Rou

I know what you're thinking when you see that title. Here he goes again. Another rant blasting the faithful for believing something.

Perhaps in part. Really, I'm blasting one faithful. Normally I try not to narrow it down so much, but this one is running for president, so I think he's earned a little bit of time in my spotlight.

Mitt Romney. He's got a problem with his campaign. His problem is that he's Mormon, and he's having some trouble from Christians who don't really seem to appreciate his religious choice. He avoid the subject as much as possible and does his very best to temporize the issue of his faith. Makes sense.

Normally, I wouldn't take issue with it. It's between him and the people that have a problem with his faith. That is, until he decided to take a swipe at me And those like me.

Yeah, I don't like that shit. So, Mr Romney, henceforth now as Shitball, is getting some of my literary wrath. What did Shitball say? Couple things. He started out saying that he wanted to protect all faiths from the rise of the religion of secularism.

The phrase religion of secularism is so uniquely moronic that just by using it, he ensures that I will never vote for him. You can't have a religion of secularism. The words don't make sense.

Secular: 'not pertaining to or connected with religion'

There is no fucking way to have a religion of it. The only purpose of using that phrase is to turn the secular movement in the country up to the level of a religious rival.

OK, I see what he's going for. Unite the faithful against the atheists in the spirit of the 'Attack on Christmas'. I get it. But really, do you want a president who's goal is to funnel the rage of the majority away from him and toward a minority? That's so fucked up I have trouble seeing how Shitball got this far.

But he's not done yet. No no. Shitball is too fucking stupid to let it pass at that. Honestly, this is the part that really pissed me off.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Mother fucking Shitball. I'm sorry, but seriously, what kind of a jackass is he? I mean... Shitball. Seriously. Do you have a fucking clue about things before you open your mouth? Ever? I mean, he's wrong. He's so fucking wrong, I'm having trouble finding out where to start in on him.

Shitball, freedom doesn't not require religion. I can be perfectly free and not need to acknowledge another mother fucking thing in my life. No divinity, no deity, no miracles. Even if I'm wrong and God smites me down, I will still have lived a free life. I'm free and I'm not religious. So fuck you Shitball. Secondly, religion doesn't require freedom. In fact, religion does pretty damn well without it. Even Christianity, a very free religion, is built around a concept of choosing to surrender that freedom to live by God's code. Beyond that, I offer the up the Taliban. They offered absolutely no freedom, and had an amazingly high amount of religious followers. Taken further, look into the Spanish Inquisition. Religion requires no freedom, nor does freedom require religion. They're not even remotely symbiotic. Freedom and religious flourish just well apart as they do together. They might even do better seperate.

So fuck you Shitball. I hope every single Christian smacks you down and tells you that they could never trust someone like you. I hope you're forced to defend your thoughts and religious views in every single debate and interview from now until the primary. And I hope the faithful run from you in droves. Then I hope you sit back and reflect on how it feels to be thrown under the bus for religious views. Fuck you Shitball. Fuck you.

To catch a predator is a set of 'investigative reports' run by NBC Dateline. Basically, they film an incident where a sting operation is run on someone online in the hopes of catching pedophiles trying to find kids to have sex with. In a sad statement on our society, they seem to be pretty successful.

All and all, a noble idea. Fewer people out there trying to molest children is a good thing. Bravo, bonus points, and kudos.

But you know what, the show is just wrong, in my opinion.

Something in my brain has a hard time wrapping my head around turning this sort of police activity (the people involved are not police for the most part) into a spectator sport. In many ways, this is worse than shows like Cops because of it's focus on the sexuality of the 'minors'. Once they come and get the guy, they go through a Q&A section on camera where they review what they guy said online. They make sure to point out the fairly graphic (for broadcast TV) descriptions of sexual activities and positions.

It's supposed to come off as forcing the predator to admit to his crime, but it seems overly focused on the naughty bits to me. While I'm sure this is good for ratings, I find it kind of skeevy even if the 'children' involved are adults posing as jail bait.

To be honest, I think the entire show is a bit dodgy. First, they set it up to bring the guy in. Some people have gone so far as to say their methodology is borderline entrapment, but without the full transcripts, it's impossible to tell. They guy shows up, they bring him into the house, and they interview this guy. His lawyer isn't there. Face isn't blurred (at least not in the few segments I've seen parts of). I don't even know if he's been officially arrested or read his rights at this point. But there he is right there on camera. Anything he says will damn sure be used against him. It's damn sure not softball questions.

The problem is that all of this occurs outside of the justice system. The predator is thrown in front of public opinion long before the court system has finished with them. They present all of the evidence in a very one-sided manner. It may be true, but it's certainly not part of a fair justice system.

Is the overall goal good? Sure. I just don't think catching pedophiles should be used to boost commercial sales. I think the show is tasteless, crass, and asinine. It peddles it's wares to the lowest portion of the viewers psyche and then tries to pretend as if it's doing it for lofty noble reasons. It's not. It's all about ratings. The presentation of the segment and it's focus on the lewd and vulgar commentary drives that point home for me. Police work just shouldn't be a spectacle presented to viewers.

To be fair, most of these points are true of Cops and similar crime documentaries as well. I don't enjoy / watch them either. The nature and presentation of this just seems far more blatant and distasteful to me.

I don't watch it. I try to ignore it. This panel of women no doubt says a million things that are perfectly reasonable. I don't know or care. But then every so often, the show gives is a segment so amazingly stupid, one can not help being aware of it.

Such was the case this week. One of the woman brought up a History channel show about Epicurus. While describing the show she mentions that this was all in a time period before Jesus Christ.

To which one of the other chick, Sherri Shepard, said "They still had Christians back then."

Wha???

You mean, in 300 BC.. that's Before Christ.. there were Christians??? Really? How's that work, shit for brains?

Does she stop there? No. Of course not. Stupidity doesn't stop after one bump. It goes full tilt.

Shepherd: They had Christians, And they threw 'em to the lions.
Goldberg: I think this might predate that.
Shepherd: I don't think anything predated Christians.
Behar: The Greeks came first, then the Romans, then the Christians
Shepherd: Jesus came first, before then.

Seriously? She really believes this shit? Why do you think they called it the NEW testament? There was an OLD one too you know. A group of people called Hebrews used it. You might have heard of them. And you know that story about them being set free from Egypt? Moses, Commandment... all that stuff? Yeah, who do you think the Egyptians worshiped? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a man that wasn't born for over a thousand years.

Nothing predated Christians? How on earth could you be that stupid.

Oh wait, I remember where I've seen your name before. You also don't believe in evolution. Not all that unusual, even if it is misguided. But you went further than that. You think the world might actually be flat. Sure, Aristotle estimated the circumference of the globe in something like 300BC, but don't let that stop you. Being 2000 years behind the learning curve shouldn't bother you.

You're too dumb to live, I swear. Honestly, I want to know here you went to school so I can make sure no one else ever attends it ever. You're a blight on human intelligence. Seriously. You're like an anti-Stephen Hawking or something. Where he's smart, you're moronic.