This is *exactly* the point!

Watch all of the video, please.

About these ads

Do you need *another* reason to reject Catholicism?

Just so you all know just where the Jews have fitted into the world picture:

This is what happens when religious wackaloons like Australia’s Archbishop George Pell start winging it during a debate:

Cardinal George Pell said ‘the little Jewish people’ were shepherds who lacked intellectual development during a debate with atheist Richard Dawkins. He went on to claim that Germans had suffered more than the Jews during  the horrors of the holocaust in the Second World War.

The remarks came during a televised debate with Dawkins on Australian TV in which the pair became locked in a heated discussion on religion and evolution.

Here is the entire debate (about an hour in length):

If I may, let me call “bullshit” on George:

On the other hand, the Catholic Church (among many other Christian denominations, and Islam) has a long history of actively fighting against progressive movements, in particular the areas of women’s rights.

Uncovered asshattery over at NOM

Anyone who doubts that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is an evil, divisive, and disruptive group of homophobic morons (whose bills are being paid by a few rich donors who refuse to publicly admit who they are) should take a gander at these excerpts from a confidential study done by NOM and purposely hidden from public view until the Maine court system forced the document’s release:

  1. “Drive a wedge between gays and blacks” by convincing them to fight over the language of “civil rights”.
  2. Bait Latino voters to oppose marriage equality as “a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation”.
  3. Interrupt the “attempt to equate…sexual orientation with race” so that marriage inequality is not perceived as discrimination.
  4. Draw attention to the “bigotry and intolerance” displayed by equality advocates and “document the victims” through a rapid response media team.
  5. Emphasize the importance of “religious liberties” to limit the impact of marriage equality’s legislative advancements.
  6. “Develop side issues to weaken pro-gay marriage political leaders” like pornography, “protection of children”, and religious liberty at the federal level.
  7. Expose Obama administration programs that “have the effect of sexualizing young children” or threatening “childhood innocence”.
  8. “Find, train, and equip young leaders” to become a “next generation of elites” capable of opposing marriage equality.
  9. Foster closer relationships with Catholic bishops to “equip, energize, and moralize Catholic priests on the marriage issue”.
  10. Focus on “the consequences of gay marriage for parental rights”.

I find #8 particularly chilling; I can imagine training films for such groups of young people, but I keep hearing the narration spoken in German.

If NOM ‘fessed up and admitted that the Catholic Church is their big mover and shaker, and used that as the reason for their proselytizing, I could understand them.

I’d still kick ‘em in the stomach at my first opportunity, but I’d understand them.


“How many mistakes must we make before we pay for them?”

One “carelessly-made statement” — okay, anyone can misspeak once in a while.

Two or three “carelessly-made statements”, and doubt creeps in.

Dozens of “carelessly-made statements”, and I would invoke V’s comment:

“…to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate”

Let’s let Mr. Paul speak for himself:

1. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

2. “What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?”

3. “Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War. No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic.” (referring to Abraham Lincoln)

4. “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren’t my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from ‘the report.’ “

5. “Contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” (quoted by Ron Paul’s colleague and collaborator Lew Rockwell)

6. “The criminals who terrorize our cities – in riots and on every non-riot day – are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

7. “I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.”

8. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

9. “Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.”

10. “There is no such thing as a hate crime.”

There is a plethora of Ron Paul quotes on Twitter. Enjoy them, if you can keep your breakfast down.

Could someone *please* teach Dick Santorum how to speak English?

Dick Santorum recently made a curious statement:

At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum singled out blacks as being recipients of assistance through federal benefit programs, telling a mostly-white audience he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Called out by the public for his singling of blacks and portrayal of them as welfare parasites,  he claimed that he said “blah”, not “black”.

Now today he claimed that he stumbled over “people’s lives” and actually said “plives”, not black.

You came in fourth in New Hampshire, and you’ve done virtually no campaigning in South Carolina, the next primary state. How about you just fold up that sideshow tent of yours, Dick, and shuffle home?

Oh, and how about that curious story about how your wife (before she was your wife) shacked up with a doctor that performed abortions? Doesn’t that just put a kink in your tail?

It’s time to squash a roach

There’s a lovely site out there in the blogosphere by the name of Stuff Black People Don’t Like. It’s full of scarcely-disguised racism, with a tinge of other semi-literate crapola.

The site’s masthead (click to enbiggen):

I don’t generally supply links to racist cockroaches, but there’s a good reason for it this time. Take a couple of minutes to do two things to help put an end to this nest of vipers; neither will take long.

1. Contact PayPal and ask them to review their policy concerning those that spew hate talk and have their hand out through PayPal simultaneously. Here is Paypal’s general contact link.

2. Contact Blogspot’s link to report abuse. Go to the SBPDL site, and find the grey navigation bar at the top. Click on the Report Abuse link and follow the steps.

There. Don’t you feel like you’ve accomplished something now?

“Who likes white people??”

“Thank you, Jason!

“Who like white people?”

So here is Crazy Eyes, preaching to her kind of crowd. This is where you see the real truth about this woman–where she’s comfortable, knowing that she is crowd-deep in Christian Dominionist homophobes. She doesn’t have to dodge the “tough” questions like her call for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or calling for removal of the federal minimum wage law, or explaining her exceedingly poor legislative record and lack of knowledge of foreign policy.

She’s now revealed as adhering to the third leg of the Dominionist belief: homophobia, absolute control of the federal government, and racism.

For those who are interested, this took place at the Spirit Midwest Christian Music Festival in Des Moines IA on August 5 and 6 this year. There was a “rumor” that a blind woman regained her sight the day after the festival, which give you an idea of the kind of mentality we’re dealing with here.

Just remember her words–

“Who like white people?”


UPDATE: Okay, okay, the band was called something like “White People’s Funky Garage Band” or some such. However, think about this: how could someone who professes to have the intellect to run the United States allow her/himself to be caught saying something like, “Who likes white people?” without at least reflecting on how that might sound?

Oh, and dig on how she’s “in tune” with higher powers:

“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’”

I’d love to see her position papers on how to deal with the Middle East based on a world-view like that.

Ron Paul, the presidential candidate? Ron Paul, the racist homophobe.

Dear Mr. Ron Paul:

Remember when all that hoo-rah came out in 2007 about some rather unpleasant writings, attributed to you, that were made public? It was from a publication called The Ron Paul Political Report.

Contained within were spews such as:

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.(emphasis mine)


“University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.” (again, emphasis mine)

You claimed that the material was not yours; you maintained that you didn’t write any of it, and that someone had attributed it to you without your knowledge.

Okay. Despite the fact that different sources quoted the same material, it was not out of the realm of possibility. Fair enough.

But wait! Now it turns out that there wasn’t just one issue of your report. There were years of such reports, under various names, and all published by organizations that you either founded or in which you were a stakeholder. Writer James Kerchick found multiple issues in the archives of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Here is some more of your drivel contained within:

June 1990: “The Pink House? What an outrage that, for the first time in our nation’s history, the organized forces of perversion were feted in the White House…. I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came ‘out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don’t believe so, medically or morally.”


October 1990: A mob of black demonstrators, led by the ‘Rev.’ Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City ‘to reclaim it for our people.’ Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis? But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

For someone who espouses a liberterian philosophy, you sure sound like your garden-variety homophobe and racist.

And you want people to vote for you? Really?

(Muchas gracias to La Spouse® for the tip.)

I call bullshit on this one

NewSouth Books’ upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been bowdlerized:

The word “nigger” is being replaced by “slave”.

For those of you not familiar with Finn (shame on you! hie thee henceforth to the nearest library!), the word “nigger” was at the time no more offensive than the term “darky”. Or “Johnny Chink”. Or any number of other racial epithets. Remind yourself that it’s not a word, in and of itself, that is offensive; what is offensive is the context in which the word is used. (Look up what “faggot” meant in Twain’s time.)

Moreover, Twain’s use of “nigger” in dialog was correct and proper for those who use it in the story.

The saddest thing about the above-mentioned article? Entertainment Weekly never uses the word “nigger” in the article itself. They’re as guilty of politically-correct imbicility as the NewSouth publishers. Here is NewSouth’s near-worthless whinge as to why they committed this literary atrocity.

That reminds me:

P. O. Box 1588, Montgomery, AL 36102-1588
105 S. Court St., Montgomery, AL 36104
NewSouth  Books

Let them know (concisely, and politely please!) what you think about sacrificing yet one more piece of great literature upon the pillory of political correctness and moral moronity.

Thank you, Mr. Tracy

This is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time, and it has so much relevance today. Substitute “orientation” for “pigmentation”, and you can see how anti-gay-marriage arguments look hopelessly flawed and hateful.

“I think now, no matter what kind of case some bastard could make against your getting married, there would be only one thing worse. And that would be if, knowing what you two are, and knowing what you two have, and knowing what you two feel, you didn’t get married.”

And for those who know film history, you realize that Katherine Hepburn’s tears are quite real. Tracy died 17 days after his scenes were filmed, and his mentioning how much his character Matt loved Hepburn’s Christina was a hard pull on the heartstrings for those who knew of their history.

The movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner will be on at 21:00 EST on 13 December on Turner Classic Movies. (I’m not a TCM employee–just a highly satisfied customer.) (Per the Spouse®, it’s also available in  streaming mode on Netflix, and no, no one here is a Netflix employee.) It’s a wonderful film–#99 on AFI’s top 100 of all time– and Tracy’s work in it is superb.

Enter the time tunnel: first blacks, then women, and now gays

After World War II, it became increasingly clear that racial discrimination in the military could not continue. Despite a hue and cry from military leaders and right-wing elements of the public to maintain racial segregation (and the resultant separate but certainly not equal facilities and opportunities), President Truman forced the military to cease segregation in July of 1948. He signed Executive Order 9981, which stated, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”


Senator Richard Russell, circa 1948:

“[T]he mandatory intermingling of the races throughout the services will be a terrific blow to the efficiency and fighting power of the armed services….It is sure to increase the numbers of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases. It will increase the rate of crime committed by servicemen.”


Brian Mitchell, author of Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, May 4, 1992:

The disadvantages of substituting women for men are many. I will name just a few, without argument:

  • higher rates of attrition
  • greater need for medical care
  • higher rates of nonavailability
  • lower rates of deployability
  • lesser physical ability

I would add to this list a number of problems that are aggravated if not caused by substituting women for men:

  • single-parenthood
  • in-service marriages
  • fraternization
  • sexual harassment
  • homosexuality

A few disadvantages are harder to observe and measure, but should not be discounted. They include the deleterious effects of the presence of women on unit cohesion, the fighting spirit, and loyalty and respect that servicemen feel toward their service.


Tony Perkins, Family Research Council head, 27 May 2010:

“The hard left of the Democratic Party, led by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, have chosen to put a political constituency with a radical agenda – the homosexual lobby – ahead of the well-being of our men and women in uniform. Tonight Speaker Pelosi and the House Majority ignored the pleas of the military, including all four service heads — those who lead the men and women who actually understand what it means to selflessly serve. Speaker Pelosi also denied the request of the majority of military associations who asked that she show respect for our military commanders by holding off debate until the review process is completed.

“Unfortunately, for our brave servicemen and women, the liberal majority chose to advance the social agenda of a radical special interest group without giving an opportunity for the military to finish its own study of the issue. Concern, not for the troops but for their own political hides, is moving the Democrats to act with such expediency.


Who stacks the bullshit highest? You decide.

Who’da thunk it? Religiosity implies racism

A meta-study of 55 independent studies has shown that there is a proportional relationship between the level of religiosity within a community in the U.S. and the level of racism within that community.

From the abstract (the full paper is available here):

  • Other races might be treated as out-groups because religion is practiced largely within race, because training in a religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism, and because different others appear to be in competition for resources.
  • Religious racism is tied to basic life values of social conformity and respect for tradition. In support, individuals who were religious for reasons of conformity and tradition expressed racism that declined in recent years with the decreased societal acceptance of overt racial discrimination.
  • The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members.

This one ought to raise a few eyebrows:

  • Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.