The topless militants of Femen have a new target, Fox News and Sean Hannity.

Courtesy of Salon:

Femen’s manner of protesting has not proved to everyone’s liking, to put it mildly, but one thing is certain: In an era of rising political disaffection and apathy, people pay attention. Bare breasts are not incidental to Femen’s struggle. The movement has aimed to wrest conceptions about women’s bodies from the clutches of the three (doctrinally prudish and phallocratic) Abrahamic religions that would shroud them, partly or in full, in cloth as well as in shame. Toplessness is, in Femen’s view, a means of boldly violating gender- and faith-based societal norms; and atheism has formed a part of the Femen canon since the movement’s inception in 2008. 

Atheism has been dear to (Inna) Shevchenko in particular: Her own life has been shaped and even upended by her fight for secularist ideals. In protest against the harsh, Orthodox Church-supported prison sentence Pussy Riot received from the Russian authorities, in August 2012 she chainsawed a towering wooden cross in central Kiev in her native Ukraine. Publicly threatened as a result by Ukraine’s conservative President Viktor Yanukovych (deposed last year) and facing charges of “criminal hooliganism” for her deed, she fled to France and established Femen’s first outpost abroad. There, she soon rocketed to fame (better said, infamy), leading her militants in a multitude of fiercely faithless demonstrations in favor of women’s rights and same-sex marriage that pushed Gallic tolerance of free speech to the limit. Perhaps most controversially, she inspired the depiction of the revered (and bare-breasted) heroine of the French Revolution Marianne now gracing the country’s postage stamps, becoming the only foreign woman to do so. This still infuriates France’s nationalistic (and ascendant) far right, which has called (unsuccessfully) for the stamp to be withdrawn.

The Salon reporter, Jeffrey, Taylor, asked Shevchenko why she is so aggressive in criticizing the new pope, her answer was rather interesting: 

“The pope said he recognized the Big Bang,” she answered. “He sees how his doctrine doesn’t accord with progress, so he says things like this. He also said, ‘Who am I to criticize gay people?’ Just for this, we’re ready to hand over Parliament to him? This is just his strategy so he can come and speak at the Parliament. He says God isn’t a magician and wins great popularity even with some atheists. But if we believe him, we’re twice foolish; we become slaves of the most powerful religious institution, the Vatican, and then we invite him to Parliament. This just shows how stupid we [atheists] are and how clever they are.” She paused. “Not many Americans know that the Vatican received its statehood from Mussolini … It’s highly symbolic that Vatican statehood was created by a fascist.”

Very good points all. Clearly this is yet another Atheist who thinks the Pope is a little too good to be true.

(Nudity below the fold.)

Taylor also asked Shevchenko if Femen had any new targets in their sites:

There was one other target Femen would like to strike: Fox News. 

“Anyone in particular there?” I asked. 

“Femen doesn’t reject people, it rejects ideas.” 

I pressed her to name names. She ventured one: that of talk-show host Sean Hannity. 

Sean Hannity! An attack on him would earn Femen evergreen laurels in a yet-to-be-erected pantheon of progressivism. A more deserving target of the movement’s bare-breasted ire would be tough to imagine.

Personally I think this is the kind of thing that Hannity will not be unable to resist talking about, and if he does that will only mean that Femen has successfully manipulated him into publicizing their movement on one of the most popular cable news shows in America.

It may be easy for some to dismiss these woman due to their use of nudity to garner attention, but these are certainly not bimbos.

These are very intelligent and driven women, who are making quite a name for themselves in Europe and Russia.

And they certainly had not difficulty getting the attention of at least one world leader.

Personally I welcome any help in taking down Fox News and Sean Hannity in particular.

New book uncovers the ugliness that hides within the hearts of self proclaimed "Christians" when they feel called to defend their faith.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Over the past few years, America has been divided by religion. The culture wars have heated up with secularists on one side and God-fearing Americans on the other, and to understate things: They disagree. But does that mean we hate one another? If the animosity is so intense, what kind of outrage goes too far? Bonnie Weinstein has tackled this issue in an important but very troubling book out Dec. 2, titled “To the Far Right Christian Hater … You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, But You Can’t Be Both: Official Hate Mail, Threats, and Criticism From the Archives of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.” 

Married to Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the author has collected and annotated a sampling of the hate mail the foundation has received over the past few years. This hate mail is not trolling or anonymous “Internet comments.” The letters are specific and threatening and most often include a return address or email. The Weinsteins’ home has been vandalized — many times — and the family has had to take serious and expensive security measures. It’s no joke. As I read the book, curled up on my couch, my wife kept asking if I was OK. My face was fixed in an expression of horror and disbelief as I read the rage, hate and cruelty cataloged on every page. Bonnie has uncovered a shocking reality: Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know. 

As hard as it was to read in places, it’s important to read and understand. It offers an unflinching examination of a subset of American fundamentalism, created by a segment of our society that is whiter, more conservative and a lot angrier than the rest of America. For some people the future of their faith and of the nation are in danger, threatened by secular forces controlled by Satan himself. This existential threat to Christian supremacy justifies the most offensive, vulgar and cruel letters I’ve ever read. Think I’m overstating it? Read the book.

"Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know." Gee, ya think?

 As somebody who has been on the receiving end of some of this vitriol I am completely unsurprised by the fact that so-called "Christians" can be filled with an almost bottomless pit of hatred which bubbles to the surface whenever they feel their religion or idols are under attack.

I have little doubt that the people who called the school where I worked and threatened to shoot me on the playground would self identify as Christians.

Just as the people who send the off times hilariously angry comments to Richard Dawkins. Which he enjoys reading aloud to his supporters.

Of course the idea that being a Christian, whether practicing or merely for ornamental purposes, makes you a more ethical or moral person is utter nonsense. Yet that is the conceit used to sell the religion to the masses, and impress upon people that these believers should be trusted and admired above all others.

These letters do much to disprove that assertion.

Republicans pass bill that would bar scientists from providing testimony to the EPA on their own research. But don't worry, it's still okay for corporations to have THEIR "experts" provide input.

Courtesy of Salon:  

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice. 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Obviously the President is going to veto this, but it certainly paints a frightening picture of what might happen if the Republicans manage to get a veto proof majority, or somehow get a Republican into the White House.

They aren't even being covert about these kids of things anymore, or trying to hide the fact that they are anti-science and in the pockets of big business.

Do some forms of Christianity contribute to poor mental health? In a word, yes.

Courtesy of Salon:  

If a former believer says that Christianity made her depressed, obsessive, or post-traumatic, she is likely to be dismissed as an exaggerator. She might describe panic attacks about the rapture; moods that swung from ecstasy about God’s overwhelming love to suicidal self-loathing about repeated sins; or an obsession with sexual purity. 

A symptom like one of these clearly has a religious component, yet many people instinctively blame the victim. They will say that the wounded former believer was prone to anxiety or depression or obsession in the first place—that his Christianity somehow got corrupted by his predisposition to psychological problems. Or they will say that he wasn’t a real Christian. If only he had prayed in faith believing or loved God with all his heart, soul and mind, if only he had really been saved—then he would have experienced the peace that passes all understanding. 

But the reality is far more complex. It is true that symptoms like depression or panic attacks most often strike those of us who are vulnerable, perhaps because of genetics or perhaps because situational stressors have worn us down. But certain aspects of Christian beliefs and Christian living also can create those stressors, even setting up multigenerational patterns of abuse, trauma, and self-abuse. Also, over time some religious beliefs can create habitual thought patterns that actually alter brain function, making it difficult for people to heal or grow. 

The purveyors of religion insist that their product is so powerful it can transform a life, but somehow, magically, it has no risks. In reality, when a medicine is powerful, it usually has the potential to be toxic, especially in the wrong combination or at the wrong dose. And religion is powerful medicine!

The article goes on to describe in what ways Christianity, in particular conservative Christianity, can have a detrimental effect on the psyche of those who participate in its beliefs and teachings.

At the bottom of the article is this summation: 

Religious trauma is difficult to see because it is camouflaged by the respectability of religion in culture. To date, parents are afforded the right to teach their own children whatever doctrines they like, no matter how heinous, degrading, or mentally unhealthy. Even helping professionals largely perceive Christianity as benign. This will need to change for treatment methods to be developed and people to get help that allows them to truly reclaim their lives.

Those of us working in the mental health field have already noted a rather startling link between feelings of a direct connection to God and schizophrenia. And in fact many schizophrenics are extremely religious.

One of my pet peeves in life is the idea of ministers or priests working as therapists and addressing their congregant's emotional or mental well being.

Often they are not adequately trained and, since they tend to see things in terms of good and evil, are not equipped to identify and treat people with actual and possibly dangerous mental health problems. In my opinion a religious leader should NEVER be allowed to provide counseling unless they have been trained in a secular atmosphere that teaches scientific methodologies.

And of course there are those who simply see religion itself as a mental disease, which can and should be cured.

I may not be firmly in that camp myself yet, but to be honest I am moving in that direction more every day.

Chances are when it comes to terror tonight will have NOTHING on November the 4th.

Courtesy of Salon: 

Consider the remarkable number of races that remain tossups at this late stage. According to RealClearPolitics’ polling averages, less than three points separate the candidates in Alaska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Kansas, Georgia, and Iowa. Moreover, based on pollsters’ recent history of overestimating GOP strength and underestimating Hispanic turnout, there’s reason to believe that the Colorado Senate race is even closer than the 3.6 point edge held by Republican Cory Gardner over Democratic Sen. Mark Udall suggests. The razor-thin margins that separate the candidates in these contests all but ensure that at a clear victor won’t emerge in at least one or two of them on election night. Accordingly, some candidates, including Iowa GOPer Joni Ernst and Republican Thom Tillis and Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina, are gearing up for weeks-long legal battles. 

Meanwhile, up in Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich appears to be making something of a comeback, the state’s time lag and relatively slow vote-counting process mean that a winner probably won’t be declared until November 5 at the earliest. In 2008, Begich wasn’t proclaimed the winner of his race against Sen. Ted Stevens until two weeks after Election Day. Though polls suggested Begich was headed to an easy victory, he ultimately only won by a point. Observers expect the Democrat’s race against Republican Dan Sullivan this year to be similarly close. 

Add it all up, and it’s increasingly clear that political junkies hoping for a firm Senate result next Tuesday night will probably find themselves disappointed. At this point, the likeliest scenario for a definitive election night answer is a GOP wave. If Republican Scott Brown knocks off Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire early Tuesday night, for instance, that portends an excellent night for the Republicans and substantially increases the odds that the GOP will have 51 Senate seats in its column by the end of the night. Despite polls indicating a tightening race, however, Brown’s ceiling of support appears to be roughly 48 percent, and a new survey showing Shaheen with an eight point lead underscores the likelihood that she’ll ultimately hold on. 

So fasten your seat belts — it could be a bumpy few weeks.

You know I am a tried and true TV watcher, and I get really sucked into the reality of my favorite shows sometimes.

For instance I about jumped out of my skin when the Mountain suddenly gained the upper hand during his epic battle with Prince Oberyn Martell. (NSFW gore.) And I was on the edge of my seat during that Terminus Slaughter Scene. (More gore.) But I have no doubt that all of that will seem like nothing compared to my stress level while waiting for the votes to be counted and the elections to finally be decided.

There is just so much hanging in the balance here.

Part of me wants to have confidence in the voting public. but then the other part of me thinks "Fuck those people they never know what's good for them."  So you see I am conflicted.

It's an easy choice folks. Either we embrace the future, and cast our votes to move the country toward a brighter tomorrow. Or we allow fear and cowardice to rule the day and choose once again to give power to the party of "You have to be this white, and this male, to ride this ride."

How hard of a choice is that?

The ugly argument over Open Carry has become significantly uglier.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Moms Demand Action, a group formed after the Sandy Hook shooting to crack down on gun violence, began pressuring the Kroger supermarket chain to prohibit “open carry” in its stores after gun extremists used Kroger stores to demonstrate their “rights.” Gun laws are lax in many states, and it can be legal to openly carry a firearm with no training, and, in some cases, no background checks. The Kroger campaign is the most recent in a string of corporate responsibility efforts in which mothers, flanked by other gun violence prevention advocates, have asked companies to tighten gun policies, arguing that the businesses have an obligation to keep their customers safe. 

Of course, gun extremists did not respond kindly to the Kroger campaign. What follows is a recounting of their disturbing tactics, from the shocking intimidation and harassment of unsuspecting commenters on Kroger’s Facebook page to right-wing media propaganda that disingenuously portrayed Kroger as being allies of the gun extremists. 

Secret Facebook groups such as “People Who Were Blocked by Moms Demand Action Demand Action Now” — which has well over a thousand members — disseminated gun rights propaganda and helped orchestrate attacks on individuals commenting on Kroger’s page. Some gun nuts combed the profile pages of people commenting in support of gun reform, harvested personal photos of them and Photoshopped them to include obscene or humiliating comments, before reposting the photos on Kroger’s page, or on other social media sites. Because Kroger frequently bans users who post that kind of content, the gun extremists created disposable fake accounts — sometimes using the name and profile photo of an opponent— to quickly dump posts without being held accountable. 

In one case, they found a photo of a woman’s preschool-age child and wrote on it, “My mom sucks more cock than Richard Simmons” and circulated it online. In another case, they grabbed a photo of a mother and her child and wrote “Big retard, little retard” on it before reposting it. One woman posted to Kroger a photograph of a receipt showing money she spent elsewhere, and gun extremists swarmed her post, with hundreds of responses, including comments like “what you could do is shut your god damned whore mouth,” “calm your tits,” and “fuck her right in the pussy,” which Kroger’s Facebook admin allowed to stand over a day later.

The article goes on to say that the approach of these extremists seems to be to attack protesters en masse and intimidate them into walking away from the debate. And that is some cases that is working.

There really is no way to have a reasonable disagreement with people like this, and since they literally view gun rights as something bestowed upon them by their creator they see all attempts to apply oversight to gun sales as an attack on their deeply held faith.

I think the first thing that anybody who wants to work toward creating responsible gun policies in this country needs to do is to develop a thick skin, and to recognize that the more hate and vitriol they attract the better they are doing their jobs.

Besides if we even prevent one more unnecessary death, isn't that worth being called a few ugly names on Facebook?

What gun ownership looks like in America.

Courtesy of Slate:

 In early 2013, on a five-day assignment for the German magazine Stern, photographer Charles Ommanney traveled around the United States photographing Americans with their guns. Ommanney has built a career working as a political and documentary photographer and felt a responsibility to make a story that wasn’t just another “predictable NRA-bashing” type of series. He wanted to see “real” people to find out why they wanted to have guns in their homes. 

He also decided to shoot the project in a more engaged manner with his subjects instead of simply being a fly on the wall. Ommanney said the project took him to six states in the Southern and Western United States, where he met people who owned guns for protection, as preparation for when things go “horribly wrong,” or simply because they like the beauty of weaponry. Instead of photographing the gun owners at a firing range or at a National Rifle Association conference, Ommanney wanted to capture them in their homes to create a sense of “normalcy.”

Yeah I am not sure that I would use the word "normalcy" to describe that picture above.

There are some others that have less of a "Deliverance" vibe to them, but not by as much as I think this guy was, if you will pardon the pun, shooting for.

This one in particular really bothers me.

I cannot imagine the scenario where a father would think that an exchange of gunfire was reasonable while he had his child strapped to the same area where police officers usually strap their bullet prove vests.

Maybe it's just me.