Bachmann is a Freaking Comedian!

HAHAHAHA, Bachmann says HPV vaccine causes retardation. She is so funny...Wait! An influential person making stupidly false claims about an important vaccine, that isn't funny, it's utterly insane. She didn't even bother to visit the Center for Disease Control's website which, ooh I don't know, actually CONTAINS RESEARCH DONE BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND NOT SOME CRAZY CRYING LADY YOU PASS ON THE STREET.


Here it is. Took me 2 mins.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm


Now your telling me a presidential candidate went on, what I am guessing, is the most watched morning news show and made false claims about a very important subject that would have taken 2 mins to clarify?

Rick Perry, the Republicans' Messiah?

I'm going to start a compilation of Rick Perry shit here.


By Kathleen Parker

August 26

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-the-republicans-messiah/20

11/08/26/gIQAGnY5gJ_story.html?hpid=z2

Rick Perry's rapid lead over previous Republican front- runner Mitt Romney was predictable. But it is not a good sign for Republicans hoping to reclaim the White House and further highlights the crucial battle within GOP circles: Who is the godliest of us all?

That's the mirror-mirror question for Republicans.

Forget charisma, charm, intelligence, knowledge and that nuisance, "foreign policy experience." The race of the moment concerns which candidate is the truest believer.

This was always a tough hurdle for Romney, whose Mormonism is reflexively distrusted by Southern evangelicals. Even so, in the absence of a better candidate, Romney had a fighting chance to win his party's support. Then came Perry.

Talk about a perfect-storm, composite candidate. Combine Elmer Gantry's nose for converts, Ronald Reagan's folksy confidence and Sarah Palin's disdain for the elites - and that dog hunts.

Perry doesn't just believe, he evangelizes. He summons prayer meetings. He reads scripture while callers are on hold. Not incidentally, he's a successful governor.

Perhaps most important, he's a wall-scaling fundraiser whose instincts make him a force of nature in the political landscape.

If you're Romney, Perry is a nightmare that's still there in the morning. If you're Barack Obama, maybe not so much?

Perry's political instincts were in evidence when he timed his entrance into the race just as everybody else was trying to grab straws in the Iowa poll. If life is high school in adult relief, Perry is the guy who shows up in a truck with a winch and pulls the car out of the ditch while those other guys are looking for a jack.

Whether you like his politics or not, he emits a pheromonal can-do-ness. Apparently, plenty of Republicans do like his politics, which has much to do with the very devil-may-care attitude that eventually will become Perry's cross to bear. Gallup's recent polling shows him not just passing Romney, but dusting him. Among Republican voters, 29 percent now swear their allegiance to the Texas governor, almost double the 17 percent for Romney.

Huddled around the exhaust pipe are, you got it, the jack handlers: Ron Paul (13 percent) and Michele Bachmann (10 percent), followed by Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman in the single digits.

Perry's campaign strategy is to talk only about jobs- jobs-jobs, no matter what the question. That's both smart and necessary, but jobs-jobs-jobs isn't the money trinity with his base. Perry already hit that station with his prayer rally and various dog whistles to the

congregation: He's not sure anyone knows how old Earth is, evolution is just a "theory" and global warming isn't man-made.

That we are yet again debating evolutionary theory and Earth's origins - and that candidates now have to declare where they stand on established science - should be a signal that we are slip-sliding toward governance by emotion rather than reason. But it's important to understand what's undergirding the debate. It has little to do with a given candidate's policy and everything to do with whether he or she believes in God.

If we are descended of some blend of apes, then we can't have been created in God's image. If we establish Earth's age at 4.5 billion years, then we contradict the biblical view that God created the world just 6,500 years ago. And finally, if we say that climate change is partly the result of man's actions, then God can't be the One who punishes man's sins with floods, droughts, earthquakes and hurricanes. If He wants the climate to change, then He will so ordain, and we'll pray more.

Perry knows he has to make clear that God is his wingman. And this conviction seems not only to be sincere, but also to be relatively noncontroversial in the GOP's church - and perhaps beyond. He understands that his base cares more that the president is clear on his ranking in the planetary order than whether he can schmooze with European leaders or, heaven forbid, the media. And this is why Perry could easily steal the nomination from Romney.

And also why he probably can't win a national election, in which large swaths of the electorate would prefer that their president keep his religion close and be respectful of knowledge that has evolved from thousands of years of human struggle against superstition and the kind of literal-mindedness that leads straight to the dark ages.

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but Perry makes you think they are.

Dawkins on Perry -

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today's Republican party is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today's Republican Party 'in spite of' is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory.

Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

God Sucks at Miracles

The recent bankruptcy of Crystal Cathedral in Orange County has sparked a bidding war between a Roman Catholic diocese and a local university.

The Church itself is trying to fight the system and keep their Church by raising enough money to get it back. The comment below reflects their thoughts.

"I believe with every fiber of my being that God turned the eyes of the world on Crystal Cathedral because God wants to make a big bold statement," said Sheila Coleman, the daughter of the founder. "He wants the world to know that he is a God who still does miracles," she said.

Oooh, that makes so much sense. God decided a good use of his miracle powers is to bankrupt a church for a month or two then give everything back. Yes, how his boundless intelligence shows worthwhile miracles. Or he could grow back some limbs from child amputees... would that be too kind? 



And if someone's excuse is that bad things like that happen so we understand how important our life is, they are fucking insane. I don't enjoy the things in my life because someone else cannot do them. I don't care anymore about my legs because a little boy loses his in an African genocide. Or my intelligence because others have autism. Or my food because people are starving. The things that are important to me are important because I find incredible fucking value in their use or how they make me feel. And even IF a God did put great weight on have vs. have not’s...THAT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH FUCKING REASON TO LET POINTLESS SUFFERING TRAGIDIES OCCURE WHEN YOU CAN STOP THEM!


Sorry for the yelling...I feel strongly about this...

Mocking and Ridicule of Fundies

I'm a frequent contributor to news-site comment pages. Namely, news-sites who post stories on subjects I care about. Here is a recent one I've flogged in several places: FCKH8

When I first started patrolling comment boxes looking for the latest bigot or intellectually dishonest person to correct, I would try my best to remain civil, to state my case in a solid manner hoping they would see the "light" or, in the least, to show a different side and give rise to an honest discussion.

This never really works... ever.

A holocaust denier bringing up his views in a job interview would be a really bad idea. This is because, not only will they not be taken seriously, but they will open themselves to harsh ridicule. Statements based on blind religious fundamentalism should be held to the same critical standard. When people say stupid shit because of their religion, I now feel the need to point out that their unfounded claims are going to encounter serious scrutiny. And, if I can find a spot, I'm going to let the jabs fly.

From my most recent exchange:
Dave - "It isn't surprising that gays are intolerant & hateful."
Me - "It isn't surprising that Christians are intolerant & hateful."
See what I did there? Your just spouting silly retoric without justification.
Where did you get your incredibly bad reasoning skills? ... They were making FUN of christian bigotry and closemindednes... The only intolerant & hateful people in this argument are those who spread lies and hate in order to press their own beliefs on others."
Dave -"By your actions, you're supporting what I've said.
Me - "Umm, nothing [I] said proved your above statement. You said "hateful & intolerant" and your point is still dumb and unfounded. What you can assert however, is that we are resorting to mockery and ridicule which, anti gay groups deserve when they spout their bigotry. Half the fun is making points the other half is mocking you small minded fundies while having a good laugh at your expense. Just like we do against racists or sexists, yes we compare you to them."

Now, I don't know if this guy was a Christian or not. But I didn't care. He had said "homos" are hateful for w/e the fuck reason and I felt like laying into him. I personally didn't care if I changed his mind. Asking someone such as this to change their minds is like asking my dog to do the dishes... They will approach it with the exact same level of comprehension. Mostly I am aiming to change the minds of others reading our exchange. Hopefully, some other fundie read it and it altered their point of view or made them think.  Hopefully? Maybe that one person was going to post something similar, but now sees that it will only lead to people like me mocking their stupid beliefs. I can only hope it did.

I Bet You This Guy is Voting for Bachmann

I lawled hard at this photo.

Atheists Secretly Want to Love and Worship God

Father Robert Baron tried to rationalize why so many militant atheists are making so much noise on the internet these days.  He of course doesn't come any where close because he claims "My wager, as a person of faith, is that everyone — and that includes Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins — implicitly wants God and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God."

Here is the whole post below:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/featured/why-are-so-many-atheists-on-the-cnn-belief-blog/

Well now, I'm a militant atheist and consider myself pretty well educated so I tried to let him know where he is wrong.  This is what I typed in the comments and I hope he reads it:

Hey, an atheist here and I feel the need to shine the light on some things you said:

" Are the advocates of the faith ready to meet that challenge?"

In my opinion, no. And they won't be until Churches can increase the level of legitimate education among their members and decrease the level of wilful ignorance. One of the most annoying things about Christians to me is their lack in understanding of not only the history of their own religion, but the wall that is built up by their parents and their Church to hide them from the rest of the world's philosophies. This leads to people bumbling around when are they confronted with strange philosophical analogies and questions or have an atheist throw Bible verses back at them. Oh yes, we read it. Any good atheist has read the entire thing and the Koran. The modern world is too small to keep all of our religious views from affecting one another and therefore, it behoves us to communicate with each other honestly and effectively.

"We shouldn’t imitate the Internet atheists in their nastiness,"

Sometimes we become annoyed at having to answer the same questions over and over again and we resort to short snappy answers. Don't let this scare you off. However, If you truly encounter a tone you don't like or they seem to be shot-gunning around your questions, then don't talk to that person. It's that simple.

"Everyone is searching"

No. This is not true.

"My wager, as a person of faith, is that everyone — and that includes Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins — implicitly wants God and hence remains permanently fascinated by the things of God."

This is untrue on many levels. You are asserting to know what is on other men's hearts and minds, that's just silly to start off with. And, you shouldn't find any intellectually honest atheists doing any mind-reading either. This leads to a  ignorant statement that they are lying when they assert that they are not searching for God. You've already lost the wager if you claim something like that. What If I were a Muslim and told you that, as a Christian, "Your lying about actually believing in Jesus. All of the strife in your life is because Allah is calling to you, but you refuse to see him."? I would expect you to get angry. Not only is the assertaion a direct assult to your deeply held beliefs...but it's completely unfounded. These types of accusations are not only dishonest, but also fail to open any sort of productive dialogue.

"Though the fierce atheists of today profess that they would like to eliminate religious speech and religious ideas, secretly they love to listen as people speak of God. This goes a long way, it seems to me, toward explaining their presence in great numbers on religious blogs"

No, it's not an elimination of speech and ideas we want. It is a broadening and universality of all philosophies and ideals, religious or not, with all subject to he same scrutinity to ensure they adhere to the tenants of equal human rights. Also, again, No I don't secretly long for your Yahweh. I have a passion for religious philosophy and finding out what people believe and why they believe it.

[John] "I think your spot on. They really want to believe in Him, and they can't stay away."

Again, I hoped I covered this well enough above. If not I can go over it again.  And feel free to ask me any other questions.

Who Died and Made the Church King?

Recently NY Legalized Gay Unions.
Also recently, to no one's surprise, the Catholic Church had a thing or two to say about it.

"This is a further erosion of the real understanding of marriage,"
No, it is not an erosion. If anything, it's an addition. But neither of these verbs is appropriate in describing changes to marital bonds; and your understanding of marriage, between a man and woman, is based on misinformation, lies, or the Bible (Actually, the bible is Both of those things, but I digress).


"The state should not be concerned about regulating affection."
DiMarzio is a fucking idiot. (You can tell they don't go to "real" college.)

First off, he uses the word affection in what seems to be an attempt to pry some sort of extra emotion from people, but the phrase "regulating affection" makes no sense. You can't control how much people care for each other on any level and it's silly to say that everyone who is in a Civil Union is affectionate to what-ever-the-fuck degree.

Secondly, the State WAS concerned about regulating things by telling people with whom they can and can not legally be together. Now they have simply taken a neutral stance. I don't like asparagus. I think it is gross and an abomination, however just because the government doesn't stop people from growing it because of my deeply held beliefs about it doesn't mean there is some vegetable regulation racket. This assumption of his is so incredibly silly I can't believe that anyone would take it seriously.

Thirdly, who died and made the Church king of all things needing to be regulated? I would also say that a celibate priest is not an expert in relationships. Maybe the real reason priests are so angry is because we won't redefine "affection regulation" so that grown men can marry 12 year old boys.