Saturday, February 28, 2009

How low is blaming a children's show host for her disability?

Stories like these are what tie a large rock around my faith in people's good reasoning and throw it into the Pacific Ocean. Cerrie Burnell, a children's show host, is being criticized for appearing on TV with having only one hand; her right arm ends right below her elbow. (Not sure if it's a defect or an injury; not like it matters to this story, either.)

BBC spokeswoman Katya Mira said the corporation has received at least 25 "official" complaints recently about Cerrie Burnell, new host of two shows on the BBC-run CBeebies television network, which is aimed at children younger than 6.

The official complaints do not count the dozens of negative comments lodged in Internet chat rooms, Mira said.

In one chat room, a father lamented that Burnell being on the show forced him to have conversations with his child about disabilities.

Yes, how horrible for that 'father' to be forced to talk to his kid about people who look different! How dare Ms. Burnell impose that responsibility and duty upon him? How dare she have her own TV show when she's missing an arm? The kids, they'll be scared! Please, won't somebody think of the children!?

Pathetic, that's what this is. Some father. I can also guess – probably very accurately – that most of those whiny little bitches don't even have kids of their own, or else they'd know that kids aren't exactly gonna be reduced to terrified wrecks by a person on TV who happens to be disabled. I'm not saying they should let a burn victim who now resembles Freddy Kreuger or whatever, but people with a missing limb – what kind of retard has anything to say against that?

Actually, I commend that woman for having the sanity and relative courage to expose herself to the wide audiences TV attracts despite her disability.

Continued ...»

Vatican's trying to be friends with Science ...

I dunno whether to commend their efforts or to laugh them silly, but the Vatican, probably realizing that maintaining a rift with Science isn't exactly the smartest thing to do in such a scientifically-governed time that is our modern world, is planning to sponsor, over the course of the next several months, academic conferences about the works of such luminaries as Charles Darwin and Galileo Galilei, two of the fundamental fathers of modern Science, in an effort to "reconcile Science and Religion".

Featuring distinguished international panels of scientists and theologians, these events are the latest efforts by the Catholic Church under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to affirm that Christian faith and modern science are not at odds, but entirely compatible.

So John Paul II (whom I really had nothing against, he actually tried to help people rather than piss them off and alienate them) and Benedict XVI (two-faced lying religiot if there ever was one – plus he has an uncanny resemblence to someone ... I wonder whom ...?) claim that Science and Religion are fundamentally "not at odds"? Perhaps not technically, but with the inevitable and logical conclusions that both faith and Science respectively hold, it's pretty much impossible for members of these groups not to be at odds on more than one points. Come across any reputable and noteworthy scientist who believes in God, or any indoctrinated Christian who believes in Evolution, and I'm buying you a splendid pizza. I'll even order in from Diamond's. (Best pizza parlor in the Northern Hemisphere, really, based in Saint-Eustache.) Aaaanyway, I digress.

Unlike some conservative Protestant churches, which have rejected Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection as contradicting the biblical account of creation, the Catholic Church has a record of guarded tolerance of Darwin's ideas.

Pope Pius XII permitted "research and discussions . . . with regard to the doctrine of evolution" in 1950, nearly a century after Darwin's theory was published; and John Paul II recognized evolution as "more than a hypothesis" nearly half a century later.

How much you wanna bet that the Vatican is really just as opposed to the "Theory" of Evolution and such, but can't speak this out loud without alienating half their congregation (or more)? After all, the Vatican need to fulfill a cruelly divided role: they need to both secure and spread their fundamental Catholic beliefs, yet they also need to keep people from leaving, which naturally can only lead to pandering now and again, such as what I believe the above excerpt shines of.

And when will the religious ever finally stop referring to Evolution as a "doctrine"? You don't "believe" in Evolution, as you would believe in God. It's just there, a concrete fact that no-one having seen the evidence can honestly reject. Evolution reportedly has more evidence to support it than does the "theory" of gravity, for Pete's sake.

And now, for our customary serving of Christian creationism stupidity and ignorance:

In recent years, however, with the growing prominence of "creationism" and "intelligent design" as alternative explanations for the existence of humanity and the universe, Catholics have increasingly voiced doubts about Darwin's acceptability.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a friend and former student of Pope Benedict's, provoked controversy with a 2005 article arguing that "neo-Darwinian dogma" is not "compatible with Christian faith" and insisting that the "human intellect can readily discern purpose and design in the natural world."

Sigh. I'll refrain from once again repeating how Creationism, and it's "variant", Intelligent Design, are not alternate theories or explanations, but are simply faith-based beliefs. (... Whoops.)

Good to know that this "neo-Darwinian dogma" (what ...?) isn't compatible with Christian Faith, though, and that's pretty much true. And the only time "human intellect can readily discern purpose and design in the natural world", is when it's ignorant of most, if not all, basic scientific facts and evidence, simply put. Science has an uncanny knack for explaining everything perfectly, with testable and verifiable results and conclusions to boot, whereas faith and "Intelligent Design" don't really have those assets.

Anyway ... I'm all for repairing rifts and fights (I'm such a pacifist :P), so they have my best wishes as to the success of these "academic conferences". I can only hope they don't stoop to archetypal Creationist-level hypocrisy and dishonesty and hire actual scientists who really are worth listening to, instead of two-faced cowards and basic idiots. (Ie. if they mention astrologist Dr. Gonzalez or creationist neurosurgeon Dr. Egnor, that's pretty much it for it all in my book.

Continued ...»

Film Review: 'Grave of the Fireflies' – 8.0/10

Film Review: Historical · Drama · Tragedy (1988)
'Grave of the Fireflies'
[Japanese: ‘Hotaru no Haka’]
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, February 28, 2009

Seita and Setsuko (J. Robert Spencer and Rhoda Chrosite, respectively) enjoy a rare moment of light-heartedness in the epic Studio Ghibli 1988 tragedy, Grave of the Fireflies.

This is a unique movie. I’m not talking about the style of animation, which is typical of Studio Ghibli. I’m not talking about the music, although it forwent from a single composer and instead strung together various works from famous baroque and classical composers such as Bach, Joseph Haydn, Mozart, etc. No, I’m not even talking about the general plot or storyline, which, while original in itself, isn’t exactly ‘unique’ from other anti-war films. No … I’m talking about the fact that when you see this movie, you don’t come out of it having enjoyed yourself and smiling. No. You come out of it feeling miserable and depressed.

But that isn’t due to shoddy quality or workmanship – hell no. The movie in itself is splendidly made; the animation quality is superb, as per Studio Ghibli’s standards, the music is quite fine and perfectly fits with the overall tone of the film, emphasizing some moments and diminishing others; etc. What makes you depressed after (and during) the viewing of this film, is the humanity in it, to put it simply. Remember that famous lament from the reporter who covered the scene of the horrific Hindenburg disaster, ‘Oh, the humanity!’? Those words could’ve been this movie’s tagline and no-one would’ve been the wiser, they describe it so very well. As far as anti-war movies go, this film is, by very far, the single most powerful vibe screaming for peace and laying down of arms in cinematographic history, and I heavily doubt anyone who’s seen this movie could ever deny that without them living in a nuthouse.

Quite simply, the film pulls no punches at all. Sure, its animation, meaning it’s not always as horrific or ‘graphic’ as seeing carnage and destruction in real-life, but the message is sent across like a lightening bolt that strikes your mind and heart like a train crashing into a car. The streets are littered with charred and dismembered corpses, and quite frankly the survivors don’t always look that much better. The population is emaciated from starvation and exhaustion, and of course constant terror that they’re unable or unwilling to share with each other. Entire cities are lit aflame in a very realistic display of barbarism and cruelty, and all that is just during the more ‘action’ parts of the film. Much of the film is actually quite quiet and sedate, focusing on the main characters as they try to eek out a living in a bombed-out, death-ravaged Japan, and the effects of the numerous transitions from utter panic, to utter loss and helplessness, are vastly powerful.

Anyway, enough about me and the film’s wretched misery already. The story is set in WWII-era Japan, while it’s continually bombarded by enemy planes day and night, sending the survivors below bolting for cover while avoiding the flames that consume most of the cities. Amidst all this, are Seita, an adolescent who plans to be a soldier soon, and his little sister, Setsuko, who doesn’t look a day over four and frankly is the kindest and most endearing child I’ve ever seen in my life, animated or real-life. Real-life children, while cute and amusing, do tend to get on my nerves after a while, yet this never happened with Setsuko, which surprised me and made me fall for her all the more as the story unfurled. Their mother is killed during an air raid, and seeing as their father is absent in the war, they have no home and head to their aunt’s place. Yet when she becomes cold-blooded towards these ‘pests’ in her house, Seita and Setsuko set out to try and survive, fending for themselves in the most inhospitable and dangerous of lands imaginable, where it truly is each person for themselves, and damned be the others.

The animation style is pure Studio Ghibli, with all the customary animation tricks (children are short with large heads, eyes are large and soulful, etc.), and as usually they pull it off quite well, mixing the lines between lines on paper and reality. However, I wasn’t a big fan of the music in this film, which I felt to be at times odd and mismatched. It’s not a big complaint, but I just think it could’ve been a bit better had they stuck with a single composer as with other movies. Mozart and Haydn and such are fine and all, but I just don’t think mixing their songs together like in this movie is the best thing they could’ve done for it.

For creating a reaction that is diametrically opposed to most that we’ve seen so far in terms of sheer sadness and the lows of the human spirit, I award Grave of the Fireflies 8.0 fruit drops out of 10, along with a warning that if you head into this movie expecting to come out warm-hearted and happy, you’ll be sorely disappointed – twice.

Seita: J. Robert Spencer • Setsuko: Rhoda Chrosite • Aunt: Any Jones
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Isao Takahata • Writer(s): Isao Takahata. Based on the novel by Akiyuki Nosaka. • Original Score: (Mixture of various baroque and classical pieces)
General Information
Distributed by: Toho • Released: 1988 • Running Time: 88 mins

Continued ...»

Friday, February 27, 2009

Right-do-Die ring members due for court

This is an interesting story for anyone who believes in a person's right-to-die should they willingly choose. A ring of four members who offered services to people who wanted to die peacefully is due in court for the criminal charges they received after they'd helped a man in Georgia kill himself.

Members of an assisted suicide ring say they've done nothing wrong and seem eager for a court battle over criminal charges they helped a Georgia man kill himself, while their supporters are using the case as a rallying cry for more debate about end-of-life issues.

Four members of the Final Exit Network were arrested Wednesday on charges they violated Georgia's assisted suicide laws by helping 58-year-old John Celmer use helium and an exit bag - a plastic hood with tubing attached - to suffocate himself.


In Baltimore on Friday, Dr. Lawrence D. Egbert and Nicholas Alex Sheridan smiled and waved to supporters before asking a judge to release them on bond so they could travel to Georgia to face charges. The judge later agreed to release and their attorney said they were expected to travel to Georgia over the weekend.

What else can I say? Of course, I'm all for it, myself. A person should have a right to die just as much as they should have their inherent right to live. I'm not saying kill any depression-wracked miserable soul who comes knocking when they just need to throw away the beer bottle clutched in their hand; people with genuine reasons to cease living, when they're living in physical pain or incapacity, should be the judge to when they want their time to be up in this world. I don't count these four activists as 'heroes', but I certainly do commend their efforts and actions.

They're also being charged with 'tampering with evidence and violating anti-racketeering laws'. There're few details on this, but personally I wouldn't be surprised if this was plain fabrication to try and inculpate them out of the prosecutors' close-minded moral rights.

Anyway, best luck to them to escape jail time of course, and if anything this will hopefully spark a stronger debate that, just maybe, will result in people actually getting to choose when to end their lamentable existence on this planet.

Continued ...»

Another step against self-righteous doctors

The Obama administration is clearly showing it won't stand for those self-righteous and moronic doctors who refuse healthcare to patients for their or their patients' personal, moral or religious beliefs. Imagine a doctor refusing to hand the pill over to a young girl because the asshat doesn't believe in birth control? That's pretty much what this is about, and other related things. Well, such bastards were protected by a Bush law (who else?) on 'Conscience' that allowed them to perform such lowly acts without reprimand, and once again, President Obama is showing just how Bush's policies aren't exactly the brightest in the bulb box.

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will be published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

"We are proposing rescinding the Bush rule," said an official with the Health and Human Services Department, which drafted the rule change.

The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections to health-care workers who object not only to abortion but also to a wide range of health-care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.

And so, President Obama has once again successfully honored one of his electoral promises. Reportedly, next on the list will be the lifting of federal restrictions on federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells. Considering stem cell research could more than likely provide a miraculous cure to many of our worst diseases – such as most forms of cancer and Alzheimer's, to name a couple – I really don't see what moderately-sane person has to say against it. Unless it's one of those deluded fools who consider anything with human DNA to be a 'person' with legal rights, even if they're no more than an embryo that can't feel, think, or give a shit about what happens to it. But then, that's the nature of being a deluded fool, I suppose.

Continued ...»

Chinese couple sets themselves on fire

Here's something you don't read about too often: a Chinese couple, along with a third person who seemed to be trying to help the other two through their presumed torments, set themselves on fire in their car in Beijing earlier this week.

BEIJING—A man and a woman whose car caught fire near Tiananmen Square earlier this week had set themselves ablaze inside the vehicle, China's official news agency said Friday in a reversal of its previous report.

When the Xinhua News Agency originally reported on Wednesday's fire just east of the Beijing landmark it said three people in the car had set themselves on fire. But in a later report, the agency said a fire broke out inside the car after police stopped the vehicle and approached it—making no mention of the fire being self-inflicted.

It was not clear what Xinhua was basing its latest report on. Beijing police refused to comment over the telephone and did not immediately respond to a faxed request for details.

The couple and another man were in Beijing to seek help with "personal problems," Xinhua and Beijing police have said. The self-immolation may have been a desperate attempt to draw attention to their troubles.

Talk about desperate ... if you wanna make a statement, block a high-traffic bridge with a banner stating your goal(s), or launch a protest march, or something. Self-immolation may be all the craze these days, but seriously, I'm pretty sure there are better ways to get your point across. Not to mention you don't end up looking like Two-Face.

Anyway, the couple are miraculously alive and recovering (the man, 59, has serious burns and swelling, and the woman, 58, has burned fingers), and if anything, they certainly got the attention they apparently craved. No word on the mysterious third person who was in the car with them, though.

Continued ...»

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Today's equation: "Westboro + Plattsburgh = not again ..."

Thy Heathens are back once more: Westboro is returning to Plattsburgh, New York, for the first time since their last picket in the area in 2005 to picket then-mayor Dan Stewart, who was openly gay. Now they're back to picket the Laramiere Project, a play about poor Matthew Shepherd, the gay student who was murdered in 1998 by filthy homophobes.

PLATTSBURGH, N.Y. - Anti-gay protesters from Kansas are coming to Plattsburgh again.

The group are members of the Westboro Baptist church headed by Fred Phelps.

The Westboro Baptist group was in Plattsburgh in 2005 to picket then mayor Dan Stewart who is openly gay.

This time the picketers will be at Plattsburgh state.

Details are a little sketchy as you can see (not that much more needs to be known). The Plattsburgh police say they are ready for them, with specifically-chosen spots they can picket at that'll place them as far as possible from the other, sane folk attending the play. Phelps, the leader, plans to send six members to spend an hour and a half picketing their disgusting beliefs.

Continued ...»

This is what happens to "liberal" priests

A Catholic priest in the Brazilian congress has been 'temporarily suspended from his priestly duties' because he supports the distribution of condoms to try and prevent the spread of AIDS.

BRASILIA, Brazil -- A Catholic priest serving in the Brazilian congress has been temporarily suspended from his priestly duties for supporting the free distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

The Rev. Luiz Couto has been suspended from his work in the northeastern state of Paraiba.

Archdiocese spokesman Eisenhower de Albuquerque says the church took the action because of Couto's public stance "in favor of the use of condoms, his support of gay marriage and his opposition to priestly celibacy."

Couto spokesman Jose Moreira says the priest is not a gay-marriage advocate but is an opponent of discrimination "including discrimination against homosexuals."

... What else can I say? Not much to comment on, that's the whole article I posted above. I can say, though, that this Rev. Couto is probably the priest I'd be least likely to take a gripe with that I've heard of. Favoring the use of condoms, supports Gay Marriage (according to the Archdiocese spokesman, Eisenhower de Albuquerque), and is all for priests obtaining womanly company ... And he hasn't been fired yet? He's such a liberal! :P

Although, his spokesman quickly stated (as though defending him against this "accusation") that Couto was not a Gay Marriage advocate, but was simply against '[the] discrimination against homosexuals'. Why exactly is he saying that like it's a bad thing? I know the Church isn't exactly the biggest supporter of Gay Rights, but actually resenting the prevention of actual discrimination towards them, as those words imply? I thought the Church was merely close-minded and corrupt by both faith and power, but are they truly plainly homophobic?

... Not that I'd put it past them, though.

Continued ...»

NASA's chief climate scientist is causing trouble – and that's good!

Stuff like this only comes along every few months (and then some), so I'm jumping on it like a dog on food. Dr. James Hansen, Nasa's top climatology scientist, is trying to rally people into organizing what's being called the largest public protest on Global Warming in American history.

In a video on, Dr. James Hansen is seen urging Americans to "take a stand on global warming" during the March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Southeast Washington, D.C.

"We need to send a message to Congress and the president that we want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet," says Hansen, who has likened coal-fired power plants to "factories of death" and claims he was muzzled by the Bush administration when he warned of drastic climate changes.

"What has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet. The only practical way to solve the problem is to phase out the biggest source of carbon — and that's coal."

It's not exactly like anyone has the brains or authority to refute this one man – for Pete's sake, he's the leader of the climate division for one of the most high-ranking (and -reaching) governmental organizations on the planet. I don't think any John Doe with his High School Environment & Ecology diploma could make it to that job, if you get my meaning.

Anyway, naturally, all the governmental crybabies in the area are whining about him trying to convey the sense of urgency people should be feeling concerning Global Warming, saying that as a civil servant, he has no right to be inciting public action or protest.

"Oh my goodness," one of Hansen's former supervisors, Dr. John Theon, told when informed of the video. "I'm not surprised ... The fact that Jim Hansen has gone off the deep end here is sad because he's a good fellow."

Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist, rebuked Hansen last month in a letter to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, saying Hansen had violated NASA's official position on climate forecasting without sufficient evidence and embarrassed the agency by airing his claims before Congress in 1988.

"Why he has not been fired I do not understand," Theon said. "As a civil servant, you can't participate in calling for a public demonstration. You may be able to participate as a private citizen, but when you go on the Internet and call for people to break the law, that's a problem."

It may be against the rules (and even laws) for a man in Dr. Hansen's position to be acting as an activist in this matter, but frankly, I don't care much for rules and laws (even less than usually, I mean) if it's for a cause such as enlightening people to the dangerous times we're steamrolling right into with our unceasing pollution of this fragile planet.

I would so be there, if I weren't separated by them by a few hundred miles ... :( Damn you, geographical constraints! Suck the fun out of life, they do ... *grumbles* Meanwhile, I encourage anyone in the area to give all your possible support to Dr. Hansen and his cause, and pitch in to make this the largest public rally in history, and hopefully for some time to come. Only by rattling some heads can change be truly accomplished in this insane world.

Continued ...»

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Another Republican, another stupid thing said

You know, when I look back these last few weeks I've been blogging, Liberals seem to have an unfair (or perhaps very fair) advantage over Republicans when it comes to public relations: they don't stay incredibly stupid, mindless and ignorant things like Republicans seem to do so very often these days. I may be a hardcore Libbie myself, but if a Liberal said something stupid I'd blast his ass like any Republican or politician. The fact that nothing downright idiotic ever seems to come out of Libs' mouths seems like a sign to me ... perhaps that not all Republicans are idiots, but it seems more and more certain that conversely, most idiots seem to be Republicans. (But then, I can't understand what minimally-intelligent person wouldn't favor progress and advancement, which is the Liberal focus, over keeping things in their current and crappy states, which is the texbook definition of 'Conservative'/'Republican' ... But then, don't try to understand inferior mindsets, folks, you'll only hurt yourself.)

Okay, I've digressed enough as it is from this post's subject. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana commented on President Obama's recent speech concerning the Stimulus Package, and lamented that 'something called 'volcano monitoring'' was included in the bill.

'Something called 'volcano monitoring'' ... are you kidding me? This is the kind of intellect that's classified as a 'rising star' in the Republican party?

(CNN) -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's swipe at federal spending to monitor volcanoes has the mayor of one city in the shadow of Mount St. Helens fuming.

"Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. "We have one that's very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently."

Jindal singled out a $140 million appropriation for the U.S. Geological Survey as an example of questionable government spending during the GOP response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night.

The governor, a rising Republican star, questioned why "something called 'volcano monitoring' " was included in the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus bill Obama signed earlier this month.

"Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington," Jindal said.

What does this ignorant fool think, that the millions spent towards 'volcano monitoring' (which seems fairly straightforward in what that means to me ...) are just thrown into the craters and burned up while the rest is used for expensive wine or something? This moron has zero knowledge about geography, and I bet even most forms (if not all) of basic science.

The $140 million line-item for the USGS includes not only monitoring, but also replacement of aging equipment "and other critical deferred maintenance and improvement projects."

The spending could provide new jobs "no different than the amount of money you would spend on building a street or building a bridge or something," said Danny Boston, an economist at Georgia Tech university in Atlanta, Georgia.

Pollard, a former Army officer who has served as Vancouver's mayor for 14 years, said USGS equipment used to keep tabs on volcanoes is frequently damaged or destroyed. He said he wasn't sure how many jobs the money could produce, but, "For us and the people who live closer to it than Vancouver, it's important."

"We lost lives the last time, and we could lose them again," he said.

Just two of the more prominent volcanoes the USGS is keeping close tabs on, in American territories alone, are the famous Mt. Saint Helens, which had a devastating atypical eruption barely 20 years ago and keeps randomly fuming and trembling to this day, and a smaller peak called Mt. Redoubt, about 100 miles from Anchorage, Alaska. And that's apart the several other active volcanoes spread around the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and of course Hawaii (you know, the islands that are basically volcanoes in themselves ...). Cutting funding for researching and keeping tabs on these natural hazards is nothing short of manslaughter when one of them decides it's time for an 'explosive comeback' and – whoops! No funding for equipment to warn people and get them evacuated in time.

I understand this Gov. Jindal just wanted to say that he wanted funds to increase jobs in the civilian sector and not the government, but dude, volcano-watching funding is one thing you seriously need not scrimp on. Several million Americans are in direct line of fire from these fiery mountains, apart from the other international summits the USGS also monitors for activity, and if necessary, prevention of casualties.

Continued ...»

I'm in love with an UrbanDictionary entry

... Didn't think that sounded that queer in my head. Ah well. This isn't the sort of stuff I usually post, but seeing as it's a blog about anything I feel remotely inclined to mention or post about, I thought I'd paste here a definition of 'Evolution' I found while absent-mindedly floating around Urban Dictionary, just for the fun of seeing such a mixture of intellectuals and total oblivious idiots mixed in one site.

This entry, from 'Newms34', basically says everything there is to be said about both Evolution in itself (minus the technical mumbo-jumbo that refuses to penetrate my abnormally-thick skull no matter how hard I try), and patently and absolutely destroys 90% of the 'arguments' against Evolution used by Creationists and similar retards who don't want teh eevil scientistz to spread around their 'fairy tale for adults'. ('Fairy tale' ... coming from folks who believe in a being that cannot be seen, heard, felt, touched or measured in any imaginable way, and whose only 'proof of existence' comes from the pages of a thousands-year-old book that's been edited and translated so frequently it could've meant something entirely other than what we know back then ... that's rich.) It's a little long, but that is no deterrent in this case.

From, 'Evolution', entry #5 as of this date [I took the liberty of correcting the 2-3 little mistakes the post editor's Spell-Checker found)]:

Evolution, the combination of such processes as Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and others, is the subsequent collection of scientific processes that eventually change one organism into another. It is important to discount a few widely held myths here that Creationists often erroneously use to discount Evolution, bringing up half-baked ideas about how one or more "facts" disprove evolution, without bothering to actually know what they're talking about. However, a little care and attempt at education can easily clear up these mistakes: 1.) Evolution does NOT necessarily dictate that animals (or plants, or fungi, or whatever you fancy) must evolve into something more complex. If all animals over the size of cockroaches were wiped out tomorrow, that would be a form of evolution: the Cockroaches and smaller animals would be the surviving species, and "Survival of the Fittest" (a common saying used in evolution) would hold true.

2.) Evolution does NOT, I repeat NOT suggest that humans "magically appeared from crawling fish". Evolution takes time. HUGE amounts of time. We're talking about half a billion years here (~500,000,000)for the total evolution from the first protochordates into the modern Homo Sapiens. Not a couple days. Not even a couple centuries. This time span is so long that it's often hard to comprehend. The changes were gradual, as some random "mistakes" in our DNA made some animals better able to adapt, and others not as able to adapt. It is NOT like throwing sand in the air and having it come down as a sand castle. It is, however, like sprinkling little tiny bits of sand here and there - sometimes a grain at a time - and eventually building up to a sandcastle. And sometimes having bits of the sandcastle knocked down.

3.) Species that died out, such as Homo Neanderthalis (Neaderthal Man) are not counterexamples. In fact, it shows that two different species, with two different natural "sets of equipment", have different ways (and thus chances) of surviving or outlasting each other. We and Neanderthals DID stem from the same common ancestor. However, whereas Neanderthals had stocky, tough, but not to bright build, we went the lean and brainy root. That was fine for a little while, but soon we outcompeted them, and they died out.

4.) In regards to the comment above that some species were found in the wrong area: The earth moves. Ever see a volcano? An earthquake? Rocks don't always just sit there.

5.) Any educated biologist will not respond by saying "oh, you're right, evolution didn't happen."

Bill: But monkeys and fish look real different, so evolution must be wrong! Fish change into monkeys suddenly? LOL!

Jill: That's not really what Evolution says...

That's ... beautiful! *sobs in awe*

I can't ascertain that he's correct in all the details, such as in his second point '2.)', but he's definitely got the basics dead-on. :P

Continued ...»

Let's all go to China

Seriously, why not? Imagine the times we'll have: being checked so thoroughly upon entry they'll be able to count the hairs on our moles, coughing to death on the pollution (which, if I remember correctly, now outranks Mexico in terms of unbreathability), living in conditions not deemed to be called "squalor" with the rest of the populace, seeing families send their kids off to work for a little money ... and watching the government crack down on law-abiding law firms for daring to protect Human Rights.

Okay, so perhaps it won't be such a nice time after all. But you can't call it uninteresting, not when stories like this one emerge. The Yitong law firm, which is well-known for often taking high-profile cases defending dissident activists, is being ordered by the government to close down for six months, which would effectively kill the firm.

Beijing - One of China's most prominent human rights law firms is fighting a government closure order, as authorities here step up a crackdown on troublesome lawyers.

At a hearing next week the Yitong law firm, which has been at the center of several high-profile political cases, will appeal a ruling by a local Justice Department in Beijing suspending the practice for six months, according to managing partner Li Jinsong.

"That would kill the firm," says Mr. Li. "They are distorting facts ... to get revenge" for the way the firm's lawyers have criticized or defied government agencies, he charges.

The closure order, which activists here say is unlikely to be overturned at the hearing, is part of "a wider effort to stifle and intimidate lawyers who aspire to defend human rights and the public interest," says Albert Ho, chairman of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group in Hong Kong. "This is really a very serious matter."

The Yitong partnership is well known for having represented some of China's most famous dissidents, including Hu Jia, an AIDS activist who received the European Parliament's top human rights award last year and is now serving a three-year sentence for inciting subversion.

I could spend most of the next year ranting about China's abhorrent and blatantly dictatorial regime, but I'll restrain myself, namely because I only know the basics and not the details. (Basics = China sucks.) You gotta feel sorry for poor Hu Jia (mentioned above), though – in one country his Human Rights activism awards him one of the most prestigious awards on the planet, and in another he's thrown in jail for three years for the same activism. That's tragic, IMO. Anyone got Amnesty International's number ...?

It also doesn't help China's image that its leaders are cowardly and hypocritical two-faced filthy liars, either.

China has appeared truculent recently in the face of challenges to its human rights record. Beijing reacted to a critical report by the UN Committee Against Torture last November by angrily denying all the charges, and rejected almost all the recommendations that other countries made during a review of its record earlier this month by the UN Human Rights Council.

"Internationally, China denies there is any problem, and domestically it takes punitive action against those who point out the problems," says Ms. Hom. [That's Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China]

Well-(and politely-)put, Ms. Hom.

Continued ...»

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Celebrity Creationist desperate for some ass-whuppin'

At least that's what it seems the notoriously tool-ish Ray Comfort is, as he has been itching to debate the man who's arguably the greatest mind in the field of Evolution, Professor Richard Dawkins, and even offered him $10,000 to try and entice Prof. Dawkins in the deal. This is, of course, only a follow-up on his latest published work of atrocious scientific idiocy and lunatical Creationist drivel, 'You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think' (seriously, why do Creationist books always require such laboriously long titles?), which you should only read if you're either exceedingly bored, depressed (it'll make a dead corpse laugh) or in need of something to wipe your ass with. (Could catch a glance, I suppose.)

Well, Prof. Dawkins has upped the ante, requesting no less than $100,000 for the waste of time that would be debating a thick-headed Creationist like Comfort, along with a few smaller requests, such as that Comfort bring up his hilarious 'banana argument [1]', and that the whole event would be recorded by the RDF team, the group to whom said colossal funds would be headed to should Dawkins 'win' this 'debate'. (RDF = Richard Dawkins Foundation, a philanthropist organisation set up by Dawkins himself.) Comfort has even increased his proposal to $20,000, just a fifth of Dawkins' staggering demand. Seriously, if you're gonna try to debate and win over *the* expert in the field of Evolution, bring the cash he asks or wimp out. Dawkins has sold millions and millions of books, so I don't think even 20-grand would be much to entice him.

Below are quoted replies from Professor Dawkins following the offer.

Ray Comfort's original offer:

I'm trying to reach Prof. Dawkins for a response to a challenge from author Ray Comfort to Prof. Dawkins to a debate, with a $10,000 reward to Mr. Dawkins, win, lose or draw. Would I be able to reach you?
This is an excerpt from the report:

Comfort added, "I will donate $10,000 to him, or give it to any children's charity he names. All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20 minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then we both will have 10 minutes to respond.

"Sadly, I have found that even evolution's most staunch believers are afraid to debate, because they know that their case for atheism and evolution is less than extremely weak," Comfort said. "I would be delighted (and honored) if Mr. Dawkins has the courage to debate me, but I'm not holding my breath."

Professor Dawkins' first reply:

I'm not aware of having had any communication from Mr Comfort, whom I know only as the Banana Man (you won't believe what you see if you take a look at -- no it's not a Monty Python sketch, he really means it).

$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher). It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen for my website,, and distributed by Josh as a DVD, if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.

Richard Dawkins

His reply may seem a little sanctimonious or condescending, or plain irate, to some, but keep in mind he's one of the key targets of Comfort's anti-atheism book, in addition to all the annoyances Comfort and his idiotic creed has caused him for so long, so I think he's actually being quite courteous according to the circumstances.

The reporter's reply:

Sir, Thank you for your response. And please understand I'm only a reporter in the middle, but Mr. Comfort has suggested the possibility of raising the offer to $20,000. Your reaction?

Dawkins's second reply:

Thank you, yes, I appreciate that you are only a reporter in the middle.

$20,000 is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered. However, I am not in this for the money. My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation. Talking of humour, by the way, did you look at the great Banana video? It beats the Peanut Butter video for laughs, but only by a short head:

Richard Dawkins

Not much more left for me to say ...

Ray Comfort = deluded idiot.
Prof. Dawkins = wasting his time with this.
Me = got schoolwork to do. Dammit.

* * * * *
[1] In his latest travesty of a book (as well as for a while previously), Comfort used the peculiar argument that the size and shape of the banana somehow 'proved' the existence of an intelligent designer, as – get this – it fits perfectly into a human's hand. I really, really wish that was just an odd joke. But it's not. That's the actual type of argument this fool uses to try and prove Intelligent Design with ... sigh.

Continued ...»

More uselessness from the Republican side

The large majority of Republicans in office seem to be Bible-wielding religiots, and here's just another example of such inanity. Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of South Carolina, has refused to accept the slice of the Stimulus Funds signed into law by President Obama last week to aid the ailing economy and rampant unemployment. No, he's got a much better idea: instead of throwing money at the problem (and this is probably the only time that would actually be the good thing to do), he's throwing ... prayers.

Following the lead of a number of his fellow Republican governors, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) has given some indication that he will not accept some of the money slated for South Carolina in the $787 billion economic recovery bill President Obama signed into law last week. “At times it sounds like the Soviet grain quotas of Stalin’s time,” Sanford said yesterday on Fox News.

On C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Sanford received a call from a Charleston resident who said he lost his job because he has been taking care of mother and sister, both of whom have serious illnesses. The caller told Sanford he is “wrong” to decline the money. “A lot of people in South Carolina are hurting. And if this money can come and help us out we need it.” In response, Sanford could offer him only his prayers:

CALLER: I hope you all are not playing politics with this. People in South Carolina are hurting. You know how unemployment rates are high right now and going up higher. We are running out of money in the unemployment bank — we need money for that, the people that need help. And I’m one of them, I can’t get no help. […]

SANFORD: Well I’d say hello to Charleston because its home and I’d say hello to this fellow this morning and say that my prayers are going to be with him and his family because it sounds like he is in an awfully tough spot.

There's also a video (which I haven't watched due to being at a highly-moderated school at the moment).

Very helpful, isn't he? Your money's drying up? No problem, let's just pray for some. Oh, and for your job back. And etc.

Separation of Church and State should be extended to ensure government officials and politicians in office don't let their stupid religions shine through their jobs. I doubt your prayers will be of much comfort for this caller, specifically, when he's still trying to take care of his mother and sister without a job.

Actually, a little digging around has firmly convinced me this Mark Sanford, R-SC, is really a bit of a heck of an idiot. Just look at this devastating quote about Evolution (devastating to him and his credibility, need I point out):

Well I think that it's just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real "chinks" in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being... is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of ... in essence, destruction.

It seems this genius understands even less about Science than he does about politics, which is frankly fightening for both sides. I think my branding him a "religiot" is formally validated here.

Continued ...»

This is a very disgusting man

Who else could I be talking about but "reverend" Fred Phelps, the scumbag that erected the despicable Westboro Baptist Church? You all know about the catastrophic Australian bushfires a few weeks ago (or so) that wiped out a large chunk of Victoria, leveled several cities and towns, and killed over 200 people, right? Well naturally, the wretched bastards at Westboro couldn't the chance slide to owe this all to "those filthy Australian beasts".

And no, he wasn't even talking about wildlife.

WARNING – Slight content disclaimer for a matching intensity of both hate and utter loonery.

A Darth Sidious look-alike if I ever saw one ...

I couldn't even make it through it all (I gave up at about halfway); this sort of stuff is really not my cup of tea. I'll leave it to stronger minds (and hearts) than I to endure almost 4 minutes of this kook's bullshit.

Continued ...»

Saturday, February 21, 2009

I love this song

The 'Who Killed Mary?' music video, from Richard Marx's 'Hazard'.

This was one of those songs I grew up with way back in those bygone ages called the '90s'. I've just recently fallen in love with it again.

The song (and the video) tells the story of Marx's character, a man who's always been prejudiced against by the folks in the small town where they lived (Hazard, in Nebraska). Eventually a woman named Mary comes along, the first person to see him for who he is instead of the rumors and lies, and he falls in love with her. They like to go down by the river and walk, she'd love to watch sunsets, etc.

One night she disappears (the video confirms her death by strangling, though she just disappears indefinitely in the song) and Marx's character, still demonized by the townspeople, is blamed for her death, yet he maintains his innocence throughout ('I swear I left her by the river ... I swear I left her safe and sound'). The end is left open to interpretation. (See the 'Who Killed Mary?' section in Wikipedia's article about the song.)

Sad story, no? The kind I seem to lean towards the most, oddly enough ...

Continued ...»

Friday, February 20, 2009

A small step for Pro-Choice advocates in Spain

Spain is known for having very strict laws against Abortion, calling it a 'crime' in most cases. Currently, Abortions are only allowed in very early stages of pregnancies, and only under very specific criteria, such as if a doctor signs a certificate that either their physical or mental health is in danger should the pregnancy continue. There're also strict exceptions for rape and malformed fetuses. Anything else – like, if the woman just doesn't want a damn child – tough luck.

A parliamentary committee took the first step by recommending that the government legalize early-stage abortions, with gradual limitations and restrictions as time goes on for the pregnancy. Not much, but definitely a start.

MADRID — Spain is on course to ease its restrictive law on abortion, setting the stage for another clash between a Socialist government that has already introduced sweeping social changes and conservatives and Catholic clergy bent on preserving traditional family values.

A parliamentary committee took the first step this week, recommending that the government legalize early stage abortions, while gradually imposing more restrictions as pregnancies progress.

Abortion is technically a crime in Spain, though it is readily available under the current system, with women needing a doctor's certification that their health _ either physical or mental _ would be at risk if the pregnancy was allowed to proceed.

In theory, such pregnancies can be terminated at any stage. The current law, which dates from 1985, also allows abortion in the first 12 weeks in case of rape, and 22 weeks in case of fetal malformation.

It's interesting, though, that over 100,000 abortions were successfully carried out in Spain in 2008, despite it being so illegal. Methinks they seem to have some lack of enforcement issues (not that it's a bad thing in this case).

One quote I found particularly noteworthy ...

Others say the government is pushing the Roman Catholic country further away from its traditional values.

"Abortion is bad. It is bad for women and it is bad for society," said Sandra Moneo, the parliamentary spokeswoman for the opposition Popular Party. "A woman cannot have a right to something that is bad for her."

Typical delusional ignorant idiot. Exactly how is abortion bad for a woman? In any imaginable way? A botched abortion, perhaps, but hell, a botched mole removal could be just as bad. The operation itself is what counts, not any potential mishaps, and as far as procedures go, I don't recall abortion being remotely dangerous. (Not saying it's pleasant, though.)

Although, reading the article, I'm getting a good opinion for their Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. He seems to be one of those rare open-minded politicians with his policies, such as his work to legalize Gay Marriage, allowing fast-track divorces and increasing rights given to transsexuals. How many other political figureheads can claim to have done that?

This has, obviously, attracted the anger of the Church more than once, with massive rallies to protest his work to make the world, or Spain at least, a little better a place to live. But then, as far as I can tell, anyone who provokes the wrath of the Church is likely to be a great and good man with an open mind – precisely what the Church doesn't want, anyway, considering its track record.

Continued ...»

Well this is entertaining ... sorta

The Vatican has recently filed a formal complaint to the Israeli government after a private Israeli TV station broadcast a show that ridiculed Jesus and Mary. This really is one of those 'pick your poison' sort of stories, isn't it?

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican said Friday it has formally complained to the Israeli government about a private Israeli TV show that ridiculed Jesus and Mary in an "offensive act of intolerance."

In Israel, the television station assured the Israeli foreign ministry that the segment would not be shown again and that its host, well-known Israeli comedian Lior Shlein, had apologized.

Not that this story really interests me in a particular way; it's just rather deliciously ironic that one horribly intolerant and close-minded group with a ton of blood on its hands should complain against another horribly intolerant and close-minded group with a ton of blood on its hands ... Oooh, the irony ... (or hypocrisy ...)

Continued ...»

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Yup, I'm plagiarizing others now

I'm so bored by this sort of garbage that to try and force my mind to come up with clever catchphrases and generic insults to hurl at it is just overkill at this point, so instead I'll just post a link to its mention on Pharyngula. (<— Right there.)

[I] speculated that the Washington state ballot proposal was motivated by the recent noise over atheist displays in the state capitol, and I was wrong. An interview with the woman behind the proposal reveals several things: 1) she really is something of an incoherent dingleberry, and 2) the primary impetus for this idea was — don't be surprised — creationism. Here's what she says:

"I think probably at least that more creation science is overlooked as not belonging in the public school system because of the religion (aspect)," she said.

She was impressed by Tom Hoyle (he has a Ph.D. in Christian Apologetics!) of a Northwest creationist ministry, which sort of tells you all you need to know.

^ What he said.

Continued ...»

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Anyone see themselves in this?

I do hope I don't end up like this ... But – it's just my first blog! *scared eyes*

I've never used Twitter, and now I've got a reason not to. :S

Continued ...»

Update – changes completed!

After two long days of toiling about neck-deep in code and whatnot, I'm finally done overhauling the site. It's basically the same, but I've streamlined and personalized the design to make it a little more user-friendly and ... well, personal, ironically enough.

Modifications include:

• Slightly different color schemes, such as a lighter background and bluer fonts;
• Larger fonts, so those out there who aren't blessed with microscopes for eyes can read, too;
• A new Feeds widget, for anyone wishing to subscribe via RSS, ATOM or such feed types;
• Slightly modified Profile;
• A new Navigation Bar above the main area of the page with 4 features:

Home: Brings you back to the main page from anywhere on the site;
About Me & Respectful Defiance: A longer profile about yours truly, and some general info on this blog and its purpose;
Contact Me: All the info you need to reach me via eMail, and some regulatory warnings about misbehavior;
Mailbag: Where I post some of the best and most interesting eMails I receive with my replies (personal details omitted), and also where I post any particularly vile or threatening eMails (personal details included). (Removed, replaced with 'Atheism/Evolution Frequently Asked Questions' (A/E-FAQ).) • 'Five Latest Comments' widget, just for the sake of interactivity;
• Expandable posts for some of my longer entries, where very long posts of mine are hidden until you click 'Read More!' for the sake of fluidity (as well as bandwidth speed);
• Streaming Audio (coming soon): Instead of my old methods of creating a video for each song I wish to broadcast, I've finally learned how to write clickable links that start your default Media Player to playback songs and audio.
• Google Custom Search (coming soon), so this blog will be fully searchable. Faster than ferreting through archives at any rate.

ALL of the above has been taken directly from the wonderful-yet-painfully-slow-loading site from The Blog Doctor, 'Vin'. I'd send him/her chocolates and flowers if I didn't fear it was a guy. (Awkward questions.)

The site looks rather better now, so enjoy! ... my tired rants! ;)

Continued ...»

More Pro-Life bullshit from conservatives

Those pesky anti-abortionists never cease in their quest to annoy the hell out of me. It's as if they were in on a secret coalition against me or something. I digress.

Dan Ruby, a Republican from North Dakota, is sponsoring a bill that declares (get this) that any organism that contains the genome for Homo Sapiens (humans) is a person and has the same legal rights under North Dakota law as any other person, such as life, liberty, etc.

BISMARCK, N.D. — A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

"This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution _ the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This is utterly stupid. I suppose these morons haven't yet learned to open a dictionary now and then. Hell, with Wikipedia or, you don't even need to buy one; just a few clicks will tell you that a 'person' is any human that's CONSCIOUS and can FEEL and THINK. Tell me how 'any organism that's human' can be conscious, if it's only a few weeks past its genesis? A human embryo is not a 'person', never was and never will be.

But then, what else have we ever learned to expect from Republicans other than retarded mentalities and a general ignorance of basic scientific and biological facts? Makes me wonder how these clowns even get into office if all they do is throw poo around and try and piss as many people off as they can.

Abortion should be a basic human right, along with food, health and shelter. It's the woman's damned choice, and no amount of shitty legislation can EVER change that. Except for Republicans.

* * * * *

I've done a little digging up via Google on this Dan Ruby genius, and turns out other than being a Republican, which generally ensures we'll be enemies, he's also affiliated with the St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, as said on his profile. Nope, no reason to disagree with his moral base at all. Also says he has 10 kids ... does anything else scream 'RELIGIOUS' as ties to a chuch and a pile of kids?

Continued ...»

Modifying the blog's format

I'm currently busy formatting the layout of this blog to make it a little more personalized and user-friendly. I've already changed a few things, and several more alterations are to come as I read deeper and deeper into the absolutely fantastic reference website I found, The Blog Doctor. Sometimes, all you need to succeed is a good manual. ;)

I'll comment again to let y'all know when this phase is completed.

Continued ...»

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

More general meddling stupidity from Westboro ... in Britain

You've all heard of Westboro Baptist Church, out of Topeka in Kansas, right? You know, the lunatic inbreds (literally) who insist on picketing anything remotely pro-Gay or that they feel is contrary to their insanely twisted beliefs? You've probably seen by now a picture of them: retards holding "GOD HATES FAGS", "GOD HATES AMERICA", or "FAGS = ANAL SEX = DEATH" signs ... Ah, knew you'd remember them.

Well, now Westboro is planning to stage it's first-ever picketing overseas, in Britain, at a school play against homophobia called 'The Laramie Project'. One of the senior wretches at the group, Shirley Phelps-Roper, has even "explained" their actions with the Telegraph ... quite characteristically, too. Excerpts below.

2) Are you flying across to Britain, or is the picket being carried out by members in Britain? If you are flying over, how many protesters are you expecting and when are you arriving?

2. Considering that your nation has tried in many ways, including with draconian laws to shut up the Word of God from OFF your landscape, and to make it a crime to plainly say what the STANDARDS of GOD are, (e.g. THOU SHALT NOT lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination or THOU SHALT NOT commit adultery, etc.) that I will not be telling any details of our business to get where we need to be.

In that hour, if you or any other soul in the UK has a heart to know your God, and you understand that the end is near, you can yet put away your idols, your false gods and your FILTHY manner of life and you can serve the Lord your God in truth! THAT is your only hope.

... There's plenty more but this kind of garbage gives me a pounding headache each time I try to make sense of it at all. Perhaps it's not meant to make sense. Which only further confirms my increasingly certain suspicions that these clowns really are just a bunch of pointless, loudmouthed and airheaded attention-seekers.

I invite any Brits reading this to lay in wait for this morons, then pelt them with Gay Porn magazines ... or grenades, if you're feeling particularly vindictive. Insanity like this should be outlawed.

Continued ...»

Monday, February 16, 2009

Teen pregnancy story: "Alfie"'s fatherhood to be determined by paternity test

I previously commented on the 13-year-old British boy, "Alfie", who was reportedly the father of a baby, co-parenting with "Chantelle", who's 15. A quick update: Alfie's now to run a DNA test to confirm he truly is the father of the newborn child.

LONDON - A DNA test will be performed to determine whether a 13-year-old boy fathered a baby with his 15-year-old girlfriend, his spokesman said yesterday.

The test comes after a Sunday tabloid newspaper reported that other teenage boys have come forward claiming to be the father of the newborn baby girl.

Hang on – other teenage boys have come forward clamoring for the spot as this baby's father? Sheesh, how many kids has this girl slept with already?

Alfie Patten (left, 13yo), Chantelle Steadman (center, 15yo) and their as-of-yet unnamed newborn.

(Seriously, though ... how young does Alfie look? Crissakes, he looks like as much a little kid to Chantelle as their baby ...)

Continued ...»

These stories make my skin crawl ...

... and fill me with an urge to slam someone's head against a stone wall. Then grab a sledgehammer. More specifically, this demented fuckbag's head, the heinous abuser mentioned in this 7News video.

Note – Don't worry, the video below is the heavily edited and censored version that was shown for the 7News broadcast, and leaves out all the actual hitting and slamming of the poor cat. I wouldn't post a video that showed true animal cruelty on this site. I can't even watch those things. They make me wanna kill someone. (The abuser, specifically.)

I can only hope this bastard's been found in real life by now and some unspeakable atrocities have been committed unto him.

I do not take well to unprovoked animal abuse. At all.

Continued ...»

Schoolwork: Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design essay

Da-yam, another painfully slow day. Wish I could update my blog more often dammit ... not to mention school's a pain. :'(

At least I got something to do for now until that tease-of-a-bell rings at last. My next exam is an oral essay, the subject of which I chose to be the superiority of Evolution over Creationism and Intelligent Design. I've only written the plan, but seeing as readers probably aren't keen on deciphering my weird-ass codes and abbreviations and formats, I'll stretch it out into full sentences for y'all. (You're welcome.)

So here it is, translated from the original French and made into complete sentences.

Oral Production
'Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design'


One of most recognized and famous men in history is undoubtedly Charles Darwin, the Victorian-era scientist who authored the revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species, which basically is the bedrock and framework for all of modern biology.

First, let's examine just what is the Theory of Evolution, and what is Creation Myth and Intelligent Design.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution basically states that all species of animals (and plants) have common ancestors from which they've changed over time, or evolved. [1]

Creationism, and it's off-shoot Intelligent Design, are religious myths (not 'theories', as a theory requires a modicum of evidence – more on that later) that explain that the Earth, and by extension Life and the Universe, were created by God, or some other deity(s). The main form of Creationism, dubbed 'Young Earth Creationism', additionally dates this creation back roughly 10,000 years BC. [2][3]

Naturally, as it basically disproves and disclaims God's creation and, by extension, God himself (though not necessarily), Religious folk and believers and whatnot immediately decried the theory. This conflict exists to this day, and in fact only seems to be gaining more and more steam throughout both social and political circles around the world, although the most heat is by far found in America. It's a conflict that most of the general population hardly even seem to be aware of, and have little interest for, yet for those who are interested in it, it's a metaphorical flame-war between Evolutionists and Creationists, one side guided by Science and facts, the other by beliefs, faith and dogma.

The point of this oral essay is to try and elucidate why exactly Creationism fails in respect to Evolution, and although I only have 6 minutes to describe what is basically a thousands-year-old war (which only heated up following Darwin's book), the mountains of evidence in favor of Evolution compared to the absolute lack of evidence for Creationism seems to tip the scales firmly in one direction.

1st argument: Evidence for Evolution

Let's get one thing straight: there is no concrete and absolute 'proof' for anything, and Evolution is no exception. There is no way to categorically prove Evolution (nor Creationism), but the endless evidence for it, compared to the zero evidence for Creationism, seems to point in one direction alone. After all, if over 95% of scientists on Earth believe in Evolution over Creationism [4], then somehow, it must have some credibility to it, no?

Let's examine the principal evidence for Evolution. There are four main lines of evidence to be studied: fossils, homologies, the distribution of species across time and space, and evidence by example. [5]

• Firstly, the fossil record clearly shows that life itself is very old, far older than 10,000 years, and furthermore, has vastly changed and mutated – ie., evolved – over time. Extremely accurate and reliable dating methods (such as carbon-dating) have proven this time and time again.

• Secondly, the similarities, or homologies, between animal and floral species are astoundingly apparent to anyone who looks for them. All species of life on Earth are interrelated one way or another. The only explanation for this, other than they were all created by God to be similar in one way or another for some arbitrary reason, is that they all share similar roots: common ancestral species, like branches of a tree.

• Thirdly, the distribution of animal and floral species across time and space is undeniably clear and indicative of Evolutionary processes. Studying geology and ancient forms of life incontrovertibly demonstrates that life has existed for a very long time and that it has changed considerably over time and terrestrial geological eras. Also, the spread and distribution of species, along with their disparate similarities and relations, shows ancient stages of evolutionary and biological development.

• Fourthly, evidence by example is a final and absolute method of proving Evolution and Natural Selection red-handed. Scientists are able to reproduce evolutionary results in laboratories and study centers by artificially controlling stimuli and scenarios, which manipulates species of life (mostly bacterial or viral, as well as floral) into evolving in one way or another. A common and well-known example, is how they demonstrate bacteria evolving, through Natural Selection, to becoming stronger and more resistant to antibiotics, as the weaker strains die out but the stronger strains remain. With their rival strains eliminated, the stronger strains subsequently multiply and take over. Weaker has been eliminated and has been replaced by stronger. Natural Selection's textbook definition.

Compared to this intimidating amount of evidence, which borders on 'proof', how does evidence for Creationism stack up? The answer is simple: it doesn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever in support of Creationism, no matter where or how you look at it. If there is no proof or evidence, then it simply cannot be true, nor can it be a 'theory' in name. Hence, Creation Myth. [6]

In fact, most of the arguments in favor of Creationism against Evolution belong in the fallacy known as 'Irreductible Complexity', which basically states that if something is too complex to be understood, then it forcibly has to have been created. This is just plain dumb and ignorant. Just because something is not explained, does not make it unexplainable. We just haven't found the answer there. Working along the lines that there's always an answer and we just have to find it, just give Science and scientists time and it'll be found sooner or later. New discoveries happen every single day.

2nd argument: Creationism and Evolution as equals/alternatives

Creationism cannot be allowed to be taught in Science classes in schools as an 'alternative' to Evolution, simply because a) it's not an alternative to Evolution, and b) it's not scientific.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated and all but proven, with a near-universal support from the scientific community and that disposes of mountains of evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is not scientific. It's theological and religious. They can therefore never be taught as 'equals' or 'alternative', for they simply aren't. We might as well teach students that apples are 'equals' or 'alternatives' to pine cones. It would make just as much sense.

Creationism should certainly allowed to be taught in theology or religion classrooms. Just not scientific ones.

3rd argument: Social Darwinism

'Social Darwinism' is a faulty and odious extrapolation from Darwin's Natural Selection, which says that if it's the 'survival of the fittest' in the animal world and that the strong will win while the weak will perish, it should also be applied to human civilizations and societies: favor the strong, crush or kill the weak. This is entirely false, and to put it bluntly, absolutely stupid. Natural Selection and Evolution were never meant or intended to apply to human civilizations or societies. They specifically apply only to animal species and their battle for survival in Nature/ [7] 'Social Darwinism' is no more than yet another half-brained attempt by anti-Evolutionist advocates to try and discredit or tarnish the Theory of Evolution and Darwin himself, and is simply shameful.

Counter-Argument and its refutation: Abiogenesis

One of the most heavily-relied-upon and often-repeated 'arguments' used by Creationists and anti-Evolutionists to try and discredit Evolution, is that seeing as Evolution does not and cannot explain how or why life appeared on Earth, it cannot be a valid theory in its context. This is illogical and is the result of plain ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of Life on Earth, or Abiogenesis. If one would care to read the title of Darwin's book more carefully, it's called 'On the Origin of Species', not 'On the Origin of Life'. Evolution's purpose is to explain how and why species of animals and plants all share such similarities, fossil records, etc. [8] Saying it doesn't explain the origin of life in itself is equal to saying the mathematical equation '1+1' does not explain the result of '1x5'. They are simply not the same thing at all.


To conclude this essay, only Evolution can be allowed to reign, at least in scientific classes in schools, and not Creationism, which has been repeatedly discredited and disproven time and time again yet holds on like an obstinate parasite on society's beliefs. Evolution has long-ago been 'proven', or as close to proven as it can be, whereas there is simply no evidence at all for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Maybe some day, the law of knowledge and proof will overthrow the current law of false beliefs and illogical faith.

[1] Definition of 'Evolution' in Wikipedia:
[2] Definition of 'Creationism' in Wikipedia:
[3] Definition of 'Intelligent Design' in Wikipedia:
[4] Scientists supporting Evolution over Creationism/Intelligent Design:
[5] Evidence for Evolution (source: Berkeley University, California):
[6] Evidence (or lack thereof) for Creationism:
[7] 'Social Darwinism':
[8] Evolution on the origin of life on Earth (abiogenesis):

Phew, longer than I expected, coming from such a short plan ... Well, any comments, either to praise my learned-off-the-back-of-Wikipedia brilliance or to damn me to Hell for my anti-Creationism, would be welcome. :P

And now back to scanning the news scroller for anything remotely interesting ... Oy.

Continued ...»

Anyone heard of this?

Apparently, Albinos in Tanzania have a hell of a good reason to hightail it out of there: gangs of men regularly massacre albinos and hack off arms, legs, and even genitals (!) and run away with them, according to this New York Times article.

Last spring, he said, he began to hear about albinos in Tanzania being murdered for their body parts. More than 40 have been killed since 2007, sometimes right in front of their families, by gangs of men who hack off legs, heads or genitals and run away with them.

In the last two years, rumors have spread in East Africa that potions made with albino blood, shoes made of albino skin, tendrils of albino hair woven into fishing nets and amulets with albino body parts will make people rich.

Traditional healers have told an undercover BBC reporter posing as a businesswoman that they could get her an albino corpse for $2,000.

This is the kind of seriously deranged stuff that makes Africa such a shithole in terms of global opinion to begin with. Massacres, genocides, retarded cultures ... Jeez. People gotta stop asking why no-one wants to help them. Take a wild guess.

Not that the West was much better with 'witches' though ... Or Blacks ... or Gypsies ...

Really weird freaky stuff.

Continued ...»

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Imprisoned for ... being in the same room on Valentine's Day

Such was the case for 26 unmarried Muslim couples who made the terrible infraction of sharing same hotel rooms on this Day of Romance in Malaysia. Apparently, under Islamic law in that retarded country, it's unacceptable for two unmarried Muslims to be in the same room, "behind closed doors".

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Authorities in Malaysia arrested 26 unmarried Muslim couples in hotel rooms during Operation Valentine - aimed at curbing illegal premarital sex in this conservative country, an officer said Monday.

The couples, most under 30 years old, were detained for sharing rooms early Sunday in the beachside town of Kuantan in eastern Pahang state, said Badaruddin Ahmad Bustami, enforcement assistant director with the state's Islamic department.

State authorities carry out raids each year on Valentine's Day in this Muslim-majority country, where sharia laws make it illegal for unmarried Muslims to meet behind closed doors, Badaruddin said. Doing so constitutes a crime known as "khalwat," or "close proximity," which carries a maximum fine of 1,000 ringgit (US$280) and up to six months in prison.

The sharia laws apply only to Malaysia's Muslims, not to Christian and Hindu citizens who together make up about 40 percent of the population.

Honestly, I'm all for respecting different ideas and cultures and stuff, but this sort of stuff isn't about values, it's about friggin' civil rights and who gets to be with who on which terms, which I certainly think the government should keep it's nose out of. I may not be aware of all the sociopolitical stuff going on in Malaysia or Islamic countries in general, but I think it's fair to assume this sort of behavior and treatment of people is just plain retarded. Some old values may have their worth or uses, but eventually a tree has to be pruned of the branches that drag it down – this 'sharia' thing seems to be one of those lame branches that we could do without.

Continued ...»

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Film Review: 'Rain Man' – 8.0/10

Film Review: Drama (1988)
'Rain Man'
Written by Joé McKen on Saturday, February 14, 2009

Raymond Babbit (Dustin Hoffman) really, really doesn’t like flying in United Artists’ 1988 achievement Rain Man.

Charlie Babbit never knew he had a brother. That’s probably a result of his long-since estrangement with his father, Sanford Babbit (though I wouldn’t blame him if my own father left me to rot in a jail for two days just for taking the car out for a spin; I digress). Another result of it, which is far more grievous to him, is his father giving the sum of his 3-million-dollar estate to Raymond, while Charlie gets a classic convertible … and some prize-winning rosebushes. Gee, flowers? Thanks Dad!

Charlie’s plan to remedy this? He plans to ‘kidnap’ his brother from the mental institution where he resides in Cincinnati, Ohio, and bring him back with him to Los Angeles where he’ll spark a custody battle to try and, somehow, get half of the 3 million dollars, which he feels (and rightfully so, might I add) is his rightful share. (Two sons, half and half, no?)

Oh – but why is Raymond in a mental institution? Turns out he’s an Autistic Savant (previously referred to as an ‘Idiot Savant’): he’s got severe social and emotional handicaps, effectively trapping him in his own world and making any normal relation with the outside world simply impossible, but he’s got mental acuities and abilities that seem to more than make up for it. He’s blessed with ‘total recall’ – basically, his memory is simply perfect. Any detail he’s ever read, watched or heard, he can recall in less than a second, from counting hundreds of fallen toothpicks in seconds to reciting every airline disaster from memory in eerie detail. (Understandably, he hates flying.) He also has abnormally high mathematical abilities, where you ask him any number with any equation applied to it and he gives you the exact answer instantly. (According to him, he just ‘sees’ the answer.)

But enough about Raymond already. It’s like San in Princess Mononoke (1997) – he’s the title character, but not actually the protagonist. The one we follow in this story is Charlie, his younger brother (you know, the one who doesn’t have Autism). His business is sinking fast and he desperately needs the money (half his father’s estate), and so when Raymond refuses to board a plane to L.A., Charlie’s forced to drive the long road back to L.A. with Raymond, obligated to follow Raymond’s extremely strict routine (lights out at 11, watching specific shows at their airtimes, arranging furniture as he’s used to them, etc.) and try not to lose his temper with his brother’s seemingly unbearable behavior and mannerisms.

The point of the story is witnessing the transformation in Charlie from stressed and selfish ‘yuppie’ to a much calmer and more understanding and compassionate brother for Raymond, who really does want to be understood even though he’s incapable of showing it in ‘traditional’ ways. Other than being a story about fictional characters on a cross-country drive that brings them closer together, one could easily glean a message from this film about tolerance, respect and understanding.

You can't help but eventually find yourself liking Raymond as Charlie does when he realizes he can't change Raymond, and that Raymond isn't intentionally trying to upset or frustrate him. He's simply unable to change – but you get to ignore that. Or rather, you don't ignore it, but you go along with it, accept it for what it is, and in that process, you even begin to love Raymond as a friend or a brother would. This can only be due to Hoffman's exceptional performance as the Autistic man, same as Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump or Sean Penn as Sam, and etc. Good acting is the central pillar on which anything that can be called a 'movie' relies; without it, there's nothing to hold the building up and it ends up a discredited mess. Rain Man knows this, and so do the actors. Hoffman is fantastic and believable, and Tom Cruise, as the transformed brother Charlie Babbit, is also fairly decent.

I’m usually not too keen on older movies, preferring modern visual clarity and believable special effects (among other things), but this movie was a good sacrifice to that rule of thumb of mine. One small gripe I may have though, is how Raymond’s Autism is portrayed: far too stereotypical for my taste. You could genetically build someone with specifically Autism in mind and not have all the specific symptoms Raymond shows (such as him instantly and unthinkingly following ‘Don’t Walk’ signs while in the middle of a street crossing, or screaming and banging his head when under pressure or frightened, or etc). He almost comes across as a cartoon at times, but this far from ruins the movie – if anything, it may even help commoners gain a slightly better understanding of Autism, and its victims.

I don’t have very much to say about Rain Man, considering I watched it last night (writing this at 5 PM), as one can tell from most of my review being a description of the plot, but that’s not to be taken as a bad sign; it just didn’t raise any real questions or sentiments in me. But I am certain many more will fall in love with it; it’s that kind of movie that touches people’s hearts. I suppose I’m just too analytical about it. Crud.

For giving us an image into what it’s like to be handicapped yet still sweet and likeable, and what it’s like to deal with such people and accept them, I give Rain Man 8.0 fallen toothpicks out of 10.

Charlie Babbit: Tom Cruise • Raymond Babbit: Dustin Hoffman • Susanna: Valeria Golino • Dr. Bruner: Gerald R. Molen
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Barry Levinson • Writer(s): Barry Morrow, Ronald Bass. Story by Barry Morrow. • Original Score: Hans Zimmer
General Information
Distributed by: United Artists • Released: December 16, 1988 (US) • Running Time: 133 mins • Budget: US$25 million • Rated: R

Continued ...»

Great, more Global Warming bad news

Recently I mentioned how oceanic water levels were rising faster and higher than previously predicted (over 20 feet). Now, a recent report concludes that atmospheric gases that cause Global Warming in the first place are climbing faster than expected. Great news, I'm sure.

Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I suppose the increasing number of polluting humans on the planet may be a contributing factor here, but hey, I'm no scientist ...

Face it, Biofuels are a bad joke. They cause more damage than they alleviate by burning down the very forests that are actually cleaning the air in order to plant the fields from which crops will be harvested to make those very Biofuels. It's a wretched circle. As Holly Gibbs of Stanford University said, 'In some cases simply allowing the degraded land to return to forest might be the best answer'.

Electric, hydrogen-powered and hybrid cars aren't much of a help either – not as long as the electricity used to make those cars come from coal-burning power plants, which as expected keep getting larger and more numerous as populations (in particular American populations) grow and expand.

The 'Go Green' fad is just that – a fad. It's ineffective and isn't doing much of anything. For every few good people who recycle, compost and use hybrid cars, a new ceramics company opens somewhere in Mexico that outdoes them all in a single hour's time. This is futile until the entire friggin' planet puts its foot down – and Lord knows how likely that is to happening before we're all choking to death on our own car fumes. (Or being whisked away into Space in large spaceships while an army of little robots are left behind to clean up after us ... but whatever.)

Continued ...»

Men have feelings too, ladies!

It's true: a doctor said it!

Question: What are the biggest mistakes women make in understanding what men need to feel loved?

Answer: I think the thing women don't understand about men is that no matter how unemotional-seeming a man is, he actually is very emotional. Men are trained not to act emotional, and they're not even trained how to express themselves emotionally. But even the most unexpressive man actually has a lot of feelings and he needs support and tenderness. And, in fact, even though women don't want this to be true, it is the case that men who are married take a lot of pleasure and get a lot of self-esteem from whether they're wanted sexually by their wives, and also, from whether they are able to give their wives and receive a lot of really good sexual pleasure.

What? Men are emotional? Damn her, she's ruining our macho insensitive cover! I call upon you, the Global Alliance of Macho Insensitive Bastard Men, to get her!

Continued ...»

Friday, February 13, 2009

Bit young to be a father, no?

Phew! Slow day today. Nothing but boring news (except for that Buffalo plane crash – may they rest in peace, poor souls), and meanwhile I've been working like crazy on my songs (writing a second Rhapsody, which I think should be better than the first, 'Adrian Rhapsody', by a fair bit) to try and get part of it ready to show to my music class teacher so I don't get drowned in damned theory again. (I KNOW MY SOLFEGE DANGIT!)

Anyway, there's at least one bit of vaguely-interesting news displayed on my Google Sidebar News gadget. According to the British reliable-as-trash tabloid The Sun (though reposted on Newsweek so it may not be 100% bullshit), Britain's fatherhood demographic now has its age limits widened a bit. To 13 years old.

The boy, 'Alfie', was reportedly only 12 when he had his first sexual relation, with a girl named 'Chantelle' (then 14). She had been on the pill regularly, but as luck (or a staggering lack of it) would have it, she had apparently missed the pill for that month, coinciding perfectly with their first sexual act.

Well, she became pregnant, and has recently birthed a healthy baby.

(LONDON) He's 13. He scarcely looks 10. And according to a British tabloid, he's a father. Baby-faced and only 4 feet tall, the boy, Alfie, was just 12 when he impregnated Chantelle, now 15, The Sun reported Friday. Shown in a video posted Friday on the tabloid's Web site, the diminutive Alfie takes the newborn girl in his arms.

Asked what he would do to support the child financially, Alfie asks in a small, high-pitched voice, "What's financially?"

The girl was taking birth control pills but missed one, the newspaper reported. Friends and relatives left the family home near Eastbourne, about 70 miles southeast of London, Friday without speaking to reporters gathered outside. The teenagers could not immediately be contacted.

'The teenagers could not immediately be contacted' ... Probably because they're being beaten by their parents or something. Hell, if I had a 13yo boy and came to me with a little bundle of not-so-much-joy and said it was his, my head would explode (right after my voice). I'm all for greater youth freedom and liberties, but this is taking it a little too far in my opinion.

Anyway ... The child (erm ... the baby, not the father) is healthy, and the article says the father, 'Alfie' (THIRTEEN!) and the mother, 'Chantelle' (FIFTEEN!) have decided to keep the baby and will try and raise it as best as they can.

Now 'Alfie''s father plans to give him the 'birds and bees' talk. (Which I have no idea what it is – my mother explained it all to me perfectly naturally and normally, and I don't recall being traumatized (or even interested afterwards), so why do people keep giving the 'stork' story ...? Nevermind.) Um ... a little too late, no?

It's said this has sparked a debate on teenage pregnancies in Britain. Great. As if we didn't have enough pseudo-moral-debates flying around, arousing people to spew their stupid and misinformed opinions about anything and nothing at all ... urgh.


Continued ...»

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Antivaccionists shut up by a court + U2 on David Letterman!

A double-update here, because I didn't feel like creating two separate updates. You can call me lazy-ass later. :)

Unos – "Vaccinations-cause-Autism" quacks have been silenced by a court's decision.

One thing I detest as much as Religious fundamentalism or insanity, if not even more, is medical quackery. Specifically, antivaccinationists. These are the kooks, quacks and related morons who go about telling people not to use vaccines on themselves, or their children, because they cause – among other things – Autism. Yes, they fear those great bossy pharmaceuticals are giving the people Autism in syringes.

This story has a long history behind it, and for some general info on what this stupid trend is about along with some good debunking by a credible (and accredited) medical professional, check out some of the entries on Respectful Insolence, the long-running and popular blog by MD 'Orac'. He takes great delight in tearing these stupid claims down point-by-point with *actual evidence and medicine/science*, not lunatics claims.

These quacks make me angry because not only are they stupid and ignorant public faces (already usually enough to attract my ire), but these twits spread their delusions and disinformation to the people, far too many of which then follow along and renounce vaccinations for themselves and their kids. I don't give a damn if 'mature' adults refuse vaccinations. They can refuse oxygen and food for all I care. But the great crime, for me, is when they deprive their children, innocents who live at their parents' mercy, of these crucial and life-saving vaccinations. Many, many people have died since this trend began sometime in the late '90s if I remember correctly. The news has the odd article here and there, which you can find with a minimum of searching.

These ignorant morons don't just annoy me because they're stupid. They annoy me because THEY KILL PEOPLE. Literally. Causing someone's death, whether by stabbing them, or by denying them the knowledge to know how to take care of themselves, are equal offenses in my moral book. Normally I'd go on about how 'if they're that stupid then they deserve to die', but jeez, even I'm not that cold when it comes to innocent kids who never had a fucking chance. This isn't just about 'Autism-causing vaccines', either. The whole denialism/antivaccionist saga has me withering. (Don't even get me started on that Christine Maggiore bitch, the sadly-famous HIV denialist who killed her infant daughter by preventing her from receiving critical treatment to combat HIV and AIDS.)

I seem to be sliding into digression again in my rants. Back on topic. Well, once again, a court has ruled against some of these patently stupid lawsuits, declaring that there is no evidence at all that Measles vaccines and co. are any cause to Autism (or any neurological disorder for that case).

A special court has ruled against parents with autistic children, saying that vaccines are not to blame for their children's neurological disorder.

The judges in the cases said the evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the parent's claims — and backed years of science that found no risk.

Yet another nail in these morons' coffin. Can't they just lay down and wait a few minutes while we put all the nails in, then padlock the coffin, encase it in cement and throw it into the Marianas Trench?

And now, finally, onto some good news: U2! DAVID LETTERMAN! ALL WEEK! YAY!!!

... Does that need further explaining? Alright, I suppose. To promote their upcoming album, 'No Line on the Horizon' (due on shelves, and in my CD Player, on March 03, 2009, for North American markets), the world's biggest Rock band (hey, a commercial said it, not me) will be appearing on David Letterman's 'Late Show' from March 02 to the sixth. A whole week with my favorite band on the planet ... *hyperventilates*

This almost puts me in a fine mood after that antivaccionist bullshit! :P

Continued ...»