Quote of the Day October 22, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Religion, wingnuts.
“It is time that preachers and Baptist people take a stand against the Sodomite freaks and turn off the television that tries to shove their perversion down our throat. God help a generation of Christians that does not think that homosexuality is “that bad.” We need a revival of old-fashioned righteous indignation and hatred for sin and perverts.”
–Pastor Steven L. Anderson, as quoted by Jannie of Homeschooling Hints.
I’d like to thank Pastor Anderson for being honest about his belief that Christians need to hate “perverts.” I’m sure he he’s proud that he knows better than Jesus does about hate, or about judgement.
It never ceases to amaze me how many “Christians” show absolute contempt for the teachings of the man they worship as God.
Via PZ, I learn about the blog “Homeschool Hints,” writen by Janine, a fundamentalist homeschooling mom whose bigotry is outlandish even by fundamentalist standards (usually even fundamentalists don’t display their homophobia quite so openly). She’s already taken down the post PZ linked to, and put up and even more hilarious one.
Her blog really is a heaping helping of crazy. But my very “favorite” thing about it (so far; it really is a gift that keeps on giving) is that she is also, predictably, one of those particularly crazy people who need to protect her children from great literature:
O’Leary on Goldberg: did Christmas come early? October 20, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, Science, wingnuts.
add a comment
Over at UD*, Denyse O’Leary has a glowing review of Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism/typical O’Leary link-farm. What does O’Leary have to say before she moves into incorrectly used elipses and shameless self promotion? Check it out:
So what is fascism?
Fascism is not a program in politics, it is a mood. It can be a mood of the right or the left.
Sweet Jesus! And she calls herself a journalist. While she’s defining political ideologies based on “moods,” the reader might want to check out some actual definitions of the term fascism.
Or you could just enjoy watching UD get back to the “intellectual program” of Intelligent Design. I’m sure they’ll get to that any time now.
*I solemnly swear this won’t be the only topic around here. It’s just too funny to pass up.
Dembski finally puts his foot down about Uncommon Descent’s embarrassing political posts October 19, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion, Science, wingnuts.
1 comment so far
Well, not really. What he actually said in response to a great deal of such silliness (i.e.) was, well, week*:
I share concerns expressed here that this blog is becoming too political. I’m of a mixed mind about this. I see the upcoming presidential election as pivotal for our nation and for the place of ID in the wider culture (I foresee an Edwards v. Aguillard type case going against ID if Obama gets to choose the next Supreme Court justices). At the same time, I don’t want to see ID’s intellectual program getting short shrift here. Let me therefore encourage UD contributors to balance political postings with straight-up ID postings (we need a lot more of the latter).
I suppose this means that we’ll be finding out about experimental verification of ID–or even what ID predicts–any day now, right?
I can’t wait to find out what ID’s “intellectual program” is. Sorry, Dembski, but “a magic man done it” doesn’t qualify.
*As usual, due to UD’s policy of updating and deleting posts without acknowledgment that they’ve done so, I won’t be linking to them.
Monday Music October 13, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging, music.
add a comment
I’m buried under papers to grade, so until I find some free time, here are some tracks:
The Gipsy Kings’ cover of “Hotel California,” one of the best covers ever recorded, and one of the rare cases where the cover is better than the original:
And Sonic Youth’s “Do You Believe in Rapture” (no embedding on that one, sorry)
It’s no less sweet when you realize they’ll greet him that way when he comes home from a quick errand, too October 10, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in dogs, pets.
Evil Bender’s Shorter Presidentail Debate October 8, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in Barack Obama, John McCain, News and politics.
add a comment
One of the candidates looked informed, dignified, caring and Presidential. The other one looked like a petulant, short-tempered, belligerent child:
As Melissa McEwan put it, “Say goodnight, Johnny. It’s President That One to you.”
Notes from EB exclusive: portion of the new McCain stump speech October 8, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in Comedy, John McCain, News and politics.
add a comment
Fresh off his thrilling performance in the debate last night, John McCain seems revitalized and ready to ride his wave of cranky momentum to the White House! Eager to capitalize, the McCain campaign has crafted a new stump speech, which I exclusively reveal below:
One trick is to tell em stories that don’t go anywhere – like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you’d say. Now where were we? Oh yeah – the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…
I’m kidding, of course. Abe Simpson is far more personable than McCain, and wouldn’t have called Obama “that one” and refused to shake his hand.
Why Free Speech is important, Or nominating Family Friendly Libraries for Odious Organization of the Week October 3, 2008Posted by Evil Bender in banned books week, censorship, constiutional issues, language and lit, wingnuts.
Happy (nearly concluded) Banned Books Week, everyone!
Listening to Radio Times today, I nearly drove off the road while shouting at Denise Varenhorst, President of the thoroughly odious Family Friendly Libraries, an organization which exists to help parents get books they don’t like removed from their local libraries. And they do this in the name of free speech and democracy. Look at their horribly dishonest FAQ, for example:
Q. I found the most disgusting, offensive book on the shelf at my library. When I told the librarian I thought it should be removed, she told me the library does not “censor.” Does that mean that it’s illegal for the library to remove a book based on my objection?
A. No. Your library board members have the power, with a simple majority vote, to remove any material they believe the community, as a whole, does not want in the collection.
They’re absolutely right it isn’t “illegal” to do this, which is why the American Library Association fight so hard against using personal offense as a reason to remove a book from a library’s shelves. FFL dishonestly conflates “legal” with “acceptable.” Because, of course, what they really want is to be able to enforce their ideas on others. The FAQ goes on:
It should be noted that it is perfectly legal and legitimate for books to be relocated within or removed from any library based on the wishes of that community.
Really? What makes it “legitimate,” exactly? During her interview with Radio Times, Varenhorst (who was unwilling to be on in a segment featuring someone who disagreed with her) repeatedly claimed that she just wanted democracy: for people to be able remove books their community does not approve of from the library. She argued that since libraries can’t carry everything, a library not having a particular book never amounts to censorship.
This too is incredibly dishonest, of course: that a library can’t own every book in existence does not mean that removing a book from the shelves because it offended someone is acceptable behavior. No one has a right not to be offended by a book in a public library, but a library that upholds challenges against books is implicitly accepting the premise that my access to books should be limited to only books others find acceptable.
If every book that was controversial or offensive to someone was banned from libaries, how many books would be left?
But the FFL doesn’t want us to think about that; they want us to think that “protecting children” means “removing others’ access to books because we don’t like them.” They couch it in language suggesting that it is all fair if they someone can get a library board to agree with them. But don’t let their Orwellian tactics (falsely conflating the library’s choices in purchasing with outright attempts to remove materials some people don’t like; suggesting that removing access to ideas is somehow “democratic,” as Varenhorst repeatedly did in her interview) fool you: they’re advocates of censorship, in that they want public libraries to be arbiters of what we can and cannot read.
And the worst part is that they do it under the guise of protecting “the classics,” which is, as always, code for “why aren’t people reading what we tell them, like that great book Moby Dick by Will Shakespeare?” Check out their flimsy excuse for censorship:
Q. Where has all the classic literature gone? I don’t see much at my public library anymore.
A. The quiet disappearance of classic literature from public libraries has been noted for several decades and was documented in a 1995 study titled Discarded Images. The escalation of this trend was reported in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal in early 2007. Today, many public library collections consist predominantly of “popular materials” despite taxpayer objections to this focus.
Let’s remember that many of the books we now consider classics were challenged as offensive in their time, and that many of them still are. “Classic” banned and challenged books during the last decade, as listed by the ALA, (pdf) by way of example, include Of Mice And Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Slaughterhouse Five (to stick with books by white men, since generally defenders of the “classics” don’t much care for women or people of color*).
Remember, folks, never trust someone who wants to protect you from the “wrong sort” of ideas. And definitely don’t trust those who seek to ban books “for your protection.”
The lesson here is clear. Defend free speech: it’s attackers have not let up.
*FFL doesn’t define a classic, naturally, so we don’t know which books they think are missing from libraries that should be there. It’s almost like they’re hiding an agenda of removing access to books behind a facade of claiming people just aren’t reading the “good” books. Hmm.