The Thursday Blog: Uganda Sucks Edition

Ugandans are kinda nutty.

Apparently they don’t dig gay people. They don’t dig ’em a lot. Like many African nations, Uganda has laws on the books criminalizing being gay. The maximum sentence (for, I guess, being caught on daytime TV with the President’s ten year old son’s cock in your ass while he sings “It’s Raining Men”, and you’re dressed as Liza Minnelli) is fourteen years in prison, where you will most likely be raped by homosexuals.

Clearly, that wasn’t punishment enough.

See, the government of Uganda feels the need to protect their culture from the “international gay agenda” which seeks to subvert and “homosexualize” that country. (I assume by painting the government buildings teal and pink and making the MPs wear fruit hats.) And yes, this would be the same culture that allowed warriors to purchase boys as wives when there weren’t enough women around to be bought. So after a rousing and much publicized workshop with much governmental attendance on “how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how ‘the gay movement is an evil institution’ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity”, wherein American evangelicals Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge, and Don Schmierer ranted their special brand of venomous bile, the government of Uganda responded with a brand-new bill, changing the penalty for being gay to death.

If you are gay, they kill you. If you test positive for HIV, they kill you. (The fastest growing segment of HIV positives is always young straight women.) If you are Ugandan and suspected of having the gay sex in another country, they extradite, then kill you. If you are thin and have good fashion sense, they kill you.

The bill never got passed, but only because it never got voted on. Apparently Uganda only exists at the whim of it’s financial supporters, enough of whom threatened to pull the plug that President Yoweri Musevini decided maybe it would be prudent to just table the whole thing. However, howls of protest from gay-hating political action groups… propped up by American evangelical money… continue to threaten to bring the bill back. And make no mistake, if this bill is voted on, it will be passed.

Vote against the kill-a-gay-a-day bill, and they kill you.

Recently, church leaders have been picking up the gay bashing… and electrocuting… and hanging… slack with events like the one depicted below. It seems funny, and in a way it is, but mostly it’s just sad and inhumane and wasteful.

Upside? This makes me proud to be an atheist.

86 Responses to The Thursday Blog: Uganda Sucks Edition

  1. I can’t help but think I am the reason for this blog post. I agree it is sad and inhumane. I do NOT plan on traveling to Uganda ever.

  2. did you know Jesus believed in equal rights between men women the disenfranchised and between social classes? did you know he believed in equal wealth distribution?

    I was gonna say something about how dumb conservatives are for believing in something that has different ideals then there politics but im not sure how to go about that beyond saying

    In the graphic novel Watchmen nuclear physicist Jon Osterman accidentally locks himself inside a disintegration chamber minutes before it’s due to activate. When he begs to be let out, his supervisor Dr. Glass tells him that the automatic door lock can’t be overidden once the countdown has started: “It’s…it’s a safety feature.” The last four words are set in tiny print, indicating that Glass is all too aware of the irony.

    (not saying liberals are better hell sometimes they are even worse. remember when they claimed nuclear power is more environmentally dangerous then oil through implication?)

    • Today Jesus would be considered a class-warfare spouting communist, if anyone bothered to take the time to listen to a homeless man, which they likely would not.

      The jury is still out on whether nuclear is worse than oil, but the prize for most destructive energy seems to belong to petroleum for the foreseeable future. Chernobyl is still glowing, there’s still no good way of dealing with the waste, and the truth is they’re bomb factories… but because of the oil seafood may eventually be off the menu for good.

      • I believe the whole “Jesus was a Commie” thing is a bit of an exaggeration.

        Saying “It’s Hard for a Rich person to be good enough to get into heaven” (The whole “Camel through the Needle’s Eye” thing…which, by the way, was a narrow gate in Jerusalem which it was hard, but not impossible, to move camels through because they barely fit, and NOT a literal “eye of a needle” as most readers seem to think) is a far cry from “The government should take all the rich peoples’ money and give it to the poor”

        “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” = “Pay your taxes, you twit.” – And note that the tax they were talking about was what we today would call a “Poll Tax” where everyone payed the same amount regardless of their wealth or status, no deductions or anything…Hardly the Marxist/Communistic tax method we use today, where things got so bad even in the 60s that the Beatles wrote a “Tax protest” song ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ) because they were paying 95% taxes 😯 on their record earnings because they were making too much money for the “progressive” taxes in Britain.

        • Jesus was also an ascetic, and felt that worldly goods were a barrier to enlightenment and a heavenly destination. In general, I agree. The more a human has, the worse he seems to feel justified in behaving to keep it.

          • Yea! And to help people, because I’m a living saint, I’m willing to take all your possessions so you may get closer to true enlightment. I’m such a deary.

        • Yet, even that poll tax, the rich refused to pay. What says you? That people are always unhappy to pay, whatever their ressources. This includes me, of course: When my taxes come up, I just think I pay too much 😆

          I’m surprised about what you say about the beatles. I don’t know this, so I won’t talk about it.

          But you know why taxes are progressive? Because they tax the superfluous. Let me explain:
          – If you’ve got, say, 500$/month, you’re gonna use it all to survive: food, home
          – If you’ve got 1500$/month, you’ll have some spare, thus some taxes, because the spare isn’t needed to live
          – If you’ve got 4500$/month, yet more spare money, thus more tax
          – 15000$/month? Guess what?

          Despite what you may say about the unsupportable taxation, I’ve yet to see a guy with 4500$/month who has a harder time living than a guy whith 1500$/month. So it must mean they still gain more than what the taxes take them…

    • re: “I was gonna say something about how dumb conservatives are for believing in something that has different ideals then there politics”

      Conservatives believe in Christian church dogma (mainly the fundamentalist Christian churches) which are based on Saul’s interpretations of the teachings of Christ rather than on the teachings themselves.

      • Gary,

        Thank you for telling me what I believe. Imagine my surprise that what I THOUGHT I believed did not match up with what you are telling me I believe.

        Oh, and Saul’s Interpretations? More like “Saul never met him and went counter to his teachings to make a more “popular” cult with him in charge… Wait… You were telling me that I believe in Christian Church Dogma (which church btw, so I can go join the right cult?, please advise, this conservative NEEDS to know!!!

        Ironically, saying “Conservatives believe in Christian church dogma” is the same logical fallacy as saying ‘all homosexuals eat da poo poo” I only know of 2 girls who ate da poo poo, and my goodness, that was gross…

  3. Stephen,

    “did you know Jesus believed in equal rights between men women the disenfranchised and between social classes? did you know he believed in equal wealth distribution?” Sure, I’ll concede that, though you are missing a word in the last sentence to make it true. “Voluntary wealth distribution” . When the rich man refused to give away his wealth, Jesus did not call for the ‘Church’ (yeah, no churches then… ) or for the government to take his wealth by force.

    Having said that, I am the most “conservative” person most of my freinds know. Note I said conservative, not insane. I have no problem with others sexual orientation, as long as it is among consenting adults. Sure, you will find an inordanate amount of homo-phobes rushing to religeons (like pigeons :p) and they will tend to try to join conservative groups, but that does not mean that all religeous groups think like the vocal idiots… or that all conservatives agree.

    Now I don’t think ANY marriage should get special tax breaks or have married people be given unequal (better) treatment than unmarried. But if two dudes, or two chicks want to get married, what do I care? Better for them to be in a documented legal committed relationship, plus if they divorce, any kids (adopt or other methods, obviously) would have a non-custodial parent paying child support.

    So, yeah, some people are idiots… and those idiots find other idiots to lie to. Does not mean all christians or all ‘conservatives’ are representative of that model. I am sure you would not want to be grouped in with some small insane group of eco-terrorists or other moonbat ‘club’ which makes you even shake your head in disbelief.

    So disagree with these jerks, hate em even, if you wish, but please do not try to strawman it into saying this is the conservative postion. That is what the anti-conservatives WANT you to think is our position.

    “nuff said, I hope.

    • I have often felt that the more middle of the road Christians (or even conservatives for that matter) would be very well served to sideline the crazy fringe that purports to speak for them. It very rarely seems to happen.

      • Like Pope Benedict, for example, or Rowan Williams the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who insists that homosexuality is a sin but uses the “mote in your eye” defence, arguing that Christians should not focus on the sins of others. As I said previously, it’s not a “crazy fringe” of christianity, bigotry and hatred are central tenets of faith.

        • Maybe it’s just me then. I really feel that most Christians do not wholeheartedly swallow the “core tenants” of their faith, and if asked pointedly to do so would likely take a walk someplace more comfortable. Put another way, how many Catholics have a baby every time they have sex?

          • I’m not sure that is true but I am certain that being uncomfortable with something is a long way from rejecting it. It’s funny, though, how rife religion is with compromise. In Saudi Arabia during Ramadan a large number of wealthy men take their private jet out for a morning flight or a chauffeured drive to get around the restriction on eating, which are lifted if you have travelled more than a certain distance.

              • If you haven’t already read it, you might find this article in Slate interesting – http://www.slate.com/id/2257211/

                These moral ambiguities are funny on many levels but they have serious consequences. In this case, the US Supreme Court refusing to examine a torture case because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable, opens the door for further abuse and undermines criticism of regimes like Sudan, Syria, Iran, Uzbekistan and others where torture is common place and the rule of law is subject to the whims of a powerful few. In the same way, Catholics have turned a blind eye to the church’s homophobic agenda, complicity in child abuse, tacit and real support for dictators (up to and including conspiring in the murder of Cardinal Romero) and the more complicated support for chauvinism in Latin America, the Philippines and elsewhere. Catholics will insist that church does good, which is true in places, but not really relevant. Pretending that the bad outweighs the good or simply turning a blind eye because it is convenient is the worst kind of cowardice.

                Sigh. Sorry, I’m being preachy. Time to take a chill pill and go walk in the hills.

                • My government deserves a lot of the credit in that: When the American alphabet-soup-acronym crowd leaned on CSIS and the mounties for some terrerizzt suspects to beat on they bravely acted like a bunch of closet brownshirts and drummed up a pile of people for them without doing the due diligence on making sure they were actually suspicious characters. The Canadian federal government has been trying to hush the issue by dragging it out for years so that it’s the next guy who gets the popularity hit for the scandal and they’ve been entirely too helpful in doing nothing they should on behalf of a Canadian citizen whose rights have been violently trampled by a foreign government during a ludicrous witch-hunt.
                  He’s gotten all he’s going to get until there’s regime change to someone willing to fight with the Americans on this for publicity points or the American judiciary stops being such a bunch of craven apologists. I wish I was surprised but the Harper Conservative regime is elected on an exported version of the GWB election and propaganda plan helpfully prepared by a wide variety of American interests. They aren’t going to have any real conflict with America because they’re being operated like a hand-puppet and their hold on power is so tenuous that they can’t afford to anger the elephant anyway. The embarrassing things they’ve done pushing the antiabortion agenda and attempting to sabotage worldwide environmental efforts are really only popular with a rump grouping of insane rednecks and their sponsoring interests (predominantly oil companies).

      • and how would we sideline the crazy fringe? Shoot them? Lock them up?

        and Why are conservatives and Christians held responsible for these moonbats but democrats and liberals rightly get to disassociate themselves from the far left loons? I do not see the GLBT crowd “sidelining” the people who believe in their right to rape children any more than I DO TRY to explain that homophobes do not represent the conservative movement, at least how I see it. But I am painted with the same brush as these loons.

        Why?? Oh yeah, because Strawman is easier than honest debate (except on this site, which strangely seems fairly fair).

        Oh, and at least in the USA, the loons on all sides have the right to speak. As my Grandpa used to say, ‘that is how you know who the idiots are, let them talk’.

        But please, do not think a small group of loons define the 40% of the people, and I will try to remember when I hear some liberal moonbattery, that they do not represent another 40% of the people.

        • The problem is the crazy fringe has too much CHA, not enough INT and took WIS as a dump stat. Everyone hears them because they are good at getting their message across and they persuade others to take up the call, (even if it’s a crazy/stupid call.)

          I don’t think all conservatives are wack-jobs. I do think there are less conservatives willing to speak up, so we only hear the insane and/or misinformed ones. Other groups have more representatives willing to speak so the crazies are balanced out a bit.

          • I think they also took all feats related to Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate.

            Come to think of it, are they all sorcerers and warlocks? And aren’t those classes usually identified with evil, satanic powers?

          • we DO speak up, but if this webcomic comment section was run like the media, all my comments would be either deleted or edited and changed to support the “editor’s” opinion…

            Do you really think you understand what the other side thinks? I have been to liberal meetings, Democratic functions, I used to be the Chief Steward for a public employee union for a whole city, etc. I have gone out of my way to listen to the arguments and reasoning of the side I disagree with. Of course I also can just turn on network news and hear the lies… For a while I would research the news stories and find the BS behind it…

            Trust me, you are being lied to. We speak up. No one listens, and until “tea parties” (which is a wide range of frustrated folks, from many viewpoints, which is why it is not a “party”, they can not agree on much), even the Republicans would not listen to the majority of republicans. My bet is they will go back to seeking power for power sake, just like the Democrats, as soon as they can… That is NOT conservatism though.

        • My guess, bamko, is that the conservative fringe considers themselves (in the broadest general terms) as a political movement, and actually claims to be speaking for conservatives at large. They get reported on, people not of the conservative philosophy hear them claiming to pontificating in the name of all conservatism, and not knowing any better, they believe it.

          The liberal fringe seems to be predominantly single issue groups that are concerned almost entirely with their specific cause, rather than forwarding an overarching political agenda. They get reported on, and it’s a gaggle of pasty-faced hummous-eaters saying, “Um… save the trees.”

          As far as not getting tarred by the tea-bagging brush, I’d say what you’re doing is exactly what you should do. Stand up often and prominently and say, “Hey, this lunatic ain’t what conservatism is all about!”

          • I agree with Kevin on this, but more significantly, the US is essentially a 2-Party representative democracy; unfortunately, the “conservative” party has allowed its lunatic fringe to take over its operations. This also happened in the 1850s, at that time there were (liberal) issues that both parties were ignoring which served as the focus for the formation of a new, conservatively oriented party.

            • Kevin says “the conservative fringe considers themselves (in the broadest general terms) as a political movement, and actually claims to be speaking for conservatives at large. They get reported on, people not of the conservative philosophy hear them claiming to pontificating in the name of all conservatism, and not knowing any better, they believe it.”

              Ok… good so far, then gary says “I agree with Kevin… the “conservative” party has allowed its lunatic fringe to take over its operations.”

              Um.. Thank you gary for proving my previous points and ironically, the very point Kevin said which you SAID you agree with.

              Trust me, just because people hear over and over that all conservatives and evil insane homophobes does not make it true, it just is the big lie that the liberal establishment want you to believe.

              http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx Conservatives outnumber liberals almost 2 to 1

              Do you Really think they are all lunatic fringe? Or can you admit that maybe Kevin is right… (read what you claimed to agree with above again… no point double quoting. )

              I think Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who are secret liberals, are more of presence in the Republican Party than these lunatic fringe. But that runs counter to what the media and the Democrats want you to believe… so you end up thinking that at least 40% of all Americans are evil/insane homophobes?

              I can lead a horse to water, but I can not make you think….

    • my bad on using strawman, however Id like to point out I tend to strawman on both sides if that makes you feel better

  4. Sadly it is not just Uganda and this is not just down to a handful of nutjob evangelicals. The views of Scott Lively and Don Schmierer are not, as some christians would claim, merely the rantings of an extreme fringe of the religion.

    Pope Benedict said, “The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality.” He also said that homosexuality “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.

    Nice. The Vatican then has the cheek to say it does not advocate violence against homosexuals. They’re just a threat to our way of life, a disorder, a moral evil but there’s no call for aggression chaps…

    Nigerian Anglican Bishop Isaac Orama was a little more pointed, “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man.”

    Kenya, Malawi, Zimbabwe and others all have harsh laws against homosexuality. In the latter case, the former president Canaan Banana escaped to South Africa after he was charged with sodomy and homosexual rape. Banana and friends allegedly drugged and raped an army officer who woke to found himself surrounded by leering men including the president who said, “We helped our selves”. Banana was a seminarian and United Methodist minister before entering politics and fully supported the criminalisation of homosexuality. In Zimbabwe, men accused of homosexuality have almost routinely been raped by the arresting officers.

    Sorry, my thoughts are all over the place, but my central point is that homophobic aggression is present throughout Africa and a central tenet of christianity. One has to give credit to the South African bishops who have called for sexual tolerance but they are a rare exception on the continent and within their faith.

    Oh, and Stephen, please read up on the nuclear storage facility at Andreeva Bay. We’re very aware of the risks of fossil fuel today because of the BP crisis but that puppy in the Arctic circle has been threatening to blow since 1989 and very little has been done to fix the situation. It seems that all forms of energy production are risky, particularly when bureaucracies shun their responsibilities.

    • I forgot to mention the “corrective rape” applied to gays and lesbians in those nations. (I mostly picked Uganda because of the bill and the fact that I had that video, but of course you are right, this is an issue that is spread all across Africa.)

      • It’s not just Africa. Remember that homosexuality was only decriminalised in the US in 2003, though admittedly the maximum penalty in Texas for homosexual sodomy at the time was a $500 fine rather than the death penalty. Iran has executed at least 4,000 homosexuals since the 1979 revolution and continues to do so at an alarming rate using incredibly gruesome and inventive methods, like tossing people into rivers “from a great height”. The Saudi government reserves the right to execute homosexuals but recently has restrained itself and merely tortured, beaten and imprisoned people. Pakistan also still has the death penalty but there gays and lesbians are more likely to face honour killings, often by members of their own family. Even in relatively liberal Britain, idiots like God’s Soldiers – fundamentalist christian thugs – still beat up gay men though they are finding it harder to exist. All in all, 92 countries of which 35 are in Africa still criminalise male homosexuality and only nine have removed all legal discrimination (e.g. same sex marriages, gays in the military, limits on adoption, etc).

        Stupidity, it seems, is universal. It’s all very depressing.

          • One of the things that somewhat bothers me about your rants, Kevin, is that it’s just about only directed at Christians. Yea, I know, it’s probably a case of “closer to home”, but the fact is that Christianity has pretty much been defanged in the western world, and most of the crusader zeal has gone away and been burried under the weight of secular governments.

            Islam OTOH, still hasn’t broken away from its jihadistic tendencies, and currently seems to be getting worse. The fact most muslim countries are monarchies and thinly-veiled tyranical “democracies” doesn’t help the situation.

            I know there are several reasons to this and it’s probably not that Islam is inherently more evil than Christianity(Maybe it is…but then again, blacker than black is still black), but it just doesn’t get the same attention here.

            • That’s a fair point. I’d imagine it’s because from where I sit, most folks are already looking at Islam as “the bad guys,” and it really doesn’t seem necessary to push the point. (If you’re going to defy authority, you don’t pick on the town drunk… you flatten the sheriff’s tires.) However, Christianity is looked at as the infallible water ballon of goddy-goodness and I am all too happy to say it just ain’t so. It’s the biggest windmill I have to tilt at, and my laundry pin is at the ready.

            • There’s no question that there’s a very huge difference between (for example) trying to gradually re-criminalize abortion and going around caning girls with really high burqas who dare to show their ankles. The problem is that in both cases it’s someone picking on other people for doing something else they don’t like but have no personal business interfering in. It’s legislated morality to suit the oppressor.
              Americans ought to have no patience with that shit because of the lesson of the divine right of kings. It’s still an existing religious doctrine and it insists that it’s sinful and immoral to revolt against the king since they have a divine mandate to rule on Earth. It’s hard not to understand this as part of a general phenomenon: Anyone who tries to impose their own moral code on others is by definition is not acting in their best interests. I would go so far as to say that the imposition of a moral code against another person is only legitimate where it’s necessary to prevent assault and damage (I.E. arrest that guy about to beat on the chick in the short burqa).
              In that view many American Christians rank in the world’s worst propagandic manipulators and they’re involved in many dastardly deeds right now.

              Kevin’s focus on American profiteers and propagandists is easily explained by the fact that he’s living in America: How many fatwas from a grand Ayatollah can he read in the original Arabic? Has he ever personally met an Imam, let alone an Ayatollah? I’d wager that he can’t read Arabic and is not particularly likely to have ever made extensive readings in Islam.
              He knows about American crooks and shysters so he talks about American crooks and shysters. Reading anything more into it than that is paranoid.

              • I don’t think I merrit being called a paranoid for my above comment, it’s obvious you and everyone else are just out to get me! 😮

                Seriously now, I did say it’s probably because that’s what Kevin knows best and is closest to his heart and home.
                I’m giving Islam a bad time because it’s “close to home”, I’ll admit, and would bash Jews as well if it wasn’t for the fact that they’re really not that much of a force compared to the others(they’re mostly a bunch of pussies compared to them, I’m guessing it’s because they don’t get to actually control that much governmental power).

                I come from an orthodox Jewish family, been to orthodox religious schools for 11 years(got kicked out for “atheism” just prior to 12th grade…this would make for a long, angry rant, BTW) and my father’s branch of the familty is all hasidic ultra-orthodox, so believe me, I do know what religious pressure and hypocracy is. But like I said, they’re just not “major players” like the other two monotheistic offshoots.

                • No hard feelings, I’m glad to have someone to discuss against willing to take the difficult to defend side. Danger, danger on talking about international Jewish conspiracies though–perilous thing to talk about. That caution aside, don’t count it completely out; Israel has been beating Obama’s administration like a redheaded stepchild.

  5. It is good to live in the USA/Canada/EU

    It is amazing how some groups of people desparately plea for equality, tolerance, and acceptance when an entirely different group simply puts to death those that think of advocating such things. One point I got from reading the Bible is that God is not a Pacifist.

    Could you imagine if we invented a bomb with the power of a nuke but without all the side affects and fallout? Think of all the people we could prevent. Too bad it would never work, evil/hatred is like bacteria, can never truly rid yourself of it.

    • I imagine Chris, that if we could build a “neutron bomb” like that, with zero fallout or effects beyond the initial blast, we would all already be dead.

      • There is an X files episode where Moulder comes across a Genie and has 3 wishes. His first wish is immediately “Peace on Earth” and just as fast all human life, save him and the Genie, vanish. It is not to say that this idea is revolutionary but to see it portrayed in a visual sense still brings a certain shock value.

    • Similarly, I’ve learned two things about God from the Bible:
      1. Like you said, he’s not much of a pacifist.
      2. You don’t want to piss him off, ‘cuase…
      3. If he doesn’t gruesomely massacares you, your family, your friends, all of the aforementioned’s pets, livestock, property and anyone who ever talked/looked at any of them, then surely one of his nujobs will.

      Wait, that’s 3 things. Let’s come in again and start over…

    • Don’t kid yourself, a conventional blast of similar size has some pretty darned awful polluting effects. Look up Gulf War Syndrome and the effects of the modern generation uranium fuel-air bombs.
      Massive-scale war spends huge amounts of resources and manpower on wrecking things–turning them into scrap and pollution in the aftermath.
      War is good for making very few people rich at the cost of massive damage and loss for everyone else involved. There are precious few modern exceptions to that statement and I doubt very many people reading this page can point to any wars in the last century for which it wasn’t so.

  6. I’m scared of most anyone who is convinced that they are on a mission from ‘God,’ unless it involves four fried chickens, dry white toast, and a Coke.

  7. Okay, i’m officialy pissed off right now.
    Personally, i adhere to the “safe, sane and consensual”-line and as long as those 3 words are all in play and the participants are adults, whatever they do should be no ones business but their own. 😡

    • The problem with that reasoning is the “sane” bit. Many religious wackos will claim that homosexuality is a mental disease and anyone who leans that way is crazy and “needs help.”

      I’m all for the “safe, consensual” line, (and consensual would include being able to make legal decisions.)

  8. So, they are fighting this plague of homosexuality by showing gay scat porn to churchgoers? Hmmmm.
    Also, did anyone else see the irony in using an American icon of liberalism and individuality (a Macbook Pro) to promote their hate and intolerance? I agree Kevin – it would be almost funny if it weren’t actually happening.

      • As an IT critter I’d say one of those being used as tool for propaganda and oppression sends the right message about them actually.

        Hear me out: The components in them are rigidly defined and sourced by the secretive cabal in the Apple development chain and they run the exact same expensive replacement parts scam as all the big automakers do in North America. Their policies with the iPad and iPhone on forcing advertising, the paranoid anti-user-modification schemes and abandonment of flash–to prevent compatibility with one of the largest functional standards of web multimedia–all limit freedom. Their price point in the market is the highest they think they can get away with leading to a serious case of misplaced elitism in consumerism amongst their customers (I.E. I am cool because I bought an Apple product, woo, aren’t I so cool).
        I’m not going to pretend that they’re an especially noteworthy villain amongst corporations–there are enough that are worse or bigger–but anyone who thinks of an Apple product as having a connection to freedom and individuality needs to be smacked, repeatedly, until that malformed notion finally lets go of their brain.

        • I’d have to agree with Mr. anonymous coward here. Apple isn’t about individualism at all, it’s about being “better” or “cool” (ie more like Steve Jobs wants you to be.) But the evils of big corporations and how they brainwash people are a topic for a different blog post.

        • I wholeheartedly agree and couldn’t have(and appearantly didn’t) said it better. This is exactly what I wanted to express a few days back when I talked about the iPhone etc. frenzy.

        • I don’t know about replacement part scams… but I guess that sort of thing wouldn’t necessarily surprise me.

          Positioning your price point for maximum profit doesn’t seem all that unusual, or evil. I know I charge just as much for illustration work as I think I can get.

          The abandonment of Flash was entirely about abandoning an inefficient technology in favor of a superior one, thereby pressuring the new tech to become the standard. This I applaud.

          All companies market their products in ways they think will entice the most people to buy them. Apple’s “crime” is their success. However, I buy Apple because they give me consistently less trouble than other brands and I know how they work, enabling me to do more with them. If Apple is just as naughty as every other company out there then how well the product works is the only viable yardstick. My experience has always been that Apple will meet my needs better, and with less frustration than other brands.

          • Yep, they might be evil, but so is everyone else. Personally I think them abandoning flash is a good thing for the overall market because it means people will start phasing it out and html5 in. But it was very much a “you will do as you’re told” move, not promoting individualism and freedom.

          • I’m old enough and have been watching Apple’s development history for long enough to not trust anything they declare. I have seen enough trust-destroying things in the history of Apple marketing like them sticking with 1-button mice for an insane number of years as part of a stupid obsession which began with a pissing fight over IBM releasing a two-button mouse before Apple did, or the whole PowerPC RISC chip propaganda special saying that Macs had to be faster computers because they didn’t use Intel chips, which was later abandoned with blinding doublethink speed when Apple did start using Intel chips in their motherboards, and so on, and so on. Apple loves excusing their faults by claiming they’re features and have gotten away with it through cheap marketing gimmicks, unusually end-consumer-centric product design and, to be fair, top-of-market UI.

            In light of the fact that Apple lies easily and often about what it’s doing and why it’s doing it we should return to the question posed. I will invert it: Why should anybody care if flash is an old and inefficient technology if it works and does what it’s supposed to? It’s what Youtube runs on as well as a zillion other things people think of as standard for reasons to have internet access. There are three reasons why Apple decided to piss on flash:
            #1, because it is somewhat power inefficient compared to the method of enabling video they talk about in that part of the propaganda–something which is important if you want to have a half-reasonable claim to better battery life;
            #2, because flash programming has a tendency for the more involved stuff to use mouse-over as a significant UI event, making it a poor fit for the marketing of a device that’s being sold on having no need to use a mouse or keyboard (a lesson they learned about from the iMac which was orignally sold on how you weren’t supposed to need a floppy to use it but had vast early user demand for external floppy drives), and most importantly;
            #3, the real reason, to limit what can be done by people with an iPad to prevent the use of existing free applications, games, or user-created programming and chain the user to what they can get from the app store–which is double-checked on a regular basis to make sure it won’t let people break out of their little computing Bantustan without jailbreaking the hardware first. They’re locking out free software and Google.

            • The reason flash is a technology that should be killed off is it’s an add-on that installs bloatware on your computer, slowing everything down, even when you aren’t on the net, (see how many adobe products you have installed right now, if you got flash you probably got other bundled crap and an updater too.)

              Not only does it slow down your computer, since it’s an add-on not everyone has it. After working on a computer helpdesk I can tell you any time you are supporting a product that needs any add-ons installed, (no matter how common they are) you get a TON of support calls on it.

              I agree with you that most of what apple says is lies and this seems to be their standard policy: http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/howapplesells.jpg but not supporting flash in particular I actually agree with.

        • Thanks to Anonymous Coward for pointing that out.

          I see it every day around me: People spending money they don’t have to buy Iphones they don’t know how to use, not because they need them, not because they’ve considered the concurrence and think Iphones are better (Which may, or may not, be true), but because Iphones are cool and they’ll be able to show them around.

          It’s also funny to see how microsoft was the Great Satan for imposing they products to their consumers, while Apple, being actually worse in that respect, is just seen as a symbol of liberty and cool.

          Now, if I may make a parallel with people converting to something they call Buddhism? 😆

          • Whoa, whoa, Microsoft was a worse marketing thug than Apple and likely still is.
            They originally stole, extorted or bought out most of the software they’ve sold over the years, including when they basically arm-twisted Apple and did a half-ass job of trying to copy the Apple OS to make Windows. What’s worse is that they used a wide array of thuggish marketing and distribution tactics to kill all their commercial competition for the PC operating system market and used embrace and extend to smother follow-on sectors like the murder of Netscape by developing Internet Explorer, including it in their releases of Windows and pretending that it was just a part of the operating system that they couldn’t separate out.
            Don’t get me started on the various dirty tricks they’ve used against open source software over the years, really, that stuff could fill giraffe-high stacks of D-ring binders.

            • I think what bothers me the most abput Apple is their hypocrisy and arrogance. Evil corporate affairs I can understand, everyone does it, but don’t say your shit smells of roses.

        • (sigh) I was afraid mentioning a Mac would bring out the wrong response, and indeed it did. Forget the whole Apple vs. MicroSoft and Evil Corporation for a bit. I said nothing about the company – I specifically pointed to the product. The only thing “funnier” would be if he was showing the pics on an iPod.

          Like it or not, laptops with the big glowy apple (lower case – as in the fruit, not the company) logo on them are a sign of being “hip” or “cool” or “artsy-fartsy” or whatever you want to call it. It’s an icon (rightly or wrongly) of being and free and liberal. Thus my mention of it.

  9. I would like to point out that large religious, LGBT rights, political, global, and conservative v. liberal debates have sprouted on a blog whose main focus is A WEB COMIC ABOUT D&D. I’m not saying stop or your an idiot for doing so. It is a good healthy compition of sorts. I just find it amusing. Am I right?

  10. Kevin,
    Sorry for all the late posts, but for some reason I kept getting a “no such site” message for you tesrerday.

  11. LOLZORZ “Now that I’ve explained about poopoo eating and fisting, I’d like the children to please step out so I can talk about poopoo eating some more and show a video about it.” Just out of curiosity, he’s not saying there’s anything wrong with hetero couples doing that, right? Cause I’m pretty sure I can see someone’s hand going up his ass right now and making his mouth talk.