Two People Who Will Not Shut Up

Oh Dinesh, you know that I could never quit you!

"Throughout his campaign Barack Obama has mocked his critics, noting that they just don't get what a novel figure and consistent unifier he has been for his whole life."


I've been hearing that Obama has supposedly been setting himself up as some sort of messianic figure for a long time, but, whenever I hear about him, hear him speak, it is normally not to brag about himself or set himself up as a god amongst men, immune to criticism. But if this your example:

"'They say: We don't know enough about him. His pastor once said something. He's got a funny name, sounds Muslim.'"

then you fail. These are all incredibly inane criticisms that, believe it or not, he has been subject to. They could have been significant if taken in the proper direction, but, unfortunately, the Jeremiah Wright ordeal and internet Muslimification myths clearly devolved from an actual attempt to explore Obama's character into an outright attempt to smear him through guilt-by-association, even when the grounds for the association, or, in the case of Wright, the guilt, happened to false to begin with. More on that in a bit...

"For the first time Obama has called the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views "ridiculous" and even accused him of being a purveyor of "hate."
To which one might say: better late than never. Maybe Obama never really knew how radical this guy is. "

You do realize how bad it would have been if Obama just decided to bash his preacher of 20 years for little substantial reason at the drop of a hat, don't you? Just because a few conservative pundits are obsessing over Wright's alleged "racism" or "anti-Americanism" really doesn't justify that kind of politically motivated backstabbing that he pretty much has been forced into doing in order to end the incessant attempts to associate Wright and Obama. But, the problem with this whole artificial issue is that Wright is not really "radical"....

"He used to believe that the U.S. government manufactured the AIDS virus and deliberately spread it in the black community, and he still believes it."

I would chalk that up to just plain idiocy, and maybe a wee bit of conspiracy theorist paranoia, rather than as emblematic of being radical and hating America. It's not like typically begrudge preachers for believing in crazy crap....right...(wink wink nudge nudge).

"He thinks America may have conspired to bomb itself on 9/11, and he's never wavered in that conviction"

Is it really that inconceivable? I mean, sure, it goes right back into the conspiracy theory mindset, but, really....is it impossible that certain government officials pulled a Reichstag, or intentionally allowed for it to occur for political reasons, rather than simply being too criminally incompetent to prevent the attacks, despite the signs pointing in that direction.

Oh, wait....Wright ISN'T a 9/11 conspiracy theorist...he just said that America brought the attacks upon themselves through their foreign policy (and it is rather hypocritical of you to equivocate on Wright's position like that...since you have a book written specifically to argue that liberal policies domestic and abroad are actually at fault for bringing the attacks upon ourselves...nice job, Distort D'Newza...).

"Now, and before, he thinks that 'God Bless America' is better expressed as 'God Damn America!'"

Oh noez! He's criticizing the government too vocally! Somebody stop him! (I really don't see how this is much more radical than Pat Robertson, et. al., praying for openings in the Supreme Court [guess how that would happen] and blaming Hurricane Katrina on them sinners what lives in the New Orleans. But, yeah, Wright expressing his disdain for America's violent foreign policy and for its failure to assure equality for African Americans is a much higher crime...).

"Obama has been hearing such messages for more than two decades"

I don't know what possesses Dinesh, or the pundits on the picture tube, to believe that a few soundbytes from Wright (most likely the worst fodder they could dredge up against him) reflects upon the general character of all of his sermons. Eh...whatever....

"He said he could no more repudiate Wright than he could repudiate his own family. This by the way is the speech that many pundits hailed for its originality and brilliance. I think it will go down as one of the biggest blunders in American political history."

And we've all learned to trust your judgments as an accurate depiction of reality....oh...wait....

"What Obama should have said in that speech: "Once upon a time this man rescued my spiritual life. A long time ago when I was spiritually and emotionally at a low point, he was there for me and he helped me get over the hill. So I owe him big time. I know that he's said some crazy things, but I've overlooked them, because of what he did for me." Instead Obama tried to sound like W.E.B. Du Bois. He impressed the liberal intelligentsia, while shooting himself politically in the foot."

What's wrong with trying to W.E.B. Du Bois? His speech did no damage to him, and the Wright thing would've ended there if the media wasn't deliberately trying to preserve the faux scandal for the journalistic lolz. Also, somehow I think that your sample speech would've been a lie. I doubt Obama's "spiritual life" was any different after meeting Wright than it was before even being a Christian. I am of the impression that the very reason that you see the church as radical (because it spends its time addressing social and racial issues) is the very reason why Obama joined it: for the social networks, and for the time spend addressing the issues that African Americans face. Of course, if I am correct on this, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms...

"What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him."

Well, my first guess about why Obama wanted to end it was the pressure by the media to do so. My second guess may be that Wright will not simply shut up and step out of spotlight for Obama's sake, so he needs to go into damage control. My third guess is that, if Wright did suggest that Obama thinks that the AIDS thing is true, he ended to relationship abruptly and unequivocably in order to prevent the American public from thinking that Wright is correct about that issue. Because the last thing America needs is an idiotic President (again).

"So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years."

You know...just because a person has hung around someone else on a few occasions over a long period time does not mean that the second person in question knows everything about the first with infallible detail. If I gathered up your three best friends, who met through three different venues, your wife, your parents, two of your cousins, two parents of casual acquaintances that you went through your school career with, your boss, two of your co-workers, and that guy you have bought a newpaper from every other day for the past 8 years, they will have very different impressions of you and disagree on some of the details. The point is that we put on different faces for different audiences. That doesn't mean that Obama is giving America a false impression of himself, so much as it means that he may have mislead Wright about how much he agreed with every little paranoid delusion he comforted himself with. It's called being polite...

"The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows."

Wright may be consistent, but it does not mean that his assessment is correct (example: Christianity). Obama may be hiding his support for Wright and his ideas, but, unfortunately, he has to due to the fact that Wright has been so thoroughly demonized by the media, and any link between the two will be spun beyond all recognition into Obama wanting to bring about the white male holocaust, or something to that effect. (Also: a candidate enveloped in shadows sounds awesome...as long as it is not Cheney...).

So (hopefully) ends the long, drawn out saga of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man guilty of the high crime of saying that racism still exists in the 21st century, an obvious lie that one needs only to check youtube comments regarding any subject to disprove. It is a shame that Obama has been forced to repudiate Wright, his pastor and mentor, in order to preserve his political career, something that Obama was clearly reluctant to do, but if he did not, he would never hear the end of it. Perhaps we will be able to find a time, not too far from now, when we realize that Wright's comments were simply accurate criticisms of social ills, or uneducated conclusions based upon a paranoia that has been fostered by our hostile racial and political climate. Really nothing radical at all. No calls to arms, no criticisms of events that haven't been similarly critiqued before, both domestic and abroad. Maybe, someday, cooler heads will prevail, even in response to hotheads....but, I guess I may just be a dreamer...

It's GOLD!!! Gold I tells ya!!!

The irony is strong with this one. Just when I thought this guy's idiocy was limited to completely misunderstanding the nature of law, and heaping piles of hatred on atheists and homosexuals for no real reason (do they ever need one?), he impresses us all by shooting himself in the foot and failing to realize that he had even done so. It is with utmost obliviousness that he proceeds through his rant. I give to you now..."There is No Santa":

"Kids, don't be fooled by the lie that there is a man who lives in the North Pole named Santa Clause, who supposedly brings toys to children across America on December twenty fifth each year. That story is not true!"

Way to ruin your kid's Christmas with the obvious, Bob. But wait...the disturbing and ironic parallels are nigh!

"Think about it: Do you want someone trespassing on your property late at night? That's what Santa would be doing. But Santa has never had a trespassing complaint made against him. You know why? Because there is no Santa. "

Think about it: Do you want someone psychically micromanaging your life from beyond the grave? That's what Jesus would be doing. But Jesus has never been brought up on charges of second degree mind-rape. You know why? I don't know either...Stockholm syndrome, maybe...

Also, to explain your little problem with Santa never being caught: Santa is a 300-year old ninja with the gift of eternal youth, so he has honed his stealth abilities to far beyond that which any mortal could dream of attaining.

"Do you want a heavy sled filled with toys with all those reindeer pulling it to land on the roof of your house? That's what they say Santa does. But think of the awful noise it would make and the damage it would cause to your slanted roof!"

But, you see, Santa's sleigh is magical and can contain an infinite amount of mass without increasing its own weight. And the reindeer are magical, flying reindeer that are also weightless.

"And think of all that awful smelling excrement that the reindeer would leave on your roof! A real mess! But no one has ever complained about such. You know why? Because there is no Santa. "

Maybe the reindeer just know how to hold it? Ever think about that, non-believer?

"Do you want someone sneaking into your house at night while you are asleep? That's what Santa would be doing. "

Do you want someone to watch you while you are taking a shower? Well that's what Jesus would be doing....

"But how would he get in? He would have to break in or you would have to leave a door or window open. But it's dangerous to leave a door unlocked or a window open at night. Instead of Santa, someone else might sneak in and kidnap you or your brothers or sisters. They might even hurt you, your dad, your mother or your brothers and sisters. "

He would get in through ninja skillz....and the fact that he can phase through physical matter due to his magical powerz. The last part is disturbingly baseless scaremongering...typical, huh?

"If you don't leave your window or door open, do you want someone sneaking into your house through your chimney? But go outside and look at your chimney or other chimneys in your neighborhood or town. Do you really believe a fat old man could get down those chimneys? Santa would get stuck! "

Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it false. You can deny the Truth that is Santa Claus all you like, but the reality that is Him will remain the same for your blind dismissal of his existence. Oh, and Santa can adjust his weight and size at will, because of his special training amongst the elven warriors of the North....plus magic.

"But if he could somehow come down your chimney, don't you think that he would get his clean white hair, beard and red and white suit awfully dirty by all that black soot? It doesn't matter if your mom or dad had a chimney sweeper to clean the chimney the day before. "

Santa is being of utmost power and purity who is incapable of being sullied by the filth of our pathetic material world. Isn't that obvious to you, you willfully ignorant heretic?

"But if the fat old man insists on coming down the chimney, don't you think that it might be awfully hot and smoky in there? And when he gets to the bottom, how is he going to deal with that awfully hot fire? By the time Santa gets to the bottom, someone will have to call an ambulance or the rescue squad, right?"

I don't think that the chimney would be lit at the time that he comes down it, but it doesn't matter, since Santa is immune to heat and fire (he developed the resistance after decades of fighting dragons). Even if he weren't immune to effects of fire, he has regenerative abilities as long as his head remains attached to his body, due to being an Immortal.

"But if Santa did manage to get by the fire or come out of the woodburning stove, don't you think he would track soot all over your mother's carpet? How do you think your mother and dad would feel about that? And how would your toys you dreamed of look all burned, melted and sooty? "

Santa has an aura of energy that prevents him from getting sooty, and he keeps the toys in his mystical sack of wonders (tee-hee) in order to prevent them from getting dirty or damaged. Next.

"When Santa is ready to leave, don't you think he would dread getting back into the fireplace just to wedge himself back up that hot, smokey, sooty chimney? Or maybe he would think it better to leave out of one of the doors or windows. I would, wouldn't you? "

Have you ever seen a Christmas special in your life? He can fly right back up the chimney by putting his finger on his nose (a special technique that he learned in combat with Rasputin the late 19th century). Besides, he could just walk out the front door anyway, if he didn't have that ability.

"But how do you think he would manage to get back on the roof? Not everyone has a ladder. Maybe Rudolph will throw him a rope."

Don't you dare blaspheme Rudolph (pbuh)'s name in such a fashion! The spite with which you refer to him is an insult to my beliefs, and I will not allow you to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner! Also...Santa has a personal magic elevator in just such an emergency...

"But even if he managed to get back on the roof to his sled, how do you think he manages to get his reindeer and sled to fly? Can reindeer and sleds fly? Sleds are made to slide across snow and ice and reindeer were made to walk or run on the ground."

Yes, sleds slide across snow and ice and yes reindeer walk on the ground. But magical sleds glide on air, and magical reindeer can fly at light speed. Your ignorance is clearly showing in your denial of the Truth. Only a fool says in his heart that there is no Santa.

"Santa has one of the most premative means of transportation and hauling toys, and yet, he can cause it to fly. Don't you think NASA and airplane designers would be very interested in Santa's secret? But they are not. Why! Because there is truly no Santa Clause!"

Yes, Santa's sled is beyond any vehicle that man has invented through the pathetic mortal graspings of science and technology. NASA and airplane designers would only stare in awe at the marvels of Santa's sleigh, but, unfortunately for them, they could not use it as Santa does, for only those whose hearts are unburdened, innocent, and pure can use the sleigh, and only those with Immortality can survive the speed at which travels.

"And why is Santa using a sled and reindeer for transportation anyway, when it may not even be snowing outside? "

Santa uses a sleigh and reindeer for transportation because, in the dimension in which he resides , it is always snowing. It matters not whether it has snowed or not in the physical locations that he visits, because he only remains there for a split second, due to his innate ability to bend space and time beyond the scope of what is possible by his sleigh's speed alone.

"If there is a Santa Clause, why is it that he brings toys to only some kids, especially the rich kids? Why doesn't he visit all children, especially the less fortunate? "

Because he is trying to test to faith of the poorer children, and because not all gifts are physical in nature. In reality, focusing merely on the gifts that Santa brings to you distracts you from truly loving Santa as he desires, and by not giving you a present, he is making it easier for you to realize that such possessions detract from your ability to embrace Santa. In reality, the poor are truly blessed, as they are given by Santa the gift of understanding Santa's plan, and thus a better chance of being able to meet with Santa in his workshop before passing from this world...

"Don't you think it would be a good idea for him to bypass rich children and rather give food, clothing and shelter to the less fortunate children of the world.If Santa is the good ole man that most everyone thinks him to be, why hasn't he thought about that himself? You know why, don't you? Because there is no Santa Clause!"

That would be a good idea, from our fickle mortal point of view. But we have to have faith in Santa's plan, as he is infinitely more wise than we are, and knows far more about the working of this world. Who are we to question Santa's plan?

I really don't what old Robert thought he was accomplishing this. I don't think that there is any possible audience for this, though I did have fun being a Santanic apologist in response to it (and by apologist, I mean making crap up to defend something obviously made up...not sure how much that varies from the actual definition).

A Day in the Life of Fundie McStrawman

Inspired by severe idiocy:

This morning, as rotund everyman, Fundie McStrawman, sat across the table from his wife, he thought back to the time when he had first met her as he downed his first bottle of breakfast scotch. That day, in 1984, he had assessed her worth as a demure, subservient homemaker. She was young and plump enough to be able to plop out child after child like a good woman should, she knew when to shut up, and she had all the same superstitions that he had. She was of breeding age, of course (a ripe old age of sixteen), and so he deemed her to be suitable as a contractual sex-slave, or "wife" as his parents demanded that he call her.

"I love you Fundie", she told me.

"You blasphemous, worldly fool of a woman," Fundie replied. "You must not love anyone or anything in this world more than you love Jesus, your Lord and Savior! We are not of this world, we are Heaven-bound, and wasting affections meant for our wonderful God on one another is not what God intended! Do you want to make the Baby Jesus cry with neglect! Do you want your undeniable worldly lusts for me to cloud your judgments about what love for our Creator is!"

"No, Fundie", she replied, deligently picking up the broken shards of the plate he threw against the wall in his rage.

At which point, the phone rang, and Fundie waited for his wife to pick up the phone and bring it to him, as picking up the telephone was women's work. On the phone was his illegitimate daughter, Juliet, asking Fundie how he was and if he had received his birthday present.

"You idiot child", he shouted. "Physical possessions are nothing more than a luxurious distraction from our duty to revere our Lord above all else! How dare you attempt to tempt with worldly objects, with wealth, with trinkets, to drive me away from my personal relationship with Jesus Christ! I will not stand for it! I will not allow my bastard spawn to tempt into sin, to leave me coveting, addicted to presents and gifts like your mother to cocaine! Get off this phone line, I only talk to people that Jesus likes, and atheistic, Darwinist, heathen bastard children like yourself are none of Jesus's concern!"

"I love you daddy", she replied tearfully. "I love you and I always will".

He felt that this reply warranted an irrational outburst, so Fundie spent two hours screaming into the phone. Psychologically, Fundie was in a troubled state, perturbed by the lack of faith and righteousness in his own family. "How sin has infested our society," he said, "indoctrinating young and old alike with such progressive and hedonistic notions." It was in that condition that Fundie answered the doorbell, after his wife refused to do so while crying in the bathroom. A man in a plain blue shirt stood in the doorway.

"Hello", he said. Fundie stared at the car in his driveway. It had no cross hanging from the rear-view mirror, no bumper stickers expressing praise for America, Jesus, or even to the Republican party, all of which disturbed Fundie to the core of his being . "Hello", he replied, after three minutes staring at the patently un-Christian vehicle.."I'm a representative from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", he said. "I'm collecting money to help care for the sick and dying in Africa. Could you be so kind as to help?". This was too much. Fundie chastised him with a blow to the temple. As the ungodly atheist minion lay dazed on the floor, he contemplated rushing to the kitchen, grabbing a knife, and ridding the world of a dangerous demon-possessed servant of darkness. But then Fundie remembered the secular prohibition against "murder", based upon the pathetic rule of mortal law, that Christians were unjustly not exempt from, preventing the act of glorifying God by slaying those who oppose his power and majesty.

Until the world was rid of such unjust, atheist-protecting laws, all he could do was yell at him ."Medicine", he explained, "will not help them if Jesus wants them to die. There would be nothing 'kind' about 'helping' them recover when it defies God's plan to do so. We need to trust in what God has deigned fit to happen, and it is not our place to try to interfere in his design with the corrupt instruments of man. If you had come to me asking if I would pray for the little dying African children, or asking me to help pay for you to spread the good Word to the unwashed heathens whose only chance of ever getting into Heaven is solely by noble white American Christians to go there and tell them to praise Jesus, I might have given some money. But, unfortunately, you did not, and are just spreading atheism and defying God's will. I'm getting my shotgun..."

With that, the man limped away, another blasphemous fool let loose on the world. "Until God and religion, and all its superstitious tenets and irrational legacy are forcibly imposed upon education, culture and society, human beings will never be free to live in a world in which people sing in unison while going to work, where the sun shines 24-hours a day, and where rainbows are edible. It baffles me that more people, observing my life, have not rallied with me behind the banner of faith in our Lord, the One True Savior, Jesus Christ. I pity those fools. Well, anyway honey, stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about! Strip down, and I'll meet you in the bedroom in five minutes, and if you are not there, so help me God, I will beat you so that even Jesus won't recognize you! "


[Please note that I do not support any of the following: drinking before noon, teenage brides, throwing dishes, loving invisible entities and ideas in place of other people, spousal abuse, berating children for a difference in ideology, leaving children to be raised by cocaine addicted mothers because they were conceived out of wedlock, refusing physical possessions only when it suits your argument, beating charity workers, contemplating murder due to delusional motives, rationalizing people's deaths through unverifiable supernatural presuppositions, thinking oneself superior for race/nationality/belief, threatening people with shotguns, imposing your beliefs on society, feeling entitled to sex within marriage, hypocrisy, and representing a caricature of people you disagree with as an accurate, comical, and poignant critique.

If you found any of that above and are offended by it....awesome.]

Dinesh D'Souza's War Stories

Oh, Dinesh, Dinesh...please, do us all a favor and stop being you. The amount of fail that your blog is generating will single-handedly detoriate the ozone layer by the year 2011 at the rate you are going.

I am sure you all intrigued with how he continues to strategically miss so many different points, remain oblivious to that fact, and keep audiences enthralled with his rhythmic feet as he does so, then you surely do want to this exercise in the inane:

"It was Atheist Bashing Week for me as I did three debates over the past seven days with a new crop of leading atheists"

Forgive me if I snicker at the idea of Dinesh "bashing" anyone...at least successfully. Even if he think that he has ever done so, he is probably mistaken in that belief.

"Sinnott-Armstrong offered a more dignified atheism that he said recognizes the accomplishments of Christianity. In one revealing moment he event said schools and colleges should teach students that the crimes of Christianity, like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials, pale before the crimes of atheist regimes like those of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Overall this was an elevated debate, one of the more high-toned ones I've participated in."

Let me clarify a few things. The things that could said to be the "accomplishments of Christianity" could have been done with the same effectiveness (or, actually, increased effectiveness) under any number of religions, or no religion at all. In the Western world, where Christianity is predominant, Christianity itself cannot be said to be the sole cause of any Western accomplishment, in that much of its successes in government, technology, science, society, and philosophy have their roots in Ancient Greece and Rome, even if the roots that originally came from such cultures only came to fruition in societies that were largely Christian. The point of this is that we can't really credit Christianity with a whole lot, as they may have just happened to be the pet ideology of a few countries in a time where the seeds planted by previous generations and previous doctrines, happened to come into fruition.

Second, there is no problem with mentioning that the death tolls of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao (you left out Hitler....good boy, here's a cookie) are incredibly high. But it is foolish to assume that the large number of deaths is the fault of atheism, just because these three dictators happened to be atheistic communists. It is also foolish to assume that Christianity somehow gets to get a free ride on its own atrocities, because the death tolls aren't high enough in comparison. The reason why this doesn't fly well is that you have to consider that these atrocities occured during times where methods of killing were less effective, and the number of people that you were able to kill was smaller (to say nothing of the fact that the Inquisition focused more on torture and conversion than outright murder). This is also neglecting the fact that we are ignoring traditional warfare, which is the form in which Christianity was must gleeful in its destruction of lives, and failing to acknowledge that atheism has no common ideology from which to determine behavior (unlike actual religons), meaning that you cannot as easily come to conclusions about atheism itself from these three dictators as you could about them if they had a common religious doctrine. You can, however, infer a good amount about totalitarian regimes, politically motivated executions, communism, and inflated egos from these, and other similarly oppressive, genocidal states . But, I'm not so sure that having three oppressive communist nations with a high execution rate implies as much about atheism as a several hundred year trend of religiously motivated wars and violence implies about the specific religious doctrines behind them. But, I assume you would say I am being unfair about that, right?

"Later the atheist students who organized the debate complimented me on my performance, and one said that I had made numerous arguments that he had never thought of, and that were compelling him to rethink (although not abandon) his atheism"

Either a miracle occured that magical evening in Cambridge, and D'Souza came up with something actually compelling and original (which, judging from what I've seen of his debates, is unlikely), or Harvard students just ain't what they used to be. Or the kid was just flattering him. Anyway you slice it, that student that told Dinesh this needs to slapped! The fool gratified Dinesh's ego, allowing the pompous ass to continue believing that he actually has credibility! He will never be stopped now!

"I went first and focused on Singer's extreme views, such as his proposal that parents be allowed to kill their children up to the age of 28 days. Singer also thinks America and the West can learn from non-Western societies, not to mention ancient Greece and Rome, where children were routinely killed at much higher ages. Oddly enough this champion of infanticide and euthanasia also favors animal rights!"
Can't help but feel that this is either a misrepresentation or that it is deliberately stripped away from the justifications for the position in order to preserve Dinesh's opinion of it. But, anyway, I am not so sure that I could support infanticide. Despite the fact that infants mental faculties aren't completely developed, the fact that they, upon birth, are no longer symbiotic lifeforms, and have been able to feel pain and sense their surrounding for several months, I feel that infanticide, in of itself, cannot be justified without extreme circumstances. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is acceptable, if the recipient of it consents without question or doubt, or if the recipient is simply beyond hope and incapable of communicating in any way, whatsoever. Much of the civilized world allows for euthanasia in circumstances where it is requested (and, in contrast, we do not allow it, but are among the few in the civilized world to still have the death penalty, along with prioritizing military expenditure more than any nation ....God bless, America...).

"Singer argues that we human beings are Darwinian primates. We are on a continuum with the other animals. It is Christianity, Singer charges, that came into the world and elevated human beings on a pedestal. It is Christianity that proclaimed that man is in the image of God, and that creation is for man's benefit. These ideas gave rise to the special dignity of man and human rights and moral principles such as 'It is wrong to deliberately take human life.'"

We ARE Darwinian primates. You admit to accepting evolution, so why would that be news to you? Humans are part of the animal kingdom, yes. The reasons for believing otherwise are based upon egotism extended to one's entire species, not based upon actually physiological differences. But, Christianity was not the first to put humans on to a pedestal. They are the most famous for it, but whether it was explicit or implicit, humans have generally always felt that human beings are special. I mean, what do you think that gods are? Don't you think it odd that the idea of gods are almost universally anthropomorphized versions of aspects of nature? Gods were basically supermen, the greatest beings in existence who just happened to have a humanoid form. Of course, even without religion, humans would still put humanity on a pedestal, because humans tend to put themselves up on a pedestal. When it comes down to it, groups that people associate with are viewed as an extension of the self, and, as such, are held in the same esteem that hold themselves with. Species is just another kind of group we define ourselves by, and that we use to determine our enemies.

Oh, as for morality coming from Christianity: if you think that murder was never unacceptable in an established society before Jesus came around, you simply fail.

"In a sense Singer is taking up Nietzsche's challenge--to rid our civilization not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality--and his homicidal conclusions, which many people find horrific, are only a working-out of his atheist logic."
Ugggh....Christian morality. If you are not misrepresenting Singer here, I think that Singer needs to be excommunicated from the International Church of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. But, anyways, your Christian morality has nothing to it that it makes it remarkably better than Hindu morality, Jewish morality, Shinto morality, Buddhist morality, or, despite your misrepresentations, atheistic morality (or, in other words, morality common to almost all non-sociopathic human beings). In fact, much of the moral actions demanded of Christianity are either immoral (stoning people for working on the Sabbath), ignored as irrelevant(not eating shellfish, praying in the closet, all that), or common sense morality that is not limited to any one religion (the golden rule, no murder, no thievery, stressing non-violence, and a variety of other chestnuts...). So, to put it in fewer words: just because you equate Christianity with everything good in our society does not make it true.

"He is a lucid and gentlemanly debater, and he complimented me for eschewing Bible citations in favor of reason and logic and history and science in developing my arguments. I praised him for having the guts to come to a Christian campus and debate me, quite a contrast from the invertebrate Richard Dawkins who seems terrified to take me on even at his native Oxford."

That's nice that you complimented one another and all, but, do you really wonder why Richard Dawkins won't debate you? Because, I can give you a few reasons. You completely misrepresent every fact that you present in a debate, (along with your opponent's after the debate), you tend to fire off a massive amount of generally incorrect data that could take a full year to comprehensively expose as fallacious, and, the best part is, you absolutely insist that people engage you in a setting in which you can get away with doing it! But, I'd say why Richard does not want to debate you is simply because you are already known by the people who actually know about you to be nothing but a pompous windbag without anything but infantile, recycled arguments that even internet trolls have decided to abandon two years prior to when you dredge them up as legitimate. You are not even a blip on his radar, no matter how much you whine and try to smear him.

"Won't it be hilarious if the "party of faith" is unafraid of opposing arguments while the "party of reason" cannot withstand the arguments of its critics?"

No, I'd say that is pretty much the norm. People of faith being unafraid of opposing arguments because they are too stubborn and/or ignorant to change due to them, and people of reason being afraid of criticism because they are willing to concede the possibility that the opposition may actually be able to convince them by mustering up an actually sound argument.

Well that's that...I'm hoping that I won't be compelled to do this everytime that Dinesh decides to open his claptrap about religion, but...well...some things just can't be helped.

In Memoriam: Week of April 20 to April 26

Insanity of the Day: This one is a little too subtle for me...but I think it is implying that the justice system is somehow prejudiced. Who knew?


Wisdom from the Bowels of the Abyss: "So, this one time, during the Christmas season, I was doing my Christmas shopping, and was well along on my list, feeling all holly and jolly, when suddenly...I saw it. I felt....I felt so...violated. It was a sign that stood, towering above the K-Mart, looming like a Jolly Roger, declaring war against all that we hold near and dear to our hearts. In big, blood-red letters, it shrieked out to helpless customers 'Happy Holidays', a statement so vulgar, so cruel, so sadistic in its tacit dismissal of the existence of Christmas, that it is practically smacking Jesus in the face everytime that the phrase is uttered. I begged the manager to take it down, telling him how offensive it was. I was on the verge of tears...but he would not budge. He refused to acknowledge how heartless and destructive his Godless banner was...refused to see how much pain and anguish he was causing to innocent children who had the misfortune of seeing that horrible phrase, and have their entire holiday ruined by the hatred and intolerance behind such a declaration.And that is why it was justified homicide, your honor."

-Bill O' Reilly, after taking the concept of a culture war too literally.


Poll: If you could offer up an innocent child as a blood sacrifice to the forgotten gods of the darkened upper echelons of reality, would you?

No. Unless it was that annoying neighbor kid.
1 (100%) [All me! What a disturbingly masturbatory process I have going on here...]
Yes, as long as the god offered good healthcare.
0 (0%)
Yes, for any reason, any time, anywhere. Let me at 'em.
0 (0%)
No. Because I am afraid of being arrested.
0 (0%)

Blog Description: Violating your basic human rights, for fun and profit.


Profile: He who was determined by the prophecy to bring upon the land a temporary peace in a time of relatively less peace, only to later wreak havoc, overthrow empires, eat kittens, and have promiscuous sex with naive young altar boys. And the cheese...oh, the horrible things that will occur involving cheese...

Until that bleak point in the not too distant future, the comparatively young Asylum Seeker entertains himself with doodling apocalyptic landscapes, laughing diabolically atop burning buildings, and plotting assassinations for the lulz.

Currently trying to hide his cocaine stash within the hollowed out corpse of a transvetite hooker. Mood: paranoid.

Location: Suicide Flats, Utah

Ann Coulter: Need I say more?

Ann Coulter (shudder) said: "as her supporter, I refer to her as simply 'Hillary.'"
America's (ideal) response: "Well, if Ann Coulter supports her...I'm voting for McCain!"

If you don't know why, and have no idea why Ann Coulter should be hunted down by pitchfork wielding mobs in a vain attempt to drive a stake through her non-existent heart to ,at least, shut her up for a short period of time, here's a gem of hers:
"So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should."

Wow. Bill Clinton is a sociopath, a sex offender, and suffering narcissistic personality disorder? This is very interesting information...I am sure that this isn't merely an exaggeration of traits that most people happen to have, at all. I trust you more than that.

The reason why Obama's "association" with Weather Underground isn't a problem is because it is tangential (he worked with one of the former members several decades after his "terrorist" activities, while both happened to be political office). As for his association with Wright...he is not a "raving racist" like Fox News and white males with a persecution complex try to make him out to be. He was a preacher who criticized government activity, brought up the fact that their community is still discriminated against, and that the people who run the government currently, including Hillary, are predominantly white (shock!) and have not been through the trials of having racism directed at them. I just think it is rather hard to call Wright racist when he is 1. pointing out racism in its more traditional form and 2. pointing out that the black community is still underrepresented in governments, and still not given equal treatment in the justice system.
It is inane, and has basically been nothing more than spin since day one.

Anywho, Ann Coulter is the Anti-Christ, so I am not going to tread too far into whatever tepid pile of horse vomit she crammed through the intertubes. It's not the Democrats associated with Hillary that make her unelectable...it is Hillary herself. Since, well, just look at her supporters (hint: I am referring to Ann Coulter).

Edit: Uggghhh...the amount of fail in this doesn't even warrant a response...

Destiny Calls...

Did you hear? Apparently some guy named Nathan Bowman fell 500 feet down a mine shaft. And, guess what? He survived! Obviously, Jesus had a hand in this! But don't just take my word for it!

"Sarah Curran Smith, a vice president at Lehigh Coal [said] Bowman's survival is 'pretty unbelievable...I think the universe has bigger plans for Nathan. I hope he realizes that.'"

Yes, the universe does indeed have a purpose for Nathan, and I happen to arbitrarily know exactly what that purpose must be! For you see, we are in grave danger! The Internets are about to go extinct! I know, I thought that it was just a South Park episode, too. But it is very real! In two short years, the internet will be gone, along with all of fancy blogospheres, our cherished trolling grounds, our beloved 4-chan, our handy torrents, and our precious, precious pr0n. It will be the end of modern society as we know it! And that is why, in the same way that it is obvious that Nathan Bowman was chosen by fate to have a grand purpose in the tapestry of our existence due to living after falling down a mine shaft, it is also obvious that only a person with such a significant purpose could be the savior we need to save the internet! Nathan fits the bill, therefore, it is he alone who can save us all from the horrors of having to be antisocial and belligerent in person instead of being able to do it safely behind a keyboard.

So, young Nathan, once you end your stay in the hospital, we can begin your training. Because in only two short years, you will have no choice but to meet your destiny...Remember, you were chosen by forces beyond our comprehension for this task, Nathan...don't fail us, or reality as we know it will be torn asunder!

To Poe or Not to Poe...

Hmmmm...apparently they are going to be starting up a Christian oriented magazine on campus. It is interesting, because I've found that this going to be one of many religiously oriented student organizations on a campus with no secular based organizations (basically, no atheist groups), though I have the hunch that atheism is a little more common around here than in most parts of the countries [it's Massachusetts, ultra-liberal to the point where we do have Republican Clubs on our campuses but no Democratic Clubs, due sheerly to the fact that, if we had a Democrat Club, it would consist of almost 90% of the students and faculty]. And, it came to me, while staring at this little pamphlet talking about this magazine, asking for writers to "express their faith", that this magazine would be perfect for me!

What better test is there for a person to not only write things that they patently do not believe in, but to also do it in a low-toned, coded fashion that allows for the objective observer to see that there is more to your articles than meets the eyes. How much fun would it be to write about an issue you feel passionate about, but to completely hide the fact that you feel passionate in the complete opposite fashion as your readers and employers, yet they are none the wiser? I could just imagine how giddily I could make my submissions to that paper, writing spiritual poetry that takes tacit jabs at the common idea of God, writing editorials that explicitly condemn non-belief and sin, all while tacitly bringing into question how one could bring yourself to such condemnation without violating Christian principles. And I could see myself laughing as I send in an easily refuted piece of garbage of an argument that implicitly refutes itself, just waiting to see how the magazine responds to the off-handed rebuttals sent in response by the handful of atheists on campus who would bother to pay attention to such trash.

And, thinking about all this, pining for a way to get published and get ideas out there, while also relishing the opportunity to both bamboozle believers and weave intricate dismissals of everything that they believe in the guise of intentionally weak faith-based rhetoric, I wonder: should I go for it?

Well, if I do not do it, it would probably be for the best, and save me some real stress (especially if I am exposed and confronted for basically trying to sabotage their magazine). But, if I do do it, may Poe's Law protect and serve me well....