At Least One Guy Gets It...

(click to embiggen)

Hooray for Teabagging!

It's hard to know where to begin with this whole teabagging thing.

Once upon a time, it took effort to make fun of Republicans and Libertarians. Not a whole lot of effort, admittedly, but the jokes at least didn't write themselves.

Over the last few years, however, the right wing in this country has done its best to become not only completely insane, but also totally clueless about how others perceive them. That's comedy gold, but sort of too easy. Let's try to resist making the easy jokes as best we can. Leave that to the newscasters.

If you're not familiar with the whole "Tea Party" thing yesterday, let me sum it up for you. See, these brave patriots are mostly angry about taxes, but they also hate the deficit, as well as other things (like black people). The majority of them have had their taxes lowered by their elected representatives, which is obviously upsetting.

As you'll recall from grade-school history classes, early American gangsters once railed against "Taxation Without Representation" and dressed up as American Indians in order to dump tea in Boston Harbor, to protest Britain's Tea Act. Also, they were probably drunk.

The commonality between the colonists and modern tax-evaders is really striking, isn't it? Except for the "Without Representation" part. Or most of the other parts, actually. But maybe some of them were drunk?

Anyway, let's take a look at this Telegram article, cleverly entitled "Taxes not their cup of tea." (Oh, Telegram headline-writer, you are a stitch!)

It's about a "Tea Party" in Worcester yesterday, which supposedly attracted 1,500 people (though you wouldn't know it from the photos, which you really must see).

Quoting time!

“I heard about this watching Glenn Beck on TV,” said Ms. Stearns, a Worcester mother of three who stood next to her son, Elijah, 10, who held his own placard exclaiming, “Obama Spends, Jesus Saves.”

Actually, Jesus advocated giving away all your stuff. No going to heaven for you, Elijah!

Here's an interesting quote:

“Think of what our founders did,” [event organizer Kevin] Mandile said to a cheering crowd, speaking over the cacophony of automobile horns blown in solidarity. “They took on the most powerful country in the world, and won.”

“… I’ve even heard that the Department of Homeland Security considers the Tea Party an extremist organization and a threat. We are a threat, to the crowd in Washington.”

Is that thing about the DHS true? I could only find it being promoted by right-wing blogs, who aren't exactly known for their fact-checking skills.

Whether or not it's true, is it really smart to go threatening the government? I appreciate a good revolution as much as anybody, but generally revolutionaries try to actually do something, and not just dress up in silly costumes and whine about taxes.

Also, remember a few years ago when anybody who dared criticize Bush in any way was called a "traitor" and had their patriotism questioned? That was for criticism, not calls for armed insurrection (which you don't find in this article, but are certainly happening). The people who called folks like me a traitor back then are the ones calling for a revolution now. Would it be too much to ask for a little logical consistency?

Yes, it would.

Jodie Chapin of Northboro, who carried a framed photograph of former President Ronald Reagan, stood at the base of the granite stairs to Worcester Memorial Auditorium with her daughter, Juliet, 11.

“Ronald Reagan would not have allowed things to get to the point where we would have to do this,” she said. “He epitomized the Free World. He is the hero to all the people here. He was a proud conservative who believed America was a shining city on a hill.”

Oh what the fuck, people? Why don't you just form a new religion, call it "Reaganism," get the religious tax exemption, and shut the fuck up?

While you're at it, maybe you shouldn't whine about the deficit while lionizing Reagan, who took the deficit from 2.3% of GNP to 5.6% of GNP, adding more than a trillion 1988-era dollars to it. Hell, even with his disease-ravaged brain, Reagan himself recognized that he screwed up.

Look, conservatives, we need to have a talk.

I know you guys are new to this whole "revolution" thing, because "conservative" and "subversive" are basically antonyms. So let me offer you some advice for your next horribly misguided public spectacle. If you just follow these simple guidelines, you should be fine.

1. First and foremost, don't name your protest after a slang term for a sex act. If you're considering Dirty Sanchez immigration protests or Angry Pirate anti-piracy rallies, you might want to reconsider.
2. Making protest signs is an art. You want to be brief, but clever. It also helps if they make sense. Additionally, you should probably not endorse slavery on your sign.
3. Costumes are always a nice touch, but giant furries with huge penises are probably not going to draw a lot of people to your cause.

There are obviously more than just these three guidelines that should be followed, but they would at least be a good start.

Once you get the blatantly ridiculous bullshit out of the way, we can get into more esoteric stuff like "actually understand the historical events you refer to," "don't contradict yourself mid-sentence," and "for God's sake, just shut the fuck up already." But we have to start somewhere!

In conclusion, teabagging rocks!


PS. Note that this post contained almost no jokes about scrota. Yay, self-control!

In which a couple of city councilors earn my respect

In my perusing of the local news yesterday, I saw and skipped over this article, because it seemed boring.*

Boy, was I wrong! The Progressive Fitchburg City Council-tolerating correspondent sends word that there was a lovely display of asshattery, courtesy of well-known local asshat, Marcus DiNatale!

Apparently, even with some of the streetlights being turned off, there's still a deficit in the streetlight budget. There is also a difference of opinion on how to deal with it!

Even with Wong's plan to shut off about 60 percent of the city's streetlights, the streetlight account in the Department of Public Works still has about a $90,000 deficit.

Wong has proposed leaving two positions within DPW unfilled to cover the rest of the deficit in the streetlight account.

But DiNatale, the at-large councilor, said he would have liked to have seen money taken out of the city's free cash account to reduce the number of lights that would be turned off.

"I think 60 percent is really drastic," DiNatale said.

He said he would like to see a plan that would turn off only a quarter of the city's lights.

Ah, clever plan! Instead of saving money by turning off streetlights (which has caused a lot of whining, but no discernible problems), he wants to raid the city's free cash instead. Because, umm... actually I have no idea how that idea makes any sense.

But DiNatale saying stupid things is not really news. It's just what he does. Lots of sound and fury, signifying a young man's desperate attempt to differentiate himself from his father (while still benefiting from the surname), by acting like an idiot.

Where it gets fun is that at least a couple of other city councilors are clearly getting sick of him too. First, Stephan Hay:

Other councilors said that approach was not looking at the "big picture."

"I'm surprised my fiscally conservative watchdog councilor is so quick to spend our free cash," Council President Stephan Hay said to DiNatale.

Not bad at all! That was pointed and sarcastic, while also shining the light on DiNatale's hypocrisy! Very nice! I give it four out of five stars.

Can anyone beat that? Your turn, Jody Joseph!

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph said she [Sic] was "tired" of hearing DiNatale criticize Wong.

"I'm constantly hearing the same thing, 'My way is right, her way is wrong,'" Joseph said.

Okay, that's pretty decent. I think Hay wins, though. Joseph is blunt, which is good, but Hay is funnier.

See, now is the time when I wish I actually did watch these things. I'm sure there was more entertainment to be had there. Hey, FATV, how about providing edited down clips of only the interesting parts of council meetings? By which I mean the parts where they bicker.

Let's have a contest! The first city councilor to call DiNatale a "twatmonkey" (or an equivalent insult, have fun with it!) during a council meeting will win a fabulous prize!**

I'm rooting for Annie DeMartino, because of her lovely accent.

Oh, DiNatale did defend himself, sort of:

DiNatale responded saying he would "provide criticism when I feel it's appropriate."

In other words: "I will continue to grandstand at every opportunity, even if I have nothing of value to contribute. Because I am a twatmonkey."

That is all.

----

* Also because if I write about city council meetings without having actually watched them personally, Mr. Follies might yell at me. But he seems to have disappeared, so fuck it.

** Prize may not actually exist.

Whiny babies, commence whining!

Ugh, more boring crap about streetlights being shut off. Didn't I write about this awhile ago?

(Yes, I did!)

Well, now the plan is actually about to start.

A plan to shut of more than 60 percent of the city's streetlights could be implemented as early as next week, Mayor Lisa Wong said Wednesday.

The plan is expected to yield about $64,000 in savings, according to a report released this week by Department of Public Works Commissioner Lenny Laakso.

"We just have to get the OK from the mayor's office, then we'll tell Unitil to implement the plan," Laakso said.

Wong said it would take a month or two to fully implement the program.

All well and good. They're going to shut off about 63% of the streetlights, while leaving strategically-placed lights on.

Lights would remain on along Main Street, on dangerous curves, near some schools and in some areas recommended by ward councilors and police officials, Laakso said.

Well, that's pretty sensible!

After all, there are about 3,000 streetlights in Fitchburg. That's a lot of electricity and a lot of money. And many of the lights are in places that don't really require streetlights. It's really a very sensible plan.

Of course, local whiny babies don't care for this sensible plan. Because they're scared of the dark, and have apparently never lived anywhere that didn't have a giant streetlamp every 30 feet. You know, exotic places like Alaska. Or Lunenburg.

Some people are not whiny babies, of course, and even speak up. Like this rarely-seen creature, an actual intelligent letter to the editor writer! Hold on to your hats!

The truth is, no conclusive evidence exists on the correlation between streetlights and criminal activity. A 2002 article from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences concludes that "more research is needed" on the relationship between lighting and crime. Oddly enough, few American studies have been conducted on this crucial issue, and the results of the studies we do have are decidedly mixed.

In one of the newer studies, a 2000 Department of Justice report on Chicago showed that "reported offenses increased" when lighting was improved. How could this be? According to the evaluation, it "could not provide a definitive explanation of these findings." So the answer is, nobody knows.

On the other hand, the International Dark-Sky Association, an organization concerned with the negative effects of light pollution, estimates that the U.S. wastes more than a billion dollars annually in energy costs for unnecessary lighting. In short, the jury is still out on whether (or to what degree) street lighting makes our streets safer. And there is some indication that illuminating our cities may do more harm than good.

Letter-writer Elizabeth Gordon, you are a breath of fresh air! You cite people who actually know what they're talking about instead of just asking dumbass city councilors and people on the street for their uninformed opinion!

Unfortunately, very few whiny babies are capable of understanding what you wrote. Even fewer will give a shit. For instance, here's a lovely comment on that letter. It's from "WHAT ABOUT US":

QUOTED FROM STORY "Since there is no statistically significant evidence that street lighting affects the level of crime, I for one am fine with the city saving money by shutting off the lights. Others, I'm sure, will disagree."

Do you really need a chart or graph or some form of written information to see what is going on in your own town? Open your eyes... Look around you... Forget about waiting for someone to spell it out for you.

Yes, Elizabeth. Your perfectly logical and straightforward approach to decision making is offensive to idiots. You and your "charts" and "graphs." NERD!

The local illiterati have determined that research means nothing at all. All they need to know is that they think that turning off streetlights is bad, so therefore it is. End of argument!

Let's have another example, shall we? This one comes from "cheryl". It's beautiful:

No lights in Fitchburg? good when we get hurt from them turning off the lights then we should send medicol bills to Lisa Wong. she wants Lights Out then she should pay All medicol bills for those who gets injured.

I enjoy the way this person's mind works. Turning off 63% of the streetlights in her mind is apparently the same as "no lights in Fitchburg."

Yes, "cheryl." The mayor is going to come to your house and steal all your light bulbs! Not for any reason; just because she's evil! I bet she won't even pay for your "medicol" bills when the scary darkness hurts you!

See, the fact of the matter is that 98% of the bitching about turning off streetlights has nothing whatsoever to do with streetlights. It has to do with the fact that there's a subset of inbred douchenozzles in Fitchburg who hate Lisa Wong and are going to complain about anything she does, because it's her.

To illustrate that point, here's a comment on that same article from our old racist buddy, "QEII":

Geez i'm surprised and she makes me ill when i see her chuckle on tv. Nothing is funny about what has gone wrong with Fitchburg, i am appalled that we are the source of her sick laughter. She should I suppose she fooled a lot of people didn't she; 29, a mayor (great on her resume) and the people of Fitchburg foolheartedly put her there.

So the comment that this dipshit is making on an article about streetlights is basically "I don't like the way Lisa Wong laughs."

Umm... okay. I've never had an issue with the mayor's laugh, personally. But I'm also not a crazy asshole who hates the mayor.

Look, people who are scared of the dark. This is easy. If you're really scared of Mad Max-style roving gangs of bandits raiding your home because a nearby streetlight was turned off, you can pay about $12 a month to have it turned on. Surely you're willing to pay that much for your own safety, right?

Because if not, then you're probably not actually all that concerned about the streetlights. So if you don't pay for the light, but do whine about it being turned off, you're really just whining because you enjoy whining. Stop it.

---

Also, I'm putting up a new poll. I theorize that the vast majority of people who whine about streetlights being turned off also whine about people getting too many public services (you know, welfare and disability and so forth). Do you agree?

Local pastor thinks Obama is the Antichrist?

One of my many bad habits is reading the Shepherd's Corner column in the Fitchburg Pride. Often it's the only thing I'll actually bother to read in the Pride, because it's such a good source of hilarity.

In this almost-weekly feature, we get words of "wisdom" from various community ministers/pastors/priests/whatever. Oddly, I haven't been asked to contribute yet despite the fact that I am an ordained Reverend, and a devoted Pastafarian.

I blame prejudice.

Some of my fellow religious leaders are pretty good, though. Well, one is. I have no complaints with the Unitarian lady. Most of the others are various levels of crazy. Some are just a little crazy, with their bible-quotin' and all. Others are quite crazy.

Into this latter category is where I'm putting Pastor Steve Mayo, the guy behind this odd column. Allow me to quote a bit:

Over the last few weeks, and especially since the election, President elect Barack Obama has been labeled everything from the Messiah to the Antichrist as people try to make sense of what happened on Nov. 4. Is he the great American hope who will make every wrong right in the world, judgment on America for its apostasy, or somewhere in between?

Umm... wow. Where to even start?

Pastor Crazypants is right that some lunatics call Obama the Antichrist, and actually are serious about it. But "the Messiah"? Huh?

The only people who I've ever heard use the term "Messiah" when talking about Obama are right-wing assholes. They're not using that word because they believe he's a messiah, they're using it to make fun of people who are just too deeply into Obama. In fairness, there are a fair number of people who are too into Obama, and they deserve to be made fun of.

Regardless, I don't think there's an Obama supporter out there who thinks of him as the "Messiah" in a religious sense. It's a figure of speech, Pastor!

Also, "judgment on America for its apostasy"???

Apostasy is basically leaving one's religion. America has never had a religion to leave. It's a secular state, and has never been a "Christian nation", no matter what lies you've been told.

It's creepy to talk about apostasy in this manner. It brings to mind Islamic theocracies, where apostasy is often punishable by death. I wonder what "judgment" this pastor thinks America has earned.

Okay, that first paragraph was pretty dumb. But maybe Pastor Steve will now redeem himself by saying how the people saying these things are stupid!

Those who think of him as the Messiah need to think again. Those who think that just moving our country to one political party or the other will solve our problems need to look back at history to see just how false that statement is. Having one party in control of every branch of government has never brought about a utopian United States.

Argh!

Okay, ignore for a moment the fact that nobody actually thinks of Obama as "the Messiah." Why are only those people (who don't exist in the first place) taken to task? What about the nutballs who call him the Antichrist? You don't have any problem with them?

Apparently not, because at no point are they mentioned again. I can only assume that Pastor Steve endorses the view that Obama is the Antichrist.

I do enjoy Pastor Steve's views on one-party government being a bad thing, though. He's quite right that it's "never brought about a utopian United States." Of course, neither has two-party rule. Or anything else. But hell, I can't argue with the facts!

The rest of his column is also wonderfully crazy and idiotic. This is a man who's not at all in touch with reality. For instance:

W blame an outgoing president for our inabilitto see that we are gettininto mortg we
cannot afford and buying things we cannot pay for.

Put a bigass [Sic] after that whole thing.

What it's attempting to convey appears to be that people blame Bush for their own overspending. The jerks!

Except they don't. They might blame Bush for the culture of excessive deregulation that led to banks going all willy-nilly offering mortgages to people they knew couldn't pay for them. That's a very different thing.

What other crap can this guy spew?

We murder and call it choice. Lust is confused with love. We as a society are turning around. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, we are trying to free our conscience and make everything acceptable. I have heard it said regarding different sins that, "I was born this way."

I would very much like to know what "different sins" he's heard people say "I was born this way" about. I mean besides homosexuality, which is obviously what he's referring to. Perhaps he'll tell us?

We were all born this way. We are all born sinful. Left unchecked, we will run towards sin and away from God. We often prefer to create a god in our own image, rather than obeying the Lord "who was, and is, and is to come" (Rev. 4:8).

So we're all gay? How am I going to break this to my wife?

Pastor Everyone-is-gay then goes on to ask a very important question.

Where do you stand? Are you going to look to a man to solve our problems, or are you going to look to God? If we don't turn back to God, then even help with the best of intentions isn't going to make a difference.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'll give an answer.

I'm going to look not to "a man" to solve our problems, but to multiple men and women. Because the only way problems ever get solved is when people get off their asses (or knees) and do something about them.

God isn't going to fix the economy, God isn't going to stop the war, God isn't going to make sure you have a merry Christmas. God's going to do what God has always done: absolutely nothing.

What is this pathetic form of defeatism practiced by some Christians? If you want a better world, get out there and do something about it. Every minute you spend praying to your god is a minute you're not doing something to improve the world. Yes, you can do both if you really want. But why waste time?

Apparently Pastor Steve just wants you to sit around praying and filling up his collection tin instead of working to improve the world. No thanks!

I was wondering if all Pastor Give-up's sermons are this bad, so I went to his church's website. As it turns out, it's the filthiest thing I've ever seen in my life!

Let's say you want to listen to some of Pastor Steve's inspiring thoughts about giving up on the world. So you go to the Sermons page. Being concerned about computer security, you have Javascript disabled in your browser (perhaps via the NoScript Firefox extension). You're treated to this!

(click to embiggen)
Now, that "Importance of Godly Women" sermon sounds okay, at first.

But how could it possibly compare to "duck hot gay love sex", whatever that is? What do they really sell in "celebrity sex stores"? Why are they saying that "scotland sucks"? These could be interesting sermons too!

Perhaps I should try another page. Hey, that "Megawatt Youth Ministries" thing sounds exciting too!

Wow, it sure is! Corn wives rule!

Virtually every page on the site is like this. A little bit of churchy stuff up top, then tons of links to places you really shouldn't visit taking up the rest of the page.

I was going to send a nice email to Pastor Steve alerting him that the site has been compromised by spammers and that they'll need to have somebody clean it up.

But then I thought back to Pastor Steve's advice. If we rely on humans for website security, we won't get anywhere!

So instead of alerting him to the problem, which would probably result in a sinful human having to clean things up, I'm just going to pray to God that He will use his magic to fix the site and get rid of all the suspicious links to "squirting chicks" and "hentai cat girl galleries".

I figure it should be pretty easy for him, being God and all. And it's the way Pastor Steve would want it.



[Update] - I removed the links to the site. There's obfuscated Javascript involved, and just in case it's up to something nastier than link farming I don't want to send people there and get them infected.

If you really want to see the site, it's at http://www.elmstcc.org. I don't recommend visiting unless you disable Javascript first, though. You wouldn't see the fun stuff with it on anyway.

Also, God has apparently not gotten around to fixing it, so I did alert the contact address on the site. I guess we humans will just have to fix our own problems, again.

God planning to tamper with the polls!

Oh Sarah Palin, will you ever stop being ridiculous? Probably not, but at least after November 4th we won't have to hear about it anymore.

In the meantime, we get great stuff like this story about an interview Palin did with James Dobson, of Focus on the Family.

Here's a fun quote!

Dobson asked the vice presidential hopeful if she is concerned about John McCain’s sagging poll numbers, but Palin stressed that she was "not discouraged at all."

"To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder," she told the influential Christian leader, whose radio show reaches millions of listeners daily. "And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4."

Okay, let me see if I understand this correctly.

So according to Palin, if when Obama wins on November 4th, it will be because God is doing "the right thing for America"? So Palin believes that even God thinks she's totally unqualified and ridiculous? Man, that gotcha media sure must have hurt her self-esteem!

Ha ha of course that's not what she thinks. She thinks her bearded buddy in the sky will actually intervene to subvert the democratic process and give her and McCain the victory.

She also thanked her supporters — including Dobson, who said he and his wife were asking "for God’s intervention" on election day — for their prayers of support.

"It is that intercession that is so needed," she said. "And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it."

So is God going to change the minds of people who would otherwise vote for Obama, thereby subverting the whole concept of "free will," or is he going to just tamper with the ballots and/or voting machines?

I don't know which makes more sense. Vote tampering might leave a trail that could make God's sneaky intervention all for naught. There's no point in miraculous vote tampering if you're just going to get caught. If that happens, people might start questioning your omnipotence, and you're already losing adherents as it is.

However, a mind-control ray would have serious theological implications for free will. It would also basically put Yahweh on the same moral ground as your typical supervillain, except without the hollowed-out mountain lair. Which might be okay, because that's basically what his Old Testament shenanigans were all about anyway. He probably misses the old days.

Artist's rendering of God's mind control ray.
I'm no theologian, so I can't really say which way God will choose to go on this matter.

But one thing is certain: The best thing that Republicans can do on November 4th is stay home praying all day. Voting's not going to help a bit. Your only chance is to stay on your knees all day, repeatedly asking your sky-buddy to change the outcome.

Do it for Sarah!

The War on Paganism!

Here I was, sitting back and trying to simply ignore the whole "Holiday Season," sitting at work, watching people slip around hilariously on the ice outside, when my peace was disturbed!

I blame the time-traveling Mr. Lincoln for forwarding me this Sentinel editorial, no doubt in an effort to get me riled up. And riled up am I!

The editorial is written by Sentinel editor/douchebag Jeff McMenemy and is entitled "Tree controversy shows what the world is coming to."

Oddly enough the piece doesn't really explain what the world is supposedly coming to. Is it Armageddon? Cultural awareness? Orgies on every streetcorner? Also, are you really supposed to end a sentence with a preposition like that, Mr. Editor? Shame, shame!

Anyway, McMenemy is apparently a Teutonic Pagan and wants to push the trappings of his crazy-ass religion (I can say that because my girlfriend is a pagan) on the rest of us. To wit:

I don't understand the world today sometimes. [Unicow's note: this is both self-evident and a really sucky sentence.]

Case in point being the decision made by Samoset Principal Donna M. Pierce early last week to take down the school's giving tree -- which was used to collect donations to give to less fortunate people in Leominster -- because she received several complaints from parents and school employees who said it wasn't fair to put a religious symbol in the schools during the holidays.

Holy crap he's a bad writer. Not to mention a misleading one. Did people really think it wasn't "fair" to put up a religious symbol (in this case a Pagan one) in a public school? I'd bet they thought it wasn't constitutional, which is unrelated to fairness. McMenemy clearly has no qualms about pushing his nutty nature-worship on the rest of us, but the Constitution of this country isn't real big on that kind of behavior.

He goes on to say:

Pierce later agreed to put the tree back up after a huge public backlash.

Hmm. Do you think Mr. Pantheism there reads his own newspaper?

Because there was this story which explained pretty clearly that...

A parent put up the tree Friday to the "surprise" of faculty members and students, who had been working on a display that now includes Hanukkah and Kwanzaa symbols, as well as Christmas decorations, Superintendent Nadine Binkley said Wednesday.

"A parent came in and put up the tree without consulting anybody," she said. "It was an individual parent who chose to do it as opposed to a unified effort from the school community."

Oh, what a huge controversy! The school took down something that was erected too soon only to put it back up when it was due to go up anyway! Oh no!

So, some parent comes in and does something that could be argued to promote religion in a public school setting if left standing alone. Instead of leaving it there, it's taken down until such a time as the planned and coordinated Xmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Solstice/Whatever decorations can get put up and thereby avoid potential establishment clause issues (displays for religious holidays are okay in public schools only if you give equal time to all comers, and don't promote any religion). Horrible!

[Another note: I was going to make an establishment clause / Santa Claus joke here but decided against it. You're welcome.]

(Also, if you're curious about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to religious holidays in public schools, the Christian Legal Society has some information here.)

Actually, what the principal did makes a lot of sense. But it's not controversial and doesn't fit into McMenemy's preconceived "War On Pagan Traditions That Are Explicitly Warned Against By The Bible."

I mean, only an idiot would freak out over schools following their own schedules, right? Or is he advocating anarchy in our public schools now? What if the parent had put the tree up in September, Mr. Goat-worship? Should we just leave it up and thereby abandon all order? Think of the children!

If McMenemy had left it at that I wouldn't have been too bothered. I mean, he's just one dumbass among many. But for some reason he had to get nasty:

The correct thing for Pierce to do would have been to thank everyone for their concern, and then politely tell them the tree was staying up, and suggest they could lessen their chagrin by donating something to put on the tree.

That way these thin-skinned, politically correct left wingers -- because you know we Republicans love Christmas -- might actually do something helpful for once in their lives.

What the fuck?

"We Republicans love Christmas?"

Okay, I'd like to think that was tongue-in-cheek, and McMenemy just doesn't have the writing skills to convey sarcasm. But I don't think it was, which just means that Jeff McMenemy is an unbelievably huge asshole. Hey, fuck you, Jeff!

I get told by people all the time that Xmas is about giving and brotherhood and all that (hey, wasn't Jesus into brotherhood too?), and you come in defending it with the most stupidly divisive statement I've ever read? Fuck you again!

What, Democrats don't love Xmas? That'll come as news to an awful lot of people. Now, I hate Xmas, but I hardly speak for all Democrats (and my hate has more to do with the secular annoyance and conspicuous consumption than the let's-pretend-Jesus-was-born-in-December-even-though-he-wasn't religious tripe anyway).

And to suggest that the left-wing doesn't do anything to help the needy? What world have you been living in? Fuck you yet again! Fuck you and all your animal-sacrificing buddies!

I wasn't opposed to having Xmas trees in schools before (when done correctly, in a way so as not to promote religion), but now I am! Just to piss off Jeff McMenemy.

People like McMenemy are so keen on destroying the First Amendment and breaking down the separation between church and state (and make no mistake, that's what this is really about), that they become blind to what's actually going on.

In reality there's no controversy here. There's no sign of "what the world is coming to." It's a non-story that the Sentinel has tried to turn into a controversy by having three stories and two opinion pieces about it (so far). All that's really here is some right-wind fucktards freaking out over nothing, and using it as an excuse to attack people who they disagree with.

I may not subscribe to McMenemy's neo-paganist beliefs, but he's welcome to them. Trying to stir shit up for no reason isn't cool, though. Nor is it in keeping with his supposed belief system. Nerthus would be very disappointed!

ps Also, nice job pushing your pro-death penalty agenda in the same editorial thing, Jeff. 'Tis the season for giving (lethal injections)!

Apes Evolved From Conservative Talk Show Hosts

Election's over, enough local politics for a minute!

As a guy who strives to provide a different voice in Fitchburg, I ingest a lot of media that I quite frankly can't stand. But unless you know what other people are saying you're in no position to point out that they're often totally wrong. That's why I read skim the Sentinel thoroughly for things to make fun of and that's why I occasionally listen to the horrible Chuck Morse show on WEIM.

I happened to be listening last night while Morse went off about how people who believe the theory of evolution is correct (i.e. everyone with even a basic grasp of science) are big fat jerks. Now, I may be a big jerk, but I'm not fat. Morse also updated his terrible blog with information about it! Incidentally, I think his blog gets even fewer readers than his radio show has listeners, which might put it into negative numbers somehow.

Morse is clearly neither a scientist nor a theologian. Nor does he seem to have any real understanding of science or theology. You'd think that would make him unqualified to have a meaningful discussion of the evolution vs creationism "controvery," and you'd be right!

But funny thing about evolution. Most scientific theories are debated by scientists. If some radio host started going off on a totally uninformed tirade about the theory of relativity people would just laugh at him. But evolution has been politicized to the point where anyone who's even heard of Darwin can rant about how horrible evolutionary theory is and have a similarly uninformed subset of idiots believe him.

But this is science, not politics. So let's get to the facts, shall we?

First, a quote from Morse's blog so you can see where this all came from:

I am proud of comedian, author, economist, and former presidential speechwriter Ben Stein for taking on the thorny issue of evolution versus intelligent design in his new film "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" due to be released in theatres [sic] February, 2008.

Besides delving into the raucous debate over the scientific legitimacy of Darwinism, the theory that claims that man randomly developed from muck and was formed by mutating over millions of years, the movie also documents the Stalinist tactics of the darwiniacs, the devout cult followers of this questionable theory.

Hmm, okay. Ben Stein was a teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." And though I don't see "scientist" or "theologian" in his credentials either, people seem to be under the odd impression that he's kind of smart.

After all, he had that show where people tried to steal his money, right? No way could that have been set up to mostly ask questions that he'd be likely to know the answers to!

Morse, as usual, began spouting things that just aren't true right away. There's absolutely no "raucous debate over the scientific legitimacy of Darwinism." There's a political debate, not a scientific one. Sure, there are debates within the field of evolutionary biology, but they're about elements of the theory, not the legitimacy of the theory as a whole. Nor is the theory "questionable" in the usual sense. All scientific theories are open to questioning, but the validity of the theory isn't in doubt in the scientific community (it's only in doubt by the moron community).

Also, evolutionary theory doesn't really claim that "man randomly developed from muck." It has little to say about the origins of life, and is really about the development of life after that point (which actually means it's not even incompatible with a "creator," but more about that later). He's right about mutations being important though, so good for him getting at least one fact right!

Morse talked last night about how he considers evolutionary theory "just a theory," and how he wrote a column several years ago that said that and got a lot of criticism. Chuck Morse apparently does not know the difference between a "theory" (as used by the general public) and a "scientific theory" (as used by scientists, natch). This is a common argument used by similarly-confused creationists, like the Cobb County Board of Education, whose unconstitutional sticker for textbooks is reproduced below.



Anyway, here's a link that explains the difference in ways even Morse should be able to understand. For those of you too lazy to follow it or that need a refresher, in a nutshell:

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology...

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with...

...Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

Pretty simple, no?

Evolutionary theory, of course, is a scientific theory. One that's as well-proven and accepted as quantum theory or the theory of relativity. It's open to debate and revision, but outright rejection of evolutionary theory would require some pretty dramatic evidence against it.

Back to Morse:

Stein reveals how how [sic] educators, scientists and commentators have been publically [sic] denounced, scorned, and in some cases denied tenure and even fired for the “crime” of believing that there might be evidence of design” [sic] in nature.

Maybe that's true. I don't know. If a science teacher is denying evolution in favor of creationism I'd certainly deny him tenure. Similarly, I'd deny him tenure if he was staying the Earth is flat or that gravity only exists because God keeps shoving everything to the ground. Science teachers are supposed to teach science, not crackpot theories.

Come to think of it, evolution is probably better understood than gravity (which works, but isn't well-explained). Probably even better than quantum theory (which is just incredibly hard to wrap your head around). Quantum theory is accepted as fact though, because it explains how the world works with incredible accuracy. Evolutionary theory does the same thing. And that's what a scientific theory is about! If it works, it's a good theory. If it doesn't, it's rejected and hopefully replaced by a better one. Hurrah for science!

Morse seems to have a touch of PTSD from his dramatic loss when he ran against Barney Frank for Congress:

I had my own run-in on this issue when I ran for Congress in Massachusetts against Barney Frank in 2004. In his opposition research, Frank had uncovered an article I had written that (gasp) questioned Darwin's theory of evolution. He brought this up during a joint television appearance on NECN - Nightline with Chet Curtis and Jim Braude.

Frank looked angry as he exposed what he considered to be a bombshell, a shocking scandal. By questioning Darwinism, I was not to be taken seriously. [blah blah blah]

Yeah, indeed Morse shouldn't be taken seriously. But it's not for "questioning Darwinism," it's just for being really really dumb. I wouldn't take someone who denies the Holocaust seriously, I wouldn't take someone who denies the theory of relativity seriously, I wouldn't take someone who thought that when I hit the button to open my garage door invisible pixies flew over to it in order to do the heavy lifting seriously, and I wouldn't take someone who denies evolution seriously.

It's not about asking questions (science actually encourages that), it's about intelligence. If you question evolution intelligently then you should be taken seriously. If you deny it wholesale because your invisible friend in the sky told you to then you absolutely should not be taken seriously.

Morse ends his blog post with this paragraph:

Darwin's evolution is the cornerstone of the secular faith because it removes the possibility of God. Thus, God is replaced by the State which is, according to the secular faith, charged with the moral responsibility to evolve man. This was the faith of the ancient pagans, the idol-worshippers of biblical times. The state set up an idol, such as Baal, and dictated the means of worship down the lines of supporting "enlightened" state power. This also gave the King, who controlled the false idol, the moral pretext to denounce and remove his enemies. Perhaps not much has changed.

Okay, ignore for a minute that most of it makes no damn sense and let's just focus on this idea that evolution=atheism. Morse doesn't come right out and say that in his blog, but he did on the radio. As we've come to expect, it too is totally made up.

Of course there are plenty of atheists who accept evolution as fact. The brilliant Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the best-known evolutionary biologists at work today, and has taken an extremely strong stance against religion (and I dare anyone of faith to read The God Delusion without questioning what they believe). But there are plenty of others in the field who believe in a god.

One very well-known evolutionary biologist who also believed in a god was the late Stephen Jay Gould. Gould introduced the concept of Non-Overlapping Magesteria, which boiled down to a belief that religion and science are seperate "magisteria" with nothing to say about each other. For that matter even the Vatican under John Paul II has endorsed evolution, though I think the current pope isn't on board with that anymore.

The head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, has also espoused the theory of Theistic Evolution (TE). I happen to disagree with Collins (personally I'm a Pastafarian), but the fact that so many respected biologists are clearly theists pretty effectively debunks Morse's claim.

As for Theistic Evolution, it's the belief "that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory." And indeed, they need not! Who's to say that a god didn't set evolution in motion? That'd be a pretty clever trick! Certainly smarter than creating men with nipples and all humans with an appendix that does nothing except sometimes get inflamed and kill people!

One last thing I want to address. Morse talked a lot last night about how he got so much anger and hatred and so forth for his evolution denial. He seemed baffled by it, and suggested that evolutionary theory was the one thing in this country you're not allowed to question.

Now, I'd actually argue that other people's religious beliefs are the one thing you're not allowed to question, but let's just go with this...

Chuck, the reason people react so strongly is because you're totally uninformed about the subject you're discussing. To reject evolution at this point is (rightfully) seen by many people as a sign both of ignorance and of a desire to impose your religious beliefs on others.

No question here, so-called "Intelligent Design" is just creationism in fancy clothes. Its goal is to get God into the public schools, which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution. If you endorse gutting the Bill of Rights, you're going to piss people off. People who are pissed off are going to react strongly. It's not just atheists, it's anyone who respects the First Amendment.

I haven't focused much on the creationism side of this argument, because I believe it to be nonsense. You can believe it if you like, but the instant that belief turns into a desire to corrupt the minds of our children with fairy tales when they should be learning real science, you earn yourself an enemy. And I'm hardly alone in that.

Question evolution all you want, but learn a thing or two about it first. Try reading a book that doesn't agree with your religious preconceptions once in awhile. Just being a dumbass won't get you far.