WARNING: This entry is rated for Mature Audiences ONLY.
Admittedly, I am a headline scanner who rarely takes the time to read most of the stories in the paper. However, this one caught my attention.
Man Says Penis Pump Is A Bomb
Poor Madin Azad Amin, 29, of Skokie, Illinois, is being charged by authorities in Chicago for felony disorderly conduct. And why?
Prior to boarding a flight to Turkey, Amin and his mother had their bags searched by airport screeners (probably as the result of ethnic profiling with a reckless disregard for the human rights of innocent people with something to hide).
Unfortunately for Amin, a suspicious article in his luggage -- described as resembling a grenade -- caught the attention of screeners and he was asked to identify the object.
Not wanting to explain in front of his mother that the article was, in fact, a penis pump ("It's not mine, baby!") Amin told the female screener that it was a BOMB.
Say what?
Follow the disconnect here. On what planet is it preferable that your mother think you are a bomb-toting terrorist about to blow up the plane she will be flying in rather than a horny young guy with an impotence problem?
Naturally, Amin's attorney claims he said "pump" and the screener misunderstood him. Chicago authorities aren't buying it.
The female airport screener has probably already filed her sexual harassment suit against Mr. Amin for exposing her to his peckerdilloes -- excuse me, peccadilloes.
The true tragedy, however, is that no one has defended Mr. Amin and excused his actions on the basis of his membership in a universally persecuted class of Americans.
No, not Muslims. Impotent men.
These unfortunate individuals are driven into the shadows, hiding their affliction from the people closest to them, forced to lie about their ownership of sexual enhancement aids in the hopes that one day, the subversive sentiments of rabid anti-flaccidity will be a thing of the past.
But perhaps one day, through education and legislation, we will achieve what we all hope and pray for: equality for all men, regardless of their ability to achieve lift-off without assistance.
So I think it's time that all impotent men sieze Madin Azad Amin as their symbol: the Che Guvara of the impotence movement. Viva la erection!
"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I'm so far behind that I will never die." ~ Bill Watterson
Monday, August 21, 2006
Is Starbucks Good for Great Britain?
If there is one corporation liberals love to hate, it's Walmart. More than any other business, Walmart has attracted the ire of the left – purportedly for its lack of “fair” employment practices and the homogenization of merchandising across the country into generic meccas of crass consumerism.
In reality, the reason libs hate Mister Sam's Place is much more sinister: Walmart is a rousing success (for both company and consumer) and – worse still – its success serves as the embodiment of why capitalism works.
Walmart sells products that everyone wants at cheaper prices than their competitors. They trim costs wherever they can, they “strong arm” their suppliers to keep wholesale prices down. They even make use of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, paid an hourly – but not “living” – wage with no (free) medical benefits. All to keep costs as low as possible and maximize their profit margin. These guys really know how to make money, for themselves and their stockholders. Bastards.
Naturally, these kinds of irresponsible business tactics have created a lot of attention for Walmart, most of it negative. Pinheads in the media have gone so far as to assemble pseudo-news programs and “documentaries” with titles like Is Walmart Good for America? and Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.
Meanwhile, protest groups in tony bergs around the country picket the opening of new Walmart stores anywhere near their backyard. It never occurs to these people to just not shop at Walmart. Oh, no. They are doing their communities a favor by making sure nobody gets the chance to save money.
Unfortunately, these anti-choice advocates – who think they have the right to tell us what stores we can patronize with our bodies – have infected government officials in places like Maryland. The “Free State” (an ironic nickname) recently passed a bill that requires all companies employing more than 10,000 people to spend at least 8% of their payroll costs on healthcare for their employees. No word yet on whether Walmart will pony up more benefits or just layoff 7,001 of their current 17,000 Maryland employees.
Another place legislating anti-Walmart sentiment is the City of Chicago. Chi-town recently nixed the plan for Walmart to build a store on the South Side: exactly the kind of community that would benefit most from the jobs, increased tax revenues and low retail prices that are part and parcel of any new Walmart. Sadly, the necessary zoning changes were not approved and Walmart has setup shop three miles away in Evergreen Park, a city that now expects its property and sales tax revenues to increase by 12.5% just from Walmart alone.
In reality, the reason libs hate Mister Sam's Place is much more sinister: Walmart is a rousing success (for both company and consumer) and – worse still – its success serves as the embodiment of why capitalism works.
Walmart sells products that everyone wants at cheaper prices than their competitors. They trim costs wherever they can, they “strong arm” their suppliers to keep wholesale prices down. They even make use of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, paid an hourly – but not “living” – wage with no (free) medical benefits. All to keep costs as low as possible and maximize their profit margin. These guys really know how to make money, for themselves and their stockholders. Bastards.
Naturally, these kinds of irresponsible business tactics have created a lot of attention for Walmart, most of it negative. Pinheads in the media have gone so far as to assemble pseudo-news programs and “documentaries” with titles like Is Walmart Good for America? and Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price.
Meanwhile, protest groups in tony bergs around the country picket the opening of new Walmart stores anywhere near their backyard. It never occurs to these people to just not shop at Walmart. Oh, no. They are doing their communities a favor by making sure nobody gets the chance to save money.
Unfortunately, these anti-choice advocates – who think they have the right to tell us what stores we can patronize with our bodies – have infected government officials in places like Maryland. The “Free State” (an ironic nickname) recently passed a bill that requires all companies employing more than 10,000 people to spend at least 8% of their payroll costs on healthcare for their employees. No word yet on whether Walmart will pony up more benefits or just layoff 7,001 of their current 17,000 Maryland employees.
Another place legislating anti-Walmart sentiment is the City of Chicago. Chi-town recently nixed the plan for Walmart to build a store on the South Side: exactly the kind of community that would benefit most from the jobs, increased tax revenues and low retail prices that are part and parcel of any new Walmart. Sadly, the necessary zoning changes were not approved and Walmart has setup shop three miles away in Evergreen Park, a city that now expects its property and sales tax revenues to increase by 12.5% just from Walmart alone.
Walmart has always been the biggest business target of the left – and always will be unless and until they cave to the myriad demands of the anti-capitalism kooks. Luckily, the Walmart-haters have a new corporation to burn in effigy.
Starbucks.
Yes, this bastion of feel-good liberal sentiment partnered with hypocritically sound business practices has made a few enemies. Including at least one Hollywood-type.
It seems that Starbucks has their eye on a charming neighborhood in London, just a short distance from actor Rupert Everett’s home. Everett, along with other members of his commune – er, community – has signed a petition to prevent the coffee giant from setting up shop in his backyard.
Everett, who went so far as to call Starbucks’ expansion “a cancer,” claims that there are already enough diners and coffee shops available in the area. Here’s the full story:
Actor Everett labels Starbucks 'a cancer'
Wait, wait, wait.
This is Starbucks we’re talking about. This is a corporation famed for its companywide health benefits (even for hourly employees), its environmental sensitivity and advocacy for corporate diversity. They use Fair Trade Coffee, for crying out loud! Doesn’t that make it all good?
Well, apparently not. Despite all of those warm-and-fuzzies, Starbucks is still on the outs with many liberals for reasons that sound very familiar.
It turns out Starbucks' use of Fair Trade Coffee (meaning coffee bought from farmers who are paid a “fair price,” rather than a market price as dictated by the normal constraints of supply and demand) encompasses only about 4% of their total coffee supply. And that’s not all.
Starbucks' “partners” (Starbucks' code for “employees”) in New York City recently began unionizing to protest the company’s unwillingness to pay a “living” wage to compensate for the astronomical cost of living in Manhattan. There are also other charges of unfair labor being lodged against the company.
Additionally, Starbucks has come under fire from the anti-globalization movement. The problem? Just as Walmart symbolizes the homogenization of the American small town, Starbucks is the worldwide embodiment of the United States’ “economic and cultural imperialism.” In other words, the U.S. is trying to conquer the entire world and subjugate other cultures to our own. Using coffee. Overpriced coffee. Good plan.
It seems that even a left-leaning company like Starbucks can run afoul of the anti-capitalists. As Mother would say, state the lesson. Here it is: espousing all the right rhetoric can’t insulate a company from criticism when the end result is a profitable business.
Liberals hate success, especially financial success. Starbucks is learning the hard way that when a company subordinates good business practices to well-intentioned ideology, they become inextricably tied to the whims and dictates of that ideology.
Meanwhile, Walmart does what it does best. It makes money by serving customers who are, evidently, satisfied enough to keep coming back. All the protests and legislative pillories in the world will be futile against this retail giant as long as Lee Scott aims the company toward keeping consumers satisfied and ignoring the whiners who want to bring down success.
So kudos to Walmart and all the other engines of capitalism (large and small alike) that make this great country work! Is success good for America? I say an emphatic: “YES.”
Starbucks.
Yes, this bastion of feel-good liberal sentiment partnered with hypocritically sound business practices has made a few enemies. Including at least one Hollywood-type.
It seems that Starbucks has their eye on a charming neighborhood in London, just a short distance from actor Rupert Everett’s home. Everett, along with other members of his commune – er, community – has signed a petition to prevent the coffee giant from setting up shop in his backyard.
Everett, who went so far as to call Starbucks’ expansion “a cancer,” claims that there are already enough diners and coffee shops available in the area. Here’s the full story:
Actor Everett labels Starbucks 'a cancer'
Wait, wait, wait.
This is Starbucks we’re talking about. This is a corporation famed for its companywide health benefits (even for hourly employees), its environmental sensitivity and advocacy for corporate diversity. They use Fair Trade Coffee, for crying out loud! Doesn’t that make it all good?
Well, apparently not. Despite all of those warm-and-fuzzies, Starbucks is still on the outs with many liberals for reasons that sound very familiar.
It turns out Starbucks' use of Fair Trade Coffee (meaning coffee bought from farmers who are paid a “fair price,” rather than a market price as dictated by the normal constraints of supply and demand) encompasses only about 4% of their total coffee supply. And that’s not all.
Starbucks' “partners” (Starbucks' code for “employees”) in New York City recently began unionizing to protest the company’s unwillingness to pay a “living” wage to compensate for the astronomical cost of living in Manhattan. There are also other charges of unfair labor being lodged against the company.
Additionally, Starbucks has come under fire from the anti-globalization movement. The problem? Just as Walmart symbolizes the homogenization of the American small town, Starbucks is the worldwide embodiment of the United States’ “economic and cultural imperialism.” In other words, the U.S. is trying to conquer the entire world and subjugate other cultures to our own. Using coffee. Overpriced coffee. Good plan.
It seems that even a left-leaning company like Starbucks can run afoul of the anti-capitalists. As Mother would say, state the lesson. Here it is: espousing all the right rhetoric can’t insulate a company from criticism when the end result is a profitable business.
Liberals hate success, especially financial success. Starbucks is learning the hard way that when a company subordinates good business practices to well-intentioned ideology, they become inextricably tied to the whims and dictates of that ideology.
Meanwhile, Walmart does what it does best. It makes money by serving customers who are, evidently, satisfied enough to keep coming back. All the protests and legislative pillories in the world will be futile against this retail giant as long as Lee Scott aims the company toward keeping consumers satisfied and ignoring the whiners who want to bring down success.
So kudos to Walmart and all the other engines of capitalism (large and small alike) that make this great country work! Is success good for America? I say an emphatic: “YES.”
Friday, August 18, 2006
A Prayer for the Offended
It's no wonder that I never get anything done. I find myself wrapped up in the most asinine activities, half the day gone by, and can only shake my head. Like today.
Reading the paper this morning, I came across the following in an advice column:
Dear Amy:
I am an atheist. Last fall, I was hired as a professor at a public university. Soon after, I received a desk decor gift from the department dean that included Bible quotes on small Post-its. I constantly get religious e-mails from the department secretary and my department chair. Last fall during the Thanksgiving break, our entire department was invited to a celebration in our building. Right after the food was set out, my department chair asked everyone to be quiet so she could say grace. I bowed my head, staring at the floor as they prayed. I would respect this practice in someone's home. But in a workplace -- especially an academic institution that is supposed to broaden minds -- I felt it was inappropriate, presumptuous and intolerant, and maybe illegal at a federally funded institution. I am not going to complain. I am afraid that it would affect my relationships at work. -- Offended Professor
Dear Offended:
I can't figure out why you wouldn't give your colleagues your point of view. Is it only the students' minds that are to be broadened at your institution? I shared your letter with Paul Miller, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a former commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Miller says, "At a federally funded government institution, this runs counter to the First Amendment. The law is structured to protect employees from mandated religious practice. There should be boundaries around religion in the workplace and at a workplace function." (The text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pertaining to religious discrimination is on the EEOC Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html .) Even if you don't want to make a "federal case," you have a right to let your colleagues know where you stand.
Honestly, I tried to let it go. I tried to get on with my day. "What does it really matter?" I asked myself.
I tried. And failed. Damn it all anyway.
So I spent the better part of the morning neglecting my housework and my shower and every other thing crying for my attention (except Griffin, of course) and hammered out a response to Amy and her "legal expert."
The biggest bone I had to pick with them was so glaringly obvious that even I couldn't believe it at first. Take a moment to go to the website link cited in the reply above and read the EEOC's guidelines. C'mon, they're short. I'll wait right here for you.
All done? Did you discover their biggest boo-boo?
And I quote: "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer."
Bingo.
Did they even read this website before referencing it? Doesn't it sound clear? (Of course, it's legal jargon so that is somewhat debatable, but pretty clear as legal jargon goes?)
Anyway, there is so much to say on this subject that I spent most of my time editing my response. Here is what I finally sent, included here because I know they'll never print it.
Dear Amy:
In response to the atheist professor who chose not to speak up against the religious overtures of his/her new colleagues, I say "too bad." If this presumably educated, intelligent adult can't find a direct but courteous way to inform others about his/her spiritual beliefs -- or non-beliefs -- he/she has forfeited the right to complain. Furthermore, there is a difference between "mandated religious practice" in the workplace and social inclusion by coworkers who are, themselves, religious. Offended Professor was given a gift and willingly accepted the invitation to a social event. What precisely was "mandated"? Your legal expert's view that colleagues should eliminate their expression of religious beliefs simply because they are in public (the workplace) is an infringement upon their rights -- even according to his own source. The EEOC's website link given in your column includes the following statement: "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer." Even the most perfunctory inspection of U.S. History reveals that the concept of "separation of church and state" originated with the goal of protecting religion from government interference, not government from religious interference. More importantly, separation of church and state does not override the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing every citizen the free exercise of religious beliefs. That means religious people (and non-religious people) are free to actually express beliefs, not just believe (or disbelieve) in the privacy of their homes. I passionately support an atheist's Constitutional right to his/her beliefs. However, that does not mean that anyone has the right to sanitize public life from all references to religion anymore than my personal distaste for seafood gives me the right to insist that my fellow diners in a restaurant refrain from eating fish in my presence. If Offended Professor is honest with his/her coworkers and they don't accept it, then I'll agree that they're intolerant. Until then, he/she should be more concerned about growing a backbone and less concerned about coworkers who haven't yet had the chance to be intolerant. -- Sincerely, A Lover of Liberty
I support the right of everyone to go to Hell in their own way. In fact, I think separation of church and state is a good thing -- if we are speaking to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. But to remove all references to God from public life just because it might offend someone?
Does it offend my sensibilities to see an overweight person in a string bikini (or worse, an old man in a Speedo)? Hell yes! Does that mean I think public beaches should pass an anti-cellulite (or anti-sag) ordinance? No. I will just have to -- gasp -- LOOK AWAY!
Stephen L. Carter's A Culture of Disbelief is an excellent book on the subject of religion in the public square. I heartily recommend it to all disbelievers, offended and otherwise.
Meanwhile, to all you atheists out there, know this: I'm praying for you.
Reading the paper this morning, I came across the following in an advice column:
Dear Amy:
I am an atheist. Last fall, I was hired as a professor at a public university. Soon after, I received a desk decor gift from the department dean that included Bible quotes on small Post-its. I constantly get religious e-mails from the department secretary and my department chair. Last fall during the Thanksgiving break, our entire department was invited to a celebration in our building. Right after the food was set out, my department chair asked everyone to be quiet so she could say grace. I bowed my head, staring at the floor as they prayed. I would respect this practice in someone's home. But in a workplace -- especially an academic institution that is supposed to broaden minds -- I felt it was inappropriate, presumptuous and intolerant, and maybe illegal at a federally funded institution. I am not going to complain. I am afraid that it would affect my relationships at work. -- Offended Professor
Dear Offended:
I can't figure out why you wouldn't give your colleagues your point of view. Is it only the students' minds that are to be broadened at your institution? I shared your letter with Paul Miller, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a former commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Miller says, "At a federally funded government institution, this runs counter to the First Amendment. The law is structured to protect employees from mandated religious practice. There should be boundaries around religion in the workplace and at a workplace function." (The text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pertaining to religious discrimination is on the EEOC Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html .) Even if you don't want to make a "federal case," you have a right to let your colleagues know where you stand.
Honestly, I tried to let it go. I tried to get on with my day. "What does it really matter?" I asked myself.
I tried. And failed. Damn it all anyway.
So I spent the better part of the morning neglecting my housework and my shower and every other thing crying for my attention (except Griffin, of course) and hammered out a response to Amy and her "legal expert."
The biggest bone I had to pick with them was so glaringly obvious that even I couldn't believe it at first. Take a moment to go to the website link cited in the reply above and read the EEOC's guidelines. C'mon, they're short. I'll wait right here for you.
All done? Did you discover their biggest boo-boo?
And I quote: "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer."
Bingo.
Did they even read this website before referencing it? Doesn't it sound clear? (Of course, it's legal jargon so that is somewhat debatable, but pretty clear as legal jargon goes?)
Anyway, there is so much to say on this subject that I spent most of my time editing my response. Here is what I finally sent, included here because I know they'll never print it.
Dear Amy:
In response to the atheist professor who chose not to speak up against the religious overtures of his/her new colleagues, I say "too bad." If this presumably educated, intelligent adult can't find a direct but courteous way to inform others about his/her spiritual beliefs -- or non-beliefs -- he/she has forfeited the right to complain. Furthermore, there is a difference between "mandated religious practice" in the workplace and social inclusion by coworkers who are, themselves, religious. Offended Professor was given a gift and willingly accepted the invitation to a social event. What precisely was "mandated"? Your legal expert's view that colleagues should eliminate their expression of religious beliefs simply because they are in public (the workplace) is an infringement upon their rights -- even according to his own source. The EEOC's website link given in your column includes the following statement: "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer." Even the most perfunctory inspection of U.S. History reveals that the concept of "separation of church and state" originated with the goal of protecting religion from government interference, not government from religious interference. More importantly, separation of church and state does not override the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing every citizen the free exercise of religious beliefs. That means religious people (and non-religious people) are free to actually express beliefs, not just believe (or disbelieve) in the privacy of their homes. I passionately support an atheist's Constitutional right to his/her beliefs. However, that does not mean that anyone has the right to sanitize public life from all references to religion anymore than my personal distaste for seafood gives me the right to insist that my fellow diners in a restaurant refrain from eating fish in my presence. If Offended Professor is honest with his/her coworkers and they don't accept it, then I'll agree that they're intolerant. Until then, he/she should be more concerned about growing a backbone and less concerned about coworkers who haven't yet had the chance to be intolerant. -- Sincerely, A Lover of Liberty
I support the right of everyone to go to Hell in their own way. In fact, I think separation of church and state is a good thing -- if we are speaking to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. But to remove all references to God from public life just because it might offend someone?
Does it offend my sensibilities to see an overweight person in a string bikini (or worse, an old man in a Speedo)? Hell yes! Does that mean I think public beaches should pass an anti-cellulite (or anti-sag) ordinance? No. I will just have to -- gasp -- LOOK AWAY!
Stephen L. Carter's A Culture of Disbelief is an excellent book on the subject of religion in the public square. I heartily recommend it to all disbelievers, offended and otherwise.
Meanwhile, to all you atheists out there, know this: I'm praying for you.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Could He Be Any Cuter?
Here are a few summer snaps of our little man. Enjoy!
Griffin waiting for Daddy to come home from work.
Griffin in his backyard baby pool.
Likewise.
Griffin and his good lookin' daddy.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Religious Wackos from Both Sides of the Fence
[If I ever become a "public figure," I'll probably have to pay for writing this. What the heck.]
I love the internet for many reasons. ("You can check porn. And stock quotes." No, George, that's not why.) One of the most important reasons is that anybody can look up information that certain organizations and individuals would probably rather you didn't know about.
A couple of interesting facts that I've run across online recently:
The United Pentecostal Church International opposes women wearing makeup, among others things, because it mimics the appearance of sexual arousal. No lie.
http://www.upci.org/am/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1673蛃
I have to wonder, does UPCI oppose exercise, too? You know, flushed cheeks, glistening face, etc. What about the research showing that chocolate can simulate an orgasmic effect in women?
I suppose I should be more concerned about the fact that UPCI doesn't believe in the Trinity (which for me crosses the line into "cult"). Still, the makeup thing sticks in my craw.
Gimme a break. Here's a nice refutation of that position:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/united_pentecostal_church.html#make%20up
Secondly, the Nation of Islam. Did you know their ideology includes the belief that white people were created through a breeding program launched by a black scientist named Yakub? And that the purpose of these "inferior" people was to punish the "original" people with 6,000 years of repression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_islam#Teachings_on_race
I'll admit that Adam and Eve may have been black. Who knows. (Better question: who cares? We're all here now, aren't we?)
It all sounds like some kind of superhero comic book series. You know, with a villain called The White Menace and a hero who blasts a breed of voracious insect-people off the face of the earth before they can enslave and consume thousands of innocent citizens.
I suppose I take issue with this viewpoint because it's based on a stereotype. And stereotypes are bad, aren't they? Oh. Only some stereotypes are bad. I see.
I won't even comment on the NOI's beliefs about UFOs. I guess I had always assumed that, while not exactly mainstream, NOI was an actual religion rather than an anti-white/anti-Jew group with a big stack of sci-fi books under the bed. Silly me.
Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm concerned, they're giving Scientology a run for its money.
I love the internet for many reasons. ("You can check porn. And stock quotes." No, George, that's not why.) One of the most important reasons is that anybody can look up information that certain organizations and individuals would probably rather you didn't know about.
A couple of interesting facts that I've run across online recently:
The United Pentecostal Church International opposes women wearing makeup, among others things, because it mimics the appearance of sexual arousal. No lie.
http://www.upci.org/am/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1673蛃
I have to wonder, does UPCI oppose exercise, too? You know, flushed cheeks, glistening face, etc. What about the research showing that chocolate can simulate an orgasmic effect in women?
I suppose I should be more concerned about the fact that UPCI doesn't believe in the Trinity (which for me crosses the line into "cult"). Still, the makeup thing sticks in my craw.
Gimme a break. Here's a nice refutation of that position:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/united_pentecostal_church.html#make%20up
Secondly, the Nation of Islam. Did you know their ideology includes the belief that white people were created through a breeding program launched by a black scientist named Yakub? And that the purpose of these "inferior" people was to punish the "original" people with 6,000 years of repression?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_islam#Teachings_on_race
I'll admit that Adam and Eve may have been black. Who knows. (Better question: who cares? We're all here now, aren't we?)
It all sounds like some kind of superhero comic book series. You know, with a villain called The White Menace and a hero who blasts a breed of voracious insect-people off the face of the earth before they can enslave and consume thousands of innocent citizens.
I suppose I take issue with this viewpoint because it's based on a stereotype. And stereotypes are bad, aren't they? Oh. Only some stereotypes are bad. I see.
I won't even comment on the NOI's beliefs about UFOs. I guess I had always assumed that, while not exactly mainstream, NOI was an actual religion rather than an anti-white/anti-Jew group with a big stack of sci-fi books under the bed. Silly me.
Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm concerned, they're giving Scientology a run for its money.