The Two Percent Company's Rants http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/ ...forging the unknown into common knowledge, eradicating bullshit and ignorance, and fighting for truth, justice, and the use of science, reason and logic to further the progress of humankind. Copyright 2008 2008.04.17 (Thu) 11:42 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.16 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss How to Precisely Line Up Your Conclusions With Your Expectations 2008.04.17 (Thu) 11:42 assume whatever you want to be true, and you've got your conclusions.
Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages. ... Reducing these costs, [study author Ben] Scafidi said, "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."
And:
"The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. "We keep hearing this from state legislators, 'Explain to me why this is any of my business? Aren't these private matters?'" Blankenhorn said. "Take a look at these numbers and tell us if you still have any doubt."
Tell you if we still have any doubt? Okay.
Dear Mssrs. Scafidi and Blankenhorn, Please consider this your official notification of our doubt. Most sincerely, Rational People.
Seriously — doubt? Just for starters, we'd like to know how you came up with your unbelievable statistics.
Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes.
Ah, now we understand. So it's not really a study so much as it's a baseless assumption with numbers wrapped around it. Gotcha. Now it makes sense, because we know it's utter crap. This fucking study doesn't even bother to establish causality. It seems content to assume that it's the divorces and the unwed parents that lead to more poverty, but it ignores the fact that it's just as valid (or more so) to assume that the poverty leads to increased rates of divorce and single-parenthood. And if poverty is the problem that causes this massive $112 billion issue, then why not combat that? Spending more money on increased employment, job training, and economic recovery are all general examples that might work a damn bit better than trying to combat poverty by offering marriage skills "training" on the taxpayer's dime. (That's all of us, folks.) Perhaps — and we're just spitballing here — perhaps poverty is the root cause of all of the problems here. The study agrees that poverty leads to increased spending on criminal justice, welfare, health care, and education...but then doesn't see that the same poverty, along with those particular corollaries, is the most likely cause for unwanted pregnancies leading to single parenting and unhappy marriages ending in divorce? The term "intentionally fucking obtuse" leaps to mind here. Here's one of their "striking examples":
[Elizabeth Ananat and Guy Michaels] are able to study married couples who do and do not divorce and conclude that "divorce significantly increases the odds that a woman with children is poor."
And this suggests causality how? The fact that a divorced woman is more likely to be poor doesn't establish the cause of that poverty in any way, shape, or form. In fact, we'll stick to our hypothesis that it's more likely that the poverty causes the divorce, rather than the other way around. We don't think that's any more statistically valid, off the cuff, but it makes a whole lot more sense in context. And we didn't even have to make up any math to offer our idea! It's telling that the Scafidi paper, while putting great stock in the Ananat-Michaels results, entirely ignores the actual point of that data. One of the primary points of the Ananat-Michaels results was that the mean income does not decrease due to divorce. Using specific indicators that endeavor to isolate the relationship between divorce and poverty from any other factors (though we're not sure that we agree they were totally successful), Ananat and Michaels demonstrated that, statistically, many divorced women will earn less, but that those who end up earning more will earn substantially more, which (apparently) more than offsets the poverty-stricken women when it comes to determining the mean income. In other words, since it is the overall income of these women, collectively, that will affect other taxpayers (like you and us), Scafidi's conclusion is utter bullshit. Yes, the individual women themselves will often end up in poverty, and we can (and should) certainly be concerned about that, but this nonsense about our taxes having to support scads of unmarried mothers is just Scafidi's imagination, inspired by a healthy dose of, er, sponsorship from the Institute for American Values. As Justin Wolfers explains:
The Ananat-Michaels result is that divorce seems to help the finances of about as many women as it hurts, and those who gain, may gain more than those who lose. But this report counts up the costs to the taxpayer from the women who lose income, but refuses to count even a single dollar of the rise in taxes linked to those who gain income.
What incredibly selective statistics you've discovered, Benjamin Scafidi! And all it took was a bunch of people with an agenda asking you to write up some numbers for them to make their case look good. Nice job, you fucking weasel. Wolfers continues:
Amazingly, the advocates [Scafidi and his fundamentalist overlords] put together "fiscal" costs of divorce without even understanding the tax code. The U.S. tax system is structured so that when poor single mothers marry men with higher incomes, in most cases, the total tax paid by husband and wife would fall. Yet this isn't counted. Those poor single women aren't robbing us of tax revenue, they are actually paying more than if they were married! (Yes, the tax code does include a marriage penalty for some couples who are both high earners, but for most couples, the U.S. gives you a tax break for getting married.)
Please do have a look at the rest of Wolfers' article — it's pretty incredible how intellectually dishonest Scafidi's piece of shit paper is. And there's more to consider: if you truly do believe that divorce and unwed or single parenting lead to more poverty, and that therefore the government has a vested interest in lessening the impact of that poverty, then it seems to us that a rather logical conclusion is that we should focus on teaching the facts about contraception in public schools. All this bullshit "abstinence only" nonsense is only making the likelihood of unwanted (and, as such, usually unwed) pregnancies even higher. In addition, when two teens who weren't planning on getting married any time soon (if at all) get married due to an unplanned pregnancy, that certainly isn't the best bet for a long, happy marriage. We're willing to bet the statistics on that assertion hold up better than Scafidi's lopsided math. But wait — there's something else that might be even more effective in confronting this problem. The issue here seems to be the effects of poverty on children who are raised by single parents or who experience a divorce. It strikes us that, if only we had some way to terminate unwanted pregnancies...some way to stop a pregnancy before a zygote developed into an actual baby, perhaps some kind of, we don't know, abortive procedure of some sort...then we'd have a whole lot less single parents and divorced parents (since we'd have less parents in general, and fewer resultant forced or reluctant marriages, which are inherently less likely to last). So perhaps, in addition to adequate sex education, the government should also promote abortions as a viable alternative to having a baby, when prospective parents really just aren't ready to have one from a social and economic perspective. Having a baby when you aren't ready to support one leads to — you guessed it — a higher likelihood of poverty. We aren't saying that abortions are a wonderful alternative, or that they are for everyone (though the same can be said of divorce and single parenthood, and of marriage itself), but we are saying that educating people about the facts of contraception and abortion would very likely decrease the number of unexpected pregnancies, unwanted marriages, and broken families. In case you'd like to take a closer look at Scafidi's very scholarly "study," you can head over to the Institute for American Values where it's housed in their "Center for Marriage and Families" and listed under "real, honest-to-gosh scientific-like research." Try your best not to be sidetracked by their ham-handed arguments against same-sex marriage, and their diatribes about the "proper" roles of men and women in a "proper" family. What a bunch of fucking disingenuous assholes. You know what? Here's our idea for a "study." We think Fundamentalist Christianity is fucking up our world. Further, we'll assume that Fundy families are more likely to be stupid, and as such, Christianity leads to more taxes being spent to educate their indoctrinated kids who keep getting left back over and over again because they think that early man lived side-by-side with fucking dinosaurs and rode them like bucking fucking brontos. Also, of course, more Fundamentalist-educated nitwits are ill-informed (or outright misinformed) about birth control than any other group (thanks to abstinence-only sex "education"), which leads to more unwanted teen pregnancies — which, due to the indoctrinated religious idiocy surrounding abortion, are invariably carried to term and often result in higher incidences of low-income teens getting married too young (since good "religious values" demand that they do) and earning too little (since they were so badly and briefly educated that they can't make their way in the professional world)...which, in turn, results in more poverty. More poverty, as we all know (we just read a study about this, if we recall), drives increased spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice, and education for those raised in such a stupidly disadvantaged home. Of course, none of these assumptions are verified — we just reckon it's all true. But the obvious conclusion is that the government has a vested interest in destroying Fundamentalist Christianity. How could you come to any other conclusion? So let's get on that, and institute a government program using our tax dollars and yours to wipe out Fundamentalist Christianity in our country before it ruins our economy and quality of life. Heck, just to be safe, let's wipe out all Christianity. Or better yet, all religion. That oughta do it! After all, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians (and all but a small handful are associated with some religion), we've just proven, beyond any doubt, that religion is costing America way more than $112 billion per year in tax money.
Reducing these costs by eradicating religion, the Two Percent Company said, "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."
At this point, we could either say "Oh, wouldn't it be nice?" or "You know how fucking facetiously we're writing this, right?" But it wouldn't matter; quote mining is as quote mining does, or so they say. Fucking disingenuous assholes. (It bore repeating.)]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2008/04/conclusions_expectations.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2008/04/conclusions_expectations.html Religion Another Gris Gris Bites the Dust 2008.01.23 (Wed) 21:50 this one subject that we have applied to every other subject, our heretofore staunch ally suddenly does an abrupt about-face. Now don't get us wrong — disagreement with us is not only acceptable, it's desired. We've said on many occasions that we aren't looking for blind adherance to our positions, but rather intelligent discourse. The problem is that, in the scenario we're writing about, the reader who has consistently — just like we have — applied logic and reason to every other subject we've written about has — unlike us — abandoned these tools when it comes to his pet topic. As Penn & Teller said: "Everybody got a gris gris" — meaning that everyone has some silly belief or behavior that they cling to, regardless of their usual rational approach to topics in general. Upon reading our treatment of his own gris gris, a reader who previously applauded our logic now declares that we are irrational assholes who have set aside logic and reason in order to arrive at our opinion on this one subject. In other words, he accuses us of doing precisely what he himself has just done. We've seen this so many times; like when readers laugh along with us at those kooks who believe in psychics...and then proclaim that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and condemn us for calling Christianity a silly belief. We've also seen it when someone agrees that, say, Reiki is an unproven, ineffective form of quackery, but then insists that applying the same label to aromatherapy is just wrong. But to be totally honest, up until a few months back, we hadn't ever seen this "argument" coming from a pedophile.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2008/01/another_gris_gris.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2008/01/another_gris_gris.html Civil Liberties Late for Our Own Party 2007.11.20 (Tue) 13:03 The astute readers out there (attention religiosos and woos: this doesn't tend to include you) may have noticed that November 19 was the third anniversary of the Two Percent Company. Even the non-astute readers (dipshits included) surely realized that we didn't manage to get a post up. What can we say? It's been a rough year for blogging. We've gone through the list of various things that have taken up our time already, so we won't do so again here, but suffice it to say that the list hasn't gotten any shorter. We've tried to get back into Ranting a few times when we thought we saw things opening up; but each time, our windows were short-lived, and we again fell silent. We've been keeping up with comments, and some of our e-mails, but since Ranting tends to require lots of research, it has unfortunately been preempted by that pesky "real life" thing. While we'd like to say that we see the light at the end of the tunnel, we've said that before...and been proven wrong. So for now, we'll just say that we're still here, we're still kicking, and we still plan to make a full return. We just don't have the foggiest exactly when that might be. Thanks to all who have commented, and all who have dropped us lines. Even if we haven't responded, we have read everything we've received, and we have followed your links and either laughed or cried along with you. We're sorry that we haven't had more time these past months, and we truly hope that the future will allow us the luxury of returning to our old form. It could happen next week, next month, or not for a while. Until then, our site isn't going anywhere, and neither are we. Now kindly excuse us, if you will, as we quietly blow out the candles on our slightly stale cake and slip off to take care of other business. — The Two Percent Company.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/11/late_for_our_own_party.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/11/late_for_our_own_party.html Two Percent Company Skeptics' Circle #71 2007.10.11 (Thu) 09:48 seventy-first edition of the Skeptics' Circle was published yesterday over at Infophilia. Seeing yet another very familiar name in our inboxes announcing another edition of our favorite blog carnival finally got the better of us. So, in addition to the latest skeptical edition, we wanted to take the time to link to all of the other editions that we failed to link to during our extended absence. Hey, better late than never, right? Light up your aromatherapy candles, whip out your magic crystals, and settle in for as much skeptical reading as you can handle.
]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/10/skeptics_circle_71.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/10/skeptics_circle_71.html Bullshit Note to Talking Heads 2007.10.03 (Wed) 14:23 nothing from Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire — where he correctly and effectively reproached Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for doing nothing more than adding to the meaningless and harmful political noise in the media? Matthews appeared last night on The Daily Show to promote his new book, Life's a Campaign. Let's rephrase that: Matthews appeared last night on The Daily Show TO PROMOTE his new book, Life's a Campaign. That is, there is a substantial difference between what Matthews was doing there, and what someone who was there to discuss his book and its ideas would be doing there. It's quite pathetic that Matthews can't seem to understand that. If you come on a talk show — even on Comedy Central — to be interviewed by a host who has a reputation for tearing down bullshit and is clearly not seduced by the "old chum" school of media relations, expect to fucking DEFEND your work. Don't just expect to come on and get the word out that your book is published. Be prepared for dissent; be prepared for debate; be prepared for the possibility that the host has read your book and disagrees with its premises. Jon's basic argument was that the book endorsed approaching life with an eye toward winning at all costs (like a campaign, one might say). So while Matthews claimed to be supporting listening to people, caring about people, and doing what's right, Jon pointed out that politicians often just pretend to do all those things in order to win. It wasn't clear if Matthews acknowledged that politicians are just pretending, or if he endorsed pretending in everyday life (for our dime, we think that's exactly what he was saying), since he went back and forth on that answer. Jon's assertion was that approaching life with an agenda to win at all costs is "a recipe for sadness." Whether you agree or disagree with Jon's assertions (we agree), he clearly explained his argument. And what was Matthews' reply? After a bunch of waffling, it boiled down to "I wrote a book, I'm trying to promote it, and you won't let me. Stop asking me to defend my views." Beyond being such an asshole that he couldn't grasp Jon's position, Matthews also had the whiny gall to complain about Jon Stewart dissecting the book in detail, and he declared that this Daily Show appearance was the worst interview he'd ever experienced. Gee, Chris — nice to know that all it takes to make for a bad interview is to call on you to support the assertions you yourself have fucking written in your publicized work. See, those of us who have confidence in our assertions would welcome an interviewer who demanded that we support them. Instead of blind acceptance and vacuous endorsement of anything and everything that comes down the pike, we'd actually like it if the media did its fucking job and took the time to cull the weak arguments behind bold assertions, ferret out the facts, and expose the lies. You know, like Jon does on nearly every episode. The fact that Matthews (along with everyone from politicos to psychics) has come to expect nothing but fluff from the media is a primary part of the actual problem here, and the fact that Matthews was so shocked and appalled at his treatment speaks volumes about how ingrained this problem really is. The media is continuing to spiral down that series of tubes, and folks like Stewart are proudly perched on top of the biggest lumps of shit, pointing them out despite vehement protests from floaters and dingleberries. What a bunch of fucking gladhanding whores.
— • —
In answer to the two obvious questions, however: no, we're not necessarily back — still burdened with a huge number of real life responsibilities — and yes, we're aware that our comment preview function seems to be utterly screwed. We're working on both of these — promise.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/10/note_talking_heads.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/10/note_talking_heads.html Media & Censorship We've Got Mail! 2007.08.31 (Fri) 21:24 I'm pretty certain that you receive your fair share of hate mail and it just seems unfair of you to keep such material to yourselves. I'm certain that the invective and bigotry no doubt on display in these mails would make for good reading to those of us who take a perverse pleasure in reading the ravings and hypocrisy of complete loons. So, I petition you to consider publishing some of the choice emails you've received - possibly work them into a rant about tolerance and love and practicing what you preach and all that. Alternatively, make the Urinal publicly accessible? I'd love to read more of Jaaykke's rubbish. First off, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that the "Scribbled Above the Urinal" post is, in fact, accessible (via the link we just provided, as a matter of fact). So if it's stupid comments you're craving, look no further. That said — yes, Octavo, we really do receive our fair share of e-mails from dipshits! While we've shared some of them over the years, most of them sit quietly on our e-mail clients, gathering dust. Unfair, indeed. So, without further ado, we present a sampling of the e-mails we've received, and our replies to them — many of them specifically on the subject of Allison DuBois. Think of this as a "Dear Abby" for credulous asshats. Note that the e-mails received are unedited — all errors are original. Our replies are also presented as we sent them, other than minor formatting due to the move from text-based e-mail to HTML.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/08/weve_got_mail.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/08/weve_got_mail.html Bullshit Dairy Vending Machines in the Muslim Workplace 2007.07.19 (Thu) 11:02 Jesus & Mo directs us to a month-old New York Times article outlining one of the thousands of fatwas to come out of a Muslim government, this one declaring it proper for a man and woman to work together without requiring her to cover up in the traditional Muslim fashion provided that she has breast-fed the man five times, thus establishing a family bond between the two under Islamic law, we'd be forced to make a few comments about how terribly backwards religion is, how obtuse its die-hard adherents tend to be, and how the twisted and tortured logic involved seems utterly insane, all the while making rude jokes about sucking your co-worker's tits around the water cooler while discussing Thursday night's sitcom line-up or just squeezing her nips into your morning Java as you spread hummus on your halal bagel, and then we'd sum up by casting aspersions regarding the ulterior motives the (male) Islamic leaders may have toward their secretaries. Oh. Neat. Our work here is done. Brought to you by the fine people of What Passes For Feminism In The Fanatical Muslim World (WPFFITFMW).]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/07/dairy_vending.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/07/dairy_vending.html Religion The Eyes Have It Very, Very Rarely 2007.07.17 (Tue) 23:08 Astronomy Picture of the Day provides an excellent example of how fallible human perceptions can be. Here's a hint: if you squint your eyes a lot as you stare at the image on the screen, it'll become very obvious that A and B are the same color. (Don't worry, that's not a spoiler...unless you're the kind of person who can't already tell what the last Dilbert panel will say after reading the first two.) It continues to amaze us that people can look at a grilled cheese sandwich, a cinammon bun, or a water stain on the wall of an underpass and insist that what they "see" in any particular pattern (random or not) actually "means" what they interpret it to mean. What's even funnier, to us, is that Joe Random or Juanita Azar really thinks it make any sense whatsoever that their almighty Lord 'n' Savior — or his mom, or some cruel saint — would appear in such an absurdly and often pathetically mundane way, not relay any sort of message or instructions, and be so hard to pick out for the vast majority of other viewers. Oh. Did we actually try to put sense and religion together? Sorry, our bad. At any rate, we finally understand the hullabaloo. We really get why these folks get so excited to see a vague Jesusoid shape or a Crusty Mary that leaps out and reaffirms their belief in the order, unity, and harmony of the universe (as revealed in a baked good) — for, you see, we ourselves have suddenly had a profound experience. It happened mere days ago, on the subway, when Jeff had to cut up some paper (some clients are just purely incapable of abstract visualization, and need an exact visual representation — sheesh). Taking the scraps and squeezing them in his fist so he could deposit them in the trash at the next stop, Jeff was amazed when he opened his hand and saw...there...in all its glory...
He lives! And rides the MTA!
That's right, it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Sure, a few noodly appendages are missing, but it's as clear as day. What, you don't see it? How sad for you that you feel the need to deny something so obvious. We never really got into the Pastafarian craze, but this — by religioso logic — is incontrovertible proof of His Noodliness' existence, and his desire to communicate with us! As near as we can figure it, he wanted us to head to Peter Luger's that night, buy a tremendous meal of several steaks each, and then Hunter Thompson our way across the country in a vodka penne induced stupor (pasta isn't for eating, you see, it's for transcedence). But instead, Jeff tossed the Great One at Penn Station and had sushi for dinner that night. Fucking infidel.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/07/eyes_have_it.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/07/eyes_have_it.html Bullshit Don't Bogart the Constitution, Dude 2007.06.28 (Thu) 16:59 Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Personally, we feel that Jesus himself would probably endorse this statement...if he could read English. And if he, you know, still actually existed (assuming, for a moment, that he ever did). The clues are ubiquitous in the bible, and heavily implied in many depictions of the Last Supper. (Man, can you imagine sitting through Haggadah passages, dealing with the munchies for four hours, before you finally get a bite of Passover dinner?) Hell, the signs are everywhere — just ask Dan Brown. Of course, when Joseph Frederick's school principal, Deborah Morse, confiscated his sign and suspended him, it was a hell of a buzzkill. Lawsuits ensued, appeals escalated, and this ridiculous situation — sparked by a fucking sign — managed to get all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Given the current composition of the court, the result wasn't hard to guess:
A high school student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner got slapped down by the Supreme Court in a decision Monday that restricts student speech rights when the message seems to advocate illegal drug use.
There's a big problem, here, folks, and it isn't limited to Joseph Frederick and his unoriginal but certainly fun sentiment. There are several ways to look at what happened here, both in the initial incident, and in the final decision by the Supremes. First, you have the linguists' view. This seems to focus on the fact that "bong" is an accepted and acceptable term for the physical object to which it refers, and it seems silly to take that specific word and make a ruling based upon it. The conclusion to this hypothesis is that, if Tommy Chong had been selling "water pipes" instead of "bongs," he never would have done time. We can get behind that, though only because we think that any ruling against any use of words, phrases, references, or speech in general is fucking insane and incredibly fucking stupid. Next, you have the idiots who think this is some kind of school discipline situation. Nice try, though it's utter bullshit — Joseph was off school property at the time, holding up the banner as the Olympic Torch was passing through Juneau. The school, of course, claims that this was a "school-sanctioned event" — they brought the kids off campus to watch the torch pass, and "therefore" Joseph's behavior was still governed by school rules. We disagree, but in the end, it's a moot point anyway. We honestly don't give a shit if this was a "field trip" or not, because even if Joseph was governed by school rules, we're still talking about a silly, nonsensical sign which may have been inappropriate, but which nonetheless certainly should have fallen into the category of protected speech. But this whole thing gets even more inane. Because next, you have the idiots in black robes who are pretending that Joseph's banner was in some way a promotion or endorsement of drug use.
In their concurrence Alito and Kennedy said that the decision "goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use."
This is just ludicrous. A "reasonable observer" would interpret this as advocating illegal drug use? First of all, no. A reasonable observer (we have yet to see Alito or even Kennedy qualify there) would interpret this as a silly kid making a silly sign for fun and/or attention. Period. That's reasonable. Jumping to the fucking asinine assertion that this is some way for Joseph to say "Hey, kids, smoke pot!" isn't quite as "reasonable." In fact, we defy anyone to explain what this statement means beyond a reasonable doubt. The point is that the statement is so vague and nonsensical that it is almost entirely open to interpretation. It could be a statement about the hypocrisy of the Religious Right, who both embrace Jesus and deplore the very drug that the image of a besandaled, bearded, robed wanderer who preaches peace and tolerance inevitably conjures up. Or it could be a statement sarcastically condemning Christians who use drugs. Or it could be a statement rallying Christians to support the legalization of marijuana. Or it could just have been something that some sky-high kid wrote on a snowboard that another kid thought would be funny on television. (No way! Kids imitate catchy sayings they've seen in previous venues? Wow. And did you know that stuff costs more than it used to? Incidentally, the sun is hot and, this just in, water is fucking wet.) But that's all utterly beside the point; even if Joseph was endorsing drug use, this decision is fucking incredibly obtuse. Books and papers have been banned here and there for centuries because "somebody" thought they meant something — but the fact is, it doesn't matter if they're right about what it means or not. Either fucking way, O Mighty Protectors of the Constitution (remember that rag? The one you're supposed to be paying attention to?), we free citizens of this democratic republic have the right to endorse or promote whatever opinions we wish, even if those opinions are contrary to the current laws. Guess what, dickheads? As long as we aren't actually breaking the fucking law, we get to express our opinions about the legitimacy of that law as much as we fucking want. We grant this privilege to fucking NAMBLA, for fuck's sake, and others (like the Ku Klux Klan) — specifically so that all other citizens get the same privilege. That is the point of the freedom of speech in the First Amendment. A point which a majority of the Supreme Court Justices appear to have utterly fucking failed to grasp. In fact, the concurring opinion penned by Alito and Kennedy, as quoted in the ABC News article, illustrates perfectly how they have failed to grasp the situation:
In a concurrence, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy said the court's opinion "goes no further" than speech interpreted as dealing with illegal drug use. "It provides no support" for any restriction that goes to political or social issues, they said.
Wrong, fellas. Depending on your interpretation of the message (as discussed above), the case in question could very likely have been about a social or political statement. And if it's possible — and even likely — that Joseph's message was socially or politically motivated (even if only as an exercise in his First Amendment rights), then this ruling does in fact restrict the very type of speech that it claims not to restrict. How can anyone be so fucking thick-headed as to miss this obvious point? For his part, Joseph claims his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" statement was just something that struck his fancy when he first saw it printed on a snowboard. He claims he didn't mean anything by it, nor was he really endorsing any "message." He just found something "witty" he wanted to throw up at a public event to annoy his principal, because he could. Oops — sorry, Joe; as it turns out...you can't. Not with this Supreme Court, anyway. Perhaps the big double whammy comes from the fact that his banner referenced both drug use and the Christian Lord 'n' Savior in conjunction; and those are both very hot buttons for the idiots on the Right. Would it have been more palatable if Joseph's banner had said "Nitrous Oxide 4 Buddha"? Hey, nitrous oxide has legitimate, legal uses (of course, so does marijuana). And Buddha isn't the patron fucking wunderkind of the majority of the Supreme Court Justices. So that should be just fine, right? Or perhaps, it should have been fine anyway:
[Dissenting Justice John Paul] Stevens said the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. "This nonsense banner does neither," Stevens said.
See that word, folks? NONSENSE. That aptly describes Joseph's sign — purely harmless nonsense. It also aptly describes the Supreme Court decision — absolutely fucking horrendous nonsense that can easily be compounded over the next decade or so into more and more limitations on our freedoms. As we've said before, we'll be rid of Dubya soon enough, but we'll be living under the burden of his Supreme Court appointees for a long time to come.]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/06/bogart_constitution.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/06/bogart_constitution.html Government & Politics Sir Salman Sparks Seriously Stupid Statements 2007.06.23 (Sat) 16:15 Post can pull that alliteration crap in headline after headline, we can throw one up on occasion. And, frankly, a situation this incredibly fucking ridiculous deserves a light and airy headline, rather than one with the appropriate gravitas, because it simply isn't appropriate. Many of you have no doubt heard that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses — which put him on the Muslim shit list (or, translated to Arabic, "fatwa") back in the eighties, apparently forever (even though it was formally lifted in the late 90s) — was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for her Birthday Honours. This has, of course, driven parts of the Muslim world utterly apeshit. The second-funniest thing, to us, is that the Muslims single out Rushdie so vehemently — he's the big problem on Libby Two's list. We don't recall any big flap about Sir Ian McKellan — noted homosexual, wizard, mutant, and crippled religious conspiracy theorist — when he was knighted. And just look at some of the people on the Queen's list this time around! There's physicist Nigel Mason of Open University, and Vice-President and Biological secretary of the Royal Society, David John Read; two men whose work flies in the face of Allah's Word o' Glory. How about Oxford astrophysicist Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Monica Anne Winstanley of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Eileen McKillop, Senior Scientific Officer of Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Northern Ireland Executive (no doubt heavily involved in work with potatoes)? Not only are they evil infidel scientists, but they're women! How dare they receive any accolades at all?! Allah would be righteously furious. And speaking of women (and queens), another name on the list is John Barry Humphries — an individual you might know better as famous crossdresser and scathingly funny comedienne, Dame Edna (don't go by the late night talk show appearances, see her actual shows — brilliant stuff), who will be the first person in history to be called both "Sir" and "Dame." That's okay, but Rushdie's little book is a mortal sin? Even Peter Sallis makes the cut, and he spends most of his time hanging out in a questionable relationship with a mouthless dog. (James Stewart gets a nod, too — but not the one you're thinking of.) The list goes on and on, but one thing is clear: fatwa aside, Rushdie certainly shouldn't be the most egregious name on the list from a Muslim perspective. More importantly, though, why should Muslim extremists expect Great Britain — a traditionally Christian nation, and more and more secular over the years — to honor their hateful, violent, stupid and laughable death threat? Hey, Muslim fanatics: obsess much? It's been two decades, kids. Pack it in already. But like we said, the singling out of Rushdie was only the second-funniest aspect of this debacle. Our absolute favorite bit was this choice quote from the Iranian Parliament's First Deputy Speaker, Mohammad Reza Bahonar:
"The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
Wait a second...who lives in the past, stubbornly refusing to accept progress? Who is under the illusion that bestowing titles is something still deemed important? 'Cause you fucking Muslim nutbags seem to think it's a pretty big deal, dontcha? You know, just judging by your reaction to Salman Rushdie getting this "unimportant" title bestowed upon him. Mohammad might want to pick his words more carefully next time. And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: we have the front-runner for Most Obtusely Hypocritical Statement of the Twenty-First Century. It'll take quite a bit of talent — and idiocy — to top this one. Hat tip to the always funny and on-target Jesus and Mo. [And yes, we know: two Rants in two days. Don't expect miracles, but we're trying to get back to "work" around here. Now, if you'll excuse us, we're going fishing. One of us for actual fish. — Ed.]]]> http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/06/sir_salman.html http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2007/06/sir_salman.html Religion