Osama Bin Laden may not have been the only one to take it in the face at his Abbottabad compound. US officials have reported that an “extensive” amount of porn was found at the hideout. And as any typical male knows, “extensive” can be quite a lot. I suspect that for every thumb drive loaded with a terror plot, they’ll find 99 loaded with “plots” that are often forgotten when interrupted by random sex scenes.

Of course, no information was released concerning the nature of the pornography. This information could make a world of difference, as standards of pornography vary wildly across the world. Was this Muslim pornography, for instance? Muslim pornography is typically much tamer than Western porn, featuring titles such as Girls Gone Slightly Less Respectable, where money shots are instead replaced with the ecstatic removal of a hijab. In the more hardcore Muslim porn, women not only remove their hijabs, but are also permitted to speak and act freely…sometimes even in the presence of a stranger of the opposite sex! Thus, we should not be so quick to judge Bin Laden based on the presence of a few thumb drives labeled “Porn” and effaced with poorly drawn images of boners. In Muslim countries, even The Golden Girls could be labeled porn. Those hussies have the nerve to show their hair and ankles!

However, it is far more likely that Bin Laden was in the possession of old-fashioned American porn, the best damned porn in the world. If there’s one thing Americans still manufacture correctly, it’s porn. (And if there’s one thing that the Japaneses surprisingly do not copy and make better—and in fact make worse and highly more disturbing and tentacle-laden—it’s porn.) It makes you wonder what kind of porn Osama liked. Was he an ass-man? Did he like MILFS? Did he prefer cumshots or creampies? If the attacks on the Twin Towers were any indication, it seems clear that he at least enjoyed double penetration. (Too soon?)

Honestly, though, this should not be news. Anyone with enough money to live in a place with electricity has porn, and those who can’t afford electricity take solace in livestock. Osama, for his part, who probably spent a good deal of time in remote areas and caves before making his way to the compound in Abbottabad, probably partook in both. This would certainly explain, for instance, the great number of talking barnyard animals that frequent children’s shows, as well as their subtle resemblance to the bearded terrorist leader. Still, though, almost any man who has the misfortune of having Navy SEALS descend upon him and shoot him in the face will inevitably leave behind a hefty collection of pornography. Thankfully, most men with pornography are not self-professed religious leaders who disclaim sexual acts and immorality.

Republicans were furious before Wednesday night’s poetry readings sponsored by Michelle Obama and the White House, but for strange reasons. Most people despise poetry because it is tedious and makes no sense, but it was clear that this couldn’t be the source of the Republican party’s ire, seeing as how several of their candidates have perfected the ability to be tedious and make no sense much better than any poet, Gertrude Stein included. No, the Republicans were angry because they felt one of the featured poets was too offensive. Of course, many Republican representatives from the southern states had initially become angry at the event because it promotes book-learnin’ and creativity, two of the greatest enemies of conservative politics, but when Karl Rove and Sarah Palin focused on a particular guest as offensive rather than the whole of poetry, the other Republicans quickly fell in line with this much more reasonable excuse to find offense with anything the President does.

The event featured actual poets like Billy Collins and Rita Dove, as well as normal people who make their living in a way that makes sense, like singer Aimee Mann, comedian Steve Martin, and rapper Common. Of these guests, there was one wild and crazy guy that Republicans naturally found offensive: the black one. Granted, Rita Dove is black, too, but she’s a poet, and most people don’t believe poets actually exist, or if they do exist it’s only in a strange metaphysical sense that would be shared with unicorns, leprechauns, and the current balding King of France. Republicans are commonly offended by black people, especially when they become Presidents, because they do not share common ground and listen to crazy jungle music, which is not common in rich white person circles, so no one found it uncommon that the Republicans would be offended by Common, whose skin color makes him look like a common criminal. But come on, it’s Common! He’s about as gangsta as Will Smith. (Republicans will not understand this reference because they are all uniformly terrified of Will Smith and quickly cross to the other side of the street when they see him walking toward them, scared that he’s up to no good and will start making trouble in the neighborhood, leading to an eventual change of residence in which they are forced to live with their wealthy uncle in Bel-Air.) Republicans just wanted to stop another black man from getting into the White House.

Karl Rove called Common a “thug,” claiming that Common rapped about assassinating George Bush and committing violence against police officers. Indeed, none of this can be denied. In his poem, “A Letter to the Law,” Common speaks about abuse of power, from police officers who kill the innocent and disproportionately focus upon African Americans and crimes more prevalent in that community, to Presidents who start unjustified wars under false pretenses that lead to the deaths of millions (e.g., he raps, “Burn a Bush, cuz for peace he no bush no button”). Clearly, it is offensive for Common to demand an end to police brutality, and instead he should just sit down and shut up and pick some cotton while allowing police officers to needlessly target his community and beat him senseless. It is also clearly offensive that Common would call for the burning of Bush, because it is obviously not meant as a metaphor evoking the burning bush of the Bible, nor is it meant merely as an indictment of a war that killed millions.

Sarah Palin echoed Rove’s sentiments on Twitter, linking to an article critical of Common’s inclusion in the night of poetry, and then quickly commenting on any other thing that happened during the day in a desperate attempt to retain relevancy and attention.

Conservatives are rightfully angry about this issue. The White House is a place only for luminaries who have actually committed atrocities, like George Bush, dictators in Third World nations supported by America, and CIA operatives who have tortured innocent people. People who have only merely recited poetry about violence are not welcome, particularly if that recited violence is justified with something other than imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Plus he’s black.

With the death of Osama bin Laden, millions of Tea Party conservatives erupted into cheers, mistakenly believing that President Obama had been killed. After a long and absurd association of President Barack Hussein Obama with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden because of similarities in their names, it was little surprise that news of Osama’s death would confuse conservatives. In fact, the delusion was heightened by the realization that all of the things often associated with President Obama—like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and the prospect of American socialism—were also long-dead.

In the wake of this momentous news, Republicans have been scrambling to find ways to minimize Obama’s role in Osama’s death. Tea Partiers refused to believe Osama was really dead because no one could prove it was really him by producing his long-form birth certificate. Mitt Romney took the religious route, calling it a miracle and attempting to give all the credit to God. Ron Paul simply ignored the news, continually ranting about the Federal Reserve instead. And Michelle Bachmann screeched an incoherent succession of slurs against Obama: “Socialism! Brown person! National debt! Libya! Nazis!”

More exciting than the death of Osama, of course, is the elation in knowing that reporting of the Royal Wedding will finally be bumped in favor of this much more important news. Now we can finally stop asking, “Did you see all the funny hats?” and start asking, “Did you see Osama’s funny hats?”

I used to have my doubts about Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism.  But then I read this awesome book about how all the heads of corporations and industrialists went on strike and lived in a society in the mountains where they built hovercraft, laser guns, and perpetual motion machines running on static electricity. When they left, the rest of society languished, reverting to using clovis points as their sole tools, their language degenerating into grunts and squeals. Near the end, the leader of the rich people hacks his way onto national TV where he gives a ten-hour speech about how stupid everyone is, only repeating himself 231 times in the process. Sadly, the leader is arrested for being too smart and building perpetual motion machines that are too awesome, so the rest of the industrialists and rich people are forced to break him out by using their laser guns to shoot their way into the prison to release him.

Anyway, this book was just so realistic and true-to-life that I realized my initial doubts about Objectivism were foolish. After all, what could be more plausible than a story in which rich people go off to live in mountains as self-sustaining farmers who invent  perpetual motion machines, all without the help of any sort of labor force? I could no longer deny the force of Ayn Rand’s philosophy in the face of such realism.

Now that I’m an Objectivist, I plan to remove all parasites from my life, choosing to live only for myself. This is why I plan to leave my wife and have kids only to abandon them later. I will eat my lazy dog, who refuses to get a job, for sustenance. After becoming an Objectivist, I also met a wonderful woman while I was raping her, and after I was done we promptly fell in love (but it’s an individualistic and strong-willed type of love). I couldn’t be happier. Whenever I’m not rubbing money all over my glistening body in ecstasy, I now spend all of my time punching poor people. This is the way life was meant to be lived.

In what looks to be an attempt to justify tax-exempt status for churches, Christianity Today has released a charming infographic detailing the economic value a church provides to its surrounding community. The information is based on a study by Ram Cnaan that purports to show that 12 historic churches in Philadelphia add an estimated $6 million in annual economic benefits to the community. Some of the economic benefits considered are divorces prevented, drug addicts helped, trees, school services, and so on.

However, I took a look at some of the data, and I’ve come to completely opposite conclusions. These churches, far from helping their surrounding communities, are an economic blight. Here are the results of the original study, together with my commentary demonstrating that these figures actually show economic detriments:

• Out of town members who attend church spend about $15 in town (probably buying something stupid like bumper stickers about how Jesus is a copilot). However, if they weren’t in church, they probably would have went to a football game and spent over $50 on overpriced beer. Net loss of approximately $100.
• In a related issue, churches save about $78,750 ($15,750 per person helped) by getting people off drugs. However, this translates to less money spent on beer, cigarettes, and meth. People who aren’t drunk or high also inconveniently do silly things like save their money, rather than blowing it all at the racetrack or buying hookers. The economic detriments to beer companies, drug dealers, hookers, racetracks, and janitors who mop up vomit more than offset the money saved here. Plus, seriously, the churches only help five people per year get off drugs? Must be all that Jesus-blood drinking that makes it so difficult.
• Churches save $22,500 by preventing divorces. That is, each couple saves $900, a sum of money that is probably promptly spent on vibrators and pornography for the people trapped in such love-less marriages. However, this does not factor in the money lost by preventing divorces. By keeping unhappy people together, divorce attorneys lose about $22,500 in legal fees. By preventing the married couple from breaking up and dating again, churches prevent an estimated $10,000 from being spent on dinners and movies, ice skating, putt-putt courses, and so on—activities that married couples never engage in because they are too busy unconsciously counting each other’s flaws.
• School services save about $3,489,926. Of course, these religious schools offset these costs by teaching their students to believe that Jesus rode dinosaurs and that evolution is a lie. The cost of re-educating these poor, deluded saps in college, and in correcting their lower scores in science achievement tests, is incalculable. But it’s probably a gazillion dollars or thereabouts.
• Volunteer hours worked saves about $94,770 (average weekly hours × 52 weeks × $20.25). But these volunteers are just teaching people to be lazy. All those homeless people come in expecting their free soup, and then they think, “I never have to work again! After all, soup is all I need to survive, and it’s free!” Plus, these people are volunteering to perform a service that gives away costly soup for free, when they could be out shopping at malls or buying beer. And seriously, they estimate the wage for volunteer work (which is typically low-wage, menial labor) as $20.25 per hour? HAHAHAahahahaha ha…ha…ha…heh. That’s the sound of millions of people in the food service industry laughing their asses off right now. And then crying. And then shooting themselves in the face because that’s the amount of money they should be getting if we lived in a just society. What kind of “volunteer” work are these people doing that is worth $20.25 per hour? Are these volunteer investment bankers giving out investing strategies to the homeless?
• Suicide prevention saves $58,800. Of course, this figure does not factor in all the people the church causes to commit suicide, like molested altar boys, stigmatized gays, or people who were just bored during service and thought suicide sounded like a better option. Let’s just call this one a draw.

As you can see, many of these supposed economic benefits are questionable, especially when one ignores reality and makes up figures for opposing costs and detriments, as I have rigorously done (rigorous make-believe is very tiresome). Aside from these criticisms, though, a lot of the original data just seem to be grasping at straws. They include the economic benefits of the church’s lawn (based on water retained) and trees. Bitch, I have a lawn and fucking trees, too, but you don’t see me getting a goddamn tax exemption. I wonder why they didn’t include economic analyses of the pews (free seats, saves $25), the bell towers (free alarm clock, saves $12), and the cobwebs in the attic (decreased fly and mosquito presence, saves $3). Did they include the economic benefits of child molestation, which provides a future boon to therapists and prison guards, or the benefits of turning a nutrient-poor cracker into a protein-rich meat of Christ?

In the end, further study is needed to truly determine the economic worth of churches. And maybe one day, after all sides of the issue have been considered, and every tree, lawn, and leaf are examined for their economic consequences, we’ll finally have an answer.

(Via The Friendly Atheist)