Congratulations on winning the District 50 senate race. Your phone is "busy"...no doubt with good wishes!The rest of the letter is a collection of biblical quotes and sermonizing babble any of us could write quite easily after downing a few. But I just don't understand how people can arrogantly foist some vague concept like Jesus Christ on people who clearly have their own vaguer concepts to uphold. Ordering a Hindu to believe in Jesus is akin to a South Indian denouncing a Punjabi guy for eating sarson da saag instead of idli sambar.I've enjoyed much of this race, especially the people I've met...even you! I see your deficits--not all of them, and your potential--but not all of it. Only your Creator knows the real potential He's put in you. Get to know Him and know yourself...you'll be more interesting even to you!
The race of your life is more important than this one--and it is my sincere wish that you'll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine--and especially for those who accept His forgiveness. His kingdom will come and His will be done--on earth as it is in heaven. There's more....I love belonging to the family of God. Jesus is the way, the truth and offers His life to you and each human being. Pay attention...this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself...at some moment in time, yet???
Friday, November 17, 2006
A Minnesota Republican's letter of concession
Here's part of a letter of concession (via PZ) which a Minnesota State Senatorial candidate sent her victorious opponent after the election. What makes this letter interesting is that the candidate Rae Hart Anderson, a Republican, uses it to try and convert her opponent, Satveer Chaudhary, a practising Hindu to Christianity. It's actually quite hilarious if you think religious fundamentalism is funny.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
US midterm election results
Democrats will take over the US House of representatives, could quite possibly take over the Senate as well if they manage to snag Montana and Virginia. Macacas (both taxi-driving and non) all over the country have been observed holding their breaths in anticipation.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi will be the first ever female Speaker of the US House and number 3 in the Presidential line of succession after the Vice President in case the quail were to ever fight back.
Most Philadelphia suburbs kicked out the Republican Congressional incumbent including Sen. Rick Santorum who will now have more time to obsess over homosexuality and man-on-dog sex in the comfort and privacy of his own home. In addition, Democratic PA Governor Ed Rendell was re-elected. Rendell did a lot of good things including completing the modernization of the Amtrak Keystone corridor, which will hopefully be a precursor for others to follow in ushering American rail travel into the 18th century. Still a long way to go, but good job nevertheless, PA citizens.
South Dakota rejected the strict anti-abortion bill which would deny abortions to anyone except, in the words of Republican state Senator Bill Napoli, the highly special case of a "rape victim, brutally raped, savaged" who happened to be "a virgin", but more to the point, "a religious virgin", who had "planned on saving her virginity until she was married" and who "was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated".
The rejection of this bill will now allow religious virgins who were raped, brutalized and impregnated but sadly, managed to not get sodomized, to still obtain an abortion nevertheless.
Missouri elected Democrat Claire McCaskill as US Senator, also approving a constitutional amendment permitting embryonic stem cell research. Ms. McCaskill was helped in her campaign by Michael J Fox, who starred in a campaign commercial asking Missouri voters to consider the implications of stem cell research in overcoming debilitating diseases and vote for McCaskill, a pro-stem cell candidate. Actor Jim Caviezel, who appeared in a counter-ad protesting stem cell research, is still trying to come to terms with the fact that he isn't really Jesus Christ.
Glenn Reynolds, that highly acclaimed political analyst, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, continues to pretend that the election was predicated by everything except the Iraq war.
Gays who are not pedophiles won seats.
Gays who are pedophiles lost seats.
Heterosexuals who tried to strangle their mistresses lost seats.
And finally, Democratic control of the House might pave the way for the comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill to be passed into law, thus allowing numerous Macacas to not spend entire lifetimes in the US waiting to get a green card.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi will be the first ever female Speaker of the US House and number 3 in the Presidential line of succession after the Vice President in case the quail were to ever fight back.
Most Philadelphia suburbs kicked out the Republican Congressional incumbent including Sen. Rick Santorum who will now have more time to obsess over homosexuality and man-on-dog sex in the comfort and privacy of his own home. In addition, Democratic PA Governor Ed Rendell was re-elected. Rendell did a lot of good things including completing the modernization of the Amtrak Keystone corridor, which will hopefully be a precursor for others to follow in ushering American rail travel into the 18th century. Still a long way to go, but good job nevertheless, PA citizens.
South Dakota rejected the strict anti-abortion bill which would deny abortions to anyone except, in the words of Republican state Senator Bill Napoli, the highly special case of a "rape victim, brutally raped, savaged" who happened to be "a virgin", but more to the point, "a religious virgin", who had "planned on saving her virginity until she was married" and who "was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated".
The rejection of this bill will now allow religious virgins who were raped, brutalized and impregnated but sadly, managed to not get sodomized, to still obtain an abortion nevertheless.
Missouri elected Democrat Claire McCaskill as US Senator, also approving a constitutional amendment permitting embryonic stem cell research. Ms. McCaskill was helped in her campaign by Michael J Fox, who starred in a campaign commercial asking Missouri voters to consider the implications of stem cell research in overcoming debilitating diseases and vote for McCaskill, a pro-stem cell candidate. Actor Jim Caviezel, who appeared in a counter-ad protesting stem cell research, is still trying to come to terms with the fact that he isn't really Jesus Christ.
Glenn Reynolds, that highly acclaimed political analyst, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, continues to pretend that the election was predicated by everything except the Iraq war.
Gays who are not pedophiles won seats.
Gays who are pedophiles lost seats.
Heterosexuals who tried to strangle their mistresses lost seats.
And finally, Democratic control of the House might pave the way for the comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill to be passed into law, thus allowing numerous Macacas to not spend entire lifetimes in the US waiting to get a green card.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The pictures
(updated below)
I usually do not participate in the partisan slugfests that keep occurring at regularly scheduled intervals in the Indian blogosphere. Not because I am against alienating people from either side 'cause seriously, I couldn't give a fuck, but because I do not owe allegiance to any ideology in particular, and so, I find it hard to agree with anybody's views in their entirety on any particular issue.
But not this time. This is what happened. Shivam Vij posted pictures of the Kherlanji massacre of a Dalit family on his blog. The pictures included a graphic photograph of the raped and murdered girl containing partial nudity (or so they say, it has since been removed). This led to a number of people writing horror-stricken blog posts condemning Shivam's "lack of respect for the dignity of the dead" in posting these pictures and accusing him of trying to attract hits and attention through this medium.
Confused claims that pictures need not be shown and that wisely selected words should be enough to make people realize the horror of the crime. I disagree. Pictures are everything. Pictures put a face to the victim who would otherwise have just been a statistic. The actual sight of violence and bloodshed perpetrated by man on his brother / sister makes all the difference in overcoming the sterility of the printed word. The tremendous power of pictures in shaking people from their apathetic stupor is the reason why the Bush administration has banned pictures of coffins arriving from Iraq. It is also the reason why each time the American media depicts the violence and death occurring over in that blighted nation on screen, it causes the warmongering community consisting of Glenn Reynolds and his band of Bush cultists to protest about "liberal media bias". And it was the poignant sight of a Michael J Fox swaying uncontrollably on television as he pled for public support towards stem cell research that caused people to take notice and changed a whole lot of minds. Pictures are much more powerful than words and that is a fact.
Secondly, Sabnis, as well as other members of the anti-picture brigade claim that posting these pictures strip the dead of their dignity and that we should respect the privacy of the dead.
What does that even mean? What dignity? Dignity is a quality that lives and dies with a living being. Once you die, along with your clothes, wealth and silicon implants, you also leave your dignity behind. Whose dignity are we then protecting?
And let's say, if you actually did continue to possess dignity after you were dead, wouldn't your dignity be better served by raising awareness about the crime that was perpetrated on you, about the people who raped and murdered you who might get away scot free in the absence of a public outcry against their deeds? Wouldn't you feel that way, if it were you who were the victim?
Why, then, is Gaurav Sabnis foisting his own ideas about post mortem dignity on the dead? Isn't he kind of, you know, stripping away their dignity by doing that?
And before Sabnis asks me that question, yes, if it were my mother or sister who were raped and killed in that manner, if the government were not to come to my assistance, if my story were to be killed by the media, yes, fuck, yes, I would like their pictures to be plastered all over the media, over the blogosphere, dignity and privacy be damned. In fact, I would even be willing to pay for people to spread the word, just to raise awareness, just to get justice. And I would like my prime minister and every member of his cabinet to wake up and see those pictures first thing in the morning. I would like the nation to be ashamed of what its citizens are capable of. And that is me speaking for myself, not for the family of the dead, unlike Sabnis.
Sabnis then writes a follow up post defending his earlier post, which he nonchalantly begins with the sentence : "Shivam Vij has removed the naked picture." Nice job missing the point. That single sentence does more to illustrate the problem at the core of this business, namely, confusing violence with pornography. Sabnis sees the picture as that of a dead naked woman whereas the entire purpose of putting up the picture was clearly to showcase the savagery inflicted upon the woman and not the fact that she was missing her fucking top. Bizarre.
Lastly, I want to point out Sabnis' sentence in his later post where he says
"I found Shivam Vij's post distasteful, and conforming to the cheap attention-seeking, shock-inducing standards that seem to prevail in the Indian media nowadays."
Contrast this with Sabnis' attitude a couple of weeks ago towards a brother of the so-called Cartel who wrote a post containing the following literary gem :
"I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us in ‘depreviledging’ systems by opening access to her arsehole. Everyone from Thakurs to Dalits to whites to blacks to barnyard animals to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants should be able to enter it at will. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to anal sex with Tejal, especially when she herself has the ability to make everyone a have."
And Sabnis' comment on this post?
"This is the best post ever. It is a splendid illustration of the sanctity of the owner’s rights over his private property. Unfortunately, many people do not have the capacity, willingness or maturity to grasp the succinctness of Aadisht’s argument."
So, to recap, Shivam's posting of a picture of a raped woman on his blog in a post condemning the rape equals a manifestation of the "distasteful, and conforming to the cheap attention-seeking, shock-inducing standards" prevailing in the media. Aadisht.net's post, critiquing a commentator using penetration of her arsehole as a prop, on the other hand, equals the best post ever written and anyone who would criticize all that talk about arsehole penetration (a living person's arsehole, by the way, talk about being a pro-dignity crusader) lacks the maturity to grasp the intricate argument that nestles underneath. Oh, the hilarity.
Note that I am not offering any opinion about utilizing shock value to raise awareness on an issue 'cause God knows I have indulged in it myself. However, I do find someone objecting to "attention seeking" and "shock-inducing" in one case while glorifying it in another kinda strange.
But ultimately, all this ongoing bullshit will continue to be bullshit. People will continue to get offended by controversial pictures while losing the actual point that was being made. Other people will continue to lose sight of the point themselves while getting diverted into defending those pictures. And meanwhile, atrocities will continue to be committed, reported upon and forgotten.
Update : It appears to me that anyone who has an opinion on this issue needs to first ask himself the following three questions :
1.> Do you hate Shivam?
2.> Do you doubt Shivam's motives in posting the pictures?
3.> How do you feel about posting such pictures in general?
If you answered yes to the first two questions, you should probably not bother asking yourself the third question, which actually happens to be the most important question of all. Unfortunately, most of who have commented on this issue so far have concentrated on answering yes to the first two questions and assumed that this automatically answers the third question. That is kind of stupid.
Update II : Here's Shivam's entire article for Tehelka of which the pictures were a precursor.
I usually do not participate in the partisan slugfests that keep occurring at regularly scheduled intervals in the Indian blogosphere. Not because I am against alienating people from either side 'cause seriously, I couldn't give a fuck, but because I do not owe allegiance to any ideology in particular, and so, I find it hard to agree with anybody's views in their entirety on any particular issue.
But not this time. This is what happened. Shivam Vij posted pictures of the Kherlanji massacre of a Dalit family on his blog. The pictures included a graphic photograph of the raped and murdered girl containing partial nudity (or so they say, it has since been removed). This led to a number of people writing horror-stricken blog posts condemning Shivam's "lack of respect for the dignity of the dead" in posting these pictures and accusing him of trying to attract hits and attention through this medium.
Confused claims that pictures need not be shown and that wisely selected words should be enough to make people realize the horror of the crime. I disagree. Pictures are everything. Pictures put a face to the victim who would otherwise have just been a statistic. The actual sight of violence and bloodshed perpetrated by man on his brother / sister makes all the difference in overcoming the sterility of the printed word. The tremendous power of pictures in shaking people from their apathetic stupor is the reason why the Bush administration has banned pictures of coffins arriving from Iraq. It is also the reason why each time the American media depicts the violence and death occurring over in that blighted nation on screen, it causes the warmongering community consisting of Glenn Reynolds and his band of Bush cultists to protest about "liberal media bias". And it was the poignant sight of a Michael J Fox swaying uncontrollably on television as he pled for public support towards stem cell research that caused people to take notice and changed a whole lot of minds. Pictures are much more powerful than words and that is a fact.
Enter Gaurav Sabnis. He embarks on a blogpost with a couple of assumptions he peddles as fact with everything that follows in his post depending upon those "facts" for their meaning. Fact number 1 : Shivam is an attention-seeking journalist-whore. Fact number 2 : Shivam merely fakes his concern for Dalits and given a choice, he would not think twice before selling their mutilated bodies on the internet. No evidence is provided to back up these "facts". Once these "facts" have been reported as fact, whatever he says later becomes impenetrable to refutation because of his fundamental preconceived assumptions regarding Shivam's character.
However, the fact (without the air-quotes) is that there exists considerable evidence that contradicts them. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the Indian blogosphere should know that Shivam has been an activist for the Dalit cause for quite some time, as he explains on his blog. Which is why unless someone actually provides me with some evidence to the contrary, I would give Shivam the benefit of doubt in this respect.
However, the fact (without the air-quotes) is that there exists considerable evidence that contradicts them. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the Indian blogosphere should know that Shivam has been an activist for the Dalit cause for quite some time, as he explains on his blog. Which is why unless someone actually provides me with some evidence to the contrary, I would give Shivam the benefit of doubt in this respect.
Secondly, Sabnis, as well as other members of the anti-picture brigade claim that posting these pictures strip the dead of their dignity and that we should respect the privacy of the dead.
What does that even mean? What dignity? Dignity is a quality that lives and dies with a living being. Once you die, along with your clothes, wealth and silicon implants, you also leave your dignity behind. Whose dignity are we then protecting?
And let's say, if you actually did continue to possess dignity after you were dead, wouldn't your dignity be better served by raising awareness about the crime that was perpetrated on you, about the people who raped and murdered you who might get away scot free in the absence of a public outcry against their deeds? Wouldn't you feel that way, if it were you who were the victim?
Why, then, is Gaurav Sabnis foisting his own ideas about post mortem dignity on the dead? Isn't he kind of, you know, stripping away their dignity by doing that?
And before Sabnis asks me that question, yes, if it were my mother or sister who were raped and killed in that manner, if the government were not to come to my assistance, if my story were to be killed by the media, yes, fuck, yes, I would like their pictures to be plastered all over the media, over the blogosphere, dignity and privacy be damned. In fact, I would even be willing to pay for people to spread the word, just to raise awareness, just to get justice. And I would like my prime minister and every member of his cabinet to wake up and see those pictures first thing in the morning. I would like the nation to be ashamed of what its citizens are capable of. And that is me speaking for myself, not for the family of the dead, unlike Sabnis.
Sabnis then writes a follow up post defending his earlier post, which he nonchalantly begins with the sentence : "Shivam Vij has removed the naked picture." Nice job missing the point. That single sentence does more to illustrate the problem at the core of this business, namely, confusing violence with pornography. Sabnis sees the picture as that of a dead naked woman whereas the entire purpose of putting up the picture was clearly to showcase the savagery inflicted upon the woman and not the fact that she was missing her fucking top. Bizarre.
Lastly, I want to point out Sabnis' sentence in his later post where he says
"I found Shivam Vij's post distasteful, and conforming to the cheap attention-seeking, shock-inducing standards that seem to prevail in the Indian media nowadays."
Contrast this with Sabnis' attitude a couple of weeks ago towards a brother of the so-called Cartel who wrote a post containing the following literary gem :
"I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us in ‘depreviledging’ systems by opening access to her arsehole. Everyone from Thakurs to Dalits to whites to blacks to barnyard animals to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants should be able to enter it at will. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to anal sex with Tejal, especially when she herself has the ability to make everyone a have."
And Sabnis' comment on this post?
"This is the best post ever. It is a splendid illustration of the sanctity of the owner’s rights over his private property. Unfortunately, many people do not have the capacity, willingness or maturity to grasp the succinctness of Aadisht’s argument."
So, to recap, Shivam's posting of a picture of a raped woman on his blog in a post condemning the rape equals a manifestation of the "distasteful, and conforming to the cheap attention-seeking, shock-inducing standards" prevailing in the media. Aadisht.net's post, critiquing a commentator using penetration of her arsehole as a prop, on the other hand, equals the best post ever written and anyone who would criticize all that talk about arsehole penetration (a living person's arsehole, by the way, talk about being a pro-dignity crusader) lacks the maturity to grasp the intricate argument that nestles underneath. Oh, the hilarity.
Note that I am not offering any opinion about utilizing shock value to raise awareness on an issue 'cause God knows I have indulged in it myself. However, I do find someone objecting to "attention seeking" and "shock-inducing" in one case while glorifying it in another kinda strange.
But ultimately, all this ongoing bullshit will continue to be bullshit. People will continue to get offended by controversial pictures while losing the actual point that was being made. Other people will continue to lose sight of the point themselves while getting diverted into defending those pictures. And meanwhile, atrocities will continue to be committed, reported upon and forgotten.
Update : It appears to me that anyone who has an opinion on this issue needs to first ask himself the following three questions :
1.> Do you hate Shivam?
2.> Do you doubt Shivam's motives in posting the pictures?
3.> How do you feel about posting such pictures in general?
If you answered yes to the first two questions, you should probably not bother asking yourself the third question, which actually happens to be the most important question of all. Unfortunately, most of who have commented on this issue so far have concentrated on answering yes to the first two questions and assumed that this automatically answers the third question. That is kind of stupid.
Update II : Here's Shivam's entire article for Tehelka of which the pictures were a precursor.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Quote of the day
Republican Florida Congressional gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist, explaining his opposition to gay marriage (via maru) :
"Marriage is a sacred relationship — like I had, before I got divorced."
"Marriage is a sacred relationship — like I had, before I got divorced."
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 29, 2006
RIP US
The US Senate has passed a bill that suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus. The US government will henceforth be able to legally imprison and torture anyone indefinitely without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in court, be it US citizen or enemy combatant ('cause we know that one can either be the former or the latter, there is no option C), based on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist. A big thank you to the legal community, we will not be requiring your services any more. We are guilty as charged, fuck judicial procedure and assumption of innocence unless proven guilty.
Good bye Land of the Free, welcome Home of the so fucking craven that they would throw their own mother into a dungeon if they were to catch her eating humus rolled up in a pita.
A few words of caution for anyone with a wheatish complexion. Please dispose of all your turbans and dupattas in a safe and eco-friendly manner. Maintain a clean shaven profile and try not to look terroristy. If you have to venture outside, make sure you do so only under the cover of darkness.
Thank you Democratic Party. Thank you for remembering to wear your diapers before you pissed all over our kitchen floor. The next time someone assaults our rights, we know who to call.
Go here for a eulogy. Then go here to pay your last respects to the dying nation.
Osama if you don't wipe that smirk off your face I'm gonna walk over there and turn off your dialysis machine.
Speaking of fundamentalists, oh oh, Glenn Reynolds, the revered Instapundit, seems to be uncomfortable with this bill. How's that possible? After all, it's the Fearless Leader's wish. Here's why :
According to an email published by Jonah Goldberg, the bill doesn't just apply to aliens.....But if it's true, it's a major problem with the bill, one that increases the likelihood ofits being found unconstitutional, and one that would make me much more unhappy with the bill.
Imprison a foreigner without access to legal aid, attach electrodes to his testicles, hey that's just fine with me, says the Glennster. Just don't do it to an American citizen. 'Cause that would be an unAmerican thing to do.
Good bye Land of the Free, welcome Home of the so fucking craven that they would throw their own mother into a dungeon if they were to catch her eating humus rolled up in a pita.
A few words of caution for anyone with a wheatish complexion. Please dispose of all your turbans and dupattas in a safe and eco-friendly manner. Maintain a clean shaven profile and try not to look terroristy. If you have to venture outside, make sure you do so only under the cover of darkness.
Thank you Democratic Party. Thank you for remembering to wear your diapers before you pissed all over our kitchen floor. The next time someone assaults our rights, we know who to call.
Go here for a eulogy. Then go here to pay your last respects to the dying nation.
Osama if you don't wipe that smirk off your face I'm gonna walk over there and turn off your dialysis machine.
Speaking of fundamentalists, oh oh, Glenn Reynolds, the revered Instapundit, seems to be uncomfortable with this bill. How's that possible? After all, it's the Fearless Leader's wish. Here's why :
According to an email published by Jonah Goldberg, the bill doesn't just apply to aliens.....But if it's true, it's a major problem with the bill, one that increases the likelihood ofits being found unconstitutional, and one that would make me much more unhappy with the bill.
Imprison a foreigner without access to legal aid, attach electrodes to his testicles, hey that's just fine with me, says the Glennster. Just don't do it to an American citizen. 'Cause that would be an unAmerican thing to do.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Pope says dead Byzantine Emperor actually respected Islam
After raising a furor over his comments in an address in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI (16) is now taking steps to quell the rising tide of anger unleashed against him in the Islamic world.
During his address at the University of Regensburg, the pope had quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus as having said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Naturally, this led to a violent reaction by Muslims who disagreed with this assessment of their religion, causing the Pope to withdraw the now-dead Emperor's remarks. In a ceremony at the Vatican, the pope re-quoted Emperor Paleologus as having said that he was sorry for the reaction he had caused within the Islamic community and that he had no way of knowing that people in 2006 would still remember his words from 600 years ago which had been uttered during the heat of the moment after losing all his earthly possessions to his friend, Abu Salim during a frantic game of poker.
However, the Muslim world, being unsatisfied with a mere withdrawal of the Emperor's statement, continued to seethe at the pope's quotes of the Emperor's accusation of Islam being a sword-friendly religion, even killing an Italian nun to argue their case. This finally resulted in the pope getting together with a number of diplomats from Islamic countries and telling them that in his latest post-mortem transmission from beyond the grave, the Emperor Paleologus had said that not only was he sorry for the reaction to his quotes, he even respected Islam and that he apologized for having put his good friend Pope Benedict XIV (16) in such a politically precarious position.
On being asked about the reason behind the sudden turn-around in the Emperor's views, the Pope Benedict XVI (16) replied, "Well, it's almost the beginning of Ramadan and the season for fasting and as we all know, hunger can really drive people to violence."
During his address at the University of Regensburg, the pope had quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus as having said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Naturally, this led to a violent reaction by Muslims who disagreed with this assessment of their religion, causing the Pope to withdraw the now-dead Emperor's remarks. In a ceremony at the Vatican, the pope re-quoted Emperor Paleologus as having said that he was sorry for the reaction he had caused within the Islamic community and that he had no way of knowing that people in 2006 would still remember his words from 600 years ago which had been uttered during the heat of the moment after losing all his earthly possessions to his friend, Abu Salim during a frantic game of poker.
However, the Muslim world, being unsatisfied with a mere withdrawal of the Emperor's statement, continued to seethe at the pope's quotes of the Emperor's accusation of Islam being a sword-friendly religion, even killing an Italian nun to argue their case. This finally resulted in the pope getting together with a number of diplomats from Islamic countries and telling them that in his latest post-mortem transmission from beyond the grave, the Emperor Paleologus had said that not only was he sorry for the reaction to his quotes, he even respected Islam and that he apologized for having put his good friend Pope Benedict XIV (16) in such a politically precarious position.
On being asked about the reason behind the sudden turn-around in the Emperor's views, the Pope Benedict XVI (16) replied, "Well, it's almost the beginning of Ramadan and the season for fasting and as we all know, hunger can really drive people to violence."
Monday, September 25, 2006
Monday Night Football to restore New Orleans' image as a city of rich black athletes
The NFL game to be played tonight between the New Orleans Saints and the Atlanta Falcons at the Louisiana Superdome will be a major step forward in restoring the aura of wealth and prosperity back on New Orleans, the city that was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina a year ago.
Tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern time, amidst the pomp and pageantry of the NFL's monday night games, the Louisiana Superdome will cast off the depressing image Americans have been associating with it for all of last year, namely, as a refuge for poor black people huddled within its cavernous interior, battling the hurricane raging outside. Instead, the Superdome will once again regain its former image as a place where rich black athletes compete against each other once every two weeks, six months of every year.
Although most of New Orleans' black neighbourhoods still lie in ruins, the return of football to this city is an important milestone in the mission of making New Orleans habitable for tourists staying there for upto two days at a time. It is hoped that the plan for diverting the money earmarked for building schools, hospitals and government buildings into the rebuilding of the Superdome will return rich dividends by bringing football fans to the city, whose fanatical desire for hot dogs, alcohol and marijuana will provide a shot in the arm to the hospitality and drug peddling industries that were the worst hit after the hurricane.
New Orleans Saints wide receiver Joe Horn defended the decision to rebuild the city one football stadium at a time. "If you can rebuild a place that's 1.9 million square feet, you should be able to come back here and rebuild a 3,000-square foot house.", said Mr Horn. "And now that the Superdome has been reconstructed, we now know for a fact that building a 3,000 square foot house indeed lies within our capabilities."
Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco who was responsible for getting the FEMA to pay up 120 million dollars towards the reconstruction of the Superdome, said, "The Superdome was symbolic of a lot of misery. It is now a symbol of recovery. We hope that the brand spanking new sports arena will be a model for New Orleans residents to emulate as they rebuild their own homes and communities on their own."
Governor Blanco also pointed out that a significant portion of the reconstruction of the football stadium was carried out using FEMA funds collected through donations made by hurricane victims themselves. Recognizing the importance of football to their devastated city, these people voluntarily parted with the funds they had received from FEMA as hurricane relief after receiving a request from FEMA to return that money back to the government.
As tonight wears on and the image of NFL players wrestling for possession of the football washes away the image of hurricane refugees wrestling for food and space, the return of football to New Orleans will embody the very basic of American values : Symbolism over Substance.
Tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern time, amidst the pomp and pageantry of the NFL's monday night games, the Louisiana Superdome will cast off the depressing image Americans have been associating with it for all of last year, namely, as a refuge for poor black people huddled within its cavernous interior, battling the hurricane raging outside. Instead, the Superdome will once again regain its former image as a place where rich black athletes compete against each other once every two weeks, six months of every year.
Although most of New Orleans' black neighbourhoods still lie in ruins, the return of football to this city is an important milestone in the mission of making New Orleans habitable for tourists staying there for upto two days at a time. It is hoped that the plan for diverting the money earmarked for building schools, hospitals and government buildings into the rebuilding of the Superdome will return rich dividends by bringing football fans to the city, whose fanatical desire for hot dogs, alcohol and marijuana will provide a shot in the arm to the hospitality and drug peddling industries that were the worst hit after the hurricane.
New Orleans Saints wide receiver Joe Horn defended the decision to rebuild the city one football stadium at a time. "If you can rebuild a place that's 1.9 million square feet, you should be able to come back here and rebuild a 3,000-square foot house.", said Mr Horn. "And now that the Superdome has been reconstructed, we now know for a fact that building a 3,000 square foot house indeed lies within our capabilities."
Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco who was responsible for getting the FEMA to pay up 120 million dollars towards the reconstruction of the Superdome, said, "The Superdome was symbolic of a lot of misery. It is now a symbol of recovery. We hope that the brand spanking new sports arena will be a model for New Orleans residents to emulate as they rebuild their own homes and communities on their own."
Governor Blanco also pointed out that a significant portion of the reconstruction of the football stadium was carried out using FEMA funds collected through donations made by hurricane victims themselves. Recognizing the importance of football to their devastated city, these people voluntarily parted with the funds they had received from FEMA as hurricane relief after receiving a request from FEMA to return that money back to the government.
As tonight wears on and the image of NFL players wrestling for possession of the football washes away the image of hurricane refugees wrestling for food and space, the return of football to New Orleans will embody the very basic of American values : Symbolism over Substance.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Stupid post of the day
The solution to gun violence in colleges? To equip every student with a gun. Try to come up with as many reasons as possible why this is not such a good idea. Via the always reliable online repository of stupid posts.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Compassionate conservatism
Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, two Fox News correspondents who were kidnapped by a Gaza-based Islamist group, were recently released, but only after their captors forcibly converted them to Islam on camera at gunpoint.
Initially, many conservative bloggers denounced these kidnappings and expressed their support for these reporters. They also vented their anger against anti-Fox News biased liberals who they accused of feeling that the men deserved to be kidnapped. But once the correspondents were released after their conversion to Islam, it was a different story. On their return to America, the reporters received a cold reception from the conservative block, even from those who had previously cried rivers of tears on their behalf.
The reason for this bizarre change of heart? The extraordinary cowardice these men had displayed in submitting, at gun point, to renouncingChrist their faith. Many conservative bloggers even said that in the hypothetical event of themselves being in a similar situation, the hypotheticalness exacerbated by the fact that most of these bloggers will have very few opportunities to encounter battlezone conditions outside of JC Penney post-Thanksgiving sales, they would prefer death to religious conversion. Others claimed that the West's war against militant Islam had suffered a severe blow due to this rather wimpish capitulation of Western reporters to their Muslim captors. Of course, none of these critics actually had a gun pointing to their head as they wrote their brave screed, so it is difficult to know whether they would actually have followed up on their promise of choosing "de-capitation over capitulation" in reality.
Jon Swift, an amazing satirist whose blog I've recently discovered, brilliantly tears all these faux warriors to shreds as he points out the rare courage it takes for a conservative behind a keyboard to defend Christianity and Western values by fearlessly defying the threat of a gun pointed at someone else's head.
Initially, many conservative bloggers denounced these kidnappings and expressed their support for these reporters. They also vented their anger against anti-Fox News biased liberals who they accused of feeling that the men deserved to be kidnapped. But once the correspondents were released after their conversion to Islam, it was a different story. On their return to America, the reporters received a cold reception from the conservative block, even from those who had previously cried rivers of tears on their behalf.
The reason for this bizarre change of heart? The extraordinary cowardice these men had displayed in submitting, at gun point, to renouncing
Jon Swift, an amazing satirist whose blog I've recently discovered, brilliantly tears all these faux warriors to shreds as he points out the rare courage it takes for a conservative behind a keyboard to defend Christianity and Western values by fearlessly defying the threat of a gun pointed at someone else's head.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
To be scared or not to be scared
A few days ago, Glenn Reynolds sank deeper into Kook quagmire by acting as an apologist for the passengers of Flight 613 who kicked a couple of Arab-looking, Arab-speaking men off the plane for being Arab-looking and Arab-speaking. Reynolds justified the knee-jerk reaction of the plane passengers by saying "this is the kind of thing that happens when people don't trust the authorities to protect them". Today, bizarrely, he links to an excellent blog post by Bruce Schneier that warns people not to over-react to the threat of terrorism.
But then, just as one is beginning to wonder whether Reynolds has finally broken through the iron curtain that separates the right-wing fearmongers from normal people, he goes ahead and endorses this goofy warning from a paranoid commenter at the blog post he links to, who says :
But then, just as one is beginning to wonder whether Reynolds has finally broken through the iron curtain that separates the right-wing fearmongers from normal people, he goes ahead and endorses this goofy warning from a paranoid commenter at the blog post he links to, who says :
"What's to stop terriorists now just getting on flights and acting suspiciously on purpose. If no crime was committed (I was just checking my watch, saying my prayers, going to the bathroom etc.) they can cause disruption, create paranoia and terror at will and get off scott free."So, after initially asking us to be afraid of Arabs flying on our planes, then warning us not to overreact, Reynolds is now saying that we need to seriously consider a fantastic scenario involving plane-hopping peaceful terrorists who fly from country to country in order to engage in indiscriminate watch-gazing, praying and bathroom-visiting on the plane for the sole purpose of getting that plane diverted and causing people's schedules to go haywire. Okay Glenn, quit confusing me now. Should I be a terrified pant-shitter or not? Just give me a straight answer, yes or no.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Dear God, you kinda lost me there
Hi God, good morning and thank you very much for replying to my instant message and accepting my chat invite :-). I know you are a very busy person and no doubt have numerous fans who send you chat invites and even more who instant message you even when your messenger status clearly says that you are busy and should not be disturbed. God how I hate such people :-(.
But God, please bear with me because I have something very important to ask you. I have to confess God, in the past two weeks you have lost me. I just don't get it, God, I have lost the ability to decipher your signals, I am totally perplexed. As you might be knowing (since you are all-knowing and stuff), I have been following your blog as well as your podcast for many years now, heck, I even play it on my headphones as I sleep because I feel subliminal indoctrination really works. Plus, I try to keep a look-out for any tell-tale messages you might have left for me when I wasn't looking in the form of natural disasters, humanitarian crises and such. For example, it wasn't that hard for me to realize that you created Hurricane Katrina in order to give me a hint that you were kinda pissed at me because I told you I thought my male neighbour was somewhat good-looking, and since then, I have acted on your wishes and inflicted permanent deformity on his face through the use of sulphuric acid. So as you can see God, my neighbour will not be tempting any more innocent men through his sinful yet delectable buttocks ;o) just kidding, God.
But God, I have to admit, for the past two weeks, your messages have been getting increasingly cryptic. I just can't seem to make out what it is that you are trying to tell me. For example, there was that one instance of this tree suddenly starting to spout water through its trunk. What did it mean, God? Why a tree? Why that particular tree? Did you want me to chop down that tree and turn it into a Bible? I know people are saying it might just be a burst water pipe and that the water probably rose up through its trunk, but have you heard anything funnier or less believable than that theory? What next, water rising up through the air? Evolution? ROTFLMAO.
Sorry God, I had to leave my desk because I was actually rolling on the floor there, you know I wouldn't use ROTFLMAO if I wasn't really doing it, don't you? God? God? Oh there you are. Please scroll back for my apology.
So as I was saying, God, then, a week ago, there was that chocolate bar that you sculpted into a statue of the Virgin Mary. Again, I confess, I didn't get it, dear Lord and Savior. Did you not want me to eat that piece of chocolate? I know sometimes eating chocolate can get me to feel a bit, let's say mildly amorous, but I did not know you felt so strongly about it. Or do you believe that chocolates, like human embryos, are living sentient beings and do not wish to be killed? But as I said, this is all just conjecture on my part.
But God, in my humble opinion, what you did in Mumbai was the most puzzling of all your actions. Why did you turn all that seawater sweet? Was it really to cure all of our illnesses and make us immortal? I got my mother back home in India to send me some of that stuff in a bottle, and I gotta tell you God, it really tastes like shit. If what they say is true and it is just the pollution making it sweet, I guess the water's gonna be getting a lot sweeter in the coming days after the sewage discharge of Mumbaikars quadruples on consuming this stuff. But then, God, maybe your point in decreasing the salinity of the sea was to try and get me to reduce the salt intake in my diet. Was that it? Please God, did you look into my future and see elevated blood pressure? I've got to know.
And finally, what is it with this latest sign where you made all those idols drink milk? I didn't know you were into dairy products, who would've guessed? But I guess you are a simple person, just like me ^o^.
But whatever it was, God, I just feel like we are not on the same wavelength anymore. It seems like you are trying to tell me things and that I'm not quite getting them. Could you please be somewhat less ambiguous about your commands? If you want me to go kill someone just tell me that in plain language, send me a text message, an email, please don't use symbols such as, say, a goat that shits a turd in the shape of a revolver or something. Seriously God, that stuff is pretty hard to decipher. Plus, it might just be a coincidence, in which case, I would have committed a sin in your eyes, and as everybody knows, you are only okay with crimes that have been explicitly sanctioned by you.
And about all those other things, God, I have a humble suggestion. Just create a Wikipedia entry and add detailed explanations as to your real intent behind performing all those wonderful miracles. And don't worry, no one's gonna edit it. After all, people don't want to go to Hell, do they?
Bye God and thank you for chatting with me. I will let George W. Bush know you said Hello.
XOXOXOX on your feet.
But God, please bear with me because I have something very important to ask you. I have to confess God, in the past two weeks you have lost me. I just don't get it, God, I have lost the ability to decipher your signals, I am totally perplexed. As you might be knowing (since you are all-knowing and stuff), I have been following your blog as well as your podcast for many years now, heck, I even play it on my headphones as I sleep because I feel subliminal indoctrination really works. Plus, I try to keep a look-out for any tell-tale messages you might have left for me when I wasn't looking in the form of natural disasters, humanitarian crises and such. For example, it wasn't that hard for me to realize that you created Hurricane Katrina in order to give me a hint that you were kinda pissed at me because I told you I thought my male neighbour was somewhat good-looking, and since then, I have acted on your wishes and inflicted permanent deformity on his face through the use of sulphuric acid. So as you can see God, my neighbour will not be tempting any more innocent men through his sinful yet delectable buttocks ;o) just kidding, God.
But God, I have to admit, for the past two weeks, your messages have been getting increasingly cryptic. I just can't seem to make out what it is that you are trying to tell me. For example, there was that one instance of this tree suddenly starting to spout water through its trunk. What did it mean, God? Why a tree? Why that particular tree? Did you want me to chop down that tree and turn it into a Bible? I know people are saying it might just be a burst water pipe and that the water probably rose up through its trunk, but have you heard anything funnier or less believable than that theory? What next, water rising up through the air? Evolution? ROTFLMAO.
Sorry God, I had to leave my desk because I was actually rolling on the floor there, you know I wouldn't use ROTFLMAO if I wasn't really doing it, don't you? God? God? Oh there you are. Please scroll back for my apology.
So as I was saying, God, then, a week ago, there was that chocolate bar that you sculpted into a statue of the Virgin Mary. Again, I confess, I didn't get it, dear Lord and Savior. Did you not want me to eat that piece of chocolate? I know sometimes eating chocolate can get me to feel a bit, let's say mildly amorous, but I did not know you felt so strongly about it. Or do you believe that chocolates, like human embryos, are living sentient beings and do not wish to be killed? But as I said, this is all just conjecture on my part.
But God, in my humble opinion, what you did in Mumbai was the most puzzling of all your actions. Why did you turn all that seawater sweet? Was it really to cure all of our illnesses and make us immortal? I got my mother back home in India to send me some of that stuff in a bottle, and I gotta tell you God, it really tastes like shit. If what they say is true and it is just the pollution making it sweet, I guess the water's gonna be getting a lot sweeter in the coming days after the sewage discharge of Mumbaikars quadruples on consuming this stuff. But then, God, maybe your point in decreasing the salinity of the sea was to try and get me to reduce the salt intake in my diet. Was that it? Please God, did you look into my future and see elevated blood pressure? I've got to know.
And finally, what is it with this latest sign where you made all those idols drink milk? I didn't know you were into dairy products, who would've guessed? But I guess you are a simple person, just like me ^o^.
But whatever it was, God, I just feel like we are not on the same wavelength anymore. It seems like you are trying to tell me things and that I'm not quite getting them. Could you please be somewhat less ambiguous about your commands? If you want me to go kill someone just tell me that in plain language, send me a text message, an email, please don't use symbols such as, say, a goat that shits a turd in the shape of a revolver or something. Seriously God, that stuff is pretty hard to decipher. Plus, it might just be a coincidence, in which case, I would have committed a sin in your eyes, and as everybody knows, you are only okay with crimes that have been explicitly sanctioned by you.
And about all those other things, God, I have a humble suggestion. Just create a Wikipedia entry and add detailed explanations as to your real intent behind performing all those wonderful miracles. And don't worry, no one's gonna edit it. After all, people don't want to go to Hell, do they?
Bye God and thank you for chatting with me. I will let George W. Bush know you said Hello.
XOXOXOX on your feet.
Airline to allow passengers to land and take off
Close on the heels of its critically acclaimed and highly successful new policy of allowing passengers to take airplane security into their own hands by kicking anyone they suspect of being a terrorist off the plane, UK-based Monarch Airlines has announced its newest initiative for enhancing traveller comfort during the journey. This new policy initiative will allow any Monarch airlines passenger concerned about the pilot's ability to take off or land the plane to carry out the task himself.
Towards this end, every passenger seat in the newly ordered Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners will come equipped with a joystick and a complete set of controls for flying the plane. In the event of any passenger feeling mentally threatened due to a perceived lack of confidence in the pilot's flying capabilities, the passenger will be able to switch to manual override and take over the plane himself.
Air travellers applauded this new feature. "When I am landing or taking off, I always feel nervous, I keep wondering whether the pilot has extended his flaps, whether the landing gear is down, or if there are any other planes in the way", explained passenger Heath Schofield. "Now instead of relying on the pilot, I can check on all these things myself. The only person I trust to keep myself safe is me."
Blogger Glenn Reynolds agreed with this assessment. "This is the kind of thing that happens when people don't trust the authorities to protect them from incompetent pilots", said Mr Reynolds. "After all, the probability of getting killed in a plane crash due to pilot error is almost 1 in a million. In fact, it is even greater than the probability of your plane getting hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, it makes sense for every passenger to be allowed access to the controls of the plane in order to safeguard their own lives."
Blogger Sister Toldjah had a different angle on the issue. "If you look at most plane crashes, they all occurred with a pilot at the controls. Thus, it is necessary for air travellers to refuse to fly any plane manned by a "pilot". This isn't profiling, it is just common sense."
In its ongoing effort to improve the quality of its service, Monarch Airlines is now considering keeping a handgun under every seat in the plane in order to allow passengers to shoot anyone who begins to display a terrorist-like demeanour after the plane has taken off.
Towards this end, every passenger seat in the newly ordered Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners will come equipped with a joystick and a complete set of controls for flying the plane. In the event of any passenger feeling mentally threatened due to a perceived lack of confidence in the pilot's flying capabilities, the passenger will be able to switch to manual override and take over the plane himself.
Air travellers applauded this new feature. "When I am landing or taking off, I always feel nervous, I keep wondering whether the pilot has extended his flaps, whether the landing gear is down, or if there are any other planes in the way", explained passenger Heath Schofield. "Now instead of relying on the pilot, I can check on all these things myself. The only person I trust to keep myself safe is me."
Blogger Glenn Reynolds agreed with this assessment. "This is the kind of thing that happens when people don't trust the authorities to protect them from incompetent pilots", said Mr Reynolds. "After all, the probability of getting killed in a plane crash due to pilot error is almost 1 in a million. In fact, it is even greater than the probability of your plane getting hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, it makes sense for every passenger to be allowed access to the controls of the plane in order to safeguard their own lives."
Blogger Sister Toldjah had a different angle on the issue. "If you look at most plane crashes, they all occurred with a pilot at the controls. Thus, it is necessary for air travellers to refuse to fly any plane manned by a "pilot". This isn't profiling, it is just common sense."
In its ongoing effort to improve the quality of its service, Monarch Airlines is now considering keeping a handgun under every seat in the plane in order to allow passengers to shoot anyone who begins to display a terrorist-like demeanour after the plane has taken off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)