Owned By Cats

The Brilliance of Autism

2007-05-02T09:55:00.000-05:00

Try to remember back when you were first getting the world in order in your mind. Remember how you learned to write, to draw, to read? Or how you got positional prepositions down?

Probably through watching someone and imitating them. You saw THEM put something in a box, you put it in a box. They showed you it, you did it. You saw them write the letter A and followed it up with a scribbly, freestyle impression of your own.

Now, what if you weren't able to imitate?

There's scientific evidence showing autistic kids have a problem in the 'mirror neuron' area of the brain. This area fires when watching someone do something, even if the something isn't actively imitated. But in autistic kids, it only fires IF they imitate it.

This is one reason autistic kids may not pick up on things that are second nature to others. How would you explain 'blue' to a blind person? They aren't able to implant that image in their brains. With autistic kids, things they may have absorbed through watching others doesn't set in. This also explains why so many autistics can't understand emotional expression - it doesn't connect with them, sliding through the brain.

Now, imagine putting together concepts like 'in', blue, the letter A and so many others simply by doing it yourself, not by getting it from your environment. For comparison, imagine putting together a computer from scratch with an instruction manual written in a language you don't understand and only a few pictures to guide you.

This also explains why the usual teaching methods have limited success with autistic kids. And why everything an autistic kid picks up should be impressive.

The Return of SNS!

2007-04-30T16:10:00.000-05:00

Republicans Offer Bill to Add 11th Commandment to Original 10

Other Commandments to be considered as well

from Satire News Service

Today, the Republicans offered a bill to add Ronald Reagan's '11th Commandment' - "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of a Fellow Republican" to all 10 Commandments icons in the United States today. "The time seemed right," stated sponsor Bill C.N'ohevil, "what with the Alberto Gonzales hearing and all. It appears some people need a reminder of how important it is. I'd like to see it everywhere, from schools to tattoos."

While the bill has little chance of passing, it has great support from the White House. Bush has pledged to use all of his remaining political capital to push the bill, already preparing a 'Snowflake' rally for the bill and giving speeches about how 9/11 fell on the 11th for a wake-up call. Bush's wholehearted support is expected to make one unnamed Democrat pause for exactly one second before voting against the bill, although political experts have stated should Bush edge up to a 35% approval rating that time may double.

Cheney's offer of a hunting expedition to raise awareness of the bill was turned down due to a shortage of bright orange, bulletproof hunter's vests.

"We, as a nation, have forgotten this critical enjoinment, and the effects are devastating," stated a press release from the RNC. "Remember, if you can't trust the Republicans not to let you slide, who can you trust?" The bill has also been praised by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the Fox News Channel as well, who formed the PAC 'Gipper's Rule - Our Utterly Precious Idea, Ever So'. The Republican GROUPIES plan to mention the bill every chance they get.

Should this bill capture the public's attention, N'ohevil has other add-ons ready to go. "I would like to see another one that mentions how important loyalty is over all - call it the Meirs Amendment. One that states thou shalt not trust the media unless it agrees with you. And of course one that states excess in the pursuit of ideology is a virtue, not a vice."

A random thought

2007-04-30T15:57:00.000-05:00

I've seen some articles on teaching the Bible as a form of literature/history in public school classes; showing its effect on thought, writing, and so on. A Bible literacy class, where students learn about the Bible but don't worship it in the process.

Of course, some people get worried that the course will turn into a religious class, where Christianity is praised and urged on the kids, rather than the Bible being studied separately from religion. (Of course there are some people who protest the class b/c it isn't so proselytizing, but these people seem to get upset when math books don't say "2+2=4, because Jesus died for you," so onwards.)

While reading a story about this, I thought, "Why not just hire an atheist or an agnostic to teach the Bible literacy class?" It probably wouldn't be a cure-all. but they certainly wouldn't try to convert anyone to Christianity.

Autism

2007-04-29T13:00:00.000-05:00

An eloquent and heartbreaking truth.

Changes

2007-04-29T12:52:00.000-05:00

Since I stopped blogging, Google came in and took over Blogger. Now that I'm back, I've been fiddling with their add-ons and stuff, and have added some new things. Hope you like them - any suggestions?

Yes, It's Me.

2007-04-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

Almost a year, huh? My, you look good. Did you lose weight? Work out? You look better - been taking vitamins?

Me? What's been up with me? Why, how nice of you to ask. Would you like to take a seat, have a drink maybe?

Well, as I said way back when, I had a case of blogger burnout. I mean, come on, given some of the brain dead things going on out there in the swamp of politics, you think I had a lack of material? It just didn't seem important, or as I said way back before Hereos even premiered, I felt other people said it better. And all the other reasons back then were true as well.

But there was another reason, one that made the listed ones the thin layer of frosting on the cake.

My son was officially diagnosed autistic.

I'm not saying that's the only reason I stopped posting. We had suspected it for some time so the news wasn't out of a clear blue sky. But after that, quite often, blogging just didn't seem all too important.

He's high level, so we are very lucky there. The major issue we have is his lack of verbalness, since we often have to try and guess what he wants or needs and he can't tell us specifically how he feels, leading to many guesses about IF he's sick and HOW he's sick and HOW sick he is. There are other issues, of course, and I'll start posting about them as well in addition to my thoughts on all the other non important things.

So...how have you been?

Believing Their Own Press Clippings

2006-09-18T06:03:00.000-05:00

We've all seen it happen. One team, obviously stronger, better talented, faster, stronger and favored by some amount like three touchdowns walks onto a field of another team that really shouldn't even be in the same sport with them.

And reenacting Cinderella, the weaker team beats the stronger. Sometimes it's after a long fought game where the stronger team can never pull ahead, sometimes the stronger team completely falls apart when the weaker team refuses to roll over and play dead. But the weaker team wins, making the hearts of its fans happy, giving hope to underdogs and those who pull for them, and making bookies everywhere gasp in dismay.

I say the stronger team was 'reading their own press clippings', the ones that had extolled and praised, the ones that had made no mention of any weaknesses or chances of failing, the ones that had frankly suggested the weaker team mail a formal submission and save everyone the trouble. They believed the hype and reality killed them.

I'm sure you can see where this is going by now.

Bush has said he doesn't read too much news and relies on others to tell him what's going on. The people he relies on seem to have a near complete belief in their own superiority, and any evidence of trouble (reality) is explained away by that favorite uber-demon, The Liberal Mass Media. Why, it can't be right, look who printed it!

So like the favored team, reality gets a last laugh. It's just like a politician going out to give a pep talk:

"I know there have been reports that my campaign is running out of money, far behind, disorganized, that my main workers are quitting, that it's going to be revealed that in my youth I was a gay Communist NAMBLA member. I tell you it's not true, none of it! We have plenty of money! We are catching up! We have a plan to move forward, we have helpers aplenty, and there is no such information out there!"

A rousing speech follows. When the candidate goes off stage, his few remaining workers grab him, and say "What are we going to do?"

And he looks at them in confusion. "About what? We have plenty of money, we are catching up..."

After a long break

2006-09-18T06:00:00.000-05:00

Well, here I am. After four months, you would hope things have gotten better. (With my writing or the world, you pick.) So let's ask:

Do you feel better off than you did four months ago?

Stirrings of life...

2006-09-14T15:02:00.000-05:00

Posts may be resuming soon...you have been warned...

For your consideration...

2006-06-02T06:37:00.000-05:00

We have a new nominee in the category of 'cherry picking quotes'. I had always figured the leaders in this race - Drudge, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh - would be well-nigh impossible to beat. However, one plucky little newcomer has made a Hell of an effort to get ranked with the Big Boys of Bullsh*t, and I can only stand in awe of their entry.

Here's the deal. In an apparent effort to make conservatives 'hip' and 'down wid it', National Review has posted a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs. Now, gentle readers, be honest...when you think rock and roll, you don't generally think of Reagan, Fukiyama, Buckley, or Will. (You may think of the current Bush, but only as a subject...) There are some conservative artists - Ted Nugent comes to mind - but rock n' roll itself, or its songs, really isn't. (With the eminently exceptable Right Brothers, who've done nothing more than place talking points in rhythm.) Country, of course, given the outcry that came about when the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed of President Bush. But rock?

Well, a little thing like reality wasn't about to stop the NR! No, with the assistance of careful selections of verses, 50 songs were found that were judged to be conservative. Their standards were, "The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values." (Skepticism of government is a conservative idea? Did I miss NR's condemnation of Bush's actions ANYWHERE?) So, what did they feel were good matches?

Songs like "Sympathy for the Devil", "Revolution", and "Right Here, Right Now". "The Battle of Evermore" and "Janie's Got A Gun". "Godzilla" and "Wake Up Little Susie".

Sure, you may be thinking the same thing I was. "The Hell?" But think of the songs they missed!

"I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" - clearly an ode to capitalism, baby! "I'd like to buy the world a Coke"...they didn't say 'like to have the government promise everyone a Coke and tax the upper class to get them!"

"American Idiot", by Green Day - "Don't want to be an American Idiot" - a blast at the liberal public education system. "One nation controlled by the media" - liberal media! How much more conservative can you get, for Pete's sake?

"Mother", by Danzig - "Mother, tell your children not to come my way." - a call for good old stay at home mothers involved in their kid's lives!

"Beautiful People", Marilyn Manson - In what other words could a call for churchgoing be phrased but: "The beautiful people, the beautiful people/It's all relative to the size of your steeple"

"The Hand That Feeds", Nine Inch Nails - "Will you bite the hand that feeds you?" Do I need to spell it out? Welfare reform now!

"Somebody's Watching Me", Rockwell - Hey, this guy survived a little surveillance! Quit yer bitchin'!

"Fine Line Between Pleasure and Pain", The Divinyls - Who's to say some of the people being abused didn't like it, huh?

"The Real Slim Shady", Eminem - Okay, this one may be a little hard to shoehorn in.

Free Will? Nah...

2006-05-31T15:57:00.000-05:00

What's disturbing about many so-called experts is how fragile their reasoning is. There are people out there proclaiming their theories, ideas, plans are firm as concrete when they're as weak as the minds of the people who swallow the audio excrement pumped out by the so-called leaders.

"Well, it SOUNDS good!"

Here's an example.

How weak is the argument, "God won't let the Earth burn up?" It's so frakkin' weak that it's an old joke!

This completely ignores the whole free will deal - if we're Hell bent and determined to destroy the Earth, God isn't preempting The Sopranos/C.S.I. and Grey's Anatomy with An Inconvenient Truth. He/She isn't going to change the litter we throw away into roses and trees in a sweet-smelling puff of smoke, Ip isn't going to make a giant thermometer emblazoned with WWJD? (and if there is ever a Second Coming, Jesus is gonna sue someone for copyright infringement) pop up in the sky showing just how much we've overheated the Earth. Ain't gonna happen.

Keeping in the religious vein, it's almost miraculous in a negative sense just how craven and egotistic that "reason" is.

At one and the same time, it states "We are so important to God that we will be saved from our mistakes!" and "God will save us since we can't do it ourselves." We're so stupid in our importance God will HAVE to save us!

I've seen better arguments floating in alphabet soup.

Though it DOES say a lot about some religious righties out there. They've been Chosen - and they are unanimous in this.

Back, for now...

2006-05-31T15:41:00.000-05:00

Yes, yes, it's been a while. But see, the check got lost in the mail after the dog ate my homework, and the car ran out of gas just as the train went by and the tires went flat, and it was Daylight Savings Time but there was a power outage so I missed the alarm while rushing my son to the doctor...

Hell, pick an excuse, okay? All I can say is I'm suffering from a form of blogger burnout. It's hard to get motivated to write for several reasons:

I'm a little lazy.
Many of the other blogs over there on my blogroll say things better and more intelligently than I, so I feel like the guy in the back of the room chanting "hear hear!" and not having anything much to add.
Real life intrusions.
Too many books to read.
Mental exhaustion - I mean, what else can I say about Fred Phelps and his psychologically incestuous Lonely Brain Cell band?
Defending the indefensible: the abovementioned Phelps still has the right to protest, and I don't support various acts to ban his forms. The 1st Amendment had no exception for Leviticus groupies. But damn, defending him is like having to cultivate a huge mountain of cowflop in the midst of a beautiful garden. (then again, isn't that a form of nobility, defending something you personally oppose allowed under something you personally favor? 'cause, frik, I think I deserve some form of a legal-ese Purple Heart here.)
Bush. Do I need to say more?

So I've been exhausted, physically and mentally...not that there's much there to be exhausted with in either case, really. But it's the truth.

So, here I am for now. Enjoy!

After 5 years, why is this still an emergency?

2006-05-04T11:38:00.000-05:00

From The Moderate Voice, this quote:

"Why are we funding Iraq, one of the longest wars in American historyÂby Nov. 25, 2006, it will be 1,347 days old, the number of days between Pearl Harbor and VJ DayÂwith 'emergency' bills? To hide, or at least obscure, the costs. Funding the war in dribs and drabsÂas if the fact that the war costs money is a recurring surpriseÂspares Congress from confronting the huge cost and having to make room for it in the budget by shedding lower-priority spending."

It's a damn good question, isn't it? Couldn't be that Bush and co. are following a usual pattern of hiding the true costs of things, so as to pretend we're doing fine?

Bush says he's a Baptist, but he sure as Hell governs as a Christian Scientist, or maybe a Scientologist. To admit something's wrong shows something's wrong with you. Better to act like a drunken dorm roomer, throwing up last night's tequila shots while missing a test and swearing to the parents at home footing the bill that you're doing just fine and studying hard.

Even better for the responsibilityilty-phobic, when these bills come due, he'll be out of office and can pretend that the President who inherited these problems is the person to blame, and Bush continuetine skipping merrily along in his miasma of no blame.

Damn, at least Urkel asked, "Did I do that?"

Here's Something Else

2006-05-04T11:17:00.000-05:00

While writing about the signing statements, I made a big deal that Bush was circumventing the law by simply claiming he didn't have to follow it. This is still true, of course, but there's another angle I had missed. Unclaimed Territory brings that up.

When Bush signs a law (sometimes with great, camera-clicking, back-patting, sycophantic press coverage) he's saying "I agree, this should be law." No problem.

Let's say he doesn't think it should be law, for whatever reasons. He could veto it, explain his problems with it, and send it back to Congress for them to work it out, agree or disagree, and either send it back or kill it. This would expose Bush's thinking, his ideas, and his theories.

Or he could pretend to agree with said bill, and then later in the secrecy of the Oval Office, wielding a Signing Statement pen fast running out of ink, he could quietly and sneakily decide he doesn't want to follow it. Then no one knows why he disagrees with it, or even for the most part THAT he disagreed with it. I certainly wasn't aware he had issued over 750 statements.

But all this plays to Bush's mindset. Why be honest? Elide the truth, make slippery claims and loaded statistics, use unclear and vague language, never say anything for certain, always have an excuse ready, and whatever you do, never ever tell the truth, because then you're held to it and can be shown to be wrong.

See, if he announced when he got the bill that, say, he didn't feel obliged to report to Congress on warrantless wiretappings, that would be a statement he could be measured by, argued about, debated with. It would be in public, out there. People could see how he thinks. So instead, he pretends to agree with the bill and then in the darkness says, "Except for this, so I won't follow it."

There is a method he could have used. I feel sure he knows about it, even though he never uses the veto. But he chose to lie about following the bill while in public and secretly say why he wouldn't.

When the Hell are people going to realize that Bush's honesty is about as valid as Clinton's fidelity? How long will it take before people understand that Bush has secretly and sneakily tried to expand Presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts, and is doing so in the most underhanded, snake slithery, lawyerly say-one-thing-and-mean-another fashion it's possible to do outside a broad satire?

The Irony Gods Are Full Today

2006-04-26T09:30:00.000-05:00

So, after everything Bush has done wrong...

...a decision to invade Iraq that was either based on bad information or pre-decided before any information came in;

...the errors made in the post-war occupation;

...the failure to contain any spending at all while cutting taxes;

...the Medicare bill debacle;

...placing cronies with no experience where they can do the most harm;

...the Katrina implosion and thumb fingered response;

...the wiretapping without court approval and the lack of caring about law;

...the increasing Presidential powers via signing statements;

...the selective leaking and uneven response to leaks;

...the failure to hold anyone responsible for Abu Gharib;

...the continuing "I made the decision and I'm not changing it now!" attitude over Rumsfeld;

...the equating of disagreement with his policies to treason and helping the enemy;

...after ALL THESE ACTS, which were made by the President and enacted by the President; which were active choices of his own volition and discretion; which were actions he did himself and he had control over and chose to do of his own accord...

...the American public is getting mad at him over gas prices, something he has negligible control over.

I can't tell if the little shiver in my gut is from schadenfreude or fear at the American public's view of the Presidency.

It's like a neighbor saying, "Yeah, well, I liked ol' Carl there. I mean, I know he was a thief, and he cheated on his wife, and yeah there was that problem he had with drugs, and the drunk driving, and when he got caught on video with the teenage girl and a shaved ferret and a gallon of olive oil, yeah, that was awkward, but Carl, he was a good ol' guy, you know?

"But dammit, when that storm blew his leaves off his trees into my driveway, THAT'S when I got good and mad!"

An Example

2006-04-25T17:48:00.000-05:00

Running these numbers, anyone other than a flack would say that this detention wasn't a success in anything except a way to smear our image. Yet, question the wisdom behind the policy and the next question you'll get from a TBIB (true believer in Bush) will be, "Do you support the enemy?"

A good question back would be, "Given the propaganda victory just handed to them in these actions, do YOU?"

In A Perfect World

2006-04-25T17:19:00.000-05:00

The thing is, I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments. I've always said that overthrowing Saddam was a good thing. I've never argued, as did some stupid or deluded fools, that Saddam was never a problem. I've never called the soldiers criminals or etc., excepting those involved in actual criminal acts such as Abu Gharib. And yes, it would be a good thing if all the name calling, the backbiting and the useless recriminations would stop. And condemning the morons who feel innocent blood is oil for their evil machine is the least we should do.

However, there is a problem there. We have in office an administration that has decided time and again that opposition to their actions - good ones, bad ones, incredibly stupid ones - is equivalent to and tantamount to treason, sedition and aiding the enemy. (All actions as well, but let's just focus on Iraq and its problems.) Any opposition, from the ones that ARE stupid and anti-American to the ones that have reasoned arguments and correct facts - are simply lumped into the most negative category possible.

Forget the whole adrenalin thing in most people that finds it hard to make nice with the other side as the other side continually calls you names at the peace table. Skip over the fact that, to date, the Decider-in-Chief has refused to listen to any other side at all and feels he hasn't messed up at all with anything.

The major problem with trying to be logical and reasonable in debates with people who refuse to be logical and reasonable is...it doesn't work. Try debating a true believer in IDiocy. Doesn't matter how many times you show a shortcoming in their theory, faith sustains them. They just know they're right and any evidence to the contrary is null, white noise in the brain. Faith overrides all. In the case of the Admin, it's faith in their infallibility - Shakespeare would have called in o'erweening pride - overrides any facts they find inconvenient.

As a guideline for how liberals would do things in Iraq if they take control of the Presidency, a statement is perfect - it's what the Democrats need to get away from the central plank of their strategy being an empty space of "We're not them." I support that without reservations. But to say, as the quotes in the above links do, that we need to only focus in Iraq and not domestic factors about the debate - can't be done.

Liberals: "Here's how we think Iraq should go..."

Administration flack: "TRAITOR! AL-QAEDA SUPPORTER! LIAR!"

Liberals: "...we need to..."

AF: "TREASON! AIDER AND ABETTOR!"

I'm sorry, but pointing out the way Administration treats their opponents has to be done as part and parcel of the Iraq debate, because it will be when the opponents get tarred. We can't hold a debate only about Iraq b/c the Admin won't let such a debate start - they'll start screaming from the start. You can't have a debate with someone who refuses to listen. It's even harder when the match the wax-filled ears with a venom-filled mouth.

It was just too good an idea

2006-04-24T14:08:00.000-05:00

For every action, there is a reaction.

For every wonked-out paranoid idea from one political side, there's one for the other.

The Vast-Left Wing Conspiracy has come home.

Balance is restored to the whackjobs.

More evidence

2006-04-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

Again, as if we need more proof, we find that the intel on WMD wasn't as strong as believed. News? No.

I think after a while we have to ask the question, "How solid does your information have to be to go to war?" There are several angles to take here, of course, ranging from absolute proof (which may come too late, see Iran) to if you have suspicion (which may blow up in your face, see Iraq). After we get through asking that question, I'd ask, "Was the information Bush and co had up to any standard of proof?"

At the very least, for every yes story there was a no story. Some of the sources for the yes stories should have been deemed non-credible from the start - Curveball. Perhaps, as is argued in the comments in the link above, some of the sources for the no angle could be discounted for suspicions of subterfuge. Possible.

But when you shake all of that out, was the information we had credible enough to take us to war, or was there an agenda there that made information at best a helpful tool?

Cold Water

2006-04-11T11:48:00.000-05:00

The bad news for the Bush Presidency has been coming even faster than their abilities to make excuses for them. You've got his still-low approval rating, with more people strongly disapproving of him than approving of him at all. (h/t Andrew Sullivan) You have the revelations that Bush allowed leaking (which, again appears to be legal here, and there is no mention of Plame as of now - condemn him for what he did, not what people think he did) selectively while getting in high dudgeon about it in public, which doesn't help his credibility at all. You have the New Hampshire phone scandal having possible ties to the White House, and of course as per usual the WH is stalling. You've got Iraq and several once-fierce defenders calling for withdrawal, the most recent being Newt Gingrich. Polls now give Democrats edges in almost all areas, from immigration to (barely) defense. Clinton never had this kind of perfect storm.

But I'm here to throw cold water on hope, kick the fantasy in the groin, and slap the dreamers about the face, saying "It's ain't over yet."

First, like them or hate them, the Republicans can campaign. They may do it dirty, they may Swift Boat Lie, they may sleaze, what have you, but they win. Do not count on the ever-increasing bad news as a bellwether for the election.

Second, and we must be honest here, this isn't an election about right ideas vs. wrong ideas. Mostly, it's an election about wrong ideas vs. no ideas at all beyond opposition. This could very well be a winning hand - it helped in the Republican Revolution (so quickly tainted) of '96, but they also had the Contract w/America as well and they seemed to have a different idea. I don't know if it's a big deal to the electorate at large, but I do know that should Democrat get voted into power, they will have to have some ideas beyond uncovering what the Bush group has done wrong. That's a worthy endeavor, don't get me wrong, but beyond that needed goal,. they'll be in charge of everything else.

Third, anything can happen. There are rumors of a military attack on Iran - I can already hear the echo of "Don't change horses in midstream!" Iraq may, somehow, turn around. bin Laden could be captured. Threat levels could be raised and lowered like tube tops during Mardi Gras. No one knows what the future will bring.

And finally, the Democrats have an unerring talent for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Someone will do something stupid (for God's and Bast's sake, keep McKinney quiet until after the election!) and the Republicans will leap all over it.

I do feel a change is possible - I just wish the Democrats made more of a slogan then "We're better than Bush." Of course they are, given how pathetic and divisive he's been, that's the "Taller than Mickey Rooney award." Given how the world is, given how badly Bush and co. have screwed it up, and given the massive need to fix things, I'd like to see some concrete ideas (as concrete as one can be during election campaigning, anyway). I trust the Democrats more than Bush's circle of cohorts, yes.

Again, "Taller than Mickey Rooney". That attitude of Anybody but Bush won't last.

I'm So Tired

2006-04-09T09:09:00.000-05:00

Yes, it's been a while.

There's many reasons for the falloff. We've been passing around various bugs and germs. We've been bust doing stuff around the house. I've been trying to keep up with the energy blast that is my son. We've been doing stuff outside the home more and more.

So I'm tired. But it's not just a physical weariness.

I understand now how some Republicans and conservatives felt when Clinton was in office and every week seemed to overturn another slimy rock of scandal. It's disturbing at first, to see the scandals. Then it's frustrating to watch more and more things come up. Then it's like Novacaine via repetition. At first you get up and scream. Then you stay seated and scream. After a while your throat hurts, so you pound the table. Then your hand hurts so you shake your head. Then your neck hurts, so you just glare. And after the eyestrain sets in, you just close your eyes.

In the past few months, we've seen from the Bush Admin:

Evidence that while he was proclaiming he hadn't made up his mind to go to war, he was talking about making an aerial Tonkin incident. And from here as well, yet more evidence he wasn't even considering troubles after the war.

Evidence that shows he knew some pre-war talking points weren't as solid as he proclaimed them to be. I'm sure there'll be a huge meaning argument over what lies are, whether exaggeration should count as such, and claims that since Bush meant well this should be overlooked The fact that this makes the President of the United States who ran on promises to restore honor to the White House have the same regard for the truth as the stereotypical used car salesman is, to some people, of no consequence now.

More evidence that Bush feels when the President does it, it's not illegal - see wiretaps and leaking. The wiretapping claims seem to be hubris of the mad-King kind, as does his decisions that keeping Congress informed of what he's doing is just too much of a demand. The recent revelations of Libby may be legal, but at the least they show a man who is Nixonian in his political zeal. And I feel sure the leaking story isn't dead yet, despite the somnolence of the press mixed in with their cowardice at being called liberal when they tell something bad about Bush and his cohorts.

It's all too much. Bush has succeeded in making me completely unsurprised by his ineptness, his power grubbing, his lying, and his general lack of any positive trait besides being an "average man" through some new redefinition. I'm tired of it all and nothing more shocks me from this Admin.

Way to go, guys.

.

Hiatus ending soon, hopefully

2006-04-02T11:33:00.000-05:00

I've been having to do a lot of work around the house and with the family, so I haven't been posting for some time. Hopefully this will end this week and I can get back to it.

Thanks for waiting.

South Dakota declares cells life!

2006-03-11T03:51:00.000-06:00

BLASTOCYSTS LOBBY DECLARES 'VICTORY'!

'the discrimination is over'

by Satire News Service

In response to an all-out lobbying effort by the Blastocyst Alive group, South Dakota has passed the most stringent anti-abortion law in the nation. "No more will these cells be segregated," said Gov. Mike Rounds, at the signing ceremony. To show his belief in the idea that undifferentiated masses of dividing cells are as alive as anyone, he announced plans to appoint one Secretary of Pre-Birth Safety, demanding that all uterusi be given yearly inspections for safety and comfort.

South Dakota had long taken the lead in taking away abortions. There is only one clinic in the state that performs the act, there is a mandatory twenty-four waiting period and counseling required to discourage the act, and a parental notification act is in effect that requires people under the age of 57 to tell their parents before an abortion can occur. Should the parents of the abortion seeker (called Hellbound Murderous Slut Harlot Heathen in court papers) be dead, the state appoints parents as a stand-in.

Blastocysts Alive spokesman Division 43 says, "We knew South Dakota was the place for us - but it just wasn't quite perfect. We organized a mass mailing campaign for this bill with a difference, where instead of letters, we mailed ourselves to the legislators. Since about 500,000 of us can fit in a space the size of a period, it was very economical and effective."

One state senator, who asked to remain anonymous, said he was very moved by the letter stating that over 17,649, 856,314,152 blastocysts were right there, on the letter, begging him to save their lives. The male senator, who to date has not carried a child to term, immediately pledged his support for the bill and states it doesn't go far enough, saying next term he will enact a commission to see if sperm and egg cells deserve a similar recognition. Lobbying groups Onanists Anonymous and All The Eggs in one Basket did not have a comment at press time. The state senator, however, admits he did kill all the blastocysts in the letter when he threw it away.

The anti-abortion law passed forbids all abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's health, exceptions usually seen as acceptable by most non-blastocysts. The only possible acceptable abortion by the Hellbound Murderous Slut Harlot Heathen would be in case of danger to the mother's life. Bill Napoli, a state senator, offers one such scenario:

"BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

Rape? What Rape?, another lobbying group involved in the passing of this bill, said in a statement, "We are glad to see that Senator Napoli sees a difference between the physical and psychological effects of a really bad rape and just your ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill rape. We salute Senator Napoli." Senator Napoli has plans to require churches to document attendance figures to confirm any claims from a raped woman of religiousness and OB-GYNs to sign documents of virginity at yearly checkups as well to keep any Hellbound Murderous Slut Harlot Heathens (hereafter HMSHH) from trying to procure an abortion after a rape that was not as bad as it could possibly have been. "No loopholes here," he proudly proclaimed.

The bill, which states that life begins at conception, tackles some other issues as well:

If an blastocyst, fetus, or embryo spontaneously aborts, the woman can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Any rape that is bad enough to warrant an abortion makes the blastocyst, fetus or embryo into a new category, "Not really alive", and therefore abortion is allowable. "By changing the definition, all moral quandaries are eliminated," stated one Wally Thurman-Smythe Hendley. Also, the rapist will be charged additionally for murder, but the woman, who was raped as badly as one can imagine, will not be. "Nope, no double standards at all, why?" asked Wally.

Women can now be arrested for child abuse if they fail to provide adequate safety and security to the now-alive cells. Signed affidavits of pre-natal vitamin doses and exercise will be periodically required.

One thorny issue is the idea of child sexual abuse. Defined as a "sex act involving a child", the blastocyst, fetus or embryo is now given the status of a child at conception, so therefore sex between a man and a pregnant woman is now an act of abuse as well, no matter how far along the woman is. In fact, it is now possible to be arrested for child sexual abuse immediately following the conception, since at the moment of conception the child is alive and therefore involved in the sex act. In a corresponding law, any depiction of any sex act involving vaginal sex is now forbidden in South Dakota under the "Catch-All Child Pornography Act", just in case the woman partner was pregnant or became pregnant during the act itself. This issue will have to work itself out in the courts, although already some people are asking questions like, "So, now a rape can become child sexual abuse as well, yet if the rape isn't bad enough to warrant an abortion it's not a bad rape but still child sexual abuse, and the mother can be charged with child abuse if after a rape that wasn't as bad as it could have been she doesn't take care of the child, or if she wasn't religious, or..." There was a lot more to that question, but our batteries died about the second hour of it.

Congress's Saturday Night Massacre?

2006-03-04T15:09:00.000-06:00

Bill Frist, he of the "nuclear option", is at it again. When the rules don't do what you want, change the rules! This appears to be a mantra for the Republican President Enablers in Congress (remember the arm-twisting hours added on to the MediDebacle bill?), who seem to feel that rules are for suckers.

This is one reason I'm against much of the Republican's current agenda - when they can't find ways to get it done through the rules, they ignore the rules. Like it or not, guys, it's a two-party system, and the minority Democrats don't even put up that much of a fight in the first place, but even the feeble and unusual times they do manage to get some backbone, you just switch around the rules so it doesn't matter. Democracy? They've heard of it, mainly along the "one-man-one-vote" idea, which they're ALL for - as long as they get to pick the man that gets that vote.

If Frist is going to follow the suspected plan of removing those Republicans who dare to follow the rules and replace them with more pliant, limber moraled people, it's going to look at lot like the Saturday Night Massacre. Just the kind of image needed.

The Female Frey

2006-03-03T14:14:00.000-06:00

James Frey's fictional autobiography - call it Munchasen, Interrupted - was bad for so many reasons, but one of the more awful ones, to me, was when he rewrote the death of a girl in his school to make himself seem "badder". Hard to sink much lower than changing the facts to give yourself a better angle for a book...

...or a TV series.

First Impressions, You Know What They Say

2006-03-03T12:37:00.000-06:00

As more and more comes out about Katrina, it seems clear that Michael Brown - who I disparaged and called for his firing - was actually much more involved than he seemed to be. It evens seems that he was doing his damnedest to get stuff done, going over Chertoff's head to the White House direct, and saying he would take the blame.

That he did, and there was much blame to go around. He came in for a whole lot of it, and now he deserves some praise for what we now know.

So, Michael Brown, I was too hard on you. You were much more involved than I thought, you did more than I thought, and you deserved much less crap from me.

I apologize.

Rebuttal

2006-03-03T11:21:00.000-06:00

The original poster that supposedly blamed myself and other critics of the war has an update and a follow-up. His argument is now that he never was saying people who criticized the war were at fault for the problems; it was people who use false information while criticizing the war that are the problem. That's a position that very few sane people would argue with, of course, and it should be the standard for the pro-war side as well - they should condemn misleading statements like these.

Well, far be it for me to condemn badly thought out prose, as my original blog entry on this very subject had to be edited itself; see below.

But reading the original entry and the follow-up, the confusion was more than understandable. Look at these sections from the original post that started the fire:

"But why be glib? One of the important points made in this excerpt (the entire piece is available to subscribers only) is that a goodly portion of our success or failure in Iraq has ultimately to do with how we react in terms of either lending our support or leveling our criticisms against the campaign.
And this is (and has been) a crucial component of the warÂone that many on the anti-war side are loathe to admit: that their constant naysaying, though it is well within their right to voice, has objectively hurt the war effort, particularly when the criticism incorporates carefully-crafted falsehoods many of the warÂs critics know for a fact to be objectively untrue" (italics added)

And then from his update:

"First, my essay doesnÂt concede that weÂve Âlost the warÂÂand in fact, by offering a counter to Buckley, it argues precisely the opposite. Second, it doesnÂt ÂwhineÂ about how some folks didnÂt clap hard enough; instead, it makes the observation that relentness naysaying beyond initial disagreementÂparticularly when those daily critiques involve knowingly perpetuating falsehoods as part of a strategy to undermine the war effortÂis objectively damaging, as it meets one of our enemiesÂ stated goals of dividing the American electorate." (boldface added, italics in original)

...

"Critics of my essay are free, of course, to misinterpret or refigure my argument any way theyÂd like (I envision action figure stories or kitty pictures). But it wonÂt change what I wrote, nor will it alter what are indisputable facts: namely, that the enemy relied on breaking our will, and it relied on doing so by applying the kinds of pressures to which many on the leftÂalready predisposed to disagree with the intervention of US forcesÂwould succumb.
It is also true that, regardless of what we each felt about the wisdom of the intervention, showing a united front against the terrorists (who are now fighting against an elected Iraqi government and the vast majority of those Iraqis who voted for democracy) would weaken the insurgency and show solidarity with a fledgling democracy. Doing so at a time when civil war is possible thanks to the provocations of terrorists is particularly important if our goal is to win the war in Iraq (and not just political control of a future, toothless foreign policy)." (italics added)

In his update, he posts a straw man letter to show the kind of arguments he feels are at fault, which is fair...if he had been much more specific in saying he only meant these kind of Ann-Coulter-on-the-left arguments. But then:

"Whether or not it is appropriate for war critics to criticize the war so vocally and so consistently is for them to decide, ultimately; however, it was my position that the more hyperbolic and vicious critiquesÂbased too often on falsehoods and ideologically-weighted arguments that failed to provide adequate context for their criticismsÂwere doing damage to troop morale, to the morale of the US electorate, and were helping in the propaganda efforts of the insurgents (who have no legitimate claim in Iraq)Âand they were working in this harmful capacity far moreso than they were weakening the PresidentÂs resolve or helping the people of Iraq. I suggested that those who were anti-warÂhaving registered their disagreementÂare therefore doing no good by working hard to bring about our defeat at this point in the campaign, or by openly crowing for a civil war. But they are making it more difficult for our troops, our State Department, the DoD, and our allies." (italics added)

...

"What I donÂt understand is, why canÂt you and your friends on the left who are so quick to (mistakenly, and in my opinion, intentionally) assert that I have laid blame for the failure of the war at the feet of the left take responsibility for what YOUR actions have wroughtÂeven if you believe those actions were justified? The best and worst of (subjective) intentions, after all, have empirical consequences. And to deny that the anti-war campaign, coupled with a media that concentrates on calamity rather than success, hasnÂt had a deleterious effect on US willÂand a positive effect on the persistance of the insurgencyÂsmacks to me of willful blindness and, frankly, a rather patently obvious defensiveness." (italics added)

The whole essay reads like he can't decide if it's ALL the people against the war, or only those who use false statements in their criticisms, who are causing problems for morale and etc. Yes, he says a few times he only means the hyperbolic people - and then uses the subset while condemning the whole, using words like particularly. If I said stuff like:

And this is (and has been) a crucial component of the warÂone that many on the (PRO)-war side are loathe to admit: that their constant (DRUMBEATING), though it is well within their right to voice, has objectively hurt the war effort, particularly when the (SUPPORTING STATEMENTS) incorporates carefully-crafted falsehoods many of the warÂs (SUPPORTERS) know for a fact to be objectively untrue

I would understand why people would be confused over who I meant to condemn there - all supporters, or the ones who used false statements in their claims. I'm also troubled by other things, like his questioning if war critics should criticize so often or so vocally (so, less often and more quietly...why?) and the fact that "relentless campaign" has had a deletrious effect on U.S. morale - again, not just the ones using false statements. (I'd also ask how divided is the blame as well - promises of easy victory, less cost, fewer people needed and a short time over there being broken would also cause a loss of morale.)

The relentless naysaying comment is a little confusing as well. Much of the reason I've been pretty constant in my criticisms of the war is because the criticisms haven't been addressed - the lack of planning in the beginning, the failursectarianning Iraqi troops, the secterian conflict we should have seen coming and have yet to figure out how to deal with. When the problems get addressed, then the criticism can be muted.

His comment about showing a united front against the terrorist also gives me pause - why is my criticizing, say, the lack of body armor in Iraq not a united front? Does he only mean the people who want the terrorists to win, and if so, who are they specifically?

As I said, I'm not one to condemn unclear writing. It just seems like this writing may be more clear then intended, with the mixing and matching of problems of false statements and the honest criticisms. Yes, he does say a few times that rational debate is different - and then in the next paragraph includes all war critics as a lump. Perhaps it's just he knows what he means, and the people who are regulars on his site knows what he means...but it doesn't come as a surprise to me that other people don't know.

Pointing out isn't hoping

2006-02-28T16:12:00.000-06:00

A sub-meme of the whole "liberals caused the Iraqi problems" is the whole idea that pointing out problems with stuff in Iraq is indicative of wanting the U.S. to lose. The argument seems to be that by saying stuff is wrong we're hoping we're correct and therefore want to fail.

Never have understood this argument. I once used this example in an e-mail group:

Say you're about to go on a long car trip with a driver, oh, let's call him Beorge Gush. As you get into the car, you notice it's almost out of gas.

"Um, Beorge, we need gas."

"Quiet, I know what I'm doing!"

The trip starts. You happen to glance at the map and see that the course marked out takes you well out of the way and through a desert.

"Beorge, I think we should go another way."

"Don't interrupt me!"

So, twenty minutes later, you run out of gas in the middle of the desert. Would it then be fair for Beorge to turn to you and say, "This is YOUR fault!"?

Another example. I had a birthday last week, which turned out to be the only REALLY good day that week, due to insomnia and various other problems. Thanks to my loving wife, the birthday was excellent - so excellent that I completely forgot we were having visitors the next day and I needed to do a lot of cleaning up. The house wouldn't have been condemned by the Health Department, but still and all.

So the next morning, as the realization hits me early, I'm running along doing my best ten-minutes-per-room-straighten-up-and-make-do cleaning treatment. One of my cats manages to get under my foot (said cat, Shadow, wishes it to be known that I interfered with his important duty of twining about my ankles) and I trip, flying forearm first into a wall corner hard. I honest to God thought I had broken my arm. I had a small strawberry mark but immense swelling and tenderness in it. My wife, my family, and several things told me that yes, I could have a broken arm - hairline fracture - and urge me to go to the doctor. I haven't yet, for several reasons ranging from I hate drugs in general to I don't want to be embarrassed by going them and having nothing more than, in medical terms, a boo-boo.

My wife still thinks I may have broken my arm, and still tells me I should still go to the doctor. Does this mean she really wants my arm to be broken? Do I need to worry that she'll decide she really wants to be right and will take a hammer to my arm to BE right?

I Know Who Did It!

2006-02-28T12:34:00.000-06:00

CULPRITS REVEALED!

"...the clear causes of our failures"

by Satire News Service

Following the revelation on some blogs that critics of the Iraq War led to its many problems, several other companies have come forth and announced who was to blame for several of their errors and mistakes.

The TV networks were first to announce their recent unveiling. ABC, whose much-hyped "Emily's Reasons Why Not" was hurriedly yanked from the schedule this year, now says the problem wasn't the plot, acting, script and general lack of humor. The true problem was TvLAd5542' s (real name unknown) posting on a website, who wrote "Emily's Reasons Why Not is teh suxxor!"

Joseph Difner-Apeoat, spokesman for ABC, said "Clearly this little piece of opinion caused the massive reaction against 'Emily'. It could have succeeded but for this one violent attack on it."

NBC, whose attempted Americanization of "Coupling" was one of the network's biggest embarrassment a few years ago, has discovered that the show itself was excellent and should have been a success, 'except for the vile slanders of one David Jimson of New York, who was overheard to say in a Starbucks, "I dunno, I thought the British one was better." I ask you, what could we have done against such power?" pleaded Robert N. M. Yfault.

CBS was quick to add its own findings that several of its shows should still have been on the schedule but for the acts of people such as Janine Carlson, Luvs2WatchTV, and Ernie Rock, all of whom uttered disparaging opinions of their shows at one time or another.

The movie King Kong was also the victim of a vicious attack upon it, causing it to underperform at the box office. "We won't mention names," said a Universal spokesman, "but we have affidavits stating several people came out of the premiere saying this movie 'wasn't what I expected' and 'seemed too effect laden'. Once that rumor spread, all the marketing power we had was helpless."

Businesses outside the entertainment industry also pointed out they had found several villains responsible for some of the biggest problems. Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm that was disbanded over obstruction and enabling during the Enron scandal, now says the problem wasn't the accounting tricks, the collusion to lie and misstate profits, the paid auditors nor the actual illegality of many of their acts. All the blame rests with one Xavier Cranston, mail room employee, who would often vent about the lousy job Arthur Anderson was doing about fixing the men's room. "Once he began spreading his poison and bile, the fall was only a matter of time," read Paul Dodger.

Enron itself made a motion to call janitor Eddie "Bud" Creeger to the stand to testify of his often negative comments about the company, perhaps to show another reason for the downfall. "We have a few others we can call as well...this negativity was widespread!" says their attorney.

So it's MY Fault?

2006-02-28T12:18:00.000-06:00

From Balloon Juice, we get a link that exposes which people are accused of causing problems in Iraq. You might have guessed...it's me.

Yes, my questioning of Bush's actions in post-war Iraq has caused the mission to be in danger of failing. It was inevitable...after all, when I questioned the pre-war intelligence pre-war, I was already sowing the seeds of disaster. They just bloomed as I pointed out mistakes Bush and co. made/were making. The flowers of defeat are so powerful, the aroma has enticed and swayed people like Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley. And you thought burnt garlic permeated!

It's amazing how much power I have. I mean, the lack of body armor for soldiers, the now clear lack of postwar planning by the Bush Admin, Rumsfeld's refusal to bring in more troops when asked, the Abu Gharib scandal and its impact on our image in Iraq, the Sunni-Shiite violence and death squads and all that...

...and it all comes down to me. I did it.

So if you're reading this now, and want to blast me for my right opinions and thoughts on the war, just remember how powerful I am - and be careful.

(Edited to show that Balloon Juice isn't doing the accusing)

David Irving

2006-02-21T07:19:00.000-06:00

You may have already heard about David Irving's case. The synopsis is that David Irving is a Holocaust denier - he believes/believed Jews were not killed in the usual claimed amount during World War 2; claimed that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were built after the war, by the Poles, to match the "fantasies" of survivors; that Hitler never had any idea at all about the Holocaust...pretty much the rants of the unshaven man in the subway handing out blurry Xeroxes on some theory spoken by a guy in a nice suit. (Change guy to gal and you get Ann Coulter, by the way.)

Okay, so Irving's got issues. Should he be put in jail for his opinions?

In Austria, the answer is yes.

Let's be frank up front - I have little sympathy for this man and less respect for his ideas. He's a loathsome little screecher. Perhaps the best argument I have for belittling him is when he was called a Holocaust denier in print, in a book by Deborah Lipstadt, he sued her for libel...in Britain. This is because the libel laws in Britain mean the accused must prove what they said was correct, which is a vast difference from the laws in America, where the burden of proof rests with the accuser to show the statements are incorrect. James Frey would be dead over there, if someone chose to sue him for his fictional biography. (Of course, Frey would be dead over here as well, but at least over there he may be able to get some sightseeing in.)

So Irving sues Lipstadt, which means Lipstadt not only has to prove that Irving denies the Holocaust, which is pretty evident, she has to show that he's wrong in doing so. And Justice Grey finds for Lipstadt, calling Irving "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist". You can call that a rather big loss.

He's scum.

But he's been arrested for comments he made in 1989, under a law passed in 1992, if the AP story is correct. I mean, beyond the whole concept of the freedom of speech ideal, there's the disquieting thought of being nailed for something you did that was completely legal at the time. (There is a good chance there was a law in 1989 making denying the Holocaust illegal; it's a fairly prevalent law in Europe...but he pled guilty to a law passed since his "crime", which seems odd.) He's been sentenced to three years in jail for having an opinion in public. He now says he believes the Holocaust DID happen (way to hold to ideals there!) and that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz. It's like when people over here in the United States find God after they're convicted; he just happened to find an open history book.

As Glenn Greenwald says, this decision has been met with universal condemnation over in America, leading him to posit there are values that all Americans agree on. I do think that's true mostly - most people who condemn idiots like Fred Phelps don't want him in jail for his beliefs, just out of their particular community. I myself go with the saying "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" - tell people the facts about both sides of an argument (and not in the pathetic "balanced" style - don't parrot one group's completely wrong statements as gospel truth) and let everyone see where the evidence lies.

Of course, you DO have the people who say that disagreement with Bush's policies are treason and should be responded to with imprisonment, a la Michael Reagan's ""Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" On a lesser note is the idea that people who disagree with Bush are liberal - people like Andrew Sullivan and, recently, William Buckley. So imprisonment, nah...but condemnation for not being lockstep is fine.

Not nearly as bad as imprisonment and not nearly what it should be.

Once More Into the Retch, Dear Friends!

2006-02-18T06:58:00.000-06:00

Yes, I know, it's a Hell of a way to start a Saturday, but I thought I'd link to another Ann Assault. Here's the "best" line from it:

"Or is NATO -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved?"

This is the person many conservatives hold as a foremost thinker, making an insult that is basically a schoolyard taunt by the kid who aced an "Increase Your Word Power" quiz and thinks he's a genius. I mean, even her diehard fans can't think this morsel contains any wit, "biting insight" (a usual defense of people who like her, breaking down to 'threat/slur/rumor/death wish/hyperbole/lie spoken in big words'), or anything close to debate. It's an insult, plain and simple, and it's uttered by a woman held in esteem as a great thinker, a woman invited to conservatives conferences as the keynote speaker, a woman who is, in short, a leading figure in conservative thought nowadays. It's like the Democrats inviting Louis Farrakhan to come on up at the DNC meeting and speak some words of wisdom about the Jews.

But on the plus side, she got to take an easy shot at an easy target. Good job, Ann.

Misfire

2006-02-14T10:26:00.000-06:00

V.P. CHENEY INVOLVED IN SHOOTING INCIDENT

Image, victim in bad shape

from Satire News Service

Vice President Cheney, while on a quail hunting trip, accidentally shot his image and the ratings of the Republican Party in the face, as well as Harry Whittington, a major donor to the Republican party. Within seconds after the misfire, image consultants and Karl Rove were notified and raced to the scene, almost beating the ambulance and medical personnel. The prognosis was not good.

"This will be a tough thing for him to get over," said Harley Gamie. "The damage looked bad from here, and we will have to exert all our efforts just to keep the situation stable. The slightest slip and things go will downhill and take a turn for the worse, inflicting possibly fatal damage. Oh, how's Harry, by the way?"

The White House was notified of the incident soon after the image consultants were and there was a conference on how to handle this. The end result was, as one person in the White House put it, "Cheney, YOU shot the guy, YOU tell people about it." Cheney, famed far and wide for his openness and non-secrecy, immediately let the word be known that nothing really important had happened.

Katherine Armstrong, the owner of the property and a witness to the image incident, was designated as the liaison to the press on Sunday, a mere eighteen hours or so after the possible accidental manslaughter. In a totally unrelated coincidence, Karl Rove had been on the phone with her ninety minutes after the shooting "exchanging biscuit recipes," claims Armstrong. So far, Mrs. Armstrong has been just as forthcoming and open as the Vice President has been, mainly saying, "Hmmm?"

The Republican party seemed at a loss on how to handle this emergency. At first, they said it was Mr. Whittington's fault for not calling attention to himself and going on a hunt with a sixty-seven year old man in the first place. They also hinted that perhaps, in spite of all the donation to the Republican Party, Mr. Whittington may have been influenced by Democrats to get himself shot for a cheap and easy political point. "It would be just like them," said an anonymous press release.

This policy of blame the victim, seen to great effect in the Katrina aftermath, surprisingly failed to work here and left the consultants scrambling for a new escape hole. One idea was to gather people who had been shot by similar ammo and shotguns to show that the injuries weren't really that big a deal. Borrowing from the "snowflake babies" label, this group would have been called the "Pellet People". The idea was dropped when no one stepped forward to join the club.

The NRA offered its own campaign, built around the idea that, hey, these things happen. This motion was tabled.

Another idea was to retroactively make the terror alert for Mrs. Armstrong's ranch "red" for that hunting weekend and saying that the Vice President thought he saw a terrorist. This plan met with great enthusiasm until it was realized that the White House press corps, even today, had a better than fifty percent chance of catching this lie.

It was finally decided that in return for Mr. Whittington taking the blame for the whole incident, President Bush would push through a tax break just for him.

Democrats were quick to leap on this incident, claiming if THEY had shot someone accidentally, they would have called the ambulance first and their health care plan would have taken care of the bill, but they wouldn't have shot anyone since their gun control laws would have stopped such a tragedy.

In related news, the quail Mr. Cheney missed in this incident has been placed on the Terrorist Watch List. He is considered feathered and dangerous, and is probably Muslim, according to eyewitness descriptions.

Ann Here We Go Again!

2006-02-12T08:20:00.000-06:00

Ann Coulter, leader of the race to the bottom in debate, has moved a few more lengths out in front. She's going down in history as the woman who could sprint all the time in this marathon of lowering standards.

Let's not waste time throwing pies of logic at her (the ony kind of pies that should be thrown) nor redefine futility by pointing out that if any on the left had said these things my e-mailbox would have been flooded by condemnations and calls for banning (to their credit, some of the rightward blogs have been busy condemning Ann as well - follow the above link to Donkelphant, and he'll link you to Right Wing Nuthouse's collection of links - however, more below) and since it's Sunday and I feel like crap and didn't sleep well last night, I don't want to once again try to move the ocean with a spoon and say that her comments add nothing to any form of debate besides a razor-spitting raspberry.

Let's just skip all that. Those who find her witty, intelligent, and reasoned won't believe any argument I could make.

Let's explore WHY she has so many followers. In the above mentioned Right Wing Nuthouse link, you will see that there is the inevitable comparison to left wing comments, which is fair to some degree, although I disagree with the idea that comments at the Coretta Scott King funeral are the same thing. (At most, you've got a case of wrong place and time, and I think Rev. Lowery's comments were at the wrong place and time. Jimmy Carter's I don't have a problem with for two reasons - the King's WERE wiretapped, and everyone should know both parties did it. Just because history may shine a mirror into current acts, it doesn't magically wipe out the people at fault in the beginning. But to say the comments at the funereal are similar to Ann's is saying that arguing in a church is the equivalent to making death threats and using the term "ragheads" in a public forum as a joke.) But look at the comments and you see people defending her. Look at the other blogs listed, and you will find people defending her comments there as well.

Some defend them as her right to talk. No problem there. I've never said she should be banned - I've often said I wish she could tell the truth and not go so over the top, but never ban her.

Some people say the left is just as bad, so what's the problem? The problem, shared on both sides, is that if you condemn egregious remarks on the other side, but not the same style of remarks on your side, you're a hypocrite and should be judged as unworthy for debate. You have no standards, you only have sides. However, in today's world, you're more likely to get a radio or TV gig and get a rabid fan base.

And some people say that Ann can make these remarks because she's right. Here's the real issue.

I'm reading several books on arguing and logic, and one of them - "Truth, Knowledge or Just Plain Bull", by Bernard M. Patten - states it clearly in the introduction. "The Simple Truth Ain't Simple". Later on, it gets even more plain:

"Because there are no simple answers, a simple answer is likely to be wrong."

But that's not what people want to hear nowadays. Many people would rather swallow what the leaders of one party say and accept it as truth handed down from Sinai. And the leaders, especially the ones currently in office, make the "truth" even easier to swallow by saying, "It's our side and the wrong side". Why think about it? It's easy! We're right and they're wrong.

Ann does make it easy. There's no thought to much of her invective. It's all riffs on the major key of "They're wrong and evil" with some minor trills in the key of "Look at how much better we are". A simple tune, easy to whistle while you vote and hum while you look at blogs that agree with your side. People want it that way. Why struggle to understand something complex and deep when there's this ready made, easy bake answer over here, just waiting for you to turn off your brain.

And you know you're right, you can call the other side "ragheads" and rue never taking a shot at Bill Clinton. 'cause that's easy - they're wrong, and deserve any and all evil we can wish upon them.

And since they're evil and we're right, there's no need to actually listen to them or question our acts. No! Wanting it to be easy never means having to wonder about your side.

So, maybe Ann's appealing to the people out there who just don't want to wonder about things. And she's got a lot of followers.

TH-th-th-th-th-th-that's NOT all folks!

2006-02-09T11:34:00.000-06:00

As the riots over the Muhammad cartoons continue, we find out some more.

Andrew Sullivan give us a link that shows these cartoons causing more violence than Acme did to the Road Runner were printed in Egypt - a Muslim country - some time ago, and there were no riots nor protests then. This tells us that apparently not every single Muslim feels the need to throw rocks and light fires, in the much lighter way that not all Christians felt the need to protest "The Book of Daniel". It's only those who refuse to admit any other view than theirs has validity that get so offended. It also raises the interesting question of why U.S. papers, for the most part, are refusing to print these cartoons, given that they've printed other images offensive to some Christians without any qualms - remember that painting of Mary in elephant dung and Piss Christ? Fear of fanning the flames of anti-Americanism, fear of being accused of putting the troops in danger...there could be some good reasons, but I'd like to see the answers to see if they match the good reasons.

The Drawing that Launched a Thousand Stones (and lit some matches)

2006-02-05T16:36:00.000-06:00

My first thought on hearing all the condemnation, stoning and arson over the Muhammad cartoons was "Damn! We need to have more Muslim critics out there." Think of how many bad movies could be avoided if people set fire to the theaters and stoned the producers! And TV - no more Xerox copies of other hits! Music...well, let me just say this: K-Fed would be hiding. It reminds me of the Doonesbury cartoons back when the Ayatollah issued a death call for Salman Rushdie. "For Joan Collins, death!" "Oh, a PAN, Peter! That's going to hurt!"

But seriously...

The mark of a true zealot lies in the humor. If someone can laugh at anything said about the other side, and can't laugh at anything said about their side, this is the kind of person that ruins Thanksgiving dinners and is saying "And one MORE thing..." two days later. The Muslims currently going nuts over these cartoon fit in perfectly with the humor acid test. Here's some examples of cartoons the Arab press has printed, with no condemnation I heard of. So...extreme examples against the Jews are hunky dory, and the mostly innocuous ones from the Danes aren't? And there are some points in the cartoons - the one with Muhammad in a bomb turban should make someone think, "Is that the image people have of us?" rather than "Is that AN IMAGE?"

I understand that one of the edicts - supposedly - in Islam is no images of Muhammad can be made, because that edges close to idolatry. I've heard similar arguments from some fundamentalists over here as well. I can understand that edict, and I have no problems with other people following this law. (Assuming it IS a law, since Islam seems to have more lawmakers than all the governments of the world combined, and many of them issue contradictory statements. See killing innocents and suicide bombings.) But their laws aren't mine nor the Danes. If it offends you, buddy, don't look at it and don't buy the paper and tell your buddies they shouldn't either. But torching embassies? Can we say overkill? Well, for some of the people out there we can't - they don't see any.

Anyone notice that there's no protests in the United States over the cartoons? Here, we're used to satire and humor over religion, for all the efforts of some lockbrains to deem what they hold sacred be enshrined in law. But over there, where the religion is sacrosanct and legally mandated, not so much. Some Dominionists may want to keep that in mind...

CIA Head Revealed!

2006-02-04T16:38:00.000-06:00

JAMES FREY ADMITS TO BEING CIA HEAD, BEHIND MUCH WMD INFO

"...the truth is so much more than the facts"

by Satire News Service

James Frey, the author who was caught falsifying much of a supposed autobiography, has come forward and admitted he was the actual head of the CIA at the time of so much wrong Iraqi information. "While I'm admitting my errors in one area, I may as well go ahead and admit this one as well," Mr. Frey said. "Get it all over with."

"I don't know how Bush knew of me, but soon after the 2000 election, he came and asked me if I would mind running the CIA behind the scenes. Since my fictional autobiographical book wasn't getting accepted, I figured, sure, why not? Maybe I'd write a James Bond kinda biography instead if my addicted one never got accepted.

"But man, it was dull, and Cheney and Bush kept on asking me about Iraq and all their WMDs. Hell, for a month I thought WMD were Whole Malt Drinks and I was waiting for someone to bring some peanuts. Then I did some reading about Hussien, and what a jerk, huh?

"So I figured, well, you know, everyone KNOWS he's a jerk and a bad man. That's the truth. That truth doesn't change. So I just, you know, adjusted the facts to make the truth more true. So I just said, sure, WMD's, lots of them. I even made up those unmanned drone things after watching Star Wars, 'cause, you know, that would be too cool!"

President Bush quickly reacted to Frey's admission, calling it "unlikely" and "probably not true", although Scott McCllelan quickly reminded the press that the President often didn't speak literally.

2006-02-04T16:18:00.000-06:00

CINDY SHEEHAN SAYS BEING ARRESTED 'FABULOUS'

"I was read my right to be fashionable!"

from Satire News Service

In a surprising news conference yesterday, Cindy Sheehan appeared with the two Capitol Police who had arrested her before President Bush's State of the Union address, dressed in a stunning muted gray outfit topped with a splashy red handkerchief. To the crowd's surprise, she thanked Officers Ken Blackwell and Carson Kressley for 'changing my life' and 'making me see that a T-shirt is just T-sucky'.

"Oh, honey, you know we're there for you!" smiled Carson in reply, looking natty in a policeman's cap and casual suit. "Once we saw you in the balcony in that ratty T-shirt, we knew we had to bring you down!"

Cindy says that far from being abused and rushed away, Officers Blackwell and Kressley were simply doing their sworn duty as both Capitol and fashion police. "Once they had me away from the crowd they showed me several outfits made for the sorrowful mom and activist, ones that showed that while my son died, I can still look good."

Officer Blackwell chimed in, "No blood for oil and no rags for Sheehan!"

As it turned out, the problem had been as reported - Ms. Sheehan's T-shirt that read "2245 Dead - How Many More?" But 'the problem was NOT the message - it was the way the message was delivered!' explained Kressley. "She fell into the same trap most protestors do, thinking that sandals and cutoff shirts make them more honest or something. Honey, there was SUCH a lack of tzujing there! We just had to step in and make her see that, hey, important message or not, you can still look good."

"And I do," chimed in Ms. Sheehan, to applause and camera flashes. "Wait until you see my new line of clothes, NO POLYESTER FOR PROTEST."

The Capitol Police were following their most recent job description, taken when Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was flying high, which allows them to keep the peace and 'make it better looking'. "I won't say it's been easy," sighed Ken Blackwell. "The number of times we've had to tell Ted Stevens that even though he tries to grab all the pork he can doesn't mean he has to grab the first suit on the rack, or Ted Kennedy that gin and tonics just DON'T go with plaid ties..."

"But that's what they pay us for," he smiled.

President Bush issued a statement which read, "While I still cannot listen to Ms. Sheehan's views on the war, I will say now be able to look at her and her gorgeous outfits. I cannot accept the gay lifestyle, but I certainly can accept their advice!"

The officers had to rush off when their walkie-talkies - dressed out in a plaid pattern that set off their badges - received a call of "plaid and stripes alert!"

Spying

2006-01-24T09:45:00.000-06:00

The question over the warrantless wiretaps comes down to this:

In wartime, does the Presidency have powers that supersede Congress's laws?

Many people haven't focused on this yet - bogged down in either this one specific question of the wiretaps while ignoring the several other instances of Bush claiming this right (see the McCain amendment signing), or arguing the minutiae of that particular Congressional act, or arguing that other people did other things like that (see Lincoln, FDR).

For the record, yes, other Presidents have done acts that were illegal at the time. Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, when the Constitution says only Congress can do this. FDR rounded up people of Japanese ancestry and had them imprisoned in violation of several laws, and declared what could be called rigged military tribunals would be the court of choice in one case as well. Was there a difference between those acts and Bush's? As of now, one - both acts happened in an actual, declared war. Also, Congress approved Lincoln's appropriation of their power in 1863, and one of FDR's powers (military tribunals) in one particular case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin (which has been called badly decided by some judges and commentators), so the President's act in questions were given kind of ex post facto justification. Of course, this may happen in the current wiretap case as well.

In this case, the Congressional Research Service has found that Bush's justifications for the wiretaps don't match with current law, and that Bush didn't fully inform Congress as required. In other words, there seems to be no questions that barring any new findings, Bush did violate the law in the wiretapping, regardless of what other Presidents did or what they claim the Congressional act allowed or etc. - and we can safely ignore the Justice Department's findings, unless "conflict of interest" has been redefined.

So the question now is: Can the President assert supra-legal powers in wartime?

The past has shown he can. In both most often mentioned cases, the Presidents did trample the Constitution, and were not impeached for it. In both cases, they received after-the-fact approval and power (for FDR, in that one case only as far as I know). However, the past is not the straitjacket of the present.

If Bush were to decide that every American should be wiretapped on the chance they would come in contact with a terrorist, that would possibly be within his power during wartime and possibly would be less egregious than some of Lincoln's acts. Yet that wouldn't make it justified. There is a dividing line between the necessary and the overreach.

In this particular case, Bush went around a historically loose court, the FISA, to allow warrants with a less stringent standard. In the words of General Hayden recently, a "reasonable basis to believe" vs. "probable cause". Probable cause is roughly defined to be "good reason to believe that the search will turn up evidence of crime." And FISA gives much leeway to the agent requesting the warrant, not to mention the 72 hour allowance before even applying for a warrant. This doesn't seem to be a very tough case to make.

But let's say it is. For whatever reason, these standards are too onerous in the undeclared war on terrorism. Will this allow the warrantless wiretaps?

At first, maybe. Given the complaints from the FBI that the tips gained were worthless, and taking into consideration that the pre-9/11 problem was not too little information but too little comprehension of too much information, I will not grant an absolute yes here. But let's say maybe it was enough - at first. But going on five years since?

At some point, you have to ask if this was such a problem, why was there no effort to change the requirements needed for a FISA warrant? There have been some debates that Congress can't pass a law allowing a lower standard than "probable cause" as per the 4th Amendment, but there could have been allowances for, say, longer notification times or more deference to the requesting agent. There were workarounds. Yet the Bush Admin. made no effort to make any workarounds.

So Bush found the already loose requirements of the FISA too strict and authorized warrantless taps, never tried to fix the supposed underlying problems with the requirements, never authorized Congress as required by law, and even when they knew the New York Times had the story for over a year before printing it made no effort to change the law even then. These are not the actions of a President who feels that some law as written isn't sufficient for needed protection and can be amended later; these are the actions of a President who feels that some law as written simply doesn't apply to him at all and therefore needs no amending or changing.

The same could be said of FDR and Lincoln, but they eventually did receive some allowances from the courts or Congress in their action. I do not know if the current Congress will be so understanding, and I am not sure I would want them to be. In my case, it comes down to trust, and I don't trust Bush with this power, given his signing amendment in the McCain anti-torture act and others. I also include in my thinking the recent ACLU lawsuit alleging that Christopher Hitchens, among many others, were targeted by warrantless wiretaps.

And my final reason to deny this power to Bush - to allow him to skip warrants - is this:

We are in a war where almost any means could be justified for the amorphous idea of "protection". Camps for people following Islam, taps on all international calls, taps on all calls domestically that may include trigger words, data sieves on all Internet accounts...you can think of many things that could help. This does not mean they should be done, or need to be done. There is a balance, and I don't feel the Bush Admin - nor any future ones - can place this act on the seesaw without overbalancing away from privacy rights and into a police state. After all, a reasonable basis to believe depends on some person's reason, and in an era of fear, reason can be very unbalanced.

Recommendations

2006-01-17T10:38:00.000-06:00

My wonderful wife got me the first two seasons of The West Wing for Christmas, and it was quite a revelation to go back and see how good it was then. I remembered watching the premiere and telling my wife that it was too good to last, but it did. Later on, after Sorkin and Schlamme left, I thought it was too bad to last, but it did. But going back and seeing the first ones I'm amazed at how many things they did - hints, characters neatly introduced to come back and play roles later, lots of stuff I missed the first time around. It's not quite as good as Babylon 5 was at introducing things to play a role later (the kind of stuff you remember and go, "Wow! That's what that meant!") but it certainly was better than most shows.

Speaking of Babylon 5, I finally got the whole set and the movies as well on DVD. This is one of the best TV series ever, in my opinion, and the DVDs give you some extras as well - but I probably would have gotten the set even without the extras.

I know most people already know about this graphic novel - I never claim to be cutting edge - but Watchmen is a classic. If you've never read it, go and do so. It's got a great story, some of the images are unforgettable, and when you go back and read it again you'll find so many things you missed the first time around.

Spies Like Us

2006-01-06T18:14:00.000-06:00

I think one question that needs to be asked about all the defenders of Bush's recently revealed warrantless taps is a simple one:

If Clinton had done it under the exact same circumstances, would they have complained?

Call me cynical, but I can see many of them short-circuiting their microphones from all the spittle they would have emitted. They would have whipped up enough froth to furnish all of Starbucks's cappuchinos worldwide for six months. Special Reports with titles like "Democratic Nixon" and "Traitor or Madman?" would have been splashed across the TV screens with near orgasmic frenzy and enjoyment. And in the midst of this all, Bill Bennet would have stated "Well, if you bugged all the black people, you could really get a lot of drug arrests."

Dispensing with the near certain hypocrisy shown by many talking mouths and empty brains, let's ask some other questions.

Was it neccesary to circumvent the law? For how long? Once you knew there was a problem, why was there never an attempt to fix the problem instead of dodging the issue? Did Bush have that little confidence that the Republican controlled Congress would agree with him? Does this mean they're off his Christmas card list?

If, as claimed, Bush did brief Congress, why has no Republicans come forward and confirmed this? I've seen many Democrats say it was a fiat accompli at best and little information was given anyway, but I can't recall any Republicans coming forward and stating that they were told fully and completely what was going on. Was there a super-duper double pinky swear of silence?

DID it help? Or was it something that may help someday? Or was it just something really cool to do?

Is this act and others from the President (i.e. stating he doesn't feel he needs to follow the McCain Amendment) a statement that he feels the Presidency is above the law? And has he gotten fitted for a crown yet if so? Do we need to exorcise the ghost of Nixon from the White House?

Was he within his right to do this? Why doesn't the Congressional Research Service think so? Does the CRS matter to Bush? Would it have mattered had they agreed with him?

Wishing for the right hoarse throats

2006-01-06T17:23:00.000-06:00

The only good thing about Pat Robertson speaking is the constant affirmation about his mental state - Terri Schaivo all the way. I assume you've all heard Patsie claim God gave the thumbs-up for Ariel Sharon's stroke and was also apparently in favor of Rabin's assassination as well. The good news is that God apparently zoned Israel for recreation parks, though, so we got Dominionist Disney Land coming. I can't wait for the mascot Bible-Thumping Boaz, and the ride of The Passion of the Christ (you must be THIS HIGH to be crucified). The product tie-ins should be wonderful as well - I can see T-shirts saying "The Holy Land Cafeteria - try our fish and bread!" or "I helped bring about the second Coming and all I got was this lousy T-shirt". I hope they don't put up a temple though..."Den of Thieves 2 - This Time It's Personal! Starring James Calavizel as Jesus and Rob Schiender as Judas."

Let's be frank here - Pat's nuts. He calls for assassinating Hugo Chavez and then frantically tries to backtrack out of it, saying a lot about his convictions to tell the truth; tells Dover they voted God out when they rejected IDiocy; called a hurricane to hit Florida in response to "Gay Day"; claimed Bush would win in a landslide in 2004, a claim that the Bush people themselves seemed to believe they DID given the claims of "mandate" tossed around; and now says that God gave Ariel Sharon a stroke and let Yitzhak Rabin be killed as well since they "divided his land" (although the verse I read from the KJV says "[2] I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land." A stroke is a PLEA? Damn, what's a demand, fire and brimstone? Read Chapter 3 of Joel as well and see if any of the other claims came true when we weren't looking - mountains dripping wine (we have a lovely Mount Ebal rose, or would you prefer the Mount of Olives retsina?), hills flowing with milk (dad! we got a skimalanche!), rivers flowing with water...okay, maybe one of three)...if you had Pat for a family member around Thanksgiving, there'd be some serious debating about whether to lose his card in the mail.

So, given the fact that Pat's insane...where's the condemnation? Where are the other evangelists coming out and saying, "Um, Pat? Not so much." Where's the Republican politicians coming out and saying, "We disagree with the Good Patsie that God struck down Sharon out of anger." Has Bush come forward and said, "Pat can have his opinion - it isn't mine."

Hasn't happened yet. May not happen.

This is a big problem for evangelicals - one of the major voices for them is as appropriate as Bill Clinton for a Fidelity program, or Bill Bennet for gambling reform. A bigger problem is that few of them step forward and SAY so. Sojourners and Christian Alliance have done so in the past, and been roundly condemned by Patsie and his ilk for being un-Christian and the like. (Because people who oppose a lunatic in charge are tools of the devil, of course, because the voices in the lunatic's head said so.)

So, why is it the voices that NEED to speak up have suddenly gone silent, and the ones that should shut up are still yapping? I think that question needs to be answered, and soon.

Militantly Moderate

2005-12-30T13:06:00.000-06:00

From The Moderate Voice, I found this website and its call for Militant Moderates. I agree wholeheartedly. It is the job, the responsibility and possible even the sacred duty (and I don't exaggerate much) in these times for moderates to point out that the other side of the debate DOES have points and DOES have reason in some of their arguments, even if you don't agree with their reasoning. This doesn't mean, of course, that you have to say both sides are right, or that neither side is. Nor does this mean that every argument from the other side must be admitted to have points in every case. However, the ongoing demonization by the conservatives/liberals of the liberals/conservatives is inimical to a democratic way of thinking - it doesn't offer solutions, it offers ultimatums, and any admission of fact or reason for the other side is seen as a traitorous act by many. It's also appealing because it appeals to the people who don't want to think about things - much easier to decide that where an idea comes from determines its rightness. Call it thought racism - instead of the color of skin being the deciding factor, it's the political leaning.

Report From the Field

2005-12-30T12:15:00.000-06:00

(With apologies to Bull Moose, who uses this kind of format)

WAR ON CHRISTMAS FIELD REPORT

The following tape was brought to the home offices of Satire News Services and dropped off. We have no information about the man who left it, other than he was tall, dressed in a dark coat, and had horns and a tail.

The tape transcription follows:

"Allies, infidels, and enemies of Christianity! Fellow brethren, I bring you the end of year report on the War on Christmas!"

(loud cheering)

"Before I begin, let us start with the traditional chant to our Gods."

(thirty minutes of chanting follows)

"...and all worship Eris, hail Discordia, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster's tendrils wrap us in his noodly goodness. And now for the end of year report!

"It was a good year for the war on Christmas and, in extension, the war on Christianity. Several of our agent provocateurs succeeded brilliantly in our agitprop. We must thank Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson especially for their lies and disproven gossip, which led to much suspicion about the motives of the so-called protectors of Christmas and set back Christmas to the point of near expiration in many communities across the nation." (Loud applause, cheers, and chants of Gib-son, Gib-son, Gib-son)

"We must also mention the stellar cooperation we received from many megachurches, who elected to shut down on Christmas Day. This one act of placing convenience and attendance figures over the birth of their Savior did more to cast cynicism and doubt over churches than all our previous attempts such as The DaVinci Code, South Park and even The Book of Daniel. Sometimes you just get lucky in this line of work, I guess." (laughter)

"Hollywood also continues to be our ally, with movies like Brokeback Mountain doubtlessly causing many children across the nation to turn gay - and you will notice Christmas was never mentioned in it either in a subtle attack not mentioned. While there were some regrettable lapses - The Passion of the Christ and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe come to mind - the movie arena is still ours. We expect Hollywood to convert everyone to an anti-Christian by the year 2010." (cheers)

"We must single out one member for his idea of stirring a war over the greetings 'Merry Christmas' and 'Happy Holidays'. While people starved, froze and died in need of charity and help, Christians of all stripes chose to focus their attention over the difference between syllables uttered at Wal-Mart and Target by someone paid less than minimum wage. I cannot think of another case of missing the forest for the trees since Pope Benedict elected to blame gay priests for the sexual abuse scandals - kudos!

"We have some existing hopes for the new year as well. With polarizing figures such as Roy Moore announcing a run for governor of Alabama, the upcoming debate about whether Easter Eggs are really a tool to kill Christians by high cholesterol, and the old stalwarts Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ready to make a laughing stock of religion, we are confident that we will close even more churches, temples and mosques next year than we did this year, even without the help of the IRS. Onward, colleagues - we will destroy religion soon!"

Have Ladle, Will Travel

2005-12-28T17:08:00.000-06:00

RUMSFELD SERVES TROOPS CHRISTMAS EVE DINNER

Trays were best item on menu

by Satire News Service

Today, in a surprise visit to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared in a dining hall and served dinner to soldiers, making his total number of days in Iraq close to double digits. According to the soldiers present, Mr. Rumsfeld was an excellent server and very cordial. "In fact, I think that should be his new job," stated one soldier who asked to remain anonymous.

However, there were some problems during the days. The first one, a major faux pas, was when Mr. Rumsfeld wished "Happy Holidays" to several soldiers at the beginning of his ladle duties, thereby incurring the wrath of Bill O'Reilly and many others. Luckily, he was alerted to this error, and spent the rest of his time wishing people Merry Christmas instead. "I didn't notice," said Private James Leibowitz. "Seemed okay to me," stated Corporal Omar Duballah.

The next problem happened when the soldiers started to eat the meal. There were several complaints about the quality of the food, ranging from raw meat to watery gravy. Mr. Rumsfeld was visibly upset by all the complaints, and said heatedly, "Hey, you don't go to dinner with the menu you want. You go to dinner with the menu you have. And besides, if the food is so bad, why has everyone come back for seconds?"

"These trays are great!" responded Harold Cumin, banging on one for emphasis. "Me and my buds, we're gonna get as many as we can and solder it unto our Humvee. We're calling it the 'Lunch Wagon', ha! As soon as we get the better armor we were promised, we'll give the trays back."

The final, and most embarrassing incident, happened when one soldier realized that they were in an area around Tikrit, where Mr. Rumsfeld had claimed chemical weapons had been stored during the war with Iraq. He began making jokes about how people better watch what was in the salt shakers, saying the powdered sugar was really anthrax, and others jokes like that. Thankfully, Mr. Rumsfeld chuckled and even laughed out loud during the man's routine.

"Of course I'm laughing," he said. "I can laugh at myself, can't I? And besides, I control where that man goes next."

Democrats were quick to decry Mr. Rumsfeld's trip as a photo op and staged, even holding a press conference to claim they had at least three people in Congress who were much more proficient at wielding a ladle. When asked for names, they promised to get back to us later.

I'm Back - Did You Miss Me?

2005-12-28T17:02:00.000-06:00

Well, after a break, I feel ready to start blogging again.

It's been a hectic Christmas season. My son's preschools all let out, so I had him all day, which cuts down on the time I can have to myself. He's gotten really good at opening the fridge and turning on water faucets, so leaving him alone for long lengths of time isn't the best idea. Add to that a fairly long bout with stomach viruses, and a trip to the emergency room for a crack on the head, and there's some of the reasons.

Also, my brilliant wife passed a business certification test which had required much study time on the computer, and also got accepted into an online MBA program as well. A late congrats to her, and I love you babe.

But I'm back now - and to whatever readers I still have, I thank you for your patience, and ask that you start leaving a few comments. I'll answer them as often as I can.

Priorities?

2005-12-03T20:48:00.000-06:00

SECOND COMING HAS HAPPENED

"...this whole 'Happy Holidays' thing made me," says Jesus.

by Satire News Service

In a burst of incense-smelling smoke and accompanied by a Heavenly choir singing hymns, Jesus Christ came back to Earth today, which was quite a surprise for the Jews and many other religions. He agreed to be interviewed by our news service immediately.

SNS: "So...wow."

Jesus Christ: "Please. I put on my shirt the same way you do - after I get it over my halo! Ha!"

SNS: "Well, first off, I gotta say, you look nothing like James Calavizel."

JC: "Eh, I would have preferred Leonardo DiCaprio, but you know Hollywood - I couldn't even get a cowriter credit on the film."

SNS: "Well, I guess I better ask this question right off: Are we in the End Times? Do we need to be on the lookout for an evil Romanian?"

JC : "What, that tale? Nah, the people you need to watch out for are the Sumerians. Them guys are tricky."

SNS: "I don't think there are any Sumerians left, though."

JC: "That won't stop them."

SNS: "So, why did you come back? Is it a statement about gay marriage? Or the treatment of the poor? Is it to show the world the true way, or to redeem people?"

JC: "No, I came for a more important reason, the most critical need the world faces."

SNS: "Yes?"

JC: "The removal of Merry Christmas greetings - the whole 'Happy Holidays' thing made me come back."

SNS: (stunned silence)

JC: "Well, come on, can YOU think of anything else I should pay attention to beside two words?"

SNS: "Well..."

JC: "I mean, if known Christians like Jerry Falwell and Bill O'Reilly are upset about it, I have to be as well! Can you think of two more important, moral, saintlike beings than these two?"

SNS: "Um..."

JC: "So I've decided to come back to Earth and spread the word - by God, you better say Merry Christmas around this time of the year. Forget good works, forget helping the poor, forget charity, forget everything else. You don't say Merry Christmas, by gum, you're going to Hell."

SNS: "Um, I don't mean to sound doubting..."

JC: "That's okay, some of my best apostles doubted."

SNS: "I guess it sounds very, well, superficial. I mean, Happy Holidays is all inclusive, yes, but the sentiment of well wishing is there. Merry Christmas is the same thing but only targeted at one religion - Christians. Not to mention distilling your views of Christianity down to how you greet someone seems quite shallow."

JC: "Duh!"

SNS: "Um. Even ignoring that, it seems very shallow and selfish to demand a particular greeting to correspond to your own beliefs. I mean, if the Jews demanded Happy Hanukkah, wouldn't that seem a little selfish?"

JC: "Of course it would. But this is different - it's Christians doing the demanding."

SNS: "So Christians should be allowed preference here?"

JC: "It's all to the good here, which is why I support all those people who demand stores say Merry Christmas. I mean, where else can you find the spirit of Christmas but in stores?"

SNS: "Wasn't there something you said about "Render unto Caesar that which is chasers, and unto God's what is God's"?"

JC: "Well, yes, but I didn't say Wal-Mart, did I? And besides, Caesar was a Republican anyway."

SNS: "Why does that matter?"

JC: "Well, I guess I'll go ahead and spill the beans - the Republican Party and I have worked out a deal. I now formally support all their goals and actions. I mean, they've been claiming Me for so long I figured I'd go ahead and make it official. Don't want to embarrass them.

SNS: "So you and the Republican party agree on everything?"

JC: "Damn right! If you read between the lines of the New Testament, it clearly states I'm for tax cuts, invading Iraq, and the Ten Commandments on every wall space across the country! I don't know how people have gotten this whole 'help the poor, turn the other cheek, don't be a show off about your religion' idea. Strange.

SNS: "Well, once you've gotten the whole Merry Christmas deal taken care of, what will you do next?"

JC: "Well, I intend to follow the Republican path to success. I'm starting up the INRI Lobbying Agency on K street soon."

Bible Study?

2005-12-01T12:48:00.000-06:00

Alabama Democrats will soon call for Bible Literacy to be offered as an elective high school class. The idea is that knowing about the Bible will make understanding much literature easier.

Well, you can't argue about that. Several pieces of literature directly reference the Bible and allude to it. On the other hand, in all my literature classes, the few times I didn't recognize a reference the teacher pointed it out. A separate class wasn't called for.

I do have my suspicions about the motives of the Democrats. I would be willing to lay money that should some teacher start, I dunno, preaching instead of teaching, that would be okay to many of the people calling for this. On the other hand, if it was JUST teaching, that wouldn't be wrong. At least one religious right group doesn't like the textbook, which seems to imply it's not a religious tool disguised as education, a la IDiocy. Of course, it could always just be that the book doesn't go far enough for these people.

It's an interesting idea though, with me having leeriness about how it's to be implemented. From some of the sample pages given in the above site, the book does seem to encourage questions about the Bible, which if it's being taught as a source (and not THE Source) it should. I am open to see where it goes, while nervous about the central idea of this course being hijacked by true believers.

The press

2005-12-01T12:27:00.000-06:00

Now that the press has printed another negative story about Iraq - the paid propaganda - how long will it be before some people say the press wants us to lose, is in a vendetta against Bush, is liberal, anti-military, all of that? And is it true?

My answer to the first question - I would guess not too long at all.

The second question goes to the basic idea about the press - does it print any and all stories, or only ones that further a political position? If only certain stories can be printed, then it's not a free press, by choice or by edict. If it's a free press, it will end up printing stories that hurt the current party in power. (That, to me, would be its main job as a matter of fact - showing the grit and grime of the powerful.) If a certain story hurts a certain power, or the military, them's the breaks.

Another question that should be asked is: SHOULD the press not print certain stories if it would hurt the party in power or the military in a war? I would hope we can rule out stories that are badly sourced and questionable (Koran abuse), i.e. stories that shouldn't be printed anyway, but we've seen these stories out there. They shouldn't have been. But other stories, more fully sourced and, shall we say, TRUER ones that hurt the military or a party in power during a war, such as this propaganda one, the abuse stories...should they be printed?

Of course.

The fact the story isn't printed doesn't make it disappear. Especially nowadays, a story will get out through several sources. Would it be of any help for the American public to be kept in the dark over Abu Gharib or propaganda, when the story is out elsewhere? We all know some fruitcakes who insist that Jews were behind 9/11 or something equally as insane, and we all view these people with at best mockery and at worst contempt, since they choose not to believe the facts. You can't believe the facts unless you know the facts, though, and we'd look just as stupid by claiming Abu Gharib didn't happen or that there is no propaganda in Iraq.

Perhaps instead of blaming the press for revealing these things, we should blame the people DOING these things. Just a thought.

Propaganda

2005-12-01T11:59:00.000-06:00

Yes, more propaganda from the Bush Admin, but this time not in the United States, surprisingly.

Is it a big deal? As Andrew Sullivan says, perhaps the simple fact we're using it isn't. It's war, and propaganda has been used in all wars, ranging from the chest-thumping accounts of heroic stands that embellish some facts (see Jessica Lynch), to lies told to keep a good image going (see Pat Tillman), to stats mangled and twisted (see body counts in Vietnam) to outright lies (see Baghdad Bob). So perhaps the mere use of it isn't, and all it's doing is telling the story from one side (you know, just like that damned LIBERAL media does).

What does hurt us is now that this story is out, people can look at good news from Iraq papers and wonder if it's real. (I just know that someone is going to say this proves the press is anti-American since they revealed it, more on this later.) The mirror image of Abu Gharib abuse cases making the false Koran stories more believable, here the tilted stories will make real stories more doubted. The fact that the stories had been labeled as written by independent journalists and that we paid the Iraqi papers to run these stories add some more layers as well - not only was the news slanted, it was slanted by intention and acts - this isn't accidental bias, it was meant this way. It also certainly taints the idea of a honest press in Iraq, which can't help at all.

This tactic may have been used in all wars, but nowadays I question whether or not it can work. It's a tactic that, especially nowadays, is more risky, given the worldwide nature of news and easier access to it, as Sullivan points out, and also specifically given that the Bush Admin. has been caught with its hands in the tilting public opinion cookie jar many times now. Once bitten, twice shy; once lied to, always doubted. We don't seem to have a good handle on how to use propaganda well, and you have to ask can propaganda like this work now, excepting countries like China and North Korea? Or is it more likely to backfire and sow doubts, both about any future stories and about how the U.S. is handling Iraq?

Is this another example of the Bush people not knowing how to handle the post-war phase? I have to say yes. Also, notice the fairly incestuous route taken to get the propaganda out - the good ol'boy network ain't doing a good ol' job.

True Believers Need No Logic

2005-11-27T10:01:00.000-06:00

One of the things that scare me the most about fanatical believers of ALL stripes is the way any contradictions in their actions are excused offhand. See religious people who believe it's okay to kill abortion providers, Muslims who kill women and children as prohibited in Hadeeth, and sports fans who scream about fouls against their team but call the other team crybabies when THEY complain about fouls.

I've also written that the Republican party seems to be falling into this abyss, what with the redefinition of perjury, sliding standards for outrage, and things like that. And Brendan Nyhan brings up another excellent example:

Early in his speech, Johnson offered the standard line:
America, and the Congress, must stand behind our men and women in uniform because they stand up for us every minute of every day.
Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field. That is dangerous. If you do not believe me, check out al Jazeera. The withdrawal story is on the front page. We cannot do that to our fellow Americans over there.
It takes incredible chutzpah to say that "even so much as a murmur" about withdrawal "emboldens the enemy" after Johnson's own party introduced a resolution designed to forced a debate over withdrawal.

Rules and logic are different for true believers. They only exist for the other side. Also note the argument that the withdrawal story being carried by al Jazeera is "dangerous". Does that mean now that there are indications that the Bush people want to draw down troops, if al Jazeera carries THIS news, it's dangerous? Or will that be different?

I see the next press secretary!

2005-11-27T07:35:00.000-06:00

Brendan Nyhan, an invaluable blogger, destroys yet some more misleading claims.

Given the source, should we be shocked? Perhaps a better question to be asked is: When people have to stretch the facts this much to justify some claim, how weak are the real facts?

Careful what you wish for

2005-11-27T07:24:00.000-06:00

So, Kansas wants IDiocy taught? No problem!

For all those wanting a cheat sheet to this course, here it is:

If there is a gap in knowledge, God did it. No need to look further.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster should sue for equal time.

Follow-up

2005-11-27T07:01:00.000-06:00

Back before my son got sick, I posted that now I believe Bush and co. did lie about WMD intelligence. So, the next question is - do we impeach?

There are two ways Bush and co. could have lied. The first is to the public, and I don't think anyone who is honest can say they didn't. Information that was sketchy and incomplete and badly sourced and weak was presented in speeches and claims in public as solid, undenied fact. See nuclear capability, aluminum tubes, Atta meeting in Prague, links to al-Qaeda, and many more. In their P.R. campaign for war, the truth was rarely to be found. They did lie often - an exaggeration is still a lie.

The second way is a combination of pressure on intelligence agencies to come up with the "right facts" and selectively giving information out to Congress - the ultimate deciders of war declarations - to make their case more presentable. As of now, and contrary to the claims of both sides, we don't know if this was done. Bob Graham, in his editorial, says that the information had to be demanded from Tenet and when presented, revealed much more ambiguity and unsureness than admitted before. But the information was there - just unasked for by the White House for whatever reasons. (Graham also gives fairly convincing proof of the lies to the public, showing a vast disconnect between what he saw and what was shown to the public.)

The first lie is P.R., and it's especially reprehensible when used to justify a war. However, all Presidents lie when they're selling something they want done, and they lie the same way Bush and co. did - they minimize the problems, maximize the benefits, shrink the time needed for success and distort the cost. Bush and co. should be held accountable for this, and all their attempts to slither out of responsibility for their pre-war claims should be nailed. But I don't think it's an impeachable offense. The fact it was used for something so huge as the Iraqi war should always be remembered, but I don't think this can be used to impeach.

The second case could, though. If the Bush Admin. was forcing analysts to come up with information it wanted, or if they willingly lied to Congress about the intelligence, that would count. There's a vast difference between selling the points, and making up the points. This would, in my opinion, be an impeachable offense.

Now, did the Bush Admin. either force analysts or lie to Congress? Again, no one knows. The Silbermann-Robb Commission didn't look at this question at all - it wasn't in their charter. Claiming that since they found no evidence of intelligence manipulation Bush is innocent, as some on the right are, is like saying since Starr didn't find evidence of Clinton selling arms to China, Clinton's innocent there. Not quite. Simply put, this question hasn't even been looked at yet. And the way the Republicans and the White House are dragging their feet over it, it's a question whether or not it ever will be.

So as of now, I don't think there should be impeachment charges. I do think they should pay a price, but not before Congress.

(*) - from Andrew Sullivan, I found this piece, which may make impeachement charges more possible, given the fact that these PDB's refuting links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were never shown to Congress. I don't recall if that claim was made before Congress in justifaction of the war. If it was, here's some evidence of a lie.

Back!

2005-11-26T13:04:00.000-06:00

Well, after a horrific stomach bug hitting my son that caused four trips to the doctor in a two week period, it seems like the stomach sturm und drang is finally over. It's been three days plus now that the l'il guy hasn't thrown up or had major accidents, and he's eating and being his usual hyper self. He was so sick that I willingly gave up the Alabama-Auburn game so he could watch TV instead - and down here, that game is the equivalent of Holy Mass on Easter Sunday or Jimi Hendrix coming back from the dead. (Of course, my team got stomped anyway...) Hopefully, I'll be able to gear back up the blogging now.

To everyone that checked in here, thanks, and I know you understand that real life trumps cyberlife.

Sick Leave

2005-11-15T11:51:00.000-06:00

The blogging has been less than prolific recently, and as those of you with kids can guess, it's due to illness. My apologies. When we all feel better I'll vent more.

Bush Lied?

2005-11-12T08:59:00.000-06:00

Regarding the Iraqi war, I've always said Bush and company didn't lie; they fell prey to groupthink - a case in which the "answer" to a problem is already decided, consciously or unconsciously, far ahead of any evidence shown. This results in any positive evidence for the wanted conclusion being inflated and any negative evidence being minimized.

I think I need to restate this conclusion in a few ways. It's a good time to do so, given the President's recent speech where he says, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," and ""These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

Firstly, some of what the President said was, well, rewriting history. Once again, it was indirectly claimed the Silbermann-Robb Commission found there was no political manipulation of intelligence, so any claims of "misleading" is wrong, to wit:

"Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

This is, at best, deeply irresponsible to say and at worst a lie. Once again:

And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." (italics added)

One of my favorite authors is Harlan Ellison. You probably know him best for writing "City on the Edge of Forever", a classic Star Trek episode. It led to a huge, public feud between him and Gene Roddenberry, because Gene continually claimed the original script was badly written and had to be saved. (There happens to be a book about this from Harlan, and if you like well written rage, check it out - but buy it through the side link please!) Now, Gene once made a claim that the episode was, as originally written, far too expensive to shoot (not true) and that Harlan had Scotty dealing drugs (also not true). Harlan, at the time attempting to make peace, contacted Gene and mentioned those facts were wrong. Gene said oops, and promised he'd not make those claims again.

He did so for the next twenty years or so.

There comes a time when a mistake morphs into a lie. Bush and the Republicans are there in the claims of vindication from the Silberman-Robb Commission. I can allow one or two errors, but continual ones means they don't want to tell the truth here. You also have to ask why they're so desperate to claim they've been cleared.

The President also claimed that Congress saw the exact same intelligence he did, and therefore any claims he and others twisted intelligence can't be true:

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

Except once again, reality tells a different story:

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.

...

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE.

(italics added)

That last point is the most important. As we've seen, there were a lot of people saying the intelligence was iffy, badly sourced, and plain wrong - such as the claims of Iraq training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons, to name just one. But those doubts were not reported to Congress. So, if the person telling you information leaves out doubts about said information, he can't claim you saw the same stuff he did. When you cherry-pick what you tell people, you can fairly easily get them to vote how you want them to.

Taking this into account, and remembering how frantically people of the Administration tried to link al-Qaeda and Iraq, and how Cheney and Rice drastically overstated the nuclear reach of Iraq against the intelligence estimates, and how 9/11 was always somehow close to Iraq in all pre-war speeches, and how they are desperate to claim they've been exonerated...

I've come to the it probably started out as groupthink, and perhaps for a good defense reason overall - change in the Middle East, taking out a possible danger, what have you - but at some point it seems the people in charge decided to make sure everyone thought they way they did through misdirection, selective presentation of intelligence, falsely dramatic claims, and using intelligence they knew was weak. The mistakes, possibly innocently, made at the beginning have now evolved into a lie to justify the mistakes. They chose to present intelligence to the American people in a deceptive way, painting iffy information as rock solid. They chose to leave off doubts and questions in the information supplied to Congress. They chose to link al-Qaeda and 9/11 in all speeches about Iraq.

The groupthink turned into a lie to justify the groupthink. They've become Gene Roddenberry, misstating stuff over and over to make themselves look good.

From the Mouths of Morons

2005-11-11T09:06:00.000-06:00

Well, Pat Robertson certainly helps the IDiot's case that IDiocy isn't about religion:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

...

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

...

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Okay, so we have Behe stretching the definition of science so much it includes astrology to fit ID in, we've got Pat "Throw the first stone" Robertson saying a vote against IDiocy is a rejection of God, we've got the Dover school board calling the sane people who argued against the IDiocy "atheist"...

...is it pretty obvious now that IDiocy isn't a science, but a thinly veiled (tissue thin in Patsie's case) attempt to get creationism in education?

Let's also keep in mind that Patsie, for all his stupidity and calls for assassinations, was someone reached out to by Karl Rove for opinions on Supreme Court judges. Yes, Karl thought Patsie's opinion was one to be sought out. For bonus points, which person is more stupid?

(renamed to morons b/c I saw a bunch of links looking for "boobs". I bet there are some disappointed linkers out there.)

Dorothy, Toto awarded professorships

2005-11-09T06:23:00.000-06:00

KANSAS REWRITES SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS

Strange aftereffects seen

by Satire News Services

The Kansas State School Board has once again voted to question evolution, this time going so far as to allow for "non-natural phenomena" in scientific explanations. This is seen as a victory for the Intelligent Design movement, which had helped rewrite the proposed standards, and for also medieval recreation societies throughout the state. However, there have been some odd things happening throughout Kansas.

- Plastic surgeries have increased fivefold. "Most people are coming in here to get their moles removed," says one surgeon. "Also webbed feet and odd skin markings as well." One customer who asked not to be named gave as her reason, "Better safe than sorry."

- Residents along the border of Kansas have reported massive waves of black cats streaming out of the state in oddly straight columns as well. "They seemed to be moving with a purpose," said Ellen Baum. "Like they just wanted to get out as fast as they could." The ASPCA and Humane Society have found homes for most of the runaways.

- Many bookstores have been quietly removing some now controversial books from their shelves. "The Origin of Species...what's that?" asked one owner in response to a question from this reporter. "Sorry, never heard of it." Another store had replaced their entire science section with Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. "You figure it out," he said.

The strange effects are easily explained by the professors at the University of Kansas. "It's just the natural reaction of people opening their minds," says Uri Gellar, new professor of Physics over a light lunch. "Sometimes when people are freed from artificial boundaries, like science that can be measured and defined, odd things can happen in responses. Damn, can you get me another spoon?" Tom Cruise and John Travolta, professors of Dianetics at Kansas State University, stated in a press release that, "Everything can be explained by bad engrams. Go and see our next movies to be cured."

John Edwards, Dean of the brand new Scientific Healing, Intuition and Thaumaturgy college in Topeka offered his opinion. "What it probably is, is all the spirits that had been blocked from communicating by the "logic" and "meaning" of "science" are now overwhelming the public with their calls to be heard. I'm available to hear them for you, and a low special rate."

For everyone worried over the strange things happening, Kevin Trudeau, head of the Medical College at KSU, says everything will be fine once his new regimen of coral calcium is made mandatory.

Surprisingly enough, the kids are happy over the new standards. "How can I fail now?" asked one. "I mean, you can write ANYTHING down! Unicorns, aliens, psychic spies from China...4.0, here I come!"

The Kansas School Board issued a statement through the Discovery Institute that this would be the last modification they made to the curriculum until next year, when they will tackle making pi equal to 3 and declaring the Bible an official textbook in science classes.

Churches can't have opinions

2005-11-08T10:29:00.000-06:00

Apparently, the IRS thinks so anyway. Now, I suppose you can argue - with some justification - that a church that doesn't directly mention a candidate by name yet condemns various positions is, in fact, taking political sides, a la Rove and not mentioning Valerie Wilson by name but by everything else. Fair enough. (Of course, this does mean the Catholic Church will be checked out for their rather strict death penalty stand. Or, as Pope John Paul put it, "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.")

Does this mean people like James Dobson and Tony Perkins will soon get a knock on the door for their roles in Justice Sunday 1 and 2, the anti-Democrat parade with Bible floats and 10 Commandment medallions? Pat Robertson, for his comments on his 700 Club program saying God had told him Bush would win in a blowout and "the Lord has blessed him"? How about churches handing over membership lists to the Republicans in 2004? Like the example listed for reasons of recusal below, I would argue that any of these are much more blatant.

But nah, let's go after one church for ambiguous statements. There's nothing more OBVIOUS to go after, you and the SEC.

Can we say Brown Sucked NOW???

2005-11-04T17:01:00.000-06:00

Okay, every defender of "heckuva" Brownie out there - and there were some - explain these e-mails. "Didn't I look good?" "Yes, Brown, you sure did - all the people in New Orleans aboveground and dry said so."

Paging Marie Antoinette!

Judge Shopping

2005-11-04T16:34:00.000-06:00

I'm of two minds of the judge swapping going on in the DeLay trial to be.

Firstly, I was a little surprised and upset at the reasoning behind the original removal - the judge had given to MoveOn.org. This was supposed to show a bias against DeLay. Well, for one, a person can give to a group for many reasons. For example, I may contribute to the ACLU for their efforts against IDiocy, yet still condemn them for other acts they do. Even ignoring this idea, how is it that a contribution is evidence of bias, yet duck hunting with a defendant in a case isn't? If "Social contacts with high-level executive officials (including Cabinet members) have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal capacity," as Scalia said in that case, how come a impersonal monetary donation IS improper? Or maybe comments from a Supreme Court judge that showed clear bias in Bush v. Gore, and Scalia's mentioning he would like to be Chief Justice and that could only happen under a Republican President, or Scalia's sons working for law firms that represented Bush, or Justice Thomas's wife e-mailing people telling them to send resumes to the Heritage Foundation for assistance of consideration for positions in the next Presidency AS Bush V. Gore was being decided? I would argue strenuously that any of these show clear bias much more so that a blanket contribution to an organization - perhaps not enough for recusal, but enough where it should have been noted and brought out and proven not to be too influencing. Had the MoveOn contribution been earmarked specifically for anti-DeLay campaigns, okay, yes. But it wasn't. Somehow, this act is more egregious in bias than any of the ones mentioned above. The back-and-forth that's developed now between the defense and the prosecution is silly in the extreme - it's a judge/jury of your peers, not one of your ideological clones.

But on the other hand, now if DeLay is convicted, it will be very interesting to see him scream about bias (which you KNOW he will). One less plank for the martyr to dance on. That's to the good.

I can't wait for some Democrat to try this maneuver and the Republicans to scream. Rest assured, both cases WILL happen. Probably sooner rather than later.

(As a side note, I still feel Bush v. Gore was a horrible decision, but I would feel the same way if it had been Gore v. Bush. For one case and one case only, standards were seen to be overridingly important - yet the second the gavel fell, no lasting effect was had. It was a one-time-only case involving something used in many other states (hand counting and no set state standards), yet only in Florida was it seen to be bad - and again, only for 2000. If it was so bad, why wasn't a standard demanded in all states, much less in Florida?)

Not too improbable

2005-11-01T12:26:00.000-06:00

RELIGIOUS RIGHT DEMANDS NO VACCINE FOR FLU

"People get well and do bad things...better they go to their judgment early."

by Satire News Service

Today, President Bush announced plans to combat the growing threat of an avian flu pandemic, calling for spending to stockpile medicines and for accelerated development of a new vaccine. The hope is to get the United States prepared for what could be a repeat of the 1918 flu pandemic, which killed over 500,000 people, young and old, sick and healthy. However, in a surprisingly blistering attack, some of the President's usual allies criticized the plan.

"Who are we to interfere in God's work?" demanded Goodman H. Thumper, the spokesperson for Families Out of Focus, pounding the table with a Bible. "If there is to be a vast destruction of human life, it is God's will. Who are we to develop drugs that could cure people, even if we are perfectly able to?" The press conference was briefly interrupted when the Bible bounced off the table and smashed into Thumper's head. After he was revived, he continued his thoughts with his forehead emblazoned with PSALMS 75:4.

"People, if we dare to block God's plan, look at the consequences! Every sin the healed do is on OUR head. Every iniquity shall be our fault. When they're ill with the flu, fever spiking, limbs aching, they won't be sinning then, no sir, can I get an Amen? They will be good, and they will call to the Lord! Why should we stop this act? Try and usurp God's authority, and the people will get well and do bad things and sin and condemn themselves into the pit! No, I feel we let God be the final doctor, and if He decides so, better to let them go to their judgment early. Anyone got an aspirin, my head is killing me."

Elsewhere, Parisee J. P. Stoner, speaking for the Family Study Group, said, "I think we need to look long and hard at the consequences of making a vaccine. First of all, if we lose a good proportion of the United States's population, you've got the whole Social Security problem solved right there. Crime will go down as well. And the money we saved from not making this vaccine could be placed into several other worthwhile endeavors - fighting to keep gay marriage illegal, say, or even mandating school prayer. I know which causes God would bless, and I would hope that President Bush does as well."

The Minister Priestly "Pastor" Reverend Jr., speaking on behalf of American Family Alliance, read from a statement. "We at the AFA are opposed to the creating of a new vaccine. The virus is one of God's creature, intelligently designed and created from scratch for a purpose. Surely, He will use His creation for only good...say the killing of liberals." The statement was also signed by members of the Institute of Discovery.

President Bush said in reply that he was firm in his conviction about the vaccine, and the fact he was going to appoint these three people to lead the Center for Disease Control in no way was a denial of the need for the vaccine.

You've got to be kidding...

2005-11-01T10:06:00.000-06:00

From Andrew Sullivan, we see that the "Christians" who presumably revere life - as long as it's attached to an umbilical cord or feeding tube, has not been found guilty and given the death penalty, or is not in a war that was launched on bad information - have decided that a vaccine for cervical cancer just isn't kosher. Apparently, these people feel that cervical cancer being drastically reduced could encourage kids to have sex. Because you know, there have been several times when the reasons "You could get AIDS", "You could get another VD", and "You could get pregnant" were blown away in the heat of passion until the teenage girl cried, "Stop! What about cervical cancer?!"

Gimme a break. What's next, eliminating anesthesia during childbirth so it can be as God intended - punishment for the fall of man?

And continuing on my comments from yesterday about the Republican party dancing to the shrill tunes of these morons, one of them has been installed at the the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the CDC. I'm sure he's just as good as expert as everyone else on the committee - like Philip Cooney was.

The argument that a mandatory vaccine will make kids decide go and screw like bunnies just doesn't ring true. I doubt many kids even knew about cervical cancer and the link to sexual activity - as I said, I don't think it played a part in people deciding not to have sex before, the triumvirate of AIDS, VD and kids taking precedence. And this was the same argument that conservatives made about free condoms being available - isn't teen pregnancy DOWN over recent years? (Except in some Texas counties that only teach abstinence...)

The only reason these people seem to fear actually, you know, not letting people die is because in some form, fashion or fantasy it will increase teenage sex. Not necessarily pregnancy or VD rates, but teenage sex. In short, they'd rather have kids be monks and die then be active and live. Just like Jesus wanted: "Suffer the children to come to me...unless they be hos."

Flip side!

2005-10-30T23:34:00.000-06:00

I said before I do not like some actions taken by school to make sure that religion is kept out of them. The extreme ones always rumored about are the ones I mean: No Bibles allowed on school grounds, no religious clubs at all, no crosses worn...

Well, here's one that is on the other side of the coin. "Fall-O-Ween"? Flying Spaghetti Monster, protect us.

Identity

2005-10-30T23:06:00.000-06:00

Touching on something I wrote in the previous post.

I know that people who've come in here and read my blog must think that I am a Democrat, or a liberal. The two sites which have been nice enough to mention my on their blogrolls - The Moderate Voice and Balloon Juice - have me on the left voices section, as per my request. I do consider myself to be an independent moderate; it's just nowadays I find much more to be annoyed at from the Republicans than the Democrats. This is most definitely not to say that the Democrats are innocent of making me angry. It's just that their offenses seem lesser than those the Republicans offer, both due to the usual ineptitude of the party itself and the fact that they're not in power to do much damage.

Beyond that, though, the Republicans (and by this I mean the loud ones, the ones who are in charge nowadays) have hit several points of my psyche that grate like sand in the mouth.

I did not and do not appreciate being told that since I hold a different opinion about the war than those in charge, I am against America. Folks, if America was ever not embodied in a group of people, it would be Frist, DeLay, Cheney, Bush, Dobson, Perkins, and their kind. I do not say they are bad people in toto - I do say that when it comes to politics, they are bad people in situ. The only other example I could add to the antimatter embodiment is Joe McCarthy - and this tactic of smearing people who disagree makes him not fit in this group only by the small impediment of him being dead.

I do not and did not like the way the group of people in office acted with the maniacal energy of true fanatical believers, trampling over laws and customs to get their ways enacted. I fear the way the loud ones feel that extremitism in the act of THEIR conscience is not a virtue, it is a calling. And while I have to laugh at the hypocrisy displayed in their defense of it - see perjury and how the crime decision is based on which party does it - I also have to shudder that they don't a.)seem to NOTICE they're this hypocritical and biased or, perhaps worse, b.)don't think it matters anyway.

I do not and never will like the unholy conjoining of religion and the Republican party. We saw the square-dance calling the Republicans danced to in the Terri Schaivo case, performing the steps demanded of them by the guys in the painted on haloes playing the tin harps. We've seen how much pull they have by helping to destroy Harriet Meirs's candidacy, since she didn't seem like the "right type" according to their dip-in-the-moral stricture litmus test. (Of course, Ms. Meirs didn't need they help in self destruction - her appointment was the closest thing to a political suicide attempt I've seen in a while. That being said, the self appointed censors certainly pulled some weight in this matter.) We see that for these people, morality is a distant second to power, and the image they want to remake their neighbor in is called a "mirror".

I hate the way any fact that doesn't mesh in the puzzle pieces making up the loud Republican's view of the world is discarded. (The Republican War on Science exposes much of this.) It reminds me far too much of
"E pour si muevo", or Japan's rewriting of Pearl Harbor in their history books. It is a reflection of IDiocy; refusing any and all facts that call your beliefs into questions. There's the crux - to these people, science is merely a casting of belief - those facts that match your faith are okay, whereas those that don't are wrong. I wish I could have used this kind of reasoning in school.

Believe me, I groan at many things the Democrats do. But what they do that makes me angry, or embarrassed, are just not as important as being told that I am a traitor since I doubted the WMD information (odd to have been called so many names for being right), that science is wrong since it doesn't adhere to a conservative stance, that religion should be used for political power and separation, and that what was wrong when a Democrat did it is right when a Republican does. These ideas (for lack of a better word) are anathema to me.

So you see, I can remain independent and yet criticize the Republicans mainly. From polls I've seen, I'm not the only one doing so.

Plame Gate, Opening Now!

2005-10-30T08:13:00.000-06:00

I start by saying I'm apparently not a liberal or a Democrat, since most sites see the solitary person getting nailed as a defeat for those groups. Odd, I saw it as someone who tried to get away with something and got caught, for now. (And never forget, Fitzgerald has said that there could be more coming - IF they're deserved.)

Libby now seems to be ready to use the "I forgot" defense. This may be hard to get people to believe, since evidence is coming out that Libby knew about Mrs. Wilson by his own request just a few days before he leaked it:

On June 9, the CIA faxed classified accounts of Wilson's assignment "to the personal attention of Libby and another person in the Office of the Vice President." Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had been involved in planning Wilson's trip. An unidentified "senior officer of the CIA" confirmed Plame's employment for Libby on June 11, and Cheney told Libby the next day which part of the agency employed her.

Yes, it IS possible to forget things, but is it believable? Time will tell. However, if true, Messr. Libby may need to buy some gingko biloba:

On June 23, Libby allegedly crossed his first big line. At a meeting in his office with Miller of the Times, he said Wilson's wife might be a CIA employee.

Two weeks later and Libby claims he forgot he's the one who knew about this? Two weeks? Does this say a lot for the qualifications needed to be a top staffer in the White House? Not only that, but the man who can't remember something two weeks old is able to remember a false story he tells to the grand jury more than once - a story that could have easily been disproven by a simple glance at, say, the June 9th notes. Yeah, right. Sorry, but this defense seems laughable. On the other, more stupid hand, gloves sizes have helped people walk, so who knows?

If I'm right and Libby did intentionally lie - which I do feel is more than likely - why did he? There's an interesting question. The answers range from he didn't want to be caught (quite likely) to wanting to avoid embarrassment to the White House on a case which he never thought would happen (also likely) to wanting to protect someone else. The last choice I list is possible, especially given hints like "other officials" in the indictments and Cheney's involvement, but it's still unknown. I hope people accept that as of now, there is no real evidence of a conspiracy. Lots of hints and thoughts, but nothing real yet. It could very well just be Libby doing something stupid - I mean, isn't that what most people feel is the hallmark of the Bush Admin anyway? (However, keep your eyes on the Niger forgeries for some interesting possibilities - but as of now, that's all they are. They may develop and they look worth checking into - but NOT using them as evidence yet.) I don't want to see Monica redux, where every single conspiratorial theory is trotted out as serious evidence and the investigation to follow them commences. I don't want to see the Democrats morph into the Republicans from the 90's, following the lead of Republicans morphing into the Democrats.

Mistaken Identity

2005-10-28T13:34:00.000-05:00

SCOOTER INDICTED; MORE TO FOLLOW?

"Mr. F" and "Ms. P" next on list

by Satire News Service

Today, as expected, Scooter the Muppet was indicted on charges of perjury, misleading statements and bad gofering. He immediately turned in his resignation and swore to fight the charges, "assuming my uncle who owns the theater doesn't make them disappear." His resignation was accepted by Kermit, manager of Muppet Theaters, and Robin the Frog was appointed in his place.

The charges stem from the outing of some secret agents, Statler and Waldorf. They had been assigned to the Muppet Theater to keep tabs on the audience and performers, to make sure snacks weren't being smuggled into the theater illegally. "The owners were especially fixated on cake, for some reason - yellow cake," recalls Statler. "Yeah, they hate yellow, so they really hate your teeth!" chortled Waldorf, leading Statler to smack him in the mouth. Assault charges are expected.

The pair was going about their business as usual one day when a column by one Fleet Scribbler appeared in the Muppet Times, outing them and their spying. The story was quickly picked up in a Muppet News Flash, further spreading the story. The backlash was immediate and harsh. "We used to be the ones booing that bear; now the crowd was booing us - and the bear was joining in!" said Waldorf, cringing a little. Statler sighed, "You don't know what it's like, having that furball of a joketeller leading the crowd in taunting us." There are also unconfirmed reports of pie and flying fish throwing, and even an attempt on the duo's lives by a dynamite attack. Lew Zealand and Crazy Eddie are currently wanted for questioning; consider them armed, dangerous, and strange.

The investigation centered on a as-yet unrevealed character, Mr. F, suspected of leaking the information to the paper and TV. Fleet Scribbler refused to name Mr. F., and went to Muppet Jail, however, he was quickly released accidentally and has since been writing his memoirs, "Pulling the Strings." Muppet Police Sergeant Link Hogthrob, when asked about the release, stated, "Well, my Patrol Bear he swore he was innocent!" Patrol Bear Fozzie refused to answer questions about the case, preferring to crack bad jokes.

Scooter was linked to Fleet Scribbler when Fleet printed a story, "I will never reveal my source, since Scooter asked me not to." He was quickly identified as the leak and was shown to have lied and misled the investigation many times, although his boss Kermit stated that Scooter was pretty forgetful anyway and may just have forgotten what happened, as he so often forgets to mention things like guest stars cancelling and roofs falling in. However, the jury felt Scooter's actions rose to the level of criminal activity. "His grave error may have been offering to get them all coffee and never doing it," stated his friend Rowlf the Dog. "Say what you want about Scooter, but don't say what you want to him - you'll never get it."

There is another mysterious figure in the investigation as well, a "Ms. P." This woman, presumed French from the transcripts supplied, seems to be more interested in causing trouble for Muppet Theater to drive the manager, Kermit, into a needed vacation and possibly a higher billing in the cast. When asked to reveal "Ms. P", both Fleet and Scooter refused vehemently, stating fear of their lives. "You don't understand, she knows karate!" stated Fleet, before running away.

Gonzo the Great, once a suspect in the case due to general strangeness, has been told that indictments are not forthcoming. He will celebrate the news by playing Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on a xylophone whilst - and at the same time - trying to crack a safe before a bomb explodes.

Kermit the Frog, the seeming overall target of the case, has come in for charges of cronyism on his appointment of Robin to Scooter's vacated position. Robin is the cousin of Kermit. When asked about the seeming cronyism, Kermit said, "Hey, it ain't easy being green, so I try to help when I can."

Question

2005-10-27T16:02:00.000-05:00

Regarding this post, originally linked from Balloon Juice.

If holding a vigil is, in actuality, a party...

...does this mean that every January 22nd, people like this are actually just finding a reason to crack open a cold one? Or every December 7th, these guys are kicking out the jams?

And as for the response from one proponent of this theory:

"They obviously don’t like it when their sick plans are exposed."

This isn't an argument - it's a dodge. Call someone a name and they respond, suddenly it's THEIR fault? (I refer to sane responses, by the way - not slander, name calling, and lies. In other words, sane discussion and not any wannabe Ann Coulters. But the links listed are all at least sane.)

How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

2005-10-25T12:39:00.000-05:00

Try to believe this one: (from DefCon)

The policy also prohibits students and teachers from discussing intelligent design in class after the statement is read.

Said policy being the one where:

The school board voted a year ago to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

So, to expose kids to "different schools of thought" (a common IDiotic claim), you mention it as an alternative to evolution, and then you refuse to allow any debate on it? Or questions? Or arguments? This isn't scientific exposure, it's the equivalent of a flasher's indecent exposure!

Plame Gate Open

2005-10-25T12:19:00.000-05:00

If we can accept the recent leaks as true and correctly reported by the media (neither of which I would bet the house on, but possibly would make a wager) Fitzgerald has a dead lock on a perjury charge on Libby. He got Valerie Plame's name not from the media, as he claimed and was so often accused by Bush apologists, but from Cheney himself. So it appears that Libby lied. (I suppose he can fall back on the "Huh?" defense, i.e. bad memory, but for my money, he lied.)

Is Cheney in trouble? Not as such from this report. Maybe he didn't know that Mrs. Plame was undercover and mentioned the fact in "innocence". Maybe not. We don't know. We do know that Cheney was extremely misleading in public, though. He kind of threads the needle on lying, but it sure seems like he knew more than he was telling Russert, given the fact he had been briefed on all that just three weeks before. What was it that was said so often during Clinton's numerous investigations - "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

Check out Just One Minute for some intelligent counter proposals. He does a good job bringing up timelines and questions - but he also admits he feels some people are going down for this. Also, for some suppositions about why Fitzgerald is looking into the Niger documents, look at Washington Monthly - I do find it possible, if still nebulous right now. And for some late news that could be rather huge check this out.

Doesn't the mental whiplash hurt?

2005-10-24T10:21:00.000-05:00

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

So...infidelity was the real Clinton impeachment reason? Funny, I seem to recall it was perjury. Ken Starr, dude, you just got dissed! It was "just something to show"!

"Other people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works."

Dammit, we in Washington don't HAVE to follow the laws! Wasn't this DeLay's defense as well? "Everyone does it, so I do to!" Hey, I also seem to recall that was the argument for Clinton as well..."everyone cheats on their spouse!" But these Republicans, they follow the Bible, which CLEARLY mandates the sanctity of marriage and says nothing about outing spies or doing illegal fundraising and contributions. (In other words, these guys like their Constitution to be viewed in a strict constructionalist style and their Bible in a loose interpretation way.)

Some Republicans have also been reprising a theme that was often sounded by Democrats during the investigations into President Bill Clinton, that special prosecutors and independent counsels lack accountability and too often pursue cases until they find someone to charge.

Which is just hunky dory in some cases, apparently.

So, once again in politics, we see that if WE do it, it's okay, but when THEY do it, it isn't.

You must have flexible morals and views to be a politician. Call it the Karma Sutra of hypocrisy.

A possible explanation

2005-10-24T10:04:00.000-05:00

We discover that Bill Frist's "blind" trust wasn't. In fact, he was regularly updated as to stock moves and prices during all the times he was claiming it was Stevie Wonder-ed. This raises more than a little conflict of interest, since Dr. Frist often voted on bills that could affect the stocks in his portfolio. Now, I'm not saying the man who diagnosed Terri Schaivo via videotape could allow his self interest to override his morals. Why would I? (/sarcasm) In fact, I think there is a reasonable and likely explanation that can explain both that VHS reading and this quote:

"I think really for our viewers it should be understood that I put this into a blind trust," Frist replied. "So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock." He added that the trust was "totally blind. I have no control."
Two weeks before that interview, M. Kirk Scobey Jr., a Frist trustee, informed the senator in writing that one of his trusts had received HCA stock valued at between $15,000 and $50,000.

And the answer is...DR. FRIST IS A BAD DOCTOR.

See, he skipped that day in medical school when eye problems were covered and doesn't know what "blind" meant. Heck, even being a bad doctor, he's a heart surgeon anyway ("Nurse, we're ready to begin, now, where's the chest?") so eyes are AT LEAST a few inches away for his concern and expertise anyway. I mean, do you expect a proctologist to know about athlete's foot, barring some limber sex play? Or do you really think that an ear, nose and throat doctor would have the knowledge to diagnose a knife in the chest? Please.

Of course, there is the logic puzzle of if Mr. "VHS" Frist didn't KNOW he had HCA stock, how could he have directed his stockbroker to SELL said HCA stock (paging Uri Gellar, stockbroker!)...but Dr. Frist isn't a logician either, so we can excuse him that as well.

So Frist is either a bad doctor or a bad liar. Or both.

I Stand Corrected!

2005-10-21T19:01:00.000-05:00

And all this time I've thought that ID wasn't a science. Well, according to Michael "Mousetrap" Behe, it most certainly is! As long as you allow for a certain flexibility in the boundaries of the definition of "science", of course.

The side effect of this flexing is the relatively minor fact that astrology is also a science:

Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiffs, asked beau about whether astrology was science. And beau, after hemming and hawing and launching into an abbreviated history of astrology and science, said, under his definition, it is.

Which means that the guy who writes your horoscope in the local paper should be addressed as "DOCTOR", if you please.

Of course, "Mousetrap" also dispayed the almost inbred trait of true believers to deny that things are what they say:

As the cross-examination continued, another pattern developed. Rothschild would show beau, on a big screen in the courtroom, a quote from "Of Pandas and People" and ask him a simple question about it.
The quote said, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact Â fish with fins and scales, birds with feather, beaks and wings, etc."
Rothschild asked him whether he believed that statement said intelligent design meant life began abruptly on this planet.
It apparently was a trick question becausebeaue had a hard time answering it.
"I disagree," the scientist said.

Don't think it says what it says, think it says what I think it says!

And this is the main guy for IDiocy, ladies and gents. Maybe we should start debating him this way...

Best Action of the Week

2005-10-20T18:50:00.000-05:00

Got this from DefCon, a recent addition to my blogroll.

For the first time since the trial began in a U.S. Middle District courtroom three weeks ago, a scientist testified that intelligent design is science, one based on a fully testable, falsifiable theory.
Attorneys for Dover Area School District started presenting their case with Michael Behe, the Lehigh University biochemistry professor who came up with the term "irreducible complexity."

...

Just as a mouse trap's working parts reveal a designer, design can also be determined in nature by the "purposeful arrangement of parts," Behe said.

...

He (Behe) uses the bacterial flagellum as an example, arguing that for the propeller-like appendage to move, between 30 and 40 protein parts are needed. Removal of any one of those parts causes the system to stop working — just as a mousetrap depends on all its pieces to operate.

...

Miller had testified that if 10 of the protein parts were removed, the flagellum would take on a different function, one allowing bacteria to inject poisons into other cells.

...

Miller says the separate purpose is an explanation for how a complex system might have evolved through genetic mutation and natural selection. To illustrate his side of the argument, Miller showed up the first day of the trial wearing a partially disassembled mousetrap as a tie clip. He took it off before taking the stand.

Lying Bastard - Color Me Unshocked.

2005-10-20T18:01:00.000-05:00

You can see why the Bushies felt this man was needed as a consultant:

The 19 pages of internal FEMA e-mails show Bahamonde gave regular updates to people in contact with Brown as early as Aug. 28, the day before Katrina made landfall. They appear to contradict Brown, who has said he was not fully aware of the conditions until days after the storm hit. Brown quit after being recalled from New Orleans amid criticism of his work.

(Gee, can't imagine WHAT he did that deserved to be criticized.)

On Aug. 31, Bahamonde e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands of evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."
"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote. "The sooner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner we can get them out."
A short time later, Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes," Worthy wrote.
"Restaurants are getting busy," she said. "We now have traffic to encounter to go to and from a location of his choise (sic), followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

(Let them eat...well, no, they didn't have cake, did they?)

In e-mails, Bahamonde described to his bosses a chaotic situation at the Superdome. Bahamonde noted also that local officials were asking for toilet paper, a sign that supplies were lacking at the shelter.
"Issues developing at the Superdome. The medical staff at the dome says they will run out of oxygen in about two hours and are looking for alternative oxygen," Bahamonde wrote regional director David Passey on Aug. 28.
Bahamonde said he was stunned that FEMA officials responded by continuing to send truckloads of evacuees to the Superdome for two more days even though they knew supplies were in short supply.

(I'll be fair and say I didn't know FEMA was the one doing that; I thought it was the state. However, it doesn't surprise me if it was FEMA.)

"heckuva" Brownie, ladies and gentlemen! Obviously the best qualified man for the job.

Best line this week

2005-10-20T17:55:00.000-05:00

From The Daily Show's Lewis Black:

Some priest in interview: "The Catholic Church views homosexuality and pedophilia as the same."

Black, commenting: "Of course they're not. Homosexuality is what you are and it can't be cured. Pedophilia can be cured by transferring to another diocese."

You know, if other media would be as CORRECT as The Daily Show - forget funny - there wouldn't be no heavy reliance on celebrity bullcrap.

First Impression

2005-10-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

They always say that first impressions matter the most, and in the matter Miers, Bush is an excellent example.

As more and more merde comes out about Miers - her Q-and-Avoid questionnaire, her dumbfounding linkage of the Equal Protection Act and the Voting Rights Act via "proportional representation", a figment of her legal knowledge (cited in Tooth Fairy v. Santa Claus and elves), and her law license oppsies for starters - it is more and more apparent that when Bush claimed she was the most qualified person he could think of, he was either a.)deluded, b.)talking out of his ass (as I believe George Will said, if you asked the top 100 lawyers to list 10 people they thought should be on the Supreme Court, Ms. Miers would have been in none of the 1000 spots) or c.)other.

And here's where first impression matter. "Other" here ranges from cronyism, extreme loyalty, and stupidity. However, had Clinton pulled some move like this, can you guess what the main reason given would have been?

"He's boinking her." Right wing radio would have been all over it. Ann Coulter would have made a book out of it, calling it "Sex in the Supreme Court Nominee". Rush Limbaugh would have opined that Hillary drove Bill to it and that Ms. Miers would be called in days. Bill O'Reilly would have offered a loomfah. Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett would have demanded impeachment.

Now, I don't think there is any sex involved here. For everything wrong I see about Bush, I don't see being a victim of sexual blackmail being part of his faults. I just find it amusing how what may be the most jumped-to assumption in any situation like this - "How did SHE/HE get that job?" "Oh, you know, them and the boss..." - hasn't been mentioned around this particular little debacle.

Top 10s, TV

2005-10-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

Here's a tough one - trying to narrow down my favorite things to 10.

TV SHOWS

Babylon 5 - One of the best shows ever. The plotlines were tight, the surprises were many, and the way everything was woven together was nothing short of incredible. This is a show you can watch over and over and still enjoy how things are built up to climax. The last season was a little weaker, though, due to fears of an early cancellation in season four and a major cast member leaving the show. Still good, but not up to the first four seasons.

Quantum Leap - Scott Bakula is a superb actor. He leapt into several characters, and made them all believable. I mean, you may laugh at him at first in a dress when he's portraying a woman, but you believe it in the end. Add to that some fun shows, nice little nods to history, and a few plot twists that kept you interested, and it's a show well worth your time.

Scrubs - proof the Emmys don't know what the Hell they're doing, that this show hasn't been nominated each and every time for Comedy and Actors and Actresses. You will howl.

Arrested Development - another show that will make you laugh - and you never know where the Hell it's going.

Monty Python's Flying Circus/Fawlty Towers - The pinnacle of comedy.

M*A*S*H - For Alan Alda's Hawkeye alone.

Picket Fences - Again, forget the last season and enjoy the first ones. I have never forgot Rome, Wisconsin. This is the show that David Kelley keeps on trying to recapture and ends up getting wrapped in whimsy.

The Muppet Show/Sesame Street - Hey, I'm a Muppet fan. But the Muppet Show is still funny, and Sesame Street deserves a place of honor for its contribution to children's education.

Gilmore Girls - The wittiest of shows out there now, and you gotta admire the writing that boldly references things from Oscar Wilde to The Girl On the Bus.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel/Firefly - Any Joss Whedon series is worth checking out. I'd have Angel and Firefly up at first, with Buffy either close behind (first four seasons) or a distant second (last three).

Teen Titans - The best story line new animation I've seen so far.

Thank You, and I'm Sorry

2005-10-17T17:14:00.000-05:00

First of all, I'm sorry I haven't been blogging more. My son was off from school all last week, and we decided to make a bold move and get both DirectTV and high speed internet access during that time as well. (Recommendation for music: Pandora. Put in favorite songs and groups and it will play ones related to them.) But that's kinda jammed up the writing time. Also, my wife has started getting ready for her MBA, and that means lots of study time on the computer (the reason we got high speed access.) So the opportunities have been lessened.

However, thanks for people still coming to this site anyway. Checking my stats, I've still had people checking here anyway - even though some of those had to be some bad links. Still, thanks for those who do like this site enough to keep up with it. I'll start writing more soon, promise.

Religion

2005-10-11T15:03:00.000-05:00

With the news that "Two-Ton Ego" Roy Moore is running for Alabama governor, and the often cited religiousness of Harriet Meirs being offered as prime, if not sole, evidence of her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court (one assumes she will be automatically placed in charge of the opening prayer) AND the recent announcement from the Catholic Church regarding the Bible - it ain't ALL "Gospel Truth" - religion's been a lot on my mind recently.

As stated before, I am an agnostic. This means I just plain don't know if there's a God, and if there is, whose God he is and what He/She is like. I am also very heavily skeptical of most organized religions out there. I consider most of them to be mainly in business for themselves, notwithstanding some of the great things they do, and absolutely abhor people using religion to justify various political ideas. You can imagine my absolute love of the times.

However, I am not absolutely against religion. I have several friends both on line and off line (I live in a red state that's very religious - at least people say they are...) who are religious, ranging from just attending church to fundamentalist. I know people who refuse to read certain books because they feel they are unholy in some form or fashion. I get along with all these people and would call several of them friends, and I feel at least 50% sure they would reciprocate. I have no problem with people wearing religious symbols and even argued for Moore's first Ten Commandments set as being harmless and overreacted to. (This was until Moore went from publican to Pharisee and decided to saddle up the Ten Commandments and hi-yo Sanctimonious, away, into the political arena. And scarily, given this poll, ol' Two-Ton may have a shot at the governorship.) I don't flinch when strips like B.C. give Christian messages, read the religion sections of the paper, feel many of the anti-religious moves in public schools are over the top (while drawing the line at teacher led prayer) and can feel religion and science can get along, when one isn't trying to annex the other's areas of study. Hello, IDiocy! There are several people who are religious I admire - for example, Billy Graham and Kurt Warner - mainly because they use religion as I feel it should be used - for the benefit of others. I mean, come on, do you EVER feel that Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer are in it mainly for other people, or for themselves? They use their religion as a Country Club card, to mark the hoi polloi and try to get others to be what THEY feel is right. So while I am cyncial of MUCH religion, I'm not knee jerk against it.

I feel that agnostics are the only group that can judge religion fairly. If you're a particular religion, you will at least have some issues with other religions, (Muslim/Jew, Christian/Muslim, etc.) and will also more than likely have issues with different groups within your religion (Muslim = Shiite/Sunni, Christian = Catholic/Baptist/whatever, etc.). You will have certain predispositions that will tilt you one way or the other. Agnostics, keeping an open mind and doubt about all religions, may be more free of that than the others. May be. I know some people would have issues with that - some of my friends and I have debated that I don't "get the religious viewpoint". So maybe I'm too neutral.

But nowadays, that's rare. People seem to follow some current icon and cleave to their views, without ever questioning if the human megaphone of choice is actually religious or simply parroting religious views for their own power and glory. If Jesus DID come back to Earth, many of these so-called preachers would have a lot of explaining to do. But people seem to accept people as religious because they say they are. To use an earlier example, have you EVER seen Billy Graham acting as politically motivated as Dobson/Perkins?

It's a depressing situation, because the loud ones are the ones in charge. You know the loud ones - the ones that see in black and white and they are always white and their opponents are black as sin - literally. (Not only in religion, of course.) The loud ones never accept anything that weakens their position - see IDiocy and the opposition against stem cell research. Any contrary points are argued away on faith - evolution CAN'T be right; it's not explicitly said in the Bible; stem cells CAN'T have any benefit that may justify them; because embryos are destroyed. How do you argue with faith? By definition, you can't - which is fine for religion, but in society and science, it's more than a little extreme. And the loud one won't accept any kind of counter arguments in anything, because God forbid they be wrong. See Terri Schaivo - how many pious proclaimers have stepped up and admitted the accusations of abuse against the husband were unfounded? You can count them on the fingers of one foot. And while many people are willing to listen to reason, or at least admit there IS some people out there who aren't cloven-hoofed and horned who may disagree, the loud ones are the ones with the clout.

You can see that both in the opposition and the proponents of Meirs. The proponents say, "Hey, she's a religious person, therefore she is fit for the Supreme Court." There are arguments and stories that "religious" is code for "will vote against Roe", but the main thrust is "She's a good judge because she's religious." Okay. So would YOU vote for your preacher/minister/priest just because of his job? How about an accountant? Or a plumber?

The opposition, which includes many religious people who apparently feel that "Cast not the first stone" doesn't apply to their hallowed selves, feel she isn't religious ENOUGH. These people appear to want someone who always votes for the religious side of arguments (but the right religious side - watch out if she found for a Muslim) and on her down time was protesting Roe continually, and perhaps doing exorcisms as well. There are other arguments against her, and good ones at that, but religion is a large part of the pro and con. Why? Because in today's world, religion isn't private for the loud ones - it's central.

That's kind of sad - first of all, religion should be private mostly. You can be motivated to act by religion, but it shouldn't be paraded about like a Macy Day's Parade balloon as your reason. You can wear your symbols and read your Bible, but thrusting in other people's faces to proclaim how holy and good you are is like somebody wearing a camo outfit and claiming they're a Navy SEAL.

Second of all, you can be a good person and be a lousy leader. No one seems to doubt that Bush is a nice guy, the kind of man who you wouldn't mind having as a neighbor. Again, would you vote for your neighbor for President based on the fact he was nice? And touching on an above point, today you can be religious and not be good. Sojourners makes this point a lot - the people saying they act in God's name apparently selectively select which part of the name they act in.

And third of all, religion is being used to separate US from THEM. And the loud ones have made more than one US. The ones who keep quiet but are good don't matter much to them - after all, the quiet ones don't sign petitions and protest in front of the cameras.

Thinking on it, I think there are three reasons I became agnostic. First was my experience in Catholic school, which was eye-opening to say the least. (NO abuse, I want to make clear.) Second was when I read the Bible all the way through, and was hard-pressed to make it match what many people felt it was. Third was seeing how the loud ones and organized religions acted in their own view of religion - see abuse in the Catholic Church. The first two things have kept me an agnostic. The loud ones and religions make me wonder sometimes if perhaps atheism is more correct.

For what it's worth...

Lighter Stuff

2005-10-09T12:21:00.000-05:00

Ah, bliss. Just got the Complete Calvin and Hobbes Collection and am happily going back and looking at the classic strips that are still just as funny and thoughtful. If you buy this set (and please use the Amazon box on the side there), you'll get all the strips, Sundays in color; you will get all the extra stories and interstitial drawings in the book collections, and you will get a new essay from Watterson. AND a picture of Sprite, the cat who inspired Hobbes. I would recommend you still go and get The Calvin and Hobbes 10th Anniversary Book as well, because that has a lot of stuff as well from Watterson, ranging from where Mrs. Wormwood got her name to how some of the stories came about to some more history about the strip - none of which appears to be in the Complete collection. Also, be ready, the Complete set is heavy - over 20 pounds. But well worth it.

Our weather has finally turned down here, and it seems like we're at my perfect time - just cool enough to feel good but not so much where the heat comes on. You know, the kind of weather you can throw open the windows and get a nice breeze in the house. This weather generally lasts about two weeks, so I'm going to enjoy it while I can.

I was watching some college football a few weeks ago, and Alabama finally did something I've always wondered about. There was a play for Alabama that looked iffy - a completion that may have been dropped - and Alabama immediately rushed to the scrimmage line and got ready for play, looking like a new play had been called the second it became apparent the completion may be reviewed. (Naturally, they backed off for some reason, and the play was reviewed in their favor anyway.) I've often wondered why teams didn't have some kind of sacrificial play made up, ready to go, for when they get a good play that may be reviewed. I mean, get to the line, snap the ball, do a quarterback sneak, that's all she wrote. Call it "Lamb" or something like that - because there are times when you HAVE to have the controversial play (for yardage in the final moments of a game, for time, whatever) and it's worth the loss of another play to keep it - yet I haven't seen any team do that until Alabama looked like they were about to. There have been hurry-ups and stuff like that, but never anything close to what happens in a two minute drill anyway.

I finally got a radio station I like. Down here, all I can get our country stations (well, new country anyway, stuff that Johnny Cash would have gagged at) and poppy stuff. We had one good alternative station for a while, but now they play pop-alternative stuff - groups that play the same old songs but dress in black. But we found The Buzz while twirling the dial, and in thirty minutes I got to hear Mudvayne, Nine Inch Nails, Metallica, System of a Down...if you like louder music, give them a try.

"Good Night and Good Luck" looks like a good movie, from the clips and interviews I've seen. Of course, I do like Edward R. Murrow anyway. Also like to see Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit and Serenity, but those will probably be DVD purchases.

Wow

2005-10-06T16:44:00.000-05:00

Okay, I think this sums up a lot of my worry about Bush: (from the DefCon blog)

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq Â" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

I THINK that his saying "God would tell me" is simply his way of saying he felt this was right, not a literal "God spoke to me" mental asylum and special burlap tuxedo claim. So I won't go there.

However, this one statement pretty much wraps up a lot of Bush's actions in one ill-tied package. He THINKS something is right, and acts on it without planning for it. He felt the need to free Iraq, and acted on bad information and bad planning, leading to the deepening morass we're in now. (Unless anyone wants to argue that Bush's post-war plans were good?) He felt like SocialSecurityy should be changed and tried to enact policies that would have worsened our debt and notrelievedd anything. He felt like taxes needed to be cut and now the debt and deficit are immense. He acts like his belief that something is good is enough to see it through.

Feeling something is right is wonderful and good, and it may BE a sign thatsomeonee (whoever he may be) is reaching down and touching you to start your actions. But guess what? When he's giving you that nudge, he expects you to do the job right. Good intentions, road to Hell, ring a bell?

And Now In The News...

2005-10-06T13:07:00.000-05:00

Iraq is perfect.

Bush handled everything about Katrina perfectly.

Everything is fine.

This news brought to you by Karen Ryan.

Plagiarism in theory?

2005-10-06T12:58:00.000-05:00

I write, obviously, since you're staring at 1's and 0's shaped into letters. But I am also a (very lapsed) freelance writer as well, being lucky enough to have sold some stories to be published back in the day. To avoid any hurt feelings on my end, I won't mention the day exactly, but Babylon 5 was still on the air. First run.

Anyway, let's say I had a hankering to get published but was fresh out of ideas. So I take some already published book, rewrite it using exactly the same plot and setting and characters, but simply change the names. (Cynically, I wonder if that's exactly how many books and TV shows are made today anyway, but let's ignore that.) I think just about anyone would agree that all I did was change minor things while keeping the story intact, and therefore my "book" was nothing more than a near carbon copy of the original.

So, when an Intelligent Design book is made by going back and replacing "creation" with "design", is this scientific (chuckle chuckle snort!) plagiarism or simply an admission that IDiocy is nothing more than creationism in a prettier costume? If you still say no, IDiocy is a real theory, than I'd like you to buy my new books, Moby Tom and Dick Sawyer. Coming soon, For What the Bell Tolls and Gone with the Breeze.

Update 2 - Iraq

2005-10-06T10:44:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi Parliament has now decided to let "voters" mean the same thing no matter what kind of vote cast. The United Nations and some American diplomats raised all kinds of Hell over that little redefinition attempt, and thankfully managed to get sanity back into the vote.

There IS some depressing news, though:

Most members appear to have voted Sunday without clearly understanding what they were voting for, and then reversed themselves on the orders of their party leaders, who were themselves taking orders from the United Nations. "They told us, please don't discuss this or make objections, just vote for the statement," Shatha al-Musawi, a Shiite lawmaker, said of the Shiite leadership.

What better way to engender confidence than by not knowing what you're voting for and then taking orders from higher-ups to undo what you just did? Hmmm...sounds familiar...

Update 1 - Judicial

2005-10-06T10:32:00.000-05:00

I blew it in saying that the religious right were hunky-dory with Miers - apparently, only Dobson has issued full-throated support (and mysterious statements to boot) while others aren't quite so enamored. Of course, it also appears that Dobson may now be hedging his bets a tad as well. (from TMV, who has a GREAT article about the divisions over Miers - the crack may be widening into a ravine...)

No, no, everything's going fine!

2005-10-04T11:32:00.000-05:00

We just needed to redefine certain terms like "Voters". And if it's a GOOD way - if 2/3 of the actual votes CAST are for the Constitution - than the good votes are votes. But if it's a BAD way - if the constitution is voted down - than "voters" means 2/3 of all registered voters for it to count. So if 100 of 300 people actually vote, and 100 say "Aye!", that's a win! But if 100 people out of 300 vote, and they all vote "Nay!", well, see, that don't count, since it's less than 2/3 of all registered voters. So it's a win too!

Did Tom DeLay assist on this little maneuver?

"It's all a matter of perspective, whether you are interested in the next election or the next generation." - unnamed 2nd Lt. Interviewed by Edward R. Murrow, July 11, 1943. From "In Search of Light"

So...which do YOU think the Shiites and Kurds are interested in?

Judicial Nominations

2005-10-04T11:02:00.000-05:00

Wow...after scoring what appeared to be a home run with John Roberts, did President Bush slam a foul ball off his noggin with Harriet Miers?

The only problem I had with John Roberts was his dodging on every single question asked of him during confirmation. That was shifty. But overall, he wasn't the fire-breathing Dominionist Bush could have nominated and had a good chance of getting confirmed. (Someone like Roy "Two-Ton Ego" Moore, who is now running for governor of Alabama, and I can't wait for his campaign slogan: "Vote for me - God wants you to!" Or perhaps "A two ton monument in every yard!" Or perhaps, "Rules don't apply to me - I AM Caesar and God.") Roberts may turn out to be a Souter or a Republican version of Souter, but there was nothing really to get him on but party affiliation at the hearings.

Now comes Harriet Miers, and it has some conservatives up in arms - Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin (who links to several other naysayers) and the people at Power Line, to name a few that have issues with Miers. (Hat tip to The Moderate Voice for those links) The reasons range from "not conservative enough" (she gave money to Al Gore's campaign back in the 80's) to cronyism.

And some Democrats aren't too happy either. Ms. Miers has never been a judge - this HAS happened before in nominations to the Supreme Court, but it gets antennae twitching when it does. It does have more than a whiff of cronyism, especially when you see this: "Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she's ever known." I mean, come on! Admiring is one things, worshiping is another...and never forget, given the plethora of lawsuits aimed at the Bush people, there is a chance should she be confirmed she will be judging one of these cases. Feel secure about her neutrality?

About the only thing Bush may have done is get the religious right behind him - they seem to be hunky-dory with Ms. Miers. Maybe he's consolidating his base, since that's about all he has left. But this could be the cutting off your nose to spite your face move - if it ticks off ALL the other conservatives, what does he gain? (I also see this possibility in the Roy Moore run - could this fracture the Republicans between non-Religious Right conservatives and RR ones?)

Fun times ahead.

Bennett

2005-10-03T09:25:00.000-05:00

William Bennett has managed to stir up a little firestorm:

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

Dumb thing to say. Some people have been arguing it's true, which by definition it is - abort every single baby of any ethnic group and crime will go down. Doesn't mean it still wasn't a dumb thing to say. Real dumb.

But from all the blogs I've seen, they've all said that Bennett isn't a racist, and I can believe that. I also believe he, like everyone, does have some racial bias out there, and that may have led him into saying this spur of the moment comment. He's even admitted that the stories of crimes in New Orleans after Katrina (of course, now many of them are being shown to be false or exaggerated - our local paper today ran a story that said there has been no confirmation of shootings at rescue aircraft) was on his mind when he said this:

BENNETT (audio clip): Stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on. ... I'm sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can't say this is an area of American public policy that we're not allowed to talk about race and crime.

(I do note that on the one hand some defenders say it wasn't racial, it was just a comment, but now Bennett specifically mentions race and crime...)

Anyway. Many of the blogs I read are not fans of Bennett's, and you can count me an anti-fan as well. I think he's a moralistic self-righteous wannabe Puritan (unless it's a social problem he actually likes, such as gambling). But you can make a stupid, racial comment and not BE a racist in toto. I fully support calling him out on a stupid statement, but it's a little much to call him a racist.

Worth a thousand words

2005-09-30T14:21:00.000-05:00

The Abu Gharib photos.

First off, I have to say that a defense of "If you release all these photos they could harm our image!" isn't the best defense in the world to make. Kinda makes it difficult to argue the photos are innocent. We did absolutely nothing wrong, but don't let anyone see these pictures, it could hurt our image. Huh? Couldn't any criminal make this claim? "Don't put my name on a list of convicted child abusers - it could hurt my image." We wouldn't buy THAT argument - why should we buy this one? Judge Hellerstein said it best: "Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command. Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

When the news of these photos - the ones that the Bush Admin tried to suppress - came out, I e-mailed a discussion group and said, "If there are true, we've lost the war." These are the bad ones, the ones that even Rush Limbaugh can't explain away as "blowing off some steam" (which did make me wonder exactly where Rushie pledged). These are the ones that can't be defended at all - rape, murder, and the raping of young kids done on camera, if what Seymour Hersh claimed is true. We know the pictures and videotape contained acts of rape and murder - Congressmen who saw the tapes said so. I can only hope the claim of kids being raped are wrong. All of these acts are unforgivable - but raping kids deserves a special level in Hell. (As a side note, compare how hard the Bush Admin. fought to keep these tapes and pictures out of the public eye to the energy placed into investigating Captain Ian Fishback's abuse reports.)

There's still an appeals process, and knowing the Bush penchant for keeping bad facts out, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to classify these things as a last attempt to keep them out of the public eye. I, for one, would love to see that all the original reports were wrong - but the more they try and hide them, the more I don't think that will happen.

Piss off a Lock Brain!

2005-09-30T14:10:00.000-05:00

Read a banned book.

I'm ashamed to admit that Banned Books Week is almost over by the time I realize it's happening. Color me behind the news. However, to celebrate it, go to this list of challenged books (read "Books that didn't say what I wanted them to say" there) and buy one, or check it out of the local library, and read it. See how many people say anything about it to you, if any, given our increasingly post-literate society. (When I hear that the average amount of books an American buys is around two a month or so, I wince, thinking that I buy 10-15 a month...so how many people aren't buying any at all on average?) Note those people, and now you know who you can have fun with. For example, I almost sent a copy of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to the people I know who are actively trying to ban it here. I wanted to see how fast a minister would come out to their house for some kind of spiritual cleansing. I didn't send the books in the end...but I really came close.

"THEY deserve it!"

2005-09-28T14:35:00.000-05:00

The shorter version of Hank Erwin's theory about the devastation of Katrina. As noted in the article, he's in good fruitcake company, at the table with al-Qaeda, Louis Farrakhan and Pat Robertson. (Sensing a theme there?) I personally think the lowlight of his ideas are the lines:

"He said he didn't think the hard-hit residents of the low-income lower 9th Ward were singled out for especially harsh punishment but were merely in the way, as were the shrimpers in the struggling fishing town of Bayou La Batre on the Alabama coast."

Just "in the way"? Hey, parents, really sorry you lost kids. Hey, spouses, damn shame about your love being killed. Hey, everyone who lost someone, I feel for you. But YOU WERE IN THE WAY.

I guess if Mr. Hank "God's will" Erwin gets hit by a drunk driver, he will demand that person be set free. After all, it's the same deal - he would have been "in the way". Or if his house is destroyed by some natural disaster - maybe all his hot air causing a fire - it was "in the way" of God's will. Heck, I bet "Hairshirt" Hank won't even file for insurance then.

He also vomits: "America has been moving away from God," Erwin said. "We all need to embrace godliness and church-going and good, godly living, and we can get divine protection for that point." 'cause you know every single person killed by Katrina wasn't embracing godliness and church-going and good, godly living. Mr. Erwin said so. Or were they, and they were just in the way?

There are cases of open mouth, insert foot. There are cases of open mouth, swallow foot. And then there are these cases - open mouth, remove brain.

Lord, protect me from your so-called followers.

Scopes 2

2005-09-28T13:47:00.000-05:00

(What the heck, I'll follow the current meme here.)

As some of you may know, there's a case in Dover, PA, concerning Intelligent Design. At first, the School Board wanted to force the teachers to teach this theory that's neither scientific nor intelligent instead of evolution. After the science teachers refused (and were called "atheists" for it, but remember, this isn't about religion) the Board settled on having them read a statement about Intelligent Design to the class instead, saying evolution is "not a fact" and has "inexplicable gaps", maybe hoping this would sneak by.

It didn't. The school board is now being sued to stop this anti-science position. The ACLU is part of this case, and for all the bad things I think they do, they are moving up in my opinion here.

Now, the defendants swear this isn't about religion, oh no, it's about offering alternatives. Yet, as mentioned, people against the IDiocy were called atheists. Also, for a while, the board was pushing a 50-50 split between evolution and creationism outright, I guess using Monday and Tuesday for creationism, Thursday and Friday for evolution, and on Wednesday a discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They tried to get the pro-ID book "Of Pandas and People" as the new textbook, and when that didn't fly, they held off ordering another science textbook because it was "laced with Darwinism". All this can be read here.

(And the defendants are claiming they have been misquoted but all the tapes that could verify this have been erased. Possibly by some (un)Intelligent Designer?)

Perhaps one of the lamest arguments the IDiocy people have come up with is the claim of "free speech." Brendan Nyhan demolishes this fallacy, and we have to if wonder that people who feel THIS is a good argument to make here should have ANY say in education at all. I think I'll demand that my school board start teaching the flat-earth theory as a part of freedom of speech.

Chris Mooney has been covering this trial, and has linked to a good new blog covering this and other cases as well. Balloon Juice has been commenting on it as well.

Acts of Nature, Ptui!

2005-09-27T11:50:00.000-05:00

From Balloon Juice, we find that the Republicans have decided that little things like a category 4 hurricane, a city being devastated, being forced to go to a another city and live on the charity of others and the like just ain't enough reason to allow some wiggle room in the Credit Company Beneficiary Act, otherwise known as Bankruptcy "Reform".

But House Republicans, who fought off a proposed amendment that would have made bankruptcy filings easier for victims of natural disasters, said there was no reason to carve out a broad exemption just because of the storm.
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rejected the notion of reopening the legislation, saying it already included provisions that would ensure that people left "down and out" by the storm would still be able to shed most of their debts. Lawmakers who lost the long fight over the law, he said, "ought to get over it," according to The Associated Press.

You may remember Sensenbrenner as the man who took his l'il gavel and sulked away during a Patriot Act hearing.

Those who try to beat the Oct. 17 deadline in hopes of filing under the less-onerous current law may find it impossible to do so, because residence rules generally require that individuals seek protection against creditors in their hometowns. (Assuming people in New Orleans can find their lawyers and records, they can file for bankruptcy protection in their bankruptcy court, which has reopened and is sharing space with another court in Baton Rouge.)

Moreover, most people displaced by the storm will probably not know for months if they even need to file for bankruptcy. By that time, the tougher new law will be in force.

...

The law has stiffer requirements as well for what records must be produced by the debtor. But hurricane victims will have a hard time doing that. "Thousands and thousands of people no longer have checkbooks, insurance papers, car titles (or cars), birth certificates, Social Security cards or wallets," a group of Louisiana lawyers said in a letter two weeks ago to the state's Congressional delegation.

Eh, get over it!

But here's the probable real reasons they don't want to allow this exemption:

Professor LoPucki said he thought the majority of lawmakers were averse to enacting blanket bankruptcy relief for hurricane victims because that might raise questions about why victims of other uncontrollable events - like accidents, major illnesses or mass layoffs - should not get a break, too.
"If you admit that the bill is bad for Katrina victims," he said, "then there's really no reason it isn't bad for the others, too. They're all in some kind of problem. For most of them, it's largely their fault. But for a lot of them, it isn't their fault."

Makes sense to me.

Brown down? Rebound!

2005-09-27T11:29:00.000-05:00

I don't know why my jaw dropped when I heard that "heckuva" Brownie is still on the payroll at FEMA for consulting. I mean, I feel foolish for even being surprised. This is an administration that continually rewards errors and screwups (see reasons for invading Iraq, cost of Iraq war, plans for post-war Iraq, FEMA, fake news broadcasts, budgets...) and only slams down on people who dare to find fault with them(O'Neill, Shinseki). In their eyes, everything is forgivable except being correct about them being wrong.

And maybe it's possible the Bush people have pulled the ultimate fast one. Imagine:

"heckuva" Brownie: "I feel that FEMA did excellent with their pre-positioning."
Intelligent people: "Jumping Jiminy on a crutch, we better fix the pre-positioning plan!"
"heckuva" Brownie: "I am concerned about communications."
Intelligent people: "Get the people on the communications to help out with the pre-positioning, it must be okay."

It's the reverse oracle - what he predicts is always wrong!

And, um, why exactly do we trust "heckuva" Brownie to say where FEMA went wrong? According to him, it didn't. This would seem to be a very short-term consulting job. "What went wrong?" "Nothing!" "Okay, that's lunch!" Of course, this is following Bush's promise to investigate himself what went wrong on Katrina relief efforts, so we can say this for "heckuva" Brownie - He can follow a leader.

Hey, FBI? I got one for you!

2005-09-26T17:48:00.000-05:00

Alberto Gonzales has decided to spend the FBI's time and resources on hunting down...porn. Not child porn. Porn involving consenting, informed adults. (But conservatives believe in individual rights, dammit - or was that the pre-Bush era?)

Already, one group has been hit by Operation Legal Poontang (nsfw). I'm sure many will follow.

So, FBI? I got one for you. From AmericaBlog, we get this charming place. I can hardly wait for these people to get shut down. And maybe we should check out some of the people submitting posts as well? Surely this is some violation of some military code somewhere? (Andrew Sullivan also mentioned this.)

You know, stuff like these sickos makes it a Hell of a lot easier to believe all the abuse stories are true - even before little things like, oh. evidence is considered.

Only 13? What was the cutoff?

2005-09-26T17:38:00.000-05:00

From Fark.com, we get this list of the thirteen most corrupt Congressmen:

Bill Frist
Roy Blunt
Conrad Burns
Bob Ney
Tom Feeney
Richard W. Pombo
Maxine Waters
Rick Santorum
Randy "Duke" Cunnigham
William J. Jefferson
Charles H. Taylor
Marilyn Musgrave
Rick Renzi

I know you're thinking "How did they stop at thirteen?" Me too. You may notice some people mentioned in here at times - Santorum and "Duke". And of course, they've got "Blind Trust" Frist in there as well.

If you live in a state with one of these fine, upstanding people representing you, why not write them a letter telling them how proud you are of their tireless work?

More Katrina

2005-09-26T14:31:00.000-05:00

As you may know by now, Aaron Broussard's tearful story of an old woman who died due to FEMA's ineptitude has been debunked. He originally said:

Mr. Broussard: Sir, they were told, like me, every single day, ÂThe cavalry is coming.Â On the federal level, ÂThe cavalry is coming. The cavalryÂs coming. The cavalryÂs coming.Â The guy who runs this building IÂm in, emergency management, heÂs responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard Nursing Home and every day she called him and said, ÂAre you coming, son? Is somebody coming?Â And he said, ÂYeah, Mama. SomebodyÂs coming to get you. SomebodyÂs coming to get you on Tuesday.Â ÂSomebodyÂs coming to get you on Wednesday.Â ÂSomebodyÂs coming to get you on Thursday.Â ÂSomebodyÂs coming to get you on Friday.Â And she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night.

The owners of the nursing home are now known to have failed to evacuate when Katrina was coming, and are under arrest for negligent homicide, and the original story was wrong almost all the way around:

When told of the sequence of phone calls that Broussard described, Rodrigue said `No, no, that's not true. ...I contacted the nursing home two days before the storm [on Saturday, Aug. 27th] and again on [Sunday] the 28th. ...At the same time I talked to the nursing home I had also talked to the emergency manager...to encourage that nursing home to evacuate...' Rodrigue says he never made any calls after Monday, the day he figures his mother died... Officials believe the residents of St. Rita's died on Monday, the 29th, not on Friday, Sept. 2, as Broussard has suggested."

The Moderate Voice and Crooks and Liars, among others, take issue with how Russert handled this, for various reasons. TMV seems to feel that Russert went after the source, not the story, and by implication tried to make the Federal response all that much better. C&L seems to take issue with how Russert handled it, calling it "callous". (These are all my takes from their posts, of course.) I didn't see the interview and won't on my computer - I'm still on dial-up and watching videos is just slightly slower than waiting for Bush to take responsibillity for any errors he makes. However, if the story was wrong, it should have been corrected. It was a damning and personal instance on supposed FEMA errors and deserves to be checked out and honestly told. I can't say for how it was done or for what ulterior reasons, but the underlying truth must come out.

It seems like people who want to believe the Federal gov't is the only one at fault shrug aside this correction, saying 'there were other instances of FEMA errors' and the like. Which is true - but it doesn't make this story true by association. On the other hand, people who feel the Federal gov't are not to blame at all seem to take this story as proof that all claims of FEMA/Homeland Security mismanagement are false. Again, not true. By the same token, reports that the violence in the Superdome was drastically exaggerated has had some people crowing the Federal government didn't do a bad job after all, instead of saying that that's one area where they had misjudged Louisana - since before this news all the violence was Louisana's fault, not the Fed's (and if there was no violence...?) and the people who blame the Feds for everything again shrug their shoulders.

These two stories need to be truthfully told. (The media has to shoulder much blame here. Not biased, just bad.) But the debunking of one or two stories does not invalidate the many others by proxy. There are still several things all sides must be held accountable for.