OMG, They Want to Kill Kenny!

Warning: Asshats Ahead

WARNING: ASSCAKES AHEAD - They should consider themselves lucky that South Park didn't depict Mohammed as Mr. Hanky in drag instead of a bear.

Update“Revolution Muslim” Site’s Creator is Jewish

Update May 20 is ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’

There are many things in the world worth fighting for – some even worth dying for – but a cartoon featuring a talking turd isn’t one of them. This may come as a great shock to some, but the cartoon South Park quite often traffics in low-brow humor that aims to be offensive. Apparently, New York-based Revolution Muslim group thinks this is a capital offense.

The show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, tweaked the Revolting Muslims by depicting the prophet Muhammad as a bear. I’m sure only because the idea of depicting Mr. Hanky wearing a turban didn’t occur to them first.

After Muslim extremists killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2004, it became apparent that Islam doesn’t suffer cartoons slights lightly. Just ask author Salman Rushdie who lived in hiding for years after being slapped with a fatwa after “insulting” Big Mo.

But the Revoluters are a kinder, gentler breed of religious nutbag. They went to great pains to tell Cartman and Co. they weren’t REALLY going all jihad on their cartoon asses.

“This is not a threat, but a warning,” a group spokeszealot said. “Revolution Muslim only wants those offended to be able to voice their opposition by letters to the show’s creators.”  Word to Mr. Zealot: This is hardly an effective method since ParkSto probably already get as many irate letters each week as there are grains of sand in a Saudi Prince’s compound.

I’m a bit leery of the “warning” too. It was posted next to a picture of the martyred-for-his-art Van Gogh. But maybe that’s just a cultural misunderstanding between a society that’s sane enough not to put out hits on cartoonists and a society with an itchy fatwa finiger.

Best Friends Forever

Can't we all just have a great big hug?

Here’s the thing, worshipers of Big Mo. There’s a switch on your television that says OFF. I often invite my over-active Christian friends to use it when their bluster gets the better of them. Flip the switch, and through the wonders of modern technology the offending cartoon bear will disappear (Poof, like a Genie in a lamp!) and none of us will be the wiser – except perhaps Mohammad – and we’ll take that up with him personally if it turns out he has no appreciation for cursing and cheap sight gags.

Or you could just go full-on Taliban and toss the TV altogether. It’s rumored that it causes women to dress provocatively and we all know what that means. Boobquakes!

Yes, I can see where insulting your prophet is a bad thing. I can see where insulting Jesus is bad too. But so is insulting atheists, Wiccans, and whatever other religious sub-groups you can potentially offend. Insults are the way of the world. They’re what makes the world go ’round. They’re what gives the world religious crusades and poorly written books about DaVinci and some lame “code” he was always going on about.

Many say Islam is a religion of peace, if by peace we mean not going around threatening to kill over cartoon prophets in bears’ clothing. Have some willpower andself-reststaint.  Staying cool in the face of the insult is a winner, not a loser.

If you want to complain, be my guest, I’ll even help you draft a petition if that’ll help. After all, you already scared Comedy Central into censoring the episode – which is sound thinking if they want to be around to watch endless reruns of Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire.

I have to believe that prophets aren’t so weak they require the help of asscakes who want to kill at the drop of an artist’s pen. I’m an atheist and even I can see that.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

SCOTUS v. Cameras: Techno-Dolts or Inocent Sausage Makers


MICROSOFT OUTLOOK v. SCOTUS - Are the Supremes just an band of ancient techno-dolts or do they ask seemingly stupid questions for a reason? You can't read the scorecard without the televised instant replay.

Many people wonder why the Supreme Court refuses to allow cameras in court. A recent exchange between the justices and lawyers hearing a sexting case might provide some clues – the back and forth hypothetical nature of questioning sometimes sounds, well, just plain loopy.

In the sexting case, the legal question was whether police officers could have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using their department-supplied pagers to text sexy messages to one another. Some of the justices asked questions that, on the surface, sounded as though they had graduated at the bottom of the class at the Ted Stevens University of Information Technology.

At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts asked about the difference between, “email and a pager”. Justices also asked what happened when two texts arrive at the same time. “Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?” Justice Stevens asked. “Could Quon [one of the defendants] print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.

One explanation for these somewhat surreal exchanges might be that even the middle aged Roberts understands little more about information technology than his more elderly peers. The other might be that Roberts and the other justices asked the questions not because they were oblivious, but because there was some rhetorical reason while arguing the case. Without the context a camera could provide, we lay people don’t know and, in fact, question what the hell is wrong with someone asking about the difference between email and a pager in the 21st Century.

The assumption in some media outlets was the Roberts and the rest of the SCOTUS gang were just plain stupid and I must admit I’m hard pressed to find a reason for Roberts’ question, reasonable or otherwise.

Most of the stories today didn’t give SCOTUS the benefit of the doubt. It makes for a more compelling story than assuming they really do know that they’re doing. I’m sure the justices were embarrassed by the tenor of the stories. No one likes to look like an idiot in front of the world and it might legitimately be a lack of understanding on the reporters’ part.

Perhaps, this is a subject the justices should reconsider in their own court. Is it worse to reveal the legal sausage making and potential embarrassment of open, televised court where a video feed might clarify things? Or, is it better to let people make their own conclusions about subjects that many of them are clueless about, even with the help of video technology?

If I was a justice, I’m afraid it would be a split decision.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

John Ensign Can’t Buy Friends, He Has No Money

It's a Family Affair

IT'S A FAMILY AFFAIR: From left to right - John Ensign (Adulterer), Darlene Ensign (Aggrieved Wife), Darlene Hampton (Slut), and Doug Hampton (Cuckold)

As the old saying goes, 50,000 flies can’t be wrong. Then on the other hand, 49,999 of them could be right and one of them is just a wingnut. Meet Robert Donald who has the dubious distinction of being the sole contributor to Nevada Sen. John Ensign’s reelection campaign.

Ensign, the C-Street maven, adulterer, and all-round religiously kookie gadfly is the guy who borrowed $96,000 from Mom and Dad –  MOM! DAD! Get out your checkbook! – to pay off his paramour’s cuckold.

Donald isn’t a millionaire pal of Ensign’s angling to get health care quashed or block banking reform. Nope, Donald is just plain folks. A folk who tossed big money – two contributions of $25 each – into Ensign’s Reelect the Crapweasel slush fund. If he keeps it up, Ensign might be able to take his next mistress to dinner somewhere other than the Congressional Dining Room. Heck, 50-bucks isn’t even enough for Ensign to pay Mom and Dad back the interest on their “loan”.

All Men are Dogs, Says Man
But Donald is not only a happy contributor, but a bit of a cracker barrel philosopher too. “He did some bad things with his personal life,” Donald said. Besides, “all men are dogs, the way I look at it.” The mistress and Mrs. Ensign feel the same way, I’m sure.

Ensign can’t buy friends like Donald – literally. The Justice Department is looking into whether Mom and Dad’s “contribution” was illegal or any other ethics laws were broken. Perhaps ethics laws like sleeping with your friend’s wife and then putting her on the payroll for a job well done.

But Donald is loyal, if a bit of a cheapskate. “As a senator, he’s doing the right thing, ” Donald said. “He votes the right way.” Of course, you’d never know it by his fellow Republicans who are shunning him like a heretic in front of the Mormon Tabernacle.

There are plenty of cases of Escaped Dick Syndrome in Washington – “if you have an erection lasting longer than 2 terms, contact your doctor – this is only one of them. Overall, the public seems to be getting immune to stories like this. For the most part, no one cares except Pat Robertson and he only cares when it’s a Democrat.

Feather Dusters Stuck Up Ancient, Wrinkly Bums
We’re becoming more French or Italian in that we accept powerful men with mistresses as the way of the world. After all, it’s not like they’re British politicians who are more frequently caught wearing fishnets, clucking like chickens, and running around the halls of Parliament with feather dusters stuck up their ancient, wrinkly bums.

Of course, you could quibble that Ensign and the rest of the pious C-Street Rat Pack should be reprimanded for hypocrisy with oak leaf clusters. But then if having a mistress – which effects no one other than them – is the worst thing they do I’d call it a good, though, low-paying day.

Ensign’s fund-raising performance is so grotesquely bad it’s funny. Mainstream Republicans and Teabaggers alike hate him and by comparison, fellow Nevada Sen. Harry Reid looks like a frickin’ genius, which is no small feat. It’s also bittersweet that poor old Robert Donald is standing by him like a dog waiting on the train platform for a master who’ll never come.

After all, he can’t.  Fifty bucks ain’t enough for a ticket.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]