Idiot of the Day

Apparently, atheists are so dangerous that they need to be on a register

Internet pastor Mike Stahl has come up with an interesting idea to assist Christians in day-to-day life. According to Stahl, the nation should set up an “Atheist Registry” in order to provide an updated list of anyone who is a “self-proclaimed atheist,” just as you would do for people convicted of sex crimes or associated with terrorist groups.

...

Although Stahl’s registry would only have a name and perhaps picture of the avowed, publicly declared atheist, and no physical address, he also believes that knowing who are the atheists in your neighborhood could lead to a wonderful opportunity to try and convert, too!

Yeah, put me on a registry for not believing in a mythical sky fairy and then come and try to convert me. See how well that goes!

You what now?!

Two frankly staggering claims from luikkerland over at the Orphans of Liberty:

I think that it is becoming generally understood as a fact rather than a conspiracy theory that in the 20th century a plot was hatched to bring about Marxist revolution in Judeo-Christian countries where the people had an interest in the hegemony, and the social classes had shared values. It is becoming – dare I say – mainstream to understand that something that we now know as Political Correctness (PC) was conceived in the minds of power-lustful Marxist thinkers to create the social groundwork for revolution. It is becoming common knowledge that the Gramsci/Lukacs evil bag of tricks was seized on by Progressives looking to implement the cultural element of the Marxist takeover of Britain (the collection around the state had already been embraced by a misguided population battered and altered by two world wars).

Regardless of whether there has ever been such a conspiracy or not, I really don't think that it is "becoming generally understood as fact". I reckon if you go up to most people and talk about this sort of thing then they will give you a tinfoil hat and then cross the road to get away from you.

Of all the printed press, the Daily Mail is in the vanguard of Progressive perception-shaping and conditioning, and so requires the most counter-attacking

While I'm all for attacking the Mail, the claim that it is "progressive" in any way, shape of form is frankly laughable. I haven't heard (well, read) anything quite so laughable in weeks!

Miliband Minor's Twitter Mauling

There's a certain idiotic brilliance to this. I mean, what the hell to Ed Miliband and his team think was going to be the outcome of him answering questions on Twatter? Are they really so naive that they thought that only people as earnest as Miliband Minor would head online to talk to him? It was an example of someone who really should have known better walking headlong into the most obvious of ambushes. And that ambush was actually created by Team Miliband Minor. Talk about making a rod for your own back.

But after a pretty disastrous week for the lesser Miliband, this is surely the last thing he wanted - a widely reported online savaging (even if The Guardian is desperately trying to spin it). And the fact that he created this own goal speaks volumes about just how inept he is as politician. I reckon that this will be one of those moments that people in the future will use to explain to others why Ed Miliband had to be replaced as Labour leader.

Idiot of the Day

The fact that he is called Weiner makes this story just perfect.

Idiot of the Day: Laurie Penny

Laurie Penny, apparently without any sense of irony:

In my final year at a British private school, over 30 kids were handheld through the application process for Oxford or Cambridge, whereas in most state schools a maximum of one or two begin the gruelling process, usually without the considerable staff support that we enjoyed.

Of those 30, about half were successful, and at least four or five of those were -- excuse my French -- thick as congealed slurry on the bridle path. They were dull, unimaginative posh kids who had no real interest in learning , who were just good at passing exams with the right training. What they had was the confidence to shine at interviews, and most importantly, the right kind of swagger to fit in. They had grown up being told they belonged at Oxford or Cambridge. As a consequence, they were deemed Oxbridge material, whereas thousands of state school pupils were not.

And where did Penny go to university, I hear you ask? Why Oxford, of course. Which surely makes her one of those "handheld through the application process". It also makes her as "thick as congealed slurry" and possessing "the right kind of swagger to fit in". Either that, or she's a total fucking hypocrite.

Of course, I do realise she could be all of the above...

UPDATE: Matt M in the coments section rightly points out that Penny could be classing herself (hell, she probably is) as one of the two thirds of the successful applicants that weren't as thick as congealed slurry. My bad; I meant to re-edit the article before publishing it but didn't. It should have read "it also gives her a circa 33% of being as "thick as congealed slurry".." She's still a fucking hypocrite, though, as she clearly benefitted from the private school hand-holding she now seeks to rebuke.

Labour Win Safe Labour Seat Shock!

Labour candidate on winning the Barnsley Central by-election:

Mr Jarvis said the result sent "the strongest possible message" to David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Quite how a Labour candidate winning a seat that they have held since it was created in 1983 represents any sort of message, strong or otherwise, is a little beyond me. Particularly since only 36% of the electorate bothered to cast a vote. But you have your moment of splendid hyperbole, Mr Jarvis. Then pack your bags, head off to Parliament, and make yourself comfortable on those opposition benches. Because I rather think you'll be there for a while...

The Simple World of Laurie Penny

In a nauseatingly self-congratulatory post, Laurie “THE CELEBRITY” Penny writes this:

If I ever lose perspective, or start praising George Osborne, or just turn into a massive wanker, I’m counting on the people whose opinions I’ve always valued to take me to task.

Sorry all, but it is just too easy to say that Penny has never had a sense of perspective, or that she has ever been anything other than a massive wanker. Those cheap shots you should make elsewhere. As, if you are so inclined, no doubt you will.

No, it is the bit about praising George Osborne that gets to me, because it reveals so much about Penny’s mindset. She deals in absolutes, see. And here the absolute is that GEORGE OSBORNE WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING SHE CAN SEE AS GOOD. Which completely ignores one of the most fundamental facets of life – change. Penny might, in future years, move away from the clichéd left (‘growing up’ I believe is the actual term) and realise that people like Osborne can offer valid opinions and policies, even if you disagree with the broad parameters of what they stand for. Furthermore, she also denies the idea that Osborne himself could change; maybe on day, in one area, Osborne will position himself on the tedious left. Doesn’t seem likely, but it is not an impossibility either. Unfortunately, Penny’s naïve worldview is simply too narrow to encompass any such possibilities.

Of course, you could argue that her statement was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyone who has read Penny’s blog knows that (a) it is exactly how she feels about Osborne and (b) it is typical of the way she looks at the world.

There may be some intelligent statists and socialists out there – those who understand the contingent nature of political identity and political reality. Judging by this and pretty much the rest of her output, we can rest assured that Laurie Penny is not one of them.

The Idiotic and Offensive Pope

Oh my word, take a look at this for an example of Papal crassness and stupidity taken to an extreme:

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny"

Yes, Britain did indeed fight the Nazis and quite rightly too. The totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany was a nightmare, and it needed to be fought by any nation or movement that claimed in anyway to me moral. Britain fought the Nazis. What did the Vatican do? At best - at very fucking best - it sat on the fence in World War Two.

Furthermore, many people opposed the Nazis and some did so for reasons other than religion. The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis. And as an FYI, Ratzinger, the Soviet Union was atheist.

But that's just background noise to the truly ignorant and offensive rubbish that the Panzer Pope is spouting. The idea that Nazism represents "atheist extremism" is palpable, insulting nonsense. In fact, if anything, the structure of Nazism resembles that of religious orders, and in particular the Catholic Church. The Führerprinzip closely resembles Papal Infallibility. Both belief systems were big on ceremony, of performing in stupid costumes, and to a large extent are based on meaningless, fabricated myths. But the biggest similarity lies in the fact that both belief systems are based on blind obedience. You have to believe absolutely in the teachings of the Church, just as absolute belief in Nazi propaganda was demanded by that regime. There is no allowance for freedom of thought under Nazism or the sort of religion espoused by the Vatican. Unlike in atheism, which is predicated on questioning what was the greatest authority in human life for centuries - that of God.

Sure, you could argue that Catholicism believes in God, while the Nazi regime believed in nothing. But this isn't true; Nazism adopted much of the structure of religion, but just changed the position of their God. Christianity sites God in heaven; Nazism had God in earth in the shape of the Führer.

Furthermore, the exclusion of God, religion and whatever corrupted concept of virtue the Church has from public life does not lead to a truncated vision of the person and of their destiny. On the contrary, the removal of the need to adhere to outmoded, out-of-date archaic teachings from millennia ago actually frees humanity up to achieve more. Stem cell research - banned by the Catholics - helps alleviate suffering and extend lives. Contraception - banned by the Church - helps slow the spread of the HIV epidemic. And so on. The removal of God from public life is a healthy thing. Furthermore, such a move does not bring about the removal of morals from society; "thou shalt not kill" does not need to be backed up by the threat of hell; it becomes intuitively plausible for an atheist through the use of empathy with fellow humans.

And where does this idea that Catholicism is synonymous with morality and virtue come from? The Church has, at best, a dubious record when it comes to morality. It isn't just the recent scandal over paedophilia that shows the Vatican's dubious approach to basic, moral concepts like you shouldn't let people rape children and then cover it up. Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour and, in far too many cases, horrific cruelty. So forgive me, Ratzinger, if I don't buy into your concept of virtue. It really isn't working for me on any level.

This is meant to be the Pope extending the hand of friendship to people in the UK. Likening those who have legitimate concerns about religion or who just plain and simple don't believe in religion to Nazis does not strike me as a good way to go about that.

On Caroline Flint

Some are praising Flint's resignation to the rafters, and whilst I'm pretty much pro anything that embarrasses Gordon Brown and makes his position less tenable, I'd add a couple of words of warning about getting too excited about Flint's departure.

First of all, it comes very soon after she backed Brown. Now, maybe she had a sudden change of heart but generally if you are going to resign from something, it is best just to fucking do it. It is Clare Short Syndrome - if you resign about the war after you have backed the war, then your point is somewhat lost. Likewise, if you back Brown then moments later resign because of him, you don't look that decisive and therefore undermines what you are trying to say. 

And let's take a look at her reasons for leaving government:

"You have a two-tier government. Your inner circle and then the remainder of cabinet."

Yep, Brown does. But so does every Prime Minister. Hence the ongoing, tedious talk of kitchen Cabinets, inner circles, and an increasingly Presidential influence on British Politics. It may not be ideal, but it is a fact of life that every Prime Minister since Harold Wilson (the first time round) has had an inner circle. And isn't it strange how those who are in the inner circle don't complain about it, whilst those on the outside stamp their feet because they aren't allowed to play with the cool kids?

Moving on:

"Several of the women attending cabinet - myself included - have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing"

Now, this charge - which does sound about right - could stick, and could really hurt Brown. But I do wonder what Flint was expecting from the Labour Party. After all, this isn't the first time that Labour women have been used as window dressing. You can go right back to 1997 and see the casual embracing by the Labour party of the concept of "Blair's Babes" to see that the Labour party has no compunction about manipulating gender issues to grab a cheap headline. Caroline Flint has only just twigged she was being used as window dressing by the boorish Gordon Brown. Most other people clocked that a long time ago.

Which is the key point. Those leaving the Cabinet seem to have suddenly woken up to the idea that Gordon Brown is an incapable, unlovable twat who deserves absolutely no support whatsoever. Which is great, but leaves them far, far behind the rest of the country. And whilst their comments about how dreadful Brown is may be wonderfully amusing for Brown haters everywhere, it does beg the question of why they agreed to serve with Brown - an unelected Prime Minister who grabbed power from a savvy political operator who won Labour three elections - in the first place.

So congratulations to Flint, Purnell and Blears. Well the fuck done. You've just worked out that Brown is an incompetent, socially awkward elitist moron who has just driven your party into the ground. The rest of us clocked that a long time ago. So I look forward to that trio - and any others who have just hit on the idea that Brown is a rancid cock of a man - working out some other basic facts that occurred to the rest of us a long time ago. Like the idea that the Labour party is dead in the water, and that Labour policies really aren't the way forward...

Idiot of the Day

There is something about this guy that sums up everything that is wrong with everything. Ever. He is the cliched view of what a Tory is. All that is missing in his picture is a rifle and a dead burgalar lying in his front room with a gunshot wound in his back.

Partly it is the picture, which makes him look like a cross between the Wurzels and a retard character from Last of the Summer Wine. But it also statements like this:

"I am one of the last English peasants and I want a new Peasants' Revolt - but who is out there to lead it?"

You want a new Peasants' Revolt? Well, I'm all for opposing the government, but given your appearance, general concerns and terrible, terrible writing, I hope you get your peasant's revolt. I hope you lead it. And I hope government crushes it - and you - without mercy. Thus allowing us with opposable thumbs to take up the fight against the consensus with a little more coherence, relevance and common sense.

Oh, and he would be writing for The Daily Fucking Mail, wouldn't he?

Cross-posted at The Daily Mail Tendency.

"See, some of my bestest friends are..."

So, some priest or other has got himself into hot water over some comments he made about homosexuality. The BBC sums up these comments really nicely:

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health."

Apparently these comments were meant to be satirical. Hmmm. I love a bit of satire. But these comments appear to be more grossly offensive than satirical. I'd like to say that there is a fine line between satire and rampantly homophobic ignorance. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Still, his "satire" allows me to propose my new scheme, which is tattooing the words "Believing in a invisible, fictional sky fairy can seriously damage your common sense and tolerance for others" on the foreheads of Christian bigots everywhere.

And the Rev Mullan has some other thoughts on homosexuality as well:

In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed.

So not just branding gay people, Mr Mullen also wants to suppress them. Although in fairness his desire to suppress gay people was also clearly demonstrated by his idea of tattooing them.

But what gets to me - what really gets to me - is this classic justification for his atrocious views:

"I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion."

Oh, bless you, Rev Mullan. Bless you. I haven't heard this justification used (in an apparently serious way) for a good long time. But it really is the classic excuse for pig ignorant comments. There is no difference between Rev Mullan's comment and a member of the BNP saying "I have nothing against immigrants, some of my best friends are immigrants..." Or the redneck in America stating "I have nothing against black people, some of my friends are black people but..." Or even a Nazi concentration camp guard stating "I have nothing against Jews. Some of my best friends were Jews, but..." And all I have done with those phrases is adjust them slightly; the sentiment is the same. As is the response to all such statements - having friends who are gay/black/immigrants/whatever doesn't stop you from being an ignorant prick. If, you know, you are an ignorant prick.

I don't know the Rev Mullan, but judging by his comments he comes across as the sort of nasty little bigot who is hiding behind his prayer book and church frock. And in being bigoted, he is missing perhaps the key teaching of his Messiah - "Love Thy Neighbour". And to clarify for the Rev Mullan and his knuckle dragging ilk, that is love thy neighbour. Not love thy neighbour unless they are gay, in which case you can tattoo them and suppress them.

Still, it would be wrong to brand all Christians as bigoted little shits based on the words of the Rev Mullan. It is only some of them who are bigoted little shits. And I can say that with a good degree of confidence - see, many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Classic, Old School Petulance

Via Ian_QT, I see a wonderful display of childish behaviour that you might associate more with Senior Labour party politicians than people scoring well in a rival blogger’s poll. Yep, Tim Ireland is protesting his inclusion in Iain Dale’s Top 100 list of left of centre blogs. If I was him, I’d be quite chuffed that I had won support from the readers of a blog that is a committed, personal foe. Then again, I’m not Tim Ireland. Thank fuck.

The post is worth reading, as it is the sort of thing that an angry accountant might send to a bank manager over a missing couple of quid of interest payments. My favourite moment is when Tim states:

“What are my options?”

How about you shut up and ignore it?

As an aside, I noticed that I managed to make it into one of Iain Dale’s list myself. At Number 97. Still, I’m not complaining. It is always a pleasant surprise when I realise that people actually read this blog, and it is even more of a pleasant surprise to find that people have taken the time to vote for it. So, thanks to anyone who did.

Post of the Day

From the archives of the frankly loopy Dirty European Socialist (tag line: I LIKE POLITICS):

Tebitt said get on your bike. What if you have no bike.
He did not think of that did he. What if you have no shoes or no money? We have to have a welfare state so people can get back on gear.
The government should provide opportunities for people.

We have to assume he is talking about Norman Tebbit, but spelling is not one of Dirty European Socialist's strengths. And presumably he is talking about this comment Tebbit made about his father:

I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot; he got on his bike and looked for work and he kept looking 'til he found it.

I'm not sure whether DES is being intentionally obtuse or is just a fucking moron, but he seems to have missed the point of Tebbit's comment, which is about being pro-active when trying to find work. Whether you have a bike or not is irrelevant. Tebbit was banging on about taking responsibility for your own actions. Although such concepts as taking responsibility and ownership for your own actions and life may well be alien to the type of trogg who proudly adopts the moniker of Dirty European Socialist.

Still, we get an insight into the mind of a simple socialist. I can imagine DES's campaign slogan if he ever won power. "Bicycles for all under the Dirty European Socialist!" Yeah, that'll sort everything out!

What a colossal chopper.

Idiot of the Day #1.

Today's idiot is John Loughery. Here's a picture of the fool:



Why is he an idiot, you might ask? And I'll refer you straight back to the above photo. But there are other reasons as well, according to the profile on the BBC:

He gave up his job to attend every day and is the only member of the public who has. He got up at 5am every morning and even slept outside the Royal Courts of Justice for three days to secure a seat on the first day.

Now, we all have interests and hobbies. Some struggle to keep those hobbies and interests in perspective. Loughery is one of those. His "interest" has cost him his job, his flat, his life and, from the sounds of things, his sanity. Keeping things in perspective seems to be an alien phrase to Loughery.

But it is not just the level of his obsession, it is the content of it that gets to me as well. He is obsessed with a dead woman. Not only is that unhealthy, but it also doesn't sound like much fun. At least most people derive some sort of pleasure from their obsessions.

Still, Loughery has a reason for wasting six months of his life:

"I'm going down in history for this. It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a portrait of me hanging in Kensington Palace in 100 years time."

It would surprise me, Mr Loughery, if there is a portrait of you hanging in the palace in 100 year's time. In fact it would surprise and disappoint me. Although I concede that the man might go down in history.

Perhaps not in the way he wants, though...