I ask that all work stay on this page, if you like it and would like to share it you can provide a link to this page, but DO NOT take it and post it anywhere else. thanks!
Book Signings, I may be comming to a town near you!
Category: Writing and Poetry
Hi everyone!
This summer I will be traveling a bit, and between the 25-31st of August I will be driving from New York to New Mexico. Along the way I have been trying to schedule book signings/readings at quaint little coffee shops, libraries, local book stores, etc.
I already have a few lined up, currently my last stop is in Canton, Ohio. on the 26th.
So, if any of you know of any awesome places (that have hosted readings or signings in the past) between Canton, Ohio and New Mexico let me know and I'll see if I can set up a reading there!
Who knows I might get to actually meet some of my awesome readers and friends at some of these readings!
Homosexuality: a sin... wait what is your definition of 'sin'?
Category: Religion and Philosophy
With a 4-3 vote of the state Supreme Court, California became the second state in which same-sex couples could marry. This decision created a news frenzy across the United States, and it became the primary subject on many conservative talk radio shows. Yesterday as I was listening to a few different conservative shows, I noticed a theme in many of the "sympathetic" callers. Many of religious individuals who "supported" the decision said something like:
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"Well I am okay with homosexuals. Homosexuality is a sin, but we all sin."
This view makes me want to vomit on many levels. First of all it's just really, really bad reasoning. You can use that kind of reasoning to justify Random Killings Of Innocent People (which are just for fun):
"Random killings of innocent people (which are just for fun) is a sin, but we all sin."
If that kind of reasoning is used any "sin" can be justified by way of other "sins." So not only were the callers justifying their "own sins" by the existence of homosexuals, they also were using the term "sin" as if it was actually being used correctly.
This leads me to my second point. As I've shown in previous blogs, there is not sound justification that supports the immorality of homosexual acts. Most religions use Natural Law as a foundation for their arguments; however Natural Law is extremely flawed, thus breaking the foundation of their argument.
Quick over view of Natural Law:
Natural Law states that everything in the world (universe) has a natural purpose, and anything that goes against that purpose is unnatural.
Problems:
If natural law is an acceptable moral theory, then how can it be used if it is impossible for us to know the purposes of things. (ie what is the purpose of a rock??)
In addition many things have the potential to posses two or more purposes that can be beneficial at different times, so how can you say that only one of "purposes" should be used ALL OF THE TIME, thus arbitrarily taking away the usage of the other purposes.
It would be like saying that the ear's purpose is to hear (because the ear is the only part of the body that can hear, thus making the ear special and unique), and all other usages of that ear are immoral (because you are not using the ear for its special and unique purpose). Well, I guess we shouldn't use the ear to maintain balance or allow our body to detect toxins and poisons in the blood that would be sinful! See how silly this singular purpose driven morality is???
Furthermore we don't have a purpose committee of unbiased individuals who can tell us the objective purposes of things.
Natural Law and Homosexuality:
St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted Natural Law to state that the sexual organs purpose was procreation, and since homosexual sex acts are not done in the attempt of procreation, those acts go against the purpose of the sex organs, therefore making those acts unnatural, thus immoral.
Now this line of reasoning could be used on the purpose of the ear as mentioned above, and which could show that using the ear to maintain balance or detect toxins in unnatural, thus immoral. (And don't even get me started on earrings…eek!)
Another type of people who are against homosexuality rely on biblical revelation, which is also just as weak.
I for the sake of brevity I will place these people into two groups, those who believe that the bible is the literal word of God (people should follow EVERY comand), and the second group of individuals who believe that it is okay to pick and choose parts of the bible to believe in.
To the people who interpret the bible literally:
In order to protect you from serving other gods, and being destroyed by stone or sword, (Deuteronomy 13:6-15) I am going to demand that you give me all of your worldly possessions because you will not make it into heaven with all those riches (Matthew 19: 24) and come to my place of residence (which is different then your place of residence) immediately and serve as my slave (Leviticus 25: 44-46) As my slave I must inform you that I might find it fitting to beat your misbehaved children (proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13-14) Oh, don't feel left out, I'll beat you too, however I promise that after my beatings you will not die within two days of the beating because that would just be wrong (Exodus 21:20-21) I might decide to sale your kids to my neighbors, but don't worry if I sale any of your daughters into sexual slavery I will make sure her owner will treat her like a wife (Exodus 21:17) Oh, and remember salves, be obedient to me as you would to Christ (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-4) And for the purposes of this arrangement I will believe and worship the one true God.
To the people who pick and choose:
I will leave your damnation to the above mentioned group! =)
Doesn't it seem kind of pompous of you to believe that you alone possess the knowledge regarding which parts of the bible to follow and which ones to ignore? It seems odd to me that you spend your time condemning homosexual acts, but don't spend your time stoning "non-believers" to rid the evil from your town.
And then there are the atheists and agnostics who are against homosexuality…
I think I have more disgust for these people then the crazy religious ones. I mean they aren't brainwashed with crazy religious dogma (so they cannot use that as an excuse), so where the hell do they come off with justification for their arbitrary condemnation of sexual acts???
So, to sum it up:
1) Homosexual acts have not been shown to be sinful, because there are no forms of good reasoning to support such claims.
2)Natural Law is flawed, stop saying things are unnatural, because you don't know what you are talking about.
3) Don't try and use the Homosexuals to justify your own acts.
4) If you want to give me all of your earthly possessions contact me and we can work something out.
5) People who want to become my slave, you may do so…but I might sell you to make more money!
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I regret to inform you that you are being requested to discontinue the use of all thoughts involving the writer of this letter. It appears that the author no longer wishes to exist inside of your brain and would appreciate your complete cooperation regarding this desire.
Due to legal matters it is my duty to inform you that during the formation of one of your memories involving the author of this letter, a super virus was placed in a selected part of your brain incase the above mentioned desire should be entertained. Within three hours of receiving this letter the above mentioned virus will be activated. If you access a particular memory involving the author of this letter the virus will be released, thus creating permanent damage to (but not limited to) your hippocampus and your medial temporal lobe.
Note of caution: I strongly advise against re-reading the contents of this letter for fear that you may accidentally release the super virus.
Thank you for your cooperation!
The Author.
***I wrote this during a writing workshop, the theme was non-existence.
I have discovered that there are at least two ways you cannot love another person. The first is when you are incapable of loving another romantically. The second is when you are unable to love that particular person. I believe this distinction ought to be understood on a personal level so that when you find yourself in a situation where your love may be desired you can treat the yearning recipient with fairness and kindness.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Incapable of loving another
I believe that if you discover that you are in fact incapable of loving another, it is your moral duty not to play with the love of others, but rather refrain from entertaining advances of others, and thwart your desire to engage others as well. Maybe this state of being can actually be blessing in disguise, think of all of the self-discovery that can occur during this time. If this time is spent further developing yourself, when you are able to love another, you will be offering them an improved version of yourself…and isn’t self evolution the goal of our existence?
When you cannot love anyone in a romantic sense, you may find yourself in predicament. Falling in love, chasing love, experiencing love may very well be one of the most beautiful things; and living without that beauty or even living without the option of that beauty can cause a bit of sadness in accepting that reality. To ease this sadness many might look for a person to fill the emptiness for a short while, because they seek distraction and amusement. As enjoyable as this may be there are consequences that may occur in this activity. If the other person is capable of loving you while you are incapable of loving, then you might hurt them, and leaving someone more broken then you found them is quite a horrific crime.
Unable to love a particular person
This state of being is quite different from the above, because you are able to love another just not the person you are engaging at the time. When this occurs I believe the paramount way to deal with this is to act in the best interest of all involved. In most cases I believe that you ought to tell the person openly and honestly that while you are capable of loving, you cannot, for whatever reason, love them…be forthright but at the same time gentle. Yes, this may be uncomfortable and exhausting to a certain extent; however I believe it is the most humane way of dealing with this situation. It is certainty better then avoiding them, hoping that they will "get the hint"…that behavior is quite juvenile and cowardly. In the end a quick kill is so much better then a slow painful death. If you cannot love the person in question that doesn’t mean that you cannot respect them and why would you want to inflict unnecessary pain upon anyone, just because you are "too scared" or "too lazy" to make the effort to do the right thing?
Humans are quite fragile creatures, even the ones who appear to be indestructible. I think each of us have an "Achilles heel" and for most it resides in their heart. I believe that one of our duties as a human being is to improve and nurture the lives of those around us. One of the main goals of human interaction ought to be, that each person leave with a better way of functioning and existing.
Imagine if we spent our lives seeking progress and desiring the enhancement of others through our interactions and relationships?
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"Since I’m paying for your afternoon margaritas, will you at least hold my hand and pretend to be totally infatuated with me?" he asked.
"I’ve held your hand before, and if I remember correctly, holding your hand never lead me to a place I couldn’t get to by myself," she responded in a flirty tone to mask the rejection of his advances.
"No, you’ve never held this hand. If my calculations are correct…it’s been what eight years now? So, that would mean that this hand doesn’t share a single atom with the hand you used to hold. You see, you are looking at a completely different person- literally" his worlds reeked of charm.
And she remembered how much she used to love him. He loved her, but not like she loved him, and to bridge that gap she invested parts of herself into him so completely he had no choice but to take them for granted. When things are given to you without the demand of payment you often forget they are valuable. The more she gave, the more he took; eventually she surrendered to him so entirely he couldn’t remember how to desire her. He loved the chase more then he loved her, and when it was over he lost the one thing that drew him to her.
What made him call her eight years later? It might have been the promise of a new chase, a more challenging chase. He was bored with his life, that’s why he spent a little over a week asking mutual friends about her and developing a method of attack. Unfortunately for him, she had spent too many years falling for men like him. Men who couldn’t value her, who used her, and slowly but surely eroded her hopeful nature and along with that, her willingness to trust. She now was unavailable and unattainable, and it was this combination that ultimately brought him to her.
Obama, Wright, and the stupid assumption
Category: News and Politics
While I’m driving I love listening to Talk Radio, I listen to conservative stations and liberal stations, because I like to entertain both opinions; I also usually call in if time permits. Well last week many Conservative Radio Hosts were quite pleased with the discovery of pieces of Reverend Jeremiah Wright speeches.
(Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor, and has a been a major proponent of Obama’s candidacy.)
Not only did these stations play many of Wright’s audio out of context, they also ASSUMMED that Obama BELIEVES and FOLLOWS EVERYTHING that Wright preaches. I called into a few of these shows to explain that the above assumption is one problem with stupid people.
In our society there are A LOT of stupid people, and they tend to BLINDLY FOLLOW leaders, who are not that much smarter then them. So, when a story like this hits the news, they automatically assume the following:
If Obama attends a church where Wright preaches,
then Obama MUST believe EVERYTHING that Wright believes.
This assumption just displays how idiotic these people are, they cannot comprehend that there are people in the world who can think for themselves. Much to their dismay there exists individuals who can appreciate certain writers, leaders, speakers, etc., yet at the same time these individuals maintain their own beliefs. For example I love Nietzsche! I think he is an awesome philosopher, but do I BELIEVE EVERYTHING Nietzsche believed? No, of course not!
Finally, Obama released a statement explaining that while he did attend Wright’s church for many years, he doesn’t believe EVERYTHING Wright believes. Read Obama’s full Statement here.
This whole week has just shown that there is a major problem in our country, that there really isn’t an adequate separation of church and state! I hate that the Conservative side has tried so adamantly to blur the distinction between religion and the government. It is quite ridiculous! The majority of our society has actually begun to believe that if you are not affiliated with the ’right’ religious group, then you couldn’t possibly have the ’right’ kind of morality.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I stopped waiting for him to make his words a reality, and I realized that you cannot trust some people's words (even though you once swore by them), and you have to rely on their actions instead.
I forgot to feel stupid for all the times I gave him affection that was rejected, because I was reminded that vulnerability is one of my strengths, and I decided to save it for someone who was worthy of it.
When I saw that I had new messages I stopped thinking that one of them might be from him, and I realized that the wrong kind of hope can be a careless thing.
I went a whole week without thinking about him, because I replaced him with something more valuable.
I threw away the list of things I wanted to debate with him, because I found places where revolutionary ideas are everywhere.
I didn't feel the need to walk backwards, because I found better places to go.
I neglected to think about the past, because some moments don't carry on to the next, even though they once looked like they would have been able to.
I ran out of resentment, because some things aren't worth holding on to.
The last straw fell…and I wasn't there to catch it, because I didn't need it anymore.
In one of my psychology classes, we were talking about memory, and how every time you recall a memory it becomes less authentic. Every time you remember something bits of your current thoughts, feelings, surroundings, etc. become part of your old memory, so you are actually creating a new memory from your old memory.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The most genuine memories are ones we don't recall…
So, I guess in a way the more we remember something, the more we forget it.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I flirted with a cute guy at the bookstore yesterday,
and he was the opposite of you
and he wrote his number on my palm
and I can't tell him about his wasted chemistry
and it saddens me, because I used to get weak in the knees
I am so lonely when I'm with so many others,
and they don't know
and they would never understand it anyhow
and I can't tell you even though you would understand
and it isolates me, because I can't let anyone else inside of me
I keep going back to a place that doesn't exist anymore,
and you're so beautiful
and your mere presence makes me so beautiful
and I can't be her anymore than you can be him
and it destroys me, because I let go of you at least once a day
I have been waiting for the last straw to fall,
and it never comes
and it does come, piece, by piece, by piece
and I can't be sure that this one is the last one
and this consumes me, because I am part of an infinite goodbye
*I wrote this at a writing workshop…we had to use the form above and fill it with confessions- the theme was tragedy. I don't really consider this very "poetic" but the honesty is vicious...and I have somewhat of an affection for vicious honesty.
The other day I was watching an episode of the "The Outer Limits" in which a horrible virus spread across the planet and for some reason it killed all of the people on earth who had a Y chromosomes, so all of the men on the planet died. The women were able to have children by tapping into sperm banks, and if they conceived a male child he would die within two weeks of birth, due to the virus. They tried for thousands of years to come up with a solution to the virus, however a cure was never discovered, and it was impossible to prevent the spread of the virus, because that's just how nasty that virus was.
Ok so here is a question for all the homosexuals and heterosexuals out there…
Imagine yourself in a world where a virus killed all members of the sex you are attracted to. You are now living in a world where humanity only consists of one viable sex, and even with technology and scientific knowledge there is no cure or treatment for this virus. *If you are a homosexual try to imagine a world where you are the only one left of your sex (you are literally the last man/woman on earth.) All other humans are of the opposite sex.
Could you see yourself living the rest of your life without a sexual partner?
Now, try to imagine you were born a thousand years after the spread of the virus, you have only heard about the existence of "a different sex." You may have come into contact with pornography or erotica that depicted sexual activity with two sexes, however you have never witnessed it first hand. You have never been exposed to first hand encounters with marriage or relationships of heterosexual couples. *If you are a homosexual try to imagine that you are the first man/woman who was able to survive. All other humans on earth are of the opposite sex.
If you are a heterosexual: Do you think you would enter into a sexual relationship with members of the same sex?
If you are homosexual: Do you think you would enter into a sexual relationship with members of the opposite sex?
So what do you think about the above scenarios?
Do you think people could change sexual preference if there were extreme circumstances?
Do you think that a person could be engaging in a lifetime of homosexual/heterosexual behavior, however not really be a homosexual/heterosexual?
I have often questioned the idea of friendship. I have experienced friendship in many different levels though out my life. I have a few close friends, with who (I believe) I am achieving a deep friendship, or as Aristotle would call it "friendship in the strictest sense."
Aristotle refers to "friendship in the strictest sense" as a friend who actually is "another self" or in other words, a real friend is someone who is our "other self". Now this may sound strangely co-dependant, however once you understand the entire theory it is quite beautiful.
..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
To Aristotle "friendship in it's highest form" is:
1) Reciprocal
both agents give and receive
friendship is not just a "feeling"
2) Love
there are three kinds of love
i. love each other for utility
(i.e. the relationship between you and your cable guy. He fixes your cable, and you give him money for the service.)
ii. love each other for pleasure
iii. love each the other for "their own sake"
-the truest kind of friendship love (friendship love in the strictest sense), you love the other for just being them.
3) Equal
both individuals have an (almost) equal level of rationality
4) Similar
both individuals have an (almost) similar level of virtue
5) Adults
both individuals are adults
Aristotle didn't believe that children and adults could achieve "friendship in it's strictest sense" however they could have a kind of primitive friendship.
6) Virtue
both individuals must have a sufficient degree of virtue, however their virtue could complement each other to a certain degree. (ie one could have a sufficient level of courage, and the other could have sufficient level of justice…they could share their understanding of the virtues with each other.)
7) Ability to recognize and appreciate the other's virtue
