From Who Will Protect Us Against Invasion?

• America is to Mexico what Georgia is to Russia but a giant wall can save us.

"The bombing was a desperate measure by al-Qaeda," he said. "The day will come soon when we will announce that al-Qaeda's coffin has been thrown in the garbage of history."

Then again the undertakers in Iraq have be awfully busy for the last six years or so, perhaps they don't have time for ground burials anymore.

Anyway the quote gets tossed into my own desperate garbage heap.

UPDATE:

Have I mentioned what an awesome President McBush is going to make?

"Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president,'' McCain said.

Finally in sight? What is that crazy maverick talking about? It's always been in sight, always just, almost but not quite but close enough that you can touch its smell of victory in about another six months or so.

And for the next four to eight years it will always be so.

I was reminded of the wager I have with another local comedian who thinks that Obama stands a chance (looser has to perform a set of the winner's writing). I once again pointed out that McCain was running an awful campaign, that he was clearly the worse candidate and yet he's competitive in the polls despite Obama's stellar campaign and leadership qualities.

"Why?" the younger comedian moaned.

"I don't know," I replied my voice so heavy with sarcasm that it was sweating under the load. "it's a real mystery."

Of course it's not just the race thing, McCain is practically promising America "victory in Iraq" and if McCain can grant that wish then all those who cheered this retarded war on (for a few years that would be the majority of Americans) will have a shot at redemption and a chance to tell the dirty fucking hippies "I told ya so!".

How can Obama even begin to compete with that?

Q: What’s So Great About Dinesh D’Souza?

Dinesh D’Souza is one of the most famous conservatives in America.

No he is not.

He is a prolific author of works concerning politics and society. After college, he worked briefly in the public sector and was, in the late eighties, a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan Administration.

Sadly, he was one of the few that never went to prison.

As an author, he has always been a controversial figure due to his arriving at positions well ahead of the conservative consensus.

Stuff like Jesus is great, evolution is a lie and fags should be hated as God intended? Yeah, those aren’t actually new ideas for conservatives.

Illiberal Education and The End of Racism made him a hated figure by the left; but it was not until 2007, with the release of The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, that he found himself criticized by some members of the right.

Hated figure? No, he’s really too stupid to hate and the majority of the left and the right have no fucking clue who he is.

His latest book What’s So Great About Christianity, should restore his status among conservatives, however. It is a meticulous and exquisite defense of both Christianity and belief in general.

No, it’s a self-serving slice of theist boilerplate buffed up with some Intelligent Design.

BC: Congratulations to you, sir. I just finished What’s So Great About Christianity and was quite impressed. Obviously its subject matter is timeless, but what about our present day makes the work so imperative?

Dinesh D’Souza: I think we’re seeing something very new right now. For the first time, atheism is being presented as a serious option for young people.

Yes, there are no young atheists to be found before 2004.

A generation ago atheists were represented by the likes of Marilyn Murray O’Hare who was not a very attractive poster child for the movement.

She was fat and hairy! The hot chick with the crucifix betwixt her cleavage is the one they listened too!

Today atheism comes in a stylish disguise and is defended by witty debaters.

Yes, there is no one more stylin’ and witty than Richard Dawkins, and attractive? I believe he was Mr. July in the “Check Out These Tight Genes” in the “Hotties of Heresy” calendar last year.

They have mounted a strong attack on religion and claim that atheism is more moral than Christianity.

Uh no, that’s not it at all.

I know I’m sick of the question too but are they really this stupid or do they just play stupid to keep stupid people stupid?

Atheism means there are no such things as gods. That’s it and that’s all it says, it’s that simple and makes no other comment on no other subject.

But theists are selling something and as anyone in sales knows you need to have a need if you want them to sign on the line that is dotted. One of their product’s man functions is morality, that if you believe in a sky god you are somehow axiomatically moral.

This is of course nonsense as the Vatican proved over the last several hunderd years or so.

They furthermore insist that if there really isn’t any god there isn’t any morality because there isn’t any inter-dimensional torture prison to make people behave.
Like the idea that people who are good are good for good’s own sake not because some magic man is going to grant all my wishes after I’ve kicked it never occurs to them.

So no, atheism is not “more moral” (I’m not even sure how anything can be “more moral” does that even make sense?) than theism, it’s just smarter is all.

Atheist works have dominated the best seller list for the last two years, and so I thought the time was right to mount a serious counter attack.

My agent said “Yeah, all these books about religion, there’s a market for it, can you crank out 400 pages before the holidays? Usual rate?”.

And serious? D’Souza? Not really.

BC: In light of the recent spate of books attempting to debunk Christianity and God—such as Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon—how much is Christianity “on the ropes,” so to speak, in America? How successful have atheist attacks on religion been with the general public?

Dinesh D’Souza: Well, the Christians have been a little passive here. Many Christians feel that we should practice our faith at home but should abandon the public square.

What?!? That’s crazy talk!

They had no way of knowing that atheists would end up taking their campaign into the public schools. Christians need to respond seriously to this threat because if we don’t we’ll find that our most intelligent young people will be led astray. The young want to believe in God but when they go to college their professors try to indoctrinate them into thinking otherwise.

Those dastardly Professor Moriarties! Teaching intelligent young people that there’s no such thing as magic, that the universe is billions of years old rather than 6,000 and that we share 97% of our genetics with chimps, the bastards!

The profs not the chimps.

Too many Christians try to deflect these arguments by using scripture. That is not going to work. Scripture works when you are arguing with other Christians but it will not be effective with atheists as they do not care about what the Bible says.

DING! DING! DING! D’Souza seems to have a grasp on reality here so I’m ringing The End of the World Bell.

When you’re speaking to someone indifferent to scripture you should use reason, logic, skepticism, and evidence.

And this sentence is trés revealing no?

These are the tools atheists use and are also the ones I use for myself in What’s So Great About Christianity.

So… D’Souza is admitting that atheists use reason, logic, skepticism, and evidence and he’s arguing against them?

'Kay.

BC: What would you say is the most potent argument offered by atheists? By this I mean the one most difficult to refute.

Uh gee… umm that’s a tricky one… how about “There’s no such thing as magic”?

Dinesh D’Souza: The goal of my book is to not only fortify the believer of Christianity but also to challenge the atheists while showing the seeker that they are rebelling against a childhood version of Christianity—one that they learned in Sunday school and catechism.

Bacteria and viruses survive countless eons because they can mutate so rapidly that they’re all but immune to environmental change. Theism has this ability as well, no matter what you say about how outlandish this or that part is you will be told that you don’t understand it or that you’re taking it too literally or perhaps not literally enough. You can never prove a religion wrong because the only way you can truly understand it enough to be in a position to prove it wrong is if you believe it all true.

It's a neat surival trick that Islam has down best, you can only understand the Koran if you understand the original language, translation is forbidden.

Their opinion of it now is rooted in what I call “crayon Christianity.” What we must also realize is that when atheists use the word “fundamentalist” it is but a big ploy. When they say fundamentalist and mount attacks against fundamentalism what they really are attempting to do is to go after traditional Christianity.

It's a bit like saying America nuked China when they bombed Hiroshima.

And such ego! All theism silly boy, from witch doctors to palm readers to priests, popes and preachers of all god bothering denominations.

That being said, I think the atheists make two arguments which must be responded to. First, they posit that Christianity is opposed to reason and science which it is not. My historical chapters show that Christianity had a lot to do with the origins of science. Most of the leading scientists of the last 500 years have been Christian. We should not go on the defensive when the name of science is invoked. Second, atheists claim that Christianity is a major cause of violence and war in the world which is also untrue and I illustrate why this is the case in my book.

Atheists say black is black but in my book I say it’s white.

BC: For readers unfamiliar with its pages, why do so many people continue to perceive Christianity and evolution as being mutually exclusive? What’s wrong with the notion that God created us and we evolved from there?

Dinesh D’Souza: There is nothing wrong with that notion. I have no problem with it. I do think that the intelligent design advocates have raised some interesting questions though. They have found some vulnerable points in the atheist critique. Evolution does not undermine the argument of design, however.

Yes it does, it actually goes on to bury it.

You look at nature and in it you can see the handiwork of the Creator.

That Creator guy is a spazz then. Why do I have to wear contacts? Why did I have to get my wisdom teeth yanked? Why do I have sex with the thing I pee with? Could that be grosser? Why do patches of hair fall out randomly around my face? And those are just a few of my own design flaws, they’re mild in comparison to others. An Xbox360 has better hardware and let’s not even get into the human software that the Creator coded up, that shit is buggier then Windows 95 first release.

Really if this is the best your creator can do then he should pack it in.

The existence of God is supported by astronomy, physics and modern science in general.

It most certainly is not.

In modern biology, it is evident, in a most comprehensive way, through the complexity of the cell. The simple cell has enough information in it to compare it to a supercomputer.

Yeah but it can’t play Madden 09.

The cell already has built in to itself the capacity to replicate. Evolution is true so far as it goes but the problem is that it does not go that far.

Uh it goes all the way back to single celled life and it’s not actually evolutions’ job to explain a cell’s supercomputerness.

I make a distinction in my book between evolution and Darwinism. I see evolution as being a scientific proposition but Darwinism I see as being an ideological proposition. We have all these scientific laws but no one calls themselves Keplerians or Newtonians so why do so many insist on calling themselves Darwinists? Their doing so puts an atheistic spin on evolution, and this spin is what the Christian community finds itself reacting too.

Actually that’d be you reacting to, the majority of Christians don’t really care.

BC: It has been suggested by Richard Dawkins that atheists now term themselves “brights” in keeping with their supernatural-free worldviews. That is a loaded term to say the least. In your estimation, how closely is atheism tied to elitism? Could it be that a certain segment of humanity is offended by the notion that anyone or any entity stands above them?

Oh I love this tact; Don’t you go making out that yer smarter than me cuz you don’t believe in angels flying around protecting me from Satan's minions!

Dinesh D’Souza: Well, this whole business about the brights goes back a couple of years. Atheists sat around and said to themselves “we sound too negative” because to be an atheist means being against something. How could they rephrase their identity in a positive manner? Well, “brights” is what they came up with. They must have thought, “We all agree that we’re extremely smart,” so that’s where the term comes from.

Um are you allowed to quote someone's thoughts that you made up for them?

And for the record Richard Dawkins is actually, extremely smart.

Dennett and Dawkins wrote articles about this. The term conveys a comical pomposity but when you look at their work it is understandable. Atheists stand on a metaphysical platform grounded in faith but they are the only ones who don’t recognize this fact.

Because it's not a fact? Because it's you being crazy and stupid? it takes no faith to say that gods don't fly around making drama for humanity.

They assume that our five senses give us complete knowledge of reality. Why is that automatically the case?

Actually they don't. In the last chapter of the "God Delusion" Dawkins touches on this very subject and compares our comprehension of reality like being inside a burka with a tiny slit for the eyes.

All evolution says is that our only imperative is to survive and replicate. There is no evolutionary mandate to seek truth or do any of the other things so many of us find ourselves doing. There is no reason to assume that the thoughts in our heads precisely match the mandates of nature.

Now here D’Souza is scrapping up against a valid point like a seacow scratching itself on the barnacles of a boat.

There is a lot about human beings that goes beyond what life demands, like art, stand-up comedy and er… well all the stuff I do actually and since evolution doesn’t like anything useless hanging around why do we still do it? Lots of theories but whatever the truth of it is skygodism is certainly not it, at least not the lunatic that morons like D’Souza pray to out of blind fear that they may be its next victim.

BC: I was very pleased by Chapter 19 in which you responded to the absurd idea that the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin had something to do with the faith into which they were born (but later renounced). In the hopes of disseminating your arguments to the larger population, why is it no accident that the world’s greatest mass murderers—Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot—maintained anti-religious regimes?

Dinesh D’Souza: I think it is no accident that the worst bloodbaths have come from anti-religious regimes because religion provides a framework of accountability. This framework was not present in the twentieth century totalitarian states. You have had bad guys in the past but they were somewhat restrained by the fact that they had to be externally accountable for what they did. That is why the totalitarian states behave in the wanton manner they do. There is nothing to restrain them from committing egregious acts. It harkens back to what Dostoevsky’s said in The Brothers Karamazov: “Without God and the future life? How will man be after that? It means everything is permitted now.” Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris do summersaults to prove that atheist crimes cannot be blamed on atheism which is incorrect.

Blah blah blah, idiots on both sides dredge this chestnut out for a good flogging. People do bad things, no god needed.

BC: In your chapter, “The World Beyond Our Senses: Kant and the Limits of Reason,” you take issue with the idea that human reason is the finest, and only, way to comprehend reality. What other means are there? Why should we be deferential to what we cannot understand?

Dinesh D’Souza: Well, within the domain of human experience, reason is supreme. The problem is that the atheists try to use the same empirical techniques to prove what is outside the realm of human experience. Here’s the point: none of us know what comes after death. The believer says I don’t know but I believe in God, the atheist says I don’t know therefore I don’t believe in anything. In reality, both positions are derived from faith. Both groups make a leap of faith but the believer is humble enough to recognize this fact. The atheist can’t or won’t.

Wait a second… what?

none of us know what comes after death. The believer says I don’t know but I believe in God

Uh is one of the perks of god worship that you get a great afterlife? Or at least one that isn’t endless torture?

Very confusing.

And atheists believe in many things, ghosts, goblins and gods are not amongst them.

BC: One phrase really stuck out with me from your debate with Christian Hitchens. It was the revulsion he felt over Christianity due to it forcing us to maintain a “posture of permanent gratitude” towards life and the Lord. How revealing of the atheist mindset are these words?

Dinesh D’Souza: The thing is even Heidegger recognized that we are thrown into this world without our asking to be. We find ourselves alive but have done nothing to deserve such an opportunity. This is how one could say there is no merit attached to existence… yet life remains precious to all of us—even to the sick who cling to life. Those close to death still cherish life, so if you don’t want to thank God then I say at least thank your parents.

Speaking of revealing, some people do need an eternal father figure watching out for them don’t they?

I don’t know why atheists don’t want to view existence in a gratuitous way.

And how does he know this? See I can be grateful to be alive I just don’t need to be grateful to the imaginary for it is all.

Dawkins put the [Hitchens vs. D’Souza] debate on his website and AOL had viewers vote to determine who, in their opinion, won. When they took the final tally, I was the winner.

Holy crap! He won an internet poll! Against a drunk! Well done!

Now what is important to remember here is that most Christians are not the ones generally surfing the web, yet, amid all those viewers, I was deemed the victor.

Yes, the Christian presence on the web is miniscule at best because Jesus hates the Internet or something. It’s neat that D’Souza has mentioned this twice here and I suspect countless times elsewhere. I think we’re witnessing his career peak.

I came determined to stop him in his tracks and I think it came out pretty well.

You going to argue with Internet voters?!!? You won’t because you can’t!

Ironically, the debate was held in an atheist auditorium that looks rather like a church. If you watch it again you’ll find that in the beginning the audience seemed to be favoring Hitchens, but, as the debate moved on, the applause moved heavily in my direction.

He even had a professional clapologist review the tapes and D’Souza scored .34% higher on the “Giveit-up Meter” than Hitchens who spent most of the debate yelling to the offstage “What fookin’ idiot put orange juice in me orange juice? Christ whoos the Muzzie over there? I FOOKIN’ HATE MUZZIES... Soozan? She looks like a fookin’ bloke!! Oh… oh right… Christ… sorry, Suzy! Yeah… cheers… WHERE’S THAT FOOKIN’ DRINK?!!?”

I have issued a debate challenge to Dawkins as well. We’ll see what comes from it.

Nothing. You’re an idiot and Dawkins doesn’t debate idiots anymore. See? Clever people learn from their mistakes.

BC: Thanks so much for your time, Mr. D’Souza.

Time he could have spent working on his new book "I beat Christopher Hitchens on the Internet: That Means There Must be a God!"

He wrote other books y'know.

Sorry, once again, for the surge of nothing but a real world thing went all coo-coo crazy and I've spent the last week dealing with lawyers and now the dust has settled and think I won or at least I got the money I was owed and then some.

When lawyers are being bastards on your behalf they're actually pretty cool.

In addition to that meshugas I've been super busy with new clients, gigs and Madden 09.

Of course not much has changed, the terrorists in Iraq still remain defeated and desperate:

"This attack was far off of the main pilgrimage routes due to the security efforts of the 42nd Brigade, 11th Division of the Iraqi Army and the local police," said Lt. Col. John Digiambattista, operations officer for 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. "This attack shows the desperation of al- Qaeda in Iraq. They must conduct their attacks in low traffic areas far from the local security forces.

As opposed to your typical terrorist attacks that focus on high traffic areas in front of large security detachments.

But it doesn't matter, Iraq has been won and anything you might read or hear that says the war is still on is just further evidence of victory and you can be assured that President McCain will continue accomplishing the mission.

And Grandpa McMunster, despite running a horrible campaign that makes it clear he'll be more Bush just older continues to compete with Obama in the polls. It's odd isn't it? McCain is a lousy candidate, his positions ape Chimpy's, the Worst President in American History yet he remains a viable candidate.

Weird, I wonder why?

Other things that make me wonder, where do they get their balls and what happened to their brains?

Awash in oil money, it's time for Iraq to pay its own way

If the U.S. government's budget were in the same shape as Iraq's, American taxpayers would be wondering what to do with a budget surplus of about $1.4 trillion.

Wouldn't that be nice.

There's so much stupid in that headline, 'graph and sentence that I can't even come close to being able to generate enough snark to do it justice.

How can anyone possibly think this way? America lies, invades, makes a Iraq an even worse place and now some of them insist that the Iraqis pay for their own destruction?

That s pure American ignorance, greed and retardation right there and there's just enough of it to make McCain Dubya II. He'll probably make the author of the above ambassador to the UN because Bolton was an appeasing pussy.

The fundamentalist Westboro church, deemed a hate group by some U.S. organizations because of its raucous rallies to promote its stance against homosexuality, had announced a plan to picket at the funeral. The church had earlier claimed that McLean's grisly slaying was God's punishment of Canada for its liberal laws and policies.

Really? That's his punishment? One dead guy? In the old days he'd blow up whole cities like the wet dreams of al Qeada when he was in one of his "moods".

And now is that all he can do? Have a nutter murder a carny on a bus?

Wow.

No, seriously, he's awesome... very fearsome... shaking in our mukluks here.

A car bomb ripped through a crowded market Friday in the northern city of Tal Afar in Nineveh Province, killing at least 21 people and wounding 70, police said. The attack occurred despite an Iraqi campaign to root out insurgents in the province.

---

Militants killed a member of a U.S.-backed neighbourhood patrol and wounded two others when they attacked their checkpoint on Friday in Jurf al-Sakhar, about 60 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

---

A roadside bomb killed a policeman and wounded two others in Iskandariya district, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

---

Gunmen killed an Iraqi soldier when they ambushed a patrol on Thursday in western Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

And so far nine Coalition soldiers have been killed this month.

Speaking of Iraq this is so awesome:

John McCain offered a new justification for the Iraq war Thursday, arguing that if Saddam Hussein were still in power, he’d be a petro-dictator intent on using today's sky-high oil revenues to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Of course he would cuz oil used to be free back in his day but with money why he could go to WMD-Mart and pick up all kinds of stuff!

A voter at an Ohio town hall meeting Thursday asked McCain how he would vote on the 2002 war resolution if he had to do it again, given the advantage of hindsight.

“What do you think that Saddam Hussein would be doing with oil at $120, $125, $130 a barrel?,” McCain asked. “What do you think he’d be doing? I’ll tell you what he’d be doing. He’d be doing what he said he was committed to doing. And that’s acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction, which he did twice before.”

He's going to be a heckuva President, he thinks just like Bush:

As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.

And Obama is the anti-Christ, yes that's right an American Presidential candidate is being accused of being a supernatural entity bent on the enslavement of mankind by the other one.

Has the US always been this fucking stupid? Bill Hicks bitched about "American Gladiators" and "Cops" but I think historians will call that the "Professor America" stage, the trip to Idiocracy seems to be picking up steam of late.

Today is your day as today is the day that for the first time in about two decades I have a dental appointment.

I don't have any specific problems, I brush three times a day (don't floss tho) but ever since I've made the appointment my teeth have been aching in some sort of psychosomatic sympathy of what's to come.

One of my favorite bits from "Three's Company" was "Jack Goes to the Dentist" in which Jack goes to the dentist. The dentist was played by the awesome Jeffrey Tambor who looked into Jack's mouth, excused himself, left the room, came back with a kid in tow, hoisted the kid up over Jack's gaping maw and said something like "If you don't brush that's what'll happen." The kid then ran crying and screaming from the room leaving a horrified Jack.

Then I think someone thought someone was having sex but really they were just doing something like washing the dishes or filling in their tax forms.

Three hours to go... there just isn't enough gin in my freezer to get me ready for this. Maybe The Cos can help...

UPDATE: Woot! Not a single cavity! The dentist and hygienist couldn't believe that I hadn't been to a dentist in 20 years. She said if I flossed I'd have no problems and that my teeth are in great shape. C'ya in an another decade or so suckers!

In which I catch up with the sort of nonsense I go on about:

Jesus spotting

I may have been on vacation but the J-man has been busy playing hide'n'seek with his followers. Hey have you noticed that Jesus never shows up to us atheists? He's always preaching to the choir, why is that? You'd think if he really wanted to spread the word he'd be showing up all grainy and abstract in my stuff rather than that of his believers'::

Taking a closer look, she soon was convinced who had made an appearance on her cell phone.

It was Jesus Christ.

Shadows of a face and the highlights of what appears to be a beard clearly can be seen. The head is surrounded in light.

"The message that I got was that He was telling me that He was with me," Square said. "I feel proud and blessed that I have this picture."

Hmm, I think Jesus needs to get with the megapixels.

A California store has received lots of attention since an image of an angel appeared in a window. Now, an image of Jesus has appeared at the same location.

"It's something of God. A sign maybe to the ones that don't know God yet so they can know," said amazed onlooker Ramona Esquia. Others aren't so sure. "I think it's just a glare from the window," noted Angie Luna.

Why doesn't your god just, y'know show up rather than these partial sightings? Why the tease? If he wants me to believe then why doesn't he give me a reason rather than a vague hint?*

And this is funny:

Dear Dr. Graham: My parents always told me when I was growing up not to believe everything I read, and I don't. So why should I believe what some preacher says, or even what the Bible says? Maybe it's all just a myth. -- P.F.

Dear P.F.: Have you ever actually read the Bible for yourself? I would encourage you to do this -- because if you do, it will convince you that the Bible isn't a myth.

Um would that be the book that opens up with a supernatural being making a universe that has been clearly shown to be apocryphal at best?

Why do I say this? One reason is because it tells about real people -- people who actually lived, and who had the same experiences we have today.

Yes. We often have cities full of people being blown to pieces by an angry sky god these days.

Although they lived thousands of years ago, we can understand their fears and hopes -- because we have them, too. These aren't stories someone made up (unlike many other ancient books);

Like say oh I don't know... THE KORAN!!!!!!

they have the ring of truth to them, because they deal with real people who faced real problems.

So I'm at HomeDepot trying to work out what the hell a cubit is and how much water-proofed lumber it would take to house two of every animal for 40 days and nights and you wouldn't believe what a jerk the sales associate is being.

Another reason we can trust the Bible is because it was written by people who actually witnessed what happened, and wrote it down so future generations could know about those events. As one of its writers stated, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories ... but we were eyewitnesses" (2 Peter 1:16).

See? The Bible says it's true therefore the Bible must be true! How can anyone even begin to argue with such well-rounded logic?

But the main reason I urge you to discover the Bible for yourself is because it points us to the most important event in human history: the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And that way you can spot him when he pops up on your waffles.

*edited because it's early and I misunderstood the crazy Jesus freak

Right here.

Dear Edgy Artists of Today and The Future,

Doing gross things to religious imagery isn't art, it's hack. Yes, you manage to rile Bible thumpers and I fully admit that it's a kick but blasphemer, please, slapping a jutting johnston on Jesus is so schoolyard. Why not try and be a wee bit more original like artists, y'know, should be?

And I love this bit of wingnut boilerplate every time something like this happens:

A number of visitors to the Baltic exhibition, which was staged between September 2007 and January this year, said that a far greater outcry could have resulted if the statue had been of Mohammed rather than Christ.

I don't know about overall outcry but I'm sure in some third world crap hole some bearded loony would scream at a mob until said mob set fire to something or other.

But I've never quite gotten the point of wingnuts pointing that out, being lesser assholes about an asshole isn't really that much to brag about guys is my point.

If I had the hotline to the creator of the universe who has given me specific steps to Paradise I wouldn't give a wet donkey's fart what anyone thought of any of it.

That's how you can spot the real theists, the ones who truly believe; you can't piss them off with what you say about their delusions.

I've met maybe three of them.

but most of these idiots take care of themselves so I can be quick, for instance:

The Evolutionists Have Lost The Debate So They Have A New Definition for Evolution

It's a video and I haven't watched it but the headline rate 7.45 Corkies on the R-Tard Scale so I doubt it's necessary.

Remember this dumb-assery? Turns out that Barnes & Noble really don't give a shit that your children may see naked gay men in their stores. Perhaps they have this wacky idea that it's the breeders and not the readers that are responsible for the warping of spawn.

Barnes & Noble has received so many e-mails from the three million people that received this e-mail alert that they immediately began rejecting emails from concerned parents who used the AFA delivery system. In essence, they don't want to hear from you!

Really? They don't want their in boxes clogged with Bible thumpers griping about pics of ass humpers? Weird that a book store would be so indifferent to the theist extremist demographic, almost like they know they won't lose any business or something.

Feeling like a social life loser? Don't because you are not this guy:

James Wakefield hoped to win back his girlfriend's affections by having her abducted by a friend, then "heroically" rescuing her, a court heard.

He offered his friend Aaron Rawson £20,000 to take the woman to a wood and threaten to attack her, while wearing the helmet to disguise his voice.

Wakefield, 28, would then turn up and "save" her in the hope of winning her back, the court heard.

Click the link for the punch line.

Shorter Burt Prelusky from It's Time Israel Woke Up

• I am puzzled as to why Israel has not used her nuclear arsenal to kill all the sub-humans she is surrounded by.

Right, back to it, got a show tonight to hang out at to do the schmoozing thing that is vital in comedy, got a show tomorrow night and one of the managers of the local club wants to give me more professional work as soon as I can hold a room for 10 minutes. Right now I'm at about 8. Show tomorrow and possibly Wednesday.

Plus new client and old clients and a bunch of other stuff keeps me from blogging much, thanks to all who still click in I will try to pick up the pace once the deluge subsides.

Blackberry Curve, holy crap I'm going to marry it, if I could get Dreamweaver to work on it it'd be perfect.

Trying to catch up on all the wingnuttia is proving to be quite the challenge, it's like cleaning out a chicken coop where they're fed nothing but ExLax laced prunes. Basically they're all saying the same thing they were saying in 2003, it's Mission Accomplished all over again. Just replace "Shock'n'awe" with "surge" and you'll get the idea.

The fact that stuff like this is still happening:

Iraqi police found the bodies of two civilians and a policeman in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles), north of Baghdad, police said. The bodies bore gunshot wounds.

---

A bomb wounded a senior leader of the Shi'ite Dawa party at his house in Zaafaraniya district, southeastern Baghdad, police said. Three body guards were also wounded.

---

The U.S. military killed a teenager sitting in a car in central Kirkuk... Iraqi police said. The U.S. military said their convoy came under armed attack from a sedan and their soldiers returned fire, killing a passenger. One U.S. soldier was wounded...

Every. Single. Day doesn't dissuade them in the slightest, case in point:

First, while Obama is playing armchair general, second-guessing why there is an Taliban offensive in Afghanistan, the reality is that this is a result of the U.S. success in Iraq. Al-Qaida forces fleeing Iraq have been redeployed inside Afghanistan staging a last desperate stand in its own back yard.

So by wingnut logic the Afghan terrorists left Afghan to go to Iraq where they were defeated so much that they went back to Afghanistan just in time to be beaten again.

And desperate, always desperate.

And when it all starts up again it'll be 2004, dead-enders last gasping then President McCain will send in more troops in a "burst" or some other word that means "surge" and blah blah blah.