Nevinyrral
Artifact - 4

1, Tap: Destroy all credibility

Larry Niven has launched himself off the deep end:

Niven said a good way to help hospitals stem financial losses is to spread rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants.

“The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by illegal aliens who aren’t going to pay for anything anyway,” Niven said.

That's right, folks, the best way to deal with hospital funding is to dissuade the largest racial minority in America from using it through lies and fearmongering. Good one, Larry. Why don't you just say exactly what you mean? "We can solve our problem by grinding up all the fucking wetbacks for Kzin chow!"

-pb

There's been a lot of fur flying about Florida's recently passed "Evolution Academic Freedom Act," which detractors claim opens the door for the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Now, this bill is kind of funny. Upon reading the full text, it's readily apparent that this bill is not intended to allow the teaching of Intelligent Design, but rather to block it.

the term "scientific information" means germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed research specific to the topic of chemical and biological evolution...

Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution.

That would categorically dismiss Intelligent Design or Creationism as an acceptable course of study in Florida schools. Of course, it's not what the legislature actually intended - they wanted to craft some legal fiction to allow their pseudo-science into the classroom. They just worded it in such a way as to mean the opposite of what they wanted. But that's to be expected. They've got their heads wrapped so far around this concept that ID is science that they think that the simple definition of "scientific information" covers it. Too bad this is the real world, and they just screwed the pooch.

-pb

Michael Medved, right-wing moonbat and all-around bad person (who denounced my heterosexual, yet childless marriage as "not as valuable") made excuses for slavery last September.

Here's his "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery":

1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION.
   Slavery. It's OK, everyone was doing it!


2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS.
   Only five people ever owned slaves, and only for like five minutes. The Civil War was fought largely over a case of particularly yummy Salt Water Taffy. The resultant poverty and oppression of Blacks in America is because they are, indeed, lazy and shiftless.


3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT.
   In fact, slaves who were killed were tickled to death by kittens.


4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.
   Northern states learned it years before, but those pesky backwards Southern states never quite realized that slaves couldn't be used as railroad tracks and lumber mills. Northerners, of course, never understood how to use a slave as a teapot.


5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.
   Hey, we got rid of it right quick! Please disregard that there were slave-owners at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation who were British citizens by dint of their fathers being British Citizens prior to 1776, regardless of the fact that they were born in America. Other than that, yeah, we got rid of it first! Well, except for Iceland, Norway, Sweeden, Finland, Lithuania, Japan, Russia, Portugal, England, Denmark, Germany, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Uraguay, Argentina, Tunisia, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Moldavia and Wallachia, and Cuba.


6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.
   There's also no reason to believe that today's Native Americans would be better off if European settlers hadn't given them blankets infected with smallpox. I guess we'll never know!

-pb

I love when idiots on teh intarwebz drag out that old chestnut about Sodom as proof of god's hatred of homosexuality.

Internet Whackyjob: Remember Sodom and Gomorrha? It was completely destroyed because God cannot stand this sin. Please read a KJV of the bible.

My response:

I have read the KJV Bible. Here's what it (very explicitly) has to say about your god's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Sodom was torched for being rude and inattentive to the poor (hmm, sounds familiar). No mention of homosexuality there. There's actually no implication of homosexuality in the verses you mentioned, either. Yes, I understand that your holy book sometimes uses "to know" in place of "to penetrate in a sexual manner," but in this case, it makes much more sense if you refrain from turning everything into a sexual reference.

Here's how it reads if you don't make a penis joke out of it:

Two strange guys show up in a village city and sequester themselves in the house of a particular person. This being the Bronze Age, people are understandably wary about this. Might be spies from a neighboring tribe, here to case the joint in anticipation of a raid! "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them," they say, meaning "who are these strangers that you've brought in here to spy on us? Inquiring minds want to know!"

Lot's response? He offers up his *virgin daughters* to the crowd and suggests that they gang-rape the poor girls (not exactly Father of the Year material, but he's not done yet). The crowd, security-minded (albeit a bit rude) citizens that they are, are not mollified. Of course, Lot deflowers his daughters himself later in the narrative (*now* he's Father of the Year), something your god doesn't seem to have a problem with.

Now, let's look at this from your perspective:

Sodom was torched because your god apparently couldn't find 10 non-homosexuals residing therein. Interesting, considering that homosexuals make up *at best* 10% of the population. People in those days rarely traveled more than 10 miles from their homes *in their entire lives*, yet your version of events would have required practically every homosexual for hundreds of miles to make the trip to the ol' Gayborhood, Sodom and Gomorrah - because since they were all gay, it's not very likely that they had a self-sustaining population, right? The only way they could maintain it would have been to promote immigration. "Hay HAY hay! Come on down to SODOM and be a SODOMITE! Every day is a gay holiday! Everyone just FLAAAAMES! Well, except for this one guy who might suggest that you gang-rape his daughters, but we don't talk to him."

Yeah, your scenario doesn't seem very likely. Or even plausible.

You need to get over this sex obsession of yours. I understand that your holy book is chock full of people having sex with all manner of inappropriate partners, human or otherwise (with and without your god's consent), but seriously, you need to let it go.

-pb

I've been incredibly snarky on the Topix boards lately. Here's my recent favorite:

Whackyjob:

You nor anyone on this forum can prove that homosexuality actually exists.

Me::

Homosexuality:
1 the quality or state of being homosexual
2 erotic activity with another of the same sex

Homosexual:
1 of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

If you think that none of the above exists, then you don't come from our reality, and you might be getting a bad connection that's routing you to our time-space continuum where such things and states actually do exist. You might want to call your internet service provider. It might be solar flares, or you might need to check your TCP/IP setting (or whatever it is you have in your reality).

-pb

I'm finding just out how long I can go sleep deprived. You know, running for office is sort of like being waterboarded, I think.

Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee

So, campaigning is sort of like being strapped to a board with a blanket tied over your face, tipped backwards, and having gallons of water poured over your head until you begin to drown, and then being given a few seconds to breathe before the process is repeated?

Huh. Why is Huckabee running again?

-pb

This here is highly, highly offensive to... well, anyone, but in the interests of pulling a giant dingo turd over Ken Ham of the Creation Museum fame, well, I just gotta laugh:

Let There Be Retards

-pb

Every time I open my mouth to respond to this, only a small squeaking sound comes out, and a vein on my forehead throbs and threatens to explode, so I'll just give you the quote:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
-Mike Huckabee, Warren, MI 1/14/08

::squeak!::

::THROB::

-pb

I'm on a message board discussing Stewart and Colbert going back on the air, and wow, out come the nutcases. Well, at some point, Bill Clinton came up (like he is wont to do when nutcases abound), and here's a little exchange I think you'll all get a kick out of:

hitlery clinton wrote:
ALL OF THOSE DEMOCRATS LIED WELL BEFORE THEY PUSHED BUSH INTO INVADING IRAQ

To which I replied:

Oh yeah, they pushed him kicking and screaming into invading Iraq.

Remember when Steny Hoyer and Frank Lautenbeg went over to the White House, strapped Bush to his own desk, and took turns punching him the the face and wailing on him with a belt while screaming "CALL THE PENTAGON! ORDER THE INVASION!"? Bush was sobbing and just kept saying "no, no, there's no evidence! Don't make me do it! THINK OF THE POOR IRAQIS!" But they wouldn't stop. They just kept hitting him.

And then Pelosi got on national television and was kicking Cheney in the stones and shrieking about how he was such a pussy for not wanting to invade one little country and that he should just man up. Poor Cheney almost had a heart attack right there, but he stayed strong. "We're not going in!" he declared in that voice that says "I've just been kicked in the stones with a five-inch stiletto heel."

They toughed it out, right up until Barney Frank shot Mary Cheney with the Gay-gun. Dick Cheney just collapsed and was blubbering and moaning "my poor daughter!" as she groped and fondled another woman in unholy lez-lust that no Cheney daughter would naturally come by.

Frank aimed that gun at the Bush Twins, and George, through bloody teeth, finally sighed and picked up the phone.

And that's how the Democrats pushed Bush into invading Iraq. True story. Happened right after that unicorn farted a rainbow on Tom Delay and made him do all those bad things.

-pb

You should all know by now that I trust the so-called "mainstream" news media to report accurately about as much as I trust the Bush administration to do the right thing... on anything.

You should also know that I think Mitt Romney (and his Republican opponents) are all despicable people. All of them.

And, you should know that I think that people who can't write proper English, even though it's their native tongue (especially those who fancy themselves media outlets), should be flogged.

This post will address all of those issues.

So, Mitt Romney gave a speech yesterday that he'd like you to believe was akin to John F. Kennedy's "I AM NAWT BEHOLDEN TO THE POPE" speech. It wasn't. He wants everyone who didn't hear the speech to think that he gave some massive statement about how he's a Mormon, but everyone should be cool with that because he's not going to answer to Salt Lake City when it comes to Presidenting. He didn't.

Here's what he said about it:

If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect respecters -- excuse me -- believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God.

I highlighted "Mormon," because that's the only part of the speech where the word appears. A speech about being Mormon. Now, taken out of the context of the rest of the speech, these are some pretty words. But...

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Wait, I thought we were talking about how you're a Mormon? But, it gets better. Romney lands his space-ship in Wackyjobland and flashes the correct gang-signs:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

DANGER WILL FUCKING ROBINSON! DANGER! FUNDIE WHACKJOB IS GOING TO RAPE YOU!

If you don't understand my reaction, uh, I can't help you.

The Media, predictably, reports as Romney likes:

Ann Romney made two campaign stops in Las Vegas Thursday night, telling crowds that the address husband Mitt Romney gave earlier in the day on the role of religion in America and his Mormon faith was a “historic moment.”

First off, this speech wasn't really about his Mormon faith. It was about how he agrees with paying lip service to the Constitution and installing a theocracy. But the real tragedy of the article is this:

a “historic moment.”

BUY A FUCKING EDITOR.

-pb

There's another divorced candidate running for president. Mike Huckabee is divorced from reality. Here's what he said to GQ Magazine:

There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.

Holy FUCK! We all know what happens when gays get married! (To quote Stan Smith) "You know what that'll do to society? Girls playing with trucks, boys playing with dolls, horses eating each other!"

HORSES. EATING EACH OTHER.

For the love of all that is holy, people, HORSES WILL FUCKING EAT EACH OTHER! Trees will wield machine guns and hold Peoria hostage until their demands for the NFL Network are met! Buddhist nuns will streak naked through the Louvre to protest the poor treatment of Spanish cab drivers! Snow will fall up! Full-grown cats will be born to week-old puppies! BJORK WILL BE ELECTED POPE!

The inside of Mike Huckabee's head must be like the fucking Twilight Zone meets Tales from the Dark Side written by Eli Roth and directed by David Lynch.

-pb

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George H. W. Bush, 27 August 1987

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." - Mitt Romney, 6 December 2007

I fail to see the difference in these statements.

-pb

I've already aired my lack of support for Barack Obama, so don't take this as any sort of endorsement or defense of him.

Obama's presence in the Presidential race has allowed the worst aspects of racism to rise to the surface in our national discourse. Mitt Romney's presence has also helped stoke the fires of bigotry, but I'd say that Obama is getting at least twice the lumps that Romney is. The difference is that while Republican voters may be murmuring about Romney being a Mormon, they're not falsely accusing him of being one, and they're not clamoring to bomb yet another Mormon country.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is being accused of being a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, but the nature of the accusations is particularly disturbing. I've seen this posted hundreds of times:

q. Is Barack Obama a Muslim man?
a. Yes, His father was a Muslim. Muslim's sons are Muslims for life.

Cue the spittake. The sons of Muslims are Muslims themselves... for life?

It's not so much the attack on Obama that bothers me here, it's the implied assault of the very validity of Christianity that these (ostensibly "Christian") posters are making. They are saying, in essence, that Islam is so gripping, so compelling, that simply having 23 chromosomes in common with a man who was Muslim is enough to make any man Muslim for life, and Christianity simply can't compete with that. Obama's acceptance of the Christian faith is simply a sham due to his absentee father's Islamic sperm, because there's no possibly way that the awesome power of Jesus Christ could possibly overcome it.

Do these people realize that their argument effectively castrates their own religion?

-pb

Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (R): “My name’s Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service,” Kerr told the candidates in the video that he submitted to the YouTube debate. “I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.

“I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): “General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

“The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,” Hunter said.

“They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.”

Military people are conservative, conservatives hate gays, therefore, gays shouldn't be in the military. Well, now we have a candidate that comes right out and says "Republicans fucking hate your homo guts."

Principles schminciples. If it's against their principles to participate in an illegal war, they get court martialed.

-pb

I think you can guess the tune to the little ditty I just wrote:

Church bells ring from the schoolhouse,
minds are quiet as a doormouse.
The books have been burned,
rebellion unlearned,
conformity in a Fundie Wonderland.

Gone away is their free will,
come and swallow your control pill.
It's Jesus all day,
attention you'll pay,
or it's prison in a Fundie Wonderland.

In an alley we're stopped by a policeman
and his puppet master Parson Brown.
He says "are ya married,"
we say "Yes, man!"
and then we beat a path out of that town.

Later on, there's a pyre
where fornicaters die in a fire.
They're burned at the stake
for daring to partake
earthly pleasures in a Fundie Wonderland.

In the halls of Congress Jerry Falwell
shreds the Constitution as he please.
They're rounding up the Pagans and the Muslims
and some Catholics just for a tease.

Move along, get back to work now,
your state and god are as one now.
Repressing your id,
you're having that kid,
it's burkas in a Fundie Wonderland!

-pb

So, this story about the Governor of Georgia leading a prayer for rain is, in my mind, fucking ridiculous. Seriously. I mean, come on. The Governor of Georgia is getting on the horn with his constituents and saying "Well, we apparently fucked the dog here on drought preparation, so the only thing to do is blame Jesus and ask him to fix this shit, because it's certainly not our fault. Great waste of taxpayer dollars. Maybe up here in PA we can get Ed Rendell to just tell Jesus to knock it off with all the goddamned snow so we don't have another Route 81 clusterfuck. Screw preparation, Jesus sent the snow, he can bloody well fix this for us.

The outcome of this is mind-numbingly easy to predict, as it's eventually going to rain in Georgia, barring the explosion of the planet. So, no matter how long this drought goes on, when it does rain, people will insist that God (that's pronounced 'gawud') has answered their prayers, and this is unassailable proof that he exists and loves America, and Baptists are his favorite denomination.

Bullshit. Are these people really stupid enough to believe that their god is actively withholding rain until enough of them to get together and pray? What kind of barbaric monster-god do these people worship? "Ha ha! DIE OF THIRST! I'll not send you relief until you get at least 30,000 people together to pray publicly for me to send you rain! HA!"

This prayer for rain runs contrary to everything I learned when I was a Christian. Jesus taught his disciples precisely how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13 (specifically 9-10 for this argument): "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

This prayer - nay demand - for rain, runs contrary to that. You don't demand rain from the Almighty, you accept that maybe this is part of his plan.

Of course, you could take the temporal tack and realize that your population has stretched your natural resources to the point that any stress on the system is a catastrophe and not just an inconvenience, and try to solve your situation from that perspective.

But I guess it's easier to demand that Jesus fix your mess.

-pb

victoria_fusion and I went to the Penn Dems presentation of Jesus Camp. Needless to say, head asploded.

At the very end, the camp leader said (to paraphrase) "people on the left have got to see this, see these passionate kids, and be scared out of their wits". Horrifyingly correct.

I spent a few years as a member of a Charismatic Pentecostal youth group, so I can attest that a lot of the things in this movie aren't just dramatizations or "the worst case." I've actually seen this stuff up close. I even participated in it. I wasn't politically aware at the time (this was in 1994-1995), so I didn't see the political indoctrination, but they were plenty of people railing about the "evil, godless system," in particular education. I knew a number of home-schooled kids. Like I said, "Jesus Camp" isn't a fabrication. Check it out, it's scary stuff.

-pb

I know I've been inundating you, my faithful readers, with my wit-battles with the hopelessly unarmed, but I'm having fun with it. It's sure to get old soon.

Here are the two goodies for the day:

Richard A: All Americans MUST be well informed of the danger of "Al-qaida" to the US and the civilized world. We must also expose the damaging truth about the persons, groups etc. who are looking after their own personal interests rather than the security of our wonderful country.

Me: Funny, when people say the same thing, just substituting "global warming" for "Al-qaida", lots of other people loose their heads and start screaming about Al Gore.

Gilmore: That is because Al-qaida is real and global warming is not. Wake up buddy!

Me: Hey! You got yourself a fish biscuit! How'd you do that?

Next, there's this GLC64 guy who lost the argument big time, and has resorted to "HUR HUR YOU + LIBRLZ KISSNG" tactics. One last smackdown before I just watch him spin:

GLC64 : Did you enjoy the Kool-Aid you drank with George Soros and Michael Moore this morning?????

Me : Look slugger, I know you want to try to keep up here and make your presence known, but seriously tiger, adults are talking. Go out back and play in the sandbox until dinner's ready.

-pb

TheNewFormatSux is a fascist, genocidal frightfest from Allentown. He's the guy that used the phrase "The Muslim Problem" and didn't get it when I said "Huh, that sounds disturbingly like 'The Jewish Problem'".

Here's a little exchange I had with him:

TheNewFormatSux : Getting back on topic, the original letter is titled "Indict the Neo-Cons". The widely accepted definition of this new word "neo-con" is "new conservative". So I'm a little puzzled about who the letter writer wants to indict. Is it every American who has recently become a conservative?

Me : "Neo-", while meaning new, does not indicate what you're talking about. It refers to the ideology. A "neo-conservative" doesn't refer to someone who just became conservative, it refers to the school of thought being a new version of conservative thought. It also doesn't indicate an actual connection with the previous. Neo-conservatism doesn't have much in common with conservatism (less civil liberties vs. greater civil liberties, more government spending vs. less government spending, more rational foreign policy vs. cowboy diplomacy, etc.).

Just like neo-Nazis don't look too much like the highly organized political machine esposing national social ideals that the original Nazi party did, neo-conservatives don't look much like Abraham Lincoln's conservatives.

Of course, you knew that, you were just trying to set fire to your own strawman.

TheNewFormatSux : Phew - I'm glad you cleared that up for me and even more glad that I'm not a neo-con (indictable or otherwise). Since I believe in civil liberties (some of them currently illegal), less government spending (except when it goes towards eliminating the threat from Muslim extremism) and rational foreign policy (like hunting down and exterminating Muslim extremists wherever they breed). I'll sleep much better tonight knowing I'm not a "neo-con".

Me : So, I take it you'd like to see Bush out of office as soon as possible?

TheNewFormatSux : You take it wrong. I wish he could serve a third term because he has done more to fight Muslim extremism than any other president in our country's history. And Muslim extremism is clearly the biggest threat the civilized world has ever faced. Oh, and I love the tax cuts.

Me : Wow, your world sounds great! Because in the real world, the tax "cuts" amounted to an average of $300 and were just an advance on the next year's bill, and terrorism has steadily increased worldwide since we invaded Iraq.

Did Bush invade Iraq in your world? Probably not, because in the real world, that turned out to be a horrific blunder that gave terrorists a complete training course on "how to competely embarrass the U.S. Military", lead to huge recruitment numbers, increased Iran's power in the region, and sapped our already flagging credibility in the Middle East. Bummer. Guess that didn't happen in your world?

In the real world, climate change poses an even greater threat to economic stability than terrorism. Did they solve that in your world?

What other wonders do they have in your world? Flying cars? Dinosaurs that play chess? Talking dogs?

-pb

More from Topix

nrs: Stalkers are bad but God is loving and he doesn't stalk in the human sense of the word. He does court us or woo us desiring friendship. He is not out to hurt us. He is out to save us.

Me: If your idea of courting and wooing is "Worship me or burn in Hell", you need to go to a crisis center.

-pb

Does it make me a bad person that I was visibly excited at the news of Jerry Falwell's death?

-pb

More from Topix:

Mary-CO Quotes a whole bunch of founding fathers, including this gem:

Thomas Jefferson
1781 - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18
Category: God
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (352)

and adds this:

What other "Nature's God" is named as such if not for the God of the Bible? What other religion were we founded on that was monotheistic?

Knowing Jefferson's not-so-Christian leanings, and smelling the fundie-speak, I respond with:

Me: Try doing a little research beyond your own religion. All of the founders that you quoted were Diests - not Christians. "Nature's God" was a term used to describe the Deist belief in the divinity of the Universe itself, not your Christian god.

To simply ascribe your religion to people simply because you believe their words imply it is pretty arrogant.

Mary-CO: What is the foundation for the "deists" god? On what monotheistic religion did they base their ideas?

Time to educate:

Me: Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.

Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity — that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher. Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.

In fact, during Jefferson's reelecton campaign, he was attacked as being an atheist. This is, of course, the man who re-wrote the gospels to remove any trace of supernatural elements from them.

Deists worship Nature and the Universe as a divine being, a supreme being, and the one true god that all religions seem to gravitate to. Don't confuse that with Christianity. Christianity worships on faith. Deists worship Reason.

Mary-CO: You did not answer my question. Deism, has in it a belief in a Creator. That thought came from somewhere. It is not made manifest by looking at nature. Deists don't just believe a Creator but a Creator that gave man rights. A God that elevated the concept of what it means to be "man." That is a VERY CHRISTIAN idea. They did not just wake up one day and think it up. Why would a deist believe in a creator? The ideas behind Darwinianism already existed. Darwin was not the first to think it up. What evidence is there in nature that says there is a Creator of Nature that gives man rights (that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights)?
That thought is only found in the Judeo/Christian God.

Me: Superimposing your belief structure onto someone else's doesn't make you right. Deists were not Christians. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on creation myth. In fact, nothing in Christianity is particularly original. Saying that anything is a VERY CHRISTIAN idea is funny, actually, because Christian ideas were basically cribbed from other existing religions.

Mary-CO: You can "say" anything. The onus is on you to prove it. Put up or shut up. What Creator God in any other religion besides Christianity gave men inalienable rights, created men equal, elevated man in any way?

Me: The onus is on me to disprove your unfounded statement? You don't seem to understand how that works.

What Creator God in Christianity gave men unalienable rights, created men equal, and elevated man in any way? Perhaps you're not familiar with your holy text, The Bible, that is frought with inequality, has no concept of "rights" as we define them, and doesn't so much "elevate" people as it promises to destry them if they don't believe every word of it (no matter if there's a contradiction). So, perhaps you should back up your statements.

You can't offer one shred of proof that Deism is in any way connected to Christianity other than "I'm convinced they share a similarity, so they MUST be the same!"

Mary-CO: It is on you to back up your accusations. I can say you are the product of a dog and a rat but that is nothing without a proof text or a photograph. It is just hot air without proof. Accusations carry no weight without proof.

Me: I'm not the one making accusations. You made the accusation that Deism is based on Christianity. You haven't backed that up yet. To use your metaphor, you're the one who needs to provide a proof text or a photograph.

-pb

So, I'm having fun with a thread started from an anti-immigration (read: racist) rant on The Morning Call's letter page (my new favorite watering hole). Here's one of the more outrageous discussions:

Jon Obert - Allentown Pa And who did the Mexicans steal the land from? What, if you're the first thief, you get a pass? Mexicans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc are all descendents of the Spanish who came to these shores to loot, and kill and enslave.

Me: Actually, Mexicans, Columbians, Peruvians, etc are all decended from the people that the Spanish came here to loot, kill and enslave. They were here first.

used2play: their ancestors may have been here 200 years ago, but for generations theyve been slumming it up in puerto rico. now they are here illegally.

Me: Do you even think before you type? Puerto Ricans are *American Citizens*. They're not here illegally any more than someone who moves from New Jersey to Kansas is there illegally. Maybe next time do a little research.

used2play: I know about the hissy fit PR threw to become part of our country! Just cause im not 100 yrs old like you doesnt mean i dont know about our history! What im saying is they SHOULDNT be part of our country!!!!!!!!!! and as far as im conserned i tell my children we have 50 states and one leaching cesspool of an island.

Me: a) I'm not 100.

b) Puerto Rico didn't "throw a hissy fit" to become part of our country. The U.S. Government acquired Puerto Rico in the 1898 Treaty of Paris as reparations for the Spanish-American War.

c) Puerto Rican politics are divided into three camps concerning America: Independence, Statehood, or continued Commonwealth status.

Again, try doing a little research. You're embarrassing yourself with your horribly wrong collection of racist-tinted "facts".

-pb

From the letters section of The Morning Call:

Image of abortion is being manipulated

Regarding the May 1 op-ed column by Russell Frank, which said, "Our kids are not going to remember what Seung-Hui Cho said. They're going to remember how he looked with those weapons in his hands. And what some of them will remember, I fear, is that he looked cool":

Was this like the way The Morning Call and the media make abortion look cool? The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often. The concept of "a woman's mental health" is used and not one word is ever printed about the mental health women suffer after abortion.


If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice. It has distorted the truth by printing op-ed columns like "Will court threaten Jewish view of abortion?" by Jonathan Gerard on April 25. Where are we to find spokespersons who will be a voice for the anger, the frustration and the distrust we feel?

Jane Varra

Allentown

To which I responded:

"The line "a woman's right to her body" is used so often."

Yeah, that's because that's what it is. Maybe the Morning Call should stop using language like "a woman's right to vote" or "a woman's right to not be owned by her husband".

"If democracy works by open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, the liberal, anti-Catholic Morning Call has handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and hog-tied the conservative voice."

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that "conservatives" (up until recently) controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the legislatures of a majority of states, the governor's mansions of a majority of states, the broadcast rights to every major network, and the political dialog of this nation. With all that control, they stopped the open discussion of oppsing ideas and policies, labeled the opposition as "liberal", called anyone who had a differing opinion "anti-Christian" and "anti-American", and handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged, and hog-tied the moderate voice.

Not that I'm agreeing with your sentiment that the Morning Call is "liberal", but since you seem to think that it is... how does it feel?

-pb

Ann Coulter, it's so good to have you back. Smoove B has missed your near-skeletal frame, baby.

Ann Coulter, fuckwit extraordinare, has crossed yet another line of decorum. Oh noes! Never! you shout Never! Not Ann "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter?

Yes, the same, dear friends:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’–so….

She's taken my "beyond the pale" to a whole new level.

-pb

"Them's fightin' words whar I comes from!"

"Then why don't you fight?"

"'Cuz I aren't WHAR I comes from!"

That's pretty much was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was saying when he called a Barack Obama victory “catastrophic for the West” and stated that Al-Qaeda is rooting for Obama.

Obama wasted no time in firing back: “So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq”. Just for comparison, Australia has 1400 troops in Iraq. Howard thought it would be bad to pull troops out, stating “Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia’s security interests, I will criticize it.”

Uh, yeah. Let me guess, you think that one Australian is worth 10 Americans? Lunatic. Put up or shut up.

-pb

http://www.local6.com/spotlight/10962054/detail.html

Some woman in Florida driving past a theatre was offended by the marquee displaying the title "The Vagina Monologues".

So, the theatre did what any art-loving community would. They changed the fucking title to "The Hoohaa Monologues". I shit you not.

Oh no! Someone was offended by the correct term for a body part! HORRORS!

I'll bet this woman would be horrified by the title of my new play: "Conversations with the Epidermis". I'm such a sicko!

-pb

Some of you may already know that I abhor Ted Nugent and everything he embodies. The rest of you know now. Given the choice between sitting in a room for an hour with Ted Nugent or Ann Coulter I'd take Coulter in a heartbeat, because at least I could amuse myself seeing if I could cleary see all of her bones.

So here's Ted Nugent's latest antics: He's even managed to offend Texas Republicans with his confederate-flag waving, machine-gun toting, racist remark-spouting claptrap.

Ted Nugent is many things. He's a chicken hawk, a draft dodger, and apparently now a bigot. The fact that he's even given a stage to play on is a shame. The Nuge needs to be a relegated to a sad chapter in our history, held up as an icon of everything that was wrong with people like him.

-pb

Poor CNN. They get dumped on by the right for being the "Communist News Network" and a part of the great big Liberal (or Jewish!) Media Conspiracy. And now, they're going to get dumped on by me for being the opposite of all that.

Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood

That's the actual headline from their "Latest news" section, the top current stories. Yes, the article itself has a less sensationalist title, but "Radical Muslim: We drink our enemies' blood" is what they lead with.

Here's an excerpt:

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness."

Too bad they didn't lead with this: "Moderate Muslims: Killing women and children is mental illness". No, because that doesn't sell, does it? It's easier to start with "Radical Muslims want to kill you" and then suggest that a small minority are well-adjusted, instead of going with the more realistic "Moderate Muslims think radicals are truly mentally diseased" and then report that a small minority are bloodthirsty killers, but are in no way indicative of the whole.

Because we all know the facts, right? All Muslims everywhere hate our freedoms and want to kill us, right? Heck, why is CNN even reporting this? It's old news to them.

-pb

A heapin' helpin' of self-loathing

Now, I don't go out of my way here to bash Christians (other places, yes, not typically here), but this is classic. The link above is to "The Good Test", basically, it asks you, one by one, if you've ever broken the 10 Commandments. At the end, it tells you that you're a sinner, that their god is angry with you, and that he's going to punish you. Pretty standard, and I'd be ok with that from a "well, here's what we think!" standpoint. Go you! But the really interesting part is that it tells you that you're an evil, vile sinner even if you answer "no" to every question. It says "who among us can say that we have never broken these commandments?"

They simply assume you're a hell-bound sinner. Groups like this scare me, because they see no good in the world. They see evil lurking behind every door, in every construct of man, and in the heart of every person. How do people like this live their lives? I see a lot of bad in the world, but I still see a lot of good. I see things that have no bad. I marvel at things every day. I know people who are good people and I don't give one thought to their state after they die. But not these people. They are so overly concerned with the salvation of every man, woman and child that they have already condemned them to damnation in their own mind. That's frightening.

-pb

Wow, just... wow. This is why the GOP is failing:

"The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America"

That's from the text of a letter sent to hundreds of constituents of Rep. Virgil Goode, R-VA. Now, when I read that, I did a spit-take. There are so many problems with this nutbar's line of thinking, just in these two paragraphs, but let me just point out the obvious:

How exactly is stopping illegal immigration going to put an end to Muslims being elected in America? Isn't one of the requirements for holding public office citizenship? And how exactly is putting limits on legal immigration going to stop people like Keith Ellison from being elected, unless something's changed and DETROIT (Ellison's home town) is no longer considered part of America?

Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America, and numerically is about to make the jump from third largest to second largest (with the blanket "paganism" hot on its heels). So, wouldn't it stand to reason that more and more Muslims, many of whom are second-, third-, fourth- or greater-generation citizens, as well as those who have converted to the faith, are going to seek public office? If the people in Ellison's district didn't think it was a problem, then chances are more districts are going to think the same. And it's not like Christians have a monopoly on public office. Pennsylvania's own Arlen Specter is Jewish, as is Joe Lieberman, who was elected Vice President in 2000 before Katherine Harris stepped in and chainsawed democracy to death. So, it's not like being a non-Christian is a disqualification to public office - in fact, the Constitution explicitly states that no religious test can be applied to candidates.

Virgil Goode's trying to make some immigration noise, but he's barkin up the wrong tree. His letter makes about as much sense as saying we need to drill in ANWR or we'll never get that python problem in the Everglades under control.

-pb

I caught the tail end of this piece this morning while flipping through AM hell. The text is dated 2004, but it seems to me that Smerconish was reading right from it this morning.

White lights are boring.

White lights are sedate.

White lights are pretentious.

White lights are for fakers

White lights are un-Chris