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 - 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.

Sometimes Even Self-Publishing Companies Should Have Shame

I know, I know - still none of the regular features. Things will look up; trust me.

In the interim, I present the most compelling argument against facilitating self-publishing ever seen.

The book is in caps. The whole thing. (With the exception of any bible passages, which, given their total lack of spelling mistakes, dramatically different font and formatting, and general coherency, I'd wager were cut-and-pasted from elsewhere.)

This tome of internet shouting (clocking in at a hefty 648 pages!) is priced at the easy-to-afford rate of $135.00, plus tax. For the paperback. Anyone who buys this book has too much money, and should be putting it to some other, more beneficial use. Say, burning it.

The author, one Eliyzabeth Anderson, went to the good folks at Authorhouse.com, and I sincerely hope an automated system handled the rest, because I'd like to think a company that actually binds proper books would have some sense of shame. (Incidentally, I think she opted for the essential paperback package. The length of her opus notwithstanding, I would've sprung for the proofreading option. Costly or not, she would've got her money's worth. Or caused deaths at Authorhouse.com headquarters due to proofreader cerebral hemorrhaging.)

...

I'd hope that Ms. Anderson had/has some sense that she has no ability to write, that she is a complete failure as an authoress and should never put pen to paper again... but given the existence of this book, I rather doubt it.

H/T to the good folks at Canadian Cynic

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 - November 15th, 2008

Now, what with Vancouver's municipal elections going on today, you'd think my beef was with them. Say, with Marc Emery getting more than a thousand votes and placing a narrow fourth among the mayoral candidates. (Come on, people. I know you like pot, but seriously, the guy isn't qualified for the job!)

But no. On the whole, I'm not totally displeased with the way that turned out, and the polling itself was carried out courteously and efficiently. Points to the CoV for that.

No, the gentleman who proved himself to be so idiotic, so aggravating, so... asinine as to have won himself the title for today? A gentleman named Roddy, who chose to flaunt his idiocy in the comments attached to a Gizmodo post about the first of US president-elect Obama's weekly YouTube addresses.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I actually quite like Obama. The man clearly has a head on his shoulders, he's using modern avenues of communication, and he seems to have the political gumption to effect some of the change he's talking about. I don't think he'll live up to all of his campaign promises, but I think he'll do some serious good, both to his country, and to the world as a whole. And I'm all for that.

But even if I hated the man, I'd like to think that I'd find good ol' Roddy's comments repugnant. Let's dig in with both hands and see what we've got here:

"Change Change Change" is the moto.

Who wants a change to even more liberal ideas such as baby killing, socialism, and higher taxes? Sounds like a change for the worse to me.

Gizliberals? I lose respect for you :(

So, let's start with the buzzwords here. "liberal" is a good start, followed by "baby killing", "socialism", and "higher taxes", in the same breath. So, we've established that this is someone who watches Fox News with reverent awe, and covers his eyes when any other show appears. That aside, let's move on.

1. Obama wants to increase abortion to a later term in preganancy. Any abortion is murder and later term is more abominable.

2. Socialism comes by increasing socialism of our banking system (in progress), socialism of our health care, socialism of our education (done), socialism in our taxes (steal from rich, give to poor to make all equal), socialism in our thoughts (taking away free speech, guns, etc, espcially with the "hate crimes bills" and "fairness doctrines", and socialism in our national programs. More government control is always bad. I prefer freedom.

3. Don't go along with the liberal spewed lies. Even obama says 150k in certain speeches. Liberals raise taxes in many areas, not just income tax. We are taxed to death and it will get worse. Lower taxes boost the economy. Higher taxes stiffle it. Our national debt cannot be corrected at this point no matter what, so they will attempt to hyperinflate and tax us with this unseen tax.

America is going down the toilet even faster (repubs and demoncrats are mostly all liberals now)

So, with point #1, our intrepid contender suggests that he's the type who believes that chemical abortion three days after conception would also be murder. Interesting point put forth by another poster - here is someone who, apparently, believes that what routinely happens in doctors' practices and abortion clinics is murder. And what does he do against this heinous serial-killing scheme? He posts to a largely unrelated topic on a gadget blog. Surely, he will go down in the annals of history as a hero.

Point #2 makes it clear that socialism arises from ... socialism. Just socialism broken up into its forays into various subsets of the country as a whole. Apparently prohibiting hate speech is an act of tyranny on a par with hunting down thoughtcrime, and that people should be free to not be educated, starve to death, or die from a lack of healthcare, because this is preferable to "government control". Presumably, this gentleman also objects to red lights telling him that he should stop.

Point #3 is particularly good. We start out with an exhortation not to believe "liberal spewed lies" (clearly, liberals spew lies with the silver tongues that we don't have). Then we proceed to "liberal raise more than income taxes" - which may well be true, but how does that "steal from the rich", as postulated not three sentences earlier? Surely luxury taxes only tax those who purchase luxuries. These may be the rich, but the purchase of luxuries is always optional. If you object to the tax, don't buy the stuff! And then, for a capper, we have "Our national debt cannot be corrected at this point no matter what..." - this is truly rich. The national debt can't be fixed, so the government... shouldn't try? Just go to the various creditors and say, "Well, we're never going to pay you anything, so you may as well forget it!"? Seriously, Roddy, old boy, what the hell?!?

There followed a thorough (though not quite this thorough) debunking of our man Roddy's points, and then he had to stick his big nose in - which was hard, given that his head was, by now, so thoroughly wedged up his own ass...

Abortion is murder. It is premeditated killing of a defenseless infant. This is sick sick sick. I don't understand how anyone thinks "Pro-choice" (for choice to kill) is better than "Pro-life" (for life). Deceived you are...

Yoda, you are not. Let's go look at "infant". Let's see...

infant (n.): A very young human being, from birth to somewhere between six months and two years of age...

Hmm... that doesn't seem to support your cause there, Roddy. But that's the Wiktionary, and I'm sure that's been watered down by we liberal types. How about something a bit more staid, dependable... how about Cambridge?

infant (n.): a baby or a very young child

Hmm... a bit more nebulous, maybe you could work with "baby" there... oh, no, a subsequent search on "baby" suggests that the word only applies to human offspring after birth.

Well, one more try - how about Princeton?

infant (n.): a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk

Oooh, sorry, Roddy. That's three. You're out.

So, what do you have for us next?

I shun both demoncrats and republicides. They are both liberals. I am a constitutionalist conservative where I don't think judges can change law, but uphold law. All law should be based on God's law (the God of Israel) and seperation of church and state is to keep state out of church, not the other way around.

Ah-hah! So what we have here is not your ordinary asshat. What we have here is a my-god-is-the-right-god theocratic asshat. Who can't spell, among his other failings. Who believes that the current crop of US Republicans are too liberal. (Perhaps there haven't been enough burnings of heathen books for his liking?) Let's see what else he has to say...

Giz put in the article they are liberals, so I called them on it. Liberalism is akin to satanism imho...

Guh-wha? Liberalism? Satanism? Akin? Is? Sorry, I understand all the words you just wrote, but together... it feels like I've spilled something crazy on my screen. Oh wait. It's you. What else have you got for us?

You either have liberal republicans or more liberal democrats. I disown both and think we need a new party that actually believes in the constitution and in God. This country is not the same by a long shot as was intended...

I believe this would be an appropriate response, but to summarize - not only were the American Founding Fathers not a Christian body, but they actively worked to keep God out of the workings of the new country altogether. So "as was intended" is a popular but totally false assumption.

(In response to another user's post:)You're wrong in every point. www.infowars.com for some enlightenment

You can go to InfoWars yourself if you want to, dear reader. I've been once. I'm not going back. That's too much, even for me.

Raising taxes on the rich is bad because it's the rich paying most of the tax already. Raising taxes yields a slowing economy and less tax revenue. Income tax is unjust as is property tax and a death tax. We're serfs to the government.

Obam-a is stacking his cabinant with anti-gun people and has also voiced limiting guns himself. Look into it more plz. Free speech will be curtailed as has all thru his campaign on people who protested him. Check out the evidence.

Well, Roddy, me boy, little thing - money earned as income is, presumably, representative of the value you've added to your society. By taking a little of that and redistributing it through the provision of services, your government can provide all the things that modern societies so enjoy. Like roads, telecommunication networks, farms, and everything else the government has to subsidize, since they're too colossal for private industry to gather around. The alternative, I suppose, would be a 75% tax on all goods and services, but I'll bet you'd whine about that too. I just bet you would.

As for the death tax - see, that's to avoid the lower classes becoming serfs. I can't think of a better tool against class stratification. Look at it. It follows that if someone gathers a ton of money and passes it on to their children, the fortune will continue to grow and gather more money to it. If money (representative value) is gathered in the hands of a few, they become an aristocracy. It's just a short step from aristocracy to "nobility". But if each generation is largely in charge of earning their own way? Suddenly, you've stirred things up. But stratification is good for budding theocracies, so I suppose I can see where you're coming from. It's not a nice place, but I can see it.

Also, "check out the evidence" without providing citations? In the age of Google? déclassée, Roddy.

*deep breath*

After that point, he appears to have shut up. However, I would argue that in the space above, he more than earned the title of Asshat of the Day.

And we're back in the saddle again. See you all tomorrow!