I see that Bill O'Reilly and the Fox news team have started this year's "War On Christmas" blatherings already.
Is it just me or is there something sick about this so-called War On Christmas tomfoolery in a world where people really are suffering persecution for their beliefs?
Showing posts with label foil helmets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foil helmets. Show all posts
9.11.08
1.7.08
What is it going to take?
Recent events in Mt Vernon, Ohio have once again uncovered the dark dirty side of religion. It's not so much that a teacher - who, according of one member of the school board had been the subject of numerous complaints over the last eleven years - taught creationism in his science class and had bibles and little ten commandments idols all over the place.
And, as horrific as it is, it's not even the fact that this religious nutball masquerading as a science teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
No, as bad as that seems, that's not really what brought me up short.
Take a deep breath, people. Yep. Friends, families and random apologetics are defending this nutbar who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
Yep, this so-called science teacher took up a high-frequency generator and BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being defended for branding children with a crucifix.
Y'know, I don't care what the symbol is, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS makes it wrong, wrong, wrong. If the teacher had been an atheist and had burned the atom symbol (or even my symbol) into the arms of his students, they'd even now be piling up the firewood to burn th' day-vil outta th' witch.
But it's a crucifix and he was preaching their religion, so the religious feel obligated to defend the guy who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, even though the act is clearly indefensible. They say that, y'know, apart from that whole BURNING CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, he was "teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district", values, presumably, that include lying in the name of your god.
See, despite the fact that a blind duckling in a bag could see that the symbol that was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS (see right) is a crucifix, Mr Upstanding Christian thinks he can lie his way out of it by claiming it was an "x", and not a crucifix.
Okay, let's assume for a moment that it's true. Hey, asshole, you still BURNED "X"s INTO THE ARMS OF YOUR STUDENTS!!
Anyway, it's not just the usual procession of friends and family (who, had he taken a hunting knife into class and disemboweled his students would have told the media "he was such a nice, quiet guy") stepping up to defend the fake science teacher who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, here's the usual round of nutty bastards stepping up to don armour, raise the standard, draw swords and march off to war in defence of this good Christian soldier.
The comments to this story are a sad reminder of why religion is so dangerous. The reason I'm all-capping and italicising is to make sure that the simple fact of this guy's horrendous crime is kept to the fore. This isn't just some church-state issue, this isn't some liberals-hounding-harmless-christian story, this guy BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
How can any rational (ha!) person defend this guy? Hello? He BURNED KIDS. You don't even need to imagine if it was an Islamic symbol or a pentagram or anything else, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS is enough. The fact that it was a crucifix that was BURNED INTO THEIR ARMS is merely the light dusting of powdered sugar on top of the gigantic, seven-layered, intricately iced, three-flavoured sponge cake that's making the table groan in protest.
Here's a few more, this time commenting on how this teacher refused to remove the bible from his desk. Note the sad old pony being trotted out for another run around the yard, to wit: the notion that, had it been a Koran on his desk, the liberals wouldn't have said a word. And this is worth addressing, because it is true.
Had this nutcase placed a Koran on his desk, I wouldn't complain, and nor would anyone who could be tarred with the "liberal" brush. We wouldn't complain simply because we would never have had the chance. Had this guy placed a Koran on his desk and refused to remove it, the good ole boys would have thrown his Mohammed-worshippin' ass outta there so fast that he'd still be bouncing today.
And they probably would have hidden behind the establishment clause to do it.
But that's an aside. As of now, anyone who criticises this nutty moron who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being anti-Christian and people who are sickened or disgusted by the fact that a teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS are simply seizing upon a non-event as an excuse to bash this beautiful, virtuous Christian teacher.
All clear? Good.
And, as horrific as it is, it's not even the fact that this religious nutball masquerading as a science teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
No, as bad as that seems, that's not really what brought me up short.
Take a deep breath, people. Yep. Friends, families and random apologetics are defending this nutbar who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
Yep, this so-called science teacher took up a high-frequency generator and BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being defended for branding children with a crucifix.
Y'know, I don't care what the symbol is, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS makes it wrong, wrong, wrong. If the teacher had been an atheist and had burned the atom symbol (or even my symbol) into the arms of his students, they'd even now be piling up the firewood to burn th' day-vil outta th' witch.
But it's a crucifix and he was preaching their religion, so the religious feel obligated to defend the guy who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, even though the act is clearly indefensible. They say that, y'know, apart from that whole BURNING CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, he was "teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district", values, presumably, that include lying in the name of your god.
See, despite the fact that a blind duckling in a bag could see that the symbol that was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS (see right) is a crucifix, Mr Upstanding Christian thinks he can lie his way out of it by claiming it was an "x", and not a crucifix.Okay, let's assume for a moment that it's true. Hey, asshole, you still BURNED "X"s INTO THE ARMS OF YOUR STUDENTS!!
Anyway, it's not just the usual procession of friends and family (who, had he taken a hunting knife into class and disemboweled his students would have told the media "he was such a nice, quiet guy") stepping up to defend the fake science teacher who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, here's the usual round of nutty bastards stepping up to don armour, raise the standard, draw swords and march off to war in defence of this good Christian soldier.
The comments to this story are a sad reminder of why religion is so dangerous. The reason I'm all-capping and italicising is to make sure that the simple fact of this guy's horrendous crime is kept to the fore. This isn't just some church-state issue, this isn't some liberals-hounding-harmless-christian story, this guy BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!
How can any rational (ha!) person defend this guy? Hello? He BURNED KIDS. You don't even need to imagine if it was an Islamic symbol or a pentagram or anything else, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS is enough. The fact that it was a crucifix that was BURNED INTO THEIR ARMS is merely the light dusting of powdered sugar on top of the gigantic, seven-layered, intricately iced, three-flavoured sponge cake that's making the table groan in protest.
Here's a few more, this time commenting on how this teacher refused to remove the bible from his desk. Note the sad old pony being trotted out for another run around the yard, to wit: the notion that, had it been a Koran on his desk, the liberals wouldn't have said a word. And this is worth addressing, because it is true.
Had this nutcase placed a Koran on his desk, I wouldn't complain, and nor would anyone who could be tarred with the "liberal" brush. We wouldn't complain simply because we would never have had the chance. Had this guy placed a Koran on his desk and refused to remove it, the good ole boys would have thrown his Mohammed-worshippin' ass outta there so fast that he'd still be bouncing today.
And they probably would have hidden behind the establishment clause to do it.
But that's an aside. As of now, anyone who criticises this nutty moron who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being anti-Christian and people who are sickened or disgusted by the fact that a teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS are simply seizing upon a non-event as an excuse to bash this beautiful, virtuous Christian teacher.
All clear? Good.
1.1.08
Giants Beat Patriots, NFL Beats Giants.
In a stunning display of skill and dignity the New York Giants refused to lay down and play dead on Saturday night.
In the final game of the NFL's regular season, the Giants faced off against the New England Patriots who, as reported previously on Legal Alien were awarded the undefeated season and this year's Superbowl before the first game was played. The 10-5 Giants were going to lose, it had been decided, but nobody could force them to make it easy.
For three straight quarters the Giants destroyed the Patriots on both sides of the ball. The Patriots' shambolic offense could barely manage to put up a decent drive, and the Giants were carving up the defense like they were amateurs. The Patriots opening drive ended with the team settling for a field goal, in answer to the Giants opening touchdown.
After a nicely orchestrated penalty saved the Patriots from going three-and-out, they managed to stumble down the field for a touchdown, giving them their only legitimate lead of the game.
NY lead 21-16 at the half and 28-23 at the end of the 3rd quarter.
At this point the Giants felt that they'd made their point - that they could easily have beaten the Patriots if they'd chosen to - they obeyed their orders from the NFL and stopped playing.
The change was marked and incredible. It was like the Giants went home and sent the Miami Dolphins (1-15) out in their uniforms to play the final quarter.
Even then, the Giants thumbed their nose at the Patriots with an easy touchdown in the closing minutes of the game to keep things close and give the NFL a scare.
Life-long Giants fan James Edmondsen said after the game, "It's a shame that we weren't allowed to win, but if we meet those bitches in the Superbowl, it's on.
"All bets are off," he continued, "the league can kiss my ass."
Dallas Cowboys fan Jake Phillips echoed the sentiment, "We had the Patriots on the run when the guys in black and white stepped in. In the Superbowl, we own them."
Morton Braithwaite, follower of the Philadelphia Eagles, said, "I hate the Giants like I hate the Cowboys, but if they get to the Superbowl, you bet I'll be a fan. Anyone who gets revenge on the Patriots is fine by me.
"Screw the NFL," he added.
This article, again, is a parody. It is not intended to be taken seriously. No quotes attributed to any person, named or unnamed, are real. The contents of this article do not, to the best of my knowledge, represent the actual truth behind the farce that was the 2007 season.
In the final game of the NFL's regular season, the Giants faced off against the New England Patriots who, as reported previously on Legal Alien were awarded the undefeated season and this year's Superbowl before the first game was played. The 10-5 Giants were going to lose, it had been decided, but nobody could force them to make it easy.
For three straight quarters the Giants destroyed the Patriots on both sides of the ball. The Patriots' shambolic offense could barely manage to put up a decent drive, and the Giants were carving up the defense like they were amateurs. The Patriots opening drive ended with the team settling for a field goal, in answer to the Giants opening touchdown.
After a nicely orchestrated penalty saved the Patriots from going three-and-out, they managed to stumble down the field for a touchdown, giving them their only legitimate lead of the game.
NY lead 21-16 at the half and 28-23 at the end of the 3rd quarter.
At this point the Giants felt that they'd made their point - that they could easily have beaten the Patriots if they'd chosen to - they obeyed their orders from the NFL and stopped playing.
The change was marked and incredible. It was like the Giants went home and sent the Miami Dolphins (1-15) out in their uniforms to play the final quarter.
Even then, the Giants thumbed their nose at the Patriots with an easy touchdown in the closing minutes of the game to keep things close and give the NFL a scare.
Life-long Giants fan James Edmondsen said after the game, "It's a shame that we weren't allowed to win, but if we meet those bitches in the Superbowl, it's on.
"All bets are off," he continued, "the league can kiss my ass."
Dallas Cowboys fan Jake Phillips echoed the sentiment, "We had the Patriots on the run when the guys in black and white stepped in. In the Superbowl, we own them."
Morton Braithwaite, follower of the Philadelphia Eagles, said, "I hate the Giants like I hate the Cowboys, but if they get to the Superbowl, you bet I'll be a fan. Anyone who gets revenge on the Patriots is fine by me.
"Screw the NFL," he added.
* * * *
This article, again, is a parody. It is not intended to be taken seriously. No quotes attributed to any person, named or unnamed, are real. The contents of this article do not, to the best of my knowledge, represent the actual truth behind the farce that was the 2007 season.
10.12.07
Patriots Win Superbowl
It was a controversial decision, but one that the NFL felt was necessary: The Patriots have won the Superbowl.
With three games still to play in the regular season, the NFL's top competition has long been decided, claims one NFL insider, speaking today on the condition of anonymity.
"It was decided long before the first snap [of the season]. The NFL needed an undefeated team and they fit the bill.
"Sucks to be the '72 Dolphins," he added, referring to the only team to go undefeated through to win the Superbowl up to this year, "but that record is going away."
The decision is, he claimed, motivated by money.
"With an 18-0 team in the Superbowl, ad prices have quadrupled. It's insane. It's like seven, eight million for thirty seconds. And tickets for the Patriots' last three games are already changing hands for twice the cover price."
Memorabilia sales based around the undefeated season are expected to top $100 billion over the next five years, between the Patriots and the NFL's own merchandising.
For the other contenders it has been a bitter pill to swallow. The Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers - the NFC teams most likely to qualify to lose to the Patriots in the Superbowl - have registered protests, but all in vain.
"It's hard, but they just have to suck it up. The Colts are gonna lose to the Patriots in the AFC championship. Sorry, Payton, sorry Brett, sorry Tony, this is not your year."
The fix hasn't all been plain sailing, however.
"The Eagles and the Ravens gave the NFL a nasty scare. Both teams refused to roll over and play by the script, so the NFL had to create last-minute, game-winning touchdowns in both games. Refusing to review those non-touchdowns gave the Pats the games. Three Ravens guys were even fined for trying to point out the cheating," he said, adding, "the Colts and the Cowboys were beaten by some brilliantly inventive penalty calling by the refereeing squads. The Pats would be 9-4 right now - or worse - if the NFL weren't steering things the way they wanted."
The 19-0 Patriots have to play the Jets and the Dolphins before facing the Giants in their final game, which could be a problem according to our source.
"As of now, the Giants are still looking for a playoff berth, even though they aren't allowed to win the Superbowl. If they go into the 16th game needing to win, the NFL may have to call on the referees in order to make sure that the Pats continue to go undefeated. Watch out for Giants being called for offside when they blink, and looking in the general direction of Randy Moss will be called as pass interference.
"It's not fair, but this is football. It's not a sport, it's a business.
"People would love to see Brett [Favre of the Green Bay Packers] win another [Superbowl] ring before he retires, or see Payton [Manning of the Indianapolis Colts] go back-to-back, or see Tony [Romo of the Dallas Cowboys] win in his first full season as a starter, but it's far more profitable for the Patriots to win the whole ball of wax.
"And next year? Wait and see, but just think how much money could be made off of back-to-back undefeated seasons."
This article is a parody. It is not intended to be taken seriously. It is, however, intended to express my very real frustration, and the very real frustration of Eagles and Ravens fans, not to mention fans of fair competition in sport, at the way that the Patriots are cheating their way to an undefeated season, and especially at the way that the NFL's referees seem determined to help them. Play fair or don't play at all.
With three games still to play in the regular season, the NFL's top competition has long been decided, claims one NFL insider, speaking today on the condition of anonymity.
"It was decided long before the first snap [of the season]. The NFL needed an undefeated team and they fit the bill.
"Sucks to be the '72 Dolphins," he added, referring to the only team to go undefeated through to win the Superbowl up to this year, "but that record is going away."
Money
The decision is, he claimed, motivated by money.
"With an 18-0 team in the Superbowl, ad prices have quadrupled. It's insane. It's like seven, eight million for thirty seconds. And tickets for the Patriots' last three games are already changing hands for twice the cover price."
Memorabilia sales based around the undefeated season are expected to top $100 billion over the next five years, between the Patriots and the NFL's own merchandising.
For the other contenders it has been a bitter pill to swallow. The Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers - the NFC teams most likely to qualify to lose to the Patriots in the Superbowl - have registered protests, but all in vain.
"It's hard, but they just have to suck it up. The Colts are gonna lose to the Patriots in the AFC championship. Sorry, Payton, sorry Brett, sorry Tony, this is not your year."
The fix hasn't all been plain sailing, however.
Close Call
"The Eagles and the Ravens gave the NFL a nasty scare. Both teams refused to roll over and play by the script, so the NFL had to create last-minute, game-winning touchdowns in both games. Refusing to review those non-touchdowns gave the Pats the games. Three Ravens guys were even fined for trying to point out the cheating," he said, adding, "the Colts and the Cowboys were beaten by some brilliantly inventive penalty calling by the refereeing squads. The Pats would be 9-4 right now - or worse - if the NFL weren't steering things the way they wanted."
The 19-0 Patriots have to play the Jets and the Dolphins before facing the Giants in their final game, which could be a problem according to our source.
"As of now, the Giants are still looking for a playoff berth, even though they aren't allowed to win the Superbowl. If they go into the 16th game needing to win, the NFL may have to call on the referees in order to make sure that the Pats continue to go undefeated. Watch out for Giants being called for offside when they blink, and looking in the general direction of Randy Moss will be called as pass interference.
"It's not fair, but this is football. It's not a sport, it's a business.
"People would love to see Brett [Favre of the Green Bay Packers] win another [Superbowl] ring before he retires, or see Payton [Manning of the Indianapolis Colts] go back-to-back, or see Tony [Romo of the Dallas Cowboys] win in his first full season as a starter, but it's far more profitable for the Patriots to win the whole ball of wax.
"And next year? Wait and see, but just think how much money could be made off of back-to-back undefeated seasons."
* * * *
This article is a parody. It is not intended to be taken seriously. It is, however, intended to express my very real frustration, and the very real frustration of Eagles and Ravens fans, not to mention fans of fair competition in sport, at the way that the Patriots are cheating their way to an undefeated season, and especially at the way that the NFL's referees seem determined to help them. Play fair or don't play at all.
19.3.07
This is why religion is dangerous
A few months ago I mentioned the fact that the British government had just announced that the Catholic church has to obey the law just like everyone else. The law in question is new regulations concerning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Part of the new law deals with adoption, and how agencies aren't allowed to refuse placement on the grounds that the couple are same-sex. The Catholic church attempted to put themselves above the law and were told, basically, not a chance.
Now, the Catholic church is hitting back by whining about MPs "rail-roading" the laws through Parliament, despite all regulations being met and all proprieties being observed. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who presumes to speak for all of England and Wales, claims the process was "an abuse of parliamentary democracy" and said "profound public concern about aspects of these regulations has not been heard."
I probably don't need to mention what those two lines translate as.
That's not really what prompted this post. A church having a whinge because somebody reminds them that they aren't, after all, the sole voice of law in the universe is funny, but not unusual.
What's prompted this is the report mentioning that, if the Catholics don't get their own way, the Catholic adoption facilities which, apparently, "handle some of the most difficult-to-place children", will close rather than adhere to the new laws.
There it is. Right there. Rather than occasionally having to consider placing a child with a same-sex couple, the Catholic church, in its compassion, love and humanity, is going to abandon all of them.
Yeah, nice.
I doubt many same-sex couples would bother going to a Catholic adoption agency if they had any sort of a choice, but rather than take that minuscule risk, the "God is love" brigade will refuse to help any child in need of a family.
All that "compromising beliefs" talk is bull. The Catholic church wanted to be above man's laws and they got slapped down, so they're taking their ball and going home.
Any faith that can prompt a person to make such a ridiculous, harmful decision is a faith that deserves no respect, a faith that does more harm than good.
Now, the Catholic church is hitting back by whining about MPs "rail-roading" the laws through Parliament, despite all regulations being met and all proprieties being observed. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who presumes to speak for all of England and Wales, claims the process was "an abuse of parliamentary democracy" and said "profound public concern about aspects of these regulations has not been heard."
I probably don't need to mention what those two lines translate as.
That's not really what prompted this post. A church having a whinge because somebody reminds them that they aren't, after all, the sole voice of law in the universe is funny, but not unusual.
What's prompted this is the report mentioning that, if the Catholics don't get their own way, the Catholic adoption facilities which, apparently, "handle some of the most difficult-to-place children", will close rather than adhere to the new laws.
There it is. Right there. Rather than occasionally having to consider placing a child with a same-sex couple, the Catholic church, in its compassion, love and humanity, is going to abandon all of them.
Yeah, nice.
I doubt many same-sex couples would bother going to a Catholic adoption agency if they had any sort of a choice, but rather than take that minuscule risk, the "God is love" brigade will refuse to help any child in need of a family.
All that "compromising beliefs" talk is bull. The Catholic church wanted to be above man's laws and they got slapped down, so they're taking their ball and going home.
Any faith that can prompt a person to make such a ridiculous, harmful decision is a faith that deserves no respect, a faith that does more harm than good.
4.12.06
Wow... just... wow...
Apparently, country singer John Michael Montgomery believes that atheists are automatically alchoholic, drug-using, child abusers.
Well, pardon me, Mr Montgomery, but bollocks. Great, big, sweaty bollocks.
According to ChildhelpUSA, 906,000 children are reported as abused in the USA every year, and estimates put the actual number as being around three times more than are reported.
Given as how we keep being told that 90% of Americans believe in God, at least some of those good ole God-fearin', church-goin', bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin' folks must be involved here, somewhere.
They can't all be Catholic priests.
Child abuse is one of those abhorrent events that transcends race, creed, background, social status, and, yes, even religious belief.
Well, pardon me, Mr Montgomery, but bollocks. Great, big, sweaty bollocks.
According to ChildhelpUSA, 906,000 children are reported as abused in the USA every year, and estimates put the actual number as being around three times more than are reported.
Given as how we keep being told that 90% of Americans believe in God, at least some of those good ole God-fearin', church-goin', bible-thumpin', Jesus-lovin' folks must be involved here, somewhere.
They can't all be Catholic priests.
Child abuse is one of those abhorrent events that transcends race, creed, background, social status, and, yes, even religious belief.
29.10.06
The Madden Curse
Snopes has a fascinating and long-running story concerning the video game Madden NFL and its many incarnations. Apparently, there's a "curse" assosciated with the game, in that any player who appears on the cover will end up having a very bad season indeed.
I'm not superstitious, but if I were a football player, I would stay the hell away from John Madden.
And Campbell's soup.
And Sports Illustrated.
2001 was Eddie George, who had his worst career season that year.
2002 was Daunte Culpepper, who went out with a knee injury.
2003 was Marshall Faulk, who with an injured ankle had his worst season for four years.
2004 was Michael Vick, who fractured his tibia on the day the game was released.
2005 was Ray Lewis, who had a terrible season and had to sit out the last game because he was injured.
2006 was Donovan McNabb, who had a "sports hernia" and was eventually (and painfully) retired for the season by the Cowboys.
2007 is Shaun Alexander.
Who just broke his foot.
I'm not superstitious, but if I were a football player, I would stay the hell away from John Madden.
And Campbell's soup.
And Sports Illustrated.
28.8.06
Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt
Okay, remember how, just a few short days ago, astronomers voted to demote Pluto from a planet to a "dwarf planet"?
Well, it seems that some Pluto fans are getting their knickers in a twist over the vote.
And, with all the wearying inevitability of an early England exit from the World Cup, some bugger has decided to take the debate to the bumper.
Well, it seems that some Pluto fans are getting their knickers in a twist over the vote.
And, with all the wearying inevitability of an early England exit from the World Cup, some bugger has decided to take the debate to the bumper.
27.8.06
Catholic Church Gets It Wrong Again
Auntie Beeb carries a story about Artur Boroc, goalie for Celtic, who was cautioned for "offensive behaviour" during a match on the 12th February against Rangers. Boroc made several gestures to the crowd during the match which the Crown Office deemed to have "provoked alarm and crowd trouble and as such constituted a breach of the peace", and said it had taken action "based upon an assessment of behaviour, not one single act, which appeared to be directed at the crowd which was being incited by the behaviour and which caused the police to intervene and calm the crowd".
One of the gestures in question was Boroc crossing himself, the old Catholic "spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch" routine, which was viewed, along with the other gestures he was making, to be an insult and provocation towards Rangers' largely Protestant fans.
Of course, the Catholic Church went into overdrive and immediately put their foot in their mouth. Apparently, they're having a hissy fit because Boroc was cautioned for using "a gesture" (it was more than one) that is "simply religious in nature" (no, it's more than that, it's specifically Catholic in nature) and that Scotland had made this gesture "an offence" (no, it was the entire performance that was the offence, not just the Catholic gesture).
I guess it's to be expected - martyr complex and all that - but it just seems annoying that they've come out all indignant about their religion - the biggest, richest, most widespread and most powerful religion in the history of the world - being persecuted, especially when the persecution is 100% imaginary.
Still, as I said, it's to be expected, but it doesn't make it any less eyerolling for that.
One of the gestures in question was Boroc crossing himself, the old Catholic "spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch" routine, which was viewed, along with the other gestures he was making, to be an insult and provocation towards Rangers' largely Protestant fans.
Of course, the Catholic Church went into overdrive and immediately put their foot in their mouth. Apparently, they're having a hissy fit because Boroc was cautioned for using "a gesture" (it was more than one) that is "simply religious in nature" (no, it's more than that, it's specifically Catholic in nature) and that Scotland had made this gesture "an offence" (no, it was the entire performance that was the offence, not just the Catholic gesture).
I guess it's to be expected - martyr complex and all that - but it just seems annoying that they've come out all indignant about their religion - the biggest, richest, most widespread and most powerful religion in the history of the world - being persecuted, especially when the persecution is 100% imaginary.
Still, as I said, it's to be expected, but it doesn't make it any less eyerolling for that.
13.8.06
Public Service Announcement
Ah, this is fun.
Microsoft have discovered a wee bug in its lastest operating systems which can allow hackers to take complete and utter control of your computer with almost laughable ease. Nice.
If you're running Windows 2000 or later, amble on over to the MS update page and download at your leisure.
Of course, if you're one of the tinfoil hat brigade, you might be intertested to know that the US Department of Homeland Security advises the installation of these updates ASAP.
Oh dear, I can hear conspiracy theorists' heads popping all over the nation..
Microsoft have discovered a wee bug in its lastest operating systems which can allow hackers to take complete and utter control of your computer with almost laughable ease. Nice.
If you're running Windows 2000 or later, amble on over to the MS update page and download at your leisure.
Of course, if you're one of the tinfoil hat brigade, you might be intertested to know that the US Department of Homeland Security advises the installation of these updates ASAP.
Oh dear, I can hear conspiracy theorists' heads popping all over the nation..
22.5.06
Millions flock to Da Vinci Code
Y'know, Dan Brown owes a lot to the Catholic church. If they hadn't made such a stink about The Da Vinci Code, he would still be a relatively unknown author and his book would have never made it to film. Then, had they not made such a fuss about the movie, it wouldn't have grossed $224 million at the box office on its opening weekend.
It seems like, in this, the church is its own worst enemy. Seriously, just ignore it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
And, of course, they're still at it.
More TV documentaries, more books, more magazine articles, more crap and wind, keep appearing, all seeking to "refute" the book and movie.
(BTW, most make the mistake of trying to refute the book because it, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, do not agree with established views of history. Which, of course, completely misses the point of both the movie and the two books, which is that established history is a fiction created in part by the Catholic church to consolidate their grip on power, and in part by the group The Priory Of Sion in order to conceal their true agenda.
It's like using The Da Vinci Code to refute all the refuting because the refuters don't agree with the book. Stupid.)
There's even some blowhard here urging Christians to take "legal action" against the movie.
Sort of a "who would Jesus sue?" kind of thing.
Again, I'm forced to wonder why Catholics are taking such pains to refute a book and movie that they are so anxious to remind us is fictional.
I don't recall this much fuss over the historical licence taken with U-571 or Braveheart, not to mention The Passion Of The Christ (there always seems to be one too many "the" in that title) or, when you get down to it, Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
Maybe this one hits a little too close to home?
I would urge anyone who wants to know more about the background to the story to actually sit down and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
At least then you'll know why many of the charges brought against Dan Brown are simply so much guff.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Millions flock to Da Vinci Code: "The Da Vinci Code movie took $224m (£119m) at box offices around the world at the weekend despite controversy and bad reviews, its distributor has said.
That is the second most successful film opening in history, Columbia said."
It seems like, in this, the church is its own worst enemy. Seriously, just ignore it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
And, of course, they're still at it.
More TV documentaries, more books, more magazine articles, more crap and wind, keep appearing, all seeking to "refute" the book and movie.
(BTW, most make the mistake of trying to refute the book because it, and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, do not agree with established views of history. Which, of course, completely misses the point of both the movie and the two books, which is that established history is a fiction created in part by the Catholic church to consolidate their grip on power, and in part by the group The Priory Of Sion in order to conceal their true agenda.
It's like using The Da Vinci Code to refute all the refuting because the refuters don't agree with the book. Stupid.)
There's even some blowhard here urging Christians to take "legal action" against the movie.
Sort of a "who would Jesus sue?" kind of thing.
Again, I'm forced to wonder why Catholics are taking such pains to refute a book and movie that they are so anxious to remind us is fictional.
I don't recall this much fuss over the historical licence taken with U-571 or Braveheart, not to mention The Passion Of The Christ (there always seems to be one too many "the" in that title) or, when you get down to it, Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
Maybe this one hits a little too close to home?
I would urge anyone who wants to know more about the background to the story to actually sit down and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
At least then you'll know why many of the charges brought against Dan Brown are simply so much guff.
12.5.06
The Da Vinci Deception Deception
Before I commence, here's a little info:
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
In order that I should not spoil, for anyone that has not read it, the "twist" in The Da Vinci Code, I shall, henceforth, refer to it simply as "The Theory."
Anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code knows what The Theory is, and exactly why it's caused the Vatican to get its knickers in a twist, not to mention getting Christian apologists everywhere foaming at the mouth.
In response to The Da Vinci Code, several of these apologists have published books claiming to refute it. Titles like The Da Vinci Deception, The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing The Errors In The Da Vinci Code and Cracking Da Vinci's Code stand in bookstores, often sharing displays with the book which was their inspiration.
Firstly, let's examine the dichotomy here. Christian apologists are falling over themselves to remind us over and over that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Now, why are these people spending so much time and effort in refuting a work of fiction, and a self-admitted work of fiction at that? Why are they searching its pages for even the tiniest of errors so that they may trumpet its fictional status from the rooftops?
Okay, I always remind myself to look for the lowest common denominator. Some of these authors, at least, are likely to be simply jumping on the bandwagon, using the hype surrounding the upcoming movie release in order to make money or increase their literary standing amongst the Christian bookbuying public.
But at least some must be doing it because they genuinely believe that The Da Vinci Code represents a genuine threat to the Roman Catholic church - and to Christianity in general - and desperately want to refute it.
But that's not what prompted this entry, per se.
I was in Waldenbooks today, where I picked up a copy of Deception Point by Dan Brown and The Massianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Both of these books were on a display with various books related to The Da Vinci Code including the Christian apologist books named above.
What startled me is that most of the books that seek to refute The Theory contain, on their back-cover blurb, the same error. Most describe The Theory as being "Dan Brown's wild theory", or some variation thereof.
But it's not Dan Brown's theory, wild or otherwise.
The Theory was first advanced in the pages of Holy Blood, Holy Grail which, remember, was first published in 1982.
Dan Brown even mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code as being the first place that The Theory was brought to the attention of the public.
But it's easier to undermine The Theory if it's the work of one novelist than if it's the product of three highly respected historians' years of painstaking research.
And if these apologist authors cannot even get the basic facts straight for the back-cover blurb, what makes them believe we'll trust them with what's inside the book?
16.12.05
The War On Christmas
Fox News is in full judgment mode with an ongoing series of "exposes" dealing with the alleged "War on Christmas".
The British have long been puzzled by the American custom of wishing a "Happy Holidays" instead of a "Merry Christmas", but once one understands the concept, it's really quite good. Many religions have some variation of the winter festival, from Hanukkah to Kwanza, and thus, all are grouped together - by most - into a generic "Holiday Season", and wishes are often exchanged based on this. Most obviously, businesses who wish to avoid offending their non-christian customers with a christian-specific greeting often instruct staff to use the all-encompassing "Happy Holidays" instead.
But Fox is pissed. And, but for one tiny nugget of information, one might be fooled into thinking that this is serious and new. It's neither. Fox, according to those I've spoken to, do this every year. And every year Fox gets caught with its pants down.
Here's an example:
On his show, ranting pundit Bill O'Reilly claimed that a Wisconsin elementary school (read: primary school) had changed the lyrics to the carol Silent Night in an attempt to secularise the song and were "forcing" the kids to sing the new version. Horrendous. Except it's not true.
He was also caught out when he made similarly spurious claims about a Michigan town banning people from wearing red and green during the holiday season.
Sean Hannity made a similar mistake when he repeatedly claimed a New Jersey school had "banned" Silent Night entirely.
The "War on Christmas" exists only in the minds of those with an incredible martyr complex. And it's laughable - as ReasonOnline points out with an excellent piece entitled "The True Spirit of Xmas: How 4/5 of the country became an oppressed minority" - in a country where christians control every branch at every level of government.
Ah, 'tis the season, indeed.
The British have long been puzzled by the American custom of wishing a "Happy Holidays" instead of a "Merry Christmas", but once one understands the concept, it's really quite good. Many religions have some variation of the winter festival, from Hanukkah to Kwanza, and thus, all are grouped together - by most - into a generic "Holiday Season", and wishes are often exchanged based on this. Most obviously, businesses who wish to avoid offending their non-christian customers with a christian-specific greeting often instruct staff to use the all-encompassing "Happy Holidays" instead.
But Fox is pissed. And, but for one tiny nugget of information, one might be fooled into thinking that this is serious and new. It's neither. Fox, according to those I've spoken to, do this every year. And every year Fox gets caught with its pants down.
Here's an example:
On his show, ranting pundit Bill O'Reilly claimed that a Wisconsin elementary school (read: primary school) had changed the lyrics to the carol Silent Night in an attempt to secularise the song and were "forcing" the kids to sing the new version. Horrendous. Except it's not true.
He was also caught out when he made similarly spurious claims about a Michigan town banning people from wearing red and green during the holiday season.
Sean Hannity made a similar mistake when he repeatedly claimed a New Jersey school had "banned" Silent Night entirely.
The "War on Christmas" exists only in the minds of those with an incredible martyr complex. And it's laughable - as ReasonOnline points out with an excellent piece entitled "The True Spirit of Xmas: How 4/5 of the country became an oppressed minority" - in a country where christians control every branch at every level of government.
Ah, 'tis the season, indeed.
11.11.05
On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study
This is beyond great.
I can hear the crazies screaming themselves to sleep as we speak...
Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We theorize that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.
I can hear the crazies screaming themselves to sleep as we speak...
8.11.05
Special Powers
The French government has passed emergency legislation in a bid to halt the days of rioting that have raging - much to the delight of Fox News. Included in the package is the right to impose and enforce curfews, and the right to search suspect's homes without a warrant.
There's a great saying: Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So what does history say about situations like this?
Well, first, there's the trend that "emergency powers" passed to handle a certain problem or situation are rarely inspired by that single situation. In the wake of 9/11, both Britain and the USA passed legislation (in both cases it was mostly strengthening and widening existing laws), ostensibly to combat terrorism. Yet in both cases, the powers granted were powers that had been sought by the respective law enforcement organisations for many years, and such powers had been denied in the past. This is not to say, of course, that the powers weren't useful in combating terrorism, but one should not buy the notion that the idea sprung into being on that day. How long have French law enforcement organisations been asking for these powers?
Secondly, there's the trend that such powers will be misused. To clarify: in this sense, "misuse" constitutes an act which would not have been legal without the new legislation, but which is outside of the stated reasons for the new legislation. For example, the Labour party used anti-terrorism laws to eject and detain an old man who protested the government's justifications for the war in Iraq, and the USA PATRIOT act was used to investigate businessmen in Las Vegas who had absolutely no connection to any terrorism, not even causing Tony Blair to get a bit upset. Police chiefs in France probably reacted to the news about warrantless searches by immediately reaching for the files marked "Scumbags We Don't Have Enough Evidence To Get Behind Bars". Many searches will probably be carried out on "suspected" rioters houses.
Finally, and probably most worryingly, such powers are very difficult to withdraw once issued. Britons fought long and hard to end the laws requiring ID cards after WWII, and the war isn't over, they're still at it. When the situation in Northern Ireland seemed to be calming down, moves to reduce the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Acts were blocked repeatedly, and 9/11 simply gave the excuse needed to shore them up beyond any assault. The USA PATRIOT act hasn't been allowed to expire, and they're even talking about widening it further.
As with the examples above, there can be no doubt that the new laws in France will do the job they're touted to do - help police quell the riots, making the streets safe(er) for law-abiding citizens (and, thus, doing the job they're paid for) - but laws don't exist in a vacuum. Even if the laws are issued with the best of intentions, they will be misused, they will be stretched, they will be clung to long after their usefulness has gone.
France has allowed itself to fall into the trap of passing knee-jerk legislation to solve a problem that shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.
That's called "papering over the cracks" and it doesn't work any better for government than it does for decorating.
There's a great saying: Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So what does history say about situations like this?
Well, first, there's the trend that "emergency powers" passed to handle a certain problem or situation are rarely inspired by that single situation. In the wake of 9/11, both Britain and the USA passed legislation (in both cases it was mostly strengthening and widening existing laws), ostensibly to combat terrorism. Yet in both cases, the powers granted were powers that had been sought by the respective law enforcement organisations for many years, and such powers had been denied in the past. This is not to say, of course, that the powers weren't useful in combating terrorism, but one should not buy the notion that the idea sprung into being on that day. How long have French law enforcement organisations been asking for these powers?
Secondly, there's the trend that such powers will be misused. To clarify: in this sense, "misuse" constitutes an act which would not have been legal without the new legislation, but which is outside of the stated reasons for the new legislation. For example, the Labour party used anti-terrorism laws to eject and detain an old man who protested the government's justifications for the war in Iraq, and the USA PATRIOT act was used to investigate businessmen in Las Vegas who had absolutely no connection to any terrorism, not even causing Tony Blair to get a bit upset. Police chiefs in France probably reacted to the news about warrantless searches by immediately reaching for the files marked "Scumbags We Don't Have Enough Evidence To Get Behind Bars". Many searches will probably be carried out on "suspected" rioters houses.
Finally, and probably most worryingly, such powers are very difficult to withdraw once issued. Britons fought long and hard to end the laws requiring ID cards after WWII, and the war isn't over, they're still at it. When the situation in Northern Ireland seemed to be calming down, moves to reduce the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Acts were blocked repeatedly, and 9/11 simply gave the excuse needed to shore them up beyond any assault. The USA PATRIOT act hasn't been allowed to expire, and they're even talking about widening it further.
As with the examples above, there can be no doubt that the new laws in France will do the job they're touted to do - help police quell the riots, making the streets safe(er) for law-abiding citizens (and, thus, doing the job they're paid for) - but laws don't exist in a vacuum. Even if the laws are issued with the best of intentions, they will be misused, they will be stretched, they will be clung to long after their usefulness has gone.
France has allowed itself to fall into the trap of passing knee-jerk legislation to solve a problem that shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.
That's called "papering over the cracks" and it doesn't work any better for government than it does for decorating.
6.10.05
2.10.05
Further news on the Basra story
Times Online has a story today concerning a new development in Iraq:
What made this story jump out to me was this little nugget of under-reported information:
The two soldiers weren't being held prisoner (as the conspiracy theorists claim), they were handed over by the Iraqi police - in contravention of Iraqi law - in order to serve as hostages.
Fuck that. Y'know, I don't care if those guys were SAS or not. I don't care whether they were up on their old "own-goal" rigging tricks or not. When the people we're supposed to be helping, ignore their own laws, and hand our guys over to be used as hostages, I support every effort to get them back.
"THE radical Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr has authorised his militia to kidnap two Britons in Iraq in the hope of swapping them for two of his senior officials who are held in Basra by British forces."
What made this story jump out to me was this little nugget of under-reported information:
"A senior official from al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in Baghdad said that al-Sadr had given the order after last month’s dramatic rescue of two SAS men whom he had been hoping to use as bargaining chips."
The two soldiers weren't being held prisoner (as the conspiracy theorists claim), they were handed over by the Iraqi police - in contravention of Iraqi law - in order to serve as hostages.
Fuck that. Y'know, I don't care if those guys were SAS or not. I don't care whether they were up on their old "own-goal" rigging tricks or not. When the people we're supposed to be helping, ignore their own laws, and hand our guys over to be used as hostages, I support every effort to get them back.
22.9.05
More on the Basra story
Conspiracy theorists around the globe are already trying to spin the situation in Basra to meet their own ends.
The two soldiers - now SAS beyond any doubt - were in plain clothes. No, wait, they were dressed in Arabic clothing. No, wait, they were disguised as Arabs.
They were in an unmarked car. No, wait, they were in an unmarked car armed with sniper rifles. And.. and.. had just assassinated police officers. No, wait, they had explosives and were setting up bombs that the coalition were going to blame on insurgents!
In fact.. yeah.. there never was any insurgency. The whole thing was British Black Ops trying to maintain support for the war.
That's why they were broken out, so the story would remain secure.
Yeah, okay, reality calling here.
The reason the two guys were busted out was because the Iraqi police, contrary to their agreement with the British Command, had handed them over to Shia militia, most of which are suspected of sympathising with, if not actually being members of, the "insurgency".
Y'know, I have been, and remain, against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I believe it was a manufactured war waged for faked reasons, but when people go making up hysterical claptrap it only serves to hurt the anti-war movement. Every silly conspiracy theory loses credibility.
Yeah, indulge your paranoid fantasies, just don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously.
The two soldiers - now SAS beyond any doubt - were in plain clothes. No, wait, they were dressed in Arabic clothing. No, wait, they were disguised as Arabs.
They were in an unmarked car. No, wait, they were in an unmarked car armed with sniper rifles. And.. and.. had just assassinated police officers. No, wait, they had explosives and were setting up bombs that the coalition were going to blame on insurgents!
In fact.. yeah.. there never was any insurgency. The whole thing was British Black Ops trying to maintain support for the war.
That's why they were broken out, so the story would remain secure.
Yeah, okay, reality calling here.
The reason the two guys were busted out was because the Iraqi police, contrary to their agreement with the British Command, had handed them over to Shia militia, most of which are suspected of sympathising with, if not actually being members of, the "insurgency".
Y'know, I have been, and remain, against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I believe it was a manufactured war waged for faked reasons, but when people go making up hysterical claptrap it only serves to hurt the anti-war movement. Every silly conspiracy theory loses credibility.
Yeah, indulge your paranoid fantasies, just don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously.
28.8.05
University of California
So, it seems that UC is requiring students to have actual, creditable, relevant qualifications before allowing them to take courses. Is this unusual in America? Is it normal for a university to accept students for a - say - degree in microbiology if they only have qualifications in pottery?
No, I doubt very much it's unusual.
But, with the push to get religious tomfoolery accepted as genuine knowledge, UC is being sued because - gasp! - they don't believe that courses which don't meet the requirements should be credited. It's almost as if they think they have the right to run their own admissions or something. Fie, UC! Shame on you for trying to keep up the standards of your applicants!
So, the course is basically a slanted, biased look at "Christianity's Influence on America", and they expect it to be a relevant qualification for someone wishing to study history at an establishment that, obviously, believes that history should have at least some connection to actual events.
What's scary is this:
This is a typical theist's position: always play the martyr. UC is not trying to "secularize a private, Christian education", they just want to control their own standards. You can teach that garbage as much as you like, as often as you like and as hard as you like.
Just don't expect the rest of the world to take it seriously.
No, I doubt very much it's unusual.
But, with the push to get religious tomfoolery accepted as genuine knowledge, UC is being sued because - gasp! - they don't believe that courses which don't meet the requirements should be credited. It's almost as if they think they have the right to run their own admissions or something. Fie, UC! Shame on you for trying to keep up the standards of your applicants!
The lawsuit cites several examples of recently rejected courses submitted by Calvary Chapel for credit into the UC system, such as "Christianity's Influence on America," which a UC document cited as "too narrow (and) too specialized" as reasons for not approving the course.
"The content of the course outline submitted for approval is not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community," states the UC document, which was sent to the school last fall. "Students who take these courses may not be well prepared if and when they enter history (or) social science courses at UC."
(emphasis mine)
So, the course is basically a slanted, biased look at "Christianity's Influence on America", and they expect it to be a relevant qualification for someone wishing to study history at an establishment that, obviously, believes that history should have at least some connection to actual events.
What's scary is this:
"They do not have the right to try and secularize a private, Christian education," said attorney Robert Tyler, who represents the Murrieta school and its students. "While they are allowing other courses from other secular and religious viewpoints, they will not give credit to courses from a Christian viewpoint."
This is a typical theist's position: always play the martyr. UC is not trying to "secularize a private, Christian education", they just want to control their own standards. You can teach that garbage as much as you like, as often as you like and as hard as you like.
Just don't expect the rest of the world to take it seriously.
17.8.05
Those jackbooted fascists at the Department of Homeland Security
We've all heard the rumours. The Department of Homeland Security. A name to send shivers down the spine of any freedom-loving individual. Marching around with unconstitutional powers, grabbing anyone who steps out of line and throwing them into a 2ft by 3ft cell and beating them with rubber hoses. Michael Moore tells us - and it must, therefore, be true - that they are swooping in and arresting any foreign national who overstays their visa by as much as one single second, in midnight raids reminiscent of Communism at its worst, denying them access to lawyers, refusing to tell anyone where they are and threatening to arrest anyone who dares to speak their name.
Yeah, except it's bollocks.
I've been here over two years and, due to some very yawn-inducing financial problems, didn't manage to apply for my Green Card before my visa ran out. It was several months. So what did the fanatical brownshirts do? They were, er, helpful. I'll say that again. They were helpful. They were nice. They were friendly. They were, on the odd occasion or two, funny. They provided me with forms and offered any help I needed filling them in. They promised that this interview or that one would be scheduled within six to eight weeks and, unlike their British counterparts, didn't mean eight to ten months. Having had my final interview with - it has to be said - a very nice judge, they promised me my Green Card in six to eight weeks. And, again, it arrived.
Yeah, I'm British. Yeah, no terrorist connections here. But the rumours don't differentiate. I was told this before I came here - miss your visa date and get locked up. It never happened. Maybe the only people who are being investigated by the DHS are those with possible terrorist connections.
And isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?
Like any government organisation, the vast majority of people who work for the DHS are just ordinary folks, "working stiffs" is, I believe, the American term. People who, like almost everyone else on the planet, are just working to put food on the table, clothes on the kids and, increasingly, mp3s in the iPod. But to hear some on the internet tell it, all are merely hiding their swastikas until the day they can wear them openly.
It's kinda reassuring to see that the left can invent stories as well as the right...
Yeah, except it's bollocks.
I've been here over two years and, due to some very yawn-inducing financial problems, didn't manage to apply for my Green Card before my visa ran out. It was several months. So what did the fanatical brownshirts do? They were, er, helpful. I'll say that again. They were helpful. They were nice. They were friendly. They were, on the odd occasion or two, funny. They provided me with forms and offered any help I needed filling them in. They promised that this interview or that one would be scheduled within six to eight weeks and, unlike their British counterparts, didn't mean eight to ten months. Having had my final interview with - it has to be said - a very nice judge, they promised me my Green Card in six to eight weeks. And, again, it arrived.
Yeah, I'm British. Yeah, no terrorist connections here. But the rumours don't differentiate. I was told this before I came here - miss your visa date and get locked up. It never happened. Maybe the only people who are being investigated by the DHS are those with possible terrorist connections.
And isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?
Like any government organisation, the vast majority of people who work for the DHS are just ordinary folks, "working stiffs" is, I believe, the American term. People who, like almost everyone else on the planet, are just working to put food on the table, clothes on the kids and, increasingly, mp3s in the iPod. But to hear some on the internet tell it, all are merely hiding their swastikas until the day they can wear them openly.
It's kinda reassuring to see that the left can invent stories as well as the right...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)