I didn’t know that South Park’s Chef is played by a Scientologist. It seems that Issac Hayes has quit the show because, he says, he is tired of the show’s religious bigotry (h/t Captain Ed):

“There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins,” the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

And that place is where you make fun of Scientology:

Last November, “South Park” targeted the Church of Scientology and its celebrity followers, including actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, in a top-rated episode called “Trapped in the Closet.” In the episode, Stan, one of the show’s four mischievous fourth graders, is hailed as a reluctant savior by Scientology leaders, while a cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won’t come out.

Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker “never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin.”

Hayes claims that his hatred for the show’s religious intolerance is generalized, and not specific to Scientology:

“Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored,” he continued. “As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices.”

What Hayes fails to mention is that he is full of it. For example: if he truly meant this, he probably wouldn’t have taken money for the episode in which Chef boxes Jesus and knocks him out with a single blow.

Anyway, I have faith that Matt Stone and Trey Parker will handle Chef’s departure with their customary aplomb. Look to see Chef die a particularly bloody, horrible, and painful death.

Orin Kerr has a new blog, which for some odd reason he has chosen to host at the address orinkerr.com.

One of his first posts is an interesting one, which examines the constitutionality of police programs that conduct traffic stops to “cite” drivers for good driving. Such programs are no doubt annoying — and Kerr makes a good argument that they are also unconstitutional.

Dan Rather thinks it’s a problem when journalists don’t ask tough questions and follow-ups. He also thinks it can be a problem when they do — if they ask him the tough questions. Tough questions posed to The Dan are as uncomfortable as a pair of armadillo-skin underwear. And a pack of booing journalists agrees with him. (Via Romenesko.)

You may remember Yale alum Clinton W. Taylor’s campaign to have fake nails sent to Yale as a protest of the university’s admission of an unrepentant Taliban official. Clint’s campaign has prompted a sober and thoughtful response from a Yale alumni relations official, who asked Clint whether he is “retarded.”

UPDATE: According to this John Fund column (h/t DRJ), the guy claims he was acting in his personal capacity. However, he seems to have gotten access to some personal information about the donor records of Clint and his co-crusader, and nobody can quite explain how:

Mr. Surovov [the assistant director of giving, who had sent the e-mail to Clint] made clear that even though he had used Yale equipment to launch his anonymous attack he acted solely in his personal capacity. When I asked how he had known the giving records of the two alumni, he insisted he had gotten them from public records. Despite repeated requests, he did not explain how he had obtained Ms. Bookstaber’s private email address and her maiden name.

. . . .

[Yale spokesman Tom] Conroy said he didn’t believe most donor information was a public record, but said he would have to confirm that for me. Yesterday, 48 hours after I first asked for reaction to the Surovov emails, Mr. Conroy notified me that Yale administrators were not available and the university would be making no comment.

Interesting.

This cat shouldn’t have stopped waving his paws. As long as he was waving them, it was working. (Via Orin Kerr.)