Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 182 - 88 Comments
From: Swerb Entered on: March 25, 2004 11:32 AM
I especially like his statement about how "no atheist can get elected to public office."
From: John Entered on: March 25, 2004 11:47 AM
I guess that means most of us on this site will never hold public office.
From: Ross Entered on: March 25, 2004 12:06 PM
That is a sweet article.     I have been following this one pretty closely. I am going to predict that Newdow will not win this one, though. From what I can tell, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to interested in changing the Pledge. Too bad, too. You're right, Newdow is a hero. Most Christians probably think he's the antichrist, but he's a role model for free thinkers everywhere in my opinion.     On the other hand, the fact that Scalia recused himself does bode well. He's an uber-conservative nutjob.     I've actually thought a lot about this issue, and not only do I not think that "under God" should be in the pledge, I don't even think ANY form of the pledge should be recited in schools. Pledges of any sort are a serious matter, and having kids do it (they're not being forced, but that's really only true in the most literal sense) is akin to brainwashing, in my opinion. They don't even know what they're saying yet in most cases. I find that to be even more reprehensible.
From: Swerb Entered on: March 25, 2004 2:14 PM
Yeah, I think Newdow's case is a longshot, but at least he's stirring things up. And he's no dummy; the guy is really fucking smart. I think his strongest point is the historical fact that "under God" was added years after the pledge was written - the phrase even interrupts the poetic meter. Plus, the argument that kids aren't forced to recite it is complete horseshit. When you're in kindergarten (or whatever), you do what everybody else does, because independent thought is a concept way beyond a grade-schooler.     So yeah, I concur that it's a form of brainwashing. I know I never understood exactly what the pledge meant when I recited it every day in school. You can argue, however, that it's essentially meaningless through repetition, and reflecting on it as an intelligent adult, I realize it didn't transform me into a slobbering, unquestioning patriot zealot.     It's similar to an argument I had with a friend recently. He has a one-year-old son, and both his and his wife's families want the boy to be baptized. My friend, though, isn't a believer, and obviously stands opposed (his wife appears to be indifferent). But instead of standing up to them, his take on it is: What difference does it make if they pour water on his head and recite some mumbo-jumbo? It's only meaningful if you believe it to be.     The same goes for the pledge, I suppose. I understand my friend's point, but the principle of the matter is more important, in my opinion.
From: Ross Entered on: March 25, 2004 3:19 PM
The point is, you should be able to FEARLESSLY proclaim that you don't subscribe to anyone else's particular brand of religious mumbo-jumbo.     Ask your friends what his parents would think of bringing the child to a voodoo ceremony. Worse, compelling THEM to bring THEIR CHILD to a voodoo ceremony. My guess is they wouldn't be down with that noise.     As for the pledge, ask yourself this: if reciting the pledge didn't make you a patriotic zealot, did it do anything? If so, what did it do? What do you think it was intended to do? I will tell you my personal experience: it definitely made me more of a patriot, for a time, until I made a point of examining my own beliefs on their own merit. And the Star Spangled Banner still sometimes gives me unasked-for goosebumps. It's conditioning, man. Or brainwashing, take your pick. This actually gets into very complex issues, because to some extent, a country that is interested in its own survival has to do this sort of thing. People who do not possess an irrational sense of patriotism are unlikely to be willing to die to defend their country (me, for instance).
From: Ross Entered on: March 26, 2004 9:59 AM
Also, speaking of sweet people and critical thinking, here is an article that is pretty sweet. It's about the Bad Astronomer, Philip Plait, whose site I used many years ago to calm a frantic Fatty and Roche after they saw a stupid show on Fox questioning if we landed on the moon or not. This guy is another of my heroes:     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534435
From: Ross Entered on: March 31, 2004 1:23 PM
Speaking of sweet skeptics, has anyone seen Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" series on Showtime? They're starting their second season tomorrow night. Since I don't get Showtime, I'll be unable to watch it live, but hopefully I will be able to find it online somewhere. The first season is out on DVD and I'm thinking of picking it up. Just wondering if anyone has seen it - it looked really good from the promos I saw.     http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/about.do
From: Swerb Entered on: March 31, 2004 10:30 PM
I don't have Showtime either, but I'm going to add the DVD set to my Netflix list. This could be cool.
From: Ross Entered on: April 1, 2004 8:14 AM
From what I understand, they're a bit TOO cynical on the environmental stuff - their "expert" is kind of a fringe nut who doesn't think anything is wrong with the environment. But there are some topics on there that they have unassailable positions on: psychics, alien abductions, creationsists, etc.
From: Ross Entered on: April 1, 2004 9:41 AM
In other TV show related news, Swerb, your favorite show is going thru some ridiculous Bullshit of their own:     http://comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4139     Is it me, or is this just plain greed at work?
From: Swerb Entered on: April 1, 2004 12:59 PM
Yeah, I saw that. Greed, yes, but it's not like Fox hasn't been making money hand over fucking fist on The Simpsons for 15 years. I was concerned that it might be another April Fool's joke, but it appears to be legit.
From: Ross Entered on: April 3, 2004 11:32 AM
I just started watching Bullshit - this show rules! I've watched the episodes on Talking to the Dead and Creationism, two of the more heinous topics in my opinion, and while there's nothing in there I haven't seen before, it's quite entertaining and has me howling at various times. Highly recommended.
From: Ross Entered on: April 4, 2004 6:10 PM
I've thought about watching that show as well as other people seem to think it's hilarious but I have to draw the line somewhere: with Tivo, there is so much TV watching going on, it's already insane.     I've watched about 75% of the Bullshit shows. So far, it's quite good. It's interesting to see the common theme of self-deception, no matter what the hucksters are selling: chiropractic "medicine", talking to the dead, herbal cures, magnet therapy, Oujia boards, creationism, it's all BULLSHIT!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 13, 2004 7:20 PM
Ross - I've been watching some of the Penn & Teller BULLSHIT shows: Hilarious shit! I'm laughing out loud at some of this stuff! I forgot how funny these guys were. Anyone got some favorite lines?     "He's not just ANY reflexologist... he's a ramblin' GAMBLIN' reflexologist!"     "We recommend the Penn & Teller Method: Which is measuring from your asshole." (on measuring the length of one's penis)     "They're the Tim McGraw and Faith Hill of Wacky Town!"     The fact that so many people believe in some of this stuff blows my mind. I mean it's not even about being a skeptic is it? Shouldn't common sense tell you that magnets can't heal? The scariest dude so far is that Canadian "end of the world guy" that has buried over 40 school buses in some field creating an underground city. Unbelievably freaky-scary.     Ross, you gave Roche season 1? Are there more? Keep 'em coming!
From: Ross Entered on: June 13, 2004 8:28 PM
There have been 8 episodes of Season 2 so far. Hasn't been a new episode in 2 or 3 weeks though, which has got me slighly worried. If this is all there is, I'll cut them for you, but you might as well wait until the season's over.     I agree that most of the shows are common sense - they're shows that most everyone can agree on, unless it happens to be your pet irrational habit. But some aren't so clear-cut - the recycling episode in particular. And second-hand smoke. Those are the ones that get you thinking, and make you check it out for yourself and see if they got their facts straight.
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 14, 2004 6:54 AM
I liked the shows too. They are a little on the Mike Moore style of doing things. With the obvious stuff, like the magnets and end of the world stuff, they pick the extreme wackjobs and poke fun at them - not being very neutral at all, but how can you be with these topics. I saw the second-hand smoke one and saw the same techniques. The anti-smoking guy seemed pretty normal, but with creative editing, they made him look like a dumbass. Their main focus was on the bogus information that the ACS put out. That is shitty in itself. They were shitting on the anti-smoking guy for referencing the report many times. Hell, the information came from a supposedly reputable source. Why would he question it. The information verified what most people thought anyway. I bet Penn and Teller believed it too until someone told them it was possibly false.     Maybe second-hand smoke is not bad for you. Possibly the smoke is diluted enough with the air so it doesn't cause any harmful effects. But, you are still breathing dirty air. Your body needs to work harder filtering out that dirty air than it would clean air. It may not cause cancer, but I'd say it causes more wear and tear. Enough to make a difference? Maybe not, I am just guessing here of course. It may reduce your lungs limetime performance by a day, or a year, or nothing at all. But I can't imagine it has no effect.     When it comes down too it, I just don't want to breathe in smoke. I don't like it. It stinks and it is irritating to my eyes. Let people smoke, but not around non-smokers. Give me some non-smoking bars and give them some smoking bars and restaurants.
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 9:03 AM
I agree with you, Fatty - I hate to breathe second hand smoke. But after watching that episode, I did some reading. People HATED P&T for that episode - they called their facts into question. So some others went and double-checked what P&T found - turns out they were telling the truth. The only report that is cited that claims a correlation between second hand smoke and cancer/death is the one they were talking about, and they really distorted the numbers. Basically, according to that report's OWN FINDINGS, the correlation was statistically insignificant.     Does this mean that second hand smoke isn't harmful? No. Does this even mean that second hand smoke definitely doesn't cause cancer? No way. It's just one study. But here's the uncomfortable truth for guys like us who hate smoke: as of today, no one has produced a legitimate study that is tantamount to evidence that SHS is a signficant risk to your health. And therefore, I can't help but agree that legislating against letting people do it in public establishments is a bit on the facist side.
From: John Entered on: June 14, 2004 10:27 AM
Zilla - You need to start watching Spidey and the Tick so I can get my DVD's back.
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 14, 2004 10:31 AM
For the harmful effects, yes, they cannot prove anything yet. But I think they still should ban SHS from most public areas. Bars and restaurants is the sticky question. I would hope some of them would try to cater to NS, but NS Sections seem to work pretty well so far.     The ban should be based on a Public Nusance factor. Smoking is a nuance to NS. If you were to blow dust at a person, they'd get pretty pissed after a while and that person could be ticketed for being a nusance.     I would just like to go up and start farting next to an inappropriate smoker. But I bet I'd be arrested for being a nusance.
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 10:38 AM
I'm not aware of any Public Flatulence laws on the books, at least in Chicago. Time to do a little research...
From: John Entered on: June 14, 2004 10:45 AM
My brother farts on people all the time and he's never been arrested for it. Hell, he walked out in his underwear smoking and farting at the same time right in front of the cops. All that happend is he got a few laughs from the officers. Bert can verify this fact since he was present at the time.
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 11:01 AM
It was in fact an episode of Cops come to life. Shemp came out in undies and a wifebeater, scratching his prodigous belly, smoking, farting, and swearing. All par for the course for your average on-duty officer. I would stake money on the notion that there is no law against acting like Shemp, ie. Farting in Public.
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 11:03 AM
This is the best I can find:     http://www.ucffuture.com/news/2003/03/13/News/On.Th e.Books-391495.shtml
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 11:18 AM
This just in:     http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578 &u=/nm/20040614/ts_nm/court_pledge_dc_3     The Supreme Court did exactly what I thought they'd do: they've skirted the issue of the consitutionality of the Pledge of Alliegance by ruling that Newdow has no standing to bring suit. Hence, the pledge stands as-is until someone on surer footing brings it up again. What a farking joke.
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 3:34 PM
Jack, regarding Penn, he's publishing a book soon that you will definitely want. It's called "Sock" and it's written from the perspective of the protagonist's sock monkey:     http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/03123 28052/qid=1087245118/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-930802 1-2972054?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 14, 2004 5:04 PM
Apparently I'm not alone in my fondness for sock monkeys; for this is not Penn's first sock monkey related work! I have a fancy, hardcover coffee table book which features very artfully done black and white photos of sock monkeys. Hundreds of them -- cover to cover. Some of the sock monkeys share their little tales (each written by different authors). Penn penned one of these (as did Neil Gaiman of Sandman comic book fame).     "Sock Monkeys: 200 out of 1,863" is available at the finer of book sellers everywhere; including Amazon:     http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972211128/q id=1087246867/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-9825458-0125 603
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 4:57 PM
Jack, if you post a non-HTML message on Jackassery, it will convert the http links to clickable links automatically.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 14, 2004 5:06 PM
Good to know, Ross thanks! My links will be much less annoying now.     I'm gonna go find more sock monkey links now!!!
From: Swerb Entered on: June 14, 2004 8:13 PM
Yeah, Bert, I was fucking pissed when I heard the ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance case on the radio today. We live in a really stupid fucking country when the Supreme Court completely skirts the issue like that. Still, some of the people interviewed on NPR today think someone else will bring the issue back to the courts. But man, it's a greasy-lawyer technique to throw out the suit on a legal technicality like that. Grrrr....
From: Ross Entered on: June 14, 2004 8:45 PM
Actually, I dunno whether I'm sweet or pathetic, but I've read both the entire transcript of the case, plus the entire 57-page decision that came out today. As annoying as it is, the standing issue isn't a mere technicality; it was as much a focus of the case as the actual content of the suit itself. I am not entirely sure they were wrong to throw it out in this case. Still, I can't help but feel like they weaseled.     But yes, forces are already in motion to get this issue back to them.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 14, 2004 10:42 PM
As I was flipping through the radio stations on my way home from work, I happened upon a nationally syndicated Christian program discussing a Hindu church in Ohio. They were describing how much money was spent in it's construction and how detailed and elaborate it was and saying that they can't believe people in 21st century America could believe in that crazy nonsense. They were saying how it wasn't backwater India but doctors and lawyers from middle America that were believing in this crazy stuff. It reminded me of the quote saying the olny difference between a Christian and an atheist is the atheist believes all relions are bullshit and the Christian believes all religions are bullshit except his own.     Incidentally not 30 minutes later the same program was saying that the Antichrist was Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of the Council of the Western European Union and very soon we will see the end of the world. Umm yeah.
From: Ross Entered on: June 15, 2004 7:37 AM
That's awesome, man.     Incidentally, I recently happened upon the site of the guy who said that quote. It's pretty interesting:     http://wildlink.com/freelink/quote_history.htm
From: Swerb Entered on: June 15, 2004 9:38 AM
Hey Bert - did you get that new David Cross CD yet? I find interesting his assertion that Denmark and New Zealand and Sweden and the Netherlands are "more free" than America. I also liked his quip about talking your girlfriend into her third consecutive abortion...
From: Ross Entered on: June 15, 2004 10:14 AM
Yes, I got it, and it's fugging hilarious. I especially love his commentary about the legal age of consent. Paraphrasing: "What, so some pimply-faced sixteen year old gets to fuck them? But what about me? I'm a grown man with skills!"
From: Ross Entered on: June 15, 2004 10:42 AM
That's hilarious, Fatty.     By the way, back to the Pledge for a sec, this guy has a lot of great commentary on the "decision":     http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/
From: Ross Entered on: June 21, 2004 5:30 PM
Here's Newdow's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times. Pretty good stuff. (requires registration)     http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21NEWD.ht ml?ex=1403150400&en=8642e9a383735b3b&ei=5007&partn er=USERLAND
From: Ross Entered on: June 21, 2004 9:49 PM
This is an utterly fantastic legal rebuttal to the Supreme Court's inept non-verdict, written by someone who clearly knows a lot more about law than any of us. But it also is written by someone who, on the surface at least, appears to have no agenda:     http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040617.html
From: Swerb Entered on: June 21, 2004 10:24 PM
Bert: In a word, infuriating. I found this segment particularly disturbing:     "The Chief's reasoning is indefensible. According to Rehnquist, the phrase is fine as long as it means "that God has guided the destiny of the United States . . . or, that the United States exists under God's authority" - for after all, in his view, who could argue with those facts? The answer is that these are not facts, but rather expressions of a religious worldview, and if that is what "under God" means it is--without question-- unconstitutional."     Is there no attempt from our governmental leaders to be objective? That even our Chief Justice is impressing his personal religious beliefs on every American citizen? Fuck this place, I'm moving to Canada.
From: Ross Entered on: June 22, 2004 8:30 AM
Dude, as much as I agree, Clarence Thomas is even more absurd. At first they give him props for having the courage to say that if you read prior decisions, they would have to rule that the Pledge is unconstitutional. But then he goes off the deep end by saying that THOSE cases were decided wrong, and that freedom of religion does not apply to the federal government, only to the states, which means that if Michigan wanted to create the Church of Michigan, they have full federal protections to do so. Disgusting and crazy.     What's even scarier is the prospect of another GWB term of office. It is entirely possible that in the next four years, three more SC justices could retire. If Bush got to appoint their replacements, this country would literally be turned upside-down. Abortion? Forget it. Stem Cell research? Never. Separation of Church and State? Never heard of it. THE BILL OF MOTHERFUCKING RIGHTS? Wait, that's basically already gone.
From: Ross Entered on: June 27, 2004 11:42 AM
Speaking of Penn and Teller (a while ago), we saw them in Vegas. I even got pics with them. Oh, and Teller definitely talks when not on stage. Here's us with Penn: Man, I have a nasty double chin going there. I guess with a wedding coming up in a year or so, I'd better start getting in shape NOW.
From: John Entered on: June 27, 2004 11:46 AM
Just hanging with Penn, how cool is that?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 27, 2004 12:13 PM
That is sweet, Johnstain!     I dig the Bullshit shows a lot -- thanks for bringin' 'em to our attention, Bert. I've downloaded most of the 2nd season now. We just watched the P.E.T.A. episode: It's unbelievable what these goons believe and do.     I'd like to get out to Vegas again. It's just fun for all the site-seeing and people watching to be done. Can you imagine if all the Jackassarians and their mates could meet out there at once? We'd probably lose Johnny-Bellwinkle around the Treasure Island Lunch Buffet... ("Game hen is gooooood!")
From: John Entered on: June 27, 2004 6:12 PM
Bullshit is sweet! If Melissa and I ever got out to Vegas I would check out Penn and Teller. I'd ask Penn if we should try a little bullshit just to see what he would say. After that I would head straight for the buffet table and try a little game hen.
From: Ross Entered on: June 27, 2004 6:58 PM
Actually the hotel they play at - the Rio - is widely regarded to have the best buffet in Vegas. Heather and I ate there just before the show in fact. Could help explain my fat face.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 28, 2004 9:32 AM
Regarding the Rio: Forget the buffet, what about the outfits the cocktail waitresses wear? I recall quite vividly that I was not offended.     (Note to self: We gotta go to the Rio because of the "buffet.")
From: Ross Entered on: June 28, 2004 11:15 AM
You're right on about that one, man. There was one dancing on top of some slot machines when we arrived and she had a nice thong on.
From: John Entered on: June 28, 2004 11:29 AM
I do like the Booty. Hotties in thongs and tasty buffets, sounds like my brand of justice. They should call it The Booty and Buffet Lounge. Zilla, we should open a restaurant in Lowell with that name, we would be rich....
From: Creeko Entered on: June 29, 2004 2:17 AM
I LIKE IT!!!
From: Ross Entered on: July 6, 2004 10:41 AM
I just came across this article about second hand smoke from Turnspit magazine. Thought it was relevant to a discussion we were having a while back. Reposted without permission. Okay, so maybe it won't put hair on your chest, but according to the scientific evidence, moderate exposure to second-hand smoke presents no significant health risk. The dangers are statistically null. But if that's the case, why are anti-smoking nuts digging foxholes and taking up arms? Hell, they're doing it for the same reason all socially-repressive zealots dig foxholes and take up arms: they think they're right about everything, and they want you to agree with them, they want you to live by their standards because, well, their standards are more gooder* than yours. Besides, they're bored. Everybody needs to have a cause, right? Ireland has made the plunge: it has become the first country in Europe to ban smoking in all workplaces. Now they can guzzle Guinness in peace. Obviously, if the Irish have decided to enforce such a ban, second-hand smoke must be dangerous right? The question that is probably looming in your head (assuming it's been switched to the 'On' position), is the same question I first had: "But wait a second, we know that smoking causes disease, so how is it possible that second-hand smoke doesn't cause disease?" The answer: cigarette smoke does cause disease. But the exposure to cigarette smoke required to get those cancer-causing doses is nowhere near enough for an innocent bystander to be worried about. In fact, you've got a greater chance of catching lung cancer from breathing the polluted Los Angeles smog than from occasionally visiting a smokey bar or club. So what about the workers? Hey, I don't need to be the first person to point out that if an employee chooses to work in a smoke-filled bar or club, they've made the decision to spend their workdays in the haze. That's up to the employer and the employee. Even still, evidence is beginning to come to light that even heavy exposure to second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as we once thought. I know, I know. All you need to do is punch in "Second hand smoke statistics" into the ubiquitous Google and you'll get a plethora of people waving red flags, telling you to duck, be afraid, don't inhale. Frankly, it's all bullshit. But don't take my word for it. Let's discover who originally laid this patty in the pasture. In 1993, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) released a report entitled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." That single EPA report was the cause of all of the second-hand smoke hysteria. It gave the zealots an incurable rectal itch and soon they were organized and bitching (American Non-Smokers Rights Foundation). That EPA report, however, was fudged. It took a federal district North Carolinian Judge named William Osteen to determine that the EPA was full of hot air. He concluded that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data from pseudo-scientific studies that reached the pre-conceived conclusions the EPA had been looking for. In addition, the judge declared that the EPA had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms." The EPA report attempted to present its data as though it had been gathered in public places: restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. The studies they cited, however, were actually studying the effects of second-hand smoke on the non-smoking spouses of smokers, which, I hope I don't have to point out, is an entirely different subject altogether. I can't even begin to mark all of the EPA's faults in their report (like their choice to ignore the scientific studies that had shown second-hand smoke to be an insignificant factor in causing lung cancer), and I wouldn't want to bore you to death with them. Suffice it to say that the EPA was full of shit, a federal judge knew it and disregarded their report, and the scientific studies since then have reconfirmed that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) isn't as bad as the EPA had originally claimed. Here's the kicker: almost all of the cancer organizations have based their bullshit warnings on that one bullshit EPA report. It's had a domino effect on society, causing a false sense of fear and urgency. On the logical plane, it makes complete sense that second-hand smoke is dangerous. I even think it is. But the real question is how much is too much? At what point does that exposure necessitate governmental-interference into the business of private citizens? How much would it take for us to clamp down on a private business-owner's right to open a club that caters to smokers? Or what about a Cigar Lounge? Now, in some places in the United States, if I chose to open the "Cigarette Bar: Smokers Welcome," the government would tell me, "Nope, nu uh, can't do it." So maybe it's only a few cities so far, but it's spreading quickly. People love to be afraid; they love to condemn and blame others. Cigarette smoke is nasty, obnoxious, it stinks, and therefore it, and those who choose to smoke it, make the perfect public scapegoat. I totally believe in the non-smoker's right to breathe clean air. They shouldn't have to breathe smoke if they don't choose to. My advice is they stay clear of all clubs and bars that cater to smokers, and steer clear of Los Angeles while they're at it. Some of these people go to bars or clubs, throw back shots of Tequila, then have the nerve to turn to a smoker and ask them to "Put that out please." As for restaurants that cater to both smokers and non-smokers, I'm a firm supporter of hard parititons, not air buffers, that keep smoke contained in the smoking lounges. And proper ventilation would be nice too, on both sides of that partition. One creaking ceiling fan spotted with fly droppings is hardly enough. To understand the hysteria though, we need to get to the real reason why these zealots want to stop smokers: it isn't because they're worried about their health. It's because they think they're morally-gifted individuals who have the responsibility of ensuring everyone lives the way they do. They don't like smoking or smokers. The businesses could put forth all kinds of safeguards to protect non-smokers from smoke, but the zealots wouldn't have it. They won't be happy until smoking is illegal and smokers are forced underground where they can further be persecuted and spat upon as the scum of our society. Let's not bring Ireland's ridiculous laws to the States; and we need to stop these "smoking bans" that have begun to plague our cities. They're based on bullshit science and they serve a social-engineering cause that goes counter to everything the United States stands for. This is a country built upon the ideals of freedom: yes, you have the right to breathe clean air, but you don't have the right to tell me what kind of business I can run. You don't have the right to tell me that I can't smoke in a restaurant that has the proper safeguards in place. And don't even give me that old line about the children. That's bullshit too.
From: John Entered on: July 6, 2004 12:03 PM
Too true. A good portion of those same zealots would be all too happy to rob you of other freedoms as well. We have to draw the line somewhere before other freedoms become obsolete.
From: Ross Entered on: July 6, 2004 3:04 PM
I just checked Penn and Teller's website, and they say that new episodes of Bullshit are starting August 5. Whew!
From: Creeko Entered on: July 7, 2004 10:36 AM
I give up! The smokers in Spain are definitely in control. They even have the support of the non-smokers who feel that, even if they have to put up with smoking, everybody has the right to smoke and anyone who thinks the contrary is some sort of extremist. I may have mentioned it before, my boss has a ?Thank you for smoking? sign in his office. It?s like their idea of freedom is: everyone has to put up with everyone else?s shit so long as no one tells them what they can and cannot do. Which boils down to: if I?m going to get shit on I?m going to shit on as many people as I can so I don?t end up on the bottom of the shit-pile.   Hey Tony, I?m still waiting on that slam missile I ordered. Next time you fly to the Gulf, you can let one fly over the Iberian Peninsula. They?re just as anti-American as the rest of them. Fuck-em all, let them rot in hell!
From: Ross Entered on: July 7, 2004 11:25 AM
It's a fine line for me - while I respect the smokers' rights to kill themselves, I also respect my own right to not get all smelly from them. Most restaurants already have decent solutions - smoking and non-smoking sections. The bigger the barrier the better. But bars are another story - it's nice to be in California and be able to go to the bar, and not come home reeking of smoke. I really do hate it getting smokey. I guess I don't know what the answer is, but I will say this: banning smoking based on harm from secondhand smoke has no medical basis. If you ban it based on the nuisance factor, as Fatty prefers, that's a different ballgame that to my knowledge, no one has yet attempted.     That said, if I had to smell smoke in the office I would in all likelihood be furious.
From: Creeko Entered on: July 7, 2004 11:50 AM
Note to Ross - stay as far away from Spain as possible. The first thing you smell when you arrive at the airport in Madrid is the sweet smell of tobacco followed by the always-popular scent of diesel.     On a similar note, I'm sure you've all noticed that everything you buy comes with the ingredients and nutritional facts clearly listed on the label for the consumer to see. Why isn?t it the same for cigarettes? Shouldn?t people know what they?re smoking. Obviously the tobacco companies would prefer not to list the additives they put into their cigarettes to make them more addictive, but doesn?t the public have a right to know, just as they have a right to know what Hot Pockets are made of (Gasp!)
From: Ross Entered on: July 7, 2004 12:34 PM
To totally steal from Denis Leary:     You could make cigarettes that were CALLED the warnings, you could put a skull and crossbones on the front and call them "Tumors" and people would be lining up around the block to get at them. "I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up!"     Nobody cares, man.
From: The Bone Entered on: July 7, 2004 1:11 PM
I'm all for people doing whatever they want so long as it doesn't impact others. If you want to smoke the hell out of cigarettes, fine. I just don't want to be coughing up 2nd hand smoke while I'm eating. Like Ross, I hate being saturated by smoke at bars. If people want to smoke weed, snort cocaine, inject heroin or drano for that matter, I don't care - so long as they can figure a way for it not to affect me.
From: Ross Entered on: July 7, 2004 1:44 PM
Agreed. The (small) problem with that scenario is that if the rate of medical problems as a result of those behaviors are high, you DO end up being affected to the tune of higher taxes to cover medicare and shit like that.
From: The Bone Entered on: July 7, 2004 4:57 PM
Which is why if I were Supreme Commander of the Universe, I'd let nature take it's course and abolish hospitals. There are to many Mofos already. It's time to stop fucking with natural selection. If you can't fix the problem on your own, or your family can't help you then guess what - time to die.     I realize this is crazy talk and detracts from the smoking issue. Continue on.
From: Ross Entered on: July 7, 2004 6:14 PM
Hahaha, yeah, that's called Social Darwinism and is often used by fundamentalist Christians to show that natural selection is evil. Which it is, except that Social Darwinism doesn't naturally follow from real life natural selection - like Dawkins says, just because you know how evolution works doesn't mean you have to like it or embrace it.
From: Creeko Entered on: July 8, 2004 4:02 AM
Here are some more pro smoking articles     http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp     http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp     Perhaps passive smoking ills are exaggerated, but I'm still in favor of them. I find smokers to be sad, weak, individuals duped into doing something so absurd as to suck on burning weeds. I don't know any smoker who's glad he/she started. They might say they?re proud to be a smoker or that they enjoy it, but in reality what they like is the temporary alleviation of the noxious feeling caused by smoking in the first place. They deserve to be alienated, they are nothing more they are a public nuisance, just like mosquitoes or noise pollution they should be controlled.
From: John Entered on: July 8, 2004 10:38 AM
Your fascist veiws are quite interesting, Creeko. Since you moved to Spain have you changed your veiws to that of a more totalitarian system? Who are you to infringe on others rights to do as they please? I'm not saying I love smoke but I sure the hell don't think I can tell these people how to live their lives. Reducing people to mosquitoes is preposterous.     Controling people one way just leads to the goverment taking more control in other ways. It's a fine line that if crossed leads to loss of other freedoms. It's the same as, if you don't like porn then don't watch it but don't tell me I can't. If you don't like smoke then stay out of the bars where there tends to be smoke. As far as restaurants are concerned I think a smoking partition is sufficient. In the work place I agree there should be smoking areas and in the US there usually is. To say we should alienate a group of people because of their vice is going a bit far in my opinion.
From: Creeko Entered on: July 12, 2004 4:10 AM
I made that last comment with a hothead. I just had a heated discussion with the director of the company where I work and he basically told me that if I didn't care for the smoke I could get the hell out.     My views may be a little extreme, but I'm fed-up with Spanish smoker's bullshit. I work all day long with smokers. When I get home I smell as if I spent the day at a bar. Even in no-smoking areas, smokers will lite up with total disregard for any nonsmoking signs. When I was in the maternity ward when my daughter was burn some fuck-head was smoking in the hall. They even smoke in supermarkets stinking up the place and dropping ash and butts on the floor. And you can forget no smoking sections in restaurants. The only ones I've seen with nonsmoking sections are Mc Donald?s & BK but they put out ashtrays and people smoke all the same.     What kind of country is this where the police stand smoking directly beneath a no smoking sign and if you say something they'll surely tell you to fuck-off?
From: Ross Entered on: July 12, 2004 7:37 AM
That is some fucked up repugnant shit.
From: Ross Entered on: August 5, 2004 12:21 PM
New episode of Penn and Teller: Bullshit! tonight! Since none of us get Showtime, just check for the torrent of it in the next few days. Easiest way is this site:     http://tvt.milfclan.com/     They always list the shows as soon as they come out.
From: Ross Entered on: October 28, 2004 1:02 PM
Well, they managed to do it. Those motherfucking Republicans in Congress managed to get that stupid ass Pledge Act passed:     http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/45470/     The above op-ed has it completely right: they have set a very dangerous precedent: whereas the judicial branch once stood to act as a counterweight for bad legislation, they have successfully sidestepped it so that the courts can't even hear cases related to the Pledge. It's so disgusting that I can barely stand it.     For me, this has effectively put the last nail in the coffin for any affinity I once felt with Republicans. It's going to take some major party reshuffling before I vote for one again.
From: Swerb Entered on: October 28, 2004 1:57 PM
Arrrgghhhh!     Like I've said before, Toronto ain't a bad place to live.
From: Ross Entered on: October 28, 2004 2:01 PM
It's true, Swerb, I might be getting old too fast, because I feel the need to proclaim that this country is going right down the toilet.     But I also feel the need to add this article, just because it's good and gives me a warm fuzzy:     http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fod der/0665_thou_change_halloween_christian_reasons.h tml
From: Swerb Entered on: October 28, 2004 2:11 PM
Dude, that Halloween-jockeying shit has happened in Grand Rapids before, but strangely, not this year.     I tripped across this today - it's quite funny:     http://www.comics.com/comics/monty/archive/monty-20 041024.html
From: The Bone Entered on: October 28, 2004 11:00 PM
I used to think that the Pledge of Alligiance didn't do much harm so I really didn't care one way or another. Upon further relfection I've come to the conclusion that although requiring a child to recite a mindless proclamtion will imost likely incur no long term damage, it's the type of thing they do in countries like Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, and old school USSR. I'm not down with this type of nationalist nonsene.   Not to mention of "under god".     Worst part is they fornicating with the system of checks and balances between the legislative and judical branches.     I'll take New Zealand. Anyone in?
From: Swerb Entered on: April 26, 2005 12:13 PM
The health risks outweigh any reasoning, if you ask me. Some studies I've heard involve guys whose skin is too tight on their crank, and it hurts to have an erection... stuff like that. It seems to be a pretty small percentage that have problems. Some arguments are for cleanliness, but fuckin hell, just teach the kid to keep his wang clean! Big deal! And social repercussions? That's an even weaker argument than cleanliness, if you ask me.     I read an article once about a guy who, as a baby, was the victim of such a botched circumcision, the doctors pretty much destroyed his schlong, so his parents gave him hormones and raised him as a girl. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but it's a worst-case scenario, and the poor guy was pretty much fucked up physically and psychologically for life.
From: Ross Entered on: April 26, 2005 3:03 PM
The cleanliness argument is BULLSHIT! I have never heard a compelling version.
From: Ross Entered on: July 10, 2009 10:16 PM
Anyone see the latest Bullshit?  All about video game violence.  Best one I've seen in a while.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 13, 2009 9:12 AM
Didn't know it was back!  Got the first 3 but have only watched the "Orgasm" one so far.
From: BigFatty Entered on: July 13, 2009 12:05 PM
I hope you are up to date and are watching Entourage (last night) and True Blood!  Sweet TV is BACK!
From: Ross Entered on: July 13, 2009 12:10 PM
For those of us without HBO, Mondays are the new Sundays... so tonight, we'll be up to date in the Johnson household.
From: BigFatty Entered on: July 13, 2009 12:18 PM
We are just minutes away from TV bliss, fellow non-HBOer.  I promise you no spoilers.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 13, 2009 4:21 PM
Count the Zillas in on the Sunday-On-Monday sweetness!
From: BigFatty Entered on: July 13, 2009 5:32 PM
Ross might like this.... it had Fatty rollin and reminiscing..
From: Ross Entered on: August 1, 2009 9:05 AM
Penn has a good rant about circumcision and how their show against it related to the studies that found "supporting" it a year or so ago... I totally agree with him here, and this is essentially what I told everyone who brought this up to me.  Of course he said it in a sweeter way (paraphrasing): "If my son was sexually active in Africa without a condom right now, then maybe I'd consider circumcising him."
From: BigFatty Entered on: August 1, 2009 12:28 PM
The recent Bullshit is on Organic Food.  Of course they deem it Bullshit.  Maybe once those who are interested watch it, we can have a good ole JA discussion.  This topic normally has good differences of opinion.  While I agree with a lot P&T present, I worry the complete picture was not shown - which is hard to do in 30 min.  They stuck to the basic thoughts on organic being 'better' (tastier and healthier).  Their experiment on tastier did not convince me one bit - but would say for *that* test they can to that conclusion. I do wish they would flip to the other side and look at commercial agriculture and the downsides with that.  Their biggest arguement and one I completely support is that organic farming does not produce enough food to support the world population.  We do give up a lot of other benefits, but how can one even argue 'taste' and 'healthier' against world starvation?
From: Ross Entered on: August 2, 2009 9:53 AM
BigFatty said: We do give up a lot of other benefits, but how can one even argue 'taste' and 'healthier' against world starvation?   You can't, of course.  So IMO non-"organic" (such a stupid word to use for the label) wins, hands down.  They're also right in that there's no added health benefit (in general) to organic foods.  And I thought their taste experiment was quite convincing, personally.  Granted, it was only single blinded, but I think it made the point rather well. The one area where I tend to think that organic food is not bullshit (and one they didn't cover on the show) is when it comes to meat.  Organic livestock are supposed to have access to open spaces and cows have time to graze, chickens time to run around, etc.  The living conditions under which most of the animals I eat are subjected has long bothered me.  But I don't have any illusions about non-organic meat or vegetables being healthier.  Also, the whole "locally grown" craze is bullshit.  They only briefly touched on that on P&T.  One of the podcasts I listen to recently tackled this one.  If you get past the guy's douchey-sounding voice, he makes quite a bit of sense about the topic.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2009 8:04 PM
Penn has another hilarious rant about circumcision aimed directly at Fatty, who once said that if he had a son he's circumcise him solely so he would look like his dad.  Sanely, Penn says this is nuts.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 16, 2009 9:52 PM
The Omnivore's Dilemna discusses food production in depth and is a very good read. The author addresses organically produced food and for the most part it is bullshit. Locally produced grown foods at Whole Foods or Henry's, Trader Joe's, etc is bullshit due to economics of distribution but the group of farmers that set up distribution points once a week at various locations around town is sweet. You can order a box of fruits and vegetables and they drop off a box of fresh, ripe stuff for cheaper than I could get at the store. I get to talk to the farmer and his family face to face, I get friendly vibes, cooking tips, and a personal connection. Makes for a pretty cool experience. Same with the various farmers market around the area. Maybe bullshit but it's a transaction that I find more personally rewarding than buying an irradiated unripe apple from Safeway. By the way, anyone see the Shakira video She Wolf? I'd buttsex her!!!!!!......and lick the spice!!!!
From: RobotSpider Entered on: September 17, 2009 8:55 AM
Re: Circumcision:
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 17, 2009 10:17 AM
Bert - You aren't one of those guys that hangs crank weights to stretch the foreskin back, are you?
From: Bunky Entered on: September 17, 2009 1:28 PM
Robot... LMAO... Jack, are those a big seller at Rookies? Hey Ross, did you end up with Ramshackleton as your gamertag because Rumpleforeskin was already in use?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 17, 2009 5:04 PM
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
From: Ross Entered on: September 18, 2009 7:35 AM
I couldn't believe that episode.  The idea that people do it almost makes you wonder how hard it would be... but no, even on paternity leave, I don't have that kind of time (or inclination).