Blog Archives
Yet another end of the world
This time the prediction of doom comes from one Ronald Weinland who claims he “is the pastor of God’s Church on earth, has also been appointed by the God of Abraham to be His end-time prophet and one of the two end-time witnesses (and spokesman of both), preceding the return of Jesus Christ on May 27, 2012.”
Here’s the link I got that quote from, and here’s Weinland’s own home page.
I’ve seen some people express dismay that these end days guys get so much press now, but personally I’m glad they get so much attention. I figure the more of these predictions we see in the public sphere, the less credible they’ll be and the fewer people they’ll be able to scam into handing over their life savings.
The money isn’t trival either. I found this in the comments of that goddiscussion.com link, by the author of the article:
If he is following the teachings of Armstrong, then his church members are paying 30% of their gross income in tithes to his church every third year, and 20% in all the other years. I remember sitting in Worldwide Church of God services, listening to sermons about how tithes must be made on gross income as opposed to net.
Deborah
I shudder to think of poor families trying to survive while giving away a quarter of their income. The insistence on gross instead of net especially ticks me off, not only is it really going to hurt people with lots of expenses (like anyone with children) but he’s effectively prioritizing himself at the top of their budget.
Of course, this not only makes the church a lot of money, but it also feeds into the sunk-cost fallacy. When the proposed end date comes and goes, most of the congregation will stay with the church. A few will leave, and there will probably be a sermon about how awful those quitters were. But most will stay, and be even more invested in it. After all they’ve been putting all this money into it, and all this time, and now they’ve endured public ridicule over the failed prophecy. They have to stick with it, or all that sacrifice was for nothing.
So I say publicize it. Public scorn heaped on these charlatans may do little to help those already under their influence, but it will make joining them seem less appealing to others, sparing them this fate. And it may well help some that are already in cults like this, and that’s worthwhile.
The Dangers of Feminist Marriage!
Wow, this is a special kind of crazy. From Manboobz we find this post from David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy explaining the latest reason you should fight against the evil tyranny of same-sex marriage: It’s a Trojan horse to allow “Feminist Marriage” which will destroy America! Read the rest of this entry
The Burzynski Clinic: Probably frauds, certainly assholes.
The odds are very good that if you’re reading this, someone you know has or has had some form of cancer, maybe even yourself. About 1,500 people die every day in the United States alone of cancer or cancer-related illness. More than half a million a year. It’s a boundless wellspring of human suffering that scientists have been working to understand better for over a hundred years. So far the best treatments we’ve got are still pretty crude, but all over the world researchers are working tirelessly to find new ways to improve the lives of cancer patients.
So when someone’s charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a treatment they claim can cure cancer, I tend to think the worst of them. When their response to criticism is angry, weak legal threats that clearly weren’t made by a lawyer, well, that doesn’t really make me think any better of them. Read the rest of this entry
#HeBlowsALot Redux: Apology Denied
Since I’m unable to sleep again, I may as well cover this. Emma Sullivan has apparently decided not to write the apology letter her disgrace of a principal, Karl R. Krawitz, demanded. Here are some links about that.
“At this time, I do not think an apology would be a sincere thing for me to do.”
Good for her! Free speech is everyone’s right, and that means not only the freedom to speak, but the freedom not to.
Especially the freedom not to write insincere, bullshit apologies demanded by some jackass who thinks he needs “damage control”. How’s that damage control going, Karl?
I don’t have much more to say on this, but something Principal Krawitz said in one of those articles stuck in my mind.
Krawitz, her principal, told The Kansas City Star previously that the situation is a “private issue, not a public matter” but didn’t return a phone message from The Associated Press at his home Sunday.
In what way is this not a public matter? Seriously, it was a publicly visible tweet, Governor Brownback and Principal Krawitz are public servants, and Shawnee Mission East is a public high school. Heck as far as I know the only private party involved is Emma Sullivan herself. (And I guess Twitter, but they’re literally just the messenger here.) If that’s a private issue, what the hell does it take for something to be public?
I’ve seen many people on Twitter calling Brownback a bully (and even reporting him as one, hilariously), but really I think Principal Krawitz is far more guilty of that charge. For all I know Brownback didn’t even know about it til the story broke. His staff clearly have the right bullying attitude, but only passed on a complaint.
It was Krawitz who took it upon himself to tell this young woman what she can and cannot say, It was Krawitz who apparently spent more words scolding her than you can fit in a tweet. And it was Krawitz who should have been defending her rights, who should be defending the rights of every student in his care, and decided shallow appearances, or maybe just his own ego, was more important.
Sam Brownback: #HeBlowsALot
From here, via Wil Wheaton. This sounds like a sketch comedy bit. Emma Sullivan, an 18-year old high school senior tweeted, well, this:
Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person
#heblowsalot
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback apparently has staff watching Twitter for comments about him. I guess that makes sense, it’s probably a good way to judge public opinion. When they saw that one, they passed it on, and eventually Sullivan wound up in the principles office. Read the rest of this entry
Free and brave
So, Congress wants to know why everyone hates them. Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I hate you, Congress, is because every time I turn around you assholes are doing something like this. (Incidentally, what’s up with the links on that page?)
Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), have apparently decided that what’s wrong with America is that we’re not enough like a fascist dictatorship. I wasn’t surprised to see McCain’s name on that, he introduced similar legislation in ’09 or ’10 which would give the President power to declare anyone an unperson without trial or charge, and specifically denied the option of judicial review. Seriously, the man introduced a bill to give the President, and any future president, the power to declare anyone (I think the term used was) an “unlawful enemy combatant”, who could then by held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, or given a trial, or even allowed to petition a judge to review the justice or legality of the detention.
In no free country should any one person have that kind of power. Certainly not one that has the Bill of Rights in it’s highest legal document.
Well, now McCain’s teamed up with another enemy of freedom and found a new approach. They should both be ashamed of themselves. Hell, I’m ashamed that they weren’t booed off the floor, this is my country and these are my countrymen, how could they consider that for even a moment?
The “detainees” taken in this alleged war on terror are a real sticking point with me, no matter which way you go they illustrate the criminal truth about the whole awful enterprise. If we’re at war, then those detainees are prisoners of war and subject to the rules and protections of the Geneva Convention. It we’re not at war, then these detainees are criminal suspects and subject to the rules and protections of Due Process. The term “Unlawful Enemy Combatant” suggests both while claiming neither, as if these people are somehow war criminals without ever being either criminals or soldiers.
I understand that this is a sticky situation where it’s often not clear, but changing the law to broadly strip (more) protections away from everywhere is not the answer here. The law isn’t about making the government’s job easier, it’s about protecting people.
So I was already in a cynical and angry state of mind when I saw this Guardian article about the crackdowns on the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Here is what Naomi Wolf of the Guardian learned when she started asking OWS activists what they wanted.
The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.
Haven’t heard much about that in the U.S. press. In fact most of the news I get about OWS comes from Europe. Maybe the money in the government is in the media, too.
Maybe that’s why Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are sneaking in this obscene rape of the Constitution, it’s a way to protect the money. Or hell, I don’t know, maybe they’re so frightened of the threat of terrorism that they’re willing to take the chance that some president might declare them enemy combatants and have them detained indefinitely, and possibly tortured.
Were I president, and handed that sort of power, the first thing I would do is send troops to detain Congress. Because while Al Qaida may or may not be the biggest threat to our lives, it’s been made abundantly clear that the biggest threat to our freedoms, Congress, is you.
Hey, they noticed!
Congress apparently finally noticed that they’re pissing everyone off.
Sorry, that’s all you get today. If I’m feeling better tomorrow I’ll actually say something for myself.
The Fucking Patriarchy, Part 2
(While I was writing this, Mississippi’s election results came in. Prop 26, the “personhood” amendment was defeated 57/43. Scary it was that close, really, but sanity won this time.)
Hello, and welcome to Day 2 of Fucking Patriarchy Week. Today’s installment will focus on some of the various ways the fucking patriarchy disenfranchises, trivializes, isolates, manipulates, and even dehumanizes women. My standard disclaimer applies, while this is all as accurate as I could make it, you shouldn’t assume that I know what I’m talking about.
Probably the core idea on which the entire fucking patriarchy is based is that women are inferior to men. This can express itself in variety of ways: Maybe that men are stronger, smarter, and generally more capable then inferior women. Perhaps that women are as capable as men, but God placed men above women in the cosmic hierarchy. Or maybe it’s simply declared without explanation that “bitches ain’t shit”. The general idea is always the same, though: women are inferior at best. Read the rest of this entry
The Fucking Patriarchy, Part 1
Thanks to several blog posts and at least one anecdote that I’ve encountered recently I’ve decided to to dedicate a series of posts this week to the fucking patriarchy. Like all of my writing, I’ve done some basic research but one shouldn’t assume that I know what I’m talking about. I’m going to be discussing this more or less from the ground up, partly to make things clear to anyone who’s not familiar with the basics, partly to squeeze more posts for the post-a-day challenge, and partly for my own education. This is also going to be a lot more vulgar than usual, because somehow that takes the edge off a bit.
So welcome to Fucking Patriarchy Week. I’ll try to get through this with as little alcohol as possible. Read the rest of this entry
Which way are you going, Mississippi?
I often find it easier to write about topics that piss me off, though maybe harder to write coherently. The world at large really doesn’t need to treat this as an invitation.
Here’s the full text of a proposed amendment to the Mississippi state constitution that will be voted on during Tuesday’s election. (Lest you think I’m leaving something out, here‘s a link to the secretary of state’s site. Click the green checkmark for initiatives.)
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of
Mississippi:SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of
the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ:SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this
Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’
or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from
the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional
equivalent thereof.”This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
This is giving full civil rights status to a single cell. Not only that, but single cells which are totally dependent on a woman’s body. Like some cheesy sci-fi flick, it’s two people in one body! Read the rest of this entry
Right, first let’s look at the Daily Post topic, then I’ll chatter aimlessly for a bit.
Topic #295:
We all have experiences where after we leave a conversation, or a date ends, we realize something clever we wish we had said.
The French call this l’esprit de l’escalier, which means, roughly, staircase wit (as in, you get the idea for something to say only when you are in the staircase, heading home).
Can you recall moments in your life, at work or at home, where you realize now there was something else you wish you had said? Or done? Make a list.
Sadly, most of the best ones have long vanished from my memory. There was one or two that I nursed for years until it finally faded just recently. But in keeping with the spirit of things I will try to recall as many as I can. I will only provide quotes, no context, even if tomorrow’s topic is to provide that context. Sorry. These are roughly in chronological order. Read the rest of this entry
To See or Not to See
Today during a discussion it was suggested that a scientific study of a subculture should not be performed because any negative aspects or perceived negative aspects such a study found would be used as weapons by those who stigmatize it. As so often happens in idle conversation the subject moved on fairly quickly, but I found myself thinking about it again and again during the evening. So, since I haven’t written anything in ages, I figure I may as well muse over this a bit.
Interestingly, I’ve realized that it doesn’t matter what subculture this is, so I’ve taken pains not to say it for both anonymity and for what I will call purity of purpose. If you’re reading this and thinking you agree with me unless it’s one specific subculture that you dislike, what does that say about you?
Anyways, the premise that I’m responding to is that a study should not be performed if the results could be used against the subjects. The short version is: I disagree on both philosophical and practical grounds, and will address them in that order. Read the rest of this entry
Walmart vs Women
Monday morning the Supreme Court decided that a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart cannot proceed as a class-action suit. Here is the decision in pdf. When I refer to page numbers, I’ll be talking about the pdf page for simplicity’s sake. Buckle in, folks, this is going to be a long ride.
I should start with the usual disclaimer pointing out that I am not a lawyer, nor am I trained in the minutiae of legal language. While following the Prop 8 trial I read a lot of legal briefs and had lawyers helping me to understand them which gives me at least a general feel for how these documents work, but I am not by any stretch an expert nor do I pretend to understand the nuances of legal theory. (It’s also worth mentioning that many papers concerned with Prop 8, especially Amicus Curiae briefs supporting the Defendant-Intervenors, were completely insane. Seriously.) As such I’ll mostly keep my discussion onto parts I more or less understand, more philosophy than legality. On those terms, at least, I feel that I can show that Scalia needs a new title. I propose from now on he be known as “Little Janie Q Scalia”. Read the rest of this entry
