Ricky Gervais is so proud of his clever joke about how people will object to your use of sexist epithets EVEN WHEN IT’S HITLER YOU’RE CALLING THEM that he put in some time defending it on Twitter as well – entirely and obliviously missing the point while doing so. God he’s thick. I think I’ve mentioned this before (but then, he keeps illustrating it), but I thought David Brent was satire, when it turns out he was just Ricky Gervais.

Ricky Gervais @rickygervais 4h

Sorry I called Hitler a cunt. I wasn’t thinking. His behaviour just got to me. Soz.

I will continue to use offensive words like cunt, atheism & Derek and post pictures of myself in the bath. Unfollow now if you don’t like it

Here are some words more offensive than cunt: bumph, soz, yummy, serendipity, swag, baby mama, totes, & ass & douche if you’re not American

Notice what he does not say. Notice he does not say he will continue to use offensive words like nigger, kike, faggot, Mozzie, gook, slope, Polack, towelhead, goat-fucker. Notice that it’s ONLY THE WORD THAT DENIGRATES WOMEN that he makes a big point of bragging about saying and defending.

He is a piece of shit.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another blow struck for the right to call people cunts.

Ricky Gervais
If you grabbed Hitler and shouted “stop killing innocent people you cunt”, someone on Facebook would call you out on your sexist language.

And?

Has Ricky Gervais ever done a Facebook post saying “If you grabbed Hitler and shouted ‘stop killing innocent people you kike’, someone on Facebook would call you out on your anti-semitic language”?

I don’t know for sure, but I seriously doubt it. People like him don’t defend calling people niggers or kikes, but they do defend calling people cunts. Why is that? Because the first is not ok while the second is ok. Why? I can only conclude it’s because hatred of women just doesn’t even show up on the radar of people like Ricky Gervais.

I despise people like Ricky Gervais…and Penn Jillette and all the rest of the “it’s hip to use misogynist epithets because everybody knows women are dreary buzzkilling cunts” crowd.

H/t Stephanie

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From Banda Aceh, Indonesia – sexual morality-policing via gang rape.

An Indonesian woman who was gang-raped by men accusing her of having extramarital sex may be caned publicly for violating Islamic law, an official said Wednesday.

The 25-year-old widow said she was raped by eight men who allegedly found her with a married man in her house. The men reportedly beat the man, doused the two with sewage, and then turned them over to Islamic police in conservative Aceh province.

No, the men reportedly beat the man, doused the two with sewage, gang-raped the woman, and then turned them over to Islamic police in conservative Aceh province.

What business was it of theirs what she was doing in her house? It may be the man’s wife’s business, but it’s not the business of anyone else.

The head of Islamic Shariah law in the district, Ibrahim Latief, said his office has recommended the widow and the married man be caned nine times for violating religious law, pending an investigation. Its preliminary finding was that the two were about to have sex at that time, but Latief contended they violated Shariah law by being in the same room together. He said they also admitted they had sex earlier.

But nobody violated Sharia by gang-raping the woman, beating the man, and dousing both of them with sewage? That’s all right is it? Any old passerby can punish people for sexual misdemeanors with extreme violence and abuse?

You’re doing it wrong.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Michelle Goldberg reported last month on the trial of Cecily McMillan.

Two years ago, a young activist named Cecily McMillan attended a protest at Zuccotti Park marking the six-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. When police moved in to clear the demonstrators, a cop roughly grabbed her breast—photos show an ugly bruise—and she ended up being injured so badly that she had a seizure and ended up in the hospital. In a just world, she would be getting restitution from the City. Instead, in a grotesque act of prosecutorial overreach, she’s currently on trial for assault and facing up to seven years in prison.

According to prosecutors, McMillan, now 25, intentionally attacked her arresting officer, Grantley Bovel, by elbowing him in the face, and was then hurt when he tried to subdue her. She says that she instinctively struck out when she felt his hand on her breast, not knowing that he was a cop, and was then further assaulted.

Why should we believe her instead of the prosecutors? Well there’s this hand-shaped bruise on her breast, documented in pictures…

In her opening argument last week, assistant district attorney Erin Choi tried to use McMillan’s outcry during the arrest against her. Choi quoted McMillan asking onlookers, “Are you filming this? Are you filming this?” Choi’s implication was that McMillan didn’t want her premeditated attack on tape. But anyone who has ever covered a protest knows that this is what demonstrators say when they feel they’re being mistreated—it’s a call for documentation, not for turning the cameras off.

She was convicted on Monday, and could be sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The Guardian – which, Goldberg says, has been covering the case closely – reports today that the jurors have petitioned the judge not to sentence her to prison.

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that several jurors, who were barred from researching the trial while it was happening, were shocked to discover that McMillan could receive a substantial prison term when they searched for details online, minutes after being dismissed.

“They felt bad,” said one juror, who did not wish to be named. “Most just wanted her to do probation, maybe some community service. But now what I’m hearing is seven years in jail? That’s ludicrous. Even a year in jail is ridiculous.”

Let’s not try to rival Saudi Arabia, shall we?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

This seems useful and healthy – this Facebook group called Women Who Eat on Tubes*, which features sneak photos of just that.

Some women had a picnic on the tube last month to mock the whole disgusting thing.

Sarah Hardcastle, in a T-shirt reading “women who eat wherever the fuck they want”, produced a bottle of juice neatly relabelled “bloody feminist cocktail”.

“It’s very bitter,” she explained.

The gathering in a London underground train carriage was a response to a controversial Facebook group entitled Women Who Eat on Tubes, featuring surreptitious mobile phone photographs of just that.

Hardcastle, an advertising copywriter, was already wearing the T-shirt when she heard Lucy Brisbane McKay confront film-maker Tony Burke on the Radio 4 Today programme on Friday, and realised gratefully that she and her friends were not the only ones who found his Facebook and Tumblr pages creepily misogynist.

Oh, pshaw. It’s important to monitor the behavior of women in public so that they will be sure to either do the right thing (as determined by randos with camera phones) or stay home.

It was, Burke said, an art project, mere reportage – “an observational study”.

Julia Bohanna disagreed. “I write about art and that’s rubbish,” she said. “You only have to look at captions commenting on the size of a burger a woman is eating. It’s voyeuristic bullying, turned on a group which may include many vulnerable people. The mere idea that these photographs could be called high art is borderline hilarious.”

I think “contemptible” is the word, more than “hilarious.”

Hardcastle said: “Some people have asked us: ‘Why are you standing up about this? Why aren’t you tackling a real cause?’ But you can’t do everything – and when you can do something, it’s better than doing nothing.”

In other words, some people were all “Dear Muslima” – so fuck them.

* “Tubes” in the sense of the London Underground. “On Tubes is slightly odd, now I think about it; “on the Tube” would seem more normal to me, but “on Tubes” just means on different trains on the Tube.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jen Phillips’s 11-year-old daughter wrote a research paper for school which is so good it needs to be published here, which Jen gave me permission to do.

It was first published on J. Robert Deans’s blog in UPDATE #2: Hey, Ladies! (You Are) Comics!

Women in Comics–an Independent Research Report, by Erica

Women In Comics: By Erica

The topic I chose is female superheroes in comics. I’ve always been interested in comics, especially when there is a female main character. I noticed some differences in the way female characters are represented compared to male characters. I think it is important that women and men are represented as equals, so I decided to dig deeper into the creation of the characters. I learned some interesting thing that I will now share with you!

Black Widow

First, I noticed a big difference in how men and women were drawn. Almost all the men have better powers stances, like “I’m ready for action” and the women look graceful and dainty. It seems as if they can’t look like a warrior and pretty at the same time. Most male superheroes are drawn with normal athletic bodies and usually have adequate clothing. Also almost all the females have long hair that is always down, which is easy to grab in combat Not very practival right? The females often have exaggerated body parts and body shapes, and physically impossible  poses. This matters because if you were a little boy and you read a comic with a great male superhero who saves the day and looks heroic too, then you would want to be that person. But if you were a little girl and all the females in your book had skimpy costumes then you would most likely not want to be them.

Susan Richards: The Invisible Woman, and a wife and mother

Jessica Walters: the She-Hulk, and a practicing attorney

We all know superheroes don’t fight every second right? Outside of fighting, most superheroes are important to the world in other ways. For example,  She-Hulk is a lawyer, Captain Marvel is an airforce pilot, Sue Storm (A.K.A. The Invisible Woman) is a mother and a wife, and Storm (from X-Men) is a teacher. These jobs are all very important, but if you compare them to the men’s jobs, there are some differences.  For example, Iron Man is a brilliant billionare inventor, Reed Richards (Mr.Fantasic and Sue Storm’s husband) is a scientific genius, as is Peter Parker (A.K.A. Spiderman).  These men are all portrayed as super smart and acomplished. The women’s jobs are not on the same level.

Susan Storm, from team “mascot” to its most important member

Superheros get their powers in many different ways. Some, like Mystique, Storm, Emma Frost, and Jean Grey from “X-Men” are born mutants. Others, like the Invisible Woman and the rest of the Fantastic Four, got their powers from being exposed to space radiation. Not every superhero has super powers though, for example Black Widow is great at martial arts and uses high tech equipment. There are many different types of powers, but in general male superheroes have offensive powers for attacking, while the female superheroes have defensive powers for protecting themselves and the team.  I was surprised when I relized that the types of powers weren’t equal.

Unrealistic Poses

Change can be big or change can be small. The changes of the female characters over the years were big and small. In WWII, (1940s) there were a lot of patriotic superheros. Most of the female characters were drawn so the soliders would have pretty pictures of women to look at. Also in the 1940s, more than half the time Female characters were shown, they were doing chores. If the female characters had children, the child was more likely to be a son. During the 1960s, comic artists tried to draw female characters more equal and powerful but that didn’t work because that wasn’t what the buyers wanted, so they went back to drawing them with not much clothing and unrealistic body shapes and poses. In the past most female characters were sidekicks or assistant to the main MALE superhero. In the past few decades, female characters have slowly gotten more speaking roles and more equal partnerships.

Why can’t all comics be like this?

As history shows, comics have ben mostly drawn for boys and men. Even though changes have happened over the years, in 2010 the editor of DC comics said “The superhero story has been more appealing to boys than girls”. This attitude explains why most comics are still made for male readers. Recently though, more female writers and artists are working in comics and have been giving female characters more speaking lines, cooler roles, and more diversity. But not everybody is happy with these changes. Last month,  Janelle Asselin, a comic book editor and writer, wrote an article criticizing the cover art of the new Teen Titans series. Ms. Asselin thought the teenage girl on the cover was drawn inappropriately and also thought it was bad that the only person of color on the team was way in the background. She felt that the cover art would probably not attract new readers who were girls or people of color. After her article was published, she received hundreds of angry letters and even threats of violence. I can’t believe people would treat a real person that badly over an opinion she had about a comic book character.

I was very interested in learning more about this topic. I don’t like how the comic industry is disrespecting women. There have been some changes in how the characters have been portrayed since they were first created, but the genre is still not very open to women.  As a fairly educated comic book reader, some of the pictures that I see now make me feel uncomfortable and disappointed that someone would draw a human being like that. I think a lot of the stuff I learned was very important and I think comic artists and editors still have a long way to go before their comics will appeal to female readers.  Maybe they can put more women on the offensive side and more men on the defensive side, not completely switching the two, but making them more equal.  I hope some day all the comics will be more equal and diverse. After all, there are more ways to be super than looking super!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Major English language media are now reporting the horrendous news about the new and even more barbaric sentence imposed on Raif Badawi.

The BBC reports.

A Saudi court has imprisoned blogger Raif Badawi for 10 years for “insulting Islam” and setting up a liberal web forum, local media report.

He was also sentenced to 1,000 lashes and ordered to pay a fine of 1 million riyals ($266,000; £133,000).

I would put the 1000 lashes first.

Mr Badawi, the co-founder of a website called the Liberal Saudi Network, was arrested in 2012.

A Saudi newspaper close to the government reported that he had lost his appeal against an earlier, more lenient sentence of seven years and three months in jail and 600 lashes.

Makes the blood run cold, doesn’t it, when a sentence of seven years and three months in jail and 600 lashes for atheist opinion and a liberal web forum is called “more lenient”?

Amnesty International describes him as a “prisoner of conscience” and has called for his release.

“Raif Badawi is the latest victim to fall prey to the ruthless campaign to silence peaceful activists in Saudi Arabia,” it said in a statement.

Last October a Saudi journalist was freed after spending a year and a half in prison for writing insulting tweets about the Prophet Muhammad.

Hamza Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia for Malaysia in 2012 but was extradited just days later. He was released last year after making a public apology.

Way to make everyone love Islam, Saudi Arabia – keep telling the world that refusal to love Islam gets you fined and imprisoned and whipped ONE THOUSAND TIMES. Yes that should work well.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well thank fuck somebody is asking the real question about the kidnapped and enslaved schoolgirls in Nigeria. Noah Rothman at Medialite is asking it.

This focus on Boko Haram from both the media and the government is an unqualified good. The press arguably increased the pressure on global governments to do something about this backwards group of terrorists. But Boko Haram is not a new phenomenon. It was not long ago that some – including this author – were asking why this group’s atrocities were not generating any attention in the press.

On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.

All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy.

Beyond wire reports and a handful of segments on globally-focused outlets like NPR, this atrocity went unremarked upon in the popular news media.

February 25 was not Boko Haram’s first atrocity. By March, more than 1,000 people had been killed in the country’s northeast since the first of the year. Prior to Boko Haram’s shift in tactics, from wholesale slaughter of young men to the kidnapping of young women, the group traveled from village to village where they killed children and razed buildings with near impunity.

The massacre in February prompted me to ask what the press found lacking in story surrounding Boko Haram’s atrocities that they would not cover it extensively. Was it a geographical bias? Was reporting from Western Africa more difficult than Beslan, Russia? There, hundreds of school children were massacred in 2004, and that event comprehensively covered in the Western press. Maybe there was simply an ethnic bias at play, and American audiences were prejudged to care less about atrocities in Africa than in Europe.

But the events of the last month have demonstrated that none of these explanations were accurate. Apparently, the press simply needed the right reason to cover this terrorist group and their brutal tactics. But an even more disturbing question needs to be asked now: why did the press spring to action when young women were kidnapped, but were virtually unmoved when it was young boys who were being slaughtered and burned alive?

Yes, that’s the important question here.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Malala Fund’s photo.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A Pakistani human rights lawyer was shot to death in his office, AFP and Dawn report.

Human Rights Advocate Rashid Rehman Khan was gunned down by unidentified attackers in Multan, DawnNews reported late on Wednesday night.

Initial reports suggest that Khan was targeted by two gunmen inside his office at Kachehri Chowk.

Because of the human rights I suppose? That’s blasphemy, is it? Yes, of course it is. Lawyers should be defending the prophet’s rights, not human rights.

Advocate Rashid Rehman Khan was a coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). The senior lawyer was defending a university lecturer accused of blasphemy and had complained that he had been receiving threats on his life.

The HRCP had voiced serious concern over the threats extended to Khan.

The Supreme Court advocate had submitted an application with the District Bar Association president Sher Zaman Qureshi last month, saying he was threatened by two lawyers and two other persons who asked him not to appear in the case he was representing.

Rehman was representing Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at Bahauddin Zakariya University.

Hafeez was known for his liberal views at the university and the case of blasphemy was registered after pressure from right-wing student groups, said a student, who wished not to be named.

What kind of pressure? The kind of “pressure” that was applied to Rashid Rehman Khan?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Luke O’Neil at Medialite warns that there are risks in mocking the self-satisfied obliviousness of haplessly privileged college kids, who could become embittered Republicans as a result.

But screw it, let’s do it anyway. It’s unlikely we’re going to find a better candidate for a ideological stoning than Tal Fortgang, of the New Rochelle Fortgangs, who courageously struck out against the oppressive climate of basic cultural awareness and bare minimum human decency that has despoiled college campuses everywhere by penning a whinging invective against the concept of “checking your privilege” in The Princeton Tory. The piece was republished by Time, and a profile of the Rosa Parks of Ivy League white guys was published by The New York Times yesterday, something that always happens to people without privilege.

No, it always happens to people who work hard, like Tal Fortgang.

Fortgang, as many Ivy League students often do in their first few months on campus, found himself being challenged by a concept from outside of his hermetic culture bubble, when classmates began telling him to “check your privilege.” Also like most entitled white guys, upon finding himself on the opposite end of the entire world’s fawning approval, he started crying about it.

“The phrase, handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laserlike at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness, and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung.”

Fox News and other conservative outlets, perhaps reeling from the vacuum created by the Cliven Bundy-shaped hole in their hero narrative, picked up the story as well.

Instead of stopping to consider why so many people around him had begun suggesting he may want to question where some of his opinions come from, Fortgang tap-danced through a series of aggrieved conservative cliches, practically reaching Reverse Racism Bingo before the end of his second paragraph.

And that will be why Time saw fit to publish it. “So many clichés collected in one place by one so young – this is for us.”

Looking through the rest of Fortgang’s [Twitter] timeline you’ll find many other caustic clichéd opinions you’d expect from a young, clueless, aggressively aggrieved conservative. Actually, feminists are the ones with the discriminatory problem, seems to be a common theme.

The cognitive dissonance is just too good to pass up. Sure, my father became a successful businessman, he says, but what does that have to do with me? His father before him didn’t have it so great.

I’m pretty sure almost every person of privilege could say the same. I come from a relatively comfortable background, but if you go back a few generations my ancestors were shitting in holes in the ground, so therefore everything I think and say is good.

What follows in the rest of the piece is a detour into the greatest hits of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mythologizing. Maybe if people moaning about privilege simply worked harder and stopped worrying about what other people have, then they’d be in a position of privilege, like me!

Well that’s what America means. If you work hard and ignore all possible sources of structural inequality, then you can wear your P for Privilege with pride!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

One thing Kennedy said in the Greece ruling -

That the First Congress provided for the appointment of chaplains only days after approving language for the First Amendment demonstrates that the Framers considered legislative prayer a benign acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.

Well if so, the Framers were wrong. One, it’s not automatically “benign”; two, it’s a lot more than a mere acknowledgment; three, religion’s role in society is not necessarily something that should be encouraged, let alone imposed.

I for one don’t consider it at all benign for a major branch of government to give its imprimatur to the fanciful idea that there’s a Big But Absent Person in charge of us all and paying attention to our “prayers.” It’s a silly childish belief on a par with belief in fairies or ghosts, and it’s only this kind of supposedly “benign” public deference to it that allows to many people to think otherwise. It’s far from being just an acknowledgment; it is an endorsement.

Religion’s role in society is a mixed bag at best. There’s no obvious reason for Congress to “acknowledge” that role at all, and in any case hiring a chaplain to deliver a daily prayer is not acknowledgement but participation.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

CNN reports:

Details emerged Wednesday of an apparent Boko Haram attack on a Nigerian village in which at least 150 people died, the latest in a series of attacks and abductions of schoolgirls attributed to the group.

Militants dressed in military uniforms, backed by armored personnel carriers and shouting “God is great” attacked Gamboru Ngala Monday afternoon, firing rocket-propelled grenades and tossing improvised bombs into a crowded outdoor marketplace, witnesses told CNN Wednesday.

They then set fire to buildings where people had tried to take shelter from the violence, the witnesses said.

The fighters also attacked the police station during the 12-hour assault, initially facing stiff resistance. They eventually used explosives to blow the roof off the building, witnesses said. Fourteen police officers were found dead inside, they said.

The final death toll could be closer to 300, Nigerian Sen. Ahmed Zanna told CNN.

“Militants”? “Fighters”?

Militants in the cause of what? Fighters for what? Don’t say sharia or a caliphate or the ummah or Islam, because any of those would give an impression of some kind of idealism, however warped. I don’t believe it. I think they’re just murdering and enslaving people for the sake of murdering and enslaving people. I think they’re drunk on their ability to blow everything up, and enjoying their power to slaughter people and make all the survivors miserable.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

It’s been reported – indirectly so far, which is to say, no English language news sources – that today Saudi Arabia changed Raif Badawi’s sentence to an even harsher one.

Amnesty International reports:

Amnesty International is calling on Saudi Arabia’s authorities to quash the outrageous sentencing today of Raif Badawi in connection with an online forum for public debate he set up and accusations that he insulted Islam.

Raif Badawi, co-founder of the “Saudi Arabian Liberals” website, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes and a fine of 1 million Saudi riyals (about US$266,631) by Jeddah’s Criminal Court.

A THOUSAND LASHES.

Not to mention ten years – 120 months, 3,560+ days – in prison.

Corporal punishment, such as flogging, violates international law, which prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Raif Badawi was first jailed in 2012 for violating Saudi Arabia’s IT law and insulting religious authorities through his online writings and hosting those of others on the “Saudi Arabian Liberals” website. He was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes.

Last December, an appeals court overturned his conviction and sent the case to Jeddah’s Criminal Court to be reviewed. He had initially been charged with “apostasy”, which is considered a serious crime in Saudi Arabia and carries the death penalty.

It’s a god damn outrage.

#FreeRaif

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Dave Richards gave me blanket permission to post his photos so here’s another one of Merlyn that I’ve always loved – this one from when he was a brand new arrival.

Magic Merlyn is magic

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Martin Wagner posted this on Facebook. The names of 177 of the schoolgirls kidnapped and enslaved by Boko Haram.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Supreme Court ruling handed down yesterday is inspiring new efforts, just as everyone knew it would. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for instance:

Roanoke County’s Board of Supervisors may be headed toward another discussion of prayer following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down Monday. The board dealt with the matter in 2012, eventually passing a nonsectarian prayer policy that Supervisor Al Bedrosian is ready to strike from the books.

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. “If we allow everything … where do you draw the line?”

The supervisor campaigned on the idea of eliminating the policy, and the ruling has breathed new life into his idea for a policy that could lead to the exclusion of non-Christian groups from the invocation.

Yay. Formal, official Christian supremacy in government at last. The city on a hill is in sight.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Borowitz Report* on the Supreme Court ruling in Greece v Galloway.

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — In what legal experts are calling a landmark decision, on Monday the United States Supreme Court struck down what many believe to be the main reason the country was started.

By a five-to-four vote, the Court eliminated what grade-school children have traditionally been taught was one of the key rationales for founding the United States in the first place.

“The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American democracy for over two hundred years,” said Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority. “Getting rid of it was long overdue.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)