Sean Kenney.

I don’t quite understand how cartoons are riot-worthy, and this is, uh, “kosher”, but whatever …

Not content with pelting European embassies with Molotov cocktails to protest against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Iranians have decided to rename the “Danish pastries” relished by this nation of cake lovers.

From now on, the sweet, flaky pastries which dominate the shelves in Iran’s cake shops will be known as “Roses of the Prophet Muhammad,” the official IRNA news agency reported as pressure on Denmark over the cartoons took on a new dimension.

How is naming a fucking pastry after your prophet any less disrespectful than those cartoons about him? Next, McDonalds will roll out a “Baby Jesus” mini-mac.

Can anyone say … “freedom fries”?

Antonio Scalia recently made headlines with comments made in Puerto Rico.

It’s not his issue with “originality” that I take issue with — “According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.” Actually, I think most judges should rule that way (but I also think that when people clamor that a judge isn’t, it’s usually because they’re upset with the ruling and not because of any wrongdoing on the part of the judge). No, actually, my problem with what Scalia said is his disbelief that the Constitution is a “living document.”

Well, sorry, Scalia that you feel that way, but the biggest arguement in favor of the Constitution being a living document is … the Constitution. Which contains within its pages the very ability to ammend itself: Article V. If the document isn’t supposed to be changed as times change, why then is the ability for it to be changed written within its very pages? Oh, right, because the guys who wrote it realized that it needed to be flexible enough for folks to change it is times and circumstances should warrant it (and it should be noted that almost immediately upon passing the thing, they realized they themselves needed to change it and quickly put through the first ten ammendments).

Another thing Scalia wrote that I want to take issue with real quick here:

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided “not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court.”

No, people want Constitutionality decided by the justices of the Supreme Court. It’s a sad fact that a lot of people would like to deprive other people of their Constitutional rights, and not every law is Constitutional, and that’s what the Supreme Court is around for. “Judicial Activism!” (clearly what he’s alluding to) is a smokescreen — the slogan used by the Right/Left when they disagree with decisions seemingly made in favor of the Left/Right.

Is the internets moving super slow and retarded for anyone else, or is it just my computer?