Never piss off a guy for hiding beer – he’ll ruin your day

Or, in poor Katie’s case, much more than that. See, this is what happens when you’re a closet slut and then piss off the one person who not only probably knows about it, but who could make your life miserable real easily. Large pic below the fold.

The real perils of multicultural integration

They always say that Canada is a true multicultural melting pot. Vancouver is, of course, renown for being the best in this department. However, some may argue that they might be taking this spirit of accommodation a little too far …

Oh, dear, now that’s just fraught with grammatical errors. Doggone it.

Sumerians take issue with God’s Creation of the Earth and humans

God, I love The Onion. And pure gold like this is why.

Lord God, Creator of All, caught thousands of Sumerian farmers and mathematicians somewhat off guard.

Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

Historians believe that, immediately following the biblical event, Sumerian witnesses returned to the city of Eridu, a bustling metropolis built 1,500 years before God called for the appearance of dry land, to discuss the new development. According to records, Sumerian farmers, priests, and civic administrators were not only befuddled, but also took issue with the face of God moving across the water, saying that He scared away those who were traveling to Mesopotamia to participate in their vast and intricate trade system.

Moreover, the Sumerians were taken aback by the creation of the same animals and herb-yielding seeds that they had been domesticating and cultivating for hundreds of generations.

"The Sumerian people must have found God's making of heaven and earth in the middle of their well-established society to be more of an annoyance than anything else," said Paul Helund, ancient history professor at Cornell University. "If what the pictographs indicate are true, His loud voice interrupted their ancient prayer rituals for an entire week."

According to the cuneiform tablets, Sumerians found God's most puzzling act to be the creation from dust of the first two human beings.

"These two people made in his image do not know how to communicate, lack skills in both mathematics and farming, and have the intellectual capacity of an infant," one Sumerian philosopher wrote. "They must be the creation of a complete idiot."

That last line might just be the best thing ever written.

(via Bad Astronomy)

Stupid Quote(s) of the Day: Comfort on media and conscience

I’m bored and I felt like mentioning two dumb quotes from Ray Comfort’s latest post. So, here you go.

The image of Tiger Woods had been portrayed for years as one of squeaky clean wholesomeness. It was a media image. Clean sells.

In which puritan, unspoiled universe does Comfort live in to believe that “clean sells”? If there’s one thing the media hates reporting on, it’s clean, unsoiled celebrities. They’re boring. They have no dirty little secrets or haughty scandals to shock people with. (I could also argue that such celebrities arguably don’t exist, but that’s besides the point.) It’s drama that makes the media tick, not cleanliness. Hence why you hear rather more often of how one famous dude went to a strip bar and a famous gal broke up with her equally-famous boyfriend all the time – or why the media’s been jizzing all over the Tiger Woods scandal despite it being completely and utterly irrelevant to anyone else’s lives (in addition to being none of their damned business).

Quote numéro deux, if you will …

There is no such thing as a morally clean human being. If you disagree, name one person (other than yourself) who is morally perfect.

Non sequitur. One doesn’t have to be morally perfect to be morally clean. Well, in Comfort’s worldview of “everyone is a filthy sinner as decreed by God”, perhaps, but not in reality. Being morally clean simply means you have nothing weighing on your conscience, that you don’t have any real regrets, that you aren’t haunted by choices you made or things you did (or didn’t do). For example, I can safely and honestly say that I consider myself to be morally clean. Not “perfect”, no – I’ve done (and do) my share of things that others (such as the law … *ahem*) would consider “wrong” – but I did (and do) them all in good conscience, and never to harm anyone or infringe upon their rights. I have nothing to be sorry about and have no real regrets. (None about anything that’s in my power to change, anyway.)

Help the Libel Reform Campaign change those draconian British libel laws!

There is nothing worse for free speech than censorship, and in that same vein, there is little that’s more restrictive to the spread of truth than oppressive libel/slander laws. Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of laws Britain has on the books, the sort of laws that makes England renown for its limitations of freedom of expression. For a recent example, just ask Simon Singh, who dared to call chiropractic “bogus” and then found himself sued by the British Chiropractic Association who would rather shut him up with his criticism rather than defend their practice and “medicine”. (Because, you know, they can’t.)

Britain’s libel laws are an embarrassment, and finally, people are starting to rise against it. There is a grassroots movement that’s gaining a surprising amount of momentum and which aims at changing Britain’s laws to protect free speech, rather than condemn it. Enter the Libel Reform Campaign, or “An Index on Censorship, English Pen and Sense About Science Campaign”. Their website is complete with all the latest news and reports from the metaphorical battlefield; you can also check out their “mission statement” of sorts, here. I hardly see anything I don’t wholeheartedly agree with. It’s actually hard to believe that such intrinsically sensible amendments haven’t already been made in the past.

Of course, the best and only way to make sure that not only can you make your voice heard, but to also ensure that it will continue to be heard and not silenced, is to sign their petition. Every signatory counts. Go, now, and make libel reform a reality in England!

Remember: free speech is a right, not a privilege, and it is not for sale.

(via Bad Astronomy)

Even Mexico City is progressive than America with gay rights

Hey, I’ll be gay if I want to, not ’cuz your banner tells me to! … Hey, waitaminute …

Funny; I always pictured Mexico (and Latin America in general) as being generally religious-conservative, particularly when it came to civil rights (abortion, LGBT rights, etc.). I suppose I ought to change that thinking, considering Mexico City has legalized gay marriage by redefining the meaning of “marriage” – literally:

Lawmakers in Mexico City have become the first in Latin America to legalise gay marriage.

City legislators passed the bill 39-20, with five abstentions. The city's mayor is now widely expected to sign the bill into law.

Gay marriage is only allowed in seven countries and some parts of the US. Certain parts of Latin America allow civil unions for same-sex couples.

The Catholic Church and conservative groups had opposed Mexico City's move.

The bill calls for a change in the definition of marriage in the city's civic code - from the union of a man and a woman to "the free uniting of two people".

That’s … actually a pretty good definition. Sure, it’s open to being twisted and (intentionally) misconstrued by bigots and religious cranks such as those who opposed this movement; but then, no-one gives a damn about what they have to say (at least in Mexico City), so it’s all good. In addition, city legislators are now working on a measure in the bill that would grant same-sex couples the right to adopt children. Who knew Mexico City was so cool?

The rest of the article also contains some rather interesting bits of news that few seem to be aware of. For example, Mexico City has also legalized abortion; several cities in Argentina, Ecuador and Colombia also allow gay marriage; and Uruguay has legalized civil unions across the country (which is always a good first step) and already allows gay couples to adopt children.

Wow … The U.S., for all its purported freedom and liberty, is now being outshone by all of its neighbors. Maybe it’s time the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave joined the rest of us in the 21^st century?

(via Pharyngula)

Technorati tags: civil rights · gay rights · gay marriage · same-sex marriage · Latin America · Mexico City

Cop gets off – both literally and metaphorically

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Cops and accountability are mutually exclusive – ask Jonathan Ayers (oh, wait, you can’t)

Surveillance footage of Jonathan Ayers walking into a Toccoa convenience store. He was shot and killed as he left moments later.

And here’s yet more proof that cops simply cannot and will not be held accountable for their own fuck-ups, especially when they result in the death of innocent civilians. Remember Lavonia, Georgia pastor Jonathan Ayers, who was shot and killed in his own vehicle whilst trying to escape in terror from a surprise drug bust at a gas station, a drug bust that had less than nothing to do with him? Well, of course, a Stephens County grand jury acquitted the dumbass cops who shot a fleeing man (at a gas station, no less), saying that they were “legally justified” to open fire. When the guy did nothing wrong, didn’t attack anyone, and just wanted to get away from a scene of sudden chaos, as would any other normal person.

The officers involved in the shooting are members of a multi-agency drug unit similary to the Hall County Multi-Agency Narcotics Squad.

Rickman said the matter is now closed as far as any state criminal charges are concerned because of Georgia's law against double jeopardy. However, Rickman said that if a federal investigation is conducted, there is the possibility of federal criminal charges being filed against the officers.

"...there's no double jeopardy between the state and federal system, so, in theory, I suppose, the FBI could conduct their own investigation if they chose to."

Uh-huh. Now, why in the hell would they do that? Forget whatever Season 7 of 24 tells you; the FBI is no more honest and accountable than any other law enforcement organization. They’re all the same: cover their asses first, deal with the public and their ever-worsening PR (much) later.

Stories like this exemplify why I hold law enforcement in such total contempt. For every honest and law-abiding officer, there are 20 more who are ready and willing to twist the law to suit their own needs and whitewash themselves of any and all mistakes and culpability. Accountability is a pleasant but impossible myth in this current system. Anyone who believes otherwise is naïve at best. Here, we just saw an innocent man get gunned down as he was trying to flee without hurting anyone and without having committed the slightest crime or offense to anyone or anything, and the cops who took his life are cleared of all charges. And this is just one example out of countless others – and those are just the ones that reach the ears of the media. What more proof do you need?

(via The Agitator)

Technorati tags: Jonathan Ayers · police · drug busts

Again, do not use the Bible as a guide for morality

Especially Leviticus. This is a lesson that Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who broadcasts as “Dr. Laura” and who is an observant Orthodox Jew, would do well to understand. After asserting that homosexuality is an abomination under the rule of Leviticus 18:22^[1][2] (amongst other flagrantly intolerant proclamations), a response was written out by an unknown source that brings up the old yet reliable “well, how about this, then?” approach to Biblical morality. It’s obviously intended as sardonic in tone, and is rather entertaining.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Naked Coffee Guy found guilty of being like a murderin’ bank robber

You may remember Erick Williamson (known not-too-flatteringly as “Naked Coffee Guy”), the Fairfax County, Virginia man who was “busted” on October 19 for the injurious crime of … being naked in his own kitchen, at the crack of dawn, making coffee, after being glimpsed at through a window by a woman and her little boy who were walking across his lawn. This ordeal is so full of nonsense, it bypasses ridiculousness and lands in the “painfully stupid” pile. First, anyone can be as naked as they fucking want in their home without having to worry about prudish passers-by out in the streets. It’s not Williamson was perversely exposing himself; he was just in his home before the sun had even risen outside, minding his own business. Also, he was only “caught in the act” because the pearl-clutching woman was trespassing across his lawn, which is a crime all in itself (though this fact is curiously being overlooked). He did nothing wrong, and certainly doesn’t deserve to be convicted of any crime.

Except that, he was, as he was found guilty of “indecent exposure” last Friday. As though he got his rocks off by presenting himself in all his natural glory to passers-by, including 7-year-old kids. Or as though he thought anyone would be trespassing across his lawn and peering into his home at 6-fucking-30 in the morning.

The Fairfax County man who was arrested for being naked -- in his home -- was found guilty Friday of indecent exposure, but the judge did not fine him or sentence him to jail.

Erick Williamson, 29, continued to believe that he had done nothing wrong and that he did not purposely expose himself to two women and a 7-year-old boy who walked past his house the morning of Oct. 19. He immediately appealed his conviction.

A seven-person jury in misdemeanor appeals court will rule on the propriety of Williamson's domestic nudity in February.

"That's outrageous," he said after the verdict. "It's unbelievable." He said publicity from the arrest had cost him a job as a commercial diver. "I'm the victim," he said.

It’s somewhat good to see that, at the very least, he didn’t receive any jail time or extra punishment. You know, other than losing his job and being portrayed in the media as some sort of pervert who likes to show his dangly things to mothers and children.

However, while that’s the crux of the story, it’s also worth noting what a complete asshat the judge who presided over his case is, if this is anything to judge by (which it most certainly is):

Testimony in the hour-long trial before Fairfax General District Court Judge Ian M. O'Flaherty revealed that two separate incidents of alleged exposure had occurred over a two-hour period. Williamson denied standing naked in his doorway or front window and said he had no intent to expose himself to anyone. But O'Flaherty wasn't buying it and likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also "thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up."

Seriously – what the fuck? Okay, this comparison fails for two huge reasons. First, who the hell even uses John Dillinger as an example of “other-criminals-who-also-didn’t-think-they-were-doing-anything-wrong”? As Radley Balko states, everyone knows that such a comparison has to be made with Nazi concentration camp guards. Talk about dated analogies. (Not to mention that Dillinger was probably very much aware of his actions being wrong – or, at least, illegal. The man was consumed by his own ego, but even he was probably sane enough to realize that shooting up banks and murdering people was against the law.)

But, of course, this pales in comparison to the fact that this clown-of-a-judge apparently thinks it’s a fair comparison to make between a bank robber shooting the joint up and killing people, and someone who was just naked in his own fucking home. Seriously – how do such douches get to become officials? And what is it with said officials and their apparent love for truly horrendous and inappropriate analogies?

It’s good to know that you can just be naked in your own home, and then be compared to a gun-totin’, bank-robbing cold-blooded murderer. Classy.

(via The Agitator)

Stupid Quote of the Day: Randi, skepticism, and cranks

First, a little backstory. As anyone in the skeptic blogosphere will no doubt be aware by now, James Randi, one of the most renown debunker of pseudoscience and frauds and the head of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), recently caused quite a bristly stir amongst fellow skeptics when he published a blog post that indicated he had fallen into believing some anti-anthropogenic global warming nonsense. As PZ Myers pointed out, his key argument seemed to be concerning the Petition Project, which is little more than AGW denialists’ equivalent to the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwin” list of anti-evolution cranks in that only a very small number of the signatories are even qualified, and that the source of the list is a tiny anti-AGW “think tank” in Oregon. It really is disreputable hogwash, and that such a prominent skeptic as Randi seems to have fallen for it, at least initially, is rather depressing.

Of course, Randi’s post sparked a bit of a firestorm amongst skeptic blogs, some even going as far as calling Randi a Global Warming denialist, which is actually rather unfair. Randi didn’t deny AGW outright as actual denialists do; he was wrong in saying that there are holes in the evidence and that some of it is ambiguous, as the evidence itself, in its totality, is exceedingly clear. But to call him a denialist outright is just dense.

Of course, the reason why so many skeptics got fired up at Randi’s post (to which he’s since made a partial, but not completely satisfactory, retraction) is that, well, they disagreed with him. Skepticism isn’t a one-way avenue where everyone who practices it follows the same mindset and arrives at the same conclusions; if anything, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Skepticism is all about criticism of everything, from the evidence to each other and our views and opinions. To be a skeptic means to question anything unless or until it has shown to be incontrovertibly true (though even then, reversals are still possible, and always will be). A skeptic is not someone who denies anything; it’s simply someone who refuses to believe in something that has no reason to be believed in.

Naturally, though, this definition is often contested or even denied outright by opponents of skepticism, who tend to see skepticism (as with anything else that acts as a rejection of their prized yet scientifically and rationally groundless beliefs, such as atheism) as a sort of religion, a stringent mindset that all its sheep follow without dissent or criticism for fear of being ostracized from the rest. This is purely idiotic … and brings us (finally) to today’s Stupid Quote. From Greg Taylor over at The Daily Grail, who’s long had a bone of contention against Randi and the skeptic movement in general, speaking about the general dissent aimed at Randi over his post:

Randi took a position which was diametrically opposed to the current scientific consensus, and furthermore one that was absolutely contrary to the argument being put forth on a regular basis by other skeptics such as Phil Plait and P.Z. Myers. There was no other option for them but to criticise Randi – it was either that or be hypocrites. What would be a better test of the health of modern skepticism is if other skeptics pulled Randi up for speaking nonsense about more fringe topics. Which he does on a regular basis. And the silence is deafening. The real truth of modern skepticism as a dogmatic faith is revealed in those particular moments.

Wow. Now, usually, I tend to let Greg’s anti-skeptic, anti-atheism rants pass by without a word, but this one is just chock-full of dumbassery and I simply cannot resist tearing it apart.

He walks on water; what did you expect?

You’d think he’d learn after faceplanting over and over again, but dangit, he just doesn’t get it.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Technorati tags: Jesus · miracles · humor