The Conspiracies of Ron Paul

A few weeks ago, an unknown Ron Paul's supporter (or supporters) created a stir with a video attacking John Huntsman. Reuters reports:

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and members of his family expressed outrage on Friday at an advertisement targeted at his adopted daughters by a group supporting rival Ron Paul.

An online ad authored by "NHLiberty4Paul" shows footage of Huntsman with daughters Gracie, who was adopted from China, and Asha, adopted from India, when they were infants.

"American values. Or Chinese," the ad asks to a soundtrack of Chinese music. It calls Huntsman "the Manchurian Candidate" and ends with an image of Huntsman dressed as China's former communist leader Mao Zedong, and the words "Vote Ron Paul."

Here's the video, and I definitely recommend watching it:



So what is Ron Paul's response?

Paul, a Texas congressman, disavowed the ad during an interview on Friday on CNN, but said he could not control the actions of all his supporters.

"I couldn't even hear it, haven't looked at it, but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns," Paul said.

(Update: Apparently, Ron Paul's campaign did attempt to sue to discover the author of the video, but they were rebuffed by the courts.)

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a long history of tolerating these and other varieties of racist, homophobic, and otherwise disreputable supporters. He distances himself in tepid terms, and refuses to condemn them in anything remotely like the strong language that they deserve. That's why he's got problem after problem with downright frightening supporters.

Ron Paul's 2008 campaign had such problems in spades, particularly for refusing reject donations from neo-Nazis. In this 2010 campaign, Ron Paul's campaign welcomed the endorsement of a Christian dominionist pastor in Iowa who -- consistent with his overall theology -- advocates the death penalty (!!!) for homosexuality. (Please go read the whole story, because it's quite remarkable.) The announcement on Ron Paul's web site welcoming this fothermucker's endorsement was deleted, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never repudiated the endorsement.

Moreover, Ron Paul has never adequately explained or repudiated the viciously racist and homophobic comments in his newsletters.

How should the lunatic fringe be handled in a campaign? Consider the reaction of Bob Barr's campaign to a racist endorsement when he ran for president in 2008 on the Libertarian Party ticket:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

I'm not a fan of Bob Barr, but *pow* *pow* *pow* -- that's how it's done!

Instead of doing that -- or anything like it -- Ron Paul tolerates dangerous idiots, only setting them at arm's length when exposed by the media. This pattern of actions reveals something amiss with Ron Paul's character and judgment, I fear. He's not a racist, I don't think: he's said and done too much too clearly against that. So is he just willing to tolerate and pander to dangerous nonsense in the hope of a few more votes? I don't think that explains the pattern, not when he sticks to his guns on economics.

I suspect that a major cause of these problems is that he's got a serious but mostly hidden penchant for conspiracy theories. This fascinating NY Times article explores that in some detail. For example:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the "treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country." Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded, "there's pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true."

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various "Rockefeller Trilateralists." The notion that these three specific groups -- the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family -- run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.

Wow, just wow. By all means, go watch the video for yourself. He just smooth talks right in and out of the conspiracies.

Judged by the standards of a rational epistemology, conspiracy-theorism is nearly at the bottom of the barrel. The mind of the conspiracy theorist is in complete disarray, utterly unable to evaluate evidence or stick to facts. It's engaging in a constant process of invention, and then confusing those inventions with facts.

For that to be the basic psycho-epistemology of the US President... well, that would be frightening.

Read more...

Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

In the Facebook Group for Front Range Objectivism, a reasonable person posted the following remarks:

Fabulous discussion last night [at an event where some Front Range Objectivists spoke]. However, I was truly disturbed to meet some among us, who are influential in the Objectivist community, who express prejudice against Muslims in general. I was hoping this kind of racism was going away, but it appears to be alive and well. We alienate reasonable people who might otherwise ally themselves with us when we make statements about all Muslims being terrorists. Yes, there are Muslims who are subversive terrorists. Unfortunately we have one in the White House right now. But we don't do ourselves any favors by stating that the Koran itself promotes terrorism, and that anyone who is a Muslim wants the world to be run by Sharia law. If you look carefully at the Bible, there are lots of dated and outrageous statements which no good Christian would incorporate into their lives today.

I have been fortunate to have many Pakistani Muslim friends, who are American citizens, who are patriots. Most if them are conservatives, too, and quite closely aligned with the Objectivist philosophy. They are disturbed and alienated by the kind of prejudice I heard last night. And they are voting with their votes and their substantial campaign donations. So am I.

Those themes are common, and I wanted to lay out my own view. So here's my reply, slightly edited. I could have done better, rhetorically speaking. Still, I think that I articulated my own position reasonably well.

Islam is a chosen religion, not a race. So it's not "racism" to criticize Islam or Muslims, any more than it's racism to criticize Christianity or to regard theocratic Christians as a major threat to liberty in the America. It's not proper to discriminate based on race, because race is unchosen, and has nothing to do with moral character. Religion is chosen, and has a huge impact on a person's character, values, and actions. A person should be judged for his chosen religion, not given a free pass.

As for how many Muslims are jihadists -- or support that -- that's another question. Given that Muslim violence against "the infidel" and others is not strongly and loudly condemned by Muslims in the US (and elsewhere), but instead often excused, condoned, and urged on, I can only regard most Muslims as either active or passive supporters of violent jihad. In contrast, that's not true of Christians in America. While the political views of most Americans are influenced (for the worse) by Christianity, most American Christians oppose attempts to impose sectarian dogmas by law, and they deplore violence. That's because Christianity, unlike Islam, has been tempered by the Enlightenment. (Alas, that's disappearing slowly...)

Muslims opposed to violent jihad are disobeying the explicit commands of their religion. If that's their true view, however, then they ought to stand up and say that, particularly given the barbaric acts of their fellow adherents. But they're almost entirely silent. Hence, the rest of us are entitled to assume that they really don't have a huge problem with fellow Muslims blowing up Jewish children, murdering daughters for being too western, executing gays, stoning rape victims, killing apostates, and so on.

Of course, if you know particular Muslims who support American values... that's AWESOME. However, just as with Christians, those Muslims ought to abandon their religious beliefs, because they're wholly incompatible with any concern or respect for individual rights.

Update: There's a bunch of comments already posted to the copy of this post on the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.

Read more...

The Impossibility of Re-Creating Religions

I've never read Penn Jillette's book God, No!, but I love this quote from it:

There is no god, and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.

I'd make a stronger claim, namely that the myths of all major religions are so absurd that any new religions would be wholly different. The reason is simple: they're fantasies based on the desire to believe. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of empirical facts. That's the difference that makes all the difference!

Read more...

The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties

Earlier this week, Ari Armstrong's and my new paper on abortion rights -- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties -- was published in the The Objective Standard. Happily, our article is available for free to everyone.

Here's the opening paragraph:

In recent years, antiabortion activists have stepped up their attacks on a woman's right to abortion and have achieved a series of victories in their efforts to outlaw the procedure. This increasing assault poses a major threat not only to women's right to abortion, but, more broadly, to individual rights as such. Rights form a logical unity, and to the extent that any are threatened, all are threatened. The antiabortionists' war on a woman's right to her body is ultimately a war on all our rights, including our rights to property, free trade, and freedom of speech. To demonstrate this, we will briefly survey the goals, methods, successes, and rationale of today's antiabortion movement; we will then turn to the reasons women seek abortions, to the nature of rights and the positive case for a woman's right to abortion, and finally to the reasons why any restriction on abortion rights necessarily clears the way for violations of other rights.

If you like the article, please share it with friends and fellow activists. Given that conservatives tend to be hostile to abortion rights -- or at least squishy about them -- we think that our article is one that desperately needs to be circulated in free-market and tea-party circles.

Again, you can read the whole article here: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Read more...

Video: Revealing Atheism to Inquisitive Strangers

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed revealing atheism to inquisitive strangers. The question was:

Should I reveal my atheism to strangers when asked? I work at a hospital. One night a patient asked me if I'm religious. I answered yes. He then asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I answered yes. Then he took my hand and prayed for me. Immediately, I felt guilty, because I lied in answering these questions. In fact, I'm an atheist. The next day, I told the patient the truth, and he thanked me for my honesty. What should I have done in answering his original questions?

My answer, in brief:

Honesty is a virtue, and fully applicable here. So when asked personal questions by strangers, the proper response is to either answer the question honestly or decline to answer it.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: The Morality of Working for a Minister

In last Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast (Nov 6th), I discussed working for a minister. The question was:

Is working for a minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a good framing manager. I don't think I gave him a moral sanction for his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you think?

My answer, in brief:

An atheist shouldn't want to endorse or assist religion, but that doesn't preclude secular business relationships with religious believers.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

What If God Disappeared?

What If God Disappeared?:


(Yes, it's a parody!)

Read more...

Video: Fear of Death

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed fear of death. The question was:

Should death be feared? Why or why not? Also, why do most people fear death? How can a person overcome that, if ever?

Here's the video of my answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! Also, all my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: Circumcision and Religious Freedom

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed circumcision and religious freedom. Here's the video, now posted to YouTube:

The video for the question on lobbying as a career can be found here, and the video of the question on working for a statist company is here. All my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Evolutionary Theory: Fact Versus Faith

Should evolution be taught in schools? I can't help but laugh as these Miss USA contestants answer that question... but then I want to cry.



Evolutionary theory is the integrating theory of biology. As such, it should be a major part of middle and high school biology. Alas, it's not, and the result is the widespread acceptance of blatantly faith-based views like those expressed in this video.

When I taught introductory philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I'd spend a day discussing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains the supposedly mysterious order and complexity of living beings cited by Paley's analogical argument for God's existence via purely natural law. Hence, the existence of a divine designer cannot be inferred from the complexity and order of life.

Before starting that class, I'd ask my students whether they'd studied evolutionary theory before. Only about two-thirds of them had done so. That was bad enough, but even worse, most of those students were utterly confused about evolutionary theory, usually thinking it to be nothing more than sheer random variation.

When young people aren't taught the basic facts of biology, is it any wonder that they default to religious superstition and myth?

Read more...

Doonesbury on Creationism

I'm not a Doonesbury reader, but the July 10th strip on teaching creationism was just too perfect to ignore.

Also, be sure to check out this classic strip from 2005 on the real-life implications of creationism.

Read more...

Michelle Bachmann, Theocrat

I refuse to vote for politicians whose votes are determined by prayer. I'm looking at you, Michelle Bachmann!

She's speaking about the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. Here's the transcript:

When that happened, I heard the news on my local Christian radio station in Minneapolis, St. Paul and I was devastated. And I took a walk and I just went to prayer and I said Lord, what would you have me do in the Minnesota state senate? And just through prayer I knew that I was to introduce the marriage amendment in Minnesota.

While we're here, don't forget about the varieties of marriage that God sanctions in His Holy Scriptures. (Click to read the fabulous details!)



Maybe, Michelle, if you pray real hard, God will make you some powerful man's concubine! Alas, that's one of the better alternatives.

Read more...

NoodleCast #86: Interview with Ari Armstrong about Harry Potter

Yesterday, I sat down with Ari Armstrong to discuss the Harry Potter novels, given that the final movie will be released this week. As you might already know, Ari is the author of the excellent (and recently expanded) book Values of Harry Potter.

Here are the questions that we discussed:

• How good can we expect the final movie to be, given the franchise's history?
  
• Why do so many people love Harry Potter?
  
• What are the basic values promoted by the novels?
  
• Are the Potter books religious?
  
• What are the psychological themes of the Potter books?
  
• What are the political themes?

Then, on a more personal note:

• What character do you most identify with? Why?
  
• What characters do you most admire? Why?
  
• What scene from the books most captures your imagination? Why?
  
• What do you say to someone reluctant to read the books?

Beware: The interview contains some major spoilers, so don't listen to it unless you've read all the books.

Listen Now

40:37 minutes

Download This Episode

• Enhanced M4A File (24.7 MB)
  
• Standard MP3 File (24.1 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

Read more...

Judge Orders God To Break Up Into Smaller Deities

Finally, an antitrust action that I can support! Judge Orders God To Break Up Into Smaller Deities:

Calling the theological giant's stranglehold on the religion industry "blatantly anti-competitive," a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.

"The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation," wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. "In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly."

The suit, brought against God by the Justice Department on behalf of a coalition of "lesser deities" and polytheistic mortals, alleged that He violated antitrust laws by claiming in the Holy Bible that He was the sole creator of the universe, and by strictly prohibiting the worship of what He termed "false idols."

"God clearly commands that there shall be no other gods before Him, and He frequently employs the phrase 'I AM the Lord' to intimidate potential deserters," prosecuting attorney Geoffrey Albert said. "God uses other questionable strongarm tactics to secure and maintain humanity's devotion, demanding, among other things, that people sanctify their firstborn to Him and obtain circumcisions as a show of faith. There have also been documented examples of Him smiting those caught worshipping graven images."

Attorneys for God did not deny such charges. They did, however, note that God offers followers "unbeatable incentives" in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and "fruitfulness."

Go read the whole thing... from The Onion, of course.

Apparently, order was issued back in 2002, and obviously, God hasn't complied with it yet. Maybe he's in appeals court?

Read more...

More Tim Minchin

On Sunday, I went on another Tim Minchin viewing spree. Once again, I loved them all.

Confessions:



I Love Jesus:



My Neighbor's Ass:




The Good Book:




Fat Children:



Fuck the Poor:



If I Didn't Have You:


I'm now determined to see him live at some point. That would be a blast!

Read more...

Biblical Marriage

The religious right claims to advocate "biblical marriage"... but what does that actually mean? Take a look, and be sure to click on the image to read the fine print.



Hooray for family values!

Read more...

The Rapture

In honor of today's predicted rapture, I offer the following opening sequence from Six Feet Under. I've never seen the show, but this clip is wickedly funny!

Read more...

Christianity: Obey and Suffer... and Shut Your Mouth!

Many Christians would watch this music video of kids urging respect for and obedience to authority with some measure of alarm.



Many Christians, after all, want their children to think and judge for themselves, not to mindlessly obey their parents, teachers, and ministers. And they're right -- not only because some adults are unworthy of trust -- but also because they recognize in some way that independence is a virtue.

Yet in so doing, Christians are rejecting scripture in favor of plain old good common sense. Scripture is clear -- from the story of Abraham and Isaac to that of Doubting Thomas that faith in and obedience to authorities is morally required -- even when they demand that you believe ridiculous tales and perform unspeakable acts. In fact, such is the explicit advice of given by the Apostle Paul to Christians in Romans 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

Remember that, next time you hear of a priest molesting a child or dictator slaughtering his people. Or worse, apply the following advice from 1 Peter 2 to those cases:

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

Do you think that Christianity offers help and solace to innocent people, unjustly downtrodden by the powerful? Think again!

Read more...

Horcruxes and Harry Potter

In this video, Ari Armstrong of Free Colorado delves into the deeper meaning of a "Horcrux" in Harry Potter by contrasting it with that of the Christian cross, then explaining why the latter does not represent the values in the novel. It's well-worth watching, as I'd never noticed the parallels he explains here so clearly.



On a related note, Ari just released an expanded version of his excellent book Values of Harry Potter. Here's his tour through the book:

The release of the Expanded Edition of my book Values of Harry Potter offers a good opportunity for me to walk people through the book.

In the Introduction, I quickly review my own history with the Potter series and introduce the main topics of the original edition. I also summarize my take on the religious themes of J. K. Rowling's novels: "Some people argue that the books should be avoided because they oppose Christianity. Others argue that the books should be read and praised because they promote Christian themes. My claim is that the Christian elements of the Potter books are real but disconnected from the broader moral themes of the books."

Chapter One, "The Heroic Fight for Values," first discusses the major values that Harry Potter and his allies pursue: their lives and the lives of loved ones, their liberty, and their ability to live and work in peace. In contrast, "all the villains achieve is misery and self-destruction;" they destroy the values that make life worth living. The last part of the chapter, "Values in the Face of Death," reviews the stories of Lily protecting Harry with her life, Dumbledore doing the same for Draco, and Harry confronting Voldemort thinking he'll die in the process. I argue that these cases, too, illustrate the heroes acting heroically for their values.

Chapter Two, "Independence: Mark of the Hero," explores the virtue of independence in Rowling's heroes and the vice of dependence (or, to invoke Ayn Rand's term, second-handedness) in the villains. Independence in this context means approaching "all of life…according to one's own considered judgment of the facts," not "ignoring others, disdaining them, avoiding their company, or rejecting their help." Key examples of the second-handed approach are the Dursleys and Gilderoy Lockhart. The section, "Second-Handers and Power," discusses how power-lusters such as Minister Fudge, Dolores Umbridge, and Voldemort himself embody the second-hand mentality. By contrast, the heroes of the novels, particularly Dobby, Hermione, and Harry, maintain a fierce independence.

Chapter Three, "Free Will: 'It Matters Not What Someone Is Born,'" considers the similarities and differences between Harry and Voldemort. "Rowling shows that choice is key" to the very different paths they travel. The chapter also reviews the cases of Sirius Black and Severus Snape as illustrations of the power of free will. However, free will also has its limits, and the chapter explores these as well, as illustrated by the cases of Ariana (Dumbledore's sister), Merope (Voldemort's mother), and the house elf Kreacher.

Chapter Four, "The Clash of Love and Sacrifice," grows more critical. Is Lily's act of protecting Harry an example of sacrificial love in the Christian tradition? Invoking the wisdom of Aristotle, I argue that it is not; instead, Lily acts to protect her most cherished value. Though Rowling herself injects Christian symbolism into her stories, her characters actually show that they act in pursuit of their own values, and calling that "sacrifice" makes little sense. The chapter also considers the cases of Ron "sacrificing" himself on the chess board, Harry rescuing his enemies, and Dumbledore caring for his sister.

Chapter Five, "Materialism and Immortality," examines the significance of the Horcrux, an object of great evil. Central to the plot of the novels is Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes. I argue that, while Rowling suggests belief in an immortal soul is necessary for virtue, her characters actually demonstrate otherwise.

For the Conclusion to the original edition, "Mischief Managed," I discuss Rowling's work as an example of Romantic literature. I argue, "The deeper magic of Harry Potter flows through our world, too."

Part Three: Additional Essays consists of eight essays new to the Expanded Edition.

The Psychology of Harry Potter reviews Rowling's experience with depression and relates it to the dementors of the novels. The essay goes on to explore the psychological significance of boggarts, the Mirror of Erised, the Resurrection Stone, and the scar that Voldemort gives Harry.

Wizard Law and Segregation reviews the various roles that government plays in the novels. In brief, the government protects wizards from harm, oppresses other races (which the heroes condemn), and regulates various behaviors. Notably, Rowling creates a world in which wizards forcibly segregate themselves from Muggles, something that seems at odds with Rowling's broader themes of political liberty.

News Media in Harry Potter counters criticism of the novels' treatment of journalism. I argue that Rowling actually presents a "constructive view of journalism within the series." I conclude, "The novels encourage readers to critically examine claims, regardless of their source, for internal consistency and adherence to the facts. Most importantly, the series urges readers to fight for the truth."

The final five essays review The Tales of Beedle the Bard, contrast Rowling's use of magic with the magic of fantasy writers J. R. R. Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander, recount "Harry Potter's Lessons for Muggle Politicians," discuss some similarities between Rowling and Ayn Rand, and review the Potter films.

If this seems interesting to you, I invite you to read my entire book!

I've not yet read the expanded edition of the book, but I really enjoyed the original version. In case you missed it before, here's the endorsement that I wrote for the original edition:

I've read all the Harry Potter novels multiple times, discussed them at length with friends, read essays analyzing them, and even published an essay of my own. Yet Ari Armstrong's Values of Harry Potter offered me a delightful array of fresh insights into J. K. Rowling's works. It offers fans of Harry Potter a unique opportunity to explore the core values of the novels, to discover why we find them so captivating and so inspiring. Readers will develop a deeper appreciation for Rowling's achievement in portraying life-loving, courageous heroes. They will discover compelling answers to any half-formed questions and doubts about the significance of her Christian themes. When I re-read the Harry Potter series -- as I'm eager to do again -- I will gain far more insight and inspiration from them than ever before, thanks to Values of Harry Potter.

If that sounds interesting, you can buy the paperback for $14.99 or the Kindle edition for $8.99.

Note to Appease the FTC Thugs: Ari sent me a free copy of this new edition of his book. That, plus our criminal history together in Mexico, is my sole reason for this blog post. Granted, any commissions earned from purchases thereof goes to Greg Perkins, my other partner in crime, due to Colorado's Amazon Tax. However, I'd find some way around that were it not for that Las Vegas caper involving the hooker, the truck driver, and the one-handed midget little person. He knows too much, dammit!

Read more...

Muslim Cleric: Some Women Must Be Beaten

According to this Muslim cleric, three kinds of women simply must be beaten, and to fail to do so is to violate the commands of God.



But Islam is the "religion of peace," right?

Read more...