As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one

Now, amongst the many ills one can attribute to the mad Austrian – just think how different the world would be today, if he’d made like his countrymen can kept a relative captive in a secret cellar for several years… then again, he did end up in a bunker… hmmm… but I digress – is the fact that he’s basically become the international standard for something horrible.

And by default the name to which people of a moronic bent (on both sides of the political spectrum) can link things that they disagree with, in a puerile attempt to demonise whatever it is they disagree with – in most cases things like – but not limited to – homosexuality, gun control, atheism and abortion.  I would have included vegetarianism in there, but according to QI, Hitler wasn’t a veggie – and who am I to argue with Stephen Fry? Possibly the worst example of the argumentum ad Hitlerum went along the lines of “Hitler was kind to animals, therefore animals’ rights groups are Nazis.”

No, I wish I was kidding too.

Needless to say, when you take a mixture of general stupidity, religious and political bigotry and combine it all with a rampant paranoia driven by the fact that the electorate is marginalizing your batshit insane beliefs, then it becomes very, very easy to compare the things you hate to Hitler. Such is a post I came across on the Tea Party Community, the Facebook clone devoted to right-wing fucktards, every conspiracy theory under the sun and “humourous”  photos of Michelle Obama photoshopped onto somebody’s overweight body.

Clicking on the link took me to a site called “Now The End Begins” – a mishmash of American right-wing idiocy, that’s basically calling Obama the anti-Christ, who will bring about the end of the world as we know it. The dribbling simpleton behind this site has very “cleverly” come up with “13 Similarities Between Obama And Hitler” – which the unthinking masses over at TPC lapped up with comments such as “Only 13?” (actually there are more going around – Snopes has a good takedown on the longer version). Faced with this list, I thought I’d do what any decent-thinking, baby-eating, gun-hating liberal would do, and throw a healthy dose of reality at the list, and see what sticks.

So without further ado:

• Both Hitler and Obama held rallies in outdoor stadiums to excite and inflame the people’s passions. Frequently women would faint or break into tears.

Wow… so holding a political rally outdoors makes you just  like Hitler? Somebody should have told that to George W Bush when he gave a speech at OSU’s Ohio Stadium in Columbus on 14 June, 2002. Or maybe mentioned that to Republican House Speaker John Boehner, or former Republican presidential hopefully John McCain, when they both delivered address at the same venue in 2011 and 2006 respectively.

Not only that, but it’s just another non-argument – show me a politician that doesn’t want to excite the electorate, especially in the US, where their weird brand of democracy means that most people are voting for an individual, rather than an underlying political philosophy.

And if having members of your audience fainting and crying makes you just like Hitler, can we please execute Justin Bieber now and get it over and done with, before he invades Russia?

• Both Hitler and Obama wrote ghost-written autobiographies prior to the start of their run for political office. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), and Obama wrote Dreams Of My Father. Both men then wrote a second book talking about their goals for German (sic) and America. Hitler wrote A New World Order, and Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope.

Wow… so much “not even wrong” in that statement. The whole thing about Obama ghost-writing his book is just another Birther “Obama can do no good and everything he does/says is dishonest” meme. There probably is a good chance Obama’s book had a ghost writer – although probably not Bill Ayers, as the wingnuts would have you believe. How much would you like to bet George W Bush had a ghost writer for his?

As for Hitler, it’s no secret that he dictated Mein Kampf to his long-suffering 2IC, Rudolf Hess (no wonder he went mad and decided that flying over the Brits was a better idea than hanging around, waiting to take down volume 2). If there was anything resembling a ghost writer involved, then it was Bernhard  Stempfle, who corrected the proofs, rewrote certain passages and improved the style of the first draft of the book. A task for which he was rewarded with a broken back and 3 bullets to the chest during the Night of the Long Knives.

And as for the second book – why should the writing of books be a bad thing? It’s just another example of the anti-intellectualism of these people, combined with their need to tar Obama with any brush.

• Both Hitler and Obama originally had last names that were changed later in life. Hitler used to be Schickelbruber (sic), and Obama’s last name was Soetoro.

Once again, not even wrong. The “Hitler’s real name was Schickelbruber (sic)” myth – whilst having some basis in reality, was WW2 Allied propaganda, along with “Hitler was a house painter” – implying he was a labourer who painted the walls of house, rather than an artist who painted pictures of houses.

In fact, Hitler’s father was born Alois Schicklgruber (to use the correct spelling), the illegitimate son of Maria Schicklgruber, in 1837. She later married one father Johann Georg Hiedler, and in 1877, with a promising career in government service and long before Adolf was born, Alois applied to take on his adoptive step-father’s surname. For some reason, this was recored as “Hitler” instead of “Hiedler” and the rest, as they say, is history.

As for Obama, regardless of whether or not he went by Barry Soetoro (the surname of his mother’s second husband) or not, the fact remains he was born Barack Obama and that’s the name by which he’s now known. Ironically, if he had stuck with Barry Soetoro, rather than Barack HUSSAIN Obama, the right-wing haters would probably have had one less thing to freak about.

• Both Hitler and Obama hid their real identies. Hiter had a Jewish ancestry, and Obama a Muslim one. But unlike Hitler, Obama flaunted his Muslim roots in his start as a politician in order to defuse the inevitable firestorm. His ploy of “hiding in plain sight” worked very well.

 Again wrong. Ignoring the much-discredited “Obama is a Muslim” bullshit, which can be treated with the contempt it deserves, there isn’t a single shred of evidence that Hitler had ny Jewish ancestry. The only question mark is over who his paternal grandfather could have een – no name was listed on his birth certificate, and his mother did work for a wealthy Jewish family, so it’s possible – but unlikely – that Hitler’s grandfather was Maria’s Jewish employer or one of his sons.

There was a picture shown in 1933 of a grave in Bucharest showing a grave with Hebrew characters and the name Adolf Hiltler, however, there is no way this could be Hitler’s grandfather. That said, Hitler did specifically word the Nazi anti-Semitic Nuremburg laws to specifically exclude himself and Jesus. I wonder why an atheist (according to the right-wing fuckheads) would want to make sure Jesus didn’t fall foul of his laws?

Update: Seems the internet gods are conspiring against me. This was a longer post, but half of it vanished after an updaye, and of course, I’d already deleted the original Word document. Ah well, you get the point…

Why do people claim that Jesus was brown-skinned when it was very clear he was a white man?

Many atheists will claim that Jesus had brown skin due to the fact that he lived in what in now modern day Palestine. This notion is extremely flawed though.

While his mother was indeed a brown-skinned Arabian Jew, we have to look at the fact that God the father is a very white deity.  Since God the father’s genes were dominant over Mary’s mortal recessive genes, we can logically deduce that Jesus had light skin and eyes like his heavenly Father.

Jesus was a white man. FACT.

Er… no. This is anything but a fact. The kindest thing I can say is that it’s wishful thinking, but mostly it’s out-and-out racism. Never mind the flawed premise that God and Jesus actually exist (Personally, I believe there was a rather special young man called Brian Yeshua ben Joseph running around Palestine and pissing off the Romans, but he was about as divine as I am. But that’s a story for another day) let’s have a quick look at the history here.

God, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or whoever first makes his presence known to Abraham. Now, given that Abraham was a goat herder from Ur (in what’s left of modern-day Iraq) the chances of him ever having seen anybody with Caucasian features, as opposed to his own likely Semitic looks are practically nil. Remember, we’re operating in a time long before the Roman Empire and Alexander the Great did their thing. So whatever Abraham saw, or dreamed up, or envisioned in his mind, would most certainly not have been somebody with fair skin. That doesn’t happen in any religion anywhere – speaking generally, Oriental gods look Oriental; Hindu gods look Indian (except for when they’re elephants, or whatnot); Buddha isn’t portrayed as a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan. I’m sure that if you asked a Muslim what Allah looks like, the one thing he won’t mention is fair skin and blue eyes… or he might just declare a fatwa on your ass, so maybe don’t ask.

However, let’s assume that God is indeed “white” – and all the races are the offspring of Noah’s sons Ham, Lettuce and Tomato. If all the Caucasians ended up in Europe, then why on earth, would he have allowed Jesus to be born amongst people that looked vastly different to himself? Then, more than ever, looking different was not a good thing and would likely result in the locals taking you out and getting stoned – and not in a good way, either.  In fact, the Gnostic Book of Enoch (which is well worth a read if you want some Biblical what-the-fuckery to rival the mushroom-induced rantings of Revelation)  goes into some detail of how Noah was born with white and rosy skin and white hair. This disturbed his father no end, who thought his wife had been having nookie with the mysterious Watchers. Needless to say, if Jesus had looked any different to those around him, you could be fairly sure that somebody would have commented somewhere, but the Scripture is silent on the matter.

Ignoring all the mythology, the truth behind this way of thinking is far sadder and is summed up in the opening sentence:

atheists will claim that Jesus had brown skin

Whoever wrote this is horrified that non-believers dare suggest that Jesus (and by default, God) doesn’t look the same way he or she does. As another friend so succinctly put it, “It’s my imaginary friend, therefore he must look like me.” Of course, the colour of his skin shouldn’t enter into the argument, but Christians seem to be very, very good at making their gods One Of Us. We see it with the right-wing evangelical nutters, not only claiming God for their own, but also claiming that He really, really loves the Second Amendment and hates gay marriage. The Mormons, of course, took this to the n^th degree by making their version of the story distinctly American.

Not that this is a new phenomenon, however. Just look at any portrayal of God, Jesus, Mary or any of the saints throughout Western Europe and they are all distinctly Caucasian. Almost any depiction of Jesus is  a spitting image of, say, Cat Stevens or Kris Kristofersen . Because of the need for their god to be One Of Us.

Not only that, but look at any depiction of the crucifixion – Jesus is invariably shown naked, save for a loin cloth. Now that isn’t there to spare the audience from seeing a holy winkle – after all, if the sight of a naked man, whipped, bloody and nailed to a chunk of wood doesn’t offend your sensibilities, I doubt seeing a penis will either… although you never know with some people. No, the loin cloth is there to hide the fact that that holy winkle is circumcised. It conveniently hides the fact that – no matter what Paul marketed to the Romans – Jesus (again, assuming he existed, before you all jump down my throat) was born, lived and died a Jew. To a Christian, his very Jewishness means that he’s not One Of Us – especially given the way the Jews were treated up until the 20^th century. How on earth could they accept that their so-called Lord and Saviour was actually a member of the race they vilified? Therefore they had to morph their god into what they were familiar with and that was what they saw around them – fellow Caucasians.

So, as much as the WASPs want their god to be a fellow WASP, the sad fact is that if he ever existed, then he was a dark-skinned Jew. And if that offends your sensibilities, then you are a racist, because you seem to be more worried about his skin colour – making sure he’s One Of Us – than his message. Then again, given how Paul twisted that to suit his needs, Christians should just call themselves Paulists and get back to worshipping their lily-white, Anglo-Saxon sky-daddy.

Even though Conservapedia is the reason for this blog’s very existence in the first place, we’ve evolved (ahem!) and broadened our scope, and it’s become apparent that there are far better lunatics out there and Conservapedia’s use as an interesting – or even amusing – source has come to an end. Then again, to say “end” would imply there was a beginning and let’s face it, Conservapedia – as the bastion of right-wing knowledge and thought Schlafly fantasises about – never got out of the blocks. From the get go the right-wing masses never appeared, indeed they actively seemed to shun it; it became the laughing stock of the scientific, sane and – after the Conservative Bible – religious community; and even the home-schoolers, for whom it was originally created, have abandoned the project en masse.  Even the current batch of students being subjected to Schlafly’s abysmal courses, seem to use the site for the sole purpose of posting their homework answers. Which makes you wonder if they even exist – there’s been a couple of much-hyped courses that have mysteriously stopped after a few weeks. Which makes you wonder if they even existed in the first place.

Not only that, but the format didn’t suit the mentality of his target market – these are people with chips on both shoulders, who really, really want the world to know how pissed off they are that there’s a Black Man in the White House. They have neither the inclination, not the mental capacity, to write articles for something that purports to be an encyclopaedia. That’s why the new Teabagger Facebook will be successful… provided they can raise the funds to keep it going (last month they raised $10,000 out of a requested $30,000. Now they’re asking for another $30,000, but with no expiry date)… there they can post without having to engage what passes for their brains.

When you add the fact that of the remaining hand-picked goons running the site, only Schlafly seems to care. Terry Hurlbut only uses it to promote his own blog; ditto Ken Demyer, who happily clutters up the main page with inane posts linking to his pitiful Question Evolution blog, where he fantasises about crushing atheism and mythical long-haired, creationist sweethearts write him sweet letters, in 2^nd grade standard English; Brian Macdonald has taken over from the late Terry Koeckriz in banning everything that moves and Ed Poor shows occasionally, to either destroy what’s left of their maths articles, or to add vaguely disturbing sexual content to the “family-friendly” encyclopaedia’s pages.

So, before I close the book on Conservapedia for – hopefully – the last time, I’d like to close off with a bit more insanity from its founder, Andrew Schlafly – probably the single biggest reason why Conservapedia failed to begin with.

Not withstanding his current fixation on how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the underlying e=mc² formula are all liberal claptrap, designed to stop people reading the Bible – something questions by saying that if he eats a pound of cake, his energy doesn’t increase by the weight of the cake, multiplied by the speed of light squared. This from somebody with a B.Sc, remember, Schlafly has another little pet theory.

It seems that communist are scared to admit their leaders have died, because they “have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away.” This is what is says in Conservapedia’s article on Fidel Castro, which is written entirely in the past sense, because Castro “is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009.” Needless to say, once Schlafly has pronounced on something, it becomes the One and Only Infallible Truth and shall not be proven wrong. Which results in much hilarity as Schlafly twists reality to match his Truth. Thus, when Castro met the Pope, Schlafly responded with the hysterical “Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?” – because body doubles are far more plausible than saying “Oops, I made a mistake.”

It seems that Schlafly’s only basis for this death “cover-up” line is that an elderly, ill man hasn’t been seen in public for a while. In fact, he uses exactly the same logic on Hugo Chavez, claiming that “Chavez was not seen in public since he entered a Cuban hospital near death on December 11, 2012. Venezuela’s communist regime engaged in liberal denial about his death for nearly three months, even releasing a photo of an ostensibly fit and smiling Chavez. But on March 5, 2013, likely due to pressure from other nations that knew Chavez had died, Venezuelan communists finally admitted Chavez was dead.”

Because, saying somebody is still alive, when they are still alive, is liberal denial.

It wouldn’t be Schlafly if he didn’t engage in some grave dancing, so when Chavez actually died on March 5th, Schlafly not only posted the following on Conservapedia’s main page:

Conservapedia is proven right: HUGO CHAVEZ IS DEAD, and the lamestream media finally admit it.
Liberal denial crashes again.

He goes on to update the “Conservapedia Proven Right” article with the following:

Prediction: “”The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December.”

“Liberal claptrap” in response: “The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December.” (Note how he’s somehow claiming that the media is somehow responding to something Schlafly said, whereas in reality, most of them don’t even know he’s alive.)

Result: “Hugo Chavez is indeed dead, the BBC finally admits nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.”

The “logic” behind this is so flawed, that I would seriously not want this Harvard-educated lawyer representing me in court. He’s basically saying that because somebody ill died several months after Schlafly said he had died, that Schlafly has been proven right.

There really isn’t anywhere else to go when faced with this kind of messianic insanity, so I won’t be going here again.

I also have a sneaky suspicion that they know they’re defending the indefensible – one only has to see the logical and linguistic back-flips the creationists undergo to justify whichever unproven and untested theory they’re pushing this week – because peer review has nothing to do with pointing out their pseudo-science and everything to do with a vast liberal conspiracy against them. Likewise, we saw the goalposts moving faster than a speeding bullet when it came to evidence discrediting the birther movement. So they retreat to their own little corners of the internet – and we end up with the conservative version of Wikipedia, where relativity is a liberal plot to stop people reading the Bible, a conservative version of YouTube, conservative news aggregators and now, to complete the right wing circle-jerk, a conservative version of Facebook.

It seems that the poor conservatives were tired of being persecuted on Facebook, by people pointing out that most of what they were writing was either wrong, a lie, racist or headdesk-inducing stupidity. What better way to counteract this than to take your toys, go home and preach to the converted. And terminally dumb. Thus the “Tea Party Community” was formed.

Now there’s one thing you have to understand – where conservatives gather, there isn’t much room for dissenting voices. It’s quite ironic that the people who bleat the loudest about how authoritarian Obama is, have absolutely no room and no time for people pointing out that what they’re saying is a load of shit. You either toe the party line, or you’re branded a “troll” and you’re outta there. It’s exactly the same kind of behavior we witness on Conservapedia, where a couple of jumped-up little mall cops run around, silencing any possible questioning of Dear Leader, Andrew Schlafly’s latest bit of dribbling insanity. Admittedly, the site has had its fair share of people – mostly from the Something Awful forums, it would appear – who really turned up invited and trashed the party. I don’t condone such behavior – it’s stupid and childish and serves no purpose, other than to fuel their already impressive persecution complexes.

Needless to say, the thought of so much Teabagger insanity collected in one place, combined with my masochistic streak, was the proverbial flame to my moth and I soon created an account there – all the better to see them with, my dear. Like a couple of posts, share some inflammatory (and defamatory) pictures, post a suitable pro Second Amendment-type picture, and I was in like Flynn… I’ve even managed to pick up a few dozen red-blooded redneck friends… although I fear my profile pic might have more to do with that…

Now, the first thing I noticed is that TPC seems to be running on a direct copy of Facebook, albeit a slightly different interface. I doubt this is a coincidence, nor am I convinced that Mark Z would have let them borrow some software to set up what is, in essence, competition. Will we see a court case in the future? Who knows – but I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth should they be persecuted for copyright infringement. I’m guessing First Amendment rights would be mentioned…

Secondly, they want your money.  There seems to be very little advertising on the site – at present only a 50% off offer on a home schooling course, a link to the Tea Party Tribune and a book called “Dispatches from a Bitter America,” which is described as “A gun toting, chicken eating son of a Baptist’s culture war stories” and is apparently endorsed by Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and Mike Huckabee. Sounds like gripping stuff. Clearly, running an anti-social network is expensive stuff, because they was their loyal fellow patriots to donate $30,000. To be honest, I don’t know if this is a once-off, or monthly, but the cut-off is in just under 5 days (at the time of writing) and they’ve only managed to collect $8,300. Which is funny, given that this is some sort of Ayn Randian utopia, where people would happily pay towards the upkeep of the community, rather than pay taxes. Guess it’s reality, with its liberal bias sticking its head in again. Maybe they should approach the Koch brothers for some money, given the hard on those boys have for the Tea Party… or rather for the way the Tea Party is letting them run roughshod over workers’ rights.

So… what about the content? Well, put it this way – if they wanted to create a redirect URL, they could use stupid_white_people_bitching.com. It’s the usual ranting about how Obama is planning martial law; how he’s coming for their guns; how they love the Constitution; how evil liberals are, etc, etc, just in super concentrated format, and with lashing of mutual masturbatory comments. There’s also a few classy personal touches that they can slip in, now that they’re amongst their own kind, like Photoshopping Michelle Obama’s dress onto a gorilla, as well as subscribing to every wingnut conspiracy going, from Benghazi, to the Feds stockpiling bullets – something the unofficial Queen of the TPC, Sarah Palin, is still harping on about. But then facts and reality have a liberal bias.

Stay classy, Teabagger scum.

One of my favourite posts, is a poll, asking who they think the next President and VP will be. The choices are:

• Barry Soetoro/Joe Biden
• Rand Paul/Allen West
• Hillary Clinton/?
• Marco Rubio/Paul Ryan
• Other

 Of course, you can hardly expect Obama to be called by his real name – Obummer, Hussain (“That is how we should call him, by his Islamist name”) and Soetoro seem to prevail. The first point is clearly another indication of their belief in a looming dictatorship. Rand Paul is currently out of favour too, because he dared to endorse Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel. I’m sure more will be thrown under the bus after yesterday’s passing of the Violence Against Women Act. Remember, with these people, you toe the party line, or rather what they perceive the party line to be, or you’re outta there. The fact that that little pustule of hate, Allen West, is so popular speaks volumes of the mindset.  Still, hopefully we’ve heard the last of that little ball of spite after his last election loss. Of course, the biggest irony – and the biggest indicator of how dumb these people are – is the suggestion of Marco Rubio. It would appear that after all the bleating about Obama being born in Kenya, and then not being a natural born citizen, these yahoos aren’t even aware that if they apply the same definition of “natural born citizen” to Rubio as they are to Obama (including citing some Frenchman who never set foot in the US), then Rubio doesn’t qualify to be President. Or maybe it doesn’t matter, because he’s not black? Needless to say, Palin is still a favourite in the comments, despite the fact that she’s probably one of the single biggest reasons McCain didn’t win the White House in the first place. Still, the more I see these people pushing for another clown car of candidates come election time, the more I feel pretty secure in the Dems holding onto the White House after 2016. After all, those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Another question asked what the Tea Party should do, should they enter Congress as a third party. The options were:

• Impeach Obama
• Try Obama with treason

But, of course, you’d be a filthy, baby-eating liberal to suggest that they are really, really fixated on the Black Man in the White House… and have no idea how politics really works. Then again, neither do the Tea Party politicians. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader dedicated the two years after the 2010 mid-term elections to “ensuring President Obama doesn’t get re-elected.” Somebody needs to sit this yahoo down and explain “govern” – and most other 6-letter words – to him.

Will the TPC last? I dunno. Probably. It’s an outlet for crazy rednecks to bitch and moan and as we’ve seen with Conservapedia, once that tap opens, nothing closes it. I’d say the biggest obstacles are the running costs – I can’t see anybody happily swallowing a $20,000 loss every month, or quarter, or whatever it turns out to be.

Personally, I hope it does last. I’ve seen how small echo chambers, like Conservapedia, or Conservative News and Views, serve to ramp up the crazy, as each increasingly batshit insane idea is met with open arms by the sycophantic members of the group… or they at least have the good graces to look the other way and snigger into their sleeves. An anti-social network, doubling as an echo chamber filled with several thousand paranoid, ignorant dumbasses promises to provide hours of mirth. Provided I’m not hospitalized by desk-induced concussion first…

I’m starting to believe that Ray Comfort could be serving the same purpose on behalf of the evil atheist overlords. That’s the only explanation I can provide to explain a man who does his brand immeasurable harm, every time he opens his mouth, or types on a keyboard. Having suffered through his abysmal new film – covered in the post below – and his earlier laughable “Banana fallacy,” I thought I’d have another look at some of his utterances. Luckily, Comfort has a Facebook page, which is so full of insanity, that I only conclude that Comfort is either a deep-cover parodist, or so monumentally stupid, you have to wonder how he keeps breathing without instructions.

Here’s a sampling of some of Comfort’s “wisdom:”

He who says “Don’t ram your message down my throat!” diagnoses his problem. He should close his mouth and open his ears.

 One the biggest giveaways that Comfort might, in fact, be a parodist is his apparent complete lack of any sense of irony. Either that or he’s simply too stupid to understand what irony is. Comfort, like most other religious folks, would be the first to jam his fingers in his ears and yell, “La-la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you!” whenever you try and engage with them with annoying things like facts, reality and science.

It’s the same thing we see with a certain brand of conservative – you’re only open-minded when you agree with what they are saying, wholeheartedly and without question.

READ Lev 14-15 (14:32) Leprosy is a type of sin, Jude 23. We can’t cleanse ourselves of its plague. Only the High Priest of our faith can.

 Typically, Comfort displays not only a complete ignorance of basic medicine, but also a malignant disregard for human suffering often seen in is kind. It’s the same kind of heartless insensitivity that tells a newly-orphaned child that God took their parents because He loved them more than the child did.

Writing off the suffering associated with leprosy (I’m amazed he didn’t use AIDS as an example) as being the fault of the “sinner” displays not only a callous outlook on life, but a way of thinking that should have died out in the Dark Ages. Clearly not, in Comfort’s case.

Christians believe that God made man from soil. How dumb is that? If you just said an atheist-amen to the dumb question, then I’d like you to do something the next time you go shopping in a supermarket. Look at every food item and ask yourself whether or not it traces itself back to soil: potato chips, milk, cheese, eggs, butter, pancakes, bananas, bread, cookies, grapes, apples, beef, chicken, lamb, pork, popcorn, chocolate, cereal, coffee, strawberries, etc. It takes a little bit of backward thinking, but if you take the time to give it some thought, everything traces itself back to the soil. Let’s do it with eggs. The eggs came from the chicken. The chicken ate the wheat to make the eggs, and the wheat traces itself back to the soil. When you were a toddler, your mother gave you milk that came from the cow that chewed the grass that came from the soil. Stated simplistically, milk is rearranged soil nutrients. So is cheese, butter, yoghurt and ice cream. The substance of our bodies is made up of the food we ate, and all the food we ate traces itself back to the soil (Mother Earth). We are rearranged dirt. Coincidentally, science tells us that the same trace elements that make up soil are the same elements that make up the human body–carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. When you die, your body will turn back into soil, and your soiled soul (if you are not trusting in Jesus) will return to the God you don’t believe in.

 There is so much wrong with this. Firstly, the Bible (the KJV anyway) says Adam was created from dust. I’m pretty sure any housewife worth her salt will tell you there’s a big difference between dust and soil – I, for one, don’t have soil bunnies breeding under my couch. The second problem is that the whole “created from dust” bit comes from the second creation myth, as laid out in Genesis 2. It’s funny how Christians – who claim to know the Bible – always mix up the two; adding the dust and rib creations of man and woman to the “traditional” creation chronology. Maybe it’s because the two creation myths bear no resemblance to each other and the fact that in the first creation myth, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen 1:27). By using the “woman created from Adam’s rib” they have a handy tool for holding women to be subservient to men.

Thirdly, Comfort himself shows some remarkable “backwards thinking” (to use his phrase) as he tries to justify his point. “The eggs came from the chicken. The chicken ate the wheat to make the eggs, and the wheat traces itself back to the soil.” Well yes, except for the small point – what about the seed the wheat sprang from? Overall, it’s just another prime example of Comfort’s diabolically poor reasoning technique. Not only that, he has such a miserable outlook on life. Yes, we are composed of “carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus,” but to call that “dirt” is to sell yourself way short.

Comfort might think he’s only made of dirt, but me? I’m from the heart of a supernova, I’m made of fucking stardust. Which would you rather be made of?

Addendum al a armondikov:

I think you missed a trick with Comfort’s “soil” argument. Plants don’t draw up any of their energy from the soil. It’s all photosynthesised from CO2 in the air. That’s the lion’s share of the mass and energy that makes its way up the food chain. So, if he wants to play that game, we actually trace ourselves to the atmosphere, not the soil. Even the nitrogen-based compounds that do come from the soil derive from atmospheric N2 that’s fixed by lightning strikes or bacteria.

Dreams can temporarily convince the dreamer that the insane is reality. Such is the way of atheism.

 Substitute the word ‘Christianity” for “atheism” here and his weird claim makes far more sense. It’s one of those weird non sequiturs that he likes to throw out, thinking they make him look sage and wise, whilst in reality he comes across as an ignorant fool. Remember this is somebody who thinks a giant Sky Daddy created everything in 7 days, that a 600-year-old man and a few family members built a giant wooden boat and fed tens of thousands of animals for a year and that somebody walked on water. But it’s the atheists who see the insane as reality. Right.

There will be no satisfaction in saying “I told you so” to the unsaved.

Maybe true… except for the fact that most fundamentalists I’ve come across are positively salivating at the thought of watching the unclean (which largely seems to consist of people they don’t like, not just sinners) burning in Hell, while they kick back with a harp on cloud 9.

Close examination of evolution proves it to be nothing but a mirage.

 Once again, not even wrong. Comfort has never done anything like a “close examination” of evolution, preferring instead to use bananas as a sign of intelligent design. In fact, I’d go as far as to say no creationist has done a close examination of evolution, always falling back on the same old tired arguments: if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys; where’s the fossils? and the good old God of the gaps.

Once again, substituting “Christianity” for “evolution” makes that sentence far more believable – even more so if you replace “close” with “cursory.”

READ Lev 11-13 (12:3) God said to circumcise on the eighth day. Science has discovered this is when the body’s immune system is at its peak.

 Ah yes, circumcision. God created man perfect and holy, in his image, but that ugly piece of skin has got to go!! What kind of demented, blood-thirsty deity demands an act of mutilation to show you worship them?

Also, I’m going to come right out and call Comfort a liar here. Firstly, I haven’t been able to find ANY source that supports Comfort’s claim that the body’s immune system is at its peak 8 days after birth. The fact that he uses the vague appeal from authority and says that “science has discovered” screams bullshit to me. I have asked him to provide me with a citation backing up his claim, but I doubt that one will be forthcoming. Given the fact that children have to be taken for a range of vaccinations, from polio to various pneumococcal diseases at an early age, not to mention the various childhood maladies of measles, chickenpox, et al, makes me strongly doubt that this claim has any basis in reality.

The atheist who wins the argument in this life will lose it in next—and that’s the one that matters.

This is just weird. It’s a kind of playground mentality – you’ve just beaten me, so I’m going to run behind the fence and yell “Na-na-nana-na” at you. Not only is he admitting that atheists win arguments – something the whole of reality knows, but creationists deny like their livelihoods depend on it – but he seems to be claiming that they win arguments knowing that Sky Daddy is going to beat them up for it afterwards.

Also, bear in mind his “There will be no satisfaction in saying “I told you so” to the unsaved” comment above. It sounds to me that that’s exactly what he’s doing here. Then again, consistency isn’t something you can expect from these people.

The difference between the tooth fairy and Darwinian evolution is that kids are eventually told the truth about the tooth fairy.

 Once again, replace “Darwinian evolution” with “Christianity” and the sentence makes more sense. It’s just another throw-away, baseless comment Comfort likes to make and that his followers (yes, sadly, he has followers. But then again, so did Jim Jones) lap up. It’s nothing more than childish na-na-nana-na-ing.

There was a big fuss recently in Sweden about lasagna and burgers containing horse meat. Sweden is atheist heaven, and so there shouldn’t be any hard and fast table manners—other than “if it tastes good, eat it.” So why aren’t cats and horses on restaurant menus in most countries? It’s because Judeo/Christian nations base what is right and wrong to eat on the rules God gave to the Jews. But if atheism has its way, we can expect restaurants to expand their menus to include eagle-wings, double-double whale burgers, fresh cat casseroles, and tasty little kitten fingers. When any nation forsakes God, it defaults to mob rule (what society dictates) and that can go anywhere it wants.

 This hurt my brain, really it did. So much concentrated stupid in one paragraph. Not to mention the whole event went down in the UK and not Sweden. Apparently, being an atheist means you can eat anything – even eagles and kittens, because you don’t follow the restrictions set out in the Bible. Of course, Ray doesn’t explain how so many Christian countries have no problem eating things like pork and prawns. Even by his standards, it’s a bizarre comment – just because atheists don’t base their diet on a a couple of guidelines set out for people wandering in a desert with no refrigeration, does mean they have an “anything goes” attitude towards what they eat.

In fact, I’m willing to be that there are more atheist environmentalists and vegetarians than there are Christian, and they would naturally be far more selective over what goes on their plate. As opposed to the fundies who think they were put here to have dominion over everything else and that they can basically rape the planet before the Rapture happens.

It’s more childish name-calling from Comfort.

If Charles Darwin knew what we know about the complexity of the cell, he would have dropped his fantasy faster than a flea hops onto the back of a mangy dog.

Complete and utter bullsit! If Darwin had known about things like Mendel’s work in genetics and the workings of genes (which lurk in the nucleus), he would have been over the moon, as they basically provide the mechanism for his natural selection. Anybody who’s read The Selfish Gene would know this. Clearly Comfort hasn’t – probably because he knows he lacks the mental stature to challenge it.

A thought-provoking question to ask an atheist is whether or not he thinks that his brain was intelligently designed.

Nope, not a thought-provoking question at all. In fat the answer is a simple, “No.” That’s what happens when you don’t ask open-ended questions. Even if the brain was designed, there’s very little intelligent about it. Take the massive blind spot in our eyes, the whole left/right cross-over and the fact that the medulla oblongata, which just happens to control all your involuntary reflexes, like breathing and heartbeat, is located at the base of your skull, where even a reasonable hard punch can kill you.

Nothing intelligent about that.

It is foolish to think that atheists are intelligent, when the Bible says that they are foolish.

 More typical Bible-based circular logic so typical of Comfort and his ilk. And this from a man who thinks bananas prove intelligent design and that Kirk Cameron isn’t a simpering idiot.

Sinful man is a fist-shaking anemic flea under the foot of his elephantine Creator’s wrath.

 Once again, I have to ask whether or not Comfort isn’t a deep-cover parodist. I can understand the choir getting moist at this description of their “loving” god, but on what planet does he think that this would convince somebody that Comfort’s god is worth worshiping.

It’s just more proof that for people like Comfort, Christianity isn’t a religion based on faith, but rather it’s one based on fear. And ignorance. These are the same people, remember, who think that the only thing between them becoming an axe murderer, is the fact that Sky Daddy will disapprove.

]]> http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-dumbest-man-alive/feed/ 12 cpmonitor http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/bananaman-strikes-again/ http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/bananaman-strikes-again/#comments Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:35:20 +0000 PsyGremlin http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/?p=4130 Continue reading →]]> Anybody who’s ever come across the work of creationist nutjob Ray Comfort, knows that he only has a passing acquaintance with the truth… and reality for that matter. If he’s not peddling his own special brand of bullshit on his laughably named “Way of the Master” series – which he presents with the equally pathetic, washed-up former child actor Kirk Cameron – then he’s frantically trying to twist realty to suit himself.

A classic example of this is the way he ALWAYS – in what passes for his mind, anyway – wins debates, no matter how badly and often he gets his ass handed to him on a plate. After his live debate with AronRa, during which the latter tore Comfort a new one; pointing out all his lies in the process, Comfort returned to the safety of his blog and claimed victory. Not only that, he claimed that the whole thing was unimportant and hadn’t attracted much interest. This despite the fact that so many people logged on to watch, that the host site’s servers crashed. Twice.

Similarly, when Comfort and little Quirky Kirk staged their handing out of copies of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” – with a handy little foreword introducing Comfort’s ideas on Intelligent Design – he claimed that “Atheists messed up that giveaway-date. We came a day early and sent them in a panic.”

This was in the same message where he claimed the following:

I hear that PZ Myers just stated publicly that he thinks I’m a fraud. See: http://bit.ly/njFaBW Does that mean that up until today he thought that I was genuine in my faith, but after viewing our latest video (called “180″) he now believes that I’m lining my pockets?

As the good people on WeAreSMRT.com pointed out, that was not the case at all – PZ has ALWAYS thought that Comfort is a fraud. For that matter, how can Comfort’s “coming a day early” be the fault of the atheists? The fact remains that he knew that he wouldn’t be able to stand up to their criticism, so – in typically cowardly fashion – slunk in a day early, hoping to spread his shit around before anybody noticed. Even with that sneaky move, his little stunt was a resounding failure.

Needless to say, I was rather surprised to see that Ray’s latest “documentary” (is there a word for something that purports to be a documentary, but isn’t based on facts, or reality?), called “Genius,” had won an award. Both World Nut Daily and a site called “PRWeb” splashed headlines lauding his efforts.

Comfort went on record as saying:

It is encouraging to be able to say that ‘Genius’ is an ‘award-winning’ movie because it instantly lifts its credibility. People are more likely to watch a DVD or view it on YouTube.

Apparently “Genius” looks closely at the death of John Lennon and particularly on why he was murdered. According to Bananaman:

This documentary is extremely relevant nowadays because it exposes the common denominator in mass killers. Whenever there is a shooting, psychiatrists scramble to try and pinpoint the common denominator in the shooter. They give reasons such as ‘he was a loner,’ or ‘he had just lost his job,’ but they never put their finger on the one thing that all killers have in common. We want people to watch “Genius” and find out what it is.

Now, I haven’t watched the film – yet (I’ve just downloaded a copy from YouTube. I certainly have no plans to give this charlatan a single red cent towards lining his pockets) – but just based on the “one thing that all killers have in common” bit, I’m willing to bet that it’ll come down to the “no morals without God” spiel.

Having seen the clusterfuck of his previous effort, “180,” with it’s usual creationist bait-and-switch tactics, I had to admit that I was curious how he could have improved so much that he made an award-worthy feature. I also wondered what award it was – surely not an Emmy, or – goddess-forbid – an Oscar?

I needn’t have worried that those baby-eating liberal media types were slipping up. What Ray’s little pile of shit won was called a “Telly” award – something I have never heard of. Fortunately, I have Google to turn to.

Turns out these awards are presented by a company with the same name – the Telly Awards and purport to “honor the very best local, regional, and cable television commercials and programs, as well as the finest video and film productions, and work created for the Web.” This all sounds well and fine and very noble, until I noticed something weird – the articles mentioning the award were published around the 8^th of February. However, a quick glance at their website, informed me that the closing date for entries is March 1^st, 2013.

Now, how on earth can they be issuing awards when there are still outstanding submissions? A bit more digging made me realize that these guys are the award equivalent of buying your doctorate online. You see, you submit your entry, along with a $95 dollar fee, somebody from the “Silver Telly Council” watches it, and signs off on it. Then you win either a Silver or Bronze Telly… for which you pay them $170 (plus shipping) to send to you. No big awards ceremony here – just faceless minions sending out thousands of these awards. Yes, I said thousands. Just looking at the list of winners from 2012 is mind-boggling – there’s so many winners, that they have to be grouped alphabetically and it runs for page after page.

So, let’s get one thing straight, Comfort – your little video didn’t WIN an award, you BOUGHT an award for it. Which makes you a dishonest little shit. It’s also worth noting that you didn’t mention which Telly Award you bought, so I’m guessing it was the bronze one. Given that these people once gave an award to an interactive video of a fish tank, it speaks volumes that your little video was deemed not quite up to scratch by a company that makes money by issuing vanity awards to sad wankers.

“Genius” – Keep Me Covered, I’m Going In!

So, what about the “documentary” itself? Well, I covered all the flat surfaces around me with pillows, grabbed some strong alcohol, and settled down to watch it. Of course, this was 30 minutes that could have been spent more productively, by, say, licking battery terminals, chewing tinfoil or jabbing needles in between my toes, but sometimes you just have to take one for the team. The things I do for you, Dear Readers…

It opens with a bunch of talking heads being asked who John Lennon was. Fortunately, most of them seem to know he has something to do with the Beatles, although one lady did confuse him with Jay Leno. We then get a bit of history, telling us how John was raised by his aunt, who sent him to a local Anglican Sunday school. We then segue into John’s infamous “We’re more famous than Jesus” comment, which Comfort gives his own special spin. In his mind, Lennon’s comments were motivated by the “spiritual climate in the UK at the time.”

As Comfort puts it:

Generally speaking, traditional church services in the 1960s in England were a little dull, with dry hymns and monotone priests and ministers, who preached lifeless sermons to a group of sad, elderly people. They often sat in a cold, stone building, that was appropriately surrounded by a graveyard.

So, a “young and vibrant” John Lennon, was giving his impressions about Christianity. Oddly, Comfort doesn’t expand on this. Rather, he goes on to mention Lennon’s apology (done to save the US tour, of course) and then bizarrely goes into the full quote, where Lennon included phrases such as “Christianity will go” and “It will vanish and shrink,” and “I don’t know which will go first – rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity” – and then lamely says, “People have come to different conclusions on the issue,” based on context. Comfort seems unwilling, or more likely unable, to spin this in a positive light, and so hurriedly moves on. We’re 6 minutes in and there’s already two interesting themes left hung out to dry, because Comfort has no idea how to tackle them.

Now we’re back to the talking heads, being asked how Lennon died. Sadly, most of those who made the cut are as clueless about Lennon’s demise as Comfort is about Life, the Universe and Everything. Suddenly, we see Comfort asking the same talking heads if they think Lennon is currently in heaven. Of course, most on screen say yes, although one feisty Buddhist gives him a mouthful. She’s the one with the red stripy vest. Again, I’m not sure why Comfort left her in, because she shoots him down, responding with rage when he asks if she’s an atheist.

Then it gets a little weird. Suddenly we have the talking heads being asked to answer two moral dilemmas. The first asks them if they would steal $2 million from a bank, if they knew they wouldn’t be caught. No, I have no idea what this has to do with the life of John Lennon either. Naturally, most of those on screen say they would. Then Comfort asks them if they would help kill a woman’s husband, if she paid them $10 million.

“Aha!” I thought. “Are we going to get into some conspiracy theory where Yoko paid Chapman to kill John?” I rubbed my hands together, grabbed more popcorn and replenished my alcoholic beverage, waiting to enter tinfoil hat land. Sadly, I was mistaken. After a few minutes of people saying they would, we suddenly focus on a guy who wouldn’t. Why? Because it was against their morals.

Then comes the question: “So where do you get your morals from? Is it a belief in God? Why wouldn’t you do it? Are you afraid of facing God on Judgment Day, or something?” Of course, the answer to these questions is “Yes.”

Comfort then makes the leap, saying that what separated the non-killers from the killers was a “God-given belief in moral accountability.”

By this point, I was glad for the extra padding I’d placed around me, although my face was making contact with the fluffy pillows so often, I was in danger of asphyxiating myself.

I’m going to pause here for a minute to discuss this little bit of bullshit. Firstly, saying something and doing something are two totally different things – especially on camera. I could tell you I would give Comfort a blow job, at noon on payday, on the City Hall steps, for $10 million. Yes, I know Ted Haggard did it for meth, but I have standards. Actually doing it, however, is a totally different matter, not matter how much Comfort offers me. Secondly, whenever people say that it’s fear of God’s judgment that stops them from killing, it always creates the impression that they’re a bunch of psychopathic fuckwits, who will embark on a serious killing spree, should they ever decide God doesn’t exist. After all, that seems to be the only thing stopping them.

Finally, and this is a point that morons like Comfort can’t seem to grasp: If you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong, then what you lack is empathy, not religion.

Back to the movie. Having decided that morals come from God, Comfort goes on to tell us that:

When a nation loses that restraint (the God-given belief in moral accountability), that guiding conviction, it will become lawless and ultimately spin out of control. And there’s nothing that gets rid of moral accountability like atheistic evolution; the belief that there’s no God and we’re the descendants of primates.

Wait… WHAT THE FUCK? I thought this was about John Lennon? Can’t you stay on topic for 5 fucking minutes? And “descendants of primates?” Really? Is this idiot incapable of grasping the concept of “common ancestor?” Then again, we are talking about the moron who thinks that bananas were intelligently designed to fit into the human hand. No, I’m not kidding.

Suddenly, we cut to scenes of Comfort haranguing passersby in the street, asking them if they’re descended from an ape, and that evolution doesn’t have a proof, it’s a belief and where did the Big Bang come from. It’s all getting a little bizarre now – as we’re miles away from John Lennon and Comfort is willingly putting his ignorance on display. The minute the poor passerby can’t answer part of Comfort’s Gish Gallop, he leaps in with the same old “Goddidit” argument, we’ve heard a million times from this dribbling fool. He has one arrow in his quiver, and he never fails to end up shooting it into his own foot.

We’re now halfway through this drivel, and I’m still no closer to learning anything about the genius of John Lennon, or why killers kill.

Ah – here we go. Apparently Lennon didn’t believe in evolution. From the quote Comfort uses (“Everything they told me as a kid, has already been disproved by the same type of “experts” who made them up in the first place.”) is plain to see that Lennon- if he even said this (Comfort has a penchant for quote mining) clearly didn’t understand how science works. Then again, he never really was much of a scholar, if his biography is to be believed.

Not only that, but it becomes pretty apparent that Comfort – as usual – has engaged in some creative quote mining. Here’s the rest of Lennon’s quote:

Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way…That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn’t’ve come from anything — fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage. It’s absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists.

That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the other. I’ve nothing to base it on; it’s only a gut feeling. They always draw that progression-these apes standing up suddenly. The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin.

How unusual that Comfort should neglect to mention that Lennon thought the creationists were as bad as the evolutionists.

Then we’re back to the talking heads. Comfort asks a bunch of questions along the lines of ‘Have you ever pirated music?” and “Have you ever used God’s name in vain?” He shows his class by asking a man if he’s ever looked at a woman with lust in his heart. When the interviewee replies, “No,” Comfort asks him if he’s a homosexual. That looks like a bit of projection there – Comfort can’t seem to grasp that a man can look at a woman without lust in his heart. You randy bastard, Ray!!

He then goes on to lecture about how his questions all have to do with the 10 Commandments and when people stand before God, they’ll be judged on these. Again – WHAT THE FUCK does this have to do with John Lennon??

I skipped forward a bit at this point, for the sake of my own sanity. Now we get to a juicy bit. Comfort goes through some of Chapman’s testimony, focusing on the bit where Chapman said, “I was a Christian before I committed my crime.” BOOM! Out comes the “No True Scotsman” argument. Comfort asks how you can you call yourself a Christian, if you don’t follow the 10 Commandments, because No True Christian would do those things. Because they’re all too scared of Sky Daddy punishing them… and that’s the only reason.

Finally, he has a look at Lennon’s “Imagine.” In a perfect bit of what passes for logic in Comfort’s mind, he claims that the line “imagine there’s no Heaven” implies that Lennon believed in a heaven. To quote Comfort:

If I said “imagine there’s no New York, it’s easy if you try,” I’m saying that New York is a real place, but let’s pretend that it isn’t. So the song is actually acknowledging the existence of Heaven.

No it fucking isn’t, Comfort!!! Does that mean if I say ‘imagine there’s no unicorns,” or ‘imagine there’s no Shangri-la,” I’m actually saying that unicorns and Shangri-la exist, but I’m pretending they don’t. Even by your incredibly low standards, that is a pathetic argument.

I gave up at this point. Once again, Comfort has produced a crock of shit, wrapped in a thin veneer of something resembling a story, but which only serves as a vehicle for him to spout the same old crap, in the same old way. Even from a story-telling perspective, it’s messy, disjointed and badly filmed. In between his street preaching, he twists and distorts the facts of Lennon’s life and beliefs, claiming that he might have been a Christian, but he’s probably in Hell right now, and more than anything it’s just another vehicle for Comfort to repeat his tired old bullshit.

No wonder he had to buy an award. But even that won’t give it any credibility.

And it’s certainly not going to convert anybody.

In the meantime, I’m going to go through my ever-increasing folder of batshit insanity, and try and bring you a digest – or maybe a regurgitation, given the subject material – of what’s caught my eye lately.  Starting off with…

Pat Robertson wows the ladies again

How this senile, insane, vile geriatric woman-hater is still on the airwaves never fails to amaze me – maybe it’s because he’s bilked his followers of enough cash to run his own station and – scary as it might sound – he clearly has followers, who are too high on Jesus to say, “WTF?”

Fresh from making a “joke” that a husband writing into his “700 Club” show – which could probably be a source of material all on its own – should move to Saudi Arabia, so he could beat his disrespectful wife, he went on to offer the following marital advice to a teenager, who was worried that his dad was spending too much time playing video games and not paying enough attention to his wife:

It may be your mom isn’t as sweet as you think she is. She may be kind of hard-nosed.

He then goes on to offer the following little parable:

A woman came to a preacher that I know, and she was awful looking. I mean, her hair was all torn up and she was overweight and looked terrible, clothes bad and everything. And she said, ‘Oh, Reverend, what can I do? My husband has started to drink.’ And the preacher looked at her and said, ‘Madam, if I was married to you I’d start to drink too.’ We need to cultivate romance, darling! … You always have to keep that spark of love alive. It just isn’t something to just lie there, ‘Well, I’m married to him so he’s got to take me slatternly looking.’ You’ve got to fix yourself up, look pretty.

Because, as with all of these conservative, religious fuckwits, it’s always the woman’s fault. Clearly his mind is stuck in some 1950s Stepford utopia, where he comes home from a hard day’s fleecing his flock, to find his newly scrubbed and perfumed wife putting dinner on the table. The spark of romance from come from her too – but only with the lights off, doors closed, missionary position, once a week. In his mind the man doesn’t have to do anything.

But not only that – he’s replying to a teenager, who is clearly worried that his parents’ wedding isn’t all it’s supposed to be. How heartless, or out of touch with reality, must you be not to give a sensible, heartfelt answer, instead of expecting him to go, “Hey Mom, if you weren’t so ugly, Dad wouldn’t play video games?” It’s just another example of the gulf between what Robertson preaches and what the Bible he claims to believe in, actually says.

The War on Women Continues

Of course, there’s no real reason to focus on the ramblings of a senile geriatric, when you’ve got the entire Republican Party ganging up on the fairer sex.

Now you’d think that after the 2012 election, when most Americans with a uterus and a brain took one look at the GOP’s stance on contraception, rape and abortion – not to mention the amazing ignorance shown by people like Todd Akin – and gave them the collective middle finger, that the GOP would have looked at just maybe toning down the rhetoric a little.

Fat chance of that happening. It seems that the republicans have decided that it’s easier to gerrymander the electoral districts and change the laws of the Electoral College, in order to ensure they win any further elections. Because nothing says “Democracy” like changing the rules to suit you, because the majority of your citizens disagree with you. So yes, the Republicans are still pro-birth – not pro-life, because they have no interest in saving the life of the mother should things go wrong, and certainly no interest in the welfare of the child, once it has been born – and they’re coming for your birth control. And in typical GOP style, using the most batshit insane justifications for their stance.

Ok, I did say “batshit insane’ above, but I think “fucking reprehensible” best describes the efforts of New Mexico’s Cathrynn Brown – a Republican member of the State’s House of assembly. She’s taken a novel – and quite frankly disgusting, coming from a woman – approach to the GOP’s “no abortion, even if raped” stance. Most of these fuckheads usually cite that fact that the group of cells is a person, or that the child shouldn’t pay for the sins of the father. The latter is doubly ironic, considering these people all think that humanity is doomed by their God to be a bunch of sinners, because their great-great-great-etc-grandfather, Adam, ate something he shouldn’t have.

What Brown is suggesting in House Bill 206, is that any woman who has an abortion after being raped, or due to incest, would be charged with a third-degree felony for tampering with evidence, which can a prison term of up to 3 years. That’s right. Instead of helping a victim cope with a horrific ordeal, they are going to become criminals themselves. The full text reads:

Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime.

Now, I’m neither a detective, nor a doctor, but I’m pretty certain that if you’re looking for evidence of rape or incest, waiting 9 months for a screaming, unwanted bundle of pink flesh isn’t very high on the list. It really is a disgusting bit of grandstanding from somebody who ought to know better.

There is a small silver lining to this. Although New Mexico has a Republican Governor, both the State House and Senate have comfortable Democratic majorities (seriously, I’ll never understand US politics), so the Bill is unlikely to pass. Not only that, but the howls of outrage at the thought of prosecuting rape victims, forced Brown to walk back her Bill to avoid a PR nightmare. However, it reappeared with a new twist, because Brown clearly thinks that people can’t read:

Now, instead of charging the victim with destroying evidence, now the Bill aims to charge state abortion providers with the felony crime of “facilitating” the destruction of evidence.

One can only help that this vile creature has consigned her political career to the scrap heap with this bit of buffoonery.

—————-

I started off by mentioning that dumb-ass Todd Akin – the guy who thought that women’s bodies had a way to prevent pregnancy during a “legitimate” rape – presumably because they can tell between lover’s sperm and rapist’s sperm. Akin wasn’t alone in this – he was soon joined by a plethora of right wing idiots, who seemed to be trying to outdo each other in trumpeting their ignorance of the workings of girlie bits.

And now they’ve been joined by one more. Conservative talk-show host Kevin Swanson is either the dumbest person walking this planet, or – like his compatriots Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck – he isn’t adverse to lying through his teeth, to an audience he knows aren’t given to critical thinking. This is what this yahoo had to say:

I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

I’ll give you a chance to let that sink in… and for you to recover from the desk-induced concussion.

I find it almost impossible to believe that somebody with even a modicum of education and functioning neurons can be that ignorant. Therefore, I have to assume that this prick is simply lying through his teeth, to a scarily gullible audience.  Never mind the staggering claim that taking the Pill results in 1000s of little fetuses lining the uterus – which formed how I must ask? Given that taking the pill not only prevents ovulation, but also makes the uterus a rather inhospitable place for a fertilised egg, just where are all these 1000s of tiny fetuses coming from?

The answer, of course, lies in the opening part of his statement: “some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists.” Nothing screams “I’m talking out of my ass!” like vague appeals to authority. What is the so-called evidence? Who are these doctors and scientists? I’d love him to name names, because if these people actually exist and are practicing medicine, they should be struck off the roll immediately! I doubt even the loonies at the AAPS believe this shit. Then again, they did appoint Andrew Schlafly as their legal counsel, so who knows…

—————-

You might recall that thanks to the Republicans, the Violence Against Women Act expired at the end of last year. This Act allows for “funding toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.”

The reason why the GOP members allowed this to happen? They were unhappy that the Act was going to be expanded to provide the same level of protection to Native Americans, illegal immigrants and members of the LGBT community. Because clearly government protection is only for straight, white Anglo-Saxons.

Well, it went back to the vote in the Senate earlier this month, and 8 Republican senators voted to block it. Much like the provision of relief aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy, things like this should not be political footballs to kick around. Sadly, they are, because in the greater scheme of things, these people think women should be home in the kitchen, and they should shut the fuck up.

The 8 are:

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Tim Scott (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and James Risch (R-ID).

In addition, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) was the only woman in the Senate who did not co-sponsor the legislation.

As with that loathsome Brown above, I hope this brainless decision by the misogynistic morons comes back to haunt them and buries their political careers.

So, as the first month of 2013 draws to a close, I’ve decided it’s time to gird my loins, get my ass into gear and once again cast my jaundiced eye on the collective crazy out there… before I fall too far behind.

You see, if January is anything to go by, 2013 promises to offer a bumper crop of crazy. Just wading through my folder, I see we have the repulsive antics of the NRA and the Sandy Hook truthers; right-wing wailing over Obama’s re-election and the looming martial law he’s going to declare; gays being blamed for everything from Sandy Hook to hurricanes (again!); an African-American commentator on World Nut Daily using the Civil War as proof that states can secede without permission (you know, the war that was fought over releasing his ancestors from slavery); and Republicans continuing to make complete and utter fools of themselves. If they’re not plotting to change the election laws to ensure that they’ll never lose another election – because that’s easier than changing their policies and their complete disregard of and contempt for the electorate – they’re pondering if e.coli can evolve into humans, or plotting to charge rape victims who have an abortion with tampering with evidence -because an unwanted baby is clearly the only evidence of a rape that matters to them.

However, for this post I’m going to look at some proposed legislation currently before committee in Arizona. Now, before I continue I must just say one thing. As a foreigner, I find the whole Pledge of Allegiance thing a bit… weird. I have no problem with being patriotic and loving your country and your flag, but I find that daily chanting of the Pledge by schoolchildren a little creepy. I grew up in the dark days of apartheid, under a Christian Nationalist government, and even we didn’t have that kind of indoctrination. Ok, maybe “indoctrination” is a harsh word, but are people so paranoid that they insist you pledge your allegiance to the country every day? What happens over weekends, or during holidays? Do the kids set 5 minutes aside in their bedrooms to chant the Pledge, or do they become Godless Commies, until they get back into the classroom and can restore their faith in their country? It all seems a little weird – and somewhat creepy – to an outsider. And don’t get me started on the Bellamy salute…

Stiff arm salute of a flag… that’ll end well.

However, leave it to batshit insane Republican legislators with too much time on their hands and taxpayers’ money to waste, to take the creepiness to a whole new level.  State representative Bob Thorpe is proposing a Bill that would require children to “recite an oath supporting the U.S. Constitution” in order to receive a graduation diploma.

The full wording of the Bill (HB2467) reads:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1.  Title 15, chapter 7, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 15-701.03, to read:
15-701.03.  Graduation requirement; constitutional oath
BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

“I, _________, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THESE DUTIES; SO HELP ME GOD.”  (my emphasis)

Now, over and above the fact that he’s asking students to take the same oath government officials and people in the military take, there are a whole bunch of problems with this piece of insanity:

• How on earth can you have the phrase “take this obligation freely” in there, when the alternative to not taking the oath is not receiving your graduation diploma? There is nothing free about that – it’s out and out coercion.
• There are also no exceptions – unlike the Pledge, where students can opt out, with a letter from their parents. That means that people who are Jehovah Witnesses, or Muslim, or Quakers have a problem – because they are generally opposed to federal loyalty oaths on religious grounds.
• For that matter, what about atheists, who would clearly have a problem with the “So help me God” portion? Either they lie to graduate (which then falls foul of the “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” clause), or have their First Amendment rights trampled upon – ironically by the kind of moron who would be the first to claim he’s being persecuted, because homosexuals feel they deserve the same basic rights he enjoys. Add Buddhists to the mix, who also have no central “God” to ask for help. Will a Muslim kid be allowed to say “So help me Allah?” I doubt it – after all, we all know the God this moron has in mind – that blonde-haired, blue-eyed, rich Anglo-Saxon God of the Conservative Testament.
• What about foreign students attending school in Arizona? Will they be forced to renounce their citizenship, or just not graduate? Then again, given that they’re probably filthy liberals anyway, from countries with socialized medicine, I’m sure the Arizonan legislators would be happy to see the back of any foreigners. If a child of illegal immigrants says the oath, is he automatically a US citizen?

There is so much wrong with this proposed legislation. Quite possibly the worst being that it does absolutely nothing to actually promote or improve the quality of education in Arizona. It’s just the efforts of a little man to impose his beliefs on the populace at large. Of course, it’s easier to spout ineffectual crap like this, than dealing with actual problems.

Arizona has the highest drop-out rate in the US – 7.8% in 2009-2010, with a graduation rate of 74.7% – well below the national average of 78.2%. Graduation rates are the number of ninth graders who go on to graduate within four years. Then again, a dumb electorate is exactly what these people need in order to stay in power.

Added to this is the fact that Arizona also heads up the national list for the highest incidence of alcohol use, binge drinking, and cocaine use amongst its youth, not to mention access to drugs at school. Arizona schools ranked #1 for alcohol use, binge drinking, and for students who were offered, sold, or given drugs at school. They ranked #2 for cocaine use and drinking on school grounds. Hardly a pretty picture.

One would think that idiots like Thorpe would be far more concerned with these dire threats to the future of the country. However, tackling drop-out rates and drug problems is probably far beyond his mental capabilities. So instead of trying to improve his schools, the people who are in charge of fixing the education crisis are proposing solutions that would only waste more classroom time and exclude many students from graduating, despite fulfilling their current requirements.

Good to the Republicans have everybody’s best interests at heart, because nothing fixes a problem like more creepy chanting.

However, I’m going to start off with something that really made my day – a picture posted by the Facebook group “I fucking love science.” They say a picture paints a 1,000 words and this is a prime example… and not just because it consists mostly of words. It’s just a shining example of how insane Conservapedia, and its founder – and author of this gem – Andrew Schlafly really are. It’s probably worth mentioning that Schlafly does have a B.Sc in electrical engineering, to go with his Harvard law degree. Which probably explains why he earns a living screwing up helpless children’s minds in a church basement.

I’ve managed to ignore his dribbling rantings for some time now, but seeing as he’s returned to the blogosphere with yet another homophobic rant, I thought I’d cast my jaundiced eye in his direction one more time.

You have to understand that in Macdonald’s world, all homosexual men have handlebar mustaches, leather hotpants, Nazi peak caps and want nothing more than to roger innocent men and boys. So, basically a Jack Chick wet dream then. Add to this a raging paranoia that the government is coming for his guns and bodily fluids any day now, and a staggering ignorance of the topics he rants about, and you have a recipe for facepalm-inducing stupidity.

Case in point – Macdonald starts off by mentioning the story about Kevin Clash, the Sesame Street puppeteer who’s been charged with diddling little boys. Needless to say – probably because Sesame Street airs on that evil, socialist PBS, and Mitt didn’t win, so he can’t fire Big Bird – Macdonald almost implies that PBS are at fault here:

Change the channel to your local PBS station every morning and catch that bastion of pre-school education, Sesame Street, where a big yellow bird struts near a group of kids learning the ABC’s from a little furry red monster called Elmo, who’s voiced by…an alleged sexual pervert.

He then goes on to blather about how the homosexual agenda is pushing to allow gay scouts and scout masters into the Boy Scouts of America. Not only is he horrified – HORRIFIED – that your children might have to share a tent with these (in his mind) deviants, but it seems as if the BSA have been doing a Catholic Church and covering up prior examples where scout masters have been indulging in a bit of “dip dip dip” with their charges. How, Macdonald asks, can you allow sexual deviants (clad in hot pants and  thigh-high boots,  remember) into the organization when this sort of thing is already going on?

For that matter, Macdonald doesn’t ask how can you let your children attend Mass, where they’re just as likely to be diddled. Neither does he mention, people like Eric Bodenwiser, the Republican anti-gay campaigner, who’s just been had up for having his way with little boys. He can ignore those, because they fall on the conservative end of the spectrum, and explaining them would tax his mental prowess too much.

But you see, here’s the thing that Karajou just can’t get through his bigoted little mind: The problem has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not a thing. It has everything to do with sexual predators and pedophiles.

And yes, the two are not the same. And that’s what Macdonald can’t understand. In projecting his own petty prejudices on a section of the population that are different to him, it’s easy to demonize them. However, most gay people would be as likely to sexually assault as child as Macdonald would be. (I hope that’s an analogy that hold up – experience seems to dictate that whoever in conservative circles is making the biggest noise against something, is quite likely doing exactly that on the side.) Likewise, there are plenty of straight, married men who equally happily have their way with boys and girls. Hell, years ago, the scout master in the small town where I grew up, killed himself after allegations arose about his wrongdoings – and we’re talking a guy who’s happily married, 3 kids, pillar of the community, etc.

Because what Macdonald can’t get into his head, is that for these people, it’s not about the sex. It’s about the power, the control over someone smaller and weaker than themselves (Which, given his massive inferiority complex and thuggish behaviour on Conservapedia, should be something he’d understand). And that is why people like this gravitate to the priesthood, to things like the scouts, or youth organisations – precisely because it provides easy access to their prey. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Where it gets even more surreal, is where Macdonald decides to role play a scene featuring Mrs Liberal. Needless to say, he fails utterly at trying to picture things from a different point of view.

In his little parable, he plays the neighbour (and for some reason I have Quagmire stuck in my head as I picture this) asking Mrs Liberal if she’s ok with them allowing gays in the Boy Scouts. When she says yes, he then asks if he can take her three young daughters camping with him. After all, he leers, “Just what could possibly go wrong?”

When Mrs Liberal (quite rightly too, given the well creepy way Macdonald phrased the situation) rejects the offer and “thinks of accusing her neighbor of being a sexual pervert,” he drops the hallelujah moment on her:

So you’re sitting there thinking about the possibility that your three daughters could be subjected to a sexual attack in the woods by a man you barely know, yet you have no problem with Boy Scouts being in the same situation with people who are sexually-attracted to them?”

Again, not even wrong. If that’s the logic he’s going to apply, then all co-ed trips must certainly be cancelled, because that could just turn into an orgy.

And they’re just as likely to be abused by a pillar of the community, who gets his kicks out of dominating small children.

But for people like Macdonald it’s easier to hate, and blame those who are different. Doing anything else would require them to use what passes for their minds.

]]> http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/oh-noes-the-gays-want-your-children/feed/ 3 cpmonitor