• commentary
  • SATURDAY DECEMBER 8 2007 4:00 PM

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #24



Not many people know where the Roundup began. It occurred in Ireland, way back in 1649. The British were conquering Ireland when Commander Oliver Cromwell came across the stubborn town of Wexford. After 10 days, Cromwell’s troops entered the city walls and went on a murder frenzy. They killed 300 women gathered around a cross, they murdered priests and shot others civilians as they attempted to flee by swimming across the River Slaney. In all 1,500 civilians were massacred. They then burned Wexford. As the smoke drifted over to Cromwell, he said, “Smell that? Smells like Asshole Fuckfacery.” He had a little shit eating grin on his face, too. True story. Ever since that day, my family has been cursed with the job of bringing Asshole Fuckfaces forth to the populace each week. I scour the news in search of the worst of the worst and put them on the page for you to read and shake your righteous heads. So, put on your thickest overalls because this is going to be messy.

Why not start with a religious Asshole Fuckface?

Nathaniel Abraham hired at – hold up. I was about to get into the story, but if your name is Nathaniel Abraham you are bringing a shitload of religious crazy into any room. You think he is okay with people calling him Nate? The magic eight ball says, “Fuck No.”

Anyway, Nate was hired at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in March of 2004 after receiving a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate from St. John's University. He was brought in to aid in the research of how chemicals affect the mechanisms of fish from a comparative/evolutionary perspective. Then in October, Nate let it slip that he did not believe in evolution.


My supervisor appeared angry and asked me what I meant. My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant.


Golly, you think your boss was angry because you were being paid to work on something you don’t believe him? Nate told his boss that he "was willing to discuss evolution as a theory." Oh, how kind of you, guy working in a place where evolution is being studied. How about if we are also willing to discuss the effect of a neck punch on religious nutjobs?

Nate was fired in November. Turns out his boss thought believing in evolution was sort of central to study evolution. Nate then took his case to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.


The commission dismissed his complaint earlier this year. The commission said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.


No shit. So, now Nate is suing. In a court. Right here in the US. But he is not suing because he is an Asshole Fuckface, but rather for religious discrimination. He would like $500,000. In the meantime, he is working at Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

This is exactly why God invented the neck punch.

Next up, the Asshole Fuckfaces in the Bush administration for not making
oversight a part of their little war.

Tons of stuff is missing in Iraq.


Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces.


Oh, that’s good. I mean, what could possibly go wrong there? It’s not like we have thousands upon thousands of soldiers in Iraq, who actually don’t want to die. What could go wrong with losing $1 billion worth of weapons and stuff?

The Inspector General only found an audit trail for $83 million out of $643 million in equipment contracts. The military does not know where 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons went. Those weapons include pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns. All of those things kill people. We have soldiers there and, again, I cannot emphasize this enough: They don't want to die. Letting the enemy get their hands on weapons does not help them with the living thing.

One Asshole Fuckfaces named Claude Bolton, has resigned from his post as assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology. Now, if we could just put him in prison.

How about some video Asshole Fuckfacery?



Holy. Fucking. Shit. At least Bush was subtle and tried to show his God shit with a wink and a smile. This Asshole Fuckfacery is way over the top. Does my vote count as much as God's vote? I don't think that is covered in The Constitution thingy.

Last but not least, we end up will some media Asshole Fuckfacery.

Who knew CNN would pass Fox on the AFR? Not me. But this week they have done exactly that. Poor CNN was forced to “postpone” a “speculative documentary” called “We Were Warned – Iran Goes Nuclear.” By the way, there is no such thing as a “speculative documentary.” It is called fiction, also known as a mockumentary. CNN was going to do their own version of "The Office," but it was going to be a drama.


The two-hour spec, which was slated for Dec. 12 under the "CNN Presents" banner, was "set partially in the future," featuring a what-if scenario as former government officials -- playing fictional cabinet members -- debate how to deal with the Iranian threat.


Oooo, scary. And don't forget, if you kids help create another war, your ratings go up and you make money!

So, why was CNN forced to “postpone” the documentary? Turns out Iran discontinued its nuclear weapons program four years ago. Fucking jerks. Doesn’t Iran know a NEWS NETWORK was creating fake news? Sorry, it’s not fake news, it’s a “speculative documentary.”


That special was "based on a different set of rules and a different set of conditions," said CNN veep-senior exec producer Mark Nelson, noting that the surprising NIE report "changed everything."


By “a different set of rules and a different set of conditions,” he means reality. Maybe CNN could have spent the money they were tossing at creating fiction and used to track down NEWS.

But, don’t worry. You will get to see the documentary at some point, because it has only been “postponed.” Hey, CNN, you should do a documentary about a president ignoring intelligence and lying to the American people in hopes of starting a war. Man, that’s a good plot.

Congrats to all of this weeks Asshole Fuckfaces. You will each receive a young boy with the words “Asshole Fuckface” shaved into his hair.

FearTheReaper was unable to post this story at 9 am due to access problems yesterday. Just be thankful you got it at all.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 07:43 PM

Zarth said:

we3_pirate said:

Zarth said:

varukasalt said:
I believe in freedom for people, not corporations. Nice try, though. I'm not really into the whole anarchy thing.


My friend, I'm afraid you've run afoul of:



Damn it all! You ruined the MAGIC!


That's what I do. I murder joy.



At least I had a good run before skulling.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

DEC 09, 2007 07:57 PM

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

guitargeek said:
When, oh when will our species evolve beyond the need for imaginary friends?



If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.



You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.



Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.



I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, without a reasonable doubt.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:01 PM

varukasalt said:
I are a



WIN.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 08:07 PM

U got your own issues. whatever

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:14 PM

varukasalt said:
U got your own issues. whatever


That's completely irrelevant. I wish I could flag it. All I'll say about that is that it's important in those instances for someone to play devil's advocate, so that there's some kind of reality to ground yourself in instead of succumbing to only your emotions without any rational thought involved. I tried to start an actual debate about what had happened instead of the internet thread witch hunt which was the inevitability of such an emotionally charged post.

Moving on.

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:20 PM

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.



You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.



Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.



I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.



And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

DEC 09, 2007 08:27 PM

we3_pirate said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.



You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.



Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.



I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.



And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.




Clearly there is a whole lot of metaphor and analogy in the book, but if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway so, um have fun with that.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:29 PM

Chainlink said:
if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway


True enough.

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 09, 2007 08:42 PM

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:

Chainlink said:

we3_pirate said:
If it can be proven beyond all doubt that there isn't a divine being, maybe.

Frankly, there isn't definitive proof either way, and the structure of religion, which is faith in the absence of proof (much like how our judicial system is supposed to declare innocence in the absence of proof of guilt), is such that it is up to non-believers to prove it. By proof, I mean actual, scientific evidence that says that there is no such thing, not the standard hypothetical "If God exists, then why does he let blah blah blah happen" that is often used in arguments against the existence of God. And, to get this out of the way, the theory of evolution is not proof of God's non-existence, because evolution doesn't explain what happened in the beginning, but how we have gotten to where we are (which makes the religious far-right's denial and criticism of it all the more nutty.). It is a mechanism, not a cause.

Of course, even in the event of absolute proof, there will be some who will deny it. It is human nature, after all.



You could have just said you can't prove a negative.

Generally the burden of proof is on the claimant anyway.
Religion doesn't seem to do a very good job of providing even evidence that a God truly exists, let alone proof.
Religion has it that belief in God is based upon faith, not evidence or proof. So it's apples and oranges right from the starting line.



Thank you. You've summed up what I was saying better than I did. I tend to ramble.

I'll agree with the burden of proof statement. In this case, though, neither side can be certain, like with Shroedinger's cat.



I would like to add however that in a court of law we use a standard called Reasonable Doubt.
While technically it is said to be impossible to prove a negative and the burden of proof is upon the claimant I also believe that it is quite possible to disprove the existence of ( the Biblical, Christian at the least) God beyond a reasonable doubt.
The God described by the bible is a hogwash of self contradictory attributes. To borrow an analogy, I don't need to have omnipotence to recognize that cubic spheres cannot exist. The properties of a cube and the properties of a sphere are mutually exclusive. Therefore cubic spheres do not exist.
And so with God, for me, within a reasonable doubt.



And so it goes for you, and that's fine. I'm of the position that the Bible is not at all literal, because if such a divine being were to contact humans, then the communication would have to be cryptic/metaphorical in order for it to relate to us. I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do, but I have my beliefs.

As for the contradictions: our universe is one of contradictions at its most fundamental levels. On the massive, cosmic scale, we have Relativity and Newtonian physics, which operate one way, but when broken down to the quantum level, the rules operate the exact opposite. However, we know that both Newtonian and Quantum physics are correct within their own rules, which begs the question: how can two contradictory things co-exist without everything coming apart? Religion is even more abstract, so this analogy isn't perfect, but it's something I consider when doing my weekly navel-gazing.




Clearly there is a whole lot of metaphor and analogy in the book, but if you believe the Bible is not at all literal then you are pretty much throwing it all out the window and making your own shit up anyway so, um have fun with that.



Oh, shit. Did I actually write "not at all"? Sleep deprivation has led to me starting my own religion.

EDIT: On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

DEC 09, 2007 09:05 PM

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...


You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!

Ascanius

Ascanius

USA
October 2006

DEC 09, 2007 11:19 PM

Formus said:

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...


You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!



I think the Mormons already did.

Vidalia

Vidalia

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

DEC 10, 2007 11:47 AM

Anybody who thinks that god wants them to govern a country worries me. skull

wereduck

wereduck

I'm lost
July 2007

DEC 10, 2007 05:07 PM

Ascanius said:

Formus said:

we3_pirate said:
On second thought, starting my own religion sounds pretty cool at this point. If only I can convert some celebrities like that L. Ron fella...


You could convert his corpse to mulch to help your flowers grow with the aid of the all-powerful Xenu, Lord of the Galaxy!



I think the Mormons already did.



Damn them for ruining my new plan for world domination.

strndniowa

strndniowa

Grimes, IA
May 2007

DEC 11, 2007 08:02 PM

Formus said:

strndniowa said:
We have people who say that the old testament doesn't exist....we have people who claim evolution doesn't exist, and then we have people who swear WMD's did/ do or will someday exist....why don't we put these people in an imaginary room...lets call it Auschwitz, and flood it with imaginary gas...and see what happens...because of course that was imaginary...the Nazi's were actually a fun loving group you would like to have over for a picnic.....they never actually did anything, well, wrong...like trying to kill an entire people...


Uh...
zoom image



tongue What can I say...you were wrong...it wasn't the sky falling...just a domestic spy satellite tongue

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6

Next