Why Do We Eat?

It's such a simple question, but how many of us have ever really thought it out? Eating is something we do regardless of age, color, or culture. Sometimes it's a ritual, sometimes it's a date, and sometimes it's survival - but we all eat.

The scientific answer is fairly straightforward (if dull): The cells that comprise the human body require energy to perform their various biochemical functions; chemical processes of the body convert the energy stored in food into energy the body needs in the form of vitamins, minerals, water, fat, carbohydrates, fiber, and proteins.

(Thank you, Captain Obvious.)

So I ask again: why do we eat? It sounds like a fair enough deal. I'll eat food and the biological factory that makes me me will continue to thrive until it runs out of steam. But eating is a messy proposition. It's downright dangerous. People die every day because of food. Let's look at the various ways in which food kills us.

Larger Version

And if you can somehow manage to keep all of that straight for your entire life, you could end up eating the right food, at the right time, and with the best of intentions, and still end up choking to death.

From a purely scientific view, this makes sense. We are, after all, bound to the rules of the universe in which we live. We must eat to keep our bodies' energy cycles going, and we're just one species out of millions - not all food can or should be eaten by us. Further, the universe is an unforgiving place. Sometimes a steak is just a steak. Other times, it's a Mad Cow-infected death sentence.

Obviously, the scientific point of view doesn't work for everyone; to each his own. Being the ever-curious type, I'm left to ask: What kind of creator would design a universe with such an imperfect method of sustenance delivery? From a Christian point of view, why would God create beings in His image, claim to love them unconditionally, and then allow them to suffer and die from eon to eon?

How many people had to die through the years so we could identify which berries were off-limits? How many families have suffered because a loved one ate a bad piece of meat or had an unexpected allergic reaction? How many people are suffering this very day because they either spent life eating shitty food or were born in a place that is lucky to see food at all?

Each food-related risk could be addressed by an omnipotent being. Salmonella could be eradicated. Or made benign to humans. Or eliminated from existence altogether. Allergies? Gone. Cholesterol and poisonous mushrooms could disappear faster than Obama's birth certificate. But these things would be treating the symptom and not solving the problem.

I'll ask one more time: Why do we eat? To be clear, why do we need to eat? Couldn't God have given us the ability to absorb nutrients from the ground and the sun? Plants seem to be doing fairly well. Allow me to take it one step further: why do we need to eat at all? If God controls the universe and is the reason the laws of nature exist as they do, why not create His beloved children in an environment that can't be fouled up by the folly of man? God could give humans their own miniature fusion reactor or, even better, change the laws of physics altogether so that people had all the energy they needed for a lifetime without supplementation. If we count JUST food-borne illness in JUST the US, 6,000-9,000 people die every year. Add in allergies, obesity, heart disease, choking and starvation - and the rest of the world - and the numbers are staggering.

If humanity is here as a result of a grandiose biological "accident", we can chalk this up to growing pains and hope that one day we'll be able to cure or even prevent food-related deaths. But if this is the master plan of an intelligent designer (regardless of the name you choose to give that designer), then it's a poor intelligence indeed. 

Which explanation seems more likely?

Love, Actually...Infatuation

**This is not intended to be a full post, it's just a forum I'm using to share something I wrote somewhere else**

The movie is cute, but it just doesn't add up for me. It was very...superficial. I'll ignore all the super-convenient and horribly unbelievable movie situations and just focus on the story. I'll explain below.

The Kiera Knightly storyline:
At first glance: The dude is in love with this woman for a long time and uses the magic of Christmas to express his love with a boombox and giant flashcards. Cute.
When you think about it for more than a minute: The dude is obsessed with his best friend's girl. He never talks to her (according to her), and instead of doing the right thing and forgetting about it he continues to obsess. He's asked to videotape the wedding and instead of being a good friend and taping the wedding, he creates a tape full of spank material since he can't get over his own infatuation. I mean, I know she's hot, but give it up. What's even worse is that instead of moving on, he puts her in a horrible position by confessing his love AFTER they're married and, worse, during a family holiday. You say cute, I say douche. (And to make matters worse, instead of setting him straight and asking that he not fuck up her life, she kisses him and all but guarantees a lifetime of incessant pining and awkward situations.)

The Hugh Grant storyline:
At first glance: The guy meets a woman in the office and has to overcome office politics to make things happen. He tries to avoid it, but eventually he realizes he should go for it and goes searching town for her (since love waits for nothing). Cute.
When you think about it for more than a minute: The guy is single and in a position of power. He meets the office hottie, is turned on by her nervousness around him, and wants to bang her. When he sees another man of power hitting on her, he flips a shit and starts messing with foreign policy - that's more ape-like than it is cutesy love.

The Colin Firth storyline:
At first glance: A guy gets cheated on, moves to France to write a book, meets a beautiful woman that doesn't speak his language, learns the language, travels to her home country to save her from a shitty father and a shitty job. Cute.
When you think about it for more than a minute: The guy was just cheated on and meets a beautiful woman. He wants to bang her but can't communicate with her. He's alone and he's an author, so he learns Portuguese with the plethora of free time he has. Could they live happily every after? Absolutely - but I don't like how this is supposed to be an example of love.

The little bratty kid storyline:At first glance: A cute little kid with a dead mother is in love with a girl in his class. She doesn't know he exists, so he goes on to learn drumming (and possibly gymnastics) to impress her. His dedication and bravery are adorable. Cute.
When you think about it for more than a minute: He's a fucking child. His stepdad thinks that the best way to help him cope with the loss of his mother is to encourage him to devote his life to impressing a girl. I fully support the whole "you should tell her how you feel" approach, but this was a bit much. Forgetting the whole "break the law and ignore security rules" bit, he's sending the message to the kid that "every time you think you love someone you should do insane things," not the best lesson. Besides, what the hell does this kid know about love?

The Alan Rickman storyline:At first glance: A middle-aged man gets involved with a young secretary, while his wife tries to hold the family together. The husband is a douche, the wife is a saint.
When you think about it for more than a minute: This may actually be the most honest and realistic part of the movie and probably should have had a more prominent role.

Overall:The message in this movie seems to be that if you're young and cute, you're going to do just fine. However, if you're old and have a family, you're probably screwed. Emma Thompson, a middle-aged housewife, is losing her husband to a young office hottie, and Laura Linney, a middle-aged worker, can't act on her long-time crush because she has a sick brother. The characters in this movie, for the most part, were willing to completely change their lives for a sense of infatuation that they mistook for love. The final scene with people hugging each other in the airport actually does more to confuse the theme than it does to provide a cute wrap-up to the "love epic" I think they were going for.

1/5 stars.

Humanity Against Cards Against Humanity

...an essay about a party game for horribleish people.





Cards Against Humanity is a game. It's not played with dice or boards, but with cards and a sense of humor. It's basically Apples to Apples with political references, pop culture, racism, and sexual innuendo. It's a wildly popular game that seems to be gaining momentum.

The game's tagline is, "A Party Game for Horrible People." This is a pseudo warning that Cards is not for the easily offended. As the game relies heavily on making light of serious situations (racism, the Holocaust, diseases, death, child abuse, etc), it's a self-deprecating admission that anyone who would laugh at things like coat hanger abortions is clearly a horrible person.

I've had a number of conversations recently with people who like the game for the most part, but are particularly offended by one card or another, usually because something hits too close to home. The proximity of my life to Virginia Tech, for example, means that the "Virginia Tech Massacre" card is deeply personal to many of my friends. I know people who have removed that or other cards from the game because it would be tasteless to make a punchline out of 32 shortened lives, some of whom they may have known personally.

My problem with this is that they don't see the cognitive dissonance they must employ to keep playing the game. Auschwitz? Hilarious! Institutionalized gender discrimination? I can't contain my laughter! Virginia Tech Massacre? How dare you?!

More importantly, at its core, this is really an issue of censorship. We live in a world where we still have to fight over which books can and can't be shared in libraries and schools; if we start selectively allowing certain types of humor to be rejected by an all-too-arbitrary filter, we'll be forever bounded by our fear of ideas we don't like. As with everything else, South Park puts it succinctly - in this clip, Cartman is using people's delicate sensibilities to get not just one episode, but an entire series thrown off the air:



If everyone got to weigh in on which cards crossed their personal line, the game would be over before it began. My VT friend takes out the massacre card. My Jewish friend takes out a card about the Holocaust. Now my black friend comes over and we have to be careful not to offend him. At some point, we're just playing Apples to Apples. I'm not saying everyone should find shooting a rifle into the air while balls deep in a squealing hog funny, I'm saying that if you don't like bestiality, you shouldn't play the game at all.

People who advocate for removing the "risqué" cards do so from a false stance of moral superiority, bravely claiming that some things just shouldn't be laughed about. I submit that these people are actually missing the point entirely: we laugh when we hear "What will always get you laid? Date Rape!" not because it's funny, but because it's absurd. We laugh precisely because our moral compass is calibrated correctly and we realize just how awful the Three Fifths Compromise is. I would argue that the people who play Cards Against Humanity without shame are more equipped to handle the world's moral quandaries than those who would choose to ignore them.

Warning: Shit's About to Get Real

This isn't my typical fare. This is something else entirely - something that I saw that I can't get out of my head. Something that I'm hesitant to even share because I don't think people are ready for it. But something that I think people need to see simply because they're not ready for it. I warn you, this is graphic, unsettling, and has the potential to ruin your day. I'm not sharing this because grossing you out gives me pleasure; I'm sharing this because it's something you've almost certainly never seen before, and I think it's necessary that you see it.



I've seen plenty of gross shit on the internet before. This may not even be the worst thing I've seen, but it's a sobering reminder that the world is not full of kittens and rainbows. I comment often on Americans' preoccupation with entertainment and pop culture at the expense of world issues (hell, at the expense of American issues). I have railed the media often for propping up royal baby news or scandalous VMA performances over institutionalized government spying and perpetual, economy-devastating acts of war. On some subconscious level we all KNOW that there are parts of the world that live in squalor, whether due to poor economies, education, political unrest, or all of the above. But where the media has failed us entirely is that we have been completely sheltered from the harsh realities of what life is really like elsewhere. We're coddled by the people we pay to entertain us. They water things down into a morsel that can be more easily digested so we can get back to buying things. "Hey, consumer, look how miserable things are in this country that you couldn't point to on a map if you tried. See? Your life is pretty great, isn't it? Buy a Coke!"

I don't know the full story behind this video. I don't know if this should be blamed on the Syrian government or on the rebels. I don't know if our government and our soldiers have a moral imperative to intervene. This isn't about Obama or Democrats or Republicans. It's not even about God, gods, or religion.

This is about humanity. My Facebook feed is flooded with thoughts about politics, racism, and economic musings. When I see a video like this, I don't give a shit how many illegal immigrants are living in the US. I couldn't care less that welfare queens are living off my tax dollars, and I could live the rest of my life without hearing about race relations in America. Children are getting shot in the head for a war they couldn't possibly understand, and people here are up in arms about how the government pays for health care? When I see this video, I think that everything, absolutely everything that people complain about in life is secondary to the idea that humans can still do this to one another.

Some people are going to click play and then turn the video off. Some are going to skip the video altogether. I think that if fellow humans are being forced to live these conditions, we should have the fortitude to witness it. Watching this video evokes a range of emotions I didn't know I had. As unsettling as it is, I think it's important to see imagery like this. It should be public and it shouldn't be censored. When the news shows us a building blown up from afar, we don't see the real human cost of war. If we see more videos like this, we would likely think twice before supporting wars of any kind.

I need to watch this video to remind myself that my problems are insignificant. I need to watch this video to remind me that I am human.

Circumcision, Gay Marriage and Morality

Everyone knows not to get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well known is this: becoming a parent changes the way you see the world. For years I had accepted circumcision as a normal and even necessary part of life. It seemed so normal that I really never considered that there was a choice to be made. However, as a parent, I find myself second guessing even little things because there is nothing more important to me than the well-being of my children.

Some people won't understand a reference to the great Vizzini? INCONCEIVABLE!

 When we found out Landon was going to be a boy, I realized we had a decision to make. Naturally, I hit up the Google and started looking into my options. I can make a long story short by summing up my findings in one sentence: No major medical association in the world recommends the procedure. Suffice it to say, I couldn't justify slicing off a piece of my newborn son for what appeared to be nothing more than a brutal tradition.

I've heard all the reasons, but none of them are compelling enough to warrant a surgical knife. The most popular reasons, and my counter-argument:

1. It's healthier because...
   1a. ...an uncut penis has folds where bacteria can grow.
True, but this is easily remedied with good personal hygiene. A little extra attention is all that's required - not something that should be a problem for little boys nor grown men.

   1b. ...uncircumcised men are slightly more likely to contract an STD.
True, but this comes down to education and quality life decisions. If a man is having unprotected sex with someone with an STD, he's beyond foreskin problems.

2. Uncircumcised penises can lead to complications and require a circumcision to be performed later in life.
True, but performing preventative medical procedures because a small percentage of men will develop complications would be like carving out a little girl's breast tissue because she could one day get breast cancer (which is actually far more likely than phimosis or penile cancer).

3. Uncircumcised penises "look weird".
This is a compeltely superficial argument. Anyone who uses this to justify their actions has effectively turned their son's penis into a fashion accessory. There's no way to know what the "fashion" will be down the road, and even if there was, no sane parent would ever choose to perform surgical body modification on their child so they could "fit in" later in life.

4. Other boys will make fun of it in the locker room.
I don't know what kinds of locker rooms these people have been in, but very few children of making-fun-of-penises age spend time in locker rooms where they're getting completely naked. And the ones that do aren't just hanging around with their dicks out and comparing notes. They're not 70 year old men. (To say nothing of the fact that, statistically speaking, cut men are really the weird ones.)

No matter how you slice it (see what I did there?), cutting a body part off of a newborn child is at best a selfish, short-sighted act by the parents and at worst a human rights violation.

I've often wondered why there isn't a larger outrage about such a barbaric, out-dated practice. Hell, there's not even a discussion about it - how often do you hear people debating the merits of various penis styles? I would think that an organization with the size and influence of the Catholic Church would be all over this issue, but it seems they're far more concerned about what those infants choose to do with their penises later in life.

I've seen too many friends, family members, politicians, and clergy mount their soapboxes and tell me that homosexuality is tearing at the moral fabric of society. I realize that if people can't agree on such simple things like, "People should not be treated differently because of the color of their skin," how can I expect them to ignore one's sexual orientation? The thing I will never understand, however, is how people can turn this into an issue of morality.

A moral scholar I am not, but I think an illiterate five year old would tell you that it's bad to hurt other people. If we define morality to mean that we as sovereign individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, SO LONG AS we don't infringe on others' rights to do the same, then I simply can't see homosexuality as a moral issue. If the people involved are a) adults, b) of sound mind and body, and c) consenting, then homosexuality doesn't cross the moral line. Being "icky" isn't a moral conundrum. Wanting sex without wanting children isn't hurting anyone. Making life choices that condradict the wishes of people who lived thousands of years ago is not a reason to hold back human progress.

By even the most minimal of standards, circumcision is performed on a child too young to decide and too young to protest. If the love life of two adults can be considered a moral issue, how can violating a child's bodily integrity not? To be fair, the Catholic Church no longer encourages circumcision, but as they're the ones most vocal about the impending doom wrought by the gays, shouldn't they be the ones taking the moral stand here? If they spent half the money on demonizing penis cutting as they do on keeping rings off of gay fingers, there would be a little less evil in the world. And isn't that what God is all about?

I'm Rabbi Weiss and I do NOT approve this message.

Tragedy: 4/15, 4/16, and Every Other Day

I once wrote in this space that "the more needless the death, the more severe the tragedy." While tragedy is inherently sad, I still believe that circumstances matter, and innocent lives lost to random acts of violence rank among the worst. It seems like we're mourning something every other week these days, and we're running out of colors for ribbons. With each passing tragedy, I can see changes within myself. During my short span of consciousness, I've been hardened more than anyone should, yet I can still appreciate the hardships and the loss faced daily by so many in the world, and I realize that despite our pain, we still lead rather charmed lives. I can't bring peace to the world; that's not what this post is about.

I no longer have any disillusions about where tragedy can strike. I've heard "I never thought it could happen here" enough to know that pain is geographically indifferent. Neither do I trick myself into thinking that there is some ethereal force enacting justice. I've seen horrible things happen to good people of all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, and creeds, and I've seen too many pricks outstay their welcome.

I've come to accept that life just isn't fair, no matter how much we will it to be. Luck can't be bought, it can't be reasoned with, and it can't be controlled. Life is a series of inter-connected events - some work in your favor, some don't. Thinking about it only distracts you from enjoying the short time you have. The best you can do is to not take any excessive risks (intentionally), and try to mitigate the ones you have to take (wearing a seat belt or eating healthful food regularly).

But what this constant string of tragedies has taught me most is this: the universe is a cold, uncaring place, and it's not going to wait around for you to be happy. You can't control everything, but you're in far more control than you give yourself credit for. Start making your own luck because there's no telling when yours might run out. If you want to go back to school and get your Master's degree, do it. Ask out that girl or go searching for a new job, and if neither of those things work out, keep trying. The only thing keeping you from your goals (your attainable goals) is you. And if you're going to hold a grudge, you'd better make damned sure there's a good reason for it, because I'm betting there's not.

My Virginia Tech family has been reminding us to "Live for 32", because 32 lives were taken six years ago before they were really allowed to live. I used to live for 32, but that's not good enough any more. I live for 26 children and teachers, too. And I live for five students in Illinois. I also live for three marathoners in Boston and 12 movie-goers in Colorado. I even try to live for two shoppers in Oregon and sometimes for 13 soldiers who did nothing but show up to work in the middle of America one day. I don't always succeed, but I wouldn't dare dishonor the fallen by taking a moment of my life for granted.

Tragedy is an enemy no different than Peter Pan's shadow - it exists, but it's not the shadow's fault. It's not a conscious, plotting villain; it's merely a shadow of our own imperfection, a constant reminder that the human mind is an incredibly complex force capable of things which we'd just as soon never try to comprehend. But that doesn't mean it is something to be feared. On the contrary, I try to live my life in a way that makes me work to overcome the sadness wrought by tragedy. I don't let it own me. I don't let it define me. It gives me another reason to be a force for good in the world. It gives me a reason to endure.

Unlike most, I also view the perpetrator as one of the victims. Where everyone else sees a cold-hearted bastard that caused unspeakable pain to numerous families and communities, I see a tortured soul that didn't get the help he needed. It doesn't mean that those who are caught shouldn't pay a price, but there is a sadness there that I feel often goes overlooked. I pity them because they'll never know what it is to love, and that they'll never know just how fucking beautiful the world is even on a bad day. That, to me, is the ultimate sadness.

4/15 will go down in history as a tragic day. People will remember where they were when they heard about it. 4/16 will live on inside me, burned into my innermost thoughts and emotions. 4/20. 7/7. 9/11. 6/6. 12/7. 12/14. 7/20. 2/14. Our calendars are filling up quickly. You don't need a 365 Tragedy-a-day calendar to remind you that every day is special, or that life is precious. Live well, and live for those that can't.

Introspection

I'm a difficult person to be friends with. I hold my friends to high standards - by that I mean I don't accept their bullshit excuses for not trying hard enough or not fighting for something they want. I'm honest, which doesn't often come across in a positive fashion. I give my honest opinion about their significant others, their ideas, their art, and their life choices. I want the best for my friends; why shouldn't they want the best for themselves? I ask the same of them in return, and I think I'm better for it.

It's no surprise, then, that the people with whom I get along best have skin as thick as my own. The people who dish it as good as they get it. An outsider overhearing a conversation between some of my close friends would wonder if we were friends at all - insults about overly-romantic Facebook posts, jabs about completely ludicrous theories of baseball physics, or jokes about previously failed attempts at marriage or academia. Nothing is off the table, and I would argue that our friendships are stronger because of it. We challenge ourselves to be better because we know that failure is just ammo for the others, and we can get solid advice because we know we're getting straight answers at all times.

Unfortunately, this brand of honesty takes time to flourish. As such, making new friends  - real friends - isn't easy. Putting aside the fact that time isn't always on my side, some people just don't appreciate the same level of brutal honesty that I do. I don't mind making acquaintances, but it's frustrating to keep a mental Rolodex (link provided for younger readers) of people with whom I can be ME.

Facebook is something of a mixed bag for me. I like that I can "keep up" with people that I might have otherwise lost touch with; some of my favorite conversations are with people that I rarely (if ever) see in public. The obvious drawback is that Facebook combines friends of all types into one group. I refuse to "rank" my friends, so when I post, I post to everyone. As a result, people who don't know me all that well get the full force of my opinion but lack the context that my closer friends have. I don't have a burning desire to make people like me, but for some reason, I do feel the need to make sure people understand me. As such, I'd like to dispel a few common myths.

     1. I do NOT think that religious people are stupid. I know stupid non-theists and I know smart theists. I would never, ever say that having faith makes one stupid.
     2. I do NOT think religion should be banned or made illegal, but I DO think that our government was intended to be secular and that we can only survive as a country if we prevent our government officials from endorsing specific religions through public policy.
     3. I DO think that there are many good qualities of religion and valuable lessons to be had. I just think they come at too high a price.
     4. I do NOT assume that everyone in one category is alike. All Christians don't hate gays, even though I may use gay rights as an example for why Christianity does more harm than good.
     5. I do NOT think I know the answers - I make absolutely no claims about the origin of the universe. I simply believe that a claim requires evidence to be believed, and as I have seen none, I do not believe the claims offered by the world's religions. Despite what some would have you believe, my position does not require faith - I consider myself an agnostic atheist, meaning that I don't think it can be known either way.

I hear frequently that I'm mean or disrespectful. "If you don't have anything nice to say, why say anything at all?" "Why do you have to bash other people's beliefs?" Valid points, all. To understand the answer to these questions, I must explain a bit about my life experiences. I hold no religious beliefs in a decidedly-religious country. A country that still has laws preventing non-believers from holding public office in certain places. A country that levies no taxes on churches, but allows their money to buy political influence. A country that, in my lifetime, has had a president that thinks that non-believers shouldn't be considered patriots nor citizens. People ask me why I must be critical of others' beliefs, but they never say a word when I'm told at wedding after wedding that my marriage is less important or "doesn't count" because it wasn't sanctioned by their god. No one asks me if I'm offended when non-believers are the least trusted group of people in America - tied with rapists. Please forgive me if I scoff when I hear people refer to a "war on Christmas" or that Christians are being persecuted.

Furthermore, I want to make clear that being critical of one's beliefs is not disrespecting the believer. I firmly believe that a person is more than their beliefs, and I put far more weight on someone's actions than I do on what goes on inside their heads. Many of my close friends and relatives are religious, some very much so, and it is because of our mutual respect for each other as people that we can have open and honest discussions about our beliefs.

Lastly, I want to talk about the point of all of this. I am perpetually curious - I want to know how the world works, I want to know how other people's minds work, and I want to know how I work. I live my life in a constant state of re-evaluation; I am always absorbing new data and determining how it affects even my most dearly-held views. I have never used the words, "...and nothing you say can make me change my mind." I do realize that some people don't like confrontation, and I do love a good debate more than most. However, when someone tells me that they would never trust a man to teach their young children, I simply can't accept "that's just how I feel and I don't want to argue about it." If I said, "I don't think women are fit to run businesses and I would never want to work for a woman," I hope that people would try to get to the root of that belief and help me re-evaluate my position. I don't think people get to believe things without reason. I don't think beliefs of any variety are sacred, and I think it's healthy and completely necessary to air one's views and to get feedback. If a belief is sound, it will endure, and society will benefit from the free and open exchange and honest criticism of ideas. If beliefs were sacred and unassailable, slavery would never have been quashed. Racism would be rampant and codified. Women would not be able to vote. I could never compare myself to Frederick Douglass, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Susan B. Anthony; I'm just a guy that's not afraid to ask questions about even the most personal of beliefs.

I've never stopped being someone's friend because of differing beliefs, but others have made that decision for me. I wish it wasn't the case, but some people simply don't like being challenged. I'm not always perfect, but I try to always be fair. I try not to resort to cheap shots or platitudes. But I simply can't dance around certain ideas, and I think political correctness does more to hurt the conversation than help it. I can't change the fact that I think certain things are silly or illogical. I think it's silly to rub ash on your forehead. I think it's silly to talk to the ceiling. I think it's illogical to thank God for a meal when the people in the seats worked 100 hours that week to put the food on the table. As an outsider looking in, I think a lot of the ritual seems ridiculous - but when I say it's silly, I mean to challenge the status quo in a way that only an outsider can. I laugh because it's such an alien concept to me, not because I think someone is stupid.

If you've gotten this far, just know that I value you as a friend, whether we talk once a day or once a year. I criticize because I think everything should be on the table, and I want to live in a society where the good ideas rise to the top and the bad ones don't live to see another generation. If you are confident in your beliefs and feel that you've given them the analysis they deserve, then my criticism can only serve as a way to get them some fresh air. But at the end of the day, whether you're making obnoxious, schmoopy posts to your girlfriend or chanting like a monotone robot in church, don't be surprised if I have something to say about it :-)