Friday, July 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Mmmm...accurate Bible summary...Hat tip to the ScienceBlog King, Pharyngula
Feelin' Kinda Patton
Here's a video of Patton Oswalt on Conan. It's one of the funniest interviews I've ever seen. Enjoy him. Revel in him.
Dancing With The...Inmates?
So holy shit. Just in case you were thinking of going to the Philippines and committing a crime, take a gander of what you'll be forced (I assume) to do there. Even the poor bastards in the back have to do arm motions and stand around to watch the performance - and it's definitely a performance - of their cell-mates.Wow. Thriller in orange jumpsuits. The ending is really goddamn scary once you remember that it's a dude in drag and they're all in prison.
Hat tip to Truthdig.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Hey there all,
I've just started a new blog that this one will be linking to frequently called Mike's Weekly Skeptic Reviews which will be movie and book reviews. Feel free to check it out.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Neurologica Has Number 65 in a Museum!
The new Skeptic's Circle is up over at Neurologica. Go take a walk through the museum, enjoy the displays. Have a hot dog.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Does The Hoover Institution Manufacture Idiots?
Peter Berkowitz. Do you know that name? I didn't until I read his Op/Ed piece from the Wall Street Journal that was bad enough to make me just about hurl my kosher pickle right back up onto my desk. He's not as bad as the tremendous douche Dinesh D'Souza, but he's obviously working on it.
Berkowitz's bio says he has a Ph.D in Poly.Sci. from Yale. I guess they don't teach people to read what they're criticizing over there in the Ivy League anymore, because he says shit in his article that lays out all pink and naked the fact that he's ignorant as a slack-jawed yokel about Dawkins' and Hitchens' books, even though he claims Hitchens is a friend!
Why would I say these things? Well, let's take a look at what he wrote. He says some cursory niceties then gets into the "here's where they've overlooked/overstepped their boundaries" stuff. He says:
They (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and the rest) contend that from the vantage point of the 21st century, and thanks to the moral progress of mankind and the achievements of natural science, we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist and organized religion is a fraud.This is not even close to accurate. Berkowitz is revealed here to be a flasher with no dick - he's saying what should be a slam-dunk, no argument fact, but he just made the contention up out of his somewhat fuzzy head.
Dawkins and Harris are scientists, Dennett a philosopher, and Hitchens a journalist. All have, as far as can be ascertained through their writings and lectures, open minds about the idea of a "creator". The fact that someone is open to an idea is no assurance that they will not mock and decry lame attempts to prove the premise. I and many others are very open to the idea of life on other planets, in other solar systems, but I'll continue to laugh and point at the gomers who say they've been abducted and have married an alien and have had three hybrid kids, one of whom lives on Venice Beach.
He goes on to say that Hitchens is a great debater and that he is, "incapable of uttering or writing a dull sentence", but that:
...his arguments do not come close to disproving God's existence...Even were he to concede that religion doesn't poison everything, Mr. Hitchens presumably still would cling to his claim that the findings of modern science prove that God does not exist.Well who the hell can disprove the existence of anything? When are supposedly learned people going to, I don't know, learn that you can't prove a negative?
I once gave a talk on skepticism and critical thinking to my massage therapy class. I gave an example that went something like this: Let's say I want to see if reindeer can actually fly. My experiment is that I'm going to take 50 reindeer to the top of a 20-story building and, one by one, get them to go over the edge. As expected, each reindeer plummets to his or her death as their turns come up. Now, after all 50 are in a broken pile on the sidewalk oh-so-far below, what can we say?
Is the premise that reindeer can't fly proven? No. Well, none of the reindeer flew, so why the question? There's still a question because there are more reindeer in the world, there are other situations to test in, different weather conditions, different heights, and so on and on. All we can say is that these reindeer, under these conditions, either couldn't or chose not to, fly.
Now, do I seriously think that it's likely that an animal, heavier than air and with no visible means of keeping itself airborne, could hover or fly around? No. But I'm open to the possibility provided the evidence is convincing enough. See? That's how science works. There's always more testing needed.
I'm a goddamn massage therapist with an English degree - I would think someone with a B.A. in English Lit., an M.A. in philosophy, a Ph.D. in political science, and a fucking journalism degree would know at least as much as I do. Perhaps my standards are too high.
Berkowitz comments on Hitchens' assertion that the story of Abraham in the Bible (you know, he was told by God to kill his only son, Isaac, so he took him to a mountain, built an altar so he could burn Isaac after he slit his throat, but then God said, "Ha ha! I was just fucking with you...there's a goat. Thanks for showing you're loyal to me") is insane and not worthy in any capacity of admiration. Berky says that the "common interpretation" is that the story is intended to show, "that the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice was contrary to God's will, and must be put to an end forever." Sorry? Wasn't it God who used child sacrifice like the mafia uses murder to test whether they can trust a guy? "Never mind that there's blanks in the gun, the point is, you were willing to do it." What kind of God are you worshiping, anyway?
Then we get the tired old argument of:
why the 20th-century embrace of secularism unleashed human depravity of unprecedented proportions.Yeah, yeah, Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. I mean, haven't enough people pointed out that Dawkins deals with this in the last part of chapter 7 in Delusion and Harris deals with Stalin on page 79 and Hitler/Holocaust in chapter three of The End of Faith. Thanks for not-reading, Berky. Were you one of those guys during your literature classes who read the first and last chapter and the first and last page of each middle chapter to get the gist of the novel, and then just made up what seemed sensible to you for the rest?
He again highlights his ignorance by saying (quoting, actually):
"there are many questions that by their very nature must be recognized to lie beyond the legitimate scope of the scientific method." Such questions...include: Where did the universe come from, and is it governed by purpose?Well the first question is clearly NOT beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Just because no one knows the answer doesn't mean it's not able to be answered sometime.
Think of floating in a lake on an inner-tube. You see something in the water off in the distance. What is it? Well, you can't tell. You can guess - maybe it's a duck, or a piece of wood, or perhaps it's a monster - but you will have to paddle closer or get some binoculars to make a more accurate assessment of the situation. Maybe you'll never find out what that was, but you can keep trying to figure it out and it is certainly not beyond your abilities.
Berkowitz had to take a shot at Islam, of course. He says:
...by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction.Yes, because the crazy Christian fundie asshats have no desire whatsoever to make your beloved America a theocrazy theocracy. I'm not saying Islam is great, far from it, but don't be saying that other faiths are just vitamin-filled, warm-sunshine and puppies good for us.
All in all, this article sucked balls. I'm sorry to have to degrade my writing to that level, but it's fitting. Berkowitz shows nothing new, he blatantly ignores the writing of his targets and makes shit up about what they think so he can criticize them, and then proceeds to make crap assertions about things he demonstrably doesn't understand. It's shameful.
If there was any doubt that Berkowitz appeals to dumbasses, he's linked to over at Bill Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent. I would advise not going there - it's sadness stuffed with insanity, roasted, and finally coated with a fine glaze of fucking stupid.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Catholic Leaders Continue To Be Asswipes
Imagine for a second you met Jeffery Dahmer back when he was alive. Imagine you were chatting about serial killers and how bad he was and he said to you, "Yeah, but other people do stuff like that too and they should watch their behavior as well."
It boggles the mind. Sure, serial killers are all bad, but Dahmer was just that cut above (usually the clavicle) the norm - the one who makes you go, "Holy shit-sticks - that fucking guy is crazy and dangerous on a whole other plane than most freaks!"
Now check out what the Vatican's chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said about the child abuse scandal and the recent record-setting $660 million settlement payment:
The problem of the abuse of childhood and its adequate protection certainly does not regard only the (Catholic) Church, but also many other institutions and it is right that these take the necessary decisions as well...That's right. It amounts to, "Look, we're not the only group who routinely diddles little kids, and those other groups involved in the systematic abuse of the youth - I'm lookin' at you, Super Adventure Club - need to clean up as well".
It really does boggle the imagination. Isn't the Poop supposed to be infallible? Didn't they recently make Limbo non-existent? Why can't they just wave the magic crozier or penis-wand or whatever and say the abuse never happened? Don't they have some special Jesus-trick that handles shit like this?
I like to think of the paraphrased Dave Attell version of God:
I think God's there, just not everywhere at once, so when he's busy making birds sing and flowers grow, making a butterfly land on a retarded boy's hand making him feel special and alive - he's letting you get fist-fucked at summer camp.
Patton Oswalt is a Laugh-Filled Pile of Blown-Out Nose Hair
I love stand-up comedy. Love it. Like, if it's good, I can listen to it over and over again like a great rock song. The routines of amazing comics I can recite like song lyrics with all the pauses and emphasis in the right spot, I drop them into casual conversation to get laughs because they're by people no one's heard of (unfairly), then I tell the person where that joke came from and tell them to go buy the CD. I can't tell you how often I've advised someone to go get the Robert Schimmel disc If you buy this cd I can get this car or Louis CK's One Night Stand or Shameless. I love it and I can't get enough.
That's why I'm so happy that Patton Oswalt got the lead voice role in the new Pixar movie, Ratatouille. I love Patton's comedy - his Feelin' Kinda Patton and No Reason to Complain discs are *hilarious* and I highly recommend each. If you only know him from King of Queens, it's sorta like only knowing Bob Sagat from America's Funniest Home Videos or Full House.
Get to know your comics. They'll enrich your life. Buy Patton's new CD, Werewolves and Lollipops, today - or buy it at Amazon here. You won't be sorry. Oh, and check out a good interview with Patton about Ratatouille by the A/V Club here.
Monday, July 16, 2007
It Is I - The Freak on a Leash!
You Are 74% Non Conformist
You are a pretty serious non conformist. You live a life hardly anyone understands.
And while some may call you a freak, you're happy with who you are.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Sad Story - Religion Sucks Once Again
I don't have a lot to add to this discussion, but I wanted to make a point that I haven't seen in the other excellent entries about the sad story of Gloria Strauss. Read those first, then come on back here for the rest of this bit.
Religion does not lead to people getting better from illness, it comforts primarily those who are not afflicted. Think about this quote from Mary Caldwell, a friend of the Strauss family:
When we pray for Gloria, it's like we're the ones receiving the blessings...We're receiving the healing. It's very humbling...Exactly, Gloria is left out of the whole equation and it becomes about the pray-ers, not the pray-ee.
When you read the article, keep in mind that Gloria is eleven. She can't vote, can't drink alcohol, can't get married, all because she is considered by society to be too young to make those sort of decisions while considering all pertinent options and consequences. She can, however, be considered Catholic. I find this silly.
Recent commentators, notably Richard Dawkins, have made the point that there are no Catholic children, no Muslim children, no Conservative or Liberal children. These are the ideals held by their parents and put upon the young ones. When religious ideas are hoisted on a child's shoulders, it is often too much - especially when the idea is telling the child that it is their fault if they are not "upbeat enough". Take for example what Gloria says in her prayer:
"Lord, I'm sorry. You know I've been down. You know me. Forgive me"The girl is 11 and has cancer that will likely kill her and she's asking for forgiveness? I would hope that anyone with a heart could see that this is ludicrous and, honestly, abusive.
Tedd Caldwell illuminates the primary reason people jump to prayer and belief in sky-men:
"No matter what we do, it can't change the fact that watching your child suffer is unbearable,"Undoubtedly it is unbearable. Religious thought, however, does not take the suffering or pain away, it actually adds to it by throwing unnecessary guilt on everyone involved. It implies that there is a reason that the child has cancer in the first place, then shows the way towards healing is through the irrational action of talking to an invisible man. The people in Gloria's life are talked about like this:
They pray for Gloria's pain to lessen. They pray for strength. They pray for the parents' leadership to remain strong. They pray for all the Strauss children. They pray for God's will.Wouldn't you conclude that if you kept asking someone for something that is, ostensibly, well within their means to do, and they refused to do anything, that they were an asshole and not worth associating with? Particularly if this person was known for being good, charitable, and loving?
They pray for the miracle.
"Oh my gosh, we've been filling up the heavens with prayer," Diane Strauss says.
Prayer nights are comforting, inspiring, but then reality mornings come. Every day, Gloria awakes in pain. Every day, she swallows pill after pill. Every day, she wanders deeper into a challenge as mental as it is physical.
That sort of blind adherence to an idea is like the geeks at school assuming that the jocks will take care of them. It's unrealistic and dangerous to have that sort of faith, based as it is on no evidence whatsoever. Gloria's dad says:
"She'll bounce back. She always does."It is so sad to see; imagine believing Deepak Chopra and the other "matter isn't reality" crowd who fatuously say that nothing is real, his bullshit confidence of "quantum theory" that tells "us" that until the wave function collapses there is every probability that the particles making up an object can be found anywhere in the universe - so you drive your car, with your daughter in the backseat, full speed at a brick wall, smiling all the time in the "knowledge" that it's very likely not there and humbly asking Lucy in the sky to make sure to pull that football away. In reality, Charlie Brown kicks that ball every time.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The Chinese Don't Know What They're Missing
Seems I, like Larry Moran at Sandwalk, am banned in China. I consider it their loss, but it seems a shame not to be exposed to profanity-laden tirades against religion and superstitious thought.
Ah well, so much for my plans of world domination.
See if your URL is banned in China by clicking here.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Deep Disses Dawk - Still a Douche
In the latest issue of Skeptic, Deepak Chopra "reviews" Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. I use quotes because he really only wants to use space and talk about his meaningful consciousness of quantum rivers flowing into the compassionate Universe, which is also conscious.
Let the fisking begin....
Chopper says that "Dawkins' position is absolute" That's not entirely true; while Dawkins is very firm in his stance, he is first and foremost a scientist able to be swayed by evidence. The problem for Deep is that none of his wishy-fruity ravings even make sense, let alone are able to be called "evidence".
Dawkins' anthropomorphic god is criticized as not being realistic and that "Allah isn't personified", nor are other deities. Well, just because Muslims aren't allowed to draw the guy doesn't mean he isn't thought of as a man. They say they want to go to the Garden of Paradise when they die and chill with Allah; what does Deepak think they envision? Probably "pure quantum consciousness", whatever the fuck that is.
Chopra then states that a lot of thinkers have "looked far beyond Dawkins" and that his view is narrow "compared to real forward thinkers". I guess because Deep only lists job titles and not individuals whose thinking he admires, we can assume that he includes himself on that list. He never offers any "real" forward thinking at all, just the same inane platitudes dealt with below.
Chumpra goes on to mention quantum physics at least five different times in his three-page book review. I'd like to take a minute at this point and say that Deepak has no goddamn idea what quantum physics is all about. He likes to say that the ideas of the Maharishi and Ayurveda are supported by modern discoveries in physics, and idea that is sharply rebuked by Ph.D physicist Heinz R. Pagels, former Executive Director of the New York Academy of Sciences from way back in 1986:
The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better.Damning talk, yes it is.
Reading these materials authorized by the Maharishi causes me distress because I am a man who values the truth. To see the beautiful and profound ideas of modern physics, the labor of generations of scientists, so willfully perverted provokes a feeling of compassion for those who might be taken in by these distortions. I would like to be generous to the Maharishi and his movement because it supports world peace and other high ideals. But none of these ideals could possibly be realized within the framework of a philosophy that so willfully distorts scientific truth. ref.
See, Chopra says stuff like this:
...DNA is a molecule, and that fact opened Pandora's Box, because to be truly viable, genetics has to be compatible with quantum physics, our current best theory of physical reality..."Firstly, nothing has to be compatible with anything. If it is, great. If it isn't, then one or both of the other ideas is wrong or needs revision, that's all.
Secondly, it's amazing how he says that quantum physics is "our" best theory. He includes himself subtly along with the physicists who thought up and tested and revised the theory when he has no idea what he's talking about. He brings up quantum mechanics in every essay, lecture, book and dinner party he goes to or writes about and he fucks it up at every turn. It's rather tiresome to keep pointing out.
Chumpra uses the phrase, "the superstition of materialism", a meaningless phrase akin to the odious "religion of Darwinism". It's designed only to appeal to his fawns who dutifully buy his Ayurvedic tongue cleaners at $7.00 a pop. Nice.
He says at length:
Once can say that two broad rivers of human experience have run into each other. One river carries science and objective observation of the world. The other river carries subjective experience and our craving for meaning, beauty, love, and truth. There is no reason why these two rivers need to be separated, and what we are seeing - despite Dawkins' hysterical defense of materialism - is a merging. Within a generation there will be accepted theories that integrate the world "out there" with the world "in here".This is a completely nonsensical, non-sequitor ridiculous statement of a "fact" that exists only in the vacant, whooshing vacuum of Chopra's cranium.
Now we come to the turd that tops the excrement sundae that is this review. Deepak actually lets his huge balls out for some air and to say:
...random chance is one of the worst ways to explain how the universe evolved...Dawkins argues vociferously that natural selection isn't random...but he is equally vociferous that genetic mutation is random...Can't you just see Hannibal Lector in his cell, Clarice pleading, "Tell me how to catch him, Dr. Lector", and Hannibal saying, "No! All you need to catch him is right in front of you!" He's actually explaining how evolution through natural selection works, but he's too thick to get it. Random mutations lead to changes in morphology in organisms which leads to non-random natural selection, weeding out useless or harmful mutations and keeping helpful ones. How fucking hard is that to comprehend?
Then comes this gem:
The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt. Are we to assume that water is intelligent or salt is conscious?Think about it when it's put in this analogy - bicycles contain two wheels made of rubber. Can a kid ride a rubber molecule down the street with his buddies? I think not. See, the parts of a thing don't have to possess the qualities of the finished thing, Jackhole. It's getting too difficult to not include ad hominems, sorry.
Then there's the obligatory incredulous statement about the nature of consciousness and the cool shit all around us:
...the reason to assume that consciousness exists is simple. There is no other way to account for it...there is enormous design, complexity, organization, and interconnectedness everywhere in nature. You can either say, 'I see it, let me explain it', or you can say, 'Ignore it, it's just a byproduct of randomness.This is full of shit that pisses me off. Let's begin with the first bit. There may be other ways to explain consciousness - Douchepak can't think of one though, so he just declares loudly that there's no other way! None! Thanks, but I think I'll wait for the real scientists to slowly, carefully make their way towards an answer that's backed up by evidence and repeatable experiments.
Secondly, the bullshit of the next part almost makes my brain bleed. Really, I just about had a subdural hematoma and a seizure. It's scientists who look at things and say, "Let's try to explain this." No real scientist would ever see something and say, "Oh fuck that, it's just randomness...that's worthless." It's actually people like Chopper who see something they can't explain immediately and proceed to make something up that "feels right" (much like Colbert's "truthiness") directly off the top of their hollow-sounding heads.
The last two columns are a lot of fumbling around with what colour and sounds are within the brain, basically a huge argument from ignorance spilled out in the black and white of page fifty-four. Lastly, he makes a couple more appeals to quantum physics, and then declares that when you get to the "primal state of the universe", it is a "universal field that encloses all matter and energy". I guess no one ever told him that when you're defining something, you don't use that term in said definition.
All in all, this was painful to read, like everything of his I've ever had the displeasure of chewing through like a termite starving for nourishment. Skip this if you have the means and thanks for continuing to listen to my bitching.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Further to my previous article, said friend put a note up on her Facebook site that I had to rebut. Here's my note to her - I don't want to put her bit up because it's long and it's full of the standard stuff about mercury, formaldehyde, autism, AIDS/polio linkage, and other stuff, plus she's cool and isn't crazy or anything - just trying to be open-minded. Enjoy and feel free to bitch back at me.
Friend, I can't say I agree at all. Most of what you've said has been refuted by reputable sources (see the links below) and the mercury (Thimerosal, I assume you're talking about) thing is inaccurate completely. It's not even used in Canada anymore (although not because it was in any way harmful) and was never implicated in injuries to anyone. Formaldehyde occurs naturally in our bodies and the amounts used in vaccines is nowhere near harmful levels.
You mentioned this: "All the diseases you mentioned were already on the decline when the vaccines were introduced... likely due to increased hygiene practices" Well, that's not entirely true. The diseases weren't on the decline, the *death rates* from the diseases were on the decline - likely due to better hygiene and medicines. When schools are looked at, a very small percentage of students who are immunized get measles, mumps, pertussis, etc, but just about 100% of the non-immunized kids get them. They don't die because science is great at keeping folks alive.
Medicine is medicine. It doesn't matter if it's "western", "eastern" or whatever. If it works and is effective, you'll see it used everywhere, if not, it's "alternative" which generally means "unproven" or "ineffective" but believed by a percentage of the population who is willing to pay for it. Being in the health fields, we should be encouraging people to follow the evidence (actual evidence, not discredited or fraudulent) to effective treatments.
The AIDS from polio argument has been severely criticized and an article in Nature (ref.) ran a story about it. Is there still controversy? Sure, but it looks pretty weak that there's a connection.
Oh, and the mercury/thimerosal to autism link has been demolished (see this article from Slate and this blog post, plus his whole blog - he deals with anti-vac people all the time). Andrew Wakefield's credibility (I assume you've heard of him) is in the toilet after his conflict of interest and shoddy "research" were exposed.
You said, "The funny thing about those kids getting the mumps... most of them have had the vaccine against it." No, that's not true at all and the fact that it's not *usually* serious is no reason to not get the MMR vaccine. The rare complications of mumps can include swelling of the brain, encephalitis and meningitis. Something tells me the MMR vaccine is a better alternative, what with no real link established to serious side effects that can't be controlled.
Finally, check this piece which shows some great information. Seriously, read it. I'd hate to see you go down the road into anti-vac craziness.
No Shot To The Arm, And You're To Blame
So I'm on Facebook and I noticed that there is a group called "Do Not Get Vaccinated". Not only is that group there, but one of my friends from massage therapy school joined it. As I've said before, there's a lot of weirdos in massage therapy who believe some absolutely stupid shit, but I didn't consider her one of them.
The likely story (the same one I've seen from other anti-vac people) is that she read or talked to some anti-vac person who has read all the literature about what happens in your body with a vaccination shot - all of it wrong or misleading - and then was completely convinced that vaccinations are bad. She then probably started to read herself; all the authors and websites that the anti-vac guru suggested. A massage therapist is a great person to have in your camp because we talk to around five people per day on average. A crafty altie could make use of someone like her to further the cause.
There is a good article from 2004 that illuminates what is likely a large part of the problem: massage therapists work with chiropractors in many cases and both MTs and chiros are prone to weird-ass ideas about health borne out of poor information and misunderstanding, like the (wrong) idea that vaccinations are bad. Here's a telling exchange from the article with Wendy Mesley interviewing chiropractor Martha Collins:
Collins: And maybe those are the people that are attracted to wellness care anyway.Well, I'm glad she doesn't think it'll happen. She should tell everyone in the United Kingdom about her thoughts, especially the parents of the two kids who died.
Wendy Mesley: But maybe there are going to be more and more of these people encouraged by people like you and maybe it will get to a stage where a disease like measles does come back, because kids aren't vaccinated.
Collins: And if it did, what would happen?
Mesley: A lot of kids would die!
Collins: If it did, what would happen as far as - I don’t think it’s going to happen. I really don’t, Wendy. I really don’t.
It is well worth reading the subsequent pages on immunization facts and misconceptions as well, if only to prepare yourself for a conversation with a freak who tells you not to immunize your child (or yourself). If you find an MT, chiro or regular doctor who is against immunization, go elsewhere because these people have no idea about evidence or how your body or immunity works.
* Orac at Respectful Insolence has good articles and information
* Great article on why the anti-vac movement won't die.
* Vaccination information
* Flu shot
* Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care: Immunization Info
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Dying of Not-Surprise
You Are Very Skeptical
Your personal motto is: "Prove it."
While some ideas, like life after death, may seem nice...
You aren't going to believe them simply because it feels good.
You let science and facts be your guide... Even if it means you don't share the beliefs of those around you.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Unmotivated Heathen and a little Robot Chicken
Man, I've been completely unmotivated to write anything the last little while. I'm not sure if it's the summer and nice weather, thoughts of the cottage, the new kid to play with or a combination of all of these, but the news just isn't holding my attention of late. Plus most of what I'd like to say gets said before me and better by other bloggers, most of whom are on my roll.
Between the whole Bush scandal thing (Which one, again? That fuckin' guy and his administration have had more scandals than I have fingers, toes, knees, elbows, testicles, and teeth, for chrissake), the upsurge in atheist writers and the predicted backlash, Paris goddamn Hilton, and the general decline of society, my little area of happiness keeps me relatively sane. I do enjoy having this blog as a place to vent and bitch - something I do with great joy and vigour - but recently I just haven't felt it. Sort of like Austin Powers without the mojo. Know what I mean?
Yeah, yeah, minus the baby-eating, metric-ton Scotsman.
Anyhoo, until I get motivated, here's a HILARIOUS clip from Robot Chicken, a show that if you don't watch, you should. Enjoy.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Back From Fishing...Bush Still a Dickless Piece of Shit
I was away for the Canada Day weekend. Almost caught a MONSTER muskie on the Saugeen river - I know 99.9% of the people who will eventually read this have no fucking idea what a muskie is, or where the Saugeen river is, but trust me when I say it's a great place and it can be a goddamn huge fish. But it got away so I'm just an asshole with a story.
I'll write more this week, but for now, Bush is still a bigger asshole than I could ever dream of being. Ever.