when is evidence not evidence?

Yates’ lawyer wants photos of kids barred
The request sparks fight with prosecutors ahead of her 2nd trial
The image of 7-year-old Noah Yates floating facedown in the murky brown water that filled a bathtub after he and his four siblings were drowned is something Andrea Yates’ defense attorney doesn’t want jurors to see during her second capital murder trial.
Yates’ attorney, George Parnham, filed 30 pretrial motions, which were made public Monday, including one requesting “any and all photographs” of her children not be shown to jurors during the trial set to begin March 20.
Parnham claims the photographs could cause jurors to be unfairly prejudiced or serve to confuse and mislead them.

Um… Yeah, that’s the point. What a dumbass. Heaven forbid the jury actually get to see the aftermath of the crime. There is no surer way for justice to be served than for Andrea Yates to be reconvicted and this time sentenced to a swift and speedy death.

Advertisements

Dubaious?

The entire blogosphere and talk radio spectrum is in a giant kerfluffle over Dubai Ports World purchasing part of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, a British company. This means that an Arab company from a remarkably Western nation will be doing some operations in six ports that were previously done by a British company. Yes, the initial reaction of “THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!” or “Arabs running seaports?!?” are perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. But I, along with others don’t think this deal is a huge problem. In fact, it’s almost completely none of our business. So an Arab company wants to buy a British company that does some work in the United States? So what? The same people are providing security at the ports. The same people are doing the union labor at the ports. It’s not like Dubai is going to ship in thousands of Islamists to guard shipping containers. BFD.

the Great Cartoon War of 2006

The world has gone mad. In September 2005 a Danish newspaper published from a contest 12 editorial cartoons depicting Muhammad in various forms and contexts. There was no outrage. In October 2005 a newspaper in Egypt republished the cartoons. There was no outrage. Then last week a French newspaper reprinted the cartoons. Now the French editor has been fired and radical Muslims around the world are rioting and burning embassies and cars over what they see as a blasphemy to their religion.

Two words: FUCK YOU.

Non-Muslims are incapable of committing blasphemy against a religious figure they do not consider divine. You cannot be guilty of a sin that you do not believe exists. Pentacostals believe it is indecent to show the knees and thighs in public. Does that mean my wife is going to hell because she wears a bathing suit at the beach? Of course not. She’s not Pentacostal.
A liberal society (in the classical sense) requires that individuals are free to believe and practice what they choose. Someone cannot force me to believe or worship something in which I have no interest. So while it is perfectly acceptable for Muslims to be upset that their “prophet” is depicted in an unflattering manner, it is absolutely unacceptable for them to infringe on my right to create or distribute such a depiction.
But that gets to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it? Radical Muslims do not want to live in a liberal society where everyone is free to think and do what they choose. They want to live in a world governed by sharia as interpreted by the most oppressive theology possible. In their riots and protests, these zealots are holding signs that say “KILL THOSE WHO INSULT INSLAM“. Well, I say kill those who can’t take a fucking joke. The world is not required to live by your 7th Century dogma. The more you kill in the name of your religion, the more images like this will continue to apply:

radical Christianism strikes again

Evangelical Filmmakers Criticized for Hiring Gay Actor
Christian ministers were enthusiastic at the early private screenings of “End of the Spear,” made by Every Tribe Entertainment, an evangelical film company. But days before the film’s premiere, a controversy erupted over the casting of a gay actor that has all but eclipsed the movie and revealed fault lines among evangelicals.
The film relates the true story of five American missionaries who were killed in 1956 by an indigenous tribe in Ecuador. The missionaries’ families ultimately converted the tribe to Christianity, and forgave and befriended the killers. The tale inspired evangelicals 40 years ago with its message of redemption and grace, and the film company expected a similar reception.
On Jan. 12, though, the Rev. Jason Janz took the filmmakers to task for casting Chad Allen, an openly gay man and an activist, in the movie’s lead role as one of the slain missionaries, and later, his grown son.

…riiight.
So some Christian wackjobs are upset because someone they perceive as a “sinner” was cast in a film about a group of missionairies who forgive and convert a tribe of murdering savages. Am I missing something here? Oh wait, no. The Christian wackjobs are.

“Hey, buddy! C’mere! Mr. Funny-man, c’mere! Hey, buddy, we’re Christians, and we don’t like what you said.”
“So then forgive me.” Later, when I was hanging from the tree…

to perjure or not to perjure

Is it perjury to answer questions about classified national security programs inaccurately? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so. He noted today a Washington Post story about a Senate Judiciary Committee Heaaring in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called any discussion about warrantless wiretapping “hypothetical.” I tried to get the full context of this discussion from the hearing, but only the introductory statements are available online. However, from this information we can at least assume that this hearing was public. When asked about any potential warrantless wiretapping, should Gonzales have disclosed the existence of the classified program? Wouldn’t that be a crime?
So if answering a question accurately is a crime (disclosing classified information to the public) and answering a question inaccurately is a crime (perjury under oath), then what is a person to do? It is my opinion that perjury is the lesser evil in this situation, since classified national security information should remain so, and therefore Gonzales should have no charges brought against him in either case.