This Was a Bad Idea

Bad Idea! Bad, bad bad idea.

Saturday Morning Cartoons

From 1963, it's Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian in Mad as a Mars Hare.

Coco Spends NBC's D'oh

Gunsight Jesus

US firm to remove Biblical references on gunsights

A US military contractor has said it will stop engraving Biblical references on rifles used by the US army.

The markings, in the form of coded references to obscure writings of the New Testament, have been appearing on products made by the US firm Trijicon, based in Michigan, for decades.

But on Thursday, US military chief Gen David Petraeus, said the practice of scripture references was "disturbing" and "a serious concern".

The inscriptions - which include "2COR4:6" and "JN8:12", relating to verses in the books of II Corinthians and John - appear in raised lettering at the end of the stock number.

The company pledged to remove the inscription reference on all products destined for the US military yet to be shipped and ensure all future procurements from the department of defense are produced without scripture references. It also said it would provide 100 modification kits to forces in the field to remove the references. This observer guesses this will be tiny strips of duct tape. Maybe a Sharpie.

"Trijicon has proudly served the US military for more than two decades, and our decision to offer to voluntarily remove these references is both prudent and appropriate," the firm, founded by a devout Christian, said in a statement released. By the way, being a devout Christian as a business owner is fine. It's when you make the business a Christian concern is when the hair goes up on people's arms. Putting crosses and fish on your business cards, while attracting one type of customer - alienates the rest of the population - and usually your cash register. Interstate Batteries is one that comes to mind. But a weapon's manufacturer? That's a whole new level of hypocrisy. You better believe Trijicon is BLASPHEMES HYPOCRITE OF THE WEEK.

The references - first reported on by ABC News - had raised concerns that they broke a US rules barring troops proselytizing in the predominantly Muslim countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are widely used by both the US and British military.

Gen Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, said: "Cultural and religious sensitivities are important considerations in the conduct of military operations."

In a letter sent to the US president on Thursday, the head of the Interfaith Alliance said the gun sights "clearly violated" the rule.

"Images of American soldiers as Christian crusaders come to mind when they are carrying weaponry bearing such verses," Welton Gaddy said. No way! That's insane- oh, yeah. It probably does, now that they mention it.

Earlier in the week, the Church of England told the UK's Guardian newspaper: "People of all faiths and none are being killed and injured in these ­conflicts, on all sides, and any suggestion that this is being done in the name of the Bible would be deeply worrying to many ­Christians." Mildly hypocritical as well. Well, good enough to be the hypocrite of the week anyway.

PS - What would Jesus do? Jesus doesn't need a scope, fool.

Daisy

Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Spending Limits

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

The court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns and threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Read More@ NYT

Here's just a little bit of background for people who are actually interested.

In the 1980s Michigan made a law saying that corporations could not use money from their treasury in order to make campaign contributions. This was upheld by the court as legal, and over the next 20 years there have been a series of challenges to the law. Free speech... blablah.

The court has said over those 20 years that if a corporation is intended to be political (like a group incorporated for the sole purpose of advocating pro-life positions), then they get an exception to the ban. Other cases have carved our loopholes for advertisements too far in advance of an election. Another one is that if a corporation only takes money from individuals and not other corporations, then they can also say what they want (so for example Exxon can't merely create a subsidiary corporation intended to be political and then put money in it).

Citizens United was a case where a corporation made a anti-Hillary movie, and 1% of the money in its funds was corporate donations. The court had a choice here: either strike down the entire rule against corporate donations set in Austin, or carve out a loophole for de minimus donations (or some other loophole). They chose the former.