Even when they declare a holiday, they still can’t take a day off, can they?
Even when they declare a holiday, they still can’t take a day off, can they?
You know you missed it;
It’s written on all the police cars, it must be true. Oh wait;
It was inevitable given all the givens nowadays I suppose, but even as weird as this is I predict 2015 will produce even weirder shit than this multiple times. And we didn’t do the Predictions for the Year thing this time did we? Add your predictions in the comments here then.
Anyway for those of you from elsewhere, this here is a photo of a school bus here in the US. They just about all look like this, some are bigger some are smaller, some are older some are newer, but this is what they look like pretty much coast to coast. They’re all yellow and they all have a bunch of lights on them that flash when the kids (all rise) are getting on or off, at which time all vehicles must stop and not pass the bus in either direction until the kids (all rise) have moved to where they are more difficult to run over.
Notice anything sinister? Me neither but then I’m not trained to see these kinds of things.
The taillights. The set at the bottom. They’re the newfangled LED kind I think, and they’ve obviously been assembled by pagans of satanists or perhaps Barack Obama, ‘cos they’re arranged in a Pentagram.
Memphis’ Action News 5 reported Wednesday that Robyn Wilkins snapped a photo of the tail lights while she sat behind a bus in traffic. To her, the pattern of tiny light bulbs under each brake light’s red plastic lens looked like inverted five-pointed stars, which form the ancient symbol of the pentagram when enclosed by a circle.
“Anyone who fears a God, if not God and Jesus Christ, should be outraged,” the worried mother told Channel 5.
Damn right. I’m starting to worry already, just reading about it.
Wilkins and other concerned parents have taken to social media to protest the brake lights, which they say constitute a sacred symbol emblazoned on a government vehicle.
“If you can’t put a cross on there, you cannot put a pentagram on it,” said Wilkins.
That’ll teach those fucking atheists to protest the Nativity scene in the Courthouse lobby, eh? Sauce for the goose, eh?
Happily, here at 9thousandfeet we can offer Ms Wilkins some solace and divine protection. I’m sure that Tengrain over at MockPaperScissors, from whom I stole this celestial guard dog fair and square, won’t mind my offering it to Ms Wilkins to ward off the evil while she fights the good fight.
I haven’t checked with Tengrain, but he seems the congenial sort, so I’m sure we can work something out within Ms Wilkin’s budget. Bonzo there is mighty powerful medicine, that much is clear.
Sunday morning used to be a musical interlude around here and it was a good enough idea to resurrect it.
So here we go. Yeah, I know it’s Thursday. Why wait?
This one’s from back when Saturday Night Live was, well, pretty good.
….. where more dipshit Muslims live per square foot than, well, I dunno where, and where they just gave a blogger the first weekly installment of 50 of his 1000 lashes for writing something which upset some asshole Islamic court, the lunacy continues with a fatwa on snowmen.
A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country’s north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: “It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun.”
Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.
“God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on,” he wrote in his ruling.
There is some dissent on that powerful instrument of social justice Twitter, apparently;
That provoked swift responses from Twitter users writing in Arabic and identifying themselves with Arab names.
“They are afraid for their faith of everything … sick minds,” one Twitter user wrote.
Another posted a photo of a man in formal Arab garb holding the arm of a “snow bride” wearing a bra and lipstick. “The reason for the ban is fear of sedition,” he wrote.
A third said the country was plagued by two types of people:
“A people looking for a fatwa (religious ruling) for everything in their lives, and a cleric who wants to interfere in everything in the lives of others through a fatwa,” the user wrote.
But of course it’s Twitter, so any kind of reaction you can imagine actually exists;
Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. “It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” one wrote.
“May God preserve the scholars, for they enjoy sharp vision and recognize matters that even Satan does not think about.”
Is it just me or is it OK to ask why, after all the lunatic pronouncements assholes like this have made over the years, but particularly after the recent bullshit in Paris, the media—Reuters in this case—still refers to these knuckledragging fuckwits as “clerics”?
Yes, I know that’s what they are as a matter of dictionary reference, but wouldn’t “cult leaders” be a step forward?
And let’s ponder for a delicious moment or two just what kind of a mind would associate a snowman with “lustiness and eroticism”. I know the dumb bastard lives in a desert, but still, that’s just fucked up. I don’t think even Augustine was that weird, was he?
Now we’re talking.
The most cunningly drawn pair of slippers I ever did see. They could be a gunman’s feet heading into orbit. They could be the prophet’s too.
Merci beaucoup, monsieur.
Oh, attendre. What the hell was I thinking? I’m not Charlie, not really, I’m the Guardian, and as is common I launch myself off to a rousing start;
In social media, the call has been loud – and aimed at several British newspapers, including this one – to take a stand by publishing the very images that made Charlie Hebdo a target. For the most vociferous, republishing a sample of the magazine’s usual fare, which the Guardian has already done, is not enough: they insist that true defenders of free speech would reprint Charlie Hebdo’s depictions of the prophet Muhammad, especially the crudest, most scatological examples.
That case is straightforward. Since these are the images the gunmen wanted to stop, the surviving free press is obliged to deny the killers that victory. No other gesture can show that we refuse to be cowed by their crime. By repeating Charlie Hebdo’s action, we would demonstrate our resistance to the edict the terrorists sought to enforce on pain of death. We show that Charlie Hebdo was not alone.
Well, yeah, that sounds about right, so with a couple of mouse clicks you can just do it, right? How about right on the front page? Something like this, maybe?
You know, with a nice little headline to give some context?
But then an opportunity for some fancy, and let’s be honest, industrial-strength prevarications would have been missed;
There is an appealing simplicity to that stance, but it rests on faulty logic. The key point is this: support for a magazine’s inalienable right to make its own editorial judgments does not commit you to echo or amplify those judgments. Put another way, defending the right of someone to say whatever they like does not oblige you to repeat their words.
Each and every publication has a different purpose and ethos. Charlie Hebdo is not the Guardian or the New York Times, nor is it the Daily Mail or Private Eye. The animating intention behind its work was to satirise and provoke in a distinctive voice, one that would not sit easily in other publications. Other publications can defend – and defend absolutely – the necessary diversity of press voices along with an editor’s right to offend. But the best response is not to be forced to speak in a different voice.
Faulty logic? You’re saying the “logic” behind the calls to prominently publicize the cartoons involves forcing you to “speak in a different voice”.
Are you kidding me?
Nobody is asking you to publish the cartoons as if they were “your voice” you pusillanimous little shit. All that’s required is that you prominently display the work which inspired some Iron Age fuckwits into killing a bunch of people to “avenge the prophet”.
It’s called context, and in other situations you do it all the time. You’d do it in interminable detail, complete with photos and prolific quotes if you were reporting on a story about Kim Kardashian’s latest escapades and you know it. And you wouldn’t worry that your precious “editorial voice” was being compromised by pulling material from Buzzfeed or Daily Mail, because you’d clearly distinguish which was which just like you’ve been doing since forever.
And you know what else? Nobody is going to confuse the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo as being an example of a Guardian “changed voice”. The Guardian has it’s own very distinctive, and very high quality, cartoon voices, none of which are even remotely reminiscent of Hebdo’s style.
Anyway, this post right here is an example of how you do it. You publish the cartoon in a prominent place. You call the perpetrators juicy and demeaning names in your own voice. Then you take chickenshit publications like yours, which prevaricate with mealy-mouthed bullshit, to task in your own words too. Bullshit like this;
The Guardian felt that at the time of the 2005 Danish cartoons controversy, and we feel it now. As Simon Jenkins argued on these pages on Wednesday, terrorists’ chief goal is to make us change our behaviour. It’s best to deny them that victory.
You were wrong back in 2005 too. Look, there’s no reason outside of an asylum to bestow any more credibility or respectability to the Iron-Age fairy tales these whackos are hypnotically welded to than there is to Aesop’s Fables, and you know damn well if someone had committed murder over a cartoon about the Hare and the Tortoise you’d have no problems with reproducing it as part of your reportage. You’d probably even have op-eds discussing the intricacies of whatever particular strain of mental illness can produce such aberrant behavior.
My bet is that you’ve figured that putting your many employees “at risk” by being “unnecessarily provocative” has caused you now, as it did in 2005, to proceed with caution. These various and vicious strains of fundamentalist Islam have you rattled, and you won’t admit it, perhaps even to yourselves. Unhappily, your argument about not allowing Islamoloonies to make you speak “with a different voice” is so transparently contrived that it’s not fooling anyone. Certainly not them, and maybe not even you.
You’re simply lending credibility to the notion that representing Muhammed pictorially is in some way actually offensive, and not just another stupid affectation which religions so often use to help impose church authority. That may be the risk-averse strategy, but it’s a losing strategy. There is no risk-averse way to deal with assholes like this.
It’s pathetic, and I speak as someone who learned to read under the dining table by pawing through my dad’s copy of the Manchester Guardian.
[Note to any passing Muslims who are horrified and angry at this murderous rampage in France, but who might still be offended by my words here. Be consoled that on other occasions I have been even less complimentary to no small number of Christian sects, most notably the Christian Zionists and the Dispensationalists. Ardent Catholics are fucking crazy too. Now, if you’re still angry with me, that’s your problem. And I truly don’t care.]
There’s been an absence of dogs at 9000feet for a good while now, which has been unusual but perfectly fine as a change of pace.
But then you know how it is, some dog or another gets rescued from a kill shelter somewhere, like say California, and is then trucked plumb across the country to one of those adoption places run mostly by women who have given up on men and who can blame them really and there’s something about that particular dog that catches your eye and you can’t really explain it and you say well we don’t really need a dog at this point in time and the next thing you know you’re out in the yard playing around in the first snow that little rascal has ever seen and then she’s laying in front of the woodstove totally worn out and you think well OK then I guess we have another dog.
And you do.
Happy New Year y’all.
Yes, Happy New Year.