Respectful Defiance

An end and a beginning – an intro and an outro

2009-07-25T17:03:00.000-04:00

This is officially the end of Respectful Defiance. Well, not exactly – the blog's not going anywhere; I'm keeping it online and available as an archive for anyone wishing to peruse it, but I shall no longer be posting here.

I will be keeping comments open however, and will respond to any received.

I became irked with the title itself for multiple reasons, plus the blog's template has become so hopelessly mangled (by me) that I cannot in good conscience keep using it as it is. And so, I am pleased to introduce you to my new haunt:

Preliator pro Causa

I hope to see you all migrate there as I have. It's really quite nicer, methinks. =)

Friday Canine: Yellow warning signs

2009-07-24T12:00:00.007-04:00

(via Centered Living)

Closin' up shop – soon (hopefully)

2009-07-23T22:49:00.000-04:00

I've been debating this for a little while, and I've finally decided that Respectful Defiance is coming at an end. Well, not exactly – I won't close the blog, it will remain open for any and all to read at their leisure, and I'll also allow you to comment if you wish – but meanwhile I'll be setting roots somewhere else.

I've had a nice run here at RD, but ultimately I've done all the customizing as a noob and now the template is so mercilessly mangled I can't do anything more with it without succumbing to crippling errors. And so, I'm just gonna spawn a new Blogger blog.

Keep an eye out for a brand-new blog with a fancy Latin name soon. ;)

No, Vox, what's absurd is how you continually miss the point as though you can't comprehand basic implications

2009-07-23T12:17:00.000-04:00

Perusing Vox Popoli (hell of a misnamed blog if ever there was one) I came across this latest entry where – surprise! – Vox completely misses the point:

On the other hand, climate change that isn't happening is as dangerous as terrorists who aren't attacking:

Massive crop devastation, melting glaciers, water shortages, millions of displaced people -- all of these will drag the US military into conflict if global climate change goes unchecked, a Senate panel was warned today.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, convened by Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, focused on what so far has received only modest attention in the climate change debate: the effect it is bound to have on national defense.

"Addressing the consequences of changes in the Earth's climate is not simply about saving polar bears or preserving the beauty of mountain glaciers," retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn, president of the American Security Project, told the panel. "Climate change is a threat to our national security."

And frankly, even if AGW/CC was occurring, I don't know if the U.S. military would be up to the challenge of defending the American people from rampaging super-evolved aquatic polar bears anyhow.

Um ... ever heard of "civil unrest", you wanker? And what part of "millions of displaced people" doesn't immediately make you think "massive military involvement to try and uphold stability"? Seriously?

Vox Day: proving day after day, with increasing obviousness, that even a supposed genius can be a total dumbass.

Daily Dose o' Comfort: Man comes from the soil – the proof is we share six common constituents!

2009-07-23T10:55:00.001-04:00

It's becoming increasingly hard to read Ray Comfort's daily posts without bursting out in pure derisory laughter. Seriously. The complete absence of any critical thinking or even remote signs of intelligence have me continually baffled – though mostly just amused.

Now, Comfort examines the Biblical claim that humans were created from the Earth and its soil (always fun, Biblical literalism is). And what's his "proof" that mankind was indeed molded from the dirt? That we share six common elements.

Just wait 'til you read it – it's even more mind-boggling.

Right from the very first paragraph he says something completely stupid and contradictory, and this time I honestly did let slip an amused guffaw just reading it:

It was eminent scientist, Stephen Hawking, who said, "There have been various ideas, but for me the most attractive is that the universe was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing." So it’s not too difficult to take that a step further and believe that it was God who spontaneously created the heavens and the earth.

Uh – what the hell? No, Hawking specifically said "out of absolutely nothing"! What part of "from absolutely nothing" translates into "Goddidit"!?

And now, onto Comfort's unique brand of reasoning that allows him to demonstrate how humans come directly from the soil:

But the Book of Genesis goes on to tell us that God then made man from the soil of the earth. Such a thought seems a scientific impossibility. However, according to Yale university, the elements that make up the soil are:

1. Potassium, 2. Calcium, 3. Magnesium, 4. Phosphorous, 5. Iron, and 6. Manganese .

If God made the human body from the soil, it make sense that both the soil and the body would be made up of the same elements. Let’s then see if these six elements that are present in the soil are also in the human body:

1. Potassium: "Potassium plays an important role in smooth muscular and cellular functioning, cardiovascular functioning, muscle contractions, nerve transmission, in conversion of glucose into glycogen and muscle building etc."

2. Calcium: "Calcium comes in many forms, and is a whitish substance which is a primary ingredient in things such as chalk, ivory, pearls, and bones. It is known as the fifth most common element in the earth’s crust and is a primary mineral in the human body."

3. Magnesium: "Magnesium is essential to the functioning of the human body because it transmits nerve impulses, causes the contraction of muscles and is integral to healthy development of teeth and bones."

4. Phosphorous: "Phosphorus is present in bones and teeth and combines with calcium to form calcium phosphate which is the substance which gives the skeleton rigidity. It is also present in every cell in the human body and in the body fluids as well."

5. Iron: "Iron is a mineral found in every cell of the body. Iron is considered an essential mineral because it is needed to make part of blood cells."

6. Manganese: "Manganese is an essential element to the human body..."

Is it then a coincidence that the same six elements that are in the soil are also in the human body? That’s what you have to figure out before death takes you into eternity . . . when your body decomposes and turns back to the soil, from which it came.

Nearly impossible to read that with a straight face, isn't it?

Sure, those basic six elements are found both in soil and in the human body. But, um – they're also found in animals. And bugs. And trees. And mountains, plains, rivers and oceans. I'll even bet some distant planets have 'em (though I'm not certain, lacking in astrophysicist degrees as I am). That's because they are incredibly basic elements of nature, elements that constitute most of the known world around us. The fact that we also include them is proof of absolutely nothing, other than that we come from this world and not some strange alternate dimension where potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, iron and manganese don't exist naturally.

But that's not the stupidest aspect of his claims. The problem with Comfort's assertions that us containing these six basic elements constitutes proof we come directly from the soil, is that we – and other lifeforms in general – also hold many, many other elements within our bodies. A few seconds of basic biological research will show this. And those are elements not found in the soil, nor found via combinations of earthen constituents. They are unique to biological tissue and life.

Saying that humans and soil having the same six elements is proof of our Creation is tantamount to claiming the Earth comes from the Sun because they also share common chemical and physical elements. It doesn't necessarily prove anything, though, does it now?

(I'm also tempted to point out how humans do not return to the soil per se as he claims, instead undergoing very complex processes of decomposition and basically becoming mulch, but that's time wasted, really.)

"Just 'cause Science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale"

2009-07-22T22:41:00.000-04:00

He's got a tough accent to decipher (for me anyway), he's bald, and he's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time: Dara O'Briain speaks his mind about homeopathy and "horseshit peddlers".

I want his sack. And a crate of firecrackers.

(via Pharyngula)

Hey, I like Little House on the Prairie, too, but this is a bit overzealous ...

2009-07-22T22:29:00.000-04:00

Minnesota is in a bit of trouble. Take a look at what kind of nutjob is running for governor:

John Charles Wilson announced on Tuesday that he would run for mayor of Minneapolis with the support of his newly founded political party, the Edgertonite National Party. Wilson says part of the reason he is running is to “unseat local officials who condoned police brutality at the [Republican National Convention].” He calls Minneapolis’ current mayor “Raymond Thomas ‘Tear Gas’ Rybak.”

Wilson’s Edgertonite National Party is based on the Lauraist religion, a movement he created that believes Laura Ingalls Wilder is God and that the Lauraist homeland will occupy an area within a 240-mile radius of Minneapolis.

“A new nation, to be called Edgerton, with its capital at Minneapolis, should be created on the land from approximately Hibbing to Des Moines, and from Fargo to Madison,” says Wilson’s campaign Web site.

Communism is the mode of government of said nation, with an abolition of all laws except those necessary for public safety.

Wilson has written two books, “The Principles of Lauraism” and “The Conscience of a Communist.”

...

Wilson says he was institutionalized in the early 1980s because of his political and religious beliefs.

No. Shit.

(via Pharyngula)

Lying for Jesus, with fraudery!

2009-07-22T22:03:00.001-04:00

Remember that ridiculous "Proclamation of Morality" from godbot Oklahoma rep. Sally Kern? You know, the one that basically pinned the blame for all the evils in America on abortion, porn, homosexuals and a lack of Bible-thumpers? Well, it's gaining momentum as it's collected a few signatures from government officials – or at least, it would be, if it weren't a complete fraud:

Now, a new controversy has taken center stage involving The Baptist Messenger, a weekly paper with about 68,000 subscribers put out by the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. The publication reprinted the proclamation in its July 16 edition, complete with state seal and a signature by Governor Brad Henry and Secretary of State Susan Savage.

"It is not anything that the state is sponsoring, so to see it on such an official document that we filed is really surprising," Savage said.

Savage's office has to verify the governor's signature on all proclamations and affix the seal. Savage believes the paper took another proclamation signed on July 2 and merged the bottom half with the Kern proclamation.

"I think it's unfortunate especially when it's something that's potentially controversial to have there be any misrepresentation of the state's official position on it," Savage said.

So Bible-thumpers are trying to pass a dubious Christofascist proclamation for (their screwed-up version of) morality via fraudery and forging government officials' names onto the paper? Yeah, I'm shocked too.

Now that the story's been blown wide open the godbots are, of course, backpedaling furiously, claiming that it was just a mistake:

The paper issued a statement saying, "the artwork used was from previous editions of the paper and was used without the consent of the governor and secretary of state."

That's just stupid. So they admit that, on some previous version of the article, they'd purposefully and deliberately Photoshopped the officials' names onto the paper whilst fully knowing they didn't have their consent. Which means ... nothing at all. Other than they flat out lied. Again, how surprising.

Below is a picture of the actual publication itself, courtesy of Bruce Prescott from Mainstream Baptist via Ed Brayton:

Those names do indeed look so accidental, don't they?

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

New Song: 'Death of Innocence'

2009-07-22T21:02:00.000-04:00

Death of Innocence
By Joé McKen

'Death of Innocence'
Composed by Joé McKen

I've been reading some fiction stories around the web (really random stuff), and I came across one in particular that dealt with a rather poignant tragedy of sorts. Basically put, it dealt with a paramedic's attempts to comfort a rape victim. Sounds kinda gloomy, but let it be said it's a very touching story – plus it's written so damn well it really came alive in my imagination.

The story in question: [Warning – very NotSafeForWork, the website is][http://europe1.yiffstar.com/?pid=87609] (the scene where the paramedic tries to convince the traumatized victim to board the ambulance with him).

And so, it gave me inspiration for a song, just for the fun of it, and this is what I came up with. This is the sort of theme I'd hear in the background if the scene in question (the very first scene in the story linked above) were on film.

(PS – No comments with furry-hating, 'kay? Let's try and be mature for more than five seconds here. It's just a style, no better or worse than Trekkies or ... any other fandoms. Also, I'm not a furry myself; I just enjoy the art (graphic and written). If you don't like it, sue me.)

Don't forget to view in High Quality!

Written & recorded with Sibelius 6.
I got the picture off DeviantArt. No copyright infringement intended.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

New Song: 'The Finale'

2009-07-22T14:31:00.000-04:00

The Finale
By Joé McKen

'The Finale'
Composed by Joé McKen

Don't forget to view in High Quality!

I've been watching a few Sci-Fi films lately (I'm the type that binges) and so I had inspiration for a sort of "finale" song, as would play over the ending of an ethereal, mystical climax or such. Kinda hard to explain.

Written & recorded with Sibelius 6.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

Why be so upset over this?

2009-07-22T11:08:00.002-04:00

One of the poisons in society that pisses me off like few others is the oppression that is censorship. You know, someone ordering you (or forcing you) to shut up just because they don't like what you're saying, despite it being your inalienable right to say whatever the fuck you wanna say (as long as it's not overly dangerous or libelous of course – gotta stay legal).

But this story that's been running along the blogosphere has got me a little perplexed. Basically put, it's a rather popular and risqué blog (not pornographic or overly brutal, just a little bit of strong language and taunting imagery), Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, over which Blogger inserted an "objectionable content" disclaimer for anyone trying to access it. This obviously had the expected result of greatly reducing her flow of visitors.

As a result, she's now closing up shop completely, pissed at the thoughtcrime and perceived censorship. And this is what I find to be ... well, silly, really.

Some readers complained to Google, and the “objectionable content” splash page was inserted, no doubt by the click of some rather low-level Google employee—tyranny of the constable is often much more oppressive than the King's tyranny.

The blog, which had remarkably high page rankings on a number of topics, is disappearing from the search engines by the minute--when an entry is not totally scrubbed it is replaced with an Objectionable Content Warning. Besides, I am not going to maintain a blog which is publicly identified and indexed as objectionable.

I may be called an insensitive clod for this (wow, that'd be a first), but really, this is Becky's problem, not Blogger's or society's (meaning that censorship is a societal issue, not an individual one). There is no censorship taking place. She is not being told to shut up, her content is not being deleted (that I know of), and she is not being forced off the Web. All that's going on is that Blogger's placed a warning before entering her site, informing visitors that the blog contains topics that could be offensive to some. It's not exactly screaming "This is vile stuff, avert yer eyes NOW!".

This seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. I know it's not the most pleasant thing to have one's readership suddenly cut short, but frankly, she brought it upon herself by hosting a blog that along fair conventions can be called risqué, or even offensive to some. If you want a shitload of people to find you and read you, don't post stuff that's liable to insult them – or to find yourself stuck behind an "objectionable content" disclaimer. It's not ideal, but it is reality, so as they say: you just gotta deal with it.

Closing her blog altogether is far more an act of defeat and submission than "in your face". It's certainly not teaching anyone a lesson; it's a blogger that got pissed and left. Nothing more.

The rebellious thing to do, had Becky chosen that route, would've been to keep the blog nonetheless, and if anything, try and spread it as far and wide as possible. Thinking that search engines like Google are the only way a blog is found is ignorant and silly. Include the address wherever you post (forums, comments on other blogs or websites, eMails, whatever). Hell; even better, enter a tirade against Google or those who complained against her. That, while perhaps a little petty, would've been entertaining. Going away in defeat is just ... sad.

(via The Agitator)

More opaque policies from Obama

2009-07-22T10:32:00.000-04:00

President Obama is rapidly losing credibility when it comes to his promise for transparency in Washington. Here's yet the latest case: Obama recently met, somewhat secretly, with healthcare industry executives at the White House to discuss the upcoming healthcare changes (and what a joke that's turning out to be). A watchdog group's request for information concerning the meetings has been denied:

The still sort-of new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted yet another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor George W. Bush.

Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group's request for a list of healthcare industry executives who've been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss pending healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

According to the Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, which is suspicious of the influence of health industry lobbyists and company officers, it received a letter from the Secret Service citing an Obama Justice Dept. directive and denying access to visitor logs under the "presidential communications privilege."

Sound familiar?

All too much.

It's all the more stinging that we aren't being told what's going on with these meetings, considering this is the ailing national healthcare system we're talking about; somehow, I think people have a right to know what's being projected in Washington concerning their healthcare, no?

*Sigh* President Obama may still be white over black compared to Bush and his cronies, but he's still giving us plenty of reasons to be disappointed. Let's hope he breaks out of this "do what Bush did" streak soon.

(via The Agitator)

Book deals are a dime a dozen these days, it seems

2009-07-21T20:41:00.000-04:00

How else wold you explain the number of books being published by second-rate pseudo-celebrities? First we had Joe the Plumber and his silly drivel (the title of which still gets a smile out of me every single time), and now gormless wonder Carrie Prejean – the one who lost her no-doubt illustrious position as ~~Queen Bimbo~~ um, Miss California, for speaking out against gay marriage like a true Conservative hero – is gonna be published as well.

(AP) The former Miss California who was stripped of her title last month has a book deal.

Carrie Prejean will publish a memoir called "Still Standing." Conservative book house Regnery (REG'-nur-ee) Publishing said Monday that it will release the book.

Can anyone tell me what the hell an airheaded pretty-girl could possibly have to write a memoir about? Memoirs are for old successful types who've had lots of stuff to talk about, not beauty queens who stood on a stage and said something stupid.

Almost-daily Comfort dose o' stupid

2009-07-21T14:20:00.000-04:00

I find myself chronicling the stupidity that appears on Ray Comfort's blog so often these days I might as well make it a daily feature by now. I probably get more dumbass quotes from him than from Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann combined (and that is saying something huge). Today, Comfort reprimands a commenter for not reading (or interpreting) the Bible correctly – and in doing so, merely exposes his lack of comprehension of basic English. (And his own faulty interpretation of the Bible.)

"Sorry Ray, I do not take my morals from a God who drowns opposing armies in the ocean, killed every living thing on Earth in a global flood, punished humanity for all time for eating a piece of fruit, rained fire and brimstone on entire cities because he didn't like their behavior, killed the first born of an entire nation, and murdered his own son. Thank God he does not exist." askegg

It seems that you don’t know your Bible. God didn’t "kill every living thing on earth in a global flood." He allowed all the fish, and a family of eight people to be saved.^[1] He didn’t punish humanity "for all time for eating a piece of fruit." Adam was punished for his "disobedience" (see Romans 5:19).^[2] If you refuse God’s mercy, you too will be punished for your disobedience, not for Adam’s.

You are also wrong when you said that "God murdered His own Son."^[3]

How is it a guy who's never even read the damn thing cover-to-cover (or even a tenth of it) seems to know it better than a freakin' evangelist?

Right, he killed every single lifeform EXCEPT for the fish, and a family of eight. (Along with a single male and female of every species.) That's so much better, isn't it. It means he just killed about 99.995% of life on Earth, rather than a round 100%. Bless him.

Um – perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly, but isn't it so that, once Adam had taken that damned (literally) bite from that apple, the rest of humanity had also been cast out of the Garden of Eden to live in this fucked-up world? That sounds fairly much like punishing the whole of mankind to me.

Yeah, the God who knows everything (including, I presume, the future) sent his beloved son down on Earth, knowing what we evil humans were gonna do to him (you know, the whole torture and crucifixion thing). Which, as far as logic allows us to tell, pretty much means he "sent his son to die", or as a rephrasing might result in, "he murdered his son".

Sigh. And that's just what I can do – imagine an actual Biblical scholar or something can do. (One who isn't brainwashed in apologetics, that is.)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

2009-07-21T14:02:00.000-04:00

Okay, sorry for ripping off Balko's post title, but really, is there a single wordplay in existence that fits better to this amusing little story?

MADISON, Wis. — An Illinois teen knew he was too drunk to drive home after a Dave Matthews Band concert south of Milwaukee. So he fell asleep in his car, only to be awoken by a state trooper.

Travis Peterson, 19, of Dixon, Ill., said even though he told the officer he was drunk and sleeping it off, the trooper ordered him to leave because the lot was being cleared.

Once out of the parking lot, Peterson was arrested for drunken driving. He was subsequently found guilty and ordered to spend 60 days in jail.

I wonder what Peterson would've told the cop who pulled him over for driving drunk ... "I TOLD that other cop I was too drunk, but he MADE me drive!". An odd thing to hear if you're a cop, I'm sure.

Ah well, at least the story ended on a pleasant note: he won his appeal and was cleared of all charges. Not like he was guilty of anything, other than following a dumbass cop's orders. More evidence that sometimes, you really should just disobey.

(via The Agitator)

Asshole cops and the killings of innocent dogs

2009-07-20T14:24:00.000-04:00

Radley Balko has a disturbing and infuriating piece (words that usually describe most of what he writes, anyway) at The Daily Beast, where he once again focuses on the militarization of police as they keep fucking up raids – and keep shooting down innocent and perfectly harmless dogs in the process. It's a horrible and disgusting trend that only Balko seems to dare to cover, so very much kudos to him for taking the lead in the matter.

The piece is long and tormenting, and makes a number of infuriating or otherwise shocking revelations. For example, did you know that dog-killings are increasing every year? That there are 250 to 300 cases reported in the media every single year, with estimates on unreported incidents rising into the thousands? That many of the dogs being killed are breeds as inoffensive as Dalmatians, Labradors, Boxers and Spaniels? And that many other dog killings are about miniature Dachshunds, or 5-pound Chihuahuas? And, perhaps most importantly of all: that New York is the only state to mandate standard courses in dealing with dogs for cops – despite the ASPCA and other organizations' repeated generous offers to train cops themselves?

As Balko says in his last words: there's no doubt that sometimes, a cop truly does have to shoot an animal to save himself or bystanders. The problem is that far too often, lethal force is the first option taken, not the last.

(via The Agitator)

Detroit's Beautiful, Horrible Decline

2009-07-20T14:02:00.000-04:00

Here is an interesting albeit saddening piece from Time.com where two French photographers strove to capture the great Motor City's slide into abandonment on film. It's surprisingly heavy.

(via The Agitator)

Another Republican thinks Joe the Plumber really should stick to plumbing

2009-07-20T13:41:00.001-04:00

Meghan McCain's exact words:

Shortly before McCain sat for this interview, Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he complained about “queers” and declared, “I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.” Unprompted, McCain rails against the man her father’s presidential campaign touted as an American everyman and made a showpiece in the weeks before the election. “Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing.”

But – he's not even a plumber, remember? Which makes you wonder what he is (other than a fundamentally stupid and bigoted pseudo-celebrity, that is).

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

What it sounds like when Glenn Beck is contradicted – and doesn't like it

2009-07-20T13:31:00.001-04:00

Warning to listeners of Glenn Beck's show: don't contradict him. He might pull an O'Reilly on your ass and start screaming like a hysterical old lady:

"I'm gonna lose my mind today!!"

Moot issue, Glenn ... One needs to have a mind to lose it.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Comfort and the correct answer

2009-07-19T16:59:00.000-04:00

Most of Ray Comfort's latest post is him going on and on about how nothing could've come from nothing (*sigh*), but this little quote is of some amusement for those who can think for a few moments:

I am happy to acknowledge that answers have been given to explain the "nothing created everything" dilemma, and I choose to believe that those answers are wrong. There's nothing to refute.

Once again, Comfort shows signs that he and logic are simply incompatible on an atomic level. There is no such thing as "believing" whether a given answer is right or wrong. It just is (either right or wrong). And in this particular case, the answers he was given (which I assume run along the lines of "Atheism doesn't TRY to explain where everything came from so it's a moot dilemma as the origin of the Universe is a totally different field than one's beliefs regarding deities") were most assuredly right.

Movin' on up to bigger and better things: TypePad

2009-07-19T02:18:00.001-04:00

It's official: I've decided to create a whole new blog over at TypePad. TypePad offers far more flexibility than I can get with Blogger – not to mention I can finally host my own damned files on their servers/my site instead of scrambling around to find image hosts, media hosts, etc. – and with just a reasonably small price ($12 a month or so I think?) I can get pretty much anything I ever dreamed of for a blog.

That's not to say I'm closing Respectful Defiance right here and now, of course. First I need to get myself a job (as soon as I find a good one in the newspaper), and with the starting salary in Québec currently set at a very pleasing $9/hour (imagine, after only five days I'd already have over $360!), it really shouldn't be all that difficult.

RD will continue to operate whilst I get a job and amass the money necessary. Once the new blog is opened and operating, I will then lock this place down for the final time. I'll keep it up and running, but only as an archive as I will not be posting to it (though you will still be able to comment on blog posts if you wish).

I'm also planning to change the blog's name for the future blog. "Respectful Defiance" just doesn't work as well as I planned it to: it's too long, it's awkwardly similar to a certain other blog, and it doesn't really seem to fit all that well with the blog content and purpose. The comments are entirely open to suggestions: anyone got any ideas? I'd love to hear 'em. =)

In which PZ Myers has already answered

2009-07-18T12:50:00.000-04:00

Mariano from Atheism is Dead has just come across that pathetic and ironically whiny anti-atheism article from Charlotte Allen from a while back, 'Atheists: No God, No Reason, Just Whining'. You know, the one where she rants and rants about atheists because she thinks we're ... well, boring. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Thankfully, I don't even have to address a nice little rebuttal – PZ beat me to it. Almost two months ago.

It's a good read – be sure to check it out. And laugh at Mariano for thinking that article is in any way effective in its criticism of atheism. I've yet to find a single piece of writing that doesn't just reinforce my impression that those who spend their time critiquing atheism do so because they either hate-hate-HATE it ('cuz God told 'em to), (and/)or because they simply know nothing about it.

Isn't it amusing how Christians and theists continually accuse atheists of ignorantly attacking their ridiculous beliefs when they themselves consistently fail to provide a single logical and rational argument against atheism? Hah ...

Man who was ejected from Yankee Stadium wins his case (and $22,000, too)

2009-07-18T10:50:00.003-04:00

Back in May I covered a story about a man who claimed to have been forcibly ejected from the Yankee Stadium in the middle of the game just because he dared to try and get up to use the restroom during the singing of God Bless America.

It seems the case has finally been settled, as the Yankees have accepted to pay $10,001 in damages and $12,000 in attorney's fees to compensate the man.

Without admitting liability and without admitting that Mr. Campeau-Laurion had sustained any damages, the city agreed to pay a $10,001 settlement and also $12,000 to cover the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. The settlement [pdf] was entered before Judge Jed S. Rakoff in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Um – I'd think the fact that they agreed to dispense over $22,000 over this matter pretty much indicates they are indeed guilty of their charges. Either that, or they wish to avoid a lengthy trial.

At Yankee Stadium, ushers, stadium security guards and the police had enforced the policy of restricting fan movements during the playing of “God Bless America.”

But in a stipulation [pdf] as part of the settlement of the lawsuit against the team and the city, the Yankees declared “that they have no policy or practice at the new Yankee Stadium that imposes any restrictions on fans wishing to move about the Stadium during the playing of ‘God Bless America’ that do not also apply during the rest of the game.” The team also said it had no intention of instituting such a policy.

... Ie. "We're guilty, we just won't admit it in court". Hmm.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Another crappy religious sighting

2009-07-18T09:21:00.001-04:00

Okay, you can shoot me for the atrocious pun later, but you gotta admit it's the best this silly story deserves. A family in Texas claims that a smear of bird shit on their pickup truck is actually ... well, can't you tell?:

Religious kookery from Texas? Who woulda thunk it?

(via Pharyngula)

The government moves to save wild horses (and burros)?

2009-07-17T17:07:00.001-04:00

I know, I'm shocked too. Okay, not shocked, but this is a pleasant surprised: the House has voted to expand the range available to America's wild horses and burros, which will free them from spending eternities in small padlocks and pulling them away from execution:

WASHINGTON » The House has voted to expand the range of the nation's wild horses and burros by millions of acres and to block a plan to kill thousands of the animals to prevent overgrazing.

The bill passed 239-185 Friday.

Supporters say the additional land and other measurers are needed to free thousands of mustangs and burros from holding pens and to prevent their slaughter.

An estimated 36,000 wild horses and burros live in 10 Western states. Federal officials estimate that's about 9,400 more than can exist in balance with other rangeland resources.

The measure would stop the government from slaughtering healthy horses and prohibit keeping them in holding pens for more than six months

Great news for animal-lovers everywhere.

Oh no you don't!

2009-07-17T16:55:00.001-04:00

They're trying to pull one over us again: a Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut is trying to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to hide documents and files that contain information on crimes revolving sexual abuse in the Church, claiming it would harm the already wrecked reputation of a prominent retired cardinal. Sorry, you filthy little sneak, but in America, justice comes at the price of the public image of criminals. Oily son of a bitch.

Bridgeport Diocese officials asked the state Supreme Court to continue a stay on releasing the documents while it asks the nation's highest court to review the case.

The state court has ruled that more than 12,000 pages of documents from more than 20 lawsuits against priests should be released. Those documents have been sealed from public view since the diocese settled the cases in 2001.

The records could reveal details on how retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop from 1988 to 2000. Egan's deposition should be in the file, according to an attorney for the newspapers seeking the documents.

In Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law resigned after church records were released detailing his role in handling sexual abuse claims.

And once again, they're relying on absurd misinterpretations of the First Amendment as a defense:

Church officials say the ruling fails to uphold the privacy and constitutional rights of all parties to lawsuits, especially when cases are sealed, and contends that disclosure of the sealed documents is barred by the religious clauses of the First Amendment.

The state Supreme Court rejected church officials' claim that the documents were subject to constitutional privileges, including religious privileges under the First Amendment.

Once again: the First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech and Expression and the press. It has nothing to do with covering up evidence and files concerning criminals and incompetent clergymen who handle standard sexual abuse cases. They have no defense at all, and rightfully so.

Makes you wonder how many documents and reports of this type these hypocritical fucktards do manage to sweep under the rug while nobody's looking.

Freedom of Speech applies to both you and those you completely disagree with

2009-07-17T14:08:00.001-04:00

One of the harsher things to realize about our beloved Freedom of Speech is that it also applies to your opponents and enemies, no matter how badly what they say irritates you, and that they are fundamentally allowed to say whatever they want as long as it isn't downright illegally slanderous, dangerous or exceedingly offensive. This is a lesson many universities and public educational institutions need to learn if they ever desire to stop being dragged into courts over complaints of censorship and the likes.

Here's one example of such. A class at the Los Angeles Community College was held where students were to give speeches about whatever subjects they wanted. Jonathan Lopez chose to give a speech about his Christian faith and beliefs – including his stance on the wrongness of gay marriage. However, he was barely halfway through his address when the teacher, Professor John Matteson, brusquely cut him off, called him a "fascist bastard" right there before the whole class, and refused to let him finish his speech. He also refused to grade Lopez' speech, instead writing "Ask God what your grade is" on his evaluation sheet.

As much as I don't like Christian beliefs and their stance against gay marriage, I do recognize that I have absolutely no right at all to censure them and prohibit them from communicating their views. It's as much their fundamental right to preach their views against homosexuality as it is my right to spread my opinions for it. Trying to shut them up would be highly hypocritical, and not to mention, downright unconstitutional (were I in the U.S., though I'm certain Canada has laws about this sort of stuff as well).

As much as I believe Lopez was wrong in what he said and that it was likely inflammatory and irritating, had I been in that classroom when the teacher yelled at him like that, I likely would've stood up and yelled right back at the Professor and told him quite clearly that it was none of his business to try and shut Lopez up (and much less insult him like that). It would've been the right thing to do.

Thankfully, Lopez didn't just take it sitting down. He lodged a formal complaint with the school administration, but that resulted in nothing other than further admonishing him, telling him he'd violated the school's anti-hate-speech policy by "offending others" (great, more morons who have no idea what hate speech rules even are). Worse even, Professor Matteson found out about the complaint against him and then threatened to have Lopez expelled altogether. What a fantastic teacher, isn't he: expel the students whose views you don't agree with. Brilliant. And sickening.

Finally, Lopez filed a lawsuit with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian freedom-of-expression legal defense group, against the school and its stupid anti-hate-speech policy. As a response to their preliminary letter, the LACC actually quoted two students who had heard the speech:

"His speech was not of the informative style that our assignment called for, but rather a preachy, persuasive speech that was completely inappropriate and deeply offensive. I respect his right to freedom of speech, but I also do not believe that our classroom is the proper platform for him to spout his hateful propaganda."

The second student said "I don't know what kind of actions can be taken in this situation, but I expect that this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom."

I'm sorry kids, but if your reaction to his speech (however intense it may have been) is to shrivel up in indignation and offense, you just need to grow up and get over it already. He wasn't infringing on your rights, so you have no business criticizing his own right to spread his views.

Thankfully, this story has a happy ending: the court ruled in favor of Lopez' plight, judging that the school's policy was unconstitutional and overbroad:

We conclude that the Policy prohibits a substantial amount of protected free speech, even judged in relation to unprotected conduct that it can validly prohibit. First, as the above quotations make clear, the Policy prohibits some speech solely because the speaker “has the purpose” of causing an effect, regardless of whether the speech actually has any effect. The Supreme Court has held that a school may not prohibit speech unless the speech will “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” [...] Thus, the Policy’s regulation of speech based solely on the motive of the speaker is unconstitutional.

[My emphasis]

I completely agree. Censoring Lopez just because his opinions "offended others" is a bullshit excuse by any stretch of the imagination. Those who say Blacks are equal to Whites offend "others" (ie. neo-nazis, White Supremacists, etc.). Should they be silenced as well? (And mind you, that's just one of the hundreds of examples I could pull up.)

You only censure someone if they speak to intentionally cause harm, either via patently untrue slander and libel, or such as yelling "BOMB!" at an airport. Otherwise, they have the right to speak their minds, regardless of how vile or stupid it may be.

Though, of course, it also means you have the right to call them fucking idiotic bigots for it, depending on what they say.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Here's one book you need to stay away from

2009-07-17T13:19:00.002-04:00

Not because it's corrosive or, on the opposite, overwhelmingly addictive, but because we need to give its author as little encouragement as we possibly can, lest he make more. I'm talking about The Joe Who Ain't a Plumber – he's written (or, more correctly I think, has paid a professional ghostwriter) a book, which effectively raises the number of books he's ever read to one. (Not that it would surprise me much if he'd just spewed random idiocy without even double-checking afterwards, however.)

Perhaps the best part (or the worst, depending on how you see it) is the tome's title ... Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream.

Oh dear God.

And guess where it's being primarily advertised? Plastered on the pages of WingNutDaily.

Joe the Plumber said the best advice he can give to citizens who are frustrated with intrusive government is to stop voting along party lines and begin electing leaders who will abide by the nation's founding document.

"Learn the Constitution," he said. "Then when someone wants to be elected, hold their feet to the fire and make them follow it because that's what we need to get back to. It works so well when we follow it. Forget party politics. Learn the Constitution and vote the best American in, not the best Democrat or Republican."

Must ... not ... choke ... on ... irony ... overload ...

Wurzelbacher said Americans must remind politicians that they "work for us."

Okay, this doesn't tick me off just because JtP said it, but because I've never agreed with the saying that "politicians work for us" to begin with. It's a little pet peeve of mine, but when we follow and abide by their rules that they enact or repel, that pretty much makes them in charge, I think. We might elect them and place them in power, but once they're there, control is in their hands, not ours. Unless authority is a relative concept.

As can be expected, the article isn't so much about the book as it is basic hero-worship for JtP, and much of it isn't worth reading, much less commenting on. But one last bit at the end should act to make you question the sanity and/or credibility of this guy:

Asked if he has plans to run for public office, he replied, "I hope not. You know, I talked to God about that and he was like, 'No.'"

He continued, "I believe he's gotten me on this grassroots movement. If I can encourage leaders to step up, that's what I would like to do. That's a heavy role. That's something I don't know if I am prepared to do yet."

But Wurzelbacher said he will keep that door open if God ever calls him to be that leader.

"I just know whenever I fall off his path, things get really hard," he said. "So I just stick with what God tells me to do."

Let's hope, seriously, that this moron never runs for office especially under the premise that "God told me it was the right thing to do". You could then expect him to gain office virtually instantly with the number of gormless voters out there.

Sidenote: * * * * * *
The bottom end of the article links to a "related offer" so outstanding in its name that I just had to snap a screenshot:

So asking a bunch of ignorant and dumbass questions to a guy whose intelligence could beat JtP's intelligence with one fist behind its back, steal its lunch money and lock it in a closet, counts as "standing up to" Obama? Wow.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Mariano on abiogenesis

2009-07-17T12:23:00.002-04:00

From the eternally unenlightened owner of Atheism is Dead:

The apparently, quaint, ignorant and superstitious notion that God created humans from soil is replaced by atheism with the supposedly scientifically enlightened notion that human life can trace its lineage back to lightning striking a swamp, or the backs of crystals, or bubbling deep ocean vents, or aliens, or, or, or…see this link for a paroosal^[1] of such theories.

What is noteworthy is that the Bible provides a scientific prediction that human bodies are made of the stuff of the Earth.

Holy hell. First with the egregious misconceptions about abiogenesis and related theories, which is embarrassingly bad enough – and then he claims that the Bible's views on Creationism are ... "scientific"?

Is this sort of writing enough to qualify someone as clinically insane?

[1] I think he meant "perusal".

Friday Canine: The snowy-faced marauder

2009-07-17T12:00:00.004-04:00

(via kissatree)

Because donating to an organization that specifically helps the world is a bad thing, apparently

2009-07-16T20:32:00.004-04:00

Or that's what Mariano, the eternally Christian-Persecution-Complex-afflicted host from Atheism is Dead, is advocating in his latest post about the (now-)evil American Humanist Association. His entire screed can be resumed by two points: "All atheists want is money, as is proven by their sites boasting donation options!", and "They dare to say prayer isn't a requirement for a better world? THEY HATE CHRISTIANITY!!!". Yup, that about sums it up.

Just like any atheist organization’s website the first thing you notice as close to the top of the page as possible of the American Humanist Association website are the words “donate now”—actually, it is written thusly, “DONATE NOW.”

Erm – right. Because no groups other than atheist ones ask for donations. The donation button for the Red Cross website is just a graphical, programming and functional typo, really. Either that, or they're a horrible ANTI-CHRISTIANITY group in disguise, aren't they.

What a wackjob. And I'm restraining myself, with great difficulty, from falling out of my chair laughing, as I always do whenever a Christian comes up and whines about atheist or humanist groups calling for donations when the Vatican, the very core of the majority of Christianity and a group supposedly condemned to poverty via their oaths, is one of the wealthiest places in the world, and when churches ask for their own variant on "donations" during every single mass. It's downright hilarious.

And, flaunting his Christian Persecution Complex ever the more:

The new billboards are to read,

Want a Better World? Prayer not Required

And another anti-Christian support group rears its ugly head in the form of the American Humanist Association.

So just mentioning that you don't have to be a praying fanatic to make the world a better place (which for one thing would mean you'd actually be out there changing it rather than shacked up inside praying for change) is anti-Christian? Wow.

I particularly like one of the comments his FAIL-full post has received, from PersonalFailure:

I love that churches expect 10% of gross from their members, but atheists are the greedy ones.

muches lulz.

Indeed. Poor little Christians – so easy to laugh at.

Comfort: "God has indeed killed billions of people. What are YOU gonna do about it?"

2009-07-16T20:01:00.002-04:00

It's expected of Ray Comfort to generally miss the point of what's being said or done, but now this is just odd. He fully agrees that God is basically a genocidal, children-killing, mankind-annihilating tyrant who's even sentenced the entire human race to death in the end (including the animal kingdom as well). Of course he can't truthfully deny it, as it's all right there in the Bible. So, what does he have to say about that?

Basically, "So what? What are YOU gonna do about it, huh?".

o_0

So there you have it. You now have multiple billions of deaths for which you can directly blame God.

So what are you going to do about it? Should you spread the word that you have evidence that God actually kills people? Or should you just keep quiet, because (as a professing atheist) remember, you are supposed to believe that He doesn’t exist.

Um ... no, Ray. Atheists don't accuse God of these things because we believe, deep down inside, that he actually does exist as you insinuate. When you think about it, we aren't accusing him of anything, directly. We're accusing the concept of him, the image of God, of being such a tyrannical monster who clearly has no qualms about crushing and torturing the creatures he supposedly loves so huggy-wuggy much. We're using this evil facet of God (which admittedly seems to permeate through to all his other facets in some way or another) as logical refutation to his very existence. Or, in a nutshell: "How can he exist as the great loving daddy in the sky when all he does is kill and torment the very minions he supposedly loves?".

Because you see, that doesn't make any dang sense, does it? So you basically have a lose-lose situation: either the good and benevolent God doesn't exist, or God does exist in the form of an evil egotistical tyrant. That's what any stretch of logic leads to concluding.

So, as them math nerdz would undoubtedly say: QED.

A year in jail for Cheyenne Cherry the kitten-killer

2009-07-16T18:52:00.005-04:00

You will undoubtedly remember that horrible story about the young teenage girl who threw a little kitten in a stove to burn to death just as a "joke" to someone whose room she and a friend were ransacking. Kids these days have all the best ideas when it comes to pranks, don't they?

Well, we finally have a little bit of good news: the heartless bitch is being thrown in jail for a year for her inhumane crime, while the accomplice, who is supposedly the one who actually locked the kitten in the stove, is facing serious charges without us knowing what her sentencing will be.

A heartless kitty killer hissed angrily at animal rights activists Wednesday, grinning widely as she took credit for stuffing the helpless pet into a 500-degree oven.

"It's dead, bitch!" snapped an unrepentant Cheyenne Cherry, sticking her tongue out after a plea bargain that will put her behind bars for a year in the May 6 killing of tiny Tiger Lily.

Cherry, 17, was confronted after her guilty plea in Bronx Supreme Court to charges of animal cruelty and attempted burglary in the May 6 killing at her former roommate's apartment.

Tiger Lily was left to die inside the blistering oven after Cherry and a 14-year-old friend trashed the apartment of Valerie Hernandez, destroying furniture before stealing DVDs and food.

After her arrest, Cherry told police the cat killing was "just a joke."

Yes, how hilarious. An innocent creature suffered an unbelievably cruel death, just because amoral teenagers decided to have their fun by ransacking someone's home. And then the bitch had the gall to taunt and flaunt her vile act at the face of those who had assembled there ... Truly incredible.

I don't customarily agree with journalists' labeling of crooks in their news pieces, but calling Cherry a "heartless kitty killer" is something I'd even applaud. It's certainly the best thing she'll be called, I bet, compared to a few choice words other may have in store for her.

The article mentions how Cherry is now prohibited from owning a pet for a pathetic little three years. There's a poll:

Kitten killer Cheyenne Cherry can't own a pet for three years. Is that long enough?

• No, she should be banned from ever owning a pet, period.

• Yes, by then perhaps she'll learn to have compassion for animals.

NOTE – There seems to be a glitch with the poll; the original question asks whether her being banned from owning a pet for three years is long enough, but the poll's results are from the question "Does Cheyenne Cherry deserve more than one year in prison for the brutal death of a kitten?" (which she does at any rate).

I do think she needs to be kept in jail for more than a single year, and she should be prohibited from coming anywhere near animals for a decade at the very least. I don't discount the possibility (however remote) that she may change her ways of thinking, but until then, she's a complete psychopath and a danger to any innocent creatures around her.

I fail to imagine what would happen – literally – if someone did something like that to my little Kaylee, and then was fucking stupid enough to taunt me about it.

Conservatives can be such decent and polite folks

2009-07-16T13:18:00.001-04:00

Recently, President Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia was photographed wearing a white shirt emblazoned with a large peace symbol on its front, seen below:

It's hard to imagine what's so infuriating or irritating about that shirt – but I guess you'd have to place yourself in the twisted mind of a bigoted, hateful conservative or Rethuglican to find out, as the Vancouver Sun reports:

"A typical street whore." "A bunch of ghetto thugs." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion."

These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative 'Free Republic' blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.

The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds."

Though this may sound like the sort of thing one might read on an Aryan Nation or white power website, they actually appeared on what is commonly considered one of the prime online locations for U.S. Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizing - and for a short time, the comments seemed to have the okay of site administrators.

Utterly disgusting. They're saying this about an 11-year-old girl for Saint Fuck's sake. These ghouls are taking wingnuttia and zealousness to a whole new level, one even I'm disturbed to glimpse.

And just in case you thought that perhaps the admins had just overlooked the thread or hadn't gotten around to it yet:

"The writer has a point," wrote site owner Jim Robinson sarcastically. "We should steer clear of Obama's children. They can't help it if their old man is an American-hating Marxist pig."

[...]

Only after significant negative attention from a host of left wing political blogs did the maintainers of the Free Republic site place the thread under review for a second time, before finally pulling it.

Free Republic's own site administrator and owner took part in the vitriolic exchange. Oh my.

You can see a screencapture of the full thread here.

This is just more proof that anyone looking for some of the vilest and immoral hate-speech on the Net need look no further than their local conservative website or blog.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

An offended mother on the topic of blowjobs

2009-07-16T12:41:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, Marcy Wheeler of Firedoglake accidentally let slip the word "blowjob" on MSNBC during a segment devoted to whether or not the CIA's top-secret hit-squad program should be probed (you know, what with it being overwhelmingly illegal). This has, of course, provoked a little flurry of a scandal amongst those who wish the airwaves to be absolutely pristine and devoid of any passion or emotion – or words that wouldn't offend a 5-year-old.

Here's a video of the whole thing; the "blowjob" incident itself is roughly 3:25 minutes in:

A little transcript of Marcy's full quote:

"And your idea is that after investigating Bill Clinton for a blowjob for, like, five years, we shouldn't investigate the huge, grossly illegal things that were done under the past administration only because they were t— I mean, Alberto Gonzalez was too much in the backpocket of Dick Cheney to do it when he was still in office. That's ridiculous!"

I can't say I don't completely agree with every single thing she said, there.

Notice how her co-anchors frantically try and apologize for her a minute or so later? Even those Marcy was debating with didn't give a shit what she'd said. Seriously, "blowjob" is so far down the list of unacceptable words it's ludicrous to even mention its use.

Now, about the title of this post. One of the better-known reactions to this silly ordeal comes from another Firedoglake blogger named Rayne, who voices her thoughts as a concerned mother – but not for the utterance of the word "blowjob" itself.

Those of you who know me also know I have a couple of kids -- a teenager in high school, and a tweenager about to enter middle school.

Both of my kids have met the infamous blogger who used, you know, THAT word on MSNBC this afternoon. In fact, they were watching the video of the infamous blogger.

Neither batted an eye about the use of THAT word.

And I am so proud of them.

Because even my kids know the real obscenity isn't a euphemism for oral sex, or even that it happened on a cable show in the middle of the afternoon. My kids know that the real obscenities are these:

* Our country went to war based on lies told by elected and appointed officials;

* Their brother and the sons/daughters/brothers/sisters of many other families like ours served for this war, came back damaged or dead, for nothing but lies;

* Their president and vice president lied repeatedly about all manner of things while refusing to accept responsibility for any failures which happened on their watch;

* Their government was either obstructed during investigations into these lies or simply failed to make any effort to investigate these lies;

* Their government spent billions of dollars to make these lies, to support these lies, to pass these lies on, while killing hundreds of thousands of people in other countries, while making plans to kill more on a targeted basis in the form of assassinations;

* Their government tortured people, innocents among them, including children, to further their lies, in violation of fundamental human rights and codified law;

* Their fellow citizens are not better off for all of this, but are far worse off in terms of security, health and finances than before all the lies started;

* The corporate-owned media in their country makes money off ghoulishly beating a tattoo every day about dead entertainers and missing white girls while avoiding the work required of investigative journalism important to real democracy.

Even kids understand when adults are being stupid and unethical, and they know the truth when they see it.

As a mother I'm absolutely offended, but not about the word "blowjob."

I'm deeply offended that the corporate-owned mainstream media can turn a blind eye to the really offensive obscenities, thereby becoming complicit in the criminality -- and they've done this in front of my kids for more than eight years.

What am I supposed to tell these children?

Very well-said, Rayne. A good mother with intelligent children, I see. An increasingly rare thing in this world.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

For those who think Texas public schools suck: do worry

2009-07-15T15:52:00.001-04:00

They're about to get a whole lot worse.

The Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state's social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.

Yup. No-good "liberal" figures such as Chávez (who revolutionized and vastly ameliorated the working conditions of thousands) and Marshall (first Black to serve on the US Supreme Court ever) are thrown out the window, and the rest of the curriculum emphasizes how America is Christian at heart and how it was founded with biblical standards in mind (which, as is becoming increasingly exasperating to point out, IT WASN'T as it was founded upon HUMANISTIC morals and values such as right to life, liberty, security, etc.). Just fucking perfect. As if schools in Texas couldn't be shittier. (I know. I've been there.)

Apparently these "conservative reviews" (or "wingnut hacks") state that the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution, the "checks and balances" system, is actually – get this – a scriptural interpretation from the Bible about "original sin" (ie. that all men are inherently sinful), which they dub "radical depravity" (owch). Sorry, religious nuts, but it doesn't take original sin to make a single unified government a very bad idea, hence requiring a bicameral Congress at best. It's called human nature. (Which is what nuts interpret as a result of original sin, I guess.)

The curriculum, they say, should clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good -- and a key reason for American exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.

"America is a special place and we need to be sure we communicate that to our children," said Don McLeroy, a leading conservative on the board. "The foundational principles of our country are very biblical.... That needs to come out in the textbooks."

...

Shut up, Don.

Below are some (but, sadly, not all) of the suggested and anticipated changes that are winging their way into Texas classrooms.

Replace Thurgood Marshall with Harriet Tubman or Sam Houston

Delete Anne Hutchinson from a list of colonial leaders

Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process

Include more study of religious revival movements

Replace references to America's "democratic values" with "republican" values"

A couple of the other suggestions make a bit of sense – such as emphasizing the study of original documents as opposed to textbooks from authors that merely represent the authors' interpretations of said original documents, or rewording references from minorities' "contributions" to society, to their "role" in society. But the rest – the ones listed above – are just batshit stupid. Nothing but another stupid and disingenuous attempt at removing those Evil Liberals references and their positive impact on society whilst boasting about how great religion is and how America is a Christian nation.

It's positively vomit-inducing to realize this bullshit is what's gonna be crammed into schoolchildren's heads for years to come.

(via Forever In Hell)

Assisted suicide is eevil, I tellz ya

2009-07-15T14:12:00.002-04:00

We have an appalling story here, folks. Sir Edward Downes, one of Britain's most distinguished orchestra conductors, kidnapped his wife (or did she kidnap him?) and they hightailed it up to Switzerland where they both took part in assisted suicide. This is yet another blatant example demonstrating just how horrible, unethical and inhumane assisted suicide is.

Although friends who spoke to the British news media said Sir Edward was not known to have been terminally ill, they said he wanted to die with his ailing wife, who had been his partner for more than half a century.

Okay, so they went up there willingly, fully expecting what was going to take place there. But they were accompanied up there by their very own children!

The couple’s children said in an interview with The London Evening Standard that on Tuesday of last week they accompanied their father, 85, and their mother, Joan, 74, on the flight to Zurich, where the Swiss group Dignitas helped arrange the suicides. On Friday, the children said, they watched, weeping, as their parents drank “a small quantity of clear liquid” before lying down on adjacent beds, holding hands.

Poor children. They are undoubtedly traumatized from witnessing his horrible event:

"Within a couple of minutes they were asleep, and died within 10 minutes,” Caractacus Downes, the couple’s 41-year-old son, said in the interview after his return to Britain. “They wanted to be next to each other when they died.” He added, “It is a very civilized way to end your life, and I don’t understand why the legal position in this country doesn’t allow it."

[...]

“After 54 happy years together, they decided to end their own lives rather than continue to struggle with serious health problems,” the Downes children said in their statement.

... Okay, so they agree with their parents' decision to end their lives and fully support the practice of assisted suicide, even questioning its illegality. But obviously they have to be unsettled by their father's insanity in choosing to kill himself when he was perfectly healthy (or healthy enough not to warrant assisted suicide):

Friends of Sir Edward said that his decision to die with his wife did not surprise them. “Ted was completely rational,” said Richard Wigley, the general manager of the BBC Philharmonic. “So I can well imagine him, being so rational, saying, ‘It’s been great, so let’s end our lives together.’ ”

Jonathan Groves, Sir Edward’s manager, called their decision “typically brave and courageous.”

... So they were both completely sane and rational, and the man chose to die rather than spend his remaining years without his soul mate. That's so sweet ...

Err, NO – evil! It's evil! Even if it's two aging, rational and loving companions who chose to die together rather than live battling heavy health problems, and did so by ingesting a simple, completely painless barbiturate drink and died by each other's side in bed, and whose children and friends are absolutely understanding and supportive of what they did – it's still wrong! (And evil!)

At least the two children who accompanied the couple to Switzerland and provided mental support to the consenting lovers will be harshly prosecuted and likely imprisoned for choosing to do what's right over what's legal. 'Cuz ignoring obsolete and immoral rules – that's such a liberal thing to do.

Stephen Colbert, eat your heart out.

(via The Agitator)

Oh noes! Our favorite gay penguin couple has split – because of a girl

2009-07-15T13:00:00.002-04:00

Damn those infernal feminine temptresses! Beguilers of straight men, ruiners of pocketbooks, killers of men's patience during shopping sessions, wreckers of gay couples ...

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

This did not go over well with Pepper, who became violent. The three penguins were separated for some time following the fight.

"They have been doing okay since,” said Zookeeper Jennifer Katz. “They have been getting along okay. But Pepper is by himself now, so we are keeping an eye on the three of them."

On Friday they appeared to be back on good terms, as they were re-introduced back into their enclosure.

Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year.

Anti-gay bigots using this example as "more proof that there is no real homosexuality in animals" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Sad news though. =( I'd already covered this very couple back in June; it was just so cute. That Linda's nothing but a no-good homewrecker. Pfft.

Any dibs on Pepper?

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Palin on partisanship

2009-07-15T12:25:00.001-04:00

From the Shame of Alaska:

"People are so tired of the partisan stuff even my own son is not a Republican."

Hang on – so Sarah Palin, the wingnut whose sole occupation for months and months has been to yap and nip at Obama's heels, claiming he (and liberals in general) were playing pals with terrorists, pushing a socialist agenda (yeah, that'd be horrible) and generally fucking the country up economically and security-wise – is complaining about a lack of bipartisanship?

The mind boggles. Kudos to her son for disassociating himself (as best as he can) from the loonies.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Ph34r the unnatural man-beasts!!

2009-07-14T11:12:00.001-04:00

Rethuglicans are once again beating on that dead (and thoroughly rotted-through) horse of human-animal hybrids, claiming that the science-fiction scenario of creating and growing humans with wings or cats that can talk is now becoming a reality in labs and that it must be stopped. Because, you know, humans (and their purity) are sacred and all that.

Led by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), 19 Republicans and 1 Democrat introduced a bill yesterday that would prevent U.S. researchers from developing embryos that use both human and animal material, a controversial practice underway in the UK.

Brownback has long been an opponent of stem cell research and human cloning, yet the idea of human-animal hybrids has gotten little media attention.

"What was once only science fiction is now becoming a reality, and we need to ensure that experimentation and subsequent ramifications do not outpace ethical discussion and societal decisions," Brownback said last year when he introduced similar legislation. "History does not look kindly on those who violate the dignity of the human person."

Oh dear, a Republican who has no idea what the hell he's talking about and is clearly completely clueless regarding science? My, what a shock.

Unfortunately, they've even managed to make the bill bipartisan by enlisting Dumocrat Sen. Mary Landrieu who, in line with Brownback's stupidity, has had this nugget of brilliance to say:

"Here in the United States, we simply cannot open the door to the unethical blending of humans and animals, which the British government seems intent on doing," Landrieu said the last time she introduced similar legislation. "It creates an unnatural species and is a clear line we cannot cross."

Always nice to add a little tinge of xenophobia to attract idiot conservative votes. But the truth of the matter is that this bill fails catastrophically for two crucial reasons: a), no-one has any intention of, or sees any real interest in, creating man-animal hybrids the kinds of which the bill speaks about (and even if they did, the knowledge and technology needed for such an undertaking is still decades and decades away at best), and b) this Brownback bill of stupidity would illegalize many modern life-saving medical operations and treatments, notably the practice of xenografts (taking a small part of some animal – an organ, or a bit of tissue – and implanting it in a human when no human alternatives are available).

It would also render illegal all the research being done that has anything to do at all, however loosely, with the blending of human and animal cells, gametes, etc. It's a highly crucial body of experimentation and it has already unlocked many secrets that we couldn't have figured out before; for more info or examples, I refer you to PZ Myers' post on the subject, where he details some of the types of work that specifically require the use of both human and animal cells and parts.

This is obviously yet another attempt by Rethuglicans (and that one dumb Democrat) to try and elevate the human species to a sacred, untouchable, revered level amongst the order of living things in the world. As long as this mindset that humans are better than everything else in the world exists, we will see idiotic legislature such as this being peddled through – and we will keep having to deny it each and every time in order to protect good science.

I must admit that a hypothetical, future world where "anthros" (or whatever term would be most appropriate) live amongst humans and the two species share a society together does evoke a particularly strong and interesting imaginative image in my mind; maybe it's just because I love animals, am particularly imaginative, or because I like furry artwork too much (oy), but a world where both humans and hybrids coexist peacefully (assuming humanity had matured a bit by then and stopped blowing itself up at the slightest opportunity) is quite an attractive one to me. But again, that's likely just me (though if anyone else would like that I encourage you to "come out" in the comments :P), and at any rate, that is a vision that is decades, or even centuries, from ever being even remotely plausible, much less routine or normal.

(via Pharyngula)

Another fantastic idea where things can't possibly go wrong ...

2009-07-13T23:12:00.001-04:00

Combine a southern state, a population stereotyped (disturbingly accurately) as gun nuts, and a Republican state Governor, and you've got yourself one hell of a stupid situation. Add alcohol into the mix, and now you've just got a ticking timebomb, as is what's developing in Arizona. The state has just legalized carrying (concealed) weapons in bars and other establishments that hand out alcohol.

What a fantastic idea.

The bill was signed into law by the Governor who perhaps has the most situational-ironic name of all time, Janice Kay Drinkwine Brewer, and is backed by, of course, the National Rifle Organisation. (Jan Brewer is also a member of the NRO. My, nuts of a feather ...)

One little bit of good sense, however, allows for bar and restaurant owners who seek to ban guns in their establishments to post "No Guns" signs at their main entrance doors. But in all the other places, a delicate combination of guns, gun nuts, and booze ...

Again, what a great idea.

Some nice examples of just how professional cops can be

2009-07-13T18:26:00.002-04:00

Balko from The Agitator has published a new column piece over at Reason Online. It details some examples of how SWAT teams are going haywire with incompetence, cruelty and recklessness in Maryland, and it's a very thrilling and disturbing read – and, for animal-lovers such as I, also quite infuriating and saddening. I've quoted some bits below I thought should be spread around, to increase awareness and hopefully stop these fucking incompetent twits from causing more harm than needed.

Prince George's police originally obtained a warrant to search Calvo's home after intercepting a package of marijuana sent to the mayor's address. Calvo and his family were innocent—the package was intended to be picked up by a drug dealer. But instead of first investigating who lived at the residence, or even notifying the Berwyn Heights police chief, the county police department immediately sent in the SWAT team. In addition to having his two dogs killed, Calvo and his mother-in-law were handcuffed for several hours, and questioned at gunpoint.

That's pretty horrible enough as it is. They guy and his mother-in-law are forcefully interrogated, not to mention the man's two beloved dogs are murdered, probably for absolutely no reason other than they were there (being nonviolent black Labrador Retrievers – not to mention this pisses me off because those are such damn beautiful animals), all because cops were too stupid to look a little deeper into the matter and find out they guy has nothing to do with drugs in the first place. So, of course the cops extended a good, honest apology:

Calvo also learned just how obstinate and unapologetic police and government officials can be, even (or especially) when they're clearly in the wrong. Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High actually praised his officers' conduct, insisting that if they had to do it again they'd conduct the Calvo raid the same way. "Our investigators went in and showed both restraint and compassion," he told a local TV station.

Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson told a local newspaper that Calvo would get no apology for the slaying of his dogs. Johnson's puzzling explanation: "Well, I think in America that is the apology, when we’re cleared.... At the end of the day, the investigation showed he was not involved. And that's, you know, a pat on the back for everybody involved, I think."

... Or a slap to the face. "Restraint and compassion"? Gee, I wonder what it would've been like if they'd been reckless and cruel. Would they've burned the house down as well? And seriously, what sort of a half-assed explanation was that? Better off saying "Wedidndoit", they might retain more credibility with that.

As it commonly is with these sorts of stories, the incident brought forth a number of similar horror stories:

Within a few weeks of the raid, other victims of botched search warrants in Maryland began contacting Calvo. One couple was raided after their teenage son was found with a small amount of marijuana during a traffic stop. Another elderly couple had their dog shot and killed by Prince George's officers in a mistaken raid. And in Howard County, police broke down a door in front of a 12-year-old girl, battered a man with a police shield, then shot and killed the man's Australian cattle dog. They were looking for someone suspected of stealing a rifle from a police car. The suspect didn't live at the residence.

There were more:

• Eleven days before the raid on Calvo's home, Prince George's police raided the home of a Secret Service agent after receiving a tip that he was distributing steroids. They found no drugs or incriminating evidence.

• In August 2007 police raided the home of a Prince George's County couple to serve an outstanding arrest warrant for their son. The parents were handcuffed at gunpoint. Police later learned that the couple's son had already been in police custody for 12 days.

• In November 2007 Prince George's police raided the wrong home of a couple in Accokeek. Though the couple presented the police with evidence that they were at the wrong address, the police still detained them at gunpoint, refusing even to let them go to the bathroom. The couple asked the police if they could bring their pet boxer in from the backyard. The police refused. Moments later, the police shot and killed the dog.

• In June 2007 police in Annapolis deployed a flash grenade, broke open an apartment door, and kicked a man in the groin during a mistaken drug raid. When they later served the warrant on the correct address, they found no drugs.

Most victims of these mistaken raids experienced the same callousness and indifference from public officials that Calvo did. When police in Montgomery County conducted a mistaken 4 a.m. raid on a Kenyan immigrant and her teenage daughters in 2005, the county offered free movie passes as compensation. When police in Baltimore mistakenly raided the home of 33-year-old Andrew Leonard last May, the city refused to pay for Leonard's door, which was destroyed during the break-in. When Leonard called the city's bulk trash pick-up to come get the door, no one came. Days later, city code inspectors fined Leonard $50 for storing the broken door in his backyard.

How fucking horrible. Did these lunatics really expect to win the women's forgiveness with movie passes? How stupid are these officers, anyway? And fining a guy because the city's own waste management services are too fucking lazy to come pick it up – what in the world ...?

Just last month, Baltimore's ABC affiliate reported on another mistaken raid, and noted that city officials generally make no effort to compensate homeowners when police trash their houses in search of contraband that doesn't turn up. "If you're searching for drugs or unlawful firearms, these things are not left out in plain view on the living room table," City Solicitor George Nilson explained. "You often will have to do some damage to the premises and...the police department doesn't and we don't pay for those kinds of damages."

Of course they won't pay for damages. They're far too busy fucking around, killing innocent beloved pets and ruining lives on false or misinterpreted charges to deign to say "we're sorry", aren't they now.

And now, get a hold of this next reasoning as to why cops don't feel like they should pay for damages they cause on mistaken raids:

Even if the police find nothing, Nilson said, the city has no obligation to pay, because, "it may have been the stuff that you're looking for was there three hours earlier, but somebody got it out of harm's way."

Folks, we officially have our Stupidest. Fucking. Excuse. Ever.

In January 2005, police in Baltimore County conducted a 4:50 a.m. raid on the home of Cheryl Lynn and Charles Noel after finding marijuana seeds and cocaine residue in the family's trash. After taking down the front door and deploying a flash grenade, SWAT officers stormed up the steps and broke open the door to the Noels' bedroom. Because their daughter had been murdered several years earlier, the couple kept a gun near the bed. When the police entered the bedroom, 44-year-old Cheryl Lynn Noel stood with the gun, clad in her nightgown. She was shot and killed by an armor-wearing SWAT officer, who fired from behind a ballistics shield. Police found only a misdemeanor amount of illicit drugs in the home. Shortly after the family filed a civil rights lawsuit in 2006, Baltimore County gave the officer who shot Noel an award for "valor, courage, honor, and bravery."

"Stupid Fucking Trigger-Happy Moron", rather. FTFY. And also, they lost their case (predictably):

In March, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of the police. The winning argument in the Noel case is a common one—but it's also paradoxical. Police argued both that these volatile, confrontational tactics are necessary to surprise drug suspects—to take them off guard before they have a chance to retaliate, or dispose of the contraband. At the same time, police argued that Cheryl Lynn Noel should have known the armed men storming her home at 5 a.m. were police; therefore she had no right to be holding a gun, and the police had every right to shoot her. Unfortunately, under the law the jury (and the police) was probably correct. The police didn't appear to violate any department policy.

If killing an innocent woman who grabbed a gun to defend her home from an unjust raid in the middle of the night is perfectly excusable under policy, then I think there's a fucking problem with that policy. And again, you gotta revel at just how pathetic these morons are at making excuses. "She shoulda known they were cops"? Of course! Nevermind she just heard lots of banging and incoherent shouting that couldn't have made sense to anyone and grabbed the gun to defend herself against what would obviously have been a home invasion from her point-of-view, and in turn, without even shooting the weapon, was shot down herself. It's the epitome of unfairness.

It's just like that utterly bullshit and ridiculous concept that "you should know the law". I'm not sure what the proper phrasing is; you know, the excuse jurists and such use against someone who broke a law they had no idea even existed, "well, you shoulda known". FUCK that. You can't be expected to read and memorize every fucking law in every fucking book. If you break a law you had no reason to know even existed, it's NOT YOUR FAULT. Imagine that: people (normal people at least) don't go around reading law books for the fun of it.

And all this shit, to keep drugs illegal and off the streets. I don't see how any sane and rational human being can approve the "occasional" (read: disturbingly frequent) battery of innocent suspects, shooting of innocent animals, coercive interrogation and destruction of property – just to keep pot and coke off the streets. THEY'RE ON THE STREETS EVERY FUCKING DAY AND NIGHT. The system is obviously hopelessly broke and should be put to rest, and a new one needs to be implemented post-haste, or these horror stories will simply keep on going, unimpeded and unstopped.

(via The Agitator)

After a fairy carnival, a lawsuit targeting a genie

2009-07-13T17:31:00.001-04:00

People will believe in the darnedest things. Example, just days after a report came along of that incredibly silly fairy festival, now I'm hearing of a Saudi family who are suing a genie for allegedly harassing them.

Maybe I need to repeat that. A family of adults are dragging a mythical, invisible spirit into court. They're claiming it stole their cellphones, left threatening voicemails, and threw them rocks when they left their house at night.

Don't bother reading it a third time. It won't make any more sense.

"We have to verify the truthfulness of this case despite the difficulty of doing so," Sheikh Amr Al Salmi, the head of the court, told Al-Watan. "What makes this case and complaint more interesting is that it wasn't filed by just one person. Every member of the family is part of this case."

The family, which has lived in the same house near the holy city of Medina for 15 years, said it became aware of the spirit in the past two years.

"We began hearing strange noises," the head of the family, who requested anonymity, told Al-Watan. "In the beginning, we didn't take it seriously, but after that, stranger things started happening and the children got really scared when the genie began throwing stones."

A local charity has moved the family to a temporary residence while a court investigates, the newspaper said.

In Islamic cultures, a belief in genies, or jinns, is common.

But as we know that commonness in no way equates to evidence or a logical argument, there's nothing that should hold us from calling this family a bunch of severely paranoid kooks. Maybe they should check their neighborhood for annoying kids or something who like to pester folks like that. Or install security cameras to catch the actual culprits on tape before accusing the acts on an imaginary being. Just a tip.

(via The Agitator)

Ray Comfort on the Evils of Public Schools

2009-07-13T12:57:00.001-04:00

It seems the ignoramus has never been to school. Because no-one who's so much as spent a few days at a public school can say such ludicrous things as he has.

First off, just a little snippet I found amusing:

"Evolution has been proven despite what your idiot homeskool ‘textbooks’ told you. The only questions are about the details." Ryk

Those who are home schooled usually excel at spelling (it would seem that you weren’t home schooled).

Anyone who doesn't recognize "skool" as a deliberate and exceedingly common misspelling doesn't have the credibility to write about anything.

Granted, by not being educated by the public system, their kids will miss out on learning how to communicate using filthy language. They will also miss out on the use of illegal drugs.

Right. No-one has ever passed through a public school without coming out a drug-addicted delinquent. That's all these public facilities are good for, you know.

[/sarcasm]

Home schooled kids will also miss out on sexual promiscuity, contracting sexually transmitted diseases (one in four U.S. females has a sexually transmitted disease[2]), being bullied, and maybe being shot to death (to date, there have been shootings resulting in the deaths of students in 76 different U.S. public schools). According to the National Conference of State Legislatures an incredible one in five kids in public schools have seriously considered suicide: "19.3 percent of high school students have seriously considered killing themselves."

... What? So it's public schools that encourage teens to have sex (*GASP!*), force girls to contract STDs (so guys don't have STDs?), and force kids to bully others? Public schools encourage school shootings by raving psychopathic lunatics? And, least coherent and logical of all, it's public schools that drive kids to suicide? How deluded and deranged can this guy get?

The rest is just a long and irrational screed against teh Evilz of public schools, so I'll just skip to the very end:

Sadly, millions of impressionable young people have already been brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details." How could any theory be proven when there are no details to provide proof? The missing link (the details) is still missing. All evolution believers have is a blind faith in what they have been taught by other believers in the theory, and "evolution did it" isn't good science. It's a pseudo-science. And that’s a fact.

Wow, lots of faults in a single statement. Let's correct that, shall wel?

~~Sadly~~ Thankfully, millions of impressionable young people have already been ~~brainwashed~~ educated into believing that evolution is a proven fact, and that all it lacks is "details." How could any theory not be proven when there are ~~no details~~ endless amounts and types of evidence to provide proof? The missing link (the details) is ~~still missing~~ a misconception, as there are no "missing links". All ~~evolution believers~~ have is a ~~blind faith~~ rational belief in what they have been taught by other believers in the ~~theory~~ fact, and "evolution did it" is~~n't~~ good science. It's a ~~pseudo-science~~ statement of an undeniable and endlessly demonstrable reality. And that’s a fact.

Some of it's a little cheesy, but it's the best I can do with the material given, no? You can't turn mud into marble.

Ireland bans free speech

2009-07-13T12:00:00.002-04:00

Pretty much exactly. The Irish Dáil (Ireland's parliament) has passed a major bit of new legislation aimed at reforming Irish libel and blasphemy laws, legislature that pretty much annihilates the very concept of "free speech" in the county. So that's another place I definitely won't be going to any time soon. (Not that I had plans to, either.)

The Defamation Bill, which also introduces a new crime of blasphemous libel, will come into operation after it is passed by the Seanad later this week and signed into law by President Mary McAleese.
[...]

The new laws are expected to be in full operation by October.

Just wait 'til you see what the legislation states is now illegal speech in Ireland: basically put, anyone who utters a single blasphemous word – ie. "Your religion is SHITE, mate" – can be ordered to pay up to €25,000. That's just a few cents short of $35.000, according to today's exchange rates. Here's the official text of the legislation, from Ed Brayton's post on the matter:

36. Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter.

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

37. Seizure of copies of blasphemous statements.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, © specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

(2) A member of the Garda Siochana may (a) enter and search any premises, (b) seize, remove and detain any copy of a statement to which an offence under section 36 relates found therein or in the possession of any person, in accordance with a warrant under subsection (1).

(3) Upon final judgment being given in proceedings for an offence under section 36, anything seized and removed under subsection (2) shall be disposed of in accordance with such directions as the court may give upon an application by a member of the Garda Siochana in that behalf.

October 2009. Remember that date, folks, as the day free speech in Ireland was slaughtered by religiots and zealots.

Under the changes, the maximum fine for blasphemy will be cut from €100,000 to €25,000.

Right. That's so much fucking better. So now you're only broke by $35K, as opposed to before. Such a relief, I'm sure, and all because you dared to say that stupid beliefs are just that – stupid.

What a world.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

A case of uncertain identity

2009-07-13T11:27:00.004-04:00

Something interesting happened during the opening of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing:

WASHINGTON -- An anti-abortion protester briefly disrupted the opening of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.

The outburst came during Sen. Dianne Feinstein's opening statement Monday. A man in room interrupted her remarks by shouting: "Senator. What about the unborn!" He called abortion "genocide."

Security quickly took him out.

They should've checked the guy's nametag. Sure it wasn't "HANNITY", "LIMBAUGH", "O'REILLY", "BECK", "SAVAGE", or anything like that?

The wisdom of Garfield

2009-07-13T07:55:00.001-04:00

Even cartoon characters can show signs of understanding some of the finer, crucial points in life. Here's the Garfield strip I received in my Inbox today, having subscribed to daily Garfield eMails:

No offense to any girl readers ... you just confuse us guys, you see.

(Anyone who would be interested in getting a brand new strip of Garfield every day in their eMail inbox, or a number of other cartoons, should check out Gocomics.com. Really neat stuff.)

The Story of Suzie

2009-07-12T22:19:00.000-04:00

A little on-the-nose, but funny and true. :P

(via Pharyngula)

A lesson in logical fallacies: the supposed denial of atheists

2009-07-12T02:17:00.003-04:00

Why do theists always argue like they know more about atheism than actual atheists? Sure, it's most likely just an offspring of the treasured old Arrogance of Ignorance, but it's still entertaining (though at times plain exasperating) to listen to the religious claim about how atheism is evil for this and that – and never, ever, seem to get anything right about it at all. Obviously it's simply because their minds are clouded and warped, stripped of all critical thought by their faith and brainwashing, but it still gets tiresome to repeat the same points over and over.

Nancy Greenwood from Red Deer, Alberta, is a perfect fit for this description of a boringly inaccurate anti-atheist. She's sent a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Express detailing her views on atheism, and specifically, five points that are "difficult to admit" for atheists that she believe tears down our nonbelief. She reads like one big walking logical fallacy; it's hilarious.

Beach states there is no evidence for God. This is not true. There are some key factors involved in this thinking by atheists that are not usually published.

But – hey, wait! She said there was evidence for God – and then changes the subject? But why doesn't she present said evidence? Unless – she lied? How disappointing.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

Hmm. I admit, I do have godly wit at times (oh, snap, right?) – but I must confess to seeing myself as no more than a (sorta-)humble human teenager. As do *most* other atheists, I'm sure (except perhaps for the "teenager" bit).

No, atheists don't see themselves as superior to anyone else – not in every way, at least. Sure, atheists do tend to be better-educated, more intelligent and more decent folks than most; this has been widely seen amongst statistics and polls (ie. most of the brightest minds of the world are atheists, there are no atheistic wars whereas 99% of wars in human history were predominately religious, atheists are in the lowest percentiles for criminals and dangerous folks in general, and etc.). But show me an atheist who sincerely claims atheists are superior to everyone else as though part of a superior race, and I'll show you a man who's simply insane – or believes in a very skewed form of "atheism".

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wait – what? Atheists have been hurt, yet can't understand suffering? Seriously, how do thinking humans write these sorts of sentences without even noticing how utterly dumb and silly they sound?

And of course, that point is just silly. So atheists are only godless because they were hurt and blamed God, and then punished him by disowning him? Right. Baseless claims much, Nancy?

And of course, the premise of this point is that atheists actually do believe in God – hard to get angry at something you don't believe exists. I can't hate unicorns or flying broomsticks, can I?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Aha! The Return of the Evil Atheist! Of course atheists and criminals are the exact same thing, and of course, all atheists are evil bastards, and they just pretend to drop their belief in God because they fear Big Daddy will smack them around the head a few times for being just so dang evil.

*Sigh*

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Holy mother of Tod. That's one heck of a fallacy, the invalid analogy argument. Paintings had creators – so naturally, everything else in the Universe also had a creator. Oh, and also, seeing as my pen holds black ink, all ink is black. Dare to tell me you have a red-ink pen and I shall smack you, you heretic.

I do not deny that something did indeed create "world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains" – it's called physics (and, well, every single branch known to Science). Things developed over time until now where they're pretty much self-sustaining. Evolution means life creates new life and keeps on going, geology means the Earth is constantly changing, physics keeps the world balanced, chemistry keeps things interactive, and so forth. Yes, the world was created and developed – just not by a creator.

And what's that guff about bees violating the laws of physics? Bees fly because their wings displace air in a way enabling them to carry their body weight up and away. And there's enough knowledge and studies about the eye and how vision works to ensure that there isn't much left for us to discover or be confused over. Truly, that bit was just a couple of stupid claims. (Well, kinda like the rest, but whatever.)

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

Um ... isn't the fifth point just a mixture of previous points (particularly the third)?

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

Holy wow! The two single stupidest and illogical argumentative fallacies that exist, in a single sentence! First she uses Pascal's Wager, ie. the argument from ass-covering scaredy-catness which says that you should live your life as if a God did exist and was gonna judge and sentence you after your death, just because there's a small chance he might exist. It's a fallacy that's been demolished by numerous counter-argument, such as:

"No, there's not even a 'small chance' the Biblical post-life-sentencing-to-Heaven-or-Hell God exists because it's completely silly";
"It's an argument spawning just from being scared and insecure";
"So you gotta act good only because a God might be awaiting you, otherwise you'd have no reason not to be as vile and evil as you wanna be?";
"Why spend your entire life – a really long time by conventional measures – living according to the rules and laws of a petty tyrant you don't even believe exists (if you're using Pascal's Wager as an excuse, which would mean you don't actually believe in God but are playing along 'just in case')"; and etc.

And then, an even dumber fallacy: majority rules! After all, if 84% of the world follows some deity or another, than that's got to be the way to go, right? But wait – which of the (*counts*) hundreds of deities should you follow? And, seeing as many deities have multiple faiths under them, which particular faith? Ooh, what a noggin-scratcher.

In short: please, theists, please stop trying to use logic. You simply can't do it. And when you try and discredit atheism with said nonexistent logic ... verbal chaos and vivid laughter ensue, every time.

(via Pharyngula)

Stupid Quote of the Day: John Fund on Palin's media (supposed-lack-of-)whoring

2009-07-11T12:01:00.002-04:00

John Fund from the Wall Street Journal has published a piece about Sarah Palin, and while much of it is lethally boring, this little bit jumped out as singularly stupid:

Governor Palin tried hunkering down. She ignored offers of help from outside and kept media outlets at a distance. "Palin had become so suspicious of the media that she rejected hundreds of requests by even friendly reporters to interview her. Her press aides say that before considering interviews, she insists that they comb through reporters' work, even if they write for a friendly, conservative publication," writes Ron Kessler of NewsMax.com.

The world where Press-/attention-/camera-whore Palin "kept media outlets at a distance" is not this same world we live in. It is a fictional place, somewhere in the depths of the loonisphere. Hell, just remember that utterly ridiculous pseudo-scandal about David Lettermans's so-called "inappropriate jokes" and tell me about how she doesn't just love plastering her mug on TV screens everywhere. How ridiculous.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Helping the coining of a new term: the Loonisphere

2009-07-11T11:49:00.001-04:00

Ed Brayton over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has had a fantastic idea, one I think I'll usurp and use whenever I think to from now on.

This new term occurred to me as a useful one for those of us who regularly chronicle the nuttiness of the right wing: the Loonisphere. The loonisphere is a magical place where the laws of logic do not apply. A place where not allowing someone to oppress another is a violation of the oppressor's religious freedom, where quitting one's job is done to avoid being a quitter, where destroying the constitution is necessary to prevent terrorists from destroying the constitution and where someone who advocates killing untold numbers of people in another country can call themself "pro-life" without a hint of irony.

It's a good word for a good use.

Oh noes – we're being h4cked!!!

2009-07-10T22:51:00.002-04:00

UPDATE (July 10, 11:20 PM): It seems the images are slowly but surely coming back online (example, the portraits to the left were unavailable before whereas now I can see them again). Let's hope this continues and that these "Anti-Sec" twits were serious when they said "no images were harmed". I really, REALLY don't feel like reuploading every single image I use on this blog. I'd lose my hair to insanity before I reached half of them, and that's when I realize I don't even have backups for half of them ...

As you will notice, the vast majority of the images from this site – and, in fact, many other sites across the Web – have been hijacked by this so-called "Anti-Sec" group or whatever the fuck they are. It seems to be affecting any website that uses Imageshack.us as an image hosting site, as we do at Respectful Defiance.

Remind me to wring the neck of any little hacker(s) I meet. Useless little shits.

Guess it's on to damage control now. Greeaat.

Um ... don't SWAT teams have anything better to do?

2009-07-10T14:30:00.001-04:00

These Special Weapons And Tactics officers were dispatched to arguably the least interesting (and, at first, least-dangerous) job of their careers: to mow a man's lawn. Seriously.

Harrison Run is a neighborhood well cared for. At home after home in this subdivision near 71st and Fall Creek Road, neighbors tend to their yards. That's why one in particular stood out - or in this case, stood up.

"We're talking about a foot and half tall," said Luis Araoz, neighbor.

But the high grass produced more than just dandelions. Monday morning, it called out Metro's SWAT team.

"This is a first for something I had to run up against," said Lt. Jeff Duhamell, IMPD.

The city's Office of Code of Enforcement responded after a notice of high grass and weeds went unheeded for at least five days. So it showed up with a mowing crew to do the job.

First of all, I'm sorry, but grass that's a "foot and a half" tall? Please. I've frolicked in fields in Texas with grass and herbage twice that height, and no-one made a fuss despite said fields of tall grass being right there in residential neighborhoods, in plain sight.

And second ... um ... why did they send the SWAT again? Out of bank robbers or hostage situations? (Not that I mean to be glib, but seriously, they have other things to do.)

However, they did have their fair share of tension after all, and I don't just mean by catching their lawnmower blades on roots or anything:

But police say when contractor Dominique Thompson climbed up on the riding mower, he noticed the homeowner pointing a shotgun directly at him.

"I was kind of shocked. This man pulled a gun on me, and I'm out here doing a job. There was a lot going on in my mind at that point," said Thompson.

Police say the man on the other side of the weapon was 32-year-old Christopher Rhymes. He touched off a standoff that lasted three hours.

"They attempted to negotiate with him by audio means, loud speakers. They tried to call him with no answer, finally they made a limited penetration into the house. They heard him inside and subsequently he gave up," said Duhamell.

Neighbors say Rhymes keeps his grass extra-tall in a bid to try and distinguish his residence and lawn from others'. Seriously man, when your obsession with being different ends with you, a shotgun and a SWAT team (albeit originally dispatched specifically to mow said lawn) ... you may have taken things a little too far there.

(via The Agitator)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Palin and the "Department of Law"

2009-07-10T14:05:00.001-04:00

From Idiot Extraordinaire, Sarah Palin (whose dumbassery runs second only to Michele Bachmann), as she spoke to ABC News about her confidence in that ethical allegations against her would be thrown out:

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out."

... Department of Justice, perhaps? Seriously, she doesn't even know the title of the federal department dedicated to legal issues – and she holds a political career?

As with Ed Brayton, you gotta ask how this moron was ever put in charge of anything more than a Dairy Queen. Though that's perhaps too insulting to the makers of the Blizzard ...

A bit of good news and some more bad news from the TSBOE

2009-07-10T13:45:00.002-04:00

There's a very bittersweet mixture of joviality and depression in the air: it's confirmed that Cynthia Dunbar will not be the next head of the Texas School Board of Education.

Instead, Gov. Rick Perry decided to go ahead with Gail Lowe (R-Lampasas), a creationist sheep who pretty much does anything she's told to do by the likes of Dunbar and co., anyway. From the Texas Freedom Network Insider blog:

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller is releasing the following statement regarding Gov. Rick Perry’s appointment today of Gail Lowe as the new chair of the State Board of Education.

“It’s disappointing that instead of choosing a mainstream conservative who could heal the divisions on the board, the governor once again appointed someone who repeatedly has put political agendas ahead of the education of Texas schoolchildren. Ms. Lowe has marched in lockstep with a faction of board members who believe that their personal beliefs are more important than the experience and expertise of teachers and academics who have dedicated their careers to educating our children and helping them succeed. We can only hope that she will rise above her history on the board and as chair keep the board from continuing to hold the education of our children hostage to divisive ‘culture war’ battles.”

Methinks that's alot of wishful thinking. After all:

Lowe’s record on the State Board of Education includes:

In 2004 Ms. Lowe opposed requiring that publishers obey curriculum standards and put medically accurate information about responsible pregnancy and disease prevention in new high school health textbooks.

In 2007 Ms. Lowe voted to throw out nearly three years of work by teacher writing teams on new language arts standards. Over the strenuous objections of teachers and curriculum specialists, Lowe instead voted for a standards document that the board’s far-right bloc patched together overnight and slipped under hotel doors the morning of the final vote.

In 2003 and 2009 Ms. Lowe supported dumbing down the state’s public school science curriculum by voting to include unscientific, creationist criticisms of evolution in science textbooks and curriculum standards.

And just in case you thought she might change her path now that she's the head, think again as she proves once again that crazies of a feather, flock together:

If you’re hoping things on the state board will improve under Ms. Lowe, don’t hold your breath. She appointed David Barton, an absurdly unqualified political activist, to the so-called “expert” panel for the social studies curriuclum revision. Barton has already called for removing from the curriculum historical figures like César Chavez whose politics he doesn’t like.

And the endless battle against the forces of ignorance and wingnuttery in Texas rolls on.

(via Pharyngula)

Who said lullabies were just for babies?

2009-07-10T12:42:00.000-04:00

Here's more evidence that music has no age limits, young or old, despite the biased name of Rockabye Baby. Seriously, it's cool stuff. (Guess which rendition album I wish I had most?

So cute and peaceful and soothing ... My kind of lullaby (and all-around good music).

Who says we evolved from monkeys?

2009-07-10T12:37:00.000-04:00

This is just more compelling evidence that proves how our simian overlords are our intellectual superiors. Eat your heart out, Banana Man.

We know NOTHING.

(via Pharyngula)

Friday Canine: Ready for the prom

2009-07-10T12:00:00.001-04:00

Original source: EarthFrisk.com

New Song: 'And So They Came'

2009-07-10T03:12:00.003-04:00

'And So They Came'
By Joé McKen

'And So They Came'
Composed by Joé McKen

Don't forget to view in High Quality!

[Click "Continued …»" below to view lyrics]

LYRICS

Verse 1

I used to live in lands of gold
Yet always looking for darkness' call
As my mother used to say,
Be happy, be happy

Verse 2

We sought to hide from our enemies
Lived to fear what would come near
My mother said, just to reassure,
Be happy, be happy

Verse 3

And so they came from the fields of grey
Burned the lands and hunted us
The day we hid is the day we prayed
Keep us safe and them away

Verse 4

And so she told me,
Be happy, be happy
They came and went in a blurry haze
All was gone and I was lost
In the night, you can see the flames
They took my life and thew away
Look in the eyes of darkness boding ...
Be happy, be happy

One of the scenes in my 'The Path to War' novels involves a very depressed group of rebels, convinced they are about to be sent out to die in a battle they cannot possibly win, and they start to chant a traditional folk-ish song about war, fear, and etc. to try and raise their spirits a little. So, just for fun, I decided to try my hand at writing a "traditional"-esque song with a classical guitar, and this is what I turned out. I like it so far, though I can't wait for a microphone when I'll be able to replace the incorrigibly shoddy MIDI chorale voices with my own. #La-dee-da ...#

Written & recorded with Guitar Pro 5.2.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

Ray Comfort outdoes himself

2009-07-09T14:02:00.002-04:00

And that's a bad thing if you're easily horrified, indignant or outraged at the sort of crap the oaf usually comes out with. This is about his latest post:

"My purpose for being here (and I can only speak for myself and not the other unbelievers here) is to stand up for reason and especially to try to dissuade anyone from spreading the myth of creationism, especially in public schools."

This is censorship at its worst. Those who are anti-knowledge see themselves as the intellectual saviors of poor dumb college and university students, who don’t have the ability to think for themselves. These are the book burners, who do what they do for the good of society. Their society. And they do what they do in the name of “reason” and "science," when their atheistic belief is completely unreasonable and absolutely unscientific.

Must ... not ... choke ... on ... bile ...

First of all, does this loon even know what "censorship" means? Censorship is the deliberate silencing of critical opinions or unfriendly speech. Just popping up at a blog to tell other readers, "Hey, careful, this guy's an idiot", or, "Don't listen to this fool, Creationism is a myth", does not constitute censorship. It's a critical, dissenting opinion and an expression of the guy's right to tell others that Comfort and his beliefs are stupid. He's not trying to shut anyone up, he's giving them his brand of advice. Silencing the guy, on the other hand, would be censorship. Jesus, doesn't Comfort even own a friggin' dictionary?

And that's just my reaction to the very first sentence of the bit I quoted. As for the rest ... Well, there goes another irony meter. Poor things, they break so damn often these days.

If you think atheism is scientific and reasonable, let me ask you some questions. Do you believe that nothing created everything? If you do, that's not only unscientific, it's unreasonable. This is because your "nothing" isn’t nothing. It is something because it had the amazing ability to create everything. So do you then believe that something created everything, although you are not sure what that something was? That's reasonable.

Once again, simultaneously confusing atheism (a lack of beliefs) with evolution (ie. common descent) and the study of how the world began, how the Universe was created (whatever the name of that scientific branch is). No, atheism is not scientific, for it is not a part of science. No-one claims it is. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to assume that there are no deities to rule over us if we simply do not have any shred of empirical evidence.

And again, you gotta revel in the stupidity of that quote which is Comfort's staple, claiming that "atheists believe that nothing created everything". It's just so completely incoherent, which should be a hard thing to do to a sentence that's less than ten words long. Atheists – as with anyone else – do not know what created the Universe, and they don't pretend to, whatever Comfort and his ilk of idiot may think. We can guess, we can estimate, we can theorize, but we cannot yet know. The fact that most folks (ie. atheists in general) believe it was the Big Bang that heralded the beginning of the Universe means it's the theory that, as of yet, has the least evidence contradicting it. Nothing more.

But you are not alone if you believe in God. Many of our greatest scientists believed in the existence of a Creator: Galileo, Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Kepler, just to name a few. Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

Right, appeal to authority. That always works, doesn't it. Sorry Ray, but the fact that some of the brightest minds happened to believe in God or a Creator is proof of absolutely nothing, no more is it proof than the fact that a great majority of Americans – and the world in general – believe in a God/Creator.

The incredible harmony in creation proves beyond a doubt to any thinking mind that there is a Creator...don't you think?

Hmm ... no. Another tired creationist argument ... "The world is so complex, so complete, so balanced, so [insert positive word here], that it just has to have been created by God/a Creator, because my feeble little brain can't wrap itself around the concept that it might have evolved on its own through changes, mostly tiny, that occurred over millions, and billions, of years".

Poor Comfort.

Who says animals can't dance?

2009-07-09T13:34:00.000-04:00

Horribly clichéd and disturbingly cute, I know ... but it's so neat!

(via The Examining Room)

Segregation is alive and well in northeast Philadelphia

2009-07-09T13:12:00.003-04:00

Just take a look at this disgusting story and tell me again about how all races are treated equally in America. A large number of campers – most of them children – were brusquely kicked out of a private swim club, and all the evidence (and there is alot of it) strongly suggests (read: screams) it was because of plain racism.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.

"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."

The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.

How utterly pathetic and disturbing. How come no law enforcement officials have cracked down on this Blackaphobic asses yet?

Just in case it still wasn't clear why these "minority" folks were being kicked out:

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

"Change the complexion"? My, I didn't know your poor pool was so susceptible to being t(a)inted with Blackness ... What a ridiculous wording for a ridiculous reasoning. If you're gonna be a racist fuck, at least admit it. Otherwise you're both a racist, and a coward.

(via The Agitator)

Snapshot Moment: stealth bomber over the ocean

2009-07-09T12:58:00.000-04:00

(via The Agitator)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Irish church denies its obsession over pareidolia

2009-07-09T12:40:00.003-04:00

Trees were recently cut down in Limerick, Ireland, and one of the tree stumps looked alot like ... well, you figure it out:

Can't tell what it's supposed to be? Me neither. Unless you place yourself in the mind of an apparition-crazed Christian and discover it sort of looks like a fat, twisted Virgin Mary. Go figure.

There's a large buzz around the Sacred Stump, and here's what the Irish church has had to say about it:

A spokesman for the Limerick diocesan office said the “church’s response to phenomena of this type is one of great scepticism”.

...

Excuse me while I die laughing.

(via Pharyngula)

Vox Day: blinded with misogyny or just plain stupid?

2009-07-08T16:11:00.000-04:00

The supposedly genius game designer and sexist bigot can't even understand the point of this article he quoted, or why it's perfectly normal, even expected, to feel sorry for the woman:

Forget the poor guy who just lost his job. The real problem is the terrible pressure to provide for the family this now puts on his working wife!

When she first heard the news, "there was a sinking in the pit of my stomach — and tears," she says. "It was just devastating. It's completely outside your power, and now you're responsible for the entire family," says Janosek, who like many wives who work, brought in roughly one-third of the family's income but is now the principal breadwinner. "You worry about losing everything. It's just overwhelmingly scary — and there are no resources for spouses." Janosek was able to increase her work hours, and her husband now has some contract work, which has helped — but it hardly solves the problem. "I am still angry about it," she says.

Stories like this demonstrate what a complete crock the whole equality charade is. Why in the name of Betty Friedan should anyone feel any sympathy whatsoever for a married woman suddenly being handed the same responsibility borne by most married men throughout the entire history of civilization?

You can't help but wonder: is he for real? Hard to imagine someone with a supposedly sky-high IQ saying something so utterly ... dumb. (I'd mention how misogynistic it is but that's a given with Vox.) So apparently, you can feel sorry for the guy alright (which is also normal and expected, of course), but not for the wife who now has been imposed twice the workload and responsibilities as the primary breadwinner for their family. Nah, who cares about her? Only the husband has the right to be pitied.

And as for his line about why anyone should feel sorry for "a married woman suddenly being handed the same responsibility borne by most married men throughout the entire history of civilization" – I really wish he were just being facetious. 'Cause that is one insensitive, ignorant and generally dumbass line.

Let's hope this guy never starts to pine for female company – I wonder how many years of reformed conduct it would take before women in general stopped regarding him as something that oozed out of the nearest port-a-potty?

Crackergate redux?

2009-07-08T15:53:00.002-04:00

Of course you're familiar with Crackergate, right? When a student innocently took a communal wafer to a friend without eating it, and was then ostracized and found himself in the middle of a huge fiery scandal, even receiving multiple death threats?

Well, I wonder how people will react to this new incident when Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper surreptitiously pocketed a communal host instead of eating it at Roméo LeBlanc's funeral mass.

A senior New Brunswick Roman Catholic priest is demanding the Prime Minister's Office explain what happened to the sacramental communion wafer Stephen Harper was given at Roméo LeBlanc's funeral mass.

During communion at the solemn and dignified service held last Friday in Memramcook for the former governor general, the prime minister slipped the thin wafer that Catholics call "the host" into his jacket pocket.

[...]

Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, wants to know whether the prime minister consumed the host and, if not, what happened to it.

If Harper accepted the host but did not consume it, "it's worse than a faux pas, it's a scandal from the Catholic point of view," he said.

Henneberry said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office is in order.

Christ, the nutjobbery ...

One good thing could come out of this for Harper though: instant fame! Even PZ Myers is inviting the Prime Minister to call him to discuss proper disposal of said cracker. That's one thing PZ's shown himself to be remarkably good at.

All fundies are assholes, period

2009-07-08T15:24:00.002-04:00

It simply doesn't matter which branch of religion they're from – Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or in this case, Judaism. Fundamentalists will be loud, irrational, and in many cases, dangerous, as ABC's Middle East correspondent Anne Barker found out to her terror when a mob of furious rioting Jews in Jerusalem suddenly turned on her and damn near drowned her in spit.

That's right – spit.

I was aware that earlier protests had erupted into violence on previous weekends - Orthodox Jews throwing rocks at police, or setting rubbish bins alight, even throwing dirty nappies or rotting rubbish at anyone they perceive to be desecrating the Shabbat.

But I never expected their anger would be directed at me.

I was mindful I would need to dress conservatively and keep out of harm's way. But I made my mistake when I parked the car and started walking towards the protest, not fully sure which street was which.

By the time I realised I'd come up the wrong street it was too late.

I suddenly found myself in the thick of the protest - in the midst of hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews in their long coats and sable-fur hats.

They might be supremely religious, but their behaviour - to me - was far from charitable or benevolent.

As the protest became noisier and the crowd began yelling, I took my recorder and microphone out of my bag to record the sound.

And that was her (damn-near-) fatal mistake.

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me.

Spit like rain

I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting - on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.

It was like rain, coming at me from all directions - hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.

Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.

Somewhere behind me - I didn't see him - a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.

I wasn't even sure why the mob was angry with me. Was it because I was a journalist? Or a woman? Because I wasn't Jewish in an Orthodox area? Was I not dressed conservatively enough?

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I'm not Jewish and don't observe the Sabbath.

It was lucky that I don't speak Yiddish. At least I was spared the knowledge of whatever filth they were screaming at me.

All because she pulled out a fucking audio recorder.

Thankfully she managed to find the police cordon (equally angry towards the violent zealots) and scrambled her way back to safety before breaking down in tears. I don't think I would've fared much better.

But what set off this violent reaction towards her in the first place? Why were all these maniacs protesting in the streets? The answer is, predictably, ridiculous:

This particular protest has been going on for weeks.

Orthodox Jews are angry at the local council's decision to open a municipal carpark on Saturdays - or Shabbat, the day of rest for Jews.

It's a day when Jews are not supposed to do anything resembling work, which can include something as simple as flicking a switch, turning on a light or driving.

So even opening a simple carpark to accommodate the increasing number of tourists visiting Jerusalem's Old City is highly offensive to Orthodox Jews because it's seen as a desecration of the Shabbat, by encouraging people to drive.

Right. Because strangers who aren't a part of your fucking religion and therefore have no obligation to follow your archaic and ridiculous rules and customs exercise their obvious rights to build a frickin' carpark, that somehow gives all these delinquents the right to storm them and turn the streets into a war zone for a few weeks.

This is perhaps the single largest problem I have with fundies, and religious folks in general: their goddamned self-righteousness. I can tolerate their stupidity. I can tolerate their ideology. I can tolerate (barely) their intolerance and bigotry. But one thing that I don't even wanna hear about, is about fundies trying to impose their faith and its dogma, rules and doctrines on others who don't want any part of it. To put it quite simply, it really fucking pisses me off. How dare they.

It's the same as you receiving visitors in your house vs. being visitors in someone else's house. When folks are in your house, you have a right (to a limit) to ask certain compromises and actions from them that you'd like them to do, such as removing their shoes, or not to use foul language, or to smoke on the porch rather than indoors, and so forth. It's your house, and it's your right. They can either obey, or they can leave.

But when you are the guests in someone else's home, the roles reverse. You have no right to impose your beliefs and rules on them in their own home; you can ask some favors or permissions, sure, and perhaps they'll accept, but demand them? Fuck no.

Exact same deal here. Fundies need to realize (if they're even able to) that it's an open and free world out there, and they cannot expect others to follow their rules and laws as they would see fit. People will do whatever the fuck they want, and any fundies who don't like it can jump off a cliff for all I care. Meddling pests.

(via Forever in Hell)

Asking God to smite yee because yee didn't want the Air Force to support religious nuts

2009-07-08T14:38:00.003-04:00

Former military chaplain and christofascist nut Gordon Klingenschmitt is outraged over the Pentagon's refusal to send the Air Force for a flyover of the highly-sectarian "God and Country Rally" that took place in Idaho, the first refusal of the sort in the rally's 42 years of existence (and hopefully the start of many more). He's now using his imprecatory prayers again, trying to get God to smite the rational folks who decided not to have the military hold hands with religious nuts.

Listen to the MP3 recording of the prayer here.

Let us pray. Almighty God, we pray you rebuke the cowardly bureaucrat in the Pentagon, (whose phone number is [FUK-YOU-PRIK]), who decided for the first time in 42 years to deny a request for a military plane flyover at the "God and Country Rally" honoring our veterans in Idaho, because the event might "appear to benefit a religious or ideological movement." Since when are God, Country, and Veterans groups too ideological? God we recall Revelation 21:8, the cowardly...their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. In Jesus name, Amen.

Good luck with that. I'll be praying for some sanity over here in the meantime.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Another Taser-happy cop, another fouled child, another lawsuit

2009-07-08T14:17:00.001-04:00

Apparently for this cop, just having a young girl run away from you is good enough reason to shoot her in the head with a Taser.

NEW MEXICO (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - A girl from New Mexico is recovering after being hit in the head with a Taser by police.

It all started when the 14 year old got in a fight with her mother. Her mom drove her to the police station looking for help.

When they got there the girl took off running and the police chief later found her in a nearby park.

When he approached the girl the chief says she took off running again. He says he told her to stop, but when she didn't, he hit her with the Taser.

Right. She poses no threat at all and hints at no menacing acts whatsoever, she just tries to run away. Of course that's good grounds for shooting her in the head with a Taser. My, these trigger-happy cops.

And of course, that's not what the girl claims happened. She contends that she didn't even try to run away, that he never warned her before shooting his Taser at her.

Whichever may be true is up for debate; as of now, she's had surgery to fix the injury to her head from the Taser, and also to help with a stick that "got lodged in her face" when she fell.

Anyway; now the girl and her mother are suing the department, while the police chief (the one who Tased the girl himself) defends his actions.

Look, either way, whether the girl tried to run away or not, the point is she was of no threat whatsoever to the cop or anyone else for that matter; she just tried to escape. Cops aren't allowed to shoot and injure you just for running away if you pose no threat and are just scared, as this girl was. And seriously: couldn't he pick a better spot than her head? Any burst of electrical current that close to my brain would freak me out.

(via The Agitator)

Most pointlessly obvious article, ever

2009-07-08T10:17:00.001-04:00

The New York Times has a report complaining about how porno films are lacking in scripts, story arcs, narratives and etc.

Seriously.

The actress known as Savanna Samson once relished preparing for a role. “I couldn’t wait to get my next script,” she said.

There’s no reason to look at them anymore, she said, because her movies now call almost exclusively for action. Specifically, sex.

The pornographic movie industry has long had only a casual interest in plot and dialogue. But moviemakers are focusing even less on narrative arcs these days. Instead, they are filming more short scenes that can be easily uploaded to Web sites and sold in several-minute chunks.

“On the Internet, the average attention span is three to five minutes,” said Steven Hirsch, co-chairman of Vivid Entertainment. “We have to cater to that.”

... Seriously?

Show me one guy who watches pornos for the substantive, intricate storyline and I'll show you a guy who doesn't have a sex drive. Or any idea what the hell pornos are supposed to do.

Air Force refuses a fly-over of a religious rally, and nutty Christians get all bent up

2009-07-07T16:06:00.001-04:00

That accurately summarizes this dumbass story, methinks. Every year, the Christian Defense Coalition organizes the "God and Country Festival" in Idaho, and every year, they get the Air Force to perform a fly-over. Nothing screams patriotism like seeing jets roar over your festival, eh?

Problem is, this year the Air Force flatly refused to fly over the festival, and so of course those poor little Christians got all bent and huffin', and here's what Rev. Mahoney, leader of the farce, had to say about it:

"For years, flyovers have been allowed by the Pentagon at the 'God and Country Rally' in Nampa Idaho. These flyovers were not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition. Rather, they were held to honor and pay tribute to our heroic men and women who have served or are currently serving in our armed forces. "For the Obama Administration to deny a flyover for the first time, is a slap in the face to all those who proudly serve our country especially when we are at war. These flyovers have been a special part of the 'God and Country Rally' for many years.

Indeed, that does sound pretty bad – unless you actually take a few moments and dig into the festival's goals and mission and discover Mahoney is nothing more than a big fat fucking liar:

Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News by strengthening the fabric of our society through our connection to family and country.

We want to encourage believers everywhere to get out in their communities, not just to strengthen each other, but to encourage family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers to learn more about who Jesus Christ is and what He's done for each and every one of us.

To borrow a phrase from Michael Boerner of Mission Media,

In order to witness to people, you have to do the following:

Bless people

Fellowship with them

Meet their needs

Present the Truth

This, in a nutshell, is what the Treasure Valley God and Country Festival attempts to do. The stated purpose of the Festival is to meet the following goals:

Develop a sense of community spirit in a relaxed, social atmosphere, making all citizens of the Treasure Valley feel welcome in friendship.

Present a safe, pleasing, and inspiring fireworks display to commemorate our country's independence.

Dedicate a significant portion of the program to emphasizee, particularly to young people, the precepts on which our country was founded: Individual rights, belief in God, a representative form of government guided by an assemblage of laws created by elected individuals, sanctity of human life, and all other rights outlined in the Constitution and its supporting documents.

Present the Good News of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner.

Avoid any pretense or appearance of a political rally.

Remind those who attend of their good fortune to live in a free society and also their responsibilities to maintain the freedoms which they enjoy.

We are attempting to meet steps one and two, to bless people and fellowship with them, through music, kids' activities, and teens' activities.

After we have done that, we attempt to accomplish step three, to meet their needs, by promoting community activities such as "Communities in Action," and other organizations whose goal is to meet peoples' needs with a Christian heart.

At the end of the evening, we move to step four, presenting the Truth. Each year, we ensure that the message of the Gospel is presented, and information is provided for those who have heard and want to know more about Jesus Christ.

I don't see how any group whose mission statement mentions Jesus Christ every few words can really be seen as secular or non-religious. That was nothing but a baldfaced lie, and Mahoney knows it. There isn't a single word anywhere in that load of waffle about "honoring and paying tribute" to the military, so everything Mahoney's whined about was nothing but complete lies, rendering him into nothing more than an asshat demagogue.

Even fellow Republicans agree Michele Bachmann is nuts

2009-07-07T15:41:00.000-04:00

I wonder how bad that must sting, having three fellows from your own party call you out on your absurd levels of stupidity. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) and John Mica (R-FL) have written a letter to the idiotic Minnesota representative, calling her out over her public decision to deliberately leave most Census questions unanswered.

“We share Ms. Bachmann’s concerns about ACORN’s involvement in the 2010 Census and will continue pressuring the Bureau to follow their own guidelines for partnering organizations and dump ACORN. However, we can not emphasize enough how important it is for every individual to fill out their census forms.

“Every elected representative in this country should feel a responsibility to encourage full participation in the census. To do otherwise is to advocate for a smaller share of federal funding for our constituents. Boycotting the constitutionally-mandated census is illogical, illegal and not in the best interest of our country.

“The unfortunate irony is that Ms. Bachmann’s boycott only increases the likelihood that ACORN-recruited census takers will be dispatched to her constituents’ homes. Anyone who completes and returns their census form will remove any need for a census taker to visit their residence.

“Furthermore, a boycott opens the door for partisans to statistically adjust census results. The partisan manipulation of census data would irreparably transform the census from being the baseline of our entire statistical system into a tool used to wield political power in Washington.”

For once, I actually agree with a Republican's views on a matter. Lord knows how often that happens. You know you've gotta be downright insane when fellow Republicans openly state you should be sent to cuckooland.

Somewhere, Bush, Cheney & co. are smiling

2009-07-07T15:25:00.001-04:00

In yet another move that keeps the Obama administration that much closer to the very administration they vowed to distance themselves from, the General Counsel for the Department of Defense said they won't rule out detaining ex-terrorism suspects even after they'd been officially acquitted.

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”

Right. Who cares if the guy has nothing to do with terrorism after all? Just keep 'im locked away anyway, not like he'll be missed.

How many more lies, backtracking and broken promises are we gonna see from the Obama administration? While compared to Bush and his cronies they still look like angels, but that's just because Bush & co. were so utterly pathetic. Seriously, Obama can, and should, do much better. Endlessly dragging his feet on the reversal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", his pussyfooting around gay rights and gay marriage issues, his continued latching-onto the States Secrets bullshit, and a long "etc." show he's going down a road we all prayed was the one we were specifically gonna distance ourselves from.

At what point is it acceptable (or encouraged) for a guy to hit a girl?

2009-07-07T04:19:00.001-04:00

I'll probably be drawing the wrath from feminists and general girl/woman readers with this, but this is my blog and damned if I'm not gonna post what I think, how I think it. :P

I just read a report from seattlepi.com, and it made me think about certain things. In addition to my usual commentary and reactions to what it described, I also embarked on a sort of moral-slash-philosophical debate, described below.

Of course, one of the greatest "moral rules" of being a guy in our society, is that no boy or man can ever – EVER – hit a girl or woman. Ever. As in, she'd be burning your house down, eating your kitten, killing your family and stealing your horse all the while trying to kill you, and you still couldn't hit her. (Extreme hyperbole, yes, but you get the idea.)

I'm not trying to sound cavalier about this; rather, I'm trying to express how I feel about the custom that guys can never hit girls (unless perhaps in certain cases of self-defense), no matter how very badly said girls can deserve it at times. But then, that would just raise a whole bunch of other rhetorical and ethical questions: "where do you draw the line?" "When is it acceptable to hit a girl?" "And if so, how much are you 'allowed' to do so before it passes from acceptable to mere malice?" and etc. I'm trying to take this on from an intellectual, logical standpoint rather than an emotional or instinctual one.

For example: say a group of fancy rich girls start to gang around and harass an innocent, unpopular girl. Say they start to bully that girl for a long time, driving the victim positively miserable, and so forth.

Would it be okay, then, to walk up, grab them by the hair, yank them away, and yell at them to fuck off lest something horrible happen to them?

Or, another example. Say a 16-year-old girl sets her pitbull loose on a group made of a mother and her children, with no apparent motive other than she can, or that she's just a bitch who enjoys hurting folks. Say she even screams at you, and actually starts to beat you over the head and shoulders, chasing you around, etc.

Shouldn't you be "allowed" to give her one very good punch to the face and show her she'd better go the fuck away if she knew what was good for her?

'Cause that's what I would've done in this case, and I sure as hell wouldn't have felt the slightest moral wrongness about it.

A 16-year-old girl was charged Monday with two counts of third-degree assault for attacking two women in SeaTac last month. Deputies say her pit bull also joined the attacks.

But deputies who have been searching for her since last week can't find her, and an arrest warrant has been issued. The girl also was charged with one count of being a minor in possession of liquor.

More in-depth details on the full affair below:

On the evening of June 21, a woman stopped at a Burien gas station, where she said she saw a pit bull being abused by the girl and three other juvenile boys, according to court documents.

When the woman told her not to kick the dog, the girl allegedly swore at her and said, "I can do what I want." Deputies say she got in the face of the woman's husband and swore at him as well.

Later that evening in the 13300 block of Des Moines Memorial Drive South in SeaTac, another woman stopped and asked the group if they were OK. She later told police that she also saw the children kicking the pit bull.

"The young black female in the group went up to (the woman) and said 'Get out of here bitch this is none of your business,'" according to court documents.

When the woman said she could call the police and grabbed her cell phone, prosecutors say the girl yanked open the passenger door of the woman's car and started beating her about the head with her own phone.

The woman ran from her car, but the teen ran after her, "beating her all over the head, neck shoulders and back" -- even pulling out her hair, according to court documents.

A man ran up and announced he'd called police, who were on their way.

"Bitch it's my dog and I can kill it if I want, I can do what I want to," the teen responded, according to court documents.

Deputies say the pit bull then attacked the woman who was beaten.

Another woman who was driving by with her daughter reported seeing the incident and advised the teen girl to wait and explain what happened to police.

"The female then attacked (the woman), getting her on the ground and punching her in the face and head," according to a probable cause document. There was a second attack on the woman moments later and deputies say the teen girl again got the woman on the ground before the dog attacked her on both arms.

Both women who were beaten at the SeaTac scene were hospitalized at Harborview Medical Center.

The woman attacked with the cell phone had bruises on both eye sockets and lacerations on her left arm where deputies could see tissue and bone.

The teen girl was treated at Highline Medical Center. Deputies believe she was injured from beating the woman.

Another fine example of our wonderful youth. Always so good to feel so reassured about the future of this species.

As it stands, if the girl is convicted, her sentence could be as harsh as 90 days in detention and with up to 450 hours of community service, along with three years of probation.

Harsh sentence for a harsh crime, and rightfully so.

In this case, and this is just me: I very much would've hit that girl, and not just when she would've chased me around and beat me with my own cellphone until bone was visible through my flesh (for fuck's sake). Pretty much as soon as she had set her dog against that mother and her kids, I would've grabbed her. And if she tried to hit me, I can shamelessly say I would've felt no hesitation in hitting her back, if only to restrain her and show her who's boss. (Not to sound like an Internet Tough Guy; I just don't take bullshit, especially from stupid youths.)

And so, I herein invite anyone bored or pissed enough to still be reading this far to enter the comments and tell me: is it ever right to hit a girl? If not, why? And if so, why, or when/how? Come on, a blog is nothing without some reader participation. I wanna pick those brains!

Silvia Allen is a very stupid woman

2009-07-06T23:20:00.001-04:00

It's testament to how stupid much of our modern world is when dingbats like Silvia Allen (R-Arizona) can safely say that the world really doesn't need new environmental protection laws – the Earth's been around for 6,000 years, anyway, and is still going strong.

Unbelievable.

It's a sad day for Arizona and moderately intelligent people everywhere.

If you thought Don McLeroy was bad for public education in Texas ...

2009-07-06T16:34:00.001-04:00

Then this news might make you spill your coffee over your keyboard as you choke on it. Texas crackpot governor Rick Perry is now pushing Cynthia Dunbar (R-Richmond), who's widely known for her incredible godbot-ness, having written the book One Nation Under God, and has openly said she despises public education, for the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education.

Yeah, putting her in charge of the very establishment she openly hates sounds like a very good idea to me, too.

“It would certainly cause angst among the same members of the pagan left that rejected Don McLeroy because he was a man of faith,” said David Bradley, R-Beaumont, one of the seven socially conservative members on the 15-person board.

Perry’s office declined to comment until “a final decision is made.”

Ooh, the "pagan left" – what a zinger! Admittedly one I've never heard before and that's so utterly random I hope never to hear it again, but still! Sounds to me like someone is angwy that poor ickle McLeroy was given das boot ...

In case we weren't clear enough on how large a crackpot Dunbar is, here's some more info for your noggins:

In a book published last year, Dunbar argued the country’s founding fathers created “an emphatically Christian government” and that government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” She endorses a belief system that requires “any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.”

Also in the book, she calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.”

The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical,” she wrote, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children.

Dunbar home-schooled her own children.

She just sounds better and better, doesn't she?

Basically, the overall article describes Dunbar as the best choice because she makes wingnut conservatives happy. Right, no need to get a moderate who would make both sides happy – or just someone who's not a totally deluded crackpot who would ruin education in Texas for who-knows-how-many years to come. As long as she makes fellow kooks and cranks happy.

The USS Texas Education isn't just sinking; it's plowed right into the ocean bed and has crumpled into a million pieces by now. Chances of recovery: slim-to-none. Only option: get outta there.

When these guys say they believe in fairies, I do wish it were a joke

2009-07-06T16:18:00.001-04:00

But alas, it isn't: these folks really did attend a festival of sorts in the hopes of "encouraging communication and cooperation of the fairy realm". And yes, it's funded, organized and attended mostly by adults.

Oh boy.

TWISP, Wash. -- In the foothills of the North Cascades, where the veil between dimensions is said to be thinnest, inhabitants of this world gather once a year to coexist with fairies in theirs.

About 250 people came to the Methow Valley June 26 through 28 from as far away as Europe and Hawaii to participate in the ninth annual Fairy and Human Relations Congress, an outdoor festival in a secluded mountain meadow called Skalitude.

A giant crop circle depicting a pinwheel-shaped sun had been cut into the high grass. An open-air tent pavilion stood at the lower end of the meadow. Farther up, white peace banners fluttered in a circular array.

"The purpose of the congress is to encourage communication and cooperation of the fairy realm," said Michael "Skeeter" Pilarski, the event's founder and organizer.

The human world is in crisis and can use all the help it can get, Pilarski said, so why not form alliances with those in other realms?

Maybe because they don't exist and you're living in a fantasy world? Oh, alright, I'll try and remain polite ... (however difficult that may prove to be).

Seriously – these guys really believe in fairies? I've heard stories about folks who actually do believe in flying pixies, but never of a full-blown outdoors festival about it ...

Since 2000, the Fairy Congress has been held all but two years at Skalitude, a retreat owned by Lindsey Swope and Will Buchanan. For two years, it was held near Hood River, Ore. Asked whether she believes in fairies or is merely sympathetic to those who do, Swope said, "I believe in it. Life is way more complicated than what we can see, hear and touch."

Hang on – that's her argument, her reason for believing fairies exist? That life and the world are more complex? First of all, how can she know that, if (as a human) she cannot, well, know of any further dimensions to the world around us, only knowing what she can "see, hear and touch"? And second, isn't that the same silly argument used for the existence of God – or any magical beings we've never seen (and cannot see)? That the world is larger than us and that we can't ever know everything about it?

Skeptics might mock the participants or dismiss them as New Age hippies, but they say their belief system is not much different from Native American animists or even Christians who believe in angels.

Well, maybe not "hippies" or even "New Agers", but "kooks" and "general weirdos", sure. Same thing as members of other faiths who actually believe they're being watched over by angels and such. Isn't it odd how these "guardians" never really "guard" us against anything, instead forcing us to rely on our own senses and instincts to keep us from screwing up?

Revelers donned wings, horns or colorful attire suitable for a euphoric Saturday night romp around the bonfire, but there was no evidence of drugs or inebriation. Voices raised only in song or laughter. The sound of drum and flute carried on the wind. Children frolicked. Adults gathered around a communal outdoor kitchen.

Good thing there weren't any drugs with children present – though one may wonder if seeing mature adults with wings or horns would be any more dignified.

One who claims to have seen a rather large deva, much like the Jolly Green Giant only without the peas, is Mary J. Getten, of Olympia, who says she can communicate telepathically with animals and fairies.

It also is possible to communicate with the "unseen realm," Getten said, but it's important to know what you're doing before trying.

"Seeing fairies changes your reality," she said.

You know what else would change your reality? Attending your nearest AA meeting immediately. You know, if you're seeing fairies and such.

"Thirty years ago, we would have been called kooks or worse," he said. Now people are more accommodating in their thinking.

Does he believe in magic?

"There is magic everywhere, Pilarski said. "We're magic. But in the sense of things happening that are out of the ordinary? Yes, there definitely is magic here."

Don't worry, you're definitely still being called kooks and worse. It's rather a given when you openly admit you believe in actual magic.

New Song: 'Time Again' (short version)

2009-07-06T02:01:00.000-04:00

'Time Again'
(short version)
By Joé McKen

'Time Again'
Composed by Joé McKen

Don't forget to view in HQ!

Note that this is a shortened, cut-down version of the song. 'Time Again' is basically the same motifs played over and over with changing lyrics and vocals in the background, and the whole thing is about 3 minutes long, which is too long to be playing the same thing over and over again. This will nonetheless give you a good idea what the song is like until I get a microphone and record my vocals over it.

This is simply a little motif that just popped into my head (I do love it when that happens), so I quickly wrote it down and this is exactly what I got. I wanna keep this song extremely simple: it's only a single acoustic guitar playing with some vocals accompanying it, nothing more, but the end result is a good one I believe. You be the judge. ;)

[Click "Continued …»" below to view lyrics]

Verse 1

Time again
To take the road that no-one's took before
Time, my friend
To look up past the mountains at the shimmering stars above
Hmm, ooh, ooh
When the time comes the angels will come down before the dawn
And when the world is different, and you don't know what to do
Just sing a song, just any song, and let the whispers come to you

Verse 2

Carry me away ...
Set me by that flowing little creek
Fly with your golden wings
Time and time again, you will fly high in the skies
Ooh, you're so beautiful, my angel
And before you know it, it's a treasure wrapped in blue
Time again ...
Time ...

Written & recorded with Guitar Pro 5.2.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

Not fit for the title of "mother"

2009-07-06T00:05:00.003-04:00

Mothers don't intentionally let their kids die from a treatable cancer simply because they're autistic.

SALEM, Mass. -- A woman accused of withholding cancer treatment from her autistic son has been charged with attempted murder.

Kristen LaBrie is scheduled to appear in Salem Superior Court on Monday on charges of attempted murder, child endangerment and permitting bodily injury to a disabled person.

LaBrie's son, Jeremy, was 9 when he died in March. He had been diagnosed with leukemia in 2006.

Prosecutors say LaBrie canceled at least a dozen appointments for chemotherapy treatment and did not fill at least half the prescriptions her son had been given.

She had earlier been charged with child endangerment, and a grand jury returned the more serious indictment Friday. She was arrested Sunday night.

Let her rot in jail for a good, long time. What an incredible ghoul.

One of Us!: Daniel Radcliffe is an atheist!

2009-07-05T22:07:00.001-04:00

The religious nutjobs in America now have yet another reason to hate Harry Potter: the actor who incarnates our beloved wizard in the film series has openly revealed himself as a proud, relaxed atheist. Attaboy, Daniel!

In an interview with Esquire magazine, Radcliffe risked the US box office prospects of the new Harry Potter film by declaring himself to be an atheist.

In a pronouncement that will dismay America's religious Right, which has long voiced suspicions about Potter's "anti-Christian" message, the 19-year-old actor said he did not believe in God.

He also expressed his admiration for Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and bete noir of Evangelical Christians.

Radcliffe has been reticent on the subject of religion in the past, but in an interview to promote the latest instalment in the film franchise, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 15, he said: "I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch."

He joked: "There we go, Dan, that's half of America that's not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment."

I don't see why anyone would worry about a drop in the box office – anyone who's offended by witchcraft and fantastical hocus-pocus will already have been boycotting the films and burning Harry Potter effigies and books for a decade now, so seriously, anyone who's still watching the films or reading the books will likely have no problem with a young atheist in lead role. (Not to mention that anyone who stops watching a series they previously enjoyed just because an actor happens not to believe in their branch of faith is a total ass, but that's a given.)

I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before – apparently he said this at the release of Half-Blood Prince, now almost four years ago.

I was sorry to read this next little bit, though:

Prof Dawkins, author of best-selling book The God Delusion, is no fan of Harry Potter, once remarking that tales of witchcraft are "anti-scientific".

Oh come on now. That's just silly. It's a fantasy novel. What the heck does he want, science-based magic? Frankly, hating on Harry Potter just because it's supposedly "anti-scientific" (which is really a stupid claim in itself) is just as pathetic as anyone who hates, say, House for being "anti-woo". Kinda disappointing coming from someone as obviously intelligent and usually dead-on accurate as Professor Dawkins, but no-one's always 100% rational, I guess.

Ray Comfort thinks he's a bad man

2009-07-05T12:29:00.000-04:00

Well, sorta. But only according to his rather astoundingly-high standards one must meet to be considered a "good" man, apparently. Here's what he replied to something he was sent from a commenter who said that Comfort "probably" wasn't a "horrible useless little sinful piece of garbage":

It shows that you think that you could be wrong about me being a good man. And, you are. Big time. I’m not a good man, and I am "all that bad." A "good" man loves the God who gave him life--with all of his heart, mind, soul, and strength. He also loves every other human being as much as he loves himself. A good man never lusts after women, or has a selfish or unclean thought sexual though. He is perfect, in thought, word, and in deed.

I'd like to know where God ever said how he defined what being a "good" person meant. I doubt even God would send you to Hell if you failed to meet all that impossible criteria. I'm probably guilty of more sins than I'm even aware of, but I doubt that makes me a "bad" person.

Contrasting with God's surprisingly elitist views on goodness, my views on what makes someone a good person or not are really quite simple: they must intend to cause, and end up causing, more good in the world than bad. Someone who just wants to be happy and others to be happy with them, and who spends their time trying to make the world around them a better place, if only a tiny little piece of it – no-one can call them "bad" for it. Everyone will do bad, mean or hurtful things every now and then. It's called "being human". But as long as you try to spread more good around than negativity, then no matter what you do, you're a good person in my book, end of story.

No doubt this will make you angry, annoyed, flabbergasted and very concerned about my mental health. This is because you don’t understand God’s terrible justice, neither do you understand His amazing mercy. You and I may be a "sinful piece of garbage," but it is on that garbage that God set His love, and suffered and died to cleanse us of our filth.

Don't worry, no-one's been concerned with Ray's mental health for quite a few years now, ever since he's been formally diagnosed with terminal stupidity. But even then, I wouldn't go so far as to call him a "sinful piece of garbage". For all his faults (and stupidity), he's not a bad man, or an evil man. Just annoyingly dumb and ignorant. Bad things to be, perhaps, but rather low down the list overall.

The kind of letter editors probably wish they received more often

2009-07-05T05:23:00.001-04:00

Perhaps it's a good thing I woke up so damn early this morning (5 AM? Aie aie aie ...), for it allowed me to come across a mention of this letter to the editor of the NY Times. I think it's hard to argue with this guy when he's just so bloody right.

To the Editor:

Re “When Our Brains Short-Circuit,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, July 2):

The reason humans respond to immediate threats more readily than future threats like global warming relates more to their poor understanding of science than neurons in their brain.

Science education in the United States is so poor that most citizens are incapable of understanding basic scientific theories like evolution. As a result, pundits and talk show hosts can easily persuade the average listener that global warming is a hoax while offering little or no evidence.

If these same people took the time to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming, they would see that the evidence is overwhelming.

Fred Posey
Canfield, Ohio, July 2, 2009

The writer is an adjunct professor in the science and math department of Edison State College in Fort Myers, Fla.

I would say that the way the brain works isn't perhaps as irrelevent as Prof. Posey makes it sound like; we've still yet to discover many of the secrets of our minds and how they process information relevant to our survival and well-being. But his overall point regarding the state of education, particularly scientific education, in the US is incontrovertibly dead-on. I bet editors wish they received more sensible and educated (not to mention coherent) letters like this one as opposed to the myriads of complaints, screeds and general crap they tend to get instead.

Here's a novel idea for a TV show

2009-07-04T18:25:00.001-04:00

The premise: strand ten atheists in a room, and throw in a leader/preacher from the four major religions: a Muslim imam, Christian a priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk.

The goal: get a new convert from the godless folks every show, and further allure the nonbelievers towards faith with the prize of a pilgrimage to the holy site of their choice: Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

The result: a very entertaining (and amusing) game show packaged as Penitents Compete which is to air on Turkish TV sometime soon.

"We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God," Kanal T chief executive Seyhan Soylu told Reuters.

"We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

So the biggest gift in the world is a brainwashing societal poison*? Great. So much for the gold-and-diamond necklace I was gonna give to my girlfriend on our date. Pfft. Should've brought some religious brochures.

I suppose it probably hurts the show's image if the TV channel's actual chief executive preemptively asserts they are against atheism. Kinda like fatties contesting at a show that aims to thin 'em up, with a host that actually hates their overlarge guts. Pooh.

It's also pointless to merely pretend to be godless; a "team of theologians" will ensure that the participants are true atheists and not just faithful hopefuls who are keen on a free pilgrimage and shot to fame. Shoot, there go my vacation plans.

... Still sounds better than the large majority of shows on TV. (Seriously, if I hear another commercial on G4TechTV praising Hurl as the "greatest show on TV" I might do just that myself.

* I will admit that, perhaps, Buddhism isn't exactly the worst religion one could join. If they, y'know, had to. Plus a trip to Tibet sounds neat ...

Why wingnuts, fundies and idiots love Sarah Palin

2009-07-03T13:17:00.001-04:00

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers has hit the nail right on the frickin' head when he explains why deep-end conservatives like Sarah Palin so much (though it can also apply to why they like Michele Bachmann, and pretty much all other loony idiots):

Part of Sarah Palin's irresistible appeal to her fundamentalist base is her ability to look at the camera with utter conviction and declare black to be white.

The ability to lie well is a valuable part of the fundamentalist psychology. My son isn't gay, he just hasn't found the right woman! Those rocks aren't 50 million years old, they just look like it as a test of our faith! My sexless marriage isn't foundering, it is filled with God's spirit! The minister isn't molesting little Maria, they're just very close! It isn't torture, it is being tough on terrorists!

Fundamentalists can recognize a truly audacious and talented liar from miles away. Instead of running the other way, as you might expect, they gather around the powerful liar, for they know that their own lies will be respected and protected by a leader who understands the paramount importance of preserving their whole system of denial.

No-one could've put it better than that. They flock around her, and idiots like her, because she's able to look into a camera at them through their TV sets and tell them exactly what they want to hear, to repeat those same, thoroughly-discredited lies that have made the right-wingers so iconic for their stupidity, hypocrisy and general bullshit. The fellow wingnuts gather around, because they know Palin has their same convictions, yet they're all united by that same disability: a lack of critical thought, or frankly, a lack of thought, period. They cannot think and realize ... "Hey, now that's just stupid".

It's sad, really.

Is she lying, or just really, really stupid?

2009-07-03T12:58:00.001-04:00

Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder if Michele Bachmann, the scourge of thinking people people everywhere, has ever learned to read properly. How else could she keep spewing false claim after stupid false claim? Example, on the Hannity show, she claimed that the US Census form never asks whether the one filling it out is an American citizen:

BACHMANN: Twenty-eight pages. Sean, you know the one question they don't ask? They don't ask, "are you an American citizen?" They don't ask if you're here on a visa or when it expires. We have no real idea how many illegal aliens are in our country. But wouldn't you think, here they are asking every personal question about our lives, they could at least ask if we're an American citizen? They don't bother to ask for that. That's why I think people need to read this census for themselves. If you go to my website, michelebachmann, you can read it.

Actually, the question is literally right there, on the very first page of the form, practically staring right back at you.

And of course, this blatantly stupid claim received praise from Hannity:

HANNITY: And Congresswoman, credit to you. I mean, you're out there and you've become a target by the Democrats because of your outspokenness and your willingness to take on the administration.

Stupidity runs thick in the wingnut circle. She's not the target of Democrats per se; she's the target of anyone with a quarter of a brainstem – not even a necessarily functional one – because of the incredible number of absolutely false and stupid claims she keeps making over, and over, and over again. Hell, even three of her own Republicans are recognizing how utterly brainless the woman is.

She and Ray Comfort should elope together. (Though only after making absolutely certain they cannot have kids together. That would be a plague we don't wanna deal with.)

Friday Canine: Soft grass makes wolf sleepy ...

2009-07-03T12:00:00.001-04:00

Original source: photopuppet on flickr

Ray Comfort compares abortion to Jew-killing Nazis

2009-07-03T11:54:00.000-04:00

The man really is profound in his capacity for illogic and plain stupidity. He's now comparing "a woman killing her child in the womb" (ie., abortion) to Nazis gunning down those subhuman Jews and piling them in pits. Yes, Ray, that totally has everything to do with it. *Rolls eyes*

The Bible is consistent when it refers to a pregnant woman as being "with child." It doesn't say "with fetus" nor does it redefine a child in the womb as a "blastocyte."

[...]

A society may redefine its beliefs, but new definitions don’t change reality. Hitler redefined the Jews as being less than human, and thus began the efficiency of Nazi Germany. Jewish men, women, and children were marched or sent by train, truck, or bus to a nearby forest. A ditch was dug to serve as a mass grave. The Jews were ordered to remove their clothing, place it in neat piles, and wait. Small groups were then taken down into the pit. One German witness later recalled:

"The pit was already two-thirds full. I estimated that it held a thousand people. I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an SS man who sat at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling into it. He had a tommy gun on his knees and was smoking a cigarette. The people--they were completely naked--went down some steps ... to the place where the SS man directed them. They lay down in front of the dead and wounded. Some caressed the living and spoke to them in a low voice. Then I heard a series of shots." [Testimony given at Nuremberg]

Many Nazis escaped the justice of man, but none will escape the Justice of God.

So the next time you advocate the murder of an innocent human being because of your redefinition of life, feel free to wash your hands (as Pontius Pilate did) in water. It won’t change a thing.

So remember that, women: whenever you get an abortion, you're gunning down Jews in your Swastika'd uniform.

Poor Comfort. Poor stupid, deranged Comfort. First of all, there's no "redefining" anything when referring to a developing embryo as a blastocyte. That's what it's actually called. He can call it another term if he likes, but there's no "redefinition" going on. The term "child" does not fit to every developmental stage, you know. (Wait – of course he doesn't.) The Bible doesn't term it as "with fetus" or "with embryo" because they simply didn't have that terminology or knowledge back then. Sheesh.

Leave it to the dumbest man alive to compare a woman terminating a pregnancy either because it's dangerous or because she simply cannot be a mother and is unwilling to sacrifice nine long months for a child she cannot keep, and bloodthirsty monsters gunning down innocent men, women and children to try and purify the species. Truly.

New Song: 'Faraway'

2009-07-02T22:54:00.002-04:00

Faraway'
by Joé McKen

'Faraway'
Composed by Joé McKen

[Click "Continue …»" below to view lyrics]

[Verse 1]

The shadows are mounting tonight
Try to pull us apart with their might
Never gonna let you know
Never gonna let you go
I've walked those streets at night
Seen the shine of the blue moon on high
Shine with sparkles in the pools of the dawn
Wherever you are, I'll be drawn to you

[Verse 2]

Race like angels for the light
Look at me with those eyes so bright
Feel the safety in your arms
Why do they wanna rent us apart?
Do you know what you mean to me?
Do you know how you mean to be?
Cross the field and run the line
I promise you we'll be just fine

[Chorus 1]

Hold it, stop running away
So faraway
Hold, wait, I'm coming along
So faraway
I'm trying to find a way over to you
But you're faraway
I promise I'll do whatever I have to
But I'm faraway ...

[Bridge 1]

Yeah, yeah, yeah
Follow your heart into my hands ...

[Pre-Chorus 2]

Swim with the moon in the river
Catch the wind across the plains
Though the dark will come and blind us
We'll find a way to each other

[Chorus 2]

Wait, stop, I'm trying to find you
So faraway
Wait, please, just give me a chance
You're so faraway
I'm coming to find you, you know I will
But you're faraway
I'll fight 'til I die and never stop
Until we're together again

[Outro]

'Cause I'm faraway!
We're faraway!
Faraway!
Yeah, yeah, yeah ...

Don't forget to view in High Quality!

This is a song I've been working on for several months now; I've been going at it on/off, restarted once or twice, etc. I've finally got it down to its (for-now-) final form, though I may edit a few little things down the road. I have to admit, I'm rather proud of the main guitar riff; I could've sworn I heard it in a dream or something.

Music composed & recorded with Guitar Pro 5.2.

Rate, comment & enjoy! =)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Liz Cheney says Obama refuses to claim that America is the greatest country EVAR

2009-07-02T15:09:00.001-04:00

Dick Cheney's daughter has long-since proven herself to be just as big an overpatriotic idiot as her father. It definitely seems to run in the family. She's recently been making hosts of stupid and thoroughly false claims, and here's her most recent one yet:

"...I would say one of the things that is troubling to Americans, I think, is extent to which this administration is focused on the president's popularity overseas. We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people."

Greatest country in history? Well, if we take that as being in relation to the available resources technological capabilities of the day ... say that to the Roman Empire at the height of their power. Or to Genghis Khan, who's empire was thrice the size of the Cesars'. Seriously, America may be the biggest and baddest today, but it has many, many times been eclipsed in many, many ways.

Not to mention that perhaps Obama isn't saying, "WE'RE #1!!!", simply because that's both childish and petty. And horrendously unprofessional. Seriously, Lizzie, go crawl somewhere and expire your brains for a while.

Not to mention, of course, that her claims about Obama never exhibiting a pride in American exceptionalism is false (oh, the surprise!). Here's what he did say when confronted with this very question by a reporter:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

"And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

Once again, a perfect response from Obama, recognizing that America is indeed perhaps the Top Gun in today's world, yet without exhibiting jingoism or rabid patriotism, and still recognizing the many strengths of other great countries as well. Ie: proud, but rational.

Glenn Beck and his guest: Obama needs to blow up America

2009-07-02T14:47:00.001-04:00

Well, it's not him who said those words, but his guest (fellow delusional crackpot Michael Scheuer). But said guest was on his show and evidently had Beck's support and agreement, so really, it's safe to say, now more than ever, that Beck is slowly but surely becoming a terrorist. Literally.

Transcription (from HuffPo):

BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won't see the error of their ways?

SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not -- the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only -- it's an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

BECK: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.

SCHEUER: Absolutely.

Hmm. I wonder how much further he has to go before we can legally charge him with inciting treason? Considering as treason is legally defined in the Constitution as aiding and abetting enemies or terrorists, I doubt officially saying, "Osama, please come bomb us out of Obama's grasp", is too far from the mark.

What a total fucking nutjob.

Mariano is angry at atheist bus ads again

2009-07-02T13:58:00.002-04:00

Mariano over at Atheism is Dead is once again ranting against the evils of those atheists who wish to place more ads on city buses. Take a good long at his arguments and criticisms, and you'll get an idea of just who is really illogical and plain stupid here.

A letter to the editor of the Indiana Daily Student presents a wonderful poster boy example of atheist “logic” and the disparity between their attempts at putting a public relations happy face on atheism on the one hand and what they are really about on the other.

The hoopla revolves around yet another atheist group, Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign, who are collecting donations, “Help us reach a goal of $50,000!,” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone but in order to attempt to demonstrative just how clever they think themselves to be.

I'm getting tired of idiots using the recession as an excuse to say people shouldn't be spending on this and that, or that those who ask for donations are just greedy bastards. Get a hint, morons: it's not your money they're spending, which already means it's absolutely none of your business to begin with, and the fact that the current economic downturn is putting a stranglehold on their funds is no reason for them not to spend it as they wish. If people want to donate cash to whatever organization they wish, even if it's risky to their financial well-being, it's their choice, and organizations who are simply asking for donations aren't doing anything wrong in the slightest. Really, get some perspective.

The letter claimed that the ads, which are to read “You can be good without God,” say “nothing about the virtues of religious people”? Really? It means that, in this regard, their religion, not to mention their God, is irrelevant.

Okay, first off: why is it those who argue so valiantly against atheism never seem to be able to understand plain English? What part of "You can be good without God" directly translates into "God is irrelevent"? That's not the message at all; only illiterate (or blind) fools would think so. The message means you don't have to be controlled by God to do good things. You can choose to be good, by yourself, without some omnipotent deity at the reigns. It makes no statement as to said omnipotent deity's relevance. God could still be there, and matter, yet you would still be able to make your own decisions to be good. Sheesh.

Moreover, “You can be good without God” is an answer to an argument that no one has made, in a manner of speaking. This is because theists, let us speak of Christians, would argue that people who think themselves to be “without God” are not so, since God still motivates them to do good through having placed His laws in their hearts. Thus, the argument is not that atheists cannot be good without God.

Now he's being blatantly and patently blind and foolish. "An argument that no-one has made"? Oh please. Go to any forum, anywhere, that talks about morality and the concept of Right & Wrong and the origins of morality, and it's 99.95% guaranteed you'll find several ideologues and assorted twits who claim openly that God and/or religion is the source of all morality in man, and that an absence of God or faith would inevitably lead to evil, hedonism and various types of kitten-eating. Truly, to ignore this means you're either quite dishonest, or unbelievably dense.

And as for God having placed his magical laws in everyone's hearts whether they believe in him or not: uh-huh. If only that wasn't completely and thoroughly debunked by the fact that morality has been proven, time and time (and time?) again, to have evolved and developed with human society, perfectly without God's supposed influence. Hell, I've read and heard of reports (I'll post some links if I find them) that seemed to indicate that the very first appearance of what we may call "morality" seemed to appear in humanity's ancestors (think Homo Habilis and the such), creatures which couldn't even understand the concept of God in the first place.

What this tells us is that even inhuman (or, perhaps, pre-human) animals had some rudimentary concept of Right & Wrong in their minds. The conclusion of this would be that either God placed morality in inhuman animals (considering Homo Habilis and the likes weren't human by any definition), which directly refutes the claims of humans being the apple of God's many eyes, or that he didn't give us morality, period, and we simply developed it as an evolutionary asset to "guide" us into making the choices and decisions that were more apt to increase the chances of our species' survival (such as helping ourselves instead of "every man for himself" and such).

Logic: can't defeat it, brother.

The letter claims that “You can be good without God” is a “a positive message about atheism”? This message, as usual, defines atheism strictly as a negative position; it is atheism as anti-theism. Why can they not make a statement that does not besmirch theism?

Again, it's only interpreted as an anti-theism or anti-Christian message if you really dig deep looking to extract some hidden meaning (of which there is none, may I point out). It means you can be good without God telling you what's right and what's wrong. Nothing more is inferred.

Note that morality describes what is; whatever people, a society, agree upon while ethics prescribes what should be; the ethos. Atheist can certainly make assertions about morals based on subjective personal preferences and arguments from outrage but cannot provide an absolute ethic: they can make epistemic statements but not provide ontological foundations.

More unfounded claims and hot air. Atheists (those worth speaking to and/or of, that is) make claims out of knowledge, experience, and evidence. Along with rationality and logic (but those aren't ever far away, anyway). Morals come, as I've said before, from evolution. They help our species help itself by making the right choices that lead us to prosper. Ask any anthropologist worth his/her salt, for starters.

The atheists and their bulldog, the ACLU, should certainly advertize as much as they please for at least two reasons: 1) Their claims should be heard as much as possible since they discredit themselves.
2) Atheists from the UK to the USA have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars/pounds of donated money during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they think themselves to be: need any more be said?

1) Obviously it's working quite well, seeing as how atheist numbers are swelling quite rapidly with no sign of letting up – and also judging from how angry and upset religious morons seem to be getting about it.

2) ... What? So we spend cash to promote awareness for atheism, because we ... wanna show how clever we think we are?

o_0 Seriously, that couldn't make less sense if you tried.

Mariano goes on and on about how atheism promoters are just putting on a "PR happy face" (...) and showing illogic, yet without showing a shred of logic or a cohesive (or coherent) argument himself. Truly a basketcase.

India finally enters the 21st century on gay rights

2009-07-02T12:39:00.002-04:00

The incredibly conservative country (though less insanely so than its Middle-Eastern neighbors) has just struck down a law that criminalized homosexuality in the country – though this decriminalization only applies in its capital, New Delhi, thus far. Still, it's a very good start.

NEW DELHI (AP) — A court ruled Thursday to decriminalize homosexuality in the Indian capital, a groundbreaking decision that could bring more freedom to gays in this deeply conservative country.

The Delhi High Court ruled that treating consensual gay sex as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's constitution. The ruling, the first of its kind in India, applies only in New Delhi.

"I'm so excited, and I haven't been able to process the news yet," Anjali Gopalan, the executive director of the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, a sexual health organization that had filed the petition, told reporters. "We've finally entered the 21st century."

But some religious leaders quickly criticized the ruling. "This Western culture cannot be permitted in our country," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a leading Muslim cleric in the northern city of Lucknow.

Yeah, yeah, keep whining. Ain't gonna change much. =)

The petition to strike down the law was actually filed eight years ago, which is par for the course in India's notoriously clogged judicial system. The law itself, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was first set in place – not by Indians, but by the British during the colonial era. (Once again, giving meaning to the phrase "stiff-ass Brits" ...)

Maybe an influx of our far-from-perfect-but-still-much-much-better-than-theirs Western "culture" into the worlds of India, the Middle-East and such ass-backwards places wouldn't be a bad thing after all.

Stupid Ironic Quote of the Day Year

2009-07-01T13:41:00.003-04:00

I've just commented on how the managing director of WingNutDaily said something totally and laughably ironic, and then I come across Ray Comfort's blog. Oh, dear God. Hint: his topic is regarding sanity, and the answers you give to the following questions he cites determine whether you're sane or not. Indeed, they do – just not in the way he expects.

What’s the basis for your assumption that you are the one who is sane and that your grandmother is not? Here are a few test questions: ^[1]Do you believe that there is a creation without a Creator? ^[2]Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her child in the womb? ^[3]Should homosexuals have the right to marry each other? ^[4]What is the purpose of your existence (other than to find happiness while you are here)? ^[5]What is your definition of a sane person? ^[6]How do you know your definition is the correct one? ^[7]Does your grandmother think that she is a primate? ^[8]Do you think she is? ^[9]Do you believe Richard Dawkins is correct when he says that we are all primates? ^[10]If there was one chance in a million that God exists, and He is offering you everlasting life, would you take the time to look into it?

Let's see: ^[1]No, ^[2]Yes, ^[3]Yes, ^[4]None, ^[5]Someone free from mental disorders, ^[6]Because it's in every dictionary, ^[7]N/A, ^[8]Yes, ^[9]Yes, ^[10]No.

Next!

Sadly, all this proves, knowing which are the answers Comfort is looking for, is his own insanity.

Stupid Ironic Quote of the Day: David Kupelian on WND

2009-07-01T12:54:00.001-04:00

Kupelian, the managing editor of WingNutDaily, in an "open letter" to WND readers:

At WND, we don't mock patriotic Americans trying to set their country right. We don't rewrite White House press releases and call it news. We don't bow and scrape before President Obama or anyone else. We don't pretend abortion is OK, or that same-sex marriage is good, or that global warming is "proven science," or that more government is the solution to all problems, or that Palestinian leaders wants peace, or that the Constitution is old-fashioned, or that the "Federal Reserve" is good for America. In short, we're not politically correct and we have no sacred cows. Instead, we really do strive to tell the truth that Americans desperately need and deserve to hear.

... I didn't know the loudness of a nuclear blast could be eclipsed by the simultaneous explosion of every irony meter in the Universe. Wow.

Another amusing quote, a few lines below:

But what you might not realize is that what we do is very difficult.

How so? Just latch on to the silliest, wackiest and most insipid claims you can think of, double-check to make sure they aren't founded in any sort of evidence AND have been refuted countless times in countless ways, and then paste it on your site as "news", or even a "WND Exclusive". Doesn't sound all that difficult to me.

Showcasing America's craftiness

2009-06-30T15:19:00.002-04:00

'Cause with these pictures, you definitely can't say Americans lack ingenuity or creativity ... though some more common sense would undoubtedly be appreciated by a few of them, or especially the folks around them. Just take a peek at There, I Fixed It, the blog about "Adventures in Home Pwnership". It's worth the larf.

Some examples of masterful craftsmanship:

Spare Tire

Fire Alarm

Windshield Defroster

And People Ask Why I'm Afraid To Fly

... Maybe we should keep most of America away from duct tape and screwdrivers for a while.

Oh no! Kim Jong-Il wants to wipe out America!

2009-06-30T14:56:00.000-04:00

... And yes, your first reaction should be a mingled sense of incredulity, along with a hearty derisory laugh at just how utterly delusional the little guy is:

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," a dispatch from the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Oh, me so scared. They don't even have enough fuel to launch an attack against their own southern neighbors, and now they think – perhaps bolstered by their recent nuclear activities – that they're in any way capable to take on the most powerful military and political force on the planet?

Here's a free hint, Kimmie: you've developed a few successful nuclear tests. Whereas the US has had thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads for decades. I'm pretty sure just a few pushes of a few buttons for them will have you wiped out – permanently. Better stop bragging, little man.

Oh, the amusement. But if you really wanna be insulted into next January, take a look at the NK News Random Insult Generator. Crueler words have never been ... well, generated.

Scary economics shit

2009-06-29T14:46:00.000-04:00

Ever wonder just how hopelessly fucked Americans (and, by necessary extension, much of the world) are? Just take a peek at the US Debt Clock. This'll give you nightmares.

A cop shoots an innocent dog and lies his ass off about it

2009-06-29T14:32:00.002-04:00

I'm not sure whether reading Balko's blog is a good thing or a bad thing for me; sure, it exposes me to all sorts of dumbass behavior from a variety of sources which always pleases my inner misanthropist, but at the same time it infuriates me to see just how fucking incompetent and/or cruel some of the assholes in charge of upholding the law can be.

Here's an example: a cop in Tennessee shot and killed a "pit-bull/bulldog-type dog" that, according to him, was charging at him in a "very aggressive manner" along with two other dogs, as the cop was busy chasing after two suspects who had apparently broken into a home. However, that's his version of the story – the version from several eyewitnesses to the incident are drastically different.

According to Deputy Chief David Quillin, the incident occurred about 7 p.m. while police were chasing two suspects in the area of Carrington Court.

Witnesses have told the Times-News that police told children playing outside to get back, as they were looking for two black males suspected of breaking into a nearby home.

Quillin told the Times-News that Officer Darrell Johnson stepped over a low wire fence on Derwood Court as he was running after a suspect. He then “encountered three pit bull/bulldog-type dogs.”

“Those dogs charged at him in a very aggressive manner,” Quillin said.

“(Johnson) tried to retreat, but he did not have that opportunity. They continued to charge at him in a very aggressive manner, and that’s when he was forced to fire. As a result, one of the pit bulls died.”

According to Quillin, there were other officers in the area at the time of the shooting, and he based his information on the officers’ statements and police reports.

“It certainly appears at that point that the officer was justified in his actions,” Quillin said.

Indeed, had things actually gone down that way, it would've been a tragic but necessary killing to defend the officer's life and safety. But apparently, it's not at all what actually happened:

Richie Hammonds, 1005 Derwood Court, No. 4, owned “Mace” for three years, since he was a puppy. Contrary to police, he says there were not three dogs in his back yard when Officer Johnson stepped over his fence, but only Mace. His other two dogs remained on the back porch.

And while Johnson’s report on the incident states he traveled about 20 feet into the fenced-in yard when he encountered the dogs, three witnesses have told the Times-News that he only placed one foot over the fence.

“He put his foot back outside the fence, pulled out his weapon and shot him,” said Jonathan Suit, Hammonds’ neighbor. “There wasn’t a noise made, the dog wasn’t running. It was just walking toward him.”

“The officer stepped over the fence,” said Amanda Bellamy, another of Hammonds’ neighbors. “Mace came out of his doghouse, was walking up to (Johnson) to smell him. The officer stepped back out of the fence, pulled his weapon and shot that dog. That dog would not have come out of that fence. It’s an electric fence. They’re scared to death of it. The dog walked up to him wagging his tail.”

“The dogs smell the juice and stay at least two feet back from it,” Hammonds said. “Mace was 10 feet away when (Officer Johnson) shot him.”

Naturally, I'm certainly enclined to believe the dog's actual owner and the other matching eyewitness accounts, rather than the cop, who's best justification for what he's done so far is ...

Hammonds claims that after the shooting, Johnson said “I hate pit bulls.”

Right. Just as Cheyenne Cherry hates cats. Makes you wonder who are the real beasts in these sorts of cases.

As it turns out, even his reasons he gave as to why he was there in the first place are apparently bullshit:

Another point of contention is that police say they were chasing a suspect.

“The cops were supposed to be chasing two black men who just robbed a place, and yet they didn’t even pursue the chase once they shot the dog,” said John Adams, landlord of the apartment complex.

“They weren’t chasing anybody,” said Suit. “They were just looking around. They weren’t after anybody. But to read the paper (police) made it sound like there was a guy in their sights they were running after. That’s not true. I was here; I saw the whole thing.”

Witnesses told the Times-News that police were called to the area to search for two black males. Quillin said the suspect Johnson was chasing was Hammonds’ neighbor, Joe Shupe, 27.

Shupe, a white male, was arrested and charged with resisting and evading arrest.

He can't even get his story straight. Fucking moron.

“If he was in pursuit of somebody, and the dog was going to try and bite him, he should have shot the dog and went on after who he was going after instead of standing there,” Hammonds said. “He stood there and said ‘The reason I shot him was because I hate pit bulls.’ That was his exact words. It took everything I had not to hit that guy.”

Mace, according to witnesses, was not dead after several minutes. Hammonds asked Johnson to “go ahead and finish him off,” putting the dog out of its misery.

“Three shots to the head, that’s ridiculous,” said Bellamy. “And then (police) let him lay there and suffer like that.”

It wasn't enough to kill the dog just because he hates pit bulls. Nah, he had to leave the poor animal there to suffer with three fucking bullets in its head before finally ending its life.

Hammonds says that it took all of his resolve not to hit the cop. I wouldn't have hit him either. I swear, I would've killed the bastard. And definitely have felt zero remorse about it.

Them magical disappearing house numbers have got cops all confused

2009-06-29T13:57:00.007-04:00

What other explanation is there – other than the usual incompetency – for teams of officers who routinely barge into houses, apartments and domains – before realizing it's the wrong frickin' place to begin with? Makes you wonder regarding their literacy aptitudes. Balko from The Agitator has two stories concerning this particular branch of cop incompetency. The first one regards an elderly couple having the shock of their lives when cops wake them up and forcibly restrain them:

INDIANAPOLIS -- An Indianapolis family is asking for an apology from police after officers mistakenly barged into their home during an early-morning warrant sweep.

Marye Minton, 70, and her 72-year-old husband were awoken early Thursday to officers banging on the door of their home, 6News' Ericka Flye reported.

Marye Minton said she is upset that the officers came inside and ordered her husband, who is in poor health, onto the ground.

"They said to him, 'Get on the floor,' like that, and see my husband's had four strokes, and he can't whoop anybody, he can't do anything," she said. "I'm very mad and I don't want it to happen to another citizen."

Officers were trying to serve a warrant for a man wanted on drug charges. The address listed on the paperwork was 4042. The Minton's home is 4048, with both house numbers clearly marked.

But Major Mark Robinett of the Marion County Sheriff's Department, who is in charge of warrant sweeps, said he was told that officers had a difficult time reading the addresses because of overcast skies.

Um – so they couldn't see the clearly-marked numbers ... because of overcast skies? Uh-huh. Sure. Only, I don't recall myself going blind whenever clouds cover the heavens and sunlight is a bit dimmed. I recall I can read door numbers perfectly well. Nice excuse, but seriously, try harder, morons. This reminds me of the time my brother got home past curfew (again) whilst biking, and his brilliant excuse which didn't fly was "the wind was pushing me too hard". Yeah.

At least in the end the police decided to honor her demand for an official apology (according to the report that is).

Our second "isolated incident" comes from Maryland, where apparently even brightly-lit corridors are no match for cops' illiteracy:

Kenyan immigrant Nancy Njoroge had been living in the United States for a year when a Montgomery County SWAT team burst into her Gaithersburg apartment at 4 a.m., handcuffed her and her two teenage daughters, and searched her apartment, court records show.

Police found nothing.

The reason: Njoroge lived in No. 202 of her apartment complex. The police had a search warrant for apartment 201.

After rejecting an offer from the county’s claims adjuster of a “couple of movie passes,” the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the county on the family’s behalf for unspecified damages, according to ACLU records filed in court.

The ACLU said the purpose of the lawsuit was to hold the police department accountable for its mistake.

“Officers had but one apartment to locate, in a quiet and well-lit hallway in the dead of night, without distraction and with clearly marked doors and numbers,” ACLU lawyer Fritz Mulhauser said in a letter to the county.

Njoroge and her daughters have suffered emotional distress since the attack and have seen their work and school lives disrupted, according to their lawyers.

[...]

Police later served the search warrant on the correct apartment, where they found 600 grams of cocaine and $27,820 in cash, according to a report by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which partnered with the county on the drug investigation.

Court records don’t give a clear reason why the police raided the wrong apartment, and the county attorney assigned to the case did not respond to inquiries for the story. But in court records, a SWAT team leader indicated that it was an isolated incident.

An isolated incident. Riiight. Apart from the dozens of such "isolated incidents" Balko routinely digs up and pastes over his blog's front page. Isolated incident, my ass.

As Ed Brayton put it, "If you had a pizza delivery guy who delivered pizza to the wrong address as often as cops do, you'd fire him.". Hell, forget firing him, just make him pay for all the wasted pizzas. And then fire his stupid ass.

The kinds of letters the MRFF gets bucketloads of

2009-06-29T13:44:00.001-04:00

Taken from Ed Brayton who obtained the permission from Michael Weinstein, founder and current leader of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation which aims to prevent evangelical Christian intimidation within the military, the letter below is an example of the dozens of reports and complaints the MRFF gets each and every week. It's quite annoying to try and read the letter with any sort of understanding whilst half the details are prominently withheld (ranks, dates, names, etc.), but the overall message of the text is rather disturbing. (Also sorry for the lack of paragraphs; it's taken as-is.)

Dear Mr. Weinstein and MRFF: I am absolutely worried about writing this to you, as I am terrified of the (military service branch withheld), but feel I have no choice. My husband is an honorable man, who I believe has been persecuted in the United States (military service branch withheld) for his refusal to cave in to the Evangelical agenda. He is a (rank withheld), waiting for his retirement, that he won as a part of his Court Martial proceeding in (time frame withheld). Mikey, I have never seen anything like this. My husband has a (educational degree and discipline withheld), taught at (university name withheld) where we often bucked the system regarding the proselytising and has had an honorable career (in the top 4% of rank withheld) in (military command name withheld) until a new command came in to (military installation name withheld) in (month and year withheld). Up until then he was considered to be an excellent candidate for (rank withheld) but we refused as he only wanted to retire and get away from the bible thumping. This command is evangelical in nature-and they harassed me all the way through my husband's court proceeding. When the new command came in, my husband (raised Catholic and an agnostic now) found himself under investigation for (infraction withheld) and then they finally dug until they found (minor infraction name withheld) that were present and could not be denied. My husband, scared for his pension and his family, plead guilty to some of the charges leveled against him. Ultimately, (husband's name withheld) was given an honorable discharge and his pension. Anyways, this commander of his called me often, telling me that "if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, then things will go better for (husband's name withheld)." He went to the brig yes-the judge sent a (rank withheld) to the brig for 45 days)and then asked to pray over my husband, telling him if he just confessed his "sins" to "Jesus Christ" then he would find things getting better for him. Of course (husband's name withheld) gave his commander permission to pray over him as he was terrified to say no-because we believe all of this stemmed from my husband's stance on the illegality of evangelical proselytising in the (service branch name withheld). So, now he was due to retire on (date withheld), but the (military branch name withheld) "cannot get his paperwork." I complained about this pressure put on us several times to the JAG, who has done nothing to my knowledge on our behalf. I believe they are being passive aggressive with the retirement because I complained about the harassment from my husband's commander who told me "call me even in the middle of the night, (wife's name withheld). I will pray with you, anywhere anytime. Jesus is your Lord, and we all soldier forth in his service." I shudder to think of what they could do when they find out I wrote to you. I am a professional woman, an educated woman, and I know they could try to ruin me for speaking to you. I am crying writing this. I am scared of these people, and I know that they will try to do something else. I was told by my husband's commander that I should attend his church. I wonder if because we did not they are "punishing" my husband now by slow leaking his retirement. What does it mean "things will get better for your husband"? I appreciate your time sir. With best regards, (name and location withheld)

And keep in mind the MRFF receives an average of nearly 10 such letters every single day, which by now, has led to a total of over 10,000 letters received.

Religion needs to get the fuck out of the military and any other place where rational thinking and reason are needed, period, from the government to education, and certainly the military. Disgusting parasitic fucks.