The Real Story of Christmas

Scene: A small house in Nazareth. Sometime in May, the year zero.

Mary: Shit, I'm late, and I have to marry that idiot Joseph in two weeks. What the hell am I going to tell him?

Two weeks later...

Mary: Harder dammit, harder.
Joseph: Quiet woman, I know what I'm doing.
Mary: Sure you do.
Joseph: And you would know how?
Mary: Nevermind.

Fifteen seconds later...

Joseph: That was amazing baby, was it good for you?
Mary: You'd think a carpenter would be better with his tools. Maybe you should try some foreplay next time.
Joseph: Foreplay? Isn't that something they do in golf?
Mary: Golf?
Joseph: Nevermind.

Seven months later, December 24th. It's dusk outside a hostel in Bethelem:

Joseph: Three shekels? Three fucking sheckles!?!?! I'm not paying three shekels for a room. We'll see how the "virgin mother" likes giving birth in a stable.

Twelve years later. Inside the temple:

Jesus: Truly I say to thee, are not such humble beginnings only befitting of the Son of God?
Judas: Oh my YHWH this kid's full of shit. He'll get his someday, if it's the last thing I do.

Cuckoldry Dary

Happy Holidays, fuckers.

Suck It, Creationists

Judge Jones* smacks down the fundy nutjobs trying to inflict Intelligent Design on the students of Dover, PA:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Best legal ruling ever.

Update: An article published by Skeptic Magazine detailing just exactly how badly the creationists had their asses handed to them.

*Jones was appointed to his current position by George W. Bush.

Can We Stop Telling That Particular Lie Now?

No Republicans, Congress didn't have the same intelligence as Bush did before the war:

A Congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."

As recently as yesterday*, Bush claimed the opposite, that Democrats did know all that he did before voting for the war:

Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein," [Bush] said.

And of course, the White House is still spinning:

The White House disputed both charges, noting that Congress often works directly with U.S. intelligence agencies and is privy to an enormous amount of classified information. "In 2004 alone, intelligence agencies provided over 1,000 personal briefings and more than 4,000 intelligence products to the Congress," an administration official said.

It doesn't matter though how many briefings were given to Congress if they did not contain all of the relevent intelligence. And if someone could expain to me how the number of intelligence briefings given to Congress in 2004 has anything to do with Bush's witholding of pre-war intelligence in 2002 and early 2003, I'd appreciate it.

None of this should be a surprise though, as we already knew that the Administration hadn't levelled with Congress because former Senator and Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence Bob Graham (D-FL) told us as much a month ago. He wrote, in part:

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the [National Intelligence Estimate] be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

Only members of the Select Committee were privy to the classified NIE, which means most Senators never saw it. That alone constitutes withheld intelligence.

The full report, conducted by the Congressional Research Service, can be found here.


*I do not generally consider the Washington Times to be a reliable source, as they are a right-wing propaganda organ, but I assume they can quote Bush correctly, especially when he is attacking Democrats.

Who Gives a Fuck About Productivity?

I'm really sick of assholes trying to convince us the economy is all peachy just because some abstract economic statistic looks good. "Productivity is up!" they say "So is GDP! Don't you understand that means the economy is good!?!!?!?!???" No fuckwad, no, it doesn't mean the economy is good, at least not for average people. Average people only care about two things. Jobs and real wage growth. All the productivity in the world doesn't mean shit if it isn't resulting in job creation and real wage growth. And guess what? Job growth* has been anemic since Bush took office and real wages have been flat-lined if not declining**. So take your productivity and shove it up your ass.


*Best statistic I could find. Note the monotonic decrease in percentage of people employed full time under Bush, as opposed to the monotonic increase of such under Clinton.

**Bias Disclosure: this link is to a liberal blog, but the important part is the chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

All Your Uteri Are Belong To Us

The New York Times publishes drivel:

But when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life. If both parties willingly participate then shouldn't both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results? [...]

The bottom line is that if we want to make fathers relevant, they need rights, too. If a father is willing to legally commit to raising a child with no help from the mother he should be able to obtain an injunction against the abortion of the fetus he helped create.

This is all very lovely and reasonable sounding, until you realize it amounts to giving the man veto power over the woman's body. If you turn it around, I very much doubt anyone, least of all someone arguing the quoted position, would find it desireable to allow the man to be able to force the woman to have an abortion when she wants to carry the fetus to term, so why should it be ok for him to force her to carry a fetus to term when she doesn't want to?

Obviously the ideal situation is for both potential parents to sit down and come to a mutually agreeable decision, but barring that, why should he who does not have to carry the pregnancy to term get the final say over she who does?

Atrios says:

Sometimes I wish the level of debate in our elite national publications could exceed, ever so slightly, the level of late night freshman dorm conversations. When he writes "have a say in whether to keep a baby" what he actually means is "decide what a woman does with her uterus." It would be nice if there were some intermediate position, but biology dictates that there just isn't. Either you have the baby or you don't. Someone has the right to make that decision for themselves or they don't. And, of course, he eventually makes that clear. He doesn't mean "have a say." He means "decide."

Indeed. Why is it that the anti-choice position and the anti-womens' autonomy position so often seem to coincide?

Asshole Tax

We need more ideas like this.

WTF?

I was reading this post just now, in which the blogger was quoting an e-mail she had received that talked about various reasons women should be grateful for feminism, e.g. workplace equality, and the supposedly witty remarks some knuckle-dragging neanderthal had made in response. For example, this:

> ...you can get or give birth control information without going to jail, thank a feminist.

No objections on a personal level, but it is worth pointing out that the demographic declne of the west must at least partly be due to this. Birth control assists the suicide of a culture.

The repsonse reminded me of a post I made last year, about an article in which the author disdainfully examines the lifestyle choices of those who decide not to have children:

Some who have chosen to be childless have actually formed organizations in order to band together. The group "No Kidding" was formed in Atlanta four years ago as a social outlet for couples choosing to have no children. Traci Swartz, an occupational therapist in her thirties, joined "No Kidding" with her husband Jeremy, a 32-year-old computer analyst. "When you don't have children, you are not involved in any activities like a lot of other people, like soccer and ballet," said Traci.

She explained that "No Kidding" members are more likely to talk about pets, travel, or other common interests. Kids rarely come up as a topic of conversation. "People think we sit around and talk about how we hate kids, but we almost never mention kids," Traci explained. No wonder.

Another woman in the Atlanta group explained, "you focus those motherly feelings elsewhere. For us, our dogs get all that love." That worldview is sick, but more and more common.

This got me to thinking, between the above articles and the anti-choice crowd's opposition to abortion and birth control, the right wing in this country has a certain, shall we say...obsession with breeding. Almost like spawning is an end in itself. I've seen this sentiment expressed in more than one place, and quite frankly, I don't get it. Has anybody else noticed this? Anybody have any ideas where this comes from? Seems kind of strange to me.

NOW There Are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (Updated)

Update: Not only are we using White Phosphorus in Iraq, we're not the first one to do so. From a 1995 defense department intellgence report:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICALWEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THEIRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICALWEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIRSTRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTALCRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TOPRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITEPHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THEPOPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIANBORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQIBORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BYARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION ATTHIS TIME).

End of update. ===================================================

I know this because, according to the US Army, in the battle of Fallujah, WE were the ones using them:

[White Phosphorus (WP)] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with [High Explosives (HE)]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

The Independent relates the story of a former American soldier, who describes the White Phosphorus attacks:

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

150 m is almost 500 ft. A circle that size covers 17.46 acres. That is a Weapon of Mass Destruction and we unleashed it on the city of Fallujah. Of course, the Bush Administration would have you belive that we have just used the WP for "illumination purposes." Now, besides the fact that the US Army's own above report contradicts that claim, we must all ask ourselves the question: "Is using a chemical which burns the flesh off of peoples' bodies the only way the Army knows of to illuminate an area?" I suspect that it is not. As Hunter (warning: graphic content) over at Daily Kos put it:

First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children. As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect, melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of "incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their judgment on the matter.

...

But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.

• First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.
• Second, because the civilian population will harbor considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of their children.
• Third, BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.

And, unless Saddam Hussein had a brigade or two consisting of six year olds, we can presume that children, like perhaps nine tenths or more of their immediate families, are civilians.

On the other hand these children were surely insurgents terrorists in training, and we can never be too careful.

Sen. Bob Graham: Destroyer of GOP Talking Points

Former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat from Florida, writes the following in Sunday's Washington Post about the run up to the Iraq War:

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.
[...]

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons.

We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

The classified version of the NIE was unavailable not only to the public, but to the Democratic members of the Senate not seated on the Select Committee. Unsurprisingly, given the material contained in that report, Senator Graham voted against the Iraq War resolution. If only all Senators had known what he knew.