Rihanna ‘S&M’ Song: Inappropes?

Feels so good being bad
There’s no way I’m turning back
Now the pain is my pleasure
Cause nothing could measure

Love is great, love is fine
Out the box, out of line
The affliction of the feeling
Leaves me wanting more

[Chorus x2:]
Cause I may be bad
But I’m perfectly good at it
Sex in the air
I don’t care
I love the smell of it
Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But chains and whips
Excite me

Back when the song came out, I heard the obvious commentary about it: she’s singing a song about being sexually aroused by getting beat up when her most notable non-performance news maker instance was her getting beat up by her boyfriend. But I heard one radio commentator also call it inappropriate because she’s black and, I don’t know if you’ve heard or not but: black people were slaves at one point. Yawn. Sounds like the lamest race baiting criticism ever but I’ve heard it more than once since then. What are your thoughts?

Norway Murderer wasn’t a “Christian Terrorist”

A correction and apology and Reason 9Billion why our (meaning America’s) news media sucks: I just found out now that this guys manifesto that was cited as him being Christian says so in the context of him differentiating himself from other non-Christian nations and that instead of any preaching, fundamentalism endorsement or anything somewhat somehow partially approaching a belief that God wants him to kill people – he says he has “no relationship” with God or Jesus Christ. So in other words: he is a “Christian terrorist” on less of a level that he is a “weird studded chin hair whisker terrorist”.

There’s no way around this one, guys. I get that people are eager to have a Christian, or at least non-Muslim terrorist movement example to point to in the decade wake of September 11th and it’s related jihadist bombings around the world, but distortion is never a way to argue a point. This Norway loser said that “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” is “everything we DO NOT want” and a “secular European society” is “what we DO want.” There’s no Christian-terrorism here…

I apologize for my previous comments that took anti-Christian biased reports as fact without checking for myself.

His use of the term is not based on faith but out of collective identification with a notion of “Christian Europe.”

“Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man,” he says in his 1,500-page manifesto. “I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.”

Breivik’s video, in which he blames “cultural Marxists” for supporting a multicultural Europe, is replete with imagery of various sword-wielding and carnage-provoking crusaders and defenders, many of whom sport crosses.

Ironically, anyone who has recently checked the state of deep and abiding faith, or “piety,” in Europe, will find the place is decidedly, and more than ever, secular. In this sense at least Breivik is honest about his brand of Christianity. God-talk hasn’t occupied much of northern Europe for years, and not because bearded jihadists have blocked the entrance to the church.


Update, August 2012: Trained to be a sociopath?

UPDATE: More info and humorously delivered facts about the killerthat is spot on, but… you’re not gonna like that it’s from Ann Coulter, who titles her piece New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway (a reference to the fact that Breivik cited the NY Times over a dozen times but the bible 0 times):

Breivik says he is “not an excessively religious man,” brags that he is “first and foremost a man of logic,” calls himself “economically liberal” and reveres Darwinism.

But Times reporters had their “Eureka!” moment as soon as they heard Breivik used the word “Christian” someplace to identify himself. No one at the Times bothered to read Breivik’s manifesto to see that he doesn’t use the term the way the rest of us do. That might have interfered with the paper’s obsessive Christian-bashing.

Other famous killers dubbed conservative Christians by the Times include Timothy McVeigh and Jared Loughner.

McVeigh was a pot-smoking atheist who said, “Science is my religion.”

Similarly, Breivik says in his manifesto that “it is essential that science take an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings” –- a statement that would be incomprehensible to all the real scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein and Pauli, all of whom believed the whole purpose of science was to understand God.

The Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, was lyingly described by the Times as a pro-life fanatic. Not only did more honest news outlets, such as ABC News, report exactly the opposite — for example, how Loughner alarmed his classmates by laughing about an aborted baby in class — but Loughner’s friends described him as “left wing,” “a political radical,” “quite liberal” and “a pothead.” Another said Loughner’s mother was Jewish.

The only reason Timothy McVeigh has gone down in history as a right-wing Christian and Jared Loughner has not — despite herculean efforts by much of the mainstream media to convince us otherwise — is that by January 2011 when Loughner went on his murder spree, conservatives had enough media outlets to reveal the truth.

As explained in the smash best-seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” the liberal rule is: Any criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone’s civil liberties.

Smooth Criminal

I haven’t heard anyone comment on the Norway murderer being clean cut and handsome. I find it comment-worthy because its more disturbing when a murderer is attractive. Look at all the support Casey Anthony got just a month ago. Think anyone would care if she were fatter or fuglier in the face? This dude is gonna be big pimpin in his college dorm style prison cell during his 21 year sentence and it’s disgusting. He should be executed.

The hellholes that are Norwegian prisons

The dude in Norway who murdered 70+ people for no reason will be spending 21 years in jail instead of life and instead of getting executed. Naturally this has sparked debate over capital punishment, and even though I’m not thrilled with the death penalty as a policy, I absolutely have no problem with it on a basis of morality. I genuinely don’t understand the people who do, actually. I always ask them, but never get much insight into what moral basis exactly there is for keeping all murderers alive – which is what being anti-death penalty means despite the reverse not being true. Same as being anti-war vs the “pro” position which is favoring it in some cases: the “anti” side is against it in all cases and the pro side is only in favor of it on a case by case. same with abortion – the pro side is case by case and the anti side says its immoral no matter what.

In response to my search for insight on the matter, I usually just get stupid bumper sticker phrases like a sarcastic “lets kill killers to show that killing is wrong!”. When I correct them however that no one smart thinks “killing” is wrong – it’s “murder” that is wrong and they don’t really believe themselves the philosophy behind the argument of capital punishment being hypocritical because they don’t apply the same standard to other crimes. People who say that are not against kidnapping kidnappers or confiscating property from a thief, yet their logic dictates that if killing murderers is hypocrisy then jailing kidnappers is hypocrisy. And that’s where they stop responding… every time.

But another often used argument is that life in prison is a fate worse than death. Which is really odd since they’re going from “capital punishment is too cruel” to “I want them to have an even MORE cruel punishment”, but rendered complete nonsense considering no killer ever chooses death. They all want to live. Desperately. They make plea bargains and cooperate with the prosecution so they can avoid the death penalty. Killing these people doesn’t make them martyrs, it makes them go away. They get forgotten. They get prevented from killing again either within prison or getting released from it.

As for those hellish prison cells that capital punishment abolitionists claim is a worse punishment than being put to death (even though no one convicted of murder ever thinks so), here are some torture chamber one-person-per-cell examples in Norway (Bastoey Prison, courtesy of this Daily Mail article from 2010):

Each inmate gets a private cell with mini-fridge, flat-screen TV and even a private en-suite bathroom and barless windows – because they let in more sunlight.

Then for every 12 to 15 rooms there is a top-notch kitchen with stainless steel work tops and lounge areas complete with IKEA-style sofas and coffee tables.

To cap-off their stay at Halden, the pampered prisoners can even enjoy a gym – complete with rock-climbing wall – a music studio and luxury library.

Allegedly an even nicer prison exists there where hardcore felons “have an island where the they work on a farm and live in cottages., In summer, they can improve their backhand on the tennis court, ride a horse in the forest and hit the beach for a swim. In winter, they can go cross-country skiing or participate in the prison’s ski-jumping competition.”

Sounds like a fate worse than death to ME, right?

UPDATE: While looking for a picture of a cell in the prison the shooter is going to (cuz who knows, maybe they’re not ALL like this, right?) I finally found one and as you can see, it is a significant downgrade: the television is not a flat screen! *GASP*


Via

Glenn Beck news site writer is confused about political orientation

Glenn Beck is best known for his chalkboard writing Professor imitating monologues/speeches/sermons/whatever you want to call them, explaining political ideology and their representation in history and current events. Evidently though, he needs to send one of his writers for his news website The Blaze, Jonathon M. Seidl a few of his courses.

In a post titled Is the Oslo Gunman Really Right-Wing?, Seidl contests the claim by pointing to a Daily Mail article which opens its profile on Anders Behring Breivik with some information that allegedly “would seem to shake up any simple explanation of who he is or what he believed”:

The man responsible for the massacre in Norway was a member of a Swedish nazi forum which encourages attacks on government buildings.

It was also revealed by local police that he had extreme right wing views who hated Muslims.

According to Swedish website Expo Anders Behring Breivik is a member of ‘Nordisk’ which has 22,000 members and focuses on political terrorism.

[…]

[His Facebook profile] also listed interests such as body-building and freemasonry.[Emphasis added]

Okay? Despite lefties liking to call people on the right Nazi’s or claim that Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement movement was a right wing movement, the truth is that elements of both were involved

Next in the list the Blaze posted from the Daily Mail is uncited “right wing views” and Muslim hatred, where again – bigotry is not a qualifier anywhere on the political spectrum. After that is membership of a group that “focuses on political terrorism”. Again, not an ideology factor. True, it is more common on the left (presidential assassination, animal liberation, eco terrorism) than the right (the only conservative terrorism I can think of are the 8 or 9 people who have attempted or succeeded in abortion shootings or bombings) but “what is more frequent within” is not the same as what “is” or what defines an ideology.

And lastly, The Blaze puts in bold his activity in freemasonry, which is a culty conspiracy kindov thing often associated with Nazi’s. In fact, Hitler included in his declaration of war against America that FDR was allegedly a Freemason.

So far, that doesn’t add up to anything. Nazi + anti-Muslim + Nordisk + freemasonry adds up to kook. not right or left wing kook. So to decipher whether he is right or left in his belief system (which I acknowledge is a completely academic pursuit anyway, having no actual value), you have to go outside of these examples.

The Blaze however, does not. The Blaze says immediately after the list above (emphasis mine):

That’s certainly a mixed bag. And some of that information would seem to hint at a possible extreme leftist position, perhaps anarchism, would it not? It certainly doesn’t reflect the views of a conservative Christian, as he claimed to be.

The last part is right – he clearly wasn’t a “conservative Christian” even if he thought he was, but that isn’t what is being alleged. The allegation is that he was a far right wing extremist and anarchy is a far right extreme, not left. The far left extreme is Communism.

The error caught my interest only because Beck himself is so passionate about these differences. For someone who takes such care and effort to broadcast the differences between right and left, having the opposite of those definitions on your truth-news website is kindov a big deal.

For future reference, I’ll text-map the left/right divide for you (start in the middle and go left for more state control over the individual and right for more personal freedom):

Communism <– Socialism <– Liberalism <– POPULIST –> Conservatism –> Libertarianism –> Anarchism