A Totally Kick Ass Proposal (and quiz)

Sometimes, when I am about to expound on things political, I sit down with a clear idea of what I’d like to discuss. Other times, my mind is blank, unsure of which crevice of the current social terrain to hunker down in. In either instance, however, before I start writing I do a little reading, just dodge around some of my favorite meta and meme sights, check out some other social and political punditry out there. I do this not so much to search for an idea or gather information, but almost like a brujo or shaman might meditate on the natural world around them, I seek to tap into the undercurrent of existence and see if there are any overt messages there. And often, I find that by indulging in the subconscious dialogue playing at the frays of public discourse, there is a very clear theme begging for focus.

In the midst of reading about the right asshol…Reverend Fred Phelps picketing the funerals of dead Iraqi veterans, claiming that God was punishing our queer loving nation, or about idiots applauding Republican Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher for taking the responsibility to pardon all his cronies and refuse giving testimony in an ongoing investigation into his crimes as Governor, or Bush comparing himself to Roosevelt, (F.D.,), this page, trying desperately to justify creationism as science dodged across my field of virtual vision, like some piece of bronzed straw, fired from an orbital magnetic accelerator with pinpoint accuracy at the spinal column or some allegorical camel.

Now, this is going to be rough work, but I want you to actually read through that entire ‘summary’ and see how many errors you can spot in the ‘science’ or ‘reasoning’ of the argument (think of it as Where’s Waldo for adults.) The answers to this quiz will be found here, as well as my recommendations for legal changes to your voting and breeding status based on your scores.

Now, whenever I see this much stupid, psychotic shit going on, I am always forced to check my commitment to the idea of freedom of speech (the closest thing to a socially applicable ethical absolute I will ever probably embrace.) Is there a precedent or a benefit to regulating speech? Alright, most people generally (and grudgingly) accept that certain types of ‘free speech’ aren’t allowed. The ol’ yellin’ fire in a crowded theater thing, sure, that’s a valid debate. Overt verbal threats against others, since they’re now forced to consider those threats as potentially serious, damaging slander, etc., is another example. We can argue back and forth as to whether these types of speech should be legislated even in a ‘free speech’ society, but I think we can all agree that at least a valid argument does exist for the notion that those valuing free speech can still curtail this kind of thing.

Now cases trying to ban pornography or art, these would be invalid attempts to curtail free speech since they are based on personal desires to prevent others from consensually enjoying concepts that the individual who seeking legislation, personally, doesn’t enjoy. It’s an attempt to force taste or morality onto other people against their will, and that dog don’t hunt. But in cases where speech is used directly and for the soul purpose of harming others, like lying to or about them in order to cause them physical or material damage, there is a distinct threat to those sacred notions of individual happiness and well being. Simply put, even in a free speech society, we consider these violations grounds for possible legislation because we believe in maintaining free speech for a reason, and these behaviors violate that reason.

But if we can use ‘harm to society’ as a means by which to clamp a lid over free speech, then can’t that same argument be used for people who are lying to society, who are clearly and obviously spreading misinformation which, if accepted based on public or political support, could cause people to operate to their own or society’s detriment? If Ann Coulter, that horrible, worthless bitch who should die, is literally and regularly printing false facts and figures in her column to support her fucktarded views, doesn’t that constitute a demonstrable attempt to mislead, and thereby harm, the populace? What about when the so-called Christian right attempts to subvert all data and known evidence in order to try and force children to be taught out and out fraud? Isn’t that harming people? And Phelps, don’t even get me started. Why isn’t this man dead, yet? Such a clear and flagrant abuse of his freedoms for the soul purpose of causing strife and misery is reprehensible. But is that enough of an argument for making it illegal?

I want to, I want to so bad. I want to know that the next time some asshole starts assaulting people at funerals merely to tell them god killed their loved ones because they didn’t hate fags ENOUGH, that he is promptly locked up and given some pretty severe drug therapy. I want to know that when Ann Coulter makes up facts and attributes them to credible sources, she will shortly be spending a year in jail for it and will owe that source a lot of money for slandering them. I want to know that when fringe Christian cultists sue a state university system for not swallowing their drivel as science, that the judge stands up and bitch slaps the lot of them, and that the bar suspends the license of the fucker moronic enough to take their case in the first place. But in the end, that shit ain’t right.

Because for our society to survive, for it to be shown worthy of survival, an onus falls upon us to be self governing in some respects. Simply put, we’re supposed to have the brains, collectively, to ignore these shitheels, and if we don’t, if a large enough portion of our society cannot manage to distinguish out and out lunacy from truth, then we deserve, we NEED to fall, at that point.

But there’s a lot of conflicting reports out there, these days. There exist whole conservative universities and institutions which are devoted, twenty-four/seven , to the soul purpose of making up and spreading disinformation, and that’s not even including the vast hosts of idiots just out to get ‘a story’, for profit or personal glory. Even I have to admit that, for the average family, with two parents working full time and a kid or three to raise, and suffering a serious dearth of rational or scientific training in their formative educations, sifting the facts from the bullshit can be a trying and time consuming task. So what’s the solution? Assholes are out there hurting society, but to use legal means to stop them would probably hurt it even more.

Friends, I’ve pondered this one for what must be ten years now, which is why, earlier this morning when the solution finally hit, it hit like an epiphany straight from a loving, liberal god, and best of all it uses one of the only intelligent compromises the conservative element of society ever envisioned. A ratings system! Friends we will simply label content with ratings according to its merit in order that the average citizen might gain a quick and easy guide to determining the value or objective validity of any claim, website or news piece! There would be no censorship, no self-defeating compromise of one of our social values, just a straight forward approach to making sure bullshit is labeled as bullshit.

I’m thinking a system like this, where F would stand for fictitious (articles or facts obviously not meant to be true, like pieces from The Onion,) LF for Logically Fallacious (for claims which have inherent logical flaws which render the claim unsupportable, like the creationist piece above,) CF for Completely Fraudulent (like most of the written works of Ann Coulter,) and UF for Utterly Fucktarded (like every single barely-coherent syllable spewed from the esophagus of Fred Phelps.) Obviously, there could be more, what’s important is that news and opinion pieces need to have warning ratings, we need people to be more easily alerted to harmful, dishonest information. This way we can ease, if not eliminate, the harm done to other people by assholes like Phelps or Coulter while at the same time protecting free speech. Work with me on this one, people. Let’s get a websource for information verification and exposure going.

O, Death

Lot of death talk in the media these days, lot of conservatives don’t seem to think we’re killing quite enough people. Or, perhaps more likely, they’re just not satisfied with the caliber of person they’re killing these days. I mean, slaughtering thousands of Iraqi civilians and U.S. infantry is a nice afternoon’s work, but they’re not really ‘big game’. Third world citizens and the most poorly educated of the U.S. underclass are hardly kills worthy of mounting on your den wall, if you know what I mean.

So with an eye towards a braggin’ trophy, Pat Robertson has drawn a bead on no less than the democratically elected leader of a friendly nation, Venezuelan President Senior Chavez. Fred Phelps, no longer content with inspiring violence against gays and Swedes, is advancing onto bigger things, namely the King of Sweden, Carl Gustaf, and the Utah County Sheriff’s Department…well, they violently and psychotically assaulted a bunch of high schoolers and rave kids, but then again, this is Utah, The U.S.A.’s ‘special needs child.’ It’s understandable that they’d screw something like this up.

And so if the head of the American Legion, conservative blivet Thomas Cadmus decides that he and his are going to shut legal, protected protestors the hell up by, “whatever means necessary,” don’t suppose that this is just his hatred of the United States talking. It’s merely practice before he goes after high ranking members of the press, who he threatened immediately afterwards. If Tucker Carlson actually advocates honest to god terrorism like the French attack against that Greenpeace boat so long ago, realize that we’ve gone beyond the typical, rabid hatred of their betters conservatives tend to display.

Think about it like a hunter’s lodge. You have several overweight, badly dressed idiots and assholes smoking cigars and drinking beer (it’s eerie how well the analogy is holding up already.) They’re getting ready to go out and shoot some deer, some coon, maybe a bear or some such. These hunters may, or may not, actually hate the animals they are going to hunt. What’s important is that they are out there to kill them. It’s the recreation of the hour, and there is a certain level of competition. Obviously, if the buck you kill has the highest point count, then you are, in a sense, the ‘winner’ (unless one of your buddies actually gets the bear,) and the winner naturally is afforded a certain amount of honor. He doesn’t have to buy the beer, he gets to choose what channel the television stays on and he can probably sneak a quick one in with someone else’s wife later that week.

And that’s all we’re seeing here. Conservative talking heads are already an unstable, frenzied lot, and all the killing they’ve managed to help incite over the past six years has just whipped them up into a legitimate blood lust. It’s a competition to see who can incite the most big name violence or murder. They’ve already got numbers, now they’re out for fame. And, frankly, I want in.

Seriously, I’ve long espoused the notion that the American liberal should start to swing away from our pacifistic, bleeding heart image. If there’s anything that The Shining Path or the Bolsheviks can teach us, it’s that orgies of psychotic murder aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive to a desire to promote the long term freedom and well being of your fellow man. It’s just that we at the Fun Party don’t much go in for killing off your average civilian. These are, after all, the people we’re working to uplift. However, I propose that there is, in fact, absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting that the minute someone starts recommending the cold blooded murder of people for merely holding a different social stance than they do, that person themselves probably becomes the best target for a well aimed bullet.

But what I’d like is to try to figure out these rules about who I can and can’t incite violence against, legally. I mean, obviously, I can’t incite violence against any elected officials within the U.S. It may seem unrealistic and unfair, but it’s just a lesson we all have to learn. But apparently foreign dignitaries are fair game? I mean, even ones who are democratically elected rulers of nations the U.S. is at peace with? So, what, I could recommend that the U.S. government whack Tony Blair? Is that legal? Because hey, that would be fun! Can I encourage Chavez to use whatever wet works program Venezuela has operating to quietly remove Robertson? We won’t miss him, guys, pinky swear. I mean, now that I realize there are avenues by which we can legally shout, “Let’s you and him fight!” I think it’s time for the Fun Party to jump on the bandwagon.

T-Shirt Ideas : “The Fun Party, Bringing you a Crueler, More Violent Liberal!”

A Campaign Promise Everyone Can Feel Good About

It’s been brought to my attention, via the press and my inner circle of advisors, that there has been some concern expressed lately regarding certain of my religious beliefs, and how, were I to be elected to hold the high executive office of this nation, they might conflict with what are perceived to be my duties to the United States and its people. Most specifically, a growing number of people, both within and without the Fun Party’s ranks are worried that the ‘kill all humans’ tenet of my faith conflicts fundamentally with the duties of the Presidency, and that this would render me somehow incapable of fulfilling a positive leadership role, (a fear exacerbated by frivolous and irresponsible speculation on the part of the conservative media.) I assure you that I fully understand this concern, and am more than willing to illustrate my position, in hopes of abating these fears.

I belong to the Subgenius Faith, attending the First Shambling Ministry of Bob and generally ascribing to its particular interpretation of Subgenius doctrine. Now, as is well known, the Shambling Ministries are a particularly violent branch of a particularly violent faith, and it is true that sometime in the course of the next few decades, we seek to foster a chain of events which will result in the slaughter of pretty much all mankind. And it’s no secret that this spiritual stance clashes fundamentally with the precepts which the U.S. constitution and the laws flowing from it seek to defend. Friends, you don’t need to tell me that there’s a conflict of interest, here.

I am a great fan of the United States Constitution. Though I lack formal schooling in that realm, I don’t think it would be unrealistic to refer to me as a Constitutional scholar. No one is more keenly aware than I of the insurmountable gap which separates the goals of “life, liberty and the ability to pursue personal happiness,” and, “kill all humans.” But for me, my faith is and has always been a personal path. When working as a public servant, I put my personal interests aside for the time. When and while a man devotes himself to improving the community he lives in or represents, he must make certain self-sacrifices, and one of those can be the more overt aspects of faith or spirituality.

There are many precedents. Statesman John Ashcroft was likewise criticized that his religious beliefs would conflict heavily with his public duties when he took up the mantle of Attorney General. But Ashcroft boldly set his faith aside for the time, and set to work serving the nation as the law demanded, never compromising our trust in him or his belief in the law, though his personal spiritual development suffered, for a time.

Likewise, while serving in public office, I would consider it unconscionable to ignore the responsibilities of my position, elected or otherwise, merely in order to satisfy one of my more base spiritual urges. So, with that in mind I would like to state, for the record, that under no circumstances would I, as the duly elected President of the United States, attempt to publicly or privately pursue a course of killing all humans, and I would certainly never use the resources of my station, nor compromise or ignore the duties of that office in order to promote killing all humans. Simply put, while I am in office, no effort will be made to kill all humans or promote the killing of all humans. I respect fully the laws of this land and the ideals and people they have been created to defend, and as President, my efforts would be devoted one hundred percent towards defending those same goals, ideals and peoples.

In fact, my election could be seen as a reprieve for everyone since, as president, that would mean a four, perhaps even eight year period in which my efforts to wipe out humanity would be abandoned, at least so long as killing all humans remained fundamentally opposed to the duties of the presidency. While I am your president, I am your president all the way.

Does this show a lack of integrity? After all, on the surface I appear to be casually tossing aside my deepest convictions merely in hopes of humoring voters, in order to promote my own power. One might ask, if I’m so willing to simply cast aside my deepest spiritual convictions, then how seriously will I take my role as leader of a nation? To clarify, however, none of my actions contradict with the doctrines or beliefs of my faith. Firstly, the eradication of the human species is considered an inevitable within the Church. While my participation is desired, it’s not required, and it can wait. So there’s no conflict there. Secondly, the Church of the Subgenius actively encourages radical reinterpretation, or even ignoring of, its rules and orders, so my behavior could be considered consistent with, in fact, one of the Church’s most beloved precepts, namely schism or deviance. Finally, the Church has always promoted liberal interpretation of behavior in order to acquire personal power, so through my actions I am, in fact, sponsoring, in the most real and tangible sense, my spiritual convictions. By showing my willingness to put my goal of wiping out every single Homo Sapien on this rock aside indefinitely, I prove my overall conviction to my beliefs, both religious and social.

And so I hope I’ve set your fears to rest. By supporting the Fun Party, you support nothing less than social change for the better…the fun way, and the more you support the Fun Party, the more you also work to delay, perhaps even stem, the upcoming massacre, and that’s something, I think, you can all feel good about.

The Mudpuncher Faith of Desperation

A little later than promised but here it is. My temporary creation myth to send to the Kansas School Board. I have included the contact information of the members of that board in the comments section. Currently, four are friendlies and six are enemies, with at LEAST three of those six being demonstrably brain dead retards. What we're banking on is that at least one of the six conservatives is 'nurture' stupid instead of 'nature' stupid, and can be swayed towards intelligent debate, thus allowing us to at least dead lock the vote.

So without further delay, the Mudpuncher Mythology of intelligent design.

The Mudpuncher Faith

In the beginning, the universe was whole, a lot like some intergalactic Pangea. Every bit of matter and energy was collected into one gigantic, regular mass, like a vast orb of mud. And so it might have remained forever, in happy neutrality, until the day a strange being arrived from beyond our known realm.

This deity, commonly referred to as the Mudpuncher for lack of a better name, was confused when it came to this humongous mass, and concluded, for reasons certainly beyond our ability to fathom, that the matter was of a conscious, divine nature, like itself.

But our universe would not respond to any of his inquiries. The Mudpuncher’s most polite hails and entreaties went unnoticed, until finally the Mudpuncher could only conclude that the material aspect of our universe was just being a dick. The Mudpuncher’s righteous fury at being so spurned could not be contained, and in rage it reared back its mighty fists and struck solidly at the universe.

The mighty blows rained upon the universe, and they were of such force that the mass began to quiver and split, smaller specks and globs of mud flying off the surface. Sometimes the force of the Mudpuncher’s strikes was so great that the mud super heated and ignited into blazing stars. And eventually, the whole thing splashed out into a trillion fragments and flew apart into the void.

At this point, the Mudpuncher’s fury was abated, but only marginally. It contemplated the situation for a time, and concluded, ultimately, that the universe had never been trained in proper deistic etiquette. And so he began to travel among the denser clusters of splats and drips, and there he worked to teach the universe how to behave in polite society. He fashioned tools and teachers, rules by which the universe could study and improve itself in hopes of avoiding another such sound beating.

Earth, and the life upon it, is such a place. The Mudpuncher began life here, refashioning the clay and rock and light he found here, in hopes that, given a little time and work, the universe might manage to pick up at least a few trivial politenesses here and there. The Mudpuncher did this on many worlds throughout the universe.

And then the Mudpuncher began to travel again, revisiting places he had done his work, to see if he had convinced the universe to behave in a civilized manner. We see the results of his search as stars supernova, as galaxies colliding, as cosmic flares. The universe, in the Mudpuncher’s eyes, is still being just plain stubborn, and each time it doesn’t respond it just enrages him more. As each flash of light indicates another world winking out of existence, we are painfully aware that what we’re seeing is the Mudpuncher beating the holy fuck out of our universe.

And we, humanity, have precious little time to find an appropriate and friendly manner in which to address him, for his tours return him towards this region of existence. Once he arrives, if we can’t address him in a manner he considers both recognizable and at least marginally polite, then it’s curtains for Earth. S.E.T.I. and the Voyager II spacecraft are our best bets so far, since they may at least give the Mudpuncher an inkling that we’re desperately trying to make polite contact, even if we don’t know how. Perhaps, with graceful indulgence, he will deign to tolerate our limited and primitive etiquette and accept it as a gracious attempt to welcome him to our plain of existence. But we can’t rely on that. Just as likely, he’ll find these devices to be nothing more than irritating and insolent matter refusing to show the appropriate respect to a visitor, and trace them back to us for proper retribution.

I Personally Like the Ancient Egyptian Theory That The Creator Wanked The Universe Into Being

This week, in the Onion, I came across this news headline: “Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory.” What so impressed me about this particular Onion article was not the humor, but the perfect reflection of the real events being parodied. Not only did the piece accurately model the current social situation, it also accurately modeled the sloppy, ignorant way which today’s media essentially endorses intelligent design arguments as somehow relevant or valid.

So true to life is the scenario painted here that I’m actually surprised we haven’t seen it come to pass. Creationists rely solely on the art of attacking unknowns, which is to say that they scrounge down into the science until they find something assumed by the figures or deduced but not yet witnessed, then blithely claim that since scientists can’t yet take a photo of what’s stationed in that corner of reality, it must be god. As The Onion illustrates, pretty much any scientific fact, in that it hasn’t provided all the answers to everything, has unknowns to exploit. In fact, there are far more mysteries in physics than in evolution at this point, so why is an observed and obvious course of change like evolution getting taken up the ass while something as frankly intangible as the gravitational force gets a free ride?

Perhaps you’ve heard tell of the appeal being made to the Kansas Board of Education on the behalf of those who believe that creation was fashioned by The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. Their concern is that if intelligent design is included as part of the curriculum in public schools, that those who claim to only be wanting to help the CHILDREN, giving the CHILDREN the tools to make an educated decision, might actually be using such a law to push their own religious agenda illegally and unfairly upon these delicate young ‘uns. All they’re asking is that each possible concept be given equal weight, which is only fair and only rational. After all, it’s not about religious zealotry, it’s about the kids, gotta HELP them chilluns, give them a little extra learnin’ so they can most easily pick for themselves which natural or divine creation force they, personally, think is the most entertaining notion to favor. Because that’s what education is all about, right? Not so much teaching kids as just throwing a bunch of random ideas at them, regardless of merit, and shouting, “Here, kids! Pick one!”

I’ve been arguing for about a year that this is the only rational response to this kind of idiocy. You can’t argue rationally with people who would propose teaching creationism against evolution; if they could think rationally they’d have never made the proposition in the first place. Your only hope of cracking the bronzed, petrified walnut that is their skull to let the light of truth in is to turn their own behavior back on them and hope, hope AGAINST hope, that maybe they can not only see how retarded such behavior is, but maybe even empathize enough to realize how it relates to them.

Apparently, the Spaghetti Monster isn’t the only theory the Kansas Education Board has had proposed to them, of late, and I think this is a good idea, an important idea. As of this moment, I am charging each and every loyal member of the Fun Party’s constituency to find or create their own creation theory, if you don’t already have one, and mail it off to the Kansas Education Board. Post them here in the comments section. I’m serious. Do it. I’ll have mine by the end of tomorrow night. Let’s do what this party was meant to do from the start. Combine having fun and effecting actual, positive social change.

Undebatable

I’ve been away awhile. I’m back, now.

Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan…

There’s a lot of debate going on about this Cindy Sheehan person. I’m going to clear it all up for you right now. Seriously, all of it. I am going to clear up every single relevant point that’s involved, leaving each and every sane person with the IQ and training to read the English language fluently absolutely certain what the correct take on the ‘Cindy Sheehan’ issue is.

Cindy Sheehan’s son has died while serving the United States Military in a hostile environment at the behest of the current executive administration. This is a demonstrable fact. It is not debatable.

The head of that administration, and in a very real sense the entire nation, President George Bush, has claimed that Casey Sheehan’s (the son’s) death served a noble goal. This is recorded, it is not debatable.

Cindy Sheehan has decided that, given the evidence, she can’t just take our president at his word. She wants some confirmation about the nobility of this cause, perhaps some elaboration about the nature of the nobility. She wants the President to explain it out for her, and perhaps to also enlighten her as to why, should the cause be so noble, his own grown children are not out serving their nation with equal fervor. This is quoted, it is a fact, it is not debatable.

Cindy has the right to ask such a question. She even has the right to pester the President about it, to lightly harass him in hopes of goading him into answering her. She may repeatedly send him letters, she may lurk nearby in public places, what she’s doing is protected speech. This is a fact. It practically sets up the foundation for our Nation’s legal relationship between the citizenry and their political leaders. It is not debatable.

And so we’re done. There’s nothing left to discuss. Sheehan has a legitimate dead son and some legitimate questions she wants to ask. There’s nothing left to talk about, there’s no point to be debated.

If you are one of these people such as Matt Drudge or Michelle Malkin, making claims that Cindy is changing her story or bringing up her impending divorce, if you’re a person who would stoop to such behavior, or if you’re the sort of person who supports such behavior, then you are simply vile scum. You are the kind of person who would parade sensitive and irrelevant personal issues about a grieving mother simply because she was challenging the source of your pay check and his dirty war, or just tell out and out lies about her.

And if you’re that kind of person, if you are Michelle Malkin, who would stand in front of a nation and insult a mother for asking the current political leaders to justify their behavior, which is resulting in thousands of dead citizens, merely because you make a living supporting those leaders and their actions, right or wrong, then never ask why the world is in such terrible shape. Never propose questions like, “why can’t we all get along,” or, “how could we help end violence and hatred.” You are the answer. You are the problem, not ‘terrorists’ or ‘drugs’ or ‘liberals’. You, you foul, disgusting, greedy, lying hypocrites. You are what makes civilization work poorly, you are why we’re all at one another’s throats.

Those are the facts.