Mullet Blog

The Real Story of Christmas

2005-12-25T12:26:00.000-05:00

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

2005-12-25T02:07:00.000-05:00

Happy Holidays, fuckers.

Suck It, Creationists

2005-12-21T00:12:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-12-17T00:25:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-12-09T01:44:00.000-05:00

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

2005-12-01T02:21:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-22T14:27:00.000-05:00

We need more ideas like this.

WTF?

2005-11-21T21:57:00.000-05:00

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)

2005-11-21T20:13:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-21T20:06:00.000-05:00

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.

I Can't Believe This is Real

2005-11-20T19:47:00.000-05:00

The man can't even exit a room, let alone Iraq.

Just look at the expression on his face.

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) Speaks Out

2005-11-17T20:35:00.000-05:00

Rep. John Murtha, moderate Democrat from Southwestern PA, is a decorated Vietnam Vet, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee and on Defense, and a widely respected expert on military affairs, had this to say today about the war in Iraq:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

...

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

...

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.

The rest of the Congressman's statement can be found here.

Blue Nation Pt. II

2005-11-17T19:56:00.000-05:00

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse for Bush, it does:

Once again, blue states have a higher disapproval than approval rating. Red states vice versa. In purple states these numbers are equal.

Since the last time this survey was taken Alaska and North Dakota have flipped from red to blue, Montana has flipped from purple to blue, Oklahoma and Nebraska have flipped from red to purple, and Mississippi has flipped from purple to red.

The following states voted for Bush by 60% or more and now disapprove of his job performance:
Alabama
Alaska
Kansas
North Dakota
Texas

These states voted for Bush by 55% or more and now disapprove:

Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
North Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia

If the election were held today, and Bush won the red and purple* states above he would receive 30 electoral votes, down from 39 last time.

*tiebreaker: advantage of incumbancy

Democrats to Big Money: Bugger Off

2005-11-16T21:31:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the influence of small doners, the Democratic Party is finally weaning itself off of the tainted teet of the big money donors and lobbyists and the attendent corruption such dependence breeds (see: Party, Republican). The DNC, led by Chairman Howard Dean, led the way:

As a fund-raiser—the first duty of a party chairman and Dean's claim to fame in '04—he isn't quite the disaster some critics suggest. Early in the last "cycle," in 2001, the Republican National Committee outraised the DNC by a 3-1 margin. So far this year, that ratio has been cut to 2-1. More important is the way it was raised. In the past the party relied on "soft money" from millionaires. But such donations are now illegal. Officials esti-mate that $12 million of the $14 million the Dean regime has collected so far this year has come from those who gave less than $250. "For people who really look hard at the numbers, he's wowing people," says Elaine Kamarck, a respected DNC member.

Today we learn that House Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have begun to ignore the K-Street Corporate Lobbyists:

Since the departure this summer of Chief of Staff George Crawford, Pelosi’s office has not been holding its Friday meeting with lobbyists on a regular basis, said several attendees.

“They’ve canceled them a lot more often than they’ve had them,” said one regular attendee.

Democratic sources could recall only two or three meetings occurring since the new chief of staff, John Lawrence, took over in July.

This is good news for the Democratic Party, because it is the too close relationship between the Democrats and coporate money that have pulled the party away from it's roots, standing up for the little guy against that powerful interests. Don't feel bad for the powerful interests though, they already have a party ready and willing to do their bidding:

At first blush, K Street might not seem like the best place to build a well-oiled political operation. For most of its existence, after all, the influence industry has usually been the primary obstacle to aggressive, ambitious policy-making in Washington. But over the last few years, Republicans have brought about a revolutionary change: They've begun to capture and, consequently, discipline K Street. Through efforts like Santorum's--and a House version run by the majority whip, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)--K Street is becoming solidly Republican. The corporate lobbyists who once ran the show, loyal only to the parochial interests of their employer, are being replaced by party activists who are loyal first and foremost to the GOP. Through them, Republican leaders can now marshal armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and public relations experts--not to mention enormous amounts of money--to meet the party's goals. Ten years ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the political donations of 19 key industry sectors--including accounting, pharmaceuticals, defense, and commercial banks--were split about evenly between the parties. Today, the GOP holds a two-to-one advantage in corporate cash.

As the Democrats become the party of the people, the Republicans become more and more the party of the powerful.

Do The Right Thing*

2005-11-16T19:56:00.000-05:00

A great post by Ian Welsh over at The Blogging of the President.

I'm going to tell you a little secret that a lot of people give lip service to, but few really believe.

The right thing to do morally is usually the right thing to do pragmatically.

You will hear those who say "we can't afford universal healthcare" and yet I will tell you than when other nations have gone from private care to single payor healthcare their costs per person have dropped by a third and shown improvement in most health metrics. That means if the US went to universal healthcare it would actually save money and be more healthy.

You will hear those who say "we can't afford to send money to help those left homeless by the Pakistani earthquake. But I will tell you this, those people left homeless are your enemies - they are the ones who refused to turn al-Q'aeda over to you. Fought against your troops when you tried to nab them. And I will tell you this further, for 2 billion dollars, nothing really, you can save hundreds of thousands of their lives and by so doing you will make them your friends. And once they are your friends, not your enemies, they will be much more likely to turn over al-Q'aeda to you, or at least not to protect them.

Go: Read.

*Apologies to Spike Lee.

2005 Election Returns - A Good Day to be Blue

2005-11-09T13:28:00.000-05:00

Democrats did extremely well in last nights elections, proving what many of us already knew: The GOP is in decline and the Democratic Party has the momentum going into 2006. In both Virginia and New Jersey, by surprisingly large margins, Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates won elections to keep those statehouses blue. Tim Kaine, in Viriginia, defeated the Bush-endorsed Jerry Kilgore 52-46, while Jon Corzine stomped Doug Forrester in New Jersey 53-44.

In other good news Arnold Scwhwarzenegger's slew of regressive propositions were smacked down by California voters, the Intelligent Design advocates on the Dover School Board in Central Pennsylvania were tossed out on their asses, with all eight being swept from office by science-supporting Democrats, and a hate-mongering proposal to repeal Maine's anti-discrimination statute that protects gays and lesbians was roundly rejected 55-45.

All in all, a good night to be a Democrat.

There is No Such Thing as Fiscal Conservatism

2005-10-24T14:38:00.000-04:00

There might have been in the past, but the GOP took it outside and shot it in the head. Club for Growth, a right wing reflexively knee-jerk anti-tax group, has nonetheless provided us with the following useful bit of information about the growing number of pork projects which have been included in federal spending bills since the GOP took over control of Congress.

2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439

Republicans gained Congressional Majorities after the 1994 elections, which means (I think) that the first budget they would have been responsible for as the majority party would be for 1996, in which they actually reduced the number of pork projects from the previous year, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Since then, not so good:

The data points are black diamonds. The trendline, which I had Excel add in red, is a simple x² polynomial curve. The chart also shows the equation of the fit line, which has a ludicrous zeroeth-order term because of the unusual range of the x-axis that the trendline covers (1996-2005 instead of say, 0-10) and an R² value of 0.9899, indicating a good fit to the data (1 is a perfect fit).

The conclusion is that the Republican Party has no interest whatsoever in cutting government spending and that anyone who votes for the GOP because they think that the Republicans will manage our money better is a fool.

I See a Red State and I Want to Paint it Blue

2005-10-23T22:28:00.000-04:00

Survey USA recently released a poll of Bush's approval ratings in all fifty states. Thanks to Delaware Dem, we have a graphical representation of those results. Blue states have a higher disapproval than approval rating. Red states vice versa. In purple states these numbers are equal.

You will notice that even Texas is blue. That is not a mistake.

The following states voted for Bush by 60% or more and now disapprove of his job performance:

Alabama
Kansas
Texas

These states voted for Bush by 55% or more and now disapprove:

Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia

If the election were held today, and Bush won the red and purple (tiebreaker: advantage of incumbancy) states above he would receive 39 electoral votes.

Republicans are Lying Sacks of Shit

2005-10-21T02:31:00.000-04:00

I know, I know. It's nothing you didn't already know, but the endemic dishonesty displayed by Republicans at all levels simply boggles the mind. Even diametrically opposed reality does nothing to slow down their neverending stream of lies. For example, over at RedState.org, a conservative blog, a poster wrote the following:

Even though [Tom DeLay] has already begun to win the media battle against the inept tactics of Ronnie Earl...

In case you didn't know, Tom Delay (R-TX) is the former House Majority Leader who was forced to step down after being indicted by District Attorney Ronnie Earle in Travis County, Texas. The point though is that the poster claims Delay is winning the media battle. Let's see if polling confirms that (I have taken liberties with the layout.):

"Recently, a series of charges have been raised against public officials. For each one I mention, please tell me whether this is nothing more than the usual kind of partisan political charge that has little merit (UK), or whether you think this charge indicates potential illegal activity (PI). "

"Congressman Tom DeLay being indicted for illegal use of corporate contributions to political campaigns" (Poll taken: 10/8-10/05)

UK: 24
PI: 65

In what univere does an almost three to one margin believing the charges are legitimate constitute winning the media battle? That would be like Kerry saying last October that he's winning the election battle in Nebraska, it's simply absurd. What this poll shows beyond a shadow of a doubt is that only the most hardcore of the Republican base, presumably the ones who think lying about a blow job is worse than lying about why we went to war and that Bush did a really good job in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, i.e. people who's opinions should be ignored, are willing to give DeLay the benefit of the doubt. This is the 24% of the country that would support DeLay if he anally violated the corpse of a nine year old boy on national television. DeLay could plead guilty to these charges, and these people would still think they were just politics. To win a media battle, you actually have to convince people who aren't your knee-jerk suppporters of your position. Or you could just lie about winning it and hope people don't ever check the facts.

Boy, Your Soul Better Belong to Jesus. Cuz Your Ass Belongs to Me.

2005-10-20T01:34:00.000-04:00

A warrant was issued today in Travis County, TX for the arrest of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX).

Full warrant here.

This might also come in handy for Tommy Boy.

Comeuppance: A viscious homophobe being forcibly sodomized in prison.

Why People Hate Liberals

2005-10-14T12:20:00.000-04:00

Just look at all the horrible shit we've done (Thanks to Delaware Dem for the original list):

Civil and Political Rights:

The Civil Rights Movement
Women's Right to Vote
The Voting Rights Act
Labor Laws
Women's right to control their reproductive future
Americans With Disabilities Act
Family & Medical Leave Act
"Motor-Voter" Act

Social Safety Net:

Unemployment Insurance
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps/WIC
Social Security

Consumer Protection:

Consumer Product Safety Commission
Bank Deposit Insurance (FDIC)
Allowing citizens to view their own credit records
Food Safety Laws
Workplace Safety Laws
Product Labeling Laws
Truth in Advertising Laws

Foreign Policy:

Winning World War II
The United Nations
NATO
The Marshall Plan
Supporting the establishment of Israel
Peace between Israel and Egypt
Peace between Israel and Jordan
Peace in Northern Ireland

Education:

Universal Public Education
Public Universities
The GI Bill
Public Broadcasting
The Peace Corps
Americorps
Morrill Land Grant Act

Environment:

Endangered Species Act
Environmental Laws
The Civilian Conservation Corps

Infrastructure:

The Tennessee Valley Project
Rural Electrification

Science:

The Space Program
The Internet

Budget and Taxes:

Earned Income Tax Credit
Balancing the federal budget

Good Government:

Lobbying Disclosure Act
Freedom of Information Act

Public Health & Safety:

National Weather Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Brady Bill

Government Agencies:

The Department of Education
The Department of Energy
The Department of Transportation
The Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Securites and Exchange Commission

Stupid liberals.

The 2% President

2005-10-13T13:45:00.000-04:00

A new poll out shows that President Bush's approval rating among African Americans is at an all time low of two percent (only mentioned in the video). His approval rating amongst the rest of the country is at 39%. Intelligence Squad has the best take on this I've seen so far:

Apparently, watching thousands of one's people drown, starve and dehydrate while the man responsible for assisting them squeezes a couple of extra days out of his vacation tends to make folks appropriately cranky. According to NBC's Tim Russert, the network's latest poll has only 2% of blacks saying they approve of the job Bush is doing as president. Those are Ku Klux Klan-like levels. I bet Newt Gingrich had better numbers than that among blacks as Speaker of the House during the Clinton impeachment. I bet Jefferson Davis had better numbers as the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Apparently Condi Rice, Minister T.D. Jakes, Ken Blackwell, and a tiny handful of other sellouts are the only black folks left in America still willing to support this monkey.

2%. Didn't Saddamn Hussein have more people than that vote against him when he held rigged elections in Iraq? The Communist Party had more opposition in the Soviet Union than 2%.

Conservatives' Ideal Woman

2005-10-12T23:30:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to Doug for sending me this link.

Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she's already thinking about doing it again.

...

"We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them," he said in a telephone interview.

Ladies, this is what conservatives think you should aspire to: human factory. You have no higher calling than that. Always remember that condoms, birth control and *shudder* abortion, are nothing more than tools of the devil that keep you from fulfilling this most divine mission in life. That and cooking and cleaning and lying prone and motionless while you get impregnated for the seventeenth time.

Relgious Belief May Be Hazardous to Your Health

2005-09-29T17:01:00.000-04:00

I hate to say "I told you so," but...

Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

...

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

I know, I know. Correlation vs. causation and all that, but it's still interesting to think about.

His Property Rights Extend to Your Uterus

2005-09-14T20:19:00.000-04:00

From the Heretik.

Complete Unadulterated Bullshit

2005-09-03T17:03:00.000-04:00

Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security, at a press conference earlier today:

Defending the administration’s response, Chertoff said the double-barreled hit taken by the New Orleans area — the hurricane, and the breaching of the city’s levees — is what has complicated the government’s response.

“We were prepared for one catastrophe,” Chertoff said. “The second catastrophe, frankly, added a level of challenge that no one has seen before.”

This is such utterly disigenuous tripe it makes me want to throw up. Everyone knew that a likely result of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans would be a collapse of the levees that would flood the city. Acting now like this was a totally unexpected and unrelated second disaster is nothing more than sniveling, gutless attempt to evade responsibility for not getting enough aid to New Orleans in a timely or efficient manner, and in fact still not having done nearly enough to help the people stranded there.

Chertoff should be fired, if not jailed.

Incomprehensible. Inexcusable.

2005-09-03T13:31:00.000-04:00

I've got to--I've got to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when you're tested, not only--it's the time you test your mettle. It's the time to test your heart, when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down.
~Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/2000

Much credit to Americablog and Steve Gilliard, from whom I have culled many of these links.

Depsite the last couple of tidbits I've posted here, I'm actually struggling to come to grips with what's going on in New Orleans. The devastation is already incomprehensible, despite the fact that we haven't even begun to see the beginning of the human toll this disaster will eventually take. Equally incomprehensible has been the inexcusable response of the Bush administration both leading up to and following Katrina. This post isn't going to be just about that, but let's start ten years ago:

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming (Well, almost no one). ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

One should note that it is the giving-way of the Seventeenth Street Canal Levee that contains Lake Pontchartrain that is largely responsible for the flooding in New Orleans.

More:

Bush administration funding cuts forced federal engineers to delay improvements on the levees, floodgates and pumping stations that failed to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters, agency documents showed on Thursday.

The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that handles the infrastructure of the nation's waterways, said the damage in New Orleans probably would have been much less extensive had flood-control efforts been fully funded over the years.

"Levees would have been higher, levees would have been bigger, there would have been other pumps put in," said Mike Parker, a former Mississippi congressman who headed the engineering agency from 2001 to 2002.

"I'm not saying it would have been totally alleviated but it would have been less than the damage that we have got now."

Before Katrina hit, approximately 1,000,000 people evacuated the New Orleans area, leaving behind almost 300,000. Those left behind are largely the desperately poor, who lack the means to evacuate even if they had wanted to:

New Orleans is home to many social and economic disparities. For example, 58 of the 73 neighborhoods in the city have a poverty rate higher than the national average. In 17 neighborhoods, over two-thirds of the children under six live in poverty and in one neighborhood 94% are below the poverty level.

Those left behind are also predominantly African American, who especially in the South tend to be extremely poor:

Of course this means that all the (not so) closet racists get to come out and play. A few selected comments from FreeRepublic.com, gathering place of right wing hatemongers and extremists:

from af_vat_1981: I'm disappointed that leaders have not publicly ordered "shoot to kill." I want to see the bodies of these animals in the streets of NO.

from lonestar: A lot of them are crackheads. At least they haven't lost a job. They've never had one!

from Alberta's Child: ... a "lack of leadership" would never be an issue if this situation had occurred in a place where quasi-humanoid mutants and incurable poverty cases make up less than 50% of the population.

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall St. Journal:

As for the tragic piggism that is taking place on the streets of New Orleans, it is not unbelievable but it is unforgivable, and I hope the looters are shot.

Jonah Goldberg, of National Review Online:

I think it's time to face facts. [New Orleans] is going to be a Mad Max/thunderdome Waterworld/Lord of the Flies horror show within the next few hours. My advice is to prepare yourself now. Hoard weapons, grow gills and learn to communicate with serpents. While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless. Gather young fighters around you and tell the womenfolk you will feed and protect any female who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth with a race of gilled-supermen. It's never too soon to be prepared.

Several readers complain that it's in fact true that the hurricane will disproportionately affect poor people. I don't really dispute that in the sense most mean it. Yes, the poor will have special hardships. Obviously so. But what I objected to, and still object to, is the reflexive playing of the class card. Is it really true that some middle class retirees who heeded the advice of the government to leave town, only to watch their homes be looted after a lifetime of hardwork for a better life are suffering less than a poor person who lost his rented apartment? What's the metric for measuring this sort of suffering? What about the small businessman who worked his entire life to build something he's proud of? What about the families who lost loved ones, but had the poor taste to make more money than the poverty line?

Ethan at Salto Moralte responds:

Because the poor, having little savings, have an increased chance of DYING due to the lack of resources in the affected area, JONAH, YOU STUPID PRIVILEGED BITCH. Free temporary housing and food may not soon be available for tens or hundreds of thousands of poor people. Savings could make all the difference. It's not like poor people are gonna get checks in the mail anytime soon.

He's un-fucking-believable.

I wonder if he's ever missed a meal.

And if those dumb niggers had just found a way to magically sprout wings and fly out of the city, none of this would be happening:

FEMA director Michael Brown just added this little line to his interview on CNN right now, refering to who FEMA is trying to hel in New Orleans:

"...to help those who are stranded, who chose not to evacuate, who chose not to leave the city..."

Atrios replies:

Aside from the poor, the carless, and the infirm, there were also lots of people who had Saturday flights cancelled and who were unable to obtain rental cars. These people are sick.

From the AP:

Making matters worse, at least 100,000 people in the city lack the transportation to get out of town. [New Orleans Mayor] C. Ray Nagin said the Superdome might be used as a shelter of last resort for people who have no cars, with city bus pick-up points around New Orleans.

"I know they're saying `Get out of town,' but I don't have any way to get out," said Hattie Johns, 74. "If you don't have no money, you can't go."

In case you haven't already seen it, this is what 1,000,000 people were running from:

This used to be the Hyatt Regency Hotel:

This is what New Orleans looks like right now:

The darker areas (most of the picture) are the flooded portions of the city.

So how did President Bush prepare for the onslaught that would be Katarina? We know he was on vacation all of August, and so Americablog asks:

Will Bush stay on vacation while the hurricane destroys New Orleans?

That question was posed on Sunday.

While Hurricane Katrina was approaching New Orleans, destroying it, and leaving it in shambles, what was Presdient Bush up to?

Sunday:

After a weekend in which the countryside near his ranch was dominated by demonstrations both in favor of the Iraq war and against it, President Bush travels to Arizona and California today on domestic business: promoting the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors.

Monday:

President Bush came to the Valley today to get the word out about how Medicare beneficiaries can get prescription drug coverage.

Monday:

Tuesday:

Tuesday:

...

This morning our hearts and prayers are with our fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast who have suffered so much from Hurricane Katrina. These are trying times for the people of these communities. We know that many are anxious to return to their homes. It's not possible at this moment. Right now our priority is on saving lives, and we are still in the midst of search and rescue operations. I urge everyone in the affected areas to continue to follow instructions from state and local authorities.

The federal, state and local governments are working side-by-side to do all we can to help people get back on their feet, and we have got a lot of work to do. Our teams and equipment are in place and we're beginning to move in the help that people need. Americans who wish to help can call 1-800-HELPNOW, or log on to RedCross.org, or get in touch with the Salvation Army. The good folks in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and other affected areas are going to need the help and compassion and prayers of our fellow citizens.

...

The ... preceeding the quoted pargraphs represents 47 words, the quoted passage 185 words, and the second ... which is the remainder of the speech, 3422 words. The day after the worst disaster in American history the President spends 0.053 of his speech addressing the event.

Wednesday:

President Bush will cut short his vacation to return to Washington on Wednesday, two days earlier than planned, to help monitor federal efforts to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina, the White House said Tuesday.

Wednesday:

President Bush announced Tuesday that he would cut short his extended summer vacation and fly to Washington to begin work on Wednesday with a task force that will coordinate the work of 14 federal agencies involved in the relief effort.

Friday:

I guess there was nothing better for those helicopters to be doing at the time.

As Bush strummed, New Orleans flooded.

Tuesday:

Hospitals were running out of power and scrambling to find places to take their patients. At one clinic, broken glass littered some areas and patients and staff had fallen on floors slick with floodwaters.

"It's like being in a Third World country," said Mitch Handrich, a registered nurse manager at Charity Hospital, where nurses were ventilating patients by hand after the power and then the backup generator failed. Some 300 patients had yet to be evacuated, but the babies in intensive care had been flown out.

"We're just trying to stay alive," Handrich said. ...

"The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked," Councilwoman Jackie Clarkson said. "We're using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue while we still have people on rooftops." ...

"We're not even dealing with dead bodies," [Mayor C. Ray] Nagin said. "They're just pushing them on the side."

Wednesday:

"Near Esplanade and Broad Street, attendants sat on the porch of the Bethany Home. The 30 patients, attendants said, were incapable of traveling out of New Orleans before the storm. The home's supply of drinking water was almost exhausted, and two patients had died. ...

"Neighbors in the area near Hickory and Short streets Uptown said a body has been floating nearby in five feet of water since the unidentified man was shot five times on Monday. Neighbors said the shooting was reported, but police and other officials apparently have been unable to respond." ...

The vital Katrina blog at WWL-TV in New Orleans has just provided these chilling reports from Jefferson Parish emergency services director Walter Maestri:

We have no food or water for the evacuees. Says emergency workers have seized the food and water and drinks from Sam's Club, Wal-Mart and other groceries for evacuees, but he said that is all gone. Says water supply is gone. More water expected, but its not there right now. Says evacuees are getting upset and harried."

FEMA and national agencies not delivering the help nearly as fast as it is needed.

Thursday:

An old man in a chaise lounge lay dead in a grassy median as hungry babies wailed around him. Around the corner, an elderly woman lay dead in her wheelchair, covered up by a blanket, and another body lay beside her wrapped in a sheet.

``I don't treat my dog like that,'' 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair. ``I buried my dog.'' He added: ``You can do everything for other countries but you can't do nothing for your own people. You can go overseas with the military but you can't get them down here.''

Thursday, in the Superdome:

Water and electricity both failed Monday, and three pumps to pressurize plumbing have been no match "when the lake just keeps pushing it back at us," said Maj. Ed Bush, the chief public affairs officer for the Louisiana National Guard.

"With no hand-washing, and all the excrement," said Sgt. Debra Williams, who was staffing the infirmary in the adjacent sports arena, "you have about four days until dysentery sets in. And it's been four days today."

Bottled water was too precious to use for washing; adults get two bottles a day. Food, mostly Meals Ready-to-Eat, is dispensed in a different line. Many refugees told of waiting in line for hours only to be told no food was left.

Friday:

The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.

Friday:

There are gangs of white vigilantes near here riding around in pickup trucks, all of them armed, and any young Black they see who they figure doesn't belong in their community, they shoot him. I tell them, "Stop! You're going to start a riot." ...

The hurricane hit at the end of the month, the time when poor people are most vulnerable. Food stamps don't buy enough but for about three weeks of the month, and by the end of the month everyone runs out. Now they have no way to get their food stamps or any money, so they just have to take what they can to survive.

Many people are getting sick and very weak. From the toxic water that people are walking through, little scratches and sores are turning into major wounds.

People whose homes and families were not destroyed went into the city right away with boats to bring the survivors out, but law enforcement told them they weren't needed. They are willing and able to rescue thousands, but they're not allowed to. ...

People from Placquemine Parish were rescued on a ferry and dropped off on a dock near here. All day they were sitting on the dock in the hot sun with no food, no water. Many were in a daze; they've lost everything.

They were all sitting there surrounded by armed guards. We asked the guards could we bring them water and food. My mother and all the other church ladies were cooking for them, and we have plenty of good water.

But the guards said, "No. If you don't have enough water and food for everybody, you can't give anything." Finally the people were hauled off on school buses from other parishes. ...

It's not like New Orleans was caught off guard. This could have been prevented.

There's military right here in New Orleans, but for three days they weren't even mobilized. You'd think this was a Third World country.

I'm in the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans, the only part that isn't flooded. The water is good. Our parks and schools could easily hold 40,000 people, and they're not using any of it.

This is criminal. These people are dying for no other reason than the lack of organization.

Before continuing, watch this video. Then this one. And this one.

The swift, immediate military response that could have prevented some of this?

1992: For reference, under the first President Bush, the Army sent 24,525 troops to South Florida after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992.

Presently:

Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event. We need our people," said Lt. Andy Thaggard, a spokesman for the Mississippi National Guard, which has a brigade of more than 4,000 troops in central Iraq. Louisiana also has about 3,000 Guard troops in Baghdad.
Mississippi has about 40 percent of its Guard force deployed or preparing to deploy and has called up all remaining Guard units for hurricane relief, Thaggard said. ...

Alabama's Army National Guard has a strength of 11,000 troops -- or 78 percent of the authorized number.

The problem for Louisiana and Mississippi isn't how many troops are in Iraq, but rather the kind of soldiers who are there, said Dave McGinnis, a military analyst who specializes in National Guard personnel issues.

"It's combat brigades, which are the types of units you need in these situations," he said. Combat brigades — large, self-sustaining units of about 3,000 troops — have the vehicles, communications equipment and structure to cope best with a natural disaster. In Louisiana, communications and mobility are especially critical because most of New Orleans is without water, power and telephone service.

Sunday: Louisiana Governor Catherine Blanco sends the linked-to letter to President Bush.

Sunday:

Several states ready and willing to send National Guard troops to the rescue in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans didn't get the go-ahead until days after the storm struck — a delay nearly certain to be investigated by Congress. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard on Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. ...

Thursday:

... Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday.

Tuesday: Due to miscommunication and a lack of helicopters, the choppers that were supposed to be rescuing people AND reinforcing the levees failed to drop the necessary sandbags, which led to the levee's failure and the flooding of the city.

Wednesday:

As you know, as you just said, initially, principally a local law enfrocement effort. If and when the president decides to step it up and use active duty forces, we will be, and it would be at almost certainly the request of the governor of Louisiana or Missippi... we would be able to respond with any number of options.

Wednesday:

On Wednesday reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!

When asked why these young men were not being used to help in the recovery effort, our reporters were told that it would be pointless to send military personnel down to the beach to pick up debris.

Thursday:

The military will increase the National Guard force in the hurricane-ravaged U.S. Gulf states to 30,000 amid growing lawlessness in New Orleans and mounting relief needs, and it dispatched an aircraft carrier to the region, officials said on Thursday.

The Navy also said the hospital ship USNS Comfort, based in Baltimore, is expected to set sail by Saturday and reach the region in seven days. The floating hospital has 12 operating rooms and up to 1,000 patient beds, but will be configured initially for 250 beds, the Navy said. It will first stop in Florida to load additional medical supplies and personnel.

Army officials said they were preparing for the possibility of deploying larger numbers of active-duty troops to the stricken region, but no deployment orders on that scale had been issued.

Meanwhile, the icompetence of the Bush Administration was costing lives in any number of ways. Bush refused foreign aide from Canada and Jamaica. Condoleeza Rice went shoe-shopping in New York. Dick Cheney is on vacation in Wyoming.

Homeland Security:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, The Today Show, 9/1/05:

I’d say we’re much better prepared than we’ve ever been.
Knight Ridder, 9/1/05

“These things need to be planned and prepared for; it just doesn’t look like it was,” said Witt, a former Arkansas disaster chief who won bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill during his tenure.

On FEMA:

Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.Was he sacked instantly?

As reports continued of famished and dehydrated people isolated across the Gulf Coast, angry questions were pressed about why the military has not been dropping food packets for them -- as was done in Afghanistan, Bosnia and in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami.

Bill Wattenburg, a consultant for the University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and one of the designers of the earlier food drop programs, said that he has lobbied the administration and the military to immediately begin something similar. He said he was told that the military was prepared to begin, but that it was awaiting a request from FEMA.

Bush?

Dowd: Was [Brown] sacked instantly?
Bush: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

The Washington Times, which is generally considered to be a GOP propaganda organ:

Troops are finally moving into New Orleans in realistic numbers, and it's past time. What took the government so long? The thin veneer separating civilization and chaos, which we earlier worried might collapse in the absence of swift action, has collapsed.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has suspended his police department's search-and-rescue operations to struggle with looters. Health-care centers remain under siege. The evacuation of thousands of refugees from the squalor and stink of the Superdome, inexcusably delayed, was delayed further when someone fired on a military helicopter. A National Guardsman was shot outside the arena. A Mississippi man murdered his own sister over a bag of ice. Rotting bodies float free above submerged streets and crying children haven't eaten in days. Their parents plead from rooftops for rescue, and survivors of the flood line the freeways by the thousands, stumbling in the sweltering heat with no food, no water and no place to go. If this is not hell, it is close to it.

Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-LA):

"I started making calls and trying to impress upon the White House and others that something needed to be done," he said. "The state resources were being overwhelmed, and we needed direct federal assistance, command and control, and security -- all three of which are lacking."

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA):

Vitter, speaking to reporters at the emergency response center in Baton Rouge, also said he gave the federal government a grade 'F' for its response to the disaster so far.

Some people however, just don't seem to get it. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL):

Lawmakers have to ask themselves if it’s worth sinking possibly billions of federal dollars into rebuilding New Orleans, a low-lying city which would remain a vulnerable hurricane target even after clean up, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Wednesday.

“It doesn’t make sense to me,” said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. “And it’s a question that certainly we should ask.”

Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman is primarily concerned this week with repealing the estate tax.

Fortunately some do, like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and his House colleagues:

In today's lagging economy, far too many hardworking Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, just barely getting by. In that tenuous financial condition, many families are only one tragedy away from being devastated by debt. Many of the families who have now lost their homes, livelihoods, and personal possessions will soon be contacted by credit collection agencies demanding the next minimum payment on a credit card.

Unfortunately, the bankruptcy bill recently passed by Congress makes matters far worse for these families. ... That is why I, and Congressman Mel Watt, Jerry Nadler and Congresswoman Jackson Lee will introduce a bill tomorrow to exempt disaster victims from the reach of the new bankruptcy bill.

And just in case you thought this all couldn't get any sicker, the Department of Homeland Security wants you to be aware of the fact that September is National Preparedness Month.

Criminal Negligence

2005-09-01T13:31:00.000-04:00

Bush on Good Morning America:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will," [Bush] said.

What?!!?!? Are you kidding me? I anticipated the breach of the levees. Everybody who wasn't living in a cave for the last week anticipated the breach of the levees, because they knew that the single greatest threat to New Orleans was the possibility that the levees wouldn't hold and the city would be catastrophically flooded. Everybody knew this because everybody knew that the city of New Orleans largely lies below sea level, which everybody knew because the weather forecasters mentioned it every time they discussed the inevitably huge storm surge Katrina would produce. Everybody but Bush, that is.

Is Criminal Negligence an impeachable offense? Jesus Christ.

Update: From CNN, the subheadline reads:

Crescent City under evacuation; storm may overwhelm levees

The article's dateline is early Monday morning, before the storm hit and well before the levees broke.

Racist Media

2005-08-31T19:40:00.000-04:00

Hmmmm...

Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana. (AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)

A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it made landfall on Monday. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

Or as Aexia on Daily Kos put it: "It's not looting if you're white."

Gary Hart to Democrats: Stop Being Pussies

2005-08-24T23:21:00.000-04:00

A little criticism directed at the Democrats. Never let it be said that Mulletblog isn't fair and balanced.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

...

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

The Democrats need to stand up and say this war is wrong. The sooner the better.

Hate Women...Hate Science...Hate Women...Hate Science...Hate Women AND Science!!

2005-08-24T23:03:00.000-04:00

It's so hard being a conservative, having to decide every day what you despise the most. Some days you think it's women, some days science, somedays abortions. Wouldn't it be nice if someone went and made it all simple again, like when you just had to hate those damn niggers*?

Mulletblog is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of you. The latest twisted syntheses of conservative hate:

Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.

Their report, being published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is based on a review of several hundred scientific papers, and it says that nerve connections in the brain are unlikely to have developed enough for the fetus to feel pain before 29 weeks.

...

After studying the medical literature, Dr. Rosen and his co-authors concluded that critical wiring in the brain, between the cerebral cortex and a lower region, the thalamus, was not complete until about 29 weeks. Without that connection, they said, a fetus cannot feel pain.

But, but...Jesus doesn't like abortion!

The finding poses a direct challenge to proposed federal and state laws that would compel doctors to tell women having abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer them anesthesia specifically for the fetus.

...

Bills requiring that women be warned about fetal pain have been introduced in the House and Senate and in 19 states, and recently passed in Georgia, Arkansas and Minnesota. The bills are supported by many anti-abortion groups. But advocates for abortion rights say the real purpose of the measures is to discourage women from seeking abortions. It is too soon to tell what effect the new laws are having in abortion clinics.

There's just one small problem with this, however:

Dr. Rosen said in a telephone interview. Giving anesthesia to the fetus could be difficult and would needlessly expose the pregnant woman to additional risks, he said, adding, "Policy decisions should be based on evidence, scientific evidence, not our emotional beliefs."

Possible side effects?

Although the risks of serious complications from anesthesia are very low, complications can include heart attack, stroke, brain damage, and death.

So when presented with a choice between preventing the unnecessary deaths of women or embracing dubiously nonexistant scientific evidence that the fetus may or may not feel pain in order to implement a thinly-veiled tactic which may or may not scare some women from having abortions, but that will surely get some of them killed, conservatives choose...the science- ignoring, women-killing, anti-abortion option.

Why am I not surprised?

*Mulletblog is fully aware that many conservatives still hate African-Americans as well.

John McCain: Just Another Batshit Fundamentalist

2005-08-24T20:31:00.000-04:00

I know there are a number of people out there who consider themselves either Democrats or Indepenents who think John McCain is a fairly reasonable guy, and if it came down to a choice between McCain and a Democrat they weren't all that thrilled about, they would consider voting for McCain. I know this is true, because I used to be one of those people. Not anymore:

On Tuesday, though, [McCain] sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement.

McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

All points of view, John? Really? Are we going to teach school children about the Islamic creation myth? The Hindi one? Buddhist? Pagan? No? John McCain is now officially either one of two things, a crazed fundy who wants to force his religious views on the rest of us or a shameless panderer who will say anything and do anything to become president. Either way, he sucks and doesn't deserve your vote.

Case Study: How to Lose an Argument in Sixty Seconds

2005-08-19T13:14:00.000-04:00

So this morning, my dad calls me up and starts asking about Intelligent Design (ID), because apparently they don't give people enough to do where he works and he and two other guys were talking about creationism and evolution, and he couldn't remember what ID was. I tell him that basically it's creationism dressed up in scientific language and that the designer is in fact the Christian god. At this point I was challenged on the notion that the designer is in fact the Chrisitian god, so I replied (at this point I believe I was put on speaker phone. Also, this is somewhat paraphrased):

Mullet: Intelligent design is basically the idea that certain structures are too complicated to have evolved and thus some designer must have created them. Intelligent designers like to claim that the designer isn't the Chrisitian god, but this point is belied by the fact that most of them are advocating for a religious point of view (not exactly what I said).

At this point my opponent, whom I shall generously refer to as Dumbass, jumped in.

Dumbass: But what about the eye, Darwin himself said the eye was too complicated to have evolved.

Mullet: Darwin was wrong. If you look at the natural world, you can see all stages of the eye's development, from the human eye down to a patch that is merely sensitive to light.

Dumbass: So you're saying the eye evolved just from random mutation.

Mullet: Natural selection operating on mutation, yes.

Dumbass: That's impossible.

Mullet: The entire biological community disagrees with you.

Dumbass: But what about the bible, this doesn't agree with what the bible says (very paraphrased).

Mullet: It's too bad that science doesn't reconcile with the bible, but that's not science's job.

Dumbass: But when science and the bible disagree, the bible wins.

Mullet: Um...no.

Dumbass: Well you're just one of those atheists then... (very paraphrased).

The speaker phone cut out at this point, so I can only imagine what other insults he lobbed in my direction.

The humourous part however, is that we started with the premise that the intelligent designer isn't the Christian god, and within the span of a minute, with no attempt on my part to direct the coversation in that direction, Dumbass began invoking the bible. Which brings us to...

Mullet's Helpful Rhetorical Tip of the Day: When arguing for premise "A", it is generally a bad idea to make an argument that is the logical equivalent of "Not A."

Example: Ice isn't the same thing as water. Look, I'll put this water in the freezer, and when I take it out in an hour, it will be ice. See, ice and water aren't the same thing at all!

Like I said, "dumbass" was a generous moniker.

Yes Virginia, There is Such a Thing as Global Warming

2005-08-13T01:53:00.000-04:00

Reality: 1
Republicans: 0
All of us: Screwed

Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere's lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

Look, this isn't hard. You can't pump ever increasing amounts of C02 into the air while you slash and burn the rainforests and expect nothing to happen. With temperatures on the rise and glaciers shrinking, it's pretty difficult at this point to deny the influence of global warming without a large amount of purposeful ignorance. Or, as Molly Ivins once put it:

To oversimplify (always an inviting option), we find a lot of people who know a fair amount about earth sciences seriously worried about what mankind is doing to the planet Earth. On the other hand, we have a lot of people with an ideological commitment to pure capitalism arguing that this is all hooey.

But the free market will fix it! Really!!

Update:

See this. Also this.

Prefag Awareness Test

2005-08-10T00:37:00.000-04:00

Brought to you by your friendly neigborhood bigoted assholes at Focus on the Straight White Decidedlyungay Protestent Straight Family:

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.

2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.

3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls* and participate in their games and other pastimes.

5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”

6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.

7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

Don't worry though, if your child seems already predestined to be Skipping Towards Gomorrah, there's help:

If your child exhibits repeated overt prehomosexual tendencies*:

1. Accept your child and affirm his or her worth regardless of the characteristics you observe. Show unconditional love.

2. Don’t wait until your daughter’s masculinized behavior or your son’s effeminate preferences get any worse. Remember that for many prehomosexual boys and girls, some of the characteristics may be more subtle:

inability to bond with same-sex peers
feeling different from and inferior to other same-sex peers
discomfort with his or her gender

3. Call to make an appointment with a professional therapist who believes change is possible. Work patiently with that therapist in redirecting your child’s prehomosexual behaviors. To find a qualified therapist, contact one of these organizations:

I'm not going to post the links to the therapists who think change is possible, because they're bullshit front organizations for fundy quacks who think you can change peoples' sexual orientation through therapy, because sexual orientation is a CHOICE GODDAMIT DR. DOBSON SAID IT'S A CHOICE AND IF DON'T UNCHOOSE YOUR CHOICE I'M GOING TO SHOVE A PICKAXE UP YOUR PRESODOMITE ASS YOU NOTYETSINNING ABOMINAITION-IN-WAITING SIX YEAR OLD FAGG...I mean show you unconditional love. Yes. Love. Of the unconditional variety. Yes, love. That's right.

And if unconditional love doesn't work, there's always this:

A 21 year old Tampa man is charged with murder after his 3-year old son was pummeled into unconsciousness and then died.

Ronnie Paris Jr. went on trial for his own life this week in a Tampa courtroom. The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box.

Nysheerah Paris told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting. ...

"He was trying to teach him how to fight,'' Nysheerah Paris' sister, Shanita Powell told the court. "He was concerned that the child might be gay.''

I'm sure vomitous spew like Fucking up our Family's above rancid bile has nothing at all to do with this.

Giblets at Fafblog has some more pointers.

*You might think enjoying the company of girls would prove a young boy's straight bona fides, but you aren't a raving paranoid homophobic asshole.
**Yes, with a straight face he just said prehomosexual tendencies.

Republicans Have Small Penises

2005-08-03T20:01:00.000-04:00

The men anyway. At least that's how I interpret this new Cornell study:

Cornell University researcher Robb Willer used a survey to sample undergraduates. Participants were randomly assigned feedback that indicated their responses were either masculine of feminine. ...

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Willer. ...

Those who had their masculinity threatened also said they felt more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than those whose masculinity was confirmed, he said.

Oh yeah.

Bill Frist Does the Right Thing; Garners Wrath of Christian Right

2005-07-30T00:19:00.000-04:00

After his initial opposition to the bill, Frist has flip-flopped and now supports expanding embryonic stem cell research. From Yahoo:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist endorsed government-funded research on human embryonic stem cells Friday, breaking with President Bush and the religious conservatives he's been courting for a 2008 presidential bid. He drew praise from former first lady Nancy Reagan.

"It isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon, said in a Senate speech. "The president's policy should be modified."

The Christian Right extremists who run the Repbublican Party are none too pleased.

Anti-abortion religious conservatives, a key constituency for any aspiring Republican presidential nominee, swiftly made their negative reaction clear.

"He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president."

"I think the courageous speech would have been to continue to stand strongly in defense of the sanctity of life," said Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey, himself a physician. "We will fight him on this to the very end."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who denounced embryonic stem cell research as "dismemberment of living, distinct human beings" during the House debate in May, called Frist "a good man ... advocating a bad policy."

Don't be naive about this, Frist cares about only one thing, Frist, and right now Fristy wants to be President. I'm not sure how he thinks this is going to help him, but if it forces Bush to veto a stem-cell research bill and promotes internecine warfare in the GOP, besides the fact that it's the right thing to do, I'm all for it.

Oprah is Stupid

2005-07-27T13:39:00.000-04:00

Oprah apparently thinks she knows enough about men to give women advice on how to deal with us. She's wrong.

Don’t try to talk to him during football season.

Not even on Wednesday, when there's no football on. This is ludicrous, just don't interrupt me while the actual game is on TV, wait for a commercial, just like you would if I was watching anything else.

If he tries to cook, get out of the kitchen until it’s time to clean up.

Actually, she should be happy, because I'm probably a better cook than she is. It would be nice if she cleaned up though, whichever partner cooks, the other should clean.

Don’t be argumentative.

This is dumb, if I wanted a doormat, I'd buy one.

Admire him for being tough.

Tough gets us into costly, deadly, unnecessary wars in Iraq.

Shut up.

No.

Acquaint yourself with the career of Peyton Manning.

Please no. Unless you actually like football, then it's cool.

Rent a Steven Seagal movie.

Please God no.

Meet every protest and argument he makes, no matter how ridiculously false, with the observation that he is absolutely correct...in boxing this is called rope-a-dope.

What? Is the assumption that men are so insecure that they can't handle anything but slavish agreement. This is beyond dumb.

Accept that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is one of his favorite things.

Sports Illustrated swimsuit models look like anorexic crack whores.

If you want him to fix the shower drip, whatever you do don’t nag; instead, remove the shower head, bring it to him and say “uh-oh, stupid me, I tried to fix it myself but now the drip is worse!” Then offer to bring him his power drill.

This isn't entirely wrong. Nagging is annoying, but so is fawning manipulation. How about just trying to straight out asking me to fix it. That way I can call a plumber and save us both a lot of hastle.

If you want to comfort your man, don’t try to soothe him with a home-baked pie; for the lovagod, tell him how powerful he is.

I'd rather have a slice of cheesecake than a plate full of bullshit.

I realize I'm probably not the typical slope-browed neanderthal Oprah obviously had in mind when she wrote this insipid piece of trash article, but still. Most men I know would not want, let alone demand, that a woman be a servile, mindless cipher who lives only to placate his intractable boorishness, and ladies, if the only way you can get along with your man is by adhering to rules that say that's what you should be, it's time to start looking for somebody better.

Senator Kennedy Gets a Letter

2005-07-26T23:19:00.000-04:00

Via StemPac:

Dear Senator Kennedy,

I am writing to thank you immensely for your support of stem cell research, and to tell you about our situation and why your support means so much to us.

"Us" is me and my husband Rob, who is 34 years old and has primary-progressive multiple sclerosis. Rob began to have symptoms in 1997, was diagnosed in 1998 and his symptoms have steadily progressed since then. Unlike most cases of MS, where a person has relapses and then remittance periods with no symptoms, primary-progressive MS has no remittances; it is with you all the time.

There are a number of treatments for MS that have worked very well for a lot of people, and I'm very glad they exist. These include interferon treatments such as Avonex, high-dose solumedrol, Copaxone and some chemotherapies. Rob has tried every one of them.

None of them did anything to stop the progression of his disease.

After working full-time since he was in high school, Rob had to leave his job about three years ago, when his health deteriorated to the point where he would no longer work. Now on SSDI (which is a fraction of his former salary), he gets around in a wheelchair (albeit a very cool one), and takes over a dozen medications daily to try to control the worst of the symptoms.

His being in a wheelchair is not my greatest worry. Great strides have been made for people with disabilities recently, in part because of support from legislators like you. If Rob can never walk again, I can live with that. What is so hard to live with is the pain that he is in - all day, every day. He has excruciating muscle spasms that seize his legs. His skin is so sensitive due to the neurological damage in his brain that there are times he can't bear to be touched by anything. The muscles in his back, damaged by years of trying to make up for the unusable muscles in his legs, are twisted and torn. Rob hates narcotic medication, but by forgoing that, he lives with this pain all the time, and so do I.

Senator Kennedy, I cannot express to you enough how much I love this man. I did years of research in every library and database and hospital I could find to see if there was something - anything - that we could try that might make him better. In all that time, I believe the most promising possibility to be embryonic stem cell research.

I understand the ethical concerns that some people have about this subject, but it frustrates me to no end to feel like there are people who would take this opportunity away from us and others like us, because of personal moral decisions they have made for themselves. Rob comes from a large Catholic family, and not one of them would object to this research; I would like to think that anyone who has seen how hard it is for him to simply make it through day-to-day life would understand how important this is.

I know that we are probably years away from actual beneficial use of stem cells, but I would rather be years away and have hope, than be told that it will never happen. I wish I could express to the opponents that this is not a horror movie; I don't want babies cloned, and nor do any of the scientists involved in this legitimate research; I don't want to play God. I just want to ease the pain of the man I love.

So please accept our sincere appreciation for all the work you are doing. We would like you to feel free to share our story with others if you think it might be helpful. Thank you again, and please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you in this fight.

Sincerely,

Nikki Rivera

On the other hand, fuck Rob. We have to save the embryoes:

A Bit of Unintentional Honesty

2005-07-22T00:39:00.000-04:00

The button reads: "I'm a source, not a target." So true.

Why Does This Even Exist?

2005-07-21T00:51:00.000-04:00

As if we didn't already have enough ways to hurt people:

Scientists are questioning the safety of a "Star Wars"-style ray gun due to be deployed in Iraq for riot control next year.

The Active Denial System weapon, classified as “less lethal” by the Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds. ...

But New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes.

In another test, they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.

“What happens if someone in a crowd is unable for whatever reason to move away from the beam,” asked Neil Davison, coordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at Britain’s Bradford University. “How do you ensure that the dose doesn’t cross the threshold for permanent damage? Does the weapon cut out to prevent overexposure?”

How much money did we spend on developing this? Is tear gas not an effective enough method for dispersing crowds, or did the tiny-dicked at the Pentagon need some new high-tech blaster ray to make them feel like men? Republicans tell us over and over again that we don't have enough money for homeland security, or fighting poverty, or education, but we have plenty to spend on magical laser weaponry. No money for butter, a king's ransom for guns.

Unacceptable

2005-07-20T00:53:00.000-04:00

That being the one word that best describes Bush's Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts Jr., and surprisingly it has nothing to do with ideology, although I'm sure he's a vile Scalia wanna-be and I'll have plenty more to say about his specific views later. All you need to know for the moment is that he has only been a judge for TWO YEARS!

Roberts joined the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson in 1986, then went into President George H.W. Bush's administration, arguing cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr's principal deputy. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 1992, but the appointment died when Bill Clinton succeeded Bush as president. Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he headed the firm's appellate practice and frequently argued before the Supreme Court. President Bush nominated him to the D.C. Circuit two years ago.

Regardless of whatever else you think about politics, Bush, Roberts or the Supreme Court, the fact remains that the Supreme Court is the judicial institution par excellance in this country and anyone nominated to take a seat on that court should a supremely qualified jurist. Roberts is anything but.

Roveman of Alcatraz

2005-07-19T13:09:00.000-04:00

It's only a matter of time. Credit goes to Mike Tidmus for the image.

Bush is Even Corrupting Science

2005-07-19T01:10:00.000-04:00

Last night I wrote a post that referenced the rampant corruption of the Bush Administration. It turns out that not even science is immune:

Forty-four government scientists have violated ethics rules on collaborating with pharmaceutical companies, a preliminary review by the National Institutes of Health shows.

Nine of the scientists may have violated criminal laws, the report said. ...

Because the N.I.H. is investigating 103 people who have been accused of ethics violations, Dr. Zerhouni had asked the committee to keep his letter confidential. But its leaders - Representatives Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan - said in a statement yesterday that they were releasing it because of "the compelling public interest."

"The ethical problems are more systemic and severe than previously known," Mr. Barton said.

The institutes' review found that the 44 scientists had either failed to disclose income from outside work, had failed to get permission to consult or had done the work on government time rather than their own.

Science only works when the scientists doing the actual research are as objective is possible. Admittedly, no one is perfect and neither is science, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything possible to remove influences that would act as perverting influences on the process of scientific research. This is especially true when the influence in question is being peddled by people, in this case pharmaceutical companies, that have a vested interest in the outcome of the research being done. The NIH isn't K-Street and there's no step called lobbying in the scientific method. It isn't surprising that this type of thing is going on under the Bush administration, given their general hostility towards science that yields results which defy Republican orthodoxy, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.

Rick Santorum...NAMBLA Supporter?

2005-07-19T00:41:00.000-04:00

I'm just asking....

In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

From the NAMBLA website (No, I won't link to it. Use Google.):

Our goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships.

...because the last time I checked, a sixty year old priest molesting a fourteen year old boy wasn't a basic homosexual relationship whether or not the boy consented because, and I realize this is a complicated and nuanced legal point, fourteen year olds are not legally capable of giving consent to having sex with an adult. It's that whole statutory rape thing. I guess Rick missed that day of law school.

The rest of the interview is filled with asshattery, but it's nothing you haven't heard from Santorum before.

Unsurprisingly, Prayer Doesn't Do Shit

2005-07-18T20:34:00.000-04:00

So says a Duke University Medical Center study:

Praying for sick strangers does not improve their prospects of recovering, according to a large, carefully designed study that casts doubt on the widely held belief that being prayed for can help a person heal.

The study of more than 700 heart patients, one of the most ambitious attempts to test the medicinal power of prayer, showed that those who had people praying for them from a distance, and without their knowledge, were no less likely to suffer a major complication, end up back in the hospital or die.

Duh. The stupid however will not be dissuaded:

Proponents of prayer maintained that God's influence lies beyond the reach of scientific validation.

You see, prayer does help. It just doesn't help in any way we can measure. It has an immeasurable, yet non-nonexistant effect. God truly does work in mysterious ways! He does things by not doing them at all, except he's still doing them!

It's idiocy such as this that makes me hate religion.

Bush FBI Spies on Americans

2005-07-18T00:23:00.000-04:00

Recalling its halcyon days of yore and crossdressing, under Bush, the FBI has been monitoring American civil rights and environmental groups:

The FBI has thousands of pages of records in its files relating to the monitoring of civil rights, environmental and similar advocacy groups, the Justice Department acknowledges.

The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Greenpeace, are suing for the release of the documents. The organizations contend that the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.

The FBI has identified 1,173 pages related to the ACLU and 2,383 pages about Greenpeace, but it needs at least until February to process the ACLU files and until June to review the Greenpeace documents, the government said in a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington. ...

The government did release one document it gathered on United for Peace and Justice that Romero said reinforces his concerns. The organization describes itself as a coalition of more than 1,300 anti-war groups.

A memo from Sept. 4, 2003, about Internet sites that were promoting protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York was addressed to counterterrorism units in Boston, Los Angeles and New York.

"Why is this being labeled as counterterrorism when it's nothing more protests at a political convention, a lawful First Amendment activity?" Romero asked.

Is this how the Bush Administration is fighting terrorism? By spying on American organizations that work to protect all of our rights? Shouldn't the FBI be spending it's time working on rooting out, you know...actual terrorists?

A comment from Americablog:

Absolutely disgusting. And boy did the FBI pick the wrong people to take on. I mean, Jesus, are you people just stupid? Yeah, pick on an organization filled with teams of lawyers who are the best experts in the country on government officials who pick on organizations illegally.

Seriously, is there any form of corruption in which the Bush adminstration hasn't partaken? These people are like J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Torquemada all rolled into one.

Mulletblog Pool: In What Year Will the RNC Apologize for the GOP's Venemous Gay-Bashing?

2005-07-15T00:04:00.000-04:00

Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC, today "apologized" for the Southern Strategy:

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Which is a nice way of saying that the Republican Party actively sought the votes of bigots and hate-mongers. Not that anything has changed, it's just that now the GOP can inflame the same core vote of white redneck assholes by bashing on homosexuals instead of African Americans. Which lets them pretend that they care about reaching out to minority voters. Which, as Oliver Willis points out, would almost be funny if disenfranchising minority voters weren't central to the Republican Party's electoral strategy.

I have 2050, by the way.

Update via Ezra Klein:

RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apparently went before the NAACP yesterday to apologize for Nixon's Southern Strategy. Republicans, he said, were wrong to use race as a wedge.
Phony.

When Mehlman goes before Southern whites and says it was wrong to use race as a wedge issue, then I'll buy his sincerity. The test here isn't whether he can pander to those he offended, but whether he can confront those who flocked to the offense. Apologizing for embezzlement while living off the cash is not the most powerful of moral statements.

Indeed.

Republican Values: Incinerated Flesh Edition

2005-07-14T22:23:00.000-04:00

One in an ongoing series.

“You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory.
~Robert Duvall, “Apocalypse Now” (1979)

Because just killing thousands of Iraqi's isn't good enough for the craven soulless bloodthirsty sadists in the Bush Administration, they've decided it would be a good idea to drop Napalm on Iraq. Some of you might remember this picture:

You might also be aware, though I wasn't, that in 1980 the United Nations banned* the use of Napalm in wars. The US did not sign that treaty.

Why use Napalm?

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

To put it another way:

It’s clear that the military never needed to use napalm in Iraq. Their conventional weaponry and laser-guided technology were already enough to run roughshod over the Iraqi army and seize Baghdad almost unobstructed. Napalm was introduced simply to terrorize the Iraqi people; to pacify through intimidation. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Negroponte are old-hands at terrorism, dating back to their counterinsurgency projects in Nicaragua and El Salvador under the Reagan Administration. They know that the threat of immolation serves as a powerful deterrent and fits seamlessly into their overarching scheme of rule through fear. Terror and deception are the rotating parts of the same axis; the two imperatives of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy strategy.

*See Protocol III Article 1

Bushmobile

2005-07-12T22:06:00.000-04:00

Seen yesterday on the roads of Erie County, a pickup truck with the following:

A liscense plate that read: OUTHSE.
A bumper sticker that read: The Outhouse
An NRA logo sticker.
An NRA freedom first sticker.
A Bush/Cheney '04 sticker.

The only surprise was that the pickup was a Toyota instead of an American make. I guess he wants to support the Bush policy of wracking up a huge trade deficit.

We Haven't Exactly Thought This Through...At All

2005-07-12T15:52:00.000-04:00

Disturbing yet hilarious video of anti-choice zealots confronted with the question of what should happen to women who have abortions if Roe vs Wade is overturned and abortion made illegal.

Idiots.

Rising Malpractice Premiums: It's the Insurance Companies' Fault

2005-07-10T22:14:00.000-04:00

Previously I have written on the topic of rising medical malpractice insurance costs in order to make the point that caps on malpractice jury awards, the GOP's favored solution to the problem, are ineffective in stemming the tide of increasing costs. Now I want to address the cause of the problem, the insurance companies themselves:

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

The researchers said a more likely explanation for the escalation is that malpractice insurance companies have raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.
The Dartmouth economists studied actual payments made to patients between 1991 and 2003, the results of which were published yesterday in the journal Health Affairs. Some previous studies have examined jury awards, which often are reduced after trial to comply with doctors' insurance coverage maximums or because the plaintiff settles for less money to avoid an appeal. Researchers found that payments grew an average of 4 percent annually during the years covered by the study, or 52 percent overall since 1991, but only 1.6 percent a year since 2000. The increases are roughly equivalent to the overall rise in healthcare costs, said Amitabh Chandra, lead author and an assistant professor of economics at the New Hampshire college. ...

Meanwhile, malpractice insurance premiums for internists, general surgeons, and obstetricians have skyrocketed since 2000, jumping 20 to 25 percent in 2002 alone. In Massachusetts, ProMutual Group, which covers about one-third of the state's doctors, raised rates an average of 11 percent last year, 20 percent in 2003, and 12.5 percent in 2002. Some specialists, such as obstetricians, now pay almost $100,000 annually for their malpractice insurance. ProMutual executives said they will not raise premiums this July, primarily because increases in the number of claims have slowed.

''It's not payments that's causing this," Chandra said. ''The simple explanation that comes to mind is the underwriting cycle. If they're making less money from the investment side of things, it's going to cause [insurance companies] to raise rates."

This is what happens when you put companies whose first interest is turning a profit in charge of a nation's health care system. They put Wall St. investors in front of doctors and patients.

A different study agrees:

Medical malpractice insurers in recent years have reaped a windfall in premiums that have far outstripped their claim payouts, a report issued by consumer groups said Thursday.

The report, written by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff, contends that the amount of premiums collected by 15 major medical malpractice insurers has more than doubled over the past five years. At the same time, the report found that the companies’ claim payouts have remained essentially flat.

The report said malpractice insurers as a group raised their net premiums between 2000 and 2004 by 120.2 percent, to about $4.2 billion, even though their net claim payments rose by only 5.7 percent, to about $1.4 billion.

As a result, the amount of claim payments made as a percentage of premiums dropped from 69.9 percent in 2000 to 33.6 percent in 2004.

The insurance companies are gouging docotrs and blaming juries in order to try and distract attention from their pocket lining.

This Church Doesn't Hate Enough: Burn It

2005-07-10T20:30:00.000-04:00

From the Staunton News Leader, more hate crimes from the bigoted Christian Right:

A small fire was set in St. John’s Reformed United Church of Christ this morning and anti-gay graffiti was painted on the side of the building.

The outside of the church was vandalized with anti-gay messages and a declaration that United Church of Christ members were sinners. The graffiti’s message appeared to be a reference to the national church’s decision earlier this week to endorse gay and lesbian marriages.

The United Church of Christ’s General Synod voted Monday in Atlanta to approve a resolution that is accepting of gay and lesbian marriages but is not binding on local congregations.

These people are so consumed by hate that they are attacking churches who support equality for all.

Rick Santorum, the Christian Right, Abortion, and Women's Rights

2005-07-09T22:48:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I wrote about Rick Santorum's new book and some of the crazy things he has to say in it. Ezra Klein has made an interesting point about some of things Santorum has to say I'd like to share and discuss:

When Santorum slips and blames emancipated wives, he's actually being the most honest of the bunch. The fundamentalist conception of marriage as a duty demanded by God made perfect sense when it was an obligation imposed by society. Back then, partners were chosen for you, reproduction was required (the upper class would divorce the infertile, the lower class often only married the already-pregnant), and women were locked into the union, lacking both property rights and job opportunities. By allowing childless unions, marriages for love, and female equality, we destroyed traditional marriages. Indeed, it's only once we had watered marriage down to a mere social codification of love that gays and lesbians could even think the institution applicable to them, much less attractive.

I think this is exactly right, and it ties in with what I've come to realize about the far right and the radical elements of the anti-choice movement over the last few months. Namely, that they aren't per se interested in outlawing abortion, but in fact they want to roll back the progress of the women's rights movements of the last thirty years and restore a patriarchal society. Eliminating women's right to choose, and moreso refusing them access to birth control and proper sex-education is necessary because women who can control their reprouctive functions are women who can have careers outside of the home and maintain a degree of independence. They are also women who are able to make the final decision about when and when not they will get pregnant and have a child. Without these things, a woman's ability to control her body is limited by her ability to convince her husband to pull out, decisions of pregnancy and birth are restored to their "rightful" owner (the man), and oppressive patriarchy is de facto restored.

It's the whole barefoot and pregnant model all over again.

A Pro-Choice Nation

2005-07-09T18:28:00.000-04:00

Don't let the rhetoric of the Christian Right fool you, most Americans agree that women do in fact have the right to control their own bodies, and they have, with almost no fluctuation, since Roe vs. Wade was decided.

When asked: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" people responded (Let AL = Always Legal, SL = Somtimes Legal, and NL = Never Legal):

______ AL SL NL
Jun-05 24 55 20
Apr-00 28 51 19
Jul-96 25 58 15
Apr-90 31 53 12
Jul-80 25 53 18
Apr-75 21 54 22

Almost 80% of the population supports a woman's right to choose at least some of the time.

When asked: Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances," people responded (WD = Woman and Doctor, RI = Rape, Incest or Life of Mother, NL = Never Legal):

______ WD RI NL
May-05 55 29 14
Jan-97 60 26 11
Dec-95 60 28 10
Jul-90 57 33 8

Which means that easily over half of Americans agree with the fundamental tenet of the pro-choice movement, that being that the decisions about a woman's body are best left up to the woman and her doctor, while at most only fifteen percent of the country agrees with the fudamental tenet of the anti-choice movement, that abortion should never be legal under any circumstances whatsoever.

Finally, 65% of Americans think that the next Sumpreme Court Justice should uphold Roe vs. Wade, while only 29% think that he/she should want to overturn it.

Of course, just because a lot of people believe in something, it doesn't mean that thing is right. That's a topic for another post. What this does mean however is that Democrats should stand up and fight for the right to choose, and not be afraid to point out the truth: That the Republican Party, beholden as it is to a radical fringe element of American society, wants to take it away.

I Wonder if Rick Santorum's Wife has Read His New Book

2005-07-08T23:59:00.000-04:00

Apparently anybody can publish a book nowadays. Excerpts from Sen. Rick Santorum's recent mockery of Gutenberg:

In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.

I'm sure by "some parents" that he means fathers though.

Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more “professionally” gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders.

It's not that women belong in the kitchen, it's just that there's plenty of things that need done in the laundry room as well.

The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.

They should get married instead.

And if you think it's just women who should be offended by Little Ricky's paean to the dark ages, you'd be wrong. So very, very wrong.

But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave.

I learn something new every day. Today I learned that it's possible to think abortion is worse than slavery.

The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of “diversity” as a central educational value.

Minorities don't need college to move up the economic ladder either. There's plenty of crack that needs sellin', after all.

Another corporate good citizen cooperating with parents to keep kids from inappropriate content has been Wal-Mart.

If by "good" you mean a union-hating, low-wage paying, unaffordable-health care offering, slave-labor exploiting, local-business destroying, profit obsessed, soul sucking moral black hole.

Remember boys and girls what Rick Santorum says: Women uppity. Education bad. Wal-Mart good.

War of the Worlds is a Horrible Fucking Movie

2005-07-08T00:46:00.000-04:00

Seriously. Terrible. I'm not going to go into details because I don't want to spoil it for those of you foolish enough not to heed my advice, but it's truly truly awful. It's not a good movie. It doesn't even work as an action movie, and it sure as hell doesn't work at whatever the hell else besides an action movie it was trying to be.

Go see Batman Begins again instead.

Seriously.

Jingoism Day

2005-07-04T12:39:00.000-04:00

The day where Americans everywhere celebrate the fact that despite our rampant gun violence, scientifically ignorant populace, draconian drug laws, lack of universal health care, institutionalized bigotry, broken education system, profound wealth disparity, and idiot warmongering president, we live in the greatest country in the world. Or something.

Update: Tibor, as usual, has something far more thought out than I do to say, and I think I owe him a response. In part he writes:

Indeed what was once considered a day of celebration in remembrance of our independence has become somewhat of a jingoistic parade that is, above all, just another excuse for people to drink themselves into oblivion. What I wish Mullet would have continued with is simple: why did he not ask where our independence is? What happened to the lofty ideals and sentiments that pumped the blood and stirred the souls of our revolutionary forefathers and foremothers?

He asks two excellent questions. The answer would be that originally I wasn't aspiring that high, I just wanted to spit in the face of those who act like America is perfect and can do no wrong. Those who are often referred to as American Exceptionalists. I disdain this particular attitude, because it is generally used as a bludgeon to attack those who do not think America is the bestest country in the world as unpatriotic America-hating liberals. Well, that's just bullshit. The fact of the matter is that while America is a great nation, it would be a far far greater one if it weren't for these Exceptionaists whose refusal to consider constructive criticism of our country has mired it in mediocrity.

Just to give a few examples: America is supposed to be a paragon of human rights. Today however we condone torture in our prisons (both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo), have ignored the Geneva Convention as quaint, and are one of the few modern nations in the world that have refused to outlaw the death penalty. Are we China? No, of course not. But if we're supposed to be the greatest nation in the world, we should act like it, and being a leader in the field of human rights is a necessary condition of doing so. What do these American Exceptionalists have to say about these abuses? They'd rather defend the Bush Administration's policies for purely political reasons than accept the fact that perhaps we've made some mistakes that need to be corrected.

A second example is in science. In 1969, we were the first country to land a man on the moon, capping a decade-long committment to scientific advancement. Today we have allowed the fringe religious beliefs of a small group of Christian Fundamentalist fanatics to stifle stem cell research and South Korea, yes South Korea, has leap-frogged ahead of us. If America wishes to be the greatest country in the world, it must be a world leader in science, indeed all areas of human knowledge, not a hostage to extremist religious dogma.

For the reasons listed previously and above, I am not convinced America is the greatest nation in the world. I am absolutely convinced however that it could in the future. The first step in that process is to get past the myopic knee-jerk accusations of America-hating that these so called Exceptionalists accuse those who want to make America better of, and return to the independence and lofty ideals and sentiments that Tibor speaks of. It is those who refuse to accept America has room for improvment who prevent it from being great.

Men Have Better Taste in Film

2005-07-03T12:37:00.000-04:00

Top ten rated movies according to women:

LOTR: ROTK
The Shawshank Redemption
LOTR: TTT
Schindler's List
LOTR: FOTR
Amelie
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Usual Suspects
Casablanca
Star Wars

Top ten rated movies according to men:

The Godfather
The Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather: Part II
LOTR: ROTK
Seven Samuri
Pulp Fiction
Casblanca
Schindler's List
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars

Both of these lists have a lot of crap on them. None of the Lord of the Rings or Stars Wars films have any business being near any kind of top ten of all time lists. The ladies have four of these overrated hack jobs on their list, the men three. Advantage: Men. Let's get rid of those:

Women:

The Shawshank Redemption
Schindler's List
Amelie
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Usual Suspects
Casablanca

Men:

The Godfather
The Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather: Part II
Seven Samuri
Pulp Fiction
Casblanca
Schindler's List

I will now rank the lists in terms of relative quality of the films. Since I haven't seen Seven Samuri and the men have one extra film at this point anyway, I will omit it.

Women:

The Shawshank Redemption
Schindler's List
Casablanca
The Usual Suspects
Amelie
Pirates of the Caribbean

Men:

The Godfather
The Godfather: Part II
The Shawshank Redemption
Schindler's List
Pulp Fiction
Casblanca

Now if we remove the films that are in both lists we have:

Women:

The Usual Suspects
Amelie
Pirates of the Caribbean

Men:

The Godfather
The Godfather: Part II
Pulp Fiction

We now have The Godfather vs. The Usual Suspects, The Godfather Pt. II vs Amelie and Pulp Fiction vs. Pirates of the Caribbean. Sorry ladies, it's not even close.

Pope Dick Condemns Everything; Proves He is a Dumbass

2005-06-17T23:37:00.000-04:00

First the condemning part:

Pope Benedict XVI, offering his first detailed critique of gay unions since his elevation to the pontificate six weeks ago, yesterday described same-sex marriages as ''pseudo-matrimony."

In a speech to a conference on families held by the Diocese of Rome, Benedict made clear in strong language that he intends to pursue the hard-line defense of traditional Catholic teachings that made him controversial in his role as Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer of church doctrine.

''The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man," he said, speaking at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome.

The pope also criticized divorce and artificial contraception in his speech, in which he referred to ''banalization of the human body" and said ''the greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," according to the Reuters news agency.

Now for the dumbass part:

"Matrimony and the family are not, in reality, a casual sociological construction or the fruit of specific historic and economic situations," he said.

Biology? Sociology? Evolutionary Psychology? Fuck that shit. And the sun orbits the earth too.

Standing Up for Real Faith

2005-06-17T16:30:00.000-04:00

Obviously sick and tired of the Christian Right's endless perversion of his religion, former Senator John Danforth (R-MO) takes a shot at the theocons:

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

There's more to religion than hating gays and crusading against a woman's right to choose. Having real faith and real values means recognizing that your religion calls you to help others who are in need and embrace those who are different from yourself.

Where All the White People At?

2005-06-08T15:07:00.000-04:00

In the GOP, apparently:

The "Pro-Life" Movement is Really an Anti-Woman Movement

2005-05-28T00:38:00.000-04:00

Good post by Amanda over at Pandagon about why anti-choice extremists are really only interested in controlling womens' lives:

The anti-choice movement has invested a lot in this stem cell debate, the ace up their sleeves for maintaining the fiction that their movement is about keeping babies alive and not about forcing stifling gender roles on women. Unfortunately for them, as Jesse demonstrates below, by the force of their own illogical logic, pregnancy itself is inhumane and dangerous for children and shouldn't be risked. But of course this isn't about protecting children from danger but encouraging the belief a woman's greatest and pretty much only calling is to be a wife and mother and demonizing women who, for whatever reason, reject bearing this baby at this time. ...

The main, if unstated, goals of the anti-choice movement are punishing women who have sex with unwanted pregnancies and promoting the belief that all women, if they are honest with themselves, just want to be Mommy over and over and over again. The former is why pro-lifers concentrate on guilt-tripping women over making it easier for women to choose to carry children. ... The latter is the underlying motivation behind the mandated 24 hour waiting periods to "think it over" when women try to obtain an abortion. (emphasis mine) ...

Attacking the existence of fertility clinics is detrimental to the long-term goal of a chicken in every pot and a bun in every oven. Okay, the chicken in every pot part isn't important, since welfare might get involved. But it has been apparent for a long time that "pro-lifers" need to find a way to defend "innocent life" in a way that doesn't directly attack women's rights in order to bolster the fiction that this is about saving babies, not forcing child-bearing on women. Enter the stem cell debate--a perfect way to grandstand about the importance of blastocyst life without actually having to go after women who want to be mothers that go to fertility clinics for treatment. Too bad millions of people with otherwise incurable diseases that might be helped have to suffer, but apparently no sacrifice is too great if it helps bolster stifling gender roles.

Go read the whole post.

Cartoons for Stupid People

2005-05-13T23:31:00.000-04:00

It's funny! Don't you get it? Before people were criticizing Bush for doing something! Now they're criticizing him for doing nothing! Get it now?!? Funny!!!

Of course in reality including Iran and North Korea in the Axis of Evil didn't rise to the level of doing something, and in fact it is one of the primary reasons those two countries are now becoming serious problems. Call them crazy (which would be accurate), but when Bush includes Iran and North Korea in the same group as Iraq, and then he invades Iraq based on fabricated evidence, somehow they get the feeling they might be next. And then they go and try to develop and build nuclear weapons in order to deter the US from invading, and then Bush ignores both countries and does nothing to fix the problem which he in large part was responsible for creating.

You Know What This Country Needs? More Crime.

2005-05-13T01:24:00.000-04:00

Apparently Republicans are upset about our historically low crime rates, as they have refused to renew the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program:

Republicans on the House Rules Committee killed, on a party line vote, an amendment to H.R. 1279 (The Gang Deterrence & Community Protection Act of 2005) offered by Reps. Capuano and Weiner that would have reauthorized the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program for FY2006-FY2008. Now when H.R. 1279 goes to the floor any attempt to reauthorize the COPS program will be found out of order.

What has the COPS program accomplished?

Over the past 10 years [COPS] has sent more than $8 billion to local law enforcement agencies to hire, equip, and train more than 116,000 community policing professionals." She continued, "Our communities depend on this money. COPS has helped to put more police on the streets making certain that our neighborhoods remain a safe place to raise families."

Now go look at that graph I linked to above. Notice anything interesting that started happening about 10 years ago? Probably just a coincidence.*

*No doubt this drop in crime was also in (probably large) part due to the excellent Clinton economy. Also notice how crime starts to pick up after the effects of Bush's disastrous economic policies set in.

Ohhhhhhhh....THAT Liberal Media Bias

2005-05-13T00:58:00.000-04:00

I would say that the right wing's intellectual dishonesty is reaching Orwellian levels. but that would be an absurd understatement. The Media Research Center (MRC), a conservative media watchdog group, recently released a report pointing out the following instances of so-called "liberal media bias":

On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: “Dee Dee Myers was President Clinton’s first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC.” Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?

Obviously we were. The devious Couric was quite clearly trying to obscure the fact that Dee Dee Myers was a liberal by referring to her as "Clinton's first White House press secretary," a position that most people would naturally assume has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the ideology of the President himself.

On the March 2 NBC Nightly News, David Gregory talked about “the conservative group USA Next” and the “senior lobbying group AARP,” ideological opposites in the Social Security debate. On all four occasions the networks mentioned USA Next by name, they correctly called it “conservative,” but not once during the six-month study period did a network reporter describe the AARP as “liberal.”

Well, USA Next is in fact a conservative group that is dedicated to pushing for the passage of Bush's Social Security privatization plan. The AARP, on the other hand, while they may be ideologically opposed to USA Next on this particular issue, is not an intrinsically liberal interest group. They are a lobbyist group for seniors that supports legislation which will benefit it's members, regardless of who is in power. For example, they supported President Bush's horribly written prescription drug plan.

On the April 25 Early Show, CBS’s Joie Chen portrayed conservatives as an angry mob: “Thousands of Christian conservatives gathered in Kentucky, seething over what they call the ‘filibuster against faith,' and spoiling for a political fight.”

Consider the words of the Christian conservatives themselves. Calling an angry mob an angry mob is nothing more than reporting the facts. If the Christian Right doesn't like being characterized as angry, perhaps they should stop acting so pissed off all the time.

Shortly after the election, on the November 8 Good Morning America, reporter Manuel Medrano trotted out an extreme label: “Arch-conservatives worry that [new Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues.”

First Google hit for "Gonzales abortion" yields:

Is White House counsel Alberto Gonzales on the short list to fill the next Supreme Court vacancy? That's been the subject of speculation since even before President Bush took office. That speculation had declined in recent months, and a recent Washington Post story suggested he was out of the running. But the rumor mill is up and running again. Some social conservatives are reporting that the White House is trying to sell them on Gonzales's merits. They're worried that a Justice Gonzales could be in our future.

In the Senate, Republican staffers who share this alarm have taken to saying that "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter." The reference is to Justice David Souter, a nominee of the first President Bush. Souter was picked because he lacked a paper trail and could thus easily be confirmed. Souter got 90 votes in the Senate. But on the bench he turned out to be a fairly reliable liberal vote. ...

Gonzales opponents say there are two strikes against him. The first is that he weakened the administration's brief to the Supreme Court in the University of Michigan racial-preference cases. Solicitor General Ted Olson wanted the administration to say that the use of racial preferences to achieve diversity is constitutionally impermissible. Gonzales overruled him.

The second strike is Gonzales's record on abortion as a justice of the Texas supreme court. The state had passed a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor could get an abortion. That law, like most parental-notification laws, allowed judges to waive the requirement if observing it could be expected to lead to the abuse of the girl in question. In its first cases dealing with the law, the court read this judicial-bypass provision broadly — so broadly that one dissenter furiously charged that the law had been gutted.

So let's look at the quote again:

Shortly after the election, on the November 8 Good Morning America, reporter Manuel Medrano trotted out an extreme label: “Arch-conservatives worry that [new Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues.”

The bias is...where? Again this is a perfectly factual characterization of the truth. The article concludes:

It’s not that network reporters misuse the “conservative” label. Rather, journalists systematically fail to identify those who seek a secular society and a strong, government-controlled, social welfare system as ideologues of the Left. The media’s labeling scheme presents “conservatives” as less mainstream than their ideological adversaries, even as election returns show that it’s liberals who need to start swimming back to the center.

How exactly could any of the previous quotes, except possibly the first, have usefully and accurately included the word liberal? Let's try and see:

On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: “Dee Dee Myers, a [Liberal], was President Clinton’s first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC.” Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?

The insertion is both redundant and superfluous, but at least it's sensical. Then it goes downhill fast.

On the March 2 NBC Nightly News, David Gregory talked about “the conservative group USA Next” and the “[not actually liberal] senior lobbying group AARP,” ideological opposites in the Social Security debate. On all four occasions the networks mentioned USA Next by name, they correctly called it “conservative,” but not once during the six-month study period did a network reporter describe the AARP as “liberal.”

On the April 25 Early Show, CBS’s Joie Chen portrayed conservatives as an angry mob: “Thousands of Christian conservatives gathered in Kentucky, seething over what they call the ‘filibuster against faith,' and spoiling for a political fight. [No liberals attended the event.]”

Shortly after the election, on the November 8 Good Morning America, reporter Manuel Medrano trotted out an extreme label: “Arch-conservatives worry that [new Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales may not be conservative enough on hot-button issues. [Liberals don't.]”

It should be obvious at this point that the Media Research Center is entirely full of shit. There isn't anything to these claims. To do what the MRC wants, the media would either have to distort language to the level of gibberish or shoot truth point blank in the head. They complain about balance not because the media is treating them unfairly, but to distract their supporters from issues that actually matter, like jobs, education and health care, and to try and bludgeon the media into including conservative talking points and hewing to deceptive conservative phraseology at all times.

Here, even if you ignore the fact that the arguments being made in no way support the attendant conclusion, there is still a fatal flaw in the logic. The problem here is that the MRC is assuming that it is inherently biased to say the word conservative without also using the word liberal. (The study is trying to show that networks use the word "liberal" more than the word "conservative.") This is ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that the GOP, and hence conservatives, are in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress, and thus conservative politicians and and their supporters are in a far better position to create news than Congressional Liberals and their supporters.

Just ask yourself one question. If the Media Research Center had found that the media had been using the word "liberal" more than the word "conservative," would they be issuing a statement supporting the media's pro-conservative bias, or would they be bitching about the fact that the media's slanted usage was itself evidence of liberal media bias?

Master Mullet

2005-05-12T18:45:00.000-04:00

Found out today I had earned my M.S. Degree in Physics.

I rule.

Congratulations to anybody else I know who has gotten/will be getting graduate degrees this spring. If that's you, leave a note in the comments so I can keep track of where everyone is at.

Madlibs

2005-04-28T01:52:00.000-04:00

Mullet's answers are in bold:

There were many reasons, but at the top ranks _Bush_ himself, a brilliant populist manipulator who insisted and probably believed that Providence had chosen him as _America's_ savior, that he was the instrument of Providence, a leader who was charged with executing a divine mission. God had been drafted into national politics before, but _Bush's_ success in fusing _conservative_ dogma with an _American_ Christianity was an immensely powerful element in his electoral campaigns. Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics, but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas.

_American_ moderates and _American_ elites (mis?)underestimated _Bush_, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the _Republicans'_ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments, the _GOP_ would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the _American_ people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, _Bush_ declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

No, wait. Those aren't right at all (scroll down to the last two indented pargraphs).

Just in Case You Thought Pope Dick Wouldn't Be One

2005-04-22T14:32:00.000-04:00

That didn't take long:

Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.

The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

Let gays marry? Lose you job. Facilitate the rape of children? Promotion to the Vatican. Fuck these assholes.

The last pope got a tan one. I think this pope would prefer pink.

Democrats Finally Get It!!

2005-04-22T00:08:00.000-04:00

It's about time the Democrats stood up to the GOP's demagoguing of faith issues. The Republicans have twisted the words "faith" and "values" into something which corresponds not to true faith but to the narrow, ideological, hateful agenda of the extremist Christian Right, as if the view of that twisted minority represented the sum total of what it means to have faith and be moral in this country. It doesn't.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D - CO):

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., lashed out at Focus on the Family on Thursday, saying the group is using "un-Christian" political tactics in the fight over White House judicial appointments.

Salazar defended Democrats' right to filibuster what they consider objectionable nominees and blasted the Colorado Springs-based evangelical Christian group for recent ads urging him to "STOP the nonsense."

"I do think that what has happened here is there has been a hijacking of the U.S. Senate by what I call the religious right wing of the country," Salazar said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday.

He singled out Focus on the Family by name, objecting to full-page newspaper ads that the ministry's political arm recently placed, targeting 20 senators in 15 states.

"I think what has happened is Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity and become an appendage of the Republican Party," Salazar said in an interview. "I think it's using Christianity and religion in a very unprincipled way."

Proving Salazar's point, Focus on the Family responded:

"I'm flabbergasted the senator would call our Christianity into question," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president of public policy.

Of course, Salazar didn't call their Christianity into question. He called their unholy marriage of Christianity and radical right-wing politics into question. By trying to twist Salazar's comments into an attack on Christianity, Focus on the Family only confirms that Salazar is right, as they use their religion to as a shield to deflect political criticism.

Sen Mark Pryor (D-AR):

Sen. Mark Pryor lashed out Wednesday at the Christian evangelicals who have joined the attack on Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Their tactics threaten "to make the followers of Jesus Christ just another special-interest group," Pryor said in a conference call with Arkansas reporters. "It is presumptuous of them to think that they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians," added Pryor, 42, a first-term Democrat who has considered himself an evangelical Christian for 25 years.

John Kerry also has a video on his website that addresses the issue.

Update:

More from Salazar:

I think that the way Focus on the Family and the conservative right wing is attempting to take the country will threaten the basic cornerstone of our freedom.

"I think the kind of attack that is being used against (Democratic senators) and against me has the potential of moving our country to abandoning the freedom of worship which we enjoy in this country, and moving toward the creation of a theocracy."

Focus on the Family just keeps digging itself deeper:

Salazar responded Thursday with a terse letter to Dobson. In it, he defended Senate colleagues of various faiths, and he called on Dobson to repudiate a Focus board member who once referred to Catholicism as "a false church."

The board member, R. Albert Mohler Jr., said Thursday he stands by the comments he made in March 2000 on the cable news show Larry King Live.

"I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel," Mohler said at the time. "And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

Barry Goldwater (whom you may recall was something of a conservative):

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'

Too bad the modern GOP didn't listen.

What the Hell?

2005-04-21T23:36:00.000-04:00

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) wants to gut, of all things, the National Weather Service.

Do you want a seven-day weather forecast for your ZIP code? Or hour-by-hour predictions of the temperature, wind speed, humidity and chance of rain? Or weather data beamed to your cellphone?

That information is available for free from the National Weather Service.

But under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear.

The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites.

Can we please move up the 2006 elections so us Pennsylvanians can get rid of this idiot?

Republican Values: Beating Your Cock Bad. Beating Your Woman Good (i.e. Nothing Has Changed) Edition.

2005-04-21T02:23:00.000-04:00

One of an ongoing series.

It's nice to see that the South Carolina GOP has its priorities straight:

The State House took up two pieces of legislation this week aimed at protecting two different groups. Up for debate was cracking down on gamecock fighting and protecting victims of domestic violence.

A bill protecting cocks passed through the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. John Graham Altman was in favor of the gamecock bill, "I was all for that. Cockfighting reminds me of the Roman circus, coliseum."

A bill advocates say would protect victims against batterers was tabled, killing it for the year. Rep. Altman is on the committee that looked at the domestic violence bill, "I think this bill is probably drafted out of an abundance of ignorance."

Altman would appear to be an expert on the subject of abundances of ignorance, so perhaps we should take his word for it. On the other hand:

Both cockfighting and domestic violence are currently misdemeanor crimes, punishable by 30 days in jail. If the bill passes, cockfighting will become a felony, punishable by five years in jail. Domestic violence crimes will remain a misdemeanor.

If a guy has to give his woman a beatin', it must have been for a good reason. She was prolly gettin' all uppity and feminist and shit. Bitch should get back in the kitchen where she belongs. Reminds me of an old (sick) joke:

What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

Nothing. You already told her twice.

Seems that in South Carolina, they take this less as (warped) humor and more as advice.

At Least It's Not a Potato Chip

2005-04-20T23:39:00.000-04:00

Look! The Virgin Mary decided to show herself! As a stain! On a wall! Under a bridge! In Chicago!

Actually, it looks more like a vagina:

This nice lady shows men everywhere how to find the clitoris:

I really don't get this, which I suppose isn't particularly surprising. Would anyone care to explain this to me? Why do people think that if the virgin Mary wanted to show herself to the world, she would do so as an amorphous, pussy shaped, blob thingy? Even if you believe in god and Jesus and the whole of Christianity, how can this be inspirational?

Pope Dick Scares Me

2005-04-20T01:40:00.000-04:00

Woah. Looks demonic.

WE SHALL FEAST ON THE FLESH OF THE NEWBORN BABES!!!

Fuck This Pope Too

2005-04-19T18:43:00.000-04:00

The Vatican chose a new Pope today, and unsurprisingly, they fucked it up. The new Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, who will take on the title Pope Benedict XVI (and shall be henceforth referred to as Pope Dick), is a German uber-conservative likely to continue Pope John Paul's II trend of moving the church towards the right.

[Ratzinger] wrote a letter of advice to U.S. bishops on denying communion to politicians who support abortion rights, which some observers viewed as a slam at Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. He publicly cautioned Europe against admitting Turkey to the European Union and wrote a letter to bishops around the world justifying that stand on the grounds that the continent is essentially Christian in nature. In another letter to bishops worldwide, he decried a sort of feminism that makes women "adversaries" of men. ...

He is a lightning rod for church liberals who see the hierarchy as reactionary. Ratzinger was active in stamping out liberation theology, with its emphasis on grass-roots activism to fight poverty and its association with Marxist movements.

He once called homosexuality a tendency toward "intrinsic moral evil" and dismissed the uproar over priestly pedophilia in the United States as a "planned campaign" against the church.

Just another homophobic misogynistic reactionary bigot.

E.J. Dionne:

Ratzinger, who is German, spoke for the conservative side of a culture-war argument that is of primary interest to Europe and North America. When Ratzinger said on Monday that "to have a clear faith according to the church's creed is today often labeled fundamentalism," his words were undoubtedly welcomed by religious conservatives far outside the ranks of the Catholic Church. One can also imagine that liberals of various stripes shuddered.

But for the many cardinals here from the Third World -- 20 of the 115 voting are from Latin America, 11 from Africa, 10 from Asia -- the battle over relativism is far less important than the poverty that afflicts so many of their flock. Some of these cardinals -- Claudio Hummes of Brazil is a representative figure -- may share points in common with Ratzinger on doctrine. But for them the struggle against suffering and social injustice is part of their lives every single day.

And fuck the poor too. Pope Dick on Monday:

Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.

Andrew Sullivan (who is a gay, Catholic, liberal Republican pundit) responds:

And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor* to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning.

Republican Values: You Got Cancer Because You Deserved It Edition

2005-04-17T00:48:00.000-04:00

One in an ongoing series.

Cervical cancer afflicts half a million women each year. It is a particularly insidious disease however, as there are often no symptoms during it's early stages, so the afflicted woman might very well not know she has it. Fortunately, pap smear tests are effective at early diagnosis of the disease, and it is often curable. The five year survival rate is 70%. Unfortunately, if it is not detected early it can be fatal. A quarter of a million women die from cervical cancer each year, and as New Scientist reports this number is expected to quadruple by the year 2050.

One of the unique things about cervical cancer is that it is directly related to a specific biological agent, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). 80% of women with cervical cancer test positive for HPV. It would then be largely (though not entirely) correct to make the statement: No HPV, no cervical caner. If only there were a vaccine for HPV.

Well, it turns there soon will be. Within the next few years, vaccination for HPV will be available on the market. The only catch is that women need to be vaccinated before they become sexually active. Guess who's upset with this?

Jews? No.
Atheists? No.
Vegetarian Rugby-Playing Wiccans? I spoke to her, she said no.
The Christian Right? No. Wait, yes.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.

What. The. Fuck is so hard for these assholes to understand about the concept of prevention? Is it true that abstinence is the best way to avoid getting STD's and becoming pregnant? Yes, of course. But why oh god why for the love of baby Jesus why is it so damn awful that we take every step we can to make sure that those who don't want to wait until they are married to have sex are given as many tools as possible to help prevent them from being hurt? Do you people want teenage girls to get infected with HPV? Do you want them to get cervical cancer? Do you want them to die? Apparently you do. Apparently you would rather punish people for engaging in the awful heinous liscentious immoral act of S-E-X than prevent teen pregnancies or the spread of HPV and other diseases. After all, if they weren't slutting around like littel Jezebel whores, they never would have gotten knocked up/infected in the first place. Cervical cancer is just the flaming sword of god's righteous justice, eh fuckers?

It's right there in the article. The Fascist Retard Council says condoms aren't as effective in stopping the spread of HPV as they are in spreading HIV. Thus they're worthless. You might as well make balloon animals out of them. Only abstinence really works, so if you don't abstain you deserve to get cancer and die. No doubt the FRC will be at the funeral to piss on your grave.

GOP, Christian Right to Judges: It Is to Be War Between Us

2005-04-16T01:41:00.000-04:00

The Republican Party and their extremist puppet masters on the Chrisitian Right have declared war on the federal judiciary. With control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the independence of the federal judiciary is the only things standing in the way of George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, the Christian Right and absolute power. So now, in their quest to impose their extreme theocratic worldview on the entire country, they are going to assault the very foundations of the judicial branch of the government.

The motivation for this assault has been brewing for some time, as Republican leaders have taken every opportunity to denounce judicial decisions which they disagree with as "judicial activism" an essentially meaningless term which in theory would refer to judges who attempt to write legislation from the bench instead of just interpreting legislation, but in practice means nothing more than a judge struck down a law the Republicans wanted upheld or vice versa. It's much easier I suppose to blame the judges for doing their job and striking down unconstitutional laws than it is for the GOP to take the time and effort to write legislation that is actually sensible and Constitutional*. This all came to a head in the last few weeks, with the Terri Schiavo case. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R - TX) initiated the festivities with this thinly veiled threat:

"Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo's friends in this time of deep sorrow."

Not to be outdone, Sen. John Cornyn (R - TX) explained why some people might feel justified in engaging in violence against judges (click for video):

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."

As the editors of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune point out, this reaction is absurd, and indeed frightening, given the political leanings of the judges and courts involved.

The Terri Schiavo case is morphing into a case against the federal judiciary, a frightening proposition that makes the Republican Party seem a wholly owned subsidiary of right-wing religious radicalism.

From conservative members of Congress and right-wing Christian activists has come a string of angry condemnations for the federal courts. They've been accused of murdering Schiavo or ordering her "cold-blooded" execution. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who threatened retribution against the courts over Schiavo, has now asked the House Judiciary Committee to review the entire case and "look at an arrogant, out-of-control judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

So just who are these "out-of-control" judges? The group would appear to include the entire U.S. Supreme Court, including conservative icons Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. None wanted to get involved with Schiavo. It would also include the entire bench of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Stanley Birch of the 11th Circuit may be the poster boy of activist jurists. He's the judge who penned a scathing rebuke to Congress and the administration when his court issued its final rejection of the "Save Terri Schiavo Act." It was, he said, patently unconstitutional.

Is Birch a liberal? Well, in one opinion, he upheld Alabama's law prohibiting the sale of sex toys. In another, he upheld the constitutionality of Florida's law prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting children. And did we mention that he is a life-long Republican, appointed by President Bush's father? None of that matters to DeLay; Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.; Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas; and their radical allies. Their agenda isn't to make the judiciary conservative; it's to undermine the federal courts' very independence and force them to hew to a radically right-wing Christian worldview.

As the editorial notes, the Republicans anti-judiciary crusade has nothing to do with conservative values or, even assuming the concept has any validity (which it doesn't), liberal activist judges. It's about placating the most extreme elements of their Christian Right base, a group whose objectives are patently unconstitutional and can only be achieved if the indepedence of the judiciary is compromised.

How will the accomplish this? First by invoking the nuclear option (post on this forthcoming) which will allow them to appoint radical reactionary judges to the courts. Second by removing judges they do not like via impeachment.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

And if that fails, well...

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."

What these lunatics don't seem to understand is that the judiciary exist specifically to protect the rights of minorities against encroachment by a power-mad majority, and that the judiciary's independence, good or bad, is absolutely necessary. It is not accidental that the founding fathers set up the judiciary such that it was not beholden to the whims of the electorate and the electorates representatives. If judges are not immune from the influence of the changing desires of the people, they quite simply cannot do their job. None of this however is likely to stop Tom DeLay:

I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy** is because Congress didn't stop them.

Yes, you read that right. Tom DeLay doesn't believe the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Awesome. I can't wait to have surveillance cameras tracking my every move.

*It should be noted that sometimes writing unconstitutional legislation is the entire point. Nothing motivates the radical right base like having the courts strike down a piece of desired legislation. For example, when the GOP passed a ban on third trimester abortions, they intentionally rejected a Democratic amendment which would have provided an exception for the health of the mother. Without such an exception the law was guaranteed to be found unconstitutional, and it was. Then the GOP bitched and moaned about activist judges.

**It shoud also be noted that when DeLay whines about the right to privacy, he's really talking about Roe vs. Wade, which was predicated on protecting the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. Not that that makes what he's saying any better.

Get Your Bitch Ass in the Kitchen and Make Me a Sandwich!

2005-04-15T01:41:00.000-04:00

The LA Times found the missing link. His name is Michael Lewis:

With women now paid as much as 90 cents on the dollar for the same work as men, it is increasingly difficult to shut down your wife's commercial activities and get her to focus on household chores. ...

There are many good reasons for putting your wife out of business. One is you want someone to pay careful attention to your children, and you don't feel like doing it yourself. Another is the sheer amount of time it frees up for her to pay attention to you. But the best reason is the pleasure you will receive from proving to the outside world that you can do it.

There was a brief time, from about 1985 to 1991, when high-powered males demonstrated their status by marrying equally high-powered females with high-paying jobs. That time has passed. The surest way for a man to exhibit his social status — the finest bourgeois bling — is to find the most highly paid woman you can, working in the most high-profile job, and shut her down. ...

"How did you do it?," I can hear you asking. I can't claim to offer a comprehensive answer. Just a few pointers: ...

Lie. A lot. Women obviously love high- status males, and so they secretly love the fact that you are acquiring status by putting them out of business. But they may not be entirely conscious of the pleasure; they may even believe that one day, after they are finished having children, they would like to return to work. Indulge this fantasy. Allow them to believe that their unemployment is temporary. Say things like, "You can always go back, whenever you want" or "You're probably in more demand now than you were when you were working, you just don't see it." The longer you have her believing this, the less true it becomes.

This is so incomprehensibly hideous I almost refuse to believe it's not satire, but it appears to be serious. Mind blowing.

Could Someone Point Me to a Conservative Commentator Who Isn't Entirely Full of Shit? Because All I Can Find is These People.

2005-04-12T01:00:00.000-04:00

Two representative columns from Townline.com, repository of conservative editiorials. First, Debra Saunders, who is writing about a recent Zogby poll taken in the aftermath of the Schiavo affair:

Conventional wisdom is clear: Washington's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case hurt the GOP big-time. A Time Magazine poll found that three-quarters of the public thought Congress was wrong to intervene after a hospice, under court order, pulled the disabled woman's feeding tube, while 70 percent disapproved of President Bush's role in the saga.

OK so far.

Funny. A new Zogby International poll shows that, when asked questions that go to the heart of the Schiavo matter, the public is very much in sync with the failed attempt by Congress and Bush to save the woman's life.

So what does she claim the poll says?

Zogby, in a poll commissioned by the Christian Defense Coalition, found that by a two-to-one margin -- 44 percent versus 24 percent -- likely voters believe the law should assume a patient wants to live and be kept alive with the help of a feeding tube, if a patient -- like Schiavo -- left no written statement on end-of-life care. Should hearsay be admissible (as happened with Schiavo), when courts decide if a feeding tube should be removed? Some 57 percent said no; 31 percent said yes. If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, not on life support and without a written end-of-life directive, should he or she be denied food and water? Among those polled, 80 percent said no.

Let's break down the bullshit.

Zogby, in a poll commissioned by the Christian Defense Coalition, found that by a two-to-one margin -- 44 percent versus 24 percent -- likely voters believe the law should assume a patient wants to live and be kept alive with the help of a feeding tube, if a patient -- like Schiavo -- left no written statement on end-of-life care.

First, that's not what the question said. I quote from Zogby:

If a person becomes incapacitated and has no written statement that express his or her wishes regarding health care, should the law presume that person wants to live, even if the person is reveiving food and water through a tube?

Terri Schiavo was not just incapacitated. Her cerbreal cortex was gone, replaced by cerebro-spinal fluid. She wasn't even brain dead, she was beyond brain dead. Her brain was gone. And who says the law didn't presume she wanted to live? Extensive and numerous hearings were held that found, time after time, that it was the wish of Terry Schiavo to die, though admittedly she didn't leave those wishes in writing. This question entirely misrepresents both Schiavo's medical condition and the legal status of her case. Continuing with Saunders:

Should hearsay be admissible (as happened with Schiavo), when courts decide if a feeding tube should be removed? Some 57 percent said no; 31 percent said yes.

Except there was no hearsay in the Schiavo case. Our dear Debbie is referring, I assume, to Michael Schiavo's (and perhaps other's) testimony with respect to Terri's wishes about what she would want to happen if she were to end up in a situation like that in which she did. So how is hearsay defined?

The basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: ... j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question; ... o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available;

Exception (j) certainly applies to the Schiavo case, and (o) does if one accords a living will the same legal status as a normal will, which seems reasonable. Finally Saunders claims:

If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, not on life support and without a written end-of-life directive, should he or she be denied food and water? Among those polled, 80 percent said no.

To refer to Schiavo as disabled is absurd. An army veteran who's missing a leg is disabled. Schiavo was in a persistant vegitative state, with no hope for recovery, which is even worse than a coma. And if being fed through a tube for fifteen years isn't being on life-support, I don't know what is. This question is so misleading it boggles the mind. Hell, I'm surprised 100% of respondants didn't say no.

Let's move on to Mona Charen, who writes about the Pope's death and Europe's so called spiritual crises.

The new European Constitution contains some 70,000 words. But nowhere is there a reference to Christianity or to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Europe's commitment to human rights, according to the document, arose from classical antiquity and from the Enlightenment. Fifteen hundred years of Christian influence were airbrushed out.

You know, it's not called the dark ages because the sun decided to go on vacation for 1500 years. Let's look at some human rights. Women's equality is decidedly not a Christian principle, the Bible in both the old and new testament is exceedingly misogynistic. Democracy is not a Christian principle, in fact Chrisitianity was used to to justify monarchy via the Divine Right of Kings doctrine. It should also be noted that the Greeks had democracy. Equal rights for gays? Still opposed by many Chrisitan sects. Torture and various forms of cruel and unusual punishment were condoned by the church and their practice was not done away with until the Enlightenment. The fact is that moral and social progress almost entirely stopped between the time of the Greeks and the Enlightenment, and that Europe is entirely justified in crediting these periods for their commitment to human rights.

Across Western Europe, churches stand empty on Sunday mornings (though in Poland and other Eastern European nations this is not the case). And among the intellectual elites, Christian commitment is regarded as an embarrassment -- as even perhaps a disqualifying trait for high office. (There are echoes of this attitude in the United States, as well. Last year, Senate Democrats blocked the confirmation of Judge William Pryor due to his "deeply held religious views." Pryor is a practicing Catholic.)

Pryor's nomination was not blocked because he was a Catholic, but because he is a radical right-wing extremist who would threaten individual and civil liberties. And let's be honest, Christian devotion is not an intellectual pursuit. At the very least, it requires you to believe in both a virgin birth and a magical resurrection. To believe in such things should be intellectually embarassing. Faith is simply not compatible with reason. To have the former you have to give up a little bit on the latter. If that's a fair trade to you, fine, more power to you, but it's a trade-off. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now, I'm not trying to argue that Christianity has had no influence on Europe. It obviously has, especially culturally, and also legally, as Charen notes. But then she gets off track again.

Europe today is a society adrift, untethered to the source of its greatness*. It is, to use the great Jewish American writer Will Herberg's formulation, "a cut flower culture." And just as Europeans are losing the elemental desire to preserve their civilization, Muslim immigrants stand ready to vindicate the loss of 1683. It is not inconceivable that European civilization -- post-Christian, politically correct and too weary to take its own side in a quarrel (to paraphrase Robert Frost) -- may yet deliver to the Muslim world a delayed victory.

What? I don't even know what half of this means. By giving up on Christianity Europeans are going to let Muslims take over and complete the Ottoman invasion? What the hell? I don't even know where to begin with any of this, it's not even coherent.

So the question is, and note I didn't cherry pick these articles, they were two of at most four I glanced at over at townhall.com, why do conservative columnists, time and time again, resort to medacity and intellectual dishonesty in virtually every argument they make? I'll let the reader ponder the answer to that question.

*She is referring to Christianity, of course.

Fighting Anti-Intellectualism in an Anti-Intellectual Society

2005-04-09T02:41:00.000-04:00

In response to Tibor's comment:

What to do about this problem is the difficult question. The US, for whatever reason, is pervaded by a certain anti-intellectualism, where many people are conditioned to reject the kinds of complex scientific explanations that are often needed to understand the world. I should note that this is a broader problem than right-wing complaining about "intellectual elites." It goes beyond that, and it is largely a problem of attitude. Smart people are often considered nerds and geeks, and even when there is a certain appreciation for their nerdiness, e.g. the neighbor kid who can fix your computer, it's often in a backhanded condescending sort of way like. It's just not cool to be smart.

Part of this I think is due to what might be called "ivory-tower syndrome." People often see academics as removed and distant from everyday concerns. How do philosophy or astrophysics affect the everyday problems people deal with? People don't understand how these often abstract disciplines matter to them, and so by extension they don't understand why they should listen to the people who practice them, especially when what these academics have to say is often difficult for the uninitiated to understand. Intellectuals could probably do more to make it clear to people how such abstract disciplines affect peoples' everyday lives.

So changing peoples' attitudes towards intellecutalism is one thing we should try to do. We should strive for a cultural appreciation for intelligence, where people push their children to succeed in school. Imagine if we spent as much time encouraging children to excel in school as we do pushing them to excel in sports? We would have a very different society.

How you go about doing this is difficult, and I don't really have a solution. You can't just tell people what they are supposed to value, besides, the kind of people who probably most need to hear this kind of advice are probably the most likely to feel like those giving it to them are just pointy-headed academics telling them how to live their life. The first step should be to tear down anti-intellectual nonsense wherever we find it, while being sensitive to the fact that there are certain irrationalities that we can live with. For example, I can live with people believing in god, I can't live with them denying evolution. Creationists hate evolution because they see it as a threat to their belief systems, which they value highly. If you can explain to these people how you can believe in evolution and believe in god, and explain how evolution does not supercede god, as evolution makes no statement about life's origin, then maybe you can convince some people that evolution is not as great a threat as the previously believed it to be. Some people of course can't be reached. This kind of thing can be done in everyday conversations, letters to the editor, etc. Trying to explain where people are in error is the easy part though, and only gets you so far. The more difficult part is teaching people learn to think for themselves, so they don't need you to point out bullshit for them.

Which leads us to the problem that schools tend to spend their time teaching kids stuff, instead of teaching them how to think. We should spend more time focusing on different modes of thinking in education instead of specific facts. For example, anybody can plug numbers into equations and crank out an answer. Teaching people how to apply equations to new problems is a far more important skill. It's also harder to teach.

One of the reasons it's important for students to take classes in a range of topics is that it exposes them to different modes of thinking and thus different ways to approach problems. But oftentimes, classes spend more time stressing the subject material than they do thiking about the subject material. History classes shouldn't be about people, places and dates, they should be about understanding how various events are interrelated, and how complicated mulit-tiered cause-effect relationships relate historical events. I don't care if you can tell me the dates that the Versailles treaty was signed and World War II started, I want to know if you can understand how the Versailles treaty influenced Germany and led to the rise of Hitler.

It's absolutely essential that we advocate for meaningful education reform. Bush and NCLB would like to turn our schools and universities into worker factories, where students learn only what they need to know to function in the work place. To the Bush Administration and their coporate backers, education is only as usefull as a means to an end. We need to reform the educational process such that educating students becomes an end in itself. Where the goal is teach our young people to be crticial thinkers and problem solvers, not just fact regurgitators and human calculators.

I should point out here that the idea isn't to make people kind of knowledgeable about a lot of different subjects, that would be almost impossible. The idea is to expose them to enough positive examples of science at work that they are open to the intellectual/scientific side of the arguement, and are equipped with at least a zeroeth order bullshit detector. For example, I don't know anything about biochemistry. When I first read about Michael Behe and irreducable complexity though, I did know the following:

1) Evolutionary biologists do know something about biochemistry.
2) Evolutionary biologists are not running around screaming about how Behe single-handidly brought down all of Darwinian biology.

Thus I knew I should investigate the matter more, and when I learned that Irreducible Complexity basically just states that since we can't currently explain how certain biological structures evolved, the only possibile explanation for their existance is that an intelligent designer (god) created these structures, thus Intelligent Design (creationism couched in the language of science) is the only possible explanation for life on Earth, I knew enough about rhetoric to know that that argument sucked (although it is a little bit more complicated than I give it credit for). That's kind of the thought process I'd want to try to cultivate.

Republican Values: Poisoning Your Own Child Edition

2005-04-08T19:13:00.000-04:00

One of an ongoing series.

Since the EPA under the Bush Administration isn't particularly interested in actually cleaning up the environment, they have to try and find other things to do with their time. One idea that Stephen L. Johnson, Bush's choice to head the EPA during his second term had, at least until Senate Democrats threatened to block his confirmation over the program, was to pay parents $970 and a camcorder to monitor the effects of insecticide and pesticide exposure on their newborn children.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I can predict how pesticide/insecticide exposure will affect children: Badly. Why the hell would the EPA want to spend money on this, when they could be doing something more productive? Such as, I don't know, making sure infants AREN'T EXPOSED to insecticides and pesticides. Or developing versions of the chemicals that don't hurt people? Or pretty much anything else? But I guess the Amercian Chemistry Council wanted it done, so Bush had to comply.

In fairness, it should be said that the program did not require that parents directly expose their children to pesticides, only that they continue to use the same amount of pesticides in their household that they do on a regular basis. (The study was to take place in Duval County, FL, where indoor pesticide use is common.) Offering large financial incentives to people to engage in the study is pretty much asking poor, desperate people to start using indoor pesticides in order to qualify for the study, however, and since the point of the study would no doubt be, at least in part, to determine which levels of pesticide use are safe and which are dangerous, there would exist great potential for the administrators of the study to pressure some parents into using higher levles of pesticide than normal, as you don't know where the line between sickness and health is crossed if nobody gets sick. The point is that nothing good can come out of a study which involves both children and poison, especially given the environmental track record of this administration.

Does Mullet Have a Problem With Christians?

2005-04-08T14:59:00.000-04:00

It has recently been pointed out to me that Christianity doesn't get a very good rap on this blog. I think this is partially my fault, because I'm probably not always entirely clear about why I take Chrisitians to task so often. The fact is that most Christians are entirely decent people whom I have absolutely no problem with whatsoever, even if I disagree with them on teleological and epistemelogical issues. Christians who think I'm attacking them should ask themselves the following questions:

Do I believe my faith calls me to help the poor and downtrodden of society?
Do I believe that the Bible tells us we have a responsibility to care for the Earth, instead of exploit it?
Do I believe in separation of church and state?
Do I think women should have access to birth control?
Do I think children should be exposed to comprehensive sex-education?
Do I think schools should teach evolution in science classes?
Do I believe gay people should have the same rights as straight people?
Do I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare, even if I don't necessarily agree with the idea of abortion?
Do I think religion should be personal relationship between me and God, as opposed to a political tool wielded to bludgeon those I disagree with?

If you answered yes to most or all of the above questions, then I have absolutely no problem with you or your faith.

The real problem in this country, and the reason I don't have much good to say about Christianity, is that currently a loud, vocal minority of extremists on the Christian Right wield massive influence over the Republican Party, and would like to force their narrow, bigoted and vile misinterpretation of Christianity on everybody else, and it is their insanity which I feel compelled to oppose and rail against. I don't think the average American understands the threat these people pose to our country. They are far more radical than anything you might have imagined, and it is only by staying behind the scenes, under the radar of most Americans, that they can continue to push their radicalism without being rightfully shunned as the extremists they are. This Rolling Stone article describes the kind of people I'm talking about:

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

"Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water." ...

The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

It is these people and those who would sympathize with them that I cannot abide, not the average, everyday, mainstream Christian. I hope that clears some things up.

I heart Canada

2005-04-05T23:16:00.000-04:00

Condi, Bush et. al. were upset with Canada when they decided against joining with the US on missile defense. Former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy responds:

Dear Condi,

I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more. ...

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children. Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

A brilliant smackdown of the Bush Administration's arrogant, belligerent and unilateralist foreign policy. You should read the whole thing.

This Bullshit Has to Stop

2005-04-04T23:28:00.000-04:00

For the love of Christ, no more throwing food items at conservative commentators you fucking dumbasses. It was somewhat amusing when it almost happened to Ann Coulter because she's a psychotic harpy bitch and deserves it, except for the fact that whoever tried it was an idiot and missed:

It was significantly less cool and decidedly lacking in creativity when some assclown decided to squirt salad dressing on Pat Bucahanan, even though he's a racist bastard and probably deserved it.

Now that Bill Kristol has been hit in the face, in what appears to be rather violent fashion, it's just pathetic, desperate, and old.

This isn't funny, it isn't cool, it doesn't accomplish anything and it makes you look like a juvenile jackass and the entire liberal movement look bad. Just fucking stop.

Theocracy Institution Act of 2005

2005-04-04T19:22:00.000-04:00

Bow before the Cross, motherfuckers:

Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

Shorter version: Thou shalt find every law the Republicans pass shall to be Constitutional, or we'll impeach your ass.

The first paragraph guts the establishment clause, and would allow all manner Christo-fascist bullshit to be passed. Separation of Church and State would end. Do you want Jerry Falwell writing laws for you?

I guess the 2nd paragraph wants to exclude all judicial progress made since 1776 by the rest of the world. I'm not sure what the motivation for this paragraph is, although it may be to prevent the Supreme Court from making decisions like the one made recently declaring the death penalty for minors to be unconstitutional (note the 2nd quoted paragraph).

Third pargraph says state courts can do whatever they want with respect to these types of cases, which basically is undermining the authority and jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Last pargraph says judges will be fired for having the temerity to disagree with Republicans.

The GOP wants to neuter the judicial branch, because that is one of the last checks on Republican legislative power. They can pretty much muscle whatever they want through Congress at this point, and Bush will sign whatever they put in front of him, whether it's the 2006 budget or a field-trip permission slip, but those pesky courts keep finding the laws unconstitutional.

Since the GOP is no longer comprised of conservatives, but fascists, this pisses them off to no end. They should be allowed to write whatever laws they want, after all.

The ironic part is that this act was introduced in the wake of the Terry Schiavo clusterfuck (in which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R - TX) is threatening judges:

Mrs. Schiavo's death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.

and Sen. John Cornyn (R - TX (noticing a pattern?)) is sympathizing with those who shoot judges:

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.")

which was a case in which the courts actually were upholding the law, law which led to a result that Republicans didn't much care for. There is no interest is principle here, or doing the right thing. These people are like spoiled children who just want what they want and want it now, or they'll throw a tanturm and possibly shoot a judge or two.

They won't tolerate dissent. They can't stand disagreement. They demand subservience. It's a fucking cult, and it's a pretty goddamn scary one.

Pope Whatshisname the Whatever

2005-04-01T18:32:00.000-05:00

Apparently this is the day where I just quote (steal) other peoples' posts. From The Talent Show:

Looks like the Pope died. [Mullet notes: Not true, he's still alive. Bad reporting.] Once the Vatican hierarchy comes together to vote on the next guy who's infallible, I've got two words of advice for the next pontiff : Vatican Three. I know it's been less than fifty years since the last one, but it's really time. Not that the advice of an outsider holds any weight, but the church's strict opposition to contraception in the face of disease and overpopulation is ass-backwards, the tendency to get sucked into little issues (like stem cell research) takes the emphasis away from more fundamental problems, and the Vatican's lack of transparency in the face of scandals like molestation in the priesthood makes comparisons to la cosa nostra inevitable. As the talking heads will remind us, John Paul II did a lot to modernize the church, but when you only got around to admitting that the Earth revolves around the Sun thirteen years ago, it's obvious that there's still plenty of work left to do.

Environmentalism? We Don't Need No Stinking Environmentalism!

2005-04-01T15:37:00.000-05:00

From Fafblog!:

So a buncha pointy-headed sciencey types are all upset because we're "using up resources" and "destroying the world." Well, boo hoo hoo! Do you hear that sound, sciencey-types? It is the world's largest violin playing just for the exhaustion of our natural resources. The violin is made entirely of mulched rainforest and played by enormous smoke-belching engines of steel and concrete, standing a thousand feet tall in glorious tribute to the undying achievement that has been man's rape of the natural world! Tomorrow it will be scrapped and replaced with a newer, bigger violin with built-in wireless and dolphin-exploding capabilities. ...

And when future civilization does collapse into the dust of a ruined earth, where will all those good-hearted squishy sensible scientist types be? Dead, that's what. They will not last five minutes in the post-apocalyptic hellscape with their "conservationism" and their "respect for life" and their "zombie rights." It will take someone with the experience and amoral fortitude of a robber baron to bludgeon, plunder and cheat his way across the new American wasteland - someone like Giblets! Yes, Giblets and his people will proudly roam the last, reaping the dregs of the blasted, sun-scorched earth as the last chance for mankind's survival - and enter the realm of legends! They will call us strong. They will call us glorious. They will call us Republicans.

Poof

2005-03-28T18:37:00.000-05:00

Pastor, Creationist, and general fuckwit Ray Mummert on the ongoing controversy in Dover, PA over whether or not to teach Intelligent Design in Dover Schools:

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."

Holy fucking shit. I mean...fucking holy shit. I mean...shit holy fucking. Let's rephrase.

"We're defending the stupid, uneducated segment of the culture."

What the fuck? I mean, seriously. What the fuck? Does this guy even realize what he's saying? He's basically admits that he's a dumbass who has no idea what the hell he's talking about...and he thinks thats a good thing!

More stupid:

"If we continue to indoctrinate our young people with non-religious principles, we're headed for an internal destruction of this society," [Mummert] said.

Fuckin A. Mandatory Qur'an readings for everybody. I bet Ray would be totally down with that shit. It would prevent the internal destruction of society, after all. Look how well it's worked for Saudi Arabia.

"Evolution is just a theory and there are other theories," Mummert explained, smiling through his beard.

Perhaps you should peruse the following, you smug ignorant fuckhead.

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

You think theory means 2 and/or 6a&b (6c applies more to math). In science, it means 5. A theory in science is as good as it gets. Theory of Gravity. Atomic Theory. Theory of Special Relativity. Evolutionary Theory. There's a reason why you don't see the "intelligent, educated segment of society" running around questioning these theories, and only dimwitted assclowns such as yourself questioning the fourth. Try to figure it out for yourself.

"There is such a complexity in life, and science wants to hang its hat on a belief that life somehow started -- they say there is no creator, no order ... I believe there is a creator," he said.

No dumbass, no. Science has nothing to say about a creator. Science doesn't know how life began. Science is working about it, and if Science weren't so distracted by your sister's $5 Saturday Night Toothless Blow Job Special, maybe Science would have found the answer by now. But it hasn't.

All Evolutionary Theory does is assume life began somehow, and then explain how it changed from that point on. Evolution doesn't care how life began because it doesn't address the question. The study of how life began is called abiogenesis, and it is at this point a highly speculative field. You don't even know what the fuck it is you're trying to attack.

"Darwin's theory is a theory ... not a fact," the school board declared in their statement to the teachers. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view," said the report.

More theory bullshit. Intelligent Design is not an explanation of anything. Let me explain to you the difference between how Creationism and Intelligent Design explain the origin of life:

Creationism: Poof! God did it.
Intelligent Design: Poof! A highly intelligent supremely powerful designer whom we are not allowed to name did it. Could be aliens. We really don't know. Really. Seriously. Believe us. Please.

Now let's play pretend, because sometimes it's fun to pretend that ridiculous things actually happen. For example, I could pretend I had a foursome with three pornstars last night, and they all said I was the best they had ever had, and Ray could pretend that Intelligent Design is actually correct, and a highly intelligent supremely powerful designer whom he is not allowed to name created all life.

Even if this all were true, Intelligent Design still couldn't be taught in schools, because it still WOULDN'T BE SCIENCE. (Also, I would have AIDS.)

Your scientific theory of the origin of life can't be a highly intelligent supremely powerful designer whom you are not allowed to name, because a highly intelligent supremely powerful designer whom you are not allowed to name isn't an explanation of how life began. It's a cop out. It's poof. You would need to prove the designer existed, provide a comprehensive accout of how the designer poofed everything into existence, explain what kind of evidence could falsify the notion of a desginer poofing life into existence, show how our designed world (the design of which is pretty shitty sometimes, by the way (Appendix? Why do we have that?)) would be different from a world in which there were no such designer, etc.

Therefore, EVEN IF the highly intelligent supremely powerful designer whom you are not allowed to name ISN'T god, which it is, Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory ,it's just a slightly more complicated version of "Poof!" It's poofity poofy poof poofity poof. Poof! isn't science. Poof! can't be taught in science class. I can't walk into an astronomy class and say "Poof! God created the universe. You can all go now." It's Poof! It's nothing.

More on the Republicult Party

2005-03-27T02:03:00.000-05:00

I recently wrote about the GOP's Cult of Republicanism here and gave some examples here. My last post gave you some idea of how this all comes about, as Republican leaders and the Corporate Whore Media parrot GOP talking points ad infinitum. Oliver Willis has an interesting post about what happens when reality impinges upon the cult's sacred writs. I'm going to repost the vast majority of it here because it's so good. I hope he doesn't mind.

There's an interesting parallel in the right's now-institutionalized media bashing and the frankly disgustingly desparate acts that Jeb Bush and the Schindler family lawyers have engaged in the past few days.

One of the goals on the right is "balance", which means they want things tilted in their direction. Towards this goal you often see totally unqualified right-wing hacks mouthing off on issues with non-aligned journalists who honestly know what they're talking about and don't have a dog in the fight. To the right-wing audience watching, the two are equal even though the facts say otherwise.

This is happening now in Florida. Jeb Bush and the Schindler lawyers (led by the insanely anti-choice Randall Terry) have gone doctor-shopping for anyone with an M.D. after their name who will toe the party line on Mrs. Schiavo's mental state, or lack thereof. I've seen the "findings" of these people parroted again and again on the rightie blogs and in the rightie media, but there's a problem.

Not one of these physicians is remotely qualified or credible. Not. One. Every medical professional that has written on this case, or spoken about it on tv and the radio, who isn't part of the rapture right or a simply discredited "doctor" has made clear that Terri Schiavo is beyond help. Most of them have not made a judgement whether she should be hooked up or not, but rather have stated the facts and their observations based on the medical evidence they have on hand.

It's what they're supposed to do.

But the righties aren't buying this. So used to the right-wing echo chamber that parrots their beliefs back at them - online, on the radio, on television, or in print - they can't possibly conceive of why the doctors are finding things the way they have. And so, the doctors become part of the narrative of the great conspiracy to kill Terri Schiavo. ...

Unlike so much else in our world, there is actual living and breathing "truth". It says a lot about the Republicans and the far right that they simply reject the truth because it doesn't fit their pre-defined narrative version of the truth. Some of us would say this is how they look at everything, and why we've come to this point where people who encourage domestic terror are on the same side as the President of the United States.

It's a worldview where any piece of information these people don't like becomes the product of liberal bias, and therefore it's wrong. A worldview where facts do not determine the viability of ideology, but ideology determines the viability of facts, the same kind of worldview that infects fundamentalist religion, where the conclusion is known before hand, and facts are chosen and manipulated to support the conclusion, instead of deducing the conclusion which best fits the facts, the same kind of thinking which the Bush Administration used in dealing with intelligence in their deceptive run-up to the war in Iraq. "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, now go find me evidence of that fact."

Have the Lunatics Escaped From the Asylum, Are They Running the Asylum or Have We Just Expanded the Walls of the Asylum to Include the Entire Country?

2005-03-26T00:52:00.000-05:00

Update: Go check out this video clip from the Daily Show. John Stewart rules.

The Coporate Whore Media and Republican Politicians need to learn that there are consequences when they deliberately lie and use extremist rhetoric in relation to important, emotional issues. In the past few days, for example, CNN and Faux News have aired a nurse whose testimoney was found by a judge to be unreliable:

On March 22, both CNN's Live From... and Fox News' Fox and Friends aired interviews with Carla Sauer Iyer -- a former nurse for Terri Schiavo who in 2003 submitted an affidavit with inflammatory accusations against Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo -- but failed to report questions about Iyer's credibility. Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible" and noted in a September 17, 2003, order that not even Terri Schiavo's parents sought her testimony in the case.

And just in case her credibility wasn't lacking enough, Faux News then had on psychic (read: scam artist) John Edward:

Psychic medium, author, and former television host John Edward claimed on Fox News' morning show Fox & Friends that Terri Schiavo is "definitely clear on what's happening now around her." Edward was responding to a question from host Steve Doocy about whether Edward could communicate with Schiavo. ...

From the March 24 edition of Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: You mentioned the Terri Schiavo case. Some might wonder, "Well, you know what, I wonder if he could communicate with her."

EDWARD: I do believe that the soul, the consciousness, can communicate when they're in a state, whether it be a mentally incapacitated person, someone who's in a coma. It's a consciousness, and the soul has a living consciousness. So whether it's in a physical vehicle or not, there is still the ability to connect. Many people will have what they call out-of-body experiences, or astral dreams. Two very living people, that are healthy, could have a kind of connection in a dream state that can be validated. So why not somebody who's in this case?

DOOCY: So she may not be able to talk with her brain, but she can with her soul --

EDWARDS: But she's clear on what's going -- and I can tell you that she's definitely clear on what's happening now around her.

The fact that none of this is possible, as Terri Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been replaced by cerebro-spinal fluid, obviously escapes these nit-wits. But the Corporate Whore Media aren't the only ones to blame here. GOP Politicians deserve just as much, if not more. House Majority Leader and Pinnacle of Corruption Tom DeLay might be the worst offender:

“Mrs. Schiavo’s condition, I believe, has been at times misrepresented by the media, but far more often has simply gone unreported all together. Terri Schiavo is not on a respirator; she can breathe on her own. Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life-support.

“She’s not being ‘kept alive’; she is alive. It won’t take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo; it will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve. Mrs. Schiavo is not being denied heroic measures; she’s being denied basic, basic, basic medical and personal care.

While it's true Terri Schiavo is not on a respirator, it is patently false that she can talk or laugh, and if spending fifteen years with a feeding tube as your only source of nutrition isn't life support, I don't know what is.

DeLay Also accused the Florida Judge presiding over the Schiavo case of murder and terrorism:

"Right now, murder is being committed against a defenseless American citizen in Florida," DeLay said.

He also said, "Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is not much better than his House counterpart, and Mulletblog has already examined the mendacity of his video tape diagnosis of Schiavo:

Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

This dishonest and inflammatory rhetoric has only encouraged more extremism from Right-Wing News Anchors, Religious Fanatics and other random lunatics. Faux News Anchor John Gibson:

Just to burnish my reputation as a bomb thrower, I think Jeb Bush should give serious thought to storming the Bastille.

By that I mean he should think about telling his cops to go over to Terri Schiavo's hospice, go inside, put her on a gurney and load her into an ambulance. They could take her to a hospital, revive her, and reattach her feeding tube. It wouldn't save Terri exactly; she'd still be in the same rotten shape she was in before they disconnected the feeding tube.

Priests For Life, a right-wing anti-abortion group which links to archives and encourages the use of graphic photos of abortions, released the following:

The Terri Schiavo case has demonstrated that we are being governed by un-elected judges, and that the legislative and executive branches of government lack the will to stand up to them when they authorize acts of violence. The matter, therefore, now rests with the people. When government fails to protect life, the people must do so directly. Today must mark the beginning of a new era of civil disobedience and conscientious objection, with simultaneous, determined efforts to curb the authority of the courts and restore government to the people through their elected representatives.

I wonder what could possibly happen next? Death threats perhaps?

Some pro-life activists are making ugly threats, making up "Wanted" posters for lawmakers and handing out the home addresses of judges who rejected legal appeals to keep Schiavo alive.

"I am afraid," said state Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, who has received numerous death threats by phone and mail because she voted against a measure to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube. "We're talking about the sanctity of life, and (they're) threatening my life."

The nine Republican lawmakers who voted against the measure showed up on anonymous "Wanted" posters that appeared in the state capitol in Tallahassee. State Sen. Nancy Argenziano said one of the "un-Christian" voice mails she's received wished stomach cancer on her.

Guards have been posted outside the politicians' offices.

Police won't discuss their security measures, but Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer, who has consistently upheld Schiavo's requests to end his wife's life, are under around-the-clock protection and staying out of sight. Both have been the targets of a flood of fury, branding them corrupt and abusive murderers who are flouting God.

Or maybe vigilantism?

A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo," authorities said.

Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Mitchell, 20, told deputies he wanted to "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo" after he visited the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives, Pasha said.

Someone might even start putting out bounties on principals in the case:

FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the "the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terry."

Meywes was arrested without incident at his home around 5 p.m. Friday on charges of solicitation of murder and transmission of a threatening communication via interstate commerce, authorities said.

Extremism breeds extremism. When you put extremist politicians in power, and the media lets extremists babble all over the place and broadcast extremist rhetoric, unbalanced, frail-minded people notice, and start behaving in extreme, sometimes violent ways. If there's one thing we've learned from the Schiavo affair, it's that the Republican Party is in the pocket of, and for electoral sucess relies on, these kind of extremists. The only way to bring sanity back to this country is to reject the far-right's extremist agenda, and punish the politicians who embrace it.

This Good Friday, When You Contemplate the Sacrifice of Your Savior, Keep In Mind This One Important Fact...

2005-03-25T23:59:00.000-05:00

Jesus knew the score:

She probably only takes it in the ass though.

My Culture of Life Keeps Killing People

2005-03-25T01:46:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush loves to talk about the culture of life he is trying to cultivate in America. Let's examine this notion of a culture of life.

100,000 dead Iraqi civilians*.
1525 dead American soliders in Iraq.
176 dead coalition soldiers in Iraq.
26 prisoners killed in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
79,000 avoidable deaths in our health care system annually**.
134 executions presided over as Texas Governor.
Supports efforts to develop a new generation of tactical nuclear (nukular) weapons***.
Signed a law as Texas Governor which allows hospitals to remove patients form life support if they cannot afford continued treatment. This child died because of Bush's law.
Refused to work for the renewal of the assault weapons ban despite claiming to support it.
Unknown numbers of deaths due to Bush's refusal to fully fund stem-cell research.
Systematically underfunded AIDS programs for Africa and US urban areas.

So remember the next time they start babbling about it, for Bush and the Republicans, "Culture of Life" means "All Your Womb Are Belong to Us."

Update: Or as Maureen Dowd puts it:

The president, who couldn't be dragged outdoors to talk about the more than a hundred thousand people who died in the horrific tsunami, was willing to be dragged out of bed to sign a bill about one woman his base had fixated on.

But those people were brown so they only count as 3/5 of a person each. Pluse they were poor (1/10), foreign (1/10), non-Christian (1/10) and died because of "God's will" (1/10) instead of in opposition to it (1/10) .

100,000 * 3/5 * 1/10 * 1/10 *1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 = 0.6. So you can see why the Teri Schiavo case is so much more important to the President.

*This number is just an estimate, and I condsider it to be more of an upper bound. The official count of Iraqi civilian casualties stopped at about 10,000.
**If Bush were more concerned with expanding quality health care than lining the pockets of HMO's, many of these deaths could be eliminated, but in fairness Bush can't be entirely blamed for these deaths.
***Yes, I am fully aware that "tactical nuclear weapon" is an oxymoron.

See What Happens When You Vote for Hate

2005-03-24T18:18:00.000-05:00

Good job Ohio:

Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge. ...

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

In their rush to make sure "Ain't no two dudes gon' get married in mah state!" Ohio has made it easier for assholes to beat on women. Awesome.

Arguing With the Feeble-Minded

2005-03-24T17:07:00.000-05:00

Interesting bit on a press release from the Institute for Pulbic Accuracy on how different people view and make sense of the world. Apparently a lot of people aren't able to make sense of multi-pronged cause and effect relationships and therefore essentially see the world in a non-rational way. Arguing with them based on logic is therefore futile, you have to try other means. This is related to a question Tibor asked me recently in the comments. I don't have much to add to the article, so I'll just outline it for you. The basic idea is that there are three basic modes people fall into in the way they perceive the world:

Sequential thinkers reason "by tracking the world," recognize regularities in sequences of events, but have no abstract understanding of cause and effect. The world they perceive is a world of appearances that has very little organization to it beyond the recurrence of sequences.
Linear thinkers understand cause and effect, limited to a one-direction, one-cause/one-effect model. The world they perceive has logical order and structure, but the structure is invariably hierarchical, causality flows top-down, and the world is divided neatly into cause and effect.
Systematic thinkers understand multi-faceted, multi-linear cause and effect, with mutual cause-and-effect relationships between different elements. The world they perceive is primarily a world of systems and relationships, rather than objects.

Understanding the sequential thinker lets you make some statements about how they form their ideas and opinions:

The notion of causality, e.g. that events are caused by necessary and sufficient preconditions, does not play a salient role in the sequential mind. Events transpire, without much interpretation of how they come about. The attention is occupied by one item at a time, and there is little spontaneous effort to relate them to other items or to a general context.
The sequential thinker is not really aware that the world may appear differently to other people, and he or she has therefore a limited ability to take the perspective of others.
Sequential thinking involves conceptual relations that "are synthetic without being analytic. They join events together but the union forged is not subject to any conceptual dissection." [Direct quote from Rosenberg's book.] Because such relations are non-rational, there is nothing rational one can say or do to change them.

The conclusion is that in arguing with this type of thinker, it does no good to analytically attack their position, as it is not based in logic, but instead one must try and present compelling alternatives that they will replace their old ideas. Grasping onto these new ideas will be no big problem for them, as the internal consistency of their idea set is not something such thinkers value:

From all the above, I draw one simple conclusion: We have to fight fire with fire. Associational, sequential thinking has be countered with the same sort of thinking, simply because sequential thinkers can't grasp anything else. One narrative has to be countered with another narrative. Criticism--logical analysis--of a narrative will not have any effect on sequential thinkers, but a power[ful] counternarrative will.

I think this piece explains a lot, and you should go read the whole thing.

For those who don't know, George Lakoff, to whom the piece refers, is a professor of linguistics whose book, Don't Think of an Elephant, examines the ways in which the Republican Party uses framing to advance their agenda. For example, when they wanted to get rid of the Inheritance Tax they started calling it the Death Tax. Death is bad enough without having to pay taxes on it, and it sounds more like something that affects everyone, whereas inheritance tax sounds like something that only affects the rich, which it does. So by reframing the issue with the label Death Tax, a totally meaningless term, they shifted the terrain of the debate and gained popular support for the reduction and eventual elimination of the so-called Death Tax.

I Think I Scared Anonymous Away

2005-03-23T21:05:00.000-05:00

And just when I was about to reconsider the error of my ways. Too bad.

Instances of the GOP's Cult-Like Behavior

2005-03-23T21:03:00.000-05:00

In case you thought I was kidding. Note that I found all these examples just doing my normal browse of blogs today.

First we have this from the EPA:

When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.

What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.

That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.

For those of you not familiar with how these things work, it is a favorite ploy of Republicans to say that we can pass environmental legislation, but only if the environmental benefits are commensurate with the cost to industry. Despite the fact that this is an obviously false equivalency and is really nothing more than more coporate fellatio, in some bizarro world it might actually make sense, if it weren't for the fact that conservatives then lie about the environmental benefits. It is a Harvard study though, and Harvard is a well known haven for EVIL LIBRUL INTELEKTUALS! so I guess we can just ingore anything they have to say.

Next item involves, of all things, an IMAX film.

The IMAX theater in Charleston and several others in the South have passed on showing a science film on volcanoes because of concerns it might offend those with fundamental[ist] religious beliefs.

"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said Lisa Buzzelli, director of the local IMAX theater. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."

Buzzelli said while the Charleston theater doesn't rule out showing "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" in the future, she considers people's religious views when showing films.

The film makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes. Buzzelli said the handling of evolution was considered in her decision.

IMAX theaters in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas have declined to show the film, said Pietro Serapiglia who handles distribution for Stephen Low, the film's director and producer who is from Montreal.

Shockingly:

"I find it's only in the South," Serapiglia said.

I never would have guessed. Now granted, this would appear to be a business decision made by IMAX proprietors, and not a response to any pressure groups, but what does it say about the worldview of people who might get offended by even a vague mention of an idea they disagree with, especially when the material they are viewing is not even about that particular idea?

Then there's Bill Frist, Repulbican Senate Majority Leader and Cardiologist:

Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

IF Bill Frist were a Neurologist instead of a Cardiologist, and IF Bill Frist had examined Terri Schiavo in person instead of via a videotape, and IF Bill Frist were speaking here as a doctor instead of as a political hack, THEN maybe his opinion would have some correlation with reality. But he isn't, he didn't, he's not, and it doesn't.

Let's recap:

Harvard study bad. Study by Bush Administration hacks good.
Evolution bad. Creationism good.
Multiple diagnoses by qualified doctors who have actually examined the patient bad. Single diagnosis by an unqualified doctor who saw a video-tape good.

These people don't care about facts, logic, argument, rationality, or reality. They are living in a world of their own bizarre construction, where ideology trumps fact, and politcal power trumps all.

The Republican Party is Becoming a Cult, or Why the GOP Hates Education, Intellectualism and Reality

2005-03-23T01:18:00.000-05:00

Reposted from the comments:

...The hope, of course, is to try and influence the culture via education that not only teaches people to be cogs in the machine, but also to think and reason.

As Tibor has noted however, conservatives realize that this type of robust education is a threat to their power base, as conservatism prospers when the populace is fearful and ignorant. Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC last summer "When people think, we win." The problem is that it's a far harder task to get people to think than wallow in ignorance or cower in fear.

To hold onto power then, the GOP has engaged in a multi-pronged assault on education in this country.

Replace public schools with vouchers for private (read: sectarian) schools.
Undermine the usefullness of public education by redirecting the efforts of teachers towards worthless tests instead of actual learning.
Assault the University system as a haven of liberal indoctrination, to ensure that no one who doesn't want to will ever have to have their views or prejudices challenged.

They don't even need to scare professors into silence to do this, though they will if they can, just convince the Hitler Youth sorry, Young Republicans, that anything a liberal professor ever tells them that they don't want to hear is just the product of the liberal bias of the academic elite.

What's truly scary about the GOP over the last five years, and perhaps it has been going on logner than that, is that it's not really a party of ideology anymore, although they have one, but a party of epistemology, or to be more accurate, anti-epistemology.

The GOP is progressively growing more and more detached from reality, descending into an echo chamber of their own creation, where Global Warming isn't happening, Evolution never did, Supply-Side economics works, Jesus hated fags and abortion but was ok with war and the death penalty, Bush is tough on terror for invading a country that had no involvement with Al-Qaeda whatsoever, government welfare is bad unless it goes to multi-million dollar coporations, the Washington Post is an unreliable news source but the Washington Times is just dandy, and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but biased to the point where their opinion is not even worthy of consideration.

In effect, the GOP is becoming a cult.

Celebrating the Death of Jesus

2005-03-22T17:45:00.000-05:00

Easter's so passe. Jesus rose from the dead, blah blah blah. We need to celebrate Good Friday more. Therefore, this Friday, party at my place. Potential party activities include but are not limited to:

Nietzsche readings
Hellraiser movie marathon
Mocking the Passion of the Christ
Bloody Mary Bar
Tribute to Mary Magdalene (read: whores (Hey, if it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.))
Ritual virgin defloration
Blood sacrifice
Sodomy is optional but encouraged

Music will be provided by:

Nine Inch Nails
Slayer
Marylin Manson
Deicide
Mormon Tabernachle Choir

All you need to do is bring yourself, some good vodka and some virgins (i.e. not her).

Mulletblog will take care of the rest.

I'm Sick of Hearing About Terry Shiavo. Can't We Just Shoot the Bitch and Have it Over With Already?

2005-03-22T01:58:00.000-05:00

I mean Christ, the woman has been brain-dead for fifteen years. She's not just a vegetable, she's a 40-item salad bar. She has about as much chance of getting better as I have of waking up tomorrow pregnant and with a yeast infection.

And I don't want to hear about what a bad guy her husband is. The man has needs. Teri might be sitting there all day with her mouth open, but we don't want her choking to death, now do we?

So seriously, let's get this over with. The only decision that still needs to be made is one of calibre. The news-media needs to get back to talking about important things like the Michael Jackson trial anyway.

A Serious Post About the Terri Schiavo Affair

2005-03-22T01:56:00.000-05:00

Hopefully none of you were dense enough to think the above post was real. Mulletblog has a new visitor (scroll down to the really stupid comment), and I'm conducting an experiment on remote inducement of apoplexy. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Now, in all seriousness, euthanasia is an extremely difficult issue, and the Shiavo case is just as weighty as one might imagine it to be. I fully realize that there are many people out there who are strongly against any form of euthanasia, and I don't begrudge them that postion. I do however, disagree, provisionally at least. Under certain well-defined circumstances, I believe euthanasia is not only allowable, but indeed merciful as well. Those circumstances would be as follows:

1. The patient is in a condition in which they have explicitly specified that they wish not to be kept alive under.

2. It is the consensus of the medical community that no recovery from said condition is possible.

These rules are ironclad. It absolutely must be the patient's decision to die, and the not the decision of anyone else, and there must be no medical possibilty of recovery. I insist upon these rules because I see no other way to ensure that euthanasia is not misapplied, and I think we would all agree that such misapplication is morally repulsive.

So how does this apply to the Schiavo case? First we must ascertain Terri's wishes in accordance with point one. In that vein, we have ruling of one Judge Greer, who ruled that Terri's wishes were that her life not be artificially extended, were she to find herself in a position like that which she is now in. We also have the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals, which upheld Judge Greer's decision. The Florida Supreme Court then declined to review the decision of the Second District Court.

Next we must determine the opinio of the medical community with respect to point two. Terri's parents, after the initial trials above, brought several new motions, arguing that there was treatment which could restore Terri's cognitive function to the point where she would be willing to remain on life support. This motion was rejected by Greer, but this time his decision was overturned by the Second District Court, which ruled that their should be a new trial involving medical experts for both sides. Judge Greer ruled that there was no sufficient medical evidence to warrant belief that Terri could recover.

Both criteria are thus satisfied. (Thanks goes to Abstract Appeal for collating the various legal opinions in this case, and which has much more information if you are interested.)

What is it about Terri's condition that can allow us to confidently assert that it is irredeemable? That is an important question. The Second District Court provides us with an answer:

Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs.

Those of you who know even a little about anatomy know how serious and permanent that condition is.

The tantamount issue in cases such as Terri's in respect for the wishes of the patient. If the courts had ruled that it was Terri's desire to be kept alive via any means necessary, that for me would be the end of this case, and she should be kept alive. That is not what Terri would want however, and despite the pain her death will no doubt inflict to those her love her, it is her wishes, not their's for her, which must be respected and followed.