7 things @ 11 o’clock (7.2)

1. This is what a hockey stick graph sounds like when played on the cello.

2. Pam’s House Blend is closing shop. Thank you, Pam Spaulding. Bravo for nine years of smart, funny, honest, courageous truth-telling. And I’m looking forward to whatever it is you do next.

3. Eric Metaxas is a silly, silly man. As Michael Sean Winters says, the right-wing activist and professional moralist is: “Two parts politician, three parts marketing guru and one part evangelical Christian. A toxic mix.” Metaxas is a wanna-be intellectual using a flawed biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as the pretext for playing dress-up in the German theologian’s heroic courage. Just as Bonhoeffer stoof up against the Nazis, Metaxas says he is standing up against Teh Gay — and so, in his mind, we must defer to him as Bonhoeffer’s heir and equivalent.

Well, this would-be heir to Bonhoeffer is also a Breitbart-fan, and based on the false claims he has “learned” from that epistemic circle-jerk, Metaxas recently broke ties with the Evangelical Immigration Roundtable because he thinks it’s a front-group funded by George Soros’ global conspiracy.

Or, in other words, the Man Who Would Be Bonhoeffer wants to restrict immigration because he fears a shadowy international conspiracy of Jewish bankers. Will any of that make the gatekeepers at Christianity Today less likely to continue fawning over Metaxas as a Serious Man of Seriousness? It won’t, but it should.

4.America’s Worst Charities” is a terrific piece of reporting by the Tampa Bay Times. Read the list, avoid being taken in by these scam-tastic frauds. But note that these groups are just exactly that — frauds and scams. That may not be the same as the worst charities.

The Times’ main metric here is “cash paid to solicitors in the past decade” — comparing how much money these groups are taking in from donors to the tiny percentage they’re actually giving out as charitable aid. That’s one form of bad charity. Another form efficiently puts most of the donations it receives to work on its mission, but that mission does harm instead of benefiting the common good. Think of the anti-safety, anti-worker, anti-environment and anti-government “Club for Growth.” They’d score pretty well according to the Times’ criteria, but they’re still flat-out evil. Club for Growth isn’t the same kind of scam. It’s just evil, selfish rich people banding together to protect the interests of evil, selfish rich people no matter how much damage they do to everyone else.

5. It’s your June edition of the Biblical Studies Blog Carnival. And Jim West seems to have noticed that the last few editions of the carnival have been mostly male, so here’s his all-women supplemental/alternative BSBC.

6. Fuller Seminary’s Burner blog looks at the prospects for more “faith-based” and “family friendly” entertainment (noting that these are, in fact, separate categories). It’s an interesting discussion that includes some candid honesty — such as that evangelicals can’t lament foul-mouthed entertainments like Seth MacFarlane’s Ted because we went to see it along with everybody else.

But the post comes to a depressing conclusion: When Hollywood produces “content that is family-friendly or faith-based, you’re going to pay money to see it. Then buy it from the home entertainment division. Then buy the books and toys along with it.” Even if you “have little interest” and even if it’s not “compelling” storytelling.

That’s bad advice and also, I think, bad theology. Settling for dull, safe, tepid storytelling is a kind of sin. If the only good thing that can be said about a piece of art is that it is unobjectionable, then it’s still not worth anyone’s time or money to produce or to endure. If you don’t like the stories Hollywood is telling, tell better stories. Subsidizing bad art doesn’t glorify God, and patronizing bad art only makes us all less capable of producing better work.

7. and here’s some e.e. cummings. because i like e.e. cummings.

dive for dreams
or a slogan may topple you
(trees are their roots
and wind is wind)
trust your heart
if the seas catch fire
(and live by love
though the stars walk backward)

"It's stuff like this that makes me give credence to the simulation theory. You can't ..."

Standing by
"Show him Grosse Point Blank first. "Hey, son, want to watch this guy in a ..."

Standing by
"Thinking about Republicans' attempts to drown out scientific voices (about evolution, climate change, etc.) in ..."

Standing by
"On top of KMs of sediment laid at an angle, on top of KMs of ..."

Standing by

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • What do you mean by “kind of a fan”? I’ve always been a “more or less consistent atheist”. See my blog archives. See http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/thread-between-me-and-jim-west/ for where Occidentalis blocked me for supporting separation of Church and State.

  • reynard61

    The thing that disturbs me the most about that list is how many of those frauds/scams have the word “Police”, “Firefighter” or some other public safety occupation in their names. People distrust or hate government enough already and finding out that law enforcement may be connected to fraud — even if in name only — probably doesn’t help. You’d think that law enforcement agencies and Police and Firefighter’s unions would be concerned enough about public perception in regards to this to do a better job of making charities accountable when they use those words in an organization’s name.

    ETA: Okay…um…is there any specific reason *why* this post was downvoted? Is it the idea that charities using “Police” or “Firefighter” in their name should be held accountable for where their money goes? Is it the implication that some people will use their distrust of government as a reason to not donate to charitable organizations that are supposed to help them, but don’t? I’d be very interested in hearing the reason.

  • Rhubarbarian82

    Elevenses comes before lunch, but after second breakfast.

  • Mark Z.

    You could save a lot of time and just list all the people you don’t think are assholes.

  • P J Evans

    I noticed that they’re all that or ‘children’ or ‘wish’. Part is to make you think they’re serious charities, and part is … well, a lot of people will give money to any group with one of those in the name.

    I always hang up on people calling from organizations with ‘police’ or ‘firefighter’ in their name: too many of them are boiler room operations.

  • P J Evans

    Especially since it’;s not at all clear what he’s yelling about.

  • Yes, it is.

  • GDwarf

    Decibels get much easier once you teach people that every 3 decibels doubles the volume and give them some common noises to calibrate against. But until you learn rules-of-thumb like that log scales are incredibly unintuitive* and difficult, even the log10 ones, which are at least somewhat analogous to how most people count. Decibels also suffer from being decibels, as-in 1/10th of a bel, which just increases people’s confusion. Though full bels is easier to understand, being a log10 system**, but it’s never used. I understand why the system is set up the way it is (120 decibels is, if my math is right, 1.1 trillion times as loud as 1 decibel, making a linear scale somewhat impractical) but it seems like convoluted nonsense to most people, and it’s hard to blame them.

    *Whose brilliant idea was it to have a higher pH mean a more basic solution? I know how the scale actually works, but if we’re talking unintuitive systems…

    **…I think?

  • In this case, exclamation points in such quantities as to risk your finger slipping off the shift key in a way that may produce unpredictable numbers of 1s. (Or, in cases involving hobbits, what Rhubarbarian said.)

  • GDwarf

    Eh, the PA guys have some asshole moments, but they’re definitely better than most people. They also are willing to try to defend their assholism with reasoned arguments, and that matters quite a bit, I feel. At that point it becomes a difference of honestly-held opinions, which I can accept even if I disagree with them.

    Actually, I must confess that with one exception* I’m unaware of them doing anything particulairly assholish in quite a while. What have they done that’s raised in the internet’s ire?

    *Admittedly, that one exception is a bit of a doozy, but see above about reasoned disagreement. What I’m familiar with is the controversy over them making an indirect rape joke. Their argument being, essentially, that it hurt no one and that bending to public pressure to change something after-the-fact is just censorship by a different name. I don’t agree, but most of the other stuff I’ve seen from them vis-a-vis treatment of minorities is pretty upstanding, and I certainly have no reason to think they’d commit fraud with their charity.

  • Charby

    reynard61 — It’s not really clear from the article cited that these organizations are actually criminal in nature. As far as I can tell, they appear to be legitimate charities that are actually horribly inefficient, giving a tiny percentage of the money raised to the actual cause. I’m not if there’s anything that police and firefighters’ unions or law enforcement agencies can do to stop them as long as they are adhering to the letter of the law.

    Besides, you can do anything you want if you call yourself a ‘charity’. Trust me on this one!

  • No. They’re not better than most people.

    It wasn’t the bare fact of the rape joke. It was what they did afterward. For which, see above.

    Oh, they were also going to sell “dickwolves” t-shirts at their convention, and proudly wear them. “Dickwolves” in the comic in question = “rapists”. Many women and men were telling them, hey wait, this is really sick, but ZOMG THEY WERE FIGHTING CENSORSHIP!!! so it was of course perfectly okay. A bunch of people defending them were declaring they had and were going to rape women. And Tycho said there was no such thing as rape culture.

  • Oh aren’t you cute. Don’t worry, you wouldn’t be on that list.

    The PA guys flipped out on a woman who complained about a rape joke in their comic. They encouraged people to troll this woman. Their followers were threatening to rape and murder her, and many people who defended her, and they did not once say, “hey, not cool.” It took Wil Wheaton stepping in for them to call off the hounds.

  • No it isn’t.

  • Yes so much to everything you said here and below.

  • Ursula L

    It really isn’t clear, unfortunately. I presume that when writing the post in question, you thought you were being clear, but sadly the meaning of the post does not come across clearly to people other than you.

    This is often a problem online, or even in real life communication, when someone says something that they think is clear, but it isn’t clear to someone else who doesn’t know what is going on in the head of the person speaking.

  • Ursula L


    I didn’t make the connection in your original post between “Jim West” and “IACOBUS OCCIDENTALIS.”

    It is clear, in retrospect, now that you have spelled it out.

    But for future reference, that is where you post became unclear. Rewriting names in their Latin form is not the most clear way of communicating.

  • Asha

    Well. Even if you don’t give cookies for people being decent, that Wil Wheaton did so is still pretty cool. Is there a link here?

  • GDwarf

    On the censorship thing: I’m curious*, do you think the argument is entirely without merit? That de facto censorship is different from the more traditional sort?

    I’m not going to pretend they’re saints, or even amazing examples of human beings, but one incident where the majority of the problem seems to be what other people did is not a hugely compelling case.

    But whatever. I’ve no desire to stick my neck out for them or to defend how they handle criticism. They made some offensive jokes and didn’t reign in their followers when things got out of hand. Alas, I think that might still qualify them as better than most.

    *Genuine curiosity here, not some rhetorical ploy. It’s a topic I have mixed feelings on and would like to hear opinions about.

  • Ursula L

    Yes, the argument is without merit.

    Censorship is the problem of the government, or an entity with a government-like level of power to punish for the undesired speech, suppresses speech.

    People pointing out that you’re talking about rape, and treating rape as something funny rather than something horrible, isn’t censorship.

    People telling you that you are doing something dangerous, putting the person who pointed out the problem in your initial failed joke in danger of being attacked and raped,by letting your followers know you are okay with the fact that they are threatening her with rape, isn’t censorship.

    Likewise, people pointing out that treating rape as something funny undermines actual efforts to stop rapists isn’t censorship.

    And people calling you an asshole for treating rape as funny doesn’t justify further rape jokes or selling tee-shirts as “fighting censorship.”

    People without the power to stop or punish you from speaking calling you an asshole when you say and do assholeish things is in no way censorship. It’s just more free speech.

    And, unlike treating rape as funny, it is truthful free speech, not the lie of defining sexual violence as funny.

  • Ursula L

    The long row of exclamation points at the end of your original post.

    The numeral “1” is connected to the exclamation point “!” on the typical keyboard, because “!” is usually “1+shift.” There is a years- and decades- long running joke about a row of exclamation points devolving to “1” symbols and the number “eleven”, “11”, as fingers slip as someone who is emotionally overwrought invokes far too many exclamation points.

  • It is, at least in theory, possible to defend rape jokes without being a total misogynistic douche about it who calls on people to shame, berate, and threaten with rape those who object. For example, one could say “I appreciate your feelings in the matter, but my belief is that it should be permissible to make a joke of absolutely anything, especially the really vile things. But I respect your position and understand if you don’t want to read or promote my work because of this.” (I believe it should be permissible to make a joke out of absolutely anything. But I don’t find jokes at the expense of victims or the disenfranchised funny since I always imagine victimizers and bigots chuckling in agreement).

    But no one ever does that. Instead, every fucking time a man is called out on a rape joke, he responds by trying to call down the hammer of god to smite the “gamma rabbits” and “uppity bitches” who dare challenge his GOD GIVEN RIGHT to make rape jokes, calling anyone who will listen in joining him in acts of harassment and bullying. Even people who have otherwise seemed better than that. For some reason, if you dare challenge their right to make rape jokes, every fucking man goes utterly berzerk about it.

    One suspects that they know they done wrong.

  • Ursula L


    Anyone who thinks rape is funny is an asshole.

    And anyone who thinks it is okay to threaten to rape anyone who calls out treating rape as funny is also an asshole.

    And anyone who thinks it is censorship to call out people who make rape jokes assholes is an asshole.

    And anyone who thinks it is censorship report to the police anyone who is making a threat of rape or other violence to the police is also an asshole.

    And anyone who doesn’t see a conspiracy to commit rape when many people make rape threats, and those threats are encouraged, to a single individual in a coordinated way, such as through a single blog, is also an asshole.

    But if you think that rape isn’t funny, and that jokes about rape fail as jokes because rape isn’t funny, and making jokes about rape marks someone as dangerous because they see rape as funny rather than bad, and if you consistently call out people who make rape jokes as people promoting rape and therefore bad people, then you aren’t an asshole on the issue of rape jokes.

    Which doesn’t mean that you can’t be an asshole in other ways. Being a genuine not-asshole can be hard work, in a culture which has strong assholish tendencies towards misogyny, homophobia, patriarchy, racism, etc.

    But recognizing rape as not-funny isn’t hard work, and there is no benefit of any doubt available to anyone treating rape as a joking matter.

    There is no possible context or situation in which rape is actually funny, and therefore there is no actual situation in which making a joke about or threat of rape can be excused for the sake of humor.

  • I think in this specific case, the argument was 100% without merit.

    They sicced their dogs on this woman. People begged them to stop. They didn’t. They doubled down, again and again (Gabe worse than Tycho at first). Some of us were holding out hope that Tycho would come along and say something decent, but instead he made a post on his extremely well-traveled and hugely popular site claiming there was no such thing as rape culture and making fun of people who said there was.

    I don’t know how that is not a hugely compelling case of them being complete assholes and rape cheerleaders. Would they actually have to rape someone themselves?

    As for censorship, people on one side said, “that joke upsets me and here’s why, it would be nice if you wouldn’t make jokes like that.” People on the other side said, “I’m going to come to your house and rape you for voicing your opinion.” Hm. Which side is championing free speech again?

  • Wil Wheaton is generally rather cool, and I would be happy to give him cookies. Though actually I can’t remember if we knew for sure that he’s the one who stopped it, or if that was the hypothesis adding a bunch of other things up.

    As for a link: most of it happened on Twitter. I’m Twitter friends with the women who were at the center of the storm, and also friends with lots of just generally geeky people who were epically disappointed in the PA guys, and it was all very seriously upsetting. But finding old stuff on Twitter feeds is beyond me. Oh wait, I think there was something on unfunny_fandom… yep, here MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNING: http://www.journalfen.net/community/unfunny_fandom/6995.html.

  • J_Enigma32

    I personally think Hollywood could do with less “family friendly” entertainment. Movies tend to be homophobic, misogynistic, and racist enough without injecting Right-wing Evangelical Christian dogma into the mix, thank you very much.

    Was I the only person who found it funny that he was objecting to violence, only to turn around and cite The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre as an example of “family friendly” Hollywood done right?

  • J_Enigma32

    If I could find it again… I remember reading an article that Hollywood had developed software that would cook up screenplay parameters based on the the movies that grossed the most at the box office. That is to say, once the parameters have been determined by this program, the CEOs will give it to the director and the writers and say “make a movie with these parameters” and, volia, you have your next blockbuster which, honestly, looks very similar to the last four.

    You straightjacket the writers and the directors in the name of the Almighty Dollar. Eventually people will get sick of it (Yes, I have faith in people. Misplaced? Time will tell) and once people do, you’ll start to see a growth of indie and homemade movies. The Internet is already pulling people away from the theaters and forcing the movie studios to fight on something that resembles even grounds with Indie producers, who otherwise wouldn’t get that benefit.

    What this means, I hope, is that Indie and homemade movies will become more common and out do the Hollywood cookiecutter blockbusters. Once that starts to happen, the studios will hopefully sink and creativity will be left in the hands of indie and homemade individuals on the Internet. As technology improves, it’ll only level the scale even more.

    I’m being hopelessly optimistic, but hey, I can dream.

  • caryjamesbond


    Here’s a rundown of the whole Penny Arcade thing. While I think they were wrong, I think they also got jumped on extremely hard for what was, in the beginning, a joke that got blown way out of proportion. Given what I’ve read of the internet reactions, it went from zero to a full on Social Justice Warrior Internet Crusade, and Mike and Gabe reacted….extremely badly. Notable in that timeline is A) mike and gabe stepping in to slap down some people that got way out of line, and B) Mike and Gabe reacting much better to people talking to them like rational human beings, instead of screaming accusations of being rape defenders and monsters.

    The moral of the story, I think, is that rational people willing to lay out their concerns get results, while foamy-mouthed-badger people tend to escalate the situation.

    The REALLY problematic stuff came from sources they had no control over- IE, random internet assholes. It appears that Mike and Gabe managed to shut down at least the worst one.

    Yes, Mike and Gabe did something wrong, but the situation was needlessly escalated and, notably, when smart sane people stopped in to educate them on their mistakes, in a polite reasonable manner, they reversed course. It’s also one of those scenarios where the original intent of their post, and the comic do have an impact.

    tl;dr: things are complicated, and reasonable people get results.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Do you mind not using the fucking tone argument?

  • konrad_arflane

    I… know about that. You’ll notice that i specifically agreed that they’re assholes. I only pointed out that they don’t run the charity themselves.

  • caryjamesbond

    Well, my point is that its more complicated than that. They aren’t assholes. They aren’t saints- they’re just people that made a mistake, and reacted badly when screamed at. Which is somewhat short of the evidence I need before I judge someone an asshole or cease to contribute to what is actually a pretty awesome charity.

  • caryjamesbond

    Look- “tone argument” like “intent isn’t fucking magic” is one of those statements that has gone from “useful rule of thumb” to “magical argument panacea.”

    Yes, sometimes people do use your tone as a reason to shut you down without considering your arguments, or as an excuse to ignore you. And that is wrong.

    But my entire point was that the people who screamed and shouted and the people who spoke reasonably used the same arguments about the same problems. But only one of these groups got results.

    Have you never worked retail? Never been screamed at by a customer? Never been treated like shit over a small mistake?

    Now tell me- when you made a small mistake, which customer got the better fix, the one that said “Oh, sorry, you overcharged me five dollars, see? Oh, no worry, its a mistake, just please fix it and I’ll be on my way!” Or the one that screamed for five minutes?

    Because when you treat people like shit, they don’t want to do things for you. They want to do the opposite, even when the opposite is the wrong thing to do. It’s human nature.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You wanna back up the assertion in the first paragraph? And the third while you’re at it. And I’ve worked fast food–that close enough? For the record, both sorts of customers got the same fix, because I knew how to do my fucking job.

  • danallison

    If you think Hollywood lacks “queer representation” you’ve been on fucking Mars for a couple of decades.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Come again?

  • Alix

    Thanks for actually explaining all that. I’ve just learned more about sound volume than I ever managed to figure out on my own – even running across some of those “common sounds” comparison charts doesn’t necessarily make decibels make sense. :/ At least for me.

  • caryjamesbond

    Ok- first paragraph:

    “Tone argument” and “intent isn’t fucking magic” are not laws of nature. And actually, Intent does matter. It matters a LOT. It’s the difference between manslaughter and murder one. If I’m in a crowded train and on a bump my hand hits someones ass, that’s an awkward mistake. If I’m on a crowded train and use a ‘bump’ as an excuse to hit someones ass, that’s sexual assault. If I step on your foot, that’s an accident, if I do it deliberately…you see where this is going. The physical result is the same- its the intent that makes it wrong.

    As for the third paragraph- mike and gabe said that they took a (well selling, if assholish) shirt down because of the people who asked nicely. One of the links there is all about a previous time when someone approached them nicely and they changed their approach.

    For the record, both sorts of customers got thesame fix, because I knew how to do my fucking job.

    Yeah, no duh. In my example above you give back the five bucks because- its’ the right thing to do. It’s their money and your mistake, regardless. But in any of the numerous retail jobs I’ve worked there’s always some sort of lagniappe you give out to the good customers- usually with managerial approval. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen managers give a polite customer a coupon, or a voucher for a free drink or SOMETHING, because- nice.

    Or for really the best example of why tone matters- scammers. Scammers and salespeople. All the best con artists do it with a big smile and a polite, cheerful tone because that’s how you get people to want to do things for you.

    I’ve done door to door sales, and made actual money doing it. And you do it by smiling big, shaking hands, and being happy and cheerful.

    High pressure sales doesn’t work. And cursing about something you want someone else to do for you is nothing more than very high pressure sales.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The difference between manslaughter and murder one is jack shit to the dead person. That is what “intent is not fucking magic” means.

    Wanna count the number of times I gave out free shit, or saw my manager give out free shit? Zero. Unless the free shit was a sandwich somebody walked out without, which happened once or twice, and why throw out the sandwich?

  • If it helps, lower pOH means more basic.

  • You know, there is the little issue of not obeying the laws of holes:

    1. They dug a hole which they did not stop digging. (dickwolves/semi-sarcastic don’t-rape-anymore/kerfluffle at the convention, etc).

    2. They did not put the dirt back in. (Their apologies are, at best, kind of half-assed)

  • I think one issue is that people use the very specific legal usage of intent as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance and generalize it.

    An act itself is unchanged by intent behind it, but what is changed is the downstream train of events. A person with lack of ill intent will more often than not feel bad about it and make amends in some way and not do it again. A person with ill intent will probably put on the trollface and go “PROBLEM?”

    There was someone with a hugely involved discussion of the “intent is/is not magic” argument and I wish I still had it, but alas.

  • I still have no fucking clue what happened to those guys in that instance. Were they drinking funny water that month or something?

  • I don’t really think one can make a funny rape joke, especially not with the way teenage and 20something males in particular abuse the word to mean everything from “I failed the exam” to “I got blasted off the map in Team Fortress 2”.

  • Dude. What the actual fuck?

  • If I could find it again… I remember reading an article that Hollywood
    had developed software that would cook up screenplay parameters based
    on the the movies that grossed the most at the box office. That is to
    say, once the parameters have been determined by this program, the CEOs
    will give it to the director and the writers and say “make a movie with
    these parameters” and, volia, you have your next blockbuster which,
    honestly, looks very similar to the last four.

    You’re kidding me, right?

    Holy god, you should read Isaac Asimov’s Caliban by Roger MacBride Allen. In it, a character excoriates the cultural practice of assigning robots to perform as rote actors in plays and even to the act of writing plays. The idea that the artistic expression and exploration of the gamut of human emotion and thought can be reduced to the consumeristic idea of whipping a Readi-Mix cake is intended, in-verse and to the reader, to be fundamentally repellent.

    Eerie how reality approaches fiction…

  • konrad_arflane

    So you advocate removing the differences between manslaughter and murder one in the legal system?

    Turning to caryjamesbond’s other example, it’s my impression that the difference between an accidental touch and an “accidental” one often matters quite a bit to the person being touched.

  • They didn’t just “react badly when screamed at.”

    1) They got sent a civil letter from a woman who was a rape victim, outlining what bothered her about the strip.
    2) They made fun of her position and said, “hah hah, look at this stupid person,” thereby sending their hordes of fans after her. And let’s not pretend they didn’t know that would happen. These guys are incredibly internet-savvy.
    3) Some of said hordes threatened to rape this woman, and sent her pictures of mutilated women.
    4) People said, uh, guys, your fans are doing this terrible thing. Can you tell them it’s not cool?
    5) They flipped their shit. And didn’t say a peep to try to silence people THREATENING TO RAPE WOMEN AND TALKING ABOUT HOW AWESOME RAPE WAS.
    6) They wrote a comic making fun of people bothered by rape jokes.
    7) Tycho wrote a post pretending rape culture didn’t exist and acting like it was some kind of stupid invention by stupid women, because he had never heard the term before so obviously it must not exist.

    Even if they had been screamed at in the first place, that would have been exactly zero excuse for how they acted. They did not say one word about how you really should not threaten to rape people. Oh, Gabe finally did when someone tweeted something to the effect of, “uh, how would you like this stuff if it were directed against your wife?” Then Gabe pretended that was a threat, and on par with the constant barrage of threats his attack dogs had been sending at rape victims.

    They had people supporting them talking about how awesome rape was. They saw it. And they said NOTHING against it. Instead they pretended rape culture didn’t exist.

    I really really really liked Penny Arcade. Yeah, there were strips I didn’t like, and frankly I never thought too highly of Gabe’s intelligence, but I liked his art and I liked Tycho. But what they did has no excuse whatsoever. These are well-off adult men who decided their pride was more important than the safety of rape victims. That is Not Okay. And we’re not talking about a zoning issue or something. This was over rape.

  • reynard61

    Yeah, “Social Welfare organization” seems to be a pretty flexible term these days too…

  • reynard61

    Here’s an idea for the *ULTIMATE* charity scam name: “The Christian Police/Firefighter Children’s Anti-kitten-burning Wish Foundation”. Won’t you give today?

  • reynard61

    I favor “eleventy” myself…