Original Genetic Sin

Apparently, sin is genetic and nobody told me (via Slacktivist):

                This scientific picture of a group of early humans raises many questions, including particularly difficult ones related to the Fall. Plantinga and pastor Daniel Harrell both suggest a possible solution: perhaps Adam and Eve were two individuals within the group of early humans. This would preserve Adam as a real historical figure and the Fall as a real historical event. However, the spread of sin to the rest of the group is problematic, since it would take many generations to spread genetically through a population of thousands.

Personally, I find this to be a startling revelation. Just think for a minute about what the existence of an original sin gene (or, more likely, a sequence of genes, since rarely does a gene do anything by itself) means. Sin, then, becomes a little more than a genetic illness; it is something that can be treated. It is something that can be screened at birth, and removed from the human genome. The human species is capable of removing sin, then, and transitioning to a new, sin-free existence in much the same way that it would remove all other illnesses.

Perhaps there is just the tiniest amount of truth in this, surprisingly enough, but it's coming close to a workable answer (that requires a lot of polishing) while going about it in the absolutely wrong manner; it's like solving 2+2 with 5, and going about it as such: 2+1 - 2 - 1 = 3 * 1 = 3 +2 = 5. You're pulling figures out of your posterior, making it up as you go, and eventually coming to a conclusion that's removed from the realm of being correct. But if we consider original sin to include death, and the sequence that leads up to death (which I've heard some people say is the case), then this statement is, surprisingly enough, at least a quarter true. Our genetics contain the keys to our lifespans; these things called telomeres at the end of your genes, which short every time the gene divides with the cell it's in, determine how long your cells last and, by extension, how long you last. So if you include death into the "original sin" label, then that part of original sin is definitely genetic.

Now, here's a good example of the incomplete nature of Evangelical Apologetic thinking: if sin has a material cause, then is it possible to manipulate it? If not, why? Think about what we could do:

• We could screen for sin at conception just like we do other genetic disorders and deformities and remove it from the genetic pool. 
• We could manipulate the sin gene, setting it so that it's switched "off". If the gene sequence defining sin is switched "off", what happens?
• Since it interacts with every generation, ever, it's neither a dominate nor a recessive gene, but it'd have to be something entirely different, like the gene sequences that determine your skin (not skin color, the fact that you have skin), or the fact that you have eyes, four limbs, or something of that manner. Maybe we could experiment with the nature of this "sin gene" and develop other genes that are just like it, which can help control behavior on the same level that we have complex gene patterns that control the fact that we grown skin and the organs we do grow.
  Just like there are fetuses who are born without heads or fetuses who are born without limbs or legs, then, it follows that there are also fetuses out there who are born without sin, since the sin gene failed to trigger. Of maybe the sin gene never fails to trigger. That would lead to phenomenal insights into how genes trigger and how they do, and perhaps allow us to piece together why the sin gene never fails to trigger and then export that pattern to other genes, as well.
• If the sin gene is responsible for self awareness, then we could take it and, through vertical gene transfer, put it into other animals, giving them self-awareness too. What happens if this happens on accident, as vertical gene transfer is apt to do in nature? Can bacteria be fallen - will that bacteria become intelligent?
• I can recreate computerized versions of genes, or we will be able to. If we recreate a computerized version of the sin gene sequence, will the computer doing so become fallen, too?
• Before the decade is out, we will have genetic treatments to postpone death, and anti-aging treatments. Immortality treatments may come before the end of the century, and eventually, true biological immortality will follow. We can defeat death, and if you're going to narrowly define the "original sin" present in the genome as the existence of telomeres that determine when we die, then we'll end up defeating "original sin" in the long run, too. 

This is another example of lazy Evangelical-Creationist apologetics. None of these implications were thought through; they're desperately looking for the ever smaller holes to cram their God into. We have the entire gene sequence of not just humans but also Neanderthals, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos mapped out, along with other plants, fungi, eukaryotic genomes and a mass of animals that include cats, dogs, dolphins and elephants. We did not find a "sin" gene sequence, because it does not exist. It's fantastic god magic that deserves derision for being as foolish and arrogant as it is. It's also remarkably lazy, since I was able to find all of this information by just typing in "animal genome project" into Google and pressing "go."

Molecular genetics is a surefire way to destroy creationism. There's no way it can survive what discoveries that molecular genetics finds; but then, we didn't need molecular genetics to destroy creationism. A little creative but thorough thinking and Google is more than enough to do that.

Merry Kwanzamas

We made it (was there ever any doubt?) Surprisingly enough, the world didn't end on 21 December, just like it never ended on all the days before it. So here we are, on the Christmas Evening, looking out over the last week before we hit New Years and 2013. A lot happened that could make you think that it did, though: Newtown, the recent even with the firefighters getting shot, the fact that trying to carry on a debate with gun owners is like trying to reason with creationists, this BS about the fiscal cliff, and other things that make me wonder if we'd all just been better off if the world just ended right there on the spot. But it didn't. You can't run like that.

You can't run at all from your problems. The only way to deal with them is to own up to the and fix them. Unfortunately, Americans seem less and less inclined to do just that. So let's blame everything but the problem itself, and come up with every excuse that we can to dodge the actual question, since that might force us to actual think of solutions that we may not personally like. Let's blame video games, despite there not being a shred of evidence that it causes violent behavior. Let's blame movies, let's blame TV, but God forbid we blame easy access to firearms. Banning automatic weapons and passing regulations to limit the number of guns and the amount of ammo manufactured each year might lead to American Christians being herded into concentration camps by FEMA or something. Government, after all, is EBBBBILLL. Overlooking the fact that if you're an American and you're reading this you are the government, it doesn't change the fact that most gun owners do not make me confident in them owning weapons. Especially with their childish, black-and-white view of society where force is always the answer. "If you're being held at gunpoint, do you want to have a fire arm so you can shoot the guy or do you want to wait an hour for the police?" No, I don't want a firearm. I'll get my ass shot, and so will you, before you can even draw it. Did you read your own question? You're at gunpoint. What are, you John Wesley Hardin, fastest gun in the west? I doubt it, but hey, never let Dunning-Kruger stop you from thinking you're the best at your imaginary wild west scenarios. And why is that the only two choices - isn't that a false dichotomy? Why can't I try to talk to the person and talk them out of it? If I'm understanding and empathetic, I'll have a better chance of getting through than if I try to cap their ass when they clearly have the advantage. I addressed something similar to this in a post way back when I talked about whether or not we even need heroes anymore in society - I came to the conclusion we do not. Newtown and it's aftermath are what belief in heroes get us. What a belief in "black hatted bad guys" who can only be stopped by sheer luck and chance, since "white hatted good guys" usually get shot (see: the armed security guard at Columbine).

(And I wonder how many gun owners were gung-ho for voter disenfranchisement registration, "to prevent voter fraud" and all that BS, and don't see the irony now that they're whining about registration of their own hobby - and before you say that it could easily be flipped the other way, go look up the number of voter fraud cases. Now look up the number of people killed by guns each year. I'm sure that they're running neck and neck in numbers).

Anyway, on a totally separate and unrelated note, I've got a list of things that I want to accomplish in 2013; I figure if I write them here, maybe it'll make them more permanent. One of the things I want to become more motivated and procrastinate less, but I'll wait to put the whole list (yes, the irony burns - but that's in 2013).

Anyway, I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas if you celebrated it. Otherwise, I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday season. After New Years, winter sort of takes up space and the year kicks into high swing.

Here's to my 27th Christmas. May I live to see another 27, and beyond. And here's to your Xth Christmas, dear reader, and may you live long enough to see another X number of Christmases - or whatever holiday you celebrate.

No Ann, You Still Don't Get it

Ann Romney suffered from MS.

I didn't know that. I feel sorry for her for having to go through that; it's something nobody should have to go through.

It's not going to make me like her or her husband anymore, because I feel both of them are aristocratic assholes who think they're better than everyone else because they've got money, but I am sorry that she had to go through that.

However, this is a message to Mrs. Romney:

Yes, you battled MS. No, that does not make you like us at all.

Ann Romney fired back Wednesday at critics who have accused husband Mitt Romney of being out of touch with average Americans, saying her own bout with multiple sclerosis taught the family what it means to suffer and lose hope.

"When people say that we've led a charmed life and we don't relate to people that are having trouble, I want to remind you that I've been in a very dark place, and I know what it is like to have no hope," Mrs. Romney said at a rally for women supporting her husband, the Republican presidential candidate, at the University of Findlay in Ohio. "So believe me when I tell you these words: We are there for you because we know what it feels like.

No.

No.

No

This does not you know what it's like to be hopeless or suffer. Yes, the disease is painful (not that I'd know) but you know what? You had the money go and get it treated. You had an insurance company that would cover it. You had insurance, period.
This does nothing to me, other than convince me that you do live a charmed life. Yes, it's a shame you had to go through that; nobody should. But you had the money to get it treated. You had the money to get it fixed, and you had the insurance to help you. Furthermore, you could do it without losing time from work. If I ever got hit with something like that lady, I'd be fucked. There would be no way out for me. My life would be totaled for the next decade while I tired to cover the cost for the medication. I thankfully do not have MS. I hope never to get MS, and nobody should have to suffer through it. But suffering through it, Ann Romney, does not make you special. It does not automatically make you "one of us" because suddenly you know what it's like to "lose hope and suffer".

You have no idea what that's really like.

Take your silver spoon and go enjoy your cake, Ann. Stop trying to pretend that just because you had a terrible disease you suddenly understand what it's like to be poor and get the same disease, not be able to work, have several children at home, and be working temporary (or worse, have been working at a company that your husband ran... into the dirt). A nasty sinus infection cost me $31.00 in lost money at work. It cost me $100.00 in medication. I live on less than $15,000 a year. The only reason I can afford that is because I'm still stuck at home.

No.

You do not know what it's like. You have lived a charmed life, and you are a very self-centered woman to think that having a disease, when you have the money and the wealthy to treat it, is enough to make you "just like" the poor person who can't even scrap together enough money to pay for OTC cold medication when what they've really got is walking pneumonia. You have a lot of chutzpah to sit there an say that you know what it's like to lose hope, when you've never felt your heart sink in the doctor's office because someone told you that you need to see a specialist, and there's no way you can afford it. When you need to be back at work the very next day, because you don't get paid leave, even if you are a walking bacteria and virus colony. Money is more important than health to us, Ann, because you and your kind made it that way. You slowly strip us of our dignity, remove the healthcare and the safety nets there to help keep us safe, and then have the gall to say you know what it's like to "suffer" and "lose hope."

No lady, you don't. So stop pretending you do.

Oh Goodie! A Dialogue!

h/t Dispatches


Why the hell don't I get these emails? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the "Meet hot girls now" and "date hot Asian ladies" spam in my mailbox (not really; spamfilters GO!), but why can't once in a while get something like this? Maybe I don't know enough creationists, or I'm not on enough mailing lists. Whatever the case, while browsing Dispatched from the Culture Wars today, I came across this excellent little dialogue that Ed had posted.

As my readers know, I love a good chance to snark at something. So there's no way I'm going to pass up this opportunity. Picture the scene: The back drop is set. The lecture hall is full, and the professor is getting ready to give a lecture. It could be a professor of anything; cosmology to astrophysics to nanochemistry to unicorn biology - Fundies who write and enjoy this stuff can't tell the difference. The point is, he's getting ready to give his lecture. In steps the brave and noble (always White, always Male) student. He clears his throat and interjects, interrupting the classroom. The mandatory black guy in the corner is going "Aaawww hell naw" and the room is a deep hush. The stage is set for an intellectual Battle of the Titans - but because that would outstrip our budget constraints, we give you these two strawmen, instead:

The Ridiculousness of Superheroine Costumes

As I wrote my novel, The Blue Pimpernel, I was well aware of how ridiculous superhero costumes often are. The spandex tends to be very unflattering, and capes are a stupid idea. So as I was writing the novel, I made a conscious effort to stay away from unflattering costumes. The girls are, as one of the villains in the second novel describes them, "Goodwill cases"; a description that sums up their costumes quite well. Renee sums it up even better when she refers to them as "rejects from the 1970s".

I was even more aware of it because I'm dealing with female superheroes. And there seems to be a rule of thumb anymore - female costumes are supposed to reveal as much as possible just shy of being outright pornographic, while male costumes on the other hand...

So yeah, this is another look at sexism in comics. It's me taking a look, in particular, at the nature of costumes.

Feathered Dinosaur Fossil = Boneheaded Creationists

First, some exciting dinosaur news.

Growing up, I was infatuated with dinosaurs. What kid wasn't? They were big, giant reptiles that walked the Earth millions of years ago. Some of them flew, some of them swam, most of them were larger than Teapublicans but without the diapers or the Medicare-paid electric scooters, and arguably a hell of a lot smarter.

So out of China, we get an exciting new discovery: A feathered dinosaur called Yutyrannus hali; which is the largest feathered dinosaur discovered to date. Y. hali is a tyrannosauroid, or a member of the Tyrannosauroidea superfamily/clade. As you can probably tell by the name, this includes one of the most famous dinosaurs of all time, Tyrannosaurus rex, but the family also included a number of other coelurosaurian theropods. The name means "hollow tailed lizards", and while not an official designation anymore, it's still used to encompass species like the compsognathids, tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and maniraptorans, the last category of which includes another very famous dinosaur - Velociraptor (mongoliensis and osmolskae, the creatures in Jurassic Park were actually an amalgam of several different dinosaurs, and would more accurately be called Deinonychus antirrhopus, but Velociraptor sounds cooler). It also includes the smartest dinosaur to ever walk the face of the planet, Troodon formosus, a dinosaur with  EQ six times that of your other dinosaur species (which isn't saying much, considering that puts it roughly on the same tier as ducks).

The feathers on Y. hali are more like down than they are any rigid feather, so they resemble the fluff that baby chicks are born with. Because we have a rough idea that T. rex (more accurately, the family) evolved into birds, we can look at this fossil and we can compare it to new born birds and it just further backs up my notion that the development of an embryo from a single-celled organism up through to a complete organism is a replay of evolution. Every time you watch a child conceive, develop, and eventually arrive on the scene, it's reliving some stage of evolution - the entire process of conception to birth is about 6 billion years of evolution condensed into 9 months. It maybe inexact, but it's pretty damn close. After all, chicks are born with down that develop as they age into feathers, while many millions of years ago, dinosaur chicks might not have been born with the down at all, and developed it as they aged. Evolution is building blocks stacked on other building blocks. Somewhere inside of your chicken or turkey is the DNA to resurrect Velociraptor (in fact, if I were going to resurrect it, I wouldn't use frog DNA like they did in the movie. That's just stupid. You'd pick a species closer to the dinosaurs, like turkeys. Because God knows picking eagles or falcons is just asking for it).

Which brings me to my next issue:

Yahoo! comments are not a place one goes looking when they want intelligent commentary on an issue. That's like expecting a civil, intelligent YouTube conversation. So half the the time, I suspect that 90% of the comments are determined trolls trying to piss everyone off and the other 10% are idiots who actually believe the stuff the trolls are spewing. Anytime someone brings a science issue, you can break them down into predictable comments:

The "Yeah, this is cool" guy who adds nothing to the conversation but seeks to make it known that his opinion is most certainly, "this is cool." Capitalization is optional. May over lap with the same guy who says "this is boring, why don't you talk about REAL news" or "what happened to real news anymore" guy.

The "why the hell are they doing this when they should be curing CANCER" guy, who doesn't seem to understand that paleontology or cosmology doesn't have anything to do with genetics or biomedicine. This, however, will not stop him from accusing the scientists involved of lining their own pockets with the research money and then somehow giving kick backs to the guys in Washington D.C.

Related to the above is the "skeptic", who believes that they're just making this stuff up to get money. Because that's not how they remembered being taught back in High School. No sir.



The Mayan 2012/New Agey guy, who is certain that scientists believe they know everything and that by achieving quantum awareness with Ramthauxuamathamaxqkl, the 35,000 Lemurian Warrior who battled the Atlanteans with incredible magical powers that sound suspiciously like something out of Complete Arcane, Complete Divine, or the 3.5 Psionics Handbook, they can see the truth. Both sides are wrong, and everyone needs to shut up and listen to me and my batshit beliefs. Clearly you can't have evolution when humans came from fuzzy black egg laying hermaphrodites (Theosophy is like Tolkien on crack).

The "President Obama is fake!" guy. Usually overlaps with the "Ron Paul, 20XX" troll, who just randomly spams "Ron Paul iz teh BOMBZ" on all the boards. The topic could be about how cute panda bears in China are flying to the moon, you'll always find "Ron Paul, 20XX". This is amusing when you go back a few years and see "Ron Paul, 2008", proving it worked so well back then.  Sometimes they're also the "Lets see the Birf CertificATE" guy. Again, proper capitalization is option, but these posts usually work better with Random, unpredictable Capitalization of Unnecessary words, no Matter where they Are in The Sentence. 

The guy who takes all the comments literally and wastes his life trying to respond to each one, seriously, thinking it'll make a difference. In the same vein, the guy who takes the comments seriously, and tells everyone that they're getting off topic. A comment section open to anyone in the public is not a forum. Especially when there's no mods who go around and boot out the garbage post kids.

And lastly, the Creationist types, or the Bible thumpers, who think that by posting trite and tired arguments, they can magically "defeat" the theory of evolution, undermine the entire science of biology including all of the related sciences like genetics, microbiology, and biomedicine, and prove that JAYSUS existed 6,000 years ago and the world is only 10,000 years old. Again, it doesn't matter the topic, because you'll find these styles of posts anywhere, although actual reports relevant to paleontology, cosmology, or biology draw these people out in droves.

Creationists aren't a rare breed in the United States, sadly. We have more than enough of them, and the more we yield to the ones that already exist, the more we get. I keep hoping that science teachers will just stop telling the parents when they're going to be teaching evolution, or spend the entire year teaching it in small amounts (evolution is that important to biology. Without evolution, you have no biology), rather than building one unit around it and letting that be that. Thus, you get comments like this, made by boneheaded creationists:

Evolutionists; the most gullible individuals ever to walk the face of the earth.
dont know the difference between evolution (a fact that Christians are not only distinctly aware of, but was a creationist idea prior to darwin) and adaptation.
evolutionists cannot even keep a conversation going due to the fact they cannot define evolution intelligently. they must change its meaning during the conversation.

not one evolutionist will debate Jonathan Sarfati (who destroyed dick dawkins' books and ideas so thoroughly he refuses to debate anyone anymore, because is outclassed and lacks the well-rounded intelligence displayed by a great many other scientists) or any other Creation scientist because their evolutionary theory is so riddled with falsehoods, they cant make any sense of it on an intellectual level.
but, of course, they will claim to be "intellectually fulfilled" athiests. so clueless. ("John")

Sarfati is a New Zealand Christian apologist and a chess master with a PhD in Physical Chemistry. Surely the guy that I would want to get my information about biology from. That's like going to a dentist because you're having foot trouble. Also, the misspelling of "atheist". I would say that's a dead give away of a troll, but the reference to Jonathon Sarfati makes me think twice.

Regardless whether or not he's a troll, he's still talking about of his ass about how evolution hasn't been defined clearly. When you're jamming cotton in your ears so you don't have to hear what others are saying, you would never know.


And then there's this guy, Robby Rush:

The Tyrannosuar & human adult and child footprints in Glen Rose, Texas (USA) are real. I have seen them for myself. In fact, I spoke with Dr. Carl Baugh, the man who discovered them, while I was there in the early 1990's. It was not faked as it was unearthered LIVE! before TV crews and skeptical witnesses. They are human footprints. I have seen them personally and I actually took a photograph of them myself which I have to this day.

And to the guy that made the comment about life history origins of 6,000-years ago, the world we now live on WAS created on the evening of 22 October 4004 B.C. by God.

And as for Evolution, they 'theory' was drafted by a Christian Seminary drop-out by the name of Charles Darwin who made derogatory comments about Black people & Women in general in his book on the subject of his theory of Evolution. He was a racist and Misogynist.

And to the woman who wanted to 'see proof that God exists', all YOU have to do is examine all the lives that HE has touched over time for good. People do bad things because they are people. God does not do bad things. Satan does. Nobody ever had evidence that Jesus of Nazareth hurt anyone, made someone blind, etc... Jesus did exist. Plenty of Jewish and Roman writers who were NOT believers (Josephus, Pliny, etc...) who either saw Jesus or knew of Him during their lifetime wrote about it in their own writings we have to this day. Jesus still exists and he lives in the hearts of my wife, children, and my own heart.

And for those who live in Europe who do not believe in the Bible and what it says, that is one of the reasons why your side of the globe is rotten and falling apart... literally. Take God out of your lives/country, and all you are left with is Communism, Terrorism, sickness & death.

Lessee here:


Misunderstanding how the burden of proof works (hint: If you're making the positive claim, you're responsible for backing it up. If you're going to say "God exists" and expect me to take it a serious, meaningful scientific statement, telling me "Look around" is going to elicit a snarky comment about how God could've done a better job on his worshipers).

Human and T. rex footprints, found together. OMG. Therefor, they existed at the same time.  You know, like they did in the Flintstones.

God does not do bad things. As an omniscient, all-powerful entity he can do no wrong. No, he punts that off on Satan, the divine scapegoat.

Charles Darwin said bad things about blacks and women, and was a seminary drop out. Therefore, he can't be taken seriously. Now if only you bastards held Rush Limbaugh to this same standard...

'Theory' gets single scare quotes. "Theory? Isn't that a wild-ass guess? Like gravity?"

The world was created on October 22, 4004 BCE. That evening, the folks of Predynastic Egypt, and those living in the Ubaid Period watched on in amazement as God created the world. This came as news to them, seeing as how they'd been around since 5000 BCE. This news is also a shocker to John Lightfoot, the guy who, buy using the Bible, calculated the start date of creation at 3929 BCE. I'm sure if you round down you'll get 4004 (remember this is BCE; if you place it on a number line, these numbers would be negative; thus, -3,929 is larger than -4,004. This tripped me up, because prior to this, I was listing events that had taken place in around 3,500 - after the intended date), but I can't think of what system you're using to get there. Base 4, maybe? So it's totally Biblical, guys! It says right there in Genesis uh... Genesis uh... "Six days and nights" there we go. That right there totally says that it took place on October 22, 4004 BCE. Can't you read? Don't you know I take the book literally? ... James Ussher? Who the fuck is that? Some kind of rapper?

Remember kids! Dinosaurs and man walked at the same time together! Up until the 1800s, they dinosaurs were called dragons instead! Because it makes dragons anymore real!

Remember: any information that contradicts any of the above is the work of Satan. Because, while God is all power-full and all-knowing, he still tolerates some arrogant little angel out there mucking around his creation leading people astray so he can throw them in Hell for the rest of eternity where they'll be tortured in such a vicious way. He doesn't want to. He just enjoys it. Because that's totally in the Bible, too. Who the hell is Milton? And I've never heard of this "Dante" guy, either. So there.

Oh, and did I mention the fuzzy dinosaurs and the potential for fuzzy dinochicks? D'awww... so cute.

Fuck: Promoting Decency in Language

I occasionally visit Roger Ebert's blog from time to time - I'm not a huge fan of movies, I think the movie industry is a pile of shit and I could only wish Hollywood was half as liberal as the conservatives in the tinfoil hats wearing the persecution complexes say it is - but this one stuck out so I had to comment on it.

I've blogged in the past on bullying. I think bullying is endemic, and I think that the bullies have friends in high places who are willing to excuse their behaviors in the "name of tradition," which is this skewed thing that White people remember when they think about television shows set in the 1950s. In it, little scamps who always said "gee wiz" and wore stripped shirts knocked out Mr. Humperdinkel's back window with a slingshot, and had to apologize and everyone learned a valuable lesson. Bullies as they were remembered are nothing more than bromances waiting to happen. All you had to do was stand up to the bully and the problem went away.

I've commented before how I don't trust people who claim to have good memories. Claiming any of the above was even remotely true and attempting to prove to me that Andy Griffith or Leave it to Beaver are historical documentaries is enough for me to laugh you out of the country (fools like this are already promoting The Flintstones as a historical documentary). The memory is a funny thing, and the way memories are built are influenced less by the actual events and more by the things we see and hear about those events. This concept of the 1950s as a Utopia where the only Black guy on stage was a mailman who was always smiling and you never saw a gay person are memories of the 50s clearly built ex post facto. This argumentum ad excogitari praeterium/ratio ad fraudulenta historia is a framing device through which most conservatives - indeed, most Americans - view the present world.

This is especially prevalent in the way that we tell children to deal with bullies. The rugged independent nature of America dictates that we shouldn't rely on authority for anything, including dealing with our problems. All too often, said authority is the problem in this country, anyway, but that's another point. Because we live in this imagined past, all that needs to happen to deal with a bully is to bust him in the face (unless said bully is a girl. And then, when other girls fight back, we stand aghast a how violent society is making girls. Welcome to the world where no matter what you do you can never win - 51% of the human population lives here. It's not a pleasant place). For those of us anchored here in the real world, without our heads rammed up our ass and lodged in the colon of the made up past, that's not how this works. Not remotely. Violence isn't the answer, first of all, because it accomplishes nothing. Second of all, victim blaming and saying that it's the job of the individual being picked on to fight back leaves a bitter taste in my mouth; it's the job of the bully not to bully. How about that?

Enter a movie named Bully. I've heard in passing about this movie; it's a collection of stories about individuals who have been bullied, with the intent of yank America's head out of it's ass the hard way. It sounds like a pretty good movie - a movie that, unlike Avatar, serves a social function that society desperately needs (because what society really needs is more Magical Native American stereotypes projected on fictional creatures. Especially when most people treat Native Americans like they're fictional, anyway). So, in being what sounds like a pretty good movie, with a useful social function that society very much needs, the MPAA did the usual thing the intelligent folks at the MPAA does: they rated it R so that teens, who the movie is about, wouldn't be able to see it.

Cracked Tackles Racism and Sexism in Film

I sometimes a read Cracked. I tend to stay away from Cracked for the same reason I like to stay away from TV Tropes - I value my time, and I find that if someone links me to Cracked or TV Tropes, I can pretty much sign off on a few hours of my life easily. If I'm bored and I can't find anything to read online, however, I will certainly take a spin down the rabbit hole. I've actually learned some things from Cracked - but only because I was able to go back and double check the sources (okay, call me anal about it. I don't care - I don't like using Wikipedia as a primary source. I prefer to use their sources, which they've so neatly categorized as the bottom of the page for me).

I keep an eye on racism and I talk a lot about racism at length. As I get closer to releasing my novel, I find myself keeping a close eye on the discussion of race in the media. I always find it interesting when, in what seems to be the sea of sewage and  nerdy white-boy American privilege that is the Internet, something rational and sensible raises it's head. It's even more interesting when that something is on a rather large site like Cracked, which is actually part of that nerdy white-boy American privilege on the Internet.

Thus, we arrive at two Cracked articles - 5 Old-Timey Prejudices That Still Show up in Every Movie and Hollywood's 6 Favorite Offensive Stereotypes.

Why I'm Voting for Satan

Apparently, Rick Santorum isn't running against Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. He said so himself, which likely suggests why he's going to loose. Instead, Santorum is running against the father of all lies himself - himself Satan.

I don't care who he's running against, that's who I'm voting for. Go ahead and pony Carpathescu up here. I'll vote for the dude, so long as he ain't Santorum. Hell, if anything, I know for certain he's got a better grasp of geography than 90% of Americans, because knowing Burma isn't in Africa is EVIL YO. But, in fact, I can make a very strong case why you should be voting for Satan and the Antichrist, not least of all because he isn't Santorum.

Maybe it's because I know the difference...

Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.

Climate doesn't equal fucking weather.
It's snowing where I live at. That means it's time for the tired old jokes and staid old conspiracy theorists to step out snidely laugh, arrogantly cocking their head and going "Aha! Well, if it's global warming, why is there snow?"

"Because it's winter, asswipe?"

Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.
Climate does not equal weather.

Weather does not equal climate, either

Weather - the various moving parts inside of your engine.
Climate - the entirety of your engine, including all of it's moving pieces.

You cannot tell if something is wrong with the whole engine if all you're looking at is the right cylinder third one down.

Climate does not equal weather
Climate does not equal weather
Climate does not equal weather
Climate does not equal weather
Climate does not equal weather
Climate does not equal weather...

Stupid, conceited American. It's global warming. That means the entire globe. America is not the fucking globe.
What happens in the United States is not indicative of global climate change, you jaded, stupid jackass.
I keep hoping if I repeat this enough, it'll sink in. Someone will realize "hey, you know, you're right."

I might as well be living in the same world that these global warming denalists are living in, since any world where that can happen is just as removed from reality as the world they live in.

Climate does not equal weather
America does not equal global
Snowing in your backyard is not indicative of global warming
Heatwaves in your backyard is not indicative of global warming
Global warming is global
You'll notice that it's shaped like itselfAnd that in being global, it isn't just restricted to America, which is about 1/8th of the globe in landmass*.
Climate. Does. Not. Equal. Weather.
America. Does. Not. Equal. Global.
The. Bold. Punctuation. Is. In. Hopes. It. Will. Sink. The. Fuck. IN.
Okay, I give.
You win.
I'll just set back and laugh at how stupid, conceited, and moronic you are.

* estimate based strictly off of eyeballing its position in relative to a sphere and dissecting the sphere as such. This estimation includes all of North America, including Canada, Mexico, and Central America.

"Because I Don't" Isn't a Good Enough Answer

Homophobia and bigotry take many forms. Stupid, usually White, usually Male, usually wrapped in an excess of body fat and usually in utter denial about reality, removed from anything remotely resembling a logical argument or objective reality but quick enough on the draw to accuse the other side of these very same flaws.

This isn't to say that all homophobic bigots are White, or even Male. Case in point - Karen Handel, the recent ex-Vice President (*punt* get the fuck off my cloud) of Susan G. Komen. Handel is a former Senator from Georgia - so if that doesn't practically spell the upcoming problem in large, neon pink letters and hang a billboard-sized sign around it, I'm not sure what to say.

Komen is notorious for recently earning Planed Parenthood something along the order of a metric shitton of dollars for defunding the organization. Also, they're known for those pink ribbons and giving the illusion of caring about women's health. Of course you can't care about women when you're part of the Pro-Coathanger Brigade. It's stupid to even hold the illusion that you do.

Now, there are some parts of the internet that think Handel had something to do with it. After all, she's only a typical anti-life, anti-human repulsive salsa of dried enemas and garbage - you know, the typical Right-winger - but the cynic in me doesn't feel that she acted alone. Sometimes I love to tell the cynic to go over in the corner and play with blocks, but today, I can't help but think that hie's right. I suspect that the rest of the board at SGK had something to do with it. Which is fine; I can't think of a more expedient way to basically cut your own throat than doing something like this. And they helped PP along the way - everybody won!

Except, of course, for Handel, who stepped down from her position and decided "You know what? Screw this, I'm not taking this severance so I can go strike a martyr pose on television and pretend like I was persecuted by SGK and those mean old bastards in that Liberal Media."

Handel is a piece of work. She was interviewed NBC 11 (live in HD!), and much to my pleasant surprise, the interviewer asked something that resembled tough questions. Handel is a rampant homophobe in addition to be an all-around pleasant person - observe:

Republican APC Strikes Again!

APCs (Amusing Persecution Complexes) are a dime a dozen anymore. Any time you turn on the television, or go to any Right-Wing webpage, you'll hear them. Some of them are just the end results of narcissistic egos who believe the world should revolve around them. Others are paranoia-induced. All of them tend to be amusing, and invoke cries of "shut up and grow up" from those of us who read them.

So with that in mind, I wouldn't normally even bother, unless I was just trying to make them look silly (because they need the help). However, when I found this over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I couldn't resist. This is just too much to pass up. I'm convinced this is genetic - these people must be missing a gene that lets them discern "irony" or something.

Do Musicians Block Republican Candidates From Using Their Songs?

FOX News is protesting that song-writers won't let Republican candidates pirate their songs. And as a result, because the singers an musicians won't let Republicans pirate their music, Republican candidates are so persecuted. Those damn librrrl musicians hate us Republicans. Hell, look at what the Dixie Chicks did to Bush! And now they won't let Republicans pirate their music for the campaign trail. Imagine that. The nerve of those songwriters, thinking that you should ask their permission before publicly reproducing any of their songs. You'd think those arrogant bastards thought they owned it or something.

When GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s team was looking for a theme song for his campaign, Kid Rock’s hit “Born Free” hit a chord. But instead of doing what countless other politicians before him had done, simply take the song and start blasting it at events, Romney first asked Rock’s permission.
Attorney Larry Iser is taking credit for Romney’s ask first, use song later approach.

“I can proudly say it was primarily the two pieces of litigation that we handled on a national scale, Browne versus McCain, and David Byrne versus Charlie Christ, that have served to educate the political community and their ad agencies,” said Iser, a partner at the L.A. law firm Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump and Aldisert. “The fact that Mitt Romney asked for and actually got permission from Kid Rock is a giant leap forward for the rights of musicians and songwriters.”

Romney’s approach does seem to be the exception to the politicians’ rule. But could he have taken this tack because musicians often seem to lean anti-GOP?

It could also be the fact that, y'know, Romney asked first. Like you said, right there in the opening paragraph. But hey, don't let your own contradictions stand in the way of a perfectly good delusional persecution complex.

On average, artists tend to be more liberal. This comes from being more empathetic and intelligent, a haul mark individuals who are more in tune with themselves and their emotions and, as a result, other people. Note that this isn't always the case, but speaking in broad generalizations, this is largely the case. You learn to empathize with other people. That's the first step in becoming a liberal.

“Musicians are part of the entertainment industry which is mostly anti-Republican. So lefty performers hate having conservatives use their music,” says Vice President of the Business & Media Institute and political commentator, Dan Gainor. “There's definitely a PR component to complaining about politicians using your music. If you have a hardcore lefty base of listeners and you bash Michele Bachmann, then you score points. Imagine if a liberal tried to use Toby Keith's ‘Courtesy Of The Red, White, And Blue.’ Keith and his fans would rightly be upset. But that never happens since liberals don't like images of the flag.”

I can imagine what would happen if a liberal tried to use that horrible song. They'd get laughed off the face of this planet.

It's because we don't like flag, mind you. Wave it around like a mindless drone, scream at the top of your lungs how patriotic you are, and how you wish gays would be thrown in jail, and that Muslims should be deported and executed, and that Obama is a secret Kenyan-born Muslim, and that Blacks are responsible for their own poverty and that they're just lazy, that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, and that God came down and personally poured the Holy Oil of the Blessed Constitution on George Washington's forehead to decree that women were wombs with feet. When you do stuff like that, it's no wonder liberals don't want to be seen anywhere near a flag.

You defiled it with your mere presence. Burn that boy. Get rid of it. It's contaminated with conservative stupid. It'll never be the same flag again.

It's not that we aren't patriotic - liberals are far more patriotic than anything you'll find out of the Right, because we criticize the country and don't blindly follow authority. Not that I'd even want to wear the label. Not after the mess that these fools made in it.

Iser disgarees.
“I would say certainly in recent years, there's been a greater unlicensed use of songs by Republican candidates,” Iser, said. “The point that the musician is making is not about the [political] party. The position they're taking is: This is what we do for a living, we are protected by copyright, and if you're running for election, you need to respect the law. It just is a coincidence really, simple as that.”
Iser stresses that when it comes to music and campaigns, artists and songwriters only want to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that they aren’t involuntary endorsers of candidates and campaign messages. 

“If you're Jackson Browne or you're David Byrne or if you're Kid Rock, you have the right, just like you and I have, to choose to endorse somebody or not,” he continued. “When the song is used without permission, you've taken away the choice that the songwriter has to say 'yes' or say 'no.' Another reason, which is more fundamental, is that when you take somebody's song and use it without permission, then the songwriter and the singer, the performer, they don't get paid. People often forget that writing songs and performing them and selling records and actually licensing music for use in advertising, that's how these guys make a living. That’s how they put food on the table.”

This is a total non-issue and they know it. They're just looking for something - anything - to fuel their post-War on Christmas persecution withdrawal.

Good Riddance

And another one bites the dust.

One by one, they drop like flies. I understand that this is sort of the purpose of political primaries, but this tragifarce circus that the Republicans have attempted to guise as a "political primary" has been nothing if not entertaining. I feel that the Republican Primary should be, right about now, shooing out the clowns to make room for the real drama of an election, but there's a problem - all of their candidates are clowns.

Still, that didn't stop them from shooing out Michelle Bachmann, who kissed her hopes of being president good bye today, after finishing a dismal sixth place in the Iowa primary. Not that the results of that should make you feel comfortable - Frothy is in practically neck-and-neck with Romney. Here in Michigan, we do not have fond memories of Romney and Amway. However, I'll take unhappy memories over a lifetime of nightmares - that was why I voted for Obama rather than Palin/McCain last time around. He's been surprising; he's kept a lot of his promises, but you can't over look the fact that on the issue of civil rights Obama has been a bigger disaster than Bush, and I'd love to throw him out in favor of someone else, but that someone else sure as hell is not Romney. Or Paul.

It's going to come down to Paul or Romney, and Romney will likely win because he's the more consummate politician of the two, and also the more mediagenic. Romney is a shapeshifter without substance, like the vast majority of the people in the media. Paul is like the twisted little gnome that lives under asshat hill screaming at those fucking halflings to get off his property. That and Paul will get - rightly - gnawed to the bone for his racism.

Still, let's take this time to bid farewell to Bachmann. I'm actually rather disappointed - I was sorta hoping she actually would get the nomination, so she could run against Obama. I think the last landslide that would've been remotely close in size was one that happened 48 million years ago. Moving mountains indeed.

So, to commemorate the announce that Bachmann is retiring from the race (I probably should've done this for Cain, too, but Cain flew under the radar for a while and wasn't a big name until he supernovaed and left everyone going "WFT just happened?" Bachmann is here by sheer dint of her time spent on the campaign trail and in the media eye) I have a collection of some of the most intellectual, insightful, and fucking batshit quotes by Bachmann.

WTF Is Wrong With This Man?

I've ripped into Mike Adams before. Politely, he's a fucking idiot who's stupidity wouldn't even be worth my time if he didn't spread his obscene arrogance over some of the most sensitive topics. Honestly, he's an obstinate moronic fucking idiot twit well versed in the arts of the anti-logic and anti-thought who's dribble wouldn't be worth the throw-away bib that it's on, were it not for the fact that he shoots his mouth off while knowing negative knowledge about sensitive topics. The article of him that I ripped into before remains one of the most popular articles I've ever done - Real True Men(TM), in which this dimwit decides that because he had a borderline bromance back in middle school, gay children are automatically women (and that's an insult, mind you) if they don't stand up and fight back against their bullies, rather than relying on the system in place to protect them (which is an attitude that, if anything, benefits the bullies). That article was a wonderful display of lack of empathy and his misogyny.

Well, Adams is at it again. In another astonishing article, Adams freely reminds the world that he lacks intelligence, empathy, and is well versed in misogyny in a way that makes one want to exile him from the species.

(h/t Ross on the Slacktiverse; original comment found in this thread here)

The War on Christmas (Korean DMZ Edition)

It took me a good couple of seconds to realize what was being done here, and even though I think I got it, I'm not entirely sure I understand. All I can do is scream WHY!?

We all know the Right is deaf to hyperbole. They don't seem to understand it, nor do they seem to understand irony or hypocrisy. But there are time when they go so far over the time that it manages to boggle me.

Behold: the War on Christmas is the same as a the North Korean threat over South Korean due to a Church Group's display in the DMZ:

No, I Don't Have Patience For You

I'm running out of patience with global warming deniers.

Anthropogenic climate change is all but a fact. Numerous studies have confirmed it, and in fact, the latest study, carried out by a former ally of the skeptics, is the last nail in the lid of the coffin closed.

Now, by former ally, I don't mean he abandoned them. They abandoned him. The minute he said something that they disagreed with, they jumped shift.

Let's take a look at what Anthony Watts, a fairly common figure on FOX news, has to say, talking about the project that the Guardian is reporting on above:

And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either.  That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.

How noble.

That was before the project was released. See, he was attacking individuals for "trying to tear the project down before it even started," I can only assume because he had already gotten it in his head that Dr. Muller, the man at the head of the BEST project, was going to church something that agreed with him.

Here's Mr. Watts after the project was released, which almost certainly confirmed the so-called "anthropogenic" climate change theory - i.e., after the facts blew up in his face (bolding original):

Because of the long time periods involved in Muller et al analysis, and because both Menne et al and Fall et al made no claims of knowing anything about siting quality prior to 1979, I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.

For me to comment on the conclusions of Muller et al would be inappropriate until this time period error is corrected and the analysis reworked for time scale appropriate comparisons.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature analysis methodology is new, and may yield some new and potentially important results on siting effects once the appropriate time period comparisons are made. I welcome the BEST effort provided that appropriate time periods are used that match our work. But, by using time period mismatched comparisons, it becomes clear that the Muller et al paper in its current form lost the opportunity for a meaningful comparison.

It certainly sounds like he was accepting it, doesn't it?

I'm running out of patience with these people. Whether it's "death panels", "vaccines cause autism", "modern medicine doesn't know what it's talking about", "the government caused 9/11" or "the Earth is only 10,000 years old and Noah had to cram his ark full of some of the largest land animals to ever live", the sheer magnitude of the stupid things that Americans are prone to believing is just staggering. It's the same mentality all the way through; it's the same line of thought, just different subject matters and some words switched around.

And I'm running out of patience with it all. I'm not sure why we even listen to these people anymore. Because they have a voice in making policy. And that's scarier than any stupid thing that they could believe.

FOX Shoots Itself In The Foot

I don't like internet polls. I think they're a waste of time.

That said, I still enjoy watching them blow up in the faces of the people who set them up. For instance, this poll on FOX, about the 99% Movement:

Those numbers read as follows:

Do 'Occupy Wall Street' protestors represent your views about the nation's economic problems?

Maybe, I'm not even sure what they want: 2.58%
No. They have no idea how jobs are created or how free-enterprise system works: 27.47%
Yes. These folks are right about corporate greed and what's happening to the little guy: 69.15%
Other (post a comment) 0.8%

70% support the 99% movement.

In a FOX news poll. I'm shocked they didn't try to doctor the results, to be honest with you. But I don't see how there's anyway they could spin that to allow their viewers to keep the illusion they're still a majority.

h/t Think Progress

Proof That, Once Again, Hate is Irony Deaf

Steve Jobs died the other day.

I'm only recently discovering the joys of the various Mac toys - I bought myself my first iPod at the beginning of last year, the first large purchase I ever made for myself by myself, with money I made at my job - I've been a PC user most of my life, because honestly, it's all I've ever known. Hell, I was using 98 right up until a few years ago. I use my iPod almost every day; it quickly replaced my MP3 player when I lost back a few years ago and I don't think I could ever go out for a run without it. I wouldn't mind getting an iPhone, either, and I really do want to get an iPad. I'm just dirt poor. The point is, the Mac toys are pretty cool. It's a sad fact that their creator is gone.

Jobs was a man who revolutionized the way we Internet (yes, Internet is now a verb) and the way we connect to the world at large. It's always sad to loose someone brilliant; there's so few of them in the world today, when a brightly shining star goes out, it's always noticed.

Oh, and speaking of dim stars - the Westboro Baptist Cult has announced that they, being the awesome, Christ-like Christians they are, will grace Job's funeral with their presence. And they did it from an iPhone, too, on Twitter. Irony deaf much?

Apparently, it's some business about how they're attention starved, and how they want to be a part of everything and the media hasn't been paying attention to them lately - you know how it goes. When worthless people start feeling lonely, they try to make everyone else feel worthless as well. They're looking for a platform to spread their arrogance and filth; that's why I usually don't talk about them. Yeah, we all know the WBC. Nobody gives a fuck about them. Fine, you're going to heaven. Good for you - if you're there, I don't want to be anyway. I couldn't think of a more horrific way to spend eternity than with the Phelps clan. There's not a loving God one that would enforce that sort of punishment on anything in creation.

Unlike Jobs, the day Phelps dies will be a day to rejoice and gather up, sing songs, and enjoy the passing of an evil, wretched, dirty little old man who deserves all of the scorn he gets.

A Tea Party Movie!

Oh my sweet holy pogosticks.

The crazy bastards did it. They did. They actually did it.

They made a movie about the TEA Party.

My goodness. I'm not sure whether I should be horrified or if I should fall out of my computer chair laughing my ass off.

Sadly, it's creatively title "Tea Party: The Documentary Film." Really, I'd think they would get more mileage out of calling it "Teabagging: The Movie." They'd get more hits on Youtube for their trailer, anyway. And speaking of their trailer; holy shit is that the most melodramatic thing I've ever seen. Let's take a closer look at it, shall we?

Feeling Spiteful

I've got writer's block, so I've put most of my fiction on hold until I can straight this out inside of my head. It's not something I want to do; I enjoy writing fiction, and when I can't, I become a little grumpy and spiteful. What's more, I can't sleep; insomnia isn't a regular friend of mine but I am involved in an extended relationship with it. So I'm double grumpy. Thankfully, I have a blog and a means to focus on my favorite target to take my spite and general grumpiness out on - everyone's favorite Fundies over on FTSDT.