World of Suck

As the days count down, and his credibility remains in the crapper W feels little or no compulsion to even try and tell the truth any more. At least before he used to humor America as he tried to put on a straight face, these days he doesn't even go that far:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush put politics ahead of the facts Tuesday as he sought to blame Congress for high energy prices, saying foreign suppliers are pumping just about all the oil they can and accusing lawmakers of blocking new refineries.

Facts? What facts? The only fact W ever knew that mattered was that he was the president and immune from laws, conscience and the will of the people he was elected to serve.

Yeah, yeah it's hardly news and less than blog-worthy but still cathartic none the less...

I get a kick out of reading the headlines in my spam-box before I delete them. There's almost always a few gems that make me smile. Here's a few from today:

• Hugest Ass! CLICK THE IMAGE TO DOWNLOAD THE VIDEO
• Invitation to world blowjob day
• Titanic dimension without much effort! Short and thin weenies provoke female derision, so take care to increase it!
  Let this wonderful treatment come to the rescue of your manliness!
• Brad pitt wants to get closer

It's almost like a turing test for spam-bots, the output is amusingly phrased in a manner that only machines (and those severely unfamiliar with english grammar) can produce.

Still... world blowjob day? If it has anything to do with Brad pitt having his manliness rescued with a huge ass I know I don't want any part of it.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A top Iranian judiciary official warned Monday against the ''destructive'' cultural and social consequences of importing Barbie dolls and other Western toys.

Yes this is the same society that sports men so macho that their women have little or no say in their upbringing, marriage, dress or legal voice. And they're afraid of a doll. These big tough guys have been kicked in the nads with a little pink, plastic slipper on the end of a well tanned, if somewhat rubbery foot.

Authorities launched a campaign of confiscating Barbies from toy shops in 2002, denouncing the un-Islamic sensibilities of the iconic American doll. But the campaign was eventually dropped.

It can only be hilarious, in a sad way, that these specimens of masculinity have been reduced to chasing down toys and declaring them a "threat". Is your culture so fucking weak that you can't even let little girls play their dolls?

The Times recently posted an article that propelled itself to the top and has more or less bobbed about the top-five most popular ever since. I'm sure this was in part due to its prominence for two days on the front page with the leader asking why gay men are opting for "marriage".

In a brilliant array of 50's-esque knockoff photos (the wife 'cleaning' under her husband's feet, the husband proudly encircling the wife as she clutches her well done roast) the reader is treated to the inner dialogs of young twenty-something gays as they ponder nuptials.

Frankly I couldn't give a crap about gay marriage one way or another. If people want it, fine. If they hate it, fine. I don't really have any great opinion one way or another. What annoys me about the article, however, is the pretense of mystery.

Gosh, gee, golly, why oh why do young gay men, the types who love to kiss in public, throw lavish parties, and dress in fancy spats, getting married? Who the hell knows, right....?

Rather shameful is you ask me, for someone who is earning money in our military to hate the people that live in his home country. Honestly it makes me wonder why he fights for us at all if he can't abide his fellow citizens.

Well, lets caveat that, he hates all non-christian Americans. That means Jews, Muslims, Athiests, Buddhists, Wiccans and... well, everyone just not christian. In fact he hates them so much this is what he had to say to another soldier:

“People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!”

Well guess what cocksucker, too fucking bad for you. While you're out there getting shot at remember, you're getting shot at for *all* americans, even us non-christian ones. It's uneducated, fucktards like yourself that made our founding fathers put "freedom of religion" into the constitution as opposed to "freedom to be christian". In fact they didn't even mention god in the pledge when they wrote it originally. If you weren't just a moron maybe you'd know that.

Florida has an idea. They're going to make a new license plate. And on this plate, they'll put a stain glass window, a cross, and the words "I believe"

Fair enough. I mean, I suspect it will face legal challenges, but I can understand it. I mean, we've got specialty plates for all sorts of groups, why exclude religious ones? Whatever.

Except...

Damn if the sponsor of the bill doesn't piss me, just as I'm tuning it out.

Rep. Edward Bullard says he wouldn't approve plates for other beliefs. See, now that right there pisses me off. Seriously. You expect this to survive a legal challenge while denying other faiths their ability for equal access?

Fuck off dillweed.

Eric Thompson made money off the Virginia Tech killings. How? He sold a gun that was used in the killing. And he ain't in the least bit sorry because now he's visiting the campus trying to sell more guns to the students directly.

It reminds me of the e-scammers who have pop-ups warning you that your computer may be infected if you don't click on their add. When you do, your computer is promptly infected so now you really do need to buy a product. It's damn similar if you ask me. He sold a gun, it was used to murder people, now he (with the backing of the NRA) wants to sell *more* guns so people can carry them concealed on campus.

Yes, clearly, when you have thousands of young people carrying loaded weapons the place will be safer for everyone. This is because each and every gun-toting person will be firmly in control of their weapon and temper 100% of the time. And if they're startled, scared, drunk or enraged, one shot will then be able to cause 10x or 100x the carnage as everyone takes aim at everyone else.

Eric, take your fucking guns and go home, you already made your buck - you don't have to rub it in anyone's face now.

So the word is that the Pope likes cats. Actually he cared for a number at his home when he lived in Germany. There was even a petition (which failed) to let his cats come with him to Rome. This information about most people wouldn't be a big deal, but you know, this is the Pope.

It's not like I disliked the Pope per se, it's just that I had no real reason ~to like him. But now that he's an avowed cat lover, well, I guess that changes things a bit.

Anyone who loves cats and cares for them (or any animal really) is 'ok' in my book. At least now I know if I were stuck on a plane in the seat next to him we'd have something to talk about...

"JERUSALEM (AP) -- An Israeli court has ruled that shops can sell leavened bread during Passover in violation of Jewish religious law, deepening tensions between observant and secular Jews ahead of the weeklong holiday."

It's a problem, it seems, for the orthodox that non-orthodox (and others) can get access to leavened bread. I don't understand it really, since the freedom to practice religion is supposed to be an essential tenant of Israels existence. So why the hate? And it is hate, when you threaten to burn down the local pizza place if they choose to try and earn a living during the holiday.

''The argument is not about the law,'' said Yehuda Meshi-Zehav, a spokesman for the ultra-Orthodox community. ''It's about people trying to keep Israel as a Jewish country, and people trying to make it the opposite.''

Horseshit. Until Israel kicks out everyone who chooses other than orthodoxy then its simple discrimination to force everyone to conform. Last I checked Israel was a Democracy, and part of that requires equal respect on both sides of an issue.

On the occasion when I stare in the mirror and note all the ravages of age it occurs to me that medicine has a "cure" for these ills. I ponder this for a moment or two and then decide that spending money on myself to improve my looks isn't just shallow but stingy. How can I spend a few thousand on my image when my kids still have to go to college?

... that's how I imagine a rational woman thinking. But clearly not all women meet my definition of "rational". Still, as there are weaknesses in the psyche, there are vultures who prey upon them:

"A Florida plastic surgeon has written about just that in ''My Beautiful Mommy,'' a picture book due out April 28 that tries to calm the fears of kids with parents getting tummy tucks, breast enhancement procedures and nose jobs. [...]

Illustrations show a crook-nosed mom with loose tummy skin under her half shirt picking up her young daughter early from school one day and taking her to a strapping and handsome ''Dr. Michael.''"

Yeah, I wonder just how "strapping" the real Dr. Michael (Dr. Michael Salzhauer) is. Well not really, I googled him. He's pretty ordinary looking, and frankly could use some touching up himself. But he's got a business going on, and he's out to sell it as best he can. Boobs, butts, arms, faces, something his staff I'm sure gets a discount on (to see the published picture of his 'patient affairs' coordinator tossing her boobs out onto the couch like poker chips.

I suppose there's nothing wrong with writing a book that supports your job, but it's still pretty fucking shallow material which is pretty damn hard to justify.

"Diane Kuplack understands.

At 37, Kuplack has six biological children under the age of 12, including 5-year-old twins, along with two older stepchildren from her husband Matt's first marriage. She said it was ''nerve-racking'' trying to decide what, if anything, to tell her children about the breast implant surgery she scheduled for Friday."

Hey Diane nice tits, but how are you going to explain to the kids that you blew their college tuition on getting the implants six years ago? Will you be sure to tell them the reason you can't spend on their wedding was because you have to have those same implants removed?

Then the big day arrives -- mommy's bandages are gone and illustrator Victor Guiza lights up the new and improved mommy with a sparkly princess pink background.

''Mommy, your eyes are sparkling like diamonds,'' the girl exclaims. ''You're the most beautiful butterfly in the whole world.''

Oh hurl....

Authorities in Texas rounded up the many of the mothers and children from Yearning for Zion, a religious sect's compound. A religious sect that advocates polygamy . . . and marrying off their teenage girls not long after they can reproduce. Typically these girls get married off to men far older than they are.

There is the crime - these girls were essentially the victims of rape. In many cases it was a minimum of statutory rape, However I could image being so incapacitated by fear if some old geezer was mounting me when I was 14, 15 or 16 that there would be no way that the sex could be considered consensual. Heap on the fact that most of the men in authority in my life would have told me I had to do it because it was the will of God.

As part of the investigation into the crimes, the women and children are whisked away from the compound - many are cajoled into leaving, some could say under false pretenses. These women left voluntarily with their children. Then the only mother child bonds that the officials leave intact are those of mothers with children under four years old. The women were not even given the chance to say goodbye to their children. Many of the women, when given the opportunity, declined to return to the compound and opted for alternate arrangements.

Has anyone said that the mothers abused their children in anyway? You may argue that they let their teenage daughters be married off, but lets not forget the fact that they themselves were likely married off at a young age and that their society was strongly patriarchal and that the men would not have listened to their wives.

The sons were not being married off at young ages (that might lessen the number of young ladies available to the elders), so where was their abuse (beyond being denied some nookie)? So why remove them from their families?

The authorities may hold themselves up self-righteously saying they have saved some young women and rescued others from enduring the indignities of "marital responsibilities" to an old fossil. But, how much psychological damage have they done by not only removing these children from the only life they've know, but keeping these children from their mothers? Two wrongs will never make a right.

Ratings at any cost? Well why not? That's what the staff on the Dr.Phil show must have thought when they decided to post bail for Mercades Nichols.

For people who don't know who she is, she's one of a group of teenagers who decided to beat up a peer and post it on YouTube to become famous. This predominantly female group beat, stomped and kicked a cheerleader and found the fame they wanted when it became one of the most watched (and commented on) clips around. Of course they also got their asses arrested.

It seems that the Dr.Phil show is used to helping out "potential guests" with cash, clothes, travel, etc. but the idea of posting bail just to get an interview seems, well repugnant is one word.

It seems that these overzealous staff members might have gone a little too far, even for the talkshow circuit. The Dr.Phil show decided not to invite her to appear since their "guidelines have been compromised."

Still it seems that crime pays, at least in this case it paid free bail. Sure she'll probably wind up with a record and possibly some jail time, but at least Mercades got her 15 minutes of fame...

Even when all his colleagues are boycotting the opening ceremonies, even when members of his own party have passed a resolution condemning China, Bush can't take a hint and contribute.

Frankly it's not surprising, since he's just a little boy in a man's body who can't see beyond the concept of "games". To him it's just another sporting event with lots of people, and China happens to be where its taking place.

Does he represent the American public or American sentiment? Hell no. The Emperor only cares about his clothes...

Of all acronyms on the internet, I think this one pisses me off the most: Too Long; Didn't Read.

It's generally followed by a plea for the author to give a shorter version. Drives me up a wall. If you can't be arsed to read the damn thing, why the fuck should I give two shits that you didn't read it. And the gall to demand that I condense my thoughts down into a cliff notes version for the ADD impaired? Fuck off. I picked my words carefully to best express myself. You have two choices: Read it, or ignore it. There isn't an option C where I explain things to you like a 3rd grader.

I'd keep going but there is a chance you wouldn't be able to stay focused long enough to read my closing remark:

Fuck off.

God I love Illinois sometimes. Monique Davis, IL state legislator decided to take an interesting position during a committee hearing last week. You see, she told someone that their religious beliefs were dangerous. In fact, the belief was so bad, that it would be dangerous for children to even be aware of them. These beliefs destroyed everything the state was build on, and hindered the progression of the state. She continued with a long tirade about how this was the land of Lincoln, and people here believe in God. Then, she told him to get out of his seat and get out of the hearing.

Man. They must be BAD. Damn.

What was he saying? Oh, he was saying that he was an atheist, and believed that the topic of the hearing, a bill to give public funds to rebuild a church that burnt down, was unconstitutional, and violated the separation of church and state.

Now, I'm amazed really. Couple of points.

One, How fucking dare this bitch get up there and say that. How does this ignorant piece of shit honest stand up there and act as representative? Right there, as an agent of the government, she's doing her best to supress his first amendment rights. Not just once, but TWICE. He has the right to whatever fucking religious beliefs he wants. He also has the right to seek a redress of his grievances. I know, that damn pesky first amendment can be a real bitch.

Second, Can you imagine, even for a nanosecond, her saying the same thing to a Jew? Or Muslim? I'm willing to bet the answer is no. Because bigoted assholes like her don't have the nerve to say shit like that to them. She knows she would be removed from office the next day. But atheists? Nah. No one gives a fuck. Didn't even really make the news anywhere.

Third, how the fuck is an atheist view dangerous to children? I'm sorry, how do you get that? It's no more dangerous for your Christian child to be exposed to atheism than it is for my atheist child to be exposed to Muslim or Christian ideas. No, your claims that ideas are dangerous. That your way must be the only way. That no other viewpoints can be tolerated or discussed. Sound a lot more like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Muslim extremists. Honestly, look around at the company you keep.

Finally, you tried to throw him out? Fuck you bitch. You have no right to be a representative of anyone. Fucking die in a fire. Slow roast style.

When I grew up there was two type of peanut butter: Creamy and chunky. You can still get creamy. You can also get all sorts of natural, and organic types. What you can't get (or at least, I can't) is chunky peanut butter. They have extra chunky, super chunky, and Supercalifragilistic-chunky. But not just plain chunky.

Honestly, how do we know something is SUPER chunky if there is no chunky to compare it to? How do we know the claims of mega-chunky-ness are valid if there is no frame of reference. I mean, sure, compared to creamy, all chunky peanut butter fares well on a chunk-o-meter. But that doesn't mean squat to me as a consumer.

I'm not sure really when it went away. In all honesty, I know that "regular" chunky was just replaced with the super mega names to make people think there was more chunks in there. What gets me is that they got rid of the baseline ideal in favor of the marketing stratagem. And worse, people bought into it.

A little bit of the Islamist lunatic fringe, closer to home:

Yousef al-Khattab, who runs RevolutionMuslim.com from his home in Queens, told FOX News that he also wants the U.S. to embrace Islam and Sharia Law, which prohibits alcohol and can include stoning to death or severe flogging for pre-marital sex and adultery.

link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347272,00.html

He may be subtle, but he is still inciting acts of violence. I hope that the government gets enough information on this bastard to put him very far away from the rest of us. I know many say to be tolerant of others, but we are going to "tolerant" out of an existence.

The Islamic countries want to be Islamic - fine. Maybe jackasses like this guy need to move there and quit trying to rob us of the freedoms we cherish. Hell, can we start a collection for a one-way only plane ticket?

I find it interesting that his profession is a cab driver. In his world he is committing a crime for being in the car with a woman not his wife or relative. I personally want to study this man's face and memorize his adopted name so that I can tell him "no thanks" if I ever have the misfortune of him stopping his cab for me . . . or maybe he just doesn't stop for single women.

Hey guys. I know you might not have noticed. I mean, the four of you obviously bumped into each other in the hall and started chatting about work. A legitimate everyday occurrence.

However, for 10 minutes all 4 of you have been standing there chatting about this client or that client, not one of you noticed that all four of you are clustered around the women's bathroom. One of you is leaning on the doorjam.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you. But it looks kinda odd. If I was a woman, I might be somewhat uncomfortable with 4 tech nuts with poor hygiene hanging around the bathroom. Bit skeevy, ya know?

BEIJING (AP) -- China vowed Saturday to ramp up a campaign requiring Tibetan Buddhist monks to denounce the Dalai Lama and declare their loyalty to Beijing. [...]

The Tibet Daily newspaper reported Saturday that the government pledged to ''strengthen patriotic education'' especially among young monks to help them ''become patriotic, religion-loving and law-abiding.''

Yes fuck you PRC and further fuck your dreams for nationalistic glory under the guise of the upcoming Olympics. I plan on telling my children every day of the Olympics about your actions in Tibet and encourage them to tell their friends about your 1984 tactics.

One more time (get used to hearing it) Fuck You China.

Phyllis Schlafly doesn't like the first amendment. More precisely, she doesn't respect it. She wants to redefine it so that she can silence those things she doesn't understand or agree with. It's a common position, sadly enough. So many people think that free speech means they get to say what they want, and no body else should be granted those same rights.

Her target: video games.

Extremely violent video games have become the dangerous obsession of a significant portion of our youth, and several towns and states have passed ordinances intended to prevent minors from buying or viewing them. But judicial supremacists are striking down these laws by claiming this extremely graphic violence deserves the same First Amendment protection as Shakespeare

My eye is immediately drawn to certain things. First, Shakespeare was very graphic if you actually read what he said. Second, yes, they are both protected by the First. And third, 'supremacist' is a strange word choice. I'm not sure if it means what she thinks it means.

She continues and attempts to redefine speech to fit her needs:

Legitimate free speech expresses violence in a rational context, rather than displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction. It is not a First Amendment right to cause panic on an airplane by shouting that someone has a bomb; nor is it legitimate free speech to evoke violent reactions in children through graphic video game

Yes, shouting "Bomb" Or "Fire" isn't free speech. However, she fails to demonstrate how video games equate to this. Without that, it's nothing more than a straw man. Set it up and knock it down as many times as you like, the two are not obviously linked, so it doesn't work. There has NEVER been a single properly formated study that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent behavior. Never. Not once. Correlation, some. But that's not the same thing.

Further, I find "displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction" to be a highly disturbing concept if it were ever applied legally. Saving Private Ryan, the Matrix, and Saw would all be legislated under it. Hell, damn near every movie strives to evoke emotion. Games do the same thing for the same reason, unless you're discussing Tetris or Bejeweled.

Seriously, when was the last action movie that expressed the violent content in a rational manner? Why would we hold movies up to a different standard? Sometimes I wonder if dumb shits like Phyllis Schlafly realize that a 5 year old is legally allowed to purchase a R rated movie. There are corporate policies against it, not legislative ones. Why should games be different?

So, Phyllis Schlafly, please, next time you want to discuss things rationally, I suggest you sit down and think really hard about what the freedom of speech really means. Speech doesn't just mean Hello Kitty and Danielle Steele and Shakespeare. It's not just Pride and Prejudice, the GodFather, and Citizen Kane. Not just the statue of David and the Mona Lisa. Not just flag waving and PTA petitions. It's also racism, anger, hate, sex, and violence. Grand Theft Auto 3, flag burning, and Debbie Does Dallas. The KKK, the Nation of Islam, and Westboro Baptist Church. You can not have one side of the coin without the other.

I'm sorry if you don't want your precious little snowflake to be exposed to it. As a parent, that is your prerogative and responsibility. You have ample methods at your disposal to restrict their access. If you choose not to avail yourself, that is entirely your fault. Before you strike out and act as if the world is full of 'supremacists' who don't agree with you, I suggest you take a deep breath and realize that you're not always right, and even if you were, the world is better because people are allowed to disagree with you.

Free speech is what it is. You're not allowed to redefine it just to fit your narrow minded agenda.

I'm lucky, I own a Volkswagen. Why? Not for any super-special reason you'd see in a commercial, but because the gas tank is on the "euro" side as opposed to most japanese and american cars. As a result the line tends to be shorter on my side of the pump.

Tonight I went and pulled into the station. I get out and notice a young woman (early 20's) with a gold phone clamped to her head standing on the opposite side of the pump. Behind her car is a small japanese shit-box and behind that is an SUV. Now, apparently the shit-box driver just wanted to pull past her and park next to the station office. The guy behind him wanted to use the other pump... but neither could move because phone-girl was blocking all the space.

So they waited.

and they waited.

and they waited still more.

In this time (note that she was standing at the pump *before* I even drove up) I was able to: park, use my card, fill my car (which was on empty - so 15 gallons worth of gas) and as I'm about to get back into my seat an employee comes up behind phone-girl and taps her; "Um, the pump has timed out".

Seems phone-girl couldn't shut the fuck up long enough to actually use the pump. She swiped the card and then stood there for at least 5 - 7 minutes while the people behind her waited, wasting their lives because the person on the other end of the phone was more important than the real people she was blocking.

On the way out I muttered "Un-Fucking believable, Bitch couldn't Shut the Fuck Up." Honestly I probably should have said it to her face...

Another blessing of Bush's management of our economy. Be afraid, be very afraid...

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- Lawmakers from California to Kentucky are trying to save money with a drastic and potentially dangerous budget-cutting proposal: releasing tens of thousands of convicts from prison, including drug addicts, thieves and even violent criminals.

This little phase may take on new meaning . . .

From the AP

A survey of sex therapists concluded the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes. The findings, to be published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, strike at the notion that endurance is the key to a great sex life.

Guys, before you start ripping out articles to show your wife or girlfriend, this does not take into account foreplay. If you just jump on and grunt for 10 minutes, don't expect a standing ovation or even a contented sigh.

Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, cited a four-week study of 1,500 couples in 2005 that found the median time for sexual intercourse was 7.3 minutes. (Women in the study were armed with stopwatches.)

Now ain't THAT romantic.

It's difficult for both older men and young men to make sexual intercourse last much longer, said Marianne Brandon, a clinical psychologist and director of Wellminds Wellbodies in Annapolis, Maryland.

"There are so many myths in our culture of what other people are doing sexually," Brandon said. "Most people's sex lives are not as exciting as other people think they are."

I guess the bottom line is: If you aren't keeping the bed rocking all night long, its not a big deal. And actually fellas, don't keep going thinking your impressing your girl. Trust me, there are other ways you can impress us.

A convicted killer wants a sex change operation -

From the AP

BOSTON - The new commissioner of the state's prison system said Tuesday he plans to re-examine the case of a convicted killer suing the Department of Correction to try to get a sex-change operation.
. . .

DOC Commissioner Harold Clarke, who took over the department in November, said he has not decided yet whether to continue to fight Kosilek's request. "I need to take a look at the information presented before I arrived, and with a fresh set of eyes, closely scrutinize it," Clarke said after a status hearing on Kosilek's federal lawsuit.

Robert Kosilek was sentenced to life in prison for murdering his wife, Cheryl, in 1990. Kosilek legally changed her name to Michelle in 1993 and has been living as a woman in an all-male prison in Norfolk.

Kosilek first sued the Department of Correction in 2000, claiming its refusal to pay for a sex-change operation violates her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. . .

If it isn't Nutraloaf, its wanting a sex change, what will these prisoners think of next . . .

In 2002, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that prison officials had failed to adequately treat Kosilek's gender identity disorder, but he stopped short of ordering the state to allow the sex-change operation. . . . Kosilek, 58, sued again in 2005, saying the hormone treatments, laser hair removal and psychotherapy she has received since Wolf's 2002 ruling were not enough to relieve her anxiety and depression.

Awwww. Don't you feel sorry?

Even the experts don't agree. Some of the doctors "believe the surgery is medically necessary for Kosilek", others say he/she doesn't need the surgery. Kosilek twice tried to commit suicide in prison.

To me, this is not medically necessary under any circumstances. He/she's life is not in jeopardy if he doesn't completely become she - unless, of course, someone leaves some shoelaces laying around.

Again, here is another case of a prisoners rights being greater than the rights of the general public. If this smuck was doing the daily grind like the majority of us, he/she would likely be shit out of luck to have the plumbing rearranged unless he/she reached deep in his/her own pocket to pay for it. I say make the bastard work in the prison laundry until he/she can pay for it him/herself.
the tax payers are not an endless pool of resources. If given my choice, I'd rather the tax money help some person, maybe even a veteran, who might need some sort of reconstructive surgery to function better in society.

A Wisconsin teen is suing his high school because he got a zero on an art project for depicting a religious symbol.

His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.

Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.

Supposedly, other classmates had drawings of demons on some of their drawings but nothing was said to them. For some people, those could be construed as religious symbols, so where is the fairness?

The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.

Jackson told the boy, his stepfather and his pastor at a meeting a week later that religious expression could be legally censored in class assignments. Millin stated at the meeting the cross in the drawing also infringed on other students' rights.

How exactly? This was his own artwork, turned in for an assignment. It did not need to be displayed for the teacher to look at it and make a judgment. Perhaps I might be offended by the display of demons. Does that mean those items should be removed? What about a Buddha, or Shiva?

Art class is all about expressing ones self. I can understand barring violent and sexually explicit material, but religion? Many have felt the need to express their faith. Furthermore, if Christian imagery offend these up and coming artists, they better avoid going to most art museums - that is a fact. This kind of intolerance does nothing to foster understanding. Perhaps the educational process would have been better served if the class discussed their beliefs together, rather than the students making remarks to the teacher.

Wait, that's right, our schools aren't about education and fostering independent thought. Their goal is to suppress independent thought and create the next generation of automatons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBLSmiSDFQ&feature=related

Well, I guess its progress . . .

There are many who will "stand with their Muslim brother" before anyone else. That think that all Muslims are innocent and all non-Muslims are guilty of crimes against god and therefore deserve to be raped and murdered. Muslims are calling Shihira law in their adopted countries. The insanity will continue until we finally say enough is enough - but that might be too late.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

Only in America

Prisoners have filed a class-action lawsuit against Vermont, charging that a food called Nutraloaf is so disgusting it should be considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” Nutraloaf is made of cubed bread, vegetables, and powdered milk, and is served without utensils to prisoners who’ve used forks as weapons or hurled food at guards. The prisoners, however, say that Nutraloaf is clearly a punishment, and should therefore only be served after a formal disciplinary hearing. “Even in prison,” said attorney Seth Lipschutz, “you get a little bit of due process.”

I am so sick of hearing about "prisoner's rights" - Most criminals have demonstrated they don't give a shit about other people's rights and we are supposed to care about their rights. Furthermore, the Nutraloaf is only being served to those prisoners that have demonstrated that they have not learned from their incarceration and fall short of being civil. Furthermore, what about the rights of the other prisoners and the staff to not have food or utensils thrown or used on them?

Also I saw a segment on the Nutraloaf where they had a couple people on the street try it. One guy (probably a picky-eater) said it was gross at first, then said it wasn't too bad after his female companion tried it and said it wasn't bad at all and "tasted healthy". If two random people on the street said it was ok, then how cruel is it?