At first glance, it may seem like I am only reblogging this post because there is a mention of my blog. However, it is a very thoughtful blog post and well worth the read and visit to each of the sites mentioned.
Thank you to fciprian2013 for the mention!

My Blog About Your Blog

I decided to save  this particular blog for last.

I did this, because I believe in it.

This isn’t saying that I won’t blog again, I will. But my journeys through your blogs are getting more packed together as more and more people are following and liking. If I said a rosary for each of them, I’d be up 24/7. writing about each takes about half as much time.

So I have decided to create a blog inspired by all your blogs, and to do it in a new way. This is what I’ve learned from the week;

1) I love making games, and I love the process of games, and I am interested in games as literature.  I had forgotten this until I met Scribelife. By the way, something about the feel of this blog draws me to these people. They feel like friends.

jasper

 

2) I think…

View original post 194 more words

If They Die, They Die: The Ethics of American Health Care

red_cross_round_red

Do you want to hear a joke?

…A healthy American.

It would appear that the health of American citizens is a joke to many people in power, and the so-easily coerced masses.  If you’re like me, you have an appetite for the ironic.  The American government has actually convinced about half of its citizens that being healthy is not a fundamental right.  These people have been led to believe that it is treason to support paying taxes towards a collective pool of funds allocated to ensuring that every American citizen can have a right that many other world superpowers have: Health.  In direct result, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than almost any other civilized country, and about 45,000 people die every year because they are unable to pay for health care.

Health can be a broad term.  To an American, health is a privilege that is given to the ‘hard workers.’ Health is a commodity and for some reason, there just isn’t enough to go around.  This post seeks to explore the American health care system and understand whether or not health is a fundamental right for a citizen.

Many of my readers are not America.  If you are one that is not American, you are probably shaking your head right now and your inner monologue is saying something like this: “These Americans are bloody crazy.”  Please forgive my bad accent.  Another bit of Irony would be the statement that many Americans that hold the opposite viewpoint of mine would say the same thing about you.

The United States has a very unique system for health care.  In America, independently owned and operated businesses are in control of the health insurance system.  Until President Obama introduced the Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare,” health insurance companies were completely unregulated by American government.  This resulted in prices for insurance that were so high, that almost one in every seven Americans was uninsured and could be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to be treated for any ailment.  These insurance companies could even chose to not insure a person for any reason.  Pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition.  Ask a single mother about how hard it was to get insurance for her and her child.

It is an interesting thought that health may not be considered a fundamental right in America.  The country was founded on the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it seems as though the term ‘life’ does not include ‘the preservation of…’

I hold that it can never be ethical to deny the care of a person in need of health care.  The rights of an American do undoubtedly include the right to be healthy in the pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness.  It is the ethical responsibility of any member of the health care system to complete the actions in which they have been trained.  An insurance company or Doctor denying care to a person in need that cannot pay is like a fire fighter choosing to not respond to a call because it’s too far of a drive.

I do believe that health is a self-evident right, but some may not believe so.  Consider the reality of our situation on Earth.  We are the apex species, and yet, thoroughly insignificant by galactic standards.  Our closest possible living, celestial-neighbor is yet undiscovered, but more than a lifetime away from us by current propulsion standards.  All we have is each other.  Sure, there are those that seek unabridged wealth and power and mean to keep it all for their own pleasure. But that is not how our species should strive to be.  It is nothing less than necessary to ensure the best for every member of the species.

The implications of these changes to our health care system are such that there must be a change to a system in which a collective pool of tax dollars are saved for the health emergencies of the citizens.  As I have noted in previous posts, Americas are very individualistic.  The standard retort to a health care system change is: “I don’t want to be forced to pay for someone else’s health care.”  There are two parts to that statement:

The first is they do not want to pay for someone else’s health care.  This is an argument used commonly by people that are fortunate enough to have adequate health insurance.  These people do not understand that they too may not always have the adequate health insurance that they embrace with locked-fists.

The second is that they do not want to be forced to do something.  Again, Americans are very individualistic.  Generally, the idea that Americans do not have the right to choose what they want to do with their money and bodies scares them.  However, the same people that don’t want to be forced to pay for other people’s health care also believe that gays should be forced to stay unmarried and a woman that have been raped must be forced to have the child.

Obviously, that argument is not well thought out and should be considered no more.

America is a great place to live, but the country is losing its status as a superpower.  Our citizens are poor, stupid, and unhealthy.  I have shown that the American idea of health care is broken and that it is the ethical duty of all Americans to embrace a system in which all people have access to health care.

If America is to last into the future, as the mindless ethnocentric citizens wish, an even more drastic change to the way Americans are healed needs to occur. A change that is not only to a broken system, but one that shakes the deepest convictions of the American public.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Women’s History Month: God is Looking Down on Us, and She is Pissed!

Hands new

As you all know, it is March and that can only mean one thing: Women’s History Month. I’ve decided to show my support for women with a refutation of the religious oppression of women, as well as an exploration into the right way to personify God.

The Problem of God’s Manhood

It is not much of a secret that the Christian church has had a long and spirited history with how to handle the problem of women.  Men had already taken the political, social, and economic power, and left women with household management and child rearing.  This distributing of societal standards set the precedent of which women will have to combat for almost 2000 years. With the rise of Judaism and Christianity in the West (as well as Islam in the East), a golden opportunity appeared to ensure that men would maintain power over women.

In the story of creation from the Old Testament: God created Man in His own image; the woman was created in Man’s image.  It is very interesting that people often overlook the overt sexism that is in the first couple pages of Genesis.  Aside from the numerous instances as God being personified as a man, which I will address in the coming paragraphs, God created man first, and then created a woman for the man.  The story of creation in the Old Testament was a way for men to exercise their claims that men are closer to God than women.

To keep my point manageable, I will not refer directly to the almost enumerable passages about ‘womanservents,’ slave girls,’ and ‘multiple wives in a household,’  or the passages stating that men rule over women, but please note that I am not pulling these connections between female oppression and the Bible out of thin air.

God is thought to being an ultimate, supreme, and perfect being; with qualities of Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience. This description has held true through more than two millennia (though questioned by many Christian philosophers), and is one of the first pieces of propaganda that children are taught in Sunday school.  God is also said to have human characteristics and traits, based largely on the depiction of God in the Bible, such as love, compassion, morality, and jealousy.  God is the creator, the judge, the jury, and in many cases, the executioner.  God is also a man.

Aside from the obvious paradoxes that come from combining any of these traits into one being (such as a being that is all-powerful and all-good trying to perform an action that is immoral), the assertion that God is a man, or has any trait of manhood has no logical expounder.

To give God a gender is to say that one gender is more God-like than another Gender.  This is to say that one gender, manhood, is more Godly than women, therefore, should hold dominion over the other.  However, many Christian and non-Christian philosophers, including St. Thomas Aquinas have decided that it is impossible for human beings (finite), to understand or comprehend God’s essence (infinite).

For these reasons, we can reasonably toy with the notion that the story in Genesis and the conviction that God is a man are purely propaganda pieces used to oppress the rights of women for whatever the necessary end.

The End of Religious Chauvinism

Is it not possible that if a new monotheistic religion, like Christianity or Judaism were invented today, that the God would personified as a woman?

We understand that the Middle East, circa 200 B.C.E. was not a particularly friendly place for women.  However, now, in the West, women enjoy many of the same rights as men.  Women are known to be physically inferior to men’s strength and muscle mass, but women are shown to have a higher capacity than men in many academic settings.

These facts have led us to a society in which women are thought of as more equal to men than ever before.  Though it must be conceded that women are not considered completely equal to men yet, (women have less opportunity and are paid less in professional settings than men), women are more to our modern civilizations than they have been to any in history.

Women are also the leaders of the household in many homes in our modern societies.  Due to broken homes, a drastic shift in gender roles, and the growing acceptance of homosexuality over the last twenty years, women have become as entrenched in political, social, and economic roles that were until recently, left only to men.  With these changes, the necessity for a monotheistic God to be a man in order for the religion to be socially acceptable is nullified. This means that our modern societies could accept a female God.

If we may look at the traits that I mentioned earlier, which are given to the Judeo-Christian God, we see three main characteristics: Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience.  A new monotheistic God must have these three traits in order to compare to current God that is perpetuated by the three modern monotheistic religions.  Our new Goddess must have the traits of Infinite Goodness, Infinite Power, and Infinite Knowledge.

It is not hard to believe that our Goddess could be infinitely good/moral.  By our modern societal standards, women are just as moral as men, and less akin to immoral actions of the flesh.  There is a discrepancy that could be argued: The social taboo of women being “sluts” or “whores” could be used as a counterpoint to my point.  However, those terms are a result of a male-driven society and do not hold up to scrutiny.

Our Goddess could also easily be with infinite knowledge.  I argued in an earlier paragraph that women do score higher than men on many academic tests that measure the capacity for learning and understanding in many subject. Therefore, if a male God could be all knowing, so could a female God.

The status of an all-powerful female God could be disputed by a chauvinist.  It cannot be defamed that men are stronger than women physically.  Even so, women, and mothers in particular are the force that give children everything that they need to grow into adulthood.  That is a power that cannot be denied.

Thus far, we have decided that in modern western society, a female monotheistic God is just as possible as a male monotheistic God, but I have not made a claim that would decide for certain that our new God would necessarily be personified as a woman.

Consider this: God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.  These traits are common with a monotheistic God’s essence.  However, the original purpose of primitive culture’s beliefs in Gods is the explanation of world around us, and before modern science, the answer to how we got here; a creator.  This is how we can know our new monotheistic Goddess will not be hijacked by men and used for oppression.

Women are the creators of life.  Women harbor the necessary tools for reproduction, in which a new life is produced from the previous form of life.  Is this not what the story of creation in any religious tradition is about?

Without the social, political, economic, and household stigmas that held women oppressed for thousands of years, we can be certain of one thing:  Our new monotheistic god will not be an oppressive and jealous oaf that must have a pissing contest with any of the creations that defy Him. Our Goddess will be loving, compassionate, and caring, like a cosmic-mother and creator should be.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

The Biggest Picture

This post is breathtaking.

Prajnawa

The chief philosophical questions that do grow up are those that leave home1 – Lawrence Krauss

If we were to ask ourselves what the most interesting big-picture problems in science are today, one could think of several fascinating ones such as:

  1. Understanding the big bang, or rather knowing the nature of the multiverse and its origins.
  2. Understanding the nature of empty space and its potential for creating complexity, guided by physical laws.
  3. Understanding the origin of life and its evolution, to a level where we can artificially facilitate the creation of living creatures.
  4. Understanding the nature of subjective thought, and the requisite machinery and physical laws behind the creation of minds.
  5. Understanding the nature of morality and collective wellbeing in a society, and giving it a firm scientific footing.

There could possibly be many more such fundamental problem-domains challenging science today; the above list is just…

View original post 937 more words

Hyper-Conservatism and the Christian Republican Paradox

The Hyper-Conservatism Movement

As I sat, eagerly awaiting the results to come in to the CNN newsroom on the night of November 7th, still uncertain whether or not the country would re-elect President Barack Obama, I began to wonder: Why are there so many Republicans?

It is important to make the distinction between Republican and Conservative.  A Republican is a member of, follower or supporter of the Republican political party in the United States.  A Conservative is one that seeks to retain traditional institutions or values. Many times, these two terms are linked, or tied together, however, the sort of Hyper-Conservatism that the modern Republican Party preaches is far from what many Conservatives may wish adherence to.

The results started coming into the CNN newsroom and States were being called as falling to Mitt Romney or staying with Barack Obama.  Every hour, excitement would fill the air as polling places closed and viewers were treated to a new set of exit-poll data. As the night went on, it became more and more clear that Mitt Romney would not be going to bed that night as President-Elect Mitt Romney.  As CNN called the race, a rush of cool relief blew through me and I was able to sleep soundly.

It took a couple of weeks for all of the votes to be counted.  President Obama finished with over 60 percent of the electoral vote but only 51 percent of the popular vote over Mitt Romney’s 47 percent.  Though Mitt Romney was not the ideal candidate for the Republican Party, (he was too moderate for many of the party leaders) Romney was believed to be the best choice for the Republican’s if they wanted to unseat the powerhouse Obama.

The number that haunts me from that election: 47 percent.  My perplexity comes not because of Romney’s priceless ’47% gaffe’ a few weeks before the election, but because the Republican candidate received 47 percent of the popular vote.

I digress to my question from the first paragraph: Why are there so many Republicans?  To understand why I ask this question, you must understand some of the Hyper-Conservative values that the political gurus and special interest leaders that are currently harnessing the Republican politicians in Washington and at the State level lobby for.  This is a short list of social platforms(with the exception of the first bullet point) that Republican politicians are/have been pushing for in the last few years:

  • Little-to-no central government control
  • More guns (per the NRA)
  • Lower taxes for the ultra-rich (per the Bush tax cuts)
  • No more immigrants, especially the brown-skinned ones
  • Woman, blacks, legal immigrants, gays, the poor, and non-Christians are unequal to rich, respectable white men.
  • Keep the citizens unhealthy unless they are wealthy enough to buy health care from a monopolized system
  • Offer the poor no help, for they are nothing
  • Keep the rich prosperous and the poor starving
  • Jesus, Jesus, Jesus

The first thing you may notice is that my observations are slightly biased and almost certainly a bit facetious.  Secondly, these views are not those of any respectable Conservative, which is the main demographic that the Republican Party hopes to represent.  These are the views of a political movement led astray by power and money hungry men that seek the regress a Country of the People to a place in which oppression, violence, and discrimination are fair occurrences and the hope for a bright future is nil; it is the imprisonment of any man, woman, or child that is not of uniformity with those in power.

The Hyper-Conservative push in the Republican Party is what makes the statistic of 47 percent so baffling.  Is it really true that 47 percent of Americans hold these Hyper-Conservative ideas?  The percentage of Americans that these views actually support (super-rich, white, male, Christians) is only about 0.2 percent.  It is important to note that by super-rich, the salary standard used here is about $1,000,000 per year.

How then can the Republican Party still con so many people into voting for their side, even though Hyper-Conservatism is so radical and unsettling to most?  The answer is simple: Christianity.

The Christian Republican Paradox

The answer to the million dollar question is so surprisingly simple; the ape that humans didn’t evolve from could answer it.  How do you continue to receive almost half of the votes in national political campaigns while still running on platforms that would make any radical squeamish?  Pander to the largest demographic in the country: Christians.

I am not going to distinguish different Christian sects from one another, for they all have a simple proposition in common: Jesus Christ was the one true prophet of God’s chosen people.  They may have disagreements as to how the church is led, but that does not come into politics, provided the candidate doesn’t bring it up.

It is ingenious: ally with, and in some cases, control the Christians and you will be alright.  About 75 percent of Americans identify as Christian.  This overwhelming and troubling ideological base is the perfect outlet for radical alignment.  This is where the majority of the fleeting Republican vote must come from.

However, this axis of ideological evil seems to be married under a false presupposition; I guess it takes an outsider point out the adultery: Jesus Christ was a solid liberal, not a staunch conservative.

I know, this may come as a shock to many Christians, mostly because Christians don’t read the Bible, but Jesus overtly spoke out against many things that the Republican party stands for.  In addition, Jesus was silent about many of the things that Christian’s disapprove of now.

While hurling around too many Biblical references without proper context can be shaky for an argument, it is a necessity to understand the words that are placed in Jesus’s mouth by his authors:

About the poor:

Luke 6:20-21 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

‘Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. ‘Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Help for the poor:

Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Healing the sick:

Matthew 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Jesus was a champion of the poor, sick, and hungry, he advocated pacifism (rather than arming yourself against your neighbor), and he helped liberated minorities and women from tyranny of powerful, money-hungry men.

Not enough?  How about some things that Jesus didn’t mention but are still vital to the Republican Party and the American Christian church’s abilities to oppress:

  • Homosexuality
  • Abortion
  • Marriage
  • Believe this way or be oppressed
  • It’s okay to dislike people that are different than you

If you don’t believe me, or think that I am misrepresenting your ‘savior,’ I challenge you to read the Bible.  Stop arguing with each other about what Jesus would do and read the book.  Yes, this presupposition is that most Christians do not actually read the Bible.  Many may challenge this statement but if it were false, than Christians would not be swayed by false statements and quotes that are used to entrap the mis/uninformed.

The paradox is that the man that 75 percent of Americans base their lives on is misrepresented and used to enslave millions of people that would otherwise be free of tyranny if they would just open the book they swear their own lives on.

Hyper-Conservatism and the Republican Party are ruining the voice of reasonable Conservatives and making it taboo to hold any traditional value.  Though it may seem to be a step towards utopia to see Conservatism abolished (at least my more liberal contemporaries would say so), it is dangerous.  There must be a balance between reasonable conservative values and liberal ideas to achieve progression as a nation.

The only reasonable course of action is the abolition of the modern Republican Party.  In its place, bring forth a reasonable conservative platform that leaves out the radical notions.  Let those that would have sought to oppress others who fall lower than those they once wished to oppress beg for forgiveness; and forgiveness will be granted.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Gun Control: About Saving Lives, Not Personal Freedom

Image

It seems like every time I turn on the news, there is at least one more dead from a gunshot.  Every couple of months, we get treated to a mass shooting, or rampage, or spree by someone that is obviously off-their-rockers and attempting to take as many people down as they can before ending their own life.

This is life as an American.  If we are the “lucky” ones not to have already fallen to gun violence, we have become victims of the war of the Constitutionality of weapon ownership.  Much like what is done with the Bible, some try to interpret the 2nd Amendment literally, while others think it has more of a figurative meaning.  Both sides are nonsensical.  Interpretation of the Second Amendment by modern minds is not going to retard the gun murders occurring in almost every American city every day.

We all know the statistics and I will try to refrain polluting this diatribe with any more quantifiable data than necessary. You can use your favorite online search engine to verify any of these numbers, and I recommend you do.  First off, according to the Violence Policy Center, a non-profit organization that aims to curb firearm violence through research and awareness, over 30,000 suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings result in occur every year in America due to easily-accessed guns.  About 10,000 of those are murders.

These numbers seem high, and are more eye-opening when compared to a few other countries (estimates based on the average of multiple sources):

Mexico: 2600  deaths per year            (pop. 116,901,761) (Gun laws similar to United States)

Germany: 250  deaths per year            (pop. 81,946,000) (Strict gun laws and ban on certain types of guns)

Canada: 150    deaths per year            (pop. 35,000,000) (Handgun and Assault weapons ban)

Japan: 50         deaths per year            (pop. 127,400,000) (Complete private gun ownership ban)

United Kingdom: 14    deaths per year (pop. 63,181,700) (Complete private gun ownership ban)

I chose to show these countries not because they express the point I want to make, but because they are all countries with similar laws, freedoms, and rights as those that Americans have.  However, with the exception of Mexico, all of these countries ban most or all firearm ownership.

The first thing you may notice is that all of these countries have a considerably lower population than the United States (pop. 350,000,000).  This separation could be a reason for less death.  However, if you multiply the population of each country to be the same or near the population of America, you still get considerably lower firearm related deaths each year:

Mexico:  7800 (with 351,000,000 population)

Germany: 1000            (with 328,000,000 population)

Canada:  1500 (with 350,000,000 population)

Japan:  150 (with 380,000,000 population)

United Kingdom:  84 (with 378,000,000 population)

These numbers do not take into consideration the population density increase that would come from increasing the populations by up to ten times (in the case of Canada).  A case could be made that in a more densely populated country, let’s say Japan, gun violence would increase.  However, it would not increase by 200% (which would be required to reach the same amount of firearm deaths annually in Japan as there are in America).  You would be hard pressed to find anyone that would make that claim.

I now draw your attention to the number of deaths in Mexico in a hypothetical instance of a similar population as the United States.  You will notice that it is the only country that is within even ten times the number of gun-related murders per year; it is also the only country listed with similar gun laws as America and no private-ownership ban on weapons.

The second quality to notice about these numbers is that the four countries with firearms bans, Germany, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom still have ten or less the times gun deaths that the United States has.  The closest country, Canada, would hypothetically have about 1500 per year. This number is can be accounted for by the fact that Canada does not ban hunting rifles or shotguns.

Plainly, the common denominator between all of these countries is a comprehensive private gun-ownership ban.

An argument made by gun-enthusiasts can be stated as such:  We do not need more gun control; we need better background checks and more money in the education of mental health issues.  If we can stop the mentally ill from getting firearms, we can cut gun violence.

The mentally ill are accountable for most, if not all of the mass shooting deaths in America.  In 2012, about 88 people died in mass-shooting massacres in the United States.  I will concede that more money spent on mental health education and training with increased background checks would probably prevent most of these occurrences. This, however, keeps alive the issue of the other 9912 people that die each year from petty crime, organized crime, crimes of passion, etc. It would be difficult to claim that even half of the remaining deaths would/could be prevented with mental health screenings and background checks.

Gun advocates also reason that they need weapons to protect themselves from criminals that come across guns illegally.  If you don’t believe that a gun ban would decrease amount of firearms in criminal hands (which would be irrational based on the statistics above), you may think that you need a gun to “protect yourself” or your family.

In a study done by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, over the course of 18 months of study, 626 shootings occurred in or immediately around a residence.

“This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.”

The conception that you are in danger in your own home is justifiable, but it appears, only if you own a firearm.  You are much more likely to unintentionally harm someone (or commit suicide) with your weapon than you are to actually use the weapon in self-defense.

In an attempt to try to reconcile the dangers of owning a gun, many people have argued that they would keep their guns locked up in a safe until they are needed.

So, the next time a burglar attempts to break into your house, I hope he/she gives you time to recognize the situation, run to the safe, unlock the safe, arm the weapon, aim, and shoot.

The final strong case that the gun advocates can make is that we have the right to own guns.  Our founding fathers wanted us to have the rights to arm ourselves against our own countrymen, or Zeus-forbid, or own government.  And to this, I also concede.

America, you do have Second Amendment rights to own guns, and as interpreted by modern supreme courts, for just about any reason you want.  I ask you, however, is an outdated, overanalyzed, and unnecessary right worth the loss and anguish that it causes?  30,000 citizens die each year.  When will the genocide be halted?  This issue is no longer about personal freedom, it is about saving lives.

Is your fear of your neighbor so great that you must arm yourself, and give those who wish to harm the innocent a means of doing so much more easily by allowing open circulation of weapons of terror?

A comprehensive weapons ban on all private ownership of firearms is the only way to prevent the streets from continuing to run red with the blood of our future as a nation.

I implore you, put the gun down, extend your arms, and come together. Do not let our country become so divided that we have to use these weapons on each other, because the pen has failed.

Twitter: @dustin_mcmahon

Hollywood Can’t Take A Joke: A Response to MacFarlane’s Criticism

oscars-seth-macfarlane_510x411There is always a buzz about the mishaps and shining stars of the Oscars come the Monday morning afterward.  However, the most talked about part of the 85th annual academy awards was not, thankfully, the fashion, the stars, or even the winners.  It was the “offensive,” “crude,” and edgy humor of the host Seth MacFarlane.  MacFarlane needs no introduction to any Oscar viewer under the age of 60, and was an obvious choice to bring in an audience of the young, hip viewers that James Franco and Anne Hathaway failed to entice two years ago.

The Family Guy creator left the crowd, and the media buzzing, but for all the wrong reasons.  USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and the New Yorker (to name a few) gave reviews of the show as if Seth MacFarlane had committed a murder on stage and laughed about it.  About MacFarlane’s comedy, Amy Davidson of the New Yorker wrote that “Watching the Oscars last night meant sitting through a series of crudely sexist antics[.]”  The entire media and viewing audience seemed to have been mortified by the off-color jokes of the host.

Seth MacFarlane was chosen to host the award show because of the type of humor he performs.  It should have been no surprise that his jokes that were bold and fearless, while also unsophisticated at times.  What was surprising however, was the uptight crow that seemed legitimately offended every time a punch line was hurled their way.  Even more curious was the response of the viewers at home on social media. Facebook and Twitter were riddled with posts of how MacFarlane’s jokes were sexist and unfunny.

One of the most controversial of MacFarlane’s jokes was one concerning domestic violence.  While talking about Best Picture Nominee Django Unchained, MacFarlane quieted the crowd by saying that the movie is a “story of a man fighting to get back his woman, who’s been subjected to unthinkable violence. Or as Chris Brown and Rihanna call it, a date movie.”

The problem is not with the joke.  The problem is with those that are offended by a shot at the poster couple of domestic abuse.  Throngs of fans idolize Chris Brown and Rihanna, even after numerous stories about Brown’s violent temper and woman-beating attitude at the same time in which Rihanna is releasing songs about being bound by an ill-tempered man and beaten because the “chains and whips excite [her].”  Brown and Rihanna pollute the airwaves and media stream with the message that domestic violence is cool, and we get offended at MacFarlane for cracking jokes at it?

Now that domestic violence is on the table, what else can we throw into the feast?  MacFarlane made notice of the women in Hollywood that could double as science classroom skeletons by saying “And those of you [women] who gave yourselves the flu two weeks ago to ‘get there’, it paid off.”

Uproar! Blasphemy! How dare MacFarlane make an observation about the unhealthy methods and images of the women of Hollywood?  You need look no further for the inspiration of that joke than award presenter Renee Zellweger. Zellweger’s unnaturally-thin frame (along with most of the other women of Hollywood) is the real offensive part of the show.   Those women are the cause of more pain and suffering, just ask the 500,000 American teens with eating disorders, than any joke made by the comedy writer that many of those teens idolize.

The case that Seth MacFarlane was just not quite as funny as he could have been is not the issue. I will concede that his hosting job was fit more for a Comedy Central roast (as he did in 2010 and twice in 2011) than an Academy Awards show. However, the fact is that Hollywood’s inhabitant’s need to get away from their holier-than-thou attitudes and the smug approach to life that they feel needs to be envied and praised. Actors and actresses, directors and producers can and should be the subject of any good comedy act.

MacFarlane’s jokes may have been less-than-appropriate at times and observed as slightly “self-indulgent” for an event like the Oscars, but that is exactly what they paid him to do.  The Academy Awards had turned into Sunday evening soap for senior citizens and MacFarlane was employed to change that. He was chosen to get the younger crowds watching because his comedy is what the younger viewers enjoy.  MacFarlane had every right to perform the way he did and used his rightfully unapologetic style extenuate his grievances, observations, and shortcomings about Hollywood.  The real media ridicule of the show should be aimed at the self-indulgent speeches, from people like African-American Director Quentin Tarantino.

Forget the headlines reading “self-indulgent” performance by Seth MacFarlane.  Quentin Tarantino, in accepting the award for Best Original Screenplay, gave a speech as though he had just found the cure for cancer.  “I actually think that if people are knowing about my movies 50 years from now, it will be because of the characters I created,” he spouted, ineloquently.  He goes on to say that this year is the “year of the writers” and that he is the best of the bunch.

If your inner monologue is shouting, “Don’t forget about MacFarlane’s racist joke” (even after a white man won Best Original Screenplay for  a script in which the N word appeared about 110 times).  If you believe it is insensitive to make jokes about Spanish actors and actresses, think really hard before laughing at any stand-up comedian’s observations about race the next time you attend a show.  If you don’t throw your hands up and walk out the door of the comedy club, you are a hypocrite.