Lying Bastard - Color Me Unshocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

Iraq is perfect.

Bush handled everything about Katrina perfectly.

Everything is fine.

This news brought to you by Karen Ryan.

Plagiarism in theory?

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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!"

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

(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!

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.