Saturday, October 1, 2011

Disappoint-mints

This is funny:

Obama Breath Mints Banned


By Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio

The University of Tennessee bookstore in Knoxville has decided to stopping selling packages of breath mints poking fun at President Obama after a Democratic lawmaker complained.
The product is called, “Disappoint-mints” and features a blue and red picture of the president on the label
State Rep. Joe Armstrong told The Knoxville News Sentinel he found the breath mints offensive. He said a student had notified him of the mints so he decided to go to the bookstore to investigate.
He said the breath freshener was “very specifically insulting to the president” and said the university should be sensitive to what he called “politically specific products.”

The left has no sense of humor. You can bet that Democrat Rep. Armstrong never complained about the "Bush=Hitler" stuff that was ubiquitous on leftie campuses a few years ago.

The U of T bookstore should sell little boats with a figurine of Rep. Armstrong at the helm and "Democratic Party" painted on the hull. The box should read:

"Censor-ship"

21 comments:

  1. There is no shortage of idiotic attempts at censorships on both sides of the aisle. I am sure everyone still remembers the draping of the statue of justice to cover her exposed breast in 2002. A similar trick was tried recently with the Roman goddess Virtus on the Virginia state seal.

    As to the left having no sense of humor, surely you jest. The Unemployed Philosophers Guild (the company that makes Disappoint-mints) "leans left," according to its owner. Could've guessed it from the company's name.

    Needless to say, Joe Armstrong is being an ass and the University of Tennessee lacks testicular fortitude.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That company is an equal-opportunity offender of political sensibilities. It sells lots of stuff. Including this cute mug.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @mike,
    LMOA, man....
    I am stealing that image to piss off my extremely liberal American pals (socal) on facebook.
    100% guaranteed to open the door for a bunch of snarky, smart assed quips.
    REVENGE!!! :P
    It IS funny. But I have to ask this kind of silly sounding question. Just so it is said (virtually) out loud: Why is it 'streng verboten' to make fun of Mr obama?
    I grew up watching (a lot) of American TV shows and movies, and living even spent a few years living in the States... it was never taboo to 'take it out' of the President. It was okay to be critical and even hostile to the administration. The provision, of course, being the fact one was loyal to the NATION. So what gives?
    Why the airs of Royalty or Piety? There is neither. The man is neither King, nor Duke, nor Bishop, nor Pope. Even those men are men and people are free to criticize and make fun of them.
    So, again, what gives?
    In 2008 I saw GW Bush toilet paper in a popular bar (with my ivy league pal and his mates) in Mass.
    I am sure we can remember the Carter Peanuts? The big stupid Clinton faces a la etc.
    Why is all that nastiness kosher and not a mint?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Oleg,
    Re:The mug.
    Neat! My buddy has one with a bikini girl like that.
    But can I ask you a question that the mug immediately brings to mind?
    I will 'go for it', and hope you deem it worthy of a response. If not maybe someone else can explain it?
    Why does AGW predict the sinking of continental size landmasses. Surely that is not a long term or even global effect of massive non-stop planetary warming or cooling. Actually the opposite seems to be true, if we judge by our neighbours. Get to hot - no water. Get too cold - no water.
    So why all the biblical flood style stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Democratic politicians are unique on the political spectrum in being humor impaired and hoping to censor things. After all, it was democratic Senator Rick Santorum recently tried to get Google to censor the web pages that compare him to a mix of lubricant and fecal matter.

    Oh wait, Santorum is a Republican? I guess the lack of humor and urge to censor runs across party lines then.

    Sorry Egnor, your argument here, as with all your other musings on this blog, is a useless pile of crap. Or a pile of Santorum.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bush = Hitler.

    ???

    Wow.., I thought that was fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nope didn't think so.
    Okay....
    Here is a question from one of the young men at the base. I showed him the thread and we were talking about some of this stuff.
    It is a general question for the Atheists here.
    I hope you don't mind, Mike.
    Zap it, if you feel it's out of line ;)

    Anyway...here goes:

    Would the Atheists on this page risk their lives in a conflict to support the right to worship God? Would the DIE in order to preserve the religious rights of other citizens"

    I realize this is an individual question, and I would appreciate an individual answer...your OWN ideas.
    Thanks in advance to anyone who takes this up!

    ReplyDelete
  8. " Rick Santorum recently tried to get Google to censor the web pages that compare him to a mix of lubricant and fecal matter."
    Shit and mints? What a contrast! LOL
    I had to smell your breath, Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No takers yet?
    Okay... well I am off to the Hockey Game soon. So maybe I will check back in tonight if I am not too merry. If not, I'll have a look tomorrow morn.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Michael Egnor,

    I want to publish some philosophical articles from a dualist perspective. Do you know which journals are more sympathetic to dualism than others? Also, I want to try journals on the bottom tier since i'm just starting out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. CrusadeRex,

    "Would the Atheists on this page risk their lives in a conflict to support the right to worship God? Would the (sic) DIE in order to preserve the religious rights of other citizens?"

    No. Why would I? The results wouldn't be commensurate with the costs, just in numbers of human lives lost in any conflict.

    I shudder to think that you might think that the answer should be 'yes.'

    What would your answer be and how do you justify it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it.”

    Voltaire’s ideas influenced both the American and French revolutions, but in modern times his thoughts have been perniciously distorted. Would you be OK if hard-core gays described their fetish practices on CNN ? Righteousness and morality are appropriate in the eye of the beholder. No, the bible conservatives to not occupy the moral high ground, even if you think you do. The whole point of the quote is to defend minority views, tricky, isn’t it ?

    Would you, crusadeRex, die defending the rights of US Muslims trashing American traditions ? Would Dr. Egnor ? Would any Republican ?

    No, you wouldn’t.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bach,
    Shudder away.
    My justification? Do you mean personally? It is described in the question itself.
    But this is an honest question, Bach. Not a rhetorical one.
    There was no correct answer.
    If you mean why do I think there is a valid positive answer to this...that is twofold.
    The first is obviously my own service. I have done exactly this and know many folks who did the same.
    Secondly, there is that there are real motivated people who will kill YOU and everyone you love to PREVENT that sort freedom and enforce their own ideas.
    Those people are no small number and quite determined. We (the military/defence forces in NATO) constantly require motivated people to force that struggle on and prevent entire regions of the World from falling under the grasp of such tyrannies and at least some of their murderous plots in our own.
    As someone involved in the training and conditioning of the LEADERS of those people I am always interested in what ideologies motivate and and what ideologies dissuade. I find this a fascinating subject.

    Iko,
    I am not American, nor 'American conservative' or 'Bible conservative'. I am counter revolutionary. A Loyalist son and a Loyalist father (Royalist to you French). I am not thinking of Voltaire, although you make an excellent point by bringing him up... but that would be another topic.
    I have no connection with the above groups other than the select objective morals we hold.
    So you see , Dr Egnor and I have MANY differences... but they are Lilliputian compared to our shared faith.
    YES I would fight and die for the freedom to worship ANY God (or not).
    I have served for exactly those reasons. Over eight years in field total.
    So have dozens of men (and a good few women) I had worked with in the COTC (officers training).
    This is not a theoretical question for me and thousands like me, hence my interest in the perspective of an Atheist on this.
    (I have yet to meet one in the active services.)
    So YES, I DID.

    @Both,
    Thanks for answering the question. I appreciate the personal input. I have asked this question of many academic friends of all stripes and the wriggle to avoid it. Perhaps it is because the know me personally and do not want to show disrespect etc... I really do appreciate the honesty. Sometimes what we need to hear is not what we want to hear (read).
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. crusadeREX: Why does AGW predict the sinking of continental size landmasses. Surely that is not a long term or even global effect of massive non-stop planetary warming or cooling. Actually the opposite seems to be true, if we judge by our neighbours. Get to hot - no water. Get too cold - no water.
    So why all the biblical flood style stuff?


    I suppose by "our neighbours" you mean Mars and Venus. Yes, indeed, if the average temperatures rises well above 100 degrees centigrade, water will evaporate. (To be sure, the atmospheric pressure will rise as a result, so the temperature will have to go further up to keep water in the form of vapor.) Likewise, a decrease in the average temperature well below zero centigrade will freeze the planet.

    But we are not talking about such dramatic changes in temperature. Well before the oceans begin boiling, there will be other interesting effects. The ocean level will rise substantially when ice sheets near the poles melt. Greenland is covered by some 2.85 million cubic kilometres of ice. When it melts away, the water will spread out over the surface of the globe, 510 million square kilometers, forming a layer 5 meters deep.

    This simple calculation underestimates the rise in sea levels because the oceans occupy 70% of the globe, so their area is a bit smaller, 360 million square kilometers. With this correction, the sea levels will rise by some 8 meters. And that is just from the melting of a small fraction of the polar ice caps.

    Make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Mike,
    Thanks for allowing the unrelated Q&A, mate. This stuff intrigues me.

    @all
    If there is an Atheist who reads these posts who would answer in the affirmative, I would love to hear from you. Even if you do not feel comfortable posting on here, please feel free to email me your ideas.
    I am fascinated by the motivations and would very much like to understand WHY you would do it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oleg,
    Yes you're correct about our neighbours. I am sorry if that was not clearly stated. I meant Mars and Venus.
    Okay. So you're saying these deluges and sunken coastlines are the short term effects. Immediate effects. But how short of a term. If the scenario you describe (incontrolled GW) somehow melted our ice caps permanently... doesn't it follow that the atmosphere will begin to change, and with it the entire chemistry of our world? I guess what I am saying is: Who cares about some water if the suggestion is an (almost) dead rock in space?
    Also, what about precipitation?
    As the temp has risen in the past we have seen increased snows in the Arctic regions. This snow (according to our surveys) is what covers and reflects the heat from the poles.
    This little phenomenon is well known to those of us that live in the Northern Lattitudes. People often prefer the 'crisp cold', and you will hear them say often 'too cold to snow anything proper today'. Surely enough, when the weather warms we get the snows.
    We have also seen oceanic levels DROP in the last few decades. Here on the shores of the Upper Great Lakes it is obvious.
    So, while I accept your reasoning as sound (given the assumptions you make) I do not see it as convincing.
    The only thing I am convinced of is that climate changes natural and seems to 'correct' itself frequently. There seems to be a cycle.
    I can't help but feel we need to adapt to the cycles instead of trying to control them or by pretending the do not exist. Can man tip the scale? To answer that I think we must recognize there IS a scale. A NATURAL scale.
    At any rate, thanks for answering Oleg. Much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry typos...lack of coffee, tiny screen, and dogs jumping all over me.... typical Sunday after Church :P

    ReplyDelete
  18. crusadeREX: But how short of a term. If the scenario you describe (incontrolled GW) somehow melted our ice caps permanently... doesn't it follow that the atmosphere will begin to change, and with it the entire chemistry of our world?

    If we are talking about the effects of the ice caps melting then neither chemistry nor the atmosphere have much to do with it. The water from the melting has to go somewhere. Apart from going into the oceans, where else can it go?

    The land? The calculation in my previous comment took that into account. The sea levels will rise by 5 meters instead of 7. Plus, the land will be inundated. And eventually, all of that water will find its way into the ocean, so we will be back to 7 meters (that's Greenland ice only!).

    The atmosphere? It can hold some water in the form of vapor, but not much, relatively speaking. At present, the atmosphere holds only 0.000014 of the total amount of the Earth's water.

    I guess what I am saying is: Who cares about some water if the suggestion is an (almost) dead rock in space?

    We are not talking about complete evaporation of the oceans. That won't happen under any warming scenario.

    Also, what about precipitation?
    As the temp has risen in the past we have seen increased snows in the Arctic regions. This snow (according to our surveys) is what covers and reflects the heat from the poles.
    This little phenomenon is well known to those of us that live in the Northern Lattitudes. People often prefer the 'crisp cold', and you will hear them say often 'too cold to snow anything proper today'. Surely enough, when the weather warms we get the snows.


    We are discussing a scenario under which the ice caps melt, right? If they do, the water has nowhere to go but the oceans. (See above.) The sea levels rise accordingly.

    We have also seen oceanic levels DROP in the last few decades.

    What?! Here are the sea level trends averaged over a few years. I see an upward trend.

    Here on the shores of the Upper Great Lakes it is obvious.

    What are you talking about? The Upper Great Lakes are some 170 meters above the sea level. They are not a good proxy for the sea levels.

    So, while I accept your reasoning as sound (given the assumptions you make) I do not see it as convincing.
    The only thing I am convinced of is that climate changes natural and seems to 'correct' itself frequently. There seems to be a cycle.


    If your convictions are based on the logic you have just presented, REX, I am not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. A link omitted from the previous comment: Current sea level rise.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The water from the melting has to go somewhere. Apart from going into the oceans, where else can it go?"
    It falls as snow. It falls on Antarctica in in the Arctic region. This creates a reflective barrier. Surely you understand this?

    "We are not talking about complete evaporation of the oceans. That won't happen under any warming scenario. "
    So, no matter what happens to our atmosphere we will not end up like Mars or Venus in your estimation. Okay. You're not suggesting this is a one way ticket to a different environment. You're only concern is water levels. You must live by the coasts.
    My advice: Adapt, Oleg. No amount of green cars will reverse a sea level change, if it is to come. No matter what caused the rise, if we notice it - it's TOO late. So move for INLAND goodness sake.

    "What are you talking about? The Upper Great Lakes are some 170 meters above the sea level. They are not a good proxy for the sea levels. "
    I wasn't talking at all. I was quietly listening to some jazz and typing on this microscopic screen.
    You seem to miss my point.
    The Great Lakes and the watershed(s) that feed them provide FRESH water. They are affected DIRECTLY by ARCTIC precipitation patterns and the jet stream. A rise in this level would be seen as a regional boon. Fresh water levels are extremely important.I am afraid they are just as important as the sea levels or the Seychelles in terms of indicators of climate change. Being a microcosm, we should see any HUMAN or NATURAL effects faster. I fear we are.
    That aside, the levels I am referring to are studies done in several island chains in the Indian ocean and along the Bay of Fundy. I can dig up the citations on my actual laptop (afterwards) if you like.

    "If your convictions are based on the logic you have just presented, REX, I am not impressed."
    Well, I am not convinced of anything. I have no serious convictions on this. I am UNCONVINCED that there is an A element to climate change. As for cyclical NATURAL climate change I defer to the record: It happens. As for you not being impressed, that was not my intention.
    I simply wanted to clarify your position in my own mind.
    This may be a shock, Oleg - but I do not live to impress you (or anyone) with my logic ;)
    LOL
    PS thanks for the link. I'll have a look at it when I can actually read my display (this aft).

    ReplyDelete
  21. CrusadeRex,

    Sorry, but you don't have a clue what you're writing about. You brought up the Great Lakes in reference to your claim that sea levels have been falling for the past few decades. That's not true. Sea levels have fallen just in the past one or two years, not reversing the decade long trend of increasing sea levels. Sea levels show fluctuations, some years the increase is greater, some years less and some years they drop.

    The level in lakes is more complex, depending on the amount of water being put into the lake by precipitation and streams and the amount of water being removed in evaporation, draining rivers and artificially in irrigation.

    The fall in the Great Lakes could be due to decreased precipitation, increased evaporation due to warming or increased irrigation due to human activity. All indicative of human influence either by global warming or increased human activity.

    ReplyDelete