The Book of Abby

Americans and Domestic Violence

A.e.larkie — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:50:10 GMT

It has been months since Chris Brown violently assaulted his now ex-girlfriend Rihanna, and in the past few weeks the young R&B singer has been on the defensive trying to explain away his actions and make amends. My concerns are not necessarily with the fact that he is trying to save face or trying to down play the whole incident or that quite frankly he sounds like an typical abuser. My concern is with the average fanbase and populous that is learning from this incident.

As I logged onto my Yahoo! homepage today, I decided to click on a top story to read and in the sidebar I noticed a small story on the Rihanna assault case which was about Chris Brown. To paraphrase the article was about how Brown felt left out by Oprah and that he felt Oprah should have said she was going to help both him (the perpetrator) and Rihanna (the victim) out. If you remember correctly, the first Friday Live show Oprah held after the assault, she publicly claimed that Rihanna should stay away from Brown and to never speak to him again, and that Brown should immediately get counseling for being an abuser (or something to that effect). I believe she also rightfully decried “once an abuser always an abuser” in that same episode as well. Well, now, as inflammatory and upsetting as his comments are, I’m more concerned with the public reaction to this small article which is apparent by the “comments” section at the bottom of the page.

Many of you reading this may be thinking, “oh, wow, I can’t believe you pay attention to those lunatics who comment on salacious stories,” but I believe there is a lot to be learned and to be gained from the insight of these people. I think it is a very small, albeit prejudicial, sample of American thought and opinion that very well may shed some light on the behaviors and worldview of average human beings residing in this country. It is also a startling look at the beliefs and reasoning some of our youth and young adults hold and adhere to, respectively. Here are some of the comments and what I can glean from them:

Several people call Brown “stupid” for his comments/actions. These people, in my opinion, have it correct. Now I cannot assume to know if they are fans of his or not, but it is apparent to me that these people find his actions inexcusable and that nothing he can do or say will make up for it. One person even states “what about rihanna? she was abused! oprah is right! chris brown is an a******!” Another person declares, ” he's a joke! you can't get away with this kind of abuse...” My favorite comment would have to be “this guy is a wreck! first he beats rihanna.. what's next? his future children? i'd put him in jail! that's where he belongs.”

Some people state that “oprah should mind her own business!” and in some posts even suppose to know Oprah’s own mindset and state that she believes herself to be Jesus/God, and even infer that she is inherently evil. These people obviously don’t get it and are projecting their anger/hatred on Oprah and away from the actual topic at hand.

Then there are the people who believe that Chris Brown was wrong but partially to blame and it’s not that big of a deal.

“i love chris but he realy made a mistake! now he's suffering but that's the way life goes”

“chris brown is not so bad, he just had a bad day... i feel sorry for everything that's happening to him..:(“

” i luv chris brown nd i kno he made a misteak. But to be honest Rihanna really shouldn't have started it. But a man shouldn't put his hands on a woman, unless that woman is a jerk lyke Rihanna.”

” People have bad times and make bad decisions based on their emotions. I believe that both of them had a hand in their dispute. It doesnt give excuse for what Chris did but If any of you have even heard of a man named JESUS.....maybe you would not have these evil things to say about any of them. LOVE & FORGIVENESS people!!!!!!”

This sample scares me a little. When people chalk up violent assault to “a bad day” or point fingers to who “started it” then these people belong to a group that is either most likely to get abused in a relationship or do the abusing. The last comment in which the person states that their decisions were based on emotion and that they both “had a hand in their dispute” is understandable, however the first part in which the person once again likens the dispute to “bad times” undermines the severity of what actually happened.

Then there are the re-victimizers or “Rihanna accusers”:

A repeat from above: “i luv chris brown nd i kno he made a misteak. But to be honest Rihanna really shouldn't have started it. But a man shouldn't put his hands on a woman, unless that woman is a jerk lyke Rihanna.”

“rihanna is a bitch! she is the one responsible for everything!”

“i agree with [person above]! rihanna is trashy !”

” rihanna sucks! go chris!”

“dd Rihana provoked him sooooooooooooooooooo??? knowing well in advance that everyone would be on her side????”

Do I even need to say what’s wrong with any of these comments, beside most of the spelling?

There are some people who are pretty straight forward about all of the negative or outrageous comments on the board also. One person says, “you people are too STUPID for words,” while another says, “Some of these comments are really sick! No man has the right to beat up a woman, period!”

And then there are the “fringe” comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic and are quite frankly so incredibly stupid or pointless that I’m not going to copy them but rather paraphrase them instead. Some people just make blatantly racist comments about how the two should go back to Africa, and then there are the people who for some odd reason think its appropriate to bring President Obama into the discussion. I’m not really sure where the segue way to Obama comes from. Maybe because he’s black as well, but who the hell knows.

Overall, I would say comments are an interesting way to delve into the psyche of the people. I think I should point out that these comments are just in the first 50 or so that were posted on the page which for the record is http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:3c630df25bfc9e9810fb78351f30b203:3d2d4efa064b229714b92fca2ac252bc/Chris-Brown-is-mad-with-Oprah-Probably-hell-beat-the-crap-out-of-her;_ylt=AtT9VXyCGhbZBl9Mj9XwRASMfNdF

Just so you guys don’t think I’m embellishing any of these gems.

Here’s what I think of domestic violence. It’s violence, plain and simple. It’s not an isolated incidence between two individuals, it’s more than that. I will say that yes, it’s not always true that there will be constant abuse in a relationship. Maybe Chris Brown doesn’t always get boiling mad, so he may not strike all the time, but violence is very rarely a one time occurrence and should never be treated as such. For any person, male or female, it is never acceptable to attack or strike another human being, no matter how obnoxious or infuriating they may be. It is not acceptable. You would never allow anyone to get away with hitting an elderly person or an infant, so why is it apparently acceptable for us to abuse adults or our peers in such a violent and aggressive manner? One could make several arguments: it’s our gender roles as a society, it’s the youth culture of the moment, it’s our nations violent history of war and riots, etc. Regardless of the reasons, it is inexcusable behavior and every person should be held accountable for being violent. It’s bad enough we have racial, gun, peer, school, workplace, military, police, eco/environmental, and random violence in our nation, just to name a few, and the most prevalent of all is domestic. It is underreported and depreciated in its severity but that doesn’t change the fact that it is happening every day and it is a severe offense. Repeat abusers are more likely to kill their victim, than less frequent abusers, but regardless, abuse is abuse no matter how infrequent.

When is creativity a cry for attention?

A.e.larkie — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:53:38 GMT

When does free-spiritedness and creativity turn into a cry for attention?

I think of myself as a creative person. I like to write short stories and poetry. I love learning about the past. I love speculating about the significance of historical finds and technological innovations. I enjoy clothes that I feel are unique and help give strangers a glimpse into my creative side. And I love having healthy debates, that usually borderline on the absurd and fantastic, about topics that I find interesting and important. But when does a person’s creative side turn into an incessant need for attention? When does a person’s free-spirit attitude borderline on being psychotic? If you ask me, it’s a very fine line that some people teeter on every single day of their lives.

For example, clothes. I usually shop at some stores in the mall, or if I’m in a rush and just need a freshened up wardrobe, I grab a few new shirts at Wal-Mart or Target. Sometimes I’ll alter a piece or two, but it usually consists of just adding a cluster of buttons to a shirt to give is a little personal flare. But what honestly possesses people to dress like Lady Gaga or an animal? What is seriously going on in someone’s head that they think leotards, no pants, and a bra with a fur coat is really appropriate to wear…ever? There is a very fine line between dressing to make yourself look and feel good and dressing to get people to look at you. Some people dress in a way that doesn’t inspire others to be fashionable or creative, but rather, young women look at someone like Lady Gaga and think ‘If that’s what it takes to get attention, then so be it.’ It’s unhealthy. And, to be honest, the clothes are just downright ugly. Some people might think that if the clothes are ugly it will amplify the person’s beauty, it doesn’t. It makes you look ugly, too.

The same applies to people who dress a certain way to fit in with their friends or a certain subculture. When I see someone dressed like a vampire, Goth, punk, etc. I don’t think they are a unique individual, but rather, I see a person who is in the throws of low self-concept and an identity crisis. When someone thinks they have to dress outlandishly, like wearing rabbit ears when it’s not Easter, to me that says that person doesn’t think there is anything unique about their personality so they make up for it with crazy clothes. They try to create an image of uniqueness instead of taking an honest look in the mirror to see themselves for who they really are, which is a beautifully unique individual.

And what about people who confuse free-spiritedness with being completely creepy and weird. The one area I have the most concern with is people who think it’s okay to tell perfect strangers their intimate life details. This is how you know you have a problem. If you are in a checkout line at the grocery store and you decide to stray from the routine conversation, i.e. the weather or traffic, and instead you feel compelled to tell the person behind you that you were molested as a child or that your father was an alcoholic, then you have a problem. Instances similar to this have happened to me on several occasions. These are things you should be discussing with a trained therapist, not with me in the middle of Costco.

There isn’t much else I can say on the subject. I just think it would be worthwhile to say that as a person you shouldn’t feel obligated to be an open book, nor should you ever think that your personality is tethered to your outward appearance. You don’t have to look a certain way to act a certain way. That’s called labeling and it’s harmful to a person on so many levels. Just remember to be truly honest to yourself – I promise it’s much better to live in reality with everyone else than to be stuck in some fantasy world that doesn’t exist. You might wake up one day and realize your finally ready to face real life, only to find that your time has run out. You don’t want to run out of time. Despite what you may have heard, consciousness is not cyclical. You won’t get a second chance.

THE Book Everyone Should Own

A.e.larkie — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:32:28 GMT

A few years ago, while browsing lazily through the stacks at Borders, I came across a book that looked to be serene and unassuming. The cover was painted in shades of grey with shadowed, smooth pebbles - very Zen, I thought. And I was right. The book was the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) by Stephen Mitchell. It is the book that every person should have in their possession. If I can, I'll try to explain the best way I can.

This is the main book of Taoism, which is an ancient Chinese religion. It is unpretentious and simplistic, yet at the same time so complex and intimidating. When you read the neatly written poems quietly to yourself, you feel a sense of calmness and understanding, almost like the world finally makes sense, but if you had to explain what you just read to another person, it would be near impossible. You can try, but it would never be the same as allowing the person to read the poem themself.

The book is anthropologically succint. It is truthful. It doesn't try to force a person to act and feel contradictory to human nature, yet it inspires one to be a better person, a smarter person, a more efficient and productive person. To get the best out of life, but recognizing and accepting life for what it is. This book may not change your life overnight, it may never change it at all, but what it will do is embed itself into your subconcious. It will awaken your mind to the reality of life and the universe. It will make you aware of what purity of body and mind really means.

That's the best I can explain it. It would be the perfect supplement to anyone's library and life. I really encourage you all to give it a try. I've found that I love the Mitchell translation for its clearness and brevity, but there is an online version here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

Weight Loss Blog

A.e.larkie — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:44:53 GMT

An old friend of mine from High School has been blogging about her weight loss journey. I figured some of the ladies on here might find it beneficial/inspiring. So here is the link losinglex.blogspot.com

Ethics and Morals

A.e.larkie — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:36:13 GMT

This ongoing fiasco involving Governor Sanford of South Carolina has got me thinking about the difference between ethics and morals. Now to most people these things are one in the same but when employing them in different areas of life (personal and professional) they take on very different meanings.

Let’s start with basic definitions for each word. Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct. It’s important to note the word ‘science.’ Ethics is basically a pattern of reasoning that determines whether something is right or wrong. This differs from morals which is when a person is concerned with the distinction between right and wrong and has the ability to conform to the moral standards considered normal for the society in which they live. Even though every individual has their own set of morals, it essentially boils down to being capable of moral action in day to day life.

Now, as a human being one can be ethical without being moral. Ethics is simply knowing and understanding the difference between right and wrong, whereas morality is actually having the capacity to choose the right path over the wrong path. In private life, people usually strive for both. They try to create a harmonious balance between ethics and morals, in which ethics determines the moral choice by weighing the positive and negative consequences of those choices. This might prove difficult to some but it is not impossible. It’s actually harder to be ethical than it is to be moral. Morality is effortless and requires little thought, since it is simply the act of making a choice – right or wrong. Ethics involves a lot more thinking since it is the process of determining whether the choice made was right or wrong. Also, employing ethics in politics is even harder because you have to make a decision not just based on the values of one person (as in one’s own personal life) but instead on the values of a whole State or Nation. This is why there are always so many people pissed off about political decisions.

So, how does this relate to the pickle in which Governor Sanford finds himself? First, it is evident that he is an ethical person, since he has the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. However, though his action was immoral, that does not immediately render him an immoral person. Since we do not have minute details about his personal life we are unable to determine whether or not he is an immoral person, or just a moral person who had a prolonged lapse in judgement. Regardless, I do not personally believe that having an immoral personal life is grounds for removal or resignation of office. I know a lot of people who are horribly immoral, but are damn good at their jobs.

Also, we should take into consideration that politics is about ethics; ethics in its most secular form. The actual practice of politics is quite immoral. Some people lobby for organizations that want policies that will destroy the environment and endanger people’s lives, and they do so without remorse. To be in politics you need to have the ability to remove yourself from morals and focus only on ethics. Thus, what Sanford does in his personal life should not effect his professional standing, UNLESS, like the former Governor of New York Mark Spitzer, he used tax payer money to pay for anything involving his personal life or his mistress. When one’s personal affairs begin to involve their professional affairs it begins to bridge the gap between morals and ethics which is always disastrous. It’s not uncommon for most politicians to teeter on that line, and even if they do overstep that boundary, most constituents don’t seem to care unless it is associated with immoral activity. So, basically, what I’m saying is if Sanford wants to be a rat bastard on his own dime, then it’s no one’s business but his own (and his family’s).

Now, one could also argue that poor judgement in one’s personal affairs can translate to poor judgement in one’s professional affairs, but that’s not always the case. In Sanford’s case, it seems to me that the people of South Carolina aren’t necessarily upset about his cheating on his spouse so much as they are with the fact that he left the country without telling anyone during an important time in the affairs of the State. Which will most likely lead to a debate on whether or not those actions were ethical. Which could end up being grounds for impeachment. Unfortunately for Sanford, he probably based his gubernatorial campaign on his moral uprightness as a person.

Which makes me wonder. Does it really matter if a candidate is moral in their personal life? It doesn’t mean they will be better at running a State or Nation. Not to mention, not every decision in politics involves morality. So, why do some people seem to put so much emphasis on a candidate’s moral standing?

(Note to readers: Towards the end, I kind of let my train of thought derail. It’s not too off point though. Enjoy.)

Misogyny, Hysteria, and Vibrators, Oh My!

A.e.larkie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:00:02 GMT

A couple semesters ago, I took a 19^th Century Literature class and was given the assignment of writing about a topic that pertained to the era and the texts that we were reading. Pretty standard stuff, right? Well, not quite. Our class was comprised of all girls and one boy and it’s pretty safe to say that we talked about things in front of him that if he had been a lesser man he would have been in a perpetual state of blush. So we kicked around topics as a class – music, fashion, etiquette, etc. – and I chose to do a small presentation on the idea of female hysteria and the invention of the vibrator. On the same day I was to give my presentation, a classmate was giving her presentation on the fashion of the 1800’s. Suffice to say, the topics went perfectly together.

Unfortunately, I failed in trying to locate the notes I had made for that presentation, but I think I retained enough knowledge on such an intriguing and important topic to relay it here to you and also add some afterthought on the theme.

First let’s discuss the concept of female hysteria. Which is not to be confused with regular old hysteria. Regular hysteria would be what happens after a flu epidemic is announced, and is in no way related to the concept of female hysteria. Female hysteria is a condition attributed to women before the understanding of the chemistry and physiology of the female body and psyche. It was a blanket term used to describe the phenomena of a woman who didn’t, couldn’t, or blatantly wouldn’t, follow the strict social guidelines that had been previously and irrevocably laid out before her. The actual underlying cause of this hysteria can presently be attributed to many different illnesses and problems, which I will lay out as I go along.

The first recorded mention of female hysteria dates all the way back to ancient Egypt, where a papyrus details a condition quite similar to the process of menopause. You see the Egyptians and countless Greek and Roman scholars believed that when a woman’s vagina dried up that her uterus did so as well. Once the uterus was dry it was able to break away and float around the body. This is what they believed caused hot flashes and fainting spells in older women. So it wasn’t much of a stretch when physicians in the 1700-1800s attributed these same causes to women who were nothing more than victims of the fashion trends of their day. Many instances of female hysteria reported during the heyday of corsets were actually due in part to the restrictiveness of said accessory. The corset would cause a woman to hyperventilate and pass out. In addition to the corset, the many layers of thick fabric that a woman was to wear on a daily basis to be deemed respectable and trendy can be attributed to these symptoms as well. Having to wear so much clothing inevitably led to dizziness and fainting probably due in part to dehydration and constriction.

Other medical problems misdiagnosed as female hysteria were simple viral infection, PMS, PMDD, depression, anxiety, post-partum depression, dementia, alcoholism, and learning disabilities, just to name a select few. Women would be locked up in insane asylums if a doctor believed that their symptoms were irreversible, and women who were technically not insane would eventually become so because of the squalid conditions of the asylums (think Sweeney Todd, if you saw it). Husband’s would divorce their wives on these diagnoses, and have them committed for life.

Now, I’m sure many of you reading this are wondering what vibrators have to do with hysteria. Well, women who were given a more positive prognosis were subjected to a very special treatment. Care to venture a guess? If you said hand-to-genital manipulation administered by a trained physician, you were correct. Yes, that’s right. A doctor would have the liberty to finger you until you had an orgasm. You see, treatable hysteria was thought to be caused by a lack of sexual stimulation in a woman’s life. Now, I’m no expert on the morals and values of the 1800s but my guess is that these people weren’t too keen on talking about sex or having it frequently. Not even with their partners.

There is one thing that has always perplexed me though. Why didn’t these doctors but prescribe more sex between the couple? I mean, genital manipulation is genital manipulation, right? Well, anyway, here’s the best part. Male physicians were so irritated by the process – apparently they found it quite taxing and exhausting to keep whacking off all these ladies, especially since almost three quarters of the female population was diagnosed with hysteria at some point or other – that they started sending these women off to midwives for treatment. But midwives are busy women, too, but they did their best to help out a fellow lady. I think this would be a good time to point out that, as a woman, it’s awkward enough to have a male ob/gyn, now could you imagine having to go to him for an orgasm treatment? How humiliating it had to have been for women to be subjugated to that kind of treatment by a stranger. And going to woman couldn’t have been any easier. I should also point out that most of these procedures were performed in England and Europe, which during this time were not known for their hygiene and sanitation. Alright, moving on.

Eventually, a businessman had a great idea to establish facilities, kind of like modern-day spas, where women could come and have these orgasmic treatments. This is where we begin to see the advent of the vibrator. A lot of these retreats were established near natural or hot springs and the setting was much more serene and calming. Not like dirty London doctor offices, with all those gross sick people dying from typhoid. Anyway, they decided to rig up a device, probably using a type of bellows to suck up and shoot water onto the vaginal area. Yes, ladies and gents, the very first pulsating shower head. Wonder of wonders. This occurred, if I remember correctly, around 1880-90. Well, these contraptions quickly caught fire and women were coming from far and wide to, well…you know.

Then came the invention of electricity and vibrators found their way into the home. In a circa 1910 Sears Roebuck catalog, you too could be the proud owner of your very own personal at home massager. Just plug it into the wall and all your stresses will melt away. (Not kidding, really was sold by Sears.) Of course, these first at home models were not marketed for sexual purposes but rather for alleviating the pains of everyday housework, or menstrual aches and pains. You know, lady things that corporations don’t like talking about. That doesn’t deflect from the fact that the at home vibrator was as popular as the electric iron and vacuum cleaner. It was one of Sears top sellers.

And it was introduced just in time, because then came the 1920s and liberation of women…well, at least for a little while, then everybody got into World War II and Leave-It-To-Beaver-mode. Actually, there wasn’t much in the way of sexual liberation for women between the 1930s to the end of the ‘50s. Mostly due in part to the Great Depression, the aforementioned war, and (fake) wholesome family values. But then the ‘60s happened and all was right with the world again. Women began burning bras and experimenting with drugs and sexual extravagances. It was a wonderful time for exploration and liberation. Well, most of you know the history from there so I’ll give some of my insight to why I think the vibrator is one of the greatest liberators of the female sex.

The vibrator was originally born out of misogyny and misunderstanding. Bull-headed men who didn’t understand that women thought differently, or were chemically comprised differently, just wrote women with problems off as lunatics. If someone had actually stopped to think outside of the parameters set up by society, a lot of women would have had much better lives and wouldn’t have wasted away in institutions or on the streets. But, majestically, in spite of the ignorance of men and stagnancy of an era, the vibrator became the single most sexually liberating tool for women. Think you need a man for a fun time? Think again! For centuries, men always had the luxury of prostitutes and mistresses, and even though some women took lovers, many of them stayed obedient and submissive, because, after all, it’s easier to tell if a woman has had an affair, when she gets knocked up without having touched her husband. So here it was! A way for women to have their cake and their orgasm too! Don’t want to get knocked up, but you’re horny? Vibrator! Husband out of town and you’re lonely? Vibrator! Want to be a wild and carefree single in the city, but don’t want an STD? Vibrator! It’s the quick fix for every problem. Or at least it was until they invented the Pill. Mazal Tov!

Well, I hope this has been an informative piece for all of you ladies (and men). Thank you.

Photos from UNHCR

A.e.larkie — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:00:40 GMT

A haunting and thought provoking stream of photos from the UN High Commission on Refugees, courtesy of Flickr. This stream won't be up much longer, so check it out as soon as possible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unhcr/sets/72157617551690524/

The Cult of Marilyn Monroe

A.e.larkie — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:36:30 GMT

Why do women idolize Marilyn Monroe? I just don't understand it.

Marilyn Monroe grew up as Norma Jeane Baker and was raised in foster homes and orphanages because her mother was institutionalized for mental illness. As Marilyn Monroe, she had several plastic surgeries and several marriages, while at the same time repeatedly suffering ectopic miscarriages, and subsequently developed a drug problem.

So, why do so many women idolize her?

Compared to the actresses of her day (and after) she is an average actress; compared to the singers of her day (and after) she is an average singer; the only thing that made her really stand out was her striking beauty and the fact that lots of men wanted to fuck her.

And, yet, women still want to be like her. They want to emulate her, get tattooes of her likeness, quote her like she's Sophocles. Why would anyone want to be like someone who couldn't get their own life together? Take Anna Nicole Smith, for example, who idolized Marilyn Monroe and how did she end up? Naked in bed and dead from a drug overdose just like her idol.

And now young ladies like Lindsay Lohan and Megan Fox are practically in a contest to see who loves Marilyn Monroe more. Do you know what that says to me? It says to me that these two young ladies don't want to be appreciated for their talent or intelligence but would rather be remembered for their controversy, good looks, and fuckability.

To these ladies, and ladies just like them, I say, don't sell yourselves so short.

Atheism 101

A.e.larkie — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:32:41 GMT

What is Atheism? Many people think they know, but quite frankly, would be shocked to find out what it really means to be an Atheist. The literal translation of 'atheist' is 'not god,' where as the meaning of 'agnostic' (just to give a reference point) is 'not know.'

Now for a brief history of the movement. The concept of atheism traces back to Hinduism, and can be found in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. But I think that it should be noted that many indigenous religions, especially in Asia, do not actually have a main deity, but rather rely on a spiritual leader or the spirits of ancestors, this might allow them to be categorized among atheistic or agnostic faiths. As for Hinduism, that is a pantheistic/polytheistic religion, in the sense that it has multiple gods but also holds animals and other living items to be holy. It should also be noted that in Hinduism the creator of Brahma is Brahman; Brahman being the spiritual essence of the universe that is not actually a divine being, as is Brahma.

Diagoras was considered the 'first' atheist, but obviously that is always up for debate. Mainly because it is rare to find philosophical writings pertaining to before the Greek period. Roman philosophers considered to be atheist were Lucretius and Epicurus, however the term 'atheist' itself wasn't coined until the 16^th century, more than likely as a result of the Catholic church becoming more reformed and organized. Then two centuries later the idea of 'positive atheism' arose, but we will talk more about that later. It is also important to understand that the concept of atheism has changed greatly since its advent. Originally it was thought to promote hedonism, and it was also equated with demons and Satanism. In today's Atheism that couldn't be farther from the truth.

So who are Atheists? Sometimes they are called Humanists or Freethinkers, and there is absolutely no discrimination as to race, gender, class, orientation, etc. (meaning they come in all types and sizes). The numbers are rough, but in the United States it is believed that there are about 17% of the population, which translates to about 51 million people. In Europe, roughly 25% of the population is atheist. The actual number is up for dispute because I'm not sure which countries were polled and what their respective populations are.

Now, before we get into specifics, let's get a working definition of what a modern Atheist is, shall we? In the court case Murray vs. Curlett, an Atheist is described as:

"[A person who] loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."

This is a loose definition and can vary greatly from person to person. I, for example, enjoy meditation, which some people consider pray, but I don't. For me it's more of a stress reliever, as I am not using the time to appeal or bargain to a god(s).

So let's talk about the two main branches of Atheism, Implicit and Explicit.

Implicit Atheism, also known as Practical Atheism, would be defines as "the absence of theistic belief without the conscious rejection of it." Which would mean that it is basically a person simply stating that they do not believe in a god(s). (If any of this seems vague, it will become much more apparent as we get into Explicit and others, these topics without comparison or context can seem vague to some people.) These Atheists usually don't find a need for God in daily life. They also don't actively try and disprove religious theory. It is simply a live and let live attitude towards life. Compared to Explicit Atheism, Implicit is usually considered 'weak' Atheism, and can include concepts like Agnosticism.

Explicit Atheism, also known as Theoretical Atheism, would be considered "conscious disbelief," and usually includes an assertion on the Atheists part that "God does not or cannot exist." Explicit Atheism is much more in depth than Implicit, and includes a group of subcategories including Epistemological, Metaphysical, Neurotheological, Logical, Evidential, and Anthropocentric. This is also considered the 'strong' side of Atheism and usually uses historical and scientific analysis of religious myth. (Think Hilary Swank's character in the beginning of the movie The Reaping.)

What's interesting is that just like Theism, there are also 'paths' to Atheism. Here are the common ways people decide to become Atheists, or realize that they are Atheists without even trying:

1. Discovery: Realizing that you do not believe in a god. Usually comes by way of self-reflection, and through the study of religious material to choose a spiritual path.

2. Reactionary: When religion no longer fits into a person's reasoning or when one feels "let down" by religion, they choose a path of rebellion towards non-belief.

3. Indoctrinated: When Atheism is "freely or forcibly taught to the individual;" can be self-taught.

4. Natural: When someone has no knowledge of religion whatsoever, and therefore does not believe in any god. (ex. newborn babies)

Even though there are 'types' of Atheism, not everyone falls into these categories. But there are some pretty common beliefs held by most Atheists, including:

1. No gods, goddesses, saints, angels, demons, devils, etc.

a. With the exception of mystical/fantasy or paranormal beings. This tends to vary from person to person.

2. No heaven or hell as separate from this reality, just consequences to actions.

3. Prayer has no divine power.

4. Self motivation, self reliance, or reliance on those directly involved in your life is key.

5. Reliance on philosophical and ethical morality.

There are some interesting points to make regarding the concept of Atheism. Both Theism and Atheism are consequences "of what one knows and how one reasons." Therefore all religious beliefs and assumptions are determined by the knowledge one receives and the individuals own life experiences. Atheism also stresses philosophical reasoning including free thought, humanism, materialism, objectivism, rationalism, and skepticism.

There are also many stereotypes and false assumptions made about Atheists. Some people assume that Atheist are always angry, immoral, mentally instable, Communists, unpatriotic, or religiously intolerant. All of these assumptions are unfounded and usually are borne out of a fear of the unknown and from misunderstandings.

In conclusion, Atheists are normal people who just don't believe in a god(s), and quite frankly can be anyone, anywhere, but don't worry because they are not to be feared. They are good, hardworking people who just want to live in a country where their beliefs, or non-beliefs, are not going to be threatened. So just remember, Atheists are people, too.

** I mentioned above that I would go into more detail about Positive Atheism, but this book would explain it better then I could.

http://atheistempire.com/mm_dl/text/Gora%20-%20Positive%20Atheism.pdf

Seven Steps to Healthy Eating

A.e.larkie — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:21:09 GMT

I am tired of so many people telling you what the best foods are to eat. Just today I saw a headline telling people what not to eat when going to the movies. Now, I've never been overweight, so I don't know what it feels like to be overweight, but I do know that many women who think that they are overweight are dead wrong. So here are my tips:

1. Veggies. Always portion veggies into your meal. And veggies should always outweigh the meat portion on the plate. Raw fresh veggies are best, but you can have canned veggies as well, but make sure they are low sodium. You can deep fry your veggies but you have to make sure you are using healthy oils and good batter.

2. Meat should be lean and all natural if you can manage it. If you are having potatoes with your meat always make sure that the potato portion is smaller than the meat portion. Your plate should be 50% veggies, 30% meat, and 20% potato, that is if you're having all three. It should never be half and half though if there are two items; don't be afraid to leave some of the plate empty.

3. This might be the most important step. No one ever thinks about measuring. Now I don't mean with a measuring cup. If you usually use a large dinner plate, instead use a small salad plate. Then give yourself a 'scoop' limit. Use a normal serving spoon, and then dish it out. Also don't pile up your food, your plate should never look like a mountain range.

4. Chew your food! I know people always talk about this but it's true. If you take your time and chew thoughtfully and pace yourself you will eat less. This slow down gives your body time to react to the food in your stomach. Too many people eat too fast and that causes a plethora of problems, from your stomach down.

5. If you are prone to snacking, substitute unhealthy snakes with fresh cut veggies or you can have half a can of veggies. Fruit is also great, as well as yogurt, or a bowl of healthy cereal. I, myself, am quite partial to buttery club crackers or poptarts if I want something sweet.

6. I know people love fast food, but it might be better for people to have french fries or hamburgers at home. In fact, I know that veggie burgers have gotten a bad name in the past, but they have come a long way, and are amazing. It's also okay to deep fry potato strips at home. I've had some fries cooked in healthy oils and they are really wonderful and crunchy.

7. Eating a salad or drinking a glass of water before a meal can also cut back on intake if you are an over eater. Also if you eat and feel hungry later, then instead of eating three meals a day, then eat six smaller meals a day. Usually people eat more when they are really hungry so if you stave the hunger pangs off and eat more in a routine pattern then you will train your stomach to eat in a different way and it will make you healthier over all.

That's all I can think of for now as far as tips are concerned but this is what I want people to remember. Diet does not have to mean starving or depriving yourself, or counting calories. A diet really means the foods you eat on a daily basis. You need to recognize the foods that are the unhealthiest in your kitchen and find the healthier substitute for it. Also if you eat healthy all day, then give yourself a break, have some ice cream or some cheese cake. Beating yourself up over food is only going to make food an enemy and it's not an enemy, you need food, so you better learn to get along with it.

Also, remember that most of the people on diets don't have to be on diets in the first place. If you eat healthy and get daily activity, then your body will slowly and surely improve. Plus you should also put things in perspective. Do you know how big a human stomach is? Not very. Maybe looking up an actual size image of your stomach might put things in better perspective for some people. It might take a while but it will change and it will be for the better. The best tip I can give is to be realistic and be patient. It is really true that good things happen to people who wait. Good luck, everyone.

New Year Volunteer

A.e.larkie — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:36:06 GMT

Happy New Year everyone! This is the time of year when many people begin their downward spiral of self-doubt and loathing by forming unhealthy pacts with their self-esteems. Yes, I'm refering to the dreaded New Year's Resolution. Well this year, I'm not doing anything for myself. I'm helping others.

I found this wonderful website www.volunteermatch.org which helps you find volunteer opportunities in your area.

I found a great match for myself, which is a work from home data entry job. All I have to do is enter dates and descriptions into Microsoft Excel. I can do it on my own time and send it back whenever I want. Of course, it would be great to get paid for it, but then again, it will pay off big time when after a few months I can put it down on my resume as honest to goodness volunteer work.

So, if you don't want to start the New Year off just thinking about yourself (because, really, we all know how depressing that can get) then go on and search for a match at volunteermatch.org.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

A.e.larkie — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:33:22 GMT

I have to say that I've been watching the CNN coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict and it makes me just sick to my stomach. The fact that any country, especially two that are so deeply rooted in religion, would resort to such unabashed violence is horrifying and I can't help but think about how much damage this is going to cause the citizens who get caught in the crossfire of warring governments.

I don't know much about the areas engaged in the conflict but here's what I do know:

- This is not the first time Israel and Palestine have had military conflicts. The most recent being in 2004 and 2006.

- There had been a cease fire resulting from the 2006 conflict that expired a few weeks ago. Israel claims that Gaza bombed them first and that Israel was just retaliating.

- I also know that Israel is a Jewish State (the only in the world) that is surrounded by mostly Islamic States. It is not surprising that the Islamic States are claiming that Israel is in fault for this conflict completely.

- Israel has been fighting for a very long time to keep its land. They have faced many conflicts that have been targeted at taking over their land by Muslims because the land is considered sacred.

Like I said, I don't know much about these areas, but that's what I do know (or at least think I know). If I'm really off, let me know, but I'll be doing more and more research on this.

I do want to make clear, however, that the only thing I care about is not the "sacredness" of this supposed holy land, but rather the poor defenseless people that are going to be displaced from their homes. I don't think many officials think about what conflicts do to families, nor do they realize the chaos this is going to create in the countries neighboring them. If you are Muslim you can flee to any nation in the surrounding area, except of course to India (I think there is bad blood there as well), and the only place Jews have to go is Europe. I have a feeling this is going to be a conflict that is not going to soon be resolved judging by the frequency of the conflicts in the past decade. All I know is that no one should ever have to be thrust into conflict because their government officials are being stubborn and unreasonable.

Men Were Sluts First

A.e.larkie — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:28:31 GMT

Let's talk about sluts.

Ever since I was a wee 'tween I have been assaulted by popstars who have been trying to tell me that since men are allowed to be promiscuous that women should go right ahead and follow suit. I have a lot of problems with this.

First of all, promiscuous men are the minority of men. They are the lowest of men. They are the ones who cheat and have insatiable egos and believe that they are entitled to whatever they please. They are also the men most likely to be abusive and controlling. Why I ask should women aspire to be as low as they are? I think it's appalling. Secondly, if women have such a huge problem with men being promiscuous, why don't they do something about it, like, I don't know, encourage other women not to have sex with these horrible men? I mean, come on, the only reason men get this reputation in the first place is because there are too many women with no standards who believe that they deserve nothing but the crap they are dealt in life. Also, any good man should be pissed off and fuming. Bad men ruin good women and it makes it harder for them to trust any man, especially the good ones.

Women need to have more selectivity in who they date. They also need to understand that there is a difference between love and sex. Sex is an act that will last a few minutes (if you're lucky) and usually ends with one person being more satisfied than the other. Love is an emotional attachment and intimate relationship that involves, among other things, sex. This sex, however, is unselfish sex that leaves both parties happy. What is "unselfish" sex, you may be wondering? It's when two people, rather than trying to have an orgasm for themself, are trying to sexually satisfy their partner. It ceases to be about the individual and starts to be about the couple.

Here's another point I'd like to make. It is not in the nature of humans to be either monogamous or polygamous, these are learned behaviors. They reflect your wolrdview and your values. But there is nothing wrong with either of them, because here's the catch. Polygamy is relationships between three or more consenting people. This means that everyone knows about everyone else and they all approve; if they don't approve, they leave the relationship. Cheating is not practicing polygamy. I'm tired of people trying to say that they are polygamists and not cheaters. In an affair, there are three or more people involved, and the partners involved do not consent to the situation.

And another thing. If you have children, talk to them honestly about sex. Get sex ed books for everyone involved. If you can't be honest about sex with your kids then they are going to get sex ed from school and we all know that not all schools teach realistic sex ed courses. You need to impress upon your children that sex should not be used as a means to become popular, or to get a person to like them back. You need to tell your kids that the likelyhood of pregnancy exponentially increases with every time they have sex. You also need to impress upon them that women are more likely to contract STD's and Virus's than men, especially diseases that can result in sterility. Parents of young men also need to stress the importance of respecting women. If men think of women as material objects or property, then they are more likely to abuse and violate women.

Most importantly, I'd like to point out that as a nation we act as though we are completely healthy in our sexual practices. That because we are a majority Christian nation that we have nothing to worry about. This is not true. This is a national facade. Keeping up appearances. In reality, sex is an individually learned action fueled by emotion. If you are taught negatively and falsely about sex then you are more likely to not take the act responsilby, but if you are taught about it honestly and accurately, you're behaviors are going to be more responsible. People need to just be realistic about sex. It's fun, it's pleasing, it's the best part of a relationship. It's not a substitute for self esteem, nor should it be a means of validation. However, there is not a national solution to fixing this decline in rational behavior. It is something that needs to be taken care of at an individual level. And there are many more factors that go into than just learned environmental behaviors. Every aspect of your life affects how you perceive sex and love.

The only thing we can hope is that these people who are empty and unfulfilled will grow to realize that sex cannot substitute self image, and that just because there is a double standard it doesn't need to be corrected. I believe that this is one area where men and women don't been to be equals, especially if being equal means lowering one's standards.

Illegal Immigration

A.e.larkie — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:27:39 GMT

You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of the people complaining about the illegal immigration issue. This is an issue that could very easily be solved by the US Government, and the solution doesn't need to be deportation, but rather amnesty and a fine.

Think about it. The only reason people hire illegals over legals is because they don't have to receive minimum wage or benefits. They are cheaper, it's that plain and simple. But if you legalize these individuals it means that employers will have to pay them equal to minimum wage and benefits if they qualify. Which means that no white people can ever play the race card when they get denied a job, because the employer will have chosen the minority because they were more qualified for the job rather than it saving the employer money in the long run.

I don't know about you guys but that seems like a pretty obvious solution to me.