Here’s a pretty funny parody of the opening to Seasame Street that features The Governator in the role of Ernie talking about all his friends on Schwarzenegger Street.
Link via Boing Boing.
My boyfriend Sean recently turned me into a big fan of MC Hawking, a fictional rap group that pays tribute to genius Steven Hawking and all things scientific. The music is a hilarious combination of old school hip hop beats and a synthetic/computerized voice (reminiscent of the voice computer Hawking uses) spewing out witty pro-science lyrics. Ken Leavitt-Lawrence made an animated music video for one of the songs on MC Hawking’s latests album “A Brief History of Rhyme”, called “What we need more of is science”. The video is pretty funny, as are the lyrics. I find the “Fuck the Creationist” song the best by far, however. Warning for vulgar language and possible offensive content!
Some choice rhymes include:
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
And:
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
If you like the video, I urge you to buy an MC Hawking CD (or two or three)! At the very least, check out the website 
Just got back from the job interview with my previous contract house. Turns out I met with just two of the four guys I was originally supposed to talk to and they seem perfectly happy to give me the job. They still need to talk it over with the other two guys, though, so it’s not a given just yet. Still I should hear from them later this afternoon with a yea or nay which will keep the sittin’ and stressin’ to a minimum. Only drawback I can see (other than it’s only part-time) is the drive to the office in Troy. It’s not a greater distance than what I used to drive to Ford, but the freeways involved are notorious for having traffic jams during rush hour so it takes longer than it should.
In other news we put in our lease renewal a week ago for the apartment we’re living in and today I got a call from the office about it. The company that owned our complex just sold it to a different company, something we knew about because we all got letters telling us to change who we made the check out to, and the new company would be happy to continue our lease except that we live above the model they use to show prospective customers and they want to turn our apartment into a second model. Basically this means we’re going to have to move either to a new apartment elsewhere in this complex or to someplace else entirely. On the one hand we’ve been wanting to move out of here for at least 4 of the last 6 years we’ve lived here and we were hoping to buy a house this summer until I became unemployed. My first thought is that we should see if there’s anything else around Canton that would cost about the same as this place to rent and just go ahead and move if we have to anyway, but I doubt that I’ll find anything as inexpensive as this place is and I don’t know if they’d lease to me without my actually having a job nailed down as of yet. Needless to say I’ll probably be exploring my options this weekend.
Just got a call from the contract house. The two people I interviewed with today were very impressed with me and the third fellow was impressed after they talked to him and showed him my resume. However the last person who holds the final decision making power wants to discuss it further at a staff meeting next week which normally doesn’t occur until the end of the week, but they’re going to try and reschedule it for Monday. So I don’t have the job just yet, but it’s looking pretty good and I should know more come Monday.
Finally, Courtney’s grades for the first marking period came in today and they’re not as good as they should be. One A, two Bs, and three Cs including a C- in Spanish. Ouch. Can’t find her mid-term progress report to tell if it’s an improvement or not (as that was pretty bad as well), but it’s going to make for some unpleasant times around here just the same. Because I’m unemployed Courtney and I aren’t on the medication we were taking for our ADD and I don’t know how much of a factor that’s playing in this drop in her performance as opposed to just the second year being a lot harder than the first year which she finished up with mostly A and Bs. It’s definitely a motivation to get back to work at a job with some medical benefits that’ll help cover the cost of getting us back on the ADD meds. Of course this entails paying off the $440 bill we have with the clinic because my medical coverage ended sooner than I thought it would when I became unemployed.
Grrrr. Nothing like finding out the light at the end of the tunnel is just that of an oncoming train. Can I get a job and get the bills caught up before they unleash the dogs upon us? Find out next week!
If you’re curious to see how your state ranked in the Pro Life / Pro Choice debate have a look at this breakdown compiled by Survey USA.
Any surprises? Do you see results you expected from your state?
This version sorted by PRO-LIFE VS PRO-CHOICE (Released 09/12/05) in descending order:
Pro Life / Pro Choice 1 Utah 61% / 33% 2 Louisiana 57% / 36% 3 Arkansas 55% / 40% 4 Idaho 55% / 41% 5 Alabama 54% / 36% 6 Mississippi 53% / 39% 7 West Virginia 53% / 39% 8 Kentucky 51% / 42% 9 Tennessee 51% 42% 10 Indiana 50% / 47% 11 South Dakota 49% / 47% 11 Missouri 48% / 45% 13 Oklahoma 48% / 47% 14 Nebraska 47% / 49% 15 North Dakota 47% / 47% 15 Kansas 45% / 50% 17 North Carolina 44% / 47% 17 Pennsylvania 44% / 51% 17 Georgia 43% / 52% 20 South Carolina 43% / 47% 20 Texas 43% / 52% 22 Michigan 42% / 55% 23 Montana 42% / 53% 23 Ohio 42% 52% 25 Iowa 41% / 56% 26 Arizona 39% / 56% 27 Minnesota 39% / 56% 27 New Mexico 39% / 56% 29 Virginia 39% / 54% 30 Wisconsin 39% / 57% 30 Wyoming 39% / 57% 32 Alaska 37% / 58% 32 Florida 36% / 58% 34 Hawaii 35% 57% 34 Colorado 34% / 61% 36 Illinois 33% / 58% 37 Maine 33% / 63% 38 Oregon 33% / 62% 38 Nevada 32% / 64% 38 Rhode Island 32% / 63% 41 Washington 32% / 63% 42 Delaware 31%/ 63% 43 New Jersey 31% / 63% 43 Maryland 29% / 65% 45 New Hampshire 29% / 67% 46 California 28% / 65% 46 Massachusetts 28% / 68% 48 New York 27% / 66% 48 Connecticut 26% / 68% 50 Vermont 25% / 70% Weighted Average: 38% 56% (‘Weighted Average’ means each state is weighted proportionally to its share of USA population. For example, California, the most populated state, is given 71 times the weight of WY the least populated state, in a weighted avg.”) Unweighted Average: 41% / 54% Adults age 18+ in each of the 50 states were interviewed by SurveyUSA 8/12/05 to 8/14/05.
One of the arguments supporters of the current Pledge of Allegiance like to put forth for not ridding it of the words “under God” added in 1954 during the McCarthy Red Scare is that folks who want to say the Pledge without those two words can just omit them if they don’t like them. That wouldn’t go over well with this nutcase who wants a law passed making the omission of said words a crime:
I’m making a proposal that the authorities make a ruling or law order: “That any group of people, civic, township, county, religious or social, that stand up in public to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (our country) and omits ‘under God’ in their standing pledge, could be, shall be, charged with a misdemeanor or such and can be arrested, held accountable.”
Fortunately this is just a letter to the editor of the York Daily Record and the rest of the letter goes on to show how much of a nutcase he truly is. According to the letter writer, a mister Earl S. Thoman, the Pledge wasn’t written by Francis Bellamy in August 1892, but was made in 1620 on the ship Mayflower before landing at Plymouth Rock. He feels the Supreme Court should be tried for treason and that the ACLU should be barred from this country (what other country as an ACLU?). Near the end he asks the following:
Crazy, stupid, dumb?
Yes, yes, and yes. But then that’s only to be expected of someone who buys into Christian mythology so much that they would criminalize any perceived offense against it.
Christian nutcase David Limbaugh is out and about trying to rally the troops in the “Culture War” once again.
It’s time for Christians to get smart about biblical truth and begin standing up for it, according to one visiting author.
For Christians, there should be no more embracing of the “new tolerance” that says all religions are different but equal.
“I can’t believe Jesus is God or not God at the same time,” said David Limbaugh, brother of popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Limbaugh visited First Baptist Church in Wichita Falls Sunday with a strong charge for those who call themselves Christians. A commentator and book author, Limbaugh urged fellow believers to speak up and take part - not avoid - the culture war that haunts the churches, schools and society.
Many seek to purge Christianity from the public square by marginalizing it, demonizing it or endorsing competing values, he said.
Yes it’s the old they’re trying to ban-Jesus-from-being-mentioned-in public nonsense again. It’s annoying how effective this false argument really is. The government is supposed to be neutral in matters of religion so anything that gives the appearance of government endorsement of one religion over another is not allowed. Hanging the Ten Commandments in a school or a courthouse gives the appearance of endorsement. Teachers leading prayers in school is a government endorsement. Even a nativity on a city hall lawn gives the appearance of an endorsement. There’s no way in hell most Christians would sit by and let teachers lead their classroom in Muslim prayers or in a recitation of the Wiccan Reed so why do they expect everyone else to just shut up and accept their prayers being told to our children?
The message complemented a sermon series in progress by First Baptist Pastor Dr. Robert Jeffress on how demons use the government and secular institutions to undermine Christianity.
Look out! Those scary demons are out to undermine Christianity! I suppose I should be happy he didn’t blame atheists this time, but somehow the thought that they’re worried about mythical evil creatures doing the dirty work as opposed to real live atheists isn’t overly comforting. This next bit struck me as a bit of an odd thing to say:
Limbaugh urged Christians to heed advice by author C.S. Lewis, who claimed that Jesus must be either lord, a liar or a lunatic and that everyone must pick one, then act on it.
“You can’t read the book of John (in the Bible) and conclude he’s not God. I once didn’t believe. But I believe it now,” Limbaugh said.
As he is portrayed in the Bible, Jesus can’t be called a great teacher.
“He was either nuts or terribly immoral.” Or he was God, as he claimed, Limbaugh said.
So let me get this straight, if Jesus isn’t God then how he’s portrayed in the Bible would make him “terribly immoral” so therefore he must be God?? What I want to know is if his portrayal would make him “terribly immoral” if he’s not God then doesn’t that just mean he’s a terribly immoral god if he is God? Of course the answer one receives to such a question is that anything God does is automatically moral because God is the source of all morality hence if God does it then it’s a moral action even if it would be completely immoral for you to do it. It’s good to be the king.
Next Limbaugh goes on to misrepresent the intention of the Founding Fathers:
America’s freedoms were created by founders who believed in the sanctity of human life but also that man was a fallen creature.
“Left to his own devices, he’d be corrupt,” Limbaugh said. So they formed the Constitution with its checks and balances and the Bill of Rights “to keep men from corrupting each other so the by-product would be free.”
I couldn’t help, but laugh at this one. In all the writings I’ve read by the Founding Fathers I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that would imply what Limbaugh is claiming here. It’s particularly ironic to hear him use such an argument in a speech decrying secularism in government when the Founding Father’s whole intent was to establish a secular government. He’s basically ranting about what the Founding Fathers had hoped to establish in the first place.
Schools that won’t let a valedictorian speak out for Christ, kindergarteners pray over their lunch or teenagers raise funds for an “Easter” project have misunderstood the central theme of separation of church and state that America’s founders intended, he said.
The founders wanted only to be sure the government never started its own national church.
“These examples are not the government endorsing religion,” he said.
Limbaugh doesn’t cite specific examples so one can only speculate about the three things he mentions above. The valedictorian issue is one I’m torn on as I’ve always thought that the speech given by them should be considered a personal message and thusly open to religious references, but at the same time I’d be annoyed as hell to go to my graduation only to be proselytized to. Still, I’d probably just roll my eyes and be done with it. In regards to Kindergartners praying over their lunch, there’s nothing stopping them as individuals from doing so if that’s what they want to do. The teacher just isn’t allowed to lead them in said prayer. You can pray all you want in school so long as you’re not being disruptive of class and there’s no law that says you can’t. As for the teenagers trying to raise funds for an Easter project, I can’t say that I’m familiar with whatever news story he’s talking about, but without more context it’s impossible to say much about it.
I do agree with this last statement though:
The Constitution does not include the right to be free of being offended, he said. “That non-right shouldn’t be allowed to trump my most important freedom in this country - the free exercise of religion.”
So those of you who come here via some Google search and end up being offended by what you read can just kiss my ass.
So I’ve spent a little time today trying to get caught up on what’s happening in the real world as well as my email and I got a question from a reader on what my thoughts are on Bush’s latest nomination to the Supreme Court. I’ve not written much about Samuel Alito for the same reason I didn’t write much about Harriet Miers, which is that I don’t know a lot about the man. Other than the fact that the Republicans who were so outraged over Miers seem to be pleased as punch about his nomination—a fact that in itself tends to make me wary of the man—I’ve not read enough about him yet to have much of an opinion.
And, honestly, I can’t get too worked up about it. From what little I have read it seems unlikely that the Democrats are going to be able to block his appointment even if they want to and any attempts to try may just get the Republicans to use the “nuclear option” on the filibuster rule despite the fact that it’ll someday come back to bite them in the ass. When faced with what appears to be an inevitable looming unpleasantness I tend to just resign myself to toughing it out until better days come around. I’m sure once he’s in place and has contributed to a few big decisions I’ll end up having something to write an angry entry about, but until I can see what kind of an impact he’s really going to have on the court it’s hard for me to say much at the moment. Would I have preferred someone more moderate being nominated? Sure, but I wasn’t holding my breath over it. Perhaps we’ll get lucky and Bush will fall victim to the curse of so many previous Republican Presidents who ended up nominating what they thought was a conservative to the court who ended up being a lot more liberal than they thought at the time.