Friday, October 20, 2006

If you are trying to convince Sean Hannity that the world is round, forget it

What is wrong with Sean Hannity? Seriously, is he learning disabled? How hard is it to understand that no one is against listening in on phone conversations between suspected terrorist cells as long as the President obtains a warrant to do it? You know, so that he doesn't break the law? Even a fourth-grader should be able to understand the concept of warrants and probable cause. Yet, Hannity keeps babbling shit like :

"I don't think abandoning our troops on the battlefield or closing your eyes to enemy communications or listening to enemy communications in our country, or killing the economy, or supporting illegal immigration, I don't think that's something (for the Democrats) to run on."

I can just imagine the conversation that would ensue were you to ever try and convince Sean Hannity that contrary to his passionately held belief, the world isn't flat but spherical. It would probably go like this :

You : You know Sean, the world is round, so don't stop driving because you think you might fall off the edge.
Sean Hannity : Round? You mean like a ball?
You : Yes. Like a ball.
Sean Hannity : You mean like the ball they use in tennis games?
You : Er sure, like a tennis ball.
Sean Hannity : Wouldn't the earth shatter if you played tennis with it?
You : The earth is not used in tennis games.
Sean Hannity : You said it is.
You : No, I said it resembles a tennis ball.
Sean Hannity : Hmm..If the earth is so small, how come we all fit on it?
You : I didn't say it is as small as a tennis ball. I said it is round, like a tennis ball.
Sean Hannity : I can only imagine the amount of rubber it must have taken to build the earth.
You : The earth is not made of rubber.
Sean Hannity : A tennis ball is made of rubber and you said the earth is like a tennis ball but isn't as small. Hence, wouldn't it take a lot of rubber to build the earth?
You : I said it is round like a tennis ball, not made of the same material as a tennis ball.
Sean Hannity : So if no one plays tennis with the earth, why did God make a tennis ball shaped earth?
You : There are multiple problems with that question and I wouldn't know where to begin.
Sean Hannity : So you agree that there are problems with the theory that the earth is round like a tennis ball.
You : No there are no problems with this theory and it is actually a fact, not a theory.
Sean Hannity : So if the earth is like a tennis ball, the moon must be like what, a marble?
You : Serenity now, serenity now.
Sean Hannity : You know what, this is way too complicated for me. I think I will stick with the flat earth theory.

And that is kinda the same reason why Sean Hannity keeps propagating the myth that Democrats are against surveillance on terrorists. Because his brain cannot adjust to the fact that the matter might be a tad more complex than that.

Either that or he is being deliberately mendacious. But he is a devout Christian so I think we can dismiss that possibility. Can't we?

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Homophobic Republican senator turns out to be gay

Our useful idiots on the Right are crying rivers of tears over oh, how horrible it is that Republican senator Larry Craig of Idaho has been outed as a closet homosexual. How dare people pry into other people's private lives, they say with significant amounts of righteous indignation. Others are expressing stern disapproval about the alleged efforts of people to make the Republican party of America a pariah in the eyes of social conservatives, a typically Republican voterbase, by "gleefully" publicizing and showcasing its hitherto undisclosed affinity towards anal sex.

Are you fucking kidding me, Idiots 1 and 2?

First of all, Larry Craig is a senator. Not a private individual. And no, this in itself does not give Americans a license to scrutinize his private life. However, the fact that he has voted numerous times in favor of legislation aimed against homosexuals sure does. Look at his Senate voting record (via Pam). Sen. Craig has :

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

You know, when you are a lawmaker who is supporting legislation to be enacted with the aim of allowing the government to intrude into the private lives of your fellow citizens based on their choice of lifestyle, you pretty much forfeit your own right to privacy. Especially when you are, you know, kind of a hypocrite 'cause of your own adherence to that lifestyle.

And dear Idiot 2, these are not, as you put it, "creepy, gleeful efforts at outing". These are attempts to hold our lawmakers accountable for their actions and if not zero, at least minimal standards of hypocrisy.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Ramadan fasting tips from the Ayatollah

The Ayatollah Ali Khameini answers your questions with regard to Ramadan fasting (via Attaturk).

Question: There is a medicine for asthma patients, which is in the form of a spray containing a vapor-borne powder which enters the patient’s lungs through the mouth providing him relief. At times, asthma patients need to use it several times a day. Is it permissible to fast while using such a spray?

Answer: If it is compressed air mixed with medicine in the shape of powder or gas and enters the throat, the fast’s validity is problematic. If fasting without using it is difficult or impossible, using the medicine is permissible. However, it is a caution not to perform any other invalidator and to make qaḍā’ of the fast without using it, if possible.

Editor's translation : If you are merely sick but not in danger of dying, you may not alleviate your sickness with medicine during the fast. However, if you are reasonably sure that you will die without your medication, you may medicate yourself while fasting without incurring a significant amount of Holy wrath in the process.

For more complex situations, for example, if you believe that your demise is imminent in the absence of medication and hence take it but it turns out that you wouldn't really have died, answers about the final destination of your soul will be available with a premium membership.


Question: If somebody masturbates during the month of Ramadan but without any discharge, is his fasting invalidated?

Answer: if he do not intend masturbation and discharging semen and nothing is discharged, his fasting is correct even though he has done a ḥarām act. But, if he intends masturbation or he knows that he usually discharges semen by this process and semen really comes out, it is a ḥarām intentional breaking fasting.

Editor's translation : It is ok to masturbate while fasting as long as you are unaware that the act of stroking yourself repeatedly to the accompaniment of a brief, oh so brief moment of pleasure is actually masturbation.

If you have additional questions about asthma medication, masturbation or any other acts you are desirous of performing during Ramadan but are unsure about the (il)legalities that might be involved, please click on this url and pray that the question of the day matches your inquiry.

Capital investment

Peter Glover at TCS Daily whines about environmentalists creating a lot of global warming themselves while flying places to educate people about global warming. Next thing on Mr Glover's agenda, a critical look at why it should be necessary to buy stuff before selling it at a higher price because c'mon, doesn't buying something result in spending money whereas the whole idea in the first place was to make money? Goddamn, TCS is chock full of idiots. And they call themselves free market capitalists. Ever hear about the concept of capital investment?

Also, I don't think I'm gonna hold my breath waiting for Mr Glover to denounce George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis towards the cause of eternal world peace.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

It's all semantics

If it had been a Democratic president, he would have been called a "tax and spend big government liberal". Since it's Bush we are talking about, he is described as someone who is "willing to deviate from conservative orthodoxy on the role of government". Doesn't that sound positively adorable now?

Oh Glenn Reynolds, you kill me.

In other Instapundit news, he links to some dude claiming to be a "veteran gay and human rights advocate", who is asking the gay wing of the Democratic National Committee, the Human Rights Campaign, to issue a response to the Foley scandal rocking the Congress. Petrelis says :

"The largest gay organization in America and all its members can't see a single reason to weigh in on anything related to Foley, showing HRC has all the backbone of one of the dead, boneless chickens served at their dinners."

First of all, it's not a big fucking scandal because of Foley's homosexuality. It's a big fucking scandal because the other party is under aged. I thought this was pretty obvious. If Foley were to have committed a bank robbery, I bet Mr Petrelis would still have wanted the HRC to issue a response just because he is homosexual. What a fool, this guy.

Secondly, what is with the phrase "one of the dead, boneless chickens served at their dinners"? Sounds like back-handed gay bashing to me, Mr Gay and Human Rights Advocate. Even though, of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong in eating dead boneless chicken for dinner. Personally, I would prefer it to devouring a live skeletal bird which Mr Petrelis appears to have a predilection for.

In other other news, it is well known that Glenn Reynolds likes to periodically publish readers 'emails that accuse him of being a liberal. You know, just so he can preserve his mystical aura of being an unbiased independent. After all how can you call someone who gets slammed by wingnuts a wingnut? Sadly, he must not be getting a lot of those emails now because he has had to resort to publishing some of the more deranged ones. Like, for example, this one :

"You'll be laughing out of the other side of your liberal mouth when your butt buddy, Harold Jr., gets his ass kicked in the election. You guys must be long lost, separated brothers."

That's pretty psychotic. Surprisingly, Reynolds giggles it up like a schoolgirl, apparently flattered out of his wits for being mistaken as a liberal. However, if someone were to have mailed him this same letter, accusing him of being a conservative and using the same general tone of communication, Reynolds would have spent all morning weeping and blustering about the lack of civility in contemporary liberal society.

But speaking as someone who is not deranged, I gotta tell you this, Mr Reynolds, you are no liberal, so quit your goddamn role-playing, no one's buying the pretence.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Condoleezza Rice caught in a flagrant lie

Before :

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al Qaeda attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.

Now : (via Atrios)

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

I know what you are saying, she couldn't recall it, the poor thing, let us give her the benefit of doubt, give her an aspirin and tuck her into a warm bed with a glass of 2% milk and an Ann Coulter book. To which I say, are you out of your motherfucking mind? She was the National Security Advisor. Her job was to remember if she was told that America would be getting a visit from old man Laden's band of bloodthirsty elves. And, of course, to discover a way to bring down his sled with all its jingling bells before it landed on your roof with its cargo of goodies. It's kinda different from, say, forgetting about an appointment for a haircut. A whole lotta different.

But the key question to me is, how come the Secretary of State is so fucking stupid that she didn't realize her lie would be found out sooner or later through the White House records? If not for lying her ass off, she should at least be fired for being so goddamn stupid. And these jackasses want to fight America's war on terror. Give me a fucking break.

I'm guessing that with this shit and the Foley crap, Tony Snow, the White House spokesdick is not gonna want to wake up tomorrow morning. Oh well, bad things happen to evil people. Let us save our sympathy for those who deserve it, like, say, the Green Bay Packers, who are looking to get ass whooped during the next half hour by the Eagles.

But remember as you go to sleep today, Condoleezza lied and people died.

The end of American secularism

So the US Senate has officially done away with the bill of rights. We all know that and we have taken all the necessary precautions. Such as publicly petitioning Schick for adding a 5th, 6th and even a 7th blade to the Quattro razor that will eliminate not only the barest wisp of terroristy facial hair but also the skin that provided an environment conducive to its growth in the first place.

But now, the US House of Representatives, not to be left behind, has achieved a huge victory in dismantling the First Amendment in the form of The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679. This act (via Cosmic Variance) rules that attorneys who challenge and are successful in overturning government actions that are perceived to be violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment cannot recover attorneys fees from the defendant. The Establishment Clause is that section of the First Amendment which prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

Usually, if you sue someone successfully for having encroached upon your constitutional or civil rights, there exists a federal statute which entitles the attorney who represented you to collect his fees not from you, but from the person or entity who was found to be guilty. This new bill will make an exception for cases that allege a violation of the Establishment Clause and require the plaintiff to sue the government out of his own pocket.

Simply put, the US House of Representatives just made it more difficult for an average resident of the US to challenge any governmental actions which, in the view of the resident, are advancing a religious agenda.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there existed a hypothetical religion which included among its most fundamental precepts, a belief that molesting a child is the path to the Lord (any resemblance to an actual religion is merely coincidental). And if the Republican-led US Congress, in order to snag the voter-base consisting of the followers of this religion, decided to sign into law a bill making it mandatory for all Americans to molest a child every sunday. If it so happens that you are not a follower of that religion, you would probably say to yourself, you know what, the First Amendment gives me the religious freedom to choose not to molest a child every sunday. And then, you would contact an attorney and ask him to challenge this mandatory child molestation law in court on your behalf.

In happier times, your attorney would have listened to your side of the story, stamped his legal approval on your contention that the government should quit forcing religion and child molestation down your throat, and agreed to represent you in court, safe in the knowledge that he would be collecting his legal fees from the government if he were to win the suit, regardless of whether you were in a position to pay him or not.

Now, the passage of this new bill would make the decision to sue much more difficult for you. Since the bill absolves the government of any financial responsibilities, instead putting them on your shoulders, essentially, the bill would force you to choose between resigning yourself to a lifestyle of child molestation or spending a boatload of money in battling for your right not to follow that lifestyle. And if you are an average person with an average income and cannot afford an attorney, you would probably choose to molest regardless of the fact that it is against the tenets of your religion.

This bill signifies the continued descent of America into a religious theocracy. It gives the government a free pass to inject religion into any sphere of society it chooses to and places the financial burden of justifying its illegality on the citizen who would disagree with it. And finally, it makes it difficult for a citizen to challenge the government on any matter which the government has deemed to be of a religious nature.