Evamaloutions

I think the real issue is not clearly explained in debates over creationism. In discussion over changes to curriculum it becomes apparent that what is being debated is the position of science in our society and the deference due to science in examination of nature. I don't think that the scriptural interpretive preference of an obnoxiously vocal minority should have any bearing on how we regard the statements of experts on matters of fact. The point is not that fundamentalist Christians are trying to hijack our culture through the indoctrinating power of the already failing public school system, but that they intentionally avoid narrowing the issue or focusing on details because this is a discussion they loose as soon as rationality prevails.

In case you were wondering this post was not provoked by anything in particular but is tangentially related to the posts this week regarding stumbling upon websites anthropomorphizing of animals and showing that the efforts by religious fanatics to destroy science is not restricted to right wing Christian maniacs.

Posted from a Palm Treo mobile device.

Comments

We have recently decided to moderate a comment for the first time. Being advocates of not just free speech but offensively free speech this decision burns us like white phosphorous. I often say that if people aren't trying to take your freedom of expression away from you, then you aren't actually using it. However, we here at the Fringe Element agree that this is not the place for unrestrained purely profane textual outbursts.

We like to think that every time we use an offensive word it is as carefully chosen as every other word we use in our works of expression here. When we swear or present an offensive concept it is to either focus the attention of the reader on the emotion evoked by the idea or calculated to knock the reader off balance in order to shock you the reader out of comfortable ways of thinking, or the word may be chosen simply to properly express our own emotional response to a situation in the news. But vulgar outbursts by anonymous posters have no potential of adding value to what we are trying to do here. Though it pains me to say even that much. If this post was a purely vulgar attack from a person that identified themselves it might have value as an expression of that person's emotional reaction to our content, but as an anonymous outburst from the tubes its just the kind of behavior that would embarrass the poster's mother. Really, you should think of what your mom would say if she saw you filling the wholesomeness of the intertubes with your potty mouth.

Anonymous posts have been a source of much enjoyment for me personally. Contributing to a blog has given me the opportunity to be exposed to the kind of virulent criticism, madness, and ad homenim attacks that can only be generated by painfully sane and mundane minds. I am glad that the intellectual hurdles involved in operating a computer, gaining access to the Internet, surfing the Internet, literacy, and posting a comment don't include the ability to think clearly and express oneself. If they did, the log cabin would be a much less entertaining place.

So we have decided to continue rejecting anonymous profane comments without context as a matter of policy. This is because, without posting your name to such a comment, we are unable to verify whether or not it is an actual person making said comment, thus we do not have to worry about violating an individual's freedom of speech. So if you feel the need to simply leave a profane remark, have the character and gumption to put your name to it. Also, this type of comment doesn't benefit anyone, even the individual responsible for it. It doesn't serve to elevate the discourse, provide any more information that might be lacking from the original posting, or doesn't meet the aforementioned 'mother' criteria, it only makes the commenter vent some emotion and lowers others' opinions of him or her. If on the other hand, you feel passionate about a particular subject and are offended by our thoughts, conceptualizations, ideas, or writings, and comment in a form such as 'fuck you, X is (positive adjective) because Y', this type of comment would be acceptable. So, in summary, please try to keep your comments above the level of an elementary school ad hominem. Thank you for reading, and we hope that you continue to enjoy our content here at the Fringe Element.

His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton I, Emperor of these United States and Protector or Mexico.

One hundred and twenty nine years ago today, Emperor Norton passed away leaving this world a sadder and more mundane place without him. Without trying he brought more unity, peace, and mirth to this world then most men of a hundred times his means. We should all strive to be like his Imperial Majesty. All hail the Emperor!

Hand Wringing by Freedom Haters

After the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the Second Mendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self defense there was much hand wringing from self righteous freedom haters across the globe. Editorial pages were filled with bias that dragged the national dialog down. The sense of loss was palpable among those who wished to ban guns. Even from news outlets that one would not particularly expect to have such a bias. Clearly they were upset that they have forever lost the possibility of not only banning guns, not only banning handguns, but also requiring trigger locks, and possibly also having to submit to concealed carry programs. All the editorials combined over the four days would be enough to give the impression that banning of handguns was a mainstream position without regard for whether or not it is true. One of the many reasons the MSM continues its fall from relevancy. Normally all this arguing that fear should trump freedom gets me really upset but now that the point is moot, I allowed myself to feel smug.

The worst hand wringing came from FBI director Robert Mueller who took the opportunity to go off topic and claim that universities are hotbeds for terrorist sympathisers. While he still maintained focus on what he was griping about, Mueller also managed to act as a fear monger when he wondered aloud whether guns would be allowed on university campuses. This after Scalia expressly stated in the majority opinion that gun bans on school and government property remained in effect and are reasonable restrictions on a citizens right to self defense.

We're gonna' shove our aid up your river delta!

I just read the most insane article regarding humanitarian aid I have ever seen. At first I thought that this must be from the Onion but it turns out this is not satire, this is from Time. Its from fucking Time! Christ on a fucking unicycle!



First paragraph; "How dare a foreign government exercise its sovereignty and refuse our great aid?"

Second paragraph; "If they won't accept our paltry hand-out we shall force it on them with violence!"




I sent them a little feedback. You have to believe me that I was trying my damndest not to sound like a crazy person but if you have read anything on this blog you already know how hard a time I have with that. Here is my editorial reply.





"The entire premise of this article seems like a thought that isn't even reasonable enough to rise to the surface of an intelligent person's mind. How did it become a Time article? The very idea that the U.S. should invade a country because they won't let us provide disaster relief to them is completely absurd. This is the kind of juvenile warmongering that one would expect from the far right of the blogosphere because it is too insane for Fox News. Just because a country is governed by evil men does not give us the right to violate their sovereignty."

My Contempt for W

If those who are being held in contempt of Congress are above the law because they were ordered not to cooperate by Bush himself, then why not hold W in contempt? There is no article or provision that puts the President above the laws of the land. For offenses up to and including the most heinous crime against a state, treason, the President should expect, as any other citizen, the combined weight of our laws, codes, and regulations when he chooses to violate them. Otherwise, why should any other citizen expect that there will equitable enforcement of the laws? Tin foil hats aside, with just a sparse review of his conduct, there are very simple cases that can be made. For starts, how about the NSA wiretapping program that is widely acknowledged to have been illegal? Then, in the light of Grand Jury discovery, or perhaps even the threat of it, we can finally untangle the web of lies, spin, and contempt which has so characterized the way the Bush administration has treated its adoring public.