“Intelligent Design” PWNED

Richard Dawkins rocks.

And the follow up

ALL YOUR SUPERSTITION ARE BELONG TO US!

There are still some flat-earthers

I mean that literally. In Do they really think the earth is flat?, a few nutbags who believe the Earth is a disc discuss their ideas.

“People are definitely prejudiced against flat-earthers,” says John Davis, a flat earth theorist based in Tennessee. (source)

I presume (but I haven’t researched it) that Mr. Davis is also a fan of “intelligent design.”

The article contains an interview with scientific author Christine Garwood. She says that it is a “historical fallacy” that mankind once believed the earth to be flat, and only Christopher Columbus’ voyage changed that.

In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually live on a disc didn’t emerge until Victorian times.

Theories about the earth being flat really came to the fore in 19th Century England. With the rise and rise of scientific rationalism, which seemed to undermine Biblical authority, some Christian thinkers decided to launch an attack on established science.

And Rhonda Storms continues that attack.

“Defamation of Religion”

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog gives us “Defamation of Religion” — The New International Legal Craze?

Apparently, the United Nations is beginning to embrace the idea that there should be liability for calling bullshit on stupid stone age superstitions defaming religions.

Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm seems to have her head screwed on straight. She said,

The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies. (source)

Angela, care to come visit us and tell that to the speech-code liberal nazis that run American academia?

American Christians, welcome to the party.

All of a sudden, if you believe TIME Magazine, it seems that American Christianity has all of a sudden rejected the twin banners of Orwell’s Junior Anti-Sex League and the swastika.

Naturally, I’m not inclined to believe anything that TIME writes, at least not until they fire that lazy unethical scuzz, Kathleen Kingsbury.

Nevertheless, TIME has a couple of interesting articles here. One, about some Christians who seem to understand that sex is a mitzvah, here. Another, about how James Dobson (may he rot in hell with Kingsbury) took a swing at Obama and whiffed, here.

The latter led me to this site, James Dobson Doesn’t Speak for Me. It appears that finally, some Christians figured out that the greatest source of hate & intolerance, and the primary phenomenon in America that has driven people to embrace atheism has been the scum sucking Christian Right.

Better late than never, I suppose.

Texas: Child Abuse protected by the Free Exercise Clause

This seems to be a totally bizarre interpretation of the First Amendment.

Laura Schubert, 17, was falsely imprisoned and abused by her “church.” After being kept awake all night and deprived of food, she collapsed. Her fellow church members took this as a sign that she was possessed by the devil, so they held her down in a spread eagle position until she foamed at the mouth and went into spasms.

During the first encounter, seven members pinned her to the floor for two hours while she cried, screamed, kicked, flailed, and demanded to be released. This violent act caused Schubert multiple bruises, carpet burns, scrapes, and injuries to her wrists, shoulders, and back. As she testified, “I was being grabbed by my wrists, on my ankles, on my shoulders, everywhere. I was fighting with everything I had to get up, I was telling them, no. I was telling them, let go, leave me alone. They did not respond at all.” After Schubert “complied with what they wanted [her] to do,” she was temporarily released. Fifteen minutes later, at the direction of Pleasant Glade’s youth pastor, a different group of seven church members physically restrained her for an hour longer. After this experience, Schubert was “weak from exhaustion” and could hardly stand.

Three days later, a male church member approached Schubert after a service and put his arm around her shoulders. At this point, Schubert was still trying to figure out “what had happened” at the previous incident, “wasn’t interested in being touched,” and resisted him. As Schubert testified, “I tried to scoot away from him. He scooted closer. He was more persistent. Finally, his grasp on me just got hard . . . before I knew it, I was being grabbed again.” Eight members of Pleasant Glade then proceeded to hold the crying, screaming, seventeen year-old Schubert spread-eagle on the floor as she thrashed, attempting to break free. After this attack, Schubert was unable to stand without assistance and has no recollection of events immediately afterward. On both occasions, Schubert was scared and in pain, feeling that she could not breathe and that “somebody was going to break [her] leg,” not knowing “what was going to happen next.” (Source - dissent)

Since her religion is apparently bat-shit-craziness, they are permitted to abuse and imprison kids. Holding them liable for doing so “would have an unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs.” (See p.15)

I would have dismissed the case too, but on different grounds. If you join a religion that practices this kind of idiocy, you assume the risk that you’ll be treated this way. I just don’t see it as a First Amendment issue.

Religion as “child abuse” (?)

From a post by Tatiana von Tauber:

Seneca the Younger said “religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful”.

The rest of her post is just as thought provoking as the quote.

Kozinski “scandal” is a non-story

I wanted to resist writing about the Kozinski porn “scandal”. I simply saw no reason to add fuel to the fire. Feminazis, big surprise, threw a hissy fit, saying: “He is not ethically competent to hear obscenity cases.” (source)

Of course, a “real” professor, Lawrence Lessig, explains the facts simply enough that even a critical victim studies theorist can understand (but rest assured, they’ll still scream that the world is flat).

Here are the facts as I’ve been able to tell: For at least a month, a disgruntled litigant, angry at Judge Kozinski (and the Ninth Circuit) has been talking to the media to try to smear Kozinski. Kozinski had sent a link to a file (unrelated to the stuff being reported about) that was stored on a file server maintained by Kozinski’s son, Yale. From that link (and a mistake in how the server was configured), it was possible to determine the directory structure for the server. From that directory structure, it was possible to see likely interesting places to peer. The disgruntled sort did that, and shopped some of what he found to the news sources that are now spreading it. (source)

In other words, the boneheads in the media and at Feminist Law Profs are purposely trying to mislead the public into believing that Kozinski was “publishing” a porn website. (much to the delight of the disgruntled litigant who started this whole mess) This wasn’t a “website,” it was a “directory.” Nevertheless, it really doesn’t matter. Kozinski had as much right to have those images on in this directory (and frankly, on a public website, if he so chose) as he had a right to have a six pack of beer in his refrigerator. They are perfectly legal. Attorney Gill Sperlien asked: “Should a judge who owns a car and operates it lawfully be disqualified from presiding over a trial where a car was used unlawfully (e.g. DUI, reckless driving, vehicular homicide)?“

Indeed, Judge Kozinski’s familiarity with internet erotic content makes him more, not less, competent as a judge in an obscenity case. He would be more familiar with the community standards, what is available as comparable material, and likely in a better position to bring a dose of reality to the trial. First Amendment attorney Gary Edinger said, “We let crazy zealot Southern Baptist born again judges preside over obscenity trials wherever they spring up. The press never suggests that those Jesus freaks are incapable of being neutral and impartial dispensers of justice.“

Professor Dave Fagundes made a great observation:

A very puritanical person who had a strong bias against anything even remotely sexually explicit would be very likely to have no pornography on their computer, but this certainly wouldn’t mean such a person was objective. If anything, a judge who has a strong stomach for all kinds of material might be better suited to evaluate whether the highly context-sensitive First Amendment standards for obscenity apply to a particular work. Very rough analogy, but wouldn’t you rather have a bibliophile evaluate the literary merit of a given novel than someone who had never read a book?

Fagundes also questioned whether the Kozinski material was accurately called “pornography.”

It’s more just crude, kind of bizarre, sexually themed humor-the kind of stuff a college sophomore might find hilarious and send to his frat buddies. So I think there’s a foundational difference between Koz’s motivations (which I think were merely to share bawdy laughs with others, however lame the jokes may have been) and the aims of the defendant in the trial (which were presumably to generate sexually explicit material to arouse whoever viewed it).

I’ve gone through most of Kozinski’s images, trying to figure out what all the fuss was about…. They are nothing more than a collection of stupid images that most of us get sent to us at one time or another by that annoying friend who cant keep his finger off the “forward” button.

For example, the press describes one of the images as “of contortionist sex.” Technically, it is, but it is accompanied by a spoof of the “for everything else there is master card” ad campaign. The “bestiality” content? That was the famous “donkey rapes man” video (shown at the bottom of this post).

And so on… In fact, if you look in my “deleted items folder,” you’ll find most of those images in there too. Most were forwarded by friends who seem to think that I would find them funny. Some are funny, most are just dumb and out-dated internet memes. I don’t bother to save them, because I know that someone else will forward it to me in a week.

The feminazis seem fixated on one image of two nude women painted as cows - whining that it is “degrading” because the women are positioned as if to say “come milk me” or “come fuck me”. This is somehow evidence that Kozinski is a misogynist.

I’m not sure that it is proper to lay our personal moralities over any of the depictions. I may be lacking in imagination, but neither “come milk me” nor “come fuck me” came to mind when I saw it. Perhaps the author of the work was trying to make a comment about how women are portrayed in the media. I don’t know what was in the author’s mind any more than I know what is in the collector’s mind. However, the thought police over at feminazi law profs, they know exactly what is in Kozinski’s mind… and they want it re-educated right now.

Here’s Kozinski’s “bestiality” video.

No separation of church and state at the USPTO

An enterprising individual attempted to secure trademark registration for the term BONG HITS 4 JESUS. Naturally, the USPTO rejected the application on a few grounds. The first was that the term is “merely ornamental” — a position that I agree with.

Here is where the USPTO gets really creepy - again!

In the Morse case, the Supreme Court also said the phrase BONG HITS 4 JESUS has a “paucity of alternative meanings,” and said that the message was “no doubt offensive to some.” Morse v. Frederick 127 S. Ct. at 2624. While there is no prohibition against offensive trademarks, there is no constitutional right to obtain a trademark registration. It is the nature of the potential offensiveness of the phrase BONG HITS 4 JESUS that make it scandalous and therefore not eligible for registration.

According to the attached evidence, discussed above, the proposed mark BONG HITS 4 JESUS promotes the use of illegal drugs by attributing its use to a religious figure. This is scandalous because Christians would be morally outraged by a statement that connects Jesus Christ with illegal drug use. Accordingly, the mark BONG HITS 4 JESUS is scandalous and cannot register based on the current record.

A mark that is deemed scandalous under Section 2(a) is not eligible for registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register. TMEP §1203.01.

See US Serial No: 77305946

While the final paragraph in this is correct, the rest of it is just crap. First of all, who says that Jesus *didn’t* smoke dope? Personally, I bet he did. Second, does the USPTO think that marijuana was illegal in Judea in 20 A.D.?

I really hope that the next administration puts an end to the hiring spree of Regent University graduates in positions of authority.

I BELIEVE tag hits speed bump (rejoice)

It looks like Flori-duh’s latest state-sponsored proselytizing might have “hit a roadblock” (as reported on CNN). The plate design did not make it into a bill sent to Governor Crist on Tuesday.

Opponents of the plate said approving it would result in a court challenge because it violated the separation of church and state and gave the appearance the state was endorsing a particular religious preference.

Gee, ya think?

Supporters countered that not approving it could also result in a lawsuit.

Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, a plate proponent, said the state had created a “public forum” by allowing a variety of license plate designs with different messages. Restricting speech in that forum was also unconstitutional, Storms said.

Rhonda Storms is probably one of the most insane people ever to take public office. She is absolutely Katherine-Harris-Crazy, a filthy hypocrite, and a traitor to the Constitution.

Crazy or not, she has half a point. The state should not restrict speech in public forums. However, Sen. Storms needs to read the whole First Amendment, not just the part she likes (at this particular moment). The First Amendment also requires a separation of church and state — and this license plate violates that sacred separation. Let’s remember that anyone who wants to express their belief can still buy a bumper sticker that says “I Believe,” and can send a check to the organization that sponsored the plate.

Storms’ statements drip with irony

It is funny to hear Rhonda Storms complain about censorship. Storms didn’t have so much respect for the Constitution when the issue was speech with which she disagreed. Storms successfully pushed through a ban on recognition of gay pride events in Hillsborough County, Florida. (source). She also succeeded in having a shelf of so-called “gay books” removed from Hillsborough County’s public libraries.

County Commissioner Rhonda Storms raised objections to a shelf of books featured in her local library in honor of gay pride month. Storms claims she spoke for her rural and suburban constituents when she proposed that the county ban “acknowledging, promoting or participating” in gay pride events.

“I do not want to have to explain to my [6-year-old] daughter what it means to be questioning one’s sexuality … or what a transgender person is, or what a bisexual is or what a gay or lesbian is,” said Storms. She added that the library shouldn’t be “used as bully pulpit to introduce those concepts to a child outside of their parents’ purview.” (source) (second source)

Funny how putting books in the library is turning it into a “bully pulpit,” but there is no problem with putting one particular set of superstitions on the state’s license tags.

If you desire to see state sponsored religion on license plates, have no fear. South Carolina is on the march.

Paul Broun hates our freedom and hates our troops

Forgive the headline, but I just love feeding conservatives neo-cons their own feces.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., has proposed H.R. 5821, the so-called “Military Honor and Decency Act” to close a “loophole” in the law that allows nudie magazines to be sold on military bases. Irony alert! If it passes, the people who are fighting the taliban, allegedly to protect our freedom, will no longer have the freedom to buy the latest issue of Penthouse.

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16. (source)

Broun trotted out the typical anti-porn rhetoric, spouted from pulpits and womens’ studies departments nationwide.

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad.” (source)

If our military members are so fragile that they can’t take the sight of a naked woman (or man) in a magazine without falling apart, we’re going to need to hire some mercenaries to handle our foreign expeditions. Anyone soft enough to lose it over Penthouse isn’t really fit to write traffic tickets, let alone tote an M-16.

The measure was specifically targeted at Playboy and Penthouse. Those two publications made it through an earlier, less restrictive, review process. The military censorship board decided that both Penthouse and Playboy had “enough nonsexual content to be acceptable.” (source)

One veteran made a particularly sharp point:

So what basis does this Paul Broun make on pornography being unsuitable for us to view? As a former paramedic was I able to view the human body injured, mishapen, diseased and traumatized for the good of the country, but unable to exercise individual responsibility by going to a strip club on a Friday night? (source)

Another military member had this to say:

Still, the irksome thing about the Christian Taliban trying to deny everyone else anything they don’t approve of is that it creates a more uptight and less “fun” military. Good thing the Recession arrived to ensure retention.

The Cold War USAF, for example, was a “work hard, play hard” environment. Now it’s a “one mistake Air Force” where it’s all work and boring wholesomeness (well, someone ELSES idea of wholesomeness) instead of real martial spirit. Now that we are gradually morphing into a drone deployment corporation this may not matter much…but consider the people who want to micromanage what you read are displaying UTTER contempt for YOU by restricting YOUR choices. (source)

Yet another made this point:

Bottom line, I’ve been to Iraq twice now and sacrificed for the country and its freedom. What the hell are these Republican fundamentalists to push their morality on us? (source)

Amen, brother.

Oh, I almost forgot the best part. Broun’s justification for this measure? He doesn’t want government funds to go toward procurement of pornographic materials. When he was informed that the PX doesn’t give the magazines away, and that the base exchanges are self-funded, a Broun spokesman responded with this zinger.

Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

A man in uniform replies:

If the senator thinks that taxpayer money is used to buy these items because our salary comes from taxes I feel that all government employees should be subjected to the same standards. This should not include just pornography, but also alcohol, tobacco, violent video games & movies, any clothing that is a color other than white or black(could over stimulate your senses otherwise), spending more than $10 on a haircut, or anything else someone can come up with that would make him have to give up something. We are paid for services rendered and we should be allowed to spend our money in a way we see fit. Last time I checked all mombers of the military are legally adults and therefore can make decisions for themselves. (source)

Paul Broun, you are the ass-hat of the week, and the first to bear the title “Ass hat who hates our freedom and hates our troops.”

Runners up for the ass-hat award are the 16 freedom and troop hating sleazes who co-sponsored the bill. Take a bow, y’all.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Georgia
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Nebraska
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado
Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania
Rep. William Sali, R-Idaho
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Maryland
Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Illinois
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana
Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey