa never know what goes on. They easily BS their parents because they want to believe their little one is an angel. Andy has a young daughter Bethany Pulkowski away at college, High Point University. I saw her picture on his desk. She's your basic, attractive, young girl. Please reread my entry made on Nov 5th. That's only one thing she can do. You Andy types out there need to further strengthen your strict resolve and do more of the same thing! Because those girls were great when I recall my college years! She is someone's (or many guy's) little ---- now, I am sure.

Another point about andy. How can someone be cold, vicious, sarcastic and generally nasty ALL THE TIME and then make the claim about their church life and how good they are? Total hypocritical idiots.

That's all for now. That felt good.

Now, the entry from the day before he killed those people and then himself:

August 3, 2009:I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.

Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new approach works.

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

I will try not to add anymore entries because this computer clicking distracts me.

Also, any of the "Practice Papers" left on my coffee table I used or the notes in my gym bag can be published freely. I will not be embarased, because, well, I will be dead. Some people like to study that stuff. Maybe all this will shed insight on why some people just cannot make things happen in their life, which can potentially benefit others.

I'm leaving the posts in their entirety because I feel like context is pretty important with all this. It seems to me like the closer he got to the date of this horrible and obviously painstakingly premeditated act, the more he felt compelled to use religion as an excuse for his actions or at least to try to explain away the significance of what he wanted to do. He ends this journal talking about how this journal and other evidence of his planning the event and his documented mindset will 'potentially benefit' people in the future, yet in the same passage he talks about the unimportance of works in regard to god. It seems like he's almost trying to justify killing other people, as if to say that it's all been pre-forgivin anyway so who cares?

This man was disturbed, a mysogenist and a social outcast, but his views and the change of his position in regard to religion is interesting because it shows an extreme case of how someone can take the highly interpretable word of the bible and manipulate it in any way imaginable to adhere to the personal desires of the person looking for vindication or excuse in the holy book.

About Faith...The Two Legged Dog

Today I got an email from my friend and boss about a dog named Faith who has two legs. Evidently the dog was an "internet sensation" a few years back and the Email was intended to be inspirational - if this dog can make it then so can you!

The wording of parts of the email were suspect as was the name of the dog and from the get go I felt that nasty twinge of religion impeding on my otherwise happy day. The Email itself wasn't overtly religious, but indicative enough that I felt compelled to check out Faith's inevitable official website. Sure enough, three paragraphs in:

People ask me if it was easy to teach Faith to walk upright...the answer is NO! It was not easy, and it was not natural. It was SUPER natural, and therefore, we have to give all of the credit to Jesus. Of course, it took a little....Faith as well.

So sugary you might just get a cavity. So let's look back on the email for a second so I can explain why this dog sent to spread faith and hope to people in the name of Jesus is so confusing to me.

In the beginning, she put Faith on a surfing board to let her feel the movements. Later she used peanut butter on a spoon as a lure and reward for her to stand up and jump around. Even the other dog at home also helped to encourage her to walk. Amazingly, only after 6 months, like a miracle, Faith learned to balance on her 2 hind legs and jumped to move forward. After further training in the snow, she now can walk like a human being.

This is called 'training.' This is what you do when you train a dog. You use incentives and positive reinforcement. It's not a miracle for a dog to learn how to do things, especially if they have a dedicated teacher guiding them. People don't exclaim that it's a miracle when a dog learns to run a complicated obstacle course or is trained to help people who are disabled or is trained to sniff out certain chemicals and these are not even biological imperatives. It was in the dog's best interest biologically to mobilize itself somehow AND she had a trainer. I would say she had more than enough incentive and support to teach herself to use her legs in an atypical way.

Her present owner Jude Stringfellew has given up her teaching post and plans to take her around the world to preach that even without a perfect body, one can have a perfect soul'.

This may be nit-picking on my part, but isn't it a big cruel for a christian to talk about a dog being an example for anything to do with perfect souls when christians maintain that animals don't even have souls? No, it's not nit picking. Christians have no problem insisting that animals are below humans because of some contrived notion that humans are god's chosen creation, yet when it suits their purpose they'll celebrate specific animals as special because they can imagine divine inspiration from them. This dog is inspirational in that she would have otherwise died had it not been for sound veterinary science and specifically focused training when she was still in the most pivotal developmental stages of life.

Contrary to what this woman might want people to believe, Faith is not a miracle dog. She's a cool dog, I'm not bad mouthing the creature, but she's certainly not any indication of the supernatural - other dogs with similar conditions have accomplished the exact same feat. Faith is a perfect example of something that should be celebrated being ignored in favor of religious fanaticism. Ms. Stringfellew can call Faith a miracle all she wants and will no doubt capitalize on her dog's success financially and personally, but the fact is - the dog did what dogs do best, which is adapt and compensate. Way to be a dog, Faith.

Atheism - Is The Lack Of Belief Still A Belief?

One of the most annoying occurrences I run across with fellow atheists is the claim that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. To me, this argument seems unimportant and a bit nit-picky. I understand the logic behind it - atheism isn't a belief but rather a lack of belief in a god or gods. Yes, OK. However, since the question of whether there is a god or not is at present an unanswerable one then to not believe in god is still a belief in that you believe that there is not a god. Rearranging the words of the conviction to say "I don't believe in god" doesn't automatically make it less of a belief.

I think the issue that is raised here is the lack of congruency in regard to what constitutes an atheist. Some are ardent and convinced that there is no god. Others are unconcerned with the existence god and simply don't feel that the issue deserves much of any consideration. The latter position begins to bleed into the gray area of agnosticism, but I know plenty of people who feel entirely unconcerned about god but who still consider themselves atheists. I have found that an atheist is an agnostic is a non-believer is a freethinker, all depending on who is considering the source.

The only reason the issue of whether atheism is or is not a belief seems to stem from a habit of religious detractors who like to claim to that because atheism is a belief then atheism must also be a kind of offshoot of religion, requiring the same faith which atheists and anti-theists often ridicule religion for relying on. The problem with this argument is that while the entirety of religious belief is based on faith (if we are to cast aside ridiculous pseudo scientific arguments which we should because they're crap), atheists form their beliefs based on empirical data and scientifically sound evidence. When you consider the difference between the sources of information either opinion is based off of, the argument that atheism is the same kind of belief as belief in god falls apart quickly because it's clearly not.

To touch a bit more on pseudoscience, the very essence of the difference between belief in god and belief that there is no god is what gave birth to the aggravating practice some religious groups have adopted of trying to warp scientific information or at times completely making up science to try to prove their religions as valid. This paired with the insistence that believing there is no god is no more valid than believing there is a god is a kind of religious two pronged attack on atheism on all fronts. If atheism really is a belief in the same respect as religiousness is a belief, there would be no need for pseudoscience to even exist.

I don't see any reason to argue whether atheism is or is not a belief because I feel like it's a moot point. If you say it's a lack of belief or you claim it's what you believe and is therefore your belief, neither position is incorrect or more correct than the other. I feel like the wholehearted rejection of atheism as a belief within the atheist community is almost an indication of cowering to the pressures of the religious who seek to invalidate our position with semantics, pseudoscience, and conflated convictions in regard to belief.

Why There Is No Excuse For Child Faith Healing Deaths

I have been closely following the slew of bizarre stories involving child deaths whose parents chose to leave their children's lives in the hands of faith healers and/or the healing power of a perceived god rather than seeking out medical attention for their dying offspring.

Let me start by saying: I have a lot of compassion for these people. It seems to me that they really feel that they are doing the right thing by leaving their kid's fate in the hands of their god. As a parent I can't imagine purposefully denying my child medical treatment even in the event of minor accidents and sicknesses, but I have never had faith either and so I feel that saying these people are completely horrible isn't fair. Maybe it is, I don't know them personally, but I feel like given that I don't know them personally and given what I've read about them, they seemed to love their children the best way they knew how. They seemed to sincerely believe that a physical life on earth was less important than an immortal afterlife and one of the ways they could assure their kids this afterlife was by being what they felt were true Christians.

This is where my compassion quickly sours and falls into rapid decay. You have to ask the question - when the choice to take the child to the doctor is in the parent's hands regardless, is the action of choosing faith in god over proven and accessible medical attention a selfless act for the sake of the child or a selfish act in regard to the parents? More and more I'm inclined to believe that these parents were far less concerned with their children's mortal OR immortal lives and far more focused on proving themselves pious and unquestioning followers to their god - even at the cost of their kid's life. It makes sense that the christian god would ask this of them, according to the bible he's done it before.

I also have to wonder if an action which results in the death of a child can in any way be considered excusable, even when you factor in intent. These parents didn't murder their kids with any malicious intent, but they did stand aside praying while they watched their kids die. I can't reconcile the difference enough in a way that would continue to honor the importance of the child's life.

This makes me feel angry, bitter, upset. Especially when you consider that the woman of one of the dead kids is already pregnant with another child. I find myself hoping for the child's sake that he or she isn't born with any kind of physical abnormality or ever happens to suffer from an ear infection or urinary tract infection. Thankfully in this case the judge has made a strict requirement of the parents that they provide evidence of medical treatment for the not yet born child, both routine and otherwise. I don't feel like that's good enough, but at the same time I don't know what a sensible alternative would be beyond throwing the lot of them in prison until the woman grows old and unable to bear children. This is an emotional response and not a logical or sensible solution - but nothing about these cases could really be considered logical or sensible from the choice of the parents to forgo medical treatment to the death of the child to the sentences rendered in the trials.

I feel compassion for these people because I don't think you can honestly claim that they are trying to hurt their children. My compassion is limited though, to their misguided and archaic opinions in regard to god and medicine. I'm not so compassionate as to argue that they should not have been held accountable for what they did, in fact I feel that the sentences in both recent cases were too lenient. There is no excuse for these child faith healing deaths because no one has the right to take advantage of their position of power and authority over someone else's life and choose death for that person. If that's what your god wants - for you to let your kids die rather than give them insulin, penicillin, or take them to the doctor when they can't breathe without your skilled intervention with a turkey baster, then your god is a sadistic evil being and you are the willing participants of its unspeakably cruel whimsy. That is nothing to feel righteous about.

Tired - Here's Some Favorite YouTube Vids

I worked last night and this morning with only a few hours nap in between. If I attempted to write anything of substance today, it would surely end up being an unintelligible mess. So...here's some awesome YouTube videos. Enjoy!











I hope everyone has a good Saturday!