January 27, 2005 by s.z.

Stupidity, Eh? So I'm surfing the net and I read today's Bleat . . . So I’m watching another of these oddly anti-funny Simpsons episodes from 2004. (It’s like they’re bad on purpose.) Maggie Simpson gets an IQ test. Oh the hilarity: Simon Crowell is the admissions director! She scores high. “Meet Maggie Simpson,” he says to another school official. “IQ, 167.” “One sixty seven!” says the other official. “That’s amazing for a Christian!” Wha? Huh? Rewind. Context? Anyone wearing a cross? Anyone holding a Bible, or daubing red paint on their palms? Did Homer announce he’d seen the Virgin Mary in the grease of a Krusty Burger wrapper? No: totally gratuitous. Just for fun: insert any other religion in that line and imagine the reaction. [...] This wasn’t clever, and all it did was say “we can get away with this, because we’re not particularly interested in anyone who finds it insulting.” Well, when I saw this ep, I thought that context was that the snobby Simon Crowell character and the equally snobby female school official were showing their contempt for the masses, who are, in this country, Christian.  But then, although Christian, I'm not looking for signs that I am being persecuted, so maybe I missed something.  And I found the line mildly funny, which I think was the writers' intent (although maybe I'm wrong, and they just threw it in to gratuitously insult Christians, since that's where the big money is these days).  But I do agree with Lileks that the quality of the show has gone downhill somewhat in recent years. Anyway, so I surf some more, and end up at Christianity Today, where they're talking about the SpongeBob video.  I read a statement by Focus on the Family that explains that Mr. Dobson never said that SpongeBob is gay (because that would be really, really stupid, wouldn't it?), merely that he's being exploited by the insidiuous gay agenda. (SpongeBob, being a simple, gullible sea sponge, doesn't even realize that he's being used this way).  Here's part of FotF's statement: The video in question is slated to be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools throughout the United States. Where it is shown, schoolchildren will be left with the impression that their teachers are offering their endorsement of the values and agenda associated with the video's sponsor. Yes, grade school children are going to see a little video featuring various children's TV characters singing that "we are family" -- and then these youngsters will read the NY Times or something, and learn that the video was made by the "We Are Family Foundation," and they will log onto the internet, use Google to find the Foundation's website, and visit it.  And there they will see the Tolerence Pledge on the left sidebar, click on it, and learn that the Southern Poverty Law Center includes (as part of their "National Campaign for Tolerence") a pledge that says in part, "I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."  And then these children, some as young as five, will be left with the impression that their teachers believe in respecting even homosexuals, and then, um, the kids might become gay. While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line. Hey, some people think that the Golden Rule is both necessary and moral, but I guess we should keep our children away from those types. We believe that it is the privilege of parents to decide how, when and where it is appropriate to introduce their children to these types of sensitive issues. The distribution of this video trumps the authority of mothers and fathers and leaves it in the hands of strangers whose standards may very well be different than the children they teach. "Kids are going to see a video that promotes kindness and loving our neighbors even if they are different from us.  And what if their parents are against this kind of thing?  Therefore, kids should not see this video."  That is the gist of Focus on the Family's statement about this controversial issue. See, it all makes perfect sense now, and isn't crazy or weird at all! Anyway, on the left margin of the page, Christianity Today has a survey about demonic possession.  Here are the survey results to date: I believe demonic possession is: (Check all that apply) not taken seriously enough by Christians.:  35% not taken seriously enough by doctors.:  21% possible, but only for non-Christians.:  24% possible for Christians.:  13%a belief of primitive cultures.:  4%not real. It's a biblical literary device.:  3% (Okay, since the numbers add up to 100%, I guess nobody thought that more than one answer applied). Anyway, while it is somewhat troubling that most of those taking the survey believe that demonic possession is possible, and 35% believe it isn't taken seriously enough by Christians (because I suspect that these people think that The Exorcist was a documentary), but I guess they could just mean that the stories of Jesus casting out evil spirits are literally true.  However, I am more concerned that 21% responding thought that DOCTORS should take demonic possession more seriously.  You know, instead of schizophrenia, epilepsy, or ADD, maybe doctors should consider demonic possession as a diagnosis -- because that's what it could be. And then I decided that maybe that this trip to Christianity Today was the context for that "Simpsons" line Lileks found so gratuitious. P.S.  The link that Lileks provides ("You know, like those close-minded mouthbreathing Christian morons who just don’t understand animation") to prove that Christians are NOT mouthbreathing morons turns out to be to Crosswalk.com interview of Lance Wilder, evangelical Christian and "Simpsons" background design supervisor.  And it's actually worth reading.  For instance: Crosswalk.com: How has the Christian community in L.A. supported your work over the years? Lance: It's funny. Once in a while I'll get people, within church and outside of church, say to me, "How can you work on a show like The Simpsons? That's really terrible. How can you justify that?" That's been rare, but I pretty much answer that question by saying I agree with about 90%-95% of The Simpsons. I think it's funny, it's satire. It's not a Christian show. It's a comedy that comes from about 15 different writers from different perspectives who are very talented, and the reality is that it's just trying to be entertaining, it's trying to be funny. It makes satirical comments and points about religion, politics, school, family, parenting and marriage. Then people say, "But what about when Homer falls asleep in church?" And I say, "Well, that's funny. Can't most people relate to boring church services and stuff growing up?" Once in a while there will be a line or something said that I won't agree with, but so what? I guess Wilder didn't realize that that one line he doesn't agree with means that he's being persecuted.  I hope Lileks can help him see this. 4:50:53 AM

Who Said It? Our last Mystery Guest was indeed the well-known millionare junkie Rush Limbaugh.  Kudos to Clif for once again being the first to name that wingnut. Now, who said this? 1.  We are cyber sherpas, leading anyone who wants to follow through the mountains of information that accumulate every day to the stuff we think is most important. Apparently we bloggers no longer English yeomen armed with crossbows that we use to shoot Dan Rathers.  No, we are instead Tibetan sherpas who will lead you up Mount Everest.  (Or who will lead you up a molehill about Kos working for the Dean campaign, which we will call Everest.)  In any case, we are very important, and you should look on our works, ye mighty mainstream media, and despair. 2. Lots of readers want to know whether Juan Manuel Alvarez, the man being held in connection with the deadly Glendale commuter train derailment, is an illegal alien. You know, because he has a Hispanic name and did something bad. The OBL (open borders lobby) is naturally up in arms. What does it matter if someone has violated immigration laws? Go ask the relatives of the dead train commuters. Because this story isn't about a depressed guy with a drug problem whose wife had left him, then stupidly and criminally chosing a way to commit suicide that ended up killing and injuring others. (Or, as the NY Post put it,SUICIDAL WACKO KILLS 11 IN L.A.)  No, it's about how illegal aliens want to kill your family!  And even if it turns out Alvarez was a citizen or a legal resident, this incident will still be about border control and murderous brown-skinned foreigners. UPDATE: 3.  Reader Andrew suggests this Mystery Guest: Let me step back and propose a “big thought” on how to win the Global War on Terrorism.[...] What I propose is this: in addition to using force to bring armed Islamists to heel, we should also commence the use of force against unarmed Islamists as well.Those who spread enemy propaganda, those who participate in the financing of the enemy, and those who choose to stand in proximity to the enemy are valid and legitimate targets of war. Those who retail or purchase pro-Islamist materials are legitimate targets of war. Those who donate money to terrorist groups, even to their ostensibly humanitarian or political wings, are legitimate targets as well.  [...] My plan is simple: we should wage a brutal campaign of terror against the terrorists themselves. Because if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! And this was my favorite part of the plan: taking as hostages the spouses and children of "Islamists," and holding them in a "secure location" in the U.S.:  Now, I’m sure some people will find the idea of kidnapping the children of Islamists to be morally objectionable. So be it. So far as I’m concerned, the Islamists forfeited their right to be parents the moment they first spoke a word against the United States. That they have been allowed to continue to reproduce to this point is less a reflection of their continuing rights in this area and more of our own laziness and timidity. They’ll all be better off being raised by good Christian families in the US of A. Yes, they'll be better off being raised by good moral Christian families in that "secure location," which I suspect may be Alcatraz. Oh, and here's a hint about his identity: it comes from a blog entry from Dec. 2003 (in it he says that he didn't "lie" so much as just misrepresent his background, and also explains why he hasn't enlisted in the military yet): Oh, yes- I also once impersonated Tom Clancy on the Usenet as a joke. I apologized at the time, and still apologize. I thought it would be funny, but it really wasn't. 2:55:57 AM