28 October 2005

Friday Random 10

Too busy for even this last week, but at least I figured out what's wrong with the iTunes shuffle - it just inserts another song between any two consecutive tracks from the same artist. Bheh! Stupid. Anyway, here's this week's:
  1. The Dead Milkmen - "Right Wing Pigeons"
  2. Green Day - "When I Come Around"
  3. Bad Religion - "Operation Rescue"
  4. Beck - "Broken Train"
  5. Dead Kennedys - "Buzzbomb From Pasadena"
  6. Rage Against The Machine - "Down Rodeo"
  7. Tool - "Lateralus"
  8. Pink Floyd - "The Great Gig In The Sky"
  9. M.C. Hawking - "The Dozens"
  10. Bad Religion - "The Handshake"

Some things in life are priceless

For everything else, there's ol' Saint Fitz.
1 obstruction of justice: 10 years in federal pound me in the ass prison
2 false statements: 5 years each
2 instances of perjury: 5 years each
Watching the Bush malAdministation start pushing people overboard to keep the ship from sinking: priceless

25 October 2005

Hey, Brother Christian

I know I'm really late to the party here, but I can't miss an opportunity to comment on Paperwight's outstanding post on religious progressives. I'm basically in complete agreement, but the post, and the ensuing discussion, reminded me of a few tangentially related points. In no particular order:

Religious progressives: truce?
Please? I may be a positive atheist for just about any definition of "god" you might use, but I don't have a problem with other people having religious beliefs as long as they harness them in a productive way and don't force them on me (or anyone else). By "truce" I don't mean stopping disagreement - disagreement and debate are good. So I'll keep saying why I think you're mistaken, and by all means you keep saying why you think I'm mistaken. But can you at least stop accusing me of hostility toward religious people? And I'll continue to refrain from calling all religious people stupid. (However, I reserve the right to call stupidity stupid, like Jesus in a cassarole or the Virgin Mary in a dirty window. Or, for that matter, Lenin in a shower curtain.) Deal?

Delusions of persecution: not just for wingnuts anymore
I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but I've noticed a similarity between the accusations of liberal hate from the wingnuts and now the accusations of general anti-religious "bigotry"1 among progressives. For the wingnuts, they can't find politicians or political commentators sufficiently hateful, so they find some guy with a website, or just some random comment somewhere on The Internets™; if they get really lucky, they find an assistant professor of ethnic studies. Now I'm seeing accusations of widespread anti-religious hate by progressives based on a few idiots at dKos. Riiiiiiight... Call me back when you can do better than the wingnuts. AFAIK, there is only one prominent political commentator who is openly hostile to religion, and the drink-soaked former trotskyist popinjay is anything but progressive.

There really is hostility to religion
At least, progressive and moderate religion, and the hostility comes from the fundamentalists (who I stubbornly refuse to call "evangelicals" - the two are not the same). I'd think this is rather obvious, but apparently it needs to be said. To fundamentalists, you're either one of them, or you're against them, and so they've made war with sane religious people. And being the media-savvy con artists that they are, they've managed to get the media to go along with them, shutting out sane religious voices while getting respectful coverage of Jerry Falwell blabbing about how the Rapture is upon us (I really saw that on CNN a couple weeks ago). Unfortunately, I don't know what the solution is, since trying to be just as loud would eliminate some of the things I like most about religious progressives. Specifically, that they don't wear their religion on their sleeve or interject it into every little thing, no matter how unrelated, but instead treat it as a personal choice that they can use to enrich their own lives (not a cudgel to beat others with).

The enemy of secularism is theocracy, not religion
I would hope this is one of the progressive values religious and non-religious progressives could agree on. What ever happened to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)?

Purely religious justifications for government policy are inherently anti-democratic
Look, I have no problem with people basing their positions in part on their religions, or even arguing that those who share their beliefs should come to the same conclusions. I don't even have a problem with religious people saying that there are lessons anyone can learn from their beliefs - there's good stuff (and bad stuff) in just about any religion you care to pick. But using exclusively religious justifications in public policy is theocratic, and purely religious justifications in public debate are antithetical to liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is largely based on informed concensus, which means you should be able to justify your positions in terms anyone can accept even if they don't agree with the conclusions. So feel free to sell your positions as Truth, but also justify them with truth - that is, in terms of common experience that anyone can recognize as a cogent argument without sharing your religious assumptions.

"Religion" is such an incoherent word
Try defining religion. Really, try it. Be sure to include atheistic (godless) religions like Zen Buddhism. You'll also want to exclude non-religious supernatural beliefs. Not so easy, is it? This unstated "I know it when I see it" definition makes it really hard to say much about religion in general, so I won't say religion is inherently irrational. There are, however, a couple lines I draw, beyond which I consider a person's decision-making to be dangerously compromised: And that's about it. There's plenty that rubs me the wrong way, to be sure (claims of "revelation" being a superior source of morality to empathy and claims that religion promotes humility come to mind), but what ever happened to being able to work with people you don't completely agree with on everything? I mean, there is probably only one person in the world who completely agrees with me on everything - me - and I'd bet that's true for everyone who isn't a mindless follower of The Church of the Blessed Codpiece or some similar cult of personality. Movements are formed around areas of agreement and concensus. Is it really that hard?

Does all this make me an "anti-religious bigot"? I don't know, decide for yourself.

1 I actually think this is a category error. Religions are ideas, or perhaps ideologies, so I don't see how one can be "bigoted" against them. It's possible to be an ignorant fuckwit mindlessly opposed to a given religion, just like it's possible to be mindlessly opposed to communism or libertarianism or anything in between. But I think "bigoted" only makes sense when referring to hatred based on immutable or circumstantial properties of an individual.

17 October 2005

PWN3D!

With everything going wrong in the world (see: Bush, Iraq, Pakistan quake, Cheney, Katrina, typhoons, Rumsfeld, &c.), it's nice to get some good news every once in a while. Which is why it pleases me to no end to see that Jack Thompson got totally pwn3d by his own publicity-grubbing stunt. For those not following along with this tempest-in-a-teapot (albeit a very entertaining one), here's the short version:

1. Who is Jack Thompson? Tim Buckley of CTRL+ALT+DEL really says all you need to know when he calls Thompson "a bible-whipped attention whore with one foot in the nursing home." If you really must know more, he's a lawyer (the kind who gives bad lawyers a bad name) who blames all violence on video games. His bullying, lying, demagoguery, and baseless legal threats are so extreme that the anti-game crusaders at the National Institute on Media and the Family have demanded he stop implying they agree with him. If you're wondering who Senators are listening to when they demagogue on video games, this is him, the guy who went after The Sims 2.

2. So Jack writes a suggestion for a very violent video game where he goes on a murderous rampage against video game companies and their executives' families, along with a promise that he would donate $10,000 to the charity of Take-Two CEO Paul Eibeler's choice if anyone actually makes the game.

3. Gabe at Penny Arcade has some fun e-mailing Jack about this. However, he made the mistake of including his phone number at the bottom, resulting in this:
4. Lots of gamers quickly make mods, flash games, and text adventures to fit Jack's violent fantasies. See: Defamation of Character: A Jack Thompson Murder Simulator (GTA: San Andreas mod), Zork Thompson V1.0 (flash-based text adventure parody of Jack's fantasies), and A Modest Video Game Proposal (HTML-based text adventure of the same name as Jack's screed).

5. Just as Tycho predicted, Jack claims the games are insufficient, then cries "satire" and backs out of his promise to donate to charity.

6. The best part: Gabe and Tycho donate $10,000 to the Entertainment Software Association Foundation... in Jack Thompson's name!

15 October 2005

You, too, will meet the secret police

They just call themselves the Secret Service:
"Halfway through my afternoon class, the assistant principal got me out of class and took me to the office conference room," [civics teacher Selina Jarvis] says. "Two men from the Secret Service were there. They asked me what I knew about the student. I told them he was a great kid, that he was in the homecoming court, and that he'd never been in any trouble."

Then they got down to his poster.

"They asked me, didn't I think that it was suspicious," she recalls. "I said no, it was a Bill of Rights project!"

At the end of the meeting, they told her the incident "would be interpreted by the U.S. attorney, who would decide whether the student could be indicted," she says.
But don't worry, they aren't working alone to root out subversive, anti-American ideas like free speech. They have lots of help from Dear Leader's loyal, patriotic subjects at Wal-Mart (in case you didn't have enough reasons to hate that corporation):
According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent. But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service. On Tuesday, September 20, the Secret Service came to Currituck High.
This is just another example of how dissent is now considered extremely suspect, especially public disapproval of Dear Leader. Veteran opposes the war and tells students that recruiters lie (BREAKING NEWS: water is wet!)? Kick his ass and drag him to jail. High school student doodles his disapproval of Dear Leader's fascist tendencies and warmongering? Confiscate the art and "investigate" him for threats against the pResident. Artist photoshops pictures of Bush and guns? "Encourage" him to censor himself. Of course, they stick mostly to thuggish intimidation, but every fascist pig has to start somewhere. (Wal-Mart incident via BoingBoing. Everything else via memory, bookmarks, and my trusty Google chip.)

14 October 2005

Friday Random 10

No Norb-style commentary or "coolness rating," since I'm totally unqualified for either. I'll just say that judging by all the clumping, the iTunes "Smart Shuffle" setting is teh sux.
  1. Bad Religion - "Drastic Actions"
  2. Dead Kennedys - "Stealing People's Mail"
  3. Pearl Jam - "Once"
  4. Dead Kennedys - "Straight A's"
  5. Harvey Danger - "Moral Centralia"
  6. Tool - "Ænema"
  7. Bush - "Little Things"
  8. Tool - "Cesàro Summability"
  9. Talking Heads - "Memories Can't Wait"
  10. The Offspring - "We Are One"

No Public Scatology

But snarky questions are most welcome. Bob Park is looking for questions Harriet Miers should be asked in confirmation hearings:
For example: do all physical events result from earlier physical events, or can they be caused by clasping your hands, bowing your head, and wishing? Send your suggestions to What's New. WN will print the best of them.
I've got a few. Should legal evidence be verifiable and open to challenge, or is faith-based evidence okay? If Flying Spaghetti Monster tells me to kill someone, does that make it justifiable homicide? Hypothetical: evidence presented disagrees with a compilation of ancient, often conflicting fairy tales; does the book trump the evidence? If so, does that mean Ashton Kucher is God?

Arrrrrr!

Yar, thar be yer food aid, ye scurvy landlubbers:
Somali pirates free hijacked ship
Pirates in Somalia have freed a UN-chartered ship carrying food aid, two days after hijacking it from the southern port of Merka.
Avast! Maybe havin' th' extra pirates around t' stop th' global warmin' might be worth it. But that be some lousy piratin' if those bilge rats not be keepin' th' booty.

(No need to tell me what a bad person I am for finding this funny - I already know.)

13 October 2005

You keep using that word

I do not think it means what you think it means:
The idea that a non-state actor could seriously threaten our national security was virtually inconceivable 50-plus years ago.
(From the confirmation hearing of John "Death Squads" Negroponte for DNI, via Secrecy News.) In all seriousness, Pat Roberts is full of shit here, but what else is new. 59 years ago, in the FAS book One World Or None, physicist Edward Condon had an essay, "The New Technique of Private War," in which he explained how nuclear arms provide individual saboteurs (what we would now call terrorists) with as much destructive potential as whole countries. True, most of the discussion was in terms of countries using sabotage against each other, but the basic point - that national armies were no longer needed to inflict mass destruction and small groups of individuals could now accomplish that - clearly recognized the same realities, even without buzzwords like "non-state actor[s]." And even one of Dr. Condon's examples of past sabotage in WWII is structurally (morally is a whole 'nother issue) not very different from some modern terrorism: a non-govermental rebellion with loose ties to (and some support from) countries opposed to their enemy (in this case, the Norwegian underground's sabotage of the heavy water production at Rjukan.) "Non-state" terrorism isn't some super-modern novelty, it's just a convenient rhetorical bludgeon to, somewhat fittingly, justify the kind of police state Condon warned would be both tempting and ineffective.

11 October 2005

Mickey Mouse, Suicidal Failure

This has to be fake, it's just too perfect. Still, I can't resist passing it along: Mickey Mouse trying to kill himself.
Found at The Onion A.V. Club, which apparently has a blog now.

Shorter Ted Stevens

Setting rules would prevent us from scapegoating soldiers, and we need to torture (suspected) terrorists 'cause they play dirty... not that we're torturing anyone or would even consider it, of course.

Bonus Whaaaa..? moment:
I have some memory from World War II in China when I witnessed some of our people--I was just a pilot, but I was conveying some of these people from place to place who had been tortured, and I can tell you they were brutally treated by the Chinese when we were taking these people from place to place and they had prisoners. Some of them were not Chinese. They were prisoners obviously of Japan. We had freed some of them, and they were--I have memory that those who were freed were still the responsibility of the United States.
Can anyone tell me WTF this is doing in the middle of Stevens' rambling? It seems to make even less sense and be even less relevant in context. (It's about 2/3 of the way down page S11064, if you're interested.)

WORK?!

Yeah, work. Busy, busy, busy. Deadlines on my transfer applications are all less than a month away, so I've been writing application essays instead of what I should be writing - blog posts. Don't worry, I should be blogging up a storm again by mid-November. For now, expect my posting to be stop-and-go. That is, "stop" when I'm cramming for the latest deadline and "go," ironically, when I have writers' block.

09 October 2005

Won't Someone Think Of The Children?

So, right after solving the pressing issue of paparazzi (OT: the day before Der Governator signed the anti-papparazi law, someone actually told me his signing an anti-phishing law was an example of why we need to elect "ordinary people" like Schwarzeneggar, since we all know you don't get much more ordinary than movie stars married to Kennedys) Der Gropenführer decides to sign a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. How ironic. And this is really, really stupid. Even if there were good evidence that playing violent games leads to violent behavior - and every time I've seen it announced, it turns out to be something trivial, like already-violent individuals showing increased brain activity in regions associated with anger when they play violent games - is this really the sort of thing that should be enforced by law? Should it be illegal for a 17-year-old who works part-time to spend his own money on Half-Life 2 unless he gets mommy and daddy to buy it for him? And who decides what's too violent for 'the children'?
Some games will be obvious, like Doom 3. But is Halo too violent? Not clear, since you don't (or at least aren't supposed to) harm humans in it. What about Beyond Good And Evil? That might be even more tricky, and the argument wouldn't center around violence but instead realism and target audience. Are games like Splinter Cell okay because you only fight 'bad guys'? Is Deus Ex okay because you can get through the entire game without firing a shot if you really try? It looks like whether a given RPG can be sold to children going to depend on what your enemies are. Graphics quality? If graphics don't matter, I guess Super Mario Bros. would be a violent video game, and don't even get me started on the bloodbaths of Duck Doom Deluxe and Trogdor!! And what about games like Civilization III, where you can nuke whole continents on a whim if you feel like it? Is that okay because the violence is just numbers? Then what about Rise of Nations? And on it goes...
What pisses me off the most about this, though, is that this law was passed overwhelmingly by the Democrats in the state legislature. Look, chickenshits (that means you, Mullin, and it goes double for bill author Leland Yee): this is part of the right-wing plan to rigidly enshrine a very specific family structure and morality into law (since they must clearly think it can't survive without state assistance), which is itself part of their 'culture war', and YOU'RE FIGHTING ON THEIR SIDE HERE!!! Idiots. Whether parents think it's okay for their kids to play a given game should be up to them, not a bunch of retrograde prudes with nothing better to do than play violent games and watch porn... to decide what needs to be banned restricted, of course. Yes, some people can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy; they're insane. A lot like Democratic politicians who think they should run to the right on 'values'.

07 October 2005

God told me to...

... skin you alive invade Iraq. So now Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian official who reported Bush's "God told me to invade" remark, is saying it wasn't literal. (Why change the story now? Good question. Maybe if I ever finish reading this CRS report I'll have an answer.) Well, whoop-dee-freaking-doo. Neither "God told him," nor "God guided him," are at all functionally different from insanity. If someone isn't making descisions on their own and is instead relying on amorphous impulses they think are coming from somewhere else - doesn't matter if it's "God," "Cthulhu," or the chip they think the CIA put in their brain - they're insane. Forget fiscal sanity - can we get some just plain, ordinary sanity in out government?

Technical Difficulties

A small bit of bad news in space exploration: the Hayabusa probe just lost its second reaction wheel. Basically, the craft had three gyroscopes rotating in perpendicular directions to keep it stable around each axis of rotation, and now it's down to one. Fortunately, it's almost done mapping it's target asteroid, but it might not be able to return samples back to Earth as planned. Failure would be a shame, but I think this actually points out some of the advantages of unmanned space exploration. After all, the worst that could happen is we don't get the samples and lose an expensive spacecraft; if it were a manned mission (and fat chance pulling that off on an asteroid anytime soon) critical system failures could very easily be fatal.

04 October 2005

Defining Success Downward

No, this isn't a post about Iraq. It's about the V-22 Osprey, the tilt-rotor combat transport aircraft that has already become infamous for fatal crashes during training. Via Michael Froomkin, I see that POGO has a recent report (warning: non-searchable PDF) on the V-22's shortcomings by acting Director of Operational Test and Evaluation David Duma. One of the most notable observations is that one of the initial requirements for the project, autorotation, was dropped when they found the V-22 didn't meet that requirement. POGO summarizes:
Can't Autorotate. One of the more significant formal V-22 military requirements was that the aircraft be able to land safely in helicopter mode without power, a procedure known as autorotation. But after the Marines discovered that the aircraft can not autorotate like most helicopters, it dropped this requirement, claiming such an emergency had a "low probability of occurrence." The autorotation or soft-landing requirement is one that helicopter pilots claim has saved lives on numerous occasions. But even on those rare occasions when power is lost, the new DOT&E report flatly concludes "emergency landings after sudden dual engine failure in the conversion/VTOL (vertical short takeoff and landing) mode below 1,600 feet above the ground are not likely to be survivable."
Maybe I'm just weird, but it seems to me that the aircraft should be fit to the requirements, not vice versa. The official report goes into more detail, including the reason for the 1,600 foot cutoff (all typos and emphasis mine):
While a V-22 has never experienced a sudden engine failure, flight test and engineering analysis indicate that the V-22 is not capable of autorotation to a safe landing.
...
In the event of either a sudden dual-engine failure, or a single failure of one engine coupled with a failure of the interconnecting drive train when the nacelles are [at] less than 60 degrees [from parallel to the wings], the recommended emergency procedure is to tilt the nacelles down, attain the best glide speed, and flare to a survivable landing. To convert the nacelles from 60 to 0 degrees requires about eight seconds and the aircraft must be above ground level by at least 1,600 feet in order to complete the conversion prior to impact. Impact-attenuating seats and other survivability features can provide protection for passengers when failure occurs below 100 feet above the ground. Pilots practice the procedure in the simulator because of unacceptable risks in flight.

Emergency landing profiles following sudden dual-engine failure with the nacelles at 60 degrees or higher are more problematic. While the likelihood of such an occurance is mitigated by system design, a portion of assault missions will be accomplished by this mode of flying, e.g., carrying external loads and vertical takeoff and landing in tactical zones. Dependent on altitude, the aircraft manual directs conversions to aircraft mode or autorotation.
Notice a little disconnect there? Now, I'm by no means an expert on this, but it seems to me that defining success downward is a tacit admission of failure.

I should add, perhaps, that this is simply the shortcoming that caught my eye. Others, such as POGO, have criticized the program more for the V-22's vulnerability to VRS during descent, which caused the fatal Osprey crash in April 2000. Reading the official report, it appears they have at least partially addressed that issue by implementing a cockpit alarm to warn when the aircraft is maneuvering in a way that leaves it vulnerable to VRS. But Michael Froomkin says really all you can about the V-22's ongoing vulnerability when operating in dusty conditions: whaaaa..? This is even more bizarre in light of one of their chosen training exercises, a re-enactment of Operation Eagle Claw. For the sake of completeness, they did actually manage to meet a previously-disregarded project requirement, survivability in "medium-threat environments". And it sure works better than any missile defense fantasies.

2005 Nobel Prize in Physics

Now that University of Colorado-Boulder physicist John L. Hall has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for... contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique," can everyone stop dissing CU? That means you, freepers. Kthx.

02 October 2005

Bioweapons III

I swear, I had no idea I would be blogging so much about biological warfare, but it's become impossible to avoid. First was stockpiling of anthrax at Dugway Proving Grounds, followed by nuclear "agent defeat" warheads. Now, via Sadly, No!, it looks like someone decided to release a BW agent at the Washington, D.C., protests. Hope you have your tinfoil hats ready.

The bacterium detected by the CDC, francisella tularensis, though naturally occurring in rodents (hence the disease name "rabbit fever"), is an extremely well-known bioweapons agent. For instance, the US Air Force handbook on operations in a CB warfare environment lists it right between plague and smallpox, and states that it has a 30% fatality rate when untreated. SAB-TR-97-01 (warning: 358 page PDF) list it as "[p]rime for agent of mass destruction or mass illness when employed under suitable conditions." Even Pravda on the Potomac notes in their article that the US tested it as a BW agent in the 1960s. Now, if you were developing biological weapons and wanted to test infection rates without arousing suspicion in the form of a local epidemic, what better way than infecting a few people at a large event from which they will be leaving to the far corners of the country, using an agent that is not usually transmittable from human-to-human? Also, protesters are certainly considered expendable at best to the current administration, and as I noted in my first BW post, it's not like there isn't a history of clandestine tests of bioweapons on US civilian populations.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this was a bioweapons attack by the government. But it certainly is suspicious enough to look like it might have been a test. Why would the CDC let this become publicly known, then? Well, since they're a non-military part of the government, they would be out of the loop. Besides, the long delay in announcing it - coincidentally just longer than the incubation period - suggests that maybe someone up high wanted them to keep it quiet long enough for them to be able to say that there were no identified cases of infection (if doctors don't know to look for it, how will they identify it?). And since tularensis responds to a broad range of common antibiotics, specific identification of the bacterium isn't necessary for treatment. It would be easy enough for someone to hush it up without arousing suspicion; they could just claim they don't want to start a panic.

Anyway, I'll take my tinfoil hat off now. The problem is there are a lot of reasons not to simply dismiss this as a coincidence, including detection at so many locations all on the same day, the precedent of tests on American civilian populations, not many people would actually need to know to carry out such a test, and the fact that tularensis is not typically found in the D.C. area. I think it was Molly Ivins who said "the thing I hate most about the Bushies is that they make me feel like a paranoid conspiracy theorist."

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Via /., I've found the best thing in Lovecraftian horror since that picture posted at Crooked Timber: a silent movie version of The Call of Cthulhu! Unfortunately, it appears they didn't get Paul Krugman to play Cthulhu. Ah, well... you can't have everything.

01 October 2005

Irony Detectors

That's what police desperately need instead of "lie detectors" (which, I should note, don't work). It seems that Cody Cobb was interrogated by police and accused of being a terrorist for hilariously mocking a stupid fundamentalist. Apparently, the cops seem to think that if anyone is stupid enough to not get Swiftian satire, it makes whatever you wrote a criminal threat. And just how stupid do you need to be to not get that this is a joke, even without seeing the original it satirizes (line-by-line, even):
I realize many of you will not like or even agree with what I am about to say, but rest assured if you delete this email Jesus will frown on you.

The reason I walked out of class today is because I am a Christian. Zealously so. And after Friday's performance by "Dr." Patton I had prepared myself to do just that very thing if my beliefs were once again attacked by logic and reason and scientific claims that can be proven. Sure enough they were, so I left.

I don't know if anyone else has been deeply offended by some of the things "Dr." Patton has said, but my guess is yes because of the usual make-up of Baylor Students (70% Christian, 20% Adamantly Christian, 5% Fundamentalist Christians, 4% Fingers-In-The-Ears-La-La-La-La-I-Can't-Hear-You Christians, and Me.) I've been thinking about what I should do in response – I can't very well let my faith be trampled upon and I have no intention of doing so, but as a student who accidentally signed up for a science course instead of the seminary I'm not given a lot of options.

According to the bible, "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) I feel strongly that "Dr." Patton's heretical teachings in the voodoo field of neuroscience constitutes witchcraft. Therefore, next Wednesday before lecture, I call on my fellow Christians to gather rope and kindling so that we may burn "Dr." Patton at the stake. It is my firm belief that we must set fire to ALL heretics who seek to destory our most cherished Christian beliefs. This may be crazy or irrational, but it is the only recourse I have that might actually accomplish something. Sure, I could boycott class all semester, but who else aside from me would care?
Have we really reached the point where humor is criminalized? BTW, read the whole thing - the police interrogation is even more hilarious, though only because it all turned out alright in the end. (Via Unscrewing The Inscrutable)