Recently I’d had a rather humorous exchange of ideologies with some very nice, albeit imaginatively compromised theists on the internet. Although we had extremely different views about life, death, the afterlife, science and theology… for the most part we were all able to discuss our varying perspectives without too much Christian inspired animus. As only the invisible, all-knowing, all powerful, sex hating, intergalactic ruler of the cosmos knows, I was uncharacteristically well behaved.

Sure, there were those who took exception to my very existence, and who typed in all capital letters (to let me know that they were shouting in anger) that I was undoubtedly going to hell, and that –as one synaptic impaired dullard asserted– “GOD IS AN AWESOME GOD! I HAVE 2 AWESOME PRAISE REPORTS THIS WEEK! HE IS WORTHY 2 B PRAISED! I GIVE HIM ALL THE PRAISE AND GLORY!” (actual quote)… but for the most part the discussion revolved around me trying to explain basic science to people who refused to acknowledge it. To them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the earth is 6000 years old, humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and their appalling consensus was that any science that contradicts the bible is a tool of Satan.

But my resolve is such that I cannot sit in good conscience and allow blatant lies which negatively affect so many lives to be accepted without speaking out against them. My idealism won’t allow what I felt was a flippant, cavalier disregard for human suffering from “Christians” sitting comfortably in their heated, carpeted homes to go unanswered… especially when they engage in trite religious platitudes such as “Jesus loves us”, or the comment that began our interaction:

“GOD is with you, He is on your side, He has your best interest at heart and He is working to bring restoration and peace to every area of your life”.

But clearly, God doesn’t love all of us, and if he does, he has a funny way of showing it. Sure he loves the wealthy, or the plain ole’ lucky… but try telling a victim of the Rwandan holocaust who’s had her arm hacked off with a machete, or someone who lost their family in the Japanese tsunami, or a 4 year old dying painfully from leukemia that God has a special plan for them. Faith in god not only allows theists to dismiss the man made pain and suffering occurring around the globe and chalk it up to “god’s will”…. it allows them to remove themselves from any sense of empathy and pretend that (especially brown) people somehow had it coming for not believing as good, Anglo mid-western Christians do.

The sanctimonious indifference exhibited routinely by American Christians is the height of condescension, and serves the less than noble purpose of narcissistic self-centeredness. “God loves me, more than the Serbian child who became paralyzed when a bullet ripped through his spine while he was doing his homework. I can tell because he rewards me with cable television. In fact, I don’t have to concern myself with the poor little cripple, God is on the job.” Religion appeals to the darkest parts of human nature, and allows us to rationalize some otherwise very antisocial, bigoted, and overtly ignorant perspectives. It’s as if theists are complicit in a post-life ponzi scheme, design to sign as many gullible people on as they can. And like any other multi-level-marketing pyramid, only those at the top are rewarded.

Which is why I believe that even a little religion is a very bad thing. For theist –many of whom I have little doubt are very well intentioned– the belief in god deprives them of the ability to think critically, or to fundamentally reason. It allows them to ignore facts and evidence in favor of what they’d like to believe. It can cause people who are obviously not insane, to make some very irrational statements of faith. Once one convinces themselves that a talking snake persuading a woman to eat an apple is the reason for war and disease, believing that god was punishing the hedonistic city of New Orleans with a hurricane is not such a stretch.

When adults practice the art of self-deception in any other aspect of their lives, we call it denial. We offer therapy, support or perhaps even an intervention whereby all of one’s friends get together and explain what an irrational, self-destructive imbecile they are behaving like. However when they do so in regard to the genetic, or astronomical evidence supporting the actual age of our universe or the origin of our species, we call it “faith”. However “god” is the abusive relationship theists can’t get out of, and they keep telling themselves that “He loves them”, despite the random, abject cruelty he routinely exhibits. They need an intervention.

But it gets worse. When people allow themselves to become corporeal servants to an ethereal dictator… and when we sacrifice our intellect and ability to employ logic here on earth in the hopes of gaining post-life admittance to what Christopher Hitchens so eloquently described as a “Celestial North Korea”… When we convince ourselves that we’ll find happiness in a heavenly hive where one must appeal to an almighty creator’s sense of vanity by constantly heaping praise on him, while simultaneously serving as “bottoms” in a sadomasochistic, mentally abusive patriarchy which only allows one to only be rewarded for blind obedience, and the ability to endure boredom… it is epitome of lazy thinking in the face of real world issues that require our serious attention.

As such, religion hurts everyone. To which I say to those whom demand “respect” for a fundamentalist, inherently bigoted worldview that eliminates any metaphoric interpretation of scripture, and which denies science in favor of fairy tales…. You’ll get none from *this* Atheist.

I have been referred to by some as a “Fundamentalist Atheist”… and to be honest, I’m not really sure what that means. I understand what the word means, however there is no specific doctrine to fundamentally adhere to. I am, however, fundamentally opposed to war, poverty, and human suffering. I am fundamentally against ignorance, willful or otherwise. I loathe bigotry, and sanctimonious indignation. I love science, reason, compassion, and freedom. The search for truth is what motivates me to employ skepticism, and to not waver in my integrity even in the face of inconvenience, or popular opinion. I trust that truths derived from facts will eventually bear themselves out. So if that’s what my critics are referring to, then I will accept the label gladly.

I have also heard Atheism categorized as its own religion, which makes no sense either. As my friend, and colleague Brian Sapient (www.rationalresponders.com) once so eloquently observed, “Atheism is a religion the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, the way that off is a television channel, or the way that bald is a hairstyle.” It would be like forming an ideology based on the disbelief in Zues, Mithra, or for that matter, the Tooth Fairy. From my perspective, Atheism is just a word describing one’s non-belief in any supernatural deities. It is not a personal decision to not believe, rather it’s the rational determination one arrives at based on evidence and the acumen of their life’s experience. If new evidence were to be introduced to any rationally thinking person, they would be forced to re-examine their beliefs.

As such, I spend much of my time and energy trying to contribute reason to the national discourse in the face of what I perceive to be an intrinsic evil… Evangelical Christianity. While I have yet to experience any religion which doesn’t fly in the face of reason, I tend to focus on the perfidy inherent in American Christianity mainly because as a resident of the United States, the majority of people who reside here identify themselves as such. Although many who make such claims are often doing so out of cultural tradition and are in fact, much more casual about their faith than their evangelical counterparts, their upbringing still holds sway. However it is predatory manner in which the evangelical movement manifests itself upon the assailable psyches of a frightened populace which warrants my claim of “evil”.

It’s to the cultural (more casual) Christians whom I am writing.

Most people simply don’t feel that being gullible applies to them, especially where it concerns religious beliefs. Subjectivity being what it is, it’s always easy to recognize the irrationality of other faiths, but not our own. However the harsh reality is that many Christians have not actually read the bible, mainly because either reading “ain’t their thing”, or because it doesn’t quite have the same appeal as the Real Housewives of NJ. So many Christian Americans actually hire people (through donations, and TV ratings) to read it for them. They entrust their immortal soul to clergy and evangelical preachers, who often misrepresent what’s actually in the bible.

It is this misrepresentation that makes the American evangelical movement evil in its intent. They dread knowledge of bible, for it would certainly cast doubt, and hurt business. So they give their frightened, intellectually compromised flock biblical sound bites, and keep those more casual in their beliefs tethered to their faith. Conveniently, we rarely hear about how the God of the bible condones rape, slavery, or stoning children to death. Instead, we are told of a loving God… and most Americans, it would seem believe what they want to hear. So much so, that our social and political discourse is driven by a blind adherence to the Christian faith, which happens to be based on a very provable lie.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16

According to the new testament –on which Christianity is based– the God of the old testament (the one who had previously killed almost everyone on earth in a great flood, among many other petty, violent acts… not any of the other gods from other holy writs) sacrificed his only begotten son so that we could all be forgiven for an “original” sin (hey, there had to be a first, right?) … which had happened approximately four thousand years prior on our newly created planet when Satan (disguised as a talking snake) convinced a belly-button-less Eve to eat an apple (which God had forbidden). This human sacrifice, and the ensuing angelic altruism was apparently the only way the omnipotent creator of the universe could think of to allow us into his cosmic gated community called heaven. I can only imagine that God, being a supreme being and all could have just said something to the effect of “Bah, forget about it, it was only an apple… so offer me a peach and we’ll call it even.” But that wasn’t the case. Jesus had to be crucified so that he could rise from the dead, and bring the rest of the unworthy souls to eternal paradise with him. Party at Dad’s place.

However, Science tells us otherwise. We know that the Earth is not six thousand years old. We know that humans, as a species have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. We also know that the universe is billions of years old, and that it originated from a central point. We know this, because science has proven so through *literally* millions of pieces of genetic, astrological, geological, and fossil evidence. We know the story of creation to be, in fact, just a story. If there was no Adam & Eve (there wasn’t, btw) then there was no original sin to prompt the necessity of a savior. Yet many have ignored the evidence and abandoned the story’s metaphoric intent so as to remain stubbornly obtuse in their faith.

I am often confronted with the convoluted logic that “Evolution” and “the Big Bang” are *just* theories, and that to believe the myriad of scientific evidence that supports them in the face of the biblical holy writ is, in itself, not rational. However I don’t think that those who employ the dizzying, circular logic that allows one to believe the bible to be both historically and scientifically accurate (simply because it says so) truly understand what a scientific theory is. It’s not as if Charles Darwin was sitting in his underwear and chowing down on pot brownies when he got the idea that humans and other primates shared a common ancestry. It was a determination arrived at through years of research, and gathered evidence which has exponentially increased in the years since his death. The embodiment of the scientific community –through peer review and authoritative scrutiny– have come to embrace these theories, and they only remain categorized as such because we cannot physically travel back in time. To offer some perspective, gravity (also once opposed by the church) is still a scientific theory.

Conversely, Americans rely on facts and evidence to reach every other rational determination in their lives, except creation. So to reference another fictional story in order to illustrate the lack of rationale it takes to be able to ignore what is plainly evident in favor of denial, and blind obedience…. the King of Kings has no clothes.

The truth is, none of the basis for Christianity makes any sense unless one’s had their umbilical cord wrapped around their throat. Yet it drives our national dialogue. It’s safe to say that no one could even be considered to be a viable presidential candidate without first claiming that they truly believed that God impregnated a young virgin with his son (who is actually an incarnation of himself –Jesus is God, John 1:1) …so that he could sacrifice himself, *to* himself in order to alleviate us from an original sin that he determined we had in the first place because some chick ate an apple, thus denying us entry to heaven… and sentencing every human who had existed prior (not to mention subsequently should they not appeal to his sense of vanity by praising him in the appropriate manner) to languish for an eternity of torture, pain and suffering in a fiery hell, despite God’s love for us dirty, unworthy homo-sapiens.

My battle with those of faith is not about their beliefs, per se’… but about the causal effects of their beliefs. The truth is, once a populace gives into fear, abandons fact for fantasy and reason for fairy tale, it invariably accompanies irrational socio/political determinations. It accords Bigotry, and the denial of minority rights. It does this violently, and through legislation. And if history has shown us anything about theocracy … it’s that it harmonizes with tyranny. So I am, as my detractors would say, Fundamentally opposed to the ignorance, bigotry, and outright evil that is consistent with the Christian lie.

There is a current socio/political trend that is lending itself towards an irrational dynamic. Like many irrational behaviors, it is largely motivated by fear. This “trend” I speak of, is when American citizens begin with a subjective political assertion, and gather evidence –whether it be real, manufactured, or a little both– to support it. These declarations are often made without regard for acumen, rather the impetus is to affirm one’s blind allegiance to their chosen dogma… Or to put it more bluntly, paranoia caused by partisan hyperbole. And while toting a “party line” has been an establish practice for generations, the vitriol and adversarial approach to our fellow Americans has become a tragic part of the new Americana.

For instance, I have lifelong friends who reside on both sides of the political aisle who are the exemplification of this sociological paradigm. Almost without exception, they’ll depict a political landscape whereby good and evil are easily recognizable, dependent upon one’s political affiliation. Representatives from either party are often labeled as socialists, fascists, elitists or stupid… and while there are times when any of those labels might seem justified, it is the cavalier manner in which they are so casually tossed about which allows for bombast to have trumped reasonable objections to policy.

The reasons for this social malady are many, depending on who is making the assertion. The psychological payoff, it would appear, is to try to tether oneself to something both righteous and tangible in a world spinning out of control, socially, politically, and economically. It is simply how the culture of fear manifests itself. When one considers how media contributes to this dynamic, certainly it is understandable how we can vilify and canonize so recklessly. We behave more like Sharks and Jets than Democrats and Republicans, and as such our angst is able to seek its expression through our natural discourse.

But for the sources of the cultural divide –those who manufacture these extremes– the motives are not nearly as honorable. Those who profit from any given media platform have recognized the profitable forum in extremism, and thus prey upon the angst of those whom they purport to be enlightening. The laughably biased –albeit lyrical– affirmations of “truth” made by political televangelists on cable news have compromised the imaginative ability of the proletariat to which they preach, resulting in the regurgitation of fact challenged, wingnut propaganda by average citizens on blogs, and in social media. In the ideological turf war, the battle to win the hearts and minds of those not centrifugally pinned to either political extreme is being waged through those who are. In a nation fast losing its ability to employ critical thinking, reason is now viewed as weakness. The inability to rationally articulate one’s socio/political concerns in non-polarizing terms has been denounced, because the truth –as many of us see it– is not actually based on our own perceptions, but rather the perceptions of those on whom we place our misguided trust.

Which brings us to the point of this article, which is an observation about the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Regardless of our political leanings, I hope that we Americans can differentiate between condemning our entire financial system, and calling to task those who have undermined it for personal profit. I hope that we can understand the difference between capitalism, and corporatism. I trust that we recognize that when political influence is purchased though lobbying or when competition is artificially removed from the marketplace, that we no longer live in a democracy, nor do we live in a capitalist society. Something un-American is occurring where it concerns the collusive relationship between capital interests, and congress. The Tea Party saw it, and so do the OWS.

But with few exceptions, both the liberal and conservative media –which provides many with their philosophical rudder– ignores these facts. Rather they fan flames of partisanship because profit lies in our contention with one another. Actuality has given way to the portrait they want us to see. And while I have little doubt that this movement –like the Tea Party before it– will be co-opted by special interests, it does not deter from the evidence, or the larger picture. Regardless of whether one is able to channel their inner hippie and support these protestors, or whether they are the re-incarnation of William F Buckley and denounce them as whiney, entitled, and without a work ethic… it should not dissuade us from recognizing that there are those in both the private and public sectors who are escaping incarceration because we Americans have allowed ourselves to become distracted by political theater.

As one who champions reason above all else, it can be a little painful when someone I admire behaves irrationally. It brings me no joy to “call out” someone who shares many of my own sensibilities, and whom I would much rather agree with.

I remember the first time I had ever seen Dr. Ablow. My wife and I were watching an episode of the now defunct Tyra Banks show, which, on that day centered around the merits of relationships which negotiated non monogamy. As swingers, we fully expected yet another biased, fact challenged representation of “the lifestyle” based on society’s pre-disposed affinity for ill-fated monogamy, and a condemnation of all things secular. Indeed, that is how the show was shaping up. That is, until Dr. Ablow arrived.

On the stage were two couples. One, a swinger couple clearly in love and sitting comfortable and relaxed, while their “Vanilla” counterparts sat angry and emotionally disconnected. As the audience predictably denounced the swingers, Banks –an intellectual windsock– acquiesced to their disapproval despite the obvious example of who the happier couple was. It was Ablow who took the stage and pointed out everyone’s hypocrisy. It was Ablow, who, to my knowledge, became the first person in a televised network venue to defend libertine sensibilities, and favor relationship truth over irrational hyperbole. It was Ablow who braved contradicting conventional thought, even though it was the more difficult path.

He made a fan that day.

Eventually, Dr. Keith Ablow would get his own daytime talk show, which did not last very long. Not one to engage in the circus atmosphere that drives that genre, Dr. Keith’s brand of lucid thought and his empathetic approach to people’s travails could not compete with his competition’s boorish sensationalism in a commercial environment. To his credit, Ablow seemed, unwilling to take advantage of emotionally vulnerable people for profit. It bothered me that Ablow, a *REAL* forensic psychiatrist, an intellectual, and someone who seemed to reject tabloid over-simplification was languishing in obscurity when bigoted, self indulgent dullards like “Dr.” Phil McGraw had achieved international fame and fortune based on ignominious precepts, and who feigned expertise by dispensing warmed over platitudes.

Later, I joined Dr. Keith’s website, “Living the Truth”, based on his book, and moreover, his approach to healing through empathy. “Doc”, as we affectionately referred to him would host semi regular chat sessions, which often had less than a dozen people in them. It was intimate, especially for a medium as vast as the internet. But he was gracious, funny, charming, and brilliant. It was there that he and I interacted. Sometimes we’d agree, and sometimes not. But it was always amicable. And it was in one of these chats where Dr. Keith offered an unsolicited act of kindness to me. I will never forget that, which is why I feel compelled to do the same for him, now. So…

Dear Dr. Keith,
As someone who both respects and admires you, I feel compelled to tell you that you’re behaving like an asshole.

I understand the frustration you must have felt watching your dim witted contemporaries like “Dr.” Laura achieve financial prosperity when you outranked them by a significant amount of I.Q. points, if not, more than just a few rungs on the evolutionary ladder. I understand what it feels like to be passed over in favor of people less qualified. So with that, I also understand that even when someone as psychotically delusional as your friend Glenn Beck came with an offer to rescue you from obscurity, you had to jump at it. But the character you’ve been playing on FOX News has gotten out of hand.

Wasn’t there a way for you to suggest that an ad featuring a Mom painting her sons toenails pink — while is in itself no big deal– might be a small part of a larger sociological dynamic which may be hurtful. Was it not possible to rationally discuss the societal benefits of more defined gender roles without the hyperbolic blather? Is this how you would truly address a patient if they were to come to you with this? I suspect not. But is this how your employers at FOX directed you to respond? I suspect so.

Would FOX News allow you to point your high powered perception at a Conservative Republican? Surely Dr. Ablow, you recognize the irresponsible –if not the overtly bigoted– psychological practices exhibited by Marcus and Michelle Bachman… and how destructive “reparative” therapy (a practice the American Psychological Association has deemed ineffective and unsafe) is to young gay people. Surely they are due scrutiny from someone with your background. Clearly, some of Marcus Bachman’s effeminate characteristics might lead someone to rationally conclude that his hatred of Gays is nothing short of self-loathing brought on by denial of his true sexual orientation. Dr. Ablow, you’ve made more irresponsible diagnoses about liberals from more casual observations. But would FOX News permit you to publically speak the truth regarding the Bachman’s? It’s doubtful.

Then there was your recent feud with HBO’s Bill Maher over comments he made about abstinence spokesperson Bristol Palin, and her assertions about how she lost her virginity. She claims in her book to not remember the drunken sex had with her fiancée the previous night, and that she was taken advantage of while passed out. There is a word for that, and it’s called rape. Realizing that her statements have legal repercussions, she has backed off the severity of her claims and tried to downplay them. Apparently, Bristol never knew that wine coolers had alcohol in them. Maher, a comic (whether you find him funny or not) made fun of her, and the vapid Palin intellect.

Which in turn led to your hackneyed diagnosis about Bill Maher’s hatred of all women based on his liberal lampooning of the estrogenic psychosis that accords some conservative women like Palin and Bachman. It was apparent to anyone who can do basic algebra that FOX News directed you to defend the honor of the Palin’s, as Bristol’s Mom Sarah is a fellow FOX employee. Did you offer a similar diagnosis when your financial benefactor Glenn Beck made personal jokes about Meghan McCain? Did you take your pal to task when he pretended to throw up into a trash at her expense? Really? Bill Maher’s comment about Bristol Palin were “vile”… and Glenn Beck’s comments about Meghan McCain were perfectly acceptable? Weren’t you the same guy who used to laugh it up on the Howard Stern Show? So when a friend makes misogynistic jokes about women, it’s all in good fun, but when a liberal does it, it compels you to channel your inner Gloria Steinem?

I have, in the past, also chastised Bill Maher for such partisan indulgences. It was not very long ago when I publically bashed Mr. Maher for placing the blame on the Arizona shooting squarely on the shoulders of the Republican party, while sitting next to his friend, Russell Simmons, who directly profits from the imagery created by urban gun violence. As I do with you, I like Bill Maher. But like you, he too can be an asshole.

But the assertion you made about Maher on the “Fox & Friends” show were ridiculous. You claim that Bill Maher has no affiliation with life? This coming from a guy who supports the Republican position on War and Health care? You connect hatred of women with his “anti-religion” stance, when the reality is –as you are well aware– there is nothing more patriarchal and women hating than religious scripture. Then you had the nerve to misquote Maher’s comments after 9-11. While comedians can always hide behind their “art”, as a Psychiatrist, your credibility is dependent on your integrity. Perhaps it’s time that you employ some. I know you’re capable.

Speaking of your friend and co-author Glenn Beck, are he and his outlandish statements also beyond psychological criticism? Are all those Nazi dots he connects in his paranoid mind the determinations of someone rational? Are his revisionist, inaccurate history lessons not worthy of being tempered with a psychological intervention from a friend? Are his assertions about God sending messages through natural disasters not in need of a little rational perspective?

At the risk of appearing immodest, Doc, I also have a decent following of my own. As such, I’ve received more than a few E-mails from former “Living the Truth” regulars who were wondering what has become of the man we knew? What happened to the luminous, empathetic soul who we knew from LTT and replaced him with a fear mongering FOX News doppelganger? As that woman told President Obama at the Town Hall meeting not too long ago, “Frankly, I’m tired of defending you”.

Dr. Keith, there are two types of people who can tell someone when they’re being an asshole… Enemies, and Friends. I hope you understand that I am the latter. I’m not sure if you realize how silly you sound to rational people. I believe that Fox News has hired you to give them some much needed credibility, but I’m afraid that it has come at the expense of your own. I hope the paycheck is worth it. In the meantime, the folks who know you from before you drank the FOX Kool-Aid will try to remember the man we knew.

When the founders of our country wrote the First Amendment of the Constitution, they did so with the understanding that the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of our government all needed to be watched over by an uninhibited free press. It was reasoned that with journalists scrutinizing the comings and goings in our political system, it would –among other things– guard against collusion amongst our elected officials, and protect legislators from themselves by applying consequences for giving into temptation. The philosophy was that with the threat of public exposure, the repercussions of corruption would outweigh the risk.

However with the advent of political lobbying on behalf of the media, the relationship between the free press, and our two major political parties has itself become collusive. Access to Washington has been exchanged for non neutrality. Both Republicans and Democrats now have editorialists feigning impartiality, and networks that act more like public relations firms, on their respective party’s payrolls.

But it gets even worse…

There was a time in the not too distant past when politics and entertainment were two totally separate media venues. There has –to some extent– always been an understanding that important socio/political issues needed to be regarded as such, and not be irresponsibly lumped in with Hollywood gossip and reality TV. But with our Twittering politicians showing themselves to be the socially autistic buffoons that they truly are, they’ve sadly obscured much of that distinction. Many of our legislators have become unwittingly comical caricatures of who they were trying to present themselves to be, and as such have exposed their jugulars to an opportunistic media. With up to the minute news available 24/7, we Americans are now barraged with political theater… be it comedy, tragedy, or in most cases, awe inspiring stupidity.

Which brings us to the present state of “News-ertainment”.

As a result of the collusive relationship between the nation’s top two parties and the networks that do their bidding, facts are often skewed — if not manufactured– in order to promote an agenda. This, of course, is not actual news reporting. But those doing the reporting, and their respective networks would have us believe otherwise. Rather than presenting unbiased facts with a professional, emotional detachment… News “personalities” now try to entertain with vapid, semi humorous, slanted observations, which in turn they hope will either amuse us or incite a vitriolic reaction. Cable news hosts rarely report on their own party’s verbal faux pas, platform inconsistencies, irrational hyperbole, or personal indiscretions nearly to the extent that they do their competition. The current trend is ratings via myopic indignation.

Unfortunately, we Americans have become desensitized to the corrupt alliance of government and media. We have become so cynical and jaded that we have come to accept that greed trumps integrity… so the original purpose of having a news media unencumbered by censorship has become bastardized by advertising revenue. Many of us feel powerless to do anything about it. Yet many more of us fail to recognize the problem at all.

However there has been an interesting dynamic introduced to the news media over the past few years which was born from the overt, and sometimes even purposely misleading bias of Cable News. Because many of those who were charged with protecting our political system via journalistic integrity have abandoned that task in favor of ego driven dogmatism and ratings inspired bombast, that job has been largely left unfilled. As such, those reporting on our political process are in need of third party scrutiny themselves.

The watchers are now being watched. The powerless have a voice.

Exposing political and news inaccuracies, comedians like John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert have stepped in to inject oxygen into the socio/political integrity vaccuum and expose the present state of cable news journalism for what it is… fraudulent editorializing worthy of ridicule. And unlike the talking meat puppets on cable news who fail miserably at their comical endeavors, Stewart and Colbert are as funny as they are astute. Although they both obviously have personal political leanings, unlike their counterparts who claim to be unbiased journalists, Stewart and Colbert are not shy to expose politicians from either party, or news anchors from any network for behaving like intellectually attenuated dolts.

Just as corrupt politicians once feared the news media…. the corrupt news media now fears Stewart and Colbert.

I was on the Washington Mall when Stewart and Colbert held their “Rally to Restore Sanity”. I witnessed roughly two hundred thousand people gather in front of stage near the Capitol building and extend all the way back to the Lincoln memorial. I was able to see firsthand how the void created by the news media was being filled by a uniquely American mechanism… reason given expression through satire.

…and while we’re watching, aand laughing at the expense of ignominious politicians, and less than credible journalists… let’s try to remember what gave birth to this medium in the first place.

It’s politics as pro wrestling.

But perhaps even more unfortunate, is that many more Americans have become overwhelmed by the enormity of the present fiscal disaster –as well as ongoing global strife — and have cashed out of the political process entirely. As if we are witnessing the adult equivalent of hiding under the covers, people’s instinct for self preservation has caused many to retreat into a dummied down fantasy world of reality TV and libidinous internet interaction. Having had enough of the banal bombast that they hear every day from those purporting themselves as our representatives, many have understandably lost faith in the political process. So they vote for American Idol instead.

Consequently, we are left with a populace that’s either unwilling, or unable to emotionally invest in the political system.

Which brings us to our news entertainers, our political televangelists and their so-called solutions to our economic woes. As Benjamin Disraeli once so astutely commented, “There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.” Regarding the present fiscal crisis, politicians from both parties have reduced their economic platform to lyrical sound bites. Hoping to appeal to the average Americans senses of fairness and vengeance, both democrats and republicans convolute statistical information so as to create a false reality which makes their cause appear more righteous. While it’s true that we do need to “cut spending” and/or ” increase revenue,” virtually every politician has the ability to produce statistical information that will make their assertions appear valid, and to portray their opponents as special interest pawns . The reality is that neither party is truly interested in addressing the deficit, or has any desire to turn around the economy. If they did, they would concern themselves with facts over rhetoric.

But as John Adams once said, “Facts are Stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes or our inclinations, it cannot alter the state of facts, or evidence.” The facts are that neither reducing domestic spending and/or raising taxes are not going to have the effect on the deficit or the economy that either party claims. The facts are, that if less money filters to states and local municipalities, and if previously subsidized social programs become de-funded, that they’ll have to raise revenue imposing other types of financial burdens. The middle class is going to pay regardless. The facts are that no one is willing to defy their party and talk reason on where and how our tax dollars are already being spent. All of this over-simplified economic blather is simply theater, designed to petition our angst and curry favor.

Much of the present state of American politics –not to mention the public’s perception of it– is the result of “news” organizations having shifted their business models from fact based journalism to ratings driven editorializing. So where it concerns either party’s economic platform, the focus of our elected officials is no longer to represent those who elected them into office, rather it is to make their opponents appear less electable. It has all become entertainment, resulting in most Americans having developed a cynical understanding that regardless of who they vote for, the middle class is going to bear the burden.

So go ahead, my fellow Americans, and root on your party’s premiere entertainers and their economic platform. Sit in your economic kettle as the heat gets turned up. Should we cut spending or raise taxes? The truth is that unless someone on our political landscape has the courage to address the more significant portions of how our existing tax dollars are already being spent…we’re damned if we do, and we’re damned if we don’t.

Recently, Gregg Jarrett of Fox News laughably showed his network’s approach to newsertainment by making disparaging, if not deriding remarks about CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley for his choice to pass on Congressman Anthony Weiner’s overexposed, albeit spectacular penis and choosing as his lead story — of all things– actual news. “This ain’t the 1960′s or 1970′s anymore” Jarrett lamented, as he called Pelley’s choice to not open his broadcast with the most famous schmekel in the nation, “a mistake”… and further went on to ridicule him for wanting to report “wars and real news”. The tragedy is, that where it concerns ratings, Jarrett is correct.

Despite unemployment again rising above 9%, violent turmoil around the globe, a derivatives market that remains unregulated and a political system that colludes with the financial industry, Weiner was the top story all week. When this story broke I surprised much of the www.UnLearn.TV audience when I was less sympathetic than many thought I would be. I believed (and still do) Anthony Weiner should resign. This assertion comes despite my appreciation for sexual libertines, or my own personal hedonistic indulgences. I have no “moral” issues with consenting adults and how they exhibit sexuality, as I believe morality and sexuality to be independent concepts. Personally, if I was packing like Rep. Weiner, I’d walk around the mall in pastel colored biker shorts. That was not my issue with the congressman.

I also understand that there are corrupt politicians who vote to pass legislation that will negatively impact all of our lives so that they can profit personally, and that such legislators deserve much more of our attention. Anthony Weiner’s photo eroticism doesn’t affect anyone’s income, health care, or safety. I get that. But there are other issues at hand here…. Other issues that cable news is either unwilling, or unable to articulate for fear of boring an audience more concerned with tabloid exploitation than reason.

To my knowledge, no one in the media has stopped to ask why someone as smart as Anthony Weiner would purposely do something so incredibly stupid. At least they haven’t sought a real answer beyond whatever double entendre laden punch line they were setting up their imaginatively attenuated colleagues for. Weiner knew he’d get caught. He had to. The rest of us did. So why did he do it? My conclusions have determined my reasons for feeling that Rep. Weiner should go quietly into that good night.

First, anyone who hasn’t figured out that not everyone on the Internet is who they say they are doesn’t deserve the benefit of anyone’s doubt. But Weiner does understand that, he just chose to ignore it. He is well aware that regardless of what some balding, middle aged CPA from Topeka claims, he is not really a 21 year old blonde nymphomaniac with a huge rack and a congressional fetish. He is also very cognoscente of the fact that he may well have been corresponding with someone who has not yet reached the age of consent.

Second, Weiner managed to legitimize an ignominious dullard whose only prior claim to fame was a misleadingly edited video tape. In the world of journalism, Andrew Breitbart was considered to have the integrity a crack whore in need of a fix. Even to fellow conservatives he was the fat kid who got picked last for dodge ball. Now he’s a star, and it’s Weiner’s fault. His fellow Democrats must be vomiting.

And third, Congressman Anthony Weiner defines himself through his trouser tuna , and he’s so utterly self obsessed that it obviously effects his decision making ability. There is a serious psychological disconnect there which frankly, I am unqualified to diagnose. But I do know that there are healthy ways to entertain one’s libidinous proclivities without imploding one’s entire career. And even though Weiner’s constituents seem able to indulge his narcissism so long as he remained effective at his job, it is the self destructive dynamic to his personality which makes me believe that he is incapable of being a competent legislator. Anyone who can’t contain their sexual exhibitionism and is willing to risk their political convictions for a cheap thrill should not be in a position to make our laws.

However, as the nation continues to allow itself to be distracted by the aptly named “Weiner-gate”… there is another poorly reported angle to this story which a dummied down America has come to accept without question. The misrepresentation of what a “mistake” actually is has impaired our collective judgment whenever people (often politicians) get caught after having carried out their intentions. When a person tries to do something, and accomplishes the very task they set out to do, that is not a mistake. It’s a bad decision, sure, but it’s not like they misplaced a decimal point during long division.

One does not “mistakenly” rob a bank, commit adultery, or in this case, send internet pictures of their genitals. So when Congressman Weiner says he wants to take responsibility for what he did, he is again not being honest. If that were the case, he could have diffused most of this from the outset by acknowledging his online trysts, and telling the media that these were private matters between he and his wife. That would have left the press with almost no place to take the story. But he wanted us all to see his pride and joy . Moreover, he needed us to see it.

Anthony Weiner knew these pictures would eventually become public. He is not stupid. He’s just a self absorbed narcissist, motivated by phallic fame. The place for this type of egocentric attention seeking is reality television, not the Capitol.

I like Anthony Weiner, but not as a congressman. Even though I often disagree with him, his is a voice that is vital to the national discourse… so I’m sure CNN would love to have him. They sure as hell can use the ratings.

Certainty is a luxury which can only be acquired through accurate, proven information. While many have strong feelings about why things happen as they do, before one can reasonably claim assuredness, their facts must support their assertions. However, today’s media dynamics are such that a lack of valid data is hardly enough to discourage those whose brands offer assessments as certainty. No longer concerned with journalistic integrity, professional socio/political commentators often make assertions — not based on confirmations — but in accordance with how they might affect their financial bottom line. As cable news pundits, Op-Ed Bloggers, and Facebook prognosticators confound suppositions with hard evidence, and offer opinions as facts, the sensibly susceptible will invariably fall prey. The results are that much of America is having their world view shaped by editorialists with little, or no credibility.

It is human nature to gravitate towards those who espouse the things we want to hear. This is how many of us choose our media, churches, and often our friends. But where it concerns the premise from which many of us operate, absolute affirmations are being accepted as fact by a population all too willing to believe things that will provide a level of comfort –without those offering these same assertions having to provide any sources, or proof. A presumption of credibility is often being accorded to those who base their platforms on purposely deceptive information, and who draw conclusions based on demographics.

Such is the case with religious faith, and how theists are interpreting disasters, both natural and manmade, around the world. When sectarian pontiffs assert the will of an almighty creator in such instances, they not only do so without regard for all of the facts, they do so despite having any facts. Faith is often presented, not as a belief which is not based on proof (as the dictionary defines) but as a positive assurance. So those whose predispositions are in accordance with certain fundamentalisms will acquiesce to the message, regardless of its legitimacy. The recent Tsunami, and subsequent nuclear crisis in Japan was fertile soil for those hoping to nurture fear driven, religious fervor. Whether it was a preacher, a politician, or a “news” entertainer, there was no shortage of those who profit from feigning righteousness –or who claim absolute clairvoyance pertaining to God’s will– speaking their minds about why such a tragedy took place.

For instance, Fox News pundit Glenn Beck’s suggestion that God was “sending a message” to the people of Earth by killing thousands of Japanese folks with an earthquake, tidal wave, and subsequent nuclear meltdown would be laughable — if not for the amount of simple minded people who accept whatever someone with a dynamic personality like his says where it concerns such matters.

“God …what God does is God’s business, I have no idea.” Said Beck on his radio show, “But I’ll tell you this: whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus — there’s a message being sent. And that is, Hey, you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.”

Apparently, the character Mr. Beck plays in the media has some sort of divine intuition whereby he is able to determine whether a geological phenomenon is simply a matter of happenstance, or if it is a cosmic post-it note written by the hand of the almighty. What is the stuff we should stop doing then? Was the tsunami God’s way of letting us know that we shouldn’t watch liberal news broadcasts? Does God want us to listen more to Glenn Beck? Tune in to find out. God, it seems, works in mysterious, if not ineffectual ways.

The not-so-subtle message here is that Glen Beck, and his viewers/listeners are in good standing with the almighty creator of the cosmos, and that those who have befallen disaster somehow “had it coming”. The psychological payoff for one’s inclusion into any pietistic, theological “cool-kids club”… is that they are then afforded the latitude to enact sanctimony, indignation, and mask their bigotry with religion. But bigots rarely recognize themselves as such… and the pious either never see it that way, or they lack the capacity for honest introspection. “Hey, I don’t have a problem with anyone… it’s God …I’m just relaying the message.”

However Beck is not alone when it comes to rallying people through religious fear by appealing to their sense of self righteousness. There have been a countless number of opportunistic televangelists who have also engaged in similar self-serving indulgences when their fellow human beings have fallen into hardship. Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson, host of “The 700 Club” and self described “statesman” has concluded why God would have punished Haiti with such a devastating earthquake. It was retribution for a deal they allegedly made with the devil years ago. So too, according to Robertson, did God apparently punish the people of Louisiana with Hurricane Katrina for their sinful ways. Did Robertson not notice that Bourbon street, the cultural center of New Orleans’ libidinous proclivities went, for the most part, unaffected by Katrina? Has God never noticed the cities of Amsterdam, or Las Vegas? Is the architect of the galaxy simply not paying attention, or does he just have bad aim?

But there were few heralds of divine truth whose bigotry could compare with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who went so far as to blame the Sept 11th attacks on “abortionists, feminists, and gays”… none of whom are in accordance with Falwell’s (nor God’s apparently) moralistic world view. “I point the finger in their face” said the Liberty University founder, “You helped this happen.” Did I miss something, or did only pro-choice feminists, and homosexuals die in the Trade Center attacks? Considering that the United States financial industry was so negatively affected, couldn’t one just as reasonably conclude that God hates capitalism? Could our almighty creator be that obtuse? But Christian America’s hypocrisy is staggering when one considers how most in the United States will denounce the ignorance and bigotry consistently exhibited Westboro Baptist Church, and how someone like Falwell — who was no less insular — was a accorded the luxury of credibility to the point where he had access to the White House.

The moral and theological contradictions in the statements that evangelical, and politically motivated pontiffs make are clear… provided one’s acumen is not distorted by fear based religion. If one concedes that the God which these, and other theistic profiteers speak of is indeed the omnipotent, loving, merciful, all powerful being they claim –then how can one rationally assert that a loving God would punish people with natural disasters? What “message” could a “loving” God be sending to us mortals by decimating so many people’s lives? Would any of us send our children to play on a beach we knew would be devastated by a tsunami? How could anyone who is reasonable conclude that the same God who hates abortion would also allow pregnant women and children to be killed in these very same disasters? Is God also punishing bible belt Christians when he obliterates a town with a tornado? How can anyone with the ability to discern reason intellectually reconcile the concepts of love and mercy from a being who is also the catalyst for so much pain and suffering?

However when religious editorialists make such unconditional allegations about God’s intentions, the contradictions about love, mercy and petty wrath are incidental regarding the their true motivations. They have — whether they want to admit it or not– arrogantly replaced their messiah with themselves. The psychological dynamics of this type of narcissism are both frightening, and sad.

It is ego-driven self indulgence that will allow anyone to make any absolute assertions as to what God’s will is…as opposed to what they feel it might, or could be. In what amounts to a theological version of White Night Syndrome, those who claim to have inside apostolic information about God’s objectives, are in fact, portraying themselves as the incarnated prophets for their fundamentalism, or more likely, brand name. It’s like having a surrogate Jesus on our televisions telling us who to vote for, and why God is angry at us this week. It is they who offer divine providence here on earth by playing the role of savior, and rationalizing bigotry with scripture. But with the advent of social networking, masking hate speech with religion has gotten significantly worse.

With the safety and anonymity of the internet, those inclined towards being part of a “God Squad” have found a safe venue to impose their narcissistic self importance. All they have to do is simply regurgitate articles written by whatever “credible” 3rd party affirms their dogmatic predispositions, and inject themselves into the socio/political/theological equation by becoming “junior” saviors themselves. Now we can all, to some extent, be like Glenn Beck.

Condescendingly, many offer prayers when a cataclysmic disaster occurs, as if the almighty was momentarily distracted and was unaware of what actually happened, or if he could perhaps have his mind changed about those whose lives still hang in the balance. With every disaster, lives are destroyed, and with a cavalier disregard for human suffering, those very same people offering prayers will chalk it up to “God’s will”. Nothing short of hubris would allow one to conclude from the warmth and comfort of a middle class suburban home here in the United States why God would allow people to languish in disease and poverty elsewhere. Only through arrogant indignation could one determine that “God Loves Us” while chowing down on a cheeseburger during American Idol, while there is so much needless suffering occurring around the globe.

At least those on television who provide vainglorious proclamations about God’s plan can rationalize them with a significant income. For those posting inane religious platitudes on the Internet and blathering out of context scripture to their friends and co-workers, their payoff rarely amounts to more than satisfying a petty sense of ego. But for the small minded, or those simply looking to impose their will on others, the reconciliations about God’s alleged ethics, and the harsh reality of global suffering need not be made. Logic and reason are afterthoughts when the motivation is self indulgent.

The truth is, there are only three conclusions one can rationally draw where it concerns the concept of God, and what “his” motivations might be. One might take the classic Deist position, and determine that if there is a God, he is indifferent to what transpires here on Earth. Perhaps God created the universe, and like a giant Petri dish, things just started growing. A microbe on the other side of the galaxy, bacteria on a distant moon, and humans here on earth… he does not prefer one to the other.

Or perhaps, God is a sadist. After all, various holy writs are replete with stories about how God punishes people for not pacifying his ego, and banishes them to an eternity of torture for not worshipping correctly. That would not only explain all of the needless pain and suffering around the world, but how Glenn Beck and Jerry Falwell were created in his image.

Lastly, one could determine that there is, in fact, no such thing as God. If employed, logic and reason would most likely lead to that conclusion.

However one cannot invent the god they want. Recently I was engaged in an Internet discussion about the Japanese Tsunami, and afterwards I received an angry letter from a woman who took obvious exception to my stance regarding the uselessness of offering prayers, and the pretentiousness of those in a warm, dry place suggesting that survivors turn to God. It was my contention that if they believed in God, then this was obviously his will as he is all knowing, and all powerful… right?

Among other barely coherent ramblings, she wrote, “The God you think I pray to is not the one u(sic) speak of!!! My God didn’t create that disaster and if u(sic) think he did just to prove a point your(sic) wrong!! My God is a loving God and I am not imposing him on you but there will come a time in your life that you will call his name!”

Herein lies the problem with most Theists. It is their inability to recognize their own inconsistencies. First of all, she sent me the E-mail… so she was imposing her beliefs on me. Beyond that –spelling and grammar notwithstanding– there is a gap in this woman’s logic wider than the nuclear fallout that she claims God had nothing to do with. Can this person not understand that an all powerful God would have had to be responsible for this disaster, as he is in control of everything? But by the same token, how a loving God wouldn’t have caused any devastation in the first place? Is such a rudimentary inference too difficult to arrive at when one accepts without question that “God loves us” because it “comforts” them?

We cannot pick and choose random acts of nature, and conveniently interpret them so as to qualify God as “loving and merciful” when the facts bear our differently. One cannot rationally determine that if God is indeed omnipotent, all powerful, and loving… that he is unaccountable for the tragedies that occur on such a massive scale. We cannot remove God from the global suffering equation when it does not suit our astigmatic presumptions. Moreover, we cannot be certain about any of God’s intentions, when we cannot be certain about his nature, or whether he exists in the first place.

But like much of America’s personal indulgences, the luxury of certainty is being paid for with credit, and without any collateral. We’re overextended, and looking for an emotional handout. We accord credibility to those who simply do not deserve it because they say things we want to hear. It is how Americans formulate their premise of faith, and it is unfortunately devoid of any rationality. Certainly, if there is such a thing as “God”, we humans are incapable of understanding him, or his intentions about us… and those who affirm otherwise, are either self serving, egomaniacal, or simply predatory.

My wife and I party a lot. Our lifestyle is such that we travel often, meet new and interesting people, and if the planets align so as to create a scenario conducive to consensual, extramarital copulation… that’s just what we do. We work hard when it’s time to work, and we party hard when it’s time to party. We are Happy, and in love… yet there are those who feel compelled to sit in sanctimonious judgment of us, and who have the gall to unfavorably scrutinize our marriage… even when their own lives are miserable. But this article is not about us, rather it’s about the hypocrisy of those who apply their “morality” universally.

Such is the purposeful deceptiveness regarding both the media’s role, and the public reaction to the drama surrounding Charlie Sheen. Before I begin, I am not a psychologist, and even if I was, I would realize that it’s impossible to offer a responsible diagnosis without the benefit of personal interactions. So I’ll say this to America: Charlie Sheen is an ACTOR, you imbeciles. The image you have of him, is the image he *wants* you to have of him. Could he be the rambling, psychotic nut we see in these cringe-worthy, albeit hilarious interviews? Maybe. But as the economy teeters on the brink, and the world faces threats, both real and imagined… the nation’s headlines this past week have been dominated by an actor with tiger blood, Adonis DNA, an over active libido. The actor Charlie Sheen is partying, banging porn stars, and like a nation of Gladys Kravitz’s we watch with phony concern/outrage because most of our lives suck.

It usually comes down to petty jealousy, and people resenting Sheen for living a life that few have the guts to. Granted, while Sheen’s lifestyle may be excessive, when it comes down to it, most of the general population amble through their day having had their thought process steered so as to compromise their inclinations in favor of becoming intellectually attenuated, unimaginative, unoriginal automatons. We make rationalizations as to the why the restrictions we put on out libidos make us virtuous, and we lie to ourselves about the foundations of what we claim to believe.

There are very few things as abhorrent as when people feign morality in order to enact a self righteous indignation, or a burning desire to impose their will on others. The Internet is replete with sanctimonious sex-o-phobes who offer ‘payers”, and unsolicited advice for Sheen, as if any of these dim witted mouth breathers have the synaptic circuitry to make the attempt beyond regurgitating religious platitudes, and self-help cliché’s. Very few of those pretending to care about whether or not Charlie Sheen emerges healthy (or at all), are sincere. Like ex smokers who freak out whenever someone near them lights up… Most are using Sheen’s celebrity to let the world know that since they rarely, if ever orgasm… or enjoy themselves beyond the vicarious thrill of listening to their cerebrally stifled offspring stammer through the trivialities of their school day… he shouldn’t be allowed to either.

Enter the pious, preachy and puerile putz hater, Andrea Peyser, who seems to be personally offended by Sheen’s hedonistic indulgences. As a writer for the New York Post– which is to News what Jersey Shore is to Reality — Peyser, makes a significant living of placating the lowest intellectual denominator… or as the Post calls them, their readership. By writing about whatever politically correct, knee jerk reaction she believes the cubicle dwelling, Walmart shopping public will most likely respond favorably to on any given subject… she utilizes her considerable lack of comprehension, integrity and research skills to hammer out fifteen hundred words of insipid, hackneyed drivel several times per week. Regarding Sheen, her recent article about him offered all the insight of a morbidly obese Topeka housewife whose husband peruses porn sites who prides himself on his flatulence… Men are inherently indiscriminant, and should be chastised at every opportunity… Especially Charlie Sheen!

Never does it ever enter into the nearly empty craniums of those who denounce Charlie Sheen’s behavior that when it comes right down to it… this is *his* life. Perhaps they should concern themselves with their own dreary existence, and while they’re at it, learn the names of their State Senators. Are they really concerned with his kids? If they are, what about the children in Africa who are being tortured and murdered on a regular basis? Are Sheen’s kids really so much worse off than most of the little tax burdens being dragged through our suburban malls by their feeble-minded, irrational, affection starved parents? Does anyone believe that any of the women in his life are actually victims? Are people truly concerned, and/or outraged… or is it more likely that misery loves company?

At least you can say that Charlie Sheen isn’t *that* kind of hypocrite.

…And across America, those who profit from racial tension know they’ve done their job.

A booming industry with a powerful lobby, and significant political influence. An economic juggernaut which manipulates fiscal policy on both a state, and national level and sanctions leaders. They have an invisible commodity that is as real as a virus, yet warrants much more trepidation. The strip mining machinery of the racism business is carving a chasm through the American socio/political landscape.

As I spend a lot of time and effort denouncing the far right when I believe their motives to be less than honorable, I feel compelled to react in kind when I see the same fecklessness exhibited by the left. Liberals market themselves as “minority friendly” because it is within those polling number that they garner political leverage. It is simply part of the liberal platform to fan the flames of racism, for much of their voting base will react passionately whenever they are made to feel victimized. In order to create such fervor, liberals who allege special mind reading abilities will look into people’s souls, interpret their dialogue, and level accusations of racism whenever it accords political advantage. So liberals remain vigilant to the task… even when they have to manufacture the racism themselves… and even when it’s not true.

Enter Bill Maher, who is taking ethnic profiteering to irresponsible new lows. Combining trite banalities with capricious racial quips, Maher uses his HBO venue to profit from a racial divide that he significantly contributes to. Oscillating between pompous indignation, and a cavalier disregard for facts, Maher will affirm any social stance which will support his racially motivated suppositions. The “Real Time with Bill Maher” marketing formula is simple… Republicans are the party of racist old white folks, and progressive liberals are hip, cool intellectuals. His brand is reliant on race-baiting.

While taking the GOP to task for their verbal and legislative inconsistencies is admirable to those who are pre-disposed to accept leftist propaganda; it is Maher’s lack of integrity where it concerns applying similar scrutiny to “people of color” that defines his true nature. Never one to miss an opportunity to verbally thrash a conservative when they exhibit an irrational perspective, Maher manages to excuse whatever inane drivel pours from the biased pie-holes of liberals, especially when they are black.

As was the case this past week when “Real Time” guest Rep. Jack Kingston declared that he was (among other things) an evolution denier. While lambasting Kingston over his refusal to accept volumes of factual scientific evidence in favor of a biblical, creationist perspective; the tone of the conversation changed dramatically (and then abruptly ended) when Maher compatriot D.L. Hughley admitted that he, too, did not believe the validity evolutionary fossil and DNA evidence. Suddenly, it was time for a subject change, for Maher won’t argue with a black guy, unless he’s a traitor… er… Republican.

Even Maher’s stance on gun control is ignominiously framed with racial overtones. In the weeks after the Tucson shootings, Maher has taken the position of blaming gun violence across America on the Republican Party, and their relationship with the NRA. However the prior week on Real Time –during one of his rants unilaterally equating gun owners with ignorant bible thumpers — Maher had the audacity to do so with his good friend and founder of Def Jam records, Russell Simmons sitting next to him. Although Maher did sheepishly mention that everyone Simmons made money from owns a gun, he failed to hold Simmons accountable for founding a “Hip-Hop” culture predicated on gun violence, and then ruthlessly profiting from it. Still both Simmons and Maher attributed urban gun violence to wealthy, white republicans, and the gun lobby.

When Simmons — who now feigns respectability by donning sweater vests –condescendingly denounced the 2nd amendment by claiming “We should amend it” and that “There’s no reason for anyone to have a gun”… He was met with another panelists astute observation that the strictest gun laws occur in the very inner cities where young black people are routinely getting killed… and that the weapons in question are in fact, illegal… and as a result that no amount of legislation would have affected any of these urban shootings. Still, both Maher and Simmons refused to acknowledge the ” Hip-Hop” culture as having any negative impact on the black community at all. Apparently, the Biggie and Tupac murders were merely a result of Republican influence, and not the culture they embraced.

What makes this hypocrisy offensive to anyone with the slightest sensibility, is that to Bill Maher’s left sat a man who has presided over an industry which romanticizes gun violence and rationalizes — if not excuses — murder to obtain wealth… and Maher still managed to ignore the painfully obvious truth in order to maintain the racial divide he profits from. But Maher is an expert on tapping into the inherent dishonesty of self-loathing, guilt ridden Caucasians that feeds the racism beast in the first place. Bigotry is burgeoned by the anxiety that occurs when the rational are forbidden to proclaim that the King has no clothes. Playing the race card only works because — within the contemporary climate of political correctness — social and political leverage are acquired despite the truth, not because of it.

Recently, Bill Maher insightfully said something to the effect of “You can’t speak the truth these days without someone trying to Kill you…or threatening to kill you”. Well, the truth is, the most pronounced example of contemporary racism exists between liberals, and the minorities they claim to represent. When the left feels that they “own” their constituents sensibilities, liberals make the determination over how black people should think or feel …all the while profiting from the heightened emotions they encourage. That relationship is in itself, condescending… and implies an intellectual disparity. That relationship is in itself, racist.

Despite what one might think by reading this, I happen to like Bill Maher, and his TV show. I think he’s funny and smart, and as only the invisible man in the sky knows, he and I agree on religion. But where it concerns the issue of race, Maher abandons actuality. There is a distinctive pattern of him capitulating to our lowest social denominator so as to placate community on which he financially relies. Whether it be pacifying Mos Def’s uninformed, pedestrian understanding of Middle Eastern Totalitarianism, or sucking up to Al Sharpton by referring to himself as “One of the good ones”… ugh… or even indulging Russell Simmons vapid, egocentric self-help book when he normally (and justifiably) trashes such predatory garbage… Maher’s idealistic inconsistency is clearly defined as black and white… literally. It has, to the detriment of his credibility degenerated to the point where concerns craving the attention of black phallus, Lisa Lampinelli will have to get in line behind Bill Maher.