I'm currently busy formatting the layout of this blog to make it a little more personalized and user-friendly. I've already changed a few things, and several more alterations are to come as I read deeper and deeper into the absolutely fantastic reference website I found, The Blog Doctor. Sometimes, all you need to succeed is a good manual. ;)
I'll comment again to let y'all know when this phase is completed.
Continued ...»You've all heard of Westboro Baptist Church, out of Topeka in Kansas, right? You know, the lunatic inbreds (literally) who insist on picketing anything remotely pro-Gay or that they feel is contrary to their insanely twisted beliefs? You've probably seen by now a picture of them: retards holding "GOD HATES FAGS", "GOD HATES AMERICA", or "FAGS = ANAL SEX = DEATH" signs ... Ah, knew you'd remember them.
Well, now Westboro is planning to stage it's first-ever picketing overseas, in Britain, at a school play against homophobia called 'The Laramie Project'. One of the senior wretches at the group, Shirley Phelps-Roper, has even "explained" their actions with the Telegraph ... quite characteristically, too. Excerpts below.
2) Are you flying across to Britain, or is the picket being carried out by members in Britain? If you are flying over, how many protesters are you expecting and when are you arriving?2. Considering that your nation has tried in many ways, including with draconian laws to shut up the Word of God from OFF your landscape, and to make it a crime to plainly say what the STANDARDS of GOD are, (e.g. THOU SHALT NOT lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination or THOU SHALT NOT commit adultery, etc.) that I will not be telling any details of our business to get where we need to be.
In that hour, if you or any other soul in the UK has a heart to know your God, and you understand that the end is near, you can yet put away your idols, your false gods and your FILTHY manner of life and you can serve the Lord your God in truth! THAT is your only hope.
... There's plenty more but this kind of garbage gives me a pounding headache each time I try to make sense of it at all. Perhaps it's not meant to make sense. Which only further confirms my increasingly certain suspicions that these clowns really are just a bunch of pointless, loudmouthed and airheaded attention-seekers.
I invite any Brits reading this to lay in wait for this morons, then pelt them with Gay Porn magazines ... or grenades, if you're feeling particularly vindictive. Insanity like this should be outlawed.
Continued ...»I previously commented on the 13-year-old British boy, "Alfie", who was reportedly the father of a baby, co-parenting with "Chantelle", who's 15. A quick update: Alfie's now to run a DNA test to confirm he truly is the father of the newborn child.
LONDON - A DNA test will be performed to determine whether a 13-year-old boy fathered a baby with his 15-year-old girlfriend, his spokesman said yesterday.The test comes after a Sunday tabloid newspaper reported that other teenage boys have come forward claiming to be the father of the newborn baby girl.
Hang on – other teenage boys have come forward clamoring for the spot as this baby's father? Sheesh, how many kids has this girl slept with already?
Alfie Patten (left, 13yo), Chantelle Steadman (center, 15yo) and their as-of-yet unnamed newborn.
(Seriously, though ... how young does Alfie look? Crissakes, he looks like as much a little kid to Chantelle as their baby ...)
Continued ...»... and fill me with an urge to slam someone's head against a stone wall. Then grab a sledgehammer. More specifically, this demented fuckbag's head, the heinous abuser mentioned in this 7News video.
Note – Don't worry, the video below is the heavily edited and censored version that was shown for the 7News broadcast, and leaves out all the actual hitting and slamming of the poor cat. I wouldn't post a video that showed true animal cruelty on this site. I can't even watch those things. They make me wanna kill someone. (The abuser, specifically.)
I can only hope this bastard's been found in real life by now and some unspeakable atrocities have been committed unto him.
I do not take well to unprovoked animal abuse. At all.
Continued ...»Da-yam, another painfully slow day. Wish I could update my blog more often dammit ... not to mention school's a pain. :'(
At least I got something to do for now until that tease-of-a-bell rings at last. My next exam is an oral essay, the subject of which I chose to be the superiority of Evolution over Creationism and Intelligent Design. I've only written the plan, but seeing as readers probably aren't keen on deciphering my weird-ass codes and abbreviations and formats, I'll stretch it out into full sentences for y'all. (You're welcome.)
So here it is, translated from the original French and made into complete sentences.
Oral Production
'Evolution vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design'
Introduction
One of most recognized and famous men in history is undoubtedly Charles Darwin, the Victorian-era scientist who authored the revolutionary book, On the Origin of Species, which basically is the bedrock and framework for all of modern biology.
First, let's examine just what is the Theory of Evolution, and what is Creation Myth and Intelligent Design.
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution basically states that all species of animals (and plants) have common ancestors from which they've changed over time, or evolved. [1]
Creationism, and it's off-shoot Intelligent Design, are religious myths (not 'theories', as a theory requires a modicum of evidence – more on that later) that explain that the Earth, and by extension Life and the Universe, were created by God, or some other deity(s). The main form of Creationism, dubbed 'Young Earth Creationism', additionally dates this creation back roughly 10,000 years BC. [2][3]
Naturally, as it basically disproves and disclaims God's creation and, by extension, God himself (though not necessarily), Religious folk and believers and whatnot immediately decried the theory. This conflict exists to this day, and in fact only seems to be gaining more and more steam throughout both social and political circles around the world, although the most heat is by far found in America. It's a conflict that most of the general population hardly even seem to be aware of, and have little interest for, yet for those who are interested in it, it's a metaphorical flame-war between Evolutionists and Creationists, one side guided by Science and facts, the other by beliefs, faith and dogma.
The point of this oral essay is to try and elucidate why exactly Creationism fails in respect to Evolution, and although I only have 6 minutes to describe what is basically a thousands-year-old war (which only heated up following Darwin's book), the mountains of evidence in favor of Evolution compared to the absolute lack of evidence for Creationism seems to tip the scales firmly in one direction.
1st argument: Evidence for Evolution
Let's get one thing straight: there is no concrete and absolute 'proof' for anything, and Evolution is no exception. There is no way to categorically prove Evolution (nor Creationism), but the endless evidence for it, compared to the zero evidence for Creationism, seems to point in one direction alone. After all, if over 95% of scientists on Earth believe in Evolution over Creationism [4], then somehow, it must have some credibility to it, no?
Let's examine the principal evidence for Evolution. There are four main lines of evidence to be studied: fossils, homologies, the distribution of species across time and space, and evidence by example. [5]
• Firstly, the fossil record clearly shows that life itself is very old, far older than 10,000 years, and furthermore, has vastly changed and mutated – ie., evolved – over time. Extremely accurate and reliable dating methods (such as carbon-dating) have proven this time and time again.
• Secondly, the similarities, or homologies, between animal and floral species are astoundingly apparent to anyone who looks for them. All species of life on Earth are interrelated one way or another. The only explanation for this, other than they were all created by God to be similar in one way or another for some arbitrary reason, is that they all share similar roots: common ancestral species, like branches of a tree.
• Thirdly, the distribution of animal and floral species across time and space is undeniably clear and indicative of Evolutionary processes. Studying geology and ancient forms of life incontrovertibly demonstrates that life has existed for a very long time and that it has changed considerably over time and terrestrial geological eras. Also, the spread and distribution of species, along with their disparate similarities and relations, shows ancient stages of evolutionary and biological development.
• Fourthly, evidence by example is a final and absolute method of proving Evolution and Natural Selection red-handed. Scientists are able to reproduce evolutionary results in laboratories and study centers by artificially controlling stimuli and scenarios, which manipulates species of life (mostly bacterial or viral, as well as floral) into evolving in one way or another. A common and well-known example, is how they demonstrate bacteria evolving, through Natural Selection, to becoming stronger and more resistant to antibiotics, as the weaker strains die out but the stronger strains remain. With their rival strains eliminated, the stronger strains subsequently multiply and take over. Weaker has been eliminated and has been replaced by stronger. Natural Selection's textbook definition.
Compared to this intimidating amount of evidence, which borders on 'proof', how does evidence for Creationism stack up? The answer is simple: it doesn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever in support of Creationism, no matter where or how you look at it. If there is no proof or evidence, then it simply cannot be true, nor can it be a 'theory' in name. Hence, Creation Myth. [6]
In fact, most of the arguments in favor of Creationism against Evolution belong in the fallacy known as 'Irreductible Complexity', which basically states that if something is too complex to be understood, then it forcibly has to have been created. This is just plain dumb and ignorant. Just because something is not explained, does not make it unexplainable. We just haven't found the answer there. Working along the lines that there's always an answer and we just have to find it, just give Science and scientists time and it'll be found sooner or later. New discoveries happen every single day.
2nd argument: Creationism and Evolution as equals/alternatives
Creationism cannot be allowed to be taught in Science classes in schools as an 'alternative' to Evolution, simply because a) it's not an alternative to Evolution, and b) it's not scientific.
Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated and all but proven, with a near-universal support from the scientific community and that disposes of mountains of evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is not scientific. It's theological and religious. They can therefore never be taught as 'equals' or 'alternative', for they simply aren't. We might as well teach students that apples are 'equals' or 'alternatives' to pine cones. It would make just as much sense.
Creationism should certainly allowed to be taught in theology or religion classrooms. Just not scientific ones.
3rd argument: Social Darwinism
'Social Darwinism' is a faulty and odious extrapolation from Darwin's Natural Selection, which says that if it's the 'survival of the fittest' in the animal world and that the strong will win while the weak will perish, it should also be applied to human civilizations and societies: favor the strong, crush or kill the weak. This is entirely false, and to put it bluntly, absolutely stupid. Natural Selection and Evolution were never meant or intended to apply to human civilizations or societies. They specifically apply only to animal species and their battle for survival in Nature/ [7] 'Social Darwinism' is no more than yet another half-brained attempt by anti-Evolutionist advocates to try and discredit or tarnish the Theory of Evolution and Darwin himself, and is simply shameful.
Counter-Argument and its refutation: Abiogenesis
One of the most heavily-relied-upon and often-repeated 'arguments' used by Creationists and anti-Evolutionists to try and discredit Evolution, is that seeing as Evolution does not and cannot explain how or why life appeared on Earth, it cannot be a valid theory in its context. This is illogical and is the result of plain ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with explaining the origin of Life on Earth, or Abiogenesis. If one would care to read the title of Darwin's book more carefully, it's called 'On the Origin of Species', not 'On the Origin of Life'. Evolution's purpose is to explain how and why species of animals and plants all share such similarities, fossil records, etc. [8] Saying it doesn't explain the origin of life in itself is equal to saying the mathematical equation '1+1' does not explain the result of '1x5'. They are simply not the same thing at all.
Conclusion
To conclude this essay, only Evolution can be allowed to reign, at least in scientific classes in schools, and not Creationism, which has been repeatedly discredited and disproven time and time again yet holds on like an obstinate parasite on society's beliefs. Evolution has long-ago been 'proven', or as close to proven as it can be, whereas there is simply no evidence at all for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Maybe some day, the law of knowledge and proof will overthrow the current law of false beliefs and illogical faith.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Definition of 'Evolution' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[2] Definition of 'Creationism' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
[3] Definition of 'Intelligent Design' in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
[4] Scientists supporting Evolution over Creationism/Intelligent Design: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
[5] Evidence for Evolution (source: Berkeley University, California): http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
[6] Evidence (or lack thereof) for Creationism: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence18.htm
[7] 'Social Darwinism': http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
[8] Evolution on the origin of life on Earth (abiogenesis): http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
Phew, longer than I expected, coming from such a short plan ... Well, any comments, either to praise my learned-off-the-back-of-Wikipedia brilliance or to damn me to Hell for my anti-Creationism, would be welcome. :P
And now back to scanning the news scroller for anything remotely interesting ... Oy.
Continued ...»Apparently, Albinos in Tanzania have a hell of a good reason to hightail it out of there: gangs of men regularly massacre albinos and hack off arms, legs, and even genitals (!) and run away with them, according to this New York Times article.
Last spring, he said, he began to hear about albinos in Tanzania being murdered for their body parts. More than 40 have been killed since 2007, sometimes right in front of their families, by gangs of men who hack off legs, heads or genitals and run away with them.In the last two years, rumors have spread in East Africa that potions made with albino blood, shoes made of albino skin, tendrils of albino hair woven into fishing nets and amulets with albino body parts will make people rich.
Traditional healers have told an undercover BBC reporter posing as a businesswoman that they could get her an albino corpse for $2,000.
This is the kind of seriously deranged stuff that makes Africa such a shithole in terms of global opinion to begin with. Massacres, genocides, retarded cultures ... Jeez. People gotta stop asking why no-one wants to help them. Take a wild guess.
Not that the West was much better with 'witches' though ... Or Blacks ... or Gypsies ...
Really weird freaky stuff.
Continued ...»Such was the case for 26 unmarried Muslim couples who made the terrible infraction of sharing same hotel rooms on this Day of Romance in Malaysia. Apparently, under Islamic law in that retarded country, it's unacceptable for two unmarried Muslims to be in the same room, "behind closed doors".
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Authorities in Malaysia arrested 26 unmarried Muslim couples in hotel rooms during Operation Valentine - aimed at curbing illegal premarital sex in this conservative country, an officer said Monday.The couples, most under 30 years old, were detained for sharing rooms early Sunday in the beachside town of Kuantan in eastern Pahang state, said Badaruddin Ahmad Bustami, enforcement assistant director with the state's Islamic department.
State authorities carry out raids each year on Valentine's Day in this Muslim-majority country, where sharia laws make it illegal for unmarried Muslims to meet behind closed doors, Badaruddin said. Doing so constitutes a crime known as "khalwat," or "close proximity," which carries a maximum fine of 1,000 ringgit (US$280) and up to six months in prison.
The sharia laws apply only to Malaysia's Muslims, not to Christian and Hindu citizens who together make up about 40 percent of the population.
Honestly, I'm all for respecting different ideas and cultures and stuff, but this sort of stuff isn't about values, it's about friggin' civil rights and who gets to be with who on which terms, which I certainly think the government should keep it's nose out of. I may not be aware of all the sociopolitical stuff going on in Malaysia or Islamic countries in general, but I think it's fair to assume this sort of behavior and treatment of people is just plain retarded. Some old values may have their worth or uses, but eventually a tree has to be pruned of the branches that drag it down – this 'sharia' thing seems to be one of those lame branches that we could do without.
Continued ...»
Raymond Babbit (Dustin Hoffman) really, really doesn’t like flying in United Artists’ 1988 achievement Rain Man.
Charlie Babbit never knew he had a brother. That’s probably a result of his long-since estrangement with his father, Sanford Babbit (though I wouldn’t blame him if my own father left me to rot in a jail for two days just for taking the car out for a spin; I digress). Another result of it, which is far more grievous to him, is his father giving the sum of his 3-million-dollar estate to Raymond, while Charlie gets a classic convertible … and some prize-winning rosebushes. Gee, flowers? Thanks Dad!
Charlie’s plan to remedy this? He plans to ‘kidnap’ his brother from the mental institution where he resides in Cincinnati, Ohio, and bring him back with him to Los Angeles where he’ll spark a custody battle to try and, somehow, get half of the 3 million dollars, which he feels (and rightfully so, might I add) is his rightful share. (Two sons, half and half, no?)
Oh – but why is Raymond in a mental institution? Turns out he’s an Autistic Savant (previously referred to as an ‘Idiot Savant’): he’s got severe social and emotional handicaps, effectively trapping him in his own world and making any normal relation with the outside world simply impossible, but he’s got mental acuities and abilities that seem to more than make up for it. He’s blessed with ‘total recall’ – basically, his memory is simply perfect. Any detail he’s ever read, watched or heard, he can recall in less than a second, from counting hundreds of fallen toothpicks in seconds to reciting every airline disaster from memory in eerie detail. (Understandably, he hates flying.) He also has abnormally high mathematical abilities, where you ask him any number with any equation applied to it and he gives you the exact answer instantly. (According to him, he just ‘sees’ the answer.)
But enough about Raymond already. It’s like San in Princess Mononoke (1997) – he’s the title character, but not actually the protagonist. The one we follow in this story is Charlie, his younger brother (you know, the one who doesn’t have Autism). His business is sinking fast and he desperately needs the money (half his father’s estate), and so when Raymond refuses to board a plane to L.A., Charlie’s forced to drive the long road back to L.A. with Raymond, obligated to follow Raymond’s extremely strict routine (lights out at 11, watching specific shows at their airtimes, arranging furniture as he’s used to them, etc.) and try not to lose his temper with his brother’s seemingly unbearable behavior and mannerisms.
The point of the story is witnessing the transformation in Charlie from stressed and selfish ‘yuppie’ to a much calmer and more understanding and compassionate brother for Raymond, who really does want to be understood even though he’s incapable of showing it in ‘traditional’ ways. Other than being a story about fictional characters on a cross-country drive that brings them closer together, one could easily glean a message from this film about tolerance, respect and understanding.
You can't help but eventually find yourself liking Raymond as Charlie does when he realizes he can't change Raymond, and that Raymond isn't intentionally trying to upset or frustrate him. He's simply unable to change – but you get to ignore that. Or rather, you don't ignore it, but you go along with it, accept it for what it is, and in that process, you even begin to love Raymond as a friend or a brother would. This can only be due to Hoffman's exceptional performance as the Autistic man, same as Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump or Sean Penn as Sam, and etc. Good acting is the central pillar on which anything that can be called a 'movie' relies; without it, there's nothing to hold the building up and it ends up a discredited mess. Rain Man knows this, and so do the actors. Hoffman is fantastic and believable, and Tom Cruise, as the transformed brother Charlie Babbit, is also fairly decent.
I’m usually not too keen on older movies, preferring modern visual clarity and believable special effects (among other things), but this movie was a good sacrifice to that rule of thumb of mine. One small gripe I may have though, is how Raymond’s Autism is portrayed: far too stereotypical for my taste. You could genetically build someone with specifically Autism in mind and not have all the specific symptoms Raymond shows (such as him instantly and unthinkingly following ‘Don’t Walk’ signs while in the middle of a street crossing, or screaming and banging his head when under pressure or frightened, or etc). He almost comes across as a cartoon at times, but this far from ruins the movie – if anything, it may even help commoners gain a slightly better understanding of Autism, and its victims.
I don’t have very much to say about Rain Man, considering I watched it last night (writing this at 5 PM), as one can tell from most of my review being a description of the plot, but that’s not to be taken as a bad sign; it just didn’t raise any real questions or sentiments in me. But I am certain many more will fall in love with it; it’s that kind of movie that touches people’s hearts. I suppose I’m just too analytical about it. Crud.
For giving us an image into what it’s like to be handicapped yet still sweet and likeable, and what it’s like to deal with such people and accept them, I give Rain Man 8.0 fallen toothpicks out of 10.
Cast
Charlie Babbit: Tom Cruise • Raymond Babbit: Dustin Hoffman • Susanna: Valeria Golino • Dr. Bruner: Gerald R. Molen
Crew & Credits
Director(s): Barry Levinson • Writer(s): Barry Morrow, Ronald Bass. Story by Barry Morrow. • Original Score: Hans Zimmer
General Information
Distributed by: United Artists • Released: December 16, 1988 (US) • Running Time: 133 mins • Budget: US$25 million • Rated: R
Recently I mentioned how oceanic water levels were rising faster and higher than previously predicted (over 20 feet). Now, a recent report concludes that atmospheric gases that cause Global Warming in the first place are climbing faster than expected. Great news, I'm sure.
Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.I suppose the increasing number of polluting humans on the planet may be a contributing factor here, but hey, I'm no scientist ... Face it, Biofuels are a bad joke. They cause more damage than they alleviate by burning down the very forests that are actually cleaning the air in order to plant the fields from which crops will be harvested to make those very Biofuels. It's a wretched circle. As Holly Gibbs of Stanford University said, 'In some cases simply allowing the degraded land to return to forest might be the best answer'. Electric, hydrogen-powered and hybrid cars aren't much of a help either – not as long as the electricity used to make those cars come from coal-burning power plants, which as expected keep getting larger and more numerous as populations (in particular American populations) grow and expand. The 'Go Green' fad is just that – a fad. It's ineffective and isn't doing much of anything. For every few good people who recycle, compost and use hybrid cars, a new ceramics company opens somewhere in Mexico that outdoes them all in a single hour's time. This is futile until the entire friggin' planet puts its foot down – and Lord knows how likely that is to happening before we're all choking to death on our own car fumes. (Or being whisked away into Space in large spaceships while an army of little robots are left behind to clean up after us ... but whatever.) Continued ...»
It's true: a doctor said it!
Question: What are the biggest mistakes women make in understanding what men need to feel loved? Answer: I think the thing women don't understand about men is that no matter how unemotional-seeming a man is, he actually is very emotional. Men are trained not to act emotional, and they're not even trained how to express themselves emotionally. But even the most unexpressive man actually has a lot of feelings and he needs support and tenderness. And, in fact, even though women don't want this to be true, it is the case that men who are married take a lot of pleasure and get a lot of self-esteem from whether they're wanted sexually by their wives, and also, from whether they are able to give their wives and receive a lot of really good sexual pleasure.What? Men are emotional? Damn her, she's ruining our macho insensitive cover! I call upon you, the Global Alliance of Macho Insensitive Bastard Men, to get her! Continued ...»
Phew! Slow day today. Nothing but boring news (except for that Buffalo plane crash – may they rest in peace, poor souls), and meanwhile I've been working like crazy on my songs (writing a second Rhapsody, which I think should be better than the first, 'Adrian Rhapsody', by a fair bit) to try and get part of it ready to show to my music class teacher so I don't get drowned in damned theory again. (I KNOW MY SOLFEGE DANGIT!)
Anyway, there's at least one bit of vaguely-interesting news displayed on my Google Sidebar News gadget. According to the British reliable-as-trash tabloid The Sun (though reposted on Newsweek so it may not be 100% bullshit), Britain's fatherhood demographic now has its age limits widened a bit. To 13 years old. The boy, 'Alfie', was reportedly only 12 when he had his first sexual relation, with a girl named 'Chantelle' (then 14). She had been on the pill regularly, but as luck (or a staggering lack of it) would have it, she had apparently missed the pill for that month, coinciding perfectly with their first sexual act. Well, she became pregnant, and has recently birthed a healthy baby.(LONDON) He's 13. He scarcely looks 10. And according to a British tabloid, he's a father. Baby-faced and only 4 feet tall, the boy, Alfie, was just 12 when he impregnated Chantelle, now 15, The Sun reported Friday. Shown in a video posted Friday on the tabloid's Web site, the diminutive Alfie takes the newborn girl in his arms. Asked what he would do to support the child financially, Alfie asks in a small, high-pitched voice, "What's financially?" The girl was taking birth control pills but missed one, the newspaper reported. Friends and relatives left the family home near Eastbourne, about 70 miles southeast of London, Friday without speaking to reporters gathered outside. The teenagers could not immediately be contacted.'The teenagers could not immediately be contacted' ... Probably because they're being beaten by their parents or something. Hell, if I had a 13yo boy and came to me with a little bundle of not-so-much-joy and said it was his, my head would explode (right after my voice). I'm all for greater youth freedom and liberties, but this is taking it a little too far in my opinion. Anyway ... The child (erm ... the baby, not the father) is healthy, and the article says the father, 'Alfie' (THIRTEEN!) and the mother, 'Chantelle' (FIFTEEN!) have decided to keep the baby and will try and raise it as best as they can. Now 'Alfie''s father plans to give him the 'birds and bees' talk. (Which I have no idea what it is – my mother explained it all to me perfectly naturally and normally, and I don't recall being traumatized (or even interested afterwards), so why do people keep giving the 'stork' story ...? Nevermind.) Um ... a little too late, no? It's said this has sparked a debate on teenage pregnancies in Britain. Great. As if we didn't have enough pseudo-moral-debates flying around, arousing people to spew their stupid and misinformed opinions about anything and nothing at all ... urgh. [sic] Continued ...»
A double-update here, because I didn't feel like creating two separate updates. You can call me lazy-ass later. :)
Unos – "Vaccinations-cause-Autism" quacks have been silenced by a court's decision.
One thing I detest as much as Religious fundamentalism or insanity, if not even more, is medical quackery. Specifically, antivaccinationists. These are the kooks, quacks and related morons who go about telling people not to use vaccines on themselves, or their children, because they cause – among other things – Autism. Yes, they fear those great bossy pharmaceuticals are giving the people Autism in syringes.
This story has a long history behind it, and for some general info on what this stupid trend is about along with some good debunking by a credible (and accredited) medical professional, check out some of the entries on Respectful Insolence, the long-running and popular blog by MD 'Orac'. He takes great delight in tearing these stupid claims down point-by-point with *actual evidence and medicine/science*, not lunatics claims.
These quacks make me angry because not only are they stupid and ignorant public faces (already usually enough to attract my ire), but these twits spread their delusions and disinformation to the people, far too many of which then follow along and renounce vaccinations for themselves and their kids. I don't give a damn if 'mature' adults refuse vaccinations. They can refuse oxygen and food for all I care. But the great crime, for me, is when they deprive their children, innocents who live at their parents' mercy, of these crucial and life-saving vaccinations. Many, many people have died since this trend began sometime in the late '90s if I remember correctly. The news has the odd article here and there, which you can find with a minimum of searching.
These ignorant morons don't just annoy me because they're stupid. They annoy me because THEY KILL PEOPLE. Literally. Causing someone's death, whether by stabbing them, or by denying them the knowledge to know how to take care of themselves, are equal offenses in my moral book. Normally I'd go on about how 'if they're that stupid then they deserve to die', but jeez, even I'm not that cold when it comes to innocent kids who never had a fucking chance. This isn't just about 'Autism-causing vaccines', either. The whole denialism/antivaccionist saga has me withering. (Don't even get me started on that Christine Maggiore bitch, the sadly-famous HIV denialist who killed her infant daughter by preventing her from receiving critical treatment to combat HIV and AIDS.)
I seem to be sliding into digression again in my rants. Back on topic. Well, once again, a court has ruled against some of these patently stupid lawsuits, declaring that there is no evidence at all that Measles vaccines and co. are any cause to Autism (or any neurological disorder for that case).
A special court has ruled against parents with autistic children, saying that vaccines are not to blame for their children's neurological disorder.The judges in the cases said the evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the parent's claims — and backed years of science that found no risk.
Yet another nail in these morons' coffin. Can't they just lay down and wait a few minutes while we put all the nails in, then padlock the coffin, encase it in cement and throw it into the Marianas Trench?
And now, finally, onto some good news: U2! DAVID LETTERMAN! ALL WEEK! YAY!!!
... Does that need further explaining? Alright, I suppose. To promote their upcoming album, 'No Line on the Horizon' (due on shelves, and in my CD Player, on March 03, 2009, for North American markets), the world's biggest Rock band (hey, a commercial said it, not me) will be appearing on David Letterman's 'Late Show' from March 02 to the sixth. A whole week with my favorite band on the planet ... *hyperventilates*
This almost puts me in a fine mood after that antivaccionist bullshit! :P
Continued ...»
Joé McKen
Joé McKen (also known as Bumdark) is a young misanthropic atheist who spends his time composing music, blogging, entertaining a passion for science and technology, bitching against social and civil injustices, and most of all, jabbing idiots, trolls and assorted cretins with sharp pointy sticks.
• Joé's IMDb profile
• Joé's YouTube music channel
Posts
All Comments
