Either Or

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Memes

Courtesy of Mikal Belicove:

  1. Cats or Dogs? I can’t answer: I have both and don’t want to get in trouble at home.
  2. Beer or Wine? Beer.
  3. Sunday paper: In bed or On the couch? On the couch. Too messy for bed.
  4. Baked Potatoes or Mashed Potatoes? Baked; I like the skin
  5. Target or Wal-Mart. Normally Target, but since the prescription thing, neither. Fuckers.
  6. Rain or Snow? Rain. Snow is too messy.
  7. Board Games or Computer Games? Oh, man. I dunno.
  8. Friday nights or Saturday mornings? Saturday mornings.
  9. Land Line or Cell Phone? Cell. I like to go places and talk.
  10. Elevators or Escalators? Escalators are more fun, and don’t lead to as many personal space issues.
Continue ReadingEither Or

College Professor beaten by Christian Fundamentalists for opposing “Intelligent Design”

Who would Jesus beat? According to the Wichita Eagle:

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.
Originally called “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,” the course was canceled last week at Mirecki’s request.
The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

Continue ReadingCollege Professor beaten by Christian Fundamentalists for opposing “Intelligent Design”

Good and Bad Reasons for Believing

Richard Dawkins letter to his daughter Juliet on good and bad reasons for believing things.

The way scientists use evidence to learn about the world is much cleverer and more complicated than I can say in a short letter. But now I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something , and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called “tradition,” “authority,” and “revelation.”
First, tradition. A few months ago, I went on television to have a discussion with about fifty children. These children were invited because they had been brought up in lots of different religions. Some had been brought up as Christians, others as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs. The man with the microphone went from child to child, asking them what they believed. What they said shows up exactly what I mean by “tradition.” Their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence. They just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents which, in turn, were not based upon evidence either. They said things like: “We Hindus believe so and so”; “We Muslims believe such and such”; “We Christians believe something else.”
Of course, since they all believed different things, they couldn’t all be right. The man with the microphone seemed to think this quite right and proper, and he didn’t even try to get them to argue out their differences with each other. But that isn’t the point I want to make for the moment. I simply want to ask where their beliefs come from. They came from tradition. Tradition means beliefs handed down from grandparent to parent to child, and so on. Or from books handed down through the centuries. Traditional beliefs often start from almost nothing; perhaps somebody just makes them up originally, like the stories about Thor and Zeus. But after they’ve been handed down over some centuries, the mere fact that they are so old makes them seem special. People believe things simply because people have believed the same thing over the centuries. That’s tradition.
The trouble with tradition is that, no matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was. If you make up a story that isn’t true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn’t make it any truer!

Continue ReadingGood and Bad Reasons for Believing

Great, now I have to buy a new truck

According to the Advocate:

The antigay American Family Association claimed a cultural victory on Thursday and called off its threatened boycott of Ford Motor Co. On Friday, Ford spokesman Mike Moran confirmed to Advocate.com that the company will stop advertising its Jaguar and Land Rover brands in gay publications but insisted it was strictly a business decision.
The Dearborn, Mich., automaker came under fire from the AFA in May for its longtime efforts to increase LGBT workplace diversity and support gay rights causes. Ford has long been a regular advertiser within gay media, including The Advocate, and has donated significant sums to LGBT causes and nonprofit groups such as the Human Rights Campaign.
Threatened with a boycott by the Mississippi-based AFA, Ford and some of its dealers agreed to negotiate, and the AFA announced in June that it would hold off on its planned action. On Thursday, AFA announced the boycott would be canceled altogether.
“They’ve heard our concerns; they are acting on our concerns. We are pleased with where we are,” said Donald Wildmon, AFA’s chairman, in a statement. “Obviously there are still some small matters of difference, as people will always have, but generally speaking, we are pleased with the results—and therefore the boycott that had been suspended [is] now officially ended.”
Specific terms of any formal agreement between the AFA and Ford—and whether any such agreement has in fact been reached—remain unclear.
When first contacted, Ford spokesman Moran referred Advocate.com to the AFA statement, suggesting that the company had no disagreement with Wildmon’s assertions. In a second conversation he confirmed that the company would no longer advertise Jaguar and Land Rover products in the gay media, saying that the decision was strictly “business.”

well, I was getting shitty gas mileage anyway.
Americablog has excellent coverage of this issue, with numerous posts, including the lame responses of Ford Executives about why the made the decision, and some insider information about how Ford cut the deal with the AFA to target gays.

Continue ReadingGreat, now I have to buy a new truck

Last night’s City county council meeting about the HRO

Advance Indiana does an excellent job of narrating the action from last night’s city county council meeting, so I won’t duplicate the effort here.
If you want to see it for yourself, the committee meeting will be broadcast several times on Channel 16, so haul out your TIVO.
I was asked to speak at the council meeting, and I was too freaked out by the idea to do so. I won’t make that mistake again. I’ll be speaking about my experiences at the next Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 13th. I’ll need all the moral support I can get, so if you could make it, I’d appreciate it.
Several things that struck me as really interesting: the obviously miserable “ex-gay” couple (notice how they always marry each other so they don’t have to make excuses for why they don’t want to have sex) who testified were strange and heartbreaking. The man, who flamed more than any other gay man I know, actually said that “I can’t guarantee that I won’t slip and fall back into the lifestyle. But I’m here to testify that it can be done.” Um, if there’s a greater indicator that this law is needed than that, it was this:
19 people, most of them ministers and religious people, stood up and testified against the HRO, and every one of them spewed hatred and malice against gay people, and then had the audacity to claim that there’s no real discrimination against gay people and that the laws aren’t needed. It’s was as ironic as if we held a civil rights hearing, and the KKK showed up in their cloaks and testified that black people are 2/3rds of a person, then tried to claim that there’s no discrimination against blacks so civil rights laws are not really needed anyway.
And every single person against Prop 622 invoked the Christian God. So those of you who aren’t Christian — if you’re Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, agnostic or atheist, be aware that your beliefs aren’t important to the city-county council.

Continue ReadingLast night’s City county council meeting about the HRO

Here’s a story that terrifies me

This just makes me want to stay home with the doors locked all the time:

A 17-year-old girl went to police at the urging of her friends after she was allegedly gang-raped by three men, including her boyfriend. The men testified that the act was consensual. After reviewing all the information and statements, prosecutors decided they didn’t think they could prove a rape allegation, and so declined to prosecute the case.
Instead, they prosecuted the victim for filing a false police report. Yesterday, she was found guilty.
The victim has never recanted her story. Instead, the decision was based on the judge’s opinion that the three men were more credible, in part because a police detective and the victim’s friends testified she did not “act traumatized” in the days after the incident.

Continue ReadingHere’s a story that terrifies me

Thomas Jefferson

“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

Continue ReadingThomas Jefferson

Bill O’Reilly’s fake “War on Christmas,” anti-semitism, and the “gay agenda”

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately was The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by graphic artist Will Eisner.
It’s an illustrated account of how a forged document (The Protocols) meant to demonize Jews was produced in the early part of last century using plagiarized materials, and how it became part of a massive world-wide anti-semitism campaign; one that eventually lead to the holocaust and communism, and to today’s ultra-right wing conspiracy movements. Eisner’s book is a compelling account of the history of this bloody document that just won’t seem to die.
Read this book first… then go read another book I read this year, called “Them: Adventures with Extremists.” Then go watch Fox News for a day, and you’ll begin to see all the connections– and how this debunked document lives on, as the foundation of the rhetoric of the ultra-right wing militia movements, and for much of the garbage that comes from the mouths of Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove, only adapted to attack “liberal elite” and the “gay mafia” and the new “war on Christmas.”
It’s all about adaptation.
The “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” document originally had nothing to do with the Jews; it started out as an attack on Napoleon III in France. It was called The Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu written by a French attorney. It was a fairly incendiary pamphlet about how to overthrow a government, and it’s venom was attractive to lots of people.
Eventually this pamphlet made it’s way into the hands of a Russian exile named Mathieu Golovinski, who was working with the Russian secret police to convince Czar Nicholas II that his leaning towards the liberal reform movement was wrong.
Golovinski plagiarized the Dialogues to create a fake account of mythical high-powered Jews with access to financial institutions having secret meetings to plot bringing down the Russian government and eventually taking over the world. The pamphlet “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” claimed these Jews were behind the liberal reform movement in Russia at the time.
The forged pamphlet worked wonders: Czar Nicholas veered right and squashed liberal reform movement, which lead to widespread unrest in Russia that later exploded into the Russian Revolution. Except for this document, communism would never have gained traction around the world. Nicholas also lead some viscious attacks on the innocent Jews, who took the fall for the Russian liberals, and then kept taking the fall for everything else.
The Protocols swept around the world; they made their way to Adolph Hitler, who used them to justify the holocaust (with the tacit cooperation of the German people, who had also read them) and to America, where auto maker Henry Ford reprinted them in 1921 in his home-brew paper the Dearborn Independent, where he also began publishing other anti-Jewish diatribes, including The International Jew, an account that included, among other things, a screed about how the Jews were engaging in a War on Christmas.
In 1921, scholars debunked The Protocols, illustrating that the language had been lifted verbatim from the 1894 French document and thus couldn’t have been describing an actual meeting of any Russian Jewish conspirators in 1903. The two documents were reprinted side-by-side, but even this couldn’t stop the pamphlet’s spread. It’s reprinted and distributed around the world today and is very popular in Muslim countries, contributing to the the anti-Israel movement,as well as red states. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh believed them to be real, as did Waco cult leader David Koresh, and Olympic park bomber Eric Rudolph.
Nothing seems to stop the wild idea that somewhere out there, there’s a secret plot by a group of elitists trying to keep you down.
Much of the language of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion lives on today, and reading Will Eisner’s book and seeing the words of the document is a revelation that will cause you to see politics with a new set of eye glasses.
Words from the Protocols show up not just in conspiracy theory survivalist groups who live in the wilderness and talk about the Bilderberg Group, but in in Right-wing attacks on the “liberal and hollywood elite” and the “gay Mafia” promoting the “gay agenda” and in Bill O’Reilly’s new fictional movement, the “War on Christmas” which is lifted wholesale from Henry Ford’s anti-semitic screed, and based on the methdology of the Protocols: create a fictional enemy using a scapegoat, and then attack that enemy to gain political power.

Continue ReadingBill O’Reilly’s fake “War on Christmas,” anti-semitism, and the “gay agenda”