Asshat of the Day - February 16th, 2011

We're back! For long? Who knows?

Anyway. Today's candidate, with a hat-tip to Samson Effect for the tipoff: Bev Oda and the Conservatives.

Oda is on the hot seat after finally admitting Monday that she directed an already-signed document to be crudely altered by adding a single handwritten word – “not.” The change killed $7 million in funding to the multi-faith foreign-aid group KAIROS.

"Not". Really. Are we in third grade? "I'll give you my favourite marble... not!"

This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that it's forgery of a political document by an MP (or at least by her staffers). This wasn't a mea culpa - by now, I don't expect those from our fearless leaders. It was a grudging admission of further deception and obstructionism by the party which has exhibited this in spades.

So, Bev Oda, unless you want to point the finger at exactly who's responsible, you're the Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - November 4th, 2010

Today's winner/loser - Mitch McConnel and his whole stupid party.

So, what's the first announcement upon winning back the House? Cooperation and compromise? Seeking to work with their Democratic colleagues in an effort to ride out the recession and improve America's ailing economy, infrastructure, and bloated department of defense?

BAAAA-haa-haa-haa-haa*gasp*-haahaahaa... hee.

No, no. They want to undo everything Obama's done. Despite the fact that he can veto any unreasonable motions. Despite the fact that many of the initiatives enjoy broad public support. Despite the fact that most of their goals (cut taxes and balance the budget without reducing services!) are mutually exclusive and fly in the face of logic.

So, Obama will veto any attempts to hamstring or remove his health care reform. Does this stop them?

In addition to proposing and voting on repeals "repeatedly" despite expectations that the President will not sign them, "we'll also have to work in the House on denying funds for implementation and in the Senate on votes against its most egregious provisions," he said.

No, of course it doesn't. They're willing to spin Congress' wheels for two years, wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Asshats.

(Incidentally, when you're spending twice as much on healthcare as one of your neighbours, and yet sit thirty-third on the list of lowest infant mortalities in the world, your health care system needs reform.)

Asshat of the Day - September 8th, 2010

Today's titlist - one Terry Jones.

Despite sharing a name with a generally awesome individual, this Mr. Jones is quite clearly an idiot.

Despite denunciations from religious leaders, angry Muslim protests, the pleas of top U.S. generals and White House disapproval, a fiery, unrepentant Christian minister vows to burn stacks of Korans to mark the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Centre, a tiny, controversial church with only 50 followers in Florida, says he won’t bow to threats or entreaties but might listen to divine guidance.

“We have firmly made up our mind, but at the same time, we are definitely praying about it,” said Mr. Jones, who wears a pistol on his hip and says he has received more than 100 death threats related to his plans for an “International Burn a Koran Day.”

Now, I'm in favour of mocking religion at every turn, and condemning its evil acts. But this isn't a statement of protest, it's an attempt at constitutionally-shielded retaliation in a petty and vindictive fashion against people who, on the whole, had nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

And, beyond that, it's burning books. Not that various nutty Christian sects don't have a penchant for that particular act of depravity, but I find myself paraphrasing Sir Sean Connery: Mr. Jones, Bible-thumping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.

Asshat.

Asshat of the Day - July 15, 2010

Today, it's a perennial favourite - the Catholic Church.

And why?

The Vatican today made the "attempted ordination" of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.

So a priest who (for whatever reason) tries to ordinate a (presumably devout) woman into the priesthood gets the same punishment (ostensibly) as a priest who raped children. Or, at least, the punishment that such a priest should get.

Both the priest and the woman in this ceremony would be excommunicated. You know, the same punishment the Church visited on a nine year old who had an abortion after her stepfather raped her? And bear in mind that this punishment, in the Church's eyes, is condemnation for Hell, with no chance of parole. For trying to make a woman one of their magic chanty-people.

Asshats.

Asshat of the Day - July 14, 2010

Today's contender is the Western Media as a whole.

Alright, folks, listen up.

Bristol Palin is not news!

The Quitbull and her spawn were a good bunch of clowns to trot out back during the election campaign... in 2008. We're done. Don't give the family any more attention, and let them drop back to being the nonentities they were before McCain made (one of) his fatal mistake(s).

I mean, seriously. I expect this kind of thing from Faux News (and even they put it in their entertainment blog), but the Guardian? Reuters? CN-freaking-N and the G&M?

Seriously, folks, don't give these folks the time of day.

Update: The BBC?!?

Asshat of the Day - July 13, 2010

Today's contender, once again, the Government of China.

What's so wrong about making people use their real names online?, you might ask. After all, Blizzard's doing it. Well, yes. And look how that turned out.

But beyond that, there's a difference in terms of the motivation behind the actions. Blizzard's aborted Real ID system was meant as a means of making its forums more civil - the idea being that without the protection of anonymity, users would be less inclined to be impolite.

China, on the other hand (emphasis mine)...

In an address to the national legislature in April, Wang Chen, director of the State Council Information Office, called for perfecting the extensive system of censorship the government uses to manage the fast-evolving internet, according to a text of the speech obtained by New York-based Human Rights in China.

...

Wang said holes that needed to be plugged included ways people could post comments or access information anonymously, according to the transcript published this week in the group's magazine China Rights Forum.

"We will make the internet real name system a reality as soon as possible, implement a nationwide cellphone real name system, and gradually apply the real name registration system to online interactive processes," the journal quoted Wang as saying.

This isn't a push for civility. It's another brick in the Great Firewall of China, a bit more muscle behind the stranglehold the PRC has been trying to clamp on freedom of expression and information for its citizens.

And it's an Asshat sort of thing to do.

Asshat of the Day - March 6th, 2010

Today's Asshat of the Day? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[Ahmadinejad] added: “The Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan.” Mr. Ahmadinejad did not elaborate.

I don't deny that the Bush administration made hay of the 2001 attacks, nor that they launched a highly inadvisable war as a result of those attacks. I don't deny that some of the methods and actions taken in the course of this war were/are reprehensible, and denigrated both the United States and its allies.

I do think that the "9/11 was an inside job" people are lunatics. There is no way - no way - that something like this could be kept quiet in today's world. If the government sets out to kill thousands of its own people, cripple its own most powerful financial district and plunge itself into war, enough people will find out that it will leak. Someone will get wind of it, and if they do, or if any of the things in the highly public investigation ever turned up false, it would be all over the news. It would be the story of the decade, if not the century.

And Ahmadinejad, in this case, is just like Kim-Jong Il. He's screaming off-the-wall things in an effort to get the world behind him, when he doesn't really understand how the world outside his own borders thinks. If he were condemning the US for its techniques in prosecuting the War on Terror, while simultaneously allowing that it is necessary to oppose terrorism, he might be listened to. But in spouting off conspiracy theories in an attempt to paint the US administration as Machiavellian monsters, he just comes off as a lunatic.

Oh, and an asshat.

Asshat of the Day - February 25th, 2010

Today's Asshat of the Day is the entire freaking state of Utah, particularly its Legislature.

Why? For criminalizing miscarriage. Now, as explained here, that means that a woman who obtains an illegal abortion from someone other than a licensed physician could be charged with conspiracy to and complicity in first degree murder - with a penalty of life in prison.

A woman who causes a miscarriage through negative behaviour (for example, excessive drinking, drug use, some sort of violent activity) could be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter.

This is absolutely a case of a) blaming the victim, and b) insanity. It is yet another step in removing a woman's control over her own body. It makes suppositions about fetal development that are not broadly acknowledged, nor supported. And as with most of the worst laws, it makes innocent people into criminals.

The initial link was correct; in doing this, Utah has become, amazingly, even worse as a state. And the Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - January 11th, 2010

Today's Asshat of the Day? Iris Robinson.

Regular readers (or those who know me) know that I have no problem with sex in general. Moreover, as long as there's consent, I do not object to anything two (or more) adults choose to do together. (Or even two or more minors.) To borrow from Spider Robinson, I don't object to anything consensual that doesn't involve "former people or former food".

So do I object on principle to Mrs. Robinson's (*snort*) sexual peccadilloes? No. I imagine her husband may even have known about them and simply stayed quiet. I do object to the potential abuse of an authority position, given that she was supposed to care for the boy.

I do object to the fact that she apparently appropriated public funds to pay for his affections - not that she paid someone for sex or intimacy, but that the money she used for this purpose wasn't her own.

But most of all, I object to hypocrisy. And that, she's got in spades.

She claims to be a "god fearing" woman, and has stated that she considers homosexuality "an abomination", after an attack was made on a gay man in her constituency. Moreover, she condemned child sexual abuse by saying "There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children." While she later claimed that, effectively, she wanted to say "even" in place of "apart from", this hardly mitigates the homophobic nature of her comments.

Her homophobia is based on her born-again Christian background (naturally)... which would also heartily condemn adultery. So, as we often must say to the born-again crowd: you can't have it both ways. Either condemn others, and adhere to your own rules, or keep your trap shut.

Hypocrite.

*Come on, her name is Mrs. Robinson.

Asshat of the Day - January 7th, 2010

Today's Asshat of the Day is a paired prize, since both recipients are interested in much the same stuff: Bono and a french governmental panel.

Let's start with Bono.

"A decade's worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can't live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us." And he alleges that "rich service providers" are reaping "the lost receipts of the music business."

The musician claims the technology is available to track and prevent illegal downloading, noting efforts in China which limit its populace from freely accessing the internet.

Um. Words, failing me. First, no nation on the planet has had any luck curtailing filesharing. Your best bet is to go with the iTunes or Amazon download models and charge people on a per-song basis, while maintaining massive libraries in order to compete. Second... you're holding China up as a sparkling example of how the internet should be?

Next, the French:

How to help prop up the ailing music industry? Tax Google, suggests a new report commissioned by the French government.

The report, handed to Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand on Wednesday, says Google, Yahoo! and other Internet portals should be slapped with a new tax on their online ad revenues in France to fund the development of legal outlets for buying books, movies and especially music on the Internet.

...

The plan “seemed inevitable to us, if we want to maintain a certain pluralism in the culture world” and prevent the “endless enrichment of two or three world players who will impose their cultural formatting on us,” Patrick Zelnik, a record producer who helped lead the mission, was quoted as telling Liberation newspaper.

Again, there are few words. Taxing Google to repay recording artists for the theft of their music is like taxing the Yellow Pages to pay the families of victims of gun violence - because, after all, the bad guys look up pawn shops in the Yellow Pages to buy their guns! Moreover, as Mark Mulligan, an opponent to the idea, commented:

“Where does it start and stop? The argument is that Google has culpability for declining music revenues because people start searches for illegal files often by Google,” said Mark Mulligan, vice president of Forrester Research. But “what about the computers? Because without the computers people wouldn't be able to download. And then what about the electricity that powers the computer?”

Culpability only extends so far. Jack Thompson was a particularly egregious example of that, back in the day - suing Sony for producing the game system on which someone played a game that might be associated with a subsequent crime. This is no different. It's a transparent tax-grab from the people with the deepest pockets, to subsidize an industry which needs to reinvent itself, not depend on legislation to protect it.

Additionally, the proponents of the idea seem to be concerned about the dilution of France's culture through downloaded music (the majority of which, I imagine, is coming from the US). I'm sorry, monsieurs, but taxing Google ain't gonna stop it. People can acquire the same stuff through legitimate means - or through clients like Kazaa, Limewire, and other file-sharing programs, the way they do right now.

For trying to put shackles on something that has no limbs, Bono and this french panel share the title of AotD.

Asshat of the Day - January 5th, 2010

It's a new year, and SamsonEffect has challenged me to post at least twice a week.

Let's see if I can manage it! Now, with that said, let's get on to our asshat of the day: PM Stephen Harper.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadians aren't really concerned about allegations that the government engaged in a cover-up over the abuse of Afghan detainees.

"I think polls have been pretty clear that that's not on the top of the radar of most Canadians," Harper said in an interview with CBC-TV correspondent Peter Mansbridge.

To borrow an internet meme:

It's not the top of the radar for most Canadians, is it, Mr. Harper? First of all, je suis canadien, and it's certainly a big point on my radar. (Granted, it's just one of the ways you're dragging our country's name through the mud, but it's a big one.)

But more than that, your concern with the detainee scandal is whether it's the top priority of Canadian citizens? Not, for example, the damage our soldiers' reputations will take. Not the damage our country's reputation will take. Not simple decency in obeying the international laws concerning prisoners of war and proving we're better than those who would seek to cow us by acts of terror. No, your concern is poll numbers.

Attempting to dictate our opinions to us, M. Harper, and in so doing further illustrating your own power-grubbing, heartless nature - that earns you the title of Asshat of the Day.

For further reading, check out Scott's DiaTribe on the subject.

And Then There's THIS Asshole...

Straight up: I abhor racism, in all its forms. But there's a certain point where you get unmitigated wankery of the highest order in the effort of fighting racism, such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, who see racism where it doesn't exist, and can very well be making racist comments themselves. Some refer to this as 'race-baiting' or have other interesting names for it, but no matter how you slice it, in my books, it's still racism. Today's Asshat is a man who has gone the route of Jackson and Sharpton. That man? Dallas County Police Commissioner John Wiley Price. Why? For taking offense to the term 'black hole'. Yes, apparently, 'black hole' is racist.

So here's the shakedown: Another commissioner, Kenneth Mayfield, made a comment that the central collections had become a black hole, saying that paperwork concerning traffic tickets had been getting lost in the office. Anyone with any idea what a black hole is would understand what he's saying. Commissioner Price, on the other hand, takes offence and corrects Mayfield, calling the office a 'white hole'.

It's at this point where I'd love to give Mr. Price a quick lesson in astrophysics, and I figure here is as good a place as any to do it. A black hole forms when a massive star goes supernova and the remaining 'corpse' of the star is so massive and so dense that at a certain distance from the object, escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (the Event Horizon). At that point, no object, including light, can escape the object's gravity (the 'hole' part), and all light is absorbed, making it appear black.

Simple enough nomenclature, right? Apparently not. Admittedly I'm a space geek, so I have some trouble grokking how he doesn't know what a black hole is or think it's racist, but spinning it around and using white hole? Never mind that white holes are still purely theoretical, does he not see the irony in what he's saying? It appears to me that he's doing exactly what he got upset about. He's upset about the term 'black' being used in negative contexts, so he decides to use 'white' in such a context. This implementation of weapons-grade stupid is how Price earns his Asshat of the Day tag.

It doesn't help my temper that the Judge, Thomas Jones, demanded an apology from Mayfield as well, but hey, you get two asshats for the price of one tonight!

(Apologies for the video, in particular, the comments section; I'd have loved to find a video without racist dipshittery in the comments section, but it's Youtube. Comments there are a bottomless pit filled to the brim with weapons-grade stupid.)

Asshat of the Day - June 29th, 2009

Today's candidate is Miss Christie Blatchford. Much as I respect the great old edifice of the Globe and Mail for having columnists from both sides of the great political divide, it's only natural that their more socially conservative ones should draw my ire - and that's precisely what Miss Blatchford has done. Drawn. My ire.

Her most recent column - Madoff's No Murderer - decries the fact that Bernie Madoff got handed down a sentence of 150 years in prison for the elaborate Ponzi scheme he maintained.

To quote Miss Blatchford,

I am unconvinced that the slower justice Canadians receive is better; unconvinced that white-collar crime is worthy of more grievous punishment than violent criminal offences (most particularly murder); unconvinced that those who were swindled by Mr. Madoff ought to be seen purely as victims, although they are universally being described that way.

She goes on to rail against Canada's "lax" justice system, with a particular bit of venom reserved for the Canadian life sentence ("...or what passes for it in Canada...") and the "faint hope" clause.

Now, this might be viewed as reasonable, but let's examine the two crimes. Murder, we'll all admit, is a horrible thing. But we've created implements that make it very, very easy... and humans are fragile creatures at the best of times. This is why there are degrees of severity in murder charges. Manslaughter is when you do it by accident.

Moreover, murder is the work of a second, most of the time. Premeditated murder is a special sort of evil, and so most who commit it are put away for a very long time - but unless we have irrefutable proof that the accused committed the crime (for example, Paul Bernardo), the faint hope clause and the chance of parole after twenty-five years is our justice system's way of providing a safety net. For the people who lashed out in a moment of anger that will pain them for the remainder of their lives - they deserve punishment, certainly, but to damn them instantly and eternally? (Come to think of it, that's a fairly Conservative viewpoint.)

Mr. Madoff, in contrast, carried on with his Ponzi scheme for seventeen years. He caused $65 billion dollars of savings to vanish. He wiped out life savings, pensions, charity funds! Erased philanthropic holdings, destroyed building loans! And you don't think that's premeditated murder?

I'll leave you with a bit from a man far wiser than I...

"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be— all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And. Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game."
--Terry Pratchett, "Going Postal"

Just because Madoff wore a suit when he committed his crimes doesn't make him any less evil, Miss Blatchford. Just more palatable to you.

Asshat of the Day - June 26th, 2009

Samson Effect here. Been a while, hasn't it? Humblest apologies.

Today's AotD post comes by way of the Blogging Tories (when was the last time they won an Assie? I think it's been a while. But I digress.) and she of the fetus-centric all-caps, SUZANNE, over at Big Blue Wave.

Why? This is why.

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTO CONTAINED THEREIN. View at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm actually somewhat surprised Nudger, the captain of this good ship, didn't take this one since he directed me to it, but he was hounding me for dereliction of duty and I suppose he was leaving it for me. So, what's wrong with this post, horrendous gore aside? Well, for one, she gets the story wrong; the photo was from the war in Iraq, not from Iran, nor did the Iranian government have anything to do with it. However, she has acknowledged that, mitigating my ire on that front.

Second, as you well know, SUZANNE is a pro-life catholic. This is not worthy of an AotD post per se, however, it is the underlying reason. The entirety of the post, the mother of the fetus was mentioned only once, as being the one who was shot. That's all the poor woman got in this article. No photo, or even mention of her condition at all, just a horribly grisly photo of the fetus. (Apparently no photo of the woman was available; this does not excuse the almost total absence of sympathy for said woman.)

Nudger himself got into the fray in the comments section of the article here, and said it likely better than I could have, but never underestimate the apparent stone-deafness of these folk, as evidenced by All-caps' meagre rebuttal:

Artful

I don't have the picture of the mother.

Is that a reason not to discuss the baby who was shot in the womb?

Why must the absence of the mother preclude discussing the baby?

Quite simply, it doesn't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person, no matter what wing of the political ship they're on, who doesn't think that these are tragic circumstances. My question, however, is this: Why must the presence of the fetus preclude discussing the mother-to-be? And now the other shoe comes down, courtesy of JJ:

Artful - According to the story, which has since been pulled, the mother was killed.

But so what? She wasn't a fetus.

So here's the key point. Allcaps is getting all misty-eyed because a fetus ended up taking a bullet. Tragic turn of events, don't misunderstand. Here's what really gets my goat: Not a single breath spared for the dead mother. Didn't even bother looking into the mother's condition, I imagine, which in my mind is a woeful lack of due diligence, not to mention a Herculean slap in the face to anyone with a sense of decency. Suzanne's words in this post and the comments demonstrate quite clearly that she was being exactly what everyone has accused her of on a regular basis previously: A stark-raving fetus-centric lunatic.

May the dead rest peacefully; they didn't deserve this fate.

Asshat of the Day - June 25th, 2009

Yep, it's him again.

This guy, I tell you. If he's not eliminating one of the scientific endeavours in which we do well, or plotting to sell off crown corporations, he's polishing up the mud-slinging and similarly disgusting political behaviour his party engaged in when there was a threat of an election.

“I do think the people want to see the parties work together. But, certainly if the parties aren't going to work together, the Conservative Party won't unilaterally disarm.”

Apparently, when proper parliamentary procedures and good governance aren't on your side, the next weapon you pull in Canadian government is smear tactics and attack ads. Classy.

There's also this little gem, near the end of the article:

[Harper] also defended the size of the federal deficit, saying it is relatively small compared to the United States and will not require tax increases to deal with because so much of the spending is temporary.

Hmmm.

Them. Us.

It could be, Mr. Harper, it just might be, that our debt is so much smaller because we are so much smaller! If we take away the debt incurred by George W. Bush, the US debt was 41.5% of their GDP. Ours is at 56% - and your deficit stands to increase that to 60%. Theirs is currently much worse than ours, but a name can be put to the reason why. Do you really want to be Canada's George Walker Bush Jr, Mr. Harper?

Or is this just part of your plan to destroy the country that you hate?

Asshat of the Day - June 24th, 2009

Let's spin the big wheel and see who we get today... ah yes.

He's the dictator of a country where most of the citizenry are well below any poverty line, he's known for making ridiculous comments and for his own idiosyncrasies, and he might actually be insane - ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Kim Jong-Il.

From the article:

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will … wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Look, Kim.

I don't know how to say this, so I'll just say it. You can't make these threats. Your nuclear program is doubtful, you've not had a successful ballistic missile launch - and even if you had a few nukes, your palace would be rubble two hours after you tried to launch. And anything less than a few hundred nuclear weapons would be pretty much insufficient to "wipe out the aggressors (as you see them) on the globe once and for all."

You're not fooling anyone; no one is seriously frightened of you - not even South Korea, and you share a land border with them. Give up the nuclear program, let foreign aid in, and rebuild your economy. Prove that you're not as nuts as you seem. Or, you know, keep making threats like this, and go down in history as a sad, insane little dictator who couldn't cut it, and so made his people suffer for his own inadequacies.

Asshat of the Day - June 23rd, 2009

Today's pick? Alberta MLA Doug Elniski.

Why?

Part of [Elniski's] posting included advice to girls saying, "Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."

It continues, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."

That's why.

Not all Conservatives are sexist, racist, or homophobic - but it's peculiar to see how many people who are find things in common with them, eh?

Asshat of the Day - June 20th, 2009

As they often deserve, today's AotD is the Harper government.

Why? This is why.

Most telling from the article?

• "We have not and we will not be proposing legislation to grant police the power to get information from internet companies without a warrant. That's never been a proposal," Day said.


• In a reversal from Day's position in 2007, one of the new bills would require internet service providers and cellphone companies to provide police with "timely access" to personal information about subscribers — including names, address and internet addresses — without the need for a warrant.

The government goes on to protest, "But all the cool countries are doing it!"

Let's quickly summarize the other countries laid out for us by the CBC:

• UK - RIPA is a pretty sweeping anti-privacy bill. So a valid comparison there.


• US - The Patriot Act. Need I say more? But they're working to rescind certain wiretapping abilities, and, come to it, do we really want to be emulating the Bush Era US Government?


• Australia - You still need a warrant. Under this bill, our police don't.


• New Zealand - Still need a warrant.


• Germany - warrantless behavior overturned.


• Sweden - is worse. No question there.

But if "the cool kids are doing it" isn't a good reason for children, why should it be a valid excuse for our government?

Asshat of the Day - April 11th, 2009

Today's Asshat of the Day? Paul Edwards.

Now, were it not for a case of mistaken identity in a Pharyngula comment thread, I'd never know of the man. Mr. Edwards is a pastor and radio host for WLQV, an evangelical Christian radio broadcaster operating out of southern Michigan. Given their transmission wattage, they cover nearly four states and southern Ontario with their broadcast.

Now, Mr. Edwards was fortunate enough to have the esteemed Christopher Hitchens on his show (hence the confusion in the comment thread from a similar interview), and, for the most part, was respectful. Granted, he repeatedly said that he wasn't out to win a debate, but to "show the Gospel to Mr. Hitchens", but pretty much all evangelists are like that, so I suppose that cannot be held against him.

However...

Now, to digress for a moment, I was under the impression that Pastors were, among their various theological studies, trained in the sort of interpersonal techniques that in which psychologists and counselors are trained. If so, Mr. Edwards clearly failed that part of seminary, because he totally fails to see the points at which he says things that are so abhorrent to Mr. Hitchens as to prompt the later comment, "I felt as though I wanted to hang up, just then." In fact, he goes on, after the interview is over, to ask his audience to "show [him] the point at which Christopher Hitchens got emotional".

I can tell you the things that you said that disgusted him, Mr. Edwards (though I'm not dead certain about the order):

• Mr. Hitchens had already made it clear earlier in the program, that the Bible's acceptance (and mild support) of slavery was absolutely revolting in his eyes, and that he felt that there are few greater evils than one person claiming to own another. And then you went and said that you are a "willing slave to Jesus Christ", and moreover, that you "Do what God wants, without question". Slavish thinking, slavish action - both of these, Christopher Hitchens made it clear he despises and wishes to see eradicated, and you held them up as virtues. If you wanted to deliver the Gospel to your guest, that was not the way to go about it. Specifically, he made reference to Abraham and Isaac, with regards to the slavish obedience to the Lord, with the question being this: What if God hadn't stayed Abraham's hand? Abraham would have killed his own son, just because God told him to do so.


• You also clearly missed the point Mr. Hitchens was making when he said you owed the American Armed Forces an apology for your comparison. You attempted to spin it, in the after-talk, to sound like he was accusing you of suggesting that the US Army had committed war crimes, but this was not the case. In Iraq, the invasion was partially for oil, partially as a victory when Osama Bin Laden couldn't be found, but ostensibly to free the citizens from a tyrannical dictator. The only people they were aiming to kill (and even then, only after a fair trial) were Saddam and his ruling council. If enemy combatants faced them, certainly, there could be deaths. But, tragic though it may be, battlefield deaths are a generally-accepted part of war. What were "God's orders" to the Israelites regarding the Alamekites? Oh, right:

  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

  
  Now, assuming that we're treating the Bible as a fairy story (and what better way to treat it?) wherein every single Alamekite was not only evil, but born evil, perhaps this is acceptable. But if you want to claim that the bible represents parts of history, this is religion-motivated genocide. An effective means of ending an opponents ability to pose a threat, true, but you can't claim it to be good, nor can you draw a parallel between it and modern warfare conducted by any nation that follows the Geneva Conventions. According to the Story Book, God told the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in Alamek, and not one Israelite stopped and said, "Hang on, they can't all be evil." Mind you, later, when Moses instructs them not to kill everyone, it gets even worse.
  


• Finally, I think the third major point wherein you got Mr. Hitchens angry was in stating that you were not his enemy, and alluding to Matthew 5:43. On the face of it, this is just fine. Hate is, after all, a destructive emotion - very little good has come of it. But doing good for those who hate you is a recipe for an abusive relationship! Feeling empathy for your enemies is fine, and good - but loving them as you would love your neighbour is both impractical and dangerous!
  
  In many ways, this passage (and, later, Mark 9) are representative of one of the truly frightening messages espoused by believers of many stripes - that what happens in this life doesn't matter. That suffering under your enemy's hands while you love him, or that mutilating yourself rather than admit fault are good options, because you'll be rewarded once this life is over. Those, however, who do not believe, view this as insanely self-destructive - and worse, it can impact them as well, even though they don't think they're getting any sort of benefit after death other than decomposition. It's what makes religious fanatics so unstoppable - death is merely a transition to reward. It seems to me that is the reason why suicide, at least in the Christian doctrine, is a sin. They needed a way to stop people from taking the shortcut to the good life. This is what horrified Christopher Hitchens.

So there you are. Now you know. And, to top it off, you're the Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - March 18th, 2009

Samson Effect here, with another Asshat of the Day. Today, we have an asshat who a large number of people believe is beyond reproach; that his words from the pulpit are the divine word of God. Well, I am not one of those people, and so this Asshat of the Day title belongs to none other than His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI himself. Now, some of you on one side might say what I just said above, that his God speaks through him, and when he speaks about doctrine, he is infallible. On the other side, though, you might think that tabbing any of the higher-ups in the Catholic Church, up to and including the Pope, is just plain unsporting.

Anyways, I'm sure you're familiar with the Church's stance on birth control of any form, which, if you aren't, is 'no artificial birth control' and that abstinence is the way. Well, Benedict XVI is making his first papal visit to Africa, and a few days ago, in line with Catholic doctrine, has said that condoms are not the answer in fighting HIV/AIDS. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it can increase the problem.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: It's wrong. It's very wrong. It's woefully wrong. Condoms, when used properly, not only reduce the risk of pregnancy significantly, but they have a profound effect on the likelihood of contracting just about any sexually transmitted disease, HIV included. Want proof? A cursory search for stats on Google regarding the subject quickly shows that the pope is quite clearly, at least on the subject of condoms making things worse, talking out of his ass. And when it comes to transmission and prevention of diseases, I think the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention knows a little bit more than the Pope does. Still not sure about it? More from the CDC about the subject, and going beyond HIV and on to STDs in general. Not only does claiming that condoms exacerbate the problem show up to be flat-out false, it's contrary to the goal of just about every single AIDS relief organization in existence.

Right, now that the comment about condoms is thoroughly dusted, the other part that I have to talk about is the Pope stating his opinion (or doctrine) that 'sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease'. Now, on its face, this much is true. If you don't have sex, you're much less likely to contract or spread diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea, and all those nasties. Two things: First, those are not the only way to spread or contract those diseases, and second, I really don't know how to put this any more succinctly, but he and his followers are eventually going to have to get it into their heads that the very vast majority of people REALLY like to have sex. You aren't going to change that without seriously damaging those people psychologically, not unlike that portion of the Catholic clergy you seem to hear about in the news an awful lot, or (although not Catholic himself) Ted Haggard. You CAN, however, teach people about sex and safety, and how and where the two intersect, and that will help stanch the flow of spreading STDs.

It took about four centuries for the Catholic Church to admit that Galileo was right, hopefully it won't take nearly as long for the Church to admit that the CDC is also right, and that claiming condoms make this problem worse is baseless, harmful misinformation. Pope Benedict XVI, you are the Asshat of the Day.