WWJD? No, Seriously.

Have you ever found yourself in a certain situation and come to the terrifying revelation that, by golly, you just didn’t know what to do? Like the other day, I was in the city and I happened upon Doctor Octopus rampaging through the waterfront district. Having never fought a super villain before, I didn’t know exactly what to do. But what I do know is that Spiderman has fought Doc Ock on many occasions and under many circumstances. So naturally I asked myself, “What would Spiderman do?” The rest as they say is history as Doc Ock is resting comfortably behind bars at this very moment.

There routinely comes those moments in our lives where having never found ourselves in particular situations we seek guidance from sources outside of ourselves. Sometimes we call these people heroes, being that they provide stellar examples of the kind of behavior we ourselves would like to imitate if we were unfortunate enough to find ourselves in scenarios such as those our heroes have faced. We might also call upon the stories of our heroes in situations we are already familiar with in hopes of acting with more grace and dignity then we may have had previously.

            For the Christian, the hero they are supposed to be channeling is Jesus Christ. While they can surely have other heroes besides, their primary source of inspiration is, as they claim, the son of God as characterized in the Bible’s New Testament. Frankly, there is a comedic element involved for many a Republican-lovin’ Evangelical who enjoys claiming this much. That is to say, Evangelical Christians act in a manner that is often inconsistent with the words of their main man, Jesus of Nazareth.

            Let’s take a look at, oh I don’t know, George W. Bush. He’s a Christian isn’t he? He claims to be and there’s no arguing that Evangelicals made up the majority of his constituents. Though, I can’t help but get the feeling that good ol’ George never seriously asks himself, “What would Jesus do?” when confronted by difficult choices. I really wonder if, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, President Bush asked himself, “Would Jesus invade a country that poses less than half the threat than North Korea does?” Even if Iraq or any other country did pose a dire threat to the United States, doesn’t Jesus state in Matthew chapter 5 verses 39-44 to love your enemies and do good by them? A theist partial to the Bible may object and claim that God’s enemies are nonetheless condemned to Hell, but that is a judgment reserved for God (as stated at least twice in the Book of Matthew).

            We’re not done with making an example out of Mr. Bush yet, hero worshippers. It is quite clear as well that the former oil businessman turned leader-of-the-free-world had close ties to the financially well-to-do and multi-billion dollar corporate interests while in office. But doesn’t Jesus say unequivocally in Matthew 19: 23-24 that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? Why is President Bush hobnobbing with rich people if Jesus is his favorite philosopher? “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you,” lamented Jesus in James chapter 5 verses 1-5. Why is the Republican Party known for pandering to the upper class if Christians are their constituents?

            To be fair, George W. Bush isn’t the only offender among those who claims to adhere to the words set forth by Jesus and then acts in a radically different manner. Let’s take Rush Limbaugh for example. He’ll tell you he’s a fan of Jesus, just not a very big fan if his actions are any indication. I mean, gee, wasn’t Rush addicted to pain killers for a while there? Yet in Matthew 5:29-30 Jesus tells us that it would be better to pluck out our own eyes and cut off our hands if it meant keeping us from sinning or giving into vice. Should Rush have cut off his hands in order to keep himself from popping pills? While the Bible may have nothing to say about whether or not being addicted to pain medication is good or bad, Limbaugh surely thinks it is a vice as he had routinely criticized drug addicts before his hypocrisy was revealed. [See Luke 6:41 for Jesus’ warning against hypocrisy, Rush.] But maybe Limbaugh was speaking in parables. Oh dear, he was following Jesus’ example after all.

            Okay, well then, what of Jim Bakker, the former leader of the Praise The Lord (PTL) Ministries? Hmm, if history recalls correctly, wasn’t he the guy who tried to buy his press secretary Jessica Hahn’s silence about her sexual services to him? I’m pretty sure that Christians generally agree that, citing Jesus’ supposed celibate lifestyle and Paul the Apostle’s views on sex, what Jim did was a big no-no. And as we all know, Jim Bakker is hardly the only Christian leader guilty of sexual misdeed. Jesse Jackson, cough, cough. Archdiocese of Boston, Portland, and Tucson, ahem, ahem. Damn this sore throat. Why didn’t any of these people ask themselves, when faced with such great temptation, “What would Jesus do?” Would Jesus cheat on his wife? Would Jesus sire a love child? Would Jesus molest little children? Would Jesus try to cover it up?

            There’s also the matter of the Golden rule. In the Book of Luke chapter 6 verse 31 Jesus says, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” In other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which sounds like decent advice in most instances (sans you crazy sadomasochists out there). Seriously now, when’s the last time Jerry Falwell treated a homosexual or non-Christian with respect? “If you’re not a born again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being,” said Falwell in an attempt to sugarcoat reality. He must’ve skipped the Book of Luke entirely because Jesus also said therein, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” Perhaps Jerry Falwell would be best off asking himself whether or not Jesus would read the Bible before claiming to be a Christian.

            On any given day, your typical Evangelical can be seen living in a manner contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. In Matthew 5:5 Jesus says, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Uh, are we still talking about Evangelicals here, the same people trying to turn America into a Christian version of Israel? In Matthew 5:34 Jesus states, “Swear not at all,” in forbidding the taking of oaths. Okay then, what the heck are Christians doing in the courtrooms?! In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus gives a new commandment that is second only to the first one of loving God above all else. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” he tells his audience. Well, that’s certainly not advice good Christians like Fox News parrots Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, and Fox News president and founder Roger Ailes follow. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” replies a demure Ann Coulter about Muslim countries on a typical day. That’s right, nothing says love like a religious conversion at the end of a gun barrel.

While I don’t qualify as an expert on the Bible, I can certainly say that I know the Bible better than 9 out of 10 Christians I come across. If you ask me, no one has been able to logically defend the outrageous positions Evangelicals typically take on everyday living, especially when you consider that they are supposed to be taking the words and gospels of Jesus into account when living their lives, otherwise a person would have no business calling themselves a follower of Christ. Yet call themselves Christians is exactly what they do! Would Jesus call himself the son of God if he really were not? What would Jesus do; would the King of Kings lie? 

I know what I’d do. Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words: "With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my curse. Who am I? I'm Theory Parker.

What is The Truth?

If there’s one thing I can’t stand, and there are lots of things, it’s when someone says they know ‘the truth.’ Let’s tear a page out of one of Plato’s stupid dialogues and ask, what is ‘the truth?’ According to the nearest dictionary, the truth is the state of affairs being in accordance with facts or reality. Mmm, that definition seems about as helpful as Justin Bieber in a bar fight since what you might consider facts may differ wildly from what you believe about reality. For example, facts about the natural world tell us nothing about those things that are supernatural, existing outside of nature, if anything supernatural in fact exists. Of course, you may disagree with me on this very point, believing that if you have enough facts, these facts tell you something about the overall state of affairs; meaning, reality. That kind of thinking means you’re not drinking enough. Alcohol is the only way to make ‘the truth’ any more understandable. Plus, it dulls the boredom.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ George Bernard Shaw, trying to convince his mother that eating his veggies confers no benefits.

What I’m not going to do is talk about the truth and its relationship to religion since there is none, not beyond self-evident truths, that is, truths obvious to yourself. If you can’t prove other minds exist – and you can’t – then your personal articles of faith do not qualify as facts to anyone other than yourself. So, I’m not going to spend any time talking about so-called religious truths; there’s no such thing beyond the confines of your own mind. Instead, I’m going to do something no one in their supposedly right mind ever does anymore and I’m going to cast a critical eye upon the claims of scientists, because sometimes there’s a legitimate problem with the conclusions scientists make. Here’s what scientists considers to be true – matters of fact; facts being the result of a very particular set of circumstances that are possible for other people – if they exist – to replicate. Now, whatever could be the problem with a scientific fact? Isn’t a matter of fact a matter of fact? Sure, but no one likes a tautology. More importantly, can we not make inferences from the collection of scientific facts, inferences so obvious they too must be factual? This is what scientific theories rest upon. Oh, but inferences from matters of fact are quite a leap if you if you haven’t had enough to drink. When’s the last time you met a scientist who could hold their liquor? Exactly.

"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." ~ Aldous Huxley, hearing about the size of black men’s penises.

There are two philosophical objections to the construction of scientific theories I will address here, although there are more: Underdetermination and The Problem of Induction. I’ll start with Underdetermination while you start drinking. Underdetermination basically says that any scientific theory derived from matters of fact may be suspect on grounds that the matters of fact used to establish a scientific theory are not sufficient enough to prove the theory. For example, if a child watches a cartoon about a cat and mouse behaving violently towards each other, then that child goes outside and acts violently towards another child, the matter of fact that the child watched a violent cartoon is not enough to prove that the cartoon caused the child to act violently towards another child. Perhaps other facts we are not aware of caused the child’s violent behavior, or that the behavior was caused by multiple matters of fact, not all of which we are aware of. Underdetermination can be best summed up by that old methodological adage, “Correlation does not imply causation.”

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~ Oscar Wilde, being downright earnest.

Another problem is called the Problem of Induction, popularized by Scottish philosopher David Hume. The problem is that, generally speaking, induction generalizes what will happen in the future based on past events. For example, thinking that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today because they have always been the same oh look we left out the caveat, “As far as we know.” Hume’s criticism of induction casts doubt on matters of fact, since all matter of fact are ‘proven’ inductively. That is to say, for any cause, multiple effects are conceivable, and the actual effect cannot be determined by reasoning about the cause. For example, if we shoot one billiard ball towards another, there is no way to guarantee that they will collide. In order to make that kind of guarantee, we would have to know and control every last variable, which, when taking quantum mechanics into account, is impossible to do – as far as we know ha ha ha. The Problem of Induction is further complicated by the Sorites Paradox. Exactly how many times does it take for a particular result to take place before we consider the results a fact? 1 out of 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? More often than not? If that’s not troubling enough, also consider the application of induction to classes of objects: It might be a fact that all rednecks are white because all we’ve even seen are white rednecks, but all it takes is one black redneck to disprove the fact. Disprove the fact and you abolish the truth. Now, it’s not that Hume believe induction wasn’t useful – it appears to predict what will be the case more often than not – he merely wished to say that facts are not justified necessarily.

"The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths." ~ William James, caught lying about only taking ONE cookie out of the cookie jar.

Now, while it might be the case that a ball falls to the ground every instance you’ve dropped it and this has led us to the theory of gravity – which is surely an improvement over the previous explanation, intelligent falling – the theory of gravity does seem to accurately explain why a ball falls toward the ground when you drop it and the motion of stars and planets. But scientists still don’t know why gravity is so much weaker than the other three fundamental forces of the universe – the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electro-magnetism. Scientist cannot currently reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity. That said, there is always a certain incompleteness to scientific theories. Evolution, for example, currently does not explain how life began…which is not the same as saying evolution is an incorrect theory, my right-wing nuts friends. There is the possible explanation that there is now or once was a god who was only smart enough to create a single-celled animal capable of replication from which humans eventually evolved, but we don’t currently possess this knowledge. As scientists proceed to collect data about how nature works, theories become revised and more comprehensive to the point it is possible to conceive of a day when future scientists look back upon our modern science and laugh, “Gravity? Oh my, what were they thinking?” Ah, but how much more will our future scientists have figured out about the universe? The collection of data, of ‘facts’, very often seems to lead to more questions. Can science lead us to the point of an ultimate explanation that simply ‘is’ that avoids raising more questions? Even religious explanations raise at least as many questions as they answer, so, what the fuck? What’s that? Somewhere I hear a Taoist laughing. Bastard.

"Like all dreamers, I mistook disenchantment for truth." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre, mistaking nothingness for being.

Philosophically then, when we say we’re talking about the truth, what do we mean by that word? Is it the state of things being in accordance with facts or reality? The word reality feels like a misnomer since the word ‘reality’ is typically value-laden and tainted by cultural and gender specific lenses. But it does seem that when we’re talking about matters of fact, specific events are seemingly caused by a specific set of circumstances. That said, the truth – that is, a ‘fact’ – seems to be closer to what remains consistent even if you don’t believe it. As the saying goes, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Hmmm, but are crazy people really crazy, or is it that they totally get the Problem of Induction?! To be clear, I’m not saying Induction is invalid any more than Hume did; it sure seems to work, maybe because events must have causes even if we’re not entirely sure what those causes are. After all, it can’t be that events just happen willy-nilly, can it?! If we can’t connect events to causes, there would be no basis for human logic. Hmmm, yes, judging by the way humans act, there appears reason to doubt the existence of logic.

"Truth has very few friends and those few are suicides." ~ Antonio Porchia, poor lonely Antonio Porchia.

The bottom line is this – the truth, or if you like, the facts, are merely approximation for understanding how the world works; there is seemingly no such thing as completely correct knowledge beyond the self-evident truths of internal observations such as “I am seeing yellow” which I could easily dispute but won’t bother because such truths don’t mean anything to anyone other than yourself anyway. Science, though, does get closer to the truth than religion, for science provides a better method for concocting explanations that other minds find plausible, assuming there are other minds. Remember that science as a discipline does not in principle need to comprehend the entire universe; human beings do that out of wanting to manipulate the world around them in their never-ending quest to avoid death, maybe because religious beliefs aren’t quite getting that job done. You are going to die, that’s the truth, so for fuck’s sake get over it. Oops, did I say that out loud?

Santa = Satan? Maybe.

I received a call from my younger sister yesterday. “Santa, Alex will not brush his teeth,” were the first words out of her mouth. “I am so glad I don’t have children,” I replied. Apparently, neither one of us were on top of this conversation…yet. “Sant-UH, Alex will not brush his teeth.” A light bulb went off somewhere in the nether regions of my brain. “Oh, am I supposed to be Santa?” After chiding my sister that this kind of deception was unethical—lying only begets lying—I wholeheartedly played along. I could hear Alex in the background being obstinate and he only seemed to relent when he actually heard that his mother was in fact talking to someone. “Alex, do you want to talk to Santa?” my sister pushed after Alex came to this realization. “Noooo,” Alex demurred. This was an unfortunate turn of events as I thought how I could teach Alex and my sister a thing or two about Santa.

I imagined the conversation this way: “Ho, ho, ho, Alex! How are you little fellow? Say, your mommy tells me you aren’t brushing your teeth. Alex, brushing your teeth will make you big and strong, like your daddy! Mommy and Daddy know what is good for you, that’s why they ask you to do things like brush your teeth.” [By now, a four-year old’s attention span is waning, so you have to stay on top of the situation.] “Alex, you want presents don’t you? Of course you do! But you can’t get presents unless you do everything Mommy and Daddy tell you to do between now and Christmas. And, if you’re really good, Santa (that’s me, ho, ho, ho!) will bring you a motorcycle! Just like the one The Terminator rides! You’d like that, wouldn’t you, Alex? But don’t tell Mommy and Daddy I’ll get you these things or they might not get presents either. So be good, Alex!”

Perhaps after making several other promises Santa—or Alex’s parents—can’t possibly keep, I figure my sister would have a lot of explaining to do on Christmas morning. Thing is, I don’t quite get why the deception of Santa is necessary. Sure, it’s all magic and wonder; how does Santa visit all the little kid’s houses in one night? My question is this: Do parents think of Santa as a white lie, one that politely coerces children into behaving? I’m sure getting children to behave during the holidays is necessary, because it is a time that is particularly stressful, what with all the presents that must be bought for the children who, if you would just let them misbehave, wouldn’t get presents anyway (just a thought). Want to get children to behave? One word—squirt bottle. At least it works on my cat. In other words, the reasonable application of corporal punishment should be sufficient when dealing with unruly children. [Excuse me a moment while I kick the ass of some liberal douche-bag who thinks a world without punishments for broken rules would result in some sort of Utopia. I mean, it really depends on whether the rules are reasonable enough for everyone, something neither liberals nor conservatives ever consider. Anyway...]

I am a little disappointed that I almost participated in the deception. I am particularly disappointed that I didn’t consider some time ago that it would generate a lot of income to set up a 1-800 number that charges $2.99 a minute to call Santa for just these kinds of situations. If I’m going to compromise my ideals, I might as well make some money while I’m at it. I think in another universe somewhere, I am a well-paid lawyer.

Aw, Hell

[Originally aired August 2008.]

As the thermometer topped 100 degrees in Portland today, I began wondering about Hell, and I'm not talking about another season of MTV's Real World. It was hot today, but was it hotter than Hell? After living in Tucson, AZ for seven years, a few 100 degree days in Portland is uncomfortable, sure, but hardly the end of the world. That got me thinking about what Hell might actually be like. However, before I get to that, an observation: I find it odd that people think their earthly life is so bad they have to imagine Heaven, so wouldn't that practically equate life on Earth with life in Hell for these same people? (It would make sense after all; life, what with its endless array of nuisances.) If life is so bad that people have to imagine Heaven beyond a life on Earth, do they need to even imagine Hell? I mean, if it could get worse (i.e., go to Hell) than why would anyone complain about their terrestrial downtime? I figure that if Hell were so bad, religious folk would be doing a lot more to avoid going there.



So what is Hell like that makes it such an uncompelling place to avoid? For most of us who grew up in the U.S., we're familiar with Hell as a fire and brimstone kinda place, where your flesh is seared off your bones on a daily basis, the only beer available is Budweiser, and Los Del Rio's Macarena is on eternal rotation. If the proprietor of Hell were a little more ingenious, I think Hell would be more like forever living out our worst fears. For example, a binge-eating bulimic who can't throw up. Nauseating, right? That said, I know what hell would be for me, but I don't know how other people imagine Hell, if they do at all. The whole concept doesn't seem to be thought out very well, for it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to bad behavior.



Similarly, what is so great about Heaven that I should want to go there? I've heard that you get to forever be in God's presence and that alone is worth the agony of living a pious life. However, this seems like it would get boring after a few days. For the gentlemen though, Islam is particularly attractive it seems; just martyr yourself and you'll wind up with a divine harem of virgins! (In Hell, the guy is awarded a harem but is afflicted with erectile dysfunction.) Yet questions remain: In Heaven, do I need free will anymore? If so, why? Can I do whatever I want in Heaven if I do have free will, such as commit evil (because I so would)? Are there activities, like shuffleboard, or Bingo? Will I be the young me, the old me, the way I am when I die, or simply disembodied? How big is Heaven? What's the weather like? Does God have an "open door" policy for handling complaints? I'm curious to know if anyone has really thought their visions of Heaven through.



I'll leave it at that for now. The computer is overheating, but that's not the weather's fault. It's just a Dell piece of crap, compliments of Satan. I would try to go on but…ack, BSOD!!



"The only Hell there is, is the one we're living in." Ron Ruiz, circa 1988; high school classmate and eventual penitentiary inhabitant.

Be Cause

~For the past ten weeks I have attended school downtown. During that time, I have been accosted innumerable times by activists on every street corner, day and night, whether I was coming or going. They wave at me frantically from twenty yards away so that I cannot pretend to avert my attention. Armed with their Shield-of-Justice (read: clipboard) and smiles that could melt the very ice-caps they are intent upon saving, they begin their spiel. "Hi, I'm Brandi! Help me fight global warming?"~





DIE!



No, Brandi (if that's your real name) I cannot help you fight global warming in the manner with which you would have me "help." I'm not giving you money and I'm not signing a petition to advance some ill defined measure on Capitol Hill that any evil corporation worth their salt can easily circumnavigate. You see, Brandi with an "i"—you cherry red-headed, peace-loving, iPod-grooving, Double Venti Cinnamon Latte slut who took up global warming as a cause because taking up slavery in the Congo is something you'd sooner see swept under the rug seeing how the silicon used to make your iPod comes from the Congo—If I actually cared about stopping global warming, I would actually do something relevant about it. I would be going to school to become an environmental or political scientist. Or, I would take up arms, raise an army, and overthrow China (while my country of origin refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty). Or, I would stop myself and encourage everyone else from eating beef, soy, corn, and wheat. Unfortunately, I'm a philosophy major who'd rather address the problem of overpopulating the fucking rock we live on and the consequences of doing that, which is something no one wants to talk about because ARGH!, what good are we if we don't keep pumping out babies and raise them to be assholes like the assholes who are causing global warming? Brand"i", stop fighting a losing battle.




Let me tell you something else, Kelly Clipboard. Anyone over the age of twenty, a demographic I am clearly a part of, knows about climate change and doesn't need to be told what's up. If I were really interested in saving the Polar Bears, I'd contact Al Gore myself or at least pretend that turning off the lights when I leave a room is any help. No, no, I'm not giving you my personal info so that you can decide at some point to steal my identity, having determined that mugging for signatures on a street corner just doesn't pay as well as crime. I respect that you want a job and be useful at the same time. You do have other options. In other words, I don't want you to think that stripping isn't a job 'cause honey, that's your best bet when you see me coming.




Next time, I'm just going to tell you I'm for whatever you're trying to peddle. Global Warming? Who the hell wouldn't be for that? Brandi, sweety, have you ever been through a Russian winter? There are some people whom I'm sure would like the planet to heat up just a little fucking bit. So yeah, that's what I'm going to do. It'll be interesting to see how you react. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Oh, but here are some kids with disposable income leaving Abercrombie & Fitch. I'm sure they're not up on the whole global warming thing. Smile and introdouche yourself to them. Me? I've got things to do. Look, there are some trees I can cut down…

This is like, so annoying, and stuff

I don't know how it began. I don't know when people began doing it (circa Beavis and Butthead?) and exactly when I began to notice it. Now I hear it every time it is spoken, even when I do it myself. And I hate that I do it.


Sometimes I tell people I chose not to be an English major because I didn't want to be one of those people who always corrected people on their use of language. [That and because I'm my own worst editor.] Language is, after all, ever-changing and fluid. The children texting today are inevitably going to reshape the English language; this is to be expected. However, this is not reason enough to abuse language and speak in a manner that clearly demonstrates stupidity. "These ones," is a good example. Just say, "These." While criticizing someone to this end might incur something akin to wrath, this does not relieve them of wrong-doing because everyone does it. Nor is it about being anal. We have grammar rules so that we are able to know what is being talked about in a conversation. Moreover, if I were an employer, I would not hire someone who talked in such a manner. It is not correct and hence, not professional.


In the past month or so, I began to notice that people use the word "Like" in a manner completely unbefitting its meaning. I believe it acceptable to use the word when trying to approximate. For example, "She used the word 'like' like, 25 or 26 times in the course of our conversation," if you can't recall exactly how often she actually said it. And, of course it is always okay to use the word "like" when making an analogy. Here is when it is not okay: [Actual one-side of a phone conversation I overheard.] "Yeah, his birthday is like, on Saturday. He's cool. He's like, shy and stuff. But he's like, really funny." Well, IS his birthday Saturday or not? IS he shy or not? IS he really funny? Does she know this person at all?


Using "like" in this manner isn't even appropriate as an interjection in the same manner that "Um" is often used. "Um," is useful insofar that it allows a listener to digest what has just been said while preparing for what is about to be said. No one needs time to digest, "He's like, shy and stuff," before preparing to hear, "But he's like, really funny." I suppose talking in this manner wouldn't be so annoying if only a few people did it. But everyone does it! Even I do it, though I am getting better at catching it and sometimes stopping myself. If you take a few minutes to really listen to other people or yourself, you'll be amazed. It is insane how often you will hear "like" abused in the course of a five minute conversation.


"And stuff," is typically used in conjunction with "like." Wtf does "and stuff" mean? "He's like, shy and stuff"? What stuff? Shy and what, homicidal??" And stuff" doesn't tell me anything. I have no recourse but to ask, when "and stuff" is uttered, "What stuff?" Try it. It's LIKE a deer in the headlights.

Heelarious? Heel NO!

Is capitalism evil? It is if you consider the following: A Seattle based company has fashioned high-heeled shoes for babies. I’m not joking and I’m not making this up. As jaded as I am (and contrary to popular opinion), I do have a conscious. I am literally disgusted. Dolled up, pimped out children in beauty pageants are one thing, but this crosses an unholy new line! But before I take action, I am going to ask myself whether or not this really matters. Maybe I’m just over reacting. What’s wrong with babies wearing high heeled shoes?

First of all, it’s simply unnecessary, at least from the baby’s point of view. What does a child gain from wearing such shoes? Babies really aren’t aware enough to care beyond the desire to chew on a shiny new object (the safety hazard the straps provide is reason enough to shelve the shoes). Nor will other babies care. So who cares? The parents do. Putting high heels on a baby says a lot about the people who would do something so ridiculous. It is an attempt by said parents to say,”Hey, look at my child, dammit! Look how cute not to mention how advantaged they are! That’s right, we’ve got so much money, we can afford to throw away $35 in this floundering economy! Clothes make the person, yessiree.” Carrie Bradshaw would be proud. The rest of us should be sick. There is no purposeful statement to be made here other than trying to keep up with the Joneses. Frankly, if the Joneses are the kind of people who thoughtlessly spend money to buy meaningless objects with which to fulfill their empty lives, I don’t want to know them or run in their social circle. [I understand the attractiveness of resources from an evolutionary perspective, but it seems sad to me that humans have evolved in that direction. It drives people to behave poorly.]

Secondly, I don’t like what it may potentially teach the child. Indeed, the afore mentioned Carrie Bradshaw may be a heroine to meager freelance columnists with poor relationship skills everywhere, but in reality children don’t need to be programmed to spend all their money on shoes and clothing. Teenagers already do that so that they can be more attractive to their peers. Do tweens, children, toddlers, and babies need to be more attractive to the opposite sex? Sure, because really, there just aren’t enough pedophiles running around these days. Maybe it would be wiser to spend the money on something else for little girls; a chastity belt perhaps. Ah, but if little girls don’t learn to put out, how will the parents ever expect to marry them off? After all, it’s not like she’ll grow up to be anything useful, like a scientist or teacher. Little girls: The latest in window dressing. Smile! Are we STILL doing that? REALLY?

I will grant that the shoes are soft and elastic and not meant for babies to try and walk in. Great, it won’t lead to any trips to the podiatrist…until little Suzy actually does start walking and wants to do it in high heels. Oh for God sake, why don’t we just cut to the chase and bind little girl’s feet in linen so their feet don’t grow. At least Geisha’s are instructed in fine arts.

According to my calculations, human beings are getting stupider the more they multiply, though I haven’t figured this latest travesty into the equation yet. And I dare not. We can stop this. We can email this wicked people over and over until they get the message that what they are doing is wrong. They must be stopped or at least inconvenienced by an avalanche of email. Join the fight! The revolution will be emailed!!

http://www.heelarious.com/index.php

Email them, ideally with a fake name and email so they cannot respond. Do it more than once. Then copy and send this entire message to every sane person you know. Stop Heelarious® before they become a problem! BECOME THEIR PROBLEM INSTEAD.