All posts by Eric

The Religious Right Shouldn’t Be Able to Vote…

…for Trump based on their conscience.  Yes, admittedly clickbait, but, read below.

I’m not sure how those that believe in the 10 commandments can, in good conscience, vote for Trump.

Let’s look at the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness”

Let’s look at last night’s (2016/10/09) debate:

“I didn’t say sex tape”

“Grab them by the p*ssy”

In the debate, when pressed, he said he did not ever act out what he said he’d done in the recently leaked tape, and that it was just ‘locker room’ talk.  Personally, I think it’s more likely that he did do what he was saying, but taking him at his word, is locker room talk an excuse to lie?

He mentions Hillary Clinton proposes increasing refuges by 550% which will lead to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of new refugees.

While the 550% percent increase is true, proposing allowing 65,000 refugees in 2017, there is no additional allow statements made by Clinton, therefore, no ‘hundreds of thousands’.

“I don’t know Putin … I know nothing about Russia”

I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.”

He continued to say that he couldn’t release taxes because he’s being audited

“Nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information,” the IRS said in a statement. This has been pointed out to him many times, but he continues to state the lie that he can’t release them.

“ICE just endorsed me. They’ve never endorsed a presidential candidate.”

They did not endorse him. A union of immigration and customs officers voted to endorse Trump.

“… we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you’ve never seen”

Apprehensions at the Southwest border, a proxy for attempted crossings, have dropped by 79 percent from the year 2000, which was the peak. Pew Research Center reports more Mexicans left the U.S. than entered between 2009 and 2014.

“I was against the war in Iraq”

When asked if he supported the war in Iraq, he said on Howard Stern’s show, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

I could go on and on and on.

How about “Thou shalt not commit adultery”

I want to be VERY clear on this.  While Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, the Senate acquitted him…  While he has had a questionable past when it comes to adultery… He’s not running for President.  Does a person stand on their own merits? If you think so, then Hillary is not guilty of Bill’s crimes. If you think a person doesn’t stand on their own merits, then you have your own issues.

That said, Donald Trump has had confirmed mistresses, affairs, etc., and in fact has left previous wives and married the mistresses. This seems like an extremely large glass house that he’s attempting to throw stones from.

What about “Thou shalt not steal”?

He doesn’t pay taxes, as far as we can tell, and continues to claim he can’t provide proof until he’s done with his audits, which is 100% false, to the point that the IRS has said there is no issues with him releasing his tax documents.  Is not paying taxes not theft? He talks of deficits, which have been largely caused by tax loopholes for the top 1%, but continues to not pay taxes (as far as we can see). Another glass house?

Therefore, as a member of the religious right, do you really feel, in good conscience, that you can vote for an individual that so blatantly flaunts the commandments of the bible?

I haven’t ever said to someone “don’t vote” even when they disagree with me, but, perhaps a write in vote for your ideal candidate would better serve your conscience.

Straight and Delightsome

In the last week there have been 2 significant changes to the LDS “Handbook 1” (which goes to the stake and bishop leadership levels), both relating to homosexuals. Changes listed here.

The first is that homosexuals that are in a same-sex marriage are now considered apostates by the church.

For those that don’t know, in particular, that means that they have actively and willfully turned their back on God.  One does not become an apostate by simply not going to church.

This is viewed as one of the worst things that a person can do in the LDS church.  Even murderers, child molesters, and rapists are not considered apostates.

As though that weren’t heinous enough, the second change takes that level of mistreatment of humanity to a new level.

Children of same-sex couples now cannot be baptized and become members of the church, until such time as they are 18 years old, and disavow their parents’ marriage. Let me repeat that… DISAVOW their parents’ marriage.

This originally was thought to be disavowing their parents, but it is mentioned specifically disavowing same-sex marriage or cohabitation.  One church leader made this clarification, as though it was better than disavowing one’s parents.  “Hey moms… I love you, but you’re apostates and I can’t support your relationship together.”  This is more of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” filth that we’ve seen before.

The idea that one can love the sinner, yet hate the sin, especially in this case, is preposterous on its face.  It provides a false sense of not being hurtful to others for what you believe.

It has also been “clarified” by LDS church leadership that it is to protect the children of persons who are in same-sex relationships.  That the child would become confused because of a difference of church and family teachings.

In the LDS church, most are baptized at the age of 8, and upon confirmation, it is thought that you then are directed by the “Holy Ghost” to know the difference between right and wrong.  It is thought that after baptism, you need repent if you do ‘wrong’ because you have the Holy Ghost and faculties to KNOW those differences.  The question this brings up, in the case that a same-sex couple give a child permission to become baptized at the age of 8, would the Holy Ghost not be able to provide those answers?  Is the Holy Ghost that impotent?

As has been blatantly apparent, I’m not a fan of organized religion, but this takes it to a new level. I now consider the LDS church to be hate group.

I’ll expand, in case you think I’m being unfair.

Children of other types of individuals can be baptized (with parental permission) at the age of 8, including, but not limited to, children of murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, and drug dealers. Yet, children of persons that are in a same-sex relationship apparently are special, and not in a good way.

As a friend posited to me shortly after this information was available, it seems that now that the control the LDS church tried to exert previously on same-sex marriage has been lost nationwide, and it’s turning on its own membership.

This does not punish same-sex couples. It punishes children. A child that is actively going to church will now be ridiculed by his or her peers because they are not getting baptized.  Being a Utahn, I was ridiculed at 8 because I wasn’t getting baptized, and I wasn’t LDS.

These rules cannot come from anywhere but hate for homosexuality and an inability to affect public change. Hence, hate group.

I’m sure we’ll see plenty of apologists attempt to provide reasons for why this is a necessity, and is part of a loving God, but it’ll take a lot of convincing for me to see why this is anything but human hatred coming from a place of power.

Silent Subjugation

I’m a fat, white, American, male.

I’m white…which, thank God for that shit, boy. That is a huge leg up. Are you kidding me? Oh, God, I love being white. I really do. Seriously, if you’re not white, you’re missing out. Because this shit is thoroughly good. Let me be clear, by the way. I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better.” … “Now, if you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an asshole. – Louis C.K.

Louis C.K. is right. I wish he isn’t. Skin color is for another day though. For this I’m going to give my own quote and say “I’m male…which, thank God for that shit, boy.”  If I didn’t admit that being male was great, I’d be an asshole.

If we just simply look at gender (just male and female, not variations or identity), being born male is a ‘huge leg up.’

I’m not saying this because I believe there is really any reason for this to be the case, I’m saying this because of society’s and, arguably more-so, religion’s treatment of women.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. – 1 Timothy 2:11-12

In fact, I suggest reading all of 1 Corinthians 11, it’s horrible. Stuff about women being created for man, women being “of the man”, etc.

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. – Ephesians 5:23-24

Talk about a power trip.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. – Judges 19:24

How the Bible is any basis for morality is beyond me.   As the late Christopher Hitchens said, “religion poisons everything.”

These (and the many other) teachings don’t lead to morality, they lead to Donald Trump saying of Megyn Kelly “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

They lead to college males saying “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal!” and “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women and fill them with my semen.”

If you don’t find those absolutely reprehensible, YOU are part of the problem. And, if you’ve ever said those, or similar phrases, with anything other than revulsion, then I suggest you get help. Maybe we should have women walking around with strap-ons saying “No Means Yes, Yes Means Pegging!” It’s only fair.

If you’re posting things on the Internet suggesting horrible things happen to women for some reason or another… you’re a terrible human being. You should know better, and I bet you do. Your anonymity gives you cover to be a male asshole. You know why you feel powerful?  You’re male.  You have no concept. You don’t have to suffer assholes like yourselves. You have no understanding of the fear that women feel because of male assholes.

They lead to attorney Keith Sullivan saying “Look, many women have what’s known as ‘regret sex,’” as a dismissal of rape.  He’s part of the problem. If you are of a same mind, you’re part of the problem. “Due to varying definitions of a “False Accusation”, the true percentage of false accusations remains unknown, but is assumed to be a very small minority of reports of sexual assault”  If you believe false accusation is a platform, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to Anna Duggar blaming herself for Josh’s cheating.  Want to know Josh’s mother’s top marriage tip for Anna? Saying yes whenever Josh wants sex. If you also think this is a good marriage tip, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to assholes putting women’s home addresses on the internet to cause fear and silence.  If you don’t think this is wrong, or worse, you think this is funny or justified, you’re part of the problem.

They lead to women atheists being told they deserve to be raped.  If you’ve ever thought that rape was justified, you’re part of the problem.

What a price for not having a Y chromosome.

So, I’m a fat, white, American, male. I don’t get my morals from religion. I don’t think my wife should put out anytime I want sex. I don’t say horrible things to women, online or offline.  I don’t wish rape on women.  I don’t post home addresses to shut up people that I disagree with.

If you’re part of the problem, perhaps its time to re-evaluate yourself. Follow the words of Wil Wheaton, “Don’t be a dick.” Male, or otherwise.

The Eternal Fire

premarital-sex-300x229

I was raised contrary to many children raised within religion in that my parents would discuss sex openly.  We would discuss how good sex felt, in fact, a comparison that stands out from the discussion was to a much better feeling of releasing a sneeze.

We would talk about contraception.  We would talk about vaginas and penises.  We would talk about physical attraction, including no preconceived notion that we would be attracted to the opposite sex.

They weren’t gross or damaging to us.  They wouldn’t discuss their particular sex life, and perform acts in front of us, other than kissing, which let’s face it folks, isn’t a vulgar sex act.

Because of this normalization of sex in my thoughts, I also don’t get grossed out at the thought of parents having sex.

We were also taught that masturbation was great.  It was necessary.  It provided a healthy ‘out’ for our urges.

Along with all of that, we were also taught that the best prevention of disease or pregnancy was abstinence.  Now, this is important though… it was simply taught as the best not the only.

All that said, I did not wait until I was married.  My first intercourse experience was at 17 years of age.  Sure enough, it felt really good.  I guess you could say it was a hell of a thing.

So, to the meat and potatoes of this post, sorry for the long intro…

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. – Jude 1:7

If you desire to wait for marriage before having intercourse, that’s fine.  When you decide to judge others for premarital sex, that’s when it’s an issue.

Let me ask all the married religious people a question.  Was it really worth the wait?  Or perhaps it was painful, uncomfortable, and messy (as first time sex is for many)?

Let me ask the religious people that have been married more than once another question.  Was sex with the second partner worse?  Better?  Same?  Honestly, I would likely guess it was better, but I’m sure that’s up for debate and not the point of this dissertation.  I’d bet that just because you’d had sex before, it wasn’t worse.

My point is that the sex drive is necessary for the survival of a species and, with small percentage of exception (asexuals), we all experience it.  It’s really interesting that it sets in at its most powerful level during puberty.  A time when most of the religious would push the hardest to prevent an individual from having sex.  Don’t take my point as I support underage sex, I really don’t.  I have 2 children, both below the age of consent, and in the full throws of puberty, and we teach similarly to my parents.  Abstinence is best, but condoms and other protections if the urge is too great.

Why, if we are created by a deity, would we have such a powerful drive to create new life before we were married?  I know some will say “mysterious ways”, and others will say “we are being tested”.  I just don’t buy those answers.  Perhaps, just perhaps, we evolved to procreate at the most likely to be successful point in our short lives.  It fits.  Evolution has no real care for ’emotional maturity’.

Perhaps it’s time for people to view sex with a healthier attitude.  The bible certainly doesn’t provide a healthy attitude, as seen in the quote above, or the following:

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. – Ephesians 5:5

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:27-28

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. – Exodus 22:16-17

These seem pretty dire.  No heaven, mental adultery, buying your way out of premarital sex?  This is an unhealthy look at sex.  This creates paranoia.  Teaching these things to children is abuse.

Let’s get past this.  Let’s start a healthy dialog about sex.  Let’s help prevent disease and teen pregnancy.  Hammering your children with abstinence only sexual education has demonstrably the opposite result.

But my God says….

Now that the SCOTUS has decided that marriage, no matter genders involved, is protected nation wide, I’ve been watching the mayhem from those that disagree.

There are many gems, but this one in particular has stood out: Texas clerk won’t issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

In the name of truth and honesty in disclosure I’ve followed it through, and apparently her office will now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but that’s not the point, this discussion is about ‘religious freedom’.

The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems pretty clear from the text that the government can’t establish religion (you know, like “In God we Trust”, er wait….), or prohibit the free exercise of a persons religious beliefs (of course, there are limits, if your religion teaches that say women who are raped should be married to their rapists, the government really doesn’t allow someone to force that).

The issue at hand here is that a governmental employee, while functioning as a representative of the government really can’t establish religious reasons for providing government services.  In the case of Hood County Clerk Katie Lang (referenced in the link above), she isn’t issuing the license, the government is.  She’s simply the individual that handles the paperwork, as it were.

In the Quran it states “Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…” This is often used as the basis for Islamic women covering themselves.  What if someone working in the drivers license division stopped giving drivers licenses to women because they weren’t covered from head to toe?  Would that be exercising freedom of religion?

In the bible it states “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.”  What if the same clerk that is refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples required that women provide irrefutable proof of virginity before marriage in a mixed gender marriage?  Would that be exercising religious freedom?

Freedom requires that the government, not individuals, protect rights, that way everyone has a greater chance at being treated equally.

If you’re a representative of the government, then you must leave your personal views at the door, and pick them back up on the way out.

Religion, the blind taste test.

Pascal’s wager, which, in its simplified form is essentially, why not be a believer, to hedge your bets that non-belief can lead to consequences in the afterlife.  The biggest argument against this dilemma is, “what if you choose the wrong belief?”

There are many reasons people believe in a specific religion, among them are those in the lack of choice category (raised in it, state sanctioned religion, etc.), and those that are have/had a choice (study, through proselytizing, etc.).  For those in the first category, it is especially difficult for them to see any other belief as a valid religion, and for those in the second category, either it’s a situation of ‘right place at the right time’, or they have studied a set of choices and decided that one fits their position better than others.

This brings me to the point, or “the blind taste test.”  There is a similarity to blind taste tests done by companies like coke or pepsi.  In the case of being raised in a religion, you more often than not, don’t know better, nothing else has been tried.  In the case of choice, you’ve at least decided between more than one choice.  It’s still a blind taste test though, since, if for the sake of argument there is a god who is judging based on you being the right kind of believer, you might have chosen incorrectly.  And in this case, you have to wait all the way until the end to find out if your choice was the better choice.

I hear all sorts of reasons from believers as to why their choice is the correct one.  Nearly 100% of the reasons go back to doctrine (Bible, Koran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc.) as their proof, yet those using the same texts, get a different taste test result, as an example Catholics and Baptists.  In fact, current estimates of different Christian religions are estimated in the range of 43,000.  In the case of Christian religious exclusivism, these are poor odds, even for Vegas.

Even if we just separate it down into the major players (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam), you’re looking at 5 choices, which isn’t bad odds in Vegas, but when betting your afterlife, do you really want to get stuck with a 1 in 5 chance of consequences?  Based on current numbers, if the correct choice isn’t Christianity, then at least 31.5% of people are destined for afterlife consequences.

Are you sure your choice is correct?  Sure enough to bet your afterlife?

Oh well, at least the coke vs. pepsi taste test isn’t eternal.

For this Valentines Day, would you martyr me?

News this past week included the excommunication of LDS church member John Dehlin, whose greatest crime, it appears, was voicing his questions in a snarky way.

If you want to read a very interesting read, you can view the press release here.

Most of the following is based on this release.

On the face of it, based on the letters Mr. Dehlin received from his leaders within the LDS church, it would appear that Mr. Dehlin was verbally bashing the teachings with phrases such as “would rather roll around in thumb tacks than ever teach or support that notion”, and “the probability that God exists is quite low.”

Another mentioned folly of Mr. Dehlin was that he was ordained over the internet to perform a marriage, which according to his accounts, he never did perform. He also offered to resign his ordination.

As I’ve thought this over, in the days since his excommunication, my personal thoughts are that he was really excommunicated because he was an outspoken supporter of marriage equality, and he also was a supporter of the ordain women movement.  Both of which have left the LDS church with black eyes.

While I’m sure some people think that his phrasing could have been better, he still maintained membership, still attended church, and still wanted to believe in God.  Personally, with the questions that he’s had, of which I’ve shared many, I’m incredibly surprised that he still wished to maintain membership, and to a greater extent that he wanted to believe in God.

The LDS church, at this point, had a great opportunity to embrace Mr. Dehlin.  They had the opportunity to nurture his desire to believe in God, and to attempt to answer, or at least help him come to terms.  They did not do this.  They acted instead as a bitter child would and punished him.

When he asked what he needed to do to maintain membership, he was not given clear answers.

Bryan King: I think you just need to go home and just need to really and sincerely search your heart and think and feel and discuss if this is a direction that you think you can do. If membership in this church is important to you, then I think you will feel the direction you need to go. And I think you’ll know. I really honestly think you’ll know. I don’t think it’s a matter of “oh well should I do this?”, “should I do that?” I honestly think that you will know.

What does that even mean?  This in a conversation between Mr. Dehlin and his leadership in the church concerning putting him on ‘probation.’  How is that even fair?  Would you say to your child, “among these 20 things you did, there were a handful of things that were wrong, I’m going to sort of touch on what was wrong, but when you ask specifics, I’m not going to give you an answer, BUT, you’d better not do it again!  I honestly think that you will know.”?

The mind boggles.  Wait, no it doesn’t.  In the world of religion, there is nothing if not contradictions in what to do, and what is right and wrong.

One particular gem, Mr. Dehlin, who is asking for clarification, and reaching out to his leadership, is getting non-answers, and in the following particular case, specifically given an answer because the stake president knows he’ll be called out:

John Dehlin: Right. And do you understand why someone would, would struggle with the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Bryan King: Yes… yes. I do.

John Dehlin: Do you have any sympathies or empathies for someone in that position?

Bryan King: I do, in the sense that I hope that they would, they would try to gain a stronger association or testimony of it.

John Dehlin: That’s not sympathy or empathy with a position. That is a desire for them to change their position. But do you have sympathy or empathy for people who feel like there are serious historical problems with the Book of Mormon?

Bryan King: I do. Because if I don’t say that I do, then you’ll say that I’m not—so…

How can a leader give such non-answers, yet claim any sort of ability to discipline?

So, at the end of the day, leadership decided to excommunicate him from the church, stripping him of any of the benefits of membership.  Sure, he can still attend church, but when it comes to participation, he simply cannot.  And in a year or so, he can attempt to reapply, I’m sure with the caveat that he’s towed the line.

I believe this is a PR nightmare for the LDS church.  His voice, which was previously viewed as a member who had some serious doubts, and may have been poorly phrased, has now been validated.  The church, which claims to be a humanitarian organization, has shown its true colors.  If you aren’t in line, we won’t work with you.  We won’t take you in, in your time of spiritual distress.  We’ll kick you out.  They claim multiple times in the transcript that he has a ‘forum’, well, he certainly will now.

This comes on the heels of all the controversy over Prop 8 in California, and the excommunication of Ms. Kelly representing the Ordain Women movement, who wasn’t even given the honor of going to the stake level, but was excommunicated by her local bishop, simply because she’s a woman.  These events become much more public when the LDS church takes the ‘hard stance.’

Of course, it also could be that Mr. Dehlin was asking questions that there aren’t any good answers to.  In the information age, it’s hard to say that the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel when it is demonstrably false.  It’s hard to talk about steel weapons in a time when forging steel didn’t exist.  It’s hard to talk about horses on the North American continent before they were brought over from Europe.  All churches are at a point where they must adapt to survive, lest they lose people to evidence that is easily validated, thanks to readily available information.

Something that’s been interesting to me, among the people I know, those that are outraged the most by such this event are the atheists or non-religious.  Strange that we are upset by someone being forced from a religion.

You know, for a religion that claims so heavily that Joseph Smith was a martyr, it sure doesn’t seem to remember what that means anymore.

The proof is so astounding, I have no choice but to convert back….

This is going to contain some VERY high levels of snark, as this was sent to me in a letter, anonymously.  The person that sent this to me didn’t even have the balls to be known.  Because of that fact alone (not to mention the sheer absurdity of the letter), it will be mocked.

Here is a two page letter I was sent in the mail.  The mind boggles at the sheer complexity of this argument.  It’s so incredibly simple, the U.S. is shaped like a Native American’s head, that I must truly believe!

 

 

mormon_what0001

I note that in the drawn head, it has no representation of Florida.  Perhaps they can’t explain a strange penis chin?  Not by the penis of my chinny-chin-chin!!

What about Alaska?  I dunno, maybe that should be a short pony tail?  No, that would prove that following the Grateful Dead was the true work of god.

Man, that guy needs a tissue to blow off the boogers, too.  Maybe he had a cold when the land masses were being put into place?

Here’s page 2:

mormon_what0002

I can’t even follow this one.  I’m not sure the point here at all.  Up at the top “Adolf Hitler Idol Shitler Idle Destroyer?”

What does this even mean!?  The labels of Europe, “Lucifer’s Clipped Wings”, “Lucifer Treading on Israel”, and the icing on the cake “Hitler’s Shitler”.  Seriously?  What am I supposed to be getting from this?!  Apparently there is also something cut off on the right hand side that is an arrow to Italy.  Whoever sent this couldn’t even do a copy job correctly!

The person even got my zip code wrong.

So, with all of the amazing proof on this that makes so much absolute sense, I hereby am converting back to mormonism… I mean, what other logical choice is there?

Oh, right.  Logic.

 

Pumpkin Spice Latte of DOOM!

I’m so very, very tired of the scare tactics used about GMO, FDA, Vaccines, corporations, etc., etc..

Here’s an example:

Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Scare Tactics

On the surface, it looks so very scary, using bold text to make sure that the scary bits are emphasized.

I’ll highlight a few of the more questionable parts.  “After really putting the pressure on, I was finally able to get the complete list, but it wasn’t easy” and “Case In Point: You’ll get 2 doses of Class IV Caramel Coloring” (the later is in absolutely huge text, because we can’t simply read, we have to be beaten over the head with the scariness).

Then there’s a nice picture that has a series of bullet points, using scary terms like “made with ammonia and considered a carcinogen”, and my personal favorite “Ambiguous Natural Flavors that can be made from anything found on earth”.

It goes on and on, and continues to add more and more scary language and references.

The issue here is this… Most of this is just hyperbole to enhance your fear.  There are many a logical fallacy at issue here.

Let’s take a look at the snopes breakdown of this, what I’m now terming the pumpkin spice latte of doom, because I’m scared of it now.

Snopes take on the pumpkin latte of doom

Note that, right off the bat the ingredients are readily available, and in fact you can do a build-your-own style nutrition count, letting you put in size, milk (or non-milk) type, and whipped or non-whipped cream.  This seems to fly right in the face of the claims of this so-called foodbabe.

Not addressed in the snopes article are claims like the “made from anything found on earth,” and I, for one, couldn’t be more scared!  Perhaps there is some sort of controlling body that could protect us from them flavoring our beverage with arsenic and dog feces!  Who will protect us from the addition of lead?  Oh, wait, I remember now, the FDA.  Food products must be verifiably tested to be safe for human consumption, you can’t simply make something out of “anything found on earth”.

Now, just fair warning, I heard from an starbucks ex-employee’s cousin’s friend that if you don’t drink a vegan soy chai from starbucks, you’ll get goiters!  Be afraid! Be very afraid!