"If it's your perfect holy book written by God, why is there stuff in it that makes no sense?"

I used to think Bill Maher could be a smug prick sometimes. I don't know whether it's because he's loosened up a little, or that I've simply become more liberal, but I don't really see that a lot anymore. He kept himself calm and collected in this interview, and did his best to address each of Bill's points before he could be interrupted. At about 14 minutes in, religion comes up, where Maher really hit his stride. It's a good interview.

I lol'd at Bill calling MoveOn and DailyKos "radicals."

Republicans want children to kill themselves

Yep. You read that title right. Remember: for every Democrat you vote for, you are allowing one faggot to continue breathing. A vote for a Republican is a vote against the rights of gays. And Muslims. And Latinos. And minorities. And pregnant women. And minors. And that's what America needs now more than ever.

GOP lawmakers want to exclude gay students from anti-bullying bill

A pair of Republican state legislators has introduced a bill that would remove protections for gay, lesbian and transgender students from an anti-bullying law passed in 2007.

State Reps. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, and Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri Valley, sponsored the legislation to remove sexual orientation and gender identity as definitions used for purposes of protecting students in public and nonpublic schools from harassment and bullying.

Schultz told NBC affiliate WHO-TV that the rationale behind the move is to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, since the Iowa Supreme Court pointed to laws like Iowa’s Safe Schools Law in making its April decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Ryan Roemerman, executive director of Iowa Pride Network, said the bill would open up LGBT students to bullying and harassment.

“When our state is facing record budget deficits and unemployment, House Republicans feel their time is best spent picking on Iowa’s LGBT youth,” Roemerman said in a statement. “There is no better example as to why we have this law, so youth in Iowa don’t grow up to be like these bigots.”

This comes after a gay 13 year old put a bullet in his brain last week in Texas. Oh, and there was that fifteen year old in Indiana who hung himself. Oh, and I almost forgot about that other thirteen year old from California. That's three gay teenagers who committed suicide this month alone because of anti-gay bullying. Merry Christmas.

A friend of mine on Facebook posted an article about the death of one of these teenagers. Some stupid fuck had the audacity to respond with this mound of ignorant garbage:

If the kid attempted suicide then it sounds like bullying wasn't his only problem, but a symptom or rather it was in addition to a problem he already had. You guys are angry with the bully who did not in fact take this kid's life, but you ignore that he already had a bigger issue if he was willing to attempt to take his own life.(since it's complicated to be politically correct, I will make this simple) No man who loves himself would take his own life. It is tragic that this kid died, it could have been avoided if someone took the chance to look at the bigger issue rather than the symptom. This child came out to his parents and said he was gay, everyone tries to just accept the symptom rather than addressing his real issue which was spiritual and sinful by nature. You guys like to sugar coat everything because you want to believe that the unnatural is in fact natural, and since you try to make the unnatural natural, you do not address the unnatural when it is present. So this kid struggled with his identity, but no one addressed it, and as part of his identity crisis, he was bullied, which since he was already experiencing internal struggle, led him to take his own life. I am sorry he was not given a chance to know one who would love him enough to tell him the truth and help him through his struggle.

The book with the talking snake is right! It's the sin which gayness contains that drives them to suicide, not the fact that society constantly pounds into their brains that they are the most evil little shits on the entire planet! How could that possibly be damaging to the mind of a 13 year-old boy? That's just stupid. Talking snakes for me.

To the few readers of this blog, I ask of you one favor for the good of society: the next time you come across a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong to any extent, go ahead punch them in the fucking throat. Three times. Once for each suicide in the month of September he or she is responsible for. And as you do so, constantly remind them that you love them and that you're praying they change their sinful ways.

Edit: Whoopsie daisy! Make that four punches to the throat.

"I hope you're happy with what you've done. I hope you got what you wanted and you're just real satisfied with yourself."

A 13 year-old boy in Texas shot himself after years of anti-gay bullying.

You know, gay teenagers kill themselves all the time because of this shit. Gay teenagers attempt suicide more than three times as often as straight teenagers. But it's the damn age of the kid that really gets to me.

Asher Brown's worn-out tennis shoes still sit in the living room of his Cypress-area home while his student progress report — filled with straight A's — rests on the coffee table.

The eighth-grader killed himself last week. He shot himself in the head after enduring what his mother and stepfather say was constant harassment from four other students at Hamilton Middle School in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.

Brown, his family said, was "bullied to death" — picked on for his small size, his religion and because he did not wear designer clothes and shoes. Kids also accused him of being gay, some of them performing mock gay acts on him in his physical education class, his mother and stepfather said.

The 13-year-old's parents said they had complained about the bullying to Hamilton Middle School officials during the past 18 months, but claimed their concerns fell on deaf ears.

David and Amy Truong said they made several visits to the school to complain about the harassment, and Amy Truong said she made numerous phone calls to the school that were never returned.

Cy Fair ISD officials said Monday that they never received any complaints from Brown's parents before the suicide about the way the boy was being treated at school.

School district spokeswoman Kelli Durham, whose husband Alan Durham is a Hamilton assistant principal, said no students, school employees or the boy's parents ever reported that he was being bullied.

That statement infuriated the Truongs, who accused the school district of protecting the bullies and their parents.

"That's absolutely inaccurate — it's completely false," Amy Truong said. "I did not hallucinate phone calls to counselors and assistant principals. We have no reason to make this up. … It's like they're calling us liars."

David Truong said, "We want justice. The people here need to be held responsible and to be stopped. It did happen. There are witnesses everywhere."

Numerous comments from parents and students on the Web site of KRIV-TV Channel 26, which also reported a story about Brown's death, stated that the boy had been bullied by classmates for several years and claimed Cy-Fair ISD does nothing to stop such harassment.

Brown was found dead on the floor of his stepfather's closet at the family's home in the 11700 block of Cypresswood about 4:30 p.m. Thursday. He used his stepfather's 9 mm Beretta, stored on one of the closet's shelves, to kill himself. He left no note. David Truong found the teen's body when he arrived home from work.

On the morning of his death, the teen told his stepfather he was gay, but Truong said he was fine with the disclosure. "We didn't condemn," he said.

His parents said Brown had been called names and endured harassment from other students since he joined Cy-Fair ISD two years ago. As a result, he stuck with a small group of friends who suffered similar harassment from other students, his parents said.

His most recent humiliation occurred the day before his suicide, when another student tripped Brown as he walked down a flight of stairs at the school, his parents said.

When Brown hit the stairway landing and went to retrieve his book bag, the other student kicked his books everywhere and kicked Brown down the remaining flight of stairs, the Truongs said.

Durham said that incident was investigated, but turned up no witnesses or video footage to corroborate the couple's claims.

The Truongs say they just want the harassment to stop so other students do not suffer like their son did and so another family does not have to endure such a tragedy.

"Our son is just the extreme case of what happens when (someone is) just relentless," Amy Truong said.

To the bullies, she added, "I hope you're happy with what you've done. I hope you got what you wanted and you're just real satisfied with yourself."

Services for Brown will be held Saturday.

I was certainly picked on a bit back in the day, but it was really never that bad. I'm sure that's the same with everyone. I stuck with a good group of friends, and I always managed to talk my way out of fights. I was lucky. I was never shoved down stairs. But I will never forget how god damn helpless it makes you feel. When Cletus is talking you down, the worst part isn't being embarrassed by his words, it's that everyone just stands around and watches without doing a damn thing. And as much as that apathy hurt, shit, I can't even fathom what it would've been like if I was gay. Instead of looking at me with apathy, the crowd would've looked at me with open hatred. They would've joined in.

I hope the thought of what these bullies did sticks with them for the rest of their lives, and destroys them. I hope they're never able to experience happiness ever again. That's the worse punishment I can think of short of death, and I mean it. I don't have any gay friends. But if anyone who reads this blog does, please send them this video. It's a shame that Asher Brown couldn't have seen it.

Pat Tillman

Pat Tillman was a professional football player who gave up his career after September 11 to fight as a U.S. Ranger. In 2004, he was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire. The military wanted some propaganda points, and so they initially lied and said he was killed by enemy combatants instead. But the family wouldn't shut up, and the truth eventually came out.

He was also an atheist. His brother (who gave up a professional baseball career to also become a Ranger) was interviewed by Bill Maher a few days ago. The part at about 5:20 made me want to fucking cheer. I won't spoil it for you so just go ahead and watch.



And in case you're at a place where you can't watch this, John McCain said at Pat's funeral, "You will see Pat again when the loving God reunites us all with our loved ones."

Richard Tillman: "Thanks for coming. Pat's a fucking champion, and always will be. Just think he'd want me to say this, he's not with God, he's fucking dead, he's not religious, so... Thanks for your thoughts, but he's fucking dead."

He defends what he said in the interview: "I found it offensive, I don't go to your church and say 'this is bullshit', so don't come to my brother's service and tell me he's with God, he's simply not with fucking God."

Pastors to ignore separation of church and state

Here

NASHVILLE — On Sunday, a group of 100 preachers nationwide will step into the pulpit and say the only words they're forbidden by law from speaking in a church.

They plan to use the pulpit as a platform for political endorsements, flouting a federal law that threatens churches with the loss of their nonprofit status if they stray too far into partisan politics.

While other church and nonprofit leaders cringe at the deliberate mix of the secular and the religious, participants in the annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday protest hope this act of deliberate lawbreaking will lead to a change in the law.

"For governor, I'm going to encourage people to vote for Bill Haslam," said David Shelley, pastor of Smith Springs Baptist Church here, one of seven Tennessee religious leaders who plan to take part in the pulpit protest. He also will throw his support behind a Republican congressional candidate and a Republican statehouse candidate and urge his congregation to skip the spot on the ballot where a Democratic state senator is running unopposed.

"My support for these candidates has nothing to do with their party or their skin color or any other nonbiblically related issue," he said.

Shelley knows he runs the risk of provoking the Internal Revenue Service into revoking his 60-member church's tax-exempt status. In fact, he's hoping the IRS will try. But this is the second year he's baited the IRS from the pulpit, and still the agency has not risen to the bait.

"We're not trying to get politics in the pulpit. We're trying to get (government) out of the pulpit," said Erik Stanley, spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based nonprofit that maintains linking a church's nonprofit status to its nonpartisanship is an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech of the clergy.

"This is about a pastor's right of free speech," Stanley said.

[...]

But many mainstream churches recoil from the idea of erasing the line between church and state.

"It puts congregations in an awkward position. It's not a wise thing for churches to endorse candidates. We think candidates should endorse us," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land said the church endorses many of the defense fund's initiatives, but "we think the mixing of the sacred nature of the church with the exceedingly worldly nature of politics is. .. unseemly."

[...]

I gotta say, a surefire way to keep government out of the pulpit is to bring government into the pulpit. These guys got it figured out. Tax these fuckers already.

Sunday Youtube Post

Glenn Beck wants directed prayer in public schools

"If you look at the problems that we had in the country, they went almost straightline up after we [banned directed prayer in public schools]."

Glenn's right. The Civil Rights Act and moon landing were such catastrophic mistakes. The rampant McCarthyism of the 50s that scared the nation shitless was the way to go. It's totally worth making non-Christians feel even more like outcasts in school, as long as we can force our kids to sit quietly and talk to themselves instead of having them learn things.

Stephen Colbert Testifies Before Congress

Holy cow, this is the most hilarious shit I've ever seen. Colbert shot a segment on migrant farm laborers for his show, and so he was asked to testify about it. He seemed to break character only near the end, which is forgivable because of his obvious passion about the issue.



Here's Colbert talking about Fox's coverage of this (along with the very segment that sparked it all). Fox's take on this is perhaps even more funny than the incident itself. It really makes me laugh when conservatives say it's Obama who's out of touch.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

GOP's Pledge to America: It'll be different this time baby, give me a chance!

Yesterday the Republican party released a booklet called the "GOP Pledge to America." You can read it here if you want.

It's everything you'd expect. The first page is literally filled with accusations that the arrogant, elitist Democrats hate freedom. "What's worse, the most important decisions are made behind closed doors, where a flurry of backroom deals has supplanted the will of the people." It almost sounds like they're describing John Boehner. Or, you know, their entire party. Because the booklet was written by a corporate lobbyist.

How about this? John Boehner is a corrupt pile of shit. I think it's a good idea to not elect a Speaker who openly passed out bribes on the House floor.



In addition to recycled propaganda, the Pledge to America also contains the same policies of the Bush administration that were responsible for the economic collapse. Yesterday morning, Boehner said himself that “We are not going to be any different than what we’ve been.” Like we needed to be reminded.

I want to know why Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible. The Pledge claimed that some unspecified budget cuts will save a trillion dollars over the next decade. But they don't justify how they can support the Bush tax cuts, which will add 3.7 trillion dollars to the national debt (not to mention tax cuts don't do jack shit for the economy anyway).

As Paul Krugman mentioned, Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has taken a look at this pledge.

As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

[...]

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.

So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?

The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.

But as I make abundantly clear in this blog, I vote primarily on social issues. The pledge didn't mention social issues very much, aside from "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values." I can't even describe in words how much this pisses me off. Liberals are not anti-family, homosexuals are human beings who deserve rights, abortion will never be illegal, and America is not a theocracy. They couldn't be more god damn wrong on these things. If social issues were brought to the forefront of political discussion, there's no doubt in my mind Republicans wouldn't stand a chance in November. But unfortunately, Americans don't really give a shit about human rights in the middle of a terrible economy. Instead, emotions run high in a terrible economy, and Americans are susceptible to blatant lies. It's a god damn miracle no one has emerged from the GOP with any actual charisma. America would be so fucked.

This video is making its rounds on reddit. It's a clip from the West Wing. It's pretty self-masturbatory, but god damn, does it feel good.

Christine O'Donnell nabs the golden snitch

Bill Maher: "I do miss George Bush. Compared to these teabaggers and the people who are pandering to them, he looks like a professor."

I finished the Harry Potter series the other day. I immediately jumped to another book about magic and wizards and shit, but aimed towards adult readers. With all the reading I've been doing about the subject, my head is currently swimming in imaginary adventures of magic and spells and incantations, and it's all been really stupid and fun and pointless.

Christine O'Donnell is the Republican candidate for Delaware's senate seat. I had to do a double take when I saw this headline.



O'Donnell: No Witchcraft Since High School

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell on Sunday chalked up her experimentation in sorcery to being a teenager, saying there's no magical explanation to her 1999 confession that she "dabbled into witchcraft."

Speaking to Republican picnic-goers, the insurgent Tea Party candidate said she didn't doing anything differently than lots of kids at that age.

"I was in high school, how many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, there's been no witchcraft since," she said, shrugging off her dalliances with the dark arts.

"Now let’s put that to rest and move on to what we’re going to do," she said.

[...]

"I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do," she said.

[...]

"One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn't know it. I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that," she said, laughing in the clip.

"We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar," she said.

What the hell is she doing? Doesn't she know that muggles like us aren't supposed to know about magic!? The Ministry can't possibly wipe so many memories, now that this has been blasted on a major media outlet! And no witchcraft since high school!? Why the hell was she kicked out of Hogwarts!? Dumbledore is usually very understanding, so she must have been into some really dark shit. I bet she was in Slytherin. Oh my goodness! Do you think she was a Death Eater?!

I will bet my kidney that she thinks she "dabbled in witchcraft" because her friends made her play with an Ouija Board one time, and it freaked her the fuck out.

Glen Urquhart, Delaware's GOP candidate for the House, said that O'Donnell's comments were "unfortunate." Were they unfortunate because now we know she's a fucking idiot who thinks we're living in Hogwarts? Well actually, "I obviously wish that Christine O'Donnell hadn't dabbled in witchcraft. I think she wishes she hadn't dabbled in witchcraft. I know that she has committed to Christ." Ah. So he believes in witchcraft too. So instead of flailing his arms in disgust at the thought of someone in his party believing in witchcraft, he simply finds it unfortunate that someone in his party had previously aligned herself with Lord Voldemort. Republicans are very anti-Voldemort.

As much as I would like to, I really cannot fucking believe this. Look at us. We are discussing witchcraft, on a national level, in the year 2010. Witchcraft. There are people who still believe in this shit. In the United States! Did you know there are schools in the United States? That's what I just can't get. Americans are educated, and believe in witchcraft at the same time. How... okay. I can't think about this for much longer, I feel like blood is going to spontaneously start gushing out of my ears.

Why don't we just take the plunge? Ever since Obama took office, liberals have been called Nazis, and communists, and socialists, and Muslim terrorist sympathizers, and grandma-murderers, and every other "bad guy" the mind can possibly fathom, short of Snidely Whiplash. Why don't we just bite the bullet and start accusing liberals of witchcraft? They hate America, so it's probably even true. We're so lucky tea party candidates like John Dennis are so far ahead of the game. He's already accused Nancy Pelosi of witchcraft! THAT'LL TEACH YOU TO LAY WITH SATAN, YOU DEMONIC WHORE!

Sunday Youtube Post

This should be played in every Catholic church on earth.

Eighteen years ago, Sinead O'Connor ripped up a photograph of Pope John Paul II live on SNL in protest the rampant child abuse going on in Ireland. Embedding is disabled, but watch it here if you want to. It turns out she was right, because we know now that the Vatican has been covering up child abuse for decades. It was an extremely brave thing to do; criticizing the Pope during that time was enough to earn ostracism, but tearing up his picture on national television was risking everything. This video here is two weeks after her SNL performance. The crowd tried to boo her offstage, and what she did in response was equally courageous to what she did two weeks prior.

Pope compares atheists to Nazis

Atheists are apparently Nazis, says former Nazi Benedict XVI. Yes, I'm fully aware that bringing up the Hitler Youth thing is entirely unfair since he was a kid, and he was forced into it. But he blames all the world's problems on atheists after he spends 25 years protecting child rapists, so



Pope: "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Quick: what do Hitler and Pope Benedict have in common? Both were Catholic, and both hated atheists.

France bans the burqa.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire



You know, sometimes I just want to take a gun and shove it right in my mouth.

Every conservative I know hates France. Hell, most people I know hate France, but conservatives in general hold something special for them. Something about World War II or someshit, I don't really pay attention. Well, France and American conservatives have finally found something to agree on: taking away the rights of Muslims.

Paris, France (CNN) -- The French Senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face -- including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women -- making France the first European country to plan such a measure.

The law passed by a vote of 246 to 1, with about 100 abstentions coming essentially from left-leaning politicians.

The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament in July and will go into effect next spring.
French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed.

Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found.

A panel of French lawmakers recommended a ban last year, and lawmakers unanimously passed a non-binding resolution in May calling the full-face veil contrary to the laws of the nation.

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.

The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."

The French Council of State has warned that the ban could be incompatible with international human rights laws and the country's own constitution. The council advises on laws, but the government is not required to follow its recommendations.

The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently are not banned by the law.

However, a 2004 law in France bans the wearing or displaying of overt religious symbols in schools -- including the wearing of headscarves by schoolgirls.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that France has about 3.5 million Muslims, or about 6 percent of the population.

France does not keep its own statistics on religious affiliation of the population, in keeping with its laws requiring the state to be strictly secular.

SHIT THE WHAT FUCK?!

246 to 1. 100 abstentions.

First of all, a hundred goddamn people abstained from voting on this? It thrills me to see that the French don't mind living up to their cowardly reputation, fucking pricks. And second, I want to know who that one person was who voted against this, and if he or she has a career anymore. Give that person a medal.

The law does have one thing right - imposing heavy penalties on people who force women to wear burqas against their wills. I'd be all in favor of the law if it was only that. But most Muslim women who wear burqas want to wear them. I've actually read a number of well written articles from Muslim feminists making pretty good arguments supporting their right to wear burqas. It's nothing but a form of modesty to them. It's no different from American teenagers showing off their sporty purity rings. Do I think it's retarded as hell? Yes. But it's their god damn right to be retarded if they want to be. It's just like what Penn was saying in that video I posted yesterday - never respect religion, but always respect people.

The mention of that 2004 ban on displaying religious symbols in schools made my jaw drop about as much as when I read about the burqas. What kind of free nation bans people from expressing their god damn opinions? This is horse shit. I see American Christians complaining that students aren't forced to sit through school-led religious bullshit in classes anymore, but Christ, at least they can still wear their little cross necklaces. They can still wear "I heart Jesus!" shirts and pray in their own time if they want to. France is an island of kangaroo piss.

The oddest thing in the entire article:

France does not keep its own statistics on religious affiliation of the population, in keeping with its laws requiring the state to be strictly secular.

Hey you French fucks, in case you didn't know, secularism is the complete separation of church and state. You can't use the state to ban religious practices. That's not secularism, that's called oppression. I bet those Frenchies are just missing the good ol' days of Nazi rule. Fucking shitheads. Pisscock.

"If you believe that God can tell you to do shit, then it's the same fucking thing."

In spite of his being a libertarian, I feel like I can relate to Penn Jillette in many ways. I try not to take my loud arrogant opinions seriously, and I enjoy incoherently expressing them with swearing. Did you know he's never taken a single sip of alcohol in his entire life? I wish I could say that.

The Year's Obligatory 9/11 Post, Part 2

This is a followup to yesterday's entry, so read that first.

I've been writing a lot of "let's bash religion" posts recently. And while I'm usually a little put off by these types of posts initially, I just get really pissed off sometimes and I can't help myself (and with everything that's been happening in the news, there's a lot for me to be pissed off about). This is going to be one of those posts.

As people scream their heads off concerning the debate around the inaccurately titled "Ground Zero Mosque," there is a single theme I see that continuously pops up over and over and over again. The person who opposes the community center will often quote passages from the Koran, to emphasize how evil Islam truly is. The person who supports the community center will fire back by saying the Bible says many evil things as well. The exchange will go back and forth like this for a long time, and the debate will practically devolve into conversation about which religion is better than which. And both sides will ignore the most important point in the entire discussion, one that's staring at them right in the face: all religions are the exact same.

For every truly indescribable thing the Koran has to say, you can point to its equivalent in the Bible. For every beautiful and moral thing the Bible has to say, the Koran mirrors that as well. You could look at these facts and say that we should all tolerate each other's religions because we're more alike than we are different. And you would not be wrong in arguing this, because it's true.

But I'm not trying to argue in favor of religious thinking. It is precisely because all religions are similar, that we should be skeptical of them. One of the reasons why religion makes nonbelievers so uneasy is because they are based on faith. Faith is a slippery slope, and it is dangerous. If every religious person on the planet looked at every word in their holy book in the exact same light, if they treated every single passage with the same faith they treated all others, then the world would instantly erupt again into international holy wars. The Koran does say that nonbelievers should be killed. The Bible does as well. It is not faith that's stopping believers from doing these things, because if they really were 100% faithful they would be killing everyone who doesn't think like them. It's their own internal common sense stopping them from murdering bystanders, and if they would just listen to that voice a little more, faith wouldn't be necessary at all.

The fact of the matter is that all religions are equally wrong. Which is why watching things like this makes me so unbelievably sad. You have more strength than me if you can make it over halfway.



This is what faith does to people. America's middle class is becoming nonexistent, we're in the middle of two catastrophic wars, and we're suffering from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. These people think the most important conversation we should be having right now is whether we need to believe in Harry Potter or Edward Cullen.

Every time atheists and agnostics see conversations like this happening, and how they are dominating the airwaves right now, it makes us hate humanity just a little bit more. When the national discussion is over things like where a Muslim community center should be placed, or whether or not a pastor should burn some paper and ink he doesn't like, or the outrage in the Muslim world directed towards said pastor, then other discussions are put on hold. And that's a shame, because there are a lot of important discussions we need to be having right now. We're devoting our time towards things that are completely irrelevant. When we treat religious disagreements like they're actually important, then the entire nation suffers. These conversations have already happened before. There is no point in having them at all because they are already settled: there is no solution for them. Every religion on the planet conflicts with one another. They will never be able to agree. We know this already. We are wasting time talking about things that don't need to be talked about, and we're stagnating progress.

Say what you want about George W. Bush being one of the worst presidents in the history of the country, but he was still extremely responsible in urging tolerance towards Islam:

"When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value."

Far right conservatives no longer have a leader like this holding them back, and their true colors are now being shown. As propaganda, many terrorist organizations claim that America's wars are Christian crusades against all of Islam. Conservatives in America are now making that a reality.

But just because it's easy to yell at insane Christian extremist shitheads, that doesn't mean we should let insane Muslim extremist shitheads off the hook. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press conducted a study in 2002 in which 38,000 people participated. This question was posed to Muslims all around the world:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

The margins of error range from 2 to 4 percent and not all percentages sum to 100.



These numbers are terrifying. And countries like Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and Palestine weren't even included, for if they had been, it's safe to say that Lebanon probably wouldn't be in first place.

Yesterday, on the anniversary of 9/11, Muslims in London protested outside the U.S. embassy by burning American flags and shouting "Democracy, you will burn!" They also condemned the Constitution because "it represents the non-Islamic law." This was in London.



It is their religion that makes them this way. But every Christian on the planet behaved worse than this a thousand years ago, so we can't blame it specifically on Islam. We can blame it on religious behavior in general. Religious people don't have faith in a god, they have faith in men who tell them what they're supposed to think about that god. Western culture is generally peaceful, and so the opinions that religious people project onto their god are usually peaceful as well. Blame it on western intrusion or colonization or what-have-you, but the fact of the matter is that Arabic culture in 2010 can be very violent, and so that violence is justified with faith. Anything can be justified with faith, and that is why 9/11 had to happen.

Sunday Youtube Post

On the ninth anniversary of 9/11, we should all be ashamed of ourselves

It's really hard for me to believe that 9/11 was nine full years ago. I was a freshman, and I remember quite vividly what that day in school was like. I doubt I have to describe the mood, because I'm sure it was the same everywhere. Everyone was confused and terrified, but too numb to show any of it. It was as if the slightest spark could set everyone off in full blown panic. In all my classes that day, every one of my teachers had the TV on for the first ten minutes or so, and we watched the news. We watched it for my entire history period, because Mr. Bunch realized how historically significant it was, and he wanted us to remember it. The next day I sat watching all the stories of heroism, and martyrs, and all the mothers and wives and husbands in tears desperately trying to find their loved ones, and everything slowly started coming into focus for me. We're uncomfortable acknowledging it, but it really is quite difficult for the brain to process so many deaths. Large numbers are only statistics, and they don't feel personal. But the numb shock of that day slowly started to subside as I was repeatedly bombarded with story after story after story. The thought of three-thousand people dying suddenly became personal to me, and it was too overwhelming. I fucking lost it. I just sat there and I couldn't stop sobbing. To this day, I still don't think I've ever cried harder than I did then. 9/12 was probably the worst day of my life.

I'm seeing a lot of conservative friends on facebook right now repeating a single, specific comment on statuses: something to the effect of "It's a shame some people seem to have forgotten!"

This right here is the single most disgraceful thing a person could possibly utter about 9/11. Not only is it indescribably arrogant to presume what certain people may or may not have "forgotten" about the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States, but a statement like this carries a certain superior "I-know-better-than-you" vibe along with it. It's as if they were trying to say that only Republicans could remember 9/11.

They've politicized the deaths of 3,000 people. I'll skip over the countless examples of Bush era Republicans raping the memories of 9/11 victims for political gain, and just jump ahead to what they've been doing recently. Back in July, the House voted on a bill that would've provided $7.4 billion dollars in aid to people who had been sickened by World Trade Center dust. Recovery personnel in particular developed respiratory problems, and several dozen developed cancer. Every single firefighter on ground zero that day who survived lived on with varying degrees of impaired lung function. The vote for the 9/11 Responders Bill fell almost entirely on party lines. Only twelve Republicans voted in favor, and it failed to get the two-thirds requirement. A lot of people have seen this video, but it deserves to be watched again because this is what patriotism looks like. The entire country needs to be as outraged as Anthony Weiner.



What Republicans did was truly a national embarrassment, and so, like clockwork, another entirely irrelevant issue was propagated immediately afterwards as a badly needed distraction. The controversy over the 'Ground Zero Mosque', which is neither at ground zero, nor a mosque, has been shamelessly dominating our pathetic media for weeks. In the guise of patriotism, bigots have latched onto another excuse to yell at people who are different from them, and assume that a religion of 1.6 billion people is solely responsible for the actions of a terrorist cult. While pretending to love America, they believe the first amendment can and should be altered at their discretion. I've posted this video before, but it deserves to be watched again. Just as with Anthony Weiner, I'm embarrassed as an American that the whole nation isn't showing this kind of outrage.



As I commented on earlier, violent anti-Muslim hate crimes are now popping up all across the country. Total coincidence! If one didn't know any better, these acts almost seem like "the use of violence or intimidation for political gain." Or terrorism.

But the most reprehensible thing about these people isn't that they're doing and saying these things in the name of America; it's that the entire country is completely apathetic towards them. While half of the country seems more than willing to do the terrorists' job for them by taking away rights, the other half either doesn't care about what they're doing, or is too afraid to speak up. The only voices speaking out strongly against this renewed fascism are few, and don't hold much weight in the overall scheme of things. In 2010, your choice at the ballot is no longer between Republicans and Democrats. Your only choice is between theocratic fascists and apathetic cowards. On September 11, 2001, every person in the nation reminisced on what it was exactly about America that made America so great. If we're nothing but a bunch of fascists and cowards, then the entire country has forgotten about 9/11.

Stephen Hawking is a terrorist

"Science Akbar!" -Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking recently published an excerpt from his upcoming book. I'm sure the excerpt had many interesting things to say, but it was all ignored because three sentences ignited a shitstorm.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

This is similar to how Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein viewed God. Far from endorsing positive atheism, they simply felt that the question of God was distracting, and shouldn't be dwelled upon in matters of science. Since there's a lack of evidence for God, unbelief should be preferred. Occam's razor.

Sagan: "If the general picture however of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly, somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer is that a God or Gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue the question courageously, we must, of course ask next question: where did God come from? If we decide this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creation, it was always here."

Naturally, it the response to this truly despicable claim by Hawking has been complete outrage. I spent a good deal of time reading comments left by readers on a number of articles covering this. You'd be surprised at the number of people who are inspired by God's love to make fun of paralyzed people. These are real:

• ‎"Ha, Ha!!, This is not really news. A statement like this would come from an athiest. Why is this suprising? Stephen Hawking is probably a bitter man because of his physical condition and God never restored him."
• ‎"Hawking is an idiot. His attitude and beliefs, and his insistence on spreading his poison, explains why he's in that wheelchair. He should have gotten the Message when God took away his voice; He did it for a reason."
• "Just a bitter, crippled, little man filled with wild theories that never been proven. I find him appallingly arrogant. If he weren't in that wheelchair, he'd just be another little known, wacko academician. He fancies himself in the same league with Newton and Einstein; which he is certainly not."

Of course, they weren't all this bad. Most of the other critics simply had opinions about science without having a fucking clue of what science actually is.

• "Stephen Hawking's faith in his ideas appears to be much greater than the faith many have in God. “Because there is a law such as gravity... Spontaneous creation”! The highest proof of evolution is found in the evolution of Science “facts”. “We have to work our way back from the present” over merely several decades of discarded science text books as proof positive. Scientific “facts” die off and are replaced more “advanced facts” which we very well may observe to evolve again in the near future."
• "regardless your belief or disbelief in God or creationism, starting with a conclusion and postulating a theory backwards to support it is always bad science. add this to his latest on E.T.'s and I would have to wonder if he hasn't taken a walk off the map."
• "The one problem I have with scientist and those who esteem them is that they can only believe in what they can prove. They can't prove the spirit world so they feel it does not exist. They are unable to say "we can't prove their is a spirit world...but it may still exist"."

But I guess claims like "crippled people are a bunch of cunts" and "science is always wrong" isn't enough for some people. Did you know Stephen Hawking is now the Taliban? It's true.

[Hawking] also attacked philosophers for failing to keep up with modern developments in physics and biology so that “their discussions seem increasingly outdated and irrelevant”.

Lady Greenfield said: “Science can often suffer from a certain smugness and complacency. Michael Faraday, one of the greatest scientists, had a wonderful quote, he said: ‘There’s nothing quite as frightening as someone who knows they are right’

“What we need to preserve in science is a curiosity and an open-mindedness rather than a complacency and a sort of arrogance where we attack people who come at the big truths and the big questions albeit using different strategies.”

Asked whether she was uncomfortable about scientists making comments about God, she said: “Yes I am. Of course they can make whatever comments they like but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable. I think that doesn’t necessarily do science a service.”

She was also critical of Prof Hawking's comments about philosophy, saying: “Scientists have a duty, if they want to have people who aren’t scientists to appreciate that value of what they are doing, if they want to place it into a wider social and moral context, the duty is on the scientist to explain in words ordinary human being can understand. What is dangerous…is to make sweeping assertions about a whole category of academia.”

She later claimed her Taliban remarks were "not intended to be personal", saying she "admired Stephen Hawking greatly" and "had no wish to compare him in particular to the Taliban".

I don't even know where to start tearing into this shit.

Welp, you heard Lady Greenfield. From this point on, nobody is allowed to have any opinions. As Lady Greenfield established, every person who thinks he's right about anything is now arrogant. See, the problem with holding opinions is that you're going to think you're right. And people who think they're right are smug. Therefore, anyone who holds an opinion is smug. That goes for you too, Lady Greenfield! How dare you believe in God!? How arrogant! You should use different strategies in trying to understand the universe! Be more open minded!

And of course, Hawking "attacked people" too! It's more than obvious that when he said "It is not necessary to invoke God," Hawking actually meant, "Good news, everyone! I concluded with my latest experiment that you're all a bunch of dipshits!"

She was also critical of Prof Hawking's comments about philosophy, saying: “Scientists have a duty, if they want to have people who aren’t scientists to appreciate that value of what they are doing, if they want to place it into a wider social and moral context, the duty is on the scientist to explain in words ordinary human being can understand. What is dangerous…is to make sweeping assertions about a whole category of academia.”

It's okay to make sweeping assertions about science though. Hawking is right about the philosophy comment. They taught us about Paley's watchmaker analogy when I took philosophy classes. William Paley!

Asked whether she was uncomfortable about scientists making comments about God, she said: “Yes I am. Of course they can make whatever comments they like but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable. I think that doesn’t necessarily do science a service.”

[...]

She later claimed her Taliban remarks were "not intended to be personal", saying she "admired Stephen Hawking greatly" and "had no wish to compare him in particular to the Taliban".

You know who Lady Greenfield is like? Hitler. Every word that comes out of her mouth is literally another Jew being thrown into the ovens. But I'll also say that while this woman is literally Adolf Hitler, she is also not Adolf Hitler at the same time. You can't argue with me now.

I will never understand what it is about atheism that makes believers go so unbelievably batshit. Remember how the general public used to respect Stephen Hawking as a world-renowned cosmologist? Now he's a bitter, know-it-all member of the Taliban, all because he doubts the universe had an intelligent creator. Why is it okay for people to say these things in public? Why is that atheists are one of the only minority groups in the west that are socially acceptable to trash?

Sons of Anarchy Season 3

Premier was tonight.



I'll keep this spoiler free, but I will say that it was fucking amazing. Some really major shit certainly did go down, but I don't think it was as explosive as season two's premier. It was close, but I really don't think anything can ever top that opening. I just wanted to post something from Sutter's blog describing the process he's going about in writing this.

As I said in a recent post, if the season three premier retains all the viewers we picked up between seasons one and two, I will be very pleased. I'm very excited about this season of Sons. It will be a different viewing experience for fans and I hope a very satisfying one. Creatively, I feel sometimes shows fall into a trap in season three. Writers and producers often figure out what works in season one, expand on that in season two, then try to do it again in season three. Unless you're working from source material like True Blood (whose third season was fucking awesome), repeating what works, ultimately generates storylines that feel derivative and familiar. It would be very easy for me to repeat what worked in season two -- create some internal beef that provided intensity and tension within the club (Jax and Clay), bring in another big nemesis (Zobelle), throw those two conflicts at each other (major spoiler omitted) and watch the blood flow. Yes, I'm sure it would be okay and people would like it. But ultimately, I would be cheating my own creative process and your dedication as well. I've learned that devoted fans are very sophisticated viewers. They know when they are being fed leftovers. Yeah, they may eat them for awhile, but eventually, they'll get bored and leave to feed on something more tasty.

As an artist, I try to stay tasty. I constantly challenge my process. To do that, you must take risks. You must be willing to move away from anything that feels like formula. That approach is in complete contrast to the way many networks think. They want familiar, they want you to repeat what worked. The adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, fuels the network development process. Unfortunately that philosophy is creative death and counterintuitive to generating compelling television. My favorite shows never felt derivative. The Sopranos, The Wire, Homicide, Hill Street Blues; those shows took huge risks. Some worked, some didn't, but they all expanded the scope of the show and in the long run made them better. That's my hope for Sons -- to continue to push the boundaries of the narrative, the absurdity of the world and the emotionality of the characters. I have no delusions that SOA will ever fall into the category of the above mentioned dramas, I only hope that the series never be called, "lazy".

So on this season of Sons of Anarchy, we expand beyond the emotional/geographical boundaries of Charming and our primary beefs, to divulge deeper mythological conflicts. The mythology revealed this season will serve as gasoline for the familial fires that will ultimately set our antiheroes ablaze. I hope you enjoy watching it as much as I've enjoyed making it.

Please spread the word and join us on September 7th. As always, I deeply appreciate all your support.

Letter to the Six Billionth World Citizen, by Salman Rushdie

In October 1999, the population of planet earth reached six billion. Salman Rushdie wrote this to that person.

Dear little Six Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time:

How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?

Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, ineffable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creator whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.

This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited Creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the single mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior deities, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust: for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.

Many of these stories will strike you as extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive. Unfortunately, however, you will not be required to make a purely literary response to them. Only the stories of dead religions can be appreciated for their beauty. Living religions require much more of you. So you will be told that belief in "your" stories, and adherence to the rituals of worship that have grown up around them, must become a vital part of your life in the crowded world. They will be called the heart of your culture, even of your individual identity.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods. In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But here's something genuinely odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.

As a result of this faith, by the way, it has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the race's spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may well witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen.

(If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.)

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the middle ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a took at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present-day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan vs lran vs Iraq vs Saudi Arabia vs Syria vs Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic Nato fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much-needed humanitarian aid.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence". They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in storybooks. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spon taneously generate new bees from the rotting carcass of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

The ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses. Live in your own time, use what we know, and as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you, and put aside childish things.

As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong? - it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves. To my mind religion, even at its most sophisticated, essentially infantilises our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us: the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too, can be ignored? (This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended. Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church, not the state.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part: once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behaviour. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatised and plain.

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.

[Day of the Week] Music Post - Radio Moscow

If Led Zeppelin and Cream got together and had an orgy, and somehow managed to produce children out of it, the guys who make up Radio Moscow would be the unholy result. In 2007, Dan Auerbach, frontman for The Black Keys, was given Radio Moscow's demo after a show in Colorado. He loved it so much, he let them use his own personal studio to produce it. I firmly believe that shitty music is becoming more and more popular and widespread, while amazing music keeps getting better and better, but harder to find. Radio Moscow is the perfect example. They are one of the best bands I've ever heard, and I found them only out of sheer luck.

Sunday Youtube Post

"White Noise" from Murder By Death

My favorite band apparently has a music video out that I wasn't aware of. It's been out for a long time, and I don't really know how I missed it. I actually remember the cellist Sarah Balliet talking about the concept for this video when it was only an idea floating around in her head, and I'm glad to see they got it done. This is their second video from the newest CD. The first is here.

So apparently someone made a movie about Charles Darwin

It seems to focus on the struggle he had of whether or not he should even publish the theory. It did quite well in the UK, but was never picked up in America because of the "controversy."

Noam Chomsky has "Never Seen Anything Like This"

Source. This is only about half the article, the rest is just a Chomsky circlejerk and doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Noam Chomsky is America’s greatest intellectual. His massive body of work, which includes nearly 100 books, has for decades deflated and exposed the lies of the power elite and the myths they perpetrate. Chomsky has done this despite being blacklisted by the commercial media, turned into a pariah by the academy and, by his own admission, being a pedantic and at times slightly boring speaker. He combines moral autonomy with rigorous scholarship, a remarkable grasp of detail and a searing intellect. He curtly dismisses our two-party system as a mirage orchestrated by the corporate state, excoriates the liberal intelligentsia for being fops and courtiers and describes the drivel of the commercial media as a form of “brainwashing.” And as our nation’s most prescient critic of unregulated capitalism, globalization and the poison of empire, he enters his 81st year warning us that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.

“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Chomsky told me when I called him at his office in Cambridge, Mass. “The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.”

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”

“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”

“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”

Chomsky has, more than any other American intellectual, charted the downward spiral of the American political and economic system, in works such as “On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures,” “Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture,” “A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West,” “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky,” “Manufacturing Consent” and “Letters From Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda.” He reminds us that genuine intellectual inquiry is always subversive. It challenges cultural and political assumptions. It critiques structures. It is relentlessly self-critical. It implodes the self-indulgent myths and stereotypes we use to elevate ourselves and ignore our complicity in acts of violence and oppression. And it makes the powerful, as well as their liberal apologists, deeply uncomfortable.

Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite in the press, the universities and the political system who serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war. He exposes their moral and intellectual posturing as a fraud. And this is why Chomsky is hated, and perhaps feared, more among liberal elites than among the right wing he also excoriates. When Christopher Hitchens decided to become a windup doll for the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, one of the first things he did was write a vicious article attacking Chomsky. Hitchens, unlike most of those he served, knew which intellectual in America mattered.

“I don’t bother writing about Fox News,” Chomsky said. “It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, ‘Look how courageous I am.’ But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”