Hollywood director: Jesus likely fathered by "Roman rapist"

Stupid:

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

An Amsterdam publishing house said Wednesday it will publish the Dutch filmmaker's biography of Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait," in September.

It will be translated into English in 2009, Marianna Sterk of the publishing house J.M. Meulenhoff said. Verhoeven hopes it will be a springboard for him to raise interest in making a film along the same lines, she said.

The 69-year-old director, who also directed "Showgirls" — starring Elizabeth Berkley in one of the most panned films of the '90s — and sci-fi action hits like "Total Recall" and "RoboCop," as well as the sci-fi bust "Starship Troopers," claims he and co-biographer Rob van Scheers have written the most realistic portrayal of Jesus ever published.

In addition to suggesting that the Virgin Mary may have been a rape victim, the book will also say that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot, one of the 12 original apostles of Jesus, as the New Testament states.

This kind of stuff is simply ridiculous. Is it insulting that someone would imply that Jesus was fathered by a rapist? Of course, but people are allowed to believe anything they'd like. What's annoying about claims like these is that these idiots have absolutely no evidence to back it up. It's about as credible as the idea that there was a spaceship being dragged behind the Halle-Bopp Comet. He just decides that this is how it maybe happened and call it "the most realistic portrayal" EVER.

Um, sure, buddy. And Starship Troopers and Showgirls were GOOD movies.

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Don't Go ahead and tase me, bro!

What happens when you get pulled over for a traffic stop, don't comply with the officer, tell him to "do what you gotta do", swing at the officer when he tries to arrest you, and then turn around and try to walk away?

Well, this happens.

Liberals will probably get their panties all in a bunch over this, of course, but this guy had it coming. You cannot swing at a police officer and not get tasered -- not to mention walking to a vehicle filled with unidentified people. How does the officer know what his intentions are, especially after this former football player just swung at him?

I don't care if the police officer is wrong in the situation (and there hasn't been a video I've seen yet where I've thought he has been). When he tells you to comply, you comply. If he tells you not to walk away, don't walk away. When you are about to be arrested is not the time to fight the officer -- if he really is in the wrong, there's a time and place to do so, and most of these idiots we see getting tasered, if not all of them, don't seem to be able to understand that.

He's got only himself to blame.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

But what she really wants to do is sing!

Ashley Alexandra Dupre is best known as Elliot Spitzer's high-priced call girl nicknamed "Kristen". But now that she's a "celebrity", she's milking it for all its worth. With magazines in bidding wars for her "story", she's decided that she's going to get every last second of her fifteen minutes of fame.

Because, just like every cheap celebrity, what she really wants to do is sing!

Not so long ago, according to law enforcement officials, Ashley Alexandra Dupré, a.k.a. Emperors Club escort "Kristen," was earning about $1,000 an hour on trysts with folks like New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. But Dupré, an aspiring singer, may be earning a lot more now, and legitimately -- by selling her music to "fans" online.

That, at least, is the speculation. Dupré has posted two songs on the new music-discovery site Amie Street; she put up the first, "What We Want," before she was outed, and the second, "Move ya Body," shortly afterward. (Scroll down to hear samples of each.)

Amie Street has an innovative, artist-friendly sales model. When musicians first submit a track, people can download it for free. As it becomes popular, its purchase price rises. Both of Dupré's songs are now selling at the site's maximum price -- 98 cents each.

Indeed, according to Joshua Boltuch, one of the co-founders of Amie Street, "Move ya Body" rose to its 98-cent price tag faster than any other song in Amie Street's one-and-a-half year history. Dupré posted the song early on Thursday morning; it was at the maximum price within five hours, a rate that suggests many downloads.

...

Amie Street gives artists a 70 percent cut of each song sold. That is, Dupré is making 69 cents (yes, really) on every 98-cent track.

If she's sold at least 70,000 tracks, Dupré's made at least $48,000 -- $1,000 per hour in the 48 hours since her name went public. And this work certainly beats her old $1,000-per-hour job (though accountants in the audience will note that she's got to pay taxes on the music income, but not the escort income).

...

Dupré would do well to act fast, of course; the public tires fast. Maybe it's happening already. On Thursday, the New York pop radio station Z100 added her song "What We Want" to its playlist. By Friday afternoon, after a poor response from the audience, the song was in low-rotation.

What is it with every single half-wit who gets any media attention whatsoever trying to launch a singing or acting career? The Obama girl wants to "act". Paris Hilton wants to be a singer and bought her way into a recording deal. And now, a prostitute is using her famous patron as a stepping stone to fame.

And no, she's not talented in the least. She can halfway carry a tune, but talented? No. Britney Spears is more talented than this girl is, and that's saying something. I'm sure that Dupre can give a great blow job -- for almost $5,000 she better -- but that does not translate into good vocal skills. I foresee this "singing career" going nowhere.



UPDATE: I removed the player because it was starting automatically. You can listen to her music by following the link to Amie Street.

Students forced to choose between gym memberships and birth control -- say it ain't so!!

Well, it looks like the world is coming to an end! Students are protesting because costs of birth control are going up, forcing them to make unthinkable choices!

University of New Mexico students are worried the federal deficit is going to cause a boom in unwanted pregnancies.

UNM is now feeling the affects of the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 2005 whose funding cuts reduce money used by universities to subsidize birth control.

The price of birth control on campuses and family planning clinics has more than doubled. Today students at UNM encouraged their peers to call and ask lawmakers to cosponsor a bill that would return the funding for birth control.

"Birth control is probably the largest preventative measure of abortion and unwanted pregnancies, just because it's safe, it's affordable," UNM Molly Maguire-Marshall said. "Sometimes it's accessible, and we want to keep it that way.

"We want to keep it affordable; we want to keep it accessible to college students."

Restoring the funds will reduce the squeeze on cash-strapped students, added Ambrosia Ortiz.

"So they don't have to make a choice between their birth control and their cell phone bill or their birth control and their gym membership and their birth control," Ortiz said. "These are choices women that women shouldn't have to make. Birth control should be very affordable."

Well, by golly, what are these students going to do?! Without access to birth control, apparently pregnancies are going to skyrocket, because not having sex is, of course, simply not an option. This is possibly because these poor kids probably went to public schools and were never told anything about abstinence. They were probably handed condoms and told all about birth control, right before telling them that as long as they use these, they can have all the sex they want with no repercussions!

And look at the choices they have to make! Birth control or a cell phone, birth control or a gym membership... jeez, their entire life is practically hanging in the balance! I mean, imagine having to give up working out at the exclusive gyms where all the "cool" kids work out, and use the free gym available for students at the school! And no access to a cell phone -- however will they get by?! Man, it's a good thing these kids didn't grow up in the Dark Ages before there were fashionable, exclusive gyms and cell phones for everyone.

And of course, these kids are whining because they want the government to pay for their birth control. They have all the access to birth control they could possibly want, but the government isn't going to pay for it for them, an unspeakable travesty, of course. The fact that they live in the freest country in the world, where they are allowed to get a higher education and protest without any kind of repercussions (besides looking like idiots) apparently has escaped them, because choice is being taken away from them!!

Again, the decision to choose not to have sex because they don't have access to birth control is apparently too responsible a decision to ask them to make. No, they need to be able to have sex as freely as they choose, and therefore, it's the government's job to keep them from having babies by providing them with free access to birth control. Otherwise, you're infringing on "women's rights". Yay for feminism!

Most of these kids will probably grow up and look back with a twinge of guilt for acting like complete idiots. Most of them are probably protesting just for the sake of feeling important, just like the Columbia idiots. But a select few of them will probably learn nothing at all, and grow up to be the same spoiled, arrogant, self-absorbed morons they are now. Only then, they'll teaching at colleges instead, or perhaps working for those ever-vigilant keepers of women's rights over at NOW.

British "think tank" finds that less physical labor can make you obese!

According to a British "think tank", modern life is what causes such high rates of obesity:

Obesity does not result simply from over-eating and a lack of exercise, but is a consequence of modern life, a British government think-tank said on Wednesday.

Weight gain does not result from people's actions -- such as over-indulgence or laziness -- alone, and is a far more passive phenomenon than is often assumed, according to Foresight.

It found that the technological revolution of the 20th century has led to weight gain becoming unavoidable for the majority of the population, because our bodies and biological make-up are out of step with our surroundings.

"Stocking up on food was key to survival in prehistoric times, but now with energy dense, cheap foods, labor-saving devices, motorized transport and sedentary work, obesity is rapidly becoming a consequence of modern life," said Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser and head of the Foresight program.

The British Department of Health-sponsored project is the result of a two-year-long study into the causes of obesity involving almost 250 experts and scientists.

They predicted that the so-called obesity "epidemic" would take at least 30 years to reverse.

So let's break this down. Before the technological revolution, people were doing more physical labor, i.e., unintentional exercize, and were eating better foods because fast food was unavailable. Now, we're sitting around behind desks at work, driving everywhere, and eating cheap foods.

I can picture it now. This British think tank is sitting around, and someone mutters this to themselves, and then jumps up and shouts, "EUREKA! It isn't lack of exercize and eating too much crap, it's modern life!"

But isn't what this so-called "think tank" discovering what we already know? People used to have more physical exertion on a regular basis and ate better quality food. Now, we engorge ourselves with McDonald's and sit on our asses all day long. To counteract that, most people work out and try to eat healthier.

But oh no, says this "think tank". Encouraging people to exercize more and eat better is looking at it the entirely wrong way. We have to change our attitudes -- we must stop looking at obesity as something that comes about from over-eating and/or laziness!

So what is the answer? Why, changing society, of course!

"Foresight has, for the first time, drawn together complex evidence to show that we must fight the notion that the current obesity epidemic arises from individual over-indulgence or laziness alone," he said.

"Personal responsibility is important, but our study shows the problem is much more complicated.

"It is a wake-up call for the nation, showing that only change across many elements of our society will help us tackle obesity."

The researchers said there was no single "magic bullet" solution; even a new appetite-suppressing drug would not be the answer, because the problem is systemic.

Tackling obesity, like tackling climate change, requires a range of changes in society, from increasing everyday activity through the design of the built environment and transport systems to shifting the drivers of the food chain and consumer purchasing patterns to favor healthier options.

Right, right, this is just like "climate change". We must change society to keep people from getting fat! Who cares about personal responsibility? It isn't important to shut your piehole and get on a treadmill for a while. What's important is that changes in society are made so that we can all continue to be lazy and shove whatever we want into our mouths. Heaven forbid that we put any effort into it.

I'm extremely glad that I live in the United States when I see things like this. If I lived in Britain, I'd be furious that my taxpayer dollars funded this crock of shit.