Counterpoint: Bode Miller

So Bode Miller's catching a lot of flak these days because he

1. drank and partied his way through the Olympics
2. failed to medal
3. didn't live up to the hype

Bode's critics believe that he should have gotten a good night's rest and curtailed his partying ways during the Games and that his failure to do so is the reason that he underperformed and let us down. They use alot more words, but the criticism can generally be summarized by my Vapid cousin's latest post.

Well, I don't think much of Bode, but I'm in his corner on this one, and so is anyone who actually skis for fun. I think he did the right thing, and here's why:

Bode has never been a skier in the mold of the ultra-disciplined Germanic variety. (See my post about nutty Germans.) Instead, he's a New England ski bum. Even a casual skier has seen scads of them on any given winter on the slopes. They're usually drunk or hungover, they often have a cigarette dangling precariously from their lips, and they tear down the slope recklessly, at breakneck speeds, and in a wild, barely controlled fashion. Obnoxious? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. But having tried it once (in a less competent fashion), I can attest to the fact that it's really fun.

But I digress. How is Bode Miller different from these ski bums? Yes, he's an Olympian and a World Cup champion. But really -- he's just like any of those idiots, except he's stronger and perhaps more reckless and therefore had more success. His form and his personality -- both on and off the mountain -- are just as wild and undisciplined. I would argue that to change the formula that brought him to his present level of success -- any of it -- would be stupid and foolhardy.

Plus, all that hype about Bode? Really a recent media invention. In-the-know ski enthusiasts have always known that Bode was never a reliable skier. The same wild style that sometimes lets him get down the mountain at incredibly fast speeds also means that Bode is every bit as likely to wipe out spectacularly or ski off course. Bode is popular at ski races because he's entertaining -- not because he dominates. And he also didn't win World Cup because he reliably won races (or even finished them) but because he accumulated a lot of points because he races so often.

But in the end, here's why Bode had it right: at the very elite levels of skiing, the difference between first place and fourth place is often a matter of hundreths of seconds. A stray snowdrift or ice patch can add a whole second to your time. Which means luck is going to play as much of a role in the medal rounds as an extra few hours of sleep. Bode put it best: Daron Rahlves did the "right thing" and stayed in -- and he, too, failed the medal despite all expectations. But Bode got to meet all those people and had all that fun.

If I had to walk away from the Olympics without a medal, I'd at least want some good partying memories and some new friends as compensation.

Either the Germans Are Insane, or Rolex is a Major Ripoff

If you hadn't already guessed, this post is about watches, so if you're not interested, then just surf somewhere else.

So since the last time I blogged about my wristwatch obsession, my opinions have changed a little bit. I no longer have a wishlist of watches, because I realized that what I currently wear now is actually as good as most of the mid-priced watches that were once on my list. But more on that later.

The point is, even though I have no intention of blowing a whole bunch of money on a watch collection, I still keep an eye out on what's out there, browsing the forums and all that. Watches are cool. But with the exception of my "holy grail" watch, nothing ever strikes me as being so cool as to make me want to trade in my beloved Seiko Black Monster for it.

Still, occasionally, something comes up that blows my mind. The UTS Professional Divers' watch for instance. This is a watch made by a German engineer who became a watch enthusiast.

The thing about the Germans is that once they get into any hobby, they really really get into it. For instance, take birdwatching. In the United States, being a birdwatcher means that you might take a trip into a local forest where you know a certain type of beautiful bird is likely to be seen on the weekends. You'll set up a little base camp, pull out your binoculars, and try to spot as many cool species of birds as you can. But a German birdwatcher will often target a single bird -- not a species, mind you, but a single bird. He'll catch it, put a radio tag on its leg, and set it free. And then he'll spend the entire next year following it. Not just on the weekends. No, he'll suspend his life -- work, family, non bird-watching friends -- and follow Tweetie around.

Or take the martial arts. In most parts of the world, getting into the martial arts on a casual basis means that you find a school you like -- usually located in a cheap storefront or in a slightly rehabbed warehouse or some guy's garage. You go into class to train two to four times a week for a couple hours each time, and maybe you practice at home if you have a spare moment. (Unless you decide to go professional and become a full-time teacher or competitor, anyway.) But German practitioners of wing chun built a castle. And they will often spend months on end living there and training day in and day out. Not because they're going to be professional teachers or fighters or anything. But just because.

That German tendency to take their hobbies to the level of goddamn insanity is what has brought Herr Spinner to create the UTS-Munchen company, and in particular, the UTS Professional Diver.

A good-quality automatic divers watch generally combines a solid, dependable automatic watch movement (the gears and powering mechanism that actually make the hands keep time) with a uni-directional bezel for keeping track of elapsed time/air supply; and features meant to make the watch able to stand the huge external pressure it will be exposed to on a scuba dive (hardened scratch-resistant crystal; thick, solid steel case; screw-down crown). Most watches are considered good recreational divers watches if they are rated for depths of 200 meters (660 feet). This is well beyond the depth of any recreational dive (generally 100-200 feet), so the extra is for safety.

If you are a professional diver, in that you expect to go deeper to work on -- for instance -- underwater oil rigs, you might wear a watch rated up to 1000 meters. It's not that you'll go that deep. But you'll probably go below 600 feet, so you want your watch to be rated far more highly.

The UTS Professional Diver goes to 3,000 meters. That's nearly 10,000 feet -- close to two miles below the ocean's surface. I know of submarines that don't go that far down! What the fuck! In order to withstand such pressures, the case on this watch is made of such thickened steel that it's grown to a monstrous 16 milimeters thick -- over 0.62 inches, and with the solid steel-link bracelet, weighs almost half a pound. Doesn't seem that heavy until you remember that this is like having the weight of two Quarter Pounders strapped to your wrist. It's absolutely absurd, and yet it's just another example of German enthusiasm run totally amok.

I won't bore you with the rest of the watch's specs, which are all just about as insane as the case specifications. But the price for this monstrosity, this pinnacle of horological ruggedness and functionality -- and this brings me to the second point of this post, is $3,400.

A Rolex Submariner is $6,0o0. You know what the Submariner looks like -- even if you're not into watches. It's what you think of when you think of a dive watch. So you have to ask: is the Submariner nearly twice as good as the UTS?

The UTS has a movement that keeps time just as precisely; it's just as readable in the dark. However, the bezel is safer and more functional for divers, and its far more rugged. Oh yeah -- it goes 10 times as deep. Now I'm not saying you need all that. But if you can get all that for almost half of what you'd pay for a Rolex, why wouldn't you?

For that matter, let's take my watch, the Black Monster. The Monster is NOT as good a watch as a Rolex. It's only rated to 200 meters, as opposed to Rolex's 300 meters. The crystal is not the coveted, highly scratch resistant synthetic sapphire, but instead it's a patented mineral crystal formulation that comes pretty close. (For about $65, there are guys who can replace the stock crystal with a sapphire crystal just like the Rolex's). BUT. The Monster's bracelet is often rated as better -- more solid, more comfortable, more dependable. Its luminosity in low light conditions is universally acknowledged as brighter than Rolex's. Its diving bezel is about as good. And while it doesn't keep time quite as accurately as Rolex, it can be made to do so with just $50 and a week or two at a good watchmaker. And the best part? The Black Monster costs about 3 percent of what the stainless steel Rolex Submariner would cost. So nevermind whether or not the Rolex Submariner is a better buy than the UTS diver. It's not nearly as good a buy as the Seiko Black Monster, which costs 97 percent less but is at least 85 percent as good of a watch.

And if I chose to send my beloved Monster for a few custom mods, it would cost me about $120. Total cost for the revved up Black Monster: $300. That's five percent of what the Rolex costs. Yet mine would be as good or better in every way but one.

The only thing Rolex has going for it is an artificially inflated image. Let's face it: Rolex is the Britney Spears of watches. It's kinda nice looking, but once you look more closely, you realize that it's all hype and PR.

So are the Germans insane, or is Rolex a major ripoff?

Yes. And that's the last I'll ever have to say on wrist watches. Possibly.

Contractual Obligations

What do radical Islamists, advocates for illegal aliens, civil libertarians suing on behalf of "enemy combatants," and the Christian right have in common? The desire to expand the boundaries of a social contract.

The furor over editorial cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad has been described as a conflict between religious beliefs and the Western concept of freedom of the press. But both Islamic fundamentalists have made points that suggest that this is not really what it's about. Muslims feel that the freedom-of-the-press rationale is a thinly disguised cover for bias against Islam, pointing out that a cartoon that made a joke out about the Holocaust or featured anti-Semitic sentiments would never have made it onto the pages of any mainstream Western news publication. And they're right. But in their demand for an apology from Western governments -- entities that had nothing to do with the publication of the cartoons in question, they also demonstrate that they don't understand the difference between respect for a religion and a demand for obedience. As the German newspaper Die Welt put it (roughly), although we might respect Islam as a religion, but why do we, who aren't Muslim, have to obey its dictates and rules?

Why indeed. In fact, the conflict isn't about freedom of the press at all, and neither is it about respect for another religion's beliefs. It's a debate as to the boundaries of the social contract that guides all Western governments. I'm grossly oversimplifying here, but in an age of near-absolute monarchic power, where kings claimed their right to rule came from heaven or the Church -- some divine power, social contract theorists proposed that any government's right to rule came as a result of an unwritten social contract.

To wit: in a country or a group, there is an agreement that the masses will fulfill their duties and obey the laws as set down by the government -- even when it might be against their individual interests. In return for this submission, a government agrees to provide certain benefits -- defense against a common enemy, public welfare, protection from crime, etc. It is understood that if either side fails to fulfill his, her, or their obligations under this social contract, there will be consequences. A person who breaks the law in the United States, for example, can expect to go on trial and be fined, imprisoned, or, in extreme cases, executed. If some aspect of the U.S. government fails in its duty, however, it can expect to be changed: an elected official might be voted out of office, impeached, and face the consequences of a trial, while an inefficient agency might be dismantled.

(Each religion can be thought of as a group with a social contract. The clergy, in the name of some relevant divinity, sets down rules for the masses: Obey the dictates of your faith, and you will receive divine protection, worldly success in this life, and/or glory and rewards in the afterlife. The clergy, in return, get the satisfaction of being obeyed and material support (food, shelter, money, more money, etc.) Personally, I think the masses in any religion are getting the shit end of the deal in this type of contract, but that's a topic for another time.)

The general understanding regarding any contract -- social or otherwise -- is that the terms of the contract are only binding on the participants of that contract. When you buy something from the local Walgreens, you enter into a basic contract: if you give Walgreens $1.53, Walgreens will give you this stick of Chapstick or whatever. Only a looney would then demand that the grocery store next door chip in and give you a pack of gum, or give you back your money if the Chapstick is defective. And similarly, only a looney merchant would march over and demand that you also pay him for that Chapstick, right? Because the contract in question concerns only you and Walgreen's.

In terms of a social contract, it would seem clear that there are social contracts between religions clerics and their followers -- and no one else. There are social contracts between governments and their citizens -- and no one else.

But what radical Islamists, the Chrisitian evangelical right, illegal-alien rights activists, and advocates for "enemy combatants" all demand is that a third party take part in only one aspect of their respective social contracts. Reap the rewards without paying the price, or pay the price without the corresponding reward? Is it so difficult for these people to understand the concept of a contract?

Let's start with the most topical example: infuriated Muslims are demanding that everyone, Muslim or not, submit to their holy prohibition against the depiction of Muhammad -- whether in a satirical fashion or not. But why should anyone who is not Islamic be obligated to follow the laws of Islam? Remember that I'm not arguing about whether or not the cartoons were offensive -- but whether I, a non-Muslim, have any obligation to obey the dictates of Islam. Sure, it's offensive of me to suggest that the reason why Muslims don't eat pork is because Muhammad loved to fuck and molest pigs and didn't want people eating his lovers. And there's no way a Muslim would be allowed to say anything like that. But why can't I? I'm not going to get to go to Paradise when I die, and no imam will speak for me or comfort me if I'm in trouble.

In a similar fashion, Christian evangelicals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson always want us to follow the dictates of evangelical Christendom: stone the faggots, murder the abortion providers, post the Ten Commandments everywhere, pray everyday, etc. etc. But why should I? When I die, I won't be rewarded by going to Heaven, and God certainly isn't the one responsible for any good things in my life. I never agreed to be a Christian, so why I should I obey any of the dictates of the Bible? I think God has much to answer for, and if I had my way, he'd be tortured and abused for all eternity for all the wrongs He's wrought. FUCK GOD UP THE ASS WITH A DUNG COATED BROKEN BOTTLE, I say.

But it's not just about religion. There are those who think we should provide government medical care and free billingual education to illegal aliens, that illegal aliens deserve civil liberties, welfare aid and even driver's licenses, from the U.S. government. Well, why?? The social contract in the United States is between the government and its citizens. Did these aliens swear allegiance and loyalty to the United States of America? Do they pay taxes? Have they agreed to obey U.S. laws? Are they serving in the U.S. military? No? Then they've never fulfilled their part of the social contract or demonstrated that they intend to. If I go into Best Buy and refuse to pay, I don't get to take home a new laptop computer! Why does an illegal alien get to come in and reap government benefits when he or she hasn't done anything in return? I know, a lot of people will insist that they have done something in return -- picked our produce, cleaned the houses of our rich, cooked the food in our restaurants, etc. That's a contract between the alien and his/her employer. He got paid for those services and that's all he deserves for them.

And the same thing goes for "enemy combatants." Many people think these prisoners deserve the same rights as those who have been accused of civilian crimes. But those rights were explicitly guaranteed in our Constitution to citizens. I can see my way to extending those rights to permanent residents -- people who have stated their intent to become citizens and agreed to fulfill the terms of the corresponding social contract. But I doubt the guys that were captured fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq ever agreed to such terms.

Of course, there are those that cite the Geneva Conventions as the source of these detainees' rights. Well, the same argument applies. The Geneva Conventions imply a social contract: act in a certain way in times of war -- wear a uniform, salute officers of the opposing side, avoid attacking civilians, etc. Those detainees have violated so many parts of the Conventions that I don't understand how they have the brazenness and gall to claim protection from them.

I guess we can go back to the Greeks -- and Plato in particular -- for the answer to all these issues. "What is justice?" asks Socrates in Plato's Republic. After much debate, the great Socrates concludes that, in a nutshell, that justice is everyone minding their own fucking, goddamn business.

So go on. Fuck off. I got me some sausages to eat.

Dolph, We Hardly Knew Ye

So I was at my favorite clubhouse the other day (aka Barnes and Noble) and started perusing a find in the bargain bin about action movies. Paraphrased, here's some of what it said about B-movie action star Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV, Punisher, Showdown in Little Tokyo):

"Although best known as a prime example of dumb, brute strength and rage, Dolph Lundgren is actually a highly intelligent man whose mental gifts were evident at an early age. He won a scholarship to the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, and went on to study at the University of Sydney at New South Wales -- earning Masters degree in Engineering. He continued his education, earning a prestigious Fulbright scholarship to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was during his tenure at MIT that he was discovered at a nightclub in New York City."

The obvious thoughts came to mind: don't judge a book by its cover, blah blah blah. Then I felt sorry for Dolph. I feel quite sure that Jean-Claude Van Damme is as stupid as he seems to be, so can you see how absolutely how frustrated and pissed off Dolph was when he realized he was working with the mental equivalent of a chimpanzee in Universal Soldier??

This Bus Never Broke Down

The greatest football team ever returned to its rightful place atop the National Football League this Sunday. And perhaps the best moment of that run came before the game even began: with Jerome Bettis, the heart, soul and backbone of the Pittsburgh Steelers running onto the field all by himself to precede the rest of his team. It was apropos, because Bettis exemplifies what the Steelers are: hard working, selfless, classy, tough. Ground and pound on the field, gracious and accessible off.

Why all the big fuss about Jerome?

• Because on the field, his prowess was undeniable. It was astounding and amazing to routinely see "The Bus" plow through a defensive line; often, there would be three or four linebackers hanging onto him and he would keep dragging them along.
• Because on the field, the sheer joy he got from the game was obvious. If the TV sound guys were on, you could often hearing him bounce up after a jarring play and say, with a big grin on his friendly face, "Yeah baby! That's what I like! Let's do it again!" (Meanwhile, his defenders would still be on the ground, shaking their heads in an effort to clear them.
• Because in high school, he was the epitome of a student athlete -- president of his high school's National Honor Society.
• Because he was a great teammate. Ask any Steeler, and they'll tell you how Jerome welcomed them to the team, made sure everyone had all his contact information so they could call him to talk about anything -- day or night.
• Because he was a great and loyal team player. When his stamina started to decline, he openly declared his desire to stay with the Steelers, and he put his money where his mouth was -- he took a pay cut so the team could afford to keep him on. And when they asked him to play a supporting (non-starting, non-starring) role, Bettis genuinely appreciated the opportunities he got to contribute (and boy, did he continue to contribute.) Not a single word of complaint, jealousy, or showboating.
• Because his graciousness with the throngs of adoring fans that constantly surrounded him was legendary, even though it surely must have been annoying at times.
• Because he gave back to his community -- both Pittsburgh and Detroit -- tirelessly. Unstintingly. And without fanfare. Not because it was expected of him. But because he wanted to -- he didn't just make a monetary donation and call it a day, he put in his time and effort.
• Because his graciousness with the media -- who can be even more annoying -- was such that he even won them all over, without exception.
• Because he came back for one more glorious year.

As everyone knows, this game was about one person: Jerome Bettis, who's done everything right in his career. He displayed awesome abilities on the field; he demonstrated a fierce, but gracious competitive spirit; and he exemplified a generosity of spirit that led him to earn the love of his teammates, his fans, his community and now, the rest of the world.

After the Super Bowl, Jerome expressed his hope that he had done enough to earn the fans' appreciation and the respect of his teammates.

How could you doubt it at all, Jerome? On behalf of everyone, thanks for a great ride. Thank you for showing us what a pro athlete and a true champion looks like. Enjoy your retirement, but come back and see us often, y'hear?

Super Bowl Whiners

The finest team ever won Super Bowl XL last Sunday, and make no mistake: the better team won. No, it wasn't the most beautiful game ever. The Steelers faltered in the beginning and didn't truly get going until the second quarter.

Today I see Seattle fans and Pittsburgh haters (re: people who hate the game of football) whining about the bad officiating and how that was the only reason that the Steelers won. In particular, there are two calls they mention:

1. An offensive pass interference call against Seattle early in the first quarter that led to a 'Hawks touchdown being overturned. Accounts will vary. Some insist that Jackson didn't even touch Chris Hope. These people are blind. Even a full-speed replay shows Jackson's hand making contact with Hope's chest, right in the numbers, and Hope's entire body bouncing back in response. It wasn't a hard shove. But contact was made to the front of the torso -- and that, football fans, is pass interference. Others will insist that pass interference was committed in name only: the shove was not used to create separation between receiver and defender. Not true: that shove clearly moved Hope back involuntarily. So it did create separation. And then, there are those who insist that in a big game like the Super Bowl, a minor example of a foul shouldn't have been called. That might be true. But if Jackson is so stupid as to commit a violation right in front of an umpire -- the guy was standing 10 feet away, looking right at him -- then he has no one to blame but himself.
2. Big Ben's first diving touchdown. I admit that the touchdown call could have gone either way -- at least from the views we saw on TV. But you know what? The referees reviewed it and said it was a TD. Still photos showed the football just breaking the line of the endzone. And -- most importantly -- Seattle knows it was a touchdown. They didn't make much a fuss at the time -- just a token protest that you automatically make after every close play. You know why they weren't more vocal? Because they knew. They didn't start whining until afterwards. Fuck them.

In the end, Seattle tried two old refrains:

1. "We beat ourselves with mistakes." Maybe you did. Or maybe Pittsburgh forced them to make those mistakes. Pittsburgh defense might not have gotten its customary gajillion sacks, but it was obviously enough to rattle Seattle to the point of panic.
2. "We still feel we're the better team. We just didn't play our best." Well, Seattle apologists, in case you didn't notice, the Steelers didn't play their best either. Otherwise the score would have been a lot more humiliating for the Seattle Seahawks. Face it: the way you play in the big game is exactly indicative of how good you are. Greatness is defined as the ability to perform on demand. So if you lost -- and you did -- it is exactly because you were the lesser team.

Apologies to my gay friends

"What are you, gay?!!!" - me responding to my cousin's revelation that he likes 'N Sync

"Are you gay or something?!!!" - me responding to the same cousin's describing the movie "13 Going On 30" as a "good movie"

As offensive and disturbed of a man as I might be, I've never had an ounce of homophobia in my body. Not once. I suppose this has to do with a childhood spent around talented musicians, many of whom were openly gay -- even in a time when it wasn't that socially acceptable to be homosexual. Being a bit innocent, it simply didn't occur to me to be afraid of these different, but talented and nice people, and once I got to know them, I would never be homophobic again.

Which is why you should believe me when I tell you that I didn't mean those remarks to my cousin to be homophobic insults. But I did mean them to be insults in that I questioned his masculinity. (I still do. And sometimes, I really do think he might be gay. No matter how many times he insists on e-mailing me to report that, "See, I like girls.")

In truth, the true insult in those comments was to imply that a gay man might like 'N Sync or a bad Jennifer Garner movie. In truth, no one but a bonehead would like those things. (My cousin is brilliant in many ways -- prize-winning MIT grad, solid understanding of undergraduate level math at the age of 17, made me a pair of kick-ass speakers from scratch just for fun, etc. -- yet incredibly dumb in others. (No, it's NOT a good idea to try to bake brownies in a rice cooker, you moron!)) So to my gay friends -- I sincerely apologize.

But I do have to wonder: I've heard other friends make the term "gay" or some cruder synonym out to be an insult and a questioning of one's masculinity, even when I knew they didn't mean to be homophobic. It's still considered by many a man who claims not to be homophobic to be an insult to be called gay -- as if that makes him less of a man.

One friend has never drank a White Russian in my presence again, ever since I innocently mentioned that back in my bartending days, we just assumed that a man ordering a White Russian or a White Zinfandel was gay. (In the same token, we assumed that red wine meant "snob," Bud Light meant "redneck" and single malt scotch meant "loaded corporate/yuppie stooge") I've been meaning to tell him that a truly standup man's man would have looked me in the eye and said, "Whatever" before ordering a second White Russian.

So what is it that defines a man? I can only conclude that a man is a guy who realizes stupid shit like that doesn't matter -- that if it gives him enjoyment, that's what counts. Life's too short to limit yourself just because of a fear of what others might think. So as a happily married (yes, to a woman) man, I will happily admit that although I love football, barbecue, and PBR, I also love musicals and showtunes, obsess over my hair, watch and enjoy "Gilmore Girls," and eat quiche. So be it.

Of course, that's easy for me to say. I can probably beat the shit out of you if you make too big a deal out of all this.

P.S. And to my cousin "CC," I still think you might be gay. Not because you like NSync and girly movies -- that just means you have bad taste -- but just because ... I mean, look at your moniker, for god's sake!

France Was Right (!): Suck It Up, Mohammad

It's easy to pick on the French. For a country that claims to be a European power and an modern industrialized nation, they sure do get their asses kicked on the military and economic battlefield on a non-stop basis. Don't get me wrong: the one time I went to France, (admittedly just Paris), I loved it. Loved the way they live, loved the people, and -- do I need to say it? -- I loved the food.

But I hate French politics. I hate that they've let unions get so incredibly powerful and their hypocrical foreign policy. But this time, they -- along with just about every other Western European country -- have it right.

The firestorm basically involved a Dutch newspaper that in September published a series of satirical editorial cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed. I haven't seen them, but evidently one of them has the Prophet wearing a head wrap that's really a bomb, and one of them has the holy one telling Allah that, "We're starting to run low on virgins in Paradise [for suicide bombers]." Depictions of Mohammed are generally considered in very bad taste in the Islamic religion, and making a joke out of him is evidently taboo. Fair enough.

As detailed by the Christian Science Monitor and the BBC, the cartoons led to widespread demand from Islamic groups -- governmental and non-governmental, militant and non-militant -- that the Dutch government apologize and shut down the paper. Of course, the Dutch government's explanation that they don't run the newspaper and therefore cannot shut it down or penalize it for published content has been ignored, and as a result, Dutch interests in the Middle East, along with the paper's business offices, have been under threat: bomb threats, etc. etc.

The furor had died down until a number of major European papers in France, Germany and Spain decided to make a statement in support of their journalistic brethren by republishing the cartoons. The point, of course, is that in a free society, everyone and everything is fair game for criticism, lampooning and satire. Germany's Die Welt newspaper even went so far as to point out that Muslim demands for "respect" of their religious beliefs are extremely hypocritical given the fact that no-one in the Muslim world seemed to mind when a Syrian TV program that recently published a cartoon that depicted a rabbi engaging in cannibalism. Die Welt also pointed out that respecting the beliefs of Muslims does not mean one has to obey its edicts. For instance, though I have respect for the former greatness of Islamic civilization and many of its tenets, there ain't no way I'm ever giving up the consumption of pork products. To quote Die Welt, we all have the right to blaspheme.

So to God, Buddha, Shiva, Yaweh, and Mohammad: Fuck you, and the donkeys you just rim-jobbed too.