Archive for the ‘Satire’ Category

Virginia Referendum to Reject Suffrage

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Bob_McDonnellVirginia Governor elect Bob McDonnell issued a statement today that once in office he would pursue a referendum in Virginia to reject the constitutional amendment that lets women vote.1

McDonnell was attacked for his 1989 thesis for Regent University, in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family. Despite his campaign promise that his views have matured, McDonnell is apparently using the gubernatorial platform and the trend of states passing similar initiatives regarding civil rights to manifest his idealism in a state that has a long history of conservatism.

When asked about the implications of the Tenth Amendment, McDonnell’s spokesperson indicated that “the Constitution as ratified explicitly excluded women,2 and even if state sovereignty in this matter does not trump federal law, it is firmly established that the federal government cannot force participation in the administration of any of its programs.3 In addition, the federal government is prohibited from trying to prevent the Commonwealth’s free exercise of religion, which is a substantive part of the referendum — to affirm religious freedom.”4

  1. No, he didn’t. But it certainly looks like he could. How can we stand by idly while we let the masses vote on whether minorities can exercise equal civil rights? It’s quite likely that for years after Brown v. Board (and maybe even up through today), if we had put integration up to a popular vote, we’d still be segregated. Look at our rich history of civil rights, and you can easily see how we require iconic heroes to make headway, not majorities. How does it feel to see the finish line of equality and intellectual honesty and then suddenly and relentlessly be pulled backwards, back toward the dark ages full of human inequality and cruelty? Feels like shit. [<]
  2. See NOW [<]
  3. See Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) [<]
  4. See First Amendment [<]

Obama finds hidden reference to God in the Constitution

Friday, August 21st, 2009

WASHINGTON DC — During President Obama’s conference call with dozens of faith leaders that provoked a 40-day campaign of religious activism in the form of prayer vigils, advertising, and more, the President revealed that he had uncovered undeniable proof that the nation’s founders intended to invoke the Christian god (“God”) in the U.S. Constitution.1

“It was a clerical manipulation intended to be found at the right moment,” said Obama of the Constitutional reference to God. “Just like ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied throughout the ages, creating and perpetuating early translation and other mistakes while hiding key messages from early religious leaders. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, was drafted and redrafted, and we actually put on display differing copies of what we think is the same document, and it is full of Masonic and other mysterious code.”2

Obama told the religious leaders that “I am my brother’s keeper,” referring to the biblical passage from Genesis where God asks Cain where his brother Abel was,3 and Cain replies, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”4

Obama insisted that passing health care reform was a biblical mandate, a moral and ethical obligation established by God. Some critics have chided Obama’s decision to invoke the Christian god, but Obama was adamant that the Constitution clearly established the government as a Christian nation. When asked to clarify, Obama pulled his personal, redlined copy of the Constitution from his desk drawer and showed it to reporters attending the conference.

Upon viewing Obama’s copy, the religious experts on hand agreed that Obama had successfully spotted the name of God (Yahweh) spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Compare for yourself:
yah-con
(Obama’s redlined copy)
const-unedited
(an unedited copy)5
Yahweh
(the Hebrew for Yahweh)

“Despite the fact that the language of the pre-God Constitution not only justifies, but also requires the U.S. government to reform health care for the welfare of America’s citizens,” Obama continued, “the biblical god, by way of the Constitution, demands it, so we must follow accordingly. Without our faith, this couldn’t be accomplished.”

A small minority of opponents still argue that prayer and religion have no place in government meetings, but Obama’s administration is well on its way to homogenizing the American religious point of view.

Up to this point, no one had been able to successfully find a pro-religious reference in the Constitution, and religious leaders worldwide have expressed their relief that the United States is finally falling into place among its fellow theocracies.

  1. Seriously, he more or less did. [<]
  2. This is absolutely true. See My Inalienably Unalienable Rights and Masonic signers. [<]
  3. Obviously a rhetorical question, since an omniscient being would already know the answer. [<]
  4. See Cain & Abel [<]
  5. I think it’s obvious from the intentionally drawn strong lines of “WE THE” compared to the rest of the Constitution that the author was trying to capture the attention of someone who would recognize how closely it and the Hebrew were matched. [<]

Federal law prohibits “fake news” satire

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

WASHINGTON DC — A federal law taking effect Monday makes it illegal for anyone other than the New York based tabloid newspaper “The Onion” to publish in paper or electronic form any “parody or satire… representing, appearing to be, or in the form of real news.”

The law was initially proposed by Senator Lieberman, who infamously called for the censorship of YouTube last year. “This bill will guard our citizens against the threat of false and misleading ‘fake’ news,” Lieberman said when he introduced the bill in Congress earlier this year. “Freedom of expression is an important value, but protecting the nation from being misled, regardless of the intent behind it, takes a higher priority.”

Christopher Hitchens, noted atheist and contributor to Slate, commented that the law would unnecessarily taint freedom of the press and chill free speech. “Satires have been written by Ovid, Horace, Voltaire, Samuel Butler, George Orwell, Lewis Black, and innumerable others. There will be quite a bit of censorship in our future if this bill passes.”1

“This is bittersweet, like hot sauce on sliced pumpkin bread,” said The Onion editor Joe Randazzo after hearing of the bill’s passage. “The problem is, though, that I think Congress doesn’t realize that The Onion is a real news source. As real as Fox News, at any rate.”

According to the ACLU, “Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans.”

Concerns have arisen over how the government would enforce such a broad and expansive law. A review of the Congressional budget report relevant to the bill revealed that the government would take advantage of the Bush-era Protect America Act that removes restrictions on government access to service providers.2

Criticism has been made of the bill by some of The Onion’s competitors, including Humor Times and The Second Supper. Publisher Mike Keith of The Second Supper noted that the law creates an illegal monopoly for satirical news.

“Despite the good intentions of Senator Lieberman,” he said, “the effects of this law will not only put papers like mine out of business, but will also allow The Onion to jack up the prices of its paper and Internet subscriptions.”

When Senator Lieberman was asked about the potential for monopolization, he responded in an explanatory email, “That’s a non-issue. Everyone already assumes that any attempt at newslike satire is either from The Onion or is an attempt to be like The Onion. There’s no realistic existing competition, so the law doesn’t in fact change the marketplace structure of news satire such that it would produce a monopoly.”

When asked whether the law would prohibit news satire television shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, Lieberman replied, “No, of course not. The law only affects news satire, not real news shows. Go read the bill, it’s quite plain.”

  1. Bravo to Hitchens for his criticism of Yale University Press‘ decision to remove images of Mohammed from a book about the Danish cartoons. [<]
  2. See SF Chronicle [<]

Biden refuses to fly in VP helicopter with atheist pilot

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

[Ed's note: You may not get the subtle nuances of this article, and that might make you get all up in arms and enraged. It's good to get enraged occasionally, but read everything first, and then make an informed decision. Everyone knows the old poem, Lady Ires the Wasp: "When distracted by the summer sky, upon the wasp she sat, ire caused the wasp to sting, the fire brought her back."]
bidenWASHINGTON DC, (Presidential Online Enquiry database) – Today, President Obama expressed his concern over the recent controversy involving Vice President Biden and an alleged atheist helicopter pilot. On Tuesday, Biden refused to allow his vice presidential helicopter pilot to take off, citing suspicions that the pilot was a non-believer.

“I saw him not praying or crossing himself before takeoff,” Biden said at a press conference today, “and it’s my firm belief that his atheism greatly increased the chances of us crashing. If God’s not on our side every step of the way, and every flight, too, then I don’t want to be on this side.”1

When questioned about the incident, President Obama suggested that he was considering suspending Biden for a short period of time. “Government employees must adhere to the First Amendment,” said Obama. “It sets a bad example of intolerance.”

We were unable to contact the helicopter pilot in question.

Biden’s wife said that White House officials knew about Biden’s convictions when he was elected.

“This has been his faith since his very first day on the job,” Jill Biden said. She said that making Biden fly in the helicopter would be telling him to be “like Janus, the two-face god, just because he wants to make a living.”

“In my opinion, it’s wrong to deny a person the ability to do his job because he has a belief,” she said.

A local DC attorney says that the White House may have violated Biden’s right to have his own religious beliefs.

Biden has a right to refuse to fly if the White House can reasonably accommodate a validly held religious belief, said Ted Pacine, a civil rights lawyer in DC. For example, the White House should have provided an alternate pilot of Biden’s religious belief, or should have let Biden work directly out of the White House without having to travel.

Pacine said that religious cases are tender and difficult, and should be handled with care, so as not to offend anyone.

Biden isn’t the only government employee who has refused to board a vessel piloted or driven by someone not overtly Christian. There have been multiple alleged cases of congressmen who have refused flights piloted by atheists, agnostics, and even Muslims.2

UPDATE: At the press conference, Biden was asked whether he would have also refused to fly if the pilot had been gay. His response has just come in: “Now, that’s not a fair question. Everyone knows that our pilots are military, and that gays are not allowed to serve in the military, at least openly. And I know I’ve never asked my pilots about that, though I do pay attention to whether they’re well-groomed or speak with a lisp.” 3

It’s not like I have anything against Biden… or the Pres… Or do I?4

  1. It’s unbelievable that someone would act like this. Right? [<]
  2. Honestly, after seeing all of them pile out of the Capitol to yell “Under God” while mumble-reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when that was the media issue du jour makes me wonder whether they do, indeed, screen their pilots, drivers, and others for religion. [<]
  3. This article is a tribute to people doing the right thing, despite being hounded by the RR. Brad Miller, you rock. [<]
  4. Okay, let’s be clear. This satire has absolutely nothing to do with Biden other than the fact that I can see him pulling such a stunt. What’s it got to do with? The original article of inspiration regards a Des Moines DART bus driver who was suspended because she refused to board and drive a bus that donned the “Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone” ad. The DART bus ads garnered a lot of controversy, being allowed, disallowed, and then allowed again to be displayed on buses. Despite the myriad pro-Christian ads that have donned those and other buses throughout the years without complaint, the moment a pro-atheist bus ad appears, the Christians attack. That’s not setting a good standard, and a few of the bus/metro operations have caved in to the religious pressure to remove the ads in favor of keeping customers happy and not “offended.” The Des Moines situation, on the other hand, is one of the few instances where the bus company didn’t play favorites, and for that, I’m impressed and grateful. My satire, though, focuses particularly on the “defense” of the bus driver being based on a “right” to practice religion that a Des Moines attorney claims should have trumped the bus company’s ability to display an ad that offended the driver, or at least have pandered to her religious preferences in some way. I thought it would be interesting to highlight that aspect — the “right not to be offended in the workplace” aspect — on a different scale to see what kind of reactions we’d get if one of the top executives of the government tried pulling the same whining routine. I was wondering if it’d be unrealistic — no way would the VP do that! But, yet again, I’m shown that it seems to be well within the scope of cynicism for many of us to believe that we’re that much closer to being a country that panders so much to the religious that we become more or less theocratic. Look at what Texas is doing, forcing its public school children to learn about the Old and New Testament. Remember how Obama and Biden, plus most of the Congress, have repeatedly invoked the god of one specific religion. Is it that different for Biden to have actually done the above from what Biden likely thinks to himself when he boards a helicopter? God bless the troops, and God bless America, kids. Say it to get votes, sure, but after you’re elected and you still say it… overkill. [<]

Mandatory Masturbation in Health Care Bill

Friday, August 14th, 2009

There’s a wicked rumor spreading throughout the right-wing media that Obama’s health care bill will REQUIRE every parent to teach their children that masturbation is a perfectly normal, healthy human activity.1 Yes, they’re going to push their SEXUAL agenda on everyone! I’m NOT KIDDING! They’re calling it “mandatory masturbation.”2

Okay, that’s the rumor. It’s bullshit. Now let’s talk truth for a moment.

The REAL text of the health care bill makes it plainly obvious what’s going on:

House Bill 3200, titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” section 2543 (b)(2) states:

ESTABLISHMENT OF CORE PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS- The Secretary, in consultation with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, shall establish core parental educational elements for a compliance program under paragraph (1). The elements will include written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct, a designated compliance officer and a compliance committee to ensure parental to child training and education pertaining to human underage masturbation; a confidential or anonymous mechanism, such as a hotline, to receive compliance questions; disciplinary guidelines for enforcement of standards; internal monitoring and auditing procedures, including monitoring and auditing of parents; procedures for ensuring prompt responses to detected offenses and development of corrective action initiatives, including responses to potential offenses; and procedures to return all identified violations to the programs under this title, title XIX, and title XXI.

Paragraph (1), as referenced above, states:

Parent to child training curriculum will include, at minimum, the following core lessons regarding masturbation:
1. Touching the intimate parts of one’s body except during normal washing and using the bathroom should be avoided, and during washing, should be limited as much as possible.
2. Children should never be left alone, as being alone increases susceptibility to temptation.
3. After bathing, children should not linger, especially in front of the mirror. Children should stay in the shower just long enough to clean themselves or be cleaned by a parent. As soon as the cleaning is finished, the child should dry off and get out of the bathroom as soon as possible to be in the presence of a family member.
4. Prior to sleeping, children should be dressed in full pajamas or clothes that are difficult to remove.
5. The Internet should be avoided entirely, or at least restricted and closely monitored. Oversight of television programs is recommended, as long as the programs are limited to programs displaying gratuitous violence without sexual content.
6. The topic of masturbation should be avoided. If a child brings up the topic, the parent should change the topic or remind the child that all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, is unequivocally immoral and unhealthy, and can lead to addiction, infertility, mental illness, and, in some cases, prostate cancer in males.3

Despite the fact that the bill’s provisions are completely opposite of the rumors, Republicans and right-wing pundits keep pushing. When asked about the “mandatory masturbation” portion of the bill, “Joe the plumber” had this to say, “The politicians in Washington are spending trillions of dollars of our money to push masturbation on children. When are Americans going to stand up and say enough is enough?”4

Iowan Republican Senator Grassley has been a staunch opponent of the bill. “In the House bill, there is counseling for masturbation,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have pro-masturbation parental counseling. That’s something that should be considered only after marriage, if ever. We should not have a government run plan to decide for us whether masturbation is right or wrong. That’s a discussion only between parents and God.” Grassley obviously has not read the bill.5

Sarah Palin, estranged former governor of Alaska,6 notorious for her ironic sexual positions,7 had a lot to say about “mandatory masturbation”:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that requires parents to teach their children that masturbation is normal and healthy…..

As I noted in my statement last week, masturbation inevitably leads to pre-marital sex and mental illness. The mandatory masturbation system proposed by President Obama, advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff, would force every parent to talk to their children about masturbation, and, worse, would make those parents advocate for masturbation.

On the left side, Keith Olbermann had this to say:

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports masturbation, and one of the most profitable businesses in America, the porn industry, backs that with all of their money and lobbying pressure. Cross us all at your peril.8

The effects of the negative punditry are varied, but one interesting situation is that Glenn Beck, another anti-masturbation proponent, has recently lost advertisers due to his stance. Vivid Entertainment Group pulled its ads from Fox News Channel’s “The Glenn Beck Program.” Club Jenna, Inc. has also declared that it will not advertise during the program.9

Here’s what Michelle Bachmann10 said regarding the mandatory masturbation clause:

[It's] under the guise of quote, volunteerism, but it’s not volunteers at all,” she said on the Bob Johnson radio show in July. “It’s the government forcing parents to force masturbation on their children. This provision is like creating re-education camps for young people, where young people get trained in the philosophy the government puts forward and then they have to go thinking that masturbation is acceptable and not morally corrupt.

As a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time doing this to my children.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) told a Florida radio station today that the health care legislation being considered by the House of Representatives will authorize the creation of “masturbation counselors.”

They create a whole new category. There are masturbation counselors. There is authorization for reimbursement for those counselors. You have a whole new cottage industry.

Obviously, the pundits and congressmen need to sit down for a few minutes and actually read the damn bill. Perhaps then we can get off on this topic.11

  1. Everyone wants to do it, and it feels good, so it must be wrong. [<]
  2. Mmm, M&Ms [<]
  3. No shit, this is only loosely based on real mind-numbingly inane religious anti-masturbation proponent websites. [<]
  4. Why the fuck are people still talking about Joe the Plumber? [<]
  5. Nobody reads the bills. [<]
  6. Why the fuck are people still talking about Sarah Palin? [<]
  7. See THIS; or were you looking for something along the lines of this? [<]
  8. I’d probably pay to hear Olbermann say that, or something like that. Well, I wouldn’t pay much. No one ever donates, and I’m effin poor. [<]
  9. The day those companies advertise on Fox is the day this country is truly free. [<]
  10. How the fuck is she still in office? [<]
  11. Are you actually looking for something to indicate whether this is satire? Please. It’s obviously real news. Just like Fox News. [<]