If you were reading this blog in the summer of 2008, you will understand why I couldn’t stop giggling when I discovered this.
If you were reading this blog in the summer of 2008, you will understand why I couldn’t stop giggling when I discovered this.
That’s what Scott Roeder, murderer of abortion provider George Tiller, just got from a jury after a scant 37 minutes deliberation. Roeder had, of course, hoped to turn his trial into a media circus and referendum on abortion. By arguing a manslaughter defense and hopefully getting away with a mere five years — the thrust of the defense being that Roeder had an “unreasonable yet sincere conviction” that he had to shoot Tiller in order to save babies, because guys like him care so much about the babies — he and his ideological brethren at Operation Rescue hoped to make his trial the first shot across the bow in the war to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.
The jury, comprised of the sensible Kansans, wasn’t having any. Instead of seeing a valiant superhero of the Lord courageously protecting the unborn, they saw a cowardly, first-class douche canoe who willingly popped a man in the back of the head in public, and handed him a first-degree murder conviction. The prosecutor says she will seek a “hard 50” sentence, meaning Roeder will have to serve at least 50 years before eligibility for parole. This is effectively the same as life without parole for a man who’s already 51. Once behind bars, if very unlucky, Roeder may have to face an entirely different kind of “hard 50.”
Never fear, Scott. Once they’re done with you in there, at least you won’t need an abortion.
And…it’s convictions on all ten counts for pedophile cult leader Tony Alamo! Naturally, his response is the typical self-aggrandizement of the pathologically narcissistic. “I’m just another one of the prophets who went to jail for the Gospel.” Some “prophet”; he couldn’t even prophesy his own fate. No, Tony or Bernie, I mean you’re just another one of the perverts who went to jail for porking little kids.
So, to complete our celebration of Alamo’s downfall, I guess it’s time now to pick our winners in the “Can you write like allexus8?” contest. So…below are the links to the entries, and in the sidebar is the poll to vote, which will only be open 5 days. (There is such a thing as flogging a joke to death.) Have fun, and maybe, in five days, I’ll have thought of a prize. Unless allexus8 wins. You’ve already got your prize, haven’t you?
The entrants are… (feel free to imagine a drum roll here, if you want to play this out to full cheese effect)
Something distresses me about this photo of Alamo. I’m sure the resemblance to our very own beloved John Iacoletti is totally coincidental.
The latest hilarious story of a politician with a roving willy is that of Nevada Republican senator John Ensign, who has shamefacedly confessed to an extramarital affair. Like the disgraced Democratic New York governor Eliot Spitzer, Ensign is your garden variety moral hypocrite, with an extra special twist that makes the schadenfreude at his downfall especially delightful. Because, being a Republican, Ensign’s big bugaboo was the “threat” of gay marriage, and how it threatened to “weaken” traditional marriages like the one he was betraying. Among other things, Ensign was very vocal in his calling for Larry “Wide Stance” Craig to resign. Here’s Ensign on marriage catching teh gay.
“The effort to pass a constitutional amendment reaffirming marriage as being between a man and a woman only is being undertaken strictly as a defense of marriage against the attempt to redefine it and, in the process, weaken it,” Ensign said. “Marriage is an extremely important institution in this country and protecting it is, in my mind, worth the extraordinary step of amending our constitution.” [Emphasis added.]
Seems to me Ensign isn’t spinning this with the kind of gusto one expects from the right. I mean, hasn’t it occurred to him that he could parlay his philandering ways into proof of his anti-gay marriage thesis?
Clearly, what happened was that, when all these rainbow-flag waving liberals and spearchucking lesbians began demanding marriage equality, Ensign’s marriage was so “weakened,” that he just couldn’t stop himself from having an extramarital affair! If only gay marriage hadn’t become a political hot button topic, the marriages of healthy straight Christians like John Ensign, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, and so very many others, would have been as towering in their strength as a Himalayan peak! Right. Right? So what more proof do you people need that we must stand unwavering against the threat of gay marriage, lest more heterosexuals fall victim to the monogamy-dampening effects of their gay rays.
What…you’re saying no one would buy it? Well, no, they wouldn’t, except for the inmates over at WorldNutDaily and the Christian Worldview Network. But my point is, heck, he could have at least tried, you know. Jeez, even Bill Clinton had the stones to come up with such artistically inventive rhetorical interpretive dance as “That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” So come on, Sen. Ensign, step up! Haven’t we earned the right to expect at least that from our politicians?
Well well well, what do you know. Yesterday on the show, I brought up this two year old post because Kent Hovind’s devotees still whine about his unjust incarceration. And then at the wee hours of two in the morning, someone else comes along and does precisely that. Since the linked post is more or less off the radar of most other commenters, I thought I’d bring it back to the top with a new post.
Wow.. I bet if creationists did something like this to Richard Dawkins the atheists would be in tears.
Okay, a few points of order here. First: Richard Dawkins is not an American citizen. I suppose he could get picked up for not paying taxes in Britain, but as far as I know, the completely wacky notion that you can live as a fairly affluent citizen in a first world country without paying your way is mostly local to the United States. Especially since the arguments I see all appear to hinge on misunderstood obscure points of American law, American history, and the US Constitution.
Second: if Richard Dawkins committed a felony, we would not be upset at the people who tried and convicted him. We would much more likely be pissed off at Richard Dawkins for doing something so stupid without thinking through the implications. Unlike religious figures, neither Dawkins nor any other atheist “celebrity” is considered infallible and beyond criticism.
Third: Where the hell is the analogy to “creationists doing something like this”? Atheists didn’t put him in jail. Hovind was put in jail by a judge and jury of his peers by the laws of the country that you probably claim to love. All we’ve done is make fun of him for it.
As I was saying on the show yesterday: people like Andrew see the world in terms of absolute good and evil, regardless of facts and evidence. It rarely crosses their mind that someone they believe is “on the side of right” might actually deserve to go to jail due to crimes that they committed. In the Christian mythos, of course, everyone deserves nothing less than eternal torture, but they get to avoid it by saying an incantation about accepting Jesus in their hearts. Hovind, being a Christian, shouldn’t be subject to any punishment, and therefore it must be wicked unjust infidels who are persecuting him.
Fact of the matter is that the tax code is too complex and unpredictable to avoid some error. Depending on how much money you’ve made, you could somehow be classified as much a criminal as a mugger on the street.
Oh yeah, it’s true that people can and do get in trouble for honest mistakes in computing the taxes they owe. Here’s something that doesn’t fall in that category: refusing to pay taxes for years, flaunting your claim that you don’t have to, and not bothering to run this obviously mistaken belief by a qualified lawyer who has a clue what the hell they’re talking about. That’s beyond stupid, it’s criminally stupid.
Another point: If a prominent Darwinist were taken in for something like this (it’s not possible since all these organizations are tax-funded in the first place) everybody would be screaming “The sky is falling! We’re going back to the Dark Ages of science!”
I’m afraid I will need some evidence of this extraordinary claim that “everybody” would be doing this. When a prominent scientist is convicted for breaking the law, few people assume that it reflects in any way on science in general. Well, creationists probably do, because ad hominems are so much fun.
There is alot of corruption within our government and a few key organizations get all the benefits in the world. This hasn’t changed since Obama rolmao. (WE WANT CHANGE!!) And those who supported McCAin were just as blind.
Right now we neither have a free market or socialist country. Right now we have a corporate and government alliance. It’s because of mergers that the government forces or creates that true monopolies are born.
Creationist or not, Kent Hovind was just another blind victim of the IRS. An organization which we do not need. (They’re not even productive.)
But just remember boys and girls,
“Don’t Steal! The Government Hates Competition!”
Corruption within our government there certainly may be. Convicting and imprisoning a fraud is not an example of that; it is an example of the system doing what it is meant to do. While you do bring up legitimate concerns, not every conviction is a conspiracy. So far, you have yet to demonstrate that this one is.
Also, what’s up with the weirdly sardonic tone of the sentence in quotes? Even assuming that we grant that the government is, by and large, a criminal organization, is Andrew saying that this means nobody should be convicted for stealing? Ah, the squishy nature of absolute morality…
Andrew then writes a second post, in which he starts trying to come to grips with the fact that maybe Hovind was convicted with good cause by a fair jury. Then he tries to rationalize it away. Needless to say, he finds another way to blame atheism.
Who knows. Maybe he’s in jail because he started to become too self-absorbed or took his mind off of spiritual things. Next thing you know, Kent Hovind gets greedy and poof!
Eh? Eh? You see what Andrew just did there? Prominent Christian apologist Kent Hovind broke the law because he took his mind off of spiritual things. You see, his only real crime was acting too much like an atheist.
He’s in jail! My advice to Hovind: Just go with it. Don’t try to fight the system. If you want to spread your message as soon as possible just play by the rules.
Good advice. It would have been even more valuable before Kent decided not to play by the rules that pertain to US tax law. But still good, in general.
Kent Hovind has his flaws. He’s a human being just like us all. Of course some people would say “Well does he desrve to go to Heaven?” Nope.
Neither would I. Neither would you. That is assuming, of course, that Heaven exists. Which I do every time.
Atheists, of course, would not bother asking whether Kent deserves to go to heaven, because we don’t believe in your happy land. But you see, it’s exactly how I was explaining it yesterday. Heaven never entered this question in the first place until you brought it up. We were discussing man-made laws and the evil conspiracy to enforce them.
Christians often claim that it must be a very dangerous thing to become an atheist, since true morality must come from God, and there is no other force preventing people from murdering and stealing. Yet in the fundamentalist mindset, there are no crimes other than angering God, and those crimes can be washed away by saying an incantation. Andrew was implying earlier that Kent Hovind deserves special dispensation to be forgiven for his crimes due to the fact that he said the words. Now he backs it up by invoking his belief that all humans have sinned equally, whether or not they made off with nearly half a million dollars in legally owed finances.
In other words, the moral check and balance of Christianity is phony. Christians and atheists alike may follow the law out of a sense of societal obligation or fear of earthly punishment. But becoming a Christian does not noticably improve the likelihood that you will do so, because it’s a moral blank check.
Kent Hovind may very well have been in the wrong her
e. I currently see it as more than likely (considering our current, flawed laws…. laws nonetheless. However unconstitutional, invasive, counterproductive, or dumb they might be.)
Hey, admitting he has a problem is the first step to recovery. You should maybe drop Kent a line to let him know he should start thinking about what he done wrong.
Warning: Assumptions about Heaven and God being real coming ahead.
I thought you might appreciate that warning. God might have put him there so that he could learn some humility.
But, hey. That’s the extent of my knowledge. Whatever God could have planned is beyond me :S.
Oh, and Kent Hovind’s point all along has been: “Evolution is not science because it cannot be observed beyond changes within certain kinds of animals.” It’s a good theory and all and very well-thought out. And it can make alot of logical sense.
But it can be very illogical as well. I think Kent Hovind misses some points about evolution, but he does make SOME good cases in favor of creation and a Young Earth.
I believe in the Young Earth myself and I will continue to believe in it until God himself tells me I was wrong.
And now we observe the impact of fundamentalism on scientific discourse as well as legal and ethical standards. Andrew has a belief which is in no way informed by scientific research, observation, or evidence. How will this belief ever change to one that is more accurate? By learning more about reality? No, Andrew will only change his mind if his invisible friend personally notifies him that it is okay to do so.
And I just bet THAT’S going to happen.
And, please. I BEG you to set aside your flame-throwers and spare me from major flammage.
Everybody likes to play pin the tail of the creationist lol.
Your request was denied. But hey, that tail is very becoming.
This isn’t specifically atheisty, but it gives me a big 3S (skeptical schadenfreude squee) all the same. From the “Sometimes the Good Guys Win” file:
A federal judge has ordered infomercial marketer Kevin Trudeau to pay more than $37 million for violating a 2004 stipulated order by misrepresenting the content of his book, “The Weight Loss Cure ‘They’ Don’t Want You to Know About.”…
This scumsucking assrocket is a kindred spirit to Ben Stein in every way. Peddle a bunch of bullshit claims and sway the feeble minds of an uneducated public into thinking you’re a valiant truth-seeker, by contriving a massive conspiracy by Big Science to suppress you. And if it makes you puke to think how this con man is swimming in ill-gotten dough while millions of honest Americans are on the verge of poverty thanks to the Bush Economic Holocaust, then I’m sure this news must make your week. Go, read, bask.
Word is making the rounds that the reactionary right’s own personal Ilsa and card-carrying Joe McCarthy fangirl— yes yes, I’m talking about Ann Coulter — has somehow broken her jaw, requiring that it be wired shut.
I wonder how much her doctors would ask for to leave it that way…
Shall we enjoy a little schadenfreude pie along with our pumpkin tomorrow?
Yes, there was a blemish on last night, which is that Christian Hate gets to crow about at least one victory. I am a little baffled about the Californians this morning. After all, they managed to deliver the state pretty handily for Obama, giving him no less than 61% of the popular vote there. So how they could have folded to fundamentalist fear so completely on the same night is rather strange. Still, I hope that this is just the beginning of Supreme Court challenges. There’s simply no room for this in an enlightened culture. And an enlightened culture is what I’m sincerely hoping America may start slouching towards during the next (being optimistic here) eight years of the Obama presidency.
But for now, I thought, for schadenfreude purposes, we’d take a look at a little of the morning-after whining from the fundie camp in response to the election. My oh my, I do believe it’s time to call the waaaambulance!
From the American “Family” Association, Donald Wildmon’s homophobic hate club, we get some advice for Christians: “Defend Life, Prepare for Persecution.” Since there’s nothing these people love more than to feel “persecuted,” I expect this is, perversely, good news for them.
[Tony] Perkins says Christians should pray for and return to a biblical model of holiness and righteousness. And believers in America, he adds, should prepare for persecution.
“We are going to see, I think, unprecedented attacks against our faith through measures like the hate crimes [legislation] to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” he says. “We’re going to see attacks on innocent human life through the Freedom of Choice Act, trying to erase all the gains that have been made in the pro-life movement. And I think even our freedoms are going to come under attack.”
Obama stated during the presidential campaign that one of his top priorities upon taking office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Perkins says Christians will have to be resolute in defense of what they know to be right.
Hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry, of course, being the top four items on that list of what they “know to be right.” It’s amazing how upset they get when they’re told, by civilized, decent people, that it really isn’t nice to hate those different from you and that you should try to be more compassionate and tolerant. Those are two concepts just not in their lexicon.
Over at that delightful nuthouse, the Christian Worldview Network, columnist Jan Markell reveals another problem they have with Obama: they worry that he’s unfair competition for Jesus!
Two years ago came a charismatic man named Barack Obama who was engulfed in a cult-like atmosphere. Some actually called him “the messiah.” Shrines were built to him. A Web site said, “Obama is god.” There has been a messianic fervor, adoration and a worship-like atmosphere surrounding him. At some rallies people fainted at the sight of him. Young children recorded on YouTube sang songs to him stating he would change the world…
Well, Jan, if you’re actually worried that our president-elect is actually competition that the son of God has to worry about, sounds as if you aren’t giving your God enough credit, eh? Anyway, the above is all followed up by the usual butt-ignorant whining about “socialism.”
And of course, over at the WorldNutDaily, that repository of all things most ludicrous and histrionic that erupt from the crusty bowels of the extremist right, they couldn’t resist this headline:
Hamas praises Obama win as ‘historic victory for world’
Terrorists drafting letter of congrats to be sent directly to president-elect
I’m sure there’s more of this hysteria out there, and if you want to dig it up, please be my guest. Meanwhile, I’m going to sit back, eat myself a heaping slice of schadenfreude pie (thanks for the recipe, Scalzi), with a side of schadenfreude cobbler and washed down with a big old extra-fattening schadenfreude milkshake. Yum!
Chris Comer has sued the Texas Education Agency and its commissioner Robert Scott in federal court, on the grounds that the agency’s idiotic “neutrality” policy as regards “intelligent design” is unconstitutional and that her firing was thus illegal.
The policy was in force even though the federal courts have ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal under U.S. Constitution’s provision preventing government establishment or endorsement of religious beliefs.
“The agency’s ‘neutrality’ policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause,” the lawsuit said.
Ms. Comer also said in her complaint that she was fired without due process after serving as the state science director for nearly 10 years.
Remember, all Comer did was forward an email announcing the CFI-sponsored lecture Barbara Forrest gave in Austin last November. For this, she was — what’s the word? oh, right — expelled.
You know, the flop creotard propaganda movie that, after 5 weekends in theaters, has only scraped up a sad $7.5 million? (In a comparable time frame, TBN’s 1999 cheesefest The Omega Code had done $8.2m, and tickets were cheaper then.) Didn’t think so. Well, PZ reports today that the ill-begotten and unlucky movie’s latest misfortune is that the judge hearing the case Lennon v Premise Media has ruled to continue the injunction against the film. EMI has also sued Premise over the film’s unauthorized use of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Premise’s claim that the inclusion of the song constitutes “fair use” seems a rather feeble thing, considering they properly licensed all the other songs that also appear in the film. Stupid is as creationism does, you know. This movie, as one of PZ’s commenters points out, could very well go down as the Reefer Madness of the 21st century.