More anti-atheist blowback

Buzzfeed, a site where pretty much anything and everything and everyone is mocked (particularly Christians and Tea Party types) really doesn't play favorites.  Or.......perhaps even people in the "hipster, agnostic, anti-Tea Party" crowd are sick to death of militant atheists.  Either way, this was the result.

Top 10 Reasons Atheists Suck

1. Atheists really enjoy being smarter and more rational than everyone else. Have you noticed that about Atheists? I have.

2. Atheists tend to be haters who don't believe in anything. You get excited about something cool and they are always all skeptical, asking lots of critical questions, and basically kill the positive energy.

3. They love reading Reddit.com, which is a perfectly good site, but they get all smug about how Reddit is better than other sites. Like is there some rule that if you don't worship the real God, you have to worship Reddit instead?!? WTF?

4. Atheists love to mock hard working, religious Americans who love their kids, work hard, and go to church.

5. Atheists think they are rational and scientific but isn't it more rational and open minded to say that God *might* exist? Should real scientists keep an open mind?

6. Atheists are some of the biggest trolls on the Internet. They will probably start trolling me just for writing this post.

7. Have you ever known someone who would rather be right than loved? And eventually you are like, “dude, ok, ok, you are right” but you are also thinking “what an a-hole!” That a-hole is almost certainly an atheist.

8. Atheists are the kind of people who enjoy telling small children that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are all fake. Thanks for ruining all the fun, atheist! I guess you think a 5 year old knowing “the truth” is more important than them having a happy childhood.

9. Atheists are selfish. Instead of praising God for good things that happen in their life, they just praise themselves. Like “wow, I really deserved that raise. Praise myself!”

10. They just suck. You don't even need a reason. It is obvious. Just accept it.

I have to add, so you know where I'm coming from, that most atheists are perfectly normal, likable people.  I have no problem with them.  I have no beef with them.  I'm live-and-let-live.  They're live-and-let live.  It's those militant Richard Dawkins wannabe assholes who fit the "type" described in this list.  You know, the people that Vox Day so loves to pillory.

The amazing thing about this list is not the list itself.  It's that it made Buzzfeed.  Things don't just end up on Buzzfeed.  They end up there because a sufficient contingent of "hipsters" think it merits the attention.

Being the consummate connoisseur of schadenfreude, I have to opine that the idea of militant atheists being subjected to increasing ridicule warms the cockles of my dark heart.

Now go say 10 "Hail Darwin"'s and contemplate the total purposelessness of your wretched existance.

Liberals and atheists are smarter than us (and other popular myths)

As if militant atheists aren't annoying enough.  Now there is a study that purports to prove that liberals and atheists are more intelligent than conservatives (I suppose that includes libertarians) and people of faith.  This is a sampling of the paper-thin "logic" employed in this "proof".

Before reviewing the specific findings related to atheism and intelligence we should note that Kanazawa takes it as settled that, “it is evolutionarily familiar and natural to believe in God, and evolutionarily novel not to be religious.” Kanazawa maintains this based on recent research in evolutionary psychology that suggests a hyperactive perception of intentionality in the brain that is adaptively paranoid about unknown causes and thus attributes quasi- or supernatural causation as an explanation.

I presuppose it, hence it is true. Tool.

The great divide in intelligence between the "smart" group and the "stupid" group:

[A]dult subjects who identify as “not at all religious” had a mean intelligence as adolescents of 103.09 while the “very religious” had a mean intelligence of 97.14.

Uh huh. Allowing for sampling errors and standard deviation, there's about a credit card's width between the two groups.  And given that the "scientist" who conducted this "study" had a preconception going in - that atheists are more "evolved" than the religious - who's to doubt his "findings"?  [/sarcasm]

As Vox Day ably demonstrated in his excellent book The Irrational Atheist, which I reviewed shortly after it came out, atheists are not only NOT smarter than believers, but also tend to overestimate their own intelligence.  It is not unusual for an atheist of slightly above-average intelligence (IQ in the 115-120 range) to consider themselves highly intelligent.

Not to rub anyone's nose in it, but this libertarian Christian with a Mensa-eligible IQ of over 140 (tested) isn't impressed nor swayed by this idiotic excuse for "science".

Atheists aren't smarter than believers.  They're just more annoying.

Those who fear technology hate freedom

My assertion is this: fear of technology is emblematic of a hatred of individual freedom.  To buttress this claim, I present Exhibit A.

US President Barack Obama lamented Sunday that in the iPad and Xbox era, information had become a diversion that was imposing new strains on democracy, in his latest critique of modern media.

Obama, who often chides journalists and cable news outlets for obsessing with political horse race coverage rather than serious issues, told a class of graduating university students that education was the key to progress.

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

The key phrase in this ode to intellectual incuriousity (say, wasn't that the knock on King George the Dim?) is this: "[N]one of which I know how to work..."

It's funny - it feels like just yesterday I was lambasting Justice David Souter for this same failing.  Notice something here?  Both individuals refuse to embrace technology.  And both individuals embrace policies that are anti-individual freedom.

Oh, c'mon, Vulture!  Two examples?  That's all you can muster?

There'll be more.  How do I know?  It's like this: people who are engaged in free, productive activity in society utilize technology to make them more competitive, productive, marketable, etc.  They use technology in the free exchange of ideas.  They use technology to make their lives and the lives of others around them better.

People who stand in opposition to individual liberty disdain such activities.  The get their money the old fashioned way: they loot it.

Big Media finally asks the question

A question that has been asked thousands of times in hundreds of different ways by those of us who are not ideologues has finally found its way into an opinion piece in the Washington Post. That question is: Why are liberals so condescending?

Though I suspect that the author of the article is himself left-leaning, he demonstrates the kind of intellectual honesty that is so rare among the Left. To this point, I was aware of only one left-leaning writer -- Camile Paglia -- whom that could be said of.

Two ideological pompous douchbags in particular come away from the article looking extraordinarily bad. Those individuals would be Il Duce and Markos Moulitsas (the Daily Kos).

Do yourself a favor and read the WaPo article. Regardless of your political perspective, Left, Right, Center, or Libertarian, you'll come away with a better understanding of why Leftists are soooooooooooo condescending.

I commend the Post for printing such an extraordinary article. It's not the kind of thing one expects from that pro-Stateist rag.

One last thing - don't you on the right celebrate this article too loudly. You're still on the hook for King George the Dim!

Prejudice - who, me?

Part of what makes prejudice what it is in is the very roots of the word: 'pre' (before), and 'judice' (judging). I would never be so disingenous as to claim that I have none; every person to ever inhabit this planet has been predisposed to think ill of those different from themselves.

For all of the talk in the politically correct world of today about the evils of prejudice, more often than not Big Media (the BM for short) does more to inflame prejudice than to eliminate it. Case in point: the press coverage in the aftermath of the raid on the FLDS ranch at El Dorado, TX, last year. One got the idea that every man in that "compound" (apparently, in the strange vocabulary of the BM, any property surrounded by a fence is a compound) was engaged in forcible sexual relations with girls barely out of puberty. The girls themselves were so brainwashed that they thought this was all perfectly normal and part of God's plan.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. A handful of indictments were issued against FLDS men. No barely-pubescent "abused" girls were ever produced. 460+ kidnapped children were returned to their parents - thank God!

And yet the awful words written about the FLDS at the time of the raids live on. Mine included.

I received a very kind email from a young FLDS woman I'll call "FLDS Mom" (FM) in the interest of protecting her privacy from the likes of the assholes at Caput Penitus Culus. This young mother lives outside of Texas, so her family wasn't directly affected by the raid.

FM wrote:

I recently discovered your blog (in spite of the fact that us FLDS women supposedly don't do that kind of thing). I want you to know that I really appreciate your support even if you think that we're treated like cattle. I promise we're really not but if I can't convince you otherwise, oh well.

I guess what I'm trying to tell you is something that I heard awhile back: All Indians walk in single file....At least the one I saw did. As similar as we all may seem to someone looking at us from the outside, everyone of us is so individual and unique. I can tell you that the things I experience in my lifestyle aren't always what everyone else is experiencing or doing. It's like I tell my children about "outsiders" . "They are the same as us. They have nice people, and they have mean people. They have honest ones and liars. They have everything we have and so don't always judge them by one mean person calling you a "plig" in a very mean way. Even though the ugly can sure make an impression, I've met more nice people than not."

Even if I don't make a good impression on you, I sure appreciate your honesty in it and I appreciate your support of the Constitution and true law and order. Keep up your good work and thanks for being a little of a sounding board for me.

My first reaction on reading this email was, "Huh?" I seriously didn't remember ever having said anything as ugly or bigoted as that. Not me! I told FM as much when I emailed back. Specifically, I said this.

Do I really come across as appearing to believe that the FLDS are all "a certain way"? Because, if I do, I apologize profusely. Far be it from me, the outsider among outsiders, to EVER presuppose that anyone (except State-worshiping Leftists) ever marches in lock step with anyone else. I will admit that some of my early writings about the FLDS from last year were unduly harsh due to the relentless bombardment from Big Media (the BM for short) about the "rampant" pedophilia at El Dorado that has been categorically proven....NOT AT ALL.

Since that time, mostly due to the influence of Toes (Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart), I've softened considerably - at least, I HOPE I have; your letter now has me a lttle concerned that maybe I am still remiss and an apology is due to you and your co-religionists. I'll be the first to admit that when I get on a roll writing, I can be a huge a**hole (just ask Mrs. Vulture!). But I'm not too proud to apologize when an apology is due, and if it is, I'm all over it.

I had to see for myself if it was true. I went back and read all of my past posts tagged "FLDS". When I read this post from May 23rd, 2008, I realized it was true!

I very much dislike the FLDS cult. I very much dislike the way that they treat their women, like cattle. I very much dislike and distrust cults in general. But in the United States of America, under the Constitution, even the most unlikeable cult has rights, and NO ONE, not the government, not the Texas Stoßtruppen, and certainly not the Texas übermommies, can abridge those rights.

Oh. My. God.

It's hard to explain how very ashamed I am that I could ever write anything so hateful about people I know little about. I can't even BEGIN to express how very sorry I am for those hateful words. It's one thing to blast the Caput Penitus Culus crowd and call them everything but a human being. They deserve it. But what did the FLDS ever do to me?

I offer my sincerest apologies to FM and all of the FLDS people for having ever written something so hateful and bigotted. I hope that you will forgive me. As I explained to FM, my feelings for the FLDS were colored by the propaganda of that time, but that's no excuse. I know better!

Bolt shoots, bolt scores

From time to time I like to highlight the work of my favorite bloggers and columnists, particularly when they've hit upon something important or administered a particularly good beatdown on some asshat who desperately needs one.

Andrew Bolt is Australia's preeminent libertarian columnist. In this column, Andrew takes on the shrill crowd of politically correct yentas doing their damnedest to take down Miss California for the "sin" (read: thought crime) of making an anti-gay marriage statement.

While he does his usual admirable job of applying the beatdown to the appropriate parties - particularly drama QUEEN Perez Hilton - he also hit upon something that I had missed in my prior assessment of this sort of Leftist elite feeding frenzy.

You see, defending the tribe counts more than defending a principle. That is why the people tearing into Prejean refuse to say that Obama, who shares her opinion on gay marriage, is also a bitch, boob and moron who has buttock fat for brains and needs a heart transplant, the dumb bastard.

(Actually, I suspect these people excuse Obama as a liar, just saying what he must. And a liar is good, but an opponent of gay marriage evil.)

So what is this tribe that's being defended so viciously, and with such hypocrisy? It's the tribe of the Left. Of privilege, too. And patriarchy.

It's also a class - the kind of people who'd look down on a Miss USA audience, and would use the weapons of power, sex and caste to crush them in precisely the ways the Left once claimed to oppose.

We've seen this phenomenon played out before, of course, and recently.

Last year it was the turn of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, to be monstered for being a conservative woman from small-town, Christian USA.

Palin, although a successful and popular corruption-buster and Governor of Alaska, was pilloried by the largely Left media as some thick hick, with white-trash morals and ideas above her station.

Class! Of course. The snobbery of the Left knows no bounds. But Vulture! Bill Clinton was a small-town rube, and the Left LOVED him. Ah, grasshopper, but Bill Clinton also attended Georgetown, Yale, and even Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar! That's cachet, people. And Sarah Palin? A degree from the University of Idaho? And JUST a BA at that? What a rube!

Never mind that the UI educational experience is probably every bit as good as Georgetown's (I'm talking the actual classroom instruction; you don't think Georgetown's prestigious professors actually teach, do you?). It just goes to show you how shallow and petty the Left actually is. If you're (a) from money or (b) have attended one or more "prestige" universities, and you embrace the Leftist catechism, you're a member of the club; nothing you do is worthy of criticism, except, perhaps, the occasional rebuke to placate the rubes from time to time. If you do not embrace the Leftist catechism, but satisfy requirement (a) or (b), you will be criticized, perhaps even rudely, but you will not bear the full heat that those who satisfy neither (a) nor (b) will.

Oh, and don't think for one second that top-level Republicans and their spokesmonkeys in the neocon commentariate are any different. They are every bit as shallow and petty. After all, some of the most scathing criticisms of Sarah Palin came from the likes of Peggy Noonan! The Left-Center neocon wing of the GOP (you know, the group that is killing the party) is every bit as snobby as the Left.

Great catch, Andrew. And create article, as always.

Death Knell: Part III - Persecution of Non-believers

Global Warmist - To be defined as a global warmist, a person must have all of the following traits:

1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet.

2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence.

3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case."

4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change.

5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.

From The Urban Dictionary.

---

The four tools of propaganda employed by Global Warmists to perpetrate their fraud, as pointed out in the previous Death Knell post, are Hysterical Predictions; Persecution of Non-believers; Data Anomalies, Questionable Practices, and Bad Models (read: fraud); and the Governmental Full-court Press to force the issue.

This installment addresses the Persecution of Non-believers.

This is quite possibly the scariest aspect of the AGW worship-the-Earth crowd. How on Earth can science function in this kind of environment? What kind of environment, you ask? What follows are links and a brief explanatory blurb detailing the 4 types of intimidation employed to ensure that "the right answer" is being parroted by one and all.

1. Blackballing
This technique is employed to assure that dissenting voices are denied a platform from which to speak their heresy. This is the story of Naturalist David Bellamy, once the darling of the BBC, now a pariah.

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

This is how the blackball works. You simply become an un-person. You are no longer welcome, no longer a member of the club. You're out, and you won't be allowed back in.

2. Denial of funding
This tactic, the favorite of governmental agencies, is the most cynical of the persecution tactics. "Give us the answer we want, or you'll get no more money from us". Most of the "denial of funding" talk is apocryphal, but the other side of that coin - favor the warming premise and you WILL get funded - is much easier to prove.

In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from suicides to butterflies, researchers are finding that they better somehow link the issue to global warming and it will increase your chances of securing funding dramatically.

Meteorologist James Spann suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the "big cash grab" of money flowing to proponents of man-made climate fears. I previously noted that NASA's James Hansen received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.

"Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007.

3. Peer pressure
Most of what we view as "science" is information that is published in peer-reviewed journals. By denying scientists the ability to publish their findings, and by deriding their findings in those same lofty publications, scientists who are unbelievers are shouted down and denied a platform to state their case. Here is the experience of Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

4. Threats of Legal Action
When all else fails, sue. Or worse. The infamous James Hansen proposes the establishment of a special court to prosecute unbelievers.

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

That's it. Not for crimes like fouling the environment with oil spills, or cartel-like pricing of their products. No, for the high-crime of DENYING!

Another group wants to establish an International Court for the environment.

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

And where the limits of its power stops......nobody knows.

Parallels with the Eugenics Movement
Finally, take a gander at this. I won't try to summarize it. Suffice it to say that the AGW crowd is employing the same tactics that were employed by the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Nothing bad happened as a result of that, right? Oh, that Adolph Hitler guy...yeah, I suppose maybe there WAS some harm there.

The bottom line is this: a very real campaign exists to silence critics of AGW. One ignores this at the peril of their personal freedoms.

Vulture Droppings - catching up

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

The past month it's been pretty hard to keep up with all of the stuff happening out there in the world. It's coming at us fast and furious, and it's not showing any signs of let up. As such, I wanted to 'drop' a bunch of items here so that I could clear some of the backlog.

---

I've made the big time. I've been added to the Voxologisti - the blogger links on Vox Popoli, Vox Day's blog. Okay, so there are about 100 other blogs featured there. But I'm one of them!

BTW, I can't recommend Vox Popoli strongly enough. He's always got a strong take on the issues, and it's always a great read.

---

Mark has a beef with Obama's early proclamations.

Subject: Gas

Heard on the news last night that one of Obama's 1st acts as pres. will be to overturn Bush's efforts to explore and drill for more oil & natural gas. Hello $5.00 gasoline and higher utility rates!! Boy I love Lefties!!!

I hadn't heard about this. I did a quick web-blast, and found stories saying that BHO was "considering" overturning this edict of the Rex Americana. To me, it seems that BHO is following in the footsteps of the Clintons by sending up trial balloons to see exactly what he can get away with. If there isn't a general public outcry about a particular "balloon", he'll know that it's something he can get away with.

Another trial balloon floating about is in regards to the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. I want to emphasize in the strongest possible language that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, coupled with the extraordinary powers now vested in the Office of the President thanks to King George the Dim, could very likely spell the end of freedom of speech in this country. Don't think that the Lefties will limit its implementation to just TV and radio -- the Internet will be included, too -- maybe not right away, but eventually.

For a guy who's supposed to be a visionary and a uniter, he's sure quick to embrace (a) rule by edict, (b) sneaky Clintonista tactics, and (c) suppression of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Whether it's King George the Dim doing it, or BHO doing it, rule by Executive Order runs contrary to everything our founding fathers believed in. The fact that he's already deciding which edicts he will issue two months before he takes office leads me to believe that he'll follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and use the Constitution as toilet paper.

---

dw also chimes in, on a different theme. This was obviously written before I had a chance to review the game.

Subject: WTF VULTURE

A Monday night like no other. Yes, I am talking the 9ers. OMG, were they something else. Down to the last 4 seconds. Oh, I forgot, you Eastern sleepy heads were fast asleep while this loyal fan in AZ watched the whole firggin game. A disappointment - NO!! I love Singletary - He walks the sidelines with AUTHORITY! I like the Cards since moving here but THE 9ERS LIVE ON and on my walls. So sad to see the Vulture swooped right over that one. Hey Vulture, take time to smell the desert. Great game and actually some hope for my beloved 9ers!!!

dw, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, the result of the game was disappointing. But you can see a palpable difference in the attitudes of the players. Their attitudes are starting to mirror the attitude of the Head Coach. Mike Singletary is a man among men, a giant, a legend of the game of professional football. I love what he is doing with the team. I think that, ultimately, after he's done making all of his rookie coaching mistakes, he'll end up being one of the top-notch Head Coaches in the league. Mark. My. Words.

The Niners, like the South, shall rise again!

---

Have you noticed the slew of articles pointing out that there is zero accountability over the financial bail-out money being distributed hither-and-yon to Friends of Henry Paulson, Inc? Have you noticed that, rather than purchasing the worthless mortgages from financial institutions, as Congress had promised they would do when they passed that steaming pile of legislation, they are, instead, purchasing stock in the financial institutions themselves? I wish I was making that up. I really do.

Fascist economics: Fascists believe in joint ownership of business/industry between private interests and the government, or private ownership with government oversight of said businesses.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

---

Last item: the people who are constantly telling us how bigoted and intolerant we are seem to think its okay to threaten and harass those whose viewpoints don't match their own.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

Let's just imagine, if you will, that the roles were reversed. Let's imagine that Prop 8 had WON, and the Mormons were picketing and heckling the gays. Then a package of white powder is received by a gay organization, requiring evacuation of the building and perhaps immediate medical attention for the poor clerk who opened the package. Under those conditions, would the news story have been buried about 12 column inches down the page on the Drudge Report? Or would it have been the headline? Would it be completely ignored by the websites of ABC news, CBS news, and NBC news? Would it be ignored by CNN.com, and hidden in the 'US news' page on MSNBC.com? Because that's the treatment the story of the Mormon temples receiving white powder is receiving as of 2:30 EST today.

I'm just saying...

What's a busy Vulture to do?

There are days when I have literally nothing to write about. Days when absolutely nothing is happening in the wide world of asshattery. Today I'm encountering a different sort of problem -- I've got more topics in the bin than I've got time to write.

Rather than attempt to tackle one at the expense of others, or tackle all at once in a "Vulture Droppings" post, I'm going to simply post a "Coming Attractions" list. If there's any one topic of interest to you and yours, let me know in the comments and I'll kick it up in priority.

Coming Attractions

1. The Great Society legacy of "peace" - the growing trend towards violence on the part of the Left towards those who don't agree with them. Tip of the beak to Mark for calling my attention to this lovely story.
2. The advent of "Generation Jones". No longer must MY generation be lumped in the those 60's maggots. Tip of the beak to WatchingSociety for that tidbit and for links to these sources.
3. Fear mongering as a campaign tactic. This topic stems from the steady stream of panic being shoveled on blather radio, but both Left and Right are guilty of this. Examples will be provided.
4. The advent of the Carbon Police in England. Just what we need: more Überwachenden.
5. An email is circulating that makes the case for Obama being the Antichrist. I slice, dice, and ridicule said email. Hilarity ensues.
6. An actual, honest-to-God unbiased site for information on the presidential and congressional elections. Targeted for women, CitizenJanePolitics.com is an excellent source for information regardless of your sex. Tip of the beak to xfloggingkylex for passing this information to me.
7. More wacky environmental news. Always fun. Always enlightening. News on the subject of man-made global warming is especially fun this week in light of the near-record low temperatures we're seeing right now.
8. And finally, I'm running in the Susan Komen Race for the Cure 5k tomorrow. It's my first competitive race...and I expected to finish towards the end of the pack. But it's a good cause (to raise funds for breast cancer research), and I'm really looking forward to it.
   

Whew! I'm gonna be a busy bird!

Wiener of the Week

This week's WotW will reveal that the Vulture is, if nothing else, consistent and fair (to a point). About two weeks ago I jumped ugly on atheists who were rude, condescending, and cruel to Rachel Lucas when her boyfriend's dad was lying in a hospital in a coma, all because she titled a post about her praying for him "There are no atheists in a foxhole". Earlier this week, I jumped ugly on strident homosexuals who are always in your face with their agenda when commenting on the two Anglican priests who got "married".

Now it's time for me to jump ugly on MY team. Meet the quintessential strident Christian.

A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.

Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!?!?!? Mr. Freshwater, you are a total tool. NO ONE should EVER be coerced into anything, let alone Christianity! If I were the king of the world (thank your lucky stars that I'm NOT), I'd have you turned over to Islamic extremists to have you tortured until you agreed to convert to Islam. Because, sir, that's essentially what you have done in your public school classroom.

Stridency is stridency, whether it's feminists in your face, homosexuals in your face, atheists in your face, or flaming extremist Christians in your face. You, sir, are an extreme example of how NOT to be a Christian. And you, John Freshwater, are the Wiener of the Week. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

Atheist hate

Why is it that so many of those who identify themselves as atheists are major a-holes? Vox Day refers to them as Socially Autistic, but I'm not quite so nice (BTW, Vox also blogged on this same "event" today, in case you want to check out what he had to say.

There's a young woman from Texas named Rachel Lucas who blogs about various themes and issues. She's quite popular (hold the jealousy, Vulture!). Over the weekend, her boyfriend's dad was involved in a bad motorcycle accident. He's pretty mangled. The doctors put him into a coma for his own protection (he was thrashing pretty badly) and to help with the cerebral swelling. This is the context within which this little episode occurred.

Rachel made the mistake of titling a post, "There are no atheists in a fox hole". Everyone over a certain age (trust me, I'm over a certain age) knows that this truism dates back to WW II. Well, almost everyone knows -- certainly the asshat atheists didn't, either that or they were just spoiling for a fight. She received page after page of hate- and profanity-filled shinola from the "intellectuals" who comprise the atheist community. Here's Rachel in her own defense.

The update I posted about Rupert’s dad was titled “There are no atheists in a foxhole.” Which anyone who reads here regularly would understand is my way of poking fun at myself, seeing as how publicly, on this blog, I’ve repeatedly identified myself as feeling like either an atheist or an agnostic, depending on my mood. I’ve regularly criticized Christians and their beliefs and have asked them to defend themselves, which they did, some nicely and some not. I’ve been very open about the fact that I simply don’t know the truth even though I’d like to, and that I find debates about religion interesting because they give you such a window into how other people think and view the world. There’s a whole category here called “Religion” but the point is, I have no religion. I reject organized Christianity and every other religion that’s ever been.

So I used that quote to describe the way I was feeling at that moment, while writing about a loved one who is in a coma. I was feeling down and sad and worried, and I used that quote because whenever I’m in a scary situation, I think about whether there’s a God, and I almost always find myself believing that there is because it helps me and comforts me to do so. The belief diminishes my suffering, simple as that. It may be wishful thinking but so what? It helps me and hurts no one.

Well. That post title really, really, really pissed off some atheists.

---

So I hope the atheists have gotten what they wanted from me. That’s what I’m here for, to use “offensive” quotes during emotional times and to be instructed with great gusto and attention about what a bigoted jackass I am so that I’ll never use such quotes again and all the world will learn what happens to you when you make that mistake. It’s really quite marvelous and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m ready to join their organization RIGHT NOW, if they’ll have me.

They just seem like such kind and considerate people, out there teaching the world about tolerance and overcoming bigotry, spreading their word wherever they think it’s necessary for the furtherance of enlightenment and elimination of negative stereotypes about atheists, even if it means hijacking a thread on a personal blog about someone in a coma. Because TRUTH is all that matters, people. Learn it and live it.

Actually, the quoted material above doesn't do the post justice; she handled herself very well. You should read it for yourself.

I know there are REALLY clueless Christians who would have confronted Rachel with a whole sermonette full of fire and brimstone to "convert" her in her hour of pain and anxiety. They're jerks -- it's not the time nor the place.

But I'm pretty sure -- REALLY sure -- that no Christian would treat her like these two paragons of intellectualism.

If you are going to pray “just in case”, I suggest you pray to as many different gods as possible. If not, you may be praying to the wrong one. And don’t forget to gather a few additional lucky charms while you’re at it. I suggest a rabbit’s foot, 4 leaf clover, and a horseshoe for starters. Then you might want to do a Google search for lucky charms. There may be a number of them recognized by other cultures which are effective that we don’t know about.

Then you might want to tackle eliminating all the bad luck charms. You never know, that might make a difference as well.

If you are comforted by these measures which give the appearance of ‘doing something’, then why limit them to simply praying to one potential god when there are so many other acts of magical thinking which are comforting in situations where there is little else one can control.
- Skeptigirl

Your opening post is a lie. There ARE atheists in foxholes… even if you don’t “believe” there are. Pat Tilman was just such an atheist. Educate yourself and quit deleting posts who try to lessen the bigotry you spread. http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Lying for Jesus is still lying. I hope your friend gets better. I hope he never is the bigot you are.

Just because your faith makes you feel all humble and honest… doesn’t make it true, you know.
- A Third Atheist (articulett)

Doesn't it make you warm all over to see the concern they have for...right. No concern. No thought for her injured family member ("get better so you can represent non-bigotry" hardly counts). No thought for her feelings as she goes through a tough time. Only hatred, contempt, and vitriol. Kinda makes you hope with all your might that there IS a hell, just so those a-holes can go there.

Don't think it can't happen here -- part deux

Lest you think I was being alarmist last week when I wrote about the arrest of 2 preachers in Norway, here's something a little closer to home.

A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report.

Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com.

"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.

"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," he wrote.

So...all of this "tolerance" and political correctness is, what? Only for preferred groups? I mean, if an Imam had said the same things, would the reaction have been the same? Would the Ministry of Love...excuse me, the Human Rights Commission...be so quick to leap on that religious leader to make an example of him?

We're headed in the exact same direction that Europe and Canada traveled before us. Free speech is under attack on all fronts, not the least of which is religious free speech (provided it isn't Muslim religious free speech). Only a major stink from the populous will prevent this inevitability, and I'm not confident that the sheeple of this country are up for the task. Are you?

Don't think it can't happen here!

You hear about these things happening in China. In Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan. In Indonesia. In parts of Africa. But in Norway?!?!?

Two preachers, including an American who specializes in delivering the message of the Gospel in public places, have been arrested and face a July trial for carrying a sign telling people about Jesus at a freedom celebration in Norway.

We're talking about Norway, a country that has a long history of Christianity -- in fact, more than 1,000 years of history as a Christian nation. Norway's constitution is SUPPOSED to permit the free exercise of religion.

In Norway's case, the concept of being a "Christian nation" has to be defined legally, culturally and historically. Article 2 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway declares that:

All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.

And yet, when you read this article, you are saddened to see that Norway has become part of the post-Christian socialist morass that is modern EUtopia.

As recently as the early 1970's Norway was culturally Christian. Now Christianity is oppressed. Don't think it can't happen here. It's already on its way. They call it multiculturalism. I call it "divide and conquer".

Justice for the FLDS/Nancy Grace is a Fascist

You could have knocked me over with a feather. A Texas appeals court has determined that Texas CPS had no right nor cause to seize the children of the FLDS cult.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

Wait! Are you telling me that you have to have proof before you can take people's children? [/sarcasm]

This isn't just a victory for the FLDS. This is a victory for the Constitutional protections of each one of us.

But there are some among us who are perpetually less interested in justice and freedom and much more interested in righting perceived (if not factually provable) wrongs.

When I got home last night, Mrs. Vulture was watching Nancy Grace. I used to enjoy Nancy Grace the first several times I watched her show. But now, to me, she's just a screeching fascist. Last night was no different.

Her panel for the discussion of the FLDS ruling consisted of two male defense attorneys who defended the decision (quite well, I might add). The remainder of the panel consisted mostly of shrewish Naziettes whose idea of reasoned debate consisted of baseless (and, so for, evidence-less) charges. "Young girls barely into puberty are being forced to marry and have sex!" "They beat their wives - that's why they make them dress that way, so the bruises won't show!" "There's proof of physical abuse against the children!"

The Vulture had a one word reply for each of the baseless statements of the Fascistas - "Okay - where's the indictment?"

This is what separates the freedom lover from the Statist. The freedom lover believes that when one is accused of a crime, said crime should be investigated, evidence of guilt should be presented before a court, and judgment should be rendered by a jury of his or her peers. The Statist, on the other hand, believing that Der Staat is the solution to all problems, likes to take shortcuts. "Shoot first, ask questions later" takes a whole new meaning when you're talking about situations like this one where 460+ children have been needlessly traumatized because some übermommy decided that crimes have been committed and action must be taken by Der Staat!

I very much dislike the FLDS cult. I very much dislike the way that they treat their women, like cattle. I very much dislike and distrust cults in general. But in the United States of America, under the Constitution, even the most unlikeable cult has rights, and NO ONE, not the government, not the Texas Stoßtruppen, and certainly not the Texas übermommies, can abridge those rights.

Thank God there's still one court in this land that understands and abides by that. And thank God that Nancy Grace isn't our ruler!

Well-reasoned, rational response

When those on the political left are confronted with ideas that diverge from their ideology, they always answer with well-thought out, well-reasoned, rational responses...not at all!

Please! The left knows no other response than that witnessed at Smith College earlier this month.

Rioting lesbians have stormed a speech by "Born Gay Hoax" author Ryan Sorba on the campus of Smith College in Massachusetts, shutting down his address, according to two major pro-family organizations, Americans for Truth and Mass Resistance.

"Beware lesbians with frying pans (if you care about free speech)," AFT said in his announcement. "Lesbian activists at Smith College just couldn't stand by and let a young critic explain his views about the supposed innateness of homosexuality – so they stormed Ryan Sorba's speech on the 'Born Gay Hoax' and forced him to end it prematurely."

"Thus they decided for everyone in the room – supporters, foes, the curious and the undecided – whether Sorba's arguments would be heard. Stalin would be proud," said AFT's Peter LaBarbera.

Indeed. Stalin WOULD be proud.

Just once I'd like to see the left sit and listen respectfully, then present counter arguments in a calm, rational manner. Just once.

I'd also like to see a unicorn, the Loch Ness Monster, a sea serpent, Bigfoot, and a total reduction of the national debt. I stand a zero chance of seeing any of those things. I also stand a zero chance of seeing leftists allow contrarian viewpoints to be presented without starting a riot.

The Cult of Evolution

Fred Reed is a curmudgeonly old so-and-so. He's one of those writers: when he's good, he's very, VERY good, and when he's bad, he's still readable. This week he was very, VERY good.

He writes this week on the "science" of evolution and, more importantly, the zealots who subscribe to that faith. As an FYI, I'm going to be beating on "science" quite a bit this week, because it's becoming something of a fraud industry.

Anyway, Fred starts off his column with a bang.

I think it a shame that discussion of evolution usually boils down to a pledge of allegiance either to Darwin or to the handling of snakes. This view admirably distracts attention from the observation that much of Darwinism doesn’t square with observation or even make sense. Religion has nothing to do with it, being an innocent bystander.

Not bad, eh? And the guy's an atheist!

Later he adds this zinger.

The entire Darwinian structure rests on the willingness to accept wild theories without examination.

You've got to read the whole thing yourself -- I can't do it justice here.

Wiener of the Week

This week we have our second repeat Wiener of the Week. Barack {don't say his middle name or you're a racist} Obama -- come on down!

His "Lincoln moment" speech (or so it was referred to by the shills at MSNBC) didn't dig him out from his hole. The Wright controversy just won't die. He's falling like a rock in the polls, both against The Beast as well as against McCommie. And now, he's generated even more controversy.

In his "amazing" speech, Obama threw his white grandmother under the bus, saying that she had "...on more than one occasion...uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." Now he's poured more gasoline on that fire.

During a morning interview with Philadephia's WIP and its host Angelo Cataldi, Obama was asked about his reference to his white grandmother in his recent speech on Reverend Wright.

Obama responded:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it."

A "typical white person". Yeah. Nothing racist there.

Barack {don't say his middle name or you're a racist} Obama -- for blowing a huge primary advantage and for outing yourself as a racist, you're the Wiener of the Week.

NBC's Religious Bigotry

The spouse and I have been big Law & Order fans for years. We TiVo every new episode and watch it when we have time. Most episodes are common cop/lawyer fair, with occasionally excellent writing and surprising plot twists. There's a reason the show has been on for 18 years -- it is outstanding by network TV standards, low though they may be.

But, after viewing Wednesday night's episode, I may never watch Law & Order again. Here are the particulars of this episode, the most offensive piece of bigotry I've ever seen on TV.

• Woman is found stoned to death.


• Murdered woman is involved with Muslim artist (Ha! It must be him, you know what zealots those people are).


• Murdered woman's co-worker says that she argued with Muslim artist the day she was killed (Ha! We knew it!).


• But...artist was just trying to protect the woman from Albanian immigrants who had threatened to kill him if he went forward with his exhibit at her gallery. He's a pro-woman Muslim (he must be the only one), and his paintings portray the sufferings of Muslim women at the hands of men (MEN ARE EVIL!).


• Artist checks out - he's not the perp.


• Cops check out the Albanians (Ha! It must be THOSE religious bigots!).


• But the Albanians have an FBI tail on them 24/7, and they were nowhere near the crime scene at the time of the murder.


• Of course, the FBI has also been taping phone conversations of the murdered woman because she had used the words "Muslim", "jihad", and "Fatima" in the course of a phone conversation with the Muslim artist. The cops inform the OBVIOUSLY inept FBI agent that those words are from the name of a painting by the artist. FBI agent sheepishly retreats.


• But cops listen to one of the taped conversations (yeah, it's okay for THEM to do it, they're on the side of the angels, unlike the fascist FBI).


• Turns out the murdered woman was getting horizontal with the artist.


• Time to harass the husband (Ha! It's ALWAYS the husband) and confront him with this information.


• Husband shrugs off the accusation. Cops eventually buy it.


• Cops try to check out the college age son at the University he's supposed to be attending, and find out he dropped out some time ago.


• They find out that he's living with crack addicts - he's "ministering to them". They haul him in.


• Eventually, he's about to confess to the murder when his "counselor" interrupts. But, when the cops look through the two-way mirror, what they see is not an attorney-client meeting, but the two men PRAYING (OH THE HORROR!), The "counselor" is confronted, "Are you a lawyer, or not?" He replies, "I didn't say I was his lawyer, I said I was his counselor." Horrors! A Christian Minister!

Okay...you with me so far. To this point, all offensiveness has been pretty de rigeur. Nothing too out-of-the-ordinary. But it's apparent they're setting up something. Why else would they have all of the false leads pointing to stereotypes?

Now the whole episode narrative changes. From this point on the entire episode becomes a soapbox for "the message", which is:

• Christians are fanatics


• Christians are bigots


• Christians are feeble minded and easily controlled


• Christian leaders are brain washing control freaks


• Christians hate those who are different


• Christians want to kill those who are "sinners" in their Christian eyes


• Christians call these "sinners" infidels


• Children left by their feeble minded parents to attend "camps" lead by the fanatical, brain-washing Christian ministers are glassy-eyed robotic zealots


• These children spout insipid crap when prompted by their evil brain-washer, who is teaching them to kill


• And, ultimately, this final "message": Christian fanatics are no different from Muslim fanatics

You really had to see it to believe it. The "Chosen Prophet" son of the murdered woman, who stoned her to death to cleanse her of her sin. Do these asshats know the first thing about Christianity?

• Christians have NEVER believed in stoning sinners. Stoning is from the law of Moses and all Christians believe that the Law was fulfilled (or superseded, if you will) by Jesus Christ.


• Christians do not now nor have they EVER believed that a sinner must die in order to be forgiven for their sin. Individual asshats have practiced this reprehensible doctrine in the past (see: witches, Salem), but it has never been nor shall it ever be a part of Christianity. Christians believe in blood atonement; but it's not the blood of the sinner that atones, but rather the shed blood of the Savior, Jesus Christ.


• Christians (with the exception of those asshats in Kansas who believe that "God hates fags") are taught to "love the sinner but hate the sin". We believe in ministering to and loving sinners, not in killing them. The fact is WE'RE ALL SINNERS. Just because I'm not a homosexual or an adulterer doesn't make me better than them. I've got my own "thorns in the flesh" to overcome, thank you.


• Christians don't go around blowing themselves up, nor killing people who aren't Christian, nor foisting the Christian equivalent of Sharia on our countrymen and women. We all know who's doing that, don't we?


• I'll put the members of my church up against any 100 atheists you chose at random, and I wager we'll come out WAAAAAAAAY ahead of THAT group in the areas of independence, intelligence, and open mindedness and tolerance (like, how many atheists will tolerate OUR viewpoint, or even allow us to speak it?).


• Show me ONE Christian who has EVER used the word 'infidel' to describe an unbeliever. Just ONE! You can't do it. Because WE DON'T DO IT!!!! We don't use that word. It's not a part of our "orthodoxy", if you will. We don't say it because we don't believe it.

What we have here is typical liberal-atheist projection. They project upon Christians all of the most evil attributes imaginable so that they can feel better about the amoral lives they themselves live. There's also a healthy dose of "equivalence" here -- our Christian fanatics, their Muslim fanatics, it's all the same. Uh, no...it's not. We're not the one's trying to remake society in "our" image. That would be the Muslims. And the Liberals. See what I mean about "projection"?

Note also that there is no outcry in the media about this horrendous steaming turd of bigotry. Switch it around: make it "Jews" or "Muslims" brainwashing their children and murdering "infidels" instead of Christian wackos. You wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting someone decrying the bigotry. Shoot, if it was Muslims, you would have riots and fatwas. Someone would be dead. Fast.

Welcome to America, where bigotry is not tolerated...except when it's against white men, Asians, and Christians.

The writers, director, and producers of this episode can all kiss my lily-white Christian ass.